Seriously

Subject: Re: Seriously Sun Nov 22, 2009 10:36 pm

WeiWuWei wrote:: I don't understand why the argument for Capitalism is, somehow, the argument against "Socialism," insofar as the Soviet Union is being referred to here as a "Socialist" country

Well, essentially, I would suppose that it is because for many the USSR is an "example of how something other than capitalism, namely socialism, fail" to people that do not know either how the Soviet economic and political systems work and/or do not know what socialism stands for.

The reason for which

You wrote:: What elements of the Soviet economy were Socialistic? Did the workers own the means of production? No? Oh, well then it didn't have a Socialist economy. It's genuinely that simple.

Weiwuwei wrote:: There is, actually, a difference between Collectivism and Socialism. Socialism is a form of Collectivism, to be fair, but it is very specific.

Socialism is collectivist but collectivism is not socialism.
Although perhaps it could be argued that some non-collectivist economic systems, however inefficient or impractical as such thus prone to collectivisation, could qualify as socialism. For example, anarcho-individualism in which the means of production belong to individual workers that merely exchange everything with each other.

F'WWW'P wrote:: The Soviet Union and the PRC under Mao collectivized agriculture and other industries, but those industries were owned by the State - not the workers!

Which accounted merely for wokplaces de facto owned by the state through usurpation and workers working for the state while sharing the littler income left after giving its share to the state.

WWW wrote:: Oh, but you say that these were "workers' states"? Then why were the workers continually beaten down?

Actually, how can a state, operating really as a state, be pragmatically a "workers' state"?

WWW wrote:: I don't accept this kind of argumentation. Intellectual honesty and integrity is required here.

Couldn't agree more.

Subject: Re: Seriously Mon Nov 23, 2009 3:48 am

You do know not all capitalists are bad right?

Saying all capitalists and corporations are bad is exactly the same as all Communists are Stalinists, all white people are racist, and all black people are criminals.

Many capitalists want whats best for the people, just like communists.

The idea of freemarket is the same as the idea of Communism, if people are mature enough to be Communist, they are mature enough to run the free market with out it being corrupt. In fact, when their is Communism, I don't see why their can't be businesses competing, as long as no one gets hurt. If one business pays $10 an hour, and all the others pay $9 an hour, they will all start doing that, because they will lose business/employees if they dont , this increase in salary will have happened because that change was ready. Do you see what Im saying?

Subject: Re: Seriously Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:05 am

Liche wrote:: You do know not all capitalists are bad right?

Oh yes they are.

Liche wrote:: The idea of freemarket is the same as the idea of Communism, if people are mature enough to be Communist, they are mature enough to run the free market with out it being corrupt. In fact, when their is Communism, I don't see why their can't be businesses competing, as long as no one gets hurt. If one business pays $10 an hour, and all the others pay $9 an hour, they will all start doing that, because they will lose business/employees if they dont , this increase in salary will have happened because that change was ready. Do you see what Im saying?

There is a huge difference between "Capitalism" and the free market. Capitalism literally can't exist without the interference of the State.

Subject: Re: Seriously Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:19 am

Quote :: I clearly read you wrote "communism". USSR was state capitalism.

Loo, you guys can seriously call the USSR not communist all you want, but the rest of the world doesnt care. Kinda like how we say America is Corporatist, but to you it's still capitalism.

Quote :: So again, why do you think there's less incentive within communism? And in comparison to what do you think capitalism provides a faster pace for human development?

Because that desire for personal wealth is a powerful driving frce, mroe so than communal advancement. maybe not to YOU guys, but the average person is very different.

Quote :: How is communism unable to provide for these?

It's not, with time and effort, however as has been shown so far, it hasn't. Simple observation is what I'm running on and communism has failed. Granted there hasn't been nearly as much time, but....

Subject: Re: Seriously Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:21 am

Quote :: Not all Black people

Quote :: Yes they are

What next am I going to get shown some statistics?

Subject: Re: Seriously Mon Nov 23, 2009 6:22 am

Liche wrote:: You do know not all capitalists are bad right?

Who's talking about good or bad? At least Wei and me are talking about the inherent implications of the existance of the capitalist condition. Wei probably is refering specifically to the capitalists that are aware of the implications of their condition.

Liche wrote:: Saying all capitalists and corporations are bad is exactly the same as all Communists are Stalinists, all white people are racist, and all black people are criminals.

Saying communists are stalinists is the equivalent of saying "cats are dogs" and "meat is cheese".

Liche wrote:: Many capitalists want whats best for the people, just like communists.

I can agree that many capitalists do actually believe that they are helping humanity or that through they condition they can actually be beneficial to the community they live in. But, this is nothing but a delusion product of ignorance about the implications of their condition.

Their condition inherently implies that the workers working for them will be poorer than them and will have to be subject to the rules determined by them.

Also, many of the first socialists were actually capitalists. They just realized that the problem was precisely within the existance of classes.

Liche wrote:: The idea of freemarket is the same as the idea of Communism, if people are mature enough to be Communist, they are mature enough to run the free market with out it being corrupt. In fact, when their is Communism, I don't see why their can't be businesses competing, as long as no one gets hurt. If one business pays $10 an hour, and all the others pay $9 an hour, they will all start doing that, because they will lose business/employees if they dont , this increase in salary will have happened because that change was ready. Do you see what Im saying?

What Wei said.

TK wrote:: Loo, you guys can seriously call the USSR not communist all you want, but the rest of the world doesnt care.

Calling the USSR communist is merely a contradiction to the definition of communism which is synonimous to "socialism".

Socialism and communism were terms conceived to refer to classless and stateless systems where the workers own the means of production and directly determine the rules by which these are to be used. Anything that does not fit that definition is neither communism not socialism.

What you, and the rest of the uninformed world refer to as "communism" is nothing but a distortion of the Leninist distorsion of these terms.

If I come up with A+B+C and call it "Schmurniggans", A+B+C is "Schmurniggans". If years later a guy comes up with "W+Y+Z" and says it's Schmurniggans, no matter how much he calls it that way, it's not Schmurniggans. There's a definition fos Schmurniggans and the only way someone could refer to something else as Schmurniggans is due to ignorance or misinformation.

By explaining what communism is given its etymology I'm countering that ignorance and misinformation.

TK wrote:: Kinda like how we say America is Corporatist, but to you it's still capitalism.

Not really. Communism has a clear and appliable definition while the "capitalism" you advocate for is at best either oxymoronic (anarcho-capitalism) or religious.

"Your" argument is nothing but the old "Free market without state where property rights are respected without the need of coercion". With all due respect, that sounds more like religious babble than an idea product of reason, reminiscent entirely of "respecting a King's divine right to the throne".

For me capitalism is a system where means of production can be privately owned by an individual or group of individuals having people work for them. That's capitalism. That is USA, North Korea, China, the USSR and Malta for example. They all repeat the pattern: Some group owns the means of production (bourgeoisie and/or state) and other works for them.
Even in the hypoetical case where there's no state and which I'll analyse further, this pattern repeats: a group owns and has teh capability to govern and the other has no choice but to serve, just that this time due to nothing but sheer surrendering of reason or lack of interest in themselves, a religious-like delusion that it's somehow better for them to have someone decide all for them and reap the fruits of their labor. Nothing but the idea that someone can reasonably accept becoming a slave.

Then we come with the pragmatic definition of capitalism and end up with the conclusion that unless there's a coercive force, nothing but quasireligious loyalty to property rights (which is quite implausible within a rational, informed and aware community) can protect their existance.

Private property over the means of production can just exist if there's a state determining that X or Y property belongs to A or B individual exclusively.

You may say "Ah, but capitalism is where the workers acknowledge willingly that A guy owns a coal mine or that B guy owns a factory". Seriously?

Suppose we have what you call "capitalism" and what many call "anarcho-capitalism". Suppose there's not a state and there's a "free market".

Let's say the state has withered away giving place to that "utopic" form of capitalism you talk about. Before the state withered away, Johnny owned a lake. This lake was bought by his grandfather from the state, decades before the establishment of "capitalism", in the dark ages of "corporatism". The state itself had taken it centuries ago from a noble family.

So this lake now belongs to Johnny, who inherited it after his grandpa passed away. And now magic capitalism has been established. What happens with Johnny's lake? Does he remain being the owner of the lake? It seems like the sacred property rights would suggest that he is the righful owner of the lake. And this is a defacto acknowledgement of property as determined by the state previously.

And, what happens with this lake? Well... for the starters, it is required by the community where Johnny lives as a water source, secondly, it's full with fish so it's also a source for food. What does the comunity have to do if they want something from the lake? Well... they actually have to ask Johnny for permission to use it. And Johnny is no silly guy, Johnny can take advantage of this situation. I mean, he's the owner isn't he? He ultimately decides what is to be done with the lake, right? This already means that one is entitled to "govern" de facto, meaning that there's nothing anarchic about this system.

Where do Johnny's property rights over the lake come from? The state. And then you're expecting that the community, once the state has disappeared, respects those property rights as though if they were something sacred.

Doesn't seem reasonable at all.

Then if workers that need the lake simply start using the lake for their benefit and according to rules determined by them who's gonna stop them? They'd be defacto establishing socialism and there's no state to prevent them from doing so.

The same goes for coal, gold, iron, copper, etc. mines, arable land, oil fields, forests, farms, hotels, stores and such. Really, who's gonna stop them from establishing a system where they are not forced to give most of the value of their work to a guy just for the virtue of ownership? What if not a drone-like quasireligious mentality?

You may say "But Roger, the coal mine's owner is an engineer, he knows how to make it work, besides he inherited it from his dad who got it as gift from the Alan who himself got it as a gift from his grandfather who got it from the Duke of Coal Hill after the battle of Coal Hill. That justifies his property rights, property rights that should be respected by the workers". Nay, dozens of engineers that work for him know just as well know how to make it work. He's entirely expendable and there's no benefit for the workers in acknowledging that the means they need to suffice their needs are privately owned by some guy, or a family or a conglomeration ofassociated families.

So, again, what's gonna stop them if not a fervent desire to become serfs, what if not the desire to become part of economic BDSM, what if not the guns of armed guards, what if not the fists of someone? What? The delusion of someday becoming Johnny or Roger themselves? The necessarily religious attitude that they can't but sign a contract after bargaining with the owner of the means? What if not ignorance and unawareness? What if not the State who in the first place decided what belonged to whom? What?

And again, what determined property rights in the first place? What determined that X should belong to A and Y to B? Why would reasonable workers surrender the possibility of gaining the totality of the value of their work and the possibility to entirely determine the rules by which they'll work to some guy just because he inherited something from dad who in turn got it from the state who in turn took it from the monarchy (a form of state) who in turn took it from perhaps a native population or which simply arbitrarily determined that those lands or properties belonged to the king?

So please, tell me, how could your stateless coercion-less capitalism be established reasonably? How can private property of means of production reasonably exist without a law stystem enforced by a state?

Also, you did not answer my previous questions, which would have probably spared us this rather unnecesary debate.

Subject: Re: Seriously Mon Nov 23, 2009 6:36 am

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: Wei probably is refering specifically to the capitalists that are aware of the implications of their condition.

This is why I like you, because you're one of the few people who always gets what I'm getting at. Very Happy

Subject: Re: Seriously Mon Nov 23, 2009 9:06 am

WeiWuWei wrote:: This is why I like you, because you're one of the few people who always gets what I'm getting at.

*gets his right leg stabbed*

Now you should be feeling an excruciating pain in your right leg. It's that sort of thing Razz

Seriously though, we shouldn't be few.

Subject: Re: Seriously Mon Nov 23, 2009 6:41 pm

Quote :: "Your" argument is nothing but the old "Free market without state where property rights are respected without the need of coercion".

FUCK THAT! When have I EVER said without state?! That's just begging for abuses! When have I EVER said that!? That's libertarianism, and THAT would become the shadow goverment, evil capitalist world you guys think of.

Quote :: For me capitalism is a system where means of production can be privately owned by an individual or group of individuals having people work for them. That's capitalism.

There's nothing wrong with this,a ssuming said owner is also working him or herself. Doing somehting in the company themselves, likely all the oversight. Things like handling the money, buying new factories, hiring, etc. I hate those that do nothing yet still make the money. If they themselves are workers, I like. I have never said otherwise, I don't think. As for ammount made, that's debatable. Depends on how much is actually done, etc. No, I don't mind at all that the owner makes a bit more. It's when they make obscenely more that is sickening.

Quote :: a group owns and has teh capability to govern and the other has no choice but to serve

This isn't what I advocate. All have the potential to govern, they just have to get involved.

Quote :: Nothing but the idea that someone can reasonably accept becoming a slave.

But it's not slavery, at all. They give something for my services. It's a fair trade. Now, the AMMOUNT given I agree shouldn't be so large in difference. Ad since that quote comes from the part where you're saying no state again, THAT WOULD BE VERY BAD. I've never said otherwise.

Quote :: Then we come with the pragmatic definition of capitalism

I don't care what the pragmatic definition of ANYTHING is. I do NOT support the capiatalism you guys think al capitalists supoprt. Inf act, most people HATE that. Why? BECAUSE IT WOUD SUCK, and we know that. We KNOW there needs to be regulation, otherwise yes, we KNOW companies and corporations would work together to abuse, to extort. Nobody wants this.

Quote :: and end up with the conclusion that unless there's a coercive force, nothing but quasireligious loyalty to property rights (which is quite implausible within a rational, informed and aware community) can protect their existance.

It's not a matter of protecting THEIR existance, as you put it, but rahter US ALLOWING them to exist, as you have also ut it.Push far enough, and yes the people force companies to be shut down. it's happened before. Just not in violent ways. And what I support is that coercive force being used to keep these companines from explloiting. And no, once again, workers are not exploited. They trade service for funds. Ammoutns can e talked about later, but again, I agree that there should be a more equal distribution. However yes, owners should get a bit more, because THEY'RE often the ones that built the companies, and make the deals that allow product to be sold, thus keeping thw workers with their jobs so that those funds can be traded for the services. At least when things work as they should.

Quote :: You may say "Ah, but capitalism is where the workers acknowledge willingly that A guy owns a coal mine or that B guy owns a factory". Seriously?

Yes, seriously. Because owning something means nothing without the capability to do anything with it, and one person, or even ten, can only do so much. Thus, trade of funds for services. And I won't repeat myself on ammounts anymore, just assume it's here.

Quote :: Suppose we have what you call "capitalism" and what many call "anarcho-capitalism". Suppose there's not a state and there's a "free market".

No I dont want to supopse, becaus I agree. It would suck. Never said otherwise. THey make whole videogames, movies and books based off of terrible futures like this. I mean, it'd be EXCITING, certainly, when the superheros come flipping in with two pistols, taking out twenty armed guards. but otherwise not very desireable.

Quote :: Let's say the state has withered away giving place to that "utopic" form of capitalism you talk about.

I'm not going to adress all of these. There's no point, because youalready know my position. Like the monetary ammounts, just assume it's there.

Quote :: And, what happens with this lake? Well... for the starters, it is required by the community where Johnny lives as a water source, secondly, it's full with fish so it's also a source for food. What does the comunity have to do if they want something from the lake? Well... they actually have to ask Johnny for permission to use it. And Johnny is no silly guy, Johnny can take advantage of this situation. I mean, he's the owner isn't he? He ultimately decides what is to be done with the lake, right? This already means that one is entitled to "govern" de facto, meaning that there's nothing anarchic about this system.

One, don;t like anarchy. I love government. Two, in the perfect system, such things would not occurr, as I have made clear perviously,or at the very least, it would be a nominal fee, brought forth to fund the cleaning and mainting of this food/water source. NOMINAL FEE. And if one can't pay, well, loans cna be issued, IOUs, etc.

Quote :: And then you're expecting that the community, once the state has disappeared, respects those property rights as though if they were something sacred.

THat's just it, the state IS the community, IS the people. Government displays the will of the people, and is to prevent companies and corporations from abusing the people. Capitalism is tat freedom to benifit from your idea, your invention. You did it, you made it, so you should benifit. Over time more may want your invenion/idea, and one person can only do so much. So they hire people and trade them a share of the profits for their services. The problem has been that some have gotten greedy since those early days. I know that, and most do, and that's why it needs to be changed, to be fixed and prevented from happening again. We learns from our mistakes, and so want tp keep them from happening again. I've never said toherwise, Im pretty sure. As for inheritence, yes, I am for that. As long as those previous rules, checks and balances remain. I do NOT want the checks and balances to be made by the comopanies themselves to maintain themselves, because that is begging for abuse, making it far easier to do so. It is for government to make those checks and balances, because the government is the will of the people when everything is one correctly.A mayor represents the people of the tow,. The governor represents the mayors. The senator represents his governors. And the Prime Minister/president/etc represents all of those in the international community only. Add more persons as required by your specific country. This is done so as to give all their voice, while not havign to hear EVERY last individual person everywhere, most of which are morons on average. Many now are bought by companies and corporations, making them rich as well as funding campaigns and yes, that is a problem, and so government is rarely by the people, for the people, and... actually I forget the rest of that, but you get it. Of the people? Whatever. There are still holdouts who are not bought, but I have never said it's otherwise. However, it's still that companies still compete, and thus their corporation onwed country hasn't occurred yet.

Quote :: Doesn't seem reasonable at all.

You're right.

Quote :: Then if workers that need the lake simply start using the lake for their benefit and according to rules determined by them who's gonna stop them? They'd be defacto establishing socialism and there's no state to prevent them from doing so.

Read above.

Quote :: hotels, stores and such.

These are on a greatly different level than resource development.

Quote :: Nay, dozens of engineers that work for him know just as well know how to make it work.

But this isn't always the case.And remember, the owner normally does more than just be an engineer. He finds people to sll to, does paperwork, whatever that entails, and such things. He, ofte, works too, often timesdoing more than a single toher worker. SO yes, he or she should get more. Not by virture of property rights, per say. However those rights do, yes entitle him to a tad more, since he or she started it. THAT is fair. Other people taking THAT person's work from them for their OWN greed, ISN'T fair. Now the inheretor doesn;t have that, true, but most workers have no issue with allowing, and yes, as you have pointed out and I have said, allowing, that person to own as long as it is all done fairly. But as I have said, over time people have gotten greedy,a nd without the knowledge we have now of what happens and how to prevent it, they have gotten hugely powerful, etc, so on, and so forth. I've said it before now.

Quote :: So please, tell me, how could your stateless coercion-less capitalism be established reasonably?

(Just whistles absent mindedly.)

Quote :: Also, you did not answer my previous questions, which would have probably spared us this rather unnecesary debate.

I can;t even tell where you actually ask questions anymore in your epic posts. You're gonna have to repeat it, becasue I can't rememeber.

Subject: Re: Seriously Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:46 pm

Alright I get what your saying now WWW, thanks Zealot.

And what I mean by their being businesses, is businesses run by the workers, not CEO's, and the people make the ideas/decisions *hint hint Syndicalism /*hint hint

Well, they'd still be businesses but no where close to modern corporations, and they'd be interdependent, working together for the better of humanity, not to increase individual profits. Each business would be run as a collective.

Subject: Re: Seriously Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:58 pm

Tyrong Kojy wrote:: FUCK THAT! When have I EVER said without state?! That's just begging for abuses! When have I EVER said that!? That's libertarianism, and THAT would become the shadow goverment, evil capitalist world you guys think of.

That's why I said "your" as it is the main definition of capitalism according to "revisionist capitalism".

But yeah, I guess I just generalized once you started using the word "we".

TK wrote:

Quote :: For me capitalism is a system where means of production can be privately owned by an individual or group of individuals having people work for them. That's capitalism.

There's nothing wrong with this,a ssuming said owner is also working him or herself. Doing somehting in the company themselves, likely all the oversight. Things like handling the money, buying new factories, hiring, etc.

Then the Soviet economic system is an excellent example of capitalism "there's nothing wrong with", which is why the USSR's system (not communism as per the definition of "communism"), does not serve as a system you can compare capitalism with as it was another variation of capitalism.

TK wrote:: I hate those that do nothing yet still make the money. If they themselves are workers, I like. I have never said otherwise, I don't think. As for ammount made, that's debatable. Depends on how much is actually done, etc. No, I don't mind at all that the owner makes a bit more. It's when they make obscenely more that is sickening.

The problem here is that 1) they already own the company, having obscenely more and the prerrogative to rule over the workers and 2) they will neccesarily make much less than the entire workforce yet earn more than any worker, harness value produced by all the workers and distribute it accordingly. De facto they control all of the value produced by the workers.

TK wrote:

Quote :: a group owns and has teh capability to govern and the other has no choice but to serve

This isn't what I advocate. All have the potential to govern, they just have to get involved.

All? How can the workers govern when the means of production are controlled by another class?

TK wrote:

Quote :: Nothing but the idea that someone can reasonably accept becoming a slave.

