A question to Communists:

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

You must understand that this is abused beyond what is necessary. Of course we have to work in order to survive as a species, of course we have produce wealth in order to be wealthy, but in capitalism, the capitalist institutions will deliberately keep people unemployed and imporverished, so that they will work for nothing and compete for their jobs.

Why the heck would capitalist institutions want to keep people unemployed and impoverished when the unemployed and impoverished can't purchase the goods "capitalist institutions" make?

 

[LightFang]

Why the heck would capitalist institutions want to keep people unemployed and impoverished when the unemployed and impoverished can't purchase the goods "capitalist institutions" make?

Actually a small amount of unemployment is necessary for the economy to grow. There is this thing called the natural rate of unemployment. It is at this level where roughly the same amount of qualified people who are looking for a job equals the amount of jobs available. This is necessary to keep the economy moving and expanding.

However unemployed doesn't mean being impoverished (although it often leads to that situation). Oh, no. The capitalist dreamworld is one where everybody has enough money to purchase his goods or services, contrary to what you may believe.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

Actually a small amount of unemployment is necessary for the economy to grow. There is this thing called the natural rate of unemployment. It is at this level where roughly the same amount of qualified people who are looking for a job equals the amount of jobs available. This is necessary to keep the economy moving and expanding.

Yes, this is true but it does have anything to do with what we were talking about.

However unemployed doesn't mean being impoverished (although it often leads to that situation).

Yes, you can be an unemployed millionaire, unemployed bum, or an unemployed average Joe in the middle of a job switch.

Oh, no. The capitalist dreamworld is one where everybody has enough money to purchase his goods or services, contrary to what you may believe.

I'm glad I'm living in a (more-or-less)capitalist dreamworld.

 

[Princeps]

Why the heck would capitalist institutions want to keep people unemployed and impoverished when the unemployed and impoverished can't purchase the goods "capitalist institutions" make?

Because labour will be cheaper.

Capitalist institutions, such as corporations, care only about the immediate profit. Period.

Corporations do not want high employement. Take for example, the "Massachusetts Miracle," when unemployment fell to a phenomenally low 2.7 percent, McDonald's began offering twice the minimum wage trying to lure seniors out of retirement. IIRC. Business wants an oversupply of workers, so that there will be competition in the labour market, and the business can treat the workers however business likes.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

Because labour will be cheaper.

Capitalist institutions, such as corporations, care only about the immediate profit. Period.

Corporations do not want high employement. Take for example, the "Massachusetts Miracle," when unemployment fell to a phenomenally low 2.7 percent, McDonald's began offering twice the minimum wage trying to lure seniors out of retirement. IIRC. Business wants an oversupply of workers, so that there will be competition in the labour market, and the business can treat the workers however business likes.

I am sure McDonald's is still making money hand over fist because the entire country can afford to buy a Big Mac.

 

[LightFang]

Yes, this is true but it does have anything to do with what we were talking about.

Yes it does.

Why the heck would capitalist institutions want to keep people unemployed and impoverished when the unemployed and impoverished can't purchase the goods "capitalist institutions" make?

I assume you forgot the "n't" in "doesn't". Right?

Because labour will be cheaper.

Capitalist institutions, such as corporations, care only about the immediate profit. Period.

If they only cared about immediately profit then they wouldn't take into account the rate of return and depreciation and stuff on capital goods. But they do, rendering your point false.

Corporations do not want high employement. Take for example, the "Massachusetts Miracle," when unemployment fell to a phenomenally low 2.7 percent, McDonald's began offering twice the minimum wage trying to lure seniors out of retirement. IIRC. Business wants an oversupply of workers, so that there will be competition in the labour market, and the business can treat the workers however business likes.

Wait, what's your point? When McDonald's offers twice the minimum wage, they're trying to entice people to join the labor force. That would reduce unemployment and increase employment.

In this case it'd be like a higher wage than normal to entice the workers to perform better. I don't see what's wrong with offering higher wages.

 

[Princeps]

If they only cared about immediately profit then they wouldn't take into account the rate of return and depreciation and stuff on capital goods. But they do, rendering your point false.

No, I'm just arguing with facts. According to law, corporate leadership is only concerned about shortterm profits. Period.

They do not care what affect their actions have upon the society. In fact, corporations want to externalize the costs of all they do, and internalize the profits. Socialize the costs, and privatize the profits. That's the attidute.

Wait, what's your point? When McDonald's offers twice the minimum wage, they're trying to entice people to join the labor force. That would reduce unemployment and increase employment.

Yes, however, they do not want to do that. A society where no government regulation would exist, where no wagefloor would be set -- a capitalist society -- the unemployement would be deliberately kept high by private institutions, exactly so that they wouldn't need to "entice" people to work, but coerce people to work with threats of starvation if they don't.

