Menchise

Delayed again: new ship date is 'early 2003'. Apparently it's going to support DX8 after all, hence the delay. My guess is that Microsoft has tech folly and is screwing DA for it.

My 1000th post! W00t! quote:So someone who fills his/her demand of dsitributing or organizing that cloth gets the same thing that someone who mines iron ore all day?Probably not, because mining iron ore is more difficult and hazardous, thus more labour is expended and the value is greater. In that scenario, the miner would receive more. quote:Well whatever group is in the "management" or leadership role will just change the system to suit themselves. In EVERY government, democracy, socialist, communist, the people in charge change the rules to suit their interests. In socialistic and other left-wing governments, it is assumed that people are inherently GOOD and will not do that. At the point you have a ruling class, your defeating the point of socialism since those people in the ruling class (and going with your previous definition of socialism) can EASILY exploit the labor through their management.I agree, which is why I don't support socialisms that aim for centralist political management. A more appropriate socialist government is one where all workers can participate in decision-making. quote:Your scenario will fall apart if ever actually applied because everyone would demand a car, and an apartment (or house, depending on where they live), and food, and nice clothing, and fancy electronics (boom box, large TV, etc.), and a good computer, and a zillion other things. The demand would far outstrip the supply on a grand scale and no one could ever complete the demand for a product to the extent that it is required of him. Never. It would be a disaster.That's why the economy is planned: obviously, if everyone demanded a golden palace and everyone tried to supply each other with one it would be a disaster, because the demand is unreasonable. A well-planned economy is one that balances demand and supply instead of making demand a runaway train that supply must constantly chase. This balance is inherent in socialism because the workers would only apply themselves to satisfying their own aggregate demand to the aggregate extent of how long and/or how hard they're willing to work towards supply. If some workers want more than everyone else, and those workers are willing to put in the hard yards to get it, then they'll get it. If they're unwilling, they don't. Simple and effective. quote:Use American capitalism and whatever view of socialism you personally believe in/advocate when responding the questions, because I really don't see how a socialist society would work, and putting it in concrete terms would be much easier.Next post.

One post at a time, please.

quote:I would like to point out that, while there may be many reasons that socialism failed, it is pretty much well understood that socialist production methods, while good for industry, do poorly with high tech applications.Can you be more specific? quote:So long as no one thinks to advance themselves at the expense of others (or at least at no gain to others) then there is a true common interest, but as soon as people figure out that they will do better if they look out only for themselves (or primarily for themselves) they will cease to have a true common interest and instead be disparate individuals with similar but mutually exclusive goals.That statement contradicts itself. The common interest is in the pursuit of individual goals through labour. The goals don't need to be the same. Therefore, in looking out for themselves, the working people will not be disparate, because collaborative production allows for a constructive method of pursuing individual goals. quote:People succeed at the expense of others because for someone to have more then everyone else they must either produce more (something that is fairly hard to do) or succeed off of others labor. The second is far, far easier, and results in greater success anyway.The second is far, far more difficult in socialism because the workers have the power. Therefore, they would not be willing to give up that power so that they can work longer and harder for someone other than themselves and receive less for it. quote:Perhaps, though whether bureaucratic waist wouldnÔÇÖt equal competitive waist is something neither of us knows.A market economy produces more waste than a planned economy. quote:Ok, so we include cost of ÔÇ£education and training as a laborer,ÔÇØ but people are still paid more then this. If a worker can afford, say, a radio (not a costly item in todayÔÇÖs market) they can be considered to be getting more for there labor then it costs to produce it. My point stands.Since when does a radio become the fine line between subsistence and excess? Your point makes no sense. quote:A large part of MarxÔÇÖs point was that capitalists sell the product of laborers for more then said product requires to produce, thus making money.Actually, the large part of Marx's point is that the surplus value of the product, which was generated by labour, is going to the capitalist instead of the labourer. quote:This makes no sense, your saying that if someone enjoys what they do for a living that they still get nothing out of it save wages? I donÔÇÖt buy this.I did not say that. I said that even if the job was preferred, the value that is generated by the workers' labour is still taken away from them. quote:What they receive is a means for survival, what do you think they should receive?The value of their labour. quote:Well, for one, I hardly think that working for the government (or whoever assigns tasks) would be considered working for ones self, but forgetting that for a moment I have to wonder how ÔÇ£working for yourselfÔÇØ in this manner is any different from working for someone else.I was referring to 'working for oneself' in the sense of workers getting out what they put in, not in the sense of job rankings. It's a redundant point anyway.

quote:What is the "social wealth"? How would you contribute to that wealth? By making good and doing labor? So lets say that weaver referred to earlier makes some cloth. Does cloth need to be in demand for that person to have food?Cloth produced in demand is one example of an item of social wealth. In other words, yes. quote:How much production of cloth is enough for that person to enjoy the use of a car?The process for determining this 'ratio' - if there is one - depends on the type of socialism, but in general, and strictly within the context of this hypothetical scenario, when the worker satisfies the demand for cloth to the extent that is required of him or her, then his or her demand for a car is satisfied. In return, when the other worker satisfies the demand for cars to the extent that is required of him or her, then his or her demand for cloth is satisfied. quote:Most important, WHO determines what the EXTENT of their contribution to that wealth is?That is probably the most varied factor of the different socialisms, thus I cannot answer that question on general terms. Some suggest a centralist state, others suggest an anarchistic democracy, and just about everything in between. quote:A ruling class of some sort to judge that extent.Like I said, it's the most varied factor, and one of the mostly hotly debated in socialist circles. For example, one of ParEcon's criticisms of Marxism-Leninism is its tendency to merely replace the ruling class with a coordinator class. quote:Ok, no one has told me yet, and I really want you to tell me now. How EXACTLY is a socialist society going to work? You keep talking in abstract terms, but that ISNT the real world. I'm speaking in general terms because socialism is very broad. It's just like me asking you how a capitalist system would work: other pro-capitalists would disagree with your explanation unless you described it in general terms, because there are many types of capitalism: the American way is very different from the Japanese way, or the Swedish way, etc. If you want me to respond to all of those questions, you need to be more specific about what socialism you want me to describe, because there are some types of socialism that I also disagree with, just as there are some types of capitalism that you disagree with.

