Nerditarian: Markus: Nerditarian: Markus: Nerditarian: Any deficiencies in freedom in Cuba are to do with the fact it has a huge capitalist country on it's door step that is doing it's best to bring down communism. Not to mention other western capitalist countries against Cuba. A. The Americkan Empire & it's western European satellites is not capitalist it's corporatist. Learn the difference, please. B. How is it America's fault that Castro & Co. are not friends of civil liberties? You make no sense. Don't drink the bong water. George Galloway blamed the US for any deficiencies in Cuban civil liberties in an interview on BBC Newsnight, I believe. Why should I take whatever George Galloway said as gospel if it makes no sense? This is the video in which George Galloway explains how the lack of democracy in Cuba is due to the US. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0TsQg-Qz2M&feature=related He assumes that rights are curtailed in a war justly and necessarily. He assumes this should be done. That's not true. Rights are inviolable and natural. Furthermore democracy is also evil. If America goes to war with Iraq it's not Iraq's fault America installs the patriot act. It wasn't Japan's fault the US created internment camps for Japanese-Americans. Furthermore, as socialists your opposed to freedom of trade between individuals so you really have no moral or economic leg to stand on! Silly Socialists!
Markus: Nerditarian: Markus: Nerditarian: Any deficiencies in freedom in Cuba are to do with the fact it has a huge capitalist country on it's door step that is doing it's best to bring down communism. Not to mention other western capitalist countries against Cuba. A. The Americkan Empire & it's western European satellites is not capitalist it's corporatist. Learn the difference, please. B. How is it America's fault that Castro & Co. are not friends of civil liberties? You make no sense. Don't drink the bong water. George Galloway blamed the US for any deficiencies in Cuban civil liberties in an interview on BBC Newsnight, I believe. Why should I take whatever George Galloway said as gospel if it makes no sense? This is the video in which George Galloway explains how the lack of democracy in Cuba is due to the US. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0TsQg-Qz2M&feature=related
Nerditarian: Markus: Nerditarian: Any deficiencies in freedom in Cuba are to do with the fact it has a huge capitalist country on it's door step that is doing it's best to bring down communism. Not to mention other western capitalist countries against Cuba. A. The Americkan Empire & it's western European satellites is not capitalist it's corporatist. Learn the difference, please. B. How is it America's fault that Castro & Co. are not friends of civil liberties? You make no sense. Don't drink the bong water. George Galloway blamed the US for any deficiencies in Cuban civil liberties in an interview on BBC Newsnight, I believe. Why should I take whatever George Galloway said as gospel if it makes no sense?
Markus: Nerditarian: Any deficiencies in freedom in Cuba are to do with the fact it has a huge capitalist country on it's door step that is doing it's best to bring down communism. Not to mention other western capitalist countries against Cuba. A. The Americkan Empire & it's western European satellites is not capitalist it's corporatist. Learn the difference, please. B. How is it America's fault that Castro & Co. are not friends of civil liberties? You make no sense. Don't drink the bong water. George Galloway blamed the US for any deficiencies in Cuban civil liberties in an interview on BBC Newsnight, I believe.
Nerditarian: Any deficiencies in freedom in Cuba are to do with the fact it has a huge capitalist country on it's door step that is doing it's best to bring down communism. Not to mention other western capitalist countries against Cuba. A. The Americkan Empire & it's western European satellites is not capitalist it's corporatist. Learn the difference, please. B. How is it America's fault that Castro & Co. are not friends of civil liberties? You make no sense. Don't drink the bong water.
Any deficiencies in freedom in Cuba are to do with the fact it has a huge capitalist country on it's door step that is doing it's best to bring down communism. Not to mention other western capitalist countries against Cuba.
A. The Americkan Empire & it's western European satellites is not capitalist it's corporatist. Learn the difference, please.
B. How is it America's fault that Castro & Co. are not friends of civil liberties? You make no sense. Don't drink the bong water.
Why should I take whatever George Galloway said as gospel if it makes no sense?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0TsQg-Qz2M&feature=related
He assumes that rights are curtailed in a war justly and necessarily. He assumes this should be done. That's not true. Rights are inviolable and natural. Furthermore democracy is also evil. If America goes to war with Iraq it's not Iraq's fault America installs the patriot act. It wasn't Japan's fault the US created internment camps for Japanese-Americans. Furthermore, as socialists your opposed to freedom of trade between individuals so you really have no moral or economic leg to stand on! Silly Socialists!
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Jon Irenicus:Only if you have some fetishised usage of the word.
Hardly, it is about common usage. 'Natural' is an antonym of 'artificial'.
Jon Irenicus:Trade, exchange &c. are very much natural, since they're expessions of the creature's that is engaging in them nature,
A ridiculous argument. Clearly there must be, and indeed is, a distinction between something that occurs naturally and the artifical constructions of 'natural' creatures.
Jon Irenicus:and also on another level because it's even observed in primates.
But is that a reflection on trade, or a reflection on the intellectual development of primates to the point that they have constructed trade customs?
The fact is that crude communism required a dicatorship of the proletariat to crush it's opponents.What were y'all expecting a crude communist tea party to banish the evil bourgeois? Did you seriously think that this could even be attempted without the promotion of some over others? How could you be so naive?
Nitroadict: Nerditarian: Markus: Nerditarian: Markus: Nerditarian: Any deficiencies in freedom in Cuba are to do with the fact it has a huge capitalist country on it's door step that is doing it's best to bring down communism. Not to mention other western capitalist countries against Cuba. A. The Americkan Empire & it's western European satellites is not capitalist it's corporatist. Learn the difference, please. B. How is it America's fault that Castro & Co. are not friends of civil liberties? You make no sense. Don't drink the bong water. George Galloway blamed the US for any deficiencies in Cuban civil liberties in an interview on BBC Newsnight, I believe. Why should I take whatever George Galloway said as gospel if it makes no sense? This is the video in which George Galloway explains how the lack of democracy in Cuba is due to the US. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0TsQg-Qz2M&feature=related He assumes that rights are curtailed in a war justly and necessarily. He assumes this should be done. That's not true. Rights are inviolable and natural. Furthermore democracy is also evil. If America goes to war with Iraq it's not Iraq's fault America installs the patriot act. It wasn't Japan's fault the US created internment camps for Japanese-Americans. Furthermore, as socialists your opposed to freedom of trade between individuals so you really have no moral or economic leg to stand on! Silly Socialists! Addendum: Economic warfare from the US is also what caused Pearl Harbor (i.e. the false flag op. to get US into WW2): http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1930
I never denied this but it can't be said that the Japanese treated their citizens as military tools only because of US economic warfare. Also, it can't be said that the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor caused the Americans to violate the rights of their citizens during WW2.
