The problem is that once socialists realize that they can't get anywhere with their crap attempt at economics, they start screaming about how evil and heartless we are. There's no difference between their dogma and the dogma of the xer which gives them the idea that if atheists don't just accept god, they are evil heartless people who have no emotions.
why would you work? because for us to survive work has to get done, you know this, i know this
because there is a certain satisfaction in doing a job and doing it well, for example you have studied economics, WHY? just because you don't get paid does not mean it is not work. what i personally find annoying about work is the bosses looking over my shoulder. i dont think that you really don't ever want to work.
even nerds have their trends, morover humans have certain universal expectations for how people relate.
Just because work is being done doesn't mean that something useful is being produced. I suppose you could call educating ignorant socialists such as yourself "work" but I'm not producing something valuable enough to warrant payment. Again, who is going to clean shit up when the benefits are diffuse across the entire populace? If everything was provided for me, I would quit my job tomorrow, and most everyone else would as well.
Machiavelli wrote:
ok, this is how the consensus i have experianced works- people vote on idea,after disscussion, they can abstain if they want to, one 'no' vote has a veto power, people can apoint a temporary reprentative for regional meetings. consensus is not unanimity because you can decide not to vote and because only those effected can participate.
So if 5 horny frat boys and one supermodel vote on whether or not they get to rape the model, I assume you have no problem with that, right? That's what your essentially saying here - the people affected get to vote, and the minority must comply.
Machiavelli wrote:
im suprised you dont suport goverment considering it's only purpose is to defend property rights.
That's a good one. How exactly is forcing me to fund a war of aggression against Iraq defending my property rights? Governments by nature only assault property rights, not defend them.
Machiavelli wrote:
what does the free market put in place to prevent me from taking your property?
First of all, the free market doesn't put anything into place, only individuals do. And certain individuals would specialize in defense services.
Machiavelli wrote:
in theory you can leave at any point to seek other employment,
And in reality.
Machiavelli wrote:
often however there is simply no other work
Interesting you would say that, since involuntary unemployment doesn't exist in the free market.
Machiavelli wrote:
or the work pays less than the substandard wage you got at the old job.
So are you going to ever come up with a concrete definition of "substandard" or "exploitive" wages, or are you going to keep tossing around naked assertions?
Machiavelli wrote:
even if you seek other employment you are still in the free market.
Indeed, since the free market simply describes a situation in which initiatory coercion is absent from the economic sphere.
Machiavelli wrote:
you brought up nazi germany, failing to oppose a system is effectively consenting to it, notice that he did not have unlimited support amoung the population(i think he recived about 60% of the vote) what happened was a failure to resist.
So you admit that democracy allows the majority to trample the rights of the majority even to the point of genocide. Concession noted.
Machiavelli wrote:
look if i have too engage in a boycott to get you to listen, thats a totalitarian realationship. it is a use of force on my part.
No, it isn't. How is my refraining from buying product X an initiation of force, or a use of force at all? This claim is completely nonsensical.
Machiavelli wrote:
whearas with the state you have an institutionalized why of influance through voting.
Yeah, I just have to persuade 150 million others to think the same way. In the free market, I have to influence no one else.
Machiavelli wrote:
people or other niegborhood councils or workplace collecitves place their requests with the factory, the factory produces the good to the best of their ability.
So what is to prevent them from simply saying they don't have the capacity to produce the requested items? Nothing, that's what.
Machiavelli wrote:
you are assuming that people in the affected area still have the capacity to produce, if an area that is a major producer of the item is shut down there is no way that other existing producers will be able to fill the gap instantly.
No one said instantly, stop with the strawmen. In the long run, destroyed capital can be rebuilt, barring the destruction of the entire planet.
Machiavelli wrote:
you determine exploitation by measuring the wage recived as compared to the value of the product
Ah, the old labor theory of value bullshit. Sucks for you, since prices determine wages, not the other way around.
Machiavelli wrote:
how can property protect the enviroment?
If I pollute on someone else's property, I'm liable for the damages that are incurred.
