Steve Schacher Posted May 22, 2002 Report Posted May 22, 2002 quote: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.I must have missed something. I thought the argument was that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. 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. quote:The educated and highly-paid workers are also slaves, albeit with more money.I said that the rich are the slaves of the poor, not the other way around.
Raven Posted May 22, 2002 Report Posted May 22, 2002 quote: I said that the rich are the slaves of the poor, not the other way around. [Rant] Right, enough about slaves already. If I were to listen to you people then everyone is someoneÔÇÖs slave. Either itÔÇÖs the rich that are enslaved by socialism, or itÔÇÖs the poor that are slaves to the rich, or everyone is a slave in some Machiavellian socialist machine. The truth of the matter is that slave is NOT the right word for any of it (except maybe some of the few examples of wage slavery that sill go on with illegal immigrants, but thatÔÇÖs a whole different issue). You use slave because of the negative stigma that is attached to it in an attempt to discredit the other sideÔÇÖs argument, itÔÇÖs a question begging euphemism and a LOGICAL FALLACY. In socialism, the poor STEAL from the rich, not enslave them. There is a difference, if someone mugs you, you donÔÇÖt moan about how the bastard enslaved you (at least I should hope you donÔÇÖt). Similarly, the rich exploit the poor in a capitalist system (or at least all the socialistsÔÇÖ claim they do). If your boss slaps irons on you and locks you in the basement so you canÔÇÖt quit you may moan about being enslaved, but until then SHUT UP ABOUT IT. Ok, letÔÇÖs go over this one more time, itÔÇÖs either ROBBERY or EXPLOITATION, not slavery. Think you can manage that? [/Rant] ThatÔÇÖs been building up for a while, can you tell? [ 05-22-2002, 02:57: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]
Menchise Posted May 22, 2002 Report Posted May 22, 2002 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).
Menchise Posted May 22, 2002 Report Posted May 22, 2002 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.
Lotharr Posted May 22, 2002 Author Report Posted May 22, 2002 (Participatory Economics) Have heard of this do you know where I can get some info or do I have to go find a book?
Lotharr Posted May 22, 2002 Author Report Posted May 22, 2002 quote: Power may not make right, but with enough power it doesn’t matter. Wrong. Employing power in a manner inconsistent with the rest of the worlds idea's on what is right and fair leads your country to isolation and inevitable destruction. quote: As far as putting a price tag on it goes, I rather like an increasing standard of living. Maybe this doesn’t appeal to you, but in this anyway most people would agree with me Me too, I just don't want it to be at the expense of my fellow citizens who's well being I am somehow compelled to care about. Must be that socialist brainwashing quote: Soback did a nice job of commenting on that here You would think so.... quote: And despite what the framers wanted the mob rules now as well. Maybe not as directly, but it’s 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. That's why if you ever want to be truly free and insure that tyranny and oppression is not governmental SOP the "mob" has to become more than that.
Steve Schacher Posted May 22, 2002 Report Posted May 22, 2002 I stand by my comments and I used my words purposefully. A mugging is a one-time hit-and-run. Wage confiscation is ongoing without end. I go back to my original question: How much of your labor do you own? Money is a fungible representation of the worth of your labor. Some people's labor have more worth than others, therefore those people have more money than others. People who give to charities of their choice express their morality (how's that for bringing in another thread?) and help the less-fortunate in ways of their own choosing, not in ways imposed upon them by others. In the USA, once the poor figure out (if they haven't already) that they can vote to tax the rich to confiscatory levels, they will never go back to any other way of life.
