The Offtopicgrad Soviet: A Place to Discuss All Things Red

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Sorry Cheezy, I guess I'm so accustomed to Republicans screaming that ACA is communism that I've started to internalize the idea myself.

It's okay. It wears on all of us. I find myself defending liberal positions sometimes that I actually have no interest in.

To clarify a bit, while I completely understand that it's not socialist and therefore not what you would want from healthcare, would you consider it better (in the sense of "not quite as bad" rather than in any way good) or worse than the pre-ACA setup in America?

It is better, in that it tries to make the existing system better, and people paying less money for health insurance is a good thing.

It is worse, in that it forces more people into buying health care from these still-private companies.

How are you going make people to "have control over the forces that govern their lives"?

Democracy in all things, from your work to your apartment block, from your neighborhood to your courtroom and police barracks staffing. Where people are empowered, the ability of tyrants to rule over them is rendered inept. Where people participate, they begin to care. Where people care, things get better and stay better. Where things are better, people are happier.

How is it something "immediately possible"?

We can fix it now.

What are "social resource" and "productive resource"?

A social resource is something which can be shared communally, like health care and electricity. We all use them, we all have a right to access them when we need them. These things can be immediately reorganized for universal accessibility based upon necessity.

A productive resource is a resource that is produced. Here I refer to manufactured goods. These should also go to those who need them, but since organizing the distribution of society's produce on this basis is difficult and requires both time and a change in people's mindsets, it is easier in the meanwhile to distribute them based upon contribution to society.

What I mean by that is, one private property is abolished and workers exert direct control over their workplaces, wages will begin to more accurately reflect the contribution a worker makes to the production process, i.e., the wealth they receive in paychecks will correlate to the wealth that their labor has created for the company - and thus society. Presently it does not do this; wages in capitalism correlate to nothing but the capitalist's desire (or board of directors' desire) for a personal profit margin. The worker is at present exploited for far more wealth than he creates, and is not rewarded in kind. Once workers are able to control their own wages, this imbalance will equalize.

Edit: One problem seems to me quite apparent at this point. For society to progress you need some healthy degree of competition. How is that present in the system which distributes?

I don't agree. However, there will for a long time be some element of competition, as different firms try to produce a better product than another firm, or two groups compete for the same contract. But that will not last forever. We have created the idea of losers in order to justify our own personal greed. Greed is motivated primarily by insecurity, and it is permitted to continue because of private property. Where neither insecurity nor private property exist, it is both unnecessary to grab all you can for yourself before the next guy takes what would be yours, and it is impossible to accrue significantly more wealth than another person. And so we wind up working not against one another, but with one another. I think that will do far more to advance humanity, and we will do it far quicker, than when we waste so much time, energy, and resources competing against one another without purpose.

 

[Defiant47]

Edit: One problem seems to me quite apparent at this point. For society to progress you need some healthy degree of competition. How is that present in the system which distributes?

This is demonstrably false, given that there are numerous charities that make excellent progress, and they are rested up on nothing but the community's back. People are willing to work together... they just can't fathom the idea of enacting a system-wide change in such a manner.

What I mean by that is, one private property is abolished and workers exert direct control over their workplaces, wages will begin to more accurately reflect the contribution a worker makes to the production process

I just realized something ironic. Communism seeks to be a better capitalism than capitalism does

 

[Defiant47]

I've actually got a question more suited for this thread, but I doubt anyone has crunched any good numbers here. At what level of wages would I start earning more than I deserve (because I can't wait to surpass that mark!) ? At what level of capital ownership, either in bonds or in stocks, could I legitimately be regarded as a bourgeois?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I just realized something ironic. Communism seeks to be a better capitalism than capitalism does

I don't know what you think capitalism does, then.

I've actually got a question more suited for this thread, but I doubt anyone has crunched any good numbers here. At what level of wages would I start earning more than I deserve (because I can't wait to surpass that mark!) ?

At the point where it exceeds the value your labor has created.

However, you should also keep in mind that if wages are decided democratically, then it's entirely possible that wages may be graduated, if the employees decide so. In addition, also remember that this calculation does not consider profit, merely value created by labor. Profit derives from price, not value. It's entirely possible for people to be paid above their "created-value" wage, but still equitably, by equitable distribution of that profit.

At what level of capital ownership, either in bonds or in stocks, could I legitimately be regarded as a bourgeois?

Bourgeois and capitalist are not the same thing. I think TF knows far more about this than I do.

 

[Defiant47]

I don't know what you think capitalism does, then.

Capitalist theory dictates that a free market economy will result in profits and moneys going to where they are most useful and beneficial for society. Supply-demand will result in the business with successful ideas to thrive. Where capitalism breaks down is in the allocation of these profits once they are earned.

Therefore, capitalism attempts to allocate wealth to based on contribution. But the power held by capitalists warps the awarded wealth to labour.