Machiavelli wrote:
air for example cant be owned
It can be, but generally isn't since it is practically unlimited.
Machiavelli wrote:
the contradiction lies in that wage slaves do not have the same opportunities to use the "unowned" natural resouces as the people who arrived first do.
Are you ever going to give me a testable definition of wage slavery/exploitation?
Machiavelli wrote:
if it is unowned and you seize it you are taking it from those who come afteryou
Someone who doesn't exist. How can you take something from someone who doesn't exist? Answer - you can't.
Machiavelli wrote:
you cant own a yacht or plane becuase those things could be usedto benifit more than one person.
Almost anything could be used to benefit more than one person. Why does that preclude these things from being owned?
Machiavelli wrote:
"its not like we produce everything all at once and just have it sit around waiting to be shipped out."
it's important because it means we can raise or lower what we produce or change it all together
And there is no way to rationally do that without a market. Do try and pay attention.
Machiavelli wrote:
the failure to feed the world is is not a failure of goverment, becuase it is the responsibility of the market to distribute resources.
And in those countries where people are starving market forces have been suppressed by government. How many times are you going to keep refuting your own arguments?
Machiavelli wrote:
McDonalds and Burger King are equally bad.
That's your opinion; however, billions disagree with you. And in the free market, you don't have to buy their products if you don't want them.
Machiavelli wrote:
if it effects individual it affects society.
Since individuals comprise society. But there is no "society" other than the individuals that comprise it.
Machiavelli wrote:
most communists and socailists will tell you that the theory has never been brought to frutition and that the theory was not applied( what you say about the free market)
And I would agree with that. However, that doesn't preclude it from being practical. There was a time when socialism hadn't been implemented, you know.
Knight_of_BAAWA Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Mar 09, 2003
Posts: 4517
Location: USA
Posted:
Tue Apr 10, 2007 10:43 pm
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
The problem is that once socialists realize that they can't get anywhere with their crap attempt at economics, they start screaming about how evil and heartless we are. There's no difference between their dogma and the dogma of the xer which gives them the idea that if atheists don't just accept god, they are evil heartless people who have no emotions.
Machiavelli wrote:
you said that out loud you know
Point being?
Knight_of_BAAWA Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Mar 09, 2003
Posts: 4517
Location: USA
Posted:
Tue Apr 10, 2007 10:46 pm
Machiavelli wrote:
as to incentives:
why would you work? because for us to survive work has to get done, you know this, i know this
because there is a certain satisfaction in doing a job and doing it well, for example you have studied economics, WHY? just because you don't get paid does not mean it is not work. what i personally find annoying about work is the bosses looking over my shoulder. i dont think that you really don't ever want to work.
Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:
Perhaps the new socialist man will work for the sheer pleasure of it, but economists list work as a ... damn it I forgot the word ... something negative. There is an economic term for it, but I can't remember it. Basically it means something we would rather avoid, but indulge in for the sake of getting something we want out of it.
There's the idea of disutility of leisure/disutility of labor. The point at which either no longer is a disutility is when you would do it.
Knight_of_BAAWA Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Mar 09, 2003
Posts: 4517
Location: USA
Posted:
Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:00 pm
Machiavelli wrote:
as to incentives:
why would you work?
Because you want something. Now then: why would you work when you receive nothing from it?
Machiavelli wrote:
because for us to survive work has to get done, you know this, i know this
because there is a certain satisfaction in doing a job and doing it well, for example you have studied economics, WHY? just because you don't get paid does not mean it is not work. what i personally find annoying about work is the bosses looking over my shoulder.
So start your own business.
Machiavelli wrote:
i dont think that you really don't ever want to work.
If you can get "something" for "nothing", then you've created an environment where you have a disincentive to work.
Machiavelli wrote:
even nerds have their trends, morover humans have certain universal expectations for how people relate.
Yes, we do: we expect that we will not be enslaved.