But it's not slavery, at all. They give something for my services.

The slaves were given food, shelter and other stuff for working means that do not belong to them all at the owners' judgement.

Today it's the same except that you're given a wage and you have the capability to choose who your master will be. You're given a wage as determined by the bourgeoisie, you work by the rules of this bourgeoisie, and you barely have other chance than merely working for this bourgeoisie. Pretty much like a slave.

TK wrote:: It's a fair trade.

No because you're forced by the current arrangement of the economy to work for them by their rules. You have no capability to determine your salary or the rules by which you'll work, all you can do is pick them from a pool of exploiters. Want to establish your own business? Be my guest and try it - it's as hard as it factually becomes a privilege of those who already belong to the bourgeoisie, and at best, as a reward to those who have been most servient. The means of production have been harnessed in their majority and it's not easy to acquire them if you don't belong already to the class that owns them. Want to be self employed? Also try it and let's see how succesful you are and for how long.

TK wrote:: Now, the AMMOUNT given I agree shouldn't be so large in difference.

In the first place, why should an individual be capable of determining how valuable the labor of the workers is?

TK wrote:: Ad since that quote comes from the part where you're saying no state again, THAT WOULD BE VERY BAD. I've never said otherwise.

My apologies. I just went on striking "capitalist revisionism" altogether.

TK wrote:

Quote :: Then we come with the pragmatic definition of capitalism

I don't care what the pragmatic definition of ANYTHING is. I do NOT support the capiatalism you guys think al capitalists supoprt.

Again, I just targetted capitalist revisionism altogether.

TK wrote:: Inf act, most people HATE that. Why? BECAUSE IT WOUD SUCK, and we know that. We KNOW there needs to be regulation, otherwise yes, we KNOW companies and corporations would work together to abuse, to extort. Nobody wants this.

And, now that you mention this, then how is US not capitalist?

TK wrote:: It's not a matter of protecting THEIR existance, as you put it, but rahter US ALLOWING them to exist, as you have also ut it.

Their preservation, and thus existance, could only be achieved through protection if a group is willing to violate them.

TK wrote:: Push far enough, and yes the people force companies to be shut down. it's happened before. Just not in violent ways.

Who said anything about violence?

TK wrote:: And what I support is that coercive force being used to keep these companines from explloiting.

How?

TK wrote:: And no, once again, workers are not exploited.

Yes, they are. The value produced by them is entirely managed by those they work for who take massive amounts of value from the workers' labor.
They produce or could produce absolutely everything and yet they have to give part of the value of their labor to the owner of the means of production just because he/she owns them. And again, they have to abide by the owners' rules.

TK wrote:: They trade service for funds.

It's hardly trade when the worker got no choice but to acknowledge that the means through which he/she'll produce are owned by someone else and as such part of the value should be given to them while the ultimate decision on how the means are to be manage is taken by this owner.

TK wrote:: Ammoutns can e talked about later, but again, I agree that there should be a more equal distribution.

Amounts are not the problem here but the fact that someone can actually determine these amounts because he/she owns the means of production.

TK wrote:: However yes, owners should get a bit more, because THEY'RE often the ones that built the companies,

1. More than 99% all companies in the world are built by workers. Workers are who provide the facilities, workers are who provide the materials and workers are who produce what the company provides the society with.
2. How does having that "initiative" (which would be nothing but pure dreams without the workers) justify ownership over the means of production?

TK wrote:: and make the deals that allow product to be sold,

Hmm... last I checked lots of companies actualy have entire departments specialized for this purpose, and the owners are not involved in them for other than determining the policies through which the products are sold.

Also, supposing the owner is the one who does this it's not like the workers would be unable to sell the products themselves. It's not like they rely on the owner to sell the product. In capitalism they'd have no other choice as the capitalist is who actually owns what they produced so it's logical that the owner sells what belongs to him/her.

If the workers were not alienated from their product, they could directly sell it.

TK wrote:: thus keeping thw workers with their jobs

The jobs exist because society needs what those workers produce, therefore the permanence of the workers is dependant upon the necessities they suffice. Not the management of someone who only has got the virtue to own everything.

TK wrote:: so that those funds can be traded for the services.

This euphemism again. Again, why do they need someone to manage the value of their work for them and moreover get part of this value him/herself? At best they have no choice.

TK wrote:: At least when things work as they should.

Which as you describe it, is the way the USSR worked, the way the USA works and the way dozens of nations work.

TK wrote:

Quote :: You may say "Ah, but capitalism is where the workers acknowledge willingly that A guy owns a coal mine or that B guy owns a factory". Seriously?

Yes, seriously. Because owning something means nothing without the capability to do anything with it, and one person, or even ten, can only do so much. Thus, trade of funds for services. And I won't repeat myself on ammounts anymore, just assume it's here.

Precisely because it means nothing to own something without being able to do anything with it, and because it represents no benefit to those capable of doing something with it not to own it is that we socialists propose this ownership to be disacknowledged.

It represents absolutely no benefit to the workers and actually it does represent a hindrance to acknowledge that someone 1) has the final word on the way the menas of production they need to produce are to be used and 2) that someone has to receive value at all just for owning it, let alone a higher value than the workers.

TK wrote:

Quote :: Suppose we have what you call "capitalism" and what many call "anarcho-capitalism". Suppose there's not a state and there's a "free market".

No I dont want to supopse, becaus I agree. It would suck. Never said otherwise. THey make whole videogames, movies and books based off of terrible futures like this. I mean, it'd be EXCITING, certainly, when the superheros come flipping in with two pistols, taking out twenty armed guards. but otherwise not very desireable.

My apologies for generalizing. I swear that for a second when you said "we" I imagined you right among Penn and Teller, Trey Parker and Matt Stone.

But again. How is US not capitalism then?

TK wrote:: One, don;t like anarchy.

Adressing the "anarcho-capitalist" perspective.

TK wrote:: I love government.

Serf.

TK wrote:: Two, in the perfect system, such things would not occurr, as I have made clear perviously,or at the very least, it would be a nominal fee, brought forth to fund the cleaning and mainting of this food/water source. NOMINAL FEE. And if one can't pay, well, loans cna be issued, IOUs, etc.

What for?

TK wrote:: THat's just it, the state IS the community, IS the people.

This delusion is pretty problematic. The state merely claims to represent the people, but ultimately, those that conform the government are who have the final word because the political system is at best representative, indirect and non-participatory.

TK wrote:: Government displays the will of the people,

Supposedly, which is a pragamtic impossibility.

TK wrote:: and is to prevent companies and corporations from abusing the people.

Or the people from "abusing the companies".

TK wrote:: Capitalism is tat freedom to benifit from your idea, your invention. You did it, you made it, so you should benifit. Over time more may want your invenion/idea, and one person can only do so much. So they hire people and trade them a share of the profits for their services.

Romantic and cute, but not true.

Capitalism is the capability of owning means of production others need to produce what they'll provide to society in exchange for what they require in order to suffice their needs.

In socialism, if you invent something, it's up to both you and the workers (the ultimate users and consumers of your invention and the only possible source of sufficient material wealth for you) to decide how much your invention is worth. If the rest of the community determines you deserve to receive a high value merely for inventing it, then so it will be. If you're not satisfied with the value given by society, you can always keep your idea, your invention to yourself, which ultimately ends up in being more of a problem to you than to the community the members of which never stop producing and searching for solutions to problems.

TK wrote:: The problem has been that some have gotten greedy since those early days. I know that, and most do, and that's why it needs to be changed, to be fixed and prevented from happening again.

You can't be seriously proposing an economic system based on "regulating capitalists' greed".

First of all thet problem comes precisely from the fact that a single individual can own means of production. Thus the root of the problem is found within that. If the root of the problem has been identified, why not discarding it altogether?

Why not simply discarding the possibility that the fate of the means of production and thus the workers' be in others' hands but the workers?

TK wrote:: We learns from our mistakes, and so want tp keep them from happening again.

Seemingly most don't.

TK wrote:: I've never said toherwise, Im pretty sure. As for inheritence, yes, I am for that.

Obviously you are.

TK wrote:: It is for government to make those checks and balances, because the government is the will of the people when everything is one correctly.

How can you honestly expect a small group of representatives to actually be able to efficiently run an entire nation according to the will of this nation and in their benefit? Specially when these representatives, just for the mere virtue of being who de facto establish the rules receive both value from the whole workforce's labor and are entitled to determine the rules by which everyone should abide.

TK wrote:: A mayor represents the people of the town.

In theory. In practice this person just has the faculty to run the town.

TK wrote:: The governor represents the mayors. The senator represents his governors.
And the Prime Minister/president/etc represents all of those in the international community only.

Now this I can buy. The government represents the interests of the government.

TK wrote:: Add more persons as required by your specific country. This is done so as to give all their voice, while not havign to hear EVERY last individual person everywhere, most of which are morons on average.

Why should someone be entitled to determine who's voice is to be heard and who's voice is not to be heard? Why should someone be entitled to the determination of the rules by which everyone has to abide?

And, how can you demonstrate that the "average" people are just "morons"? And how would this condition be relevant if not product of a characteristic unavoidably inherent to these individuals instead of product of their conditions?

How are individuals that compose the state anymore capable than the whole people to determine the fate of people?

And moreover, if most are morons, and the people that composes the state come from this mass of morons, making them morons as well, how can morons inteligently manage other morons, specially when these governing morons have the faculty to govern over non-morons? (In the hipotetical case that this "moronity" is intrinsic to people, instdead of product of their conditions)

TK wrote:: Many now are bought by companies and corporations, making them rich as well as funding campaigns and yes, that is a problem, and so government is rarely by the people, for the people, and... actually I forget the rest of that, but you get it. Of the people? Whatever.

Mhm...

1. This demonstrates, at least partially, the pragmatical impossibility of a state to represent the people.
2. This demonstrates as well to some extent that these individuals are no more capable than the average worker to run the whoe community.

TK wrote:: There are still holdouts who are not bought, but I have never said it's otherwise.

And how does that guarantee the people being represented?

TK wrote:: However, it's still that companies still compete, and thus their corporation onwed country hasn't occurred yet.

What do you exactly mean with this and why is it relevant to the discussion?

TK wrote:

Quote :: hotels, stores and such.

These are on a greatly different level than resource development.

Meaning what?

TK wrote:

Quote :: Nay, dozens of engineers that work for him know just as well know how to make it work.

But this isn't always the case.

In reality, it is the norm. It's rare when it's not that way. And actually, the case where the owner knows no shit or at the very least too few about how the product he sells or the service his company provide are done, is more widespread than the former.

TK wrote:: And remember, the owner normally does more than just be an engineer. He finds people to sll to,

Sales departments also do this. And again, it's not like the rest of the workers can't do that. What they produce is needed and will be sought by others.

TK wrote:: does paperwork, whatever that entails, and such things.

Management departments usually assume this work. A work that is just necessary given the current bureaucratic framework.

TK wrote:: He, ofte, works too, often timesdoing more than a single toher worker.

In which case, ownership apart, his work would simply be of more value than that of the average worker, thus receiving a greater reward.

TK wrote:: SO yes, he or she should get more.

If for more work or ore valuable work and as determined by the rest of his fellow workers, yes. If for ownership, categorically not.

TK wrote:: Not by virture of property rights, per say. However those rights do, yes entitle him to a tad more, since he or she started it.

Yes or no, make up your mind. The second sentence clearly counters the first.

Also he or she could have inherited it in which case, given your own arguements, as they did not start it, they are not entitled to receive "that tad more".

TK wrote:: THAT is fair. Other people taking THAT person's work from them for their OWN greed, ISN'T fair.

Therefore, capitalists are intrinsically not fair.

TK wrote:: Now the inheretor doesn;t have that, true, but most workers have no issue with allowing, and yes, as you have pointed out and I have said, allowing, that person to own as long as it is all done fairly.

What could be more fair that the producers actually getting and managing the entirety of the value they produce?

TK wrote:: But as I have said, over time people have gotten greedy,a nd without the knowledge we have now of what happens and how to prevent it, they have gotten hugely powerful, etc, so on, and so forth. I've said it before now.

And this is inherent to capitalism.

TK wrote:

Quote :: So please, tell me, how could your stateless coercion-less capitalism be established reasonably?

(Just whistles absent mindedly.)

Again, targeting revisionism of capitalism altogether.

TK wrote:

Quote :: Also, you did not answer my previous questions, which would have probably spared us this rather unnecesary debate.

I can;t even tell where you actually ask questions anymore in your epic posts. You're gonna have to repeat it, becasue I can't rememeber.

Fair enough.

Subject: Re: Seriously Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:54 am

Quote :: Then the Soviet economic system is an excellent example of capitalism "there's nothing wrong with", which is why the USSR's system (not communism as per the definition of "communism"), does not serve as a system you can compare capitalism with as it was another variation of capitalism.

Fine. If that's capitalism it still failed because it was done terribly.

Quote :: 1) they already own the company, having obscenely more and the prerrogative to rule over the workers

What do you mean perogative to rule?If you mean abuse, then what was it I said about checks, laws and government? What was it I said? Hm?

Quote :: they will neccesarily make much less than the entire workforce yet earn more than any worker, harness value produced by all the workers and distribute it accordingly. De facto they control all of the value produced by the workers.

What's the problem here? Someone needs to hand the profit out, to make sure all get their fare share for the trade. I'm not sure what you mean here. As for making more, again, they did the work first f all, and often, in what I have described do just as much if not more.

Quote :: All? How can the workers govern when the means of production are controlled by another class?

You didn't read my whole post beforehand, did you? i'm not insulting you. I do the same. Just, you know....

Quote :: The slaves were given food, shelter and other stuff for working means that do not belong to them all at the owners' judgement.

First, there would be no forcing of the workers. Second, it is, as I have said and you, allowed by the workers, by the government, and thus would be fairer in the system I have said, but I'm not going to keep repeating this every time, just assume. Anyway, the owner's judment would, preferably in a system that works right in the people's interest, be less toward greed. Okay, that sounds nothing like what I want, but I can;t think of any other way to put it.

Quote :: Today it's the same except that you're given a wage and you have the capability to choose who your master will be.

Again, not whole post, huh?

Quote :: In the first place, why should an individual be capable of determining how valuable the labor of the workers is?

Because if they do not give a fair price, a percentage, as determined by the fixed government as I have said, thn they would find it difficult to find workers.

Quote :: And, now that you mention this, then how is US not capitalist?

Because the capitalism YOU think means capitalism has no competition among companies, where they all work together or are owned by one individual above all, and in America there is still competition among companies, which capitalism needs. And I never said it's NOT capitalist. It IS, jsut not the insane shadow goverment you think it is.

Quote :: Their preservation, and thus existance, could only be achieved through protection if a group is willing to violate them.

And in the system I have said....

Quote :: Who said anything about violence?

Actually many times you, or WWW, or BC I think have expressed desires or given secret intent to kill all capitalists. It was on this site I heard someone say, I can't recall, who said that after the revolution all capitalists would be hung. Sounds violent to me. Perhaps it was meant in jest, but it sounded, as have all other instances of revolution, of rising up and taking it by storm, sometimes at the barrel of a gun, as quite serious.

Quote :: How?

I don;t know how.... I wouldn't be someone to take charge of that. But jut ecause "I" don;'t have any ideas doesn''t mean it can't happen.

Quote :: Yes, they are. The value produced by them is entirely managed by those they work for who take massive amounts of value from the workers' labor.

I agree the ammounts arre horribly scewed. But it's a trade that many workers choose. Yes, they choose from a list of different exploiters, but many "slave masters" are fairer than others. But I have never said the current system was good. But it IS a trade, and really, yes it IS hard for new busineses to start up, but it can often be done. You just need to do things right, and yes have a bit of luck, but then they themselves become one of those slave masters, according to you, as as I have previously said, to you deserve, or deserved, to be hung. This is NOT the preferable way of doing things. But it IS what we HAVE, and people are just trying to get through in it. If you get what I'm saying.

Quote :: They produce or could produce absolutely everything and yet they have to give part of the value of their labor to the owner of the means of production just because he/she owns them

Then there is no reason for one to share their ideas and start anything. Again, it's not just because the own, in my system. I'm not saying anymore tat the current system is what I edesire or like. just assume here, too.

Quote :: And again, they have to abide by the owners' rules.

What precicely do you mean by rules? Like having to wear a hairnet or something like that? Becasue that's not the owner's rule, that's governmental, most often in food production. Some places though, I admit, do require a hairnet but not because of government. A car company needs it, because hair can screw up the machines, hurting profits, and potentially hurt someone. Is the sompany concerned ith actual safety or is it they only want to avoid paying? Obviously it's paying, as the past has shown, but that's why already we have laws in place to protect workers, cutting into profits. And as I ahve said, in the preferable system, things are shared by percentage or somesuch etc.

Quote :: It's hardly trade when the worker got no choice but to acknowledge that the means through which he/she'll produce are owned by someone else and as such part of the value should be given to them while the ultimate decision on how the means are to be manage is taken by this owner.

again, and I can;t recall if Im notsaying this again or not, but equiipment adn such IS an ownership ting, as you have said before. One will be allowed, n your system, to own STUFF, just not property. I say owning property is fine, again, if all done fairly and with the proper regulation and such. No I don;t know HOW to do it, or WHAT it all entails. I;ve never been that great on details such as that. And honestly don;t care. I'm often too busy trying to write my books to care. Anyway, as I have said, owning means nothing unless you ahve workers. Not good now, could be good if done prperly.

Quote :: Amounts are not the problem here but the fact that someone can actually determine these amounts because he/she owns the means of production.

And the ammoutn would be chosen by government, looking after the peopel's best interest, not the companie's, while acknowledging the rights of the one who started it all, or who does the most work. It owuld not be determined by the owner. NOW it is.NOT then.

Quote :: 1. More than 99% all companies in the world are built by workers. Workers are who provide the facilities, workers are who provide the materials and workers are who produce what the company provides the society with.

Not originally. SOmeone had an idea for a product, and started the company. Yes the workers, of another company provided the materials. And in the system I have said, they were treated well, and so on, and blah blah, you get it.

Quote :: 2. How does having that "initiative" (which would be nothing but pure dreams without the workers)

Which would, preferably, force the owner to give more incentive to people to work for them because yes, ownership means nothing without someone to do something with it.

Quote :: justify ownership over the means of production?

Now tat I think about it, I don;t think I;ve ever heard you explain what exactly you even mean by means of production.

Quote :: Hmm... last I checked lots of companies actualy have entire departments specialized for this purpose, and the owners are not involved in them for other than determining the policies through which the products are sold.

Which sucks. I hate owners that do nothing, and have said this.

Quote :: Also, supposing the owner is the one who does this it's not like the workers would be unable to sell the products themselves.

Many can;t. It requires people skills, knowledge of the entirety of the system and company and product. Youc an say educate the workers all you want, but most will never care. INdividuals doing ti is more efficient anyway. it helps the whole of the company to get rch, workers and all.

Quote :: It's not like they rely on the owner to sell the product

That should be one of the owner's responsibilities.

Quote :: If the workers were not alienated from their product, they could directly sell it.

Then the owner would have no need or desire to expand their own capabilities, and would rely on themselves to sell and make the product. Slow, but they make moeny off THEIR idea. IN THE PREFERABLE SYSTEM the workers would share directly in the profits, a fiar percentage, as dexlaredby the people, in other wiords the government. Ad besides, why shoudl the workes be made to do MORE work? Not everyone wants to do more. Many want to do less, and so someone else does things. But the owner would still have to do something, as per law, since they can not make money for nothing, a law chosen by the people.

Quote :: The jobs exist because society needs what those workers produce, therefore the permanence of the workers is dependant upon the necessities they suffice. Not the management of someone who only has got the virtue to own everything.

And things society NEEDS would be different.

Quote :: This euphemism again. Again, why do they need someone to manage the value of their work for them and moreover get part of this value him/herself? At best they have no choice.

Int he system I have saidf.....

Quote :: Which as you describe it, is the way the USSR worked, the way the USA works and the way dozens of nations work.

It's not how US works, USSR was shit, with few freedoms and the constant potential of death from secret police and a psycho leader who was iniffectual. The USSR was not an example of what I have shown. Now at all. In addition, the USSR didn;t like owners of companies as I have shown. Uh... ooking back,. I don;t think your wuote referes to a point BEFORE I get more into the whole thing, so nevermind.

Quote :: Precisely because it means nothing to own something without being able to do anything with it, and because it represents no benefit to those capable of doing something with it not to own it is that we socialists propose this ownership to be disacknowledged.

But they do own it, because they live on the land with the resources, or have the idea, and they allow others to share those resources where his house is, or to know his idea and to share in the profits, in the preffered system.

Quote :: 1) has the final word on the way the menas of production they need to produce are to be used

Well they cannot share their idea, or they can say no you can;t mine near my house.

