Elitism

[Robert]

I notice that there is little to no denunciation of "elitism" or "elitists" on this board, and I wonder why this is. I tried a word search and the references thereto all seemed to be in the "in crowd" (i.e., elite) sections. If it has ever been even mentioned in OI, I haven't seen it and can't find it.

Maybe it's not important to you, but I think it should be. It is what at bottom actually separates every capitalist/running dog on this forum from the true believers. We are elitists, and you are either not elitist or you pretend not to be. I believe the great majority of people of every class are elitist too -- I don't say elite -- and this is why your ideas seem so utopian and why guys like LSD are disillusioned.

Capitalists and capitalist sympathizers believe, I suggest, as did the embittered Antonio Salieri in the movie Amadeus, that men are decidedly not "all equal in God's eyes." Don't get excited yet ... all people (non-criminals) are equally deserving, oh yes, of human rights, material security, health, happiness, opportunity, education, freedom from oppression and any other felicitous circumstance you describe. But the fact is that we are not equally intelligent, comely, discerning, strong, fast, disciplined, charming, cunning, ingenious, charismatic, or industrious.

I realize that some enjoy advantage due to inherited wealth. But if they aren't innately capable themselves, they often piss it away (A fool and his money ....) And many start with nothing, at least here in the USA, and end up very, very comfortable, if not wealthy. They are the elite.

Unless you have a reasonable plan for eliminating these comparative, innate advantages from one man to the next, you cannot in my view ever develop any serious hope of the society you advocate. The current elite enjoy their advantages, powers, and comforts, so you'll never convert them to the cause; the near-elite or elite wannabes want a chance to show that they are better than the next man so that they can get ahead of the pack and become members of the elite class. What chance do you have with them? As for the non-elite, both the average guys and the congenitally disadvantaged, they want and need the elite to rise to the top and to protect them from oppression and misfortune, fraud and violence.

What do you propose to do about the elite? Where do they fit, if at all, in the society or governments you envision? If you put them in charge, and you will have to, how can you guarantee that they will stick around and continue to work if you don't reward them commensurately with their greater contributions?

[Chom]

I believe the great majority of people of every class are elitist too


That's not true; an example is this thing called "society", where people of all kinds join to build it together in a co-operative way. Sooner or later, and always, a small minority take advantage of these structures of free association and manage to opress and destroy society (psychopathy literally, or antisocial personality disorder if you like). History has not been made by a few leaders, but by the masses of men and women that struggle each day to achieve welfare for the whole.



and this is why your ideas seem so utopian


It's better to fight for utopia than falling into dystopia (there's a word, look it up).



But the fact is that we are not equally intelligent, comely, discerning, strong, fast, disciplined, charming, cunning, ingenious, charismatic, or industrious.



Well, actually all humans have the capacity to have all those characteristics and to improve them in many ways. Genetics fail at the point to determine why people are stupid or smart, unless it's a strong chromosome mutation; contextual study is better in answering why certain individual capacities evolve and others don't.

You are quite contradicting yourself, by the way, saying all have the equal right to this and that, but then you go on saying that they don't?



I realize that some enjoy advantage due to inherited wealth.


That's true, but not as in "they've earned it". I can put you an example; here in Spain, recently, a right-wing party member, who was representing this party in the parliament, retired... and got to become director and CEO of Telefonica, which is Spain's and Latin America's biggest communications company. So he was just representing a party and then suddently got to be CEO, and will begin earning millions, While the guy that cleans my shitty street will never get anywhere from where he is; neither will his children.



the average guys and the congenitally disadvantaged, they want and need the elite to rise to the top and to protect them from oppression and misfortune, fraud and violence.



Not true. As I've said before, leaders have done nothing; the common people have. Social security, eight-hour work day, public education, etc., are just a few of the many achievements of the masses that build society. Oh well, okay, I won't take everything from the leaders and elites; you're right they have given us many things, like wars, crisis, WMD's, corporate wars leading to frauds and poverty, leading then again to crime; oh, they also gave us the manhattan project with the nuclear bomb; child labor oooh that's great... and privatising schools! wow great advantage for the people who should have the equal rights you were talking about :rolleyes:



the elite (...) how can you guarantee that they will stick around and continue to work if you don't reward them commensurately with their greater contributions?


We either want them or need them. People can handle themselves, so thanks but no thanks. If you want to help, join us.

[Post-Something]

I notice that there is little to no denunciation of "elitism" or "elitists" on this board, and I wonder why this is. I tried a word search and the references thereto all seemed to be in the "in crowd" (i.e., elite) sections. If it has ever been even mentioned in OI, I haven't seen it and can't find it.

How exactly do you remove "elitism" from a society? That is like saying that you can take away "pride", or "love". There are certain traits people hold. That is of no concern to us.


Maybe it's not important to you, but I think it should be. It is what at bottom actually separates every capitalist/running dog on this forum from the true believers. We are elitists, and you are either not elitist or you pretend not to be. I believe the great majority of people of every class are elitist too -- I don't say elite -- and this is why your ideas seem so utopian and why guys like LSD are disillusioned.

I think you're missing the point quite severely to be perfectly honest. It doesn't matter if people are elitist in a communist society. They can't own private property. Essentially you're complaining about a personality trait. How exactly are these elitists going to exploit us now?


Capitalists and capitalist sympathizers believe, I suggest, as did the embittered Antonio Salieri in the movie Amadeus, that men are decidedly not "all equal in God's eyes." Don't get excited yet ... all people (non-criminals) are equally deserving, oh yes, of human rights, material security, health, happiness, opportunity, education, freedom from oppression and any other felicitous circumstance you describe. But the fact is that we are not equally intelligent, comely, discerning, strong, fast, disciplined, charming, cunning, ingenious, charismatic, or industrious.

What's your point? So what if we're different? Surely I have just the same economic rights as you, as well as human rights; simply for being an alive and contributing member to society.


I realize that some enjoy advantage due to inherited wealth. But if they aren't innately capable themselves, they often piss it away (A fool and his money ....) And many start with nothing, at least here in the USA, and end up very, very comfortable, if not wealthy. They are the elite.

You're living in a dream world my friend. The American dream is a big joke. Do you really think America is as meritocratic as it makes itself out to be? Do you really think everyone who works hard will make it to the top? By your argument, the people who do the most functionally important jobs should be at the top surely, right? Well, I'm afraid the answer to that is glaringly obvious. Meritocracy is a myth.


Unless you have a reasonable plan for eliminating these comparative, innate advantages from one man to the next, you cannot in my view ever develop any serious hope of the society you advocate. The current elite enjoy their advantages, powers, and comforts, so you'll never convert them to the cause; the near-elite or elite wannabes want a chance to show that they are better than the next man so that they can get ahead of the pack and become members of the elite class. What chance do you have with them? As for the non-elite, both the average guys and the congenitally disadvantaged, they want and need the elite to rise to the top and to protect them from oppression and misfortune, fraud and violence.

What do you propose to do about the elite? Where do they fit, if at all, in the society or governments you envision? If you put them in charge, and you will have to, how can you guarantee that they will stick around and continue to work if you don't reward them commensurately with their greater contributions?


Well, in my view, you would have to have a change of mindset prior to the actual revolution. So these people you speak of simply wouldn't be as large a force.