Raven Posted May 22, 2002 Report Posted May 22, 2002 quote: 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. Yea, it takes skill, luck, motivation, and a number of other things as well. If someone doesnt have them then they should get them or else go back to working at a burger joint. Either way I dont want to hear about their problems. quote: Two days ago I met a street person with the same qualifications. Which suggests that he could have succeeded if he truly was motivated to. Assuming, of course, sufficient intelligence. quote: How many times do I have to refer to the unsustainability of full employment in Laissez Faire before you stop ignoring it? 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. quote: Class struggle has existed for thousands of years. Government is a focal point, but it's not the source. 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. quote: But it's not taken from you. Every worker receives according to the labour expended. 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. 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 wouldnt leave any left over to give to those who dont work, and we would need a government filled with people who wouldnt exploit there positions of power, and we would need a working class that wouldnt engage in theft, fraudulent activities, or any of that nonsense. 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. What a delightful idea can I get my head out of this bucket of sand now, its giving me a crick in the neck. quote: I'm not familiar with every proposal, so I'll just give a few brief examples. Thank you. quote: It only works for the owner. Actually it works, period. quote: What elections are you talking about? I'm not referring to any particular election, but I do know that members of congress (you know, we should follow Englands 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. quote: 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. Your right, but what I was trying to say was that these slaves didnt seem to be anything like traditional slaves. I later expounded on this in my rant. If we are trying to redefine slave as meaning someone who works for someone else then it isnt necessarily bad. Trying to make this point like this was probably a mistake. quote: Wrong. Employing power in a manner inconsistent with the rest of the worlds idea's on what is right and fair leads your country to isolation and inevitable destruction. True, but more power you have less you have to worry about what other people think. quote: Me too, I just don't want it to be at the expense of my fellow citizens who's well being I am somehow compelled to care about. Must be that socialist brainwashing May I point out that EVERYONE has had a considerable increase in their standard of living over the past few hundred years of capitalism. Poor people, rich people, even bums are better off then they were a few hundred years ago. quote: A mugging is a one-time hit-and-run. Wage confiscation is ongoing without end. It was a bloody EXAMPLE, we can substitute a protection racket for a mugging if you like, or even running blackmail, if you like. If someone is running a protection racket that you have to pay do you claim you are being enslaved by them? I should hope not! quote: In the USA, once the poor figure out (if they haven't already) that they can vote to tax the rich to confiscatory levels, they will never go back to any other way of life. Exactly true, this is what I have been going on about with mob rule. The poor use there numbers to steal from the rich and then consolidate themselves by saying its what the rich owes them and that its moral.
CommanderJohnson Posted May 22, 2002 Report Posted May 22, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Lotharr: 1)Love, compassion, strength of character.....things you may not know about personally. Ok, so a socialist system will make a human CAPABLE of love, compassion, and strength of chracter? I really do fail to see the relationship. There would not be marriage, charity organizations, and honest people if capitalist societies did not render people CAPABLE of those things. Also, PLEASE EXPLAIN to me how socialism MAKES PEOPLE LOVE, CARE, and FEEL COMPASSION. Giving the capability doesn't mean it'll help anything. Socialism actually equals oppression and hatred since it MAKES people LOOK like they are "loving" by giving the fruits of their labor to the poor. Just think about why there was so much hatred of blacks in the south after the Civil War and desegregation. True, part of it was because of history, but a lot of it was because people were being FORCED to accept blacks. quote:2) Not every single person.....but at least they would have a fighting chance.Which people ARE going to be then? The people who work the hardest sure aren't going to see the benefits, cause they are going to be constantly stolen from. The lazy ones sure aren't, because eventually EVERYONE will become lazy in the society, and there is nothing left for them except death. quote:3) While you don't care about the people that keep your streets clean....that clean acknowledges what you don't appreciate.People who "keep my streets clean", I appreciate, and they are paid for their jobs. If they enjoy their jobs (and the resulting pay), they should keep doing them. If not, they should work hard to change their situation. There's no reason why they DESERVE what people who have harder working jobs EARNED. quote:Do you know what it means to have a foundation? People do the best they can but the janitor who takes disease from me has no more honor then the man who develops the next OS.Yes, but in order to get people to achieve MORE, you need a capitalist society. If EVERYONE was provided for, and money didn't matter at all/as much, why would scientists care about getting a huge discovery? Right now, it's money and fame. In a socialist society, neither would really matter, and they would have less of a propensity to start on that track since they could live happy and full lives WITHOUT jobs that require exploration and advancement. quote:Yeah we have power and look at the evil that is pulled to us. Power doesn't make right it makes a interesting bookmark in history.Canada has very little international power. I read the international news reguarly, and the last thing I heard about Canada was they were *****ing about some of their troops getting killed in Afghanistan (possibly to allied fire). It's not like the United States hasn't lost troops to allied fire. At least WE don't ***** about it as much. quote:How can a society have "advancement, profit, accomplishment, and value" with a socialist system? No one has yet been able to explain a REAL WORLD SCENARIO where a socialist society does all of those things. It seems sorta counter-intuitive since there will never be advancement when the people who work the hardest have the most taken away from them to help the poor ones. People will just stop working as hard and fall just below the average level of income so they get helped out and dont need to work. quote:Why....most real progressives do it for the belief they have.....you put a price tag on it and I wonder how much real talent we have lost by corporate interpretation.Ok, human nature would say to do the least work possible to stay alive and happy, with no focus on achievement. In a socialist system, achieveing people are punished and lazy people are rewarded. Also, you still have FAILED TO GIVE A REAL WORLD SCENARIO. If you really want ANYONE to buy your IDEALIST view of the world, explain *HOW A SOCIALIST STATE WOULD FOSTER ACHIEVEMENT FOR THE FOLLOWING: (1) A lazy person with very few favorable genetic traits. and (2) A hardworking person who desires to achieve as much as he can for himself through hard work. Please explain what each person DOES, and why each person CONTINUES TO WORK when they are TOTALLY provided for by the government, and the benefits of the HARDWORKER are given to the LAZY PERSON. If I chopped trees so well I doubt I'd care.