Quote :: 2) that someone has to receive value at all just for owning it, let alone a higher value than the workers.

I dn;t like owners who do nothing. I like owners who work just as much, if not more, than the wokers.

Quote :: Penn and Teller,

I love them mostly, I do not agree with their economic ideals. They place too much faith in company owners playing fair on their own.

Quote :: Trey Parker and Matt Stone.

I know nothing about them besides making South Park, but I assume they're libertairians like Pen and Teller. That said, you WILL respect my authoritah.

Quote :: But again. How is US not capitalism then?

I have not said it's not. I HAVE said it;s not an evil shadow government.

Quote :: TK wrote:

I love government.

Serf.

Huh?

Quote :: TK wrote:

Two, in the perfect system, such things would not occurr, as I have made clear perviously,or at the very least, it would be a nominal fee, brought forth to fund the cleaning and mainting of this food/water source. NOMINAL FEE. And if one can't pay, well, loans cna be issued, IOUs, etc.

What for?

To wat are you referring?

Quote :: This delusion is pretty problematic. The state merely claims to represent the people, but ultimately, those that conform the government are who have the final word because the political system is at best representative, indirect and non-participatory.

Which is why things DO need to change, non violently, as I have said. And what d you mean by non-participatory? How can one not participate?

Quote :: Supposedly, which is a pragamtic impossibility.

No it's not! It's very possible!

Quote :: Or the people from "abusing the companies".

NO! This had better be before I started talking about it, because....

Quote :: In socialism, if you invent something, it's up to both you and the workers (the ultimate users and consumers of your invention and the only possible source of sufficient material wealth for you) to decide how much your invention is worth. If the rest of the community determines you deserve to receive a high value merely for inventing it, then so it will be. If you're not satisfied with the value given by society, you can always keep your idea, your invention to yourself, which ultimately ends up in being more of a problem to you than to the community the members of which never stop producing and searching for solutions to problems.

And this is what the government, by and for the people, would do! But it's YOUR idea, and the worker's labour, so no, the community WOULDN'T have a say in it, besides how the workers are treated. The rules and such. Only those in the company, workers and owners, would, and funds, profits, would be dolled out by those fair and balanced rules. The owner, the inventor, can benifit from thier thing most, yes, because they came up with it. If the people don;t like the value, they won;t buy it. This is the competition that capitalism needs t work properly. So I guess te community DOES have a say. But if it;s something that's NEEDED, like food or medicine, NO this wouldn;t happen,a s per government and rules. DOn;t have it now. Fix it and it will. No violence needed or endured.

Quote :: First of all thet problem comes precisely from the fact that a single individual can own means of production. Thus the root of the problem is found within that. If the root of the problem has been identified, why not discarding it altogether?

Because it;s their freedom to own it. Freedom. As long as it does not hurt the commuity, freedom. That;'s where laws and rules chosen by the people come in.

Quote :: Why not simply discarding the possibility that the fate of the means of production and thus the workers' be in others' hands but the workers?

Government. People.

Quote :: Seemingly most don't.

I meant that we have learn't, and so we can fix.

Quote :: How can you honestly expect a small group of representatives to actually be able to efficiently run an entire nation according to the will of this nation and in their benefit?

Because those rpresentatives hear the people. THAT'S their job. Each group of people has a representative, and a group of them have a representative, and so forth, to simplify it all the way down the line so that all can be heard, without bilions needing to head to Washington every week.That's what mayors, governers, and senators are for.

Quote :: ust for the mere virtue of being who de facto establish the rules receive both value from the whole workforce's labor and are entitled to determine the rules by which everyone should abide.

And as I have said, things do need to be fixed.But if something is broken doesn;t men you nesesarilly thrw it out, it means you try and repair it, especially if it;'s something important.

Quote :: In theory. In practice this person just has the faculty to run the town.

According to what the people want.

Quote :: Now this I can buy. The government represents the interests of the government.

Your'e not getting the purpose of the hirearchy.

Quote :: Why should someone be entitled to determine who's voice is to be heard and who's voice is not to be heard? Why should someone be entitled to the determination of the rules by which everyone has to abide?

Because it;s the people who are deciding this? All are elected into the position, by the people's vote and wants. None go unheard. In our current they do. So fix.

Quote :: And, how can you demonstrate that the "average" people are just "morons"?

What I meat was so those in the highest ecelons don;t have to lsiten to billions all the time. Only, say, ten. And you go down the line.

Quote :: And how would this condition be relevant if not product of a characteristic unavoidably inherent to these individuals instead of product of their conditions?

Some people really are just stupid. Many by choice, getting by on looks or physical talent. You know who I'm talking about, or I jope you do. I HATE people like this. THen again, I was fat in school, so it;s easy to tell my feelings....

Quote :: How are individuals that compose the state anymore capable than the whole people to determine the fate of people?

Because its sheer numbers. And again, why should we destroy the whole thing when it can be fixed?

Quote :: And moreover, if most are morons, and the people that composes the state come from this mass of morons, making them morons as well, how can morons inteligently manage other morons, specially when these governing morons have the faculty to govern over non-morons? (In the hipotetical case that this "moronity" is intrinsic to people, instdead of product of their conditions)

I think I adressed above.

Quote :: 1. This demonstrates, at least partially, the pragmatical impossibility of a state to represent the people.

No it doesn;t with proper checs and balances, as well as legalities. And if a polititian is found to be doing this, legally they would e arrested, or they would not be voted into office next time, as per the will of the people. And that company would at theleast face harsh penalties, aswell as possibly deconstruction, or a redoing of the personell, since such a thing would also be done by the workers.

Quote :: 2. This demonstrates as well to some extent that these individuals are no more capable than the average worker to run the whoe community.

Which is why I think there should be a minimum IQ, among other things besides what we have, to be able to run for office.

Quote :: And how does that guarantee the people being represented?

It doesn;t inherently, but it means a higher chance of it. But I did not say I liked the system we have now.

Quote :: What do you exactly mean with this and why is it relevant to the discussion?

By that I meant that the company run counry you guys think have occured, or t least is what I gather, has not happened. Those representatives who are bought are still competing, keeping things fairer and cheaper and workers happier than if not. But I don;t like this system as we have it now.

Quote :: Meaning what?

Meaning in the system they would be treated differently, because they are not need things by the populace Food would be treated differently than computers, for example.

Quote :: In reality, it is the norm. It's rare when it's not that way. And actually, the case where the owner knows no shit or at the very least too few about how the product he sells or the service his company provide are done, is more widespread than the former.

Adressed above, saying I don;t like.

Quote :: Sales departments also do this. And again, it's not like the rest of the workers can't do that. What they produce is needed and will be sought by others.

But workers don;t normally wnat to do this, to have to sell their own product. Often it requires skills one may not have, like people skills, and it's just more work, and most don;t wnat to do more. And all I was doing was giving examples of what the owner COULD do.

Quote :: Management departments usually assume this work. A work that is just necessary given the current bureaucratic framework.

Paperwork also helps keep track of product, for legl purposes, health and safety, etc. And again, only an example of a possibility.

Quote :: In which case, ownership apart, his work would simply be of more value than that of the average worker, thus receiving a greater reward.

Precicely. Or at the least doing SOMETHING. As for getting that tad more, well, think iof it as the reward given to the owner for their idea, their invention, and giving people the possibiliy to work. That sounds crass, but I can;t think of another way t put it. And besides, all that is moot if the peole, the gvernment, decide there will be none of that, making it that one owns but ets no extra, so that it simple akes it easier to coordinate things.

Quote :: Yes or no, make up your mind. The second sentence clearly counters the first.

Its that he started the company, not that he owns the property. I don;t know how to explain this....

Quote :: TK wrote:

THAT is fair. Other people taking THAT person's work from them for their OWN greed, ISN'T fair.
Therefore, capitalists are intrinsically not fair.

That's not what I'm saying. If you comeup with the idea, others saying you can;t benifit isn;t fair. This has nothing t do with inheritence, THIS is starting. Ad besides, I'm open to ideas for my suposed fixing of the system. Not like I;ve spent a lot of time figuring this.

Quote :: What could be more fair that the producers actually getting and managing the entirety of the value they produce?

Because most dont WANT to do all that. I uderstand what you're saying, but it;s actally more efficient to have poeple who do this, as well asto simplify things so hundreds of workers aren't out there hawking their wares. That would get cofusing, and would hurt each worker's potential to make money and thus live a betetr life, one one earned.

Quote :: And this is inherent to capitalism.

Potentially, but not if it is to properly function, as this undermines competition, which is what capitalism requires.

Subject: Re: Seriously Tue Nov 24, 2009 8:26 am

Tyrong Kojy wrote:: Fine. If that's capitalism it still failed because it was done terribly.

Capitalism is inherently flawed. Peculiarity of the Soviet style capitalism is that the totality of this massive failure was absorbed by a single institution whereas in places like USA, Canada or Germany, this failure is distributed among several parties.

TK wrote:: What do you mean perogative to rule?If you mean abuse, then what was it I said about checks, laws and government? What was it I said? Hm?

Nope, I don't mean abuse. I mean that their property rights entitle them to ultimately determine what is to be done with their property.

TK wrote:: What's the problem here?

That de facto the totality of teh value belongs to the owner, who ultimately decides how it is to be distributed.

TK wrote:: Someone needs to hand the profit out, to make sure all get their fare share for the trade.

That's a managerial action at best that can be performed directly by the workers. An owner is entirely unnecesary and particularily in the case of one entitled to determine the incomes of others and the workplace's policies actually problematic.

TK wrote:: I'm not sure what you mean here.

That owners of the means of production control the means of production and thus, at least indirectly, the fate of the workers.

TK wrote:: As for making more, again, they did the work first f all,

1) Not necessarily.
2) Not the majority of the work and definitely not by themselves in most cases.
3) That doesn't mean that they're either unexpendable, that they're doing most of the work or even the most valuable work.

TK wrote:: and often, in what I have described do just as much if not more.

In what you describe, they engage in objectively unnecesary bureaucratic labor that nonetheless could be performed by someone else or work as any other worker, just harder. Yet, they do not earn in proportion to what an "overenthusiastic" woker would earn - they are entitled to receive a portion of all the workers' labor and still own the means of production which represent a fair amount of value themselves and the capability to actually create value.

TK wrote:

Quote :: All? How can the workers govern when the means of production are controlled by another class?

You didn't read my whole post beforehand, did you? i'm not insulting you. I do the same. Just, you know....

I did, I just don't find it as a viable explanation. The workers do not govern in such a scenario, they simply, at best, plea for better conditions while necessarily acknowledging someone else's rule over them and legitimizing it through indirect representation.

TK wrote:: First, there would be no forcing of the workers.

There is as they have no choice given that the means of production are owned by someone else and this ownership is protected by the state.

TK wrote:: Second, it is, as I have said and you, allowed by the workers, by the government, and thus would be fairer in the system I have said, but I'm not going to keep repeating this every time, just assume.

More like condoned by the government and delusionally, apathetically and due to fear not avoided by the workers due in large part to cultural and intellectual hegemony.

TK wrote:: Anyway, the owner's judment would, preferably in a system that works right in the people's interest, be less toward greed. Okay, that sounds nothing like what I want, but I can;t think of any other way to put it.

Have you thought of the reason for why you can't put it other way?

In the end , the whole economy rests in the hands of the capitalists and the state leaving the fate of the whole working class in the hands of a few. If the capitalists act for greed, the state will regulate them, but then if the state regulates them they may well lose interest in their entrepeneurship and then the enterprises will simply fall forcing the state to absorb them and keep them working and then it will be the state who will have to deal with the burden of acting as a capitalist.

TK wrote:

Quote :: Today it's the same except that you're given a wage and you have the capability to choose who your master will be.

Again, not whole post, huh?

Nope, just not convincing. It's just another form of slavery as the paradigm where the means nor land are owned by the worker and where the worker breaks his back to enhance someone else's wealth at his own expense. Another notable difference is that in teh case of wage slavery consent is given in a pragmatic and material way while in an abstract way many are quite unsatisfied with such a condition, in reality the vast majority of the world's workforce.

TK wrote:

Quote :: In the first place, why should an individual be capable of determining how valuable the labor of the workers is?

Because if they do not give a fair price, a percentage, as determined by the fixed government as I have said, thn they would find it difficult to find workers.

And how does that answer my question? Maybe I should reformulate.Why should an individual be entitled to determine this value?

TK wrote:

Quote :: And, now that you mention this, then how is US not capitalist?

Because the capitalism YOU think means capitalism has no competition among companies, where they all work together or are owned by one individual above all,

What?! When did I say or even imply this?

I've just said that all companies belong to a class, which is an undeniable truth. Not to a single group of conspirators or something of the sort.

Now, do they cooperate? Sure, in matters such as the preservation of their stupid game of mutual destruction for profit that implies misery and costs the lives of many.

TK wrote:: and in America there is still competition among companies, which capitalism needs. And I never said it's NOT capitalist. It IS, jsut not the insane shadow goverment you think it is.

Clarified above.

TK wrote:

Quote :: Their preservation, and thus existance, could only be achieved through protection if a group is willing to violate them.

And in the system I have said....

Through a quasi-religious mentality of workers and a strong enough state.

TK wrote:

Quote :: Who said anything about violence?

Actually many times you, or WWW, or BC I think have expressed desires or given secret intent to kill all capitalists.

For Marx's sake with Lenin on top!

I know of none of our comrades that has traditionally held a more life-respecting posture than Wei. From all of us, it has seemed to me that he's the least violent of us. And more recently Alek.

As for me and BC, I believe we're more violently hostile towards capitalism, but neither me nor BC would support nor see any point in killing capitalists, aside from being our own values.

Some other comrades, though, namely Zach, have even carried slogans like, and I don't remember the exact phrasing, "freedom won't be achieved until the last bureaucrat is hanged by the guts of the last capitalist". This is one of the most violent expressions I've seen here against capitalism but, even so, it seems to me, and this is a recurrent mistake that goes unclarified, that these violent expressions go specifically towards capitalists and statesmen in the following situation:

When, during the revolution, there are capitalists and statesmen that will promote reaction, thus giving a start to violence. During revolutionary war, if said capitalists and statesmen are eager to fight till the last breath for the preservation of their system, then they might die during combat. I believe that such a slogan is adressed to that sort of capitalists and statesmen, the sort that knows the implications of their condition and is not only willing not to relinquish power in goodwill, but to die holding on to it.

TK wrote:: It was on this site I heard someone say, I can't recall, who said that after the revolution all capitalists would be hung. Sounds violent to me. Perhaps it was meant in jest, but it sounded, as have all other instances of revolution, of rising up and taking it by storm, sometimes at the barrel of a gun, as quite serious.

There's no way to predict how revolution will exactly take place. Certainly it will be in several ways.

What is reasonable to assume is that regardless of whether the revolution is initially non-violent, it will be met with a violent reaction leading to an armed conflict.

TK wrote:

Quote :: How?

I don;t know how.... I wouldn't be someone to take charge of that. But jut ecause "I" don;'t have any ideas doesn''t mean it can't happen.

I should rephrase: How is that possible?

TK wrote:: I agree the ammounts arre horribly scewed. But it's a trade that many workers choose.

Mainly because there's not another reasonable or plausible option within the legal framework they attach to.

And, again, for me it's not about the amounts, it's rather about the workers being incapable of determining themselves the value of the labor, the rules by which they'll produce and the fact that neither their produce nor the means to produce belong to them.

TK wrote:: Yes, they choose from a list of different exploiters, but many "slave masters" are fairer than others.

Which is not quite relevant since what is being attacked is essentially the existance of the condition of these people as slave masters.

TK wrote:: But I have never said the current system was good. But it IS a trade,

As much as a slave fearing for his life would have traded his freedom for his life. Here the option is wage slavery or, most likely, unemployment which ends up being a life full of deprivations of all sorts implying a more than substandard life quality, ultimately leading to a premature death after a constant compromising of physical and mental integrities and meaning a de facto surrender of freedom. Or simply going out of the frame of law to end up in hostilities with the state, ultimately having to face teh possibility to having freedom taken away from you.

So either you accept to have your freedom determined by the state and a social class, risk yourself to a deplorable life or have your freedom forcefully taken away by the state and that class.

TK wrote:: and really, yes it IS hard for new busineses to start up, but it can often be done. You just need to do things right, and yes have a bit of luck,

You need to have the resources and a lot of luck and hope that bigger competitors don't put you between their crosshairs. Try getting the former two.

Besides, currently many businesses start or even live on bank loans, which means that de facto even capitalists are working for other capitalists who harness capital.

That's a tough condition, depending not even only on your immediate boss.

TK wrote:: but then they themselves become one of those slave masters, according to you, as as I have previously said, to you deserve, or deserved, to be hung.

As for the 1st part yes, for the 2nd nay.
And also, there's another important fact here - it's simply delusional for all to aspire to achieve that as capitalism inherently requires a wealthy minority that owns the means of production while exploiting teh working masses.

TK wrote:: This is NOT the preferable way of doing things. But it IS what we HAVE, and people are just trying to get through in it. If you get what I'm saying.

Yup, that's why me and my comrades advocate for revolution and denounce apathy.

TK wrote:: Then there is no reason for one to share their ideas and start anything.

I can think of plenty of reasons, one of them being the solution of problems faced by society that affect all the members of society and that can only be feasible through collective labor. Another as an exchange for greater value as determined by all the members of the comunity while acquiring higher respect and recognition for the invention. Another to acquire a status of a "developer worker", a worker that may receive more value than the rest for contributing to the improvement of that solution.
And those are few.

Most researchers come up with invetions and solutions to problems not out of the desire to own companies, but with the intention to actually solve them, sometimes even out of sheer love for science, research and overall knowledge. As for sharing it, some may even share it out of frustration for ignorance and inability of the community to solve a problem.

There are plenty of reasons and becoming the owner of a company is certainly neither the main nor an unexpendable one.

TK wrote:: Again, it's not just because the own, in my system. I'm not saying anymore tat the current system is what I edesire or like. just assume here, too.

You said that just because they owned they were entitled "to a tad more".

TK wrote:: What precicely do you mean by rules? Like having to wear a hairnet or something like that? Becasue that's not the owner's rule, that's governmental, most often in food production.

Nope, I mean the entire policies of the company.

TK wrote:: Some places though, I admit, do require a hairnet but not because of government. A car company needs it, because hair can screw up the machines, hurting profits, and potentially hurt someone. Is the sompany concerned ith actual safety or is it they only want to avoid paying? Obviously it's paying, as the past has shown, but that's why already we have laws in place to protect workers, cutting into profits. And as I ahve said, in the preferable system, things are shared by percentage or somesuch etc.

What you're mentioning are nothing but reasonable and objective safety procedures. Again, what I meant, was the whole policies of the company.

TK wrote:: again, and I can;t recall if Im notsaying this again or not, but equiipment adn such IS an ownership ting, as you have said before. One will be allowed, n your system, to own STUFF, just not property.

If you define property as "means of production" exclusively, then, they'll be owned collectively by all workers.

TK wrote:: I say owning property is fine, again, if all done fairly and with the proper regulation and such.

And who is entitled to determine what is fair if not solely the workers?

TK wrote:: No I don;t know HOW to do it, or WHAT it all entails. I;ve never been that great on details such as that. And honestly don;t care. I'm often too busy trying to write my books to care.

Ehm... ok Tyrong, as you say.

TK wrote:: Anyway, as I have said, owning means nothing unless you ahve workers.

It does mean something. It means that workers cannot use your means of production without your consent and without submiting to your policies leaving them with no choice but to work for you if they want to produce. And, in the case of ownership over the land, they even have to have someone's consent to actually inhabit a certain territory.

TK wrote:: Not good now, could be good if done prperly.

Except that it is inherently flawed.

TK wrote:: And the ammoutn would be chosen by government, looking after the peopel's best interest, not the companie's,

And why are they entitled to do so? And how can it be in the workers' best interests when it's being acknowledged that the workers do not own the means through which they produce? That they necesarily have to surrender their produce to an owner who determines the entirety of the policies of the enterprise and the value of the product?

TK wrote:: while acknowledging the rights of the one

This acknowledgement represented in the form of what precisely? What does that ownership would imply? That if the owners don't like government's rules no one gets to work and the economy plumets or falls into the hands of the state?

TK wrote:: who started it all, or who does the most work.

Conditions that are not necessarily true nor necessarily mutally inclusive.

TK wrote:: It owuld not be determined by the owner. NOW it is.NOT then.

So the government begins to determine a lot... hmmm, now you start sounding like Chavez.

TK wrote:

Quote :: 1. More than 99% all companies in the world are built by workers. Workers are who provide the facilities, workers are who provide the materials and workers are who produce what the company provides the society with.

Not originally. SOmeone had an idea for a product, and started the company.