[Bud Struggle]

You're living in a dream world my friend. The American dream is a big joke. Do you really think America is as meritocratic as it makes itself out to be? Do you really think everyone who works hard will make it to the top? By your argument, the people who do the most functionally important jobs should be at the top surely, right? Well, I'm afraid the answer to that is glaringly obvious. Meritocracy is a myth.


Not in the least. The American dream really works. It worked for me. My parents came to America penniless and unable to speek the language and by the next generation we were all pretty darn rich. I know lots of people from India and Carribean and other places that come here and make fortunes.

I just had lunch yesterday with a 34 year old guy that is worth about 20 million dollars. He started out as a delivery boy of drycleaned shirts 15 years ago..and then he built up the business.

It's all pretty easy. You just have to work hard, work smart and have a little bit of luck.

[Robert]

Do you really think America is as meritocratic as it makes itself out to be?I don't think I made any such claim. You're extrapolating because those who do think so also happen to be elitist as I am. A reasonable assumption on your part, but wrong. Of course there are plenty who deserve better than they get. If I didn't think so, I wouldn't be here looking for answers.


Do you really think everyone who works hard will make it to the top?I didn't make that claim either. Not only will they not all make it to the top, they may not make it at all. I only say that there are more elitists than there are egalitarians. (By elitist here I am talking about those who support the idea of a meritocracy, not those who have "made it to the top.")

I'm living in a dream world? Oh boy, talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

RevLeft also lacks threads about panspermia. Frivolous.


I tried a word search and the references thereto all seemed to be in the "in crowd" (i.e., elite) sections. If it has ever been even mentioned in OI, I haven't seen it and can't find it.
Most Leftists aren't interested in conservative jargon for New Left liberals.


But the fact is that we are not equally intelligent, comely, discerning, strong, fast, disciplined, charming, cunning, ingenious, charismatic, or industrious.

Really now? I would have never known. Why didn't anyone tell me? :cursing:


And many start with nothing, at least here in the USA, and end up very, very comfortable, if not wealthy.What constitutes 'many?' The chance someone born to the perceived low and middle class has of making it as wealthy are slim to none - hovering below 1%. You have a better chance in the welfare European states like Germany, Norway, and Sweden than you do in Britain and America.

The people living "comfortably" as you put it are often working 50-60 hours a week, either to another person or as a small business owner trying to scrape up pennies from markets dominated by oligopolies, monopolies, and essentially cartels.


But if they aren't innately capable themselves, they often piss it away Capitalists, by their very definition, make money by doing nothing. You're clumping celebrities, lottery winners, and athletes into one program with capitalists. A few artisans in the Middle Ages were rich too, but they didn't constitute the ruling class.

Unless you have a reasonable plan for eliminating these comparative, innate advantages from one man to the next, you cannot in my view ever develop any serious hope of the society you advocate.You apparently lack any understanding about what type of society we advocate with all this talk about personal differences. Inherit differences hilight the problems with capitalism, not socialism. Someone who exerts more effort than another individual but can't compete in the quantifiable task isn't rewarded for his work.


The current elite enjoy their advantages, powers, and comforts, so you'll never convert them to the cause;You mean, the elite under capitalism won't relinquish their standing anymore than the elite under feudalism relinquished theirs? Congratulations. You've inadvertently discovered one, small aspect of Marxism.


the near-elite or elite wannabes want a chance to show that they are better than the next man so that they can get ahead of the pack and become members of the elite class.Again, you're just rehashing Marx's musings. It's been common knowledge for the past 150 years that the petit-bourgeoisie looks to become capitalists - they aren't revolutionary; the workers are. Small business owners can certainly be wooed after the elites throw them under a bus, but we're not at such a point yet. It's coming, though. In 1949 small business owners made up 20% of all wealth in Britain. Now it's half that. All the wonders of the internet haven't done much to restructure the cottage industry.


they want and need the eliteRemarks like these are despicable. Your arrogance was once enjoyed by the aristocracy, who attacked republicanism and democracy on the basis that the average people needed to be ruled.

Guess where that got them?


commensurately with their greater contributions?Capitalists make most of their wealth through laborless practices. We'll do just fine without them ruling through exploitive property relations.


If you put them in charge, and you will have to,No, we won't. Everyone will be in charge. This is communism. This is anarchism. Chances are people like you who are filled to the head in shitty arrogance won't be delegated any responcibility, nor will you receive any respect.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Not in the least. The American dream really works. It worked for me. My parents came to America penniless and unable to speek the language and by the next generation we were all pretty darn rich. I know lots of people from India and Carribean and other places that come here and make fortunes.

I just had lunch yesterday with a 34 year old guy that is worth about 20 million dollars. He started out as a delivery boy of drycleaned shirts 15 years ago..and then he built up the business.

It's all pretty easy. You just have to work hard, work smart and have a little bit of luck.
Growing up in New Jersey, I can testify to knowing five dozen or so immigrants. For every one that became "rich" (small business owner), a hundred didn't "make it." Why do you constantly fall back on unprovable narratives when you have nothing worthwhile to contribute?

While we're on the subject of your delivery boy friend, I want to just comment one more time on how capitalist apologists can't seem to distinguish between two distinct classes - small business owners and capitalists. If you think 20 million constitutes a capitalist, you really should invest some of your "fortune" into Marxist literature. The "elites" in charge see that as a 10% return. So while yes you have about a 1% chance of becoming a successful business owner, your chances of becoming a capitalist are slim to none - less than .2%.

I don't think you'll be amused as I am, but your comment "It's all pretty easy" and "you just have to work hard, work smart, and have a bit of luck" is an oxymoron. What else is there? Antigravity propulsion? Technological enlightenment.

[Post-Something]

Not in the least. The American dream really works. It worked for me. My parents came to America penniless and unable to speek the language and by the next generation we were all pretty darn rich. I know lots of people from India and Carribean and other places that come here and make fortunes.

I just had lunch yesterday with a 34 year old guy that is worth about 20 million dollars. He started out as a delivery boy of drycleaned shirts 15 years ago..and then he built up the business.

It's all pretty easy. You just have to work hard, work smart and have a little bit of luck.

It worked for my family too; that doesn't mean it's a good system. Your last word was quite interesting actually, "luck". You are an extremely lucky if the American dream does work. This is because, to be honest, the system is very deterministic. Straight from birth, children are born into a class, educated according to that class, under a teachers label, while being told that they can succeed just as easily as others (who had a background that provided enough support to ensure that the children do well in school). It's actually extremely one-sided.

Answer me this:

Who is more likely to attain what you term as "success"?

A child who is born into a stable, wealthy family. Always supported, encouraged to learn and discover new things, has access to any learning resources, and toys. Is given full attention from his parents, and lives in a decent neighborhood?

Or

A child who is born into a lower class family, struggling for money. Both parents work. They divorce during his teen years. He hasn't got access to any resources, and has limited space to explore any ideas.


Again, this equation is wrong: intelligence + effort = success.

Sure, it has a part to play, but there are FAR more factors that affect the average persons social standing.


It is extremely difficult to succeed if you come from a lower class background. It's like having a dead weight tied to you in a hundred meter sprint...and the rich get a 5 second head start.