 

[LightFang]

No, I'm just arguing with facts. According to law, corporate leadership is only concerned about shortterm profits. Period.

Law? What law? :/

They do not care what affect their actions have upon the society. In fact, corporations want to externalize the costs of all they do, and internalize the profits. Socialize the costs, and privatize the profits. That's the attidute.

You're right! Of course people don't want to pay extra. I don't want to pay extra. I want profit. Duh. You do too, I bet.

Yes, however, they do not want to do that. A society where no government regulation would exist, where no wagefloor would be set -- a capitalist society -- the unemployement would be deliberately kept high by private institutions, exactly so that they wouldn't need to "entice" people to work, but coerce people to work with threats of starvation if they don't.

Slippery slope logical fallacy. Nobody's arguing for an ultra-capitalist society. If you'll look at my political compass scores, I technically count as left-leaning. There are these things called externalities. Governments try to internalize the costs by subsidizing or taxing. That's why we have the pollutions market, because the private costs of pollution are lower than the social costs. That's why we have public education, because private benefit is smaller than the social benefit.

And I will argue that corporations hire workers until MC = MB. Whether or not the unemployment is "high" is up to human distinction.

 

[BasketCase]

Well, survival as a species, and the well-being of our species is an incentive already.

Umm, no. People (indeed, all intelligent creatures) care about the survival of themselves. A modest amount of self-sacrifice is fairly common, but true altruism (giving your life for the good of all) is a pretty rare thing.

Do you think a wild wolf cares about doing his part to keep nature alive and thriving??? Nope. He doesn't even understand it. He knows that he's hungry and that he wants to get rowdy with that nice lady wolf in the pack next door. That's it. The system of nature survives from day to day because of the selfish greedy actions of all the individual participants. That is the system you get when people are left to do what they want to. Even if it's in their best interests to work together, they only do so as far as it benefits them as individuals.

Take a look at all the people right here in CFC who say they worry about global warming. While they continue to use computers to post in here.

The well-being of the species is secondary. The best way for any living critter to survive is to manipulate and steal from other members of his or her species. But, of course, society can't survive that way. And since a whole bunch of hardcore Commies in here keep trusting in humans' better nature: you can't. Just read a newspaper for proof. Read the story about the irate driver who was so mad at the woman who cut her off on the freeway that he grabbed her dog out of the passenger's seat and threw the poor critter into the fast lane where it was immediately run over and reborn as a pizza.

We can't depend on people to contribute to society; we need a way to make sure everybody (or almost everybody) does; and we cannot use violent force to do it.

So how do we do it?

 

[greenpeace]

Question to Basketcase, How am I wrong in this post (I'm starting to feel addicted to this ) :

press link button

 

[BasketCase]

If you'll return the favour.

I've been rendering that favor from the start. So far I'm getting a lot more than I'm receiving.

All my evidence has come from well-documented and verified lab work, and from world history. My stuff is based on other stuff that is known to be true.

Erm, yeah, large writing doesn't make it true, just obnoxious.

I am obnoxious, and I'm also right.
Oh, come ON, you knew that was coming.

True, Japan was, at the time, dominated by the military, but

Thank you.

But authority <L.A. Riots> never truly collapsed. It lost it's grip on a local level

Thank you also.

While local authority did not have a grip, the citizens created other local authorities to replace it. The police had a job to do, and they were not doing it.

And, yet again, I'd dispute the fact the self-defense groups organised by some citizens constitutes a truly independent organisation; rather, they were an attempt to safeguard the status quo imposed by the existing authority, as evidence by their immediate and willing dissolution upon that authority's return.

Thank you x 3.

I already said this a while back. The citizens wanted the status quo, and when the original authority got back on the horse, the citizens welcomed it.

If you don't like that, argue with Greenpeace through PMs, don't put it on a public forum.

Not gonna happen. Why? Because FriendlyFire used to do that to me all the time.

 

[BasketCase]

However, it would come to that.

Exception, not the rule. There are some few in the U.S. who do go hungry (for various reasons) or homeless (also for various reasons), but most people are like me--they only worry about having fewer goodies. They take their food and shelter for granted.

Actually, the internet connection -- like computers -- have emerged from public sector development.

Wrong. The Internet started out as a top secret project in the U.S. Department of Defense.

An instrument of knowledge and freedom, born from the military-industrial complex. Priceless.

but in capitalism, the capitalist institutions will deliberately keep people unemployed and imporverished, so that they will work for nothing and compete for their jobs.

And this beats the hell out of competing against other wild animals for your LIFE. Not impressed, Princey. I'm sticking with capitalism. Unless you can come up with something better? (I raised a challenge, and so far nobody has answered it--but then they've had all of one day)

 

[greenpeace]

Umm... are you (BasketCase) going to respond to my post?