At the point where it exceeds the value your labor has created.

And how would one go about finding that? Because the free market is demonstrably wrong in the wages it awards.

However, you should also keep in mind that if wages are decided democratically, then it's entirely possible that wages may be graduated, if the employees decide so. In addition, also remember that this calculation does not consider profit, merely value created by labor. Profit derives from price, not value. It's entirely possible for people to be paid above their "created-value" wage, but still equitably, by equitable distribution of that profit.

No worries. I was just looking for some simple magic-number where I get more than I deserve. Because the system we are in is unfair and inequitable. Rather than try hard to redress it like you are doing, I am seeking to "play the game" within the system. I will know I am "winning" once I've started becoming the oppressor, and my first checkpoint is to be earning more than I deserve.

Bourgeois and capitalist are not the same thing. I think TF knows far more about this than I do.

The same applies here. I want to know how much wealth I need to accumulate before I can proclaim myself as part of the oppressive bourgeois class that profits off the fruits of the proletariat's labour.

Unfortunately I have a feeling that inheritance will play no small part in it. It's hard to compete with somebody who starts out with billions (and continuously reaps interest benefits therefrom) when starting out from relatively scratch.

 

[timtofly]

I've actually got a question more suited for this thread, but I doubt anyone has crunched any good numbers here. At what level of wages would I start earning more than I deserve (because I can't wait to surpass that mark!) ? At what level of capital ownership, either in bonds or in stocks, could I legitimately be regarded as a bourgeois?

Are you asking at what point your capital does your work for you? A person could still spend more than they are worth, but you are not rich until your capital outpaces your spending. That is one of the reasons the capitalistic way is not desired. There are those who cannot spend anything. That is where the inequality comes into play.

If you gave away the money that you would spend on yourself to those who do not have such means, then there would be no disparity. Giving away other people's money does not count either.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Democracy in all things, from your work to your apartment block, from your neighborhood to your courtroom and police barracks staffing. Where people are empowered, the ability of tyrants to rule over them is rendered inept. Where people participate, they begin to care. Where people care, things get better and stay better. Where things are better, people are happier.

Democratic in what sense? Democracy at work? Surely you do not mean that an engineer and the construction worker are going to have the same say on what is going to be build? Could you explain that a bit further?

We can fix it now.

We can or we can try?

A social resource is something which can be shared communally, like health care and electricity. We all use them, we all have a right to access them when we need them. These things can be immediately reorganized for universal accessibility based upon necessity.

Makes sense. But you talk of distribution and I have some doubts that if you just distribute than the thing in question will not be properly valued.

A productive resource is a resource that is produced. Here I refer to manufactured goods. These should also go to those who need them, but since organizing the distribution of society's produce on this basis is difficult and requires both time and a change in people's mindsets, it is easier in the meanwhile to distribute them based upon contribution to society.

How do you judge and measure "contribution to society"? What do you mean by it?

What I mean by that is, one private property is abolished and workers exert direct control over their workplaces, wages will begin to more accurately reflect the contribution a worker makes to the production process, i.e., the wealth they receive in paychecks will correlate to the wealth that their labor has created for the company - and thus society. Presently it does not do this; wages in capitalism correlate to nothing but the capitalist's desire (or board of directors' desire) for a personal profit margin. The worker is at present exploited for far more wealth than he creates, and is not rewarded in kind. Once workers are able to control their own wages, this imbalance will equalize.

I dont quite agree that wages correlate only to capitalists desire. There is also desire of those who buy the products. If there was not this desire then capitalist would be out of business.
Also you may run into trouble when try to compare labour of an engineer and of an manager to that of the simple worker.
Another problem may be that when you try to give certain amount of labour particular value you are entering very complex labyrint of processes which can never be succesfully accomplished as the value is constantly changing with time. If you do not believe/calculate with this you are omiting supremely important aspect of human existence - its constant progress.

I don't agree. However, there will for a long time be some element of competition, as different firms try to produce a better product than another firm, or two groups compete for the same contract. But that will not last forever. We have created the idea of losers in order to justify our own personal greed. Greed is motivated primarily by insecurity, and it is permitted to continue because of private property. Where neither insecurity nor private property exist, it is both unnecessary to grab all you can for yourself before the next guy takes what would be yours, and it is impossible to accrue significantly more wealth than another person. And so we wind up working not against one another, but with one another. I think that will do far more to advance humanity, and we will do it far quicker, than when we waste so much time, energy, and resources competing against one another without purpose.

So how in your view society/humanity progresses? We have not created idea of loosers. Losers are natural and all around but we have adopted the idea that failure is something unwanted instead of looking at it as stepping stone for succes.
Greed is quite bad. I agree. However it seems to me it plays quite significant role in moving humanity ahead. What is desirable, I think, is to channel these lower propensities within human nature into something productive and in process exhaust them and turn them into more purer and dynamic energy which is quite natural process. The worst thing that could happen it seems to me is to supress greed and desire in a way and end up with society chained down by lethargy.

