In Defense Of Capitalism

[Joby]

Since I'm resticted, and not wishing to grovel anytime soon....

I'll make a thread to defend Capitalism against Marxism:

1. For all its apologists, Marxism has never delivered on its goals. Ever. No Marxist society has delivered the political, or economic, freedoms to the workers which it claimed it would.

Yes, several nations saw an improvement in living standards, chiefly Russia. However, this was done hastily and resulted in the deaths of millions of people during industrialization. The West, on the other hand, was industrialized over a longer period of time with much less death involved.

2. For all it's naysayers, Capitalism has delivered the highest standards of living to any people in the history of the species. More has been done in the name of profit than anything else.

There has been more advancement in medicine, farming, transportation, electricity, information sharing, and on and on under capitalism than anything else. No other system even comes close in the amount of technological advancement that Capitalism has given us.

3. To say that every member of society deserves the same amount from society is to say everybody gives an equal amount to society.

They don't, and in fact shouldn't, get equal amounts from society because their labor is not equal to society.

Under capitalism, people who deliver something that is most demanded from society are the most compensated. We need doctors more than janitors, and, thereby, doctors receive better compensation.

This motivates more people to become doctors, and other vocations which society demands, instead of becoming something which society does not need so urgently. It takes years and years to become a doctor, about 15 minutes to become a janitor.

4. Progress is much faster under capitalism than communism.

Why?

Because the pursuit of profit motivates people more than doing something for the 'good of society' ever could. Competition between these sources trying to make money spurs advancement even further.

How quickly have computers, for instance, progressed? MP3's? The internet itself? It's all do to competition.

Meanwhile, socialists advocate having the govt run things. However, what's going to motivate the government to make such quick progress, when they could inflate their budget and take their time? It's not like their going to see a reward for that extra work their doing, so why do it?

*I'm playing Devil's Advocate, to a degree

[Demogorgon]

Now I rather imagine this thread is designed to get a rise, but I am nothing if I don't take the bait to such things
]
1. For all its apologists, Marxism has never delivered on its goals. Ever. No Marxist society has delivered the political, or economic, freedoms to the workers which it claimed it would.

Yes, several nations saw an improvement in living standards, chiefly Russia. However, this was done hastily and resulted in the deaths of millions of people during industrialization. The West, on the other hand, was industrialized over a longer period of time with much less death involved.What precisely did Marxism promise? A lot of people that read Marx imagine that he laid out some blueprint as to how a future society might functions. He did nothing of the sort, he analysised capitalism, history and the like and drew conclusions as to how the world worked and how it would proceed from that. Generally speaking, he seems to have been correct as to how things progressed. I suspect you mean the specific Russian model of Communism did not work, but so what? The first models of capitalism did not work either.


2. For all it's naysayers, Capitalism has delivered the highest standards of living to any people in the history of the species. More has been done in the name of profit than anything else.

There has been more advancement in medicine, farming, transportation, electricity, information sharing, and on and on under capitalism than anything else. No other system even comes close in the amount of technological advancement that Capitalism has given us. Economic growth always rises over time. You are saying nothing. Also capitalism is more progressive than what came before it. Feudalism, slave based societies etc, so that is to be expected


3. To say that every member of society deserves the same amount from society is to say everybody gives an equal amount to society.

They don't, and in fact shouldn't, get equal amounts from society because their labor is not equal to society.

Under capitalism, people who deliver something that is most demanded from society are the most compensated. We need doctors more than janitors, and, thereby, doctors receive better compensation.

This motivates more people to become doctors, and other vocations which society demands, instead of becoming something which society does not need so urgently. It takes years and years to become a doctor, about 15 minutes to become a janitor. You are contradicting yourself, firstly you say that the most demanded jobs are most rewarded and then you cite the amount of time needed to train as an example of why more skilled jobs are justified in getting higher pay. But these are not related. For example in this country plumbers are paid more than doctors. Doctors average £100,000 a year ($200,000) plumbers actually earn more than that, the amount is going down a bit now, as the labour market has been opened to eastern europe, but overall plumbers still earn more than doctors. The reason for this is we have a shortage of plumbers and supply and demand and all that. But it kind of fucks with your claims about how training and education get rewarded


4. Progress is much faster under capitalism than communism.

Why?

Because the pursuit of profit motivates people more than doing something for the 'good of society' ever could. Competition between these sources trying to make money spurs advancement even further.

How quickly have computers, for instance, progressed? MP3's? The internet itself? It's all do to competition.

Meanwhile, socialists advocate having the govt run things. However, what's going to motivate the government to make such quick progress, when they could inflate their budget and take their time? It's not like their going to see a reward for that extra work their doing, so why do it?
Well actually the internet war largely developed on tax money by the US government and a hell of a lot of innovation there (Linux I believe is an example) is not done in pursuit of profit.

At that though, socialism does not say "the government" should do this or that. So that is a strawman

[Kwisatz Haderach]

1. For all its apologists, Marxism has never delivered on its goals. Ever. No Marxist society has delivered the political, or economic, freedoms to the workers which it claimed it would.
There is no such thing as a "Marxist society." Marxism is a theory that explains how human societies work, not a blueprint for how to organize society. Most of the structures and institutions of the Soviet Union were created by the Bolsheviks more or less on the spot, not by using any kind of Marxist blueprint. And later many other countries copied the Soviet model for various reasons.

The blueprint was the Soviet Union, not Marxist theory, so, if you wish, you may refer to the societies in question as "Soviet-style societies."

And yes, the Soviet model had flaws. Many of them. But, crucially, no Marxist alive today (with the possible exception of the few Hoxhaists) wants to create future revolutionary societies that copy the Soviet model. Therefore, many of your criticisms of the Soviet model may not apply to contemporary Marxism, since we are now in the process of developing different models of revolutionary society.


Yes, several nations saw an improvement in living standards, chiefly Russia. However, this was done hastily and resulted in the deaths of millions of people during industrialization. The West, on the other hand, was industrialized over a longer period of time with much less death involved.
Much less death involved? Really? Are you counting all the workers who died in poverty due to squalid living conditions and ridiculously low wages, are you counting the dramatic reduction in life expectancy in industrial working class areas during the Industrial Revolution, and are you counting the atrocities committed by imperialist powers in their colonies?

The Soviet Union and its allies had no choice but rapid industrialization, since they began from much poorer economic conditions than the West. Their only hope to survive against capitalism was to develop rapidly.

Also, I would argue that not only the USSR, but all Soviet-style societies saw a marked rise in living standards, especially for the working class. Don't forget that most of them started out as impoverished semi-feudal states, and the Eastern European ones had been devastated by WW2 on top of that.


2. For all it's naysayers, Capitalism has delivered the highest standards of living to any people in the history of the species. More has been done in the name of profit than anything else.

There has been more advancement in medicine, farming, transportation, electricity, information sharing, and on and on under capitalism than anything else. No other system even comes close in the amount of technological advancement that Capitalism has given us.
Uh, yeah. Marxists never denied that capitalism is better than feudalism and all its predecessors. Hell, Marx explicitly made that point in the Communist Manifesto itself.

Our argument is that, all other things being equal, socialism and communism can deliver faster development and better standards of living than capitalism. This is not apparent in 20th century history because (a) yes, the Soviet model had major flaws, and (b) all other things were not equal - capitalist societies had a massive head start, there were world wars and so on.


3. To say that every member of society deserves the same amount from society is to say everybody gives an equal amount to society.
Which they do, more or less. Why should 8 hours of hard work from one man be worth hundreds of times more than 8 hours of equally hard work from another man?


Under capitalism, people who deliver something that is most demanded from society are the most compensated. We need doctors more than janitors, and, thereby, doctors receive better compensation.
So you should receive more or less money based on the number of other people who can do your job? You have no control over that number, so how is this in any way a just form of compensation?

If you are a doctor, and a thousand new doctors appear out of nowhere, your salary will be greatly reduced even if you work just as hard as before and don't change anything about yourself. How is this in any way justifiable?

Further, I would like to point out that market demand - which capitalism uses to determine what is "most demanded" by society - is not an accurate measure of people's needs and wants. Market demand is the aggregate of the money people are willing and able to pay for a product. Willing and able. If people are less able to pay (i.e. they are poor), their needs and wishes count for less in the market.


It takes years and years to become a doctor, about 15 minutes to become a janitor.
Yes, but that janitor isn't sitting on his ass for those years while the doctor is going through med school. The janitor has to work those years. So you have to study more in order to become a doctor, but if you don't want to be a doctor you have to spend those years working anyway (although not studying). Over a lifetime, a janitor will work more years than a doctor. So why should you be paid less for working more?


4. Progress is much faster under capitalism than communism.

Why?

Because the pursuit of profit motivates people more than doing something for the 'good of society' ever could.
Problem: very few people actually receive profits, and they usually just act as administrators rather than doing research or working in their own factories. The vast majority of us live from wages and salaries, so how exactly are we supposed to be motivated by higher profits?

At most, the profit motive could be giving us better administrators. Maybe. But it's certainly not giving us better workers or scientists.


Meanwhile, socialists advocate having the govt run things. However, what's going to motivate the government to make such quick progress, when they could inflate their budget and take their time? It's not like their going to see a reward for that extra work their doing, so why do it?
Ah, but they will see a reward - staying in government. Socialists advocate democratic government, with all bureaucrats accountable to the people. If they do a bad job, the people can remove them from office.

[pusher robot]

But it kind of fucks with your claims about how training and education get rewarded

But he didn't claim that. He claimed that it rewards people for doing the jobs most in demand. It just so happens that because of the high educational requirements of becoming a doctor, there is always a fairly high demand. But being a plumber is difficult and not very appealing, so there's a high demand for that too. There's no contradiction.

[pusher robot]

If you are a doctor, and a thousand new doctors appear out of nowhere, your salary will be greatly reduced even if you work just as hard as before and don't change anything about yourself. How is this in any way justifiable?

It's justifiable because it's a consequence of reality. Do you require a justification for gravity?

If 1000 doctors appear to supplement your labor, the inherent result is that your individual labor is not as highly valued by your community as it was before, because they now have 1000 possible substitutes they didn't have before. That's neither right nor wrong, it is simply a fact. Thus, your compensation decreases simply because it is of less value to the community.

Might I ask what is your proposed alternative? Prevent the first doctor from charging more than he could if there were a thousand or a million other doctors (in which case, why bother to complain when that same result is achieved in the market?) Compensate all the doctors with value greater than the value placed on their labor by the community, subsidizing doctors at the expense of others? Using force to prevent some people from being doctors at all? Criticism of capitalism alone is not an argument for communism.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

It's justifiable because it's a consequence of reality. Do you require a justification for gravity?
Markets and economics are a consequence of decisions made by human beings. They are a product of human society, fully under human control. Gravity, on the other hand, is not under human control at all. Therefore your comparison is flawed.


If 1000 doctors appear to supplement your labor, the inherent result is that your individual labor is not as highly valued by your community as it was before, because they now have 1000 possible substitutes they didn't have before. That's neither right nor wrong, it is simply a fact. Thus, your compensation decreases simply because it is of less value to the community.
Then you admit that the compensation you receive under capitalism bears no relation to the amount of work and effort you put into your job?

After all, you can't have it both ways. You cannot both claim that capitalism rewards work (as many capitalists often do), and at the same time see nothing wrong with a situation in which the same person doing the same work can get more or less money depending on the actions of others.


Might I ask what is your proposed alternative? Prevent the first doctor from charging more than he could if there were a thousand or a million other doctors (in which case, why bother to complain when that same result is achieved in the market?) Compensate all the doctors with value greater than the value placed on their labor by the community, subsidizing doctors at the expense of others? Using force to prevent some people from being doctors at all? Criticism of capitalism alone is not an argument for communism.
My proposed alternative? A system in which a doctor's compensation is fixed and more or less equal to the compensation of anyone else doing a similar amount of work in another profession. Such an egalitarian system would result in people orienting themselves towards the jobs they most enjoy doing, since they will no longer have a financial incentive to take a job they dislike.

Naturally, the jobs they enjoy doing will probably not be the same as the jobs society needs. To reconcile this discrepancy, a limited amount of jobs should be available in each field, and the people who can prove to be most skilled in a certain field will have priority in getting the jobs in that field. So for instance if 100 people want to be doctors but society needs only 70, then only the best (most skilled) 70 of those 100 people will be given jobs as doctors.

Notice that this system does reward skill and talent - not with money but with the ability to choose the job you like best.

[Joby]

What precisely did Marxism promise? A lot of people that read Marx imagine that he laid out some blueprint as to how a future society might functions. He did nothing of the sort, he analysised capitalism, history and the like and drew conclusions as to how the world worked and how it would proceed from that. Generally speaking, he seems to have been correct as to how things progressed.

I wasn't refering to Marx, but all the revolutionaries who promised this and that after the future revolution.


I suspect you mean the specific Russian model of Communism did not work, but so what? The first models of capitalism did not work either.

Yes, but Russia isn't the only example of a nation to call itself communist. So far, none of them has actually achieved that goal.


Economic growth always rises over time. You are saying nothing. Also capitalism is more progressive than what came before it. Feudalism, slave based societies etc, so that is to be expected

And, so far, capitalism has been able to grow faster than every communist society as well.


You are contradicting yourself, firstly you say that the most demanded jobs are most rewarded and then you cite the amount of time needed to train as an example of why more skilled jobs are justified in getting higher pay. But these are not related. For example in this country plumbers are paid more than doctors. Doctors average £100,000 a year ($200,000) plumbers actually earn more than that, the amount is going down a bit now, as the labour market has been opened to eastern europe, but overall plumbers still earn more than doctors. The reason for this is we have a shortage of plumbers and supply and demand and all that. But it kind of fucks with your claims about how training and education get rewarded

I hate to do this, but "What Pusher Robot said." There's really nothing more I could add to his post.


Well actually the internet war largely developed on tax money by the US government and a hell of a lot of innovation there (Linux I believe is an example) is not done in pursuit of profit.

True, though, like most things developed by the US govt, it has expanded greatly since being privatized.


At that though, socialism does not say "the government" should do this or that. So that is a strawman

But every socialist government, thus far, at least, has resulted in a massive government running things.

[KC]

1. For all its apologists, Marxism has never delivered on its goals. Ever. No Marxist society has delivered the political, or economic, freedoms to the workers which it claimed it would.

Yes, several nations saw an improvement in living standards, chiefly Russia. However, this was done hastily and resulted in the deaths of millions of people during industrialization. The West, on the other hand, was industrialized over a longer period of time with much less death involved.

Emphasizing on a point that a previous poster has made, Marxism isn't a means of organizing society or a blueprint for social progress/revolution; it is merely a means of interpreting historical events, analyzing those events, explaining present events and generalizing on future events and developments based on those past and present events. It is a methodology, not an ideology or a "plan".

With that being said, it is important to take into consideration the different "strains within Marxism". Most bourgeois sources treat "communism" or "Marxism" as single, homogeneous entities which they define and proceed to attack. They don't recognize Marxism for what it is but for what they perceive it to be and because of this they are constructing a straw man.

Marxism as political methodology as different contending schools of thought, from anarchist-leaning left communists to Marxist-Leninists to hardline Stalinists; it is a broad spectrum that cannot be homogenized without intellectual dishonesty. It is true, though, that these different ideologies contain similarities which allows us to let them fall under the banner of Marxism. Those similarities are primarily an analysis of past and present events (in general; there are disagreements about many things, but about fundamentals of captalist development they are in agreement) as well as an end goal (that of a classless, stateless society where the means of production are held in common).

The differences lie in the path from the present to that goal; the difference, then, is in how to achieve that goal.

The various revolutions we have seen which have occurred under Marxist banners all had different historical circumstances surrounding them (both objective and subjective conditions) and they had different conceptions of Marxism (explained above). Because of this, one cannot claim that because all of these revolutions were "Marxist" that they all were of the same type, as you have done above. Each one of these historical events was unique in its own ways, and to make a statement above such as you have is historical simplism to either the complete embrace of ignorance or the complete disregard of logic (or both).

This is not your fault, however. Assuming you're from the United States (although they probably teach the subject similarly in Europe), this is what you were taught growing up. In social studies they discuss "communism" solely in the context of the cold war; no mention is even made of the complexity of the situation (of course, that's what it was like with every topic taught in social studies). In order to combat such ignorance you first have to recognize that it exists within you (which my post hopefully has respectfully done) and you then must gain knowledge regarding Marxism so that you can completely do away with such ignorance.


2. For all it's naysayers, Capitalism has delivered the highest standards of living to any people in the history of the species. More has been done in the name of profit than anything else.

There has been more advancement in medicine, farming, transportation, electricity, information sharing, and on and on under capitalism than anything else. No other system even comes close in the amount of technological advancement that Capitalism has given us.

Again, as other posters have said, Marxists don't oppose capitalism on moral grounds. Marxists recognize the progressive force that capitalism has played on human society and the general increase in the standards of living compared to what preceded it. On this we certainly agree; capitalism is wonderful in that sense.

However, one must also recognize the problems capitalism contains as well; ignoring such problems results in a one-sided view of the issue. Capitalism creates and maintains poverty through the monopolization of capital; in order to remain competitive business owners must lower prices by increasing production, paying workers less, increasing the intensity of work workers must do, etc... Capitalism causes war through colonialist and imperialist domination. I could go on, and I could go into much more detail, but that really isn't necessary, and there is plenty of reading to do on it if you really wish to learn about it.


3. To say that every member of society deserves the same amount from society is to say everybody gives an equal amount to society.

We say that every member of society, as a member of society, deserves full and equal access to the product of society's labour.

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his need.


They don't, and in fact shouldn't, get equal amounts from society because their labor is not equal to society.

Under capitalism, people who deliver something that is most demanded from society are the most compensated. We need doctors more than janitors, and, thereby, doctors receive better compensation.

The problem with this argument is that a commodity is never an individual venture, but one taken upon by society as a whole. No one individual made this computer I am typing on; rather it is the product of thousands upon thousands of people.

As for your argument regarding the need for doctors more than janitors, I don't consider that to be true, but if you'd like to provide some substantiation for that then I'd be more than happy to hear it.

Doctors aren't paid more than janitors because they're "more in demand". They're paid more than janitors because they cost more to produce (college, training, expertise, etc...). Even if doctors were in lower demand than janitors, they would still be paid more (probably by a huge margin, too). You seem to prove my point in the following quote:


It takes years and years to become a doctor, about 15 minutes to become a janitor.


4. Progress is much faster under capitalism than communism.

Communism has never existed, so this debate is impossible to have.


Because the pursuit of profit motivates people more than doing something for the 'good of society' ever could.

Why is this? Is it because people are "naturally competitive" or "naturally greedy" or is it because this is what society has taught us? I would argue the latter, but if you would like to offer some evidence that such a "human nature" actually exists (I don't really know how you could do that, though; perhaps some neurological studies or something? I've never seen it done before, though) I'd love to hear the argument.


Competition between these sources trying to make money spurs advancement even further.

If this is the case then why is congress paying farmers not to produce milk? How can you justify overproduction given this statement? The only way I could see you doing such would be to define "advancement" as profit, but in that case your statement would then just be false ("Competition between people trying to make money makes more money." Is obviously false, as competition lowers prices as well as profits.).


Meanwhile, socialists advocate having the govt run things.

I am not a socialist, and I despise the term. I am a communist, and I advocate having the reproduction of society be run by society itself.

By the way, are you the same Joby from debatepolitics?

[Joby]

There is no such thing as a "Marxist society." Marxism is a theory that explains how human societies work, not a blueprint for how to organize society. Most of the structures and institutions of the Soviet Union were created by the Bolsheviks more or less on the spot, not by using any kind of Marxist blueprint. And later many other countries copied the Soviet model for various reasons.

Unfortunately for socialists, the Soviet Model (and you are right to corect my misrepresentation) is the only one in which the rubber has met the road.


The blueprint was the Soviet Union, not Marxist theory, so, if you wish, you may refer to the societies in question as "Soviet-style societies."

Has there ever been an attempt at Marxism that wasn't a variant of the Soviet model? (I'm not being sarcastic, but would actually like to hear your opinion)


And yes, the Soviet model had flaws. Many of them. But, crucially, no Marxist alive today (with the possible exception of the few Hoxhaists) wants to create future revolutionary societies that copy the Soviet model. Therefore, many of your criticisms of the Soviet model may not apply to contemporary Marxism, since we are now in the process of developing different models of revolutionary society.

First, maybe it's just an internet thing....but Stalinism (or what they call "Marxism-Leninism") seems to be a strong strain.

Second, how do you overcome the same problems the Soviets encountered, chiefly major isolation from every other country, either rampant inflation or major shortages of goods due to price-fixing?


Much less death involved? Really? Are you counting all the workers who died in poverty due to squalid living conditions and ridiculously low wages, are you counting the dramatic reduction in life expectancy in industrial working class areas during the Industrial Revolution, and are you counting the atrocities committed by imperialist powers in their colonies?

No, I'm not counting the workers who died in early industrialization because nobody forced them to work.

While hundreds of thousands did, indeed, die in squalid living conditions, it's outweighed by the massive population boom it also brought on with advances in all technological aspects.


The Soviet Union and its allies had no choice but rapid industrialization, since they began from much poorer economic conditions than the West. Their only hope to survive against capitalism was to develop rapidly.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that communism would be a better choice, for Russia, than capitalism. If they had done this when they overthrew the Czar, there would have been no need for rapid industrialization in order to survive. Instead, trade with and investment from the western nations could have done the job.


Also, I would argue that not only the USSR, but all Soviet-style societies saw a marked rise in living standards, especially for the working class. Don't forget that most of them started out as impoverished semi-feudal states, and the Eastern European ones had been devastated by WW2 on top of that.

Yes, they did see an improvement in living standards, but not nearly that as we've seen in capitalist nations. For example, war-torn Western Europe developed much faster and efficiently under US guidance than war-torn Eastern Europe saw under Soviet guidance, up until the Easterners themselves overthrew the Soviets.


Uh, yeah. Marxists never denied that capitalism is better than feudalism and all its predecessors. Hell, Marx explicitly made that point in the Communist Manifesto itself.

True, and so far there hasn't been any hard evidence to suggest that Capitalism should be replaced.


Our argument is that, all other things being equal, socialism and communism can deliver faster development and better standards of living than capitalism. This is not apparent in 20th century history because (a) yes, the Soviet model had major flaws, and (b) all other things were not equal - capitalist societies had a massive head start, there were world wars and so on.

England was far ahead of the US, for example, and yet America was able to surpass everybody at the table.


Which they do, more or less. Why should 8 hours of hard work from one man be worth hundreds of times more than 8 hours of equally hard work from another man?

Because society has decided that the work from Man A is worth more than that of Man B, thereby creating an incentive for more people to do what Man A does, despite years in school/training, thereby benefiting society by giving it what it wants.


So you should receive more or less money based on the number of other people who can do your job? You have no control over that number, so how is this in any way a just form of compensation?

Not necessarily, it's what society (ie the market) decides who's labor is of the most value.

No, you don't have control over that number, which is an incentive to continue to get education and do a better job than the competition.


If you are a doctor, and a thousand new doctors appear out of nowhere, your salary will be greatly reduced even if you work just as hard as before and don't change anything about yourself. How is this in any way justifiable?

The American Medical Association uses it's lobbying power to ensure that few new medical schools are built, thereby ensuring that doctors will always be in demand.

But let's just say that all these new doctors appear. Yes, the average doctors salary is going to decrease....So....The price of healthcare will decrease as well.

Also, it creates an incentive for a doctor to develop a specialty (OB-GYN, Pediatry, Neurology, etc), which means that a specific problem can be handled by someone very competent in that field.


Further, I would like to point out that market demand - which capitalism uses to determine what is "most demanded" by society - is not an accurate measure of people's needs and wants. Market demand is the aggregate of the money people are willing and able to pay for a product. Willing and able. If people are less able to pay (i.e. they are poor), their needs and wishes count for less in the market.

Should societies demands be determined by a vote, or by what people are willing to sacrifice, themselves, in order to receive? If a large group of people are willing to spend on something, that business will be able to expand. If nobody thinks their product or service is worth anything, it will die. This keeps us from stagnating.

Of course, people are going to aim their marketing at the demographic which they believe will support them best. Safeway aims for middle to upper-middle class, Wal-Mart goes for every group from lower class on up.


Yes, but that janitor isn't sitting on his ass for those years while the doctor is going through med school. The janitor has to work those years. So you have to study more in order to become a doctor, but if you don't want to be a doctor you have to spend those years working anyway (although not studying). Over a lifetime, a janitor will work more years than a doctor. So why should you be paid less for working more?

Because your work isn't demanded by as many people, and, since little training is required, you can easily be replaced. Also, this creates an incentive for people to strive for education/training, thereby enabling them to perform a duty society demands more and earn more compensation.


Problem: very few people actually receive profits, and they usually just act as administrators rather than doing research or working in their own factories. The vast majority of us live from wages and salaries, so how exactly are we supposed to be motivated by higher profits?

At most, the profit motive could be giving us better administrators. Maybe. But it's certainly not giving us better workers or scientists.

When those administrators are able to deliver a higher profit, the business will expand. More money will be spent on R&D, advertising, opening new offices, buying more raw materials, opening up new markets, and, most improtantly, hiring more people.

When these people are hired, they will begin to spend money. This will give higher profits to other businesses, allowing those to expand, and on and on.


Ah, but they will see a reward - staying in government. Socialists advocate democratic government, with all bureaucrats accountable to the people. If they do a bad job, the people can remove them from office.

I'll believe it when I see it.

[Joby]

Emphasizing on a point that a previous poster has made, Marxism isn't a means of organizing society or a blueprint for social progress/revolution; it is merely a means of interpreting historical events, analyzing those events, explaining present events and generalizing on future events and developments based on those past and present events. It is a methodology, not an ideology or a "plan".

Well, then wouldn't the fact that the Manifesto was written in 1848 prove that the future developments are not as Marx said they would be?


With that being said, it is important to take into consideration the different "strains within Marxism". Most bourgeois sources treat "communism" or "Marxism" as single, homogeneous entities which they define and proceed to attack. They don't recognize Marxism for what it is but for what they perceive it to be and because of this they are constructing a straw man.

Marxism as political methodology as different contending schools of thought, from anarchist-leaning left communists to Marxist-Leninists to hardline Stalinists; it is a broad spectrum that cannot be homogenized without intellectual dishonesty. It is true, though, that these different ideologies contain similarities which allows us to let them fall under the banner of Marxism. Those similarities are primarily an analysis of past and present events (in general; there are disagreements about many things, but about fundamentals of captalist development they are in agreement) as well as an end goal (that of a classless, stateless society where the means of production are held in common).

Agreed, though none of the strains of Marxist political thought have given any hard evidence that they could be succesfull, and those that have been attempted have failed to achive the goal of a classless, stateless society.


The differences lie in the path from the present to that goal; the difference, then, is in how to achieve that goal.

Free-Market Capitalism


The various revolutions we have seen which have occurred under Marxist banners all had different historical circumstances surrounding them (both objective and subjective conditions) and they had different conceptions of Marxism (explained above). Because of this, one cannot claim that because all of these revolutions were "Marxist" that they all were of the same type, as you have done above. Each one of these historical events was unique in its own ways, and to make a statement above such as you have is historical simplism to either the complete embrace of ignorance or the complete disregard of logic (or both).

Each of them claimed to be Marxist, and each failed for its own reasons.

Why should the workers, especially those in an industrialized or 'post-industrialization' nation give up their chances of matrial gain under capitalism and follow an ideology that has never proven itself?


This is not your fault, however. Assuming you're from the United States (although they probably teach the subject similarly in Europe), this is what you were taught growing up. In social studies they discuss "communism" solely in the context of the cold war; no mention is even made of the complexity of the situation (of course, that's what it was like with every topic taught in social studies). In order to combat such ignorance you first have to recognize that it exists within you (which my post hopefully has respectfully done) and you then must gain knowledge regarding Marxism so that you can completely do away with such ignorance.

Firstly, I'm playing a certain amount of devils-advocate in this debate.

Secondly, why should a social studies class focus on 'what could have been,' when they barely have enough time to focus on what happened from the perspective of our nations interests?

I was lucky enough to have a couple of Leftists among my history and government teachers. They all had to keep their true politics under wraps, but all did a good job at explaining several points of view.


Again, as other posters have said, Marxists don't oppose capitalism on moral grounds. Marxists recognize the progressive force that capitalism has played on human society and the general increase in the standards of living compared to what preceded it. On this we certainly agree; capitalism is wonderful in that sense.

However, one must also recognize the problems capitalism contains as well; ignoring such problems results in a one-sided view of the issue. Capitalism creates and maintains poverty through the monopolization of capital; in order to remain competitive business owners must lower prices by increasing production, paying workers less, increasing the intensity of work workers must do, etc... Capitalism causes war through colonialist and imperialist domination. I could go on, and I could go into much more detail, but that really isn't necessary, and there is plenty of reading to do on it if you really wish to learn about it.

1. Is it capitalisms fault that certain people within society are unable to compete with others, when capitalism has, arguably, allowed more ability for upward-movement than any other system?

2. Increasing productivity is one of the stregnths of Capitalism. It means that companies will have to apply the latest technology and push the envlope to avoid being replaced.

3. If Capitalism has to come after feudalism and before socialism, isn't it a good thing that it encompasses the globe?


We say that every member of society, as a member of society, deserves full and equal access to the product of society's labour.

Why? Not every member of society puts an equal amount into the advancement of society, and, if all are rewarded equally, what motivation does an individual have to 'get ahead,' which benefits society?


From each according to his abilities, to each according to his need.

And who, exactly, should determine what your ability and needs are?

Capitalism allows people who would be happy being a janitor and would be happy just to eat their weight in LSD to do so.

Meanwhile, someone who cannot have enough in the way of material possesion is allowed to attain it, as long as they contribute enough of what society (ie the market) determines is important.


The problem with this argument is that a commodity is never an individual venture, but one taken upon by society as a whole. No one individual made this computer I am typing on; rather it is the product of thousands upon thousands of people.

But it is the creation of a person who spent months designing, and perfecting, the commodity. When he has finished, he can allow others to invest and find people willing to accept a wage in order to get it built.

These investors are, in some aspects, taking more of a risk than the workers in order to get this done, since the workers will be paid regardless. The investors will not be paid unless the market decides their invention is worth purchasing. If it is, then this business can expand, and hire more people, who will buy more things, which will cause more people to be hired, and on and on.


As for your argument regarding the need for doctors more than janitors, I don't consider that to be true, but if you'd like to provide some substantiation for that then I'd be more than happy to hear it.


The US faces a shortage of doctors. To address this need, we must expand graduate medical education. That's because all licensed physicians in the US must pass through GME. In 2003, the Council on Graduate Medical Education predicted a shortage of physicians and recommended a 15% increase in output

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/532152

This was one of many articles. I wasn't able to find any on a janitor shortage.


Doctors aren't paid more than janitors because they're "more in demand". They're paid more than janitors because they cost more to produce (college, training, expertise, etc...). Even if doctors were in lower demand than janitors, they would still be paid more (probably by a huge margin, too). You seem to prove my point in the following quote:

Too paraphrase Pusher Robot:
I claim that it rewards people for doing the jobs most in demand. It just so happens that because of the high educational requirements of becoming a doctor, there is always a fairly high demand. But being a janitor is not difficult, so there's a low demand for that. There's no contradiction.


Communism has never existed, so this debate is impossible to have.

And what should convince people that it can not only exist, but thrive like Capitalism has?


Why is this? Is it because people are "naturally competitive" or "naturally greedy" or is it because this is what society has taught us? I would argue the latter, but if you would like to offer some evidence that such a "human nature" actually exists (I don't really know how you could do that, though; perhaps some neurological studies or something? I've never seen it done before, though) I'd love to hear the argument.

I don't know why, but it must since most succesfull entrepreneurs, for example, work at a much more frantic pace than most subsidized individuals.


If this is the case then why is congress paying farmers not to produce milk? How can you justify overproduction given this statement? The only way I could see you doing such would be to define "advancement" as profit, but in that case your statement would then just be false ("Competition between people trying to make money makes more money." Is obviously false, as competition lowers prices as well as profits.).

Congress subsidizes farmers not to grow milk so that the price of milk will stay high, just as they limit the number of medical schools being built so that doctors will always be paid a substantial amount. Which is why I'm advocating Free-Market Capitalism, free of these types of big-government programs begun with FDR.

If the market was able to reign supreme, with no government intervention, then the farmers able to make the cheapest amounts of milk would sell at a much lower price. Those with the ability to afford better-quality milk would be able to do so, though the price of this would also decrease as many would simply buy the cheapest produt available.

Competition spurs advancemet because it makes sure that a monopoly (whether one company or simply the government) isn't able to set the price/standard. Companies must advance the quality of the product, benefiting society, or lower the price, benefiting society, or be left in the dust.

Just as it would be incorrect to label all communists "soviets," so too would it be to label all capitalists in line with what we have in America.


I am not a socialist, and I despise the term. I am a communist, and I advocate having the reproduction of society be run by society itself.

But how can society, as a whole, determine what's best for each individual in society?


By the way, are you the same Joby from debatepolitics?

Guilty as charged.

Might I ask who you are?

[mikelepore]

Joby says, "Marxism has never delivered on its goals." Just imagine how things would be if the basic idea, "Instead of having a king decide everything, allow the citizens to vote", when that idea was first tried 2,600 years ago, had been given only 200 years to prove itself, and, if the bugs in it couldn't be worked out by then, everyone were to conclude forever that the idea had "failed."

[mikelepore]

Under capitalism, people who deliver something that is most demanded from society are the most compensated. We need doctors more than janitors, and, thereby, doctors receive better compensation.

This motivates more people to become doctors, and other vocations which society demands, instead of becoming something which society does not need so urgently. It takes years and years to become a doctor, about 15 minutes to become a janitor.

I find it interesting that, while the much more important issue is the way that concentrated wealth tends to gravitate toward the offspring of certain famailies who inherit hundreds of millions of dollars, many people fail to mention it, or fail to recognize it, and instead they focus more on comparisons between skilled employees and unskilled employees.

It is as if to say: I didn't notice the noonday sun because I was distracted by a candle flicker.

A few data points in the U.S. economy:

G. P. Getty, $1.9 billion inheritance
J. P. Getty, Jr. $1 billion inheritance
C. M. Getty, $670 million inheritance
A. C. Getty Earhart, $670 million inheritance
C. E. Getty Perry, $670 million inheritance
W. C. Ford, $1.4 billion inheritance
J. Ford, $800 million inheritance
R. A. Hearst, $1.4 billion inheritance
W. R. Hearst III, $800 million inheritance
D. W. Hearst, Jr., $700 million inheritance
G. R. Hearst, Jr., $700 million inheritance
A. Hearst, $700 million inheritance
P. Hearst Cooke, $700 million inheritance
O. M. Dupont Bredin, $500 million inheritance
C. S. Du Pont Darden, $500 million inheritance
I. Du Pont, Jr., $500 million inheritance
I. S. Du Pont May, $500 million inheritance
A. F. Du Pont Mills, $515 million inheritance
J. C. Walton, $6.5 billion inheritance
H. R. Walton, $6.4 billion inheritance
A. L. Walton, $6.3 billion inheritance
S. R. Walton, $6.3 billion inheritance
J. T. Walton, $6.3 billion inheritance
A. K. Walton, $660 million inheritance
L. M. Walton, $660 million inheritance

- Source: Forbes, December 1997

[Joby]

Joby says, "Marxism has never delivered on its goals." Just imagine how things would be if the basic idea, "Instead of having a king decide everything, allow the citizens to vote", when that idea was first tried 2,600 years ago, had been given only 200 years to prove itself, and, if the bugs in it couldn't be worked out by then, everyone were to conclude forever that the idea had "failed."

Economic systems change faster than political systems do.

Capitalism, in which most members of society were free to pursue capital, has been in existence for maybe 250 years. Since then, it has done more to advance the race, technologically, politically, and socially, than the previous millenia.

I'm not saying that it should be disregarded forever, theoretically, but I am saying that in the previous attempts at it it have failed, and all the other theories are unable to garner enough support to come anywere near as replacing Capitalism.

[Joby]

I find it interesting that, while the much more important issue is the way that concentrated wealth tends to gravitate toward the offspring of certain famailies who inherit hundreds of millions of dollars, many people fail to mention it, or fail to recognize it, and instead they focus more on comparisons between skilled employees and unskilled employees.

The average millionaire in the US is a first generation millionaire, drives a 2-year old used car, and lives in a middle to upper-middle class home.

The secret? Invest just a small percentage of your money over years and years...I highly recommend it, really...you know, just in case the revolution doesn't come through.


It is as if to say: I didn't notice the noonday sun because I was distracted by a candle flicker.

It's only one part of the debate.