 

[Princeps]

Slippery slope logical fallacy. Nobody's arguing for an ultra-capitalist society.

the conservatives are, quite explicitly. Actually, they want a corporatist society, where corporations are backed by the mommy-state, regulatory institutions rig the system for the big business, and where union organization is impossible, and the welfare state is abolished, and so forth. And also, it has been a Reagan/Bush policy to drive the state into bankruptcy, deliberately, so that the concentrations of private power will be enriched, and empowered with the cost of democracy, and the will not state be able to provide, or must cut services.

Exception, not the rule. There are some few in the U.S. who do go hungry (for various reasons) or homeless (also for various reasons), but most people are like me--they only worry about having fewer goodies. They take their food and shelter for granted.

Well, the united States is no longer a capitalist economy. It's a mixed economy, one with enourmous protective barriers and a dynamic state sector, and a welfare state. The US was once a capitalist economy, but after 8 depressions, high poverty, excesses of private power and so forth, Americans grew tired of the banana Republic.

Wrong. The Internet started out as a top secret project in the U.S. Department of Defense.

Which is a public institution, not a private one.

And this beats the hell out of competing against other wild animals for your LIFE. Not impressed, Princey. I'm sticking with capitalism. Unless you can come up with something better? (I raised a challenge, and so far nobody has answered it--but then they've had all of one day)

Well, what I described is actually still a problem in the United States and Europe (and for most of the world). To solve it, you don't have to abolish market practices, but impose checks and balances on the businesses. And they actually have to be enforced.

 

[A Viking Yeti]

Hemp oil however is economically inefficient. How do we know this? People haven't switched over yet! Nobody's going to power a car with really expensive oil, that's just suicide for the business. When the price of oil increases though, eventually it'll surpass the price of the backstop resources. Then, using this mythical SUPER DUPER CLEAN hemp oil will actually make sense, because there will be an economic incentive to do so!

So I don't buy peak oil, fyi, and all that. Okay, sure, obviously these kinds of things hurt the environment and have negative externalities, but pollution markets are putting a dent in that.

Thank you for proving my point. It makes more sense to do it, but it doesn't make money to do it, so instead we just continue to double asthma rates in major cities... Ever seen Who Killed The Electric Car? You should. Use some of your wonderful capitalist logic: renewable, clean, homegrown. What's stopping us from using it? Availability; maybe they haven't switched over because it's illegal. And maybe it isn't legal because corporate lobbyists for major oil and textiles industries have consistently pushed to keep it illegal... ...By the way, saying we know it isn't efficient because 'people' haven't switched over to it yet is like saying democracy isn't efficient because a good majority of countries in the world still aren't democratic.

 

[A Viking Yeti]

Wrong. People will always have their fists.

The hardcore Commies in this thread keep chanting a very basic myth about human nature: that, given true equality and freedom, people will be inclined to help each other for their own benefit, and that a true socialist society will therefore evolve naturally.

You guys could only be more brain-explodingly wrong if you went "2 + 2 = 6,137,285". Actually, I can't even be sure of that, because it's almost statistically certain that somewhere in the universe exists a sentient race whose written language uses symbols that look exactly like "6,137,285" to represent the number four, so how about if I just say you're brain-explodingly wrong and leave it at that.

I already brought up the Milgram guy, who disproved this myth about human nature in his experiments. I shouldn't have even had to bring him up, because you can see a very clear picture of the ugly side of human nature just by picking up a damn newspaper. But it goes further than that. The thing all you Communist wingnuts are ignoring is that the incentive to work together and help each other already exists. Even here in this cruel and heartless capitalist world. Why the bleeding HELL do you think firemen were running INTO the World Trade Center towers WHILE THE GODDAMN TOWERS WERE ON FIRE???? Christ.

A just-starting-out doctor makes about as much as a waiter. Policemen risk their lives every day for paychecks a lot smaller than you would expect. A garbage collector makes more than a teacher. And here's a capper: Americans spend five to ten times as much money on charitable donations as they do on spectator sports.

There's a whole lot of human decency out there, but you knuckleheads can't see it. Or maybe you were just hoping I wouldn't point it out because it throws a monkey-wrench in your whole religion. The incentive to work together and help one's fellow man is already there, and countless people act on that incentive every day. Yet a socialist society is not developing.......



.....and that's the reason why. You just said it yourself--your ideal society is less productive. Humans want more, not less. In any of a billion other thread everywhere on the Web, you can always find millions of posters demading more. More government bennies, more work on protecting the environment, more work on eliminating AIDS, blah blah blah blah blah. So guess what, Einstein, those other people are going to make rude gestures at you, throw you out the door headfirst, and build themselves a society that does provide more.