[Post-Something]

I don't think I made any such claim. You're extrapolating because those who do think so also happen to be elitist as I am. A reasonable assumption on your part, but wrong. Of course there are plenty who deserve better than they get. If I didn't think so, I wouldn't be here looking for answers.

I didn't make that claim either. Not only will they not all make it to the top, they may not make it at all. I only say that there are more elitists than there are egalitarians. (By elitist here I am talking about those who support the idea of a meritocracy, not those who have "made it to the top.")

I'm living in a dream world? Oh boy, talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood. Do you support the theory of meritocracy, or are you arguing that communism will never be attained because there are more elitists than egalitarians?

If it's the later, well, that's exactly what people in any position of power said about capitalism when they lived in Feudal times. I don't think any of us claim that there will be a revolution any time soon; in fact, I think it would probably take something like a natural disaster, judging by the world today.

I wholeheartedly admit I'm an idealist; in fact, it says that under my avatar.:)
But I think it's always best to have a goal of some sort, something really big to aspire to, when you think about politics.
Plus, I really don't see why anyone really wants to remain in capitalism, and if you can find a better alternative, do tell.

[Robert]

Do you support the theory of meritocracy, or are you arguing that communism will never be attained because there are more elitists than egalitarians? There's an honest man with a reasonable question! I can't read the future any better than you. But my suspicion is that the communism as it's described here cannot be attained without a degree of coercion and control that the masses won't endure for any extended period of time. (Yeah, I know, capitalism coerces too.)

As for "supporting" a meritocracy, I'm not sure what you mean. I just see the cream rising to the top, whether I support it or not, in arts, sports, science, engineering, medicine, law, entertainment, education, even politics. From Beijing to Paris. I don't say it's fair, I just don't know how you get rid of it without mass murder. And yes, I think there are more supporters of elitism than of egalitarianism. It's often misplaced, of course. It's not my fault Britney Spears sells so many records.


I think it's always best to have a goal of some sort, something really big to aspire to, when you think about politics.
Take a bow. Well said.

[Demant]

I constantly get from my teachers that I am in the 'elite' of the Danish youth. That my class, my education and my fellow students are going to be the pillars of Denmark in a few years. Whether we have different skills and knowledge, we should have the same target. To make the earth a better place for all people. And we are all equal in this objective. It's about time we find out.

There is no elite, there is no bottom of third division. There are no countries, no names and no leaders. There is human kind, we should work together instead of keep taking distance to each other by dividing into groups of elite and regular people.

[Robert]

There is no elite

You "constantly" get from your teachers that there is an elite and that you are in it, but you say "there is no elite"? They are your teachers. Isn't it possible that they know more than you do?

[RGacky3]

I just see the cream rising to the top, whether I support it or not, in arts, sports, science, engineering, medicine, law, entertainment, education, even politics. From Beijing to Paris. I don't say it's fair, I just don't know how you get rid of it without mass murder. And yes, I think there are more supporters of elitism than of egalitarianism. It's often misplaced, of course. It's not my fault Britney Spears sells so many records.


First of all under Capitalism, being good at someting is'nt generally rewarded, the strong and the smart arn't nessesarily on top.

Second, if your talking about those who are smarter or stronger than others becoming elite? I don't see that happening, perhaps people will take more advice and direction from smart people, because they trust their desisions but that does'nt translate to becoming elite, and if by coersion you bean stopping people from coercsing others? Then yeah, I don't see a problem with that. Power does'nt have to do with abilities, under communism perhaps people with more abilities and smarts will have higher responsibilities, or people will trust them more, but again, thats not power, perse. In a Communist-Anarchist society it would be societies nature to stop any power structure from happening.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

You "constantly" get from your teachers that there is an elite and that you are in it, but you say "there is no elite"? They are your teachers. Isn't it possible that they know more than you do?
Nice way to take words completely out of context. Do you think Demant truly believes there aren't any leaders, nations, and names too? :D

[Demant]

You "constantly" get from your teachers that there is an elite and that you are in it, but you say "there is no elite"? They are your teachers. Isn't it possible that they know more than you do?
Nancy, you are in a communistic-anarchistic message board even though I bet the majority of teachers in your country are capitalists. What the hell are you talking about?

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

While we're on the subject of your delivery boy friend, I want to just comment one more time on how capitalist apologists can't seem to distinguish between two distinct classes - small business owners and capitalists. If you think 20 million constitutes a capitalist, you really should invest some of your "fortune" into Marxist literature. The "elites" in charge see that as a 10% return. So while yes you have about a 1% chance of becoming a successful business owner, your chances of becoming a capitalist are slim to none - less than .2%.

I don't think you'll be amused as I am, but your comment "It's all pretty easy" and "you just have to work hard, work smart, and have a bit of luck" is an oxymoron. What else is there? Antigravity propulsion? Technological enlightenment.


You make it sound like happiness unvariably comes from having as much wealth as everyone else. Perhaps it comes from merely providing a minimum substenance to every person, while allowing those managing society, and industry, the capacity to earn more in the way of money.

[Post-Something]

There's an honest man with a reasonable question! I can't read the future any better than you. But my suspicion is that the communism as it's described here cannot be attained without a degree of coercion and control that the masses won't endure for any extended period of time. (Yeah, I know, capitalism coerces too.)

To be perfectly honest with you, I came onto this board to find that out myself. I'm perfectly comfortable with the theory, and it makes perfect sense to me. I'm just trying to see if there are other ways of reaching communism other than "the dictatorship of the proletariat". One argument is that you would have a revolution, as opposed to the transitional period of socialism. Of course, there are a million and one things that have to be taken into consideration, and every country is in a different situation. It's made really difficult nowadays because of things like cultural hegemony and globalization. Can a revolution happen in this day in age without being squashed? I don't know. I'm only saying that I would second that movement if it ever came, and that I think it would solve most of the worlds problems.



As for "supporting" a meritocracy, I'm not sure what you mean. I just see the cream rising to the top, whether I support it or not, in arts, sports, science, engineering, medicine, law, entertainment, education, even politics. From Beijing to Paris. I don't say it's fair, I just don't know how you get rid of it without mass murder. And yes, I think there are more supporters of elitism than of egalitarianism. It's often misplaced, of course. It's not my fault Britney Spears sells so many records.



Meritocracy is the idea that the smartest and most hard working people get to the top. What I'm saying is that there are "hidden barriers" which make this extremely difficult. Communism doesn't want to get rid of these people. You have to see that they are good for society! Of course people are better in some aspects than others, thats quite evident in everyday life. Communism doesn't want to take these people away, it just wants to take away the means in which they could exploit everybody else. Why should somebody be better off simply because they are naturally more intelligent? As soon as that happens, you get class divisions, and you know why thats bad!

[Robert]

Meritocracy is the idea that the smartest and most hard working people get to the top.Agreed. And that they deserve to get to the top, and it's good for society that they get to the top.


there are "hidden barriers" which make this extremely difficult.Difficult for some, yes.


You have to see that they are good for society!I do see, but who is "they." The elite or the average? Anyway I agree that all types are needed, except violent or sociopathic (even if non-violent) criminals.