Nerditarian: The fact is that crude communism required a dicatorship of the proletariat to crush it's opponents.What were y'all expecting a crude communist tea party to banish the evil bourgeois? Did you seriously think that this could even be attempted without the promotion of some over others? How could you be so naive?
When the Communist Manifesto was written even conservatives advocated dictatorship.
http://marxmyths.org/hal-draper/article2.htm
No modern communists advocates a dictatorship. Stalinists aren't communists at all.
Actually, it can be used either way, and all "artificial" really denotes is that something was constructed, not that it is necessarily unnatural...
Ridiculous is the denial of calling trade natural.
It isn't a reflection on anything! It just shows how ingrained it is in the species' nature, as much as satisfying its needs requires it puts in some kind of effort.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Truthisnonexistent:When the Communist Manifesto was written even conservatives advocated dictatorship.
And that pertains to the conversation how?
Truthisnonexistent:No modern communists advocates a dictatorship. Stalinists aren't communists at all.
I'm not interested in arguing semantics so would you mind giving your own criteria for "communism", and "socialism"?
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
Markus:I wouldn't call paying for food and water in order to survive a "profit". I'd call it slavery to the capitalist system.
You can make any assertion you want. I doesn't make it less false.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
laminustacitus: Truthisnonexistent:When the Communist Manifesto was written even conservatives advocated dictatorship. And that pertains to the conversation how? Truthisnonexistent:No modern communists advocates a dictatorship. Stalinists aren't communists at all. I'm not interested in arguing semantics so would you mind giving your own criteria for "communism", and "socialism"?
He was obviously criticizing "The dictatorship of the proleitariat" I was pointing out how during that time period advocates of dictatorship were not all that rare.
Communism: A stateless, classless society in which the means of production are democratically owned.
Socialism: A society in which the means of production are collectively owned.
GilesStratton: What's "1 litre of fruit juice - (5 oranges + 1 grapefruit + 1 lemon + 2 limes + 2 hours use of juicer + a quarter litre of water + 2 hours of unskilled labour)"?
What's "1 litre of fruit juice - (5 oranges + 1 grapefruit + 1 lemon + 2 limes + 2 hours use of juicer + a quarter litre of water + 2 hours of unskilled labour)"?
Markus is still not willing to answer my challenge.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Truthisnonexistent:Communism: A stateless, classless society in which the means of production are democratically owned.
on any given issue, a democracy is split into classes, the majority and the minority, and one is above the other.
Communism: a utopian contradiction in terms, when pursued as a goal brings death and poverty. popularity is a funny ole thing. (women writing to jailed psychopaths and embarking on romantic relationships and so on...)
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Truthisnonexistent:He was obviously criticizing "The dictatorship of the proleitariat" I was pointing out how during that time period advocates of dictatorship were not all that rare.
So what? An advocate of dictatorship is an advocate of dictatorship no matter that the time period. Dare I say that the Classical liberals were very much alive during this period?
Truthisnonexistent:Socialism: A society in which the means of production are collectively owned.
"Collectively owned" is an oxymoron. When property is owned it is an individual, who can think and act, rather than some holistic collective that owns it.
Truthisnonexistent: Communism's aim is to eliminate social classes. A managerial class would be a hierarchical social class which communism strongly opposes. It would be helpful if you could post some resources that portray these Platonic roots of Marxism that imply a managerial class.
Communism's aim is to eliminate social classes. A managerial class would be a hierarchical social class which communism strongly opposes. It would be helpful if you could post some resources that portray these Platonic roots of Marxism that imply a managerial class.
Marxists believe that social class is to a great extent defined by the wealth and property/means of production that one owns. If one owns much property, and derives an income from it without directly labouring (i.e. Capital) then they are called bourgeoise capitalist pigs. If one owns little wealth, and all of ones income derives from so-called wage slavery, then one is called a proletariat. If this is right (feel free to correct me) then a propertyless group in society whose task it is to "manage" others is not entirely a contradiction... alternatively, they have internal contradictions. In any case the first manifestations in written literature of very close to socialistic and utopian thought can be found in Plato's Republic. I'm getting most of this from Alfred Sudre's chapter on the communism of Plato. He was the first person every to write a History of Communism, yet is almost completely forgotten. Given how recently I found out about him, I haven't read all his book yet, just a few extracts. Here's a link to Histoire du Communism. I hope you can read in French, I don't think it was ever translated into English, only German.
Plato envisaged a sort of Guardian class which would manage the society and economy, i.e. the modern equivalent of a bureaucrat, except that some Guardians would also have to fulfill the role of soldiers, so really his Guardian class encompasses both the role of bureaucrats and soldiers. However, given that Marxists view social class as directly proportional to one's ownership of property and the means of production, and since Plato's Guardian technically owned no property, then they are not that much of a class in themselves (debatable, but I'm not arguing for a one-to-one relationship).
The fallacy of course is that one need not own property directly to have power over others. I.e. managers in a company often own little or no stock, yet they control and have more influence over the company than the stockholders, hence agency costs. Stalin was by far the most powerful person in the Soviet Union, because although he owned little (or no?) property directly, he had command over all of the economy and everyone else.
Markus: Many people talk of how communism is a "noble concept" but that it can't work. We are told how people have suffered under communism - the intellectuals and artists who were allegedly targeted and killed in mao's cultural revolution for example, the tens of millions of ukrainians murdered by stalin, the aggressive expansionism, gulags, the ridiculous notions of lysenkoism and the idea of making everyone work for equal and very low wages, the extent of state control over everyone's lives. But communism, despite all this, is still a "noble concept" and that is because there is a nugget of pure gold at the centre of this ideology -and that is socialism - an ideal of treating people fairly.
Many people talk of how communism is a "noble concept" but that it can't work. We are told how people have suffered under communism - the intellectuals and artists who were allegedly targeted and killed in mao's cultural revolution for example, the tens of millions of ukrainians murdered by stalin, the aggressive expansionism, gulags, the ridiculous notions of lysenkoism and the idea of making everyone work for equal and very low wages, the extent of state control over everyone's lives. But communism, despite all this, is still a "noble concept" and that is because there is a nugget of pure gold at the centre of this ideology -and that is socialism - an ideal of treating people fairly.
Fairness is subjective; who will get to decide what is fair what is not fair?
Markus:Many of the positive things about communism as it has been practiced and realised in actuality are not known to the general public. For example, that a policy of full employment was accompanied by free housing. The poorest people in russia had a happier and more secure existence under soviet rule than they do today when they can find themselves homeless, counting themselves lucky to work unreasonable hours for little pay for capitalists, and in a society where there is a lot of corruption, crime and sleaze, and the mafia is strong. If communism "did not work" it is nevertheless true that what it was replaced with is little better, and in a number of ways worse.