Machiavelli wrote:
ok, this is how the consensus i have experianced works- people vote on idea,after disscussion, they can abstain if they want to, one 'no' vote has a veto power, people can apoint a temporary reprentative for regional meetings. consensus is not unanimity
You just said it was: "one 'no' vote has a veto power".
Are you really that stupid?
Machiavelli wrote:
im suprised you dont suport goverment considering it's only purpose is to defend property rights.
That's the mythical ideal. In reality, it doesn't work like that, and cannot work like that.
Machiavelli wrote:
what does the free market put in place to prevent me from taking your property?
in theory you can leave at any point to seek other employment, often however there is simply no other work or the work pays less than the substandard wage you got at the old job. even if you seek other employment you are still in the free market.
So you admit that you can seek other employment.
Machiavelli wrote:
you brought up nazi germany, failing to oppose a system is effectively consenting to it,
No, it's not.
Machiavelli wrote:
look if i have too engage in a boycott to get you to listen, thats a totalitarian realationship.
No it isn't.
Machiavelli wrote:
it is a use of force on my part.
No it isn't. Is it a use of force if I refuse to play chess with you?
Machiavelli wrote:
whearas with the state you have an institutionalized why of influance through voting.
And with the force of laws.
Machiavelli wrote:
people or other niegborhood councils or workplace collecitves place their requests with the factory, the factory produces the good to the best of their ability. see P2P as an example or freeganism
Problem with your analogy is that P2P doesn't have one meeting/year, nor are the P2P people "producing" anything.
Machiavelli wrote:
you are assuming that people in the affected area still have the capacity to produce, if an area that is a major producer of the item is shut down there is no way that other existing producers will be able to fill the gap instantly.
Actually, while there might be a small delay, there would be a relatively smooth ramp-up, combined with purchase of the idle assets.
Machiavelli wrote:
you determine exploitation by measuring the wage recived as compared to the value of the product
Value according to whom? Are you seriously telling us that you believe that valuation is objective, rather than subjective, as was shown by Carl Menger?
Machiavelli wrote:
how can property protect the enviroment? air for example cant be owned
Sure it can.
Machiavelli wrote:
the contradiction lies in that wage slaves
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! You cannot beg the question. You must demonstrate that "wage slaves" is a valid concept.
Machiavelli wrote:
do not have the same opportunities to use the "unowned" natural resouces as the people who arrived first do.
if it is unowned and you seize it you are taking it from those who come afteryou
Bullshit. That presumes that they have a right to it; they do not.
Machiavelli wrote:
"its not like we produce everything all at once and just have it sit around waiting to be shipped out."
it's important because it means we can raise or lower what we produce or change it all together
Not without another meeting of the community you can't.
Machiavelli wrote:
the failure to feed the world is is not a failure of goverment,
Actually, it is, since governments impose tariffs, sanctions, steal resources, and other such naughty things.
Machiavelli wrote:
McDonalds and Burger King are equally bad.
To whom?
Machiavelli wrote:
THE THING ABOUT THE YEARLY MEETING COMES FROM THE "INTRO TO PARECON"
You're the one who said that's the way it would be.
Machiavelli wrote:
if it effects individual it affects society.
Nice reification fallacy.
Machiavelli wrote:
a vague wish in the minds of some people is not a theory, anarchism originated with Proudhon
That's a nice wish, but it's not a fact.
Machiavelli wrote:
most communists and socailists will tell you that the theory has never been brought to frutition and that the theory was not applied( what you say about the free market)
You don't even know what the labor theory of value is. I know this because of your statement.
Knight_of_BAAWA Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Mar 09, 2003
Posts: 4517
Location: USA
Posted:
Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:02 pm
Machiavelli wrote:
you can't change the way people are, but you can change the enviroment, and how you react in a capitalist ecomomy will be differant than in an anarchist ecomomy. how ever suppose you refuse to work withthe commune or work bellow standards then you can be thrown out
If the commune threw the person out, that would be using force.
Machiavelli wrote:
the free market you talk about sounds like Feudalism to me,
Most likely because you don't know what feudalism is.