A few data points in the U.S. economy:

G. P. Getty, $1.9 billion inheritance
J. P. Getty, Jr. $1 billion inheritance
C. M. Getty, $670 million inheritance
A. C. Getty Earhart, $670 million inheritance
C. E. Getty Perry, $670 million inheritance
W. C. Ford, $1.4 billion inheritance
J. Ford, $800 million inheritance
R. A. Hearst, $1.4 billion inheritance
W. R. Hearst III, $800 million inheritance
D. W. Hearst, Jr., $700 million inheritance
G. R. Hearst, Jr., $700 million inheritance
A. Hearst, $700 million inheritance
P. Hearst Cooke, $700 million inheritance
O. M. Dupont Bredin, $500 million inheritance
C. S. Du Pont Darden, $500 million inheritance
I. Du Pont, Jr., $500 million inheritance
I. S. Du Pont May, $500 million inheritance
A. F. Du Pont Mills, $515 million inheritance
J. C. Walton, $6.5 billion inheritance
H. R. Walton, $6.4 billion inheritance
A. L. Walton, $6.3 billion inheritance
S. R. Walton, $6.3 billion inheritance
J. T. Walton, $6.3 billion inheritance
A. K. Walton, $660 million inheritance
L. M. Walton, $660 million inheritance

- Source: Forbes, December 1997

All of these people inherited their money from someone who did something for society. Whether or not that's substantial, in the long run, their service was valued and rewarded. If you disagree with the amount of money they make, don't purchase their product.

DuPont, for example, has led the way in chemical technology. Sam Walton used modern transportation to create a chain which encompassed many seperate markets, creating lower prices for the consumer and revolutionizing retail. Henry Ford invented the assembly line to produce automobiles, adding immense efficiency to the production of goods.

All of th people who began these companies took risks to make money. They saw potential, whether in science, engineering, or management, and pushed the envelope forward.

Yes, those are large sums of money. But they were the ones who saw the potential and, indeed, moved us forward.

Since society saw it as valuable to enrich these people, why does society have the right to take this back once they die and determine who get's the spoils?

[apathy maybe]

I would just like to say Joby that you are a fucking idiot. People have address each and everyone of your points, in this thread, and in many other threads before.

If you are trying to defend capitalism as it stands, you have no hope here.

Take for example this,

Under capitalism, people who deliver something that is most demanded from society are the most compensated. We need doctors more than janitors, and, thereby, doctors receive better compensation.

This motivates more people to become doctors, and other vocations which society demands, instead of becoming something which society does not need so urgently. It takes years and years to become a doctor, about 15 minutes to become a janitor.
mikelepore then says, what about inheritance. All these people get shit loads of money for doing nothing at all.
You then say

All of these people inherited their money from someone who did something for society. Whether or not that's substantial, in the long run, their service was valued and rewarded. If you disagree with the amount of money they make, don't purchase their product.Way to miss the point!
OK, assuming that rich people who "earn" their money actually deserve their money (something that is, it self is under debate). Now then, do their children actually deserve to inherit all this money once their parents die? Someone who didn't contribute anything to society?

Mate, you have no hope. For a furtherance on this theme, I suggest searching for threads on inheritance in this forum. Why do the dead have rights?

[KC]

Well, then wouldn't the fact that the Manifesto was written in 1848 prove that the future developments are not as Marx said they would be?

No. The development of capitalism from the writing of the Manifesto to the present actually confirms Marx's theories of capitalist development that he laid out in his economic works. The only thing Marx didn't (and couldn't) forsee, because he was bound by his historical circumstance, was that capitalism is much more adaptive than he originally thought.


Agreed, though none of the strains of Marxist political thought have given any hard evidence that they could be succesfull

There is no "hard evidence" in terms of organizational work and building a movement. There are only successes and failures, and what is to be learned from them.


Each of them claimed to be Marxist, and each failed for its own reasons.

First, not everybody that claims to be Marxist is a Marxist. One must look past the rhetoric in determining whether or not a person, an organization or a country are following a Marxist methodology. Cambodia is a great example of this; the Khmer Rouge were nowhere near Marxism. They were some kind of luddite primitivists that used Marxist rhetoric.


Why should the workers, especially those in an industrialized or 'post-industrialization' nation give up their chances of matrial gain under capitalism and follow an ideology that has never proven itself?

You are framing this from a moral standpoint and not a historical one. If you believe that "Marxism can't work" then I suggest you study the vibrant history of working class struggle not only within the United States but globally.


Secondly, why should a social studies class focus on 'what could have been,' when they barely have enough time to focus on what happened from the perspective of our nations interests?

It's not about focusing on "what should have been." It's about focusing on giving students a complete understanding of an issue/event from all sides and all perspectives. One cannot understand communism simply from a Cold War paradigm, because that's not what communism is.

And it would also help to not have books that are loaded with factual inaccuracies, ignorance and blatant lies.


1. Is it capitalisms fault that certain people within society are unable to compete with others, when capitalism has, arguably, allowed more ability for upward-movement than any other system?

It isn't the fault of "people," though. You're again looking at this from an individualist and moral perspective when this is actually a historical and economic question.

The reason people aren't able to compete with massive corporations is because the cost of starting up and running a business to compete with them is so high that nobody can afford it. This is not a result of individual impairments but the monopolization of capital. As capital is accumulated in fewer and fewer hands, competition intensifies, the cost of maintaining a competitive business increases, and those that can't handle it are driven out of the market.

Are you or I able to start up a business that could be competitive with Nike? Obviously not, because the cost of starting up and running that business would be astronomical. Is that because we're dumber than Phillip Knight? Obviously not.

The question isn't of subjective morality but of objective historical and economic facts. And the answer is a resounding yes.


2. Increasing productivity is one of the stregnths of Capitalism. It means that companies will have to apply the latest technology and push the envlope to avoid being replaced.

Yes, increasing productivity is good in that sense. But the flip side to that is that from an economic point of view increasing of productivity leads to the monopolization of capital, as well as overproduction.


3. If Capitalism has to come after feudalism and before socialism, isn't it a good thing that it encompasses the globe?

That isn't a yes or a no answer, and it's much too complex to get into here.


Why? Not every member of society puts an equal amount into the advancement of society, and, if all are rewarded equally, what motivation does an individual have to 'get ahead,' which benefits society?

Nobody "gets ahead". What does that even mean? Make more money?


And who, exactly, should determine what your ability and needs are?

You should!


Meanwhile, someone who cannot have enough in the way of material possesion is allowed to attain it, as long as they contribute enough of what society (ie the market) determines is important.

This has absolutely no basis in reality (see above).


But it is the creation of a person who spent months designing, and perfecting, the commodity.

The vast majority of products aren't designed and produced by a single person (and those that are are the product of the petty-bourgeois, small business owners, not massive corporations).


I claim that it rewards people for doing the jobs most in demand. It just so happens that because of the high educational requirements of becoming a doctor, there is always a fairly high demand. But being a janitor is not difficult, so there's a low demand for that. There's no contradiction.

You didn't address what I said. What I stated was that even if the demand for doctors was lower than the demand for janitors, that the doctor would still get paid more because they cost more to produce. Do you disagree with that?


And what should convince people that it can not only exist, but thrive like Capitalism has?

It's not a moral argument. I'm not here to "convince you" or anyone else.


I don't know why, but it must since most succesfull entrepreneurs, for example, work at a much more frantic pace than most subsidized individuals.

This doesn't really prove anything. In fact it's not even relevant.


Congress subsidizes farmers not to grow milk so that the price of milk will stay high, just as they limit the number of medical schools being built so that doctors will always be paid a substantial amount. Which is why I'm advocating Free-Market Capitalism, free of these types of big-government programs begun with FDR.

If the market was able to reign supreme, with no government intervention, then the farmers able to make the cheapest amounts of milk would sell at a much lower price. Those with the ability to afford better-quality milk would be able to do so, though the price of this would also decrease as many would simply buy the cheapest produt available.

That would be great, because then capitalism would develop much faster without all these safeguards and would collapse much faster as well.

Ron Paul '08!


Competition spurs advancemet because it makes sure that a monopoly (whether one company or simply the government) isn't able to set the price/standard.

Yes but competition under capitalism leads to monopolization, which leads to a stagnancy in competition. Capitalism undoes itself.


Just as it would be incorrect to label all communists "soviets," so too would it be to label all capitalists in line with what we have in America.

I never did, and don't need to. Also, I doubt you're a "capitalist".


But how can society, as a whole, determine what's best for each individual in society?

Because each individual is part of society and therefore has a part in the running of society?


Guilty as charged.

Might I ask who you are?

Khayembii Communique

[Joby]

I would just like to say Joby that you are a fucking idiot.

Ok, but prove me wrong before you open your trap again.


People have address each and everyone of your points, in this thread, and in many other threads before.

Addressing them doesn't mean they've proved a point.


If you are trying to defend capitalism as it stands, you have no hope here.

Compared to a theory which has never been succesfull, and has indeed failed spectacularly when it has been attempted?


Take for example this,

mikelepore then says, what about inheritance. All these people get shit loads of money for doing nothing at all.

These people got money from somebody who society saw worthy to enrich.

Since society itself enriched these billionaires, why should society have a say in who get's their money when they die?


You then say
Way to miss the point!
OK, assuming that rich people who "earn" their money actually deserve their money (something that is, it self is under debate). Now then, do their children actually deserve to inherit all this money once their parents die? Someone who didn't contribute anything to society?

Beacuse their parents decided to give the property which society gave them to their children.

Because they were the ones who earned it, they get to decide who get's it when they die.


Mate, you have no hope. For a furtherance on this theme, I suggest searching for threads on inheritance in this forum. Why do the dead have rights?

Does a man have a right to choose what cemetary he wishes to be buried in?

Does he have a right to keep things like photo albums and other family heirlooms in the family, for his posterity?

Why then, does he not have the right to determine who should get his money once he dies? It was his money, which society bestowed upon him, so naturally he should have a right to detremine were it goes once he, or she, dies. If you're jealous, tough.

By the way, if you could read more than just my first sentence of a response, it would be appreciated.

[Comrade Rage]

First off, where do you get this load of CRAP about society 'bestowing' wealth on to these people? No body bestowed anything on these parasites, they make money based on a system that forces people to enrich them or starve.

Compared to a theory which has never been succesfull, and has indeed failed spectacularly when it has been attempted?Communism has never failed, opportunism and revisionism have.

[Jazzratt]

2. For all it's naysayers, Capitalism has delivered the highest standards of living to any people in the history of the species.

This is the high standard of living in the system you praise:

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2005/06/30/poverty_wideweb__430x387.jpg

[apathy maybe]

"Compared to a theory which has never been succesfull, and has indeed failed spectacularly when it has been attempted?"
I don't give a shit about Marxism or the USSR etc. I am talking about Capitalism. And you are a fool and an idiot if you think it is perfect right now.

"Does a man have a right to choose what cemetary he wishes to be buried in?" No.

"Does he have a right to keep things like photo albums and other family heirlooms in the family, for his posterity?" No.

"Why then, does he not have the right to determine who should get his money once he dies? It was his money, which society bestowed upon him, so naturally he should have a right to detremine were it goes once he, or she, dies. If you're jealous, tough." He doesn't.

"By the way, if you could read more than just my first sentence of a response, it would be appreciated."
I just did.

Dead people have no rights at all. They are dead. That is the whole point. Dead people don't have rights, they are dead, they are no longer living, they don't exist any more except as compost and memories. Compost has no rights... Etc. I've covered this before, do that search I suggested.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Since society itself enriched these billionaires, why should society have a say in who get's their money when they die?
What you are saying is a blatant contradiction. If society has the right to decide to give you money, then by the same token society has the right to decide to take away your money. What society gives, society can take away.

You cannot argue at the same time that (a) capitalism gives people money in order to maximize economic efficiency, and (b) people should be allowed to keep their inherited money even when that harms economic efficiency because they did not earn it. If efficiency is your goal, then society should pursue efficiency regardless of conceptions of human rights or justice. If rights are your goal, then society should protect rights even when they harm efficiency. But you cannot have it both ways. Choose.

[Demogorgon]

I wasn't refering to Marx, but all the revolutionaries who promised this and that after the future revolution.Well quite often a lot of what they did promise was achieved. Certainly standards of living often rose sharply. But again what is our point? One "blueprint" failed? Is that the be all and end all?


Yes, but Russia isn't the only example of a nation to call itself communist. So far, none of them has actually achieved that goal.
Nearly all of the so called Communist states were Soviet Satellite states following exactly the same model. Or else simply attempting to implement autarky


And, so far, capitalism has been able to grow faster than every communist society as well.
Not really. The Soviet Union's growth rates as it industrialised outpaced any capitalist country. More recently, though I don't consider China Communist, you probably do, and it is experiencing very fast growth. And socialist Venezuela is experiencing faster growtht han any of its neighbours


I hate to do this, but "What Pusher Robot said." There's really nothing more I could add to his post.

But he did not add very much. If all your point is that jobs that there is a shortage in will see their pay temporarilly rise under capitalism, I fail to see how that is justification.


True, though, like most things developed by the US govt, it has expanded greatly since being privatized.
It was never exactly "privatized", it just grew with others wanting in on it. The notion that things tend to grow simply because they are privatized though is absurd. Look at what happened to the railways here after all.


But every socialist government, thus far, at least, has resulted in a massive government running things.
Well what are we going to call socialist? If we use what I think is your definition, what about Yugoslavia under Tito? That had at least as much in common with what could be recognized as socialist as the Soviet Union and it did not have particularly large levels of the government running things. It worked on the basis of co-operatives competing in a market.

Some might call the Scandinavian social democracies socialist. Obviously not a popular definition here, but some do. THey don't have high levels of government ownership (though they have delivered far higher standards of living than more "free market" oriented countries like America

[mikelepore]

DuPont, for example, has led the way in chemical technology. Sam Walton used modern transportation to create a chain which encompassed many seperate markets, creating lower prices for the consumer and revolutionizing retail. Henry Ford invented the assembly line to produce automobiles, adding immense efficiency to the production of goods.

In every case, when the business was of such a size that the capitalist had to actually show up and do the work, that was the same time when growth was slow. But when the business had already reached the size where the capitalist could tell the employees, "Take over -- I'm going on vacation forever -- mail me my dividend checks", then the industry grew considerably. What does that tell you?

What it should tell you is that, when we customarily say that the capitalist "built it", "made it", etc., that's only a figure of speech, habitually giving the credit to the command-giver, as when people say, "Caesar built the Roman aquaduct", "the pharaoh built that pyramid", etc.

[Joby]

First off, where do you get this load of CRAP about society 'bestowing' wealth on to these people? No body bestowed anything on these parasites, they make money based on a system that forces people to enrich them or starve.

Versus the Soviet system, were you just starve.

Under capitalism, people are free to choose were they get their food from, which encourages competition among the sources of food production.

If a source charges too highly for food, compared to what society is willing to pay for it, that source will go out of business. By price-fixing grain, for example, as the Soviets did, you are unable to adapt to increased, or lowered, demand for that commodity, resulting in massive lines of people waiting for bread that wasn't coming.

People could choose to eat very little, and save their money. Instead, they find it convenient to pay these "parasites," who have paid for the farming, processing, and transportation behind that food, and thereby enich the people who own these businesses.


Communism has never failed, opportunism and revisionism have.

Once again, why should the workers of the world give up all the progres that we've seen under capitalism for a system that has never proven itself? Communism may not have failed, but it certainly hasn't given any evidence that it's capable of anything else.

[Joby]

This is the high standard of living in the system you praise:

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2005/06/30/poverty_wideweb__430x387.jpg

That sucks. However, why is it my responsibility, exactly?

Capitalism itself isn't responsible for the whole world. Many nations won't let the free-market to enter.

While they both have their problems, for eample, what has developed faster: 'Communist' China, or Hong Kong?

By the way, hasn't pretty much every large-scale attempt at communism resulted in a massive famine?

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Versus the Soviet system, were you just starve.

Ah we are very confused now aren't we? People were starving in the Russian empire for centuries. The Soviets improved the agricultural system so by the 50s people weren't starving anymore.



Under capitalism, people are free to choose were they get their food from, which encourages competition among the sources of food production.

Problem 1: You can choose only the food you can pay for.

Problem 2: Food crops, because they are so common, often don't sell well. This means that many nations which are in debt, must grow more profitable crops like coffee and sugar for export. Unfortunately they can't feed their people on this.



If a source charges too highly for food, compared to what society is willing to pay for it, that source will go out of business. By price-fixing grain, for example, as the Soviets did, you are unable to adapt to increased, or lowered, demand for that commodity, resulting in massive lines of people waiting for bread that wasn't coming.

Again I think you are very confused. You are assuming that the Soviet system remained more or less constant from 1924(actually given many of your arguments you probably think it was constant from 1917). The main problem was that since the 60s, the general practice was to simply lower the price of bread rather than raise wages.



People could choose to eat very little, and save their money. Instead, they find it convenient to pay these "parasites," who have paid for the farming, processing, and transportation behind that food, and thereby enich the people who own these businesses.

They don't really have a choice, this is not the feudal system where the majority of people own their own plot of land.




Once again, why should the workers of the world give up all the progres that we've seen under capitalism for a system that has never proven itself?

The problem is that from where you stand it looks like progress. From the perspective of the millions if not billions upon which your progress was built, it isn't so pretty. You ask this question, and yet just a century ago hundreds of millions of people were willing to do just that.




Communism may not have failed, but it certainly hasn't given any evidence that it's capable of anything else.


Tell that to the people that benefitted from socialist revolutions. Hell, you benefited from the socialist movement if you have a 40 hour, 5 day work week.

[Joby]

"Compared to a theory which has never been succesfull, and has indeed failed spectacularly when it has been attempted?"
I don't give a shit about Marxism or the USSR etc. I am talking about Capitalism. And you are a fool and an idiot if you think it is perfect right now.

I don't, I'm arguing for pretty much unfiltered, Free-Market Captalism.

To equate all Capitalism as being the same, ie saying that Adolf Hitler and Milton Friedman had a lot in common, would be like saying Josef Stalin and the Dalai Llama are in the same category. They're not.



"Does a man have a right to choose what cemetary he wishes to be buried in?" No.

"Does he have a right to keep things like photo albums and other family heirlooms in the family, for his posterity?" No.

So does a man have any rights in a socialist society?

Do parents have a right to raise their children, or is that duty up to the state? How about just naming the kids, let alone raising them?


"Why then, does he not have the right to determine who should get his money once he dies? It was his money, which society bestowed upon him, so naturally he should have a right to detremine were it goes once he, or she, dies. If you're jealous, tough." He doesn't.

What gives society th right to infringe on his wishes, and deny the people who he (the earner of capital) wished to give his money? Since, after all, his posterity will be respinsible for all the costs and trauma related to his or her death.


Dead people have no rights at all. They are dead. That is the whole point. Dead people don't have rights, they are dead, they are no longer living, they don't exist any more except as compost and memories. Compost has no rights... Etc. I've covered this before, do that search I suggested.

The SECOND that person dies, the money transfers to who he, the departed, assigned it to go to. Though the *****work may not have been done, the estate isn't up in the air, it has a new owner.

Yes, they are dead, but how does society have a right to his estate?

Does someone have a right to give their brother money while still alive, or is that property of society as soon as it leaves his hand?

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Capitalism itself isn't responsible for the whole world. Many nations won't let the free-market to enter.

It is the dominant mode of production, and ergo it is responsible. You think tragedies like this occur because of a lack of free-market solutions? Quite the opposite, this happens BECAUSE of the free-market.



By the way, hasn't pretty much every large-scale attempt at communism resulted in a massive famine?

Hmm....all in countries that had famine in their past due to backward agriculture, and these problems were more or less solved in record time.


You can say what you want about socialism, but socialism has made huge progress for mankind and it certainly can again, armed with the experience of the last century. I'll tell you what fails every time: free-market solutions.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

I don't, I'm arguing for pretty much unfiltered, Free-Market Captalism.

Which has been a disaster for most of the world.



To equate all Capitalism as being the same, ie saying that Adolf Hitler and Milton Friedman had a lot in common, would be like saying Josef Stalin and the Dalai Llama are in the same category. They're not.

Capitalists have been more than willing in the past to shift politics depending on how secure their position is. One day they may be free-market libertarians, the next they may be Fascists.





So does a man have any rights in a socialist society?

Yes, but in a class society rights have a class character. Furthermore, there is no such thing as absolute right.



Do parents have a right to raise their children, or is that duty up to the state?

It is up to society to raise children in conjunction with the parents.



How about just naming the kids, let alone raising them?

Hmm...the US constitution doesn't state anything about a right to name kids in the Bill of Rights...



Yes, they are dead, but how does society have a right to his estate?

The state is what determines you have "an estate" in the first place. It's the organized force that means people can't just walk into your house when you die and start taking your stuff. Furthermore, your estate is built upon society.

[Joby]

Ah we are very confused now aren't we? People were starving in the Russian empire for centuries. The Soviets improved the agricultural system so by the 50s people weren't starving anymore.

That may be true, but the system still imploded just 35 years later.


Problem 1: You can choose only the food you can pay for.

Yes, that's correct. Well, you could go into debt to buy the food you want, or make a garden.


Problem 2: Food crops, because they are so common, often don't sell well. This means that many nations which are in debt, must grow more profitable crops like coffee and sugar for export. Unfortunately they can't feed their people on this.

But since they are making money off of it, they can afford to pay their people more, and become a stronger economy. As more money is made of these cash crops, better technology can be developed to increase production and grow more crops, and make more money.

A sizable amount of this money will be spent, allowing people to get jobs as the economy develops.


Again I think you are very confused. You are assuming that the Soviet system remained more or less constant from 1924(actually given many of your arguments you probably think it was constant from 1917). The main problem was that since the 60s, the general practice was to simply lower the price of bread rather than raise wages.

That is a very interesting point. First of all, I think we might both agree that simply lowering the price was a disastrous idea.

However, if wages were just raised, while the price of bread stayed the same, the same problem would occur. The market is ncessary to put a natural value on each item, ie the worth people are willing to pay for it. When the state puts an artificial value with each item, problems occur.


They don't really have a choice, this is not the feudal system where the majority of people own their own plot of land.

But they have a choice in the quality of food they wish to purchase, unlike a system were competition is discouraged.

For example, I buy Apple Squares instead of the more popular Apple Jacks cereal. I save money buy purchasing an "inferior product," but that's a choice I decided to make.

Also, govt programs in most capitalist nations ensure that very few people will starve.



The problem is that from where you stand it looks like progress. From the perspective of the millions if not billions upon which your progress was built, it isn't so pretty. You ask this question, and yet just a century ago hundreds of millions of people were willing to do just that.

But should they be fighting to overthrow the system, or fight within the system itself to get to 'my perspective?'


Tell that to the people that benefitted from socialist revolutions. Hell, you benefited from the socialist movement if you have a 40 hour, 5 day work week.

I work about 35 hours a wek, and believe that there is more of a chance for me to benefit within capitalism that outside it.

[Joby]

What you are saying is a blatant contradiction. If society has the right to decide to give you money, then by the same token society has the right to decide to take away your money. What society gives, society can take away.

Can your boss give you your check, then ask for it back before you leave the building, charging you the price to "keep the heat on?"


You cannot argue at the same time that (a) capitalism gives people money in order to maximize economic efficiency, and (b) people should be allowed to keep their inherited money even when that harms economic efficiency because they did not earn it. If efficiency is your goal, then society should pursue efficiency regardless of conceptions of human rights or justice. If rights are your goal, then society should protect rights even when they harm efficiency. But you cannot have it both ways. Choose.

But we can, and do, have it both ways in many places.

If you have no competition in business, you have a very small incentive to be efficient. Add 1 or 2 competitors, and inefficiency will cost you.

Several people have been able to make a lot of money via efficiency, innovation, and providing something society demands, and have decided to give the profits they earned to their children.

They were so efficient, if you will, that they were able to make a large profit. If they hadn't been efficient, they wouldn't have made as much.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

That may be true, but the system still imploded just 35 years later.

Did you not just read what I said about this? The system that "collapsed" was in many ways a complete reversal from the system it replaced. Look at it this way:

You are building a model, you build the model based on the instructions. Now let's say you decide that despite the fact that the instructions call for using model glue, you would rather use canola oil. Well obviously this wouldn't work- because you've just gone directly against what the instructions were. In real life there is a bit more of a gray area, things can change from the model without automatically leading to a collapse. But what cannot change is the basic tenets. That is what revisionism does, it takes out the most important parts of Marxism, so that no matter what a society does it will always end up back at the same place.




Yes, that's correct. Well, you could go into debt to buy the food you want, or make a garden.

Wow, that would be a great way to live. Going into debt just to buy food. Or becoming an urban peasant of some sort.

Yes there are a lot of things one "could" do, then there are those things that are actually possible within reason.




But since they are making money off of it, they can afford to pay their people more, and become a stronger economy. As more money is made of these cash crops, better technology can be developed to increase production and grow more crops, and make more money.

First of all, if that were the case why hasn't this happened after decades of aid to Africa and Latin America? Also there are a couple other problems.

1. Industrialization as it occurs today usually means EPZs(Export Processing Zones). In order to lure the companies there, tax holidays are usually offered. In some cases these can be as long as 10 years without paying any taxes(while the company is benefiting from the labor of course). Often times this holiday can be renewed simply by moving the factory. Thus the promised industrialization of the third world is simply not occurring as it was claimed it would.

2. Wherever this actually does lead to improved living standards, even if slightly, the workers there are soon outbid by a poorer nation.



That is a very interesting point. First of all, I think we might both agree that simply lowering the price was a disastrous idea.

Yes, but on the other hand, it was preferable to today, as many people who lived in that time would tell you.



However, if wages were just raised, while the price of bread stayed the same, the same problem would occur. The market is ncessary to put a natural value on each item, ie the worth people are willing to pay for it. When the state puts an artificial value with each item, problems occur.

That depends on their mode of accounting for it. Modern models would use average social labor time calculation, which is far more efficient.

Also what you fail to realize is the serious error made in the Khruschev era when the collective farms were able to take control of their machine tractor stations. The collective farms dealt in commodities, and Stalin worked on the problem of how to increase production so that agriculture would no longer be commodity-based. Unfortunately Khruschev's policies reversed this, turning the collectives into the first capitalist enterprises in the USSR.




But they have a choice in the quality of food they wish to purchase, unlike a system were competition is discouraged.

Again, as long as you can pay for it.



For example, I buy Apple Squares instead of the more popular Apple Jacks cereal. I save money buy purchasing an "inferior product," but that's a choice I decided to make.

Well generally it is simply advertising that says it's an "inferior product".



Also, govt programs in most capitalist nations ensure that very few people will starve.

Unless they are in Africa or parts of Asia of course.



But should they be fighting to overthrow the system, or fight within the system itself to get to 'my perspective?'

Overthrow it. All attempts at reform from within have failed.




I work about 35 hours a wek, and believe that there is more of a chance for me to benefit within capitalism that outside it.

The existence of chance is not the same as probability. You would be much better off in a system where you knew you would get paid the full value of your work, than the rare chance that you might become a millionaire.

[Joby]

In every case, when the business was of such a size that the capitalist had to actually show up and do the work, that was the same time when growth was slow. But when the business had already reached the size where the capitalist could tell the employees, "Take over -- I'm going on vacation forever -- mail me my dividend checks", then the industry grew considerably. What does that tell you?

What it should tell you is that, when we customarily say that the capitalist "built it", "made it", etc., that's only a figure of speech, habitually giving the credit to the command-giver, as when people say, "Caesar built the Roman aquaduct", "the pharaoh built that pyramid", etc.

The capitalist laid his plans, saw his target, and made his money, Just as a general makes a plan when entering a battlefield.

The capitalist is the one who began the company, quite possibly risking much of his personal well being to do so. Once he did the hard work involved, ie getting the ball rolling, he is able to expand. Hire more people, make more of his product, sell in more markets, etc. Yes, at this point the business begins to grow exponentially. He can go public, sell shares, and then really enter the big leagues.

For every succesfull capitalist, though there are many, many more who fail. It's not that this is good or bad, it's just what the people (ie the market) decided. The worker will get his paycheck regardless, it's low-risk. The Capitalist, however, has his whole financial situation riding on doing well.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

The capitalist laid his plans, saw his target, and made his money, Just as a general makes a plan when entering a battlefield.

He did not make his money- other people made it for him after he invested a small portion of it in some means of production.



The capitalist is the one who began the company, quite possibly risking much of his personal well being to do so.

Personal "wealth" maybe but well being? Damn.



Once he did the hard work involved, ie getting the ball rolling, he is able to expand.

The "hard work" is done by the workers.



Hire more people, make more of his product, sell in more markets, etc. Yes, at this point the business begins to grow exponentially. He can go public, sell shares, and then really enter the big leagues.

And none of that happens without the government and the workers, the latter doing all the work.



For every succesfull capitalist, though there are many, many more who fail.

So what?



It's not that this is good or bad, it's just what the people (ie the market) decided. The worker will get his paycheck regardless, it's low-risk. The Capitalist, however, has his whole financial situation riding on doing well.


The capitalist is more likely to have a nest-egg saved up. It is usually very rare for a well-to-do businessman to fail and end up totally broke unless he has had some kind of judgement against him, is in massive debt, or is just incredibly stupid. Even if that happens, as one other on the forum pointed out, the worst that happens for him is that he has to work like everyone else.

As for the workers, the "low risk" is bullshit. They are literally facing homelessness and death unless they can find someone to work for and receive wages. Sure it doesn't seem that bad maybe in the US or Western Europe, but in the many nations upon which your wealth is built, it is a very real situation.

[Comrade Rage]

Seeing as how you ignored Slavyanski's excellent refutation of our 'argument' I'll step up to the plate.

The capitalist laid his plans, saw his target, and made his money, Just as a general makes a plan when entering a battlefield.Unfortunately for us, we're the target. Capitalism can only succeed when certain people are exploited. For instance, I may produce $200 worth of products per day, but I will not see that $200 because I am forced to sell my time/labor/energy to the capitalist in exchange for $7, maybe $12 per hour. Of course, if I don't like it--I can just start my own business right? WRONG. We have moved on from that stage of capitalism, we are now in the stage of the monopoly. Even if we weren't in that stage of capitalism, there would always be a need for someone to be exploited and cheated out of the full product of their labor.


The capitalist is the one who began the company, quite possibly risking much of his personal well being to do so. Once he did the hard work involved, ie getting the ball rolling, he is able to expand. Hire more people, make more of his product, sell in more markets, etc. Yes, at this point the business begins to grow exponentially. He can go public, sell shares, and then really enter the big leagues.Uh, excuse me, he did the hard work? His employees did the work, he merely took the credit. Of course, he had to deal with the banks, and get a loan, but compared to the menial labor of his workers this was a modest effort.


For every succesfull capitalist, though there are many, many more who fail. It's not that this is good or bad, it's just what the people (ie the market) decided. The worker will get his paycheck regardless, it's low-risk. The Capitalist, however, has his whole financial situation riding on doing well.For every successful capitalist there are many exploited workers. Workers don't get paychecks regardless. I don't know where you got that notion from. Google: layoffs.

The average American worker is 1 or 2 paychecks away from homelessness.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

1. For all its apologists, Marxism has never delivered on its goals. Ever. No Marxist society has delivered the political, or economic, freedoms to the workers which it claimed it would.

Demonstrably bullshit.



Yes, several nations saw an improvement in living standards, chiefly Russia. However, this was done hastily and resulted in the deaths of millions of people during industrialization.

Try a MASSIVE improvement in living standards, and the population grew as well.



The West, on the other hand, was industrialized over a longer period of time with much less death involved.

You are joking right?



2. For all it's naysayers, Capitalism has delivered the highest standards of living to any people in the history of the species. More has been done in the name of profit than anything else.

No, it has delivered those standards of living to a small group of people when considering the world's population. Plus, just because it has theoretically done this, does not mean this is an argument against a better system.

You fail to realize that during the time of socialism, particularly in the 30s and 40s, socialism was in many ways beating capitalism.



There has been more advancement in medicine, farming, transportation, electricity, information sharing, and on and on under capitalism than anything else. No other system even comes close in the amount of technological advancement that Capitalism has given us.

There was more advancement under feudalism than in the earlier slave-master era, as well as during primitive Communism. Maybe we should go back to that?



3. To say that every member of society deserves the same amount from society is to say everybody gives an equal amount to society.

Who is saying this exactly?



They don't, and in fact shouldn't, get equal amounts from society because their labor is not equal to society.

Marx agrees. It's called Critique of the Gotha Programme; read it.

And BTW, those who do the most work in capitalism, get the least compensation.



Under capitalism, people who deliver something that is most demanded from society are the most compensated. We need doctors more than janitors, and, thereby, doctors receive better compensation. [/QUOTE

BZZZT! Wrong. The capitalist generally does not "deliver" these things in any meaningful way. The workers do that.


[quote=Joby;1060409]
4. Progress is much faster under capitalism than communism.


Did you not just admit to the Soviet Union's massive industrialization which beat out the capitalist nations by hundreds of years? Oh and despite what you might believe, with a far lower body count and with far less damage. In virtually every socialist country, industrialization outpaced capitalism in other major powers.




Because the pursuit of profit motivates people more than doing something for the 'good of society' ever could. Competition between these sources trying to make money spurs advancement even further.

Hmm...how did we get that far when for most of human existence, profit motive more or less didn't exist, and yet plenty of things were invented?



How quickly have computers, for instance, progressed? MP3's? The internet itself? It's all do to competition.

The internet was based on a military project, funded by the government. Computer research also owes a lot to the military.



Meanwhile, socialists advocate having the govt run things.

Reductionism..



It's not like their going to see a reward for that extra work their doing, so why do it?

Hmm..for some reason people are still working under capitalism despite the fact that the highest paid do the least work, and many people get no "extra reward". By contrast, under socialism people would get back what they put in in terms of labor, in either the form of direct compensation or social benefits.

[Digitalism]

Basic example to just demonstrate what's wrong with capitalism.

My mom worked as a teacher during the USSR, and she made good money, we all lived in a 3-room apartment (considered a luxury back then) she received a MONTH long vacation (tell me, what's the maximum vacation time in US? TWO WEEKS last time I heard for the WHOLE year) she was able to afford to travel ANYWHERE in the Union without having to worry about ANY expenses.

Now you've got a family in a U.S. that wants to do the same thing; you'd have to plan this trip a year in advance, save up money, pay ridiculous amount for tickets or gas if you're driving, worry about hotels (unless you've booked) then choose where you're going to eat, a buffet or a prestiguous restaurant. TELL ME. That isn't BULLSHIT. I only have ONE chance to live on this earth and I have to WORRY about my LIFE? Fuck man, USSR "Communism" model was NOT perfect hence it broke down and I'll leave the technicalities for much more KNOWLEDGABLE people to explain this to you, but I'll be, and everyone who have LIVED in the USSR lying if they said "LIFE SUCKED" during that time.

There's your example between this "communist" idea and capitalism. You only get those benefits in capitalism if you're FILTHY RICH or above standard.

[Joby]

Well quite often a lot of what they did promise was achieved. Certainly standards of living often rose sharply. But again what is our point? One "blueprint" failed? Is that the be all and end all?

Communism did allow Russia to industrialize very quickly, yes, though this resulted in millions and millions dead.

It's the only system that's been attempted in the real world, so, until another one proves its viability, yes.


Nearly all of the so called Communist states were Soviet Satellite states following exactly the same model. Or else simply attempting to implement autarky

Out of curiosity, what variety of communism do you subscribe to?


Not really. The Soviet Union's growth rates as it industrialised outpaced any capitalist country. More recently, though I don't consider China Communist, you probably do, and it is experiencing very fast growth. And socialist Venezuela is experiencing faster growtht han any of its neighbours

-The Soviet Union saw growth, yes, but even with this rate it didn't come close to the West in consumer or medical goods produced. Nor was the quality of many goods equal (ak-47s aside).

-No, I don't consider China communist. Most of that growth has been since they turned to a more capitalist economy. They like what Hong Kong does for them

-I wouldn't call Venezuela socialist, more Democratic-Socialist, though, like most Latin American countries, its infrastructure and most of it's industry was built by Capital.


But he did not add very much. If all your point is that jobs that there is a shortage in will see their pay temporarilly rise under capitalism, I fail to see how that is justification.

It's not necessarily which jobs have shortages, though we are short on doctors, it's which jobs society chooses to reward via demand. Because of the fact that these jobs are compensated better, more people will pursue them, which will raise affordability for the average person.


It was never exactly "privatized", it just grew with others wanting in on it. The notion that things tend to grow simply because they are privatized though is absurd. Look at what happened to the railways here after all.

Yes, let's look at what happened to railroads. In the 1970s, RR's were going broke. They weren't allowed to dump lines that were unprofitable, nor adjust rates to compete with truckers. Also, they weren't able to lay off the tens of thousands of workers who contributed to inefficiency.

Since the govt privatized Conrail and passed thr Staggers Act, the railroad industry has boomed. They've become lean and mean, and are now shipping millions of more tons on less fuel with less manpower needed. Also, they offer a real competitor to trucking, benefiting thousands of shippers. And, by working a deal with the unions, they are able to lay off excess employees with a handsome buyout.

Perhaps most importantly, they no longer need societys support to function.

*edit: I didn't notice your in the UK


Well what are we going to call socialist? If we use what I think is your definition, what about Yugoslavia under Tito? That had at least as much in common with what could be recognized as socialist as the Soviet Union and it did not have particularly large levels of the government running things. It worked on the basis of co-operatives competing in a market.