Unreasonableness is also subjective; who will get to decide what is unreasonable and what is not unreasonable? Also, happiness is subjective who will get to decide what is happy and what is not happy? So goes for "little pay". So you would rather have people starve to death, but not homeless, than have people be homeless, but have food? Markus:Communism does work as practiced today in various nations around the world. these now are all non-white nations, non-western nations. Because they reject the western capitalist way of life they are demonised. But the people living in these countries do benefit from communism - and the communism is special there in that it is no longer internationalist and has taken on a nationalist flavour. Even Soviet Russia had to resort to rousing feelings of nationalistic pride in ww2. So these communist regimes are nationalistic and also socialistic, and yet they are undoubtedly fascist as well in that the state requires that the people obey its laws and serve the state's existence.
Markus:Communism does work as practiced today in various nations around the world. these now are all non-white nations, non-western nations. Because they reject the western capitalist way of life they are demonised. But the people living in these countries do benefit from communism - and the communism is special there in that it is no longer internationalist and has taken on a nationalist flavour. Even Soviet Russia had to resort to rousing feelings of nationalistic pride in ww2. So these communist regimes are nationalistic and also socialistic, and yet they are undoubtedly fascist as well in that the state requires that the people obey its laws and serve the state's existence.
Who, North Korea? North Korea trades with China. Who, China? China trades with the world and is capitalist. Also, please don't ignore the existence of black markets in socialist/communist/whatever nations. Markus:The communism practiced in various countries now is different in each one. To some extent capitalism has been allowed, including allowing western capitalists to relocate factories to China, for example, and exploit the Chinese people. not good. but the variant of communism they have in china still has benefits to the Chinese people in that it controls criminal activities far more effectively than would otherwise be the case and takes a strong stance against such things as drug dealing, prostitution and pornography.
Markus:The communism practiced in various countries now is different in each one. To some extent capitalism has been allowed, including allowing western capitalists to relocate factories to China, for example, and exploit the Chinese people. not good. but the variant of communism they have in china still has benefits to the Chinese people in that it controls criminal activities far more effectively than would otherwise be the case and takes a strong stance against such things as drug dealing, prostitution and pornography.
Are you serious? Look at how much so-called communist China has progressed since its government loosened its economic stranglehood. People can actually leave the country now. For Jesus of Nazareth's sake, their is a Rolex shop at the Beijing airport. What's wrong with exploitation?
Markus:These communist countries have to be heavily ruled by a totalitarian state (and are thus basically fascist ) because the people living in them lack the altruism that would be necessary for the state to ease off and allow a natural socialistic consensus to emerge. China is a vast and over populated nation, but there is a fairly high level of homogeneity, especially in localised areas. true socialism could work if the separate areas would work as autonomous regions.
Are you saying that the folks that work in higher ranks of the communist government are altruistic? Lol. Look at Fidel Castro; he lives in a mansion, has bodyguards, and get driven around. How did you determine China to be over populated? Markus:National socialism as practiced in Germany in the 3rd reich worked like a charm because there was a high level of homogeneity, a strong sense of nationhood, and simply because the northern European/Germanic temperament is ideally suited to socialist society. Even today's anti-nazi documentaries with emotive titles about "the rise of evil" and so on admit that national socialist Germany was a paradise - as long as you were not one of those being hauled away to a concentration camp.
Markus:National socialism as practiced in Germany in the 3rd reich worked like a charm because there was a high level of homogeneity, a strong sense of nationhood, and simply because the northern European/Germanic temperament is ideally suited to socialist society. Even today's anti-nazi documentaries with emotive titles about "the rise of evil" and so on admit that national socialist Germany was a paradise - as long as you were not one of those being hauled away to a concentration camp.
Lol. Yes, it was a paradise unless you were a Jew and had your stuff stolen. Markus:National socialism is like communism with all the failings removed. It is strange indeed that it is thought of in any way as being the opposite of communism but that mistake can be explained by the fact that Germany fought a war against soviet Russia, and the soviets needed to give the impression that national socialism was nothing like their own variant of socialism. it was the soviets who first decided to label the nazis as "fascists" in order to avoid the use of the term "socialism" to describe their enemy. Although Hitler allied with Mussolini and the Italian fascist regime, national socialist thinkers in the third reich have always made it clear that national socialism is a rejection of fascism. National socialism is about putting the folk before the state while fascism is the opposite. Fascism in no way implies any kind of racial loyalty and in fact would only exploit racial or patriotic loyalty as far as it benefited the state to do so - always at times of war. At present the west is ruled by a fascism in which the ruling capitalists exploit the people and seek to prevent true socialism by bringing in millions of immigrants of various races, especially third worlders. This provides them with cheap labour, causes racial conflict to replace the class conflict that capitalists fear, and prevents the folk of a nation from maintaining their territory and identity.
Markus:National socialism is like communism with all the failings removed. It is strange indeed that it is thought of in any way as being the opposite of communism but that mistake can be explained by the fact that Germany fought a war against soviet Russia, and the soviets needed to give the impression that national socialism was nothing like their own variant of socialism. it was the soviets who first decided to label the nazis as "fascists" in order to avoid the use of the term "socialism" to describe their enemy. Although Hitler allied with Mussolini and the Italian fascist regime, national socialist thinkers in the third reich have always made it clear that national socialism is a rejection of fascism. National socialism is about putting the folk before the state while fascism is the opposite. Fascism in no way implies any kind of racial loyalty and in fact would only exploit racial or patriotic loyalty as far as it benefited the state to do so - always at times of war. At present the west is ruled by a fascism in which the ruling capitalists exploit the people and seek to prevent true socialism by bringing in millions of immigrants of various races, especially third worlders. This provides them with cheap labour, causes racial conflict to replace the class conflict that capitalists fear, and prevents the folk of a nation from maintaining their territory and identity.
Yes, it causes all those class conflicts because the politicians blame all the problems on everyone besides themselves.
Markus:Yes true communism, true socialism, depends upon human nature being altruistic, and looking around us at the world it seems that such a society would be impossible. But it is not. Altruism has been scientifically proven to be a genetic trait that is lost unless it is practiced very discriminatingly. Animals have evolved to be altruistic - but only towards others who are closely related to them. William Hamilton's equation demonstrates the mathematical formula for this kin selection. Altruism and socialism are almost homonyms. Socialism requires altruism and this is why, when you bear in mind the facts regarding the necessity of close relation, the most potential for a socialist society exists amongst people who are of one ethnicity and one nation. The biggest mistake of communists is to forget this rule. there cannot be a global village that is socialist - in which every ethnicity and creed cooperates in a spirit of harmony and love. We can imagine such a world perhaps, but the reality is that it can never happen and that attempts to make this happen not only fail but in fact ruin the only real chance of socialism, which is ethnic based.