Communism ... just wants to take away the means in which they could exploit everybody else.The problem is defining exploitation. Some children are kept as slaves and this is obviously wrong. I suppose every employer is "using" his employees to some extent, as the employees are using him for their own advantage. And then at the other end of the spectrum, there are also lazy slobs in every industry who think they are exploited, but they're just malcontents. We can concede each others' points here.


Why should somebody be better off simply because they are naturally more intelligent? Assuming he doesn't work any harder, I guess he "shouldn't" in a moral sense. But if you are running a company, you want to attract the best talent. There are 10 other companies that want to hire employee X. You and they should be free to offer him more than they offer me if they want to. If you curtail those freedoms, I think that's a problem too. What makes these issues impossible to discuss is that the revolution contemplates elimination of money. I don't know whn exactly you guys plan to do that, but once it's done, my points are admittedly academic.

[Post-Something]

Agreed. And that they deserve to get to the top, and it's good for society that they get to the top.

Ahh, I would argue that that system can never work effectively. Who decides what jobs are the most functionally important?


I do see, but who is "they." The elite or the average? Anyway I agree that all types are needed, except violent or sociopathic (even if non-violent) criminals.

I was referring to the elite. I agree of course that all types are needed, and indeed that you can never remove these "types", I'm just arguing that all of them should be treated fairly and equally. Each of them deserve just as much access to the resources they need as any other.


The problem is defining exploitation. Some children are kept as slaves and this is obviously wrong. I suppose every employer is "using" his employees to some extent, as the employees are using him for their own advantage. And then at the other end of the spectrum, there are also lazy slobs in every industry who think they are exploited, but they're just malcontents. We can concede each others' points here.

Exploitation is fairly easy to define, it's just treating somebody unfairly and unjustly. Now, the reason you'll hear us Marxists go on so much about "exploitation" is because it's an entire class of people who are being exploited. This is because in essence, they are antagonistic. To succeed in a capitalist system, you HAVE to exploit. You are FORCED to try and gain "profit", otherwise you yourself are exploited. If there weren't any classes, and all people communally owned the means of production, this would not happen.


Assuming he doesn't work any harder, I guess he "shouldn't" in a moral sense. But if you are running a company, you want to attract the best talent. There are 10 other companies that want to hire employee X. You and they should be free to offer him more than they offer me if they want to. If you curtail those freedoms, I think that's a problem too. What makes these issues impossible to discuss is that the revolution contemplates elimination of money. I don't know whn exactly you guys plan to do that, but once it's done, my points are admittedly academic.


I'm not sure what the problem is here, there is no competition between organizations under communism. People choose wherever they want to go, for whatever reason. If you want to work in a mill, as long as you have the qualifications, you can apply there, and you will OWN it as well. There will obviously be a selection process, but I don't see why under communism there would need to be an upfront cash offering; everything is free. Now, you may be granted privileges, for example, in a university, if you were appointed as a professor of a new subject in medicine, you could be offered the chance to choose your own researchers, as opposed to those already within the foundation. There are always ways around everything. Money isn't necessary.

[Robert]

Exploitation is fairly easy to define, it's just treating somebody unfairly and unjustly.

You don't see any problem with that statement?

[Bud Struggle]

As for "supporting" a meritocracy, I'm not sure what you mean. I just see the cream rising to the top, whether I support it or not, in arts, sports, science, engineering, medicine, law, entertainment, education, even politics. From Beijing to Paris. I don't say it's fair, I just don't know how you get rid of it without mass murder. And yes, I think there are more supporters of elitism than of egalitarianism. It's often misplaced, of course. It's not my fault Britney Spears sells so many records.


This gets to the heart of what's wrong with Communism. Some people are just better than others. Soem a lot better at running, some better at Math, some better at making money. It's just the way people are BUILT. It say that all people are "equal" is a fiction. Some people are better than others, and some people are worse than others. The law treats everyone fairly (in theory) because it is the least complicated way to judge people--but it sides steps the point of who people really are--who the "person" really is.

We are all different and the brilliance of Capitalism is that it lets people be themselves and to go as high as they can. Obviously there are individual cases where the best don't get to the top--and that's regrettable, but on the whole the system works pretty well for most people (at least here in the United States.)

[Post-Something]

You don't see any problem with that statement?

Yeah, I can see how you could see a problem with that. Let me try and explain it then:

The idea of profit is that you get more than you put into it. However, under capitalism, this is at the expense of someone else. What I'm saying is that under capitalism, the system itself is intrinsically exploitative. The Bourgeoisie have to take advantage of the Proletariat; it is in their interests to. The Bourgeoisie want to keep their position in the upper class, and the only way to do so is to take advantage of others.

But I think you were bringing up how we define what things like "just" and "fair"? Am I right?

Well, I'm not a relativist, plus I believe in an absolute morality, so again, I'm probably not the best to ask.

BUT

I think a most Marxists would agree though (tell me if I'm wrong), that justice and fairness is "what people deserve", since Marxism is a needs-based theory; according to some readings of Marx's slogan, ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’. As opposed to a "contribution-based theory", which is what you're arguing for (goods should be distributed to match an individual's contribution to the overall social good). Justice and fairness are are about what you deserve, not the effect of your actions, if that makes sense?



Ok, ok, that was probably all really murky, but hopefully you kind of understood what I was getting at...?

[Post-Something]

This gets to the heart of what's wrong with Communism. Some people are just better than others. Soem a lot better at running, some better at Math, some better at making money. It's just the way people are BUILT. It say that all people are "equal" is a fiction. Some people are better than others, and some people are worse than others. The law treats everyone fairly (in theory) because it is the least complicated way to judge people--but it sides steps the point of who people really are--who the "person" really is.

We are all different and the brilliance of Capitalism is that it lets people be themselves and to go as high as they can. Obviously there are individual cases where the best don't get to the top--and that's regrettable, but on the whole the system works pretty well for most people (at least here in the United States.)

I thought we covered this. Why do those who are "better" deserve more economic rights? Why should those that are "better" be allowed to take advantage of those who are not?

[Phalanx]

I thought we covered this. Why do those who are "better" deserve more economic rights? Why should those that are "better" be allowed to take advantage of those who are not?

Morally it doesn't make sense. But the best hunter gets the most meat.

[Bud Struggle]

I thought we covered this. Why do those who are "better" deserve more economic rights? Why should those that are "better" be allowed to take advantage of those who are not?

Why would people "deserve" anything other than what they get? Who is to say? Who is to say what should be "allowed"? What "IS" is what is allowed. What "IS" is what is fair. Anything else is idealism and an abstraction.

[Post-Something]

Morally it doesn't make sense. But the best hunter gets the most meat.

Under communism we could produce enough resources to provide more than enough for everyone. We've gone past the days when we need to ration anymore. So why not?

[Post-Something]

Why would people "deserve" anything other than what they get? Who is to say? Who is to say what should be "allowed"? What "IS" is what is allowed. What "IS" is what is fair. Anything else is idealism and an abstraction.

Needs. It's all based on needs. People NEED water to live, so it should be free and abundant. People NEED food, so it should be free and abundant. People NEED shelter,...you get where I'm going with this? People deserve because they need. People naturally deserve to exist.