Either way, it was still an inferior system.


Some might call the Scandinavian social democracies socialist. Obviously not a popular definition here, but some do. THey don't have high levels of government ownership (though they have delivered far higher standards of living than more "free market" oriented countries like America

I'd call them social-democratic.

[Comrade Rage]

Communism did allow Russia to industrialize very quickly, yes, though this resulted in millions and millions dead.Other than the Ukraine famine, which I lay at the feet of the Makhnoists, how did Communism supposedly kill millions?

[Green Dragon]

[quote=Cmde. Slavyanski;1061018]He did not make his money- other people made it for him after he invested a small portion of it in some means of production.

Yes, he invested resources in some industry or other. Could have been a bad investment and lost it all.
A socialist community will also need to make such as decisions as well.








The "hard work" is done by the workers.


Somebody, somewhere, even in a socialist community, has to sit down to determine whether resources should be allocated here or there. If you wish to disregard this as "work" so be it.




And none of that happens without the government and the workers, the latter doing all the work.


And none of it happens without the above.








The capitalist is more likely to have a nest-egg saved up. It is usually very rare for a well-to-do businessman to fail and end up totally broke unless he has had some kind of judgement against him, is in massive debt, or is just incredibly stupid. Even if that happens, as one other on the forum pointed out, the worst that happens for him is that he has to work like everyone else.


Perhaps thi sis true for the "well to do businessman." It is not so true of the newbie.


As for the workers, the "low risk" is bullshit. They are literally facing homelessness and death unless they can find someone to work for and receive wages.

I think we could do less of the drama here. In the socialist community I am unaware that there would be no "stupid" decisions, or that workers will not find themselves in the situation of producing unneccessary items.

[Green Dragon]

I only have ONE chance to live on this earth and I have to WORRY about my LIFE?

If you are not going to worry about it, why should I?

[Joby]

Did you not just read what I said about this? The system that "collapsed" was in many ways a complete reversal from the system it replaced. Look at it this way:

You are building a model, you build the model based on the instructions. Now let's say you decide that despite the fact that the instructions call for using model glue, you would rather use canola oil. Well obviously this wouldn't work- because you've just gone directly against what the instructions were. In real life there is a bit more of a gray area, things can change from the model without automatically leading to a collapse. But what cannot change is the basic tenets. That is what revisionism does, it takes out the most important parts of Marxism, so that no matter what a society does it will always end up back at the same place.

Why did they revise the system? Because they wanted to knock the Union down?

They may have inadvertanly done so, as you claim, but just to clarify, are you saying that Stalinism should have been the way forward?


Wow, that would be a great way to live. Going into debt just to buy food. Or becoming an urban peasant of some sort.

Or using food stamps if you really can't afford to survive.


Yes there are a lot of things one "could" do, then there are those things that are actually possible within reason.

There are a lot of things one "could" do, but choose not to because Capitalism has solved the problem for you...for a small fee, of course.



First of all, if that were the case why hasn't this happened after decades of aid to Africa and Latin America? Also there are a couple other problems.

Because they are unable to overthrow US domination.


1. Industrialization as it occurs today usually means EPZs(Export Processing Zones). In order to lure the companies there, tax holidays are usually offered. In some cases these can be as long as 10 years without paying any taxes(while the company is benefiting from the labor of course). Often times this holiday can be renewed simply by moving the factory. Thus the promised industrialization of the third world is simply not occurring as it was claimed it would.

But the factory itself is not moved, is it? Why don't local workers run it?


2. Wherever this actually does lead to improved living standards, even if slightly, the workers there are soon outbid by a poorer nation.

This means that their economy had to have gone up. Once they are outbidded, chances are the capitalists have already invested enough there, for example, much of the infrastructure in Latin America was built with American capital.


Yes, but on the other hand, it was preferable to today, as many people who lived in that time would tell you.

In Russia, or the West?


That depends on their mode of accounting for it. Modern models would use average social labor time calculation, which is far more efficient.

What exactly is the "social labor time calculation?"


Also what you fail to realize is the serious error made in the Khruschev era when the collective farms were able to take control of their machine tractor stations. The collective farms dealt in commodities, and Stalin worked on the problem of how to increase production so that agriculture would no longer be commodity-based. Unfortunately Khruschev's policies reversed this, turning the collectives into the first capitalist enterprises in the USSR.

Khruschev probably didn't do this because he hated the USSR, he did it because the western small-farm model was much more efficient than the collectivized farms run like a factory.


Again, as long as you can pay for it.

And if not enough people are willing to, the price will fall.


Well generally it is simply advertising that says it's an "inferior product".

But it is a cheaper alternative.


Unless they are in Africa or parts of Asia of course.

Were neo-feudalism subsistence farming reign supreme.

What parts of Asia aren't you reffering to? The Capitalist nations?


Overthrow it. All attempts at reform from within have failed.

All attempts at revolution have also failed.


The existence of chance is not the same as probability. You would be much better off in a system where you knew you would get paid the full value of your work, than the rare chance that you might become a millionaire.

What determines the 'full value' of my work? Capitalism rewards people for doing something that society demands, and the highest price people are willing to pay in the current market conditions.

[Joby]

Seeing as how you ignored Slavyanski's excellent refutation of our 'argument' I'll step up to the plate.

I'm getting to all of it.


Unfortunately for us, we're the target. Capitalism can only succeed when certain people are exploited. For instance, I may produce $200 worth of products per day, but I will not see that $200 because I am forced to sell my time/labor/energy to the capitalist in exchange for $7, maybe $12 per hour.

Thin you should find a skill society demands more, thereby benefiting both yourself and society.


Of course, if I don't like it--I can just start my own business right? WRONG. We have moved on from that stage of capitalism, we are now in the stage of the monopoly. Even if we weren't in that stage of capitalism, there would always be a need for someone to be exploited and cheated out of the full product of their labor.

You could create a more efficient model for some business, and find investors who believe you're capable of making a profit.



Uh, excuse me, he did the hard work? His employees did the work, he merely took the credit. Of course, he had to deal with the banks, and get a loan, but compared to the menial labor of his workers this was a modest effort.

Many entrepreneurs are the only ones employed when they begin their business, that's what I was getting at.

But maybe there's a better term: The skilled, or brain work involved.


For every successful capitalist there are many exploited workers. Workers don't get paychecks regardless. I don't know where you got that notion from. Google: layoffs.

If you feel you are being screwed at your job, quit. Or better yet, seek education/training to make society demand your labor more.

The days of getting out of high school and finding a great job at the factory are dead and gone.

But, regadless, in all but the rarest occurances the worker will be paid for every minute he is on the job. Is the owner being paid for the hours and hours he spends at home devising new marketing or production lines?

Probably not.


The average American worker is 1 or 2 paychecks away from homelessness.

Ok, the average American worker can't keep a budget.

[Green Dragon]

With that being said, it is important to take into consideration the different "strains within Marxism". Most bourgeois sources treat "communism" or "Marxism" as single, homogeneous entities which they define and proceed to attack. They don't recognize Marxism for what it is but for what they perceive it to be and because of this they are constructing a straw man.

Marxism as political methodology as different contending schools of thought, from anarchist-leaning left communists to Marxist-Leninists to hardline Stalinists; it is a broad spectrum that cannot be homogenized without intellectual dishonesty. It is true, though, that these different ideologies contain similarities which allows us to let them fall under the banner of Marxism. Those similarities are primarily an analysis of past and present events (in general; there are disagreements about many things, but about fundamentals of captalist development they are in agreement) as well as an end goal (that of a classless, stateless society where the means of production are held in common).

The differences lie in the path from the present to that goal; the difference, then, is in how to achieve that goal.


Yes. However you are being too critical of "bourgeoise" sources in this. For the most part, they recognise the goal is the same. But they generally don't see much difference in the paths proposed.



The various revolutions we have seen which have occurred under Marxist banners all had different historical circumstances surrounding them (both objective and subjective conditions) and they had different conceptions of Marxism (explained above). Because of this, one cannot claim that because all of these revolutions were "Marxist" that they all were of the same type, as you have done above. Each one of these historical events was unique in its own ways, and to make a statement above such as you have is historical simplism to either the complete embrace of ignorance or the complete disregard of logic (or both).


The problem with this is that so frequently Monday morning quarterbacking leads many socialists/commnists/anarchists (whatever) to deny that the fellow claiming to have been a Marxist for all those years and nothing but grievous dissapointment was the result, was really a Marxist. It's something to be expected, considering that it is perfectly reasonable for a socialist to believe that HIS path is the correct path, and the other path is the incorrect path.






However, one must also recognize the problems capitalism contains as well; ignoring such problems results in a one-sided view of the issue. Capitalism creates and maintains poverty through the monopolization of capital; in order to remain competitive business owners must lower prices by increasing production, paying workers less, increasing the intensity of work workers must do, etc... Capitalism causes war through colonialist and imperialist domination. I could go on,

There is nothing wrong with a critique of capitalism. However, that critique is not a substitute for a defense of socialism.









Doctors aren't paid more than janitors because they're "more in demand". They're paid more than janitors because they cost more to produce (college, training, expertise, etc...). Even if doctors were in lower demand than janitors, they would still be paid more (probably by a huge margin, too).

Somewhat true. But then again, it takes years to train astronomers and phycists. Value to the community is a factor as well for compensation.



Communism has never existed, so this debate is impossible to have.


That is certainly true, from the view of your path...

[Joby]

Basic example to just demonstrate what's wrong with capitalism.

My mom worked as a teacher during the USSR, and she made good money, we all lived in a 3-room apartment (considered a luxury back then)

Depending on what area you live in, a lot of teachers in the US can afford a larger apartment or house.


she received a MONTH long vacation (tell me, what's the maximum vacation time in US? TWO WEEKS last time I heard for the WHOLE year)

Uh, generally teachers get 2-3 months off in the summer, 2 weeks or so at Christmas, and a week in the Spring (along with other holidays).


she was able to afford to travel ANYWHERE in the Union without having to worry about ANY expenses.

Come visit beautiful Siberia!

People who live in succesfull capitalist nations can travel anywere in the world cheaply, due to the worth of their currency.


Now you've got a family in a U.S. that wants to do the same thing; you'd have to plan this trip a year in advance, save up money, pay ridiculous amount for tickets or gas if you're driving, worry about hotels (unless you've booked) then choose where you're going to eat, a buffet or a prestiguous restaurant. TELL ME. That isn't BULLSHIT. I only have ONE chance to live on this earth and I have to WORRY about my LIFE? Fuck man, USSR "Communism" model was NOT perfect hence it broke down and I'll leave the technicalities for much more KNOWLEDGABLE people to explain this to you, but I'll be, and everyone who have LIVED in the USSR lying if they said "LIFE SUCKED" during that time.

1. It depends on what type of a vacation they want. I, for example, am content to drive a couple of hours to Austin and get some bud, shrooms, and stong drink, going to several concerts while staying with several friends at a Motel 6.

2. Most people like the variety of food choice, I know I do. Sometimes I'm happy with a double cheeseburger, sometimes I need a little more quality. Plus, I get to choose what I want, whether it be Classic American (though probably more german than anything else), Italian, French, Chinese, Indian, Mexican, Japanese, Brazilian...

3. Many people would not want the govt to give them a vacation, if it meant that every time you enter a new county it's "papers, papers please"

4. If life was good, why did they overthrow it?

[Comrade Rage]

I'm getting to all of it.



Thin you should find a skill society demands more, thereby benefiting both yourself and society.



You could create a more efficient model for some business, and find investors who believe you're capable of making a profit.




Many entrepreneurs are the only ones employed when they begin their business, that's what I was getting at.

But maybe there's a better term: The skilled, or brain work involved.



If you feel you are being screwed at your job, quit. Or better yet, seek education/training to make society demand your labor more.

The days of getting out of high school and finding a great job at the factory are dead and gone.

But, regadless, in all but the rarest occurances the worker will be paid for every minute he is on the job. Is the owner being paid for the hours and hours he spends at home devising new marketing or production lines?

Probably not.
But that will require people to be exploited.

I want to help create a new economic system where NO ONE is exploited.


Ok, the average American worker can't keep a budget.It's not that, it's that people are living without a safety-net, because they are paid so little under your dream system.

[Digitalism]

[QUOTE]Depending on what area you live in, a lot of teachers in the US can afford a larger apartment or house.

Exactly, DEPENDING on what are you live in. During those years, it wasn't "DEPENDING" on what area, everybodies salaries were humanly. There were no salary discriminations.




Uh, generally teachers get 2-3 months off in the summer, 2 weeks or so at Christmas, and a week in the Spring (along with other holidays).

I should've made it clear that I was talking about "a US family in general" not just a teacher.


Come visit beautiful Siberia!

Yes, as well as Leningrad, Moscow, Kaliningrad, Latvia, Abkhazia, Samarkand, Magadan, Riga, should I go on, because really the list just goes on.


People who live in succesfull capitalist nations can travel anywere in the world cheaply, due to the worth of their currency.

cheaply, ok - give me some numbers for these cheap tickets you speak of. Uhh...New York to Los Angeles and then maybe hit Miami on the way back then back to New York... c'mon now, I'm waiting.






1. It depends on what type of a vacation they want. I, for example, am content to drive a couple of hours to Austin and get some bud, shrooms, and stong drink, going to several concerts while staying with several friends at a Motel 6.

Well of course, "Hey kids, I know I promised to take you to Disney Land, but you see the money I was saving up...well, I just came back from court and my crazy wife, your MOTHER, blew the JUDGE so he can raise my already expensive ALIMONY FEES from $500 to $1100 so you see I had to pay it on the spot..so it seems like this vacation won't be happening and we'll just have to resort to a dinner and a movie....I'm sorry"

You're talking about these kinds of vacations? Yeah? And before you tell me those numbers are BULLSHIT, My stepdad has to pay that MONTHLY to his ex.

Americans can allow themselves to go somewhere "nice" but you're in DENIAL if you think that EVERYONE can allow themselves this piece of joy. You didn't live in the S.U. so don't mock me with your "Siberia" jokes. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE could allow themselves to go to nice places, with virtually no worries about plane tickets or any other transportation expenses. A guy can fly from Kiev to Moscow then take a ride down to Leningrad, then if he wants to...take a plane to Tashkent and back to Kiev, and still have money in his pocket.


2. Most people like the variety of food choice, I know I do. Sometimes I'm happy with a double cheeseburger, sometimes I need a little more quality. Plus, I get to choose what I want, whether it be Classic American (though probably more german than anything else), Italian, French, Chinese, Indian, Mexican, Japanese, Brazilian...

Yes. Now, can a lower-class or even middle-class family allow themselves to go to a "quality" restaurant without getting hit with a bill over a hundred dollars. I'm not talking about TWO PEOPLE, Think of a large family, each individual of which MUST be pleased. It's easy for some rich folks to go to Red Lobster (above average I'd say) and pay the bill, as well as give maybe a 10-20 tip. MOST CAN'T allow this on a daily basis. And you're denying yourself if you think that Rich folks to go out to eat every night. I think that's every human's right to be ABLE to do this.


3. Many people would not want the govt to give them a vacation, if it meant that every time you enter a new county it's "papers, papers please"

Yes, many people just want to work from 6am-8pm, come home, fall down to bed. Repeat. What's this excuse you bring up with "papers" that's all you got? Vacation is every human's right, not a measly WEEK or TWO like it seems to be the standard in this country. My mom works the office job and she comes home with tears every now and then, she hasn't had a GOOD rest in a LONG TIME. She took a "vacation" this summer, a measly WEEK, that was all. When she's sick with a headache or something else she STILL goes to work. I ask her Why do you do this to yourself and she just responds "I don't want to USE UP MY VACATION DAYS" Can you fuckin' BELIEVE THIS? She never had a problem with calling in sick to work back in those days and now she has to sacrifice her health just because she doesn't want to use up the vacation days. Unbelievable.


If life was good, why did they overthrow it?

Gorbachev.

[Digitalism]

If you are not going to worry about it, why should I?

I meant to say worrying about my survival -- which is pretty much what you have to do under this system. I didn't mean it as, "hey I just don't give a shit about this mob bar, hey lemme walk into it and get shot"

[Joby]

But that will require people to be exploited.

I want to help create a new economic system where NO ONE is exploited.

Yeah, good luck with that.


It's not that, it's that people are living without a safety-net, because they are paid so little under your dream system.

Why don't they seek to gain the skills which will make them more valuable, then?

[Joby]

Exactly, DEPENDING on what are you live in. During those years, it wasn't "DEPENDING" on what area, everybodies salaries were humanly. There were no salary discriminations.

If you live in an expensive area, you'll be compensated more under capitalism as well.


I should've made it clear that I was talking about "a US family in general" not just a teacher.

Then yes, 2 weeks paid vacation is the norm, along with sick days and at least several holidays.

Apparently, though, nobody is willing to overthrow anything on this issue alone, or any issue, for that matter.


Yes, as well as Leningrad, Moscow, Kaliningrad, Latvia, Abkhazia, Samarkand, Magadan, Riga, should I go on, because really the list just goes on.

Yes, that's wonderful, I'd like to visit parts of Russia.


cheaply, ok - give me some numbers for these cheap tickets you speak of. Uhh...New York to Los Angeles and then maybe hit Miami on the way back then back to New York... c'mon now, I'm waiting.

I meant they could go cheaply to a place with a lower currency.

New York, LA, and Miami all have strong economies, and are expensive.

Jamaica, Mexico, Brazil, Australia, All of Africa, and Cuba are all relatively cheap for people who deal with either Euros or Dollars.

Hell, if you go to Thailand or Hong Kong you can get a badass new stereo for a fraction of what you'd pay in the US.


Well of course, "Hey kids, I know I promised to take you to Disney Land, but you see the money I was saving up...well, I just came back from court and my crazy wife, your MOTHER, blew the JUDGE so he can raise my already expensive ALIMONY FEES from $500 to $1100 so you see I had to pay it on the spot..so it seems like this vacation won't be happening and we'll just have to resort to a dinner and a movie....I'm sorry"

You're talking about these kinds of vacations? Yeah? And before you tell me those numbers are BULLSHIT, My stepdad has to pay that MONTHLY to his ex.

Well, that sucks. However, society isn't responsible for giving you a nice vacation.

Learning how to have fun on a low budget is a great skill.


Americans can allow themselves to go somewhere "nice" but you're in DENIAL if you think that EVERYONE can allow themselves this piece of joy. You didn't live in the S.U. so don't mock me with your "Siberia" jokes. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE could allow themselves to go to nice places, with virtually no worries about plane tickets or any other transportation expenses. A guy can fly from Kiev to Moscow then take a ride down to Leningrad, then if he wants to...take a plane to Tashkent and back to Kiev, and still have money in his pocket.

No, not everyone can.

Another incentive for people to make more money.

Though not everyone in the US can go everywere they want, I certainly can't, most would rather have this be the case than having an inept government in charge of everything.


Yes. Now, can a lower-class or even middle-class family allow themselves to go to a "quality" restaurant without getting hit with a bill over a hundred dollars. I'm not talking about TWO PEOPLE, Think of a large family, each individual of which MUST be pleased. It's easy for some rich folks to go to Red Lobster (above average I'd say) and pay the bill, as well as give maybe a 10-20 tip. MOST CAN'T allow this on a daily basis. And you're denying yourself if you think that Rich folks to go out to eat every night. I think that's every human's right to be ABLE to do this.

No, most people probably can't afford to do this every night, I can't. But without the incentive to make money off of people, there probably wouldn't this many choices of food.

Would you rather have it like High School, were everyone pays $1.25 and gets 3 crappy choices every day?


Yes, many people just want to work from 6am-8pm, come home, fall down to bed. Repeat. What's this excuse you bring up with "papers" that's all you got? Vacation is every human's right, not a measly WEEK or TWO like it seems to be the standard in this country. My mom works the office job and she comes home with tears every now and then, she hasn't had a GOOD rest in a LONG TIME. She took a "vacation" this summer, a measly WEEK, that was all. When she's sick with a headache or something else she STILL goes to work. I ask her Why do you do this to yourself and she just responds "I don't want to USE UP MY VACATION DAYS" Can you fuckin' BELIEVE THIS? She never had a problem with calling in sick to work back in those days and now she has to sacrifice her health just because she doesn't want to use up the vacation days. Unbelievable.

She could get a less paying job, working less hours, and lower your standard of living. Instead, she obviously chooses to go in, even when she isn't feeling well, in order to keep her job. If she took more time off, that business would have a right to find someone who would be willing to work with less time off, or less pay, for that matter.

Their paying her to work, not vice-versa. But, if enough people feel the same way, they could all threaten to resign.


Gorbachev.

Really? For telling the KGB not to take people away who looked at him funny? What about all those people in East Berlin, for example, tearing down the wall? Or Yeltsin, and a lot of other people, standing on that tank?

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

If you live in an expensive area, you'll be compensated more under capitalism as well.

And if you are one of the billions of people that make your capitalist lifestyle possible in the US, you can live in a cesspool of a shantytown, or take the other route of employment, prostitution. WOW!! What wonderful CHOICES capitalism offers!!!




Then yes, 2 weeks paid vacation is the norm, along with sick days and at least several holidays.

It is the norm in Western industrialist countries in general, and it exists due to worker unity and struggle.



Apparently, though, nobody is willing to overthrow anything on this issue alone, or any issue, for that matter.

Hmm...lots of people did in the past.




Yes, that's wonderful, I'd like to visit parts of Russia.

Good, then maybe you can see what "pure capitalism" with little government restriction looks like.



I meant they could go cheaply to a place with a lower currency.

An example of exploiting the poverty of other countries.



Well, that sucks. However, society isn't responsible for giving you a nice vacation.

It's a little bigger than that.



Learning how to have fun on a low budget is a great skill.

Another great skill is creating a society where one does not have to apply "great skills" just to spend their free time somewhere.



Another incentive for people to make more money.

Aside from starvation right?




No, most people probably can't afford to do this every night, I can't. But without the incentive to make money off of people, there probably wouldn't this many choices of food.

Sure, because before capitalism there wasn't a large variety of food.



Would you rather have it like High School, were everyone pays $1.25 and gets 3 crappy choices every day?

Why does it need to be like high school? Hell if you want to go that route, you should have seen the dining facility we had at my station in the US army. Easily on par with several different US chain restaurants, and it was all free.




She could get a less paying job, working less hours, and lower your standard of living.

WOW WHAT A GREAT CHOICE!!!



Instead, she obviously chooses to go in, even when she isn't feeling well, in order to keep her job. If she took more time off, that business would have a right to find someone who would be willing to work with less time off, or less pay, for that matter.

Well guess what, that "right" is going to be taken away some day. There is no moral imperative for a business to have such "rights". The world will always be unfair in a class society; today it is unfair to the vast majority of people, tomorrow it will be unfair to a small few. No sleep will be lost over that.



Their paying her to work, not vice-versa. But, if enough people feel the same way, they could all threaten to resign.

Did you forget that people without property must work otherwise they get thrown out on the street and would go hungry? And they are not paying all of her work- it's called exploitation, look it up.




Really? For telling the KGB not to take people away who looked at him funny? What about all those people in East Berlin, for example, tearing down the wall? Or Yeltsin, and a lot of other people, standing on that tank?

What you don't mention is all the problems this has caused over the years. You probably never heard that Mr. Yeltsin used tanks to blast the parliament building, and crushed popular demonstrations. You don't hear about Communists winning elections in places like Russia, Bulgaria, and Albania- having to be rigged at the last minute by tons of aid from the US and the National Endowment for Democracy. You do not hear about how the Soviet revisionist leaders not only stopped fighting Western propaganda, but began embracing and praising it. You ignore the fact that the socialist model the Soviet Union began following after 1956 was radically different from how it had originally been set up.

[mikelepore]

Because they were the ones who earned it, they get to decide who get's it when they die.

It's not established that the capitalist "earned" anything. The capitalist somehow acquired wealth. Whether that was by means of earning or by trickery or piracy often has no effect on the subsequent process. The father of John D. Rockefeller was what we call a quack "doctor" and snake oil peddler, who acquired the family's "original increment" by going from town to town and selling harmful potions, and skipping town before the population could lynch him. Several large businesses in Las Vegas were established by the Mafia. The 3,600+ room Flamingo Hotel was estabished by gangsters Bugsy Siegal, Frank Costello and Meyer Lansky. Sometimes only victimless crimes were involved. The patriarch of the Kennedy family was a bootlegger. Sometimes the original funds came from mere manipulations or dumb luck that are completely legal, as when Bill Gates acquired his start-up money because he happened to know someone who would sell a computer program and someone else who would buy it ($80 billion isn't bad for a finder's fee, huh?). Sometimes an ongoing business gets a financial boost because workers are treated like dirt, as when a mine owner gets so much richer because the mine workers die from pneumoconiosis, the so-called black lung disease. If you want to call what the capitalist does "earning", then fine, we'll just have to make up a completely new word for what the many honest people do when they actually perform productive steps to provide society with vital goods and services -- and for doing that get punished with lifelong poverty.

[mikelepore]

Consider that claim that people should inherit great wealth from an ancestor who "earned it." Logically, if we should be rewarded for something supposedly positive that our ancestors did, wouldn't it also follow that we are responsible for any evil actions committed by our ancestors? Suppose I had a great-great-great-grandfather who was a horse thief -- in that case should I have to go to prison? No? Why not? Oh, wait a minute .... it is already the case that we are punished for the choices of our ancestors. I can't afford to allow my kids to take music lessons, and that's my punishment because of a misdeed of my great-great-grandfather. What was his actual misdeed? He failed to take his family's grocery and rent money and gamble with it on the stock market. We will just have to be punished for his choice. Real nice system.

[mikelepore]

Finally, one last thing I must mention about that generalization,


Because they were the ones who earned it, they get to decide who get's it when they die.

How odd it is to have the same rule of inheritance apply to anything that the law may classify as "private property", no matter how unlike they may be. How completely unlike is the family photograph album or a household trinket, or some other personal belonging, from an oil company or steel mill or a railroad. The first type has no only personal significance and means nothing to the organization of society, while the second type forces the whole population into a state of dependence as they rely on it for the goods as well as the jobs that they require to sustain human life. How absurd -- some personal knick-knack, and the very means of life for the species, both assigned the same legal name, "private property", and therefore treated the same way in probabe court.

As the Communist Manifesto explained:

"To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion. Capital is, therefore, not a personal, it is a social power. When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class-character."

[Kwisatz Haderach]

People who live in succesfull capitalist nations can ...
And what about the much more numerous people who live in unsuccessful and impoverished capitalist nations?


3. Many people would not want the govt to give them a vacation, if it meant that every time you enter a new county it's "papers, papers please"
You don't travel much, do you? It's always "papers, papers please" when you enter a different country, regardless of whether it's capitalist, socialist or anything else.

On the other hand, if you happen to live in the largest country in the world (the Soviet Union), that's not so much of an inconvenience.


4. If life was good, why did they overthrow it?
They didn't. The Soviet Union was destroyed from the top, not overthrown by the people. There was never a referendum on whether they should keep the USSR, and there was never a referendum on whether they should switch to capitalism.


Why don't they seek to gain the skills which will make them more valuable, then?
You talk as if it's possible for anyone to instantly train themselves to do any job and do it well. Bullshit. First of all training takes time and money which you do not have if you're poor in the first place, and second there are many jobs that I know I could never do well, no matter how much training I got.

[Digitalism]

You talk as if it's possible for anyone to instantly train themselves to do any job and do it well. Bullshit. First of all training takes time and money which you do not have if you're poor in the first place, and second there are many jobs that I know I could never do well, no matter how much training I got.

And that is a big headache for young people or students of any age in general under capitalist nations. They expect you to loan thousands of dollars from banks so that when you're finished with your education you'll be paying those off til you're 40. Whereas under socialist nations (USSR as an example) if you wanted to be an Aeronautical Engineer or a lawyer or ANYBODY, you paid NOTHING. Capitalist nations straight up RIP YOU OFF of any money you have. Tell me where is the logic in that you have to pay SO MUCH MONEY for an education that in the end run would benfit the COUNTRY the most. Instead they jack up the tuition prices almost yearly so it becomes IMPOSSIBLE to create a better life without getting neck deep into DEBTS.

[Demogorgon]

Communism did allow Russia to industrialize very quickly, yes, though this resulted in millions and millions dead.

You're argument was that it could not provide the level of growth capitalism provided, but I showed it did. That does not mean I support anything else that went on there. Talking about deaths in the purges and so forth is changing the subject


Out of curiosity, what variety of communism do you subscribe to?
I am a Trotskyist, but not a dogmatic one. At any rate I believe in democracy, including in the economic realm. That means the key feature of any economic system must be self management


-The Soviet Union saw growth, yes, but even with this rate it didn't come close to the West in consumer or medical goods produced. Nor was the quality of many goods equal (ak-47s aside). The Soviet Union started from far behind Western countries. Saying it did not catch up entirely is hardly a good argument, given the time period involved.


-No, I don't consider China communist. Most of that growth has been since they turned to a more capitalist economy. They like what Hong Kong does for them I would imagine the Chinese Elite like what goes on in Hong Kong, given the Hong Kong dictatorship has kept itself in power very efficiently indeed. Copying that system would be appealing to them, I agree. I am not sure ordinary Chinese people will agree when they find their conditions don't improve much or even get worse. Know what the Hong Kong slums are like?


-I wouldn't call Venezuela socialist, more Democratic-Socialist:confused:
though, like most Latin American countries, its infrastructure and most of it's industry was built by Capital.
Of course it was. For socialism to work, it has to follow capitalism. If there is already a capitalist basis, then that is a good sign Venezuela is close to ready for transition


It's not necessarily which jobs have shortages, though we are short on doctors, it's which jobs society chooses to reward via demand. Because of the fact that these jobs are compensated better, more people will pursue them, which will raise affordability for the average person.Not really. Society demands far more shop assistants than it does astro-physicists for instance but obviously astro-physicists are better paid. Saying society chooses to reward through demand simply ignores the fact that supply is often more important.

Speaking of which, demand and supply in the labour market is actually coming from firms demanding employees, to fulfill societies demands, that filter greatly distorts this labour market you are trumpeting on about.


*edit: I didn't notice your in the UK
Plainly you didn't. And let me assure you that it was an unmitigated disaster.

Though the American system doesn't make much better a case for privitisation. Given the subsidies the Railways get from the US Government, claiming they "no longer need societies support to function" is pretty ludicrous


Either way, it was still an inferior system.
If it were an inferior system, the former Yugoslavia would be far ebtter off than it was under socialism, would it not? The trouble is that it is not. It is worse off.

Even Slovenia which has been the most succesful since the beak up of Yugoslavia has falen behind. As part of Yugoslavia, the standard of living there was more or less identical to that over the border in Austria. It is far worse off now


I'd call them social-democratic.
So would I. At any rate, no matter what we call them, they are better off than more free market oriented countries.

[pusher robot]

Why does it need to be like high school? Hell if you want to go that route, you should have seen the dining facility we had at my station in the US army. Easily on par with several different US chain restaurants, and it was all free.

This just demonstrates in a nutshell why any kind of rational argument is futile. The food was free? You do realize that the national defense budget is the largest discretionary spending category of the U.S. government, right? You do realize that simply because you didn't have to pay for it, that it didn't just fall from the heavens, right? That it was given to you by the taxpayers of the United States? That real people had to bust real asses to work to grow the food, to process it, to ship it to you, and to plop it onto your food tray? That they might - just maybe, mind you - not be willing to do this all out of the goodness of their hearts?

The worst kind of communist is the one who whines about how unfair it is that he have to support himself, the one with an overbearing sense of entitlement that he doesn't feel obligated to give one thought to how he gets whatever he wants but demands that he gets it, the one whose cry of "why can't someone else do it?" peals forth with execrable narcissism and incalculable selfishness, the bleat of a helpless child throwing a temper tantrum.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

This just demonstrates in a nutshell why any kind of rational argument is futile. The food was free? You do realize that the national defense budget is the largest discretionary spending category of the U.S. government, right?

Hmm...I wonder what most of that money was going to- the food..or the Osprey, new bombs, F-22 fighters, missiles, wars in foreign countries in bases in roughly 130 or more countries around the world. And do you have any idea WHY that military budget is so big? Largely because private contractors charge an arm and a leg and get away with it because they are in bed with congress.



You do realize that simply because you didn't have to pay for it, that it didn't just fall from the heavens, right? That it was given to you by the taxpayers of the United States? That real people had to bust real asses to work to grow the food, to process it, to ship it to you, and to plop it onto your food tray? That they might - just maybe, mind you - not be willing to do this all out of the goodness of their hearts?

REALLY? I thought it just arrived via a dimensional portal that leads to the land of Hobbits and Gumdrop houses!!!

With all that hard work, could you tell me why those who do the least if any work in that whole process should become rich off of it?



The worst kind of communist is the one who whines about how unfair it is that he have to support himself, the one with an overbearing sense of entitlement that he doesn't feel obligated to give one thought to how he gets whatever he wants but demands that he gets it, the one whose cry of "why can't someone else do it?" peals forth with execrable narcissism and incalculable selfishness, the bleat of a helpless child throwing a temper tantrum.


Idiocy, sheer unadulterated idiocy. Communists accept work as a necessity.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

You do realize that simply because you didn't have to pay for it, that it didn't just fall from the heavens, right? That it was given to you by the taxpayers of the United States? That real people had to bust real asses to work to grow the food, to process it, to ship it to you, and to plop it onto your food tray? That they might - just maybe, mind you - not be willing to do this all out of the goodness of their hearts?
Don't be a fucking moron. To say that food should be free (for example) is to say that individual consumers should not pay for it at the point of purchase - not that food producers should not be compensated for their work.

And as an aside, I think polls have clearly demonstrated that most taxpayers in the United States are more than willing to lavish enormous amounts of money on the military.

[Dr Mindbender]

The worst kind of communist is the one who whines about how unfair it is that he have to support himself, the one with an overbearing sense of entitlement that he doesn't feel obligated to give one thought to how he gets whatever he wants but demands that he gets it, the one whose cry of "why can't someone else do it?" peals forth with execrable narcissism and incalculable selfishness, the bleat of a helpless child throwing a temper tantrum.

Most communists simply want the full production value of their own labour, nothing more, nothing less. That isnt 'incalculable selfishness', that is common sense and rational expectation.

[pusher robot]

Don't be a fucking moron. To say that food should be free (for example) is to say that individual consumers should not pay for it at the point of purchase - not that food producers should not be compensated for their work.

Well? Where is all the serious economic discussions of how such allocation decision matrices are determined without pricing markets? All I see is a lot of whining that anyone ought to have to exert any effort whatsoever to stuff their faces with the output of other peoples' work.

[Dr Mindbender]

All I see is a lot of whining that anyone ought to have to exert any effort whatsoever to stuff their faces with the output of other peoples' work.

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/02/20/donald_trump_narrowweb__300x399,0.jpg

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Well? Where is all the serious economic discussions of how such allocation decision matrices are determined without pricing markets? All I see is a lot of whining that anyone ought to have to exert any effort whatsoever to stuff their faces with the output of other peoples' work.

Average social labor time calculation, to put it in a short way. Under this system, "price" evolves from needing to do this much work for this much wages in order to buy X, and goes to work this many hours to buy the product of the same amount of work.

[Dr Mindbender]

...or simply put, each person recieves an equal share of the overall spoils of society.

Under technocracy, since no one is co-erced into menial labour there is no rationale for anyone to receive a lower incentive since all humans are trained to an equivalent skill while repetitive manufacturing/cleaning/customer service work is automated.

[mikelepore]

"Allocation decision matrices" - huh? - What is that a euphemism for?

I think it means this everyday occurrence:

Worker: "Hey, boss, we need you to sign off on one of these two proposals. There's plan A, which the financial division estimates will make profit X, and also plan B, which they estimate will make profit 2X."

Capitalist: "Enough said. Go with Plan B."

Worker: "But I didn't finish. Here are also the projections about the impact of each plan on the natural environment, workers' health and safety, consumer's health and safety, the effects on the workers' family life, various ethical issues related to truthfulness in advertising and labelling, the effects on the demographics of the neighborhood, ...."

Capitalist: "Never mind all that nonsense. You said plan B, estimated profit 2X. That's the plan we're going with. Hand me the memo that needs my signature."

[Dr Mindbender]

wow. I wish my boss even listened to my ideas.

I thought most corporate meetings were a behind-closed-doors circle jerk of beaming suntanned orang u tangs in suits cackling over their number crunching and calculating their profit:worker's wages ratios.

[Demogorgon]

Well? Where is all the serious economic discussions of how such allocation decision matrices are determined without pricing markets? All I see is a lot of whining that anyone ought to have to exert any effort whatsoever to stuff their faces with the output of other peoples' work.

Well one would have to recognise things are going to develop organically. I admit I can not right now tell you the end of the process, but I can give you a reasonable stab as to what a first stab will be.

Communism develops out of capitalism, so lets take a look at what capitalism does and see how it might be improved. Capitalism partially allocates its resources through a market mechanism (only partially mind you). You are fond of telling us that this mechanism is the best way known to distribute resources according to people's preferences. It is not as good a mechanism as you like to claim, but we will leave that aside.