Don't worry as long we have the right leaders, all will be good. *caugh* Mao *caugh* Stalin *caugh* Pol Pot *caugh* Lol
Markus:Those who favour capitalism like to point to the failings of communism and say that human nature is egoistic and selfish and that people never really work for the common good. Since the most successful capitalists and politicians today are clinically psychopaths, it is not possible for these people to empathise with altruistic urges anyway. These people could never feel loyalty to blood, only to their own bank accounts. It is horrific that such people have so much power over all our lives.
There are other communist failing to point out. Markus:Capitalists suggest that people live only for shallow material reward and they have no conscience about exploiting workers. Proudhon's famous phrase "property is theft" is most accurate when referring to the ill-gotten gains of capitalists. Capitalists point to the Darwinist fact that animals are genetically programmed to desire to prosper, reproduce and expand. They ignore the fact that this is achieved as a group - and thus socialistically - even if the animal is not gregarious. Success in nature is about spreading ones genes and these genes succeeding within a gene pool. The capitalists abuse and twist Darwinism and that is how the abomination which is called "social Darwinism" came into the language. To capitalists, "survival of the fittest", is about selfish exploitation by an individual and about the individual getting as good a material existence for himself, even without having any offspring at all in many cases, as possible. When we have these people in our midst it is only bad for our gene pool and the anti-nature world view that capitalists spread is killing us and raping the planet. It is a big factor behind the plummeting birth rate in the west.
Markus:Capitalists suggest that people live only for shallow material reward and they have no conscience about exploiting workers. Proudhon's famous phrase "property is theft" is most accurate when referring to the ill-gotten gains of capitalists. Capitalists point to the Darwinist fact that animals are genetically programmed to desire to prosper, reproduce and expand. They ignore the fact that this is achieved as a group - and thus socialistically - even if the animal is not gregarious. Success in nature is about spreading ones genes and these genes succeeding within a gene pool. The capitalists abuse and twist Darwinism and that is how the abomination which is called "social Darwinism" came into the language. To capitalists, "survival of the fittest", is about selfish exploitation by an individual and about the individual getting as good a material existence for himself, even without having any offspring at all in many cases, as possible. When we have these people in our midst it is only bad for our gene pool and the anti-nature world view that capitalists spread is killing us and raping the planet. It is a big factor behind the plummeting birth rate in the west.
What is "shallow material wealth"? Everytime I breathe out, I provide the CO2 that plants need to grow. Wait, how is capitalism killing us? Markus:The capitalists have not only twisted Darwinism but they have twisted socialism too. Many associate socialism now with a policy of supporting the least deserving and most useless people in our society. Many associate socialism with being pro immigrant - when as i have explained immigration wrecks the basis of socialism and merely strengthens the position of capitalists. Not only those who dislike socialism have these misconceptions, but the multi-racialists who claim to be socialist or communist also have these ideas. Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin - none have ever advocated that third worlders should immigrate to the west and mix with whites. Trotsky made clear that he advocated black nationalism/separatism in the united states, even while the ku klux klan at the time did not, preferring the capitalist/masonic stance that blacks be kept as slaves. (thankfully today's kkk does appreciate the principle of ethno nationalism and has an ironically similar view to that of trotsky in this regard).
Markus:The capitalists have not only twisted Darwinism but they have twisted socialism too. Many associate socialism now with a policy of supporting the least deserving and most useless people in our society. Many associate socialism with being pro immigrant - when as i have explained immigration wrecks the basis of socialism and merely strengthens the position of capitalists. Not only those who dislike socialism have these misconceptions, but the multi-racialists who claim to be socialist or communist also have these ideas. Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin - none have ever advocated that third worlders should immigrate to the west and mix with whites. Trotsky made clear that he advocated black nationalism/separatism in the united states, even while the ku klux klan at the time did not, preferring the capitalist/masonic stance that blacks be kept as slaves. (thankfully today's kkk does appreciate the principle of ethno nationalism and has an ironically similar view to that of trotsky in this regard).
Yes, this is one reason that socialism is anti liberty; as in, having the liberty to leave the country. Markus:Socialism is about contributing to society, while capitalism is about taking out of society - it is about making a private profit. when capitalists point to ways they feel they do contribute to society, from the "trickle down effect" to donations they make to third worlders, or creating jobs or adding to the economy, it is all cynical spiel with no grounds to justify it as being positive. All of these things result in pollution, unsustainable use of natural resources and surging populations in parts of the world where it is most harmful.
Markus:Socialism is about contributing to society, while capitalism is about taking out of society - it is about making a private profit. when capitalists point to ways they feel they do contribute to society, from the "trickle down effect" to donations they make to third worlders, or creating jobs or adding to the economy, it is all cynical spiel with no grounds to justify it as being positive. All of these things result in pollution, unsustainable use of natural resources and surging populations in parts of the world where it is most harmful.
Please explain the first sentence. Markus:Capitalists have been behind all wars, including the last two world wars and the present "war on terror". Selling arms is very lucrative, as is rebuilding destroyed infrastructure and of course war would have had to be declared on a national socialist state that had promised to hang bankers and capitalists and was printing its own currency.
Markus:Capitalists have been behind all wars, including the last two world wars and the present "war on terror". Selling arms is very lucrative, as is rebuilding destroyed infrastructure and of course war would have had to be declared on a national socialist state that had promised to hang bankers and capitalists and was printing its own currency.
No, the State has been behind all wars. Damn it, I just realized that when you say "capitalist", you actually mean mercantilism/mercantilism. Anyway, is that why national-socialist Germany invaded its neighbors? Markus:Communism in the soviet states had a strange relationship with the western capitalists and that is why they did not see it as the same threat that national socialist Germany posed. as the Russian anarchist mikhyl bakunin pointed out :"i am sure that, on the one hand, the Rothschild’s appreciate the merits of Marx, and that on the other hand, Marx feels an instinctive inclination and a great respect for the Rothschild’s. this may seem strange. what could there be in common between communism and high finance? ho ho! the communism of Marx seeks a strong state centralization, and where this exists there must inevitably exist a state central bank, and where this exists, there the parasitic Jewish nation, which speculates upon the labor of the people, will always find the means for its existence..."