Not necessarily. For an instance a good enough amount of those that have been wealthy have been so due the original usurpation of wealth and/or lands perpetrated by the ruling class. This has derived in their heir or those connected to them to develop more, have more access to knowledge and so on meaning that the priviledged condition that allowed them to come up with that invention was originally product of usurpation.

Not only that, it would have been impossible for that product to become a reality or to even be thought up f had it not been by workers.

TK wrote:: Yes the workers, of another company provided the materials. And in the system I have said, they were treated well, and so on, and blah blah, you get it.

Why just be content with "being treated well" (by a master) when they can be teh masters of their own fate?

TK wrote:

Quote :: 2. How does having that "initiative" (which would be nothing but pure dreams without the workers)

Which would, preferably, force the owner to give more incentive to people to work for them because yes, ownership means nothing without someone to do something with it.

Ownership of the means of production, again, can actually mean that others are forced to take you into account to use said means.

TK wrote:

Quote :: justify ownership over the means of production?

Now tat I think about it, I don;t think I;ve ever heard you explain what exactly you even mean by means of production.

Means through which workers produce goods and/or provide society with services. From natural resources to machinery, equipment and tools.

For example, the means of production in agriculture are fertile lands where X plant grows and the tools to make X plant grow within controled or at least somewhat controled circumstances with the goal of sufficing societal needs of that plant.

Mines and the equipment used for their exploitation are also means of production. Factories and the machinery inside them are means of production. And so on.

TK wrote:

Quote :: Hmm... last I checked lots of companies actualy have entire departments specialized for this purpose, and the owners are not involved in them for other than determining the policies through which the products are sold.

Which sucks. I hate owners that do nothing, and have said this.

Yup, but this is inherent to capitalism.

TK wrote:

Quote :: Also, supposing the owner is the one who does this it's not like the workers would be unable to sell the products themselves.

Many can;t. It requires people skills,

It just requires people that have a need and people able to suffice that need. In the moment that you need to convince a person of getting what that person needs, then there's something fundamentally wrong with that person. Explaining to that person how that works, suggestions to use it, etc. now that's another thing and it just requires knowing well the language your share with that person and having enough knowledge of what you're providing the customer with which shouldn't be a problem considering that, as a worker you're the producer, and if you can produce that stuff you know more than enough about it.

If not sufficient, you can always have workers-salesmen.

TK wrote:: knowledge of the entirety of the system and company and product.

Which the workers, creators and the totality of the human compent of that system must have. Otherwise they would be unable to produce anything.

TK wrote:: Youc an say educate the workers all you want, but most will never care.

They'll never care about profit? About mantaining afloat the means of their subsistance? I honestly doubt it. Also, why would you imply that workers are necesarily unneducated? There are actually more educated workers than educated capitalists.

TK wrote:: INdividuals doing ti is more efficient anyway. it helps the whole of the company to get rch, workers and all.

Even if this was true, that doesn't mean that said individuals have to own all the show. It could simpy be their work if so was deemed necessary.

TK wrote:

Quote :: It's not like they rely on the owner to sell the product

That should be one of the owner's responsibilities.

Why? And among which other responsabilities? Why not the workers'? Why not then simply changing "owner" for "public relations agent"?

TK wrote:

Quote :: If the workers were not alienated from their product, they could directly sell it.

Then the owner would have no need or desire to expand their own capabilities,

Which neither is necessarily true nor means that the workers cannot expand capabilities themselves.

TK wrote:: and would rely on themselves to sell and make the product.

Which would be fairly impossible in the case of lots of products.

TK wrote:: Slow, but they make moeny off THEIR idea.

Not like this is exclusive to capitalism.

TK wrote:: IN THE PREFERABLE SYSTEM the workers would share directly in the profits, a fiar percentage, as dexlaredby the people, in other wiords the government.

Why not directly by the workers?

TK wrote:: Ad besides, why shoudl the workes be made to do MORE work? Not everyone wants to do more. Many want to do less, and so someone else does things.

What is this refering to?

TK wrote:: But the owner would still have to do something, as per law, since they can not make money for nothing, a law chosen by the people.

Sounds like something entirely unnecesary. Like teh whole "owner of the means of production" concept.

TK wrote:: And things society NEEDS would be different.

So society would stop needing food, shelter, water, electricity, entertainment, access to knowledge and such?

TK wrote:

Quote :: This euphemism again. Again, why do they need someone to manage the value of their work for them and moreover get part of this value him/herself? At best they have no choice.

Int he system I have saidf.....

Ok, now I must say that I got slightly confused by the typing. Do you mean "Isn't the system I have said"?

If so, then what's the trascendence of ownership altogether?

TK wrote:

Quote :: Which as you describe it, is the way the USSR worked, the way the USA works and the way dozens of nations work.

It's not how US works,

Up till the point where I replied, yes, that's what you had explained. A system where privately owned companies compete and are regulated by the government and where said ownership over said companies is condoned by the workers.

TK wrote:: USSR was shit,

Subjectivity irrelevant to discussion.

TK wrote:: with few freedoms

Not from what soviet people have told me. But either way irrelevant to the discussion.

TK wrote:: ]
and the constant potential of death from secret police

Another irrelevant and debatable point that, according to all the soviet people I know, is entirely an exaggeration.

TK wrote:: and a psycho leader who was iniffectual.

Put the fate of all in the hands of few and see society crumble. Either way, often these leaders' leadership was aknowledged and appointed by the government, or as you call them "the people".

TK wrote:: The USSR was not an example of what I have shown. Now at all. In addition, the USSR didn;t like owners of companies as I have shown.

They did not like owners of companies? What a nonsense! They even had a fancy club of companies' owners there named CPSU.

TK wrote:: Uh... ooking back,. I don;t think your wuote referes to a point BEFORE I get more into the whole thing, so nevermind.

Hm?

TK wrote:: But they do own it, because they live on the land with the resources,

Certainly not alone.

TK wrote:: or have the idea,

Which 1) I don't see why it would entitle them to own the means of production, 2) they can exchange or share for benefit and 3) they got from their surroundings, including of course the collective where they're found.

TK wrote:: and they allow others to share those resources where his house is

And why would those resources belong to him? Just because he's got a house near them?

TK wrote:: , or to know his idea and to share in the profits, in the preffered system.

Once shared, an idea stops factually being the property of that individual and I don't see why it would justify that the means of production belonged to him.

TK wrote:

Quote :: 1) has the final word on the way the menas of production they need to produce are to be used

Well they cannot share their idea,

Forcing them to eventually actually engage in a real trade or die without sharing it.

TK wrote:: or they can say no you can;t mine near my house.

"But I can mine near mine".

TK wrote:

Quote :: 2) that someone has to receive value at all just for owning it, let alone a higher value than the workers.

I dn;t like owners who do nothing. I like owners who work just as much, if not more, than the wokers.

1) If the owner works as much or more than a worker and for that he's entitled to receive more, then what's the pragmatic implication of his "exclusive ownership"?
2) It's a pragmatic impossibility for the owner to work proportionally as much as X amount of workers (say even 10) for which it's impossible that his value is proportional to that of X amount of workers.

TK wrote:

Quote :: Penn and Teller,

I love them mostly, I do not agree with their economic ideals. They place too much faith in company owners playing fair on their own.

Ok, my mistake to put you among their political ranks within this discussion. I also like them, while despicing their political views.

TK wrote:

Quote :: Trey Parker and Matt Stone.

I know nothing about them besides making South Park, but I assume they're libertairians like Pen and Teller. That said, you WILL respect my authoritah.

Indeed, both are libertarians, although Parker is member of the Republican party.

TK wrote:

Quote :: But again. How is US not capitalism then?

I have not said it's not. I HAVE said it;s not an evil shadow government.

Clarified above.

TK wrote:

Quote :: TK wrote:

I love government.

Serf.

Huh?

You like to be governed, thus serf.

TK wrote:

Quote :: TK wrote:

Two, in the perfect system, such things would not occurr, as I have made clear perviously,or at the very least, it would be a nominal fee, brought forth to fund the cleaning and mainting of this food/water source. NOMINAL FEE. And if one can't pay, well, loans cna be issued, IOUs, etc.

What for?

To wat are you referring?

What for having such a nominal fee or dependance on things like loans and such?

TK wrote:: Which is why things DO need to change, non violently, as I have said.

If you refer to revolution, violence starts once reaction tries to take back power, not before.

TK wrote:: And what d you mean by non-participatory? How can one not participate?

By apathetically leaving everything in the hands of politicians through indirect governmental institutions.

TK wrote:

Quote :: Supposedly, which is a pragamtic impossibility.

No it's not! It's very possible!

How?

TK wrote:: And this is what the government, by and for the people, would do!

Apparently not:

TK wrote:: But it's YOUR idea, and the worker's labour, so no, the community WOULDN'T have a say in it, besides how the workers are treated. The rules and such.

TK wrote:: Only those in the company, workers and owners, would, and funds, profits, would be dolled out by those fair and balanced rules. The owner, the inventor, can benifit from thier thing most, yes, because they came up with it.

I define "community" as "agglomeration of workers". If the workers determine what happens with the company, then, what is the owner useful for?

TK wrote:: If the people don;t like the value, they won;t buy it.

Yeah, it's not like they need it, right?

TK wrote:: This is the competition that capitalism needs t work properly.

Competition of whom with whom?

TK wrote:: So I guess te community DOES have a say.

De facto not, all they can do is deprive themselves of what they need if they don't like the price put by the company. But since they need it, they got no choice.

TK wrote:: But if it;s something that's NEEDED, like food or medicine, NO this wouldn;t happen,a s per government and rules.

Not only are needs relative and even subjective, opening the possibility to anything imaginable becoming a need, but also why have a governmental apparatus and owners determine these rules instead othe workers directly?

TK wrote:: DOn;t have it now. Fix it and it will.

You can't fix what is inherently flawed.

TK wrote:: No violence needed or endured.

Again, who talked about violence?

TK wrote:: Because it;s their freedom to own it. Freedom. As long as it does not hurt the commuity, freedom.

If this private ownership implies that the workers do not ultimately have a say on how the means of production are to be utilized, then, it does negatively affect the community as it puts too much power and the fate of many in the hands of few.

TK wrote:: That;'s where laws and rules chosen by the people come in.

Which is useless if the people directly determine how things are to be done.

TK wrote:

Quote :: Why not simply discarding the possibility that the fate of the means of production and thus the workers' be in others' hands but the workers?

Government. People.

Workers. Producers. Directly.

TK wrote:

Quote :: Seemingly most don't.

I meant that we have learn't, and so we can fix.

By preserving the same fundamentally flawed system with a couple of tweaks?

TK wrote:: Because those rpresentatives hear the people. THAT'S their job.

How, not why.

TK wrote:: Each group of people has a representative, and a group of them have a representative, and so forth, to simplify it all the way down the line so that all can be heard, without bilions needing to head to Washington every week.That's what mayors, governers, and senators are for.

In a complete excersise of futility when the workers could directly determine how the means of production they use are to be used, how much profit is earned from them, how it is distributed and what the rules of the community ought to be. In a larger scale, communities would interact through representatives the representation of whom would have to imply immediate results according to the needs of the respresented communities and so forth.

In the end, why not simply having a big union of workers where everything is determined by the members of the communities themseslves and representation only used as a means of interaction between communities to directly advance each community's interest in regards to the others?

TK wrote:

Quote :: ust for the mere virtue of being who de facto establish the rules receive both value from the whole workforce's labor and are entitled to determine the rules by which everyone should abide.

And as I have said, things do need to be fixed.But if something is broken doesn;t men you nesesarilly thrw it out, it means you try and repair it, especially if it;'s something important.

But if you need a jar and you have shredded and stained paper, you do throw it out.

TK wrote:

Quote :: In theory. In practice this person just has the faculty to run the town.

According to what the people want.

According to what the state appartus determines as what the people wants and within a legal framework imposed to the people beforehand.

TK wrote:

Quote :: Now this I can buy. The government represents the interests of the government.

Your'e not getting the purpose of the hirearchy.

I just represented its reality.

TK wrote:

Quote :: Why should someone be entitled to determine who's voice is to be heard and who's voice is not to be heard? Why should someone be entitled to the determination of the rules by which everyone has to abide?

Because it;s the people who are deciding this?

Through indirect means, I don't think so. After all it's all ultimately checked and enforced by the state.

TK wrote:: All are elected into the position, by the people's vote and wants. None go unheard. In our current they do. So fix.

And again, why requiring to choose people to decide for everyone instead of everyone deciding and determining everything directly and choosing representatives just to represent these determinations at a framework of intercation between communities?

TK wrote:

Quote :: And, how can you demonstrate that the "average" people are just "morons"?

What I meat was so those in the highest ecelons don;t have to lsiten to billions all the time. Only, say, ten. And you go down the line.

1) Why should there be highest echelons at all?
2) How can you demonstrate that these 10 represent those billions' interests instead of a condensate of several contradicting interests?

TK wrote:: Some people really are just stupid.

Fortunately, as my experience would suggest, just a minority, most of which funny enough actually form part of or have close ties with those "highest echelons" you talk about.

TK wrote:: Many by choice, getting by on looks or physical talent.

This doesn't necessrily mean they're stupid. In fact, it could mean the opposite. I've got several friends that are models and they form about 50% of the most intelligent women I know. And I used to think the same way.

TK wrote:: You know who I'm talking about, or I jope you do.

Yup, but it's not a rule.

TK wrote:: I HATE people like this. THen again, I was fat in school, so it;s easy to tell my feelings....

I undertsand your point, but again, that doesn't mean they're necesarily idiots.

TK wrote:

Quote :: How are individuals that compose the state anymore capable than the whole people to determine the fate of people?

Because its sheer numbers.

How is this a valid explanation?

TK wrote:: And again, why should we destroy the whole thing when it can be fixed?

Because it inherently doesn't work, it occupies too much space and we can't move it somewhere else.

TK wrote:

Quote :: 1. This demonstrates, at least partially, the pragmatical impossibility of a state to represent the people.

No it doesn;t with proper checs and balances, as well as legalities.

There's no more efficient of people having their way than directly determining it themselves. Using a state apparatus ultimately gaves de facto the power of determining everything to a small group. It grants the faculty to this group to determine everything for all. That's all this representation does.
It's inefficient and intrinsicly flawed.

TK wrote:: And if a polititian is found to be doing this,

Doing what?

TK wrote:: legally they would e arrested, or they would not be voted into office next time, as per the will of the people.

How is this any more efficient to represent the people's interests than the people directly determining how things are to work?

TK wrote:: And that company would at theleast face harsh penalties, aswell as possibly deconstruction, or a redoing of the personell, since such a thing would also be done by the workers.

Huh?

TK wrote:

Quote :: 2. This demonstrates as well to some extent that these individuals are no more capable than the average worker to run the whoe community.

Which is why I think there should be a minimum IQ, among other things besides what we have, to be able to run for office.

So not only do we have to accept someone determining and eforcing policies, now we also have to leave it all to those that start with better material conditions. As you may know, the IQ test is valid so long as the one that takes it is in optimum physical conditions. How do you determine that from among all the population?

And not only that, in which way does a high IQ guarantee an efficient managerial performance or the actual capability to have the needs of the people enforced? And how is that, again, any more efficient than people determining everything directly themselves?

TK wrote:

Quote :: And how does that guarantee the people being represented?

It doesn;t inherently, but it means a higher chance of it. But I did not say I liked the system we have now.

Then?

TK wrote:

Quote :: What do you exactly mean with this and why is it relevant to the discussion?

By that I meant that the company run counry you guys think have occured, or t least is what I gather, has not happened. Those representatives who are bought are still competing, keeping things fairer and cheaper and workers happier than if not. But I don;t like this system as we have it now.

The interaction of or relationship between capitalists with/and states can occur in different ways:
1) As an ally who simply protects the interests of capitalists.
2) As a frirndly competitor that tries to interfere the least with the interests of capitalists.
3) As a neutral competitor that tries to pacify workers as much as possible.
4) As a hostile competitor that claims to represent the interest of the workers and as such sets policies that are more convenient to the workers.
5) As a substitute.

However, ultimately all imply that there will be an upper class ruling over a lower class that is exploited by the former. And ultimately, as such, all is done in the interest of these uppeer classes ultimately, these governing classes for they search to pacify the workers through paliatives doing all they can to prevent workers from directly taking over from mere dissuation through paliatives to outright repression or merely a combination of both.

TK wrote:

Quote :: Meaning what?

Meaning in the system they would be treated differently, because they are not need things by the populace Food would be treated differently than computers, for example.

Why not? Both are needs and are products of labor.

TK wrote:: But workers don;t normally wnat to do this, to have to sell their own product. Often it requires skills one may not have, like people skills, and it's just more work, and most don;t wnat to do more.

1) Again, people need things and search for them. Workers provide them.
2) If producers do not want to dedicate to sell tehir produce, there can always be groups of salesmen and distributors or even groups of workers specially dedicated to offering this service.

TK wrote:: And all I was doing was giving examples of what the owner COULD do.

Things anyone else could perform.

TK wrote:

Quote :: Management departments usually assume this work. A work that is just necessary given the current bureaucratic framework.

Paperwork also helps keep track of product,

Industrial engineering, management.

TK wrote:: for legl purposes,

Unnecesary bureaucracy.

TK wrote:: health and safety, etc.

Engineers and medical staff.

TK wrote:: And again, only an example of a possibility.

Of the many jobs that either can be performed by workers or that are not necesary at all.

TK wrote:

Quote :: In which case, ownership apart, his work would simply be of more value than that of the average worker, thus receiving a greater reward.

Precicely.

Thus being another worker, a high performace worker instead of the owner.

TK wrote:: Or at the least doing SOMETHING.

Certainly not for singing or spending the night at the workplace sleeping, right? If for work, then, being a worker.

TK wrote:: As for getting that tad more, well, think iof it as the reward given to the owner for their idea, their invention,

And again, it's not even necesarily true that the owner came up with the idea.

TK wrote:: and giving people the possibiliy to work.

Workers: Engineers and miners. How does the lack of an owner impossibilitate them from exploiting a mine? Civilian engineers and masons: how is the lack of an exclusive owner an obstacle for them to build houses?

TK wrote:: That sounds crass, but I can;t think of another way t put it. And besides, all that is moot if the peole, the gvernment, decide there will be none of that, making it that one owns but ets no extra, so that it simple akes it easier to coordinate things.

Which is why we socialists advocate for workers directly determining everything directly.

TK wrote:

Quote :: Yes or no, make up your mind. The second sentence clearly counters the first.

Its that he started the company, not that he owns the property. I don;t know how to explain this....

So now he doesn't own the property, he just started it. All by himself? Or he just had the idea? And if so, then he doesn't own the factory, he owns it together with the other 100 workers and has exactly the same level of authority as them with the exception that he had the idea and it was agreed between him and the workers that he'd receive a tad more of the value for coming up with the idea and even more if he participates as a developer of said idea?

If so, it's not called capitalism, it's called socialism.

TK wrote:

Quote :

TK wrote:: THAT is fair. Other people taking THAT person's work from them for their OWN greed, ISN'T fair.

Therefore, capitalists are intrinsically not fair.

That's not what I'm saying. If you comeup with the idea, others saying you can;t benifit isn;t fair.

And who said it was?

TK wrote:: This has nothing t do with inheritence, THIS is starting. Ad besides, I'm open to ideas for my suposed fixing of the system. Not like I;ve spent a lot of time figuring this.

I have a fix: socialism.

TK wrote:

Quote :: What could be more fair that the producers actually getting and managing the entirety of the value they produce?

Because most dont WANT to do all that.

I hope you agree that this is not the proper way to reply to a "What could...?" question.

Also, how does that make an owner necesary?

TK wrote:: I uderstand what you're saying, but it;s actally more efficient to have poeple who do this,

Even if real it could simply be management and distribution-focused workers. Not owners. Workers that abide to the consensus' reached with the remainder of the workforce.

TK wrote:: as well asto simplify things so hundreds of workers aren't out there hawking their wares. That would get cofusing, and would hurt each worker's potential to make money and thus live a betetr life, one one earned.

If they had to go and sell it themselves, the product would have a greater value. However, there are dozens of ways this problem could be solved and none of them requires an owner.

TK wrote:

Quote :: And this is inherent to capitalism.

Potentially, but not if it is to properly function, as this undermines competition, which is what capitalism requires.

How can it not be inherent to capitalism when companies require to constantly grow not to stagnate?

Subject: Re: Seriously Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:26 pm

First, fuck you Zealot and your epic posts.

Quote :: Capitalism is inherently flawed.

Based on what? Is communism perfect? No? Then it is inherently flawed, so what's your point? And yes, you have said it is flawed, simply that it's better. Well that's still flawed, and your opinion that it's better.

Quote :: I mean that their property rights entitle them to ultimately determine what is to be done with their property.

If there's ammine under your house, or a factor in your backyard, why should you not decide what is done with it?