[Phalanx]

Under communism we could produce enough resources to provide more than enough for everyone. We've gone past the days when we need to ration anymore. So why not?

No we haven't. If everybody lived in American or European standards the environment would collapse. Humans are naturally hierarchal, and that's the way we'll remain til we're gone. You can't force an unnatural system into reality. That's why the Soviet Union ended up the way it did. Communism works the same way religion does, in giving hope to the have nots.

[Post-Something]

No we haven't. If everybody lived in American or European standards the environment would collapse. Humans are naturally hierarchal, and that's the way we'll remain til we're gone. You can't enforce an unnatural system in reality. That's why the Soviet Union ended up the way it did.

Britain and America overproduce so much that we throw away literally rivers of milk, mountains of grain etc, all into the sea. We have far more than enough.

Prove that it is natural. I would argue that it is imposed on us by the capitalist system. What evidence is there that it is in human nature?

[Plagueround]

Morally it doesn't make sense. But the best hunter gets the most meat.

Going by your analogy, capitalism is everyone working together to gather meat, then being forced to give most of it to someone who doesn't even hunt while they eat scraps.

[Bud Struggle]

Needs. It's all based on needs. People NEED water to live, so it should be free and abundant. People NEED food, so it should be free and abundant. People NEED shelter,...you get where I'm going with this? People deserve because they need. People naturally deserve to exist.

I get where you are going--but it's not realism--it's idealism. No one deserves unless they earn, and they earn EXACTLY what they get. Not a penny more. That's reality. Who cares what people need. People always have needed and that hasn't mattered one iota in this world. Things just aren't structured that way.

Anything else is besides what "IS" is dreaming. It's nice and all of that, it's just not how things are--or ever will be.

[Phalanx]

Britain and America overproduce so much that we throw away literally rivers of milk, mountains of grain etc, all into the sea. We have far more than enough.

Prove that it is natural. I would argue that it is imposed on us by the capitalist system. What evidence is there that it is in human nature?

Primitivist times were largely classes, though like I said, the more aggressive and stronger would probably get more food. All living beings have only one real instinct, that of survival. When you and your family can live better, even at the expense of others, not many would reject such a move.

[Phalanx]

Going by your analogy, capitalism is everyone working together to gather meat, then being forced to give most of it to someone who doesn't even hunt while they eat scraps.

Capitalism is just a more evolved system, but it's essentially the same as back in caveman days. Good capitalists know how to use the system, and being more aggressive and having more initiative they're rewarded.

[Post-Something]

I get where you are going--but it's not realism--it's idealism. No one deserves unless they earn, and they earn EXACTLY what they get. Not a penny more. That's reality. Who cares what people need. People always have needed and that hasn't mattered one iota in this world. Things just aren't structured that way.

Anything else is besides what "IS" is dreaming. It's nice and all of that, it's just not how things are--or ever will be.

...sorry, I'm not sure I can extract an argument from this. People in communist societies work. They do not just exist and get given whatever they need simply for existing. By living in the society, you agree to work, and do whatever for the good of the people. We aren't dreaming over here, and if we are, well we've already started sleepwalking, because Marx has affected more people than probably Moses. I still haven't heard one decent argument against Marxism apart from "how do we get there?". TomK, none of us expect this to be done anytime soon, we're just saying it's the natural progression; looking at societies throughout history, this is probably what will come next.

[Dejavu]

^^ Tom, I'm surprised you even wasted time out of your day to reply to that nonsense. lol.

Anyway, how wouldn't free market capitalism work in that regard? When people demand water it would be there. When people demand food it would be there. The difference being that the goods would be acquired through voluntary means and not coercion. It would involve exchange of something between two people/parties which is mutually beneficial rather than an arbitrary force stealing from one to give to another.

[Post-Something]

Primitivist times were largely classes, though like I said, the more aggressive and stronger would probably get more food. All living beings have only one real instinct, that of survival. When you and your family can live better, even at the expense of others, not many would reject such a move.

Surely communism is the most efficient system for fulfilling that human instinct? capitalism only inflames it.

[Post-Something]

^^ Tom, I'm surprised you even wasted time out of your day to reply to that nonsense. lol.

Anyway, how wouldn't free market capitalism work in that regard? When people demand water it would be there. When people demand food it would be there. The difference being that the goods would be acquired through voluntary means and not coercion. It would involve exchange of something between two people/parties which is mutually beneficial rather than an arbitrary force stealing from one to give to another.

Are you joking? First of all, under capitalism, everything is about one class stealing off of the other. Property in itself is theft from the proletariat. all those tools you use, who do you think made them? More properly put, who do you think was exploited to make them?


I suggest that you read this:
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html

When people demand water, they have to pay for it, when people want to buy a house, they have to pay for it. And it is certainly not voluntary. You either have water or you die. You either work within the system, or you die.

[Bud Struggle]

Are you joking? First of all, under capitalism, everything is about one class stealing off of the other. Property in itself is theft from the proletariat. all those tools you use, who do you think made them? More properly put, who do you think was exploited to make them?

Share everything.
Play fair.
Don't hit people.
Put things back where you found them.
Clean up your own mess.
Don't take things that aren't yours.
Say you're sorry when you hurt somebody.
Wash your hands before you eat.
Flush, etc....


But unfortunately...it's a grown up world in which we live. :(

[Dejavu]

Are you joking? First of all, under capitalism, everything is about one class stealing off of the other. Property in itself is theft from the proletariat. all those tools you use, who do you think made them? More properly put, who do you think was exploited to make them?


I suggest that you read this:
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html

When people demand water, they have to pay for it, when people want to buy a house, they have to pay for it. And it is certainly not voluntary. You either have water or you die. You either work within the system, or you die.

Paying for something does not imply theft. In reality a payment is mutual. You merely exchange one good for another and the voluntary exchange can only take place if both parties involved value what the other person holds more than what they themselves currently hold. Things like water are not super abundant like air in a normal situation and have production costs. Thankfully ,most water in a normal situation, is fairly abundant and has a low marginal utility and therefore a low price. It only comes to be this way because of increased production of drinking water created by the capitalist system.

If everyone were required to produce their own drinking water which could not be exchanged in the market then you would see a shortage of many goods.

I don't see how exploitation exists if the worker agreed to the terms of the work. What makes you think the worker only desires something like water? With the earnings he makes from his production it is ( or should be) up to him on how he decides to allocate his earnings. If everyone were busy producing their own food and water ( this is the only way to prevent so-called 'exploitation') then there would hardly be time produce other goods in the economy severely limiting the prosperity of everyone.

Btw, I don't see how the concept of work would be alleviated in communism. Do you? If the majority of the potential working force decided to just not produce but rather just consume what would happen to the society? I believe you are assuming that scarcity doesn't exist and if that is the case, then production would need not exist , and therefore work and even the very concept of economics would be obsolete. Thats a bad way of thinking In my opinion.

[Plagueround]

Capitalism is just a more evolved system, but it's essentially the same as back in caveman days. Good capitalists know how to use the system, and being more aggressive and having more initiative they're rewarded.

I have a feeling in caveman days, if you horded all the meat you would probably get clubbed upside the head by a mob of angry, starving cavemen...but then, I haven't researched much about cavemen.