quote:I was not so much saying that you had invented a form of socialism as I was referring to your personal take on socialism. Clearly you have an idea of what socialism looks like, but as you have claimed no other system I simply referred to it as Menchisean for simplicity, and as a bit of a joke.Fine. By the way, I found an interesting definition of socialism in general by August Bebel. It's not the broadest of definitions, and some types of socialism may disagree with some elements, but it's the most descriptive 'nutshell' I've read on the system. Here it is: The organisation of society in such a manner that any individual, man or woman, finds at birth equal means for the development of their respective faculties and the utilisation of their labour. The organisation of society in such a manner that the exploitation by one person of the labour of his neighbour would be impossible, and where everyone will be allowed to enjoy the social wealth only to the extent of their contribution to the production of that wealth. quote:True, the fact that socialism was thought up by intellectuals does not necessitate it being a ÔÇ£wonderland.ÔÇØ This is a status that it achieves on its own. quote:So you claim that we ignore history because your interpretation is different then ours?No. I claim that your interpretation of history is not the only one, and I am challenging it right now. quote:As far as the validity of socialism from a historical point of view, I'm not saying that it was an unmitigated disaster or that it fails in every example, simply that the vast majority have failed for whatever reason and that those still around havenÔÇÖt been around long enough to prove anything.The reasons for their failures make or break the issue, as well as the vast majority of socialist frameworks that remain untested in practice. quote:Actually, most working people are interested in advancing themselves, many do so at the expense of others.The advancement point is a good one and prompts a revision. Therefore, all working people have the common interest of supporting and/or advancing themselves through their labour, hence the solidarity. Many currently do so at the expense of others because the competitive mode of production does not enable them to do any different, hence my point about capitalism's division and atomization of workers' interests. quote:It is not sufficient that aiding the society aids the individual, but rather that aiding the society is the singly most advantageous thing that an individual may do for themselves. This simply isnÔÇÖt the case as aiding the society at large sufficiently to be noticed by individuals takes a lot of work, but advancing ones own interests (though often still difficult) takes both less work and aids the individual more.Capitalism is notorious for producing huge amounts of waste due to overproduction in a competitive mode, thus it is notorious for requiring more labour for less earnings by working individuals to produce vast quantities of items that will never be used. That takes more work and aids the individual less. quote:You will note that as most laborers are paid more then bare subsistence they are selling there labor-power for more then its production cost.Read the whole sentence: Marx wrote that "It is the cost required for the maintenance of the laborer as a laborer, and for his education and training as a laborer." Therefore, bare subsistence is not the only cost of producing labour-power. quote:It would be wrong to denounce capitalists for similarly selling products for more then they require to make.What they charge the consumer does not relate to whether they exploit workers or not. quote:This is, of course, first of all assuming that the individual has no interest vested in there job, I donÔÇÖt know what the norm was 150 years ago, but a lot of people these days actually (gasp) enjoy there work, or at least donÔÇÖt dislike it. Perhaps menial jobs such as those Marx mentions are simply unenjoyable, but for the majority of people their work is at least bearable.It does not assume any such thing. Job preference is irrelevant because the value of doing that job is still taken away from the worker. quote:What about the rest of those people? Nothing, itÔÇÖs irrelevant whether someone likes there job or not in the long rung (I simply pointed it out as another out of date idea). The fact of the mater is that even if people were producing their own goods (and hermits and subsistence farmers are the only examples I can think of off the top of my head that come close) they would still have to invest a large portion of there lives into staying alive, in fact (judging from my knowledge of such activities) it would take a lot more time then most modern workers spend working.There is nothing wrong with making a product that other people will consume. What matters is what one receives in return. quote:Furthermore, workers in socialism still work, and (for the most part) the same jobs still have to be done, but the only difference is that they (as I understand things) get paid more (there are no social elites getting more then ÔÇ£their fair shareÔÇØ of money) and there they work for the government rather then private enterprises.Whether they work according to what a separate government entity assigns them or not depends on the type of socialism, but in either case the workers would not be working for anyone apart from themselves since they are the ones who receive the value of their labour (if they didn't then it wouldn't be socialist). quote:People would still give up part of their lives, only in socialism they donÔÇÖt even have the choice of who to give it up too.People would not still give up part of their lives because the value of their life-activity is not taken away from them. quote:That is an erroneous use of the idiom ÔÇ£I have no lifeÔÇØ as it is an abbreviated version of ÔÇ£I have no social life.ÔÇØ If I were to describe someone who plays EverQuest in every moment of their spare time as having no life would you think that there life activity was being deprived of them. I should hope not.The EverQuest example is irrelevant because it is not production. Whether my use of the term is erroneous or not depends on one's interpretation of what is social.

$iLk, isn't Chad a bit young for Flash animations, especially with Tac and Jag around?