Charles Lindsey Posted May 23, 2002 Report Posted May 23, 2002 quote:Kill the bold, Dredd, it's a bloody eyesoreThe bold is just some incorrect formatting. Notice the extra "end quote" code. Annoying but forgivable. [ 05-22-2002, 21:43: Message edited by: Charles Lindsey ]
Menchise Posted May 23, 2002 Report Posted May 23, 2002 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.
Guest Posted May 23, 2002 Report Posted May 23, 2002 quote: 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. You actually believe this intellectual crap? I am a worker, how am I oppressed there Menchise? I'd really like to know. 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? I love how your proessors and etc scream about being oppressed in their little university think tanks, payed for by government grants. They have probably never even held a REAL job, sitting around some university brainwashing students with this unbeleivable tripe is not a job, it's a fricking sad joke. If they get out there in the real world and are OPPRESSED then maybe I will have a little respect for their views,(probably not) they would be whining because they have no backbone or motivation to better themselves. But that's another story. This intelectual stuff that you spout looks real grand on paper, but once you hit the real world and get out of that socialist bastion of the college campus, you will see what a crock of SH&T that actually is. 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. 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. There are NO legally oppressed workers in this country. 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? NONE of those people are oppressed, they work at those jobs because they want to, or maybe they don't want to, maybe they have to in order to make the money they need to feed their families, that's oppression? I don't think so. 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. 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. If they want to pay me $10 an hour to be a garbage man, when I know that a garbage man makes more like $18 an hour, I will either choose NOT to work there, or will tell them what it will cost them for me to do the job. CHOICES, and where there is choice, there is NO oppression. 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. 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.
Raven Posted May 23, 2002 Report Posted May 23, 2002 quote: 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). Which is why it takes a lot of work. Between some people going out of business and some people succeeding it works. quote: Full employment is sustainable in socialism because the economy is geared toward cooperative and/or collaborative production, so the labor that is required to meet demand can be distributed to the entire workforce. 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. quote: 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. So we are letting those who donÔÇÖt work die out, well, thatÔÇÖs fine with me. quote: 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). 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. quote: The economy is planned and production is collaborative, thus labour is always geared towards demand. Yes, but my point was that payment is not based on demand. quote: Since caring for those who are unable to work is a paid job, the demand would be satisfied by labour. 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. quote: That's why corrupt politicians are punished. That's why criminals are punished. 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. quote: 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. 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).
Menchise Posted May 24, 2002 Report Posted May 24, 2002 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 ]
Guest Posted May 24, 2002 Report Posted May 24, 2002 Menchise, You live in such a dreamworld, if you shove 100 people into a situation, call it a town, they are put into this town with $10,000 each. They each get a house, they each get a job, they each get a car, they each get all the food they need. Within a month, the $10,000 will be gone, 90% of those people will have lost that money and 10% of them would have it all. Why? because there are consumers and then there are producers, the producers create what the consumers want, and therefore the producers will get the money that the consumers will JOYFULLY give them. About 10% of the population actually has the drive to create something in order to make money, 90% of us are willing to work to the best of our ability in order to buy the things that the producers create. Consumer and producer are very general terms, because of course the producers consume as well, but the fact is that the producers will employ some consumers in order to create the product that consumers want. This is the way that capitalism works. Socialism cannot compete with capitalism, it will destroy itself against it. Socialism attempts to make every person equal, in money, in job, in housing, in ownership of things etc. Let me give you a hint, we are ALL CREATED equal, but we are NOT equal. Some have more drive, some are smarter, some are faster, some are better then others. Equality in the US means that everyone is treated equally under the law. THAT'S IT. It doesn't mean equal in money, it doesn't mean equal in housing, etc etc ad nauseum. Human beings ARE NOT EQUAL, except under the law, to say anything else is naive in the extreme. That's what socialism tries to do, make everyone equal in EVERYTHING, not gonna happen, WILL NOT WORK!!! It will destroy itself in no time, as the capitalist society next door goes economically through the roof.