Edit: Yeah, I know--you said "may not be as productive" rather than "is not as productive". Boo hoo.

For someone that seems so sure of himself, you sure do like to insult us quite a bit. Sorry if I don't agree that the increasing poverty rate and a GDP that's been consistently declining for the last 80 years is a sign of a progressive economy. Humans want better, I think, not necessarily more. It's amazing that you admit that humans have such decency and work, but won't admit that these in any way apply to a socialist economy. By the way, Milgram's defunct. In The Mind Of The Market, Michael Shermer cites a recent study showing that as long as the basic requirements are met (above the poverty line), income has no affect on happiness. In fact, the factors that do make a person happy were friends and family and fulfilling work; a job they enjoy doing. Wow, seems like this is exactly what communist like myself have been saying since the 1800's! Sorry, your arguments gone, humans don't instinctively drive for wealth, nor does it make them happy... Too bad, so sad, CEO positions aren't gonna' fulfill a person if they'd rather be a painter for a tenth the wage.

 

[A Viking Yeti]

I don't think they're quite as heartless as you make them out to be. But you know what? It doesn't matter. It's not like there weren't rich, powerful people in every communist state who lived well while the common people starved, and in greater numbers than in our capitalist society. Your argument is utterly bereft of any logic at all.


This doesn't support communism per se. This supports charity. Saying that it's good to help the poor does not necessarily translate to "the government should help the poor". Indeed, I would say that this is a personal command (The "YOU" gives it away) and that any spiritual benefit you get from helping others is negated if you decide to do so by pawning the responsibility off on the government. Doing something yourself to help others is a charitable act which morally helps you, as well as materially helps them - having the government do the same does not help you, even if it does help the poor.

If you want to help the poor using government services anyway, then that's fine. But don't try to use Christian theology to justify it.

Jesus fed the hungry, housed the homeless, and healed the sick, and he never once considered the 'implied market value' of his services. If any country, like the US seems to think (at least part of the US), were actually a Christian nation, then they would have to follow in the acts of Christian, which line up conspicuously with socialist theory. Not that I can just start my own free hospital service out of nothing, I would need government assistance for that. And government approval, for that matter. Some matters in society can't be solved by people just 'doing it', it requires massive organizational effort, which is what the government is for.

 

[A Viking Yeti]

I'm very clear on the society you described. It had two main rules: (1) an authority to prevent people from harming each other, and (2) an authority to make sure no other authority exists.

I already showed you how these rules contradict themselves. If those who know how to farm refuse to farm any food, they are harming everybody else. This violates Rule #1. According to Rule #2, you can't force the farmers to farm, because that requires additional authority which Rule #2 does not allow. One or the other of your two precious rules must be broken. Not just broken occasionally--broken completely.

I came up with a solution. You don't want people to be coerced to work by force, so I came up with a better way. Tempt them to work with luxuries. Raise the price of food until a large number of people are tempted into farming and we have enough food.

Got a better system? <BORDERLINE TROLL APPROACHING> Post it. Anybody. I dare you. Come up with a method to produce and distribute goods fairly and sensibly, without a ruling class and without the threat of force. You will all fail. Or you will come up with something indistinguishable from capitalism. I've been doing this for a couple of years now, and every system people invent turns out to be capitalism. Sometimes cleverly concealed with long, catchy-sounding words with far too many syllables and massive over-use of the word "worker" (usually with an S at the end, too) but capitalism nevertheless.

A quick hint: you can't just divide up all of society's goods evenly--that's part of what I meant by "sensibly". I, BasketCase, have no children and therefore don't need any baby shoes. It doesn't make any sense to give every citizen the same share of baby shoes. How do you divvy everything up?

Native American decentralization... From each according to ability, to each according to need. They weren't polluted by hierarchical social theory, such as those present in the eastern hemisphere. It is also noteworthy that they had comparable populations to many 'civilized' societies, less dense, naturally, but still as many people to feed, and, from the historical evidence we have, a considerably lower starvation rate... That is, until hierarchical societies found them.

Example two, techno-marxist communism... Production, nearly totally under the control of machines, allows a full transition of the economy into a post-scarcity age, and, with no discernible owner at this point, a post-currency age. With no money and no poverty, there is little to no need for war, oppression, or any sort of class based system. More to the point, any differentiation of class in a system such as this is essentially arbitrary.

 

[Ecofarm]

The intellectual class is not arbitrary. We're smarter than other folks and communism will not eliminate our class.

 

[EdwardTking]

The intellectual class is not arbitrary. We're smarter than other folks and communism will not eliminate our class.

Ever heard of Pol Pot?