This is demonstrably false, given that there are numerous charities that make excellent progress, and they are rested up on nothing but the community's back. People are willing to work together... they just can't fathom the idea of enacting a system-wide change in such a manner.

Are those charities planted in vacum or interwined with the society and all of its aspects? What sort of progress you are talking about?
Some are willing to work more and some less this way. Human nature is complex.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

That's a pretty, ahhhh, big assumption and requires at least some further elucidation.

Well how does society progresses? I see two ways. One is continuation of natural growth out of the semi-animal which humans currently are and the other is adopting some higher ideals as represented in uncorrupted form of religions.
Competition is something very much presented in animal world and is quite natural in human life as well only in more subtle form.

So we don't progress unless we are in conflict with each other? That's a pretty pessimistic view of human nature. Maybe it's true, I don't know. But competition isn't always pretty like it is in the Olympics.

EDIT: Also I guess it depends upon what you mean by "progress"? Is "progress" only to be understood in terms of proverbially building a better mousetrap? I think the overcoming of differences and conflict can be seen as social progress. So for instance if war could be abolished, that would be social "progress".

If you observe the universe its a theather of conflicting forces. There is nothing wrong with it and without it this world wouldnt exist. Competition can contain some sort of conflict as well but it is only up to us how subtle or not this conflict is or in your words "how pretty".
Progress is something which enlarges ones capacity. Lets say you compare the capacity for destruction via nuclear weapons and capacity of united humanity. Both can be seen as certain way of progress but the second is much superior as it combines the potential of all of humanity versus particular scientific progress and its limited destructive power.

Since you seem so keen on definitions and all that: what is society? What is progress? What is competition? Can you have an unhealthy degree of competition?

I am keen on definitions since I am new to this thread and Reds philosophy.
Competition is comparision of capacities which forces both sides into dynamic action.
Unhealthy degree of competition would be one which doesnt bring (sustainable) progress.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Capitalist theory dictates that a free market economy will result in profits and moneys going to where they are most useful and beneficial for society. Supply-demand will result in the business with successful ideas to thrive. Where capitalism breaks down is in the allocation of these profits once they are earned.

Therefore, capitalism attempts to allocate wealth to based on contribution. But the power held by capitalists warps the awarded wealth to labour.

Please provide a citation for this. It sounds like propaganda to me.

Capitalism might pretend to be "operating for the benefit of all of society" but observation and analysis prove the opposite to be true. The benefit to the rest of society is incidental. Capitalism is all about procuring wealth for privileged individuals, and creating structures to protect that privilege.

Now, what it's claimed that free markets do is to allocate supply to perfectly satisfy demand. But that's a pretty out of date concept in itself, which only the descendants of the original believers in that tenet, the classical liberals, still believe. It should be readily apparent that markets do not function this way: they benefit the largest producers, the best marketers, and the best planners, when all that is put together. The best product doesn't become the most popular, the cheapest product is not always the most reliable, and buyers are not influenced solely in their purchase by the rational weighing of all the pros and cons of a product before purchase.

Homo economicus is a lie.

And how would one go about finding that? Because the free market is demonstrably wrong in the wages it awards.

I thought you just said that capitalism distributes wages according to contribution?

No worries. I was just looking for some simple magic-number where I get more than I deserve. Because the system we are in is unfair and inequitable. Rather than try hard to redress it like you are doing, I am seeking to "play the game" within the system. I will know I am "winning" once I've started becoming the oppressor, and my first checkpoint is to be earning more than I deserve.

It's not a problem that can be solved within capitalism, so any answer I give you will only seem ridiculous. First, it's not up to me to decide how much you deserve, it's your fellow workers. But if you impoverish others so that you can have more than them, then that's unfair. In a system that rewards people based upon their contributions, this would seem commonplace.

In my opinion, you start becoming bourgeois when your material interests begin to lay with the capitalist class and order, and not with the working class and future proletarian order. If you decide that you stand to lose more than you'll gain by the changing of the system, and you're not okay with that, then you are bourgeois. In my opinion.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Democratic in what sense? Democracy at work? Surely you do not mean that an engineer and the construction worker are going to have the same say on what is going to be build? Could you explain that a bit further?

Yes, that's what I mean. Sovereignty of the individual. Workers can decide to structure their institutions however they like, so long as they have a say in it. Where realities are dictated to others without their consent, there is tyranny.

We can or we can try?

A not so clever rhetorical trick. Obviously nothing in the future can be said with certainty.

Makes sense. But you talk of distribution and I have some doubts that if you just distribute than the thing in question will not be properly valued.