[Post-Something]

Paying for something does not imply theft. In reality a payment is mutual. You merely exchange one good for another and the voluntary exchange can only take place if both parties involved value what the other person holds more than what they themselves currently hold. Things like water are not super abundant like air in a normal situation and have production costs. Thankfully ,most water in a normal situation, is fairly abundant and has a low marginal utility and therefore a low price. It only comes to be this way because of increased production of drinking water created by the capitalist system.

To be fair, I haven't read up on marginal economics yet, but I am going to. I'm hoping to get a lot of learning done in the three months after my exams. But what I can say is that payment is not mutual. You have to have the water, whereas the seller does not need the money, it's like raping a child, then stealing all his clothes, and then when he cries you give him back a sock.


If everyone were required to produce their own drinking water which could not be exchanged in the market then you would see a shortage of many goods.

people can produce whatever they want to, if there is enough water, people won't carry on making it.


I don't see how exploitation exists if the worker agreed to the terms of the work.

What!?! you either work or you die. It's an unfair system. You HAVE to agree to the terms of work; it's not a choice.


What makes you think the worker only desires something like water? With the earnings he makes from his production it is ( or should be) up to him on how he decides to allocate his earnings.

They can have what they want, there are no earnings to allocate.


If everyone were busy producing their own food and water ( this is the only way to prevent so-called 'exploitation') then there would hardly be time produce other goods in the economy severely limiting the prosperity of everyone.

...
What!?!
It's calculated that if all able adults worked within a communist society, to get all the goods we have today, there would be a 4-5 hour work day.


Btw, I don't see how the concept of work would be alleviated in communism. Do you? If the majority of the potential working force decided to just not produce but rather just consume what would happen to the society? I believe you are assuming that scarcity doesn't exist and if that is the case, then production would need not exist , and therefore work and even the very concept of economics would be obsolete. Thats a bad way of thinking In my opinion.


precautions could be taken, if all else fails. Those who don't work in society will be excluded.

[Kronos]

No one deserves unless they earn, and they earn EXACTLY what they get.

Define "earn", please.

You must mean that what is paid to a worker is a decision made by a capitalist. But how does the capitalist make this decision, and is the capitalist himself technically "earning" the profit he makes from selling the products of the workers?

If the capitalist decides that what you get is what you earn, and what you earn is a result of what you produce, then the capitalist is not following his own principles.

I could formulate a million arguments which would disassemble anything you say, Tommy, but I will spare you. What you need to admit is the horrible truth: what people have is what they have the power to take. Once you realize this, you might stop trying to reach conclusions in arguments against communists that there is some kind of "ethical premise" that can be found which would defend either system. There isn't. There is only power. In this sense, your first and last word to the communist should be "may the best man win".

The communist will always win, because not only does he make up the majority of the people, but the minority capitalists eventually destroy each other. This many take a small eternity to happen, but I assure you it will. Capitalism and free-market cannot continue much longer. Corporate totalitarianism will emerge, big brother will watch us all until he fucks up and makes some stupid mistake, and the uprisings will ensue until the rulers are smashed. Enter socialism. Next, socialism will become corrupt. More uprisings. Socialism will be smashed, the free-market will reinstate itself, moving into yet another corporate totalitarianism. Repeat, ad nauseam. Call it "process materialism".

[hekmatista]

Exploitation is fairly easy to define, it's just treating somebody unfairly and unjustly.

You don't see any problem with that statement?
Most people do know what that statement means. It's not just subjective. Perhaps, like most propertarians, you believe that it is. But one does not have to be a commie to see that in real, material terms, there is justice and injustice, fairness and unfairness. You could start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Justice

[Bud Struggle]

Define "earn", please.

You must mean that what is paid to a worker is a decision made by a capitalist. But how does the capitalist make this decision, and is the capitalist himself technically "earning" the profit he makes from selling the products of the workers?

What a worker gets paid is what he earns. Not a pemmy more or a penny less. Wishing, hopeing, plotting meaningless curves and bumps of Marxist economic history haven't changed that fact.


If the capitalist decides that what you get is what you earn, and what you earn is a result of what you produce, then the capitalist is not following his own principles. There is a remote link between what you earn and what you produce--but nothing I'd bet on for a daily wage.


I could formulate a million arguments which would disassemble anything you say, Tommy, but I will spare you. What you need to admit is the horrible truth: what people have is what they have the power to take. Once you realize this, you might stop trying to reach conclusions in arguments against communists that there is some kind of "ethical premise" that can be found which would defend either system. There isn't. There is only power. In this sense, your first and last word to the communist should be "may the best man win".

Now you are getting it. What you get is what you have the power to take. Indeed there is only power. I agree here.


The communist will always win, because not only does he make up the majority of the people, but the minority capitalists eventually destroy each other. This many take a small eternity to happen, but I assure you it will. Capitalism and free-market cannot continue much longer. Corporate totalitarianism will emerge, big brother will watch us all until he fucks up and makes some stupid mistake, and the uprisings will ensue until the rulers are smashed. Enter socialism. Next, socialism will become corrupt. More uprisings. Socialism will be smashed, the free-market will reinstate itself, moving into yet another corporate totalitarianism. Repeat, ad nauseam. Call it "process materialism".

Here's your mistake. As RTG pointed out--WE ARE NOT EQUAL IN ABILITY. We are equal in law and all that, but in ability we are all different and the best and the brightest seem to end up on top-- no matter how many people there are. It's a matter of quality over quantity. The "quality" will always have the power.

The only reason there is socialism at all is that Capitalists are basically good hearted people. Socialists are just Capitalists that don't like to see people starve.

Communism, like Fascism was a fad of the 20th Century.

Welcome to the OI! :D

[pusher robot]

[quote=Post-Something;1139210]To be fair, I haven't read up on marginal economics yet, but I am going to. I'm hoping to get a lot of learning done in the three months after my exams. But what I can say is that payment is not mutual. You have to have the water, whereas the seller does not need the money, it's like raping a child, then stealing all his clothes, and then when he cries you give him back a sock.

Not it's not like that, unless you have a mandatory monopoly. If someone is charging much more for water than the value of the resources consumed in its production, then the capitalist system rewards competitors who charge less, all the way to the cost of production. That is why even though you need water to live, it's far less expensive than things you don't need to live, like kerosene or beer.

Your error is assuming that there is but one seller. That is not a natural situation in a free market.



people can produce whatever they want to, if there is enough water, people won't carry on making it.
Practically speaking, there can never be such a thing as "enough" water (at least, clean fresh water), because there's always something that could be done with more water. The value of these somethings grows ever lower but the zero point is far, far beyond current production.


What!?! you either work or you die. It's an unfair system. You HAVE to agree to the terms of work; it's not a choice.
Such is the nature of the universe. Blame entropy, not capitalism. Without work, human life cannot sustain itself. On the other hand, thanks to capitalism's ability to abstract value into money, you can survive by doing any work that you feel like that has enough value to society. In practice, this gives you a wide latitude of choice of what kind of work to do, who do work for, and so on. Practically the only thing you don't have a choice of is what work is valued by other people, because that would require imposing your will onto them.


They can have what they want, there are no earnings to allocate.Only if somebody produces it for them...