Rather than risk a head explosion by trying to reply to every single post since my absence, I'm going to cover the persistent general points. My responses will be straightforward and occasionally mean, but no more than other posts in this thread. RE: Menchisean Socialism No such thing. I have not invented a socialism nor do I have any intention of inventing one. I have been predominantly arguing what socialism is not because there are a lot of presumptions about what the system aims for, thus I have to address these presumptions. I do not have a base to argue from because I have not currently adopted a particular socialism yet, although I find ParEcon the most appealing so far. RE: Attitude Towards Intellectuals There have been a few statements in this thread about intellectuals that are, quite plainly, irrational. Some posts label socialism as a wonderland created by intellectuals, thus it has no foundation in the real world. What these posters ignore is that capitalism was also invented by intellectuals, namely John Locke and Adam Smith among many others. Therefore, these statements are just plain irrational and not worthy of further discussion, thus I will not reply to them if they're regurgitated in the future. RE: History Many anti-socialist posters continue to claim that history is on their side because of their interpretation of history, and I have been accused of ignoring history simply because my interpretation is not the same as theirs. What really annoys me is the claim that history proves socialism in every form does not work when historical fact indicates that only two forms have been implemented (Reformist and Marxist-Leninist), and in most cases were implemented in an unsuitable environment. Therefore, history does not prove socialism wrong. RE: Individualism and Collectivism Some posters claim that individual self-interest makes socialism unworkable because the system requires a collective interest. That statement assumes that both interests are inherently disparate simply because that is the case in capitalism. The truth is that socialism does not aim for the imposition of a collective interest over individual interest; it aims to make both interests one and the same by founding itself on a common solidarity. All working people have the common interest of supporting themselves through their labour, thus there is a solidarity between workers that capitalism invariably divides and atomizes through its competitive mode of production. The collaborative nature of socialist production supports this solidarity, thus it is within the individual interests of working people to work together, and working together is within the collective interests of socialism. Enough said. RE: Exploitation Of Workers People have been asking why socialists claim that workers are exploited in capitalism. Here are some quotes from Marx's Wage Labour and Capital (1847): This quote is about wages... Let us take any worker; for example, a weaver. The capitalist supplies him with the loom and yarn. The weaver applies himself to work, and the yarn is turned into cloth. The capitalist takes possession of the cloth and sells it for 20 shillings, for example. Now are the wages of the weaver a share of the cloth, of the 20 shillings, of the product of the work? By no means. Long before the cloth is sold, perhaps long before it is fully woven, the weaver has received his wages. The capitalist, then, does not pay his wages out of the money which he will obtain from the cloth, but out of money already on hand.....Wages, therefore, are not a share of the worker in the commodities produced by himself. Wages are that part of already existing commodities with which the capitalist buys a certain amount of productive labor-power..... Now, the same general laws which regulate the price of commodities in general, naturally regulate wages, or the price of labor-power. Wages will now rise, now fall, according to the relation of supply and demand, according as competition shapes itself between the buyers of labor-power, the capitalists, and the sellers of labor-power, the workers. The fluctuations of wages correspond to the fluctuation in the price of commodities in general. But within the limits of these fluctuations the price of labor-power will be determined by the cost of production, by the labor-time necessary for production of this commodity: labor-power. What, then, is the cost of production of labor-power? It is the cost required for the maintenance of the laborer as a laborer, and for his education and training as a laborer. This quote is about wage labour... Their commodity, labor-power, the workers exchange for the commodity of the capitalist, for money, and, moreover, this exchange takes place at a certain ratio. So much money for so long a use of labor-power. For 12 hours' weaving, two shillings. And these two shillings, do they not represent all the other commodities which I can buy for two shillings? Therefore, actually, the worker has exchanged his commodity, labor-power, for commodities of all kinds, and, moreover, at a certain ratio. By giving him two shillings, the capitalist has given him so much meat, so much clothing, so much wood, light, etc., in exchange for his day's work. The two shillings therefore express the relation in which labor-power is exchanged for other commodities, the exchange-value of labor-power.... But the putting of labor-power into action -- i.e., the work -- is the active expression of the laborer's own life. And this life activity he sells to another person in order to secure the necessary means of life. His life-activity, therefore, is but a means of securing his own existence. He works that he may keep alive. He does not count the labor itself as a part of his life; it is rather a sacrifice of his life. It is a commodity that he has auctioned off to another. The product of his activity, therefore, is not the aim of his activity. What he produces for himself is not the silk that he weaves, not the gold that he draws up the mining shaft, not the palace that he builds. What he produces for himself is wages; and the silk, the gold, and the palace are resolved for him into a certain quantity of necessaries of life, perhaps into a cotton jacket, into copper coins, and into a basement dwelling. And the laborer who for 12 hours long, weaves, spins, bores, turns, builds, shovels, breaks stone, carries hods, and so on -- is this 12 hours' weaving, spinning, boring, turning, building, shovelling, stone-breaking, regarded by him as a manifestation of life, as life? Quite the contrary. Life for him begins where this activity ceases, at the table, at the tavern, in bed. The 12 hours' work, on the other hand, has no meaning for him as weaving, spinning, boring, and so on, but only as earnings, which enable him to sit down at a table, to take his seat in the tavern, and to lie down in a bed. If the silk-worm's object in spinning were to prolong its existence as caterpillar, it would be a perfect example of a wage-worker. The free laborer, on the other hand, sells his very self, and that by fractions. He auctions off eight, 10, 12, 15 hours of his life, one day like the next, to the highest bidder, to the owner of raw materials, tools, and the means of life -- i.e., to the capitalist. The laborer belongs neither to an owner nor to the soil, but eight, 10, 12, 15 hours of his daily life belong to whomsoever buys them. The worker leaves the capitalist, to whom he has sold himself, as often as he chooses, and the capitalist discharges him as often as he sees fit, as soon as he no longer gets any use, or not the required use, out of him. But the worker, whose only source of income is the sale of his labor-power, cannot leave the whole class of buyers, i.e., the capitalist class, unless he gives up his own existence. He does not belong to this or that capitalist, but to the capitalist class ; and it is for him to find his man -- i.e., to find a buyer in this capitalist class. To make this long story short, the exploitation is caused by the nature of the work itself (wage labour), in which the earnings of the worker are based on a mechanism that has no relevance to the labour of the worker (which generates value in the product), thus the workers are alienated from their labour and subsequently the value of their labour, which goes to the property owner. One example of how this manifests in human behaviour is the perception of work as alien from one's life (e.g. "I work all day, I have no life"). This is because their work as life-activity is taken from them.

Hehe. Maybe it should be called the X-Cardboard Box.

I'm back! I've been away from the forums for about a week due to heavy workloads and the flu. I still won't be able to post as often as I used to, but I see that I have a lot of catching up to do.