"That's a managerial action at best that can be performed directly by the workers. An owner is entirely unnecesary and particularily in the case of one entitled to determine the incomes of others and the workplace's policies actually problematic.
" It was one of many examples, please stop saying it;s unesesarry. Yes the workers can do it, but as I have said, most poeple don;t want to do even more work themselves. It makes the owner a worker themself. PLEASE try to get that. Property rights would only be there to properly handle, well, properties.

Quote :: 1) Not necessarily.
2) Not the majority of the work and definitely not by themselves in most cases.

There is as they have no choice given that the means of production are owned by someone else and this ownership is protected by the state.

More like condoned by the government and delusionally, apathetically and due to fear not avoided by the workers due in large part to cultural and intellectual hegemony.

Now, do they cooperate? Sure, in matters such as the preservation of their stupid game of mutual destruction for profit that implies misery and costs the lives of many.

Why just be content with "being treated well" (by a master) when they can be teh masters of their own fate?

etc, etc, etc

STOP giving CURRENT systems. THAT IS NOT WHAT I AM SUGGESTING.

Quote :: they are entitled to receive a portion of all the workers' labor

As are all other workers.

Quote :: I did, I just don't find it as a viable explanation. The workers do not govern in such a scenario, they simply, at best, plea for better conditions while necessarily acknowledging someone else's rule over them and legitimizing it through indirect representation.

You are NOT getting it, you are NOT understaning it. It IS direct representation, they are not "pleading," or any of that.

Quote :: Have you thought of the reason for why you can't put it other way?

Because I'm actually not that great with trying to find words to my thoughts?

Quote :: In the end , the whole economy rests in the hands of the capitalists and the state leaving the fate of the whole working class in the hands of a few

I HATE YOU! FUCKING TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT I HAVE SAID!

Quote :: If the capitalists act for greed, the state will regulate them, but then if the state regulates them they may well lose interest in their entrepeneurship and then the enterprises will simply fall forcing the state to absorb them and keep them working and then it will be the state who will have to deal with the burden of acting as a capitalist.

The system would be designed to prevent this in the first place, GET IT THOGUH YOUR HEAD. ACTUALLY LISTEN TO WHAT I'VE SAID, I DON:T CARE ABOUT CURRENT SYSTEMS THAT I DON'T LIKE OR AGREE WITH.

Quote :: Nope, just not convincing

Neither is communism to me. What's to stop all the producers of one product from getting together and wanting something for it? And then determining HOW MUCH of that thing they get? What? An angry mob? THAT'S your utopia?

Quote :: where the worker breaks his back to enhance someone else's wealth at his own expense.

Shared percentage, very liekly the powple would decide it to be equal, all I've said is I'm in favour of the owner getting a tiny ammount more, but the people might decide differently, does not say to me that another becomes rich at their expence. but if that person has the idea, why shouldn;t they get a bitmore? I know not all people have ideas, that they simply own, but please try to get what I;ve been saying all throughout this, for fuck's sake....

Quote :: Another notable difference is that in teh case of wage slavery

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/percentage How many times have I said fair by the government by the people?

Quote :: Why should an individual be entitled to determine this value?

Because it;s thier idea, their invention, or under their house or somesuch. if the people determine it to be too much, then that person s either forced to lower their price, or accept only a small number of large payments. If it;s the value of the workers labour you're talking about YOUR'E IGNORING WHAT I'VE SAID ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT.

Quote :: What?! When did I say or even imply this?

You guys are ALWAYS implying this, ALL the time.

Quote :: I've just said that all companies belong to a class, which is an undeniable truth. Not to a single group of conspirators or something of the sort.

You're actually the first on this site to say that, beleive it or not, at least from what I'VE read. it's always "the evil capitalists." "All slavery." You guys constantly make it seems like capitalists are fat guys sitting in oak chairs with red velvet in a high rise office, monicle in their eye, smoking a cigar, surrounded by bags of money. You;ve never said THAT, no, but you always make it seem like you think capitalists, all capitalists, are that sterotypical picture. With how you all talk about capitalism, you really do.

Quote :: Through a quasi-religious mentality of workers and a strong enough state.

A sate controlled by the populace, the community, of which the workers are a part of!

Quote :: I know of none of our comrades that has traditionally held a more life-respecting posture than Wei. From all of us, it has seemed to me that he's the least violent of us. And more recently Alek.

That's why I said "or". I couldn't recall which of you it was. Sorry for not making that clearer.

Quote :: When, during the revolution, there are capitalists and statesmen that will promote reaction, thus giving a start to violence. During revolutionary war, if said capitalists and statesmen are eager to fight till the last breath for the preservation of their system, then they might die during combat. I believe that such a slogan is adressed to that sort of capitalists and statesmen, the sort that knows the implications of their condition and is not only willing not to relinquish power in goodwill, but to die holding on to it.

And this is what I ahte most about your system. it will only come about through violence in your ways, so I HOPE you loose.

Quote :: What is reasonable to assume is that regardless of whether the revolution is initially non-violent, it will be met with a violent reaction leading to an armed conflict.

Which I have never ehard anyone here give any desre, or thought, to either preventing this or avoiding it. Simply accepting it, and sometimes wanting it.

Quote :: I don;t know how.... I wouldn't be someone to take charge of that. But jut ecause "I" don;'t have any ideas doesn''t mean it can't happen.

I should rephrase: How is that possible?

I kinda say it right there.

Quote :: value of the labor, the rules by which they'll produce and the fact that neither their produce nor the means to produce belong to them.

I agree, and thus my system....

Quote :: Which is not quite relevant since what is being attacked is essentially the existance of the condition of these people as slave masters.

Ad I have attempted to explain to you my preferred form of capitalism where thye are not slave masters at all, in any sence od the word.

Quote :: As much as a slave fearing for his life would have traded his freedom for his life.

Sure, but as I say, it IS a trade. I siply disagree that it;s slavery, since it;s a trade of services for funds. I only disagree with your terminology here, because it is anything but, especially in the current system. One can go on welfare often permanently, evn if qualified. They're enslaved to noone. Those that choose to make more by working are not enslaved either, since they choose it, and with uniions that work properly, can determine much, ad all that. If the company does not give a proper wage for the labour, allowing the workers to benefit from their own production then they may quit and go to a company that WILL pay them, or force the first company to give them what is desired. uitting, striking, etc. This however does not always work, as the system IS broken right now.

Quote :: So either you accept to have your freedom determined by the state and a social class, risk yourself to a deplorable life or have your freedom forcefully taken away by the state and that class.

Yes, so let's fix.

Quote :: You need to have the resources and a lot of luck and hope that bigger competitors don't put you between their crosshairs. Try getting the former two.

Uh huh. Your point? One can still suceed. I did say luck. I never said it's done right.

Quote :: Besides, currently many businesses start or even live on bank loans, which means that de facto even capitalists are working for other capitalists who harness capital.

Starting a business wiht a loan is good. It;s how the money lenders make money, becasue it gets payed backl. If it doesn;t, maybe that company has bad workers, bad management, or is being outdone,. Its a gamble, one that's currently not done right.

Quote :: capitalism inherently requires a wealthy minority that owns the means of production while exploiting teh working masses.

Not nesesarilyl if everything is done right. There may be a rich minority, but not exploitation, and the majority can, if they themselves obtain the means, which if done right can be entirely possible, join that group. A great desire to do more, to better one's self in the goal of attaining that wealth. And yes, i know the current system prents that most of the time. But what have I said about that?

Quote :: Yup, that's why me and my comrades advocate for revolution and denounce apathy.

Ad what I'M suggesting is NOT fighting a violent war, and don;t say it';ll only be violent if they strike fiirst because there's equal chance your side would. and instead, but fixing what's wrong with the current system.

Quote :: I can think of plenty of reasons, one of them being the solution of problems faced by society that affect all the members of society and that can only be feasible through collective labor

Not enough reason for some. So what are you going to do? Force it? Many may think that they're fine as they are, and are willing to take the hit not spreading their idea would have.

Quote :: Another as an exchange for greater value as determined by all the members of the comunity while acquiring higher respect and recognition for the invention

And if the community demand it be free? Respect and recognition are cheap, and fade quickly.

Quote :: Another to acquire a status of a "developer worker", a worker that may receive more value than the rest for contributing to the improvement of that solution.

Which is a good way of describing precicely what I have been describing.

Quote :: Most researchers come up with invetions and solutions to problems not out of the desire to own companies, but with the intention to actually solve them, sometimes even out of sheer love for science, research and overall knowledge. As for sharing it, some may even share it out of frustration for ignorance and inability of the community to solve a problem.

Not all, and what of them?

Quote :: You said that just because they owned they were entitled "to a tad more".

I mispoke. Sorry, i do that alot. I always find it difficult to put words to my thoughts.

Quote :: Nope, I mean the entire policies of the company.

Like?

Quote :: And who is entitled to determine what is fair if not solely the workers?

It would be the workers. All workera, al over, in the government, without having to tear the whole thing down, liekly violently. Hell, from my system, communism would be a likely, eventual, peaceful outcome, without the need for blood, which WOULD hapen. Some company ownig a security force and attacking a communist rally, a radical communist who gets fed up or impatiant and bombs a company building, who knows.

Quote :: It means that workers cannot use your means of production without your consent and without submiting to your policies leaving them with no choice but to work for you if they want to produce.

Or go to another that does things in a way the workers prefer, thus forcing the first to change their policies.

Quote :: And, in the case of ownership over the land, they even have to have someone's consent to actually inhabit a certain territory.

But that would be changed in the system I have said. There wouldnt be "unclaimed land", as I call it. I knwo it;s an oxymoron, since the land IS claimed, but it's just smething I;ve always said. DOn;t know why. Anyway, land to inabit would be doled out by the people, by the government, and not by an owner. The PEOPLE would own the land, which would be preferable. If something turns up on the land givent o you, under your house, guess what? it;s yours. Since most mines are large, there would be more than one owner. Now, I suggest that for fairness, noone should be allowed to settle on that resource deposit afterward. There's loits of other room. Or t the least, be allowed to settle but not own that land. And that mine may be exploited, as long as none of the others living there are disturbed. The community benifits from the mine, the resource, without being disrurbed, and the owner profits. What would likely happen is all the owners share it all, they are both workers and owners, and all become rich.

Quote :: Except that it is inherently flawed.

Those flaws can be fixed.

Quote :: And why are they entitled to do so?

I adressed this before in my previous posts.

Quote :: And how can it be in the workers' best interests when it's being acknowledged that the workers do not own the means through which they produce? That they necesarily have to surrender their produce to an owner who determines the entirety of the policies of the enterprise and the value of the product?

Because most people are unable to do these tasks, because they just do not have the mindset for it. Please try to grasp what I'm saying about what an owner would be, as well as that such things would be maintained to prevent abuse.

Quote :: This acknowledgement represented in the form of what precisely?

By not stealing the idea, or what is on one;s land, their house. By letting one get credit in a way that actually benifits them. As I said, respect and awknowlegement are cheap and vanish pretyt quickly. Especially the former.

Quote :: That if the owners don't like government's rules no one gets to work and the economy plumets or falls into the hands of the state?

That if they don;t liek the rules, they go to jail for breaking the law. True, they can continue to not let people work there, but ehre are other companies that will instead comply. And besides, if an entire communitie's survival relies on one specific thing, like one guy's idea, then things were handled very badly there by the poele in the first place, which would happen anyway in commuism as well. And if there's more than one owner, as in say a mine under say many properties, it's most liekly that most would be willign to comply.

Quote :: So the government begins to determine a lot

Is ther an issue with the poeple saying all wrkers should get, say, 10% of all profits, adjusted by number of workers, while the owner gets 10.0001%?

Quote :: Not necessarily. For an instance a good enough amount of those that have been wealthy have been so due the original usurpation of wealth and/or lands perpetrated by the ruling class. This has derived in their heir or those connected to them to develop more, have more access to knowledge and so on meaning that the priviledged condition that allowed them to come up with that invention was originally product of usurpation.

But they would not be able to profit as much as they do now, nor take advantage, since the owner would always also be doing things, even if inhereted.

Quote :: For example, the means of production in agriculture are fertile lands where X plant grows and the tools to make X plant grow within controled or at least somewhat controled circumstances with the goal of sufficing societal needs of that plant.

Mines and the equipment used for their exploitation are also means of production. Factories and the machinery inside them are means of production. And so on.

There would preferably be a difference between nesesarry resources, like food and iron, and unesesarry, like some other things that are minned.

Quote :: Yup, but this is inherent to capitalism.

Not nesesarrily.

Quote :: Which the workers, creators and the totality of the human compent of that system must have. Otherwise they would be unable to produce anything.

No.A line worker doesn;t know how every stage of the car is made, nesesarilly.

Quote :: They'll never care about profit? About mantaining afloat the means of their subsistance? I honestly doubt it.

Not if they can manage to get another to do so forthem so they don;t have to bother trying to understand. Many don't care how it works, and don;t know, because they make it and get paid and that's that.

Quote :: There are actually more educated workers than educated capitalists.

You realise that the workers are capitalists too, right?

Quote :: Even if this was true, that doesn't mean that said individuals have to own all the show. It could simpy be their work if so was deemed necessary.

But they own the show because of other reasons.

Quote :: Which neither is necessarily true nor means that the workers cannot expand capabilities themselves.

If all the workers dont want to work for the owner, then how could they expand themselves if the owner decides to kee thing ssmall wihtout workers, thus making those workers not exist?

Quote :: Which would be fairly impossible in the case of lots of products.

So there wouldn't BE lots.

Quote :: Not like this is exclusive to capitalism.

And?

Quote :: Why not directly by the workers?

The. Workers. Everywhere. Would. Be. The. Government.

Quote :: What is this refering to?

You saying why can;t the workers do this.Someone else does it, and the owner is one of them. What, just because they own means thay can;t work? To the contrary, they MUST work.

Quote :: So society would stop needing food, shelter, water, electricity, entertainment, access to knowledge and such?

Pretty sure I made it clear that needs would be handels differently. forget one word, and THIS time I say it it must mean something entirely different. I meant things society NEEDS would be HANDLED differently. You said "The jobs exist because society needs what those workers produce," and so I said that what society needs would be different, as in handled differently, as I stated in a previous post.

Quote :: Isn't the system I have said"?

No. ""In the system I have said...." It was me repeating it once again, as I have continued t do since then.

Quote :: Not from what soviet people have told me.

Yes becasue suporters of a system are to be wholly beleived. It;s like a Nazi saying the Jews were liked. And don;t read anything into that, pleas,e just try to ge what I;'m saying....

Quote :: according to all the soviet people I know, is entirely an exaggeration.

Yes, ebcause supporters of the system don;t have their own agendas, and couldn;t possibly have been the few lucky ones and such.

Quote :: Put the fate of all in the hands of few and see society crumble. Either way, often these leaders' leadership was aknowledged and appointed by the government, or as you call them "the people".

And these are the people you want regulating themselves in communism? And you say capitalism has flaws....

Quote :: And why would those resources belong to him? Just because he's got a house near them?

Fine, mine AROUND the house then. ALL the houses.

Quote :: Once shared, an idea stops factually being the property of that individual and I don't see why it would justify that the means of production belonged to him.

So if he's unable to benifit, why share it at all?

Quote :: Forcing them to eventually actually engage in a real trade or die without sharing it.

Yep. Many would, if not most. I'ts been my observation, at least.

Quote :: "But I can mine near mine".

Go ahead. Effiency goes out the window.

Quote :: What for having such a nominal fee

Cleaning the lake? Maintanance?

Quote :: If you refer to revolution, violence starts once reaction tries to take back power, not before.

Hope you rememebr that when a psycho communist bombs somthing "to show they're serious" or something. You're convinced your side will be entirely peaceful unless provoked, but you don;t know how wrong you are.

Quote :: By apathetically leaving everything in the hands of politicians through indirect governmental institutions.

As I have said, it would be direct. I have explained it, all voices would be ehard. You just don;t want t grasp what I've said.

Quote :: TK wrote:

Quote:
Supposedly, which is a pragamtic impossibility.

No it's not! It's very possible!

How?

I don;t even rememebr what this was about, and there's too much to go through.

Quote :: Apparently not:

TK wrote:

But it's YOUR idea, and the worker's labour, so no, the community WOULDN'T have a say in it, besides how the workers are treated. The rules and such.

That's not what I meant.... (Sigh.) Screw it, I don;t care enough. Not likt typing this on a random forum's gonna do anything. I;m not going to try to hunt down quote after quote to clarify what I mean.

Quote :: Competition of whom with whom?

OTHER COMPANIES. If the people don;t like the value, they won;t buy and will instead buy from another who gives the same product but has a betetr value. Competition is one of the basic tenants of capitalism.

Quote :: Not only are needs relative and even subjective, opening the possibility to anything imaginable becoming a need, but also why have a governmental apparatus and owners determine these rules instead othe workers directly?

Yes, because an X-box xan have the same need as food. Yep. Sure can.

Quote :: You can't fix what is inherently flawed.

Yes you can.

Quote :: Workers. Producers. Directly.

Asking. For. Capitalism. If. They. All. Get. Together. It's. Happened.

Quote :: By preserving the same fundamentally flawed system with a couple of tweaks?

By repairing it and making it better.

Quote :: How, not why.

A community leader hears those in his communty, and all them bring the info to a mayor, who has ten leaders. The mayor brings it to their governer, who hears about ten mayors. They bring it to a senator, who hears ten. Thay all get a say, without those who know HOW to impliment it all having to listen to a billion people.

Quote :: In a larger scale, communities would interact through representatives the representation of whom would have to imply immediate results according to the needs of the respresented communities and so forth.

THIS is exactly what I;ve been saying, but you have continued to say you don;t get it several times! You keep asking why are they needed, and yet you obviously get why.

Quote :: But if you need a jar and you have shredded and stained paper, you do throw it out.

What?

Quote :: According to what the state appartus determines as what the people wants and within a legal framework imposed to the people beforehand.

TK wrote:

Quote:
Now this I can buy. The government represents the interests of the government.

Your'e not getting the purpose of the hirearchy.

I just represented its reality.

No... no you didn't....

Quote :: And again, why requiring to choose people to decide for everyone instead of everyone deciding and determining everything directly and choosing representatives just to represent these determinations at a framework of intercation between communities?

Again, saying it down here, but not up above....

Quote :: I've got several friends that are models and they form about 50% of the most intelligent women I know.

Believe it or not, they're not th majority.

Quote :: Because it inherently doesn't work, it occupies too much space and we can't move it somewhere else.

No it doesn;t inherently not work.

Quote :: Doing what?

There was supposed to be something about lobbying and such.... I don;t know why it didn;t type in.

Quote :: So not only do we have to accept someone determining and eforcing policies, now we also have to leave it all to those that start with better material conditions. As you may know, the IQ test is valid so long as the one that takes it is in optimum physical conditions. How do you determine that from among all the population?

What I meant is that ony those who are at a certain level of inteligence, period. Who CAN handle it. Yes, this means some who appen to be born without cna not. But too bad. Cops require a minimum height. Why shold they prevent those of lesser hight due to state of birth from becoming an officer? Because one needs the capabilities.

Quote :: Then?

Then what?

Quote :: And again, it's not even necesarily true that the owner came up with the idea.

Then this might be dealt with differently, if the idea wasn't thought of by the owner. Use your imagination that doesn;t involve overthrowing government and putting everyone in danger of both sides.

Quote :: I have a fix: socialism.

You have a fix: Overthrowing the government and all companies, both sides provoking until one starts violence first. And this is my main issue with your system, and why I hope you guys fail, and fail badly.

Quote :: I hope you agree that this is not the proper way to reply to a "What could...?" question.

In case yolu ahven't noticed, I have a lot to get through, so I don;t care in the slightest if my answer is phrased corrrectly to the question type.

Quote :: If they had to go and sell it themselves, the product would have a greater value

How do you thinkt hat?

Quote :: How can it not be inherent to capitalism when companies require to constantly grow not to stagnate?

I can;t recall what is supposed ot be innehrent here.

Now, I know I skipped a lot, but I flet I adressed most already.

Subject: Re: Seriously Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:21 am

Tyrong Kojy wrote:: First, fuck you Zealot and your epic posts.

They've taken their toll on me. Likely I will stop.

Tyrong wrote:

Quote :: Capitalism is inherently flawed.

Based on what?

It's inherently flawed for the following reasons:

1. It's based on the premise that a minority should determine both the way the means of production required by all the society should work, what goals should it fulfill and that said minority is entitled to receive surplus value from the means of production, obviously at the workers expense.

This implies that 1) the workers do not have a say on how the means of production are to be run, 2) that the workers do not determine the value of their labor nor receive the entirety of it, 3) that the produce of the workers does not belong to the workers and 4) that majorities are subject to whatever is determined by these minorities, which allows for these minorities to act in behalf of their own interests.
In all honesty I believe that the concept of having to rely in good leaders for social advancement is rather archaic and has proven itself inefficient in every single system that can be thought of.