What!?!
It's calculated that if all able adults worked within a communist society, to get all the goods we have today, there would be a 4-5 hour work day.Source?


precautions could be taken, if all else fails. Those who don't work in society will be excluded.So, you mean, in other words,
you either work or you die. It's an unfair system. You HAVE to agree to the terms of work; it's not a choice.

[hekmatista]

The iterated prisoner's dilemma

If two players play Prisoner's Dilemma more than once in succession (that is, having memory of at least one previous game), it is called iterated Prisoner's Dilemma. Amongst results shown by Nobel Prize winner Robert Aumann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Aumann) in his 1959 paper, rational players repeatedly interacting for indefinitely long games can sustain the cooperative outcome. Popular interest in the iterated prisoners dilemma (IPD) was kindled by Robert Axelrod (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Axelrod) in his book The Evolution of Cooperation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation) (1984). In this he reports on a tournament he organized in which participants have to choose their mutual strategy again and again, and have memory of their previous encounters. Axelrod invited academic colleagues all over the world to devise computer strategies to compete in an IPD tournament (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IPD_tournament&action=edit&redlink=1). The programs that were entered varied widely in algorithmic complexity, initial hostility, capacity for forgiveness, and so forth.
Axelrod discovered that when these encounters were repeated over a long period of time with many players, each with different strategies, greedy strategies tended to do very poorly in the long run while more altruistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism) strategies did better, as judged purely by self-interest. He used this to show a possible mechanism for the evolution of altruistic behaviour from mechanisms that are initially purely selfish, by natural selection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection).
The best deterministic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterministic_algorithm) strategy was found to be "Tit for Tat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_Tat)," which Anatol Rapoport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatol_Rapoport) developed and entered into the tournament. It was the simplest of any program entered, containing only four lines of BASIC, and won the contest. The strategy is simply to cooperate on the first iteration of the game; after that, the player does what his opponent did on the previous move. Depending on the situation, a slightly better strategy can be "Tit for Tat with forgiveness." When the opponent defects, on the next move, the player sometimes cooperates anyway, with a small probability (around 1%-5%). This allows for occasional recovery from getting trapped in a cycle of defections. The exact probability depends on the line-up of opponents.
By analysing the top-scoring strategies, Axelrod stated several conditions necessary for a strategy to be successful.
Nice The most important condition is that the strategy must be "nice", that is, it will not defect before its opponent does (this is sometimes referred to as an "optimistic" algorithm). Almost all of the top-scoring strategies were nice; therefore a purely selfish strategy will not "cheat" on its opponent, for purely utilitarian reasons first. Retaliating However, Axelrod contended, the successful strategy must not be a blind optimist. It must sometimes retaliate. An example of a non-retaliating strategy is Always Cooperate. This is a very bad choice, as "nasty" strategies will ruthlessly exploit such softies. Forgiving Another quality of successful strategies is that they must be forgiving. Though they will retaliate, they will once again fall back to cooperating if the opponent does not continue to play defects. This stops long runs of revenge and counter-revenge, maximizing points. Non-envious The last quality is being non-envious, that is not striving to score more than the opponent (impossible for a ‘nice’ strategy, i.e., a 'nice' strategy can never score more than the opponent). Therefore, Axelrod reached the Utopian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia)-sounding conclusion that selfish individuals for their own selfish good will tend to be nice and forgiving and non-envious.
From Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma#The_iterated_prisoner.27s_dilem ma

[Dejavu]

^^ Prisoner's Dilemma is a counter against Utilitarians. Hell, I even use the same argument against Utilitarianism. :laugh:

[Phalanx]

it's not about hoarding, it's taking what you earned. If you did more of the hunting, you get more of the meat.

[Dejavu]

Not it's not like that, unless you have a mandatory monopoly. If someone is charging much more for water than the value of the resources consumed in its production, then the capitalist system rewards competitors who charge less, all the way to the cost of production. That is why even though you need water to live, it's far less expensive than things you don't need to live, like kerosene or beer.

Your error is assuming that there is but one seller. That is not a natural situation in a free market.

You know that is wonderful thing about the free market. If the general concern is ' what about having water?' then, by virtue of the fact that more accessible water is in demand by society, the free market adjusts to meet that demand in the most efficient way.


Practically speaking, there can never be such a thing as "enough" water (at least, clean fresh water), because there's always something that could be done with more water. The value of these somethings grows ever lower but the zero point is far, far beyond current production.

Here here.


What!?! you either work or you die. It's an unfair system. You HAVE to agree to the terms of work; it's not a choice.

I don't know how it would be any different under communism. Consumption requires production right? If no one worked ( produced), there would be nothing to consume and thus you would be in the same predicament. I don't think any human society can survive, let alone thrive, without work. The only possible scenario in which man would have to do as little work as possible is if the human population was able to sustain itself with production granted by nature and not by mankind itself. In other words, since farms require labor to produce, which in turn gives a higher production of food, they would not be cultivated. Rather you would have a hunter/gatherer society looking for game and wild cherries produced by nature itself. Naturally a large human population can't survive without increased production and WORK so if you advocate little to no work, you must also advocate the writing off of a large part of humanity.

[Plagueround]

it's not about hoarding, it's taking what you earned. If you did more of the hunting, you get more of the meat.

So the social evolution of the master hunter has brought us Paris Hilton and her ilk? Taking what you earned indeed. :mellow:

[Dejavu]

it's not about hoarding, it's taking what you earned. If you did more of the hunting, you get more of the meat.

And it doesn't make sense to just hoard things and not circulate them in market (i.e. to the rest of society). Again, what good is a gold mine in my backyard if I don't take the initiative to circulate the gold in the economy? I don't stand to benefit from it.

Personally I think homesteading game is a much better option. Consider cows. If the meat of animal A is in high demand ( it must be or people wouldn't be hunting for it) then it would make sense to homestead it. Imagine if cows were not private property? Everyone who wanted the products of a cow would go after it without limitation on how much they can extract from the cow population. It would follow in most cases that the cows would go quickly extinct ( like wild buffalo in the past). As the cow stock diminishes the availability of this resource to society vanishes too. Private cow owners have the incentive to preserve cows and calf for future production/consumption. Their own prosperity is tied with that of the healthy future stock of cows ( hey , you're also benefiting the environment and economy by actually preserving a species AND extracting economic value from it.)

Well you could say we can collectivize the cows and make them communally owned. Problem with that is that the individual incentive to save each cow is dwindled. In communal ownership, if the life of one of the cows was in danger, the incentive to save that cow on the part of the individuals in the community are significantly reduced because the cost of loosing one cow in the commune is much less than a private owner loosing one of his cows. In other words, in the commune, if some creep started shooting at one of the cows you would probably just turn around and go back to sleep assuming someone else will handle it or the cost of loosing a cow is much less to you collectively than individually.

[Kronos]

What a worker gets paid is what he earns.

...and what a capitalist pays is determined by......?

[cue part where Tommy tries to unpack the economic principles of the capitalist system and ends up at inescapable dilemmas and contradictions]


WE ARE NOT EQUAL IN ABILITY.