quote:No doubt he means oppression that is given at least tacit approval by the law. There are types of illegal oppression, including sweatshops, protection rackets, blackmail, the list goes on.Ah. quote:But they donÔÇÖt, so quit trying to avoid the question.My point is that the level of wages does not determine whether workers are oppressed or not, hence the first question in my response. quote:Not exactly, because though it is the owner who decides what an individual worker is paid it is the market that decides what most workers of a given type are paid.What one owner is offering a worker affects what other owners offer their workers. The aggregate effect of this is the market. Therefore, the market is not an impartial entity. quote:If the owner (or manager, or whoever) pays less then what others are willing to pay then he will have trouble retaining workers.Not true, because there are always unemployed who are desperately looking for work. They will take the jobs with less pay, thus the owner will have more profit than the high-paying owners, thus that owner expands faster, undercuts the competition, and forces other owners to lower the pay of their workers or to cut other costs in order to stay in business. quote:Furthermore, what a type of workers are willing to work for also affects how much that type of worker is paid.True, but only to a limited extent. quote:ThatÔÇÖs a little narrow. Workers can decide what kind of job they try to get, what education they get, how well the do at said education. Similarly, it is possible for a socialist society to oppressive about such things. After all, if someone wants to be an artist but is really good at math the government could (depending on how itÔÇÖs set up) demand that said individual become and accountant. After all, by working as an artist he is reducing his value to society at large, and if I recall correctly socialism is suppose to be about what benefits the society rather then the individual.Ahh, the old beehive stereotype. If someone wants to be an artist, they can try. If that someone can support themselves on that profession, then it benefits society anyway. If that someone can't support themselves on that job, which means that there was insufficient demand for the art, then chances are that someone would not need a government to make a math-related job sound appealing. It never ceases to amaze me how so many anti-socialist arguments are based on the assumption that socialists have no common sense. quote:Well, it takes a lot of work to succeed in an economic sense, and because some people go out of business it creates a deficit of business owners that can be filled by others.Deficit or equilibrium? quote:Furthermore, there are new areas for business that are created by expanding technology. Thus, even if big business try to choke off smaller businesses that doesnÔÇÖt mean they will always succeed.When new areas of business are opened up by new technologies, there are no big businesses to begin with. Sounds good initially, until existing big businesses decide to diversify and buy out smaller businesses in the newer industries, thus making them the big players and reproducing the same problems. quote:There are three types of people that donÔÇÖt have jobs, those who are temporarily unemployed (as with my factory scenario), those who are physically unable to get a job (too old, too young, disabled, mentally ill, or whatever), and those who are to lazy or drunk or whatever to get jobs. You claim repeatedly and with great vigor that socialism is able to guarantee 100% employment by ignoring people of the first two categories (or at least it seams, you say that some people would be between jobs but everyone in the work force will be employed, go figure) and classifying people of the third type as mentally ill and thus ignoring them too. I will point out that as long as there are people willing to give beggars a bit of spare change on the side of the rode and charities willing to give food or money or whatever there will be bums, you canÔÇÖt starve them out and itÔÇÖs not suicide so you canÔÇÖt ignore them as part of the mentally ill category. So, to wrap things up, your logic says, ÔÇ£everyone who is counted in the workforce will be employed because only people employed will be counted in the work force.ÔÇØ ItÔÇÖs not a very convincing line of reasoning, but then circular argumentation rarely is when you get to the root of it.That's not what I said! Only the second category would not be counted, for obvious reasons. The first and third categories would be counted as unemployed. The first category are only between jobs due to some production changes and will have new jobs imminently, and the third category is capable of getting a job at any time because socialism can sustain them. The 'suicide' reference was not a serious comment; it was taken out of context. If some people in the third category remain on the street because they're satisfied with charity, then that's their choice. Full employment does not mean that every single able individual is constantly working. Here is a brief definition from the American Institute for Full Employment: Full Employment: universal access to jobs with career potential for all who can work, especially those who are receiving public assistance as a substitute for the opportunities and rewards of paid work. Socialism can sustain this while capitalism cannot. quote:Struggle differs from warfare, but I really think that arguing over nomenclature like this is pointless.I agree. quote:So then are you trying to say that all labor is worth the same amount or that people will be paid different amount. You say the work is going to satisfy a demand, but unless payment is based on supply and demand then they pay is either worth more or less then what the current demand warrents.The pay would be relative to the labour expended and the worker's labour capacity. Demand determines what products are produced, thus the economy can gear production towards demand, but the products themselves are produced by labour, thus it is labour that makes those products valuable. quote:HAH! I wonÔÇÖt let you get away with anything, talk about the pot calling the kettle black.I don't know what you mean by that, but what I said was meant to be a humourous compliment. quote:I suppose this is because everyone will be supplied for (as long as they work) and thus there will be no competition. Brain surgery isnÔÇÖt that advanced Menchise, people will compete against each other and nebulous ÔÇ£personal fulfillmentÔÇØ or whatever you want to call it is not enough for everyone. It certainly isnÔÇÖt enough for me. I am of such an inclination that I like to succeed so as to be able to live the easy life, to do as I please. This is simply not possible in socialism through legal means, and somehow I doubt that you will be able to brainwash everyone.What do you mean by 'easy life'? quote:LetÔÇÖs try looking at this from another direction, from everything youÔÇÖve gleaned about me from my various modes of argumentation do you think that I would simply sit back and be average? Most everyone who disagrees with my arguments has at least once pointed out that I am cruel and care little for my fellow human beings, so why should I settle for being just another sheep in the heard? Why should I waist my life serving a society that has no value to me beyond what I can get out of it? This is a bit of an exaggeration (I'm not totally heartless no mater how much I try) but it none the less make my point, there would no doubt be a number of people like me in any society of significant size, and at least some will manage to secure positions of power for themselves illegally because they donÔÇÖt care if itÔÇÖs legal so long as they get away with it. Some people will rise to the top in any society, but if you make such success illegal then only those who donÔÇÖt care will have power. As fun as that would be, it probably wouldnÔÇÖt be what you had in mind.What is not average, sheepish, or servey to you? I just don't know what you're getting at. Do you want to be the next Napolean or what? quote:No, you made yourself perfectly clear, people will get an education because itÔÇÖs necessary for the society to work. The second part is very true, the first is very false. Some people will no doubt get an education anyway as you said (I know I would) and some will get one because they are altruists, but that simply isnÔÇÖt enough of the population. Most people would see the problem caused by not enough educated workers and figure that there only one person and whether or not the get an education will make no difference to the society has a whole. ItÔÇÖs like voting, many people donÔÇÖt vote because they figure that there one vote makes no difference in the grand scheme of things, but if everyone voted our country would be a lot different. Now, if such a little thing as voting is to much for someone to do what makes you think they would get an education?Interesting. Well, assuming that you're talking about pre-university schooling (e.g. elementary and high) one way to deal with this would be to make schooling a legal requirement. Before you start yelling 'oppression' from the rooftop I must inform you that capitalisms also do this (in Australia everyone must complete grades 1-10). This is common sense because children generally cannot conceive the consequences of not going to school, thus they cannot make a responsible decision in that context. If you're talking about university education, then I wouldn't worry. There are always someones who want to do somethings, and there are only so many burger-flipping vacancies. quote:(after all, werenÔÇÖt you telling Jag that firing a worker because he was mouthing off was oppressive).Out of context. quote:Imagine if you will the kind of chaos that would result in a workplace where practical jokes and generally unpleasant people were not punished (and I'm not talking about anything that could warrant legal action either).Well, if they're such a pain that nobody can work with them, then I guess they could be brought in line the same way that capitalism does it. Fire them and let them get a taste of the unemployed life for a while. quote:Reduced pay or other normal punitive measures wouldnÔÇÖt be applicable because such things simply arenÔÇÖt done in a socialist system (after all that would mean that some people make more money than others do).Ahh, the 'same pay for everyone' stereotype. Only some socialisms support that, and they're not the popular ones. quote:P.S. Just to prove you right (that I donÔÇÖt let you get away with anything), labor doesnÔÇÖt have a u in it.RE: P.S. Since I am not American, I don't use American English spelling.