We will also leave aside various other (pretty big) objections and presume for a moment that you are basically right and markets are allocating efficiently according to people's preferences. The trouble that leaps out here is take exactly the same people we have now with exactly the same preferences and put them in exactly as free a market as they are in now but simply jumble around the amount of money they all have (it doesn't have to be more equal, it could even be less equal) and the market will decide on a different way of allocating resources.

It seems to me the first step we would take towards a more equal soiety, long before money was abolished, perhaps even before capitalist modes of production were entirely abolished would simply be to ensure a more even distribution of wealth so that each person would have a much more equal say in what was produced.

Of course society already does that to an extent, but you would have welfare and social security measures largely done away with.

[R_P_A_S]

get em boys!!!! hehe.

[Joby]

"Allocation decision matrices" - huh? - What is that a euphemism for?

I think it means this everyday occurrence:

Worker: "Hey, boss, we need you to sign off on one of these two proposals. There's plan A, which the financial division estimates will make profit X, and also plan B, which they estimate will make profit 2X."

Capitalist: "Enough said. Go with Plan B."

Worker: "But I didn't finish. Here are also the projections about the impact of each plan on the natural environment,

The sue the company for polluting public land


workers' health and safety,

Then quit.


consumer's health and safety,

Buy another product.


the effects on the workers' family life,

And this is the rsponsibility of the company...because?


various ethical issues related to truthfulness in advertising and labelling,

Yeah, like Soviet propoganda :D


the effects on the demographics of the neighborhood, ...."

Is this capitalist selling crack?


Capitalist: "Never mind all that nonsense. You said plan B, estimated profit 2X. That's the plan we're going with. Hand me the memo that needs my signature."

Actually, the price matrices he was talking about are quite complex, but here's a (very) basic example.

It costs $.25 to make a donut. A company charges $.75 to sell the donut. The donut becomes popular, the company sells out, so they raise the price to $1.50. The donuts stop selling, so they lower the price to $1, a natural equilibrium were the company is able to make the most amount of donuts to make the most profit within their market.

Then, let's pretend the government gets involved and says that's an unfair price (though society has deemed that it's actually worth paying). The government proceeds to set the price of each donut at $.50. What's going to happen is the donuts will sell out, and there will be a shortage. The company no longer has an incentive to produce a superior profit, since they are limited by the government, and begin to make their donuts for $.10, which they may not sell out every day, since quality has decreased, but are still able to increase profit.

Instead of this, allowing everybody who wants to sell a donut to sell donuts would incease quality and lower the price. Those who are either overpriced, have low quality, or have insufficient marketing skills will fail.

[Joby]

And if you are one of the billions of people that make your capitalist lifestyle possible in the US, you can live in a cesspool of a shantytown, or take the other route of employment, prostitution. WOW!! What wonderful CHOICES capitalism offers!!!

And either they are satisfied, believe they can achieve something via Capitalism, or are too incompetent to overthrow the current system.


It is the norm in Western industrialist countries in general, and it exists due to worker unity and struggle.

Ok.


Hmm...lots of people did in the past.

Ok.



Good, then maybe you can see what "pure capitalism" with little government restriction looks like.

Russia had to recover, but their economy is starting to boom.


An example of exploiting the poverty of other countries.

How's it exploiting them? They were willing to sell me that product at the price they set.


It's a little bigger than that.

Yes, I know.


Another great skill is creating a society where one does not have to apply "great skills" just to spend their free time somewhere.

You don't need to have great skills to spend your free-time somewhere.


Aside from starvation right?

I'm working to put myself from school, and am not starving.


Sure, because before capitalism there wasn't a large variety of food.

To the vast majority no, there wasn't.


WOW WHAT A GREAT CHOICE!!!

And, quite simply, not my problem.


Well guess what, that "right" is going to be taken away some day. There is no moral imperative for a business to have such "rights". The world will always be unfair in a class society; today it is unfair to the vast majority of people, tomorrow it will be unfair to a small few. No sleep will be lost over that.

"Someay we'll win!!!" :rolleyes:


Did you forget that people without property must work otherwise they get thrown out on the street and would go hungry? And they are not paying all of her work- it's called exploitation, look it up.

No, I didn't forget that.

Why doesn't she move to a less expensive area, then, and make less money?

Remember, it's her choice to work where she does and live where she does.


What you don't mention is all the problems this has caused over the years. You probably never heard that Mr. Yeltsin used tanks to blast the parliament building,

Allright, why can't we do that to DC? :D

Would you rather he use tanks to run over Hungarians?


and crushed popular demonstrations.

Comapared to how many popular demonstrations the Soviets crushed?


You don't hear about Communists winning elections in places like Russia, Bulgaria, and Albania- having to be rigged at the last minute by tons of aid from the US and the National Endowment for Democracy

Either the people in these countries themselves don;t believe it, or don't think it's worth an uprising.


You do not hear about how the Soviet revisionist leaders not only stopped fighting Western propaganda, but began embracing and praising it. You ignore the fact that the socialist model the Soviet Union began following after 1956 was radically different from how it had originally been set up.

Ok.

[mikelepore]

Joby says "Then quit" ... "Buy another product". In other words, machinery has come a very long way since the days of Archimedes. And how shall we put this cornucopia to use? By having a system in which the individual's main right is the right to go without things. Not to exert intelligent control over them, but to go without them.

[mikelepore]

I don't agree with your donut example. If the cost of production is $.25, then the facility could forever make and sell them for .25. There is no reason ever to have a shortage unless somebody simply forgot to minitor the rate of shipment and respond to it by adjusting the reorder of materials.

The only reasonable price for any product is its exact cost of production, because to sell it for less than that is impossible (in the steady state), and to sell it for more than that is abusive.

An entire economic system could be established with the principle of pricing all goods and services at their exact cost of production. Profit has no useful function to society as a whole; profit has only the relative usefulness that is apparent to the few who receive it.

[mikelepore]

Me:

the effects on the workers' family life
You:

And this is the responsibility of the company...because?

I don't propose adding it to the responsibility of the company. I offer it as another one of the hundreds of reasons to condemn the economic system under which the company exists in the first place.

Similarly, if this were before 1865, I would say: I don't propose making it the responsibility of the slave master to fuss over the scars on the back of the whipped slave. Instead, I mention the injury as evidence to condemn the whole institution.

[Green Dragon]

Joby says "Then quit" ... "Buy another product". In other words, machinery has come a very long way since the days of Archimedes. And how shall we put this cornucopia to use? By having a system in which the individual's main right is the right to go without things. Not to exert intelligent control over them, but to go without them.


Well Mike, you need to now to demonstrate how, in a socialist community, a job will be all things to all people. And how a product will be all things to all people. Otherwise, as Pusher has basically said, you are living in a world of sheer fantasy.

[Green Dragon]

The only reasonable price for any product is its exact cost of production, because to sell it for less than that is impossible (in the steady state),

There is no such thing as a "steady state." there are always changes, fluctuations which occur and which a response is needed.



and to sell it for more than that is abusive.


Then how does your community judge whether that product is truly neccessary?


An entire economic system could be established with the principle of pricing all goods and services at their exact cost of production.

From where does the community obtain the resoucres to do things like, improve the product? How does the community then deal with changes in demand of the product?

[pusher robot]

[quote=mikelepore;1061779]I don't agree with your donut example. If the cost of production is $.25, then the facility could forever make and sell them for .25. There is no reason ever to have a shortage unless somebody simply forgot to minitor the rate of shipment and respond to it by adjusting the reorder of materials.
[quote]
Well, for one thing, the more materials you consume, the more scarce the remaining ones become, and the more expensive they get. For another, if you have a large donut machine that churns out 5000 donuts an hour, you can't easily increase your capacity to 6000 donuts an hour without buying another large expensive machine. And if there isn't enough demand to satisfy buying 10,000 donuts an hour, and additional 5000 donuts an hour machine cannot even be fully utilized.

Or maybe you would need to train and hire more employees to make more donute, which takes time - and of course could be diasastrous if you lived in a socialist society and could never fire them.

[FireFry]

I've noticed something ; how cowardly people like pusher robot are here at debates. The opposition has a point, and what does he do? Ignore it outright.

One might think that pusher robot has clear invested interests in the capitalist system of wealth accumulation. Of course, his image looks neatly academic and intellectual, even likening a little to George Orwell, but in the end, pusher robot fails to see the real points.

That is, property is force against natural rights. Particularly, the owned means of production. Of course, with absolute natural rights, there aren't any humans around at all, just deer and bunny rabbits and mossed trees, etc. But that's certainly not what the communists seek. The communists seek a human co-operative social organisation worldwide. Something that is better for everybody, not just those who own and kill for the production rights.

They don't have exact blue prints for revolution yet, as the communists haven't had the time, resources and neccesity for such yet. But, when they see that high time for open revolt is near, they will likely draw them up make-haste.



and of course could be diasastrous if you lived in a socialist society and could never fire them.

Isn't that the point of a socialist society -- labor shall rule .. ? That is the dictatorship of the proletariat. If the factory changes hands, to a more labor friendly owner, not a profit friendly owner .. isn't this a good thing? Do you really want laborers to go hungry? Do you really want them to not have a home or to be out on the streets?

Is this really what a civilised society wants? No, a civilised society says no to such inhuman treatment.

I hope you're beginning to see our point here, this is our solution, our socialist plan for society -- more civilised, more homely, more friendly and more tuned for the egalitarian needs of everybody. Is this really something we want to delay the arrival of? I don't think so.

Who knows, maybe you'll advance enough around here to not be restricted? Ah, but that's a vain hope....

[Lenin II]

The sue the company for polluting public land
Have you looked at the price for lawyers? All of the people I know would have to literally sell their houses to buy one. Meanwhile, the company has power and money to hire the absolute best lawyers in the business. The power is in their hands.

Then quit.
“People are starving in Africa.”
“Then move to France.”

Buy another product.
Some cannot afford to, and what makes you think there is always “another product?”

And this is the rsponsibility of the company...because?
Profession and working life have a great deal of impact on home life.

Yeah, like Soviet propaganda
So you ARE equating advertisement with Soviet propaganda?

Comapared to how many popular demonstrations the Soviets crushed?
Ah, I see. So now your best defense is to take the focus away from the subject at hand and address history. Answer the argument much?

Is this capitalist selling crack?
No, this capitalist is creating gentrification and class division that lead to the selling of crack.

It costs $.25 to make a donut. A company charges $.75 to sell the donut. The donut becomes popular, the company sells out, so they raise the price to $1.50. The donuts stop selling, so they lower the price to $1, a natural equilibrium were the company is able to make the most amount of donuts to make the most profit within their market.
And how do you know the company will follow this formula? What is to stop a company from price gouging or ripping off their customers? If major companies do this, and dominate the market, there is no alternative. If a company is the only one to provide the donuts they can name their price. But if competition finds cheaper, shittier and less healthy material to make the donuts out of, or just decides to pay their employees less, and lower their prices in order to sell more, then the company in question has to lower theirs as well. It affects the working conditions and salaries of the people as well as the quality of the product.

Then, let's pretend the government gets involved and says that's an unfair price (though society has deemed that it's actually worth paying). The government proceeds to set the price of each donut at $.50. What's going to happen is the donuts will sell out, and there will be a shortage. The company no longer has an incentive to produce a superior profit, since they are limited by the government, and begin to make their donuts for $.10, which they may not sell out every day, since quality has decreased, but are still able to increase profit.
Except this is absolute bullshit, since capitalism is a system of maximum profit at a minimum cost anyway. It has nothing to do with whether or not the government interferes or not—it is the very nature of the system to behave in a predatory manner.
I
nstead of this, allowing everybody who wants to sell a donut to sell donuts would incease quality and lower the price. Those who are either overpriced, have low quality, or have insufficient marketing skills will fail.
This is not an absolute truth. What about monopolies? What about the human aspect?

I'm working to put myself from school, and am not starving.
Three billion other people worldwide are.

To the vast majority no, there wasn't.
Do you have any evidence for this statement?

And, quite simply, not my problem.
The most capitalist statement in history, ladies and gentlemen!

[pusher robot]

Do you really want laborers to go hungry? Do you really want them to not have a home or to be out on the streets?Do you really want workers wasting resources making donuts that people don't want?

The wants and needs of society are not static. To assume that people should be able to continue doing any labor they want for as long as they want without regard to whether it is needed or wanted by society is to start with the assumption that your society is grossly wasteful of both labor and resources.

P.S. I don't consider it cowardly not to respond in detail to every point. I do have a job and can't always spend unlimited time rebutting every point. Nor do I necessarily want to disagree with every point made. Thus, I pick what I consider to be the most interesting or salient points of contention and focus on those. By the convention of debate, feel free to consider every other point provisionally conceded in this line of argument.

[Dr Mindbender]

Do you really want workers wasting resources making donuts that people don't want?



I'm sure the vast proportion of africa wouldnt say no to a donut right about now. Thanks of course, to the scarcity caused by capitalism.

[pusher robot]

That is, property is force against natural rights. Particularly, the owned means of production.
Oh? So much for materialism then? Prove to me the existence of natural rights. Show me how I can objectively verify what those rights are.


Of course, with absolute natural rights, there aren't any humans around at all, just deer and bunny rabbits and mossed trees, etc.
Are you talking about a state of nature? Men still exist in that...


But that's certainly not what the communists seek. The communists seek a human co-operative social organisation worldwide. Something that is better for everybody, not just those who own and kill for the production rights.
Right, well only idiots and primitivists don't seek societal progression. Need I point out that capitalism is by far the most progressive force in the history of the known universe that actually exists? That's why I support capitalism - because it is the most progressive force known to exist. You argue for progressive forces that exist only in theory, and which repeated attempts at application have resulted in abject failure. You'll have to forgive me for demanding more than "we'll figure out the details later."

[pusher robot]

I'm sure the vast proportion of africa wouldnt say no to a donut right about now. Thanks of course, to the scarcity caused by capitalism.

You illustrate my point. Would Africa rather have donuts or wheat? How does allowing workers to make donuts instead of wheat benefit Africa?

And scarcity isn't caused by capitalism, it's caused by the fact that there isn't an infinite amount of energy, resources, or labor at our disposal.

[Dr Mindbender]

Right, well only idiots and primitivists don't seek societal progression. Need I point out that capitalism is by far the most progressive force in the history of the known universe that actually exists? That's why I support capitalism - because it is the most progressive force known to exist. ."
thats not saying much, thanks to the stubborn reaction of pious theocrats and lassaiz faire economists that have dug their heels in at every turn to oppose equal distributions of the planet's resources.
All movements towards progressive advancements, Have been the victories won by trade unionism, and other enemies of the status quo. Shouldnt it be obvious what side of the line the neo cons and neo libs are on?
Communism is the new Darwinism!

[Dr Mindbender]

You illustrate my point. Would Africa rather have donuts or wheat? How does allowing workers to make donuts instead of wheat benefit Africa?

And scarcity isn't caused by capitalism, it's caused by the fact that there isn't an infinite amount of energy, resources, or labor at our disposal.
i think you avoided both of our points rather finely. I believe the other poster was using donuts purely as an example, and I was illustrating how misproduction and missapropriation of capitalism has clearly failed the world's most vulnerable people.

[pusher robot]

Communism is the new Darwinism!

Agreed - communism wins the Darwin Award.

[pusher robot]

i think you avoided both of our points rather finely. I believe the other poster was using donuts purely as an example, and I was illustrating how misproduction and missapropriation of capitalism has clearly failed the world's most vulnerable people.

Then don't use examples outside their context if you want make your point clear.

If your point is that it is specifically capitalism's failure to "deliver the goods" in Africa, I have to disagree:
- Much of Africa is not capitalist
- The parts of Africa that exhibit capitalism are the most prosperous parts
- While still poor, African poverty has declined as global capitalism has increased
- No other systems have succeeded in "delivering the goods"

[Dr Mindbender]

Agreed - communism wins the Darwin Award.
i think you misunderstood the point of my metaphor.

Cant say I'm surprised, really.

[Dr Mindbender]

goods" in Africa, I have to disagree:
- Much of Africa is not capitalist
Much? The vast proportion of Africa is capitalist, at the behest of the terms of western banks. Those countries where they have embraced the free market with most gusto, have seen perhaps the most rampant difference between 'winners' and 'losers'.


- The parts of Africa that exhibit capitalism are the most prosperous parts

GDP is not necessarilly a reliable reflection of average living standards.


- While still poor, African poverty has declined as global capitalism has increased
Again see above...


- No other systems have succeeded in "delivering the goods"
Not for lack of trying to implement the other systems, whenever other systems have tried they are met with brute force. The Angolan communists were set back enormously with the conflict against Apartheid South Africa and the internal US backed political opponents.
Wasnt really a fair chance, was it?

[pusher robot]

i think you misunderstood the point of my metaphor.

Cant say I'm surprised, really.


JOKE ---> *

///WHOOOOOSH///

YOU ---> o_O

The grain of truth in my joke is that if communism is so consistently unable to compete with capitalism, such that it can only succeed if capitalism is wiped out everywhere, then it would by Darwinian logic be inferior. This is the case even if communism really were better, because natural selection seeks Nash equilibria (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionarily_stable_strategy), not Pareto optima.

[pusher robot]

Much? The vast proportion of Africa is capitalist, at the behest of the terms of western banks. Those countries where they have embraced the free market with most gusto, have seen perhaps the most rampant difference between 'winners' and 'losers'.

No, I cannot agree. There is more to being a capitalist society than participating in a market. Most African countries lack such basic foundations of capitalism as equal protection of property rights, an impartial civil justice system, a free or well-regulated monetary policy, and, worst of all, basic domestic security.



GDP is not necessarilly a reliable reflection of average living standards.

You're the one who brought up GDP.


Wasnt really a fair chance, was it?

Evolution is not fair.

[Dr Mindbender]

No, I cannot agree. There is more to being a capitalist society than participating in a market. Most African countries lack such basic foundations of capitalism as equal protection of property rights, an impartial civil justice system, a free or well-regulated monetary policy, and, worst of all, basic domestic security.
I dont see why any of those latter properties are prerequistes of capitalism.

The united states (the world's textbook example of capitalism) regards and applauds many ideaolgues and states as respectable states, many of whom flout 'property' rights, civil justice or domestic security.

In fact the USA isnt exactly innocent, if you regard things like access to education and healthcare at point of demand as 'civil justice' or 'domestic security'.




You're the one who brought up GDP.

Evolution is not fair.
Evolution isnt a political ideaology over which we have control of.

[pusher robot]

I dont see why any of those latter properties are prerequistes of capitalism.

The united states (the world's textbook example of capitalism) regards and applauds many ideaolgues and states as respectable states, many of whom flout 'property' rights, civil justice or domestic security.

In fact the USA isnt exactly innocent, if you regard things like access to education and healthcare at point of demand as 'civil justice' or 'domestic security'.

The USA is not the sine qua non of capitalism.

"Civil justice" refers to the civil courts system, where you can sue people, as opposed to the criminal justice system, which punishes crime.

"Domestic security" refers to simple absence of armed conflict.



Evolution isnt a political ideaology over which we have control of.
You do not, in fact, control other peoples' politics. They do.

[Dr Mindbender]

The USA is not the sine qua non of capitalism.

"Civil justice" refers to the civil courts system, where you can sue people, as opposed to the criminal justice system, which punishes crime.

"Domestic security" refers to simple absence of armed conflict.
.
Ah, so you dont so much mean 'justice' or 'security' as much as you mean the 'defence of the status quo'.

One and the same.



You do not, in fact, control other peoples' politics. They do.
I didnt say i did, but it was an entirely different concept to what you were comparing.

[mikelepore]

Well Mike, you need to now to demonstrate how, in a socialist community, a job will be all things to all people. And how a product will be all things to all people. Otherwise, as Pusher has basically said, you are living in a world of sheer fantasy.

"All things to all people" -- I can't accept a challenge to demonstrate something that's written in the form of poetic metaphor. If you can be more literal, I will better understand what you mean.

I didn't belittle the need to have a very large variety of jobs as well as a very large variety of products for people to choose. I belittled the suggestion that "choose something else" is the remedy to situations in which health and safety are often sacrificed to the profit motive.

Look at what "choose something else" actually does. General Electric poisoned the Hudson River with PCB. Okay, I can choose not to eat the fish from that source. The logging business in the U.S. has the greatest accident rate, with 110 per 100,000 workers killed on the job. Okay, if I had intentions to choose that career I will reconsider. Until the law forced them, the car companies refused to install seat belts. Well, instead of using cars we could choose to ride bicycles. We could continue all day making such a list. The suggestion to "choose something else" is to make life a perpetual sequence of retreat, retreat, retreat. It is to run away from problems instead of correcting them. That isn't the best of all conceivable systems.

A nonprofit economic system managed by workers' representative will also have problems, but it will have problems incidentally. Capitalism produces problems systematically.

[mikelepore]

Then how does your community judge whether that product is truly neccessary?

I believe that the rule "the more consumers buy, the more we'll make --the fewer they buy, the fewer we'll make" is one of the things that capitalism does correctly. Any possible economic system, including socialism, will also have to do that.

In other words, I reject the theory that market prices convey necessary "information" (Mises, Hayek, et al.). I assert that the useful information is in how fast local stores reorder each part number from manufacturing sites. If all prices were the exact cost of production, the necessary information would still be conveyed.

[pusher robot]

Ah, so you dont so much mean 'justice' or 'security' as much as you mean the 'defence of the status quo'.

One and the same.


No, I meant "absence of armed conflict." Armed conflict is, sadly, the very status quo too often defended in Africa.

[mikelepore]

Me: "pricing all goods and services at their exact cost of production." You: "From where does the community obtain the resoucres to do things like, improve the product?"

Administration, expansion, improvement, etc. are parts of the cost of production. (Discussed in detail by Karl Marx in section 3 of his pamphlet "Critique of the Gotha Programme", available online at marxists.org)

[mikelepore]

Well, for one thing, the more materials you consume, the more scarce the remaining ones become, and the more expensive they get. For another, if you have a large donut machine that churns out 5000 donuts an hour, you can't easily increase your capacity to 6000 donuts an hour without buying another large expensive machine. And if there isn't enough demand to satisfy buying 10,000 donuts an hour, and additional 5000 donuts an hour machine cannot even be fully utilized.

Okay. But the subject came up after someone mentioned shortages. I thought that someone was about to relate the debate of capitalism versus socialism to the problem of shortages. Today private investors buy the donut machines. I would prefer that society as a whole allocate the donut machines. I don't see how your remarks connect to the topic.

[pusher robot]

Okay. But the subject came up after someone mentioned shortages. I thought that someone was about to relate the debate of capitalism versus socialism to the problem of shortages. Today private investors buy the donut machines. I would prefer that society as a whole allocate the donut machines. I don't see how your remarks connect to the topic.

Put simply, as long as scarcity exists, consumption is not equal to demand because measuring consumption alone doesn't factor in the tradeoff costs of the resources used in that consumption that could have been used elsewhere.

[Tungsten]

thats not saying much, thanks to the stubborn reaction of pious theocrats and lassaiz faire economists that have dug their heels in at every turn to oppose equal distributions of the planet's resources.
All movements towards progressive advancements, Have been the victories won by trade unionism, and other enemies of the status quo. Shouldnt it be obvious what side of the line the neo cons and neo libs are on?
Communism is the new Darwinism!

A global wealth redistribution program would result in a massive reduction in living standards in the first world. How the hell is that a "progressive advancement"? Which people, besides morons, are going to vote themselves a lower standard of living?


Not for lack of trying to implement the other systems, whenever other systems have tried they are met with brute force. The Angolan communists were set back enormously with the conflict against Apartheid South Africa and the internal US backed political opponents.
Wasnt really a fair chance, was it?
Not a fair chance of what? Replacing one brutally installed, brutally implemented regime with another?

[Green Dragon]

I believe that the rule "the more consumers buy, the more we'll make --the fewer they buy, the fewer we'll make" is one of the things that capitalism does correctly. Any possible economic system, including socialism, will also have to do that.


Yes. Its production will have to be geared to satisfying the needs and wants of people who want need those products. Production constantly be shifting in order to adjust to shifting demand.

But this means the concerns of the workers in those various enterprises must be of secondary concern. The workers have to be able and willing to adjust their production, their modes of work, to accomodate these adjustments.

Which complicates that earlier scenario of yours involving Plans A and B.



In other words, I reject the theory that market prices convey necessary "information" (Mises, Hayek, et al.). I assert that the useful information is in how fast local stores reorder each part number from manufacturing sites. If all prices were the exact cost of production, the necessary information would still be conveyed.


A local store is the customer of the manufacturing sire. That manufacturing site is a customer of whomever supplies it with its raw materials. And so on.
Why should, say, the steel workers choose Customer A over Customer B when both want the steel? What informs the steelworkers that the community is better served by choosing one over the other?

[Green Dragon]

I didn't belittle the need to have a very large variety of jobs as well as a very large variety of products for people to choose. I belittled the suggestion that "choose something else" is the remedy to situations in which health and safety are often sacrificed to the profit motive.


How does logging suddenly become safer in a socialist community? What is it about socialism that makes the use of saws and large, heavy objects falling less dangerous?


The suggestion to "choose something else" is to make life a perpetual sequence of retreat, retreat, retreat. It is to run away from problems instead of correcting them. That isn't the best of all conceivable systems.

Nobody says not to retreat from problems. You choose to live life in a glass bubble. So be it. Auto companinies are marketing their cars as being safer than the other guys. "Choose something else" is being responded to.



A nonprofit economic system managed by workers' representative will also have problems, but it will have problems incidentally.
[/QUOTE]

How so?

[mikelepore]

Put simply, as long as scarcity exists, consumption is not equal to demand because measuring consumption alone doesn't factor in the tradeoff costs of the resources used in that consumption that could have been used elsewhere.

Are we talking here about choosing development projects, and product specifications? Those kinds of decisions have to be made but they don't have to be financial. It could be technical or scientific policy, or ethical choice, aesthetic choice, or cultural preference. To put the Hubble telescope into orbit was a scientific goal. To make children Raggedy Ann dolls is a cultural value. But the "design space" problem is the most revealing. It is a technical skill to minimize one list of design parameters and maximize another list. When computer developers try to maximize speed and minimize energy consumption, those goals conflict with each other, and a compromise is found. Financial measurements are not used at all to do that. Financial considerations were used to generate the reason why they were instructed to do it in the first place, why the word was handed down to the team to develop a more-speed less-energy computer. Since the "how" process uses only technical variables, and it has been the "why" process that considers sale with a view to profit, then public policy is sufficient to provide the "why", while "how" continues as before.

Another example, using the most plentiful material that meets specs, for example, using gold for electrical wiring where necessary, but copper where acceptable. You don't really need a cost analysis to tell the team that this is the rule. A panel of geologists could have quantified the relative abundances of those elements and would have made exactly the same rule.

To go back on the offensive for a moment, I have to point out that the concept of opportunity cost under capitalism may not allocate funds in the way the majority of the people would have chosen if they were actually asked about it. Suppose we were to ask people this: biologists and geneticists are currently being employed to develop such cutesy products as square tomatoes and blue roses -- do you believe that it would be better if that same amount of effort were instead going to try to find a cure for some disease as childhood leukemia? I do believe that most people would say yes to that. But capitalism doesn't use the simple action of directly asking the people about such policy. Socialism can actually ask people, because, just as the realm of passing laws is a republic, socialism seeks to have industry also become a republic.

[Joby]

[/QUOTE]
Have you looked at the price for lawyers? All of the people I know would have to literally sell their houses to buy one. Meanwhile, the company has power and money to hire the absolute best lawyers in the business. The power is in their hands.

If damaging the environment was dealed via litigation instead of the big-govt pay-to-pollute programs, many lawyers would be willing to take them on.


“People are starving in Africa.”
“Then move to France.”

"Then stop shooting people because they're from a different tribe."

How can a place expect people to invest their money somewhere, thereby bringing in new farming technologies, infrastructure, jobs, money, and growth....If the entire continent is a DMZ?

Better yet, why should I be forced to work for these people?


Some cannot afford to, and what makes you think there is always “another product?”

If a company charges too much above the natural equilibrium, for a product, a competitor will normally emerge addressing this market need.

Unless, of course, this is a government-subsidized industry.


Profession and working life have a great deal of impact on home life.

Once again, why is it the employers fault that someone who chose to work for them doesn't lik their job?


Ah, I see. So now your best defense is to take the focus away from the subject at hand and address history. Answer the argument much?

If, being a capitalist, I have to be responsibility for all 'capitalists,' like Yeltsin, despite my political beliefs, you would accept rsponsibility, within the debate, of all 'socialists,' right?


No, this capitalist is creating gentrification and class division that lead to the selling of crack.

Yes, blame the capitlist...

Is it the buyers fault...at all?


And how do you know the company will follow this formula? What is to stop a company from price gouging or ripping off their customers?

The donut shop down the street.


If major companies do this, and dominate the market, there is no alternative.

The worst examples of this are when the government gets involved, with either regulation of subsidation.


If a company is the only one to provide the donuts they can name their price.

If enough people want donuts, a competitor will emerge.

If people don't want to pay that much for them, the price will fall once the company feels the pain.


But if competition finds cheaper, shittier and less healthy material to make the donuts out of, or just decides to pay their employees less, and lower their prices in order to sell more, then the company in question has to lower theirs as well.

No, there are many companies which stress quality, their better working standards, or brand name in order to sell -- Not Price.

Which is why you can get Apple Squares for much less than Apple Jacks.


It affects the working conditions and salaries of the people as well as the quality of the product.

Not if the market will accept it.


Except this is absolute bullshit, since capitalism is a system of maximum profit at a minimum cost anyway. It has nothing to do with whether or not the government interferes or not—it is the very nature of the system to behave in a predatory manner.

When the government interferes, prices usually rise because the market is being altered unnaturally.


This is not an absolute truth. What about monopolies?

Like the monopoly big pharma has the Amrican people, due to the FDA?


What about the human aspect?

Lower prices, more jobs, and more competition will benefit most people.


Three billion other people worldwide are.

They're not my kids.

[Joby]

Okay. But the subject came up after someone mentioned shortages. I thought that someone was about to relate the debate of capitalism versus socialism to the problem of shortages. Today private investors buy the donut machines. I would prefer that society as a whole allocate the donut machines. I don't see how your remarks connect to the topic.

Rob doesn't like donuts, why should Rob have to work for other people tastes?

[Joby]

I didn't belittle the need to have a very large variety of jobs as well as a very large variety of products for people to choose. I belittled the suggestion that "choose something else" is the remedy to situations in which health and safety are often sacrificed to the profit motive.

Unless someone deems that it is worth spending more to have a safer product.

The other may be less saf, but it will be moe affordable.


Look at what "choose something else" actually does. General Electric poisoned the Hudson River with PCB. Okay, I can choose not to eat the fish from that source.

New York could choose to sue GE for the damages.


The logging business in the U.S. has the greatest accident rate, with 110 per 100,000 workers killed on the job. Okay, if I had intentions to choose that career I will reconsider.

Yet when thousands of loggers lost their jobs due to Federal regulation, their increased saftey didn't make them happy to stay safe at home.


Until the law forced them, the car companies refused to install seat belts. Well, instead of using cars we could choose to ride bicycles.

Yes, you could choose to save immense amounts of money and ride a bike.

Or have bought a Volvo, if safety was a big issue for you.


We could continue all day making such a list. The suggestion to "choose something else" is to make life a perpetual sequence of retreat, retreat, retreat. It is to run away from problems instead of correcting them. That isn't the best of all conceivable systems.

People budgeting and deciding what their own priorities are is the best system, which isn't something we have, completely, in the West.

[Dr Mindbender]

A global wealth redistribution program would result in a massive reduction in living standards in the first world. How the hell is that a "progressive advancement"? Which people, besides morons, are going to vote themselves a lower standard of living?
Your point would be a good one, If only for the fact that it is untrue. Even in the first world, (official stats for the UK prove this true) the wealthiest 20% control and recieve 80% of the country's economy. I remember reading somewhere that as few as 300 individuals control 50% of the world's wealth. So even in the first world, ordinary people would massively benefit. You can only argue against that, if you are a moron or/and an MIMite.



Not a fair chance of what? Replacing one brutally installed, brutally implemented regime with another?
I will assume I'm talking to an expert in Angolan history so I will not enter more detailed debate, but communist revolutions are not set up with the intention of brutalising those who partook in them.

[Dr Mindbender]

Rob doesn't like donuts, why should Rob have to work for other people tastes?
hmm i can see this applied to a present-day supermarket scenario-

Boss- ''hey those soup tins arent stacked, why not?''

tin stacker- ''they're tomato flavour''

Boss- ''So what''

tin stacker- ''I don't like tomato- why should I work for other people's tastes?''

[pusher robot]

Your point would be a good one, If only for the fact that it is untrue. Even in the first world, (official stats for the UK prove this true) the wealthiest 20% control and recieve 80% of the country's economy. I remember reading somewhere that as few as 300 individuals control 50% of the world's wealth. So even in the first world, ordinary people would massively benefit. You can only argue against that, if you are a moron or/and an MIMite.


But most of that wealth is in intangible assets that will lose their value if property rights are destroyed. So you should properly be looking at a materialistic metric like GDP per capita. "Moron" indeed.

[pusher robot]

hmm i can see this applied to a present-day supermarket scenario-

Boss- ''hey those soup tins arent stacked, why not?''

tin stacker- ''they're tomato flavour''

Boss- ''So what''

tin stacker- ''I don't like tomato- why should I work for other people's tastes?''

Are we assuming that the tin-stacker is not otherwise compensated? Because the answer to his question at the end is obviously, in a capitalist society, "the compensation you receive makes it in your own best interest to do so." What would the communist's answer be? I genuinely do not know.

[mikelepore]

A local store is the customer of the manufacturing sire. That manufacturing site is a customer of whomever supplies it with its raw materials. And so on.

Agreed.


Why should, say, the steel workers choose Customer A over Customer B when both want the steel?

I don't understand your question. Industry doesn't choose customers; customers choose industries. If you are asking whether I care whether people acquire things factory-direct instead of going through a local store, no, I don't care.


What informs the steelworkers that the community is better served by choosing one over the other?

By default, manufacturing should just make the quantities of each thing needed to fill all orders received from all users, for both industrial use and personal use. That default should be overridden when a public referendum or the people's elected representatives enact a policy to do otherwise, e.g., discontinue asbestos as an insulation, discontinue DDT as a pesticide, etc.

I would also like a system in which public referendums or the acts of elected representatives can make certain product features mandatory, e.g., be it resolved that the oil filter in an automobile must be located behind an access door on the side of the vehicle, so that people won' t have to crawl on the ground in a tight space to reach it. If the society adopts that, it gets transmitted directly to the engineers as one of the many design criteria that the engineers have to satisfy.

[Dr Mindbender]

But most of that wealth is in intangible assets that will lose their value if property rights are destroyed. So you should properly be looking at a materialistic metric like GDP per capita. "Moron" indeed.
Define 'property' rights, If you refer to the FAQ, it says we oppose ownership of the means of capital, not personal property, like your home or car.

As a rule of thumb, those 20% control the means of production which is essential to the survival of pretty much everyone, so those assets scarcely lose their value regardless of the economic system or ruling ideaology.

Yes, ''moron'' indeed.

[Dr Mindbender]

Are we assuming that the tin-stacker is not otherwise compensated? Because the answer to his question at the end is obviously, in a capitalist society, "the compensation you receive makes it in your own best interest to do so." What would the communist's answer be? I genuinely do not know.
non-technocratic communists would argue ''for pretty much the same reasons as under capitalism, he has to work to eat''.

I was merely pointing out the inconsistency of the original analogy.

[mikelepore]

How does logging suddenly become safer in a socialist community? What is it about socialism that makes the use of saws and large, heavy objects falling less dangerous?

In my opinion, the most important factor is the workers being authorized to change the completion date of any task whenever they encounter obstacles that could impose danger. Here's an interesting fact. A total of fourteen workers were killed in all of the job site accidents in the construction of the Empire State Building. The owners of the construction company were rather coldblooded in the way they described that loss as a price that was necessary to pay for building it quickly. They were just pleased that the building went up in only one year and 45 days. Later, the owners of the construction company that put up the Chrysler Building were more enlightened. They came right out and told their employees to slow down. At that site one worker was killed in an accident.

We know of many disasters that occured because of managers giving importance to deadlines instead of safety. Chernobyl. The space shuttle Challenger. (Even the sinking of the Titanic!)

[mikelepore]

Joby,

Me: "General Electric poisoned the Hudson River with PCB." You: "New York could choose to sue GE for the damages."

Pollution kills people, so the correct name of the action is murder. The racketeering law says that all members of a criminal organization are responsible for its crimes. So why did you suggest civil action? Why not give each of the corporation's stockholders life in prison for premeditated murder?

I'm not really suggesting that either. (The response that I'm suggesting is that all their property rights should be declared null and void.)

But the so-often-heard suggestion (usually heard from the so-called Libertarians) that capitalists who have committed premeditated murder therefore deserve to "get sued" speaks volumes about the class nature of concepts of justice.