Jason_Harvestdancer Graduate Thinker
Joined: Oct 24, 2005
Posts: 593
Posted:
Wed Apr 11, 2007 12:39 am
Machiavelli wrote:
you can't change the way people are, but you can change the enviroment, and how you react in a capitalist ecomomy will be differant than in an anarchist ecomomy. how ever suppose you refuse to work withthe commune or work bellow standards then you can be thrown out , it s too hard to get all the things you need if you work by yourself and so you have a strong incentive to work with others.
even you my friend conform to socal expectations
one objection(one no vote) has VETO power
so you may may vote yes, veto, or abstain
What if I abstain on the vote to throw me out?
Look, you are asking for a form of unanimity, even though you won't admit it. I pointed out that some of the argument would be gone the moment you admit that, so you repeat your statements as if I didn't point that out.
If ONE person has veto power, then you are not operating by consensus but by unanimity. All it takes is one person who would normally vote against the majority to see that the one person's side would lose and to refuse to vote as a result.
Please, for the sake of those of us who love the English Language, admit you seek unanimity.
Otherwise I won't work, and will abstain when they vote to throw me out.
Machiavelli wrote:
the free market you talk about sounds like Feudalism to me, where you have a private mercenary force defending the interests of the weathly, the poor cannot afford private security and so would be constantly having shit stolen
Why can't the poor afford any security?
Machiavelli wrote:
the goverment exists to maintain order, if goverment existed to defend our rights a dictatorship would be impossible.
you can't change the way people are, but you can change the enviroment, and how you react in a capitalist ecomomy will be differant than in an anarchist ecomomy. how ever suppose you refuse to work withthe commune or work bellow standards then you can be thrown out
My, that sounds like employment under evil capitalism.
Machiavelli wrote:
it s too hard to get all the things you need if you work by yourself and so you have a strong incentive to work with others.
Which is why we have a division of labor market economy. But this can't exist under your proposed system, as you said there is no exchange.
Machiavelli wrote:
even you my friend conform to socal expectations
And?
Machiavelli wrote:
one objection(one no vote) has VETO power
so you may may vote yes, veto, or abstain
So virtually nothing would ever get passed. And what about those that own capital at present, I assume they have veto power over whether or not their property is stolen from them by the collective, right?
Machiavelli wrote:
the free market you talk about sounds like Feudalism to me, where you have a private mercenary force defending the interests of the weathly, the poor cannot afford private security and so would be constantly having shit stolen
Hey good point, since the government security forces do so well, constantly locking up pot smokers and all. And I want you to prove that the poor would not be able to afford security, otherwise withdraw your claim.
Machiavelli wrote:
ithe goverment exists to maintain order, if goverment existed to defend our rights a dictatorship would be impossible.
Government is fundamentally a criminal organization; as such, it exists to enrich its members at the expense of others.
Machiavelli wrote:
i dont think own is the right word, possess maybe
So then who owns your body?
Brian_Damage Just Arrived
Joined: Apr 10, 2007
Posts: 6
Posted:
Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:48 am
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
If the commune threw the person out, that would be using force.
If the corporation threw the person out, that would be using force.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Most likely because you don't know what feudalism is.
There are obvious, sharp differences between feudalism and capitalism, such as mobility, which accounts for an extremely small percentage of the population (which, by the way, was one of Lincoln's arguments used against slavery during the Civil War). In C. Wright Mills' book, The Power Elite, he rightfully mentions the fact that while a poor person can (rarly) work his way to the top from the point at which he's hired, the heir of the business may have little education or intelligence, but still control the business if he controls enough stocks in the corporation. In other words, it's very difficult to climb to the top; it's easier to just be born there. That actually may be a similarity to feudalism.
And under capitalism you've got the "freedom" to sell yourself to the highest bidder. So in either case, your labor is appropriated by someone else in a much higher position.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
So start your own business.
First off, easier said than done. Second, small businesses are often the victim of big business who attempt (and often enough, succeed) in driving competition out of business.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
If you can get "something" for "nothing", then you've created an environment where you have a disincentive to work.