Jaguar, socialism does NOT try to give everyone the same or make everyone the same. It does recognize differences in ability, skill, and talent. It also recognizes something that capitalism doesn't: superior abilities, skills, and/or talents do not constitute superior human beings. The possession of talent is genetically incidental, skills are either learnt from experience or taught by others, and abilities are a combination of both. It is not one's fault if one is not overtly talented, thus it is unreasonable to punish one who isn't, and it's unreasonable to supremacize one who is. Another reason is that regardless of the high levels of ability, skill, or talent that one might have, it is impossible for one to possess all abilities, skills, or talents; one who is regarded as inferior in capitalism would nevertheless have abilities, skills, and talents that someone who is regarded as superior does not have. By making one group subordinate to another, as capitalism does, any individual abilities, skills, and talents of the 'underclass' that cannot be exploited by the 'overclass' for their own ends (which usually involve trying to subordinate or destroy other members of the 'overclass') are suppressed, because they threaten the power of the 'overclass', thus the entire system is weakened by a reduction in employed aggregate ability, skill, and talent. It is no accident that over the course of time, class division has become increasingly polarized: the number of social classes has decreased as a result of class-driven revolutions, particularly the overthrow of the feudal lords by the capitalists. Each successful revolution has brought about a better society (every knowledgeable socialist would agree that capitalism is better than feudalism). The next step forward for human civilization is the end of class division, thus the full employment of aggregate ability, skill, and talent.

quote:Capitalism is Pro everyone, socialism is anti everyone. In capitalism you are allowed to grow to your FULL potential.In capitalism you are allowed to grow to your full potential if you're an owner. quote:In socialism you are stuck in your little slot and there you will stay. You will be oppressed.That's feudalism, not socialism.

quote:I am a worker, how am I oppressed there Menchise? I'd really like to know.I'll explain in my next post. quote:I CHOOSE to work where I work, if someone comes along and offers me more money to come work for them, hey I just might do it, how is that Oppressing me?It's not. quote:I am not oppressed, I can tell my boss to go to hell any time I want, I won't be working here long if I do that, but I can.You say you're not oppressed because you can tell off your boss who will subsequently fire you for telling him off. Hmm...would you mind explaining how this statement does not contradict your argument? After doing that, could you explain how it helps your argument? quote:Unlike China, I can tell my boss that what he is asking is impossible, you want me to build 1000 units today? Well, I will need help. If I were in China, it would be, OK, see this AK-47 that I have to the back of your head? You will make 1000 units today, for .35 or I will put a nice little bullet in the back of your head. THAT IS OPPRESSION Menchise. China is a so-called communist country, the oppression is rampant.I'm not sure if that's an accurate description of a Chinese workplace, but I'm not going to deny that your imaginative scenario accurately describes overt oppression. By the way, I agree that China is a so-called communist country, but it's not communist at all. quote:There are NO legally oppressed workers in this country.An interesting choice of words. What do you mean by 'legal' oppression? quote:My Friend Todd used to do drywall, got paid $15 an hour for it, was that oppressed? My garbage man drives a garbage truck and picks up garbage and gets paid $18 an hour, is he oppressed? How about the Janitor at the local high school? He gets almost $20 an hour plus massive benefits, is he oppressed? I can name off thousands of jobs that pay really good money, how about the 17 year old kid that works at McDonalds flipping burgers, he gets payed minimum wage, is he oppressed?Since when is oppression determined by the level of wages? What if Todd, or the garbage man, or the high school janitor, or the kid had guns to their heads at the time? quote:If some government goon has a gun to my head and tells me that this is what I have to do for the good of the motherland, THEN I am oppressed.I agree. quote:It's about choices, it's about being able to choose what I want to do, and for how much am I willing to do it.Since when did workers decide how much they're going to be paid? As I recall, the final decision is made by the owner. quote:A socialist society though, now that has oppression, you will do this, because this is where we need you, we will pay you this much because that is how much WE think your labor is worth. THAT IS OPPRESSION Menchise.Who is this 'we' that you refer to? quote:To oppress, to force people to do that which they do not wish to do, that is OPPRESSION. Socialism is oppressive, capitalism is not, because you have the choice in a capitalist society.In a proper socialism, you have more than a choice: you have a voice in the decision making process, thus you have a say in the availability of choices. In capitalism, the owners decide what choices are available, hence one of the reasons why it's oppressive. quote:Which is why it takes a lot of work. Between some people going out of business and some people succeeding it works.Could you please elaborate, or at the very least, explain that statement? quote:I think you underestimate the problem, what happens when technology reduces the demand for workers? Say a factory drops some people because it upgrades to automation, what would happen? Are there jobs waiting for those workers already because this has all been planed ahead, or do they get to be unemployed for a week or two while the bureaucracy finds someplace else for them to work? Similarly, are there technicians already available to operate those robots, or do they have to wait for the bureaucracy to assign them new people? If you want total employment all the time it means that there are no pool of temporarily unemployed laborers to draw upon. This would mean a massive amount of coordination for the hirings to line up exactly with the firings, and that would mean a lot of bureaucracy. Large bureaucracies are slow, very slow. The economy for any area managed like this would be about as dynamic as the proverbial badly lubricated android. Perhaps if all world economies were equally clumsy it would make no difference, but with capable competing neighbors such a system would be woefully handicapped.You have already answered your own questions. Either of those situations in the first paragraph would be acceptable. Coordination doesn't need to be exact, and probably wouldn't be. If a small number of temporarily unemployed are generated, then temporary provisions can be made. It wouldn't be much more 'clumsy' than the corporate bureaucracy of capitalism, especially if planning is coordinated between de-centralized planners rather than one central group of planners. quote:So we are letting those who donÔÇÖt work die out, well, thatÔÇÖs fine with me.Since full employment is sustainable in socialism, they wouldn't die out unless they were suicidal, in which case they would probably be treated for mental illness. quote:Yea, and there is a division between the young and the old, and every so often the young eclipse the old, but do we call it age warfare. No. ItÔÇÖs the same with economic systems, old economic methods are periodically replaced by newer ones, but that is hardly class warfare.It is class struggle when such change requires one class to overthrow another, which is exactly what happened when capitalism replaced feudalism (the bourgeoisie overthrew the lordships). quote:Yes, but my point was that payment is not based on demand.Since the labour that is expended is geared toward satisfying demand, and payment is based upon the labour expended, your point is null. quote:What about people who are to old or otherwise disabled to work but donÔÇÖt need a caretaker? Or is retirement going to be a privilege reserved for the truly decrepit.I like the way that you don't let me get away with anything. The demand of retirees would be met in the same way: the paid labour of workers to support them. quote:For those of us who are driven to succeed for whatever reason there would be only one option, crime. Just about EVERY motivated individual would find themselves drawn towards crime as the only way to get ahead. I'm not talking about violent crime, but black market stuff or perhaps embezzling from the government, things that wouldnÔÇÖt twinge the coincidence too much. Some people would still succeed at getting ahead, and typical of socialism they would be punished. Only in this scenario because most of the motivated and intelligent individuals would be involved in some type of crime it would be virtually impossible to get rid of.In socialism, people don't need to be ahead of each other in order to be successful, thus there would be less crime in that context because more people would be successful. quote:In todayÔÇÖs culture and economy people go to school because they need the job training (or at least most people do, there are some pure academicians around, but itÔÇÖs not all that common). Without that kind of motivation a lot of people wouldnÔÇÖt go to school, letting others go instead. Imagine, if you will, what the average person (for whom college is really rather hard) will think if the choice is between getting a job (such as flipping burgers) that doesnÔÇÖt require any education but would support him just fine, or going to school and then getting a job that would be challenging, but that wouldnÔÇÖt provide better pay. It would fail, because most people are not altruists and would rather do whatÔÇÖs best for themselves (no education, no challenging job) then do what is best for society (get an education and a challenging job).Perhaps I didn't make myself clear in my previous post. If the people want their demand to be satisfied, then they must have the skills to do so, thus education is best for them. Secondly, because of human nature, a lot of people would not be satisfied with constantly flipping burgers for the rest of their lives. Marx himself described the human need for variety and enrichment of experience in one's life. [ 05-24-2002, 10:44: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote:Human nature is individualistic. Capitalism focuses on the individual achievers, Communism and Socialism focus on the herd. Communism is anti-individual and Capitalism is pro-individual.Capitalism is pro-owner and socialism is pro-worker. Both societies support the individualities of the people they support.