2. It's based on the premise that companies should never stop growing as their sole or at least main objective, instead of being that of sufficing societal needs, is that of providing the owner(s) with profit. If consumption was to be satisfied, the company would stop having income and it would go bankrupt directly affecting the workers, which, having no say and being linked to the consumers of their product just very indirectly, have no choice but to face the consequences.

3. As you've put it so far, the whole system relies on a series of decisions made by the owners of the companies as regulated by the government, which in turn is another minority of individuals with the faculty to determine everyone else's fate. So it's merely decisions taken by a small group of individuals that are battling against each other under the rules set by another small group of individuals which claim to represent absolutely everyone just for being elected through completely undirect centralized mechanisms.
How can the continously changing needs of millions of ever-evolving individuals be effectively represented by such apparatuses? How can the continuously changing conditions be coped up effectively by such a system? And how is this any more efficient than the self-governance of the community?

TK wrote:: Is communism perfect?

For the purpose of allowing who is affected by his/her material conditions and the interaction with his peers to actually have a say on what is to happen, on how the means he/she requires to suffice his needs and provide the society with his/her labor and assume complete responsability of his actions rather that leaving everything in the hands of few, yes it is.

TK wrote:: No? Then it is inherently flawed, so what's your point? And yes, you have said it is flawed, simply that it's better. Well that's still flawed, and your opinion that it's better.

Communism, as a system, is not flawed as it leaves everything in the hands of all the members of the community that apply it. If economy and society are deemed flawed or are inefficient, it's not commnism what is failing but the organizational scheme employed by the community.

In the case of capitalism, the simple requirement of everyone to rely on decisions made by minorities, in half arbitrarily determined by the course of history and in half determined by indirect choice forces most of the community to absorb the consequences of the decisions of few, to organize in ways determined by these few and to even shield these few in the event of critical situations, the fact that the workers ultimately don't have a say on what happens with what they require for labor, the fact that the whole workforce is not coordinated to suffice societal needs and instead is coordinated in groups that struggle merely to increase a certain capitalist's wealth, is what is flawed intrinsicly with capitalism.

TK wrote:

Quote :: I mean that their property rights entitle them to ultimately determine what is to be done with their property.

If there's ammine under your house, or a factor in your backyard, why should you not decide what is done with it?

Now we changed the mine from "close" to "under". In the case of socialism, you wouldn't be coerced into surrendering it, but, the whole workforce could decide not to trade with you if you don't let that mine be exploited. You'd be obligued to provide society with something other than sleeping over gold if you want to interact with the community. And this is just one of the many possible scenarios.

If there's a factory in your backyard, then the question is... how did it get there in the first place?

TK wrote:: It was one of many examples, please stop saying it;s unesesarry.

I know it was just an example. All I'm saying is that no one needs to be an owner for that to be done.

TK wrote:: Yes the workers can do it, but as I have said, most poeple don;t want to do even more work themselves.

Believe me, the dream of many workers is to work for themselves, deciding together with the rest of workers how their workplaces is to be managed would be the concretion of this dream and not only that, it would imply that everyone that every single rule applied there is agreed to by the everyone in there. And definitely, it's not even much of a work.

But even if it was necesary, there could be a workers' composed management section which nonetheless would be subject to the rules imposed through consensus by everyone.

TK wrote:: It makes the owner a worker themself. PLEASE try to get that.

With the unnecesary faculty of "owner".

TK wrote:: Property rights would only be there to properly handle, well, properties.

Don't you think workers would want to properly handle their property, determine the value of their work and receive the totality of what they determine their labor is worth?

Quote :: STOP giving CURRENT systems. THAT IS NOT WHAT I AM SUGGESTING.

If you're not suggesting a system where means of production are privetly owned by individuals under rules applied by the government, then I haven't understood what you're refering to.

TK wrote:

Quote :: they are entitled to receive a portion of all the workers' labor

As are all other workers.

Except it's not as determined by all of them.

TK wrote:: You are NOT getting it, you are NOT understaning it. It IS direct representation, they are not "pleading," or any of that.

Representation, by definition is indirect. Why would the workers need to choose a representative to make decisions for them when they could simply determine everything directly at their workplace and localities and just choose representatives to interact with other such localities?

TK wrote:

Quote :: Have you thought of the reason for why you can't put it other way?

Because I'm actually not that great with trying to find words to my thoughts?

Then you dissapoint me. I'm not gonna buy your books =( (JK, I must acknowledge this was an unnecesary and rather silly question)

TK wrote:

Quote :: In the end , the whole economy rests in the hands of the capitalists and the state leaving the fate of the whole working class in the hands of a few

I HATE YOU! FUCKING TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT I HAVE SAID!

You have said that workers (people) choose other people to make decisions for them so they can set rules by which everyone, including the capitalists, have to abide. Haven't you?

TK wrote:: The system would be designed to prevent this in the first place,

And how do you prevent it from happening? And how is it anymore efficient that simply leaving everything directly in the hands of the workers?

TK wrote:: GET IT THOGUH YOUR HEAD. ACTUALLY LISTEN TO WHAT I'VE SAID, I DON:T CARE ABOUT CURRENT SYSTEMS THAT I DON'T LIKE OR AGREE WITH.

We've already had Keynesianism, a tweak of which is what you're seemingly proposing. It didn't work. You can regulate capitalism all you want, but the fact remains that most work for few and this eventually takes its toll on the economy and overall social structure.

TK wrote:

Quote :: Nope, just not convincing

Neither is communism to me. What's to stop all the producers of one product from getting together and wanting something for it?

Something like what? And why wouldn't they want something for their produce? It's simply logical. The whole premise of communism is that producers produce and exchange their produce under rules set together with the other producers.

Pretty much like the relationships that exist right now between the capitalists that own iron ore mines, the capitalists that own coal mines, the capitalists that own limestone mines and the capitalists that own steel factories. Just substitute "capitalists" for "workers". Instead of the characteristics of deals being determined by owners and the rules by which they have to abide according to the state (which aside from all you can always trick) and the deal cut between owners, everything is determined by the workers and the deal is cut as well between them.

Also, I wasn't saying that your proposed system does not convince me, I was saying that your arguement that it is not slavery was not convincing to me, arguing that, essentially what you propose is slavery in the disguise of a system where workers (supposedly) have the possbility to determine (indirectly, ergo not them but representatives) the rules by which they live and work.

TK wrote:: And then determining HOW MUCH of that thing they get? What? An angry mob? THAT'S your utopia?

Why an angry mob? What kind of workers have you got in Canada? Or what conception of workers have you got and why?

Last I checked, at least in the parts of USA, Russia, Mexico and the parts of Europe I've been to, workers are normal people like you and me, capable of communication and reaching agreements.

TK wrote:

Quote :: where the worker breaks his back to enhance someone else's wealth at his own expense.

Shared percentage, very liekly the powple would decide it to be equal,

The people or the state? And stop saying they're the same thing because they're not. One is the group of workers and the other is a bunch of representatives chosen by part of a group of workers and capitalists to make decisions for everyone.

If the people, then why not determining it themselves directly? And if so, it's socialism, in other words, communism.

If the state, then why not a state composed of workers' councils that serves as a mechanism of interation among different groups of workers?

TK wrote:: all I've said is I'm in favour of the owner getting a tiny ammount more, but the people might decide differently, does not say to me that another becomes rich at their expence.

And why would the people decide differently? In the case he does nothing, for obvious reasons, in the case he does less valuable work for he doing less work and in the case he works more than the average worker, certainly he should be entitled to more than average incomes. But, then why would they decide to keep him as the owner instead of making everyone owners that work there profiting in accordance to their effort and contribution to the workplace?

TK wrote:: but if that person has the idea, why shouldn;t they get a bitmore?

Because maybe the concretion of that idea is considered of more value by the workers than the idea itself. But, then I already adressed this point.

TK wrote:: I know not all people have ideas, that they simply own, but please try to get what I;ve been saying all throughout this, for fuck's sake....

I get it, it's just that why should ownership be exclusive to the "traditional owner" instead of all the workforce rewards being determined by everyone in accordance to each individual's performance and contribution and under rules determined by themselves?

I'm sure many would find it reasonable to give the guy with the ideas not only credit but also extra value and more if he keeps commig up with more ideas. But then what prevents the rest of the workes from having equally worthy or even worthier ideas and applying them to their full extent? Nothing but private and exclusive ownership.

TK wrote:

Quote :: Another notable difference is that in teh case of wage slavery

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/percentage How many times have I said fair by the government by the people?

Perhaps twice the amount I've said "people and state are two different things".

TK wrote:

Quote :: Why should an individual be entitled to determine this value?

Because it;s thier idea, their invention,

And its concretion is possible due to the workers' labor. Besides let's be honest here. How many things today are products of the owners' ideas? Buildings can be and/or are entirely envisioned and built by workers, the same happens with cars, machinery, methods to exploit natural resources... In reality how is this arguement appliable anymore?

And again, abovementioned arguements.

TK wrote:: or under their house or somesuch.

Point adressed in the previous post.

TK wrote:: if the people determine it to be too much, then that person s either forced to lower their price, or accept only a small number of large payments.

What if the people determine that he's entitled to nothing because he's producing nothing and he's just preventing people from doing something?

TK wrote:: If it;s the value of the workers labour you're talking about YOUR'E IGNORING WHAT I'VE SAID ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT.

Nope, I have not ignored it and that's demonstrated by me saying "then you propose a small minority to determine everything for the workers". The problem is that you confuse "people" with "government". Else, as a side note your system's functionality seems to be reliant on some sort of incorruptibility within the state machinery. Don't you think it's slightly naive to expect that? In my view it's as naive as the Leninist notion that a revolutionary goverment will prepare workers to take control of the means of production themselves.

Now, if I grant to both your system and some forms of Leninism that its not impossible to have a non-corrupt leadership, then I take Leninism anytime: It's a similar state structure where 1)the workers can have an actually more direct representation through councils and 2)initiative is actually praised by the government and as such rewarded accordingly and it's designed to eventually establish socialism, granting the workers complete control over their fate, which would happen if the leadership was not to be corrupt.

If we're to go by the idea that leaders are necessary and deserve special positions and that this is workable why not choose a system that allows this leadership to be part of the workforce, being directly ditermined by the workers and that is actively coordinated with the rest of the workforce to determine policies and teh value of work?

Pragmatic impossibilities aside, that is.

TK wrote:

Quote :: What?! When did I say or even imply this?

You guys are ALWAYS implying this, ALL the time.

Surely not, but, let's check this below.

TK wrote:: You're actually the first on this site to say that, beleive it or not, at least from what I'VE read.

From what you've read, I believe it, from what I've read nope. I hope they come and clarify this and quote themselves.

TK wrote:: it's always "the evil capitalists."

In regards to Wei you don't even have to go to another thread, among the first 10 posts of this thread, I believe, there is a clarification in regards to this. As for other of my comrades, the same posture is held however expressed differently.

Would you mind quoting some?

TK wrote:: "All slavery."

The existance of that class does imply that there's a lower class that is conformed by those who serve to the former, in the form of what we call "wage slavery".

TK wrote:: You guys constantly make it seems like capitalists are fat guys sitting in oak chairs with red velvet in a high rise office, monicle in their eye, smoking a cigar, surrounded by bags of money.You;ve never said THAT, no, but you always make it seem like you think capitalists, all capitalists, are that sterotypical picture. With how you all talk about capitalism, you really do.

That's so out of fashion... It'd be mostly true if we were in the XIX century but nowadays they prefer the money not in bags but bank accounts and the stock market, many follow "healthy trends" and don't even smoke and do as much excersise and have as healthy diets as their material conditions allow them aside from having top quality medical and cosmetic services.

But seriously, it's a fact that all capitalists do much less than the entire workforce working for them (and it's pragmatically impossible to do more than them), that often capitalists don't even work (yup the kind you hate as we're talking about what exists right now) at the workplaces that provide them with income, that the condition of capitalist in no way benefits anyone else but the capitalist and that in the vast majority of cases it's not even justified by the "I came up with the idea" premise the validity of which nonetheless must be assesed employing historical materialism, and that even inspite of all this, they still earn far more than any worker that works for them for they take a fraction of the value of the labor of the entire workforce and that they're entitled to manage and use at will the means by which all the workers produce to suffice their needs.

Are there philantropic capitalists? Yes, there are and many have good intentions (other just search for tax deduction), but their charity wouldn't be required if there was no poverty in the first place, poverty tat is product of some being entitled to rule and own most wealth. Are there capitalists that are not ill intentioned and just search to improve their living? Yes there are and no one blames them for not being aware of the implications of their condition and blaming them would just be against the tenets of socialism and the scientific methods it's based on. Are there capitalists that believe they're actually doing something good for humanity? Yes there are, and again, no one blames them for not being aware of the inherent implications of their condition. Are there capitalists that are aware about the implications of their condition and that do not give a damn about the harm they cause? Yes, and often it's true that these are lobbyists that support states or try to get state support to advance their interests, and it's often true that these are usually involved with propaganda campaings and mass manipulation, and that purely for strategic purposes they hide their actions with smokescreens like philantropy, charity and such. Yes all the above scenaries are true.

As a matter of fact, and I've well read both WWW and BC making references to this, a good enough amount of the first socialists, the utopic socialists were capitalists. They were capitalists that had the intention to prepare the working class to take control of the means of production themselves thus relinquish ownership to them and become workers with no inherent priviledge and that believed in the good will of other capitalists to do the same.

As a matter of fact, a great amount of socialists theorists and revolutionaires have precisely come from within the capitalist class, myself included.

And, specifically talking about revolution, once achieved those that were capitalists simply stop being capitalist both by the definition of capitalist and by the pragmatic implications of revolution, so there's not even a way to "prosecute capitalists" after revolution, leaving aside the fact that it's nonsensical.

TK wrote:: A sate controlled by the populace, the community, of which the workers are a part of!

Finally a more accurate description of the state.

The state, or as you euphemistically like to call it "the people", is composed by representatives chosen by both social classes, the bourgeoisie (or capitalists) and the proletariat (or workers).

This means that these representatives will negociate among each other to set rules that they deem beneficial for both classes. This already is a problem because it's not direct and there's nothing being determined by community directly thus certainly not by the workers, but it goes beyond.

These rules product of a consensus between the members of a small group of representatives chosen by small and definitely not proportional parts of each class, determined by the state have to be followed by everyone. It's already a determination of the representatives, not of the community, but also, it leaves room for the possibility of one class to gain ground over the other in different and fluctuating proportions. This means that not only is this an indirect system where the ones ultimately affected by these rules do not have a say on the determination of the rules, just the representatives chosen by part of them, this also means that those that already have a priviledged possition may actually use the state to keep or even improve and protect it which is pretty plausible given the larger resources these people manage, the greater access to communication channels and overall the greater freedom they enjoy in comparison to those that work for them.

And, this is when we come up with the concept of "bourgeoise state", which originated from bourgeoise revolutions like that of USA in the mid 1770s, the French Revolution, the massive amount of revolutions here in Latin America and Europe and even the February Revolution in Russia (and de facto also the October Revolution).

A state impulsed by the bourgeoisie (people) for the bourgeoisie (people). The populist version of this paradigm is a state for the workers by the workers who punishes the bourgeoisie while keeping it for the workers' convenience and the Leninist version and its distorsions (Stalinism, Maoism, Castrism) and so on is a workers' state for the workers' that abolishes the bourgeoisie and takes control itself. Another cute version is Titoism where the state controls most of the economy selfproclaimedly by and for the workers, for workers' benefits but lets certain degree of private entrepeneurship with regulations by the state (your proposal being seemingly some sort of middle point between this, Chavez's ideas, Keynesianism and the Nordic states' systems).

A condition in which the states, after the monarchies, are traditionally bourgeoise has been inherited for centuries and not only that, the bourgeoisie, for a plethora of reasons ranging from greed to simple fear have traditionally used their massive resources to keep the state in its role of protector of the bourgeoisie and they still do. When not in the interest of the bourgeoisie, some states simply substitute the bourgeoise either partially or completely. And if in the interest of workers, well we've seen what happens and what is happening with such cases. The fact remains that one class rules and is a minority and another class is ruled and is a majority, and the fact remains that a minority cannot decide effectively for a majority and that the majority faces potential dangers when leaving all in hands of such minorities.

TK wrote:

Quote :: I know of none of our comrades that has traditionally held a more life-respecting posture than Wei. From all of us, it has seemed to me that he's the least violent of us. And more recently Alek.

That's why I said "or". I couldn't recall which of you it was. Sorry for not making that clearer.

It's ok, I think the point is clear now.

TK wrote:: And this is what I ahte most about your system. it will only come about through violence in your ways, so I HOPE you loose.

I think we're simply not clear enough.

Suppose you have a factory. One day all workers stop working for you, they have coordinated together with the remainder of the workforce to distribute the product of their labor according to their rules. They have decided to not care at all about the political system. They've decided to breach several laws and to produce for themselves.

So, since that they on money loses its value, workers refuse to provide service to non-workers and they disacknowledge what used to be their bosses' authority.

The revolution has started and so far not even a single cheek is bruised. The revolution is a non-violent de facto taking over of the economy and the whole infrastructure by those who provide it in the first place.

Obviously both capitalists and statesmen won't approve of this and most of them won't be eager to negociate with them, that is, to become themselves part of the workforce. They want back what they believe belongs to them. They gather their police force, they gather their clubs and violence is ensued. Violence is started by them and whoever who loyaly serves to them.

Workers won't surrender their earnings and this unilateral act of violence will be replied with Violence as well and battle will start.

It won't be us who will start the violent, it will be those who want to force us into their rules who will.

TK wrote:

Quote :: What is reasonable to assume is that regardless of whether the revolution is initially non-violent, it will be met with a violent reaction leading to an armed conflict.

Which I have never ehard anyone here give any desre, or thought, to either preventing this or avoiding it. Simply accepting it, and sometimes wanting it.

You should have or you never read Stos who, as a De Leonist, pretty much advocated using the state itself as one of the many tools towards revolution. Taking over the state through its own means and using it to establish socialism by the immediate dissolution of the state and the organizing of workers' Unions.

Else, how do you avoid someone from taking a force-based initiative against an action of yours he doesn't approve of?

I've heard several of my comrades be disgusted by violence and death, particularily Wei, Stos, Alek and BC, and most of us want to avoid it, but we know that the reaction will use violence against us because there's no other way they can take back what they'll lose.

TK wrote:

Quote :: I don;t know how.... I wouldn't be someone to take charge of that. But jut ecause "I" don;'t have any ideas doesn''t mean it can't happen.

I should rephrase: How is that possible?

I kinda say it right there.

Ok, partially adressed above, to continue being adressed throughout.

TK wrote:

Quote :: value of the labor, the rules by which they'll produce and the fact that neither their produce nor the means to produce belong to them.

I agree, and thus my system....

Which is the same but with more regulation, as I said pretty reminiscent of other forms of capitalism and prone to the same flaws as them.

TK wrote:

Quote :: Which is not quite relevant since what is being attacked is essentially the existance of the condition of these people as slave masters.

Ad I have attempted to explain to you my preferred form of capitalism where thye are not slave masters at all, in any sence od the word.

Then, again, what's the implication of their condition of owners if not that of ultimately ruling over the means of production they own both through the direct determination of policies within the enterprise and indirectly through their representatives within the state?

TK wrote:

Quote :: As much as a slave fearing for his life would have traded his freedom for his life.

Sure, but as I say, it IS a trade. I siply disagree that it;s slavery, since it;s a trade of services for funds. I only disagree with your terminology here, because it is anything but, especially in the current system.

Funds that come precisely from the workers' labor and that merely by virtue of ownership belong to the capitalist. Regardless of how much he may work, and we already agreed that this is not necessarily true, the fact remains that the capitalist does not and cannot produce even slightlyas much as the entire workforce thus the funds used to pay the workers come from the workers themselves, not from the owner's labor, if any.
So one would think, why would the workers need the owner to give them their value while tacking a fraction of it?

TK wrote:: One can go on welfare often permanently, evn if qualified.

And where does the money for welfare come from? Yup, from value generated by workers.

TK wrote:: They're enslaved to noone.

To the state and the owners who are who determine how things are run. Yes, also within the system you propose.

TK wrote:: Those that choose to make more by working are not enslaved either, since they choose it,

Except they cannot choose but to work for someone else.

TK wrote:: and with uniions that work properly, can determine much, ad all that.

Now we're talking.

With Unions that work properly they can determine not much, they can determine ALL. Why would they reasonably stop at "much" when they can determine all being the second option far more convenient to them?

TK wrote:: If the company does not give a proper wage for the labour, allowing the workers to benefit from their own production then they may quit and go to a company that WILL pay them, or force the first company to give them what is desired.