[pusher robot]

Define 'property' rights, If you refer to the FAQ, it says we oppose ownership of the means of capital, not personal property, like your home or car.

As a rule of thumb, those 20% control the means of production which is essential to the survival of pretty much everyone, so those assets scarcely lose their value regardless of the economic system or ruling ideaology.

Yes, ''moron'' indeed.

*Sigh* Take Bill Gates for example, one of the larger holders of wealth in the U.S. Is his wealth in material goods? Precious metals? Land? Production machinery? No. It's in equities; shares of profit-making enterprises (primarily Microsoft) that have value precisely because they bought and sold and pay dividends from profits. Elimiate profits, eliminate shareholding, and Bill Gates' fabulous wealth evaporates; it literally disappears without a trace.

[Green Dragon]

I don't understand your question. Industry doesn't choose customers; customers choose industries.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. Yes, Customer A and B both need steel (for whatever venture) and approach the steel workers for steel. Upon what basis should the steel workers allocate the product of their labor?





By default, manufacturing should just make the quantities of each thing needed to fill all orders received from all users,

So whenever someone says he or she needs a computer, it is must be produced by the computer workers? Somebody asks for a new chair... the same.
In your other note, you suggest "slow and steady always wins the race." But how does one slowly produce goods, when any requested good must be furnished? There are limits to the numbers of workers, the length of the day ect.




I would also like a system in which public referendums or the acts of elected representatives can make certain product features mandatory, e.g., be it resolved that the oil filter in an automobile must be located behind an access door on the side of the vehicle, so that people won' t have to crawl on the ground in a tight space to reach it. If the society adopts that, it gets transmitted directly to the engineers as one of the many design criteria that the engineers have to satisfy.
[/QUOTE]

Sounds like somebody has completed some car maintenance of late...
But okay. But what about the trade-offs?

[Green Dragon]

[quote=mikelepore;1063133]In my opinion, the most important factor is the workers being authorized to change the completion date of any task whenever they encounter obstacles that could impose danger.

So, production is not set by "default" to whatever somebody asks for.
Fair enough.

[Green Dragon]

but communist revolutions are not set up with the intention of brutalising those who partook in them.
[/QUOTE]

Perhaps not (at least of those partook in them. The opponents are of course a different issue and can be quite freely and ethusiastically brutalised).

But it does seem that is its RESULTS, that ALL people are brutalised.

Why is that?

[Robert]

deleted, double post

[Robert]

Why? Because the people don't want communism. Like this poor guy:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/TankMan2.jpg

[Joby]

hmm i can see this applied to a present-day supermarket scenario-

Boss- ''hey those soup tins arent stacked, why not?''

tin stacker- ''they're tomato flavour''

Boss- ''So what''

tin stacker- ''I don't like tomato- why should I work for other people's tastes?''

You said that society should pay for the means to create donuts, and what I pointed out is that means someone who doesn't like donuts will have to work (at whatever job) and be taxed/not paid on behalf of people who like donuts.

The person working at a grocery store is paid to make whatever display his boss tells him to.

[Joby]

Joby,

Me: "General Electric poisoned the Hudson River with PCB." You: "New York could choose to sue GE for the damages."

Pollution kills people, so the correct name of the action is murder.

If you can prove that GE knowingly dumped the waste into the river, that it was the cause of death for somebody, and that GE did it with the intent to kill, then yes.


The racketeering law says that all members of a criminal organization are responsible for its crimes. So why did you suggest civil action? Why not give each of the corporation's stockholders life in prison for premeditated murder?

For the same reason I don't think every member of the Soviet government should have been imprisoned for the KGB's crimes. The stockholders may not have known about the pollution. If you can prove they did, and didn't say anything, then they would be liable.


I'm not really suggesting that either. (The response that I'm suggesting is that all their property rights should be declared null and void.)

But the so-often-heard suggestion (usually heard from the so-called Libertarians) that capitalists who have committed premeditated murder therefore deserve to "get sued" speaks volumes about the class nature of concepts of justice.

If I buy a product from someone, and it turns out that it was stolen and the original owner was killed, I can be arrested. easily.

By your conception, everybody who bought a product made by GE should be liable, since they are the ones who keep these bunch of murderers in business.

[mikelepore]

Customer A and B both need steel (for whatever venture) and approach the steel workers for steel. Upon what basis should the steel workers allocate the product of their labor?

There should be no problem supplying all customers, unless it involves materials that are limited for physical reasons, like if it were diamonds instead of steel that we were talking about.

Only speaking for myself now [other socialists always beat me up for saying this] I believe that socialism can function only if workers are paid by the hour as a material incentive. I don't want any of that altruism nonsense. So there would be no problem with having to induce the workers to supply this or that recipient. Instead the problem becomes one of the occasional need to induce more (or fewer) workers to choose to work in the steel department instead of some other department. If that happens, I think material incentives would be justified, if limited, something like today's 10% bonus paid for second shift. I'm against some people receiving incomes that are numerous times the incomes of someone else, but I'm not against small percentages added to incomes as incentives and rewards wherever it may be found to be useful or necessary.


So whenever someone says he or she needs a computer, it is must be produced by the computer workers? Somebody asks for a new chair... the same.

Same answer. The workers wouldn't be imposed upon somehow because the users order goods. The workers should be compensated by the hour, and what users buy would be built into the regular schedule.


In your other note, you suggest "slow and steady always wins the race." But how does one slowly produce goods, when any requested good must be furnished? There are limits to the numbers of workers, the length of the day ect.

I think that's the same issue. There doesn't have to be a limit to the number of workers, only the need to choose some method to inspire workers to transfer from one department to another as the work schedule requires it.

The length of the day is no problem. A four hour workday and a three day workweek should always be long enough after all of the types of work that capitalism makes "necessary" but which are actually pure waste are abolished.


Sounds like somebody has completed some car maintenance of late...

No, I'm just so obsessive that when I acquire pet peeves I carry them for years and years.


But okay. But what about the trade-offs?

What else for instance?

[mikelepore]

Joby,

Actually GE didn't dump the PCB into the river, nor did they have the intent to kill. What actually happened was, they decided to pick a place to store their rusty, leaky tanks. Not to fix or replace them, just store them. And out of all the places in the world to pick, they chose the bank of a river.

We can say that's not the intent to poison anyone -- but likewise we could also say ...

... and when the owner of the chicken processing plant in North Carolina in 1991 locked the fire exits, he didn't meant for anyone to get harmed. The 25 workers who died in the fire, well, I'm sorry but accidents do happen. [By the way, that's a recurrent pattern - 213 workers killed in toy factory file in Bangkok in 1994 due to locked fire exits. In 1911, 141 workers killed in a clothing factory fire in Washington due to locked fire exits. Accidents are such a nuisance.]

... and Timothy McVeigh only decided to commit vandalism in Oklahoma City, and the 168 deaths that accompanied it were accidental.

_____________

Mom: You hit your brother in the eye!
Little girl: But it was an accident!
Mom: It was?
Little Girl: Yes. I meant to punch him in the nose.

[mikelepore]

The stockholders may not have known about the pollution.

Right! The stockholders are removed from the production process. They don't give it oversight or wisdom or any other of the graces they could contribute if they were anywhere around. The capitlaists discovered long ago that the Edison-type proprietor was unnecessary and could be replaced by a system of management by elected committee. So when people ask us, "How do you know socialism would work?" - the answer is: the prerequisite for it, sufficient testing of the idea of replacing the omniscient capitalist by management by elected committee has already been performed. Who performed that test that verified that socialism would work? The capitalists did.

[mikelepore]

Now here is a case of an actual intent to kill. In the case of the Ford Pinto, when the crash tests made the exploding gas tank become apparent so soon before full production was all set to begin, the management did a financial sizing. They compared an estimate of 180 people being burned to death, resulting in estimated court awarded damages of $50 million dollars, to the alternative of fixing the gas tank, at a cost of $11 per vehicle multiplied by eleven million vehicles, for a total cost of $121 million. Since $50 million is less than $121 million, they gave the instruction to use the exploding gas tank. In case anyone was daydreaming just now, I'll say that again. The management consciously decided to have the car include an exploding gas tank. -- Wheh! We were lucky, because, as it later turned out, only 21 people were burned to death because of the decision.

[Tungsten]

Your point would be a good one, If only for the fact that it is untrue. Even in the first world, (official stats for the UK prove this true) the wealthiest 20% control and recieve 80% of the country's economy. I remember reading somewhere that as few as 300 individuals control 50% of the world's wealth.
But they don't control the world's wealth, they control their wealth. They don't really control yours or mine.

And if I remember rightly, the average gross national income per capita for the world works out at roughtly $8,000 a year.

So even in the first world, ordinary people would massively benefit. You can only argue against that, if you are a moron or/and an MIMite.
No they wouldn't because there's a knock-on effect of all people being better-off: prices go up to match. Plus, there's the problem of money going to places its not needed or non-productive. Can a steel mill be run on $8000 a year? Can a farmer run a farm for that price too? Have fun in the ensuing famine. I hope you're not expecting everyone to comprimise their newly achieved equality just so they can eat.

I will assume I'm talking to an expert in Angolan history so I will not enter more detailed debate, but communist revolutions are not set up with the intention of brutalising those who partook in them.
Oh yes, and what about those who don't partake in them?

[mikelepore]

Why? Because the people don't want communism. Like this poor guy:

[inserted the 1989 Tank Man photo from Tiananmen Square]

Something makes me suspect that this poor guy was protesting the lack of freedom of speech or freedom or religion or something like that.

I don't suspect that he was thinking: "We must have private ownership of the means of production by investors who act with a view to profit!"

[Colonello Buendia]

seconded

[Dr Mindbender]

But they don't control the world's wealth, they control their wealth. They don't really control yours or mine.
Yes they do control my wealth. My employer pays me £40 a day, but in reality I'm probably making £70-£80 a day for him so in reality I'm paying him at least £30 a day to tell me to work harder.

It reminds me of that cartoon of the capitalist trying to justify his profits and ends up saying ''shhh he'll hear you''. Cant find it right now sadly.


And if I remember rightly, the average gross national income per capita for the world works out at roughtly $8,000 a year.
It would be far greater than that, if the vast majority of the world werent a socio economically disadvantaged shithole without the same opportunities as the developed world.


No they wouldn't because there's a knock-on effect of all people being better-off: prices go up to match. Plus, there's the problem of money going to places its not needed or non-productive. Can a steel mill be run on $8000 a year? Can a farmer run a farm for that price too? Have fun in the ensuing famine. I hope you're not expecting everyone to comprimise their newly achieved equality just so they can eat.
take away privatised means of production, nationalise all industries then people can vote in a responsible mechanism of valuation for goods. Catastrophe averted.


Oh yes, and what about those who don't partake in them?
You mean the beourgoise? I couldnt give 2 shits about them!

Otherwise, it cannot happen without an overall consensus. There is a difference between a revolution and a coup de' etat.
Also no, it is not necessary for political dissidents to be persecuted. If they want to organise their little pro-capitalist sideshows, fine, I havent a problem with that - let them have a go at being the alienated 'extremists'.

[Green Dragon]

There should be no problem supplying all customers, unless it involves materials that are limited for physical reasons, like if it were diamonds instead of steel that we were talking about.


But steel is a limited resource. There is only so much iron ore which can be mined in a day, only so many workers to do such mining, only so much transportation, only so much workers available to work in the steel mill, only so much energy that can be used, only so many hours in the day in which to work.


Instead the problem becomes one of the occasional need to induce more (or fewer) workers to choose to work in the steel department instead of some other department. If that happens,

Why would that be a problem for the socilaist community


I think material incentives would be justified, if limited, something like today's 10% bonus paid for second shift. I'm against some people receiving incomes that are numerous times the incomes of someone else, but I'm not against small percentages added to incomes as incentives and rewards wherever it may be found to be useful or necessary.

As you concede the point that financial measures may be needed to allocate labor, upon what basis and upon what justification would the socialist community assign its "small percentage?"




The workers wouldn't be imposed upon somehow because the users order goods.

Isn't sort the point of work to be "imposed" upon by others who want and need the item of which you produce?

,
and what users buy would be built into the regular schedule.

Whose "regular schedule?" The workers or users?



There doesn't have to be a limit to the number of workers,

But there are a limited number of workers. Because there is a limited number or people. Human population is not infinite. Neither is the labor force.


A
four hour workday and a three day workweek should always be long enough after all of the types of work that capitalism makes "necessary" but which are actually pure waste are abolished.

Such as?







What else for instance?


Well, if you move the oil filter from Point A to Point B, its not as if Point B is a empty spot. Other moves, for other items have to be moved as well. How do you judge whether the move, any reorganisation on whatever issue, is worth the effort?

[Green Dragon]

Right! The stockholders are removed from the production process. They don't give it oversight or wisdom or any other of the graces they could contribute if they were anywhere around. The capitlaists discovered long ago that the Edison-type proprietor was unnecessary and could be replaced by a system of management by elected committee. So when people ask us, "How do you know socialism would work?" - the answer is: the prerequisite for it, sufficient testing of the idea of replacing the omniscient capitalist by management by elected committee has already been performed. Who performed that test that verified that socialism would work? The capitalists did.


You are mixing two concepts together:

1. The stockholders deal with WHO owns and controls the enterprise. The socialists would say the workers will do so in a socialist community.
2. But it has nothing to do with HOW the ownership is exercised. If the socialists propose merely to operate the enterprise as the stockholders did, then nothing much changes. It is still a capitalist system. Socialists propose to change HOW production occurs as well.

So the answer given to "How do you know socialism will work" does not answer anything.

[Robert]

My employer pays me £40 a day, but in reality I'm probably making £70-£80 a day for him so in reality I'm paying him at least £30 a day to tell me to work harder.

Ulster, I am genuinely worried about you, no bullshit. Assuming that it is you paying him, why do you do it? Wasn't it your decision to take the job? Before you say "you had no choice," will you concede that the job offers you the following advantages, which from your post you don't seem to recognize:

1. Even if the company is not making money, he still owes you your wage.

2. If you get laid off, the government will pay you some kind of unemployment compensation (what do you call it over there?) funded by monies that he, not you, has deposited in the form of taxes.

3. Most important (to me as a capitalist), you can keep your eyes open and your mind alert, learn from him and your colleagues, and either move up in the company or quit, tell him shove the job up his ass, and start your own business. You can take with you all the skills you learned while he was paying you (okay, while you were paying him) on the job.

4. I don't really know this, but I wonder if he doesn't give you paid vacations every year.

5. He lets you bang his secretary on a regular basis, at least when she's not giving him those blowjobs under the desk. (Have you asked him?)

Aside from #5, which is a joke inspired by you in a priceless post in an earlier thread, I can't believe that you don't have those advantages at your job. If you don't, stow aboard a tramp steamer and immigrate to the USA.

[mikelepore]

Green Dragon,

(I hope I'm replying to the right person. That post #133 confused me about who wrote what.)

Me: "four hour workday and a three day workweek should always be long enough after all of the types of work that capitalism makes 'necessary' but which are actually pure waste are abolished.
You: "Such as?"

Pure waste that is artificially made "necessary" by capitalism -- here are a few examples:

The entire advertising business. At the present time it has zero information content. It is useless because it omits the only one useful task that it might do, which is to show unbiased comparisons of the features and the advantages and disadvantages of each product type. Advertising today consists of: (1) persuading people to want things that they otherwise wouldn't want, largely by taking advantage of the human weakness of believing claims after they have been told thousands of times that they can't possibly have a happy life unless they buy "this" [the method that psychologists now recognize as lightly-induced hypnosis]; (2) the zero-sum effort of switching brands solely for the purpose of switching brands. Spending X billion dollars to persuade N people to switch from Pepsi to Coke, plus X billion dollars to persuade N other people to switch from Coke to Pepsi. Each side "has to" do it only because their competitor is doing it, exactly like nations building up weapons. It is the wste of all labor time that now goes into making the paper, electricity, etc. used for advertising, plus considerable loss of time for everyone who has their televised movies interrupted by constant messages to persuade them to feel like having cheeseburgers. Suggestion: Replace the entire advertising business with one alphabetical index of product specifications that is structured similarly to Yahoo.

Duplication of effort. There are many kinds, but the kind I consider the stupidest is the fact that everything that gets invented has to be invented independently many times, because when each business learns anything they call it a trade secret. Scientists and engineers are forbidden by the "confidentiality agreement" to pool the world's technical knowledge. This applies as well to the development of life-saving medical discoveries.

Anything that has to do with speculation. Buying investments only for the purpose of reselling them. Businesses having to decide on the right moment to buy materials due to cycical changes in prices. A large part of what management personnel now do, plus the labor time of people working in banking, brokerage, etc.

Most legal actions. Corporations suing each other over patents and trademarks and copyrights. Government paying for what shouldn't have been made necessary in the first place, such as the social system making people poor and then jailing them for stealing bread.

War and militarism, which, ninety-nine percent of the time, is all about the business owners of one country competing with the business owners of another country for access to markets, raw materials and/or trade routes, or politicians responding to reelection campaign contributions (bribery) received from the corporations that make weapons and military aircraft.

The gross inefficiencies of not allowing the workers who know the operations to made the decisions. As the funny poster says, "There's never enough time to do it right, but there's always enough time to do it over."

It is my opinion that the "obscene profits" that we socialists often condemn are not the place where most of the wealth that has been stolen from the workers goes. I believe that most of the wealth stolen from the workers now goes to waste.

Of course, in a wider sense, profits are also a form of waste. It is a constant draining out of industry's cash flow to mail a lot of it to absentee owners who have never even seen the plant. That is like carrying water in a leaky bucket.

[mikelepore]

As you concede the point that financial measures may be needed to allocate labor, upon what basis and upon what justification would the socialist community assign its "small percentage?"

I didn't "concede" something there. I'm associated with a small branch of the socialist movement that decided a long time ago that this is part of what socialism means.

The proposal is to have one hour of one person's work receive close to the same compensations as one hour of another person's labor, so that product prices can be in units of work time -- the price of a product in the store being the nominal length of time that a person has to work to acquire it.

But the compensation doesn't have to be the nominal amount. The main thing that's being compensated is the individual sacrifice associated with expending time at work. Time x of a more strenuous or uncomfortable kind of work may be judged to be the same degree of sacrifice as time N x of a more comfortable kind of work, so the unequal time/compensation ratios produces equal rates of sacrifice.

On top of that, I'm suggesting that here also is the answer to your question about what socialism could do if there aren't enough steel workers, etc. If there are too few steel workers compared to the production schedule, compensation multipliers can be applied to reward those who volunteer to transfer to that department. In a controversial writing in 1914, the socialist Daniel De Leon described that idea as socialism continuing the use of "supply and demand" in one area at least, that of hourly compensation for work.

[RebelDog]

Ulster Socialist:


It reminds me of that cartoon of the capitalist trying to justify his profits and ends up saying ''shhh he'll hear you''. Cant find it right now sadly.Here it is:

http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/6128/capitalismig1.jpg

[mikelepore]

Socialists propose to change HOW production occurs as well.

Granted. I intended my remark only in one limited sense: We now see that the capitalist today is no longer the knowledgable "captain of industry" as in the days of Carnegie or Edison, but is now an absentee owner. In a new system, workers' delegates can do the management, and all we have lost are some parasites. We can get rid of the potato bugs and therefore have more potatoes.

My argument that production can operate efficiently without the existence of discrete business entities, with central allocation of resources, is not being presented on that occasion.

[Tungsten]

Green Dragon,

(I hope I'm replying to the right person. That post #133 confused me about who wrote what.)

Me: "four hour workday and a three day workweek should always be long enough after all of the types of work that capitalism makes 'necessary' but which are actually pure waste are abolished.
You: "Such as?"

Pure waste that is artificially made "necessary" by capitalism -- here are a few examples:

The entire advertising business. At the present time it has zero information content. It is useless because it omits the only one useful task that it might do, which is to show unbiased comparisons of the features and the advantages and disadvantages of each product type. Advertising today consists of: (1) persuading people to want things that they otherwise wouldn't want, largely by taking advantage of the human weakness of believing claims after they have been told thousands of times that they can't possibly have a happy life unless they buy "this" [the method that psychologists now recognize as lightly-induced hypnosis];
Thus justifying despotism to protect us from our "urges", right? Because that's what you seem to be tacitly aproving of.

War and militarism, which, ninety-nine percent of the time, is all about the business owners of one country competing with the business owners of another country for access to markets, raw materials and/or trade routes, or politicians responding to reelection campaign contributions (bribery) received from the corporations that make weapons and military aircraft.
That's vague. Which wars/businesses would these be?

It is my opinion that the "obscene profits" that we socialists often condemn are not the place where most of the wealth that has been stolen from the workers goes. I believe that most of the wealth stolen from the workers now goes to waste.
How is it stolen? Did they offer them one sum of money for work and the short-change them? Or are you another one of these labour-theory-of-value people.


And how many times are you going to post that cartoon? It uses circular logic.

[mikelepore]

It's despotism as much as any other choice in social institutions would be despotism. If sixty percent of the people want the profit motive to operate then the forty percent who don't want it are forced to abide by the decision. Conversely, if sixty percent want to abolish it, the forty percent who wished it could continue would be forced to abide by that. There can be no escape for anyone from the kinds of social institutions that exist except through persuading the people to reverse the situation or committing suicide. This should be obvious to everyone except for the mystic who believes that only the soul is real and the body is an illusion.

[mikelepore]

mikelepore


War and militarism, which, ninety-nine percent of the time, is all about the business owners of one country competing with the business owners of another country for access to markets, raw materials and/or trade routes, or politicians responding to reelection campaign contributions (bribery) received from the corporations that make weapons and military aircraft.

Tungsten


That's vague. Which wars/businesses would these be?

Sorry, there isn't enough time today for me to list ninety-nine percent of all the wars that have been fought since class-divided class-ruled society was first invented about five thousand years ago. So I will give you one example. In the 1940s Japan invaded several countries in Asia to acquire tin and rubber, then the U.S. cut off the supply of oil to Japan, then Japan attacked Hawaii, and the rest of the story is familiar to everyone. Wars are fought for economic reasons with ideological excuses superimposed on top of them.

[mikelepore]

How is it stolen? Did they offer them one sum of money for work and the short-change them? Or are you another one of these labour-theory-of-value people.

No theory at all is needed to see that the lion's share of the wealth is stolen from the workers. It's an empirical observation. The people whose activities produce the wealth (plant crops, mine ore, assemble appliances, drive trucks etc.) have deprivation and financial insecurity, and people who do not participate in any such activities have huge masses of wealth. That makes it a direct observation that the capitalists rob the workers. No theoretical analysis is required to get that far.

Theory is used to investigate how it happens, by what mechanism, for example, to settle the issue of whether robbery at point of production through low wages, or robbery at the point of consumption through high prices, or some other description, would be the most accurate way to characterize the mechanism. Marx showed mathematically that a model that shows the robbery taking place at the point of production is the model that has the most consistency and explanatory power.

Marx, Capital, chapter 9: "... the labourer, during one portion of the labour-process, produces only the value of his labour-power, that is, the value of his means of subsistence.... During the second period of the labour-process ... He creates surplus-value which, for the capitalist, has all the charms of a creation out of nothing."

[Dr Mindbender]

Ulster, I am genuinely worried about you, no bullshit. Assuming that it is you paying him, why do you do it? Wasn't it your decision to take the job? Before you say "you had no choice," will you concede that the job offers you the following advantages, which from your post you don't seem to recognize:
No, I dont agree, because I am a wage slave. I am co-erced into my situation because my social and economic status forces me to sell my labour to a capitalist. Since all capitalists function on profit, I will never recieve the full value of my labour


1. Even if the company is not making money, he still owes you your wage.

Maybe so, but if my employer goes out of business there is no law in place enforcing their duty to pay should the company fade into obscurity


2. If you get laid off, the government will pay you some kind of unemployment compensation (what do you call it over there?) funded by monies that he, not you, has deposited in the form of taxes.
Again, not true, at least in this country. Plenty of people who've been laid off recieve no money back they are owed.


3. Most important (to me as a capitalist), you can keep your eyes open and your mind alert, learn from him and your colleagues, and either move up in the company or quit, tell him shove the job up his ass, and start your own business. You can take with you all the skills you learned while he was paying you (okay, while you were paying him) on the job.
Usually the only way to get ahead is the opportunist back scratching personality politics that are evident in most offices to which i could never subscribe to on principal. Secondly, (to me as a socialist) I could never support the status quo because to me it is wrong that anyone should be co-erced into wage slavery because of accident of birth for want of a dignified life.


4. I don't really know this, but I wonder if he doesn't give you paid vacations every year.
With all the profit i've made for him, it's hardly as if he's doing me a favour. Anyway if he had his way they would gladly strip away my holiday entitlement. These privileges didnt come from 'the goodness of the heart' of the capitalist, they came about as accumulative victories won by previous progressive worker's struggle and trade unionism.


5. He lets you bang his secretary on a regular basis, at least when she's not giving him those blowjobs under the desk. (Have you asked him?)
pffft i dare say what goes on in the boardroom stays in the boardroom. Anyway, I'm a happily spoken for man, thank you very much.


Aside from #5, which is a joke inspired by you in a priceless post in an earlier thread, I can't believe that you don't have those advantages at your job. If you don't, stow aboard a tramp steamer and immigrate to the USA.
why? So i can join the ranks of 48% of other americans who dont have access to publicly funded health care, education and access to social housing on point of demand?

[Digitalism]

I just want your opinions on what this guy wrote, I'm pasting this.

"The only reason people have to work so hard today is not in the fact that there is little money, but in the fact that the business owners are responsible for a higher cost of living. Speculators and the like, drive prices upward. Yes, they do get rich, are you saying nobody gets rich in a communist society? I don't care where you go. Somebody is making bank off the working man. And at no time in the history of the USSR can you tell me that none of those dictators made money.

How did they pay for their multiple mansions and personal body guards, if communism really was what it is portrayed as, then Josef Stalin would not be known as dictator and his people known as peasants. The brainwashing that goes on in a communist nation is to teach you that NOBODY gets rich and there aren't any classes, but yet there is. The media controls information there too, "The press must grow day in and day out — it is our Party's sharpest and most powerful weapon."-Josef Stalin.

You can't say the US is the only country to filter information. And again, why do you live in a capitalist country if you hate capitalist ideas? The United States doesn't have a law stating that you can't move back to your native land. Or is it that you cannot live and let live? do you have a drive to spread the red? It isn't going to happen here, the people here are too set in our ways. and besides, if communism is so great, then why did the communist USSR crumble after only 70 years of reign?

Maybe going back to Tsarist rule is in your best interests? Quite frankly, I really don't understand the point you are trying to make here, your statements are full of holes and mismatched, and your current residence shoots your theories with even more holes. If you want to be effective, you must practice what you preach. In other words, preach communism from a communist nation, otherwise people won't believe a damn word you say. You see, the United States was founded on Christian principles and ideals, something that communist countries, namely Russia, hates severely. In the beginning the United States never had a class gap like it does now.

There have been certain individuals over the years who have corrupted the system to make it that way for their own personal gains, and to promote other forms of anti-Christian movements. Their theory was, if they could create a large enough class gap in the US economy, then the people would naturally lean toward a system with a better SURFACE appearance, but a much more evil underbelly. Such as communism.

You tell me, there are many things you are leaving out of the communist rule, such as the senseless murder and hate crimes of its own people by government officials,"The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic."-Josef Stalin. Ordered genocide is something that the US government has never ordered upon its own people since the signing of the declaration of independence. Why are you here? A communist mind never flies in a Christian Capitalist world. Communism is Satan's way of confusing, misleading, and deceiving non-Christian peoples. Such is why non Christian people will not understand their peril."

[Robert]

I am a wage slave Then free yourself. You won't be incarcerated if you quit and sell crepes by the seashore. I am serious. Others have done it. Why can't you, unless the truth is you really prefer your current situation.


if my employer goes out of business there is no law in place enforcing their duty to pay should the company fade into obscurity


Whaaaa? If the company goes out if business, it means it has no income. They;re not going to run off to the islands with their money. They may run off, but they'll sell it before they leave if it's worth anything. What do you want? For your employer to keep paying you a wage even after the business goes bust and you have quit producing? For how long? You don't want him enslaved, do you?


Plenty of people who've been laid off recieve no money back they are owed.


Please re-check this. I am absolutely positive that unemployment comp exists in the UK. You don't get free money forever, of course. Nor would you deserve it. Hopefully you wouldn't demand it.


the only way to get ahead is the opportunist back scratching personality politics

You really expect me to believe that a profit hungry capitalist is going to keep a talented and hard working man on his back and at the bottom because he doesn't kiss ass? Absolutely impossible. Of course I agree that as between 2 equally qualified people, the more Machiavellian office politician moves up first. But that's life, not capitalism.


These privileges didn't come from 'the goodness of the heart' of the capitalist, they came about as accumulative victories won by previous progressive worker's struggle and trade unionism.

I don't claim the contrary, and I'm sure you are right. I do wonder what is so wrong with a system where the worker is free to waive his right to benefits in exchange for working voluntarily where he wants, an apprentice working for a master luthier or mason, for example, who can teach the apprentice much at a low wage. or nothing if he can't afford to pay the apprentice government-mandated minimum wages. Not all capitalists are big multinational factories.


why? So i can join the ranks of 48% of other americans who dont have access to publicly funded health care, education and access to social housing on point of demand?


If you are really chronically ill and poor, and likely to stay that way, I agree you need to stay where you are. But again you are overstating the problem in the USA. First, many of the young and healthy would prefer to keep the money in their pocket than to be forced by the government -- don't you like freedom? -- to buy health insurance they don't want or need. Surely you can sympathize with the Libertarian impulse of resisting government mandates? Your "free" health care isn't free. You are paying for it one way or the other, unless your nurses and doctors are wage slaves too.

But what is really worrying me is what you are telling me is the hopelessness of your situation, and that the culture there tells you since birth that you are destined for the bottom. This is outrageously elitist if it's true, and I guaran-damn-tee you that energetic workers here at least are promoted all the time and end up living very comfortably. Yes, I sense that the USA is more mobile than the UK, assuming you are a representative worker. We honest to god do not have "classes" like what you have there, though obviously some are very rich. But they didn't all inherit it from their rich parents.

[Entrails Konfetti]

___

[Tungsten]

It's despotism as much as any other choice in social institutions would be despotism.
Not quite. My decison of whether or not to purchase a product based on an advert I've seen isn't despotism, but someone removing the adverts and pushing an alternative product at me, whether I want it or not most definitely is. All decisions aren't social ones.

If sixty percent of the people want the profit motive to operate then the forty percent who don't want it are forced to abide by the decision.
I'm sure it must be terrible for people to watch others waste their money on what you consider garbage. I see it every day. But on the other hand, it's their money they're spending and not yours, so there's no loss on your part and thus no reason to intervene.

Sorry, there isn't enough time today for me to list ninety-nine percent of all the wars that have been fought since class-divided class-ruled society was first invented about five thousand years ago.
I wasn't expecting anything too specific, as you'd be hard-pressed to find one. Class-divided society wasn't "invented", nor was there some neolithic communist paradise prior to it.

So I will give you one example. In the 1940s Japan invaded several countries in Asia to acquire tin and rubber, then the U.S. cut off the supply of oil to Japan, then Japan attacked Hawaii, and the rest of the story is familiar to everyone. Wars are fought for economic reasons with ideological excuses superimposed on top of them.
Without a clear definition of what capitalism is, you can't say that this was anymore motivated by capitalism than socialism. You see, the capitalism I advocate, and probably every other capitalist here, centres around property rights and individual rights. Invading another country for any reason other than self-defence contradicts both. This is why libertarians don't support the war in Iraq, for instance. And I why I don't either. Imperialism isn't part of our ideology- we don't need it, statists do.

No theory at all is needed to see that the lion's share of the wealth is stolen from the workers. It's an empirical observation. The people whose activities produce the wealth (plant crops, mine ore, assemble appliances, drive trucks etc.) have deprivation and financial insecurity, and people who do not participate in any such activities have huge masses of wealth.
Doesn't add up. What exactly are you (I assume you work) being deprived of and by whom? Well, it's certainly not the person you work for, because even if we take him out of the system, the people making the goods aren't exactly going to give them away for free. Even if the system still managed to survive the removal of such people and remain working, you'd still have to go to work, the products would still have to be advertised and sold, and you'd still have to do the same amount of work. You'd be no better off.

That makes it a direct observation that the capitalists rob the workers. No theoretical analysis is required to get that far.
I think this is part of the problem; tt hasn't been thought through. You see, values are subjective. Everyone has their own values. What you get paid is what you and whoever you work for agree on. You can't demand too much, as your employer will employ someone else for less, and he can't give you too little, otherwise you may leave or go on stike. The same relation exists between a buyer and seller. Some workers, you will notice, are better off than others because their skills are in greater demand and can therefore demand a higher price; many such people are living very comfortably indeed. They're not robbing you, however, just because you might not happen to be living comfortably and they are. How about people who have never worked in their life and are suffering for it? Who's robbing them and what are they robbing them of?

Marx showed mathematically that a model that shows the robbery taking place at the point of production is the model that has the most consistency and explanatory power.

Marx, Capital, chapter 9: "... the labourer, during one portion of the labour-process, produces only the value of his labour-power, that is, the value of his means of subsistence.... During the second period of the labour-process ... He creates surplus-value which, for the capitalist, has all the charms of a creation out of nothing."
To follow on what I've said in the previous paragraph, the existence of a "surplus value" would be largely subjective, too. What if the product is sold at a loss for whatever reason? Is the worker's fault, as all value (from a Marxist point of view) comes from labour?

[Dr Mindbender]

Then free yourself. You won't be incarcerated if you quit and sell crepes by the seashore. I am serious. Others have done it. Why can't you, unless the truth is you really prefer your current situation.
My 'freedom' is not enough. I want all people to be free, and not born into the shackles of class disparity. That is my ideal situation. I have no intention of becoming complicit with such a cold hearted and unsustainable ideaology.


Whaaaa? If the company goes out if business, it means it has no income. They;re not going to run off to the islands with their money. They may run off, but they'll sell it before they leave if it's worth anything. What do you want? For your employer to keep paying you a wage even after the business goes bust and you have quit producing? For how long? You don't want him enslaved, do you?
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4159/is_20050417/ai_n13620062




Please re-check this. I am absolutely positive that unemployment comp exists in the UK. You don't get free money forever, of course. Nor would you deserve it. Hopefully you wouldn't demand it.
Quite the contrary, here in the UK an entire sub-culture has formed around the dependency of the welfare state. Not that i blame them though,we have this scenario thanks to 20 years of a conservative government that smashed the unions and generally drove working class areas into the shit.



You really expect me to believe that a profit hungry capitalist is going to keep a talented and hard working man on his back and at the bottom because he doesn't kiss ass? Absolutely impossible.
If it suits his interests he will do. Capitalist employers are only concerned with maximising profit, that =/= the same as always correctly appropriating wages, skills or resources. I may be skilled in vocation 'A' but if my skill doesnt meet the resources needed to satisfy the target demographic i will be pigeonholed in vocation 'B'. Before pusher robot starts with his BS about society and the market being the same thing, an overall need of society does not necessarilly guarantee maximum profits. A capitalist may choose to invest in a product which is incredibly expensive, that only a small proportion of people can afford which therefore in turn does not meet the needs of the larger proportion of society. This is what i mean by the missappropriation of labour.


f course I agree that as between 2 equally qualified people, the more Machiavellian office politician moves up first. But that's life, not capitalism.

If you have friends in high places, it goes a long, long long way.

Also, thats life (under capitalism ;) )



I don't claim the contrary, and I'm sure you are right. I do wonder what is so wrong with a system where the worker is free to waive his right to benefits in exchange for working voluntarily where he wants, an apprentice working for a master luthier or mason, for example, who can teach the apprentice much at a low wage. or nothing if he can't afford to pay the apprentice government-mandated minimum wages. Not all capitalists are big multinational factories.
theres nothing wrong with any rights, but what is wrong is when these rights are used as a justification for the general deterioration for the working conditions of the working populace in general. Without the large ranks of these people, the master luthier and mason's role would be worthless without the resources they need to perform their jobs. As a rule of thumb, the 'right' to waive ones position is generally an unpractical notion so in the real world it is more often than not meaningless without the security provided to do so.



If you are really chronically ill and poor, and likely to stay that way, I agree you need to stay where you are. But again you are overstating the problem in the USA. First, many of the young and healthy would prefer to keep the money in their pocket than to be forced by the government -- don't you like freedom? -- to buy health insurance they don't want or need. Surely you can sympathize with the Libertarian impulse of resisting government mandates? Your "free" health care isn't free. You are paying for it one way or the other, unless your nurses and doctors are wage slaves too.
The only government impulses i am against are the ones which cause deterioration to my standard of living. Pro-captalists make the error of not drawing a distinction between positive and negative government intervention. The reason we have people biting the governments hand is because they're trying to please all classes at the same time which won't work.Obviously therefore I am not going to complain about my taxes being spent on the NHS.The portion of tax that does go to the NHS is a fraction of what i would pay under private health insurance/treatment so I'm still better off in the long run. If private healthcare is affordable why do so many americans in equivalent positions to UK workers have to go without treatment?