Strawman. Wage distinctions exist under socialism. Even if, for example, at an 80% free-good rate, differential wages for, say, luxury goods, would serve as an incentive.
offsprng46 wrote:
That's a good one. How exactly is forcing me to fund a war of aggression against Iraq defending my property rights? Governments by nature only assault property rights, not defend them.
Wars benefit a portion of capitalists...didn't you know? The "capitalist class" is NOT one homogenous group. Some benefit from intervention, and some don’t. Were it not for wars fought by their subservient government, capitalists would not have been able to expropriate raw materials at the rate they did/are doing it at, and have the people of the Third World work for slave wages while they line their pockets.
offsprng46 wrote:
And certain individuals would specialize in defense services.
So you're saying that if there was no government, and capitalism was still here (which is impossible, by the way, but just for kicks, I'll ASSUME this nightmare to be possible), the capitalist would hire a "defense service", to fend off people like me and Machiavelli if he attempted to expropriate their private property. Now if Machiavelli and I were to hire an "offensive service", of some sort, by some whim, and our firm won, me and Machiavelli would have legitimately took your business.
Interesting fantasies that idiot Rothbard came up with.
offsprng46 wrote:
Interesting you would say that, since involuntary unemployment doesn't exist in the free market.
Moot point since that you either sell your labor to someone else of the same capacity usually or starve.
offsprng46 wrote:
So are you going to ever come up with a concrete definition of "substandard" or "exploitive" wages, or are you going to keep tossing around naked assertions?
They're obviously "exploited" because their pay does not come back in the form of what value of what they produce. In Mexico, even if the level of output is the same rate in America, I'll get paid a HELL of a lot less than in the United States. In the US, Canada and European countries, they obviously reached a higher point of solidarity among the working class than in other places. Were it not for that, who would have changed it? Capitalists? Don't be stupid. The proof shows in the fact that they race to the bottom in terms of wages (outsourcing).
Knight_of_BAAWA Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Mar 09, 2003
Posts: 4517
Location: USA
Posted:
Wed Apr 11, 2007 9:01 am
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
If the commune threw the person out, that would be using force.
Brian_Damage wrote:
If the corporation threw the person out, that would be using force.
Yes, but so what? I'm not the one saying that's a bad thing.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Most likely because you don't know what feudalism is.
Brian_Damage wrote:
There are obvious, sharp differences between feudalism and capitalism, such as mobility, which accounts for an extremely small percentage of the population
It's more than you think.
Brian_Damage wrote:
(which, by the way, was one of Lincoln's arguments used against slavery during the Civil War). In C. Wright Mills' book, The Power Elite, he rightfully mentions the fact that while a poor person can (rarly) work his way to the top from the point at which he's hired, the heir of the business may have little education or intelligence, but still control the business if he controls enough stocks in the corporation. In other words, it's very difficult to climb to the top; it's easier to just be born there. That actually may be a similarity to feudalism.
Do the companies come with the workers such that the workers can never be put out (fired)? Can the company never leave the family?
You DO realize that such were essential components of feudalism, RIGHT?
Brian_Damage wrote:
And under capitalism you've got the "freedom" to sell yourself to the highest bidder.
Is that bad?
Brian_Damage wrote:
So in either case, your labor is appropriated by someone else in a much higher position.
Yet you are not tied to the company, as the peasants were tied to the land.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
So start your own business.
Brian_Damage wrote:
First off, easier said than done.
Yes, I know.
Brian_Damage wrote:
Second, small businesses are often the victim of big business who attempt (and often enough, succeed) in driving competition out of business.
1. They don't succeed as often as you think.
2. There's no such thing as the right to any specific market share.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
If you can get "something" for "nothing", then you've created an environment where you have a disincentive to work.
Brian_Damage wrote:
Strawman.
Nope.
Brian_Damage wrote:
Wage distinctions exist under socialism.