Markus:Communism in the soviet states had a strange relationship with the western capitalists and that is why they did not see it as the same threat that national socialist Germany posed. as the Russian anarchist mikhyl bakunin pointed out :"i am sure that, on the one hand, the Rothschild’s appreciate the merits of Marx, and that on the other hand, Marx feels an instinctive inclination and a great respect for the Rothschild’s. this may seem strange. what could there be in common between communism and high finance? ho ho! the communism of Marx seeks a strong state centralization, and where this exists there must inevitably exist a state central bank, and where this exists, there the parasitic Jewish nation, which speculates upon the labor of the people, will always find the means for its existence..."
Marx and Engels were bourgeoisie. Markus:When it comes to a debate over which is the better, communism or capitalism, the argument always fails to realise the true biological basis for socialism and how it really could work to bring a utopia, if only the capitalist exploiters of the labour of the people would be stopped, and ethnic cohesion taken as the foundation for harmony and cooperation.
Markus:When it comes to a debate over which is the better, communism or capitalism, the argument always fails to realise the true biological basis for socialism and how it really could work to bring a utopia, if only the capitalist exploiters of the labour of the people would be stopped, and ethnic cohesion taken as the foundation for harmony and cooperation.
Yes, that is why socialism and communism are utopian.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
laminustacitus: Truthisnonexistent:He was obviously criticizing "The dictatorship of the proleitariat" I was pointing out how during that time period advocates of dictatorship were not all that rare. So what? An advocate of dictatorship is an advocate of dictatorship no matter that the time period. Dare I say that the Classical liberals were very much alive during this period? Truthisnonexistent:Socialism: A society in which the means of production are collectively owned. "Collectively owned" is an oxymoron. When property is owned it is an individual, who can think and act, rather than some holistic collective that owns it.
Property can be collectively owned because it can be collectively used/benefited from. It cant be owned by *everybody* but it can be owned by a group of people. Like I would say that if there is a forest that the entire community benefits from (by it creating oxygen for them to breathe, being pleasent, people going on camping trips there) I would say that they should be able to restrict access to it and defend it as a group if someone decides they want to tear it down and build a strip mall for example.
If communism/socialism is so great and capitalism is so evil, why do people from such countries run to mixed capitalist first world countries? Don't they know they're going to be poor and exploited?
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
1) I'm not advocating dictatorship keep in mind.
"By the nineteenth century political language had long included references to the “dictatorship” of the most democratic assemblies, of popular mass movements, or even of The People in general. All Marx did at the time was apply this old political term to the political power of a class."
2)
I don't really understand your argument? Two spouses can collectively own a house. You and your friend can collectively own a business. What problem do you see with workers democratically controlling the workplace?
Natalie: If communism/socialism is so great and capitalism is so evil, why do people from such countries run to mixed capitalist first world countries? Don't they know they're going to be poor and exploited?
Where are these communist countries? Lol.. The sufficient working conditions in industrialized nations are not a gift from the economic system itself they are a gift from collective struggle against the system i.e. unions and the labor movement.
"The sufficient working conditions in industrialized nations are not a gift from the economic system itself they are a gift from collective struggle against the system i.e. unions and the labor movement."
Really? So where can I sing up to get an office instead of a cube? I can even pay a fee ;)
And socialist countries had labor unions too. So why didn't they help with the working conditions? What about the living conditions? The range of goods and services available to people?
Fred Furash: Truthisnonexistent: Communism's aim is to eliminate social classes. A managerial class would be a hierarchical social class which communism strongly opposes. It would be helpful if you could post some resources that portray these Platonic roots of Marxism that imply a managerial class. Marxists believe that social class is to a great extent defined by the wealth and property/means of production that one owns. If one owns much property, and derives an income from it without directly labouring (i.e. Capital) then they are called bourgeoise capitalist pigs. If one owns little wealth, and all of ones income derives from so-called wage slavery, then one is called a proletariat. If this is right (feel free to correct me) then a propertyless group in society whose task it is to "manage" others is not entirely a contradiction... alternatively, they have internal contradictions. In any case the first manifestations in written literature of very close to socialistic and utopian thought can be found in Plato's Republic. I'm getting most of this from Alfred Sudre's chapter on the communism of Plato. He was the first person every to write a History of Communism, yet is almost completely forgotten. Given how recently I found out about him, I haven't read all his book yet, just a few extracts. Here's a link to Histoire du Communism. I hope you can read in French, I don't think it was ever translated into English, only German. Plato envisaged a sort of Guardian class which would manage the society and economy, i.e. the modern equivalent of a bureaucrat, except that some Guardians would also have to fulfill the role of soldiers, so really his Guardian class encompasses both the role of bureaucrats and soldiers. However, given that Marxists view social class as directly proportional to one's ownership of property and the means of production, and since Plato's Guardian technically owned no property, then they are not that much of a class in themselves (debatable, but I'm not arguing for a one-to-one relationship). The fallacy of course is that one need not own property directly to have power over others. I.e. managers in a company often own little or no stock, yet they control and have more influence over the company than the stockholders, hence agency costs. Stalin was by far the most powerful person in the Soviet Union, because although he owned little (or no?) property directly, he had command over all of the economy and everyone else.
You are correct social classes are determined by wealth and ownership of means of production to some extent, like you said. Communism aims to eliminate the state because the state is compiled of a ruling, oppressive social class that maintain their power through force. The state is also a capitalist entity. You could argue of course that Stalin in fact owned all the land in the Soviet Union, I'm sure he could send his thugs to seize land left and right but for arguments sake, I'll agree he did not own the land directly. A reason why communist's aim to eliminate the state is because the state is just as bourgeoisie as the factory owner. The factory owner reaps money through exploitative wages, the president reaps money through a death threat.
I don't agree with a guardian class which would inevitably be the state. I'm anti-statist. I don't get why to open your post you were correct in saying that Marxists view social classes by wealth and ownership of property and means of production to some extent but to conclude you say "Marxists view social class as directly proportional to one's ownership of property and the means of production,". Please clarify how you jumped from "to some extent" to "directly".
It sounds like an interesting read. I googled the author and title but all that came up was your post :p. I can't read French or German anyway.
Natalie: "The sufficient working conditions in industrialized nations are not a gift from the economic system itself they are a gift from collective struggle against the system i.e. unions and the labor movement." Really? So where can I sing up to get an office instead of a cube? I can even pay a fee ;) And socialist countries had labor unions too. So why didn't they help with the working conditions? What about the living conditions? The range of goods and services available to people?
What does that first sentence mean?
What socialist countries? The Soviet Union, a state capitalist country? Let's use America as an example, go back when there was child labor, no minimum wage, horrid hours and so on. How did we go from that to no child labor, a minimum wage, and decent hours? Hint: America has a very bloody labor history.