But what is really worrying me is what you are telling me is the hopelessness of your situation, and that the culture there tells you since birth that you are destined for the bottom. This is outrageously elitist if it's true, and I guaran-damn-tee you that energetic workers here at least are promoted all the time and end up living very comfortably. Yes, I sense that the USA is more mobile than the UK, assuming you are a representative worker. We honest to god do not have "classes" like what you have there, though obviously some are very rich. But they didn't all inherit it from their rich parents.
Well, I cant speak about the situation in the US but if theres one positive outcome of the UK class system it has installed in the workers a sense of humility and social justice that one day could spring into action for something better for everyone.

[mikelepore]

Reply to Tungsten:

The robbery of the workers shouldn't be a difficult idea because there is a key concept that capitalist economics and marxian economics have in common: they share an idea that's called "value added." Before the worker does anything each day, there is a heap of materials, intermediate goods, work-in-process that has some value. After the worker gets done working, those material things have another value. The difference between the two number is called the value added due to labor. But the worker isn't told to go home when the clock reaches the moment when the worker's value added equals the worker's daily wage. The worker continue to work beyond that point until the announced quitting time. Therefore, the value of the worker's products is greater than the value of the labor power that the capitalist has paid for. In other words, all workers as a class receive wages that represent a mere fraction of what they have produced.

That's what happens, although people may disagree about liking or disliking the situation.

Those who think it's fair will say that the worker took the job knowing full wwll that the quitting time was going to be 5 o'clock, and if it happens much earlier each day that the value added by the labor becomes equal to the worker's wage for the entire day, it's still fair because of the basis of informed consent, etc. On the other hand, some of us realize that it's quite common for people to have to say they "agree" with arangements no matter how unreciprocal they may be, so when the worker supposedly "agrees" to the conditions this fact conveys nothing about the justice or injustice of the institutions.

[Dr Mindbender]

co-ercion =/= agreement.

the worker has 2 choices - accept the contract of a capitalist or starve.

[mikelepore]

I have lost a newspaper clipping that I wanted to cite. In 1991 the New York Times was paraphrasing a government document entitled "Census of Manufactures", published during that same year by the United States Census Bureau. All I have here are the notes that I took from the news.

Weekly take-home pay per worker in the manufacturing sector as a whole:
$ 385

Weekly value-added per manufacturing worker (refers to the difference between the value of the finished products and the value of the materials, energy, depreciation of equipment, and other business expenses, before the labor was added)
$ 2,268

So far, that's from the Census Bureau.

Now, a Marxian interpretation:

The ratio $385 / $2,268 means the workers were paid somewhere between one-fifth and one-sixth of what they produced. The workers were robbed of more than four-fifths of the equivalent of their labor.

[mikelepore]

Here's another characterization of the same thing. Different studies often disagree with each other about the exact numbers.

This is from the book "Statistical Abstract of the World", edited by M.A. Reddy -- published in 1994 but this table refers to the year 1990.

Gross Output per Worker = $163,521

Inputs per Worker = $87,966
(52% of Gross Output)

Value Added per Worker = $75,555
(46% of Gross Output)

Wages and Benefits per Worker = $33,573
(20% of Gross Output)

I'm not familiar with what they mean by inputs. Anyway, compare the wages to the value added. The numbers say that the workers were robbed. No other interpretation is possible.

Every day that you go to work you get mugged.

[Robert]

Well , I concede those appear impressive as stats. I'll have to leave it to Pusher to elaborate my point, but it seems to me that you ignore, in comparing the wage of the worker to the value of the finished product, the intellectual contribution of the plant designers and the engineers and patent lawyers and ,yes, the capitalists who raised and risked the initial money to put this beast into action. The workers don't just appear out of the muck, offer a little muscle, blood sweat and tears, and out pops a Rolls Royce.

Pusher?

[Dean]

Well , I concede those appear impressive as stats. I'll have to leave it to Pusher to elaborate my point,
How? does he think for you?



but it seems to me that you ignore, in comparing the wage of the worker to the value of the finished product, the intellectual contribution of the plant designers and the engineers and patent lawyers and ,yes, the capitalists who raised and risked the initial money to put this beast into action. The workers don't just appear out of the muck, offer a little muscle, blood sweat and tears, and out pops a Rolls Royce.
I don't think I've ever seen a socialist or communist deny that those individuals which act as intellectual guides and resources are important. Only the capitalist and the patent lawyer are not creative there. I find it interesting that you left out people like me, however; those people who build the plant. It takes not just muscle, but mental capacity - the ability to wire motors, form circuits, test them, etc. It should also be noted that forming ideas to be used in the creation of buildings, controls, computers, etc. is a form of work. When I go to the shop I see draftsmen drawing up plans for the work I do, and I am well aware that their contribution is also important.


Pusher?
Hold your head up. Quit looking to others to make your points, it will only harm you in the end.

[Dean]

Aside from #5, which is a joke inspired by you in a priceless post in an earlier thread, I can't believe that you don't have those advantages at your job. If you don't, stow aboard a tramp steamer and immigrate to the USA.

Since you're all about capitalism and social mobility, you should know that the U.S. has much lower social mobility than just about any other industrialized nation. Ulster probably lives in a European nation which has better mobility, so if I was coming from your standpoint I'd say "stay out of the U.S.! You have better chances where you are."

[Robert]

How? does he think for you?You already know better than that.

But sure, I freely concede that Pusher knows more about economics than I do. I learn whatever I can from whomever I can.


you should know that the U.S. has much lower social mobility than just about any other industrialized nation.
So many problems with that remark: What do you mean "much" more? How do you define social mobiliity? Finally, have you not detected the despair in Ulster's posts regarding his society's attempts to impress upon him that he cannot ever aspire to anything higher than the lot he was born in to? You seriously know no cases of self made men in the USA?

On edit, I mean no denigration of technicians. They're indispensable. As are the warehouse workers and janitors. I still don't see how their indispensability makes the executives and managers, and yes, even lawyers and capitalists, non-essential. Everyone has his place and his value in the enterprise or he gets fired. If the next point is that executives with golden parachutes too often walk away from a ruined company with obscene and undeserved salaries, I agree.

[Joby]

My 'freedom' is not enough. I want all people to be free, and not born into the shackles of class disparity. That is my ideal situation. I have no intention of becoming complicit with such a cold hearted and unsustainable ideaology.

Shackles of class disparity? Do you believe that it's not possible to move up in social standing? The real shackles are those which would lock all people into the same standing, despite the fact that practically every person does a different amount of work than others.

Cold-hearted? Why? Because you have to pay people to work? A truly cold-hearted system is one that forces people to work for no gain.

Unsustainable? How hasn't capitalism been sustained by history?



http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4159/is_20050417/ai_n13620062


And so the government should step in and run the company....right?


Quite the contrary, here in the UK an entire sub-culture has formed around the dependency of the welfare state. Not that i blame them though,we have this scenario thanks to 20 years of a conservative government that smashed the unions and generally drove working class areas into the shit.

They couldn't go to college...they couldn't get training...they couldn't learn new skills...they couldn't go out and vote...

No, all they could do was sit around and get a welfare check. Pity.


If it suits his interests he will do. Capitalist employers are only concerned with maximising profit, that =/= the same as always correctly appropriating wages, skills or resources. I may be skilled in vocation 'A' but if my skill doesnt meet the resources needed to satisfy the target demographic i will be pigeonholed in vocation 'B'. Before pusher robot starts with his BS about society and the market being the same thing, an overall need of society does not necessarilly guarantee maximum profits. A capitalist may choose to invest in a product which is incredibly expensive, that only a small proportion of people can afford which therefore in turn does not meet the needs of the larger proportion of society. This is what i mean by the missappropriation of labour.

That makes absolutely no sense.

If a capitalist is indeed only concerned with maximizing profit, then he would want to allocate the labor he employs in the areas were they will be most beneficial, as Robert said.

Secondly, yes, an individual capitalist may aim his product at demographic A, but there will, in most situations, be a capitalist who aims his products att demographic B. It's what capitalism offeres: variety in the market.


If you have friends in high places, it goes a long, long long way.

Also, thats life (under capitalism ;) )

Yeah, and having your daddy in the Politburo would have meant nothing. :rolleyes:


The only government impulses i am against are the ones which cause deterioration to my standard of living. Pro-captalists make the error of not drawing a distinction between positive and negative government intervention. The reason we have people biting the governments hand is because they're trying to please all classes at the same time which won't work.Obviously therefore I am not going to complain about my taxes being spent on the NHS.The portion of tax that does go to the NHS is a fraction of what i would pay under private health insurance/treatment so I'm still better off in the long run. If private healthcare is affordable why do so many americans in equivalent positions to UK workers have to go without treatment?

Because the Government, via the FDA, regulates the market and doesn't allow people to choose healthcare options that wouldn't benefit big business.

[Green Dragon]

The proposal is to have one hour of one person's work receive close to the same compensations as one hour of another person's labor, so that product prices can be in units of work time -- the price of a product in the store being the nominal length of time that a person has to work to acquire it.


No. Because not all labor is equal. Not all products are equal. How do you measure one hour removing a man's appendix versus one hour mopping a floor?



But the compensation doesn't have to be the nominal amount. The main thing that's being compensated is the individual sacrifice associated with expending time at work. Time x of a more strenuous or uncomfortable kind of work may be judged to be the same degree of sacrifice as time N x of a more comfortable kind of work, so the unequal time/compensation ratios produces equal rates of sacrifice.


Such measurements are entirely arbitrary. Is it harder to remove a kidney than to deliver refrigerators?



On top of that, I'm suggesting that here also is the answer to your question about what socialism could do if there aren't enough steel workers, etc. If there are too few steel workers compared to the production schedule, compensation multipliers can be applied to reward those who volunteer to transfer to that department. In a controversial writing in 1914, the socialist Daniel De Leon described that idea as socialism continuing the use of "supply and demand" in one area at least, that of hourly compensation for work.
[/QUOTE]

But that is fine. But why limit it merely to this? If adjusting compensationn can effectively allocate labor, why can't adusting proces effectively allocate products?

[Green Dragon]

Granted. I intended my remark only in one limited sense: We now see that the capitalist today is no longer the knowledgable "captain of industry" as in the days of Carnegie or Edison, but is now an absentee owner. In a new system, workers' delegates can do the management, and all we have lost are some parasites. We can get rid of the potato bugs and therefore have more potatoes.

My argument that production can operate efficiently without the existence of discrete business entities, with central allocation of resources, is not being presented on that occasion.


There is nothing uncapitalist about a worker owned industry. Its about the information used by the owners and how it determines production. Getting rid of business entities solves nothing. You still need to explain HOW the socialist industry functions.

[Green Dragon]

[quote=mikelepore;1064735]No theory at all is needed to see that the lion's share of the wealth is stolen from the workers. It's an empirical observation. The people whose activities produce the wealth (plant crops, mine ore, assemble appliances, drive trucks etc.) have deprivation and financial insecurity, and people who do not participate in any such activities have huge masses of wealth. That makes it a direct observation that the capitalists rob the workers. No theoretical analysis is required to get that far.


Except that this is a false and untrue claim.

[Green Dragon]

Capitalist employers are only concerned with maximising profit, that =/= the same as always correctly appropriating wages, skills or resources.

It could very well be true that the capitalist is not correctly appropriating skills and the like. Noody, after all, is perfect.
But the socialist answer seems far weaker and far less beneficial to the community.


I may be skilled in vocation 'A' but if my skill doesnt meet the resources needed to satisfy the target demographic i will be pigeonholed in vocation 'B'.

Why is socialism superior when it propose that your inferior skills still be allocated to satisfying the "targeted demographic?" Does not the community benefit when it has at its disposal the best trained and skilled workers?


A capitalist may choose to invest in a product which is incredibly expensive, that only a small proportion of people can afford which therefore in turn does not meet the needs of the larger proportion of society. This is what i mean by the missappropriation of labour.

But as somebody can afford it, how is labor being missappropriated? somebody is benefitting by it.
And are you now saying that socialist production should be geared to satisfying the needs of just the majority first, and not everybody?

[mikelepore]

entirely arbitrary. Is it harder to remove a kidney than to deliver refrigerators?

That's right, my suggested kind of socialism that compensates the more strenuous work with greater incomes, using some table of numerical factors, would have to use arbitrary numbers, if being arbitrary means that it's based on what subjectively feels right to people and cannot be measured impartially. But capitalism bases relative incomes on what people can somehow arrange to get away with, using those numbers for no other reasons except the fact that someone got away with it after all. Capitalism doesn't even make the pretense that there's any estimate of individual sacrifice or effort. When movie star Brad Pitt got $20 million for a recent movie, the system wasn't explicitly claiming that his job was known to be a factor of 600 times as difficult or strenuous as that of a teacher who got paid about $30,000 that same year. So that's the use of the number 600 without so much as an attempt at a rough estimate or even the pretense of having one. I'm suggesting, instead, the use of factors like 1.5, 2 or 3 perhaps, based on an estimate that has been adjusted and readjusted and finally approved by a panel of representatives who were elected by the population to peform that estimate. So all relative labor evaluations are somewhat arbitrary, in any society, and the method that I propose did something to minimize the arbitrariness, while capitalism's rule of grab whatever you can get away with includes no attempt at normalization at all.

[mikelepore]

You still need to explain HOW the socialist industry functions

I need a more specific question. I must guess at what is being asked.

The little brand of socialists that I'm affiliated with has the following general idea of how the new system should be structured:

Today's system of corporations, partnerships, and proprietorships abolished abruptly. The instantaneous implementation (not a gradual transition) of a new management system that has been prepared in advance by the workers' industrial unions.

Social ownership of all industries and services. Industry having some types of elected representation of the general public, but a greater role for workplace-based representation.

Department level, municipal and central (national or global) managers should be elected by the workers in their own industrial constituencies. In addition to the dimension from the local to the central, the constituencies of representation would also have to be both intra-industry and inter-industry. For example, a Chicago transportation worker might cast annual votes (or monthly, or whatever the term of office may be) for the representatives who will comprise these various managerial levels: direction of the Chicago transportation system (local intra-industry), the transportation industry in general (central intra-industry), a municipal planning board (local inter-industry) and a congress of all-industry directors (central inter-industry).

The system would be confederated. Like today a person in Connecticut doesn't get to vote for the congressional representative from Vermont, similarly, the transportation worker wouldn't get to vote for the industrial representative from mining or shipbuilding. The all-industry assembly would be where the cross-representation would occur, with personnel who have been delegated by all branches of industry being a board of directors for all production and services as a whole.

The concept here is that the realm of life that is about work and production should be a republic itself. We call this the concept of "the industrial republic." In addition to being voters where we live, we will also be voters where we work. One-person, one-vote.

I assume that a political republic will also continue to exist, because someone has to pass the laws against murder and assault, and handle such ethical and behavioral, non-workplace-related, issues -- i.e., I'm not an anarchist. But political administration and industrial administration must be entirely separate systems of representation, although they coexist in the same place at the same time. Therefore, we dispute any characterizations of socialism as "state ownership", etc.

A written constitution will have to spell out all of the department structure. It must also include a listing of anti-bureaucratic provisions, such as:

(1) no use of any top-down appointees in any management position; all levels of management must be directly elected by their constituents.

(2) procedures for the immediate recall and replacement of any management representatives by a vote of the constituents who elected them;

(3) no management secrets; all administrative proceedings and communications are to be open public records.

(4) no special incomes or privileges for administrators. Their incomes determined by the same criteria as those used to determine the incomes of all workers, namely, how comfortable or strenuous a desk job is estimated to be, relative to performing other types of work.

[Robert]

But as somebody can afford it, how is labor being missappropriated? somebody is benefitting by it.

I think the socialist complaint here includes things like yacht-building and warranty maintenance on Ferraris, Lambourghinis, and Maseratis. Lots of hard and thoughtful work goes into building and maintaining luxury items. the socialist is entitled to his opinion that all that energy would be better directed toward helping the poor or the middle class. Why work on a Ferrari for the few when you could be building a bus for the masses?

Well ... for starters, there is a palpable elitism that exists among "blue collar" workers, as we call them in the states, as well as among snotty capitalist executives. Go ask a paint specialist at Ferrari whether he considers himself "good," how hard he had to work to get a job there, and whether he wouldn't prefer to paint subway trains or locomotives for the good of "the people" (in sensible grey or brown).

The socialist doesn't understand that when he shuts down Ferrari, the skilled worker there is out of a job, and when relocated to where the "committee" thinks he belongs, he doesn't want some committee evaluating his worth according to some point system devised by utopian politicians.

And if you FORCE him to paint buses for the good of all, then you've got tyranny that he doesn't want or deserve. Nor will he support it. If you give him a choice, he may take the offer given him by Ferrari management. I for one want him to be able to make that choice, not have government make it for him.

[Dr Mindbender]

It could very well be true that the capitalist is not correctly appropriating skills and the like. Noody, after all, is perfect.
But the socialist answer seems far weaker and far less beneficial to the community.
the old ''the nobody is perfect'' chestnut is more than a bit of a cop-out.
The capitalist makes no attempt to approach perfection, let alone acheive it.

the socialist answer would produce a much stronger society, because when you satisfy the needs and aspirations of people across the board, you have a much happier, engaged, enlightened and productive workforce.
How on earth can that be ''less beneficial''?



Why is socialism superior when it propose that your inferior skills still be allocated to satisfying the "targeted demographic?" Does not the community benefit when it has at its disposal the best trained and skilled workers?
Yes the community will benefit, and not only will [technocratic] socialism produce trained workers, it will produce them en masse. Capitalism appropriates workers only according to certain targeted consumers. This has the effect of creating a redundancy of specific industries while allowing potential talent to stagnate and not acheive anything above menial employment. I have heard anecdotes of phd graduates stacking supermarket shelves. How the hell can that be correctly appropriated talent?
By removing all people from menial employment, and replacing them with automation we can set about concentrating on educational resources so all people can participate in a more engaging way with the advancement of the species.




But as somebody can afford it, how is labor being missappropriated? somebody is benefitting by it.
And are you now saying that socialist production should be geared to satisfying the needs of just the majority first, and not everybody?
Those specific industries often involve mass manufacturing, or constructive methods that are often synomonous with areas of low skilled employment. So all things considered, it would be more beneficial across the board to have the workers engaged in areas where they are likely to enjoy the finished production. You arent likely to see a production line worker galavanting around in a lambourghini or ferrari.

[Jimmie Higgins]

2. For all it's naysayers, Capitalism has delivered the highest standards of living to any people in the history of the species. More has been done in the name of profit than anything else.

3. To say that every member of society deserves the same amount from society is to say everybody gives an equal amount to society.

"I drink your milkshake! I DRINK IT UP!"

[Tungsten]

That's right, my suggested kind of socialism that compensates the more strenuous work with greater incomes, using some table of numerical factors, would have to use arbitrary numbers, if being arbitrary means that it's based on what subjectively feels right to people and cannot be measured impartially.
Therefore resulting in inequality and (from the socialist point of view) class antagonisms.

But capitalism bases relative incomes on what people can somehow arrange to get away with, using those numbers for no other reasons except the fact that someone got away with it after all.
In other words, everyone isn't paid how you personally thing they should be paid, and you wish to force your pricing system on trade and industry.

Capitalism doesn't even make the pretense that there's any estimate of individual sacrifice or effort. When movie star Brad Pitt got $20 million for a recent movie, the system wasn't explicitly claiming that his job was known to be a factor of 600 times as difficult or strenuous as that of a teacher who got paid about $30,000 that same year.
Because millions of people are willing to pay £10 and hour to see Brad Pitt, while millions are not willing to pay to sit through remedial english.

[Tungsten]

co-ercion =/= agreement.

the worker has 2 choices - accept the contract of a capitalist or starve.
The choice of subsistence or starvation is universal and inevitable regardless of the system you're under. Don't pretend it's something unnaturally forced on you by the system.

Or do you think no one will have to work in communism?


Reply to Tungsten:

The robbery of the workers shouldn't be a difficult idea because there is a key concept that capitalist economics and marxian economics have in common: they share an idea that's called "value added." Before the worker does anything each day, there is a heap of materials, intermediate goods, work-in-process that has some value.
To who?

After the worker gets done working, those material things have another value. The difference between the two number is called the value added due to labor.
And what if it's not added (i.e. no one will buy the finished product)?

But the worker isn't told to go home when the clock reaches the moment when the worker's value added equals the worker's daily wage. The worker continue to work beyond that point until the announced quitting time.
That's the nature of the contract. They would be no point working to break even.

Therefore, the value of the worker's products is greater than the value of the labor power that the capitalist has paid for. In other words, all workers as a class receive wages that represent a mere fraction of what they have produced.
That doesn't mean they're being robbed. The labour was sold to the capitalist. It's now his, not still the labourers.

If I purchase something off someone and then sell it on to someone else for a higher price, I'm not robbing the person I originally bought it off.

[mikelepore]

Therefore resulting in inequality and (from the socialist point of view) class antagonisms.

There is no class antgonism involved if a socialist system give greater hourly incomes to those who volunteer for the more strenuous work.

First, understand what class are. (At least, in the Marxian view. A typical university sociologist doesn't agree with the Marxian definition.)

Classes are determined by the source of income which gets reflected in various people's econmic interests. For example, for the people today whose source of income is to sell their labor time, their economic interest generally is to have wages higher, profits lower, workers' workdays shorter and vacations longer, benefits increased, and for the people whose source of income is investment of assets, their economic interest generally is to have wages lower, profits higher, workers' workdays longer and vacations shorter, benefits reduced. The two demographic groups that are defined according to those two basic sources of income have opposite economic interests. That's what classes are.

A socialist system will have no aristocracy that gets its income by the passive role of being lucky enough to own something, so one of the two major sources of income that I mentioned above ceases to exist.

The working class also ceases to exist. As Marx explained: "When the proletariat wins victory, it by no means becomes the absolute side of society, for it wins victory only by abolishing itself and its opposite." "The condition for the emancipation of the working class is the abolition of every class." [in _The Poverty of Philosophy_, 1847]

Finally, how could have antagonism when it's a choice? Suppose the economic system has the policy that one work hour for a firefighter is the same amount of personal effort and exertion as four work hours for the person who strolls on a tropical beach and takes calendar photos, which is equivalent to saying that the firefighter gets four time the hourly income as the other. So you choose the the first for its shorter duration, despite its greater intensity, and I choose the second for the lower stress level, despite the longer duration relative to earning ability. Maybe next week each of us will make the opposite choice, but today we choose this. There's no antagonism at all there. Harder-job shorter-time is optimized for equality as its principle.

Capitalism has it exactly upside down. It always did and always will. The most strenuous and draining work pays the least, and being allowed to sit around and relax pays the most. It is as John Stuart Mill complained, in his _The Principles of Political Economy_, 1865: "... as a consequence, 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...."


In other words, everyone isn't paid how [I]you personally thing they should be paid, and you wish to force your pricing system on trade and industry.

Isn't that sort of the whole idea of having a civilized society, in which disagreements are settled by counting votes instead of having warlords wield weapons? Each person determines how they personally think things should be, then they try to persuade everyone else about the advantages of enacting such a change. If their argument is sound, it may take centuries to persuade the majority to come around, but eventually the improved reasoning usually wins.


Because millions of people are willing to pay £10 and hour to see Brad Pitt, while millions are not willing to pay to sit through remedial english.

It is your ethical appraisal that the amount of demand for a person's output should be referenced to determine a person's income, as it is my ethical appraisal that the degree of stress and strain associated with the type of work should be referenced to determine a person's income. We often find that what various people believe to be morally preferable isn't arguable in the same way that factual subjects are. The antinomy remains unresolved, and what we have achieved, then, is the fruitfulness of having clarified ourselves to each other instead of being left misunderstanding one another. A suppose that a couple more centuries will now pass. I believe that in the end the world's choice will be: socialism.

[pusher robot]

A suppose that a couple more centuries will now pass. I believe that in the end the world's choice will be: socialism.

Personally, I think that all existing social-economic theories will be rendered obsolete before then.

[Comrade Rage]

Personally, I think that all existing social-economic theories will be rendered obsolete before then.And replaced with what, exactly?

[Robert]

http://www.wizardrealm.com/images/drighten.gif

[pusher robot]

And replaced with what, exactly?

Something resembling technocracy. I foresee a future society that is largely (though not completely) post-scarcity. In such an environment, the existing modes are irrelevant.

[Dr Mindbender]

The choice of subsistence or starvation is universal and inevitable regardless of the system you're under. Don't pretend it's something unnaturally forced on you by the system.

Or do you think no one will have to work in communism?


No, people will work under communism.

The difference is, it is against the interests of capitalism to provide the greater proportion of people with work that suits their interests, talents and needs because it would be incompatible with their 'carrot and stick' system of 'better jobs= better conditions and greater financial appraisal'.

Under a system where goods are appropriated equally and people can be appropriated to industries where their interests lie, the need for financial incentive becomes irrelevant.

If you subscribe to the technocratic version of socialism as I do, what will be done differently is that all low skilled areas of employment will become fully automated enabling the human workers to pursue the skills which meet the requirements of the jobs they actually want, rather than being co-erced into distracting menial work with little means of intellectual or personal progression.

[Robert]

To Ulster:


which meet the requirements of the jobs they actually want, rather than being co-erced into distracting menial work with little means of intellectual or personal progression.

Ulster, you've been candid about your personal situation in other contexts, so if I may ask, what job do you "actually want," and what is the alleged system-based reason you cannot get it?

[Dr Mindbender]

To Ulster:



Ulster, you've been candid about your personal situation in other contexts, so if I may ask, what job do you "actually want," and what is the alleged system-based reason you cannot get it?
the job i want personally is a side issue to the discussion. As a rule of thumb, it's extremely difficult if at all possible for people to progress due to time consuming 40 hour weeks in jobs which have no progressive qualities in terms of education and the low wages which are synomonous with these areas of employment.

My point is, if all people could enter a state of perpetual education or training where learning takes the onus over repititive non-demanding chores then as a species, we would all greatly benefit.

[Robert]

the job i want personally is a side issueI understand that, and wasn't trying to be nosy. But it's helpful to illustrate general principles if you can.



it's extremely difficult if at all possible for people to progress due to time consuming 40 hour weeks in jobsDifficult, indeed. Extremely difficult, at times. Impossible? Depends on who you are taking about: if it's an unmarried woman with three kids, one of them ill, then yes, of course. But ...

Will she have any more extra time to learn graphic design under a socialist system? Imagine that she is currently doing mind-numbing work like stuffing merchandise into boxes for shipping, or cleaning crabs to be canned and shipped. It occurs to her "I'd really rather be at school." She says so to her boss/comrade and does what? Walks off the job with society's blessing? (Under capitalism, yes, she does.) If she does walk off the job, someone will have to clean the crabs or the factory closes. But there will still be a demand for crabmeat. Will that taste, that demand, just go unfulfilled?

Please don't tell me "we'll get machines to do it," as you know that there is always menial work to be done: trimming hedges, sweeping up in a barber shop, stocking shelves in a grocery store. It's all honorable work, but it has to be done if we don't want to live like savages.

[Robert]

Pusher: "I foresee a future society that is largely (though not completely) post-scarcity."

Surely you aren't including energy and living space? Personally, I foresee Soylent Green. (Ever been to New Delhi, Mexico City, or Shanghai?) At any rate, I hope you're right.

[Dr Mindbender]

Will she have any more extra time to learn graphic design under a socialist system? Imagine that she is currently doing mind-numbing work like stuffing merchandise into boxes for shipping, or cleaning crabs to be canned and shipped. It occurs to her "I'd really rather be at school." She says so to her boss/comrade and does what? Walks off the job with society's blessing? (Under capitalism, yes, she does.) If she does walk off the job, someone will have to clean the crabs or the factory closes. But there will still be a demand for crabmeat. Will that taste, that demand, just go unfulfilled?
perhaps more people would like to do child care that arent currently being given the opportunity now?
The mother in question could benefit from their service while she pursues the said course in graphic design. In any case you miss my point. Under capitalism, it is not possible for all people to pursue their desired vocation because it requires a class heirarchy of winners and shit shovellers in order to survive. Technocratic socialism is about opposing that trend. If you read my previous posts, I have explained how.


Please don't tell me "we'll get machines to do it," as you know that there is always menial work to be done: trimming hedges, sweeping up in a barber shop, stocking shelves in a grocery store. It's all honorable work, but it has to be done if we don't want to live like savages.
I havent once advocated living like savages, quite the contrary, so rather than throwing your quotation marked strawmen at me, can you explain why 100% automation is such a bad or impractical idea?

[Robert]

I know you don't advocate savagery. And to answer your question, I don't know that 100% automation is impractical, though I suspect it.

Here's my take: first, the automation we have seen in some industries in the USA has actually eliminated some jobs, and I don't know that "freeing" people from manual labor is necessarily a good thing. Some people actually enjoy re-painting cars, cultivating gardens, and building houses with their hands. They're good at it and it gives them a sense of accomplishment.

Second, I confess that I still see the need for human energy and muscle in any automated world. Are we going to teach the machines to maintain and repair themselves? Will we have machines carrying away broken machine parts in automated, unmanned vehicles to land fills (garbage dumps, or whatever you call them in the UK) that are dug and maintained by other machines?

But here's the ultimate problem for all of us on the reactionary side: you appear to envision an automated world where you and I can no longer reach private agreements about whether you can paint my house, or whether I can repair your vehicle, or work in your plant, or just cook your steak on terms that we mutually agree to. Do you genuinely want those kinds of decisions entrusted to governments or worker ministries or whoever it is that will guarantee the "levelling" you see as necessary? What if you don't like their decision? Are you going to appeal? To whom? Another bureau?

[Dean]

You already know better than that.

But sure, I freely concede that Pusher knows more about economics than I do. I learn whatever I can from whomever I can.
That may be true. What I find interesting, however, is your willingness to let others explain your points as if they knew beter how to say what you think.


So many problems with that remark: What do you mean "much" more? How do you define social mobiliity? Finally, have you not detected the despair in Ulster's posts regarding his society's attempts to impress upon him that he cannot ever aspire to anything higher than the lot he was born in to?
I didn't say anything that opposes what you say here. It simply goes to reason that a country you claim gives more oppurtunities for success should have more examples of success than those who are more restrictive. Contrarily, western industrialized countries, which often have more economic restrictions, tend to exemplify more social mobility.


You seriously know no cases of self made men in the USA?
Most rich people aren't self-made, and Im not even really talking about economics either. I care more about mental health and social outlook when I think of how someone has made themself.


On edit, I mean no denigration of technicians. They're indispensable. As are the warehouse workers and janitors. I still don't see how their indispensability makes the executives and managers, and yes, even lawyers and capitalists, non-essential. Everyone has his place and his value in the enterprise or he gets fired. If the next point is that executives with golden parachutes too often walk away from a ruined company with obscene and undeserved salaries, I agree.
Why? Don't you agree that if a given occupation is promoted in captialism, which is your reasoning for suporting its existance, its benefits should also be acceptable? Both come from the same thing and can easily be justified by your line of thinking.

[mikelepore]

Then free yourself. You won't be incarcerated if you quit and sell crepes by the seashore. I am serious. Others have done it. Why can't you, unless the truth is you really prefer your current situation.

When the bills come due for the rent or mortgage, the doctor bills, your kids' college tuition, and many more -- well, if you only made $4000 that whole year, just explain that to them. Bill collectors are very understanding about these things. Just tell the creditors, "Chill out, dude. Have a crepe!" Then the bank president will say, "Peace and love, my brother. Your account will be marked paid-in-full"! Just don't worry about it. According to Genesis 22:14, "The Lord will provide."

[mikelepore]

Imagine a job interview if everyone said what they were really thinking. As if aliens from another planet aimed a truth ray at the earth, and everyone had to tell the truth. A conversation between the capitalist, who has a job opening and hundreds of desperate applicants who need it, and an umemployed worker who has a stack of unpaid bills. The following text comes from a newspaper editorial written in 1938 by Arnold Petersen, then the national secretary of the Socialist Labor Party of America:

BEGIN QUOTATION


The vast majority are people who work for a wage - if and when they find work. Having no possessions, the means of production being held in private and exclusive ownership by the few (the capitalists), these millions of propertiless persons (the wage workers) must go to the owners and beg them for permission to use the machines and plants of production in general.

The capitalist will, in effect, say to these workers, "We own this land, these mines, these oil wells, this machinery, etc., etc., but they are useless to us without labor, or labor power. On the other hand, you have labor power, or ability to work at some job or other, but that labor power is no use to you unless you have access to the land and machines, etc., which we own, but can't operate ourselves. Very well, we will make a deal with you. If you will agree to work for us, and let us keep all you produce, we will pay you back just enough to enable you to live and raise a family. Experience demonstrates, and our experts estimate, that in two hours you can produce what you need to live and raise a family. We will allow you to keep for yourself what you produce in those two hours of labor, provided you will continue for six more hours, we to keep for ourselves everything you produce in these additional six hours. We own, and do no work, but we keep the bulk of what you produce. You work, but own nothing; you produce all, but you keep just a small fraction of the things you produce. Fair enough?"

Well, the toolless worker, himself and family starving, is not likely to be much concerned about fairness at this juncture, and so he is likely to say, in effect, "Very well, you own me and my life, because you own that whereon my life, and the lives of my dear ones, depend. I have no choice but to accept your terms, even if they do seem like the terms of highway robbers."


END OF QUOTATION

Source: I copied the excerpt from the article "Labor Power and the Power of Labor", an editorial in the newspaper 'The Weekly People', edition of Oct. 29, 1938, reprinted in the pamphlet 'Capital and Labor', 1939, published by the New York Labor News Company, reprint of 1965, pages 52-53

[Dean]

The vast majority are people who work for a wage - if and when they find work. Having no possessions, the means of production being held in private and exclusive ownership by the few (the capitalists), these millions of propertiless persons (the wage workers) must go to the owners and beg them for permission to use the machines and plants of production in general.

The capitalist will, in effect, say to these workers, "We own this land, these mines, these oil wells, this machinery, etc., etc., but they are useless to us without labor, or labor power. On the other hand, you have labor power, or ability to work at some job or other, but that labor power is no use to you unless you have access to the land and machines, etc., which we own, but can't operate ourselves. Very well, we will make a deal with you. If you will agree to work for us, and let us keep all you produce, we will pay you back just enough to enable you to live and raise a family. Experience demonstrates, and our experts estimate, that in two hours you can produce what you need to live and raise a family. We will allow you to keep for yourself what you produce in those two hours of labor, provided you will continue for six more hours, we to keep for ourselves everything you produce in these additional six hours. We own, and do no work, but we keep the bulk of what you produce. You work, but own nothing; you produce all, but you keep just a small fraction of the things you produce. Fair enough?"

Well, the toolless worker, himself and family starving, is not likely to be much concerned about fairness at this juncture, and so he is likely to say, in effect, "Very well, you own me and my life, because you own that whereon my life, and the lives of my dear ones, depend. I have no choice but to accept your terms, even if they do seem like the terms of highway robbers."

This is a very good quote. Thanks for posting it.

[Green Dragon]

But capitalism bases relative incomes on what people can somehow arrange to get away with, using those numbers for no other reasons except the fact that someone got away with it after all.

What othe people value the work as.


Capitalism doesn't even make the pretense that there's any estimate of individual sacrifice or effort. When movie star Brad Pitt got $20 million for a recent movie, the system wasn't explicitly claiming that his job was known to be a factor of 600 times as difficult or strenuous as that of a teacher who got paid about $30,000 that same year.

It was the community valued the work of Brad Pitt at that rate.



So that's the use of the number 600 without so much as an attempt at a rough estimate or even the pretense of having one. I'm suggesting, instead, the use of factors like 1.5, 2 or 3 perhaps, based on an estimate that has been adjusted and readjusted and finally approved by a panel of representatives who were elected by the population to peform that estimate. So all relative labor evaluations are somewhat arbitrary, in any society, and the method that I propose did something to minimize the arbitrariness, while capitalism's rule of grab whatever you can get away with includes no attempt at normalization at all.
[/QUOTE]

Your proposals do not minimise arbitrariness, since the next election can bring forth new people with different rationales.

[Green Dragon]

[quote=Ulster Socialist;1065767]the old ''the nobody is perfect'' chestnut is more than a bit of a cop-out.


It would seem to be a statement of fact.


The capitalist makes no attempt to approach perfection, let alone acheive it.

Far closer than the socialist system.



the socialist answer would produce a much stronger society, because when you satisfy the needs and aspirations of people across the board, you have a much happier, engaged, enlightened and productive workforce.
How on earth can that be ''less beneficial''?


That which you say will benefit the people (and you are one of the very few around here who actually is willing to defend socialism) will not have that desired effect.

[Robert]

I think maybe one of the reasons we are getting nowhere in these debates is that "rich" and "capitalist" and "industrialist" are used interchangeably. I may be guilty of it too, but it's warping the conversations.

There are poor capitalists. To me, a luthier at Martin Guitars who saves $20 grand from his salary over 10 years, borrows another $20k from his parents, another $5k from his friends, and another $10k from the bank to open his own shop and build guitars at a profit, is a capitalist. He may have one employee who would rather sweep up there for minimum wage than sell cars for triple that, but he's still raised capital and has put it at risk. He's a cappie and will probably fail.