Ask a communist if they do (and yes, communism is a type of socialism). A communist will tell you that wages do not exist in communism! Further, in the parecon gift economy that the lad is proposing: there are no wages.
Brian_Damage wrote:
Even if, for example, at an 80% free-good rate, differential wages for, say, luxury goods, would serve as an incentive.
Luxury goods = create inequalities. Creating inequalities = bad for society. Ergo, luxury goods = bad for society.
Or so the socialist reasoning goes.
offsprng46 wrote:
That's a good one. How exactly is forcing me to fund a war of aggression against Iraq defending my property rights? Governments by nature only assault property rights, not defend them.
Brian_Damage wrote:
Wars benefit a portion of capitalists
No, they benefit corporatists and mercantilists.
offsprng46 wrote:
And certain individuals would specialize in defense services.
Brian_Damage wrote:
So you're saying that if there was no government, and capitalism was still here (which is impossible, by the way,
Oh, you one of THOSE idiots who thinks that capitalism requires a government.
Brian_Damage wrote:
but just for kicks, I'll ASSUME this nightmare to be possible), the capitalist would hire a "defense service", to fend off people like me and Machiavelli if he attempted to expropriate their private property.
Yes.
Brian_Damage wrote:
Now if Machiavelli and I were to hire an "offensive service", of some sort, by some whim, and our firm won, me and Machiavelli would have legitimately took your business.
No. Whatever nonsensical set of premises gives you that idiotic conclusion?
offsprng46 wrote:
Interesting you would say that, since involuntary unemployment doesn't exist in the free market.
Brian_Damage wrote:
Moot point since that you either sell your labor to someone else of the same capacity usually or starve.
Or start your own business. Or work for a lower wage and trim expenses.
Hint: it's not "work or starve", as you idiots think.
offsprng46 wrote:
So are you going to ever come up with a concrete definition of "substandard" or "exploitive" wages, or are you going to keep tossing around naked assertions?
Brian_Damage wrote:
They're obviously "exploited" because their pay does not come back in the form of what value of what they produce.
Oh FFS! You honestly believe the labor theory of value is valid? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
If the corporation threw the person out, that would be using force.
Not initiatory force. The employee voluntarily accepted an agreement that may be terminated by either party at any time. By your logic, it's just as evil for an employee to quit.
Brian_Damage wrote:
There are obvious, sharp differences between feudalism and capitalism, such as mobility, which accounts for an extremely small percentage of the population (which, by the way, was one of Lincoln's arguments used against slavery during the Civil War). In C. Wright Mills' book, The Power Elite, he rightfully mentions the fact that while a poor person can (rarly) work his way to the top from the point at which he's hired, the heir of the business may have little education or intelligence, but still control the business if he controls enough stocks in the corporation. In other words, it's very difficult to climb to the top; it's easier to just be born there. That actually may be a similarity to feudalism.
And yet the person that inherited the wealth did not do so at the expense of others. That wealth must have been produced at some time (thereby benefiting the public), so stop with the jealousy. Or are you saying that people don't have the right to give gifts now?
Brian_Damage wrote:
And under capitalism you've got the "freedom" to sell yourself to the highest bidder. So in either case, your labor is appropriated by someone else in a much higher position.
Bought, not appropriated. Big difference.
Brian_Damage wrote:
First off, easier said than done. Second, small businesses are often the victim of big business who attempt (and often enough, succeed) in driving competition out of business.
If that's the case, it's because they can produce more efficiently than the competition.
Brian_Damage wrote:
Strawman. Wage distinctions exist under socialism. Even if, for example, at an 80% free-good rate, differential wages for, say, luxury goods, would serve as an incentive.
So the incentive is then greatly reduced, and many will then decide that the utility to be gained from leisure is greater than that that can be gained from working to buy luxuries. And of course there's still the economic calculation problem.
Brian_Damage wrote:
Wars benefit a portion of capitalists...didn't you know?
No shit? Tell me something I don't know. However, unlike genuine entrepreneurial activities, interventions ALWAYS benefit some
at the expense
of others.