NO SHIT. Socialism does not function on "equality". Marx never said people are equal. It simply means that the means of production are owned by the state, while the state is run through a democratic process. You work in a competitive field and get paid according to your skills, but you don't get to own any means of production. The importance of the skilled worker, in the socialist system, is not determined by some shifting, fluctuating market that moves according to what is in popular demand for consumers. In the capitalist system, a proletariat might be considered a more important worker because he makes the new and improved green wacky-wall walkers by Smith....which just happens to be, at that time, the latest craze, while the Tompson wacky-wall walker is old news....because its purple, ugly, and the cool kids don't buy them. First of all, who the fuck needs a wacky-wall walker, and if they do just happen to want one, it shouldn't be at the expense of the workers who work for Tompson. When Tompson goes under, so do his workers. That is the point. Private owned business is subject to such discrepancy. The means of production should be owned by the state.


The only reason there is socialism at all is that Capitalists are basically good hearted people.

On the surface it appears this way, but private funding for social welfare would stop on a dime if that dime were at risk. Essentially you have a capitalist who maintains his margins and decides to donate a percentage of that profit to the welfare system. This is funny, because the capitalist here is like a third leg, dead weight, an expendable middle man- he exploits workers, then gives the money he raises from exploiting them...back to the lower working classes. Well fuckin A! Get rid of the capitalist and we can skip that part, eh?


Communism, like Fascism was a fad of the 20th Century.

Look man, I am not hear to drive myself insane trying to start a revolution. I'm here to shoot the breeze and convince people like Jazzratt of what a dip-shit he is- full of promise but shortsighted. The revolution is inevitable, and capitalism simply CANNOT work much longer. In the future, kids in school will read about capitalism in their history books, and it will be just as much of a dinosaur as feudalism, monarchism, aristocracy, nationalism, fascism and any other which involved class divisions. It just don't work long term, man.

[Bud Struggle]

...and what a capitalist pays is determined by......

[cue part where Tommy tries to unpack the economic principles of the capitalist system and ends up at inescapable dilemmas and contradictions]

What he earns, of course.


Socialism does not function on "equality". Marx never said people are equal. It simply means that the means of production are owned by the state, while the state is run through a democratic process. You work in a competitive field and get paid according to your skills, but you don't get to own any means of production.

Why the hell not? Who freakin' says wht I can or cannot own? Personally, I WANT TO DECIDE what I should own or not own. And neither you nor anyone else isgoing to tell me differently. (Nothing personal, of course!)


Well fuckin A! Get rid of the capitalist and we can skip that part, eh?

How's it been going so far? :laugh:


In the future, kids in school will read about capitalism in their history books, and it will be just as much of a dinosaur as feudalism, monarchism, aristocracy, nationalism, fascism and any other which involved class divisions. It just don't work long term, man.

Maybe...but AT PRESENT it certainly does look like Communism (like Fascism) was born, lived, died and was buried in the 20th Century and it's history is being printed as such for all the schoolchildren to read.

[Kronos]

Why the hell not? Who freakin' says wht I can or cannot own? Personally, I WANT TO DECIDE what I should own or not own. And neither you nor anyone else isgoing to tell me differently.

That's the spirit, Tom!

I call you a clean capitalist. You are an honest monster, not some sophist who tries to argue that capitalism is ethically superior to communism.

So be ready, Tom, and keep your honor in battle. When the revolutionaries are at your door with shotguns, remember that there is only the will to power, and give them your best fight, mmkay?

[Dejavu]

...and what a capitalist pays is determined by......?

Depends on what kind of capitalist you're talking about and if you are talking about today's status quo 'capitalism' or how the free market determines earnings.

If you're talking about labor pay in the most fundamental market sense, it, like everything else in the market , is determined by supply and demand.


NO SHIT. Socialism does not function on "equality". Marx never said people are equal. It simply means that the means of production are owned by the state, while the state is run through a democratic process. You work in a competitive field and get paid according to your skills, but you don't get to own any means of production. The importance of the skilled worker, in the socialist system, is not determined by some shifting, fluctuating market that moves according to what is in popular demand for consumers. In the capitalist system, a proletariat might be considered a more important worker because he makes the new and improved green wacky-wall walkers by Smith....which just happens to be, at that time, the latest craze, while the Tompson wacky-wall walker is old news....because its purple, ugly, and the cool kids don't buy them. First of all, who the fuck needs a wacky-wall walker, and if they do just happen to want one, it shouldn't be at the expense of the workers who work for Tompson. When Tompson goes under, so do his workers. That is the point. Private owned business is subject to such discrepancy. The means of production should be owned by the state.

Well ownership by the state was supposed to be one of the phases of communism according to Marx. Somehow Marx thought that even if you give the state absolute power it would wither away and the ownership of capital would rests with the stateless communes. How he connected the dots there baffles me still. I think you made a case to show actually why private ownership works better than state ownership. In a free market system, as you pointed out, the consumers have sovereignty and not some arbitrary coercive force. The market adjusts to meet the demands of society, not some politburo.

I don't think its possible to measure inter-personal utility, particularly for a society of millions, without the market process and calculable tools like profit-loss thus central planning by the state has some serious economic calculation problems. The state simply can't determine the true costs of its projects but the market can. What you would end up with is shortages and just an overall social mess.
If a producer is not satisfying consumers then that producer does deserve to go out of business because keeping them in business is an irrational allocation of resources that can be used for more efficiently complying to what society desires. Likewise, the skills of the workers in a company that isn't making things people want can be better used somewhere else. In the end, using the state to try to manipulate supply and demand only punishes the people at large.


On the surface it appears this way, but private funding for social welfare would stop on a dime if that dime were at risk. Essentially you have a capitalist who maintains his margins and decides to donate a percentage of that profit to the welfare system. This is funny, because the capitalist here is like a third leg, dead weight, an expendable middle man- he exploits workers, then gives the money he raises from exploiting them...back to the lower working classes. Well fuckin A! Get rid of the capitalist and we can skip that part, eh?

Well I think we can show empirically that philanthropy was much more prevalent when the state kept its nose out of welfare. And what kind of argument is 'Well if the state doesn't provide welfare through taxes, who will?' If so many people are concerned with welfare why couldn't they be philanthropic in a stateless society? Or is it that they are only concerned with welfare up to the point of making SOMEONE ELSE pay for it? They would rather coerce their neighbors into paying rather than just using your own wealth to help the poor. Its a bit hypocritical.
And as far as the capitalist goes, he plays a very important function in the economy. For one, he absorbs the risk premium of a product maybe failing. If he invests into production and it turns out the product doesn't do so well then the investors burden the loss while labor during the process of production were getting paid regardless if the product would succeed or not. If there was nobody saving and investing, then investment for production would be virtually non-existent which would hurt society because you can't consume unless something is produced. The capitalist solves the time preference issue inherent within production which is a large part of prosperity or lack thereof.

[Bud Struggle]

That's the spirit, Tom!

...When the revolutionaries are at your door...

What's the best way to get a Revolutionary away from your door?

.
.
.
.
Pay him for the pizza. :lol::lol::lol:

[Kronos]

http://capitalist.org/capjoke.htm

Check this out.....it's a rap-song of a Nietzschean theme, called "Dionysian Nation". I don't much like rap music, but some of you younger lads might like it. What's funny is the guy's Australian accent.

http://www.myspace.com/mcimpious