There are also rich workers, at least in the USA. Many immigrants particularly the Vietnamese, are legendary for their thrift, focus, and industriousness, and they commonly have their modest homes and cars paid for before the deadlines.

Then they become entrepreneurs and they win there too. You don't hear them calling for nationalization of anything, of course. I don't see them as evil.

As for this:
"It simply goes to reason that a country you claim gives more opportunities for success should have more examples of success than those who are more restrictive. Contrarily, western industrialized countries, which often have more economic restrictions, tend to exemplify more social mobility."

I have no idea what you mean. Ulster is the one who says he has no chance, not me. I say that he does have a chance, at least in the USA. We're getting a little esoteric here, but I am suggesting that if Ulster has grown up in an environment that says "no you can't, ever" instead of one that says "yes you can, always," then I see the latter is better, and I see it and hear it every day in the USA. It's often unrealistic, of course, but on balance, it's better IMO than the opposite.

[Green Dragon]

It is your ethical appraisal that the amount of demand for a person's output should be referenced to determine a person's income, as it is my ethical appraisal that the degree of stress and strain associated with the type of work should be referenced to determine a person's income.

Actors (such as Heath Ledger) often work 20 hour days in difficult environments.

Part of the objection to your "ethical appraisal" of the situation is the lack of knowledge people possess for other professions. This has to be considered a major problem from executing a community based upon such principles.
The other problem is that if there is no connection betwen production and demand, then there is no way to ensure that demand is met by appropriate production.

We often find that what various people believe to be morally preferable isn't arguable in the same way that factual subjects are. The antinomy remains unresolved, and what we have achieved, then, is the fruitfulness of having clarified ourselves to each other instead of being left misunderstanding one another. A suppose that a couple more centuries will now pass. I believe that in the end the world's choice will be: socialism.[/quote]

[Green Dragon]

Under capitalism, it is not possible for all people to pursue their desired vocation because it requires a class heirarchy of winners

No, you are free to follow your vocation in a capitalist system.

However, if your labor is not needed by the community in the capitalist system, then it is doubtful you will get far. There is nothing particularly terrible about this, since it is absurd for the community to support labor which does not benefit IT. Why a socialist commuity would want to support such a situation have never explained, other than claiming magic- people's chosen vocation will always, automatically amd magically correspond to what the community actually wants.

[Robert]

Don't you agree that if a given occupation is promoted in captialism, which is your reasoning for suporting its existance, its benefits should also be acceptable? Both come from the same thing and can easily be justified by your line of thinking.

That's a reasonable question and I don't have the answer. The exec who wrecks a company and imperils its workers and who is then given a golden parachute disgusts me. I don't know what can be done to fix it. But I don't know how pervasive the problem is either. I would prefer that stockholders eschew ownership in the companies when they can be identified and the harm measured.

[Green Dragon]

can you explain why 100% automation is such a bad or impractical idea?[/QUOTE]

It isn't. Naturally, capitalism blazes the trail in this regard.

The problem which exists for the capitalist, in more rapid transformation, is the same problem the socialist community have in this score (even though they deny it will exist).

When the community appropriates resources to research, develop ect. such new technology, it means those resources can't be used elsewhere. It has to make choices, informed choices. Which means a source of knowledge in maing those choices. The knowledge isn't about water driven cars, or solar power. Its about whether the resources those newer technologies use are best used on those technologies, or on other technologies.

Is it better to pay a human wages on an assembly line, or to spend huge amounts of resources building a machine to do the same? Maybe those resources will prove a greater benefit for the community if it was used in other means. Maybe not. But that is the kind of knowledge which is needed, the kind of information which needs to be provided.

[Green Dragon]

[
quote=mikelepore;1066324]When the bills come due for the rent or mortgage, the doctor bills, your kids' college tuition, and many more -- well, if you only made $4000 that whole year, just explain that to them. Bill collectors are very understanding about these things. Just tell the creditors, "Chill out, dude. Have a crepe!" Then the bank president will say, "Peace and love, my brother. Your account will be marked paid-in-full"! Just don't worry about it. According to Genesis 22:14, "The Lord will provide."[/QUOTE]

Now wait a second. In a socialist community,indeed a capitalist community as well, all those resources which our friendly crepe seller have consumed, have been produced by others. Can a community truly prosper if it consumes more than it produces? Is it wrong for the community to make determinations and limitations for its own benefit?

[Robert]

What do you mean, GD? I think he was merely mocking, as insufficiently remunerative, my suggestion that Ulster throw off his wage shackles and make and sell crêpes for himself.

[mikelepore]

Now wait a second. In a socialist community,indeed a capitalist community as well, all those resources which our friendly crepe seller have consumed, have been produced by others. Can a community truly prosper if it consumes more than it produces? Is it wrong for the community to make determinations and limitations for its own benefit?

My answers to those questions would be the same as your answers, of course. But darned if I can figure out what that has to do with the subject.

I was replying (sarcastically) to the suggestion that workers under capitalism can always quit their jobs because self-employment opportunities are readily available.

Such opportunities are practical only to the extent that few people attempt them. If just a small percentage of the many miserable corporate employee quit and start small trades, many of them will be successful, but as soon as more people do so then the opportunities vanish just as fast.

This is so for two reasons.

First, the fields rapidly get saturated. If you're making any money, six other people will emulate you, and now each person makes one-seventh of that money that you used to make.

Secondly, you can't have a population of people who sell things to each other and perform services for each other. Someone has to be making the large industries go.

Because of those two reasons why self-employment is viable only to the extent that few people attempt it, the suggestion that self-employment is a practical alternative must contains the implicit assumption that it's only a few workers who find submissive obedience to a crabby employer to be degrading, whereas it is the many who do. It is the many who resent the lack of freedom of speech at their jobs, constantly being told to work faster and faster but don't you dare make a mistake, the being treated like children who have to bring in a doctor's note after being sick, getting yelled at for taking out a moment to call the babysitter to check on the kids, being screamed at for being late even if that lateness was caused by a blizzard forcing the police to close the roads, being told by a supervisor how frequently they are allowed to go to the bathroom, being told whether they are required to stand up or sit down, being told how to dress, and even being ordered to smile more often. Working for an employer is a slave's miserable existence, and most people know it. It is the many, not the few, who are deeply offended by the degrading environments in which they have to work.

[MT5678]

Green Dragon says: Can a community truly prosper if it consumes more than it produces?

No, it can't. Which is why, by your logic at least, the U.S. government will be going down the tubes in a bit. And so will capitalism. The system consumes far more products than it produces. Have you wondered what's happening to the Newfoundland fisheries. Oh yeah, don't forget that we have a limited supply of fossil fuels...

On another note, Ulster can have a fun time throwing off his wage shackles and becoming a crepe seller in a monopolistically competitive industry where failure is a fact of life for around 4/5 of the market suppliers. The marginal costs outwiegh the benefits.

[Dr Mindbender]

It would seem to be a statement of fact.
If its a statement of fact then surely it would be easy for you to provide substance in your arguments rather than more strawmen.




Far closer than the socialist system.
I wouldnt know about that. Unfortunately theres never been a bona fide socialist system in existance and whenever anyone has tried to set one up, its been met with bloody hostility and economic sanctions from other opposing nations.




That which you say will benefit the people (and you are one of the very few around here who actually is willing to defend socialism) will not have that desired effect.
*yawn* do you ever have anything to back up what your say? Your arguments are as dogmatic as a streetside preacher.

[Dr Mindbender]

What do you mean, GD? I think he was merely mocking, as insufficiently remunerative, my suggestion that Ulster throw off his wage shackles and make and sell crêpes for himself.
well you see, i dont wish to become implicit in the current system and it isnt possible for everyone to become 'crêpes sellers'. If that happens, who's going to be in the factories producing the flour and ingredients for your wonderful snacks?
I'm not opposed to capitalism because of some self indulgent woe story, I oppose it because I believe it is not the best ideaology for the human species!

[pusher robot]

Pusher: "I foresee a future society that is largely (though not completely) post-scarcity."

Surely you aren't including energy and living space? Personally, I foresee Soylent Green. (Ever been to New Delhi, Mexico City, or Shanghai?) At any rate, I hope you're right.

What I believe will eventually occur is that we will develop the technology to perfectly simulate anything that we wish (like The Matrix, or the holodeck on the Enterprise). Once that happens, most people will spend most of their time in simulated environments, where inifinite demands can be satisfied not with scarce resources, but perfect simulations of scarce resources.

[Dean]

What I believe will eventually occur is that we will develop the technology to perfectly simulate anything that we wish (like The Matrix, or the holodeck on the Enterprise). Once that happens, most people will spend most of their time in simulated environments, where inifinite demands can be satisfied not with scarce resources, but perfect simulations of scarce resources.

Seems like you been on too much of that bullfrog.

[pusher robot]

Seems like you been on too much of that bullfrog.
I know not of what you speak.

[pusher robot]

I'm not familiar with what they mean by inputs. Anyway, compare the wages to the value added. The numbers say that the workers were robbed. No other interpretation is possible.

Every day that you go to work you get mugged.

There are many problems with this analysis, starting with the fact that you are insisting on using loaded words well outside their literal meanings. Words like "robbery" and "mugging" have literal and specific legal meanings that do not correspond with your use of them. Using them the way you do can be rhetorically effective, but really is a argumentative fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_language).

Furthermore, it is not obvious from your figures that there is anything really unfair going on.

"Inputs" reflects the costs the employer incurs not reflected in employee compensation - so everything from the machinery to the factory space to the electricity to the toilet paper. Your figures these inputs are about 54% of the output. In other words, the employee himself only supplies about 46% of his gross output, as your figures do indeed indicate. Since both the inputs of the employer and the inputs of the employee are necessary to create the added value, it could reasonably be concluded that the benefit be split roughly in proportion to the value of the inputs of both. And we see then that the employer takes its share - about 60% - and the employee takes his share - about 40%. The employee is still getting shafted somewhat, around the order of 6%, but these are after all aggregate figures so they can't be taken to represent any specific place of business.

The more fundamental problem with this analysis is that it bases its moral improprietary on theories of ownership, while simultaneously disclaiming the existence of ownership. When two people make an agreement for mutual benefit, upon what moral basis do you claim to know the "correct" allocation of the benefit? What makes you a better judge of their choices than they?

Consider a laborer who produces cheeseburgers. The materials cost him $1 and he sells them for $2. Is he "robbing" each customer of a dollar? Suppose that one of his customers is a man who comes to him after being lost in the desert. He is starving, and would gladly pay hundreds of dollars for a cheeseburger, and is sold one for $2. Has he been "robbed" of a dollar? He just received hundreds of dollars of benefit to himself for $2. Has he "robbed" the cheeseburger-maker of hundreds of dollars?

[mikelepore]

to pusher robot,

I know I used loaded words, but I cited the statistics first and put my expression of outrage underneath that, such that the reader can see the line between the two.

Thank you for explaining the meaning of the term "inputs" in the table, which I did not know.

Such things as the materials, machinery and electricity that the worker acts upon, not produced by this worker, were produced by other workers. The fact that the capitalist "supplies" the worker with them results in an optical illusion. When people say that production requires labor plus materials, the materials are themselves the products of previous labor, so saying labor plus materials is equivalent to saying labor plus labor.

You amended it to say "inputs of the employer." I suppose, if we had private ownership of the air and sea, those too would seem to be provided by the employer for the worker to act upon, but it's an illusion generated by ownership.

Your last paragraph substitutes the scenario where a person who buys materials and makes cheeseburgers is also the person who sells them. That's not analogous to the employment situation. A better analogy would be a person who buy the materials for thirty cents, and then pays a workers thirty cents to turn those materials into a cheeseburger, and sells that cheeseburger for two dollars. You asked: is he robbing the consumer? No, he is robbing the worker.

[pusher robot]

Your last paragraph substitutes the scenario where a person who buys materials and makes cheeseburgers is also the person who sells them. That's not analogous to the employment situation. A better analogy would be a person who buy the materials for thirty cents, and then pays a workers thirty cents to turn those materials into a cheeseburger, and sells that cheeseburger for two dollars. You asked: is he robbing the consumer? No, he is robbing the worker.

But the employer is a consumer - he is a customer for the worker's labor. In both the sale of the cheeseburger and the sale of a worker's labor, values are exchanged for mutual benefit. There is a net gain in wealth that is distributed between the two parties, sometimes more to one party, sometimes more to the other, sometimes pretty evenly. But let's go ahead and consider the employee who sold his labor to a company making New England Patriots Superbowl Championship apparel, which is now worthless. He has already been paid for his labor, despite it being ultimately, totally unproductive. His value added is zero, but his compensation is greater than zero. Has he robbed the employer?

[mikelepore]

When two people make an agreement for mutual benefit, upon what moral basis do you claim to know the "correct" allocation of the benefit? What makes you a better judge of their choices than they?

There's a lot to that issue, so for today I will confine myself to a couple of aspects.

First, they didn't come to an agreement in the same sense as people who ponder a variety of outcomes, like a married couple discussing what color to paint the bedroom. The is the going hourly rate an apple picker, the going hourly rate for a registered nurse, etc. Both the employer and employee are individuals who were born into this world, which was already here before their arrival, and subsequently they were informed by rude awakening what that going rate is. Not so with the movie or sports celebrity, but generally so for everyone else. Each type of labor power is nearly a fungible commodity.

Secondly, to say that people make an agreement for mutual benefit that doesn't convey anything about whether we are operating within "just" institutions by anyone's definition. You could say the same thing about when the inquisitor says "If you confess to being a witch then I won't put the hot poker into your eye" and the other guy says "All right, hand me the confession and I will sign it." The outcome is one of mutual benefit, because the guy who sought to obtain a confession has obtained one, and the guy who sought to keep his eye got to keep it. The fact that we have a transaction where the local slope of everyone's moves is toward their respective benefit doesn't reveal whether the whole environment is the best of all possible environments or whether an improved one can be conceived.

[mikelepore]

Furthermore, it is not obvious from your figures that there is anything really unfair going on.

When an employment situation is incidental, like when you get someone to install the kitchen cabinets, I'm not concerned about the various actors' personal lives. If it's as incidental as that, let's say it's fair because both agreed. But things are totally different when it's a permanent demographic pattern with its own inertia. Most people can't see the pattern because we don't wear the role labels on our faces. But suppose we had a rule that all green-eyed left-handed people were to be the employers or order-givers, and all other people were to be the employees or order-takers. Then people could immediately see the injustice of people being plopped into the given roles, and cries of "slavery" would be shouted. Well, we do in fact have such a demographic pattern, and people who have been "educated" to the end that they are incapable of seeing it need to be "really educated" so they will now become able to see it. The permanent demographic pattern is this: those who do not own sufficient assets to survive on investment returns, must, in order to survive, seek and obtain employment by the opposite population grouping, whose who do own sufficient assets to enable then to survive on investment returns. These are demographic groups just as real as if we were to say brown eyes and green eyes, or light skin and dark skin. It is a whole population group that makes a particular kind of "agreement" with another population group. It is not incidental, like Jones making an agreement with Smith. It is a recurrent pattern that is characteristic of this epoch of history. That makes it _not_ an agreement at all, but an imposition of given roles that has been disguised as an agreement.

[Robert]

i dont wish to become implicit in the current system and it isnt possible for everyone to become 'crêpes sellers'. If that happens, who's going to be in the factories producing the flour and ingredients for your wonderful snacks?

I guess you mean "complicit," and what do you mean you "don't wish to?" I suggested that you leave the "current system" since you find it so objectionable and go work for yourself and you scoffed at the notion as unworkable (It doesn't matter if you're selling crêpes or juggling for tips or fabricating handmade guitars or cleaning carpets). You assume that everyone wants to run his own business. They don't. It's a headache and it can be frightening.

So it appears that you certainly DO want to become complicit. Moreover, you have already become so and are resistant to real opportunities to "break free" as I guess you would call it.

Honestly, there's no pleasing you, sir.

[luxemburg89]

1. For all its apologists, Marxism has never delivered on its goals. Ever. No Marxist society has delivered the political, or economic, freedoms to the workers which it claimed it would.

Yes, several nations saw an improvement in living standards, chiefly Russia. However, this was done hastily and resulted in the deaths of millions of people during industrialization. The West, on the other hand, was industrialized over a longer period of time with much less death involved.


And so Capitalism has delivered? Of course because economic freedom and individual liberties were rife during the McCarthy era...oh wait, no, they weren't! You will now think 'that is one example...etc' and you may think it a poor example of how a Capitalist state is run; the same can be said of Marxism - many would argue all we have seen of it so far is authoritarian, ideological deviation into State Capitalism. True Marxism is yet to be given a chance, in a political sense anyway.



2. For all it's naysayers, Capitalism has delivered the highest standards of living to any people in the history of the species. More has been done in the name of profit than anything else.

There has been more advancement in medicine, farming, transportation, electricity, information sharing, and on and on under capitalism than anything else. No other system even comes close in the amount of technological advancement that Capitalism has given us.


While I recognise Capitalist nations have delivered this, it has not been equally distributed and not always to the benefit of the majority. If you are poor you live in near total deprivation, if you are rich you reap Capitalism's benefits - it is so hard to move up the ladder that so-called Marxist nations (itself paradoxical) have tried to reach some form of equalibrium for all - I suppose.



3. To say that every member of society deserves the same amount from society is to say everybody gives an equal amount to society.

They don't, and in fact shouldn't, get equal amounts from society because their labor is not equal to society.

Under capitalism, people who deliver something that is most demanded from society are the most compensated. We need doctors more than janitors, and, thereby, doctors receive better compensation.

This motivates more people to become doctors, and other vocations which society demands, instead of becoming something which society does not need so urgently. It takes years and years to become a doctor, about 15 minutes to become a janitor.


We would need far more doctors were there to be less 'janitors' - good sanitation has always been the key to preventing disease. Private doctors are scum, they hold people's health to ransom, it's disgusting. Everyone works hard, everyone has their role to play you patronising, disgusting little ****.




4. Progress is much faster under capitalism than communism.

Why?

Because the pursuit of profit motivates people more than doing something for the 'good of society' ever could. Competition between these sources trying to make money spurs advancement even further.

How quickly have computers, for instance, progressed? MP3's? The internet itself? It's all do to competition.


Actually this is down to scientific and technological advancement in recent years, competition creates only companies; it is science that creates the products. Supply and demand is not necessary.



Meanwhile, socialists advocate having the govt run things. However, what's going to motivate the government to make such quick progress, when they could inflate their budget and take their time? It's not like their going to see a reward for that extra work their doing, so why do it?


Ehem, 'they're' not 'their' - Capitalism obviously hasn't taught you grammar, tut tut. I should hope that they will be motivated by empathy and love for mankind, this is a love that runs in all of us - it is only a lack of understanding of human nature that leads to idiotic statements like 'people are inherently selfish'.

In the time that it took you to type that pointless post you could have been busy plotting your suicide, the world would have benefitted more if you had.

xxx:wub:

[Green Dragon]

[
quote=Ulster Socialist;1066778]well you see, i dont wish to become implicit in the current system and it isnt possible for everyone to become 'crêpes sellers'.

Yes. Congratulations. Not everyone can be a crepe salesman, even if that is what they love to do want to do, have great skills at doing, have dreamt about a crepe saleman since chiildhood.

Even in a socialist community. Even in a technocracy.

Now that you have conceded that point (it has taken a few months) we can now move on...

[Green Dragon]

[quote=MT5678;1066511]No, it can't. Which is why, by your logic at least, the U.S. government will be going down the tubes in a bit. And so will capitalism. The system consumes far more products than it produces. Have you wondered what's happening to the Newfoundland fisheries.

The socialist community will not consume fish?

[Green Dragon]

[quote=Ulster Socialist;1066777]If its a statement of fact then surely it would be easy for you to provide substance in your arguments rather than more strawmen.


Substance that people are not perfect? Okay. Name perfect people.

[Green Dragon]

In the time that it took you to type that pointless post you could have been busy plotting your suicide, the world would have benefitted more if you had.


You may believe you are more clever than Jazzratt, but that comment reveals you are not.

How? Because when you claim that the community would be better off without that post, you are drawing a value judgement. You are saying the community would benefit more by a suicide plan as opposed to writing the note. The community benefits more from that Person doing "A" than "B."

Great. so it means your rambling statement becomes total nonsense. An exercise in futility. An intellectual brain fart. Sure, the community needs doctiors and janitors. But how does your community know that Person "A" benefits the community more by being doctor than a janitor, or vice versa? How does Person "A" know that extra work he does benefits the community more so than going home and preparing a suicide note?

You don't know. You have no idea. And what's worse, you have no way to measure it. Oh sure, you might say "Any fool can see that..." The correct answer is "Any fool can say that..." At best, it is simply a subjective opinion lacking any rationale. It is simply your opinion, that you hope will be adopted by 50% +1 of the community.

[Dean]

[QUOTE]


Substance that people are not perfect? Okay. Name perfect people.

No, we all know that perfection is illusory when it comes to defining people. The point is whether or not the argument "nobody is perfect" justifies misappropriation of labor and resources in a capitalist economy. Clearly, it is useless as far as arguments go (without substance) and pretends to answer an argument that hasn't been made (strawman).

[Green Dragon]

[quote=Green Dragon;1067060]

No, we all know that perfection is illusory when it comes to defining people. The point is whether or not the argument "nobody is perfect" justifies misappropriation of labor and resources in a capitalist economy. Clearly, it is useless as far as arguments go (without substance) and pretends to answer an argument that hasn't been made (strawman).


No. the issue is whether socialism does a better job than capitalism at allocating labor and resources, considering that people are not perfect.

[Robert]

Dragon, you are a bright, informed, and earnest individual. Why you would wish to contribute further thoughts to a board whose members overtly advocate your death is beyond me.

Note to your uncultured interlocutor: it's "equilibrium." He'll learn that when he gets to high school.

[Dean]

[QUOTE]


No. the issue is whether socialism does a better job than capitalism at allocating labor and resources, considering that people are not perfect.

No, that is the initial issue of debate. It degraded into an argument about your dumb-ass remark, "nobody is perfect," which refuses to address the issue, and implies that the argument against yours includes the concept that there are, in fact, "perfect" individuals. Therefore, it is without substance in regards to the argument, and is a strawman. So Ulster is correct in describing your comment as without substance, and further correct in requesting a real response.

I don't know why I have to spell it out. This is simple linguistics and logic.


Dragon, you are a bright, informed, and earnest individual. Why you would wish to contribute further thoughts to a board whose members overtly advocate your death is beyond me.
Member. So what, if you two advocated my death should I leave, too?


Note to your uncultured interlocutor: it's "equilibrium." He'll learn that when he gets to high school.
One person misspells a cumbersome word while Green Dragon can't follw basic logical statements, and the former is "uncultured" whereas Dragon is "bright, informed and earnest?" BTW, since we're playing grammar nazi, it is generally considered inappropriate to use a comma before "and." So uncultured! Get a life.

[Robert]

No, my inattentive friend. The individual in question took Dragon pompously to task for confusing "their" with "they're," and then he misspelled "equilibrium" in the same post. So he deserved a little spanking. I hope he doesn't cry too hard.

Yes, I actually do think that the overwhelming majority on this little sub-forum does wish me and Dragon dead. It doesn't surprise or offend me. What would surprise me would be to find any young commie who didn't have active death wishes for the opposition.

Finally, if you consider "equilibrium" a cumbersome word, you'd better hit the books, and I mean hard.

See you in hell.

[Joby]

And so Capitalism has delivered?

Yes, it has.


Of course because economic freedom and individual liberties were rife during the McCarthy era...oh wait, no, they weren't! You will now think 'that is one example...etc' and you may think it a poor example of how a Capitalist state is run; the same can be said of Marxism - many would argue all we have seen of it so far is authoritarian, ideological deviation into State Capitalism. True Marxism is yet to be given a chance, in a political sense anyway.

Marxism hasn't been succesfull because it can't be succesful.

McCarthyism was bad, yes.


While I recognise Capitalist nations have delivered this, it has not been equally distributed and not always to the benefit of the majority.

Yes, and it shouldn't deliver everything equally over society.


If you are poor you live in near total deprivation,

Sorry, but if you are poor you should do something which society has a high demand for.


if you are rich you reap Capitalism's benefits

Yes, you do.


- it is so hard to move up the ladder

Not in succesfull capitalist countries.

Unless you consider college hard.


that so-called Marxist nations (itself paradoxical) have tried to reach some form of equalibrium for all.

And failed. Miserably.


We would need far more doctors were there to be less 'janitors' - good sanitation has always been the key to preventing disease.

Yes, cleaning up is hard.

However, that doesn't make janitorial work a high demand by society. Find me someone, I'll make them a janitor in 5 minutes.


Private doctors are scum, they hold people's health to ransom, it's disgusting. Everyone works hard, everyone has their role to play

No, they offer people services that may improve their health.

The doctor, who spent years studying, years in residency...has a right to charge what society deems as fair.


you patronising, disgusting little ****.

Yes yes quite right.


Actually this is down to scientific and technological advancement in recent years, competition creates only companies; it is science that creates the products. Supply and demand is not necessary.

And those companies, competing for your dollar, deliver the innovation. It's the companies, and the marketplace, which creates an incentive for efficiency and progression.

Capitalist-made cars kick communist-made cars' ass.


Ehem, 'they're' not 'their' - Capitalism obviously hasn't taught you grammar, tut tut. I should hope that they will be motivated by empathy and love for mankind, this is a love that runs in all of us - it is only a lack of understanding of human nature that leads to idiotic statements like 'people are inherently selfish'.

Ok.


In the time that it took you to type that pointless post you could have been busy plotting your suicide, the world would have benefitted more if you had.

xxx:wub:

Won't the imminet revolution take me out?

:lol:


haha "workers revolution" my ass

[Dr Mindbender]

[

Yes. Congratulations. Not everyone can be a crepe salesman, even if that is what they love to do want to do, have great skills at doing, have dreamt about a crepe saleman since chiildhood.

Even in a socialist community. Even in a technocracy.

Now that you have conceded that point (it has taken a few months) we can now move on...
i have conceded nothing. You took my words out of context, and rubbished my model of technocracy, providing nothing but strawmen in the process.

I am still awaiting a factual constitent reply backed with substance to the last of your drivel.

[Dr Mindbender]

Just noticed this one...


No, you are free to follow your vocation in a capitalist system.
...As long as it is wanted by the system. I dont call that freedom.


However, if your labor is not needed by the community in the capitalist system, then it is doubtful you will get far.
There is nothing particularly terrible about this,
Despite the fact that i have made equal sacrifice to someone more upwardly mobile in terms of commitment time, and study? I think that is particulary terrible and wholly unfair.



since it is absurd for the community to support labor which does not benefit IT.
The present day community supports plenty of roles which do not necessarilly benefit it, because our society is based around the arbitrary transition of capital.
Someone engaged in a materialist industry produces materialist results.
So it is actually the capitalist that is least beneficial to the community since he produces nothing. Before you spout your BS about the capitalist providing jobs, under a system where all industries are nationalised that role would be redundant anyway.




Why a socialist commuity would want to support such a situation have never explained, other than claiming magic- people's chosen vocation will always, automatically amd magically correspond to what the community actually wants.
As I said, people dont necessarilly want lots of capitalists at the moment (but hey ho, thats what we've got folks!), the only reason is down to privately owned industries and the way the means of production have been devolved from the sphere of public accountability.

It can do no harm to have the maximum amount of people possible involved in industries across the board because by breaking down the workload, greater advances can be made more quickly.

Also, community = Workers and workers= community. Whats good for the goose, and all that. Since the people are going to be spending a discernable amount of their time in work, it would make sense to make freedom of job choice a public priority.

[pusher robot]

...As long as it is wanted by the system. I dont call that freedom.

It's the only way that both the individual and society are not able to harm each other.

If the individual chooses a vocation that is not highly desired by society, he accepts society's lower levels of compensation. If society wants people to choose vocations they might not otherwise, they must offer greater compensation as an incentive. It's the only mechanism by which neither is the individual forced to work a particular job, nor is society forced to pay for unwanted labor. So the individual can make whatever choice he wants, as long as he is willing to accept the natural consequences of that choice. That is freedom.



Despite the fact that i have made equal sacrifice to someone more upwardly mobile in terms of commitment time, and study? I think that is particulary terrible and wholly unfair.


Your notion of unfairness is egocentric. You think it's unfair that society doesn't compensate you for labor that it doesn't want the same that it compensates for labor it does want, without seeming to give a second thought to the unfairness of requiring other people to sacrifice what they do want for something they don't want, thus effectively enslaving them to you.


Before you spout your BS about the capitalist providing jobs, under a system where all industries are nationalised that role would be redundant anyway.

And if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass on the ground when he hopped.

[luxemburg89]

You may believe you are more clever than Jazzratt, but that comment reveals you are not.

How? Because when you claim that the community would be better off without that post, you are drawing a value judgement. You are saying the community would benefit more by a suicide plan as opposed to writing the note. The community benefits more from that Person doing "A" than "B."

Great. so it means your rambling statement becomes total nonsense. An exercise in futility. An intellectual brain fart. Sure, the community needs doctiors and janitors. But how does your community know that Person "A" benefits the community more by being doctor than a janitor, or vice versa? How does Person "A" know that extra work he does benefits the community more so than going home and preparing a suicide note?

You don't know. You have no idea. And what's worse, you have no way to measure it. Oh sure, you might say "Any fool can see that..." The correct answer is "Any fool can say that..." At best, it is simply a subjective opinion lacking any rationale. It is simply your opinion, that you hope will be adopted by 50% +1 of the community.

Ladies and Gentlemen I refer you to the Right hon. member for ****sville, Mr. Green Dragon. Jazzratt and I are good friends and, despite the JOKE under my username, I have never claimed to be smarter than Jazzratt - but that is the side issue.

My throw-away comment at the end of my post was also a joke, but you've pissed me off now with your snobbish and pathetic attempt at analysing my post. What I was implying was that Doctors and 'janitors' play an equally valuable role in society and it is pointless to have one without the other. However, the post in question was pointless in my opinion, and was a waste of society's time. Do you understand, I expect not.


Sorry, but if you are poor you should do something which society has a high demand for.


And if you are rich you should do whatever you can get your usurous hands on? You're a moron.


Won't the imminet revolution take me out?


No, mate. There is no revolution round the corner, we're a long way from that. And I hope any revolution will be bloodless - the world has seen enough of people dying. Stop making stupid assumptions that we all want you dead, most of us want no one dead.

[Jazzratt]

You may believe you are more clever than Jazzratt, but that comment reveals you are not.

As has been pointed out, me and lux get on fine. The user title was a joke which, to be fair isn't so obvious now my user title is no longer "clearly superior".

I don't want to get drawn into this vacuous debate because, quite frankly, your posts are so innocent of the taint of knowledge, their purity unsullied by the taint of intellect that they burn deep into my dark communist soul. I would like to ask that when you've stopped whatever bizarre masturbatory ritual it is that gets you frothed up into the mindless trance in which you make your posts that you reply to the meat of luxemburg89's statements, not the throwaway insults that he or I have posted, you blistered and thrush riddled ****.

[Dean]

No, my inattentive friend. The individual in question took Dragon pompously to task for confusing "their" with "they're," and then he misspelled "equilibrium" in the same post. So he deserved a little spanking. I hope he doesn't cry too hard.
That's good enough, then.


Yes, I actually do think that the overwhelming majority on this little sub-forum does wish me and Dragon dead. It doesn't surprise or offend me. What would surprise me would be to find any young commie who didn't have active death wishes for the opposition.
You're a damn fool, then. I don't wish anyone dead here. I don't think that more than a couple percent of communists in these forums want people here dead, and they are usually the high-school hipster types who are more intered in the revolutionary look then mentality. As luxemburg pointed out quite succinctly, we hope that the revolution is bloodless. I would like nothing more than for bloodshed to cease.


Finally, if you consider "equilibrium" a cumbersome word, you'd better hit the books, and I mean hard.
So, now who is 'pompously taking another to task'?

Since such things seem to matter to you, I don't think it's cumbersome. I feel that my linguitic capabilities are pretty good, but I am also aware that the term "equilibrium" is a commonly misspelled term.


See you in hell.
Since your primary aim is to antagonize the members of this forum, what compulsion do you have to stay? Are you simply some sadist who can't find the appropriate outlet for his emotions, or do you fell so srongly about things you can't articulate that insults serve you best? Seriously, start making real posts. The whole anti-communist routine is played out and laughable; why don't you query others for their views instead of asserting your vague pretensions?

[Green Dragon]

No, that is the initial issue of debate. It degraded into an argument about your dumb-ass remark, "nobody is perfect," which refuses to address the issue, and implies that the argument against yours includes the concept that there are, in fact, "perfect" individuals. Therefore, it is without substance in regards to the argument, and is a strawman. So Ulster is correct in describing your comment as without substance, and further correct in requesting a real response.


I reread the exchange. Ulster made the comment that capitalists are only interested in maximising profit, which does not always mean labor and resources are allocated correctly. I agreed with him, or her, because nobody is perfect.
So, since nobody is perfect, it stands that socialisism will not be perfect in allocating resources.
So, since neither socialism or capitalism is perfect, which does the better job in allocating resources?
At this point, Ulster chose to dodge the issue.

[Green Dragon]

Okay. then.





...As long as it is wanted by the system. I dont call that freedom.


Okay. So what does this have to do with our friendly crepe salesman? You have said not everyone can be crepe salesman. The system wouldbe ag'in it. Now you are suggesting if the system doesn't want everyone to be a crepe salesman, freedom is being crushed. I don't see how I have "rubbished" your statements on technocracy.


Despite the fact that i have made equal sacrifice to someone more upwardly mobile in terms of commitment time, and study? I think that is particulary terrible and wholly unfair.

Again, our friendly crepe salesman can make that very claim when being told by you that not everybody can be a crepe salesman.




The present day community supports plenty of roles which do not necessarilly benefit it, because our society is based around the arbitrary transition of capital.


That is usually the claim. usually evidence backing it is scarce.



Someone engaged in a materialist industry produces materialist results.
So it is actually the capitalist that is least beneficial to the community since he produces nothing. Before you spout your BS about the capitalist providing jobs, under a system where all industries are nationalised that role would be redundant anyway.


Well, no, because the community will still need somebody to do the role of the capitalist, within the nationalised industries.





As I said, people dont necessarilly want lots of capitalists at the moment (but hey ho, thats what we've got folks!), the only reason is down to privately owned industries and the way the means of production have been devolved from the sphere of public accountability.


If the capitalist produces goods and services which nobody wishes, the capitalist goes bankrupt, and stops producing those goods and services. Since his desire is to make money, and he can only make money by providing goods people want, it seems a fairly effective means of ensuring public accountability.



It can do no harm to have the maximum amount of people possible involved in industries across the board because by breaking down the workload, greater advances can be made more quickly.


"maximum amount of people" based upon what standard of "maximum?"
If we are talking raw numbers, sure, having too many workers in one place can harm the community. It means the community does not have enough people working elsewhere.


Also, community = Workers and workers= community. Whats good for the goose, and all that.

This must be the red version of if its good General Motors its good for America.
And both claims are false. Yet again, it cannot be good for the community if all the workers become crepe salesman. It cannot be good for the typewriter workers to switch over to computers, yet undoubtedly the community benefits from computers than typewriters.



Since the people are going to be spending a discernable amount of their time in work, it would make sense to make freedom of job choice a public priority.

Except of course if they all wish to be crepe salesman. Then watch out for the tyranny to decend!

[Green Dragon]

What I was implying was that Doctors and 'janitors' play an equally valuable role in society and it is pointless to have one without the other. However, the post in question was pointless in my opinion, and was a waste of society's time. Do you understand, I expect not.


No, I understand. But you still don't.

Your opinion is was that that post was pointless and a waste of time. Fine. You made a value judgement.

But then you go off and say, well the community needs doctors and janitors. And of course you are correct.

But that isn't enough. You need to be able to determine how many doctors and how many janitors, the community needs. The community does not benefit if it has too many doctors, or too many janitors, because it means there are fewer people available to do other things that the community needs.

You had an opinion, based on some knowledge, as to the benefits of that original note. What you being asked is to present the knowledge which makes the determinations as to allocation of labor to being doctors or janitors.

[mikelepore]

But then you go off and say, well the community needs doctors and janitors. And of course you are correct.

But that isn't enough. You need to be able to determine how many doctors and how many janitors, the community needs. The community does not benefit if it has too many doctors, or too many janitors, because it means there are fewer people available to do other things that the community needs.

What a coincidence that this was mentioned. Only recently did I notice that, among its many faults, too many to count, yet another fault of capitalism is its inability to see to it that we have enough doctors.

Without revealing the gory details, a doctor told me over the phone in September to have something looked at "immediately", so I called the front desk and made the first available appointment, which was for November. When I got to see the doctor in November, he told me to go to the specialist "immediately", meaning to call right away to arrange the first available appointment, which was for January.

The cause of not having doctors under capitalism? It is the double punishment imposed on the trainee, in this field as with other fields. Not only does capitalism fail to give the student an hourly income for time expended in learning, but the system even makes him or her pay tuition. Way to go, capitalism -- declare what you supposedly want and then do everything possible to discourage that very thing.