Brian_Damage wrote:
The "capitalist class" is NOT one homogenous group. Some benefit from intervention, and some don’t.
But those that benefit do so at the expense of the general public.
Brian_Damage wrote:
Were it not for wars fought by their subservient government, capitalists would not have been able to expropriate raw materials at the rate they did/are doing it at,
Wars destroy wealth, you idiot. Again, some might benefit, but the economy as a whole will be harmed. As far as aggressive war is concerned, you won't find a bigger opponent of it than I.
Brian_Damage wrote:
and have the people of the Third World work for slave wages while they line their pockets.
Would you be so kind as to give me a testable definition of "wage slavery?"
Brian_Damage wrote:
So you're saying that if there was no government, and capitalism was still here (which is impossible, by the way, but just for kicks, I'll ASSUME this nightmare to be possible), the capitalist would hire a "defense service", to fend off people like me and Machiavelli if he attempted to expropriate their private property.
Prove that capitalism is impossible without a government, or withdraw the claim.
Yes, they would hire defensive services to protect themselves from would-be thieves.
Brian_Damage wrote:
Now if Machiavelli and I were to hire an "offensive service", of some sort, by some whim, and our firm won, me and Machiavelli would have legitimately took your business.
No, as it would be acquired through initiatory coercion. What ass did you pull that from?
Brian_Damage wrote:
Moot point since that you either sell your labor to someone else of the same capacity usually or starve.
So I see you don't understand comparative advantage or the division of labor. Hardly surprising.
offsprng46 wrote:
So are you going to ever come up with a concrete definition of "substandard" or "exploitive" wages, or are you going to keep tossing around naked assertions?
Brian_Damage wrote:
They're obviously "exploited" because their pay does not come back in the form of what value of what they produce.
You too with the labor theory of value bullshit? Look, you have to pay a return on capital, otherwise no one will delay present consumption in expectation of higher returns in the future, and you will have economic regression. Furthermore, if your marxist nonsense was really true, the sole determining factor of value would be the amount of labor expended in the production of a product. So say I expend tons of labor developing a food that contains every flavor known to man. Now, according to marxist fantasy, I should make a huge profit due to all the labor used. However, the reality is that I'd lose huge sums of money, since the product would taste like shit and no one would buy it. Value is purely subjective, and it's consumers who decide how much profit a business gets.
Now then, are you going to give me a testable definition of exploitation?
Brian_Damage wrote:
In Mexico, even if the level of output is the same rate in America, I'll get paid a HELL of a lot less than in the United States.
And the evidence is? Oh wait, you don't have any, since it's a false blanket assertion. Furthermore, Mexico (and the rest of the 3rd world) is WAY more socialist than the US.
Brian_Damage wrote:
In the US, Canada and European countries, they obviously reached a higher point of solidarity among the working class than in other places.
I suppose you have no evidence for this naked assertion either. The higher standard of living is due entirely to the accumulation of more and better capital. The wage rate in the long run is equal to the marginal revenue productivity of labor.
Brian_Damage wrote:
Were it not for that, who would have changed it? Capitalists?
Contrary to what fantasies you might hold to, capitalists don't have arbitrary power over wages. As more capital is acquired, producers must pay higher wages or lose employees to others who compete for labor.
Brian_Damage wrote:
The proof shows in the fact that they race to the bottom in terms of wages (outsourcing).
Look, if good X can be produced more cheaply in the US, and good Y can be produced at a lower cost in India, the US should produce only X and India only Y. Everyone then has more; it's not a zero-sum game, you dolt.
Brian_Damage Just Arrived
Joined: Apr 10, 2007
Posts: 6
Posted:
Wed Apr 11, 2007 9:54 am
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Yes, but so what? I'm not the one saying that's a bad thing.
Would it be okay (not non-profitable, but okay) for a capitalist to fire a women worker who does not suck his dick in his office?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
It's more than you think.
Yes, I know. I agree fully. Feudalism and capitalism are not the same.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Can the company never leave the family?