Raven Posted May 25, 2002 Report Posted May 25, 2002 Ok, this is going to be a long one quote: An interesting choice of words. What do you mean by 'legal' oppression? 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. quote: 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? But they donÔÇÖt, so quit trying to avoid the question. quote: Since when did workers decide how much they're going to be paid? As I recall, the final decision is made by the owner. 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. If the owner (or manager, or whoever) pays less then what others are willing to pay then he will have trouble retaining workers. Furthermore, what a type of workers are willing to work for also affects how much that type of worker is paid. And before you get on my case demanding an elaborate definition, by type I am referring primarily to such things as education level and job description. quote: 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. 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. quote: Could you please elaborate, or at the very least, explain that statement? 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. 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. quote: 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. 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. quote: 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). Struggle differs from warfare, but I really think that arguing over nomenclature like this is pointless. quote: Since the labour that is expended is geared toward satisfying demand, and payment is based upon the labour expended, your point is null. 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. quote: I like the way that you don't let me get away with anything. HAH! I wonÔÇÖt let you get away with anything, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. quote: 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. 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. 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. quote: 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. 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? To add another point to the ones we are arguing I would like to ask you what is to be done about incompetent workers. Since everyone is guaranteed a job if they want one then some bozo would be able to make an ass out of himself with impunity (after all, werenÔÇÖt you telling Jag that firing a worker because he was mouthing off was oppressive). 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). Now remember you couldnÔÇÖt fire someone over something like this because that would be tantamount to murder (at least, if what you said about not having a job being suicide is true) at the worst or at least reducing them to a permanent homeless state (after all, there would be no other employer besides the state to hire them). 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). P.S. Just to prove you right (that I donÔÇÖt let you get away with anything), labor doesnÔÇÖt have a u in it. [ 05-24-2002, 20:23: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]
Menchise Posted May 25, 2002 Report Posted May 25, 2002 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.
Menchise Posted May 25, 2002 Report Posted May 25, 2002 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.
Charles Lindsey Posted May 25, 2002 Report Posted May 25, 2002 quote:Only some socialisms support that, and they're not the popular ones.But you've never said exactly what your socialism is. I can appreciate that you refine your argments as you go but you've never given a base. I think Dragon Lady had it right a couple pages back. Enough (mostly) capitalism that rewards productivity with a touch of social programs to help the truly needy (disabilty), lend a helping hand in times of trouble (unemployment insurance), and provide a little something for everyone (roads, libraries). Wait, I just described America.
Raven Posted May 25, 2002 Report Posted May 25, 2002 quote: My point is that the level of wages does not determine whether workers are oppressed or not, hence the first question in my response. Then what exactly does make someone oppressed? Most people would say that the use of force to make someone act in a given way is oppression, if your definition is different then could you explain it. quote: 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. Very true, but I never claimed impartiality and I donÔÇÖt think that it is necessary or even desirable. quote: 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. Unskilled or minimum skill jobs only. Skilled workers donÔÇÖt have such a problem gaining employment unless there is a great excess of said workers. quote: 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. So what, the artist sells his art on the free market? Seems capitalist to me. quote: It never ceases to amaze me how so many anti-socialist arguments are based on the assumption that socialists have no common sense. ItÔÇÖs an easy assumption to make, trust me on this. quote: Deficit or equilibrium? Yes, Deficit. Equilibrium does exist, but there are always some areas in which new businesses can form, a deficit. quote: 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. I recall that a while back you were going on about how capitalism could only support the employment of 95% of the population at best and that with socialism this wouldnÔÇÖt be a problem, yet clearly unemployment would exist in socialism, thus this argument against capitalism is void. As far as what the American Institute for Full Employment said, I couldnÔÇÖt care less. There definition is obviously meant to be deceiving so that they can talk about one thing but make it sound like something else. quote: 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. So if you have a factory put out 1,000 giant inflatable yellow ducks they are worth the labor that went into making them? I'm a skeptic. quote: What do you mean by 'easy life'? Well, to have enough money to do whatever I like (within reason). To be comfortable, to not have to work much, that kind of thing. That requires a lot of money, something which can be accumulated in capitalism but not in socialism. quote: 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? What a pleasant thought Seriously though, what I am saying is that if itÔÇÖs illegal to gain power above and beyond what everyone gets, only people with out conscience will have power. I'm referring to both political and economic power, but even if just economic power was forbidden then those with political power would use it to gain economic power for the better lifestyle it would bring them. This would mean that the people with the least conscience would have the most power, economic and political. I donÔÇÖt think that is what you had in mind for a perfect society. quote: 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. Yes, I mean college, the though of basic education being anything other then compulsory hadnÔÇÖt occurred to me. quote: 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. BUT THATÔÇÖS MY POINT, there would be too many unskilled workers because the government would be required to employ them all, or maybe train them just a little. Requiring some people to get a college level education while others could just flip burgers would be playing into the beehive stereotype you mentioned above quite nicely. Subsequently, requiring everyone to go through college would be wasteful as many would still end up flipping burgers. quote: 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. Which would mean that some people would be unemployed forcibly, which would negate what you said about everyone having the opportunity to get a job. Otherwise it is a good idea. quote: Ahh, the 'same pay for everyone' stereotype. Only some socialisms support that, and they're not the popular ones. LetÔÇÖs have an explanation of Menchisean Socialism. quote: I think Dragon Lady had it right a couple pages back. Enough (mostly) capitalism that rewards productivity with a touch of social programs to help the truly needy (disabilty), lend a helping hand in times of trouble (unemployment insurance), and provide a little something for everyone (roads, libraries). I changed my stance a little from back then, people should use private insurance (and some type of unemployment insurance would be a logical derivative of such a policy). As far as roads and libraries go, thatÔÇÖs infrastructure and has nothing to do with socialism.