[Dr Mindbender]

It's the only way that both the individual and society are not able to harm each other.

If the individual chooses a vocation that is not highly desired by society, he accepts society's lower levels of compensation. If society wants people to choose vocations they might not otherwise, they must offer greater compensation as an incentive. It's the only mechanism by which neither is the individual forced to work a particular job, nor is society forced to pay for unwanted labor. So the individual can make whatever choice he wants, as long as he is willing to accept the natural consequences of that choice. That is freedom.
Under capitalism, wanted labour appears to be determined by what is most profitable. We have illusions of scarcity, not because people dont want a certain industry, it's because it wouldnt necessarilly generate enough money for the profiteers. Africa for example, is clearly in need of affordable food and medicine but the industrialists wont set up there because of lack of demand, but lack of potential profit.
The same rules apply to industries on this side of the equator. I probably wont become a professional footballer or actor, not due to lack of talent or work ethic, but because there isnt enough cash to be derived from me doing so. So when you say 'freedom', you actually mean the extent of financial lubrication of one capital holder to another. Wether or not people want to get entwined with a certain area of work seems to be a side issue for you lot.




Your notion of unfairness is egocentric. You think it's unfair that society doesn't compensate you for labor that it doesn't want the same that it compensates for labor it does want,
When you say 'society' you mean the elite clique of profiteers that are set to benefit.
No my idea of unfairness is based on common sense, not egocentricity.


without seeming to give a second thought to the unfairness of requiring other people to sacrifice what they do want for something they don't want, thus effectively enslaving them to you.
capitalists expect me to become enslaved for their want of profit, while i would prefer to dedicate my labour for the furtherance of the human species.
You tell me what is the lesser of 2 evils?


And if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass on the ground when he hopped.
The debate is not an amphibian nor is it one with ambitions of flight.

[Dr Mindbender]

Okay. So what does this have to do with our friendly crepe salesman? You have said not everyone can be crepe salesman. The system wouldbe ag'in it. Now you are suggesting if the system doesn't want everyone to be a crepe salesman, freedom is being crushed. I don't see how I have "rubbished" your statements on technocracy.
I think you have misread my posts somewhere along the line.

I said it is against the interests of capitalism for everyone to become crepe salesmen, because while your workforce of 100% crepe salesmen are out who is going to be in the factories preparing the packaging and ingredients? Your system needs people in the factories to mantain it's class heirarchy and carrot and stick system of 'shit job= shit wages' and the reverse.

This is where [socialist] technocracy would differ (if you ignore the silly idea of a workforce consisting entirely of crepe sellers since 'human nature' dictates that people will all want different jobs) because those factories would be fully automated enabling the human workers to pursue and dedicate their resources to obtaining desired career x.




Again, our friendly crepe salesman can make that very claim when being told by you that not everybody can be a crepe salesman.
There will still be crepes after the revolution.

The problem is, you are failing to understand the anthropologic slant to the scenario. The reason people choose to become crepe sellers at the moment isnt because they enjoy it per se, its because its a cheap and sustainable way to exist under capitalism.
Socialism is about removing that need to do so, not removing the 'right' to become a crepe maker. If people want to become 'crepe makers' after the revolution, power to them, but the pre revolutionary motivation for doing so will be gone.

So wether or not people will still see it as a worthwhile investment of their time is another discussion.




That is usually the claim. usually evidence backing it is scarce.
Not been paying your optician's subsidies I see?

Damn private sector health treatment. ;)




Well, no, because the community will still need somebody to do the role of the capitalist, within the nationalised industries.
those can be allocated to the unions, which will be better, because it will mean a level of transparency and democracy not realised under capitalism.



If the capitalist produces goods and services which nobody wishes, the capitalist goes bankrupt, and stops producing those goods and services. Since his desire is to make money, and he can only make money by providing goods people want, it seems a fairly effective means of ensuring public accountability.
You've got a short memory.
If you remember what i previously said, the number of people demanding a specific product is not necessarilly an indication of wether or not such an enterprise will succeed. Very very few people will own a mansion or yatch, but the reason we have companies that specialise in yatchs or mansions is because there are people able to pay disgusting sums of money. Thats isnt a reflection of public demand, which is the big dichotomy in your swiss cheese of an argument which you still havent tackled.



"maximum amount of people" based upon what standard of "maximum?"
If we are talking raw numbers, sure, having too many workers in one place can harm the community. It means the community does not have enough people working elsewhere.
based upon the standard of how many people want to do any specific job. It's really that simple.



This must be the red version of if its good General Motors its good for America.
Meh.


And both claims are false. Yet again, it cannot be good for the community if all the workers become crepe salesman.
I agree, and as I've already touched on will not be the case unless you're doing a U-turn on the whole cappie thing of ''all humans are undividuals''.


It cannot be good for the typewriter workers to switch over to computers, yet undoubtedly the community benefits from computers than typewriters.
In my workplace, we have new technologies coming all the time and you barely hear a murmur from us.
What socialist technocracy would do differently is train all concerned workers so they are at the cutting edge making the introduction of new technology a far less alienating experience.


Except of course if they all wish to be crepe salesman. Then watch out for the tyranny to decend!
Okay, you go and play with your plastic guns now. ;):lol:

[pusher robot]

[quote]Africa for example, is clearly in need of affordable food and medicine but the industrialists wont set up there because of lack of demand, but lack of potential profit.No, the reason they won't set up there is lack of the necessary conditions to support capitalism, like basic security.

The same rules apply to industries on this side of the equator. I probably wont become a professional footballer or actor, not due to lack of talent or work ethic, but because there isnt enough cash to be derived from me doing so.And the reason there isn't enough cash to be derived is because it is not highly valued by society.

Wether or not people want to get entwined with a certain area of work seems to be a side issue for you lot.What they want is irrelevant to other peoples' duties to provide. If you want to be an actor, be an actor. But don't expect that your wishes and dreams incur a duty on others to sacrifice themselves to support you.


When you say 'society' you mean the elite clique of profiteers that are set to benefit.
No my idea of unfairness is based on common sense, not egocentricity.

No, I mean "society" - every individual living in some coherent organized civilization.

Suppose you live in a community of 100 people, and that this community is well-functioning because each person is filling a needed role. If you decide to quit your job as the only doctor because you would prefer to be a basket-weaver, even though the community already has a baket-weaver capable of meeting all its woven-basket needs, are you not being ego-centric to demand that they sacrifice the existence of a doctor, and all the produced goods it takes to support you, just so that you can pursue your desired occupation? Are you not essentially claiming them as your slaves by demanding that they sacrifice of themselves for your own benefit? A capitalist society would leave the the option of doing so without imposing the duty on the rest of the members of the community to sacrifice of themselves to your benefit.

capitalists expect me to become enslaved for their want of profit, while i would prefer to dedicate my labour for the furtherance of the human species.And what if the human species neither wants or desires your labor? What if it wants or desires something else more?

You tell me what is the lesser of 2 evils?I am not so presumptuous as to tell the rest of humanity what it wants.

[Dr Mindbender]

No, the reason they won't set up there is lack of the necessary conditions to support capitalism, like basic security.
And the reason there isn't enough cash to be derived is because it is not highly valued by society.
...So by your definition, 'society' excludes the peoples of the developing world?

Give me a break, I wasnt born yesterday.

The supposed peoples need for a security attatched to a food distribution effort is a symptom of the class disparity there, not in spite of it.


What they want is irrelevant to other peoples' duties to provide. If you want to be an actor, be an actor. But don't expect that your wishes and dreams incur a duty on others to sacrifice themselves to support you.

in the case of the 3rd world, it is a matter of need, not want, and since the western hemisphere is largely responsible for creating the material conditions there they have a moral debt to clean up the mess they made.

My case about having the freedom to choose what vocation i want isnt a cry for help from other people, more a demand to have the equal material means to acheive my desired position as someone born into a more advantageous position. (which would be possible under a technocratic socialist government) Since those born higher up the class heirarchy are dependent upon the labour of those further down it, your argument about those dependent on others could be swung round the other way against them.


No, I mean "society" - every individual living in some coherent organized civilization.

the problem is, the interests of the proletarian =/= the interests of the establishment class.

For example, it is in the interests of my employer for me to work longer hours for less money. My interests are precisely the opposite.


Suppose you live in a community of 100 people, and that this community is well-functioning because each person is filling a needed role. If you decide to quit your job as the only doctor because you would prefer to be a basket-weaver, even though the community already has a baket-weaver capable of meeting all its woven-basket needs, are you not being ego-centric to demand that they sacrifice the existence of a doctor, and all the produced goods it takes to support you, just so that you can pursue your desired occupation? Are you not essentially claiming them as your slaves by demanding that they sacrifice of themselves for your own benefit? A capitalist society would leave the the option of doing so without imposing the duty on the rest of the members of the community to sacrifice of themselves to your benefit.
And what if the human species neither wants or desires your labor? What if it wants or desires something else more?
I am not so presumptuous as to tell the rest of humanity what it wants.
Seeing as how becoming a doctor requires years of commitment and study, it would be a task only for the absolutely commited so it makes no sense for someone showing that level of interest to not adopt the job for the remainder of their working lives. I therefore doubt your basket weaver analogy is a problem we would likely face. The same can be said for other vocations of equivalent expertise.

The purpose of technocratic socialism is to automate tasks (like basket weaving) which take less commitment to enable humans to dedicate their time to pursue careers on the equivalent skill level of doctoring, propulsion science, robotics, etc.
So in your community of 100 you might have 80 basket weavers, and 20 in miscellaneous levels of professionalism, those 80 could be appropriated to at least part time training for more productive means of employment. Apply that idea to the human race and you start to see why as a species we're not as far ahead as we could be.

[Tungsten]

There is no class antgonism involved if a socialist system give greater hourly incomes to those who volunteer for the more strenuous work.

First, understand what class are. (At least, in the Marxian view. A typical university sociologist doesn't agree with the Marxian definition.)

Classes are determined by the source of income which gets reflected in various people's econmic interests. For example, for the people today whose source of income is to sell their labor time, their economic interest generally is to have wages higher, profits lower, workers' workdays shorter and vacations longer, benefits increased,
Presumably without questioning the side-effects of such policies are.

and for the people whose source of income is investment of assets, their economic interest generally is to have wages lower, profits higher, workers' workdays longer and vacations shorter, benefits reduced.
Presumably without questioning the side-effects of such a policy are.

Look, conflicts of interest exist all over the place and for a whole manner of reasons; they certainly don't fit neatly into two camps.

A socialist system will have no aristocracy that gets its income by the passive role of being lucky enough to own something, so one of the two major sources of income that I mentioned above ceases to exist.

The working class also ceases to exist. As Marx explained: "When the proletariat wins victory, it by no means becomes the absolute side of society, for it wins victory only by abolishing itself and its opposite." "The condition for the emancipation of the working class is the abolition of every class." [in _The Poverty of Philosophy_, 1847]

Finally, how could have antagonism when it's a choice?
Because they're unequal and inequality is not a choice. Some will end up with a greater standard of living because they have more money. Some will end up with more material possessions and therefore greater buying/selling power than others.

Suppose the economic system has the policy that one work hour for a firefighter is the same amount of personal effort and exertion as four work hours for the person who strolls on a tropical beach and takes calendar photos, which is equivalent to saying that the firefighter gets four time the hourly income as the other. So you choose the the first for its shorter duration, despite its greater intensity, and I choose the second for the lower stress level, despite the longer duration relative to earning ability. Maybe next week each of us will make the opposite choice, but today we choose this. There's no antagonism at all there. Harder-job shorter-time is optimized for equality as its principle.
So some will get more than others, based upon an arbitrary scale? It's not this scale I'm making an issue of right now; it's the fact that there won't be equality. Some will be better off than others with similar effects- no different to how it is today. And yes, people choose to be poor in today's system too. It's the easy way out.

Capitalism has it exactly upside down. It always did and always will. The most strenuous and draining work pays the least,
Strenuous work =/= value. Besides, where I work, the laborers earn more than most of the office staff.


perhaps more people would like to do child care that arent currently being given the opportunity now?
Perhaps they wouldn't. What would you do about it then? Nothing, unless you're planning on forcing them to do this line of work.

The mother in question could benefit from their service while she pursues the said course in graphic design. In any case you miss my point. Under capitalism, it is not possible for all people to pursue their desired vocation because it requires a class heirarchy of winners and shit shovellers in order to survive.
No system "needs" shit-shovellers- if a machine put them out of work under capitalism, they'd find other work instead. The idea that such a thing would only happen under socialism is a bit pompous, not to mention utopian.

...As long as it is wanted [I]by the system. I dont call that freedom.That's the reason your system is going to either fall flat on its face or resort to authoritarianism- you seem to think that people will be able to do whatever they want without regard to what society actually wants or needs.

Okay, there's a shortage of steel workers, but an abundence of painters. A shortage of steel is about cause a serious crisis. What's likely to happen next?

in the case of the 3rd world, it is a matter of need, not want, and since the western hemisphere is largely responsible for creating the material conditions there they have a moral debt to clean up the mess they made.
Let's run through it:
The main problems that plague Africa are disease (not our fault), famine (crop failure is not our fault either) inter-tribal warfare (eg. Rwanda- not our fault), and government corruption (eg. Kenya - not our fault, although it's a safe bet there's probably a conspiracy theory floating around) and I think in the case of Zimbabwe, their plight lies entirely at the feet of their government.

So would you care to retract that ridiculous, sweeping statement?

[Green Dragon]

I said it is against the interests of capitalism for everyone to become crepe salesmen,

Its against the interests of the technocracy as well. Yet if that is somebody's desired career, well, whacha gonna do?


because while your workforce of 100% crepe salesmen are out who is going to be in the factories preparing the packaging and ingredients?

Absolutely. The community will need to figure out ways to get people to work in packaging and igredients.




This is where [socialist] technocracy would differ (if you ignore the silly idea of a workforce consisting entirely of crepe sellers since 'human nature' dictates that people will all want different jobs) because those factories would be fully automated enabling the human workers to pursue and dedicate their resources to obtaining desired career x.


We are back to this "fully automated" stuff.

Ulster, the only wat to get the factories "fully automated"

Support capitalist methods. When the cost of human labor exceeds that of using machinery, that is when the switch goes over. Otherwise, the system has no way of knowing if in fact the community benefits more from the machine or the human doing the labor.




The problem is, you are failing to understand the anthropologic slant to the scenario. The reason people choose to become crepe sellers at the moment isnt because they enjoy it per se, its because its a cheap and sustainable way to exist under capitalism.


There are certainly people in the capitalist system who do not like their jobs. Just like there are people like their jobs.


Socialism is about removing that need to do so, not removing the 'right' to become a crepe maker. If people want to become 'crepe makers' after the revolution, power to them, but the pre revolutionary motivation for doing so will be gone.

The pre revolution motive, and what will still remain the only sensible motivation AFTER the revolution, is that people want the product of your labor. You have never explained why the community would support you in satisfying your needs, if your work does not satisfy the community's needs.




So wether or not people will still see it as a worthwhile investment of their time is another discussion.


Not really. Its tied together. How does the individual make a determination, in a technocracy, if the work is worth his time? By whether the individual likes doing it? Well, you guys like to bash the "idle" rich for not doing much of anything worthwhile or productive. maybe they like being "idle." hey, maybe we can consider such idle rich folks living the technocrat dream!






those can be allocated to the unions, which will be better, because it will mean a level of transparency and democracy not realised under capitalism.


Two separate issues. the unions still need to act. They need sources and types of information in making decisions.




If you remember what i previously said, the number of people demanding a specific product is not necessarilly an indication of wether or not such an enterprise will succeed. Very very few people will own a mansion or yatch, but the reason we have companies that specialise in yatchs or mansions is because there are people able to pay disgusting sums of money.

But so what? Aren't rich folks part of the public?
Or to put it differently: Do not a MINORITY of the population (in what they wish to consume) have the same expectation of the majority of the population (in what they wish to consume) of production geared to satisfy their needs?




based upon the standard of how many people want to do any specific job. It's really that simple.


And we are back to dealing with all those crepe salesman...
Meh.





In my workplace, we have new technologies coming all the time and you barely hear a murmur from us.


I am sure you don't.
What about the producers of the older technologies? I mean, they have a workplace somewhere...



What socialist technocracy would do differently is train all concerned workers so they are at the cutting edge making the introduction of new technology a far less alienating experience.


Sounds good.
And since we are talking about four hour workdays here, when do you suppose people will actually work producing what they want to do? Or do people simply want to work by spending those four hours learning about the latest gizmo?

[Dean]

I reread the exchange. Ulster made the comment that capitalists are only interested in maximising profit, which does not always mean labor and resources are allocated correctly. I agreed with him, or her, because nobody is perfect.
So, since nobody is perfect, it stands that socialisism will not be perfect in allocating resources.
So, since neither socialism or capitalism is perfect, which does the better job in allocating resources?
At this point, Ulster chose to dodge the issue.

He already pointed out that the profit motive corrupts the capitalist mode. You agreed, but needed more reason to accept that capitalism was worse at allocating resurces. Unfortunately, you have provided no examples of how socialism wouldn't be better, except that it is "imperfect" (no shit, nothing is) so the burden of evience is still on you; he's provided much more, which you dodged by saying capitalism is imperfect. I may as well argue al dichotomies by simply saying "well, that is a correct criticism agaisnt my point, but no point is perfect, therefore mine still stands." Lame.

[Dr Mindbender]

Perhaps they wouldn't. What would you do about it then? Nothing, unless you're planning on forcing them to do this line of work.
I'll guarantee you there are. What about all those millions of people freezing on the streets each night who have no home or job? I'll wager you they would take being an au pair over their current scenario in a flash.


No system "needs" shit-shovellers-
I didnt say it did, I was using the term as a euphanism for menial work in general.


if a machine put them out of work under capitalism, they'd find other work instead. The idea that such a thing would only happen under socialism is a bit pompous, not to mention utopian.
They wouldnt be out of an occupation altogether, those who arent working would be studying until they're at such a level they can engage with the workplace on a hands on level. Either way they're not going to be idle.


That's the reason your system is going to either fall flat on its face or resort to authoritarianism- you seem to think that people will be able to do whatever they want without regard to what society actually wants or needs.
I know Im probably about to be bombarded with more strawmen here, but here goes...
it wont be possible to integrate to full technocracy, right away, that much is true largely because capitalism hasnt succeeded in producing enough automated equipment to replace all workers.
What will happen though with the nationalisation of all industries, the state will be able to provide work for all people in much the same way it is able to provide housing and welfare at the moment. Employment will shift to the sphere of public responsibility. Since it will utilise the manpower of each able bodied person, the required shift per person will dramatically decrease, so rather than 8 hour shifts, each person would only be required to work say, 2 hours. With a communistic form of economic planning, each person would still recieve an equal amount of the social production. With the surplus time available, and with the nationalisation of all seats of learning, removing education fees, workers would have the opportunity and incentive to return to education, and study towards a new place in the technocratic society.
After then, we would be in a position to start removing all workers from the factory floors and begin the full automation.


Okay, there's a shortage of steel workers, but an abundence of painters. A shortage of steel is about cause a serious crisis. What's likely to happen next?
I would like to think I've sufficiently covered this one already.


Let's run through it:
The main problems that plague Africa are disease (not our fault), famine (crop failure is not our fault either) inter-tribal warfare (eg. Rwanda- not our fault), and government corruption (eg. Kenya - not our fault, although it's a safe bet there's probably a conspiracy theory floating around) and I think in the case of Zimbabwe, their plight lies entirely at the feet of their government.
These are all symptoms of material conditions created by the interference of the western world. Aside from the plundering, slaughter and other parasitic effects of colonialism, the slave trade caused a dispersal of the continent's intellectuals, and talent who would have been instrumental in the building of a developed africa (MLK, Malcolm X, Bob Marley, to name but a few), the inventor of the traffic lights was a black american!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrett_Augustus_Morgan


So would you care to retract that ridiculous, sweeping statement?
I wasnt aware that I made one.

[Dr Mindbender]

Its against the interests of the technocracy as well. Yet if that is somebody's desired career, well, whacha gonna do?
I don't think you read and understood my last post correctly.

I'm not repeating myself, so either go back and read it or stop trolling.



Absolutely. The community will need to figure out ways to get people to work in packaging and igredients.
Well co-ercing people into a vicious cycle of poverty and shit wages isnt the way round it. We already have machines that can do the job, why not use them?



We are back to this "fully automated" stuff.

Ulster, the only wat to get the factories "fully automated"

Support capitalist methods. When the cost of human labor exceeds that of using machinery, that is when the switch goes over. Otherwise, the system has no way of knowing if in fact the community benefits more from the machine or the human doing the labor.
I mean full automation without the effect of creating a vast exodus of unemployed people. Capitalism only regards the labourer as a means to an end, the technocracy would regard them as being instrumental in the motive.
What is needed is a double pronged approach of educating the workforce while gradually phasing in the automation.



There are certainly people in the capitalist system who do not like their jobs. Just like there are people like their jobs.
By in large, those who like their jobs vastly outnumber those who dont. I dont think the misery of the majority is a worthwhile price for the joy of the minority. Secondly, i've already pointed out that the vast majority of those capitalist produce no material good, merely act as cogs for the arbitrary transaction of capital.



The pre revolution motive, and what will still remain the only sensible motivation AFTER the revolution, is that people want the product of your labor. You have never explained why the community would support you in satisfying your needs, if your work does not satisfy the community's needs.
your mindset is orientated around production and consumption. I think the community also wants jobs they are going to be happy and secure in.
Yes, its equally important that their material needs are catered for, but there is no need for this happen in tandem with wage slavery. By in large, the technology to replace human workers already exists.



Not really. Its tied together. How does the individual make a determination, in a technocracy, if the work is worth his time? By whether the individual likes doing it? Well, you guys like to bash the "idle" rich for not doing much of anything worthwhile or productive. maybe they like being "idle." hey, maybe we can consider such idle rich folks living the technocrat dream!
If the whole capitalist argument about humans being individuals is true, then a steady equilibrium of workers between the industries will be met. We shouldnt have too many problems from everyone wanting to be ''crepe salesmen''.



Two separate issues. the unions still need to act. They need sources and types of information in making decisions.
Seeing as how the workers will constitute the descision making entity, you cant get a better source than that.

Secondly, the interests of the capitalist management are not the same as their workers. In a union management, the onus will be shifted to the opposite.



But so what? Aren't rich folks part of the public?
They're on the other side of the dividing line between who wins under capitalism and who loses under it. Thats what alienates them from the rest of us.



Or to put it differently: Do not a MINORITY of the population (in what they wish to consume) have the same expectation of the majority of the population (in what they wish to consume) of production geared to satisfy their needs?
No, because i think by in large social standing and class effects your life expectations. Go up to some tramp in the street or 'trailer park mom' and ask them if they'll ever live in a mansion. I think he/she will laugh in your face.



And we are back to dealing with all those crepe salesman...
Meh.
Are we? I'd forgotten about them 2 paragraphs ago.



I am sure you don't.
What about the producers of the older technologies? I mean, they have a workplace somewhere...
Really? I think you'll be hard pushed to find anywhere in the western world still producing the old typewriters...



Sounds good.
And since we are talking about four hour workdays here, when do you suppose people will actually work producing what they want to do? Or do people simply want to work by spending those four hours learning about the latest gizmo?
No, I envisage people spending the rest of their time in a class room learning, or in an equivalent form of prepartion getting ready for the next phase of the revolution.

[Tungsten]

I know Im probably about to be bombarded with more strawmen here, but here goes...
it wont be possible to integrate to full technocracy, right away, that much is true largely because capitalism hasnt succeeded in producing enough automated equipment to replace all workers.
It's not possible for them to do so either. Not at today's level of technology.

What will happen though with the nationalisation of all industries, the state will be able to provide work for all people in much the same way it is able to provide housing and welfare at the moment. Employment will shift to the sphere of public responsibility. Since it will utilise the manpower of each able bodied person, the required shift per person will dramatically decrease, so rather than 8 hour shifts, each person would only be required to work say, 2 hours.
Not unless you currently live in a country with a 75% unemployment rate. That's what it would take to decrease it to that level. There's no guarantee that everyone will have a meaninful job. Many back-to-work schemes involve pointless jobs.

These are all symptoms of material conditions created by the interference of the western world.
Are you being serious? You're saying that that famine, disease and tribal warfare never existed in Africa prior to collonialism?

Aside from the plundering, slaughter and other parasitic effects of colonialism, the slave trade caused a dispersal of the continent's intellectuals, and talent who would have been instrumental in the building of a developed africa (MLK, Malcolm X, Bob Marley, to name but a few), the inventor of the traffic lights was a black american!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrett_Augustus_Morgan
Bob Marley was Jamaican and Malcom X was American. Neither of them would proabably of been of significant influence without western involvement, right or wrong; too many factors would have been different.

And you haven't refuted a single example I gave.

I wasnt aware that I made one.
That's part of the problem.

[pusher robot]

it wont be possible to integrate to full technocracy, right away, that much is true largely because capitalism hasnt succeeded in producing enough automated equipment to replace all workers.
What will happen though with the nationalisation of all industries, the state will be able to provide work for all people in much the same way it is able to provide housing and welfare at the moment. Employment will shift to the sphere of public responsibility. Since it will utilise the manpower of each able bodied person, the required shift per person will dramatically decrease, so rather than 8 hour shifts, each person would only be required to work say, 2 hours. With a communistic form of economic planning, each person would still recieve an equal amount of the social production. With the surplus time available, and with the nationalisation of all seats of learning, removing education fees, workers would have the opportunity and incentive to return to education, and study towards a new place in the technocratic society.
After then, we would be in a position to start removing all workers from the factory floors and begin the full automation.
And then, we'll all turn into beings of pure light and energy, and ascend into the heavens for an eternity of bliss.

Ulster, this is becoming futile. Your posts are filled with nothing but idealistic supposition and fantasy. We are interested in the here and now, and you refuse to do anything but speculate, and act hurt and angry that reality doesn't live up to your imagination. Granted, your imagination is fertile, and maybe you'd be a good science fiction writer or something. But you have given us no reason, nothing at all other than your own beliefs and personal desire, to think that anything like this will ever happen. Well, that's not good enough. Good intentions make poor paving stones.

I am truly sorry that reality falls far short of your dreams. I think, however, you will find it far more productive to work within that reality rather than expending so much time and energy raging ineffectively against it.

[mikelepore]

If the capitalist produces goods and services which nobody wishes, the capitalist goes bankrupt, and stops producing those goods and services. Since his desire is to make money, and he can only make money by providing goods people want, it seems a fairly effective means of ensuring public accountability.

That proposed action-at-a-distance voodoo effect has been fictitious since Adam Smith and it's still fictitious.

People can only choose what to buy out of what already exists, therefore looking at what they buy cannot indicate what they want. For example, the supposed "information" contained in market trends says that people apparently didn't want electric cars for the past eighty years, as indicated by the fact they they didn't buy them. How could they buy them if they didn't already exist?

The capitalist theory says it backwards: it says that, since people, by choosing not to buy any, communicated that they don't want them, therefore no one produces them. The capitalist theory requires people to travel in a time machine into the future to buy a product that may someday exist, then this market signal will travel backwards in time to before the product existed and tell the capitalist to make it now so it will be available later.

Even if something exists, it's still not an option until it's already affordable. The allegedly available conveniences with price tags greater than a working class person's life savings don't even count as being here.

If a product does already exist, and if it is already affordable, then consumer behavior _does_ tell manufacturing _how many_ units of it to make. That's all that can possibly be communicated under capitalism.

Even then, capitalists sometimes disregard this capacity for measuring how many to make. They sometimes discontinue production while purchases are still being made, like the time when the vinyl photograph records disappeared from all stores in the U.S. within a single week, and similar abrupt policies to discontinue the beta format VCR, the eight-track audio tape, the laptop computers with diskette drives, etc.

Socialism won't rely on those voodoo beliefs about the supposed controlling powers of the so-called free market. In a socialist system, the industrial managers will be the people's representatives, as the law-makers are the people's representatives. Not having any stockholders to satisfy with glamorous annual and quarterly reports, the managers will be free to poll and enact the wishes of the public directly.

[Dr Mindbender]

It's not possible for them to do so either. Not at today's level of technology.
thats because its not been in the interests of the current ideaology to concentrate on building the technology to the necessary epoch.


Not unless you currently live in a country with a 75% unemployment rate. That's what it would take to decrease it to that level. There's no guarantee that everyone will have a meaninful job. Many back-to-work schemes involve pointless jobs.
for a tremendous amount of people, any form of housing and work at all would be significantly better than their current situation.


Are you being serious? You're saying that that famine, disease and tribal warfare never existed in Africa prior to collonialism?
I'm not saying they didnt exist then, Im merely stating that the introduction of western capitalism, slavery and colonialism exacerbated and sustained the causes of warfare and famine.
After the slave traders and colonies drained their resources, the african nations found it an uphill struggle to compete on an economic level with the northern hemisphere.


Bob Marley was Jamaican and Malcom X was American.
The point is moot. Had it not been for slavery, they would have become valuable economic and cultural contributors to the african continent.


Neither of them would proabably of been of significant influence without western involvement, right or wrong; too many factors would have been different.
Thats debatable. Had it not been for the factors I've already mentioned, Africa might have stood a chance in clawing its way back to prosperity more quickly. Both Asia and Latin America did not bear the brunt of European meddling to the extent that Africa has, and there is clearly a superior standard of life in Brazil or China than there is in Sudan or Somalia.


And you haven't refuted a single example I gave.
I believe I already have


That's part of the problem.
Thats your opinion.

[Dr Mindbender]

And then, we'll all turn into beings of pure light and energy, and ascend into the heavens for an eternity of bliss.

Ulster, this is becoming futile. Your posts are filled with nothing but idealistic supposition and fantasy. We are interested in the here and now, and you refuse to do anything but speculate, and act hurt and angry that reality doesn't live up to your imagination. Granted, your imagination is fertile, and maybe you'd be a good science fiction writer or something. But you have given us no reason, nothing at all other than your own beliefs and personal desire, to think that anything like this will ever happen. Well, that's not good enough. Good intentions make poor paving stones.

I am truly sorry that reality falls far short of your dreams. I think, however, you will find it far more productive to work within that reality rather than expending so much time and energy raging ineffectively against it.
I really cant summon the enthusiasm to construct a verbal reply, however I think this picture sums up my sentiment quite adequately.
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/4543/strawmando0.jpg

[pusher robot]

I really cant summon the enthusiasm to construct a verbal reply, however I think this picture sums up my sentiment quite adequately.


Pithy. But my point that your posts consist of nothing but pure conjecture is not a straw man. It goes directly to the strength of your arguments. You are trying to frame the debate such that it is "status quo" vs. "your fantasies" - ideal for you, since as long as you can imagine something better, you win! I am challenging this framing by pointing out that your fantasies are not persuasive as applied to the real world.

[Green Dragon]

[quote=Dean;1068505]He already pointed out that the profit motive corrupts the capitalist mode. You agreed, but needed more reason to accept that capitalism was worse at allocating resurces.

Not at all. I agreed that the profit motive was not perfect, because people are not perfect.


Unfortunately, you have provided no examples of how socialism wouldn't be better, except that it is "imperfect" (no shit, nothing is

It is usually difficult to do so in a blanket way. And that is because socialists have so many differing ideas (at least on paper) on the subject of socialism. A critique has to be specific to the ideas a person has said, otherwise the counter-response is usually a dodge of sort ("thats not me. Thats that other socialist).

And I have done so with respects to Ulster's view (who again deserves credit for be willing to defend his views).
The baseline for the "not perfect" line is simply that critiquing capitalism is meaningless. One has to demonstrate that socialism is better. To the extent that Ulster has attempted to so, i have responded.

[Zurdito]

if there are problems evident in a society, you should try to solve them. Saying "people aren't perfect" doesn't mean anything. It could have been used at any time in any society to resist any attempt to put right an injustice. I never met a communist who claimed "people are perfect", so it's an empty phrase.

[Green Dragon]

[quote=Ulster Socialist;1068835]I don't think you read and understood my last post correctly.

I'm not repeating myself, so either go back and read it or stop trolling.


I have read it multiple times. You have stated it multiple times over the past few months. And it remains the same- the technocracy hopes and prays that where people have a desire to work will correspond in those areas where people need those products.
Becasue if it does not so correspond, the technate is screwed, as you have never proposed any other way to develop that balance.



Well co-ercing people into a vicious cycle of poverty and shit wages isnt the way round it. We already have machines that can do the job, why not use them?


If the machines can do the job better, and are cheaper than human labor, of course they will be used. They have been used for the past couple of centuries.



I mean full automation without the effect of creating a vast exodus of unemployed people. Capitalism only regards the labourer as a means to an end, the technocracy would regard them as being instrumental in the motive.


The "means to an end" of labor is its desired product that somebody else wants. Why else are you working? How is this untrue in a technate?





your mindset is orientated around production and consumption.

If we are talking about issues of work,then yes.


I think the community also wants jobs they are going to be happy and secure in.

Yes. This is true.
But again, your job is to produce things for other people. Its purpose is not to make you happy or feel secure. Who cares if you are happy and secure making typwewriters when we want computers?




By in large, the technology to replace human workers already exists.


assuming this statement is true, it doesn't describe anything. We have the technology to go the Moon and back? So why don't we? Simple, because the benefits of going to the moon do not outweigh its costs.
The same sort of analyisis has to be done, is done everyday in capitalist communities, regarding people with machines.



If the whole capitalist argument about humans being individuals is true, then a steady equilibrium of workers between the industries will be met. We shouldnt have too many problems from everyone wanting to be ''crepe salesmen''.


The capitalist argument cannot be used the technate.





Secondly, the interests of the capitalist management are not the same as their workers. In a union management, the onus will be shifted to the opposite.


The interets of union management is the same as the capitalist: To see to it that the job is done. That is what the union managers have to do. That is their responsibility. So they must have the ability to direct production in ways they think best, even if the workers oppose. Otherwise, the union manangement cannot be held responsible for failure, nor be given credit for success.
In other words, union management in the technocracy becomes redundant and a waste of resources (as per technocracy analysis of capitalist manangement).






Really? I think you'll be hard pushed to find anywhere in the western world still producing the old typewriters...


And that is because the world has been fortunate to have capitalism and not socialism or technocracy or whatever. The capitalists did not care about the interests of the typewriter workers, or were worried about depriving those workers of a job they loved, or about making such workers insecure in their typewriter jobs...

[Green Dragon]

if there are problems evident in a society, you should try to solve them. Saying "people aren't perfect" doesn't mean anything.

It means simply offering up critiques of capitalism is insufficient.


I never met a communist who claimed "people are perfect", so it's an empty phrase.

Great. So communism is not perfect. Super.
So now one has to analyse whether communism is a better system based on its OWN terms, not based upon that capitalism is not perfect.

[Zurdito]

Great. So communism is not perfect. Super.
So now one has to analyse whether communism is a better system based on its OWN terms, not based upon that capitalism is not perfect.

Well, I'll save you the effort: it's impossible, on an internet forum, to "prove" a system. Communism is not a set of policies which an intellectual can impose or prove from behind a desk.

Communism is what we, as revolutionary socialists in todays capitalist world, believe will be the logical outcome of the class struggle. That is, a living, breathing, unpredicable struggle which can't be planned out to satisfy every question you may have about every possible eventuality before, after or during a revolution.

Our struggle is borne out of the contradictions within capitalism. Therefore, to justify our struggle, it suffices to prove a.) the contradictions within capitalism and b.) how both our immediate and transitional demands can solve those problems, without destroying the gains made by humanity under capitalism.

[Green Dragon]

That is, a living, breathing, unpredicable struggle which can't be planned out to satisfy every question you may have about every possible eventuality before, after or during a revolution.

The term "strawman" has been tossed around here the past few days. It seems that the above qualifies: None of the "cappies" hereabouts (that I have seen) has ever requested such information.



b.) how both our immediate and transitional demands can solve those problems, without destroying the gains made by humanity under capitalism.
[/QUOTE]

THIS is what the "cappies" have asked to be proven.

[Zurdito]

[/quote]THIS is what the "cappies" have asked to be proven.[/quote]

ok, I recommend to you that you read some Karl Marx. He makes better arguments for working class revolution than anyone here will. you are clearly an intellectual and you clearly have time, so if youa re really interested, nothing stands in your way. his work is even free online at www.marxists.org (http://www.marxists.org). If he can't convince, no-one can, and therefore, you win, we failed to convince you. There, I set you free.

You see the problem is that if you are genuinely pretty satisfied with life under capitalism, then no-one is going to be able to "prove" communism to you. Proof of the need for revolutionary socialism comes through the real life struggle's of opressed and exploited people. Now if you want to relate to some such struggle (ie Palestinian resistance, British postal workers, argentine casino employees, Iranian bus drivers, Russian car makers), and within the context of wanting the success of that struggle, demand us to prove to you that the best solution is contained within marxist theory, then I will happilly do that. But if you simply don't have that outlook to begin with, then you won't be convinced, and are wasting your time here.:)