Of course the company CAN leave the family. According to the U.S. Dept of Commerce (1999 stats), most companies don't.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
You DO realize that such were essential components of feudalism, RIGHT?
Yes...I think I said that already.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Brian_Damage wrote:
And under capitalism you've got the "freedom" to sell yourself to the highest bidder.
Is that bad?
Yes. As long as individuals are compelled to rent themselves to the market to those who are willing to hire them, as long as their role in production is simply that of ancillary tools, that's bad because the institutions that are central in society are under autocratic control.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Yet you are not tied to the company, as the peasants were tied to the land.
As I said before, workers are "free" to sell themselves. The worker is also "free" to be fired at will. With millions unemployed, this "freedom" to switch jobs is useless.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Ask a communist if they do (and yes, communism is a type of socialism). A communist will tell you that wages do not exist in communism! Further, in the parecon gift economy that the lad is proposing: there are no wages.
In the superficial, Marx, Engles, Gramsci and other socialist writers used socialism and communism interchangeably, but in the scientific diagnosis, there existed differences. As Lenin said in State and Revolution, they're two different levels of society.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Luxury goods = create inequalities. Creating inequalities = bad for society. Ergo, luxury goods = bad for society.
Or so the socialist reasoning goes.
I don't know what socialists you've been talking to, but no socialist (I know) is opposed to having luxery goods. Socialism projects that workers get basic needs, and have democratic control of the means of production. In fact, you can have capitalism all day long; I don't care. As long as workers have a direct say-so.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
No, they benefit corporatists and mercantilists.
Call people who own private property whatever you want, Knight. They benefit from the shit...
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Oh, you one of THOSE idiots who thinks that capitalism requires a government.
And you're one of those idiots that think capitalism can exist without a government. How? And in your answer, you'll describe something that acts the way a government acts (ruthlessly), but just don't use the word "state" or "government" while you explain it.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
No. Whatever nonsensical set of premises gives you that idiotic conclusion?
Because me and Machavelli volentrary hired a private army to crush the capitalists' hired defense army. Ours won.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Oh FFS! You honestly believe the labor theory of value is valid? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Prove that valuation is objective.
If I'm working, getting paid $12.00/hour and work for 10 hours, I'll make $120.00. But say I produce, within those 10 hours, products that are sold at $200.00 all together. That $80.00 surplus went in the pocket of the capitalist, who didn't do any work but hire me to do that for him. Companies that can produce more efficiently will gain more and those who produce less efficiently will fall behind.
Knight_of_BAAWA Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Mar 09, 2003
Posts: 4517
Location: USA
Posted:
Wed Apr 11, 2007 10:38 am
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Yes, but so what? I'm not the one saying that's a bad thing.
Brian_Damage wrote:
Would it be okay (not non-profitable, but okay) for a capitalist to fire a women worker who does not suck his dick in his office?
Yes. Of course, he's going to find out how few women will do that, and he'll have to change his tune.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Can the company never leave the family?
Brian_Damage wrote:
Of course the company CAN leave the family.
The land couldn't in feudalism.
Brian_Damage wrote:
And under capitalism you've got the "freedom" to sell yourself to the highest bidder.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Is that bad?
Brian_Damage wrote:
Yes.
Really? So it's wrong to ask for recompense for your time and effort? You want everyone to just work and that's that? No recompense at all? Remember: any recompense is being paid.
Brian_Damage wrote:
As long as individuals are compelled to rent themselves to the market to those who are willing to hire them, as long as their role in production is simply that of ancillary tools, that's bad because the institutions that are central in society are under autocratic control.
Nonsense. They aren't ancillary tools in the first place, and your conclusion doesn't even follow from your premise.
Try harder.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Yet you are not tied to the company, as the peasants were tied to the land.
Brian_Damage wrote:
As I said before, workers are "free" to sell themselves. The worker is also "free" to be fired at will. With millions unemployed, this "freedom" to switch jobs is useless.
No it isn't. Once again: your conclusion does not follow.