Why relying on the company when they are who generate that pay in the first place? Why not determining it all?

TK wrote:: uitting, striking, etc.

Steps towards revolution.

TK wrote:: This however does not always work, as the system IS broken right now.

Because it is inherently broken. What's reasonable about paying someone to pay you? The worker generates the value a fraction of which is given to him and other to the owner, oh and through taxation to the state. What for? Why not merely producing and getting the whole? It's not like the other two parasites are necessary or justified.

TK wrote:

Quote :: So either you accept to have your freedom determined by the state and a social class, risk yourself to a deplorable life or have your freedom forcefully taken away by the state and that class.

Yes, so let's fix.

Yeah, by abolishing the system that inherently implies this condition.

TK wrote:

Quote :: You need to have the resources and a lot of luck and hope that bigger competitors don't put you between their crosshairs. Try getting the former two.

Uh huh. Your point? One can still suceed. I did say luck. I never said it's done right.

One, two maybe 10,000, maybe a million, not all, not 50% not even 20% necesitating an inversely proportional amount of "losers" regardless of effort put. This is a system in which everyone can break his back as much as possible and either way most be losers regardless of their efforts and personal capabilities. A disorganized system that does not fulfill the needs of society, that keeps everyone battling in a race for belonging to the ruling class while enriching this ruling class. And yes, also in Tyrong's tweaked capitalism.

How would workers reasonably subject themselves to such a system when they all can be winners? When they can get the totality of their labor's value without intermediating leeches? When they can determine all policies?

TK wrote:: Starting a business wiht a loan is good. It;s how the money lenders make money, becasue it gets payed backl. If it doesn;t, maybe that company has bad workers, bad management, or is being outdone,. Its a gamble, one that's currently not done right.

An unnecesary gamble that unavoidably implies social disorganization, class struggles and resentment, plutocracy and oligorcracy, regardless of regulations. An unnecessary gamble product of the workers having to gift the value of their labor to both he bourgeoisie and the state.

TK wrote:: Not nesesarilyl if everything is done right.

Really? So the state and the capitalists do not thrive on the workers' labor, right?

TK wrote:: There may be a rich minority,

Also in socialism so long as the workers determine it so. For example highly valued scientists, artists and so on. But it's determined directly by the workers. And here's where there's no exploitation, it's the workers determining directly that the value of said individuals' labor is high enough for them to provide them in proportion to said value.

TK wrote:: but not exploitation, and the majority can, if they themselves obtain the means, which if done right can be entirely possible, join that group.

What.

"If they themselves obtain the means"... what is this supposed to mean? If I understand it as "obtain the means of production" in which case, the system is called socialism.

Subject: Re: Seriously Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:22 am

TK wrote:: A great desire to do more, to better one's self in the goal of attaining that wealth.

And what better way than owning the means of production for that? That's why we advocate for socialism.

TK wrote:: And yes, i know the current system prents that most of the time. But what have I said about that?

That you have a solution that implies doing the same with more regulation.

TK wrote:: Ad what I'M suggesting is NOT fighting a violent war, and don;t say it';ll only be violent if they strike fiirst because there's equal chance your side would.

There's not an equal chance my side would strike first for the simple reason that it's counter productive. It gives absolutely no benefit to strike first, it's a waste of time, resources and life and it's not even necessary, in fact there's no one to attack. All we do is simply take the means of production and done. If the reactionaries want to take them back, then, there's where bloodshed will ensue, being just deffensively from our part.

TK wrote:: and instead, but fixing what's wrong with the current system.

And the problem is that the system is inherently wrong for all the reasons I've mentioned.

There's no need for the workers to pay for some guys to tell them how to do things they know how to do and what for to do.

TK wrote:: Not enough reason for some.

If they affect all members of society, by extension it affects them, and if only feasible through collective effort if they want that problem solved they depend on the remainder of the workers.

And again, it's not like they can't benefit from their idea.

TK wrote:: So what are you going to do? Force it?

Nope. Read above.

TK wrote:: Many may think that they're fine as they are, and are willing to take the hit not spreading their idea would have.

Then good for them. Fortunately they're a shrinking minority, specially among capitalists.

And again, it's not like they can't benefit from their idea.

TK wrote:: And if the community demand it be free?

Why would they reasonably want it so if they don't give things for free? And in that case, the inventor doesn't give it. And we're supposing the inventor or the one who came up with the idea is actually providing with something already prior to his idea, making him a worker.

[quote="TK]
Respect and recognition are cheap, and fade quickly.[/quote]

Neither this is true nor is it true for the opposite nor its it quite relevant as per the above arguements.

And again, the inevtor can profit from his idea.

Also, it's like if workers as a group could not come up with ideas to improve their performance and make overall their lives more comfortable and efficient, specially in a system that provides equal and maximum development opportunities for all.

TK wrote:

Quote :: Another to acquire a status of a "developer worker", a worker that may receive more value than the rest for contributing to the improvement of that solution.

Which is a good way of describing precicely what I have been describing.

Which is a worker, not an exclusive owner.

TK wrote:

Quote :: Most researchers come up with invetions and solutions to problems not out of the desire to own companies, but with the intention to actually solve them, sometimes even out of sheer love for science, research and overall knowledge. As for sharing it, some may even share it out of frustration for ignorance and inability of the community to solve a problem.

Not all, and what of them?

Read above. Plus the best researchers have not done it for profit, which is actually indicator of a bright future.

And if to exchange knowledges they want to be able to own the means of production exclusively, then too bad for them. They better invent something that makes them autarchic individuals.

TK wrote:

Quote :: You said that just because they owned they were entitled "to a tad more".

I mispoke. Sorry, i do that alot. I always find it difficult to put words to my thoughts.

So no money for owning?

TK wrote:

Quote :: Nope, I mean the entire policies of the company.

Like?

Working schedule, methods of production, amount of value to which everyone is entitled given their work, purpose of production, conditions to work, characteristics of the workplace, norms of interaction among workers, value of the product.

TK wrote:

It would be the workers. All workera, al over, in the government, without having to tear the whole thing down, liekly violently.[/quote]
Either it's the workers or the government as you described it. Both are mutually exclusive.

And again, why violently? And why would the government be necessary?

TK wrote:: Hell, from my system, communism would be a likely, eventual, peaceful outcome,

And with this I have to agree. You do propose a kind of capitalism that would probably put less obstacles in the development of the workers and the possibility of them to coordinate and that, seemingly, is based on the premise of no-repression.

TK wrote:: without the need for blood, which WOULD hapen.

As I explained above, this is not necessarily true.

TK wrote:: Some company ownig a security force and attacking a communist rally,

Which would be fault of the company and its security force.

TK wrote:: a radical communist who gets fed up or impatiant and bombs a company building,

For a completely improductive outcome contrary to the tenets of communism making that individual not a communist. Thus that person wouldn't be within the workers' struggle. In fact it'd be more likely Hitler-style set-up by the ruling class to justify a first strike on the communist movement.

TK wrote:: who knows.

In some cases, we all do.

TK wrote:: Or go to another that does things in a way the workers prefer, thus forcing the first to change their policies.

In a complete excersise in futility when the workers can simply take over both companies and have them working on their rules.

TK wrote:: But that would be changed in the system I have said. There wouldnt be "unclaimed land", as I call it. I knwo it;s an oxymoron, since the land IS claimed, but it's just smething I;ve always said. DOn;t know why.

It's ok, I get what you mean.

TK wrote:: Anyway, land to inabit would be doled out by the people, by the government, and not by an owner. The PEOPLE would own the land, which would be preferable.

And we go back to the inherent problems with the state.

TK wrote:: If something turns up on the land givent o you, under your house, guess what? it;s yours. Since most mines are large, there would be more than one owner. Now, I suggest that for fairness, noone should be allowed to settle on that resource deposit afterward. There's loits of other room.

And this makes sense to me just as a way to compensate for requiring the inhabitant to move in order to start exploitation which, in socialism, woudl be done without making that person exclusive owner.

TK wrote:: Or t the least, be allowed to settle but not own that land. And that mine may be exploited, as long as none of the others living there are disturbed. The community benifits from the mine, the resource, without being disrurbed, and the owner profits. What would likely happen is all the owners share it all, they are both workers and owners, and all become rich.

Make all the people that work at the mine owners, and you've got socialism.

TK wrote:

Quote :: Except that it is inherently flawed.

Those flaws can be fixed.

Indirect representation? The workers having to pay to others just for being paid by them?

TK wrote:

Quote :: And why are they entitled to do so?

I adressed this before in my previous posts.

And so far no arguement has been sound enough.

TK wrote:: Because most people are unable to do these tasks, because they just do not have the mindset for it. Please try to grasp what I'm saying about what an owner would be, as well as that such things would be maintained to prevent abuse.

So now the argument becomes that the workers are simply incapable of determining what to do, how, why and what for. In what kind of place do you live Tyrong? Are you sure you live among humans because with these talks of angry mobs and incapability to determine things as simple as norms within the workplace you're making me wonder about the kind of workers you know of.

Also, if that's teh arguement, as they're incapable of determining the rules under which they're to interact within their workplace, thus by extension within their own homes and within the community, how does their choice o representatives become valid? They don't know how they want things to work, they don't have the capability to propose rules and much less to achieve a consensus from those proposals so, how can they know whether a guy can make them or not for them? How can they know whom to choose? And how can they actually agree to rules even imposed to them if they don't even understand what rules are? (Because if they understood what a rule is and what it is for, they could actually be able to propose rules based on what they need and they could agree or disagree with others' proposals making them able to reach consensus and thus norms of interaction)

Doesn't make much sense to me Tyrong.

TK wrote:

Quote :: This acknowledgement represented in the form of what precisely?

By not stealing the idea,

This stealing being representable in what? In the reproduction of the idea?

TK wrote:: or what is on one;s land, their house.

By the principle of no coercion of socialism I don't see this happening within it.

TK wrote:: By letting one get credit in a way that actually benifits them.

Which does not necessarily mean that the one who came up with the idea should own exclusively the means of production.

TK wrote:: As I said, respect and awknowlegement are cheap and vanish pretyt quickly. Especially the former.

Not necessarily. Also, not quite relevant.

TK wrote:: That if they don;t liek the rules, they go to jail for breaking the law.

I didn't say violating them though.

TK wrote:: True, they can continue to not let people work there, but ehre are other companies that will instead comply.

What if no entrepeneur is satisfied?

TK wrote:: And besides, if an entire communitie's survival relies on one specific thing, like one guy's idea, then things were handled very badly there by the poele in the first place, which would happen anyway in commuism as well.

I mean the entire capitalist class not a single capitalist. Besides things actually depend on the workers which is why they should take over the means of production.

TK wrote:: And if there's more than one owner, as in say a mine under say many properties, it's most liekly that most would be willign to comply.

However not necessarily.

TK wrote:

Quote :: So the government begins to determine a lot

Is ther an issue with the poeple saying all wrkers should get, say, 10% of all profits, adjusted by number of workers, while the owner gets 10.0001%?

Yes if "the people" are not the workers who have the amount of value they ought to receive determined by "the people" and if this means that the owners do not ultimately control the means of production. And the issue is that the workers ought to determine the value of their work and how much each of them is entitled to receive.

TK wrote:: But they would not be able to profit as much as they do now, nor take advantage, since the owner would always also be doing things, even if inhereted.

Making the condition of exclusive owner thus pragmatically irrelevant.

TK wrote:: There would preferably be a difference between nesesarry resources, like food and iron, and unesesarry, like some other things that are minned.

There I was simply elaborating on what I mean by "means of production".

As for differetiating between unexpendable reasources and such, this already sounds to me like something that could be applied either within a socialist or a capitalist framework - scientific and rationalist management of resources.

TK wrote:

Quote :: Yup, but this is inherent to capitalism.

Not nesesarrily.

For example, a guy has oil for it was found below his house.
Doesn't he have to receive profit simply for letting oil be extracted? What else would he have to do?

And do you mean doing things like paperwork with the government? (Something absolutely innecesary) Or perhaps bargaining for better prices for material? (Something that can be done by workers)

TK wrote:

Quote :: Which the workers, creators and the totality of the human compent of that system must have. Otherwise they would be unable to produce anything.

No.A line worker doesn;t know how every stage of the car is made, nesesarilly.

And most owners of General Motors have probably less of an idea than the line worker. But, happens that the workers are also Engineers who know exactly how every single part of the car is made and always work on improving the designs and so on. Thus the workers are who know how to do things. They're the creators and they know how to make their creation.

Or for example, the concrete production company my mother and uncle are partial owners of. Out of 7 owners just three know how it is done while a greater amount of workers that work for them know how it is actually done.

TK wrote:

Quote :: They'll never care about profit? About mantaining afloat the means of their subsistance? I honestly doubt it.

Not if they can manage to get another to do so forthem

Which, if required could simply be a "logistics'" or "sales'" worker, not necessarily an owner.

TK wrote:: so they don;t have to bother trying to understand.

To understand what? How the product works and is done? In most cases they actually do - Pharmaceutical labs, for example, don't you think the workers there know how drugs are made and what they're for and so have the capability to distribute them? Again car production companies the engineers know how to make cars. Buildings both engineers and workers know what they're doing and both are people with needs for homes so as well they should know what they want, thus know what others may want.

TK wrote:: Many don't care how it works, and don;t know, because they make it and get paid and that's that.

Again, worker is not limited to "line worker".

TK wrote:

Quote :: There are actually more educated workers than educated capitalists.

You realise that the workers are capitalists too, right?

Given the definition of "capitalist" no. If someone owns the means of production, he's a capitalist, if he doesn't and just works then he's a worker.

"Capitalist" is not political point of view, it's a condition product of the individuals relationship to the means of production.

For example CKX's parents, as far as I know, own no business thus are workers. That means CKX comes from a working class family.Yet he's ideologically a supporter of capitalism so CKX is a member of the working class that supports capitalism. While I'm a capitalist because I indirectly own companies, yet I support communism so I'm comunist.

CKX is a supporter of capitalism that is not a capitalist.
I'm a capitalist that supports communism and so I'm communist.

Basically a worker that supports capitalism is identical to a serf that supports monarchy. He's not a monarch, but still supports monarchy (for some weird reason).

TK wrote:

Quote :: Even if this was true, that doesn't mean that said individuals have to own all the show. It could simpy be their work if so was deemed necessary.

But they own the show because of other reasons.

I can't believe I actually wrote "own the show"... I must have been quite drowzy...

Reasons of which validity that have been analysed extensively above and implying an ownership of which implications apparently are not that relevant.

TK wrote:: If all the workers dont want to work for the owner, then how could they expand themselves if the owner decides to kee thing ssmall wihtout workers, thus making those workers not exist?

Pretty simple - they go to the wokplace and start using it for their convenience.

TK wrote:

Quote :: Which would be fairly impossible in the case of lots of products.

So there wouldn't BE lots.

Lets see... there would be food, there would be computers, there would be buildings, cars, telephones, internet, machinery, tools, books... hey I can't actually think of something the workers can't do themselves.

Hoever I can think on shitloads of things capitalists can't do on their own - cars, buildings, telecom systems, electricity provision systems, machinery.. almost nothing.

TK wrote:

Quote :: Not like this is exclusive to capitalism.

And?

And thus irrelevant as an arguement for capitalism because it's as possible in other systems.

TK wrote:

Quote :: Why not directly by the workers?

The. Workers. Everywhere. Would. Be. The. Government.

I thought you meant that the government was a group of representatives chosen by groups within both the workers and the capitalists.

In that case, if the workers are the government, thus who determine the rules, then you got something that is not called capitalism. It's called socialism.

TK wrote:

Quote :: What is this refering to?

You saying why can;t the workers do this.Someone else does it, and the owner is one of them. What, just because they own means thay can;t work? To the contrary, they MUST work.

Since the workers can and it's more convenient for them to do it, I don't see the need to have an owner.

TK wrote:

Quote :: So society would stop needing food, shelter, water, electricity, entertainment, access to knowledge and such?

Pretty sure I made it clear that needs would be handels differently. forget one word, and THIS time I say it it must mean something entirely different. I meant things society NEEDS would be HANDLED differently. You said "The jobs exist because society needs what those workers produce," and so I said that what society needs would be different, as in handled differently, as I stated in a previous post.

Which then adds up to nothing really.

TK wrote:

Quote :: Not from what soviet people have told me.

Yes becasue suporters of a system are to be wholly beleived.

This equals to me saying "Yes because detractors of a system should be believed". Of course if you fuck up with a system and are hostile to it you'll receive hostility from its part.

Except they're not supporters. They say they live as well today as they used to live within the USSR except for some things that one system lacked that the other has. They say that the western portrayal of the situation in the USSR in no way is even close to the truth and that the detractors of the Soviet system merely exaggerate how things were in a cry for attention. And honestly, I do believe that the way USSR is portrayed in the west is exaggerated as much as the way Russia is portrayed by many is an exaggeration and aor a bunch of lies and distortions far from reality.

For example, from little details like calling the USSR "communist" whereas it was known by the soviet citizens that the USSR was "socialist" and even given the official name of the USSR what existed wwas the Leninist conception of "socialism", "communism" being a goal to reach in the future. In fact, soviet leaders rarely even spoke aboout "communism", rather speaking of "socialism". And this without taking into account the real meaning as per etymology of both terms. From things like these, to teh ridiculous accusations by detractors that the Soviet regime killed somewhere around 100 million inhabitants ina country with less than 190 million.

But well, that's another topic.

TK wrote:: It;s like a Nazi saying the Jews were liked. And don;t read anything into that, pleas,e just try to ge what I;'m saying....

[/quote]
Excer there are massive amounts of evidence to support otherwise while in the case of the USSR evidence supports the opposite of your claim.

TK wrote:

Quote :: according to all the soviet people I know, is entirely an exaggeration.

Yes, ebcause supporters of the system don;t have their own agendas, and couldn;t possibly have been the few lucky ones and such.

Considering that they're not supporters of the Soviet regime and are rather apathetic towards it one being an historian dedicated entirely to research on soviet and Russian history and currently writing a book precisely on such topics, people that belonged to the military, doctors and engineers and just usual workers with no particular ties to the regime and did not form part of the CPSU, and being from entirely different areas within the USSR, from different conditions I do take their word for valid.

Those that were repressed were people that engaged in activities against the regime or not approved by the regime, not the general population.

For example, a notable repressed group were homosexuals. Even 3 years after the collapse of USSR, it was illegal to be homosexual in Russia. But, if we're going to get into such problems of discrimination, I'm yet to know non-communist Russians that do not hate or despise homosexuals, aside from those that are homosexual themselves. Reflecting that more than a state-originated problem, there's a widespread rejection of such group in Russia. Something, by the way, the Bolsheviks tried to reverse.

But again, this is another topic.

TK wrote:

Quote :: Put the fate of all in the hands of few and see society crumble. Either way, often these leaders' leadership was aknowledged and appointed by the government, or as you call them "the people".

And these are the people you want regulating themselves in communism? And you say capitalism has flaws....

I said "government" not "workers". My point was that the Soviet government for most of its existance was as legitimate as any western government.

TK wrote:

Quote :: Once shared, an idea stops factually being the property of that individual and I don't see why it would justify that the means of production belonged to him.

So if he's unable to benifit, why share it at all?

Who talked about no-benefit? Is it perhaps that receiving a higher value for his contribution does not count as benefit?

TK wrote:

Quote :: Forcing them to eventually actually engage in a real trade or die without sharing it.

Yep. Many would, if not most. I'ts been my observation, at least.

Observation from where? Have you seen such a scenary?

TK wrote:

Quote :: What for having such a nominal fee

Cleaning the lake? Maintanance?[/qote]

But the workers that depend on the lake would do it because they need the lake.

TK wrote:

Quote :: If you refer to revolution, violence starts once reaction tries to take back power, not before.

Hope you rememebr that when a psycho communist bombs somthing "to show they're serious" or something. You're convinced your side will be entirely peaceful unless provoked, but you don;t know how wrong you are.

Except that there's no point in bombing things. You need them, you take them. You don't need anyone to take you seriously, you and your comrades are who matter, it's like the capitalists didn't even exist.

Just go to the workplace and take it over. No need to do anything else.

TK wrote:

Quote :: By apathetically leaving everything in the hands of politicians through indirect governmental institutions.

As I have said, it would be direct. I have explained it, all voices would be ehard. You just don;t want t grasp what I've said.

You're talking about representatives that make policies, is that not right? If so, then it's indirect.

TK wrote:

Quote :: Competition of whom with whom?

OTHER COMPANIES. If the people don;t like the value, they won;t buy and will instead buy from another who gives the same product but has a betetr value. Competition is one of the basic tenants of capitalism.

Which is useful to the society because?

TK wrote:

Yes, because an X-box xan have the same need as food. Yep. Sure can.