My biggest complaint with the whole communist concept isn't the proposed end result, but rather the foundation for it all of it in concept; polylogism and historical materialism. As such, these ideas have both been toppled many times in history. First, the very concept that different classes have some magically different epistemologies doesn't hold up under scientific inquiry (the neurons in my head being from a working class family is no different than those from a family of scientists or businesspersons, and so on). Second, history has been shown time and time again not to be a science with different views being taken on the particulars of history (see the current revisionism of separating Stalinism from Communism, or even Leninism from Communism). Also, the very idea that some how history simply happens to its participants is idiotic (which is one the consequences of historical materialism), even in terms of the natural sciences (atoms don't simply have things happen to them, they react in kind).
So, all in all, the very basis of communism can't stand up to even a light scrutiny, so how in the hell is the rest of it suppose to survive?
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
Truthisnonexistent: I don't really understand your argument? Two spouses can collectively own a house. You and your friend can collectively own a business. What problem do you see with workers democratically controlling the workplace?
Truthisnonexistent: Nerditarian: The fact is that crude communism required a dicatorship of the proletariat to crush it's opponents.What were y'all expecting a crude communist tea party to banish the evil bourgeois? Did you seriously think that this could even be attempted without the promotion of some over others? How could you be so naive? When the Communist Manifesto was written even conservatives advocated dictatorship. http://marxmyths.org/hal-draper/article2.htm No modern communists advocates a dictatorship. Stalinists aren't communists at all.
I would be careful making absolute statements like that. I've debated with people about communism who were perfectly fine with a dictatorship of the proletariat because it would be based upon the will and right of the proletariat.
existence is elsewhere
Truthisnonexistent: You are correct social classes are determined by wealth and ownership of means of production to some extent, like you said. Communism aims to eliminate the state because the state is compiled of a ruling, oppressive social class that maintain their power through force. The state is also a capitalist entity. You could argue of course that Stalin in fact owned all the land in the Soviet Union, I'm sure he could send his thugs to seize land left and right but for arguments sake, I'll agree he did not own the land directly. A reason why communist's aim to eliminate the state is because the state is just as bourgeoisie as the factory owner. The factory owner reaps money through exploitative wages, the president reaps money through a death threat.
Well as I said, it's not a one-to-one, it's closer to call Plato's utopia socialistic than communistic. In any case, communism makes no sense, it's an unattainable utopia, because if nobody has neither ownership or control over the means of production... then no incentives exist. Socialism is problematic for many reasons, one of which is the replacement of consumer demands with political desires, but communism would eliminate all forms of incentives, and it would also be the absolute manifestation of the tragedy of the commons.
Truthisnonexistent: I don't agree with a guardian class which would inevitably be the state. I'm anti-statist. I don't get why to open your post you were correct in saying that Marxists view social classes by wealth and ownership of property and means of production to some extent but to conclude you say "Marxists view social class as directly proportional to one's ownership of property and the means of production,". Please clarify how you jumped from "to some extent" to "directly". It sounds like an interesting read. I googled the author and title but all that came up was your post :p. I can't read French or German anyway.
I'm a market-anarchist, so I'm not saying a guardian class would inevitably be the state. I'm just saying that what Plato conceptualized as the guardian class are today very similar to the role of state bureaucrats and soldiers.
The part about directly was a mistake, I do mean that it isn't an exact relationship, but there is an interesting link. I'm surprised that my post is on google this quickly lol. I do provide a link to the book in my post, but you can find it on google books for free, although I have only seen it in French. I haven't looked in detail for an English version though. I suppose if the Mises institute is looking for a book to translate, the first history of communism surely deserves that place ;)
Maybe if my French gets that good, I will be able to not only read but also translate parts of it... give it a few years. I've ordered a book by Bastiat and Rousseau in French, so that should help.
Truthisnonexistent: laminustacitus: Truthisnonexistent:He was obviously criticizing "The dictatorship of the proleitariat" I was pointing out how during that time period advocates of dictatorship were not all that rare. So what? An advocate of dictatorship is an advocate of dictatorship no matter that the time period. Dare I say that the Classical liberals were very much alive during this period? Truthisnonexistent:Socialism: A society in which the means of production are collectively owned. "Collectively owned" is an oxymoron. When property is owned it is an individual, who can think and act, rather than some holistic collective that owns it. 1) I'm not advocating dictatorship keep in mind. "By the nineteenth century political language had long included references to the “dictatorship” of the most democratic assemblies, of popular mass movements, or even of The People in general. All Marx did at the time was apply this old political term to the political power of a class." http://marxmyths.org/hal-draper/article2.htm 2) I don't really understand your argument? Two spouses can collectively own a house. You and your friend can collectively own a business. What problem do you see with workers democratically controlling the workplace? Natalie: If communism/socialism is so great and capitalism is so evil, why do people from such countries run to mixed capitalist first world countries? Don't they know they're going to be poor and exploited? Where are these communist countries? Lol.. The sufficient working conditions in industrialized nations are not a gift from the economic system itself they are a gift from collective struggle against the system i.e. unions and the labor movement
Where are these communist countries? Lol.. The sufficient working conditions in industrialized nations are not a gift from the economic system itself they are a gift from collective struggle against the system i.e. unions and the labor movement
Truthisnonexistant,
Yeah yeah yeah. Proletariat, right. Bourgeois swine, got it. Yawn.
Forgive me, but could these 20th century debates be any more boring? Look. I'm not going to debate about collective ownership or central ownership, I'm going to come at this from a different angle than most others. I do not really reject communism on the basis of its inability to work - whether it is or isn't, I don't care. I reject on the basis that your politics, communism, anarcho-communism, general socialism is boring! It's boring as f*ck! Come on, it's been how many centuries since that ratty old Communist manifesto was written. Can we move on already?
Please, you have a cute girl in your picture, maybe you can understand the desirability for aesthetics. Communism is ugly. 20th century capitalism is ugly. Democracy is ugly.
And more importantly - BORING!
DD5: Truthisnonexistent: I don't really understand your argument? Two spouses can collectively own a house. You and your friend can collectively own a business. What problem do you see with workers democratically controlling the workplace? The incidence of losses will fall on who exactly? Or perhaps this question is irrelevant to you since you want to do away with profit & loss. If you do away with profit & loss, there is no way to adjust the production structure to changing demand of consumers. Or perhaps in your world the consumer is a static peace of meat that consumes the same thing everyday? ############### The critical error (among just a few that I can spot) is that you are completely disregarding the role of the entrepreneur and Capitalist in the market economy not realizing that there is no other way to have a viable economic system. ################## You are ignoring the fact that Capital is scarce. You are ignoring the universal truth of scarcity in general. ################ Workers are the original factor owners of production. The labor of the worker belongs to the worker! You forget that the worker SELLS his labor to his employer. This is just a regular exchange between any two free individuals. The value of that labor is determined according to the worker’s marginal productivity, which is just another way of saying that his labor output is valued in the market according to the laws of supply & demand. ########### How about you check out Profit & loss By Mises. It’s a wonderful introl. Essay to Mises and free market economics. ###########sorry, I don't know why my paragraphs are combined into a single long paragraph.