quote:Actually it proved that capitalism would work quite nicely and socialism would destroy itself. As you will read my conclusion in story #1, if they would CHARGE people for the bicycles while giving them the discount (capitalism) then only those people who would use the bicycles would get it, AND actually USE them. While EVERYONE who could get their hand on a bicycle for .50c went ahead and took it, and didn't care about using it, they probably either resold the bike for their profit (ahem, attempted CAPITALISM in a socialistic idea) or wrecked it for fun. So that proves that is socialism where common property exists people wouldn't give a @#$%@# about that property as long as they got some fun/use/profit out of it, so destroying, stealing that property would be OK, and would be done just because people are fundamentally greedy wanting to have more and better things for themselves then their neighbors have. So read my post and gain some insight on those points I made in each conclusion. Also, note the sarcasm dripping from the last paragraph of "good" human nature.Charging 50 cents for a one way bicycle rental is not socialist; it's just another profit-making scheme (1500 bicycles rented for one daily return trip = $1500 of daily revenue). Story #1 is an example of capitalism gone awry. quote:Next point. Remember the discussion where you were saying that people can't hurt each other because that makes them physically sick. Well, story #2 suggests otherwise. Story #2 actually proves that there are times when a perfectly sane person can get so upset that they can actually derive PLEASURE from hurting someone, and not just someone, but their own husband nonetheless. I myself have been so po'ed sometimes, just driving in my car, that if me and the person who pissed me off would somehow get beamed onto the side of the road, face to face, I would literally, without thinking would have fulfilled my anger in unspeakable ways. So human nature is therefore not complacent and kind, but ever-changing and can very well be drastically violent.Even if that were true, such acts of drastic violence are also punished in capitalism, so your point still backfires. quote:One more reason socialism would not work, because in order for it to work your neighbor should want the same good for you as he does for himself and his family. However, in capitalism, you that anger can be turned to productive ways, like hating your business opposition would actually force you to make some adjustments to your products to get more $$$.Solidarity does not require people to like each other; all it takes is a common interest or responsibility. Both neighbours can hate each other's guts for all I care, but they have both adopted a common responsibility (supporting their families). It's common sense that working together to support both families is more productive and efficient than competing with each other to destroy both families, which is irresponsible to say the least. So, unless you intend to argue that it's also human nature to lack common sense and responsibility, I'm going to move to the next point. quote:Aaaah, and at last, story #3. Well, you can argue that capitalism forced that lady to store her relatives body in a freezer so that she could get money and survive. I however will argue that she could live on her own paycheck, (which was obviously enough to buy a house and a fridge to store the body of the relative in) and if socialism existed the same thing would happen because there still would be people who are greedy and always want more, and therefore one of the ways to get more would be to turn to crimeThe fact that this happens in capitalism does not help your argument that it supports human nature, not to mention the fact that such criminal behaviour is punished in both societies. In conclusion, socialism does not require the people to hold hands in a circle while singing 'kumbaya' underneath a rainbow.