Lotharr Posted May 26, 2002 Author Report Posted May 26, 2002 I'm not sure how much more I'm gonna post on this thread anymore but who knows. Menchise thanks for the link. Out of all this you seem to be only one that actually provides links for further information. Some call it propaganda but it shows (me at least) that you are interested in spreading ideas. You have been accused of living in a dream world. I hope you will take that to be a source of pride. Dreams carry the soul. And few have the courage to break from the pack.
Guest Posted May 26, 2002 Report Posted May 26, 2002 Some alos have the courage to look at history and human nature and say, this can't work. We are too individualistic to say, "it's good for society, therefore I must do my best" BS, if it's good for me, then I will do my best. This is why capitalism works, and socialism does not. One is the good of the society, the other is good for the individual and the one he/she cares about. People are not motivated to work for the good of society, no matter how much you want to fool yourselves. People will work for themselves and the ones they love and care about. When you put 250 million people together in a country, there IS NO WAY you can make them care personally for EVERYONE else. Therefore socialism will fail, and fail EVERY time. In a small group, say up to 100 or so this MIGHT work, but again, the pilgrims tried it and almost died for it, so again, history says NOPE, not gonna happen. History repeats itself, because no one listened the first time. Neither of you are listening to history. It's a great dream, don't get me wrong, it's a wonderful thing to think about, everyone equal, no one jealous of anyone else, no one having more power then anyone else, no one being lower then anyone else, everyone being provided for. It's a wonderful dream, and lOOKS great on paper. But when experimented with in the real world, it brings NOTHING but pain and suffering and has EVERY time it has been tried. EVERY TIME!!! That in itself should tell you something, that in itself should convince you. History is full of lessons that we should learn, because it will happen again, not exactly like it happened, but the main points WILL and DO occur. Listen to history, she teaches a great many things, one of course is that socilialism is a dream, and as long as human beings are human, it will not and can not work.
Charles Lindsey Posted May 26, 2002 Report Posted May 26, 2002 quote:I changed my stance a little from back then,You were more interesting back then. quote: people should use private insurance (and some type of unemployment insurance would be a logical derivative of such a policy).Heavens no. Far too late for that. First I don't want to lose what I already put in. Second this is not the type of thing that needs privatized. Insurance companies would look at every thing from your health to the condition of your transportation and set rates accordingly. quote: As far as roads and libraries go, thatÔÇÖs infrastructure and has nothing to do with socialism.It doesn't? Coulda fooled me. For the supply and demand of socialism to work you would still need roads. This has been one of the bigger issues in other threads. Who would decide this? Socialism would still need someone to decide these things. IE a government. I can agree that libraries are not infrastructure. But I would hate to lose them.
Guest Posted May 26, 2002 Report Posted May 26, 2002 Libraries and Roads are a state and local thing, the states and localities have that power. THe constitution only limits the federal government and the Bill of Rights tells the governments, whomever they are, what they cannot make laws against. In other words, the constitution tells the fed's what they CAN do, and the Bill of rights tells the states and federal government what they cannot do. Other then that, the states have free reign to do pretty much whatever they want, as long as they do not go against the bill of rights. The constitution covered that pretty nicely. I have no problem with the federal government coordinating state cooperation on roads, but they should not pay for it, this is a state by state issue, the fed's coordinate, the states pay for it. EASY stuff. The founding fathers thought of this and explained how that would work within the boundaries of the constitution.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now