I come on here and speak in defense of Marx and I'm looked at as the second coming of Stalin.
The incidence of losses will fall on the workers as a collective. I don't see why you are asserting I want to do away with profit and loss. If a democratically owned business fails to meet society's needs they will inevitably fail. If a business meets society's needs exceptionally and receives profit, the collective can vote and democratically choose what said profit will be spent on, be it bonuses for all the workers, more machines, donate to charity, anything.
I realize that you can be self employed in capitalism. Capital is scare, for the majority of people not for the capitalists. 40 percent of the worlds wealth is owned by 1 percent of the worlds population while children are starving, does that speak well of our economic system? Capitalism is not all evil like many Marxists make it out to be. I sympathize with anarcho-capitalists strongly. Capitalism is not ideal and I don't see any practicality or moral problems with socialism.
How are workers the original owners of the means of production? The worker sells his labor correct, it is an exchange between two individuals, correct. But there is no non-exploitative, practical alternative, not everyone can be self-employed. The worker's wage is not within the market and laws of supply and demand. The boss wants the worker's wage to be as low as possible, if the worker's wage was really in line with the market, they would be paid for what they produce and there would be no profit for the boss that does not produce anything. The boss wants low wages to increase his profit.
Fred Furash: Truthisnonexistent: You are correct social classes are determined by wealth and ownership of means of production to some extent, like you said. Communism aims to eliminate the state because the state is compiled of a ruling, oppressive social class that maintain their power through force. The state is also a capitalist entity. You could argue of course that Stalin in fact owned all the land in the Soviet Union, I'm sure he could send his thugs to seize land left and right but for arguments sake, I'll agree he did not own the land directly. A reason why communist's aim to eliminate the state is because the state is just as bourgeoisie as the factory owner. The factory owner reaps money through exploitative wages, the president reaps money through a death threat. Well as I said, it's not a one-to-one, it's closer to call Plato's utopia socialistic than communistic. In any case, communism makes no sense, it's an unattainable utopia, because if nobody has neither ownership or control over the means of production... then no incentives exist. Socialism is problematic for many reasons, one of which is the replacement of consumer demands with political desires, but communism would eliminate all forms of incentives, and it would also be the absolute manifestation of the tragedy of the commons. Truthisnonexistent: I don't agree with a guardian class which would inevitably be the state. I'm anti-statist. I don't get why to open your post you were correct in saying that Marxists view social classes by wealth and ownership of property and means of production to some extent but to conclude you say "Marxists view social class as directly proportional to one's ownership of property and the means of production,". Please clarify how you jumped from "to some extent" to "directly". It sounds like an interesting read. I googled the author and title but all that came up was your post :p. I can't read French or German anyway. I'm a market-anarchist, so I'm not saying a guardian class would inevitably be the state. I'm just saying that what Plato conceptualized as the guardian class are today very similar to the role of state bureaucrats and soldiers. The part about directly was a mistake, I do mean that it isn't an exact relationship, but there is an interesting link. I'm surprised that my post is on google this quickly lol. I do provide a link to the book in my post, but you can find it on google books for free, although I have only seen it in French. I haven't looked in detail for an English version though. I suppose if the Mises institute is looking for a book to translate, the first history of communism surely deserves that place ;) Maybe if my French gets that good, I will be able to not only read but also translate parts of it... give it a few years. I've ordered a book by Bastiat and Rousseau in French, so that should help.
The workers would democratically own the means of production. Who said no one would own the means of production? The worker's incentive is to be paid. The business's incentive is to contribute to society and therefore collect reward. Have you figured out I'm not a commie yet? : P
Understood. I consider myself an anarchist without adjectives. I enjoy watching and reading anarcho-capitalist/market anarchists works. Cheers!
Truthisnonexistent: The workers would democratically own the means of production. Who said no one would own the means of production? The worker's incentive is to be paid. The business's incentive is to contribute to society and therefore collect reward. Have you figured out I'm not a commie yet? : P Understood. I consider myself an anarchist without adjectives. I enjoy watching and reading anarcho-capitalist/market anarchists works. Cheers!
I never thought you were a commie. Your posts aren't emotional enough. And you didn't really address the problem of tragedy of the commons.
I realise that market anarchism is a redundancy as it allows for socialist communities to exist on a voluntary basis as well as any other form of organisation. However given the longtime association of anarchists with violent socialist movements, I add that just in case.
Truthisnonexistent:The workers would democratically own the means of production.
I have a fundamental problem with this democratic allocation of resources.
Its an old antidote that I believe speaks volumes on this position:
Say two robbers break into my house and I catch them stealing my TV. I confront them and their response is hey dont worry, were reasonable robbers with some philisophical background... lets put it two a democratic vote.... ofcourse the vote is 2v1, and they have "justified" taking my tv...
How is that a "fairer" society?
Fred Furash: Truthisnonexistent: The workers would democratically own the means of production. Who said no one would own the means of production? The worker's incentive is to be paid. The business's incentive is to contribute to society and therefore collect reward. Have you figured out I'm not a commie yet? : P Understood. I consider myself an anarchist without adjectives. I enjoy watching and reading anarcho-capitalist/market anarchists works. Cheers! I never thought you were a commie. Your posts aren't emotional enough. And you didn't really address the problem of tragedy of the commons. I realise that market anarchism is a redundancy as it allows for socialist communities to exist on a voluntary basis as well as any other form of organisation. However given the longtime association of anarchists with violent socialist movements, I add that just in case.
Tragedy of the Commons as in Garrett Hardin? Has that theory really been proven? Democratically controlled business worked great in anarchic Spain, productivity sky rocketed. In democratically controlled business's wages would inevitably be higher because there is no money reaped from every worker for one owner. So the workers would realize that if the business falls and a capitalist business takes over they would have lower wages and insufficient hours and conditions. Not to mention renting yourself to an institution is highly unnatural.
Market Anarchism is no redundancy, traditionally anarchism is socialist.
Solarist: Truthisnonexistent:The workers would democratically own the means of production. I have a fundamental problem with this democratic allocation of resources. Its an old antidote that I believe speaks volumes on this position: Say two robbers break into my house and I catch them stealing my TV. I confront them and their response is hey dont worry, were reasonable robbers with some philisophical background... lets put it two a democratic vote.... ofcourse the vote is 2v1, and they have "justified" taking my tv... How is that a "fairer" society?