quote:(Participatory Economics) Have heard of this do you know where I can get some info or do I have to go find a book?Participatory Economics quote:Yea, it takes skill, luck, motivation, and a number of other things as well. If someone doesnÔÇÖt have them then they should get them or else go back to working at a burger joint. Either way I donÔÇÖt want to hear about their problems.The market can only sustain so many owners before overproduction causes a recession, thus skill, luck, and motivation are secondary factors. There is also the futile struggle with existing big businesses nearby, who can easily afford to sell their products at a loss until the small outlets collapse (a common tactic, particularly by grocery store chains). quote:And you have yet to adequately explain how socialism could accomplish total employment of all persons in the workforce. Some members of the so called work force (defined, if I remember, by age and able-bodiedness, not willingness to work) are total unsuitable for employment. They could be criminals, lunatics, fat lazy asses who enjoy leeching off of society, or whatever.Well, now that you've admitted the unsustainability of it in capitalism, I can explain why that wouldn't be the case in socialism. Full employment is sustainable in socialism because the economy is geared toward cooperative and/or collaborative production, so the labour that is required to meet demand can be distributed to the entire workforce. Sure, some people within the age group could be criminal, mentally ill, lazy, or whatever. If they're criminals, they will be prosecuted. If they're mentally ill, and that illness makes them unable to work, then they won't be expected to work; they will be treated. If they're lazy, thus unwilling to work, then they'll receive nothing. quote:Bah! Class warfare (or struggle if you prefer) is like the war of the sexes, complete rubbish. Of course there is tension between people of different classes, but that hardly qualifies as warfare.Call it what you want. The division is there and it has resulted in open conflict and revolution in the past (e.g. the capitalist revolutions that overthrew feudalism). quote:Oh, I see, how could I have missed it, everyone works and everyone is paid by how much they work rather then such irrelevancies such as skill or demand.The economy is planned and production is collaborative, thus labour is always geared towards demand. quote:If we pay everyone receives what there labor is worth, paying everyone an equal amount calculated as the aggregate value of all of the labor done divided among the workers there would be no exploitation... ...Of course, that wouldnÔÇÖt leave any left over to give to those who donÔÇÖt work...Since caring for those who are unable to work is a paid job, the demand would be satisfied by labour. quote:...and we would need a government filled with people who wouldnÔÇÖt exploit there positions of power...That's why corrupt politicians are punished. quote:...and we would need a working class that wouldnÔÇÖt engage in theft, fraudulent activities, or any of that nonsense.That's why criminals are punished. quote:Furthermore, there wold be no reason to go to school because pay would be based on hours worked rather then how much skill was required and everyone who wanted a job would be guaranteed employment.The incentive to go to school would be to satisfy demand. Without schooling, nobody would know how to produce anything, thus nobody's demand would be satisfied. quote:I'm not referring to any particular election, but I do know that members of congress (you know, we should follow EnglandÔÇÖs example and call them MCs, it would save lot of typing) generally try to please there constituencies, social security is a great way to do that.Social security is a modern liberal policy, not a socialist one.

We'll miss you, Aramike. [rp] *salute* [/rp] [ 05-23-2002, 08:21: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote:I think the CDKEY is a valid POP... so don't worry about the box...Wisdom rules!

Soback, if your interpretation of human nature was true (i.e. that humans are inherently dishonest, greedy, and violent), then that would mean that both capitalism and socialism are against human nature, because in both societies, every single one of those offenders in your stories would have been prosecuted. Why? Because in both societies, their actions are criminal. Your initial argument has not only failed to add anything meaningful to the issue of human nature, it has also backfired as a pro-capitalist position!

quote:THATÔÇÖS THE WHOLE POINT! That is what makes capitalism work; the drive to become an owner.It only works for the owner. quote:And despite what the framers wanted the mob rules now as well. Maybe not as directly, but itÔÇÖs still very clear. Shortsighted politicians who have more interest in winning the next election then in the long-term wellbeing of this country allow themselves to become puppets of the mob. Socialism is a prime example, it wins reelections so it must be good. Go figure.What elections are you talking about? quote:And what, pray tell, is the problem with this? It seams to me that the arguments against slavery generally rest on the horrible conditions that slaves are made to endure. If a ÔÇ£slaveÔÇØ is happy and lives a good life is it so bad?I hope Jaguar didn't eat lunch before reading that last sentence. It's not just about living conditions; it's also about what is taken from them in terms of their individual worth, and it's about freedom. quote:No, not really. If itÔÇÖs important, I reason that you will either paraphrase or quote the material in question, thatÔÇÖs what everyone else does.I prefer not to do that because it clutters the thread, but if it means that the stuff will be read, so be it. I'll quote the relevant sections in a later post, assuming that I ever finish replying to these posts. quote:I must have missed something. I thought the argument was that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.That is one socialist critique of class division, but it is not the one that I'm currently arguing. quote:I thought the argument was that those with enduring skills are hurting those with obsolete or no skills. I thought the argument was that everyone should get a TV and DVD; that it's not fair that the rich get these things, but not the poor.Class division does not relate to whomever has a DVD player and who doesn't; it relates to how people come to possess such items. Owners do it with the surplus value that is taken from the labour of workers, and workers do it with the subsistence pay that they receive from selling their labour power to the owner. quote:I said that the rich are the slaves of the poor, not the other way around.I think there's been a miscommunication here. I was saying that rich workers are as much slaves to owners as the poor workers. quote:Dragon Lady's rant about the use of the word 'slavery'. ThatÔÇÖs been building up for a while, can you tell?Hehe. I'll use the term 'exploited' rather than 'slaves' from now on.