No, because a person in order to be fulfilled may need both.

TK wrote:

Quote :: You can't fix what is inherently flawed.

Yes you can.

Yes, if you nulify its essence, thus destroying it.

TK wrote:

Quote :: Workers. Producers. Directly.

Asking. For. Capitalism. If. They. All. Get. Together. It's. Happened.

What I meant, either it's the workers or the government who determine things, or the government are the workers in which case its socialism.

TK wrote:

Quote :: By preserving the same fundamentally flawed system with a couple of tweaks?

By repairing it and making it better.

Keeping nonetheless its fundamental flaws, which have been explained already.

TK wrote:

Quote :: How, not why.

A community leader hears those in his communty, and all them bring the info to a mayor, who has ten leaders. The mayor brings it to their governer, who hears about ten mayors. They bring it to a senator, who hears ten. Thay all get a say, without those who know HOW to impliment it all having to listen to a billion people.

So let's see it's a pyramid of 1,000 bureaucrats for the entire population. Not only seems insufficient, how is it any more efficient than the workers determining every rule at their community and then having representatives exclusiely to interact with other communities?

TK wrote:

Quote :: In a larger scale, communities would interact through representatives the representation of whom would have to imply immediate results according to the needs of the respresented communities and so forth.

THIS is exactly what I;ve been saying, but you have continued to say you don;t get it several times! You keep asking why are they needed, and yet you obviously get why.

Except the representatives I talk about have no say in determining any law or rule nor have the faculty to enforce them. They're merely some sort of ambassador if you will.

TK wrote:

Quote :: But if you need a jar and you have shredded and stained paper, you do throw it out.

What?

What I wanted to say is that you don't have a broken thing to be repaired, wat we have is a thing that fundamentally does not benefit the people.

TK wrote:: Your'e not getting the purpose of the hirearchy.

I just represented its reality.

No... no you didn't....[/quote]

You say that the people chooses representatives right? And these representatives get to form the government, isn't that right? Ther representatives are who make and enforce the laws? Isn't that right? If so then it means that the people do not determine the rules, they just choose who determines them.

If not, then are people the ones who make the rules through consensus and then choose representatives who enforce these laws? If so how is this method more efficient than the workes simply enforcing the rules determined by themselves and using representatives merely to intercat with other communities through the interaction with which rules of interaction would be again determined by all the workers involved and merely expressed by representatives (ambassadors)?

Quote :: And again, why requiring to choose people to decide for everyone instead of everyone deciding and determining everything directly and choosing representatives just to represent these determinations at a framework of intercation between communities?

Again, saying it down here, but not up above....

TK wrote:

Quote :: I've got several friends that are models and they form about 50% of the most intelligent women I know.

Believe it or not, they're not th majority.

Because the majority of people are too materially and thus dialectically limited.
Besides my point is that these people are not necessarily stupid.

TK wrote:

Quote :: Because it inherently doesn't work, it occupies too much space and we can't move it somewhere else.

No it doesn;t inherently not work.

To establish a free and effective condition where there's no exploitation, it indeed does not work.

TK wrote:: What I meant is that ony those who are at a certain level of inteligence, period. Who CAN handle it.

Intelligence is one of the most difficult things to determine. Aside from teh fact that since there are not equal material conditions it's simply impossible for intelligence to be assesed correctly. So actually, it would end up implying that someone from within priviledged conditions would end up governing.

TK wrote:

Quote :: And again, it's not even necesarily true that the owner came up with the idea.

Then this might be dealt with differently, if the idea wasn't thought of by the owner. Use your imagination that doesn;t involve overthrowing government and putting everyone in danger of both sides.

If it implies danger, it's not due to my idea but due to the reaction, as I've said already.

TK wrote:

Quote :: I have a fix: socialism.

You have a fix: Overthrowing the government and all companies, both sides provoking until one starts violence first. And this is my main issue with your system, and why I hope you guys fail, and fail badly.

The one who strikes first is the one to blame. Who starts the violence is the culprit, not otherwise. Since there's no benefit through violence to our side, it'd be senseless for our side to start it. "I won't recognize your 'right' to rule over me just because you say so and I won't stop eating just because we disagree. I'll simply work without you profiting any more".

TK wrote:

Quote :: I hope you agree that this is not the proper way to reply to a "What could...?" question.

In case yolu ahven't noticed, I have a lot to get through, so I don;t care in the slightest if my answer is phrased corrrectly to the question type.

Which is a problem since it doesn't allow for communication to take place properly.

TK wrote:

Quote :: If they had to go and sell it themselves, the product would have a greater value

How do you thinkt hat?

More work more value.

TK wrote:

Quote :: How can it not be inherent to capitalism when companies require to constantly grow not to stagnate?

I can;t recall what is supposed ot be innehrent here.

The stuff about greed and such.

TK wrote:: Now, I know I skipped a lot, but I flet I adressed most already.

I tried not to skip, but I did skip a bit without missing the main idea.

Subject: Re: Seriously Wed Nov 25, 2009 9:21 pm

Quote :: They've taken their toll on me. Likely I will stop.

Making TWO POSTS says otherwise....

Quote :: 1. It's based on the premise that a minority should determine both the way the means of production required by all the society should work, what goals should it fulfill and that said minority is entitled to receive surplus value from the means of production, obviously at the workers expense.

THat's not a "flaw" per say. Just it's way. I don't think that counts as a flaw.

Quote :: 3) that the produce of the workers does not belong to the workers

See, because the workers are getting a ercentage in the for of their paycheck, it kinda does. THey can't decide what's DONE with it, but it's still theirs, if you get what I'm saying.

Quote :: 4) that majorities are subject to whatever is determined by these minorities, which allows for these minorities to act in behalf of their own interests.

I have no idea what you mean by this, it makes no sence to me.

Quote :: In all honesty I believe that the concept of having to rely in good leaders for social advancement is rather archaic and has proven itself inefficient in every single system that can be thought of.

Personally I don;t think a system where everyone literally votes, per person, on everything would be more effective. You can never know how a decision will turn out until it does.

Quote :: 2. It's based on the premise that companies should never stop growing as their sole or at least main objective, instead of being that of sufficing societal needs, is that of providing the owner(s) with profit.

I agree with this entirely, and they should be held responsible to this. Their first mission SHOULD be society. It should be required by law.

Quote :: If consumption was to be satisfied, the company would stop having income

What do you mean by satisfying consumption? If by that you mean everyone getting what theyneed, like say everyone who wants an xbox getting one, I disagree. Replacements for broken units, some want multiple ones, etc. Besides, tat's why you make new products. And for the games industry specifically, they aways loose money on consoles, and make it up with games and peripherals. And we know that they always come out with new games.

Quote :: 3. As you've put it so far, the whole system relies on a series of decisions made by the owners of the companies as regulated by the government, which in turn is another minority of individuals with the faculty to determine everyone else's fate.

But as I';ve put it so far, every office would be elected by the people, all the way up, chosen BY the peopel to be able to even run. It would be a minority of individuals, but the people would have their ear at all times, through representatives al up the ladder, once more so that the peopel at the top wouldn;t need to actualy listen to every person. Ten guys squabling at the top would be much better than a billion.

Quote :: represent absolutely everyone just for being elected through completely undirect centralized mechanisms.

NOW, not THEN. Please stop making me say that....

Quote :: How can the continously changing needs of millions of ever-evolving individuals be effectively represented by such apparatuses?

An election once a year instead of for? ANd besides, it woldn;t matter, since because they would constantly hear the people's wants, the persons a tthe top would be not be a party candidate, since they can change as the people need them.

Quote :: the interaction with his peers to actually have a say on what is to happen,

Having a say doesn;t mean you get what you want. It would still ultimately be rule by majority, and if the majority wantto grant the minority their wishes, they could.

Quote :: Communism, as a system, is not flawed as it leaves everything in the hands of all the members of the community that apply it. If economy and society are deemed flawed or are inefficient, it's not commnism what is failing but the organizational scheme employed by the community.

Which is a faw of communism.

Quote :: not coordinated to suffice societal needs and instead is coordinated in groups that struggle merely to increase a certain capitalist's wealth, is what is flawed intrinsicly with capitalism.

Which is why capitalism needs to be molded by rule of law, imposed by the people, to better serve the people.

Quote :: but, the whole workforce could decide not to trade with you if you don't let that mine be exploited.

So you'd do it by threat, bascially? And this is better?

Quote :: If there's a factory in your backyard, then the question is... how did it get there in the first place?

Let's say I built it with my bare hands.

Quote :: what they determine their labor is worth?

And what if they determine that their labout is worth an obscene ammount, and it's a societal need, like food. All food producers could talk together and determine that their food is worth sex, and either the populace gives them women, or they starve. Now, you might say that the populace would grow their own food. Fine, except they would never have enough, and you know it. Those with societal needs, like food and water, could potentially have GREAT power, and could easilly becaome a ruling minority with the only option being another violent coup.

Quote :: Why would the workers need to choose a representative to make decisions for them when they could simply determine everything directly at their workplace and localities and just choose representatives to interact with other such localities?

I just want to clarify something. Do you want cmmunism, or anarchy, because I'm begining to find it difficult to see a difference.

Quote :: You have said that workers (people) choose other people to make decisions for them so they can set rules by which everyone, including the capitalists, have to abide. Haven't you?

Yes.

Quote :: And how do you prevent it from happening?

What did I say about the details?

Quote :: And how is it anymore efficient that simply leaving everything directly in the hands of the workers?

I didn;t say it was more or less.

Quote :: We've already had Keynesianism, a tweak of which is what you're seemingly proposing. It didn't work.

We;ve already had communism, with tweaks of what you propose. It didn't work, and often became military controlled. That doesn't mean it won't work.

Quote :: Why an angry mob? What kind of workers have you got in Canada? Or what conception of workers have you got and why?

I only view workers as people, with the potential of great greed and evil. And I meant an angry mob as the prevention of the workers getting togeter and wanting something outrageous for their product, like I said above.

Quote :: workers are normal people like you and me, capable of communication and reaching agreements.

Most, but minds can be changed, and people corrupted. I do see the scenarios I have given you aas a distinct possiblility in a world without money, which is something you've said would occur.

Quote :: The people or the state? And stop saying they're the same thing because they're not

In the system I said, yes they are.

Quote :: If the people, then why not determining it themselves directly?

Because what's tp stop a group from getting together and making a community where tey determine, say, owning a human being is allright? If it's all about individual communities, what's to stop this? What's to stop them from gathering enough land to proplerly feed themselves and clothe and everything? The rest of the world would have no way of stopping it, since these peopel have all the product they want. No way, other than violence.

Quote :: If the state, then why not a state composed of workers' councils that serves as a mechanism of interation among different groups of workers?

How is that different from minority rule? Or different from what I;ve said?

Quote :: work there profiting in accordance to their effort and contribution to the workplace?

I know it's not what you meant, but saying it like this is capitalism.

Quote :: Because maybe the concretion of that idea is considered of more value by the workers than the idea itself.

Then you don;t get to benifit from the idea. I'll just keep it to myself.

Quote :: I get it, it's just that why should ownership be exclusive to the "traditional owner" instead of all the workforce rewards being determined by everyone in accordance to each individual's performance and contribution and under rules determined by themselves?

I can think of one. Because, to to their ownership, they have the capability to bring th efunds nesesarry to, well, fund it.

Quote :: But then what prevents the rest of the workes from having equally worthy or even worthier ideas and applying them to their full extent?

Nothing, and nothing now, either.Companies love it when employees bring up useful ideas, even from the factory floor. Extreme pay raises, promotions, etc. They want thesee guys to come up with mroe ideas, and so give incentive.

Quote :: What if the people determine that he's entitled to nothing because he's producing nothing and he's just preventing people from doing something?

Then what reason does he have to EVER give his idea?

Quote :: From what you've read, I believe it, from what I've read nope. I hope they come and clarify this and quote themselves.

What I meant was that you're the first, and I will admit only from what I'VE seen, to actually say, exactly, that they're not some group or conspiracy.

Quote :: Would you mind quoting some?

https://worldrepublic.forumotion.com/red-square-f5/hugo-chavez-is-a-nice-guy-t3789-20.htm Tyr's first on the second page.

Quote :: Are there capitalists.... Are there capitalists.... Are there capitalists.... Are there capitalists....

Then explain to my you you guys always seem to say ALL capitalists, or rather just capitalists as though it's all.

Quote :: A state impulsed by the bourgeoisie (people) for the bourgeoisie (people).

I thought it was the proletariate that was the worker, the majority the people.

Quote :: Suppose you have a factory. One day all workers stop working for you, they have coordinated together with the remainder of the workforce to distribute the product of their labor according to their rules. They have decided to not care at all about the political system. They've decided to breach several laws and to produce for themselves.

So go on strike?

Quote :: So, since that they on money loses its value, workers refuse to provide service to non-workers and they disacknowledge what used to be their bosses' authority.

The revolution has started and so far not even a single cheek is bruised. The revolution is a non-violent de facto taking over of the economy and the whole infrastructure by those who provide it in the first place.

(Thumbs up.) Good luck with that. I can see that SO failing instantly, since the only way for it to suceed is if you get every last worker to do it. If you can, great, but you won't.

Quote :: Stos

Then why don't you guys advocate this more? It would be a slower process, but much preferred. Hell, it's inevitable. It will take time, but communism IS something, or somehting pretty damn close ot it, that WILL come about over time. It's obvious. Things get more to the left as time goes on. What used to be a pot smoking hippy 100 years ago is now a host on Fox News. Capitalism has become more and more liberal, closer and closer to socialism, over the years. It's only a matter of time. And thus, avoiding the violence.

Quote :: Except they cannot choose but to work for someone else.

They can work for themselves. Small business owners suceed all the time.

Quote :: With Unions that work properly they can determine not much, they can determine ALL. Why would they reasonably stop at "much" when they can determine all being the second option far more convenient to them?

Someone's rights get infringed either way, so should the worker's greed override the one who started something, or funds it?

Quote :: Why relying on the company when they are who generate that pay in the first place? Why not determining it all?

"I have, you want. Do for me, and I'll share."

Quote :: Steps towards revolution.

Read what I said about the inevitablility without violence.

Hit send accidentally. Hold on....

For all that is holy.... I sneesed and hit the mother fucking "X" up there....

I'm only redoing a couple of things. Screw this to hell. If my xbox fucks up too, I'm gonna break it.

Quote :: There's not an equal chance my side would strike first for the simple reason that it's counter productive

So? That's the point of crazy and radical.

Quote :: Are you sure you live among humans because with these talks of angry mobs and incapability to determine things as simple as norms within the workplace you're making me wonder about the kind of workers you know of.

Yeah, people can be pretty stupid around here. It's a fact. I don;t trust them, both because they tend to take advantage and just be jerks, or for their lack of general inteligence.

Quote :: They say that the western portrayal of the situation in the USSR in no way is even close to the truth and that the detractors of the Soviet system merely exaggerate how things were in a cry for attention.

It all comes down to both sides the others are liars.

Quote :: I do believe that the way USSR is portrayed in the west is exaggerated

True, it likely IS an exaggeration, but there is much underlying truth to a good portion of it. COntrol of the press, secret prisons, and pretty much everything to do with the KGB.

Quote :: Something, by the way, the Bolsheviks tried to reverse.

Go Bolsheviks?

Quote :: Observation from where? Have you seen such a scenary?

People around me, and their general greed. I hate the people in my area. In addition simply looking at the rest of the world ad history, quite often I see good people showing incredible greed and evil for their own benfit. They'd be the minority, but as is obvious now, minorities can control much. There was more I had typed before, but I can't remember it.

Quote :: Since there's no benefit through violence to our side, it'd be senseless for our side to start it.

That's why it's called senseless.

There. That's all m redoing. Fuck the rest, since nether of us are gonna win. Fucking button, fucking mouse, fucking everything.....

Subject: Re: Seriously Sun Nov 29, 2009 10:51 pm

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: Not really. Some are literally born rich and others can just dream about becoming rich.

There is nothing wrong if some people are "born" rich, their parents who I assume gave them money or just let them live a luxery life, have the freedom to choose whatever the fuck they want with their money, its their freedom.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: Massive amounts of value are not created by single individuals unless what was created either has massive value for a group of workers or for someone who has a group of workers working for him making that someone able to divert the value acquired from the workers into that creation. If you invent something and sell it to a company, automatically the wealth that comes from that company was extracted from a group of workers. If you invent somethig and start a company that provides said invention, it will be the work of the workers what will make you rich.

Partly the workers will make you rich, without the idea they wouldn't know what to make, so you first need the idea cuz that is gonna make you rich, and since you thought of it and there's a market for it, you can get rich yes, and then hire workers to make your shit.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: If you become an artist and manage to sell a work of art of yours to a tycoon or a statesman, the wealth paid by them to you came from a a group of workers. If you create art, for example music, at least within the current economic framework you require to have your art distributed by a record house being the work of that record house's workers what makes you rich and not even as an owner of your production but as a worker of that record house. If you win the lottery, all that value is paid to you by the lottery company which in turn got it from people that, like you, bought the tickets an action that was enabled by a certain amount of workers working for that lottery company at least by producing and distributing the tickets.

But the workers are not working for you directly in the case of making your own art or winning the lottery.

CKX wrote:: Well becuz everyone then has the chance to get rich but also to lose something.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: As I said earlier, nope, not everyone has the chance to become rich. Some are born rich and have far greater chances to advance and much less risks to suffer than someone who is born within extreme poverty.

Else, it is impossible to become rich all by yourself as I explained above. You require lots of people to at least indirectly provide you with that wealth.

So if you win the lottery some guy made the tickets, well un-liekly probably made a machine do it, and sure a worker need to click on a button for it or shit, but that is what he does, and if that means make other people rich, who gives a shit, he could be rich to, by winning the lottery which sure has not much of a chance, but just becuz he didnt win or some other dude didn't win, then that's to bad. Its not like they have it so bad, even getting a minium wage(speaking for Holland here, and prob the EU) you can still make a decent living.

Most rich people did work fucked up hard for it, well sure not this geneartion per se, but for example some guy found oil in the ground while he was very poor, and then he got a investment made something of it, boom he's rich. And he worked for it by searching for it. There is nothing wrong from being rich, you can live your life better yes, that sure is great, don't see a problem in that. If in communism, who would decide who gets the biggest house? The most exclusive things? Etc etc.
In capitalism not everyone can get the same but you can atleast differ from people.

If I would live in a commie society and want a big ass house with a pool or whatever the fuck, but I can't then I prefer getting rich and buy it, then its for me, and the downside is that you can or can not get rich. And people who start a business for example get investments right, and they got workers working for them, do they deserve to have a smashed in window when the revolution comes? They take risks, the risk of accepting the terms to pay back the invesment, they could get bankrupt and get poor, but they also can get profit and get rich or have atleast a higher income. Nothing wrong with that, atleast they try to make something, and with the downside of getting bankrupt and lose almost everything.

And when in Communism my house is owned by everyone, fucking great some random fuckhead can just walk into my house for example and grab something? Or whatever, I don't like the feeling of that. And crime would still exist since young people or middle aged people are still doing shit then for the heck of it, beat some one up cuz they drank to many alcohol or just for fun. And ofcourse you got serial killers or rapists who are fucked up in the head, who gonna catch them? The police? Is there still a police?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: In other words technocratic communism? I honestly would hate such a system as I believe work is essential to humans. But that's another thing. I asked you why you believed that a "risk based economy", as you seem to describe capitalism, is desirable at all.

In a risk based economy, well I think that people can get rich and have a better live, but always the down side of getting poor. The thought that you could get rich is always there.

And seriously communsim will never be achieved, I mean seriously, I think you said it once somewhere that "we all should first concetrate on destroying capitalism" and with we you meant the whole left, that is Marxists, Leninists, DeLeonists, Anarchists, Stalinfucks, Maoists, Nazbol's and shit. They all gonna join when they hear a revolution is coming right.
And whatcha gonna do AFTER the revolution, the capitalists are all dead, no one is in power, whatcha gonna do? You seriously think that all those branches of communism gonna give one branch their will? As I see it it will end up in a civil war, yes all those revolutionaries fighting each other. And fight fight fight some asshole wins and probably a dictatorship to keep all the others shut.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: Define "original maker". Do you mean inventor? If so what about, for example, things that are not invented like land and natural resources reserves? And how does the inventor determine the ownership?

Yes the inventer or thinker of something. And land and natural resources are first founded by some dude that make's them the owner of it, how fucked up that sounds that is how the world is, even before anything, people just called this land their's. That's pretty much how countries begun. Tho for me its still retarded to call land of your own, and borders and shit cuz its still land, and its weird that its illegal now to call some land yours or whatever tho everyone back in the old day claimed everything.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: Also CKX, I would appreciate if you answered to my other questions please.

Which one?