Obviously, theft would be illegal in any socialist society. I'm guessing you also have a problem with democracy? Two wolves and a sheep?
Truthisnonexistent:Obviously, theft would be illegal in any socialist society. I'm guessing you also have a problem with democracy? Two wolves and a sheep?
The point of the story is that a democratic socialist society is theft. Voting only serves the majority.
Solarist: Truthisnonexistent:Obviously, theft would be illegal in any socialist society. I'm guessing you also have a problem with democracy? Two wolves and a sheep? The point of the story is that a democratic socialist society is theft.
The point of the story is that a democratic socialist society is theft.
Elaborate, because the exploitative wages in capitalism seem to be pretty theft like.
Please elaborate: why/how are the wages in capitalism exploitative?; and why/how are they "theft like"?
Btw, I'm not siding with Solarist.
A wage is paid in terms of previous valuation of the work. In this case, it's in measure of productivity (Confederal Socialist explains this well on Youtube). So, if worker 1 makes 10 units of A and worker 2 makes 5 units of A, worker 1 will get paid more than worker 2 in terms of productivity (as reflected in his/her wage). Thus, it's not exploitive due to the laborer's productivity is paid for in whole.
Truthisnonexistent: Solarist: Truthisnonexistent:Obviously, theft would be illegal in any socialist society. I'm guessing you also have a problem with democracy? Two wolves and a sheep? The point of the story is that a democratic socialist society is theft. Elaborate, because the exploitative wages in capitalism seem to be pretty theft like.
That idea rests on the labour theory of value, which was disproved by Carl Menger and elaborated by Bohm-Bauwerk I believe,
Truthisnonexistent: Obviously, theft would be illegal in any socialist society. I'm guessing you also have a problem with democracy? Two wolves and a sheep?
Not so much for that.
Just because it's boring.
Truthisnonexistent: ... Democratically controlled business worked great in anarchic Spain, productivity sky rocketed.
... Democratically controlled business worked great in anarchic Spain, productivity sky rocketed.
Source(s) please.
Truthisnonexistent:In democratically controlled business's wages would inevitably be higher because there is no money reaped from every worker for one owner.
What are the benefits of a higher wage? What is wrong with the owner reaping money from the workers? Is the owner not a worker?
Truthisnonexistent:So the workers would realize that if the business falls and a capitalist business takes over they would have lower wages and insufficient hours and conditions. Not to mention renting yourself to an institution is highly unnatural.
Why is renting yourself to an institution "highly unnatural"? What are "insufficient hours"?
Wouldn't theft be impossible under socialism since there is no private property?
ladyattis: A wage is paid in terms of previous valuation of the work. In this case, it's in measure of productivity (Confederal Socialist explains this well on Youtube). So, if worker 1 makes 10 units of A and worker 2 makes 5 units of A, worker 1 will get paid more than worker 2 in terms of productivity (as reflected in his/her wage). Thus, it's not exploitive due to the laborer's productivity is paid for in whole.
That's the way it should be (one worker paid more than the other according to production) but it is still exploitative because neither worker is paid anywhere near in full for what they produce. Say worker A makes seven shirts and worker b makes four shirts. Each shirt is worth twenty dollars. Worker A's labor equates to 140 dollars and work B's labor equates to 80 dollars. They are not paid directly for what they produce even if their pay is still in wages and one is paid more than the other it is still exploitative because the boss collects profit. Worker A should be payed close to 140 dollars, minus money which is used to transfer the shirts to the store and worker B should be payed close to 80 dollars. How can you even say that the laborer's productivity is paid for in whole, if that was true than there would be no profit for the boss.
Truthisnonexistent: That's the way it should be (one worker paid more than the other according to production) but it is still exploitative because neither worker is paid anywhere near in full for what they produce. Say worker A makes seven shirts and worker b makes four shirts. Each shirt is worth twenty dollars. Worker A's labor equates to 140 dollars and work B's labor equates to 80 dollars. They are not paid directly for what they produce even if their pay is still in wages and one is paid more than the other it is still exploitative because the boss collects profit. Worker A should be payed close to 140 dollars, minus money which is used to transfer the shirts to the store and worker B should be payed close to 80 dollars. How can you even say that the laborer's productivity is paid for in whole, if that was true than there would be no profit for the boss.
Value is subjective. Anyway, what is wrong with the owner making a profit if the worker agreed to do the work at the given price? Also, the price at which the owner sells the product is not directly determined by the costs. The price is directly determined by supply and demand. Furthermore, if a worker produces a shirt for $2, and then the factory owner sells the shirt for $1, should the worker return $1 to the factory owner? Afterall, the worker was paid more than what the shirt was valued. Lastly, you are ignoring time preference.
Truthisnonexistent: ladyattis: A wage is paid in terms of previous valuation of the work. In this case, it's in measure of productivity (Confederal Socialist explains this well on Youtube). So, if worker 1 makes 10 units of A and worker 2 makes 5 units of A, worker 1 will get paid more than worker 2 in terms of productivity (as reflected in his/her wage). Thus, it's not exploitive due to the laborer's productivity is paid for in whole. That's the way it should be (one worker paid more than the other according to production) but it is still exploitative because neither worker is paid anywhere near in full for what they produce. Say worker A makes seven shirts and worker b makes four shirts. Each shirt is worth twenty dollars. Worker A's labor equates to 140 dollars and work B's labor equates to 80 dollars. They are not paid directly for what they produce even if their pay is still in wages and one is paid more than the other it is still exploitative because the boss collects profit. Worker A should be payed close to 140 dollars, minus money which is used to transfer the shirts to the store and worker B should be payed close to 80 dollars. How can you even say that the laborer's productivity is paid for in whole, if that was true than there would be no profit for the boss.
Except you have to take into account that the equity holder(s) have to pay the costs of the capital, and that they assume the risk of the business. So even though they may not have any direct part in making the final good, they still deserve the normal profit (which is the theoretical market value of their enterprenurial skill and the assumption of the risk, which the workers themselves would be averse to, hats why they chose to become workers who are paid a wage instead of seeking a more risky profession). And that is what they earn in a competitive market
"Exploitation" happens in a noncompetitive market where the capital owner is able to violently repress competition, and exploit the workers and consumers to attain monopoly profits which are greater than the value added by the capitalists' enterprenurial ability and risk taking.
Truthisnonexistent:How can you even say that the laborer's productivity is paid for in whole, if that was true than there would be no profit for the boss.
Truthisnonexistent, is this the equilibrium model for the labor market?
Just asking because we don't believe in it, so it is unfruitful to bring up this objection, at least to us.