quote:The only class warfare we have in this country comes from Democrats stating that the rich do not pay their fair share, well, Sorry. I disagree. To be rich, you must produce a product that everyone wants, you cannot put a gun to someones head and say, "you must buy this product or else". The democrats in this country have been able to set the non producers against the producers, and they have been able to increase the number of nonproducers and those on the government teat in order to increase their power base. The Democrats have done their very best to set one group of people against the other, and have done it for the last 75 years. Class warfare is a political fiction, not an economic one.How is this relevant? That entire argument is just a steering of the topic towards party bashing and adds nothing to the debate about class division. quote:You are NEVER stuck in a socioeconomic niche if you choose not to be, in a capitalist society.That statement is completely unfounded and false: two thirds of start-ups fail in their first year, so it takes much more than a choice. quote:I will state it again, I have a high school diploma, no college, I have been in the military, but so can most other people. The military requires nothing more then certain physical abilities and a high school education.Two days ago I met a street person with the same qualifications. quote:I started in this economy at 1.85 an hour and have increased my income to a point where my wife stays home with the children, I own my own house, I am able to homeschool my children, and am involved in my community and of course politics and this board.Congratulations. By the way, when you said that you own your own house does that mean that the loan is repayed? I'm asking this because as long as you're in debt to the lending financial institution the house essentially belongs to them. quote:EVERYONE has this same opportunity in a capitalist society, and to say they can't is to say that they are somehow less able to do what I have done. I say that you sell those people short. People don't need government, they CAN be self sufficient, and I think that it is unfair and cruel to support people with others people money when you have a gun to the head of those that have the money.How many times do I have to refer to the unsustainability of full employment in Laissez Faire before you stop ignoring it? quote:Class warfare in this country was begun by politicians wanting more political power, without those people, this country would not be in the trouble it is in, nor would the constitution be ignored.Class struggle has existed for thousands of years. Government is a focal point, but it's not the source. quote:To bring my reasoning full-circle, Socialism is the unskilled enslaving the skilled by confiscating the worth of their labor. It isn't cooperative if the worth of my labor is forcibly taken from me.But it's not taken from you. Every worker receives according to the labour expended. quote:Ok, so how do they work?I'm not familiar with every proposal, so I'll just give a few brief examples. Reformist Socialists (e.g. Allende) propose the use of the existing government apparatus, usually a republic, to initiate a gradual socialization of capitalism, mainly through land redistribution, nationalization of key industries, and progressive income taxation. Marxist-Leninists (e.g. Lenin and Castro) propose a one party state with central economic planning by a committee of professionals whose long term goal is to set the preconditions for the transition to Marxist Communism: a classless, stateless association for the free development of each individual, thus the free development of all individuals. Libertarian Socialists (e.g. Albert and Hahnel) propose a more anarchistic model of economy and government that is de-centralized and self-managed. The most well known of these proposals, and the most refreshing of all the socialist alternatives that I'm aware of, is ParEcon (Participatory Economics).

quote:PS. Hey Menchise, hope you get to read this post and remember me discussing America and how it should be one language, one culture. Well, now you see what happens when too many people don't become Americanized and want to create a piece of their country here. That's my taxes being wasted on those lawsuits, instead of putting them towards homeland security. What have you got to say now?All I've got to say is that the lack of bilingual support is only one of the reasons for the 11,000 complaints about the election. No use lumping the entire set of lawsuits into a contested issue about language. Debating the issue of anti-discrimination laws in the workplace is also pointless in this context because it's irrelevant. We're talking about voting rights here. Any unreasonably disproportionate restrictions on those rights are not acceptable, period. That includes "disparate treatment of minority voters, improper purging of voter rolls, ÔÇ£motor voterÔÇØ registration violations and failure to provide access to disabled voters". These are very serious charges that warrant the DOJ's actions. If such action is not taken then the USA is no better than Zimbabwe.

I think I'm gonna be here a while. I'm going to ignore the posts about Canada and state welfare because I have already responded to that broken record. quote:Socialism in ANY form, has never worked, will never work, and can never work. It is against human nature, and destroy that which it claims it wants to help.What is your definition of human nature? quote:I would rather be free and starve, then a slave and fed. I would rather be an individual then a cog in some socialist machine. You enjoy your chains, I choose to be FREE!!That argument is full of contradictions. A worker in capitalism is a slave to the feeding owner; reduced to a machine part designed to sacrifice individual labour to generate surplus value for the owner; the worker is chained to the demands of the class of owners regardless of how often the worker changes jobs. The worker's only way out is to become an owner, who must also oppress and exploit the worker. quote:Absolutes of humanity that transcend time, yea, one comes to mind; the stupidity of the people. When the mob has enough power to control the government itÔÇÖs a disaster, we saw it with the ancient Athenians and we are seeing it today.In Athens the mob was essentially the ruling class, so that doesn't surprise me. quote:Then that brings us back to the Darwinistic survival of the fittest. A society based on the enslavement of others because they are stronger and can do it is no different than a society based on the skills of the laborers who are more educated or employable and can command higher salaries. They enslaved didn't like, and the poor and uneducated don't, either.That analogy is inaccurate, because unlike Ancient Egypt, the educated and relatively high-paid workers of today are not the ones who are enslaving the poor and uneducated workers. The educated and highly-paid workers are also slaves, albeit with more money. quote:How is capitalism self-destructive?Does anyone read anything that I link to? [ 05-22-2002, 00:31: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote:I know who runs the economy in a communism, but how does it work in a non- communist socialist system?Every socialism (including the 'communisms') have some common goals: reducing the effects of or bringing an end to class division, the facilitation of cooperative and/or collective associations, and the partial or full implementation of planned economics. Different socialisms have different proposals regarding what system should be formed and how it would come about. Communism is just the name of Marx's proposal, which is completely different from the popular conception of communism as 'big government owning everything'. quote:LetÔÇÖs look at the progression of a slightly different societal mechanism, democracy. We can see democracy in itÔÇÖs infancy in Athens, a good idea perhaps, but with plenty of problems. We see bits and pieces of democracy fit there ways into other governments (the example that comes to mind is the House of Commons from old England), until we finally end up with a government that calls itself a democracy but is VASTLY different from the original Athenian democracy.Neither the Athenian model nor the modern parliamentary model are truly democratic: Athens had direct voting and direct participation in decision making for the elite, and the modern parliamentary model has direct voting and participation in decision making for elected representatives who are directly or indirectly nominated by the elite (unless the political party is radical). While today's representative democracy is far from truly democratic, it is actually more democratic than the direct democracy of Ancient Athens, because people who would have been regarded as slaves with no civil rights in ancient times have the right to vote and participate in modern times. However, the truth is that the design of the model itself does not exclusively determine whether it's truly democratic or not: it's the social relations within the social structure, including relations between classes if any, that have the most influence on this factor. If you applied the current model of representative democracy to Ancient Athens nothing would have changed because women and slaves would still have been excluded. quote:So when a new Stalin comes to power and murders millions of his own people, we just say "Oops" and try again?With the knowledge of what Stalin did and how he managed to do it, people can revise and change the vision in order to address the issue. If it has been addressed properly, then a new Stalin would be unlikely. I'll respond to the rest of the posts later.