The things we're talking about don't create value, they don't have value. They have a price, which is used by the greedy and opportunistic to extort money from people to obtain those necessary services.

All these services require is the funding to operate, which can be paid for through taxes. They will necessarily become non-profit, government-owned enterprises, funded through taxation.

How do you judge and measure "contribution to society"? What do you mean by it?

As I said, by value created through labor. Precise calculation of each individual's contribution to that is tricky, which is why it's easier to solve this problem through workplace democracy. The individuals in the company can create their own wage structure. Maybe they decide to pay some people more or less than others, because they think that they produce more or less than others. That's their right, and that's part of being in a community.

I'm not advocating Stakhanovism, I'm not going to pretend that if some worker comes in and produces insane amounts of value one day, then he should walk out with an enormous check for that day, based upon some strange substitution for money. Although it should be noted that even for Stakhanov, his work wasn't done alone, everyone else there had to help set him up for his record-breaking feats, and so in the end they all contributed equally to the work he did and he didn't create any extra value on his own, than if everyone had been working equally hard in the first place without the voluntarist charade.

I dont quite agree that wages correlate only to capitalists desire. There is also desire of those who buy the products. If there was not this desire then capitalist would be out of business.

Consumers don't have any say in a company's wages. So yes, it is entirely dependent upon the desire of the capitalist for the maximal profit margin that he can manage to obtain. The rest is distributed to the workers on the basis of placation, not on reward. He manipulates his workforce into continuing to return for exploitation, so that his profits can continue to collect.

Also you may run into trouble when try to compare labour of an engineer and of an manager to that of the simple worker.

There is no trouble, as I mentioned in the previous post.

Another problem may be that when you try to give certain amount of labour particular value you are entering very complex labyrint of processes which can never be succesfully accomplished as the value is constantly changing with time. If you do not believe/calculate with this you are omiting supremely important aspect of human existence - its constant progress.

You are confusing value with price again. Please stop doing this.

So how in your view society/humanity progresses?

Well what do you mean by "progress?"

We have not created idea of loosers. Losers are natural and all around but we have adopted the idea that failure is something unwanted instead of looking at it as stepping stone for succes.

We have created them in places where they need not be, because we wish to justify our thoughtlessness. Somewhere, someplace there will always be a winner and a loser. But it depends on how you measure it. If you and I fight over the same loaf of bread, and one person gets ahold of all of the bread, then one has one and one as lost. But if we break the bread in half, then none has lost, and both have won. But even further, if the one person gets the whole loaf, and therefore wins, that doesn't mean I cannot get another loaf, and still "win." The win comes not from having defeated another, it comes from getting ahold of something necessary for survival. We have combined the two into one concept of "every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost," and used that to explain away all the evils in the world.

We don't have to do that. There is another way. But it requires the conscious reorganization of society, and the destruction of the structures which require humanity to behave in this manner. And first among those structures is private property.

Greed is quite bad. I agree. However

When you use a word like "however," it negates that which came before it. So you don't actually think greed is bad, which is why you rush to justify it.

it seems to me it plays quite significant role in moving humanity ahead. What is desirable, I think, is to channel these lower propensities within human nature into something productive and in process exhaust them and turn them into more purer and dynamic energy which is quite natural process. The worst thing that could happen it seems to me is to supress greed and desire in a way and end up with society chained down by lethargy.

You confuse greed with self-interest. Self-interest is what drives class struggle, and class struggle is what tears down all unjust social structures.

You can try to attribute man's slow enslavement of nature to his personal needs to any number of things, but for something as social as that, greed will never explain it.

 

[Masada]

Capitalist theory dictates that a free market economy will result in profits and moneys going to where they are most useful and beneficial for society. Supply-demand will result in the business with successful ideas to thrive. Where capitalism breaks down is in the allocation of these profits once they are earned.

Economic returns are not the same as social returns. The two do have a lot of intersections. In the sense that economic returns pay my wages and the taxes that support government services. But on the whole the relationship isn't 1-1 and in some cases economic returns might actually harm social returns. For example, when firms in China dump toxic waste in drinking water. From the perspective of the firm its a win because it saves a tonne of cash, but for everyone else? *shrug*

Well how does society progresses? I see two ways. One is continuation of natural growth out of the semi-animal which humans currently are and the other is adopting some higher ideals as represented in uncorrupted form of religions.
Competition is something very much presented in animal world and is quite natural in human life as well only in more subtle form.

I don't think we're much like animals. The fact that I'm typing on a computer and having a conversation with someone literally thousands of kilometers away is proof enough of that.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Yes, that's what I mean. Sovereignty of the individual. Workers can decide to structure their institutions however they like, so long as they have a say in it. Where realities are dictated to others without their consent, there is tyranny.

Sorry not gonna work. Individual isnt sovereign by talking into something he doesnt understand. Workers usually do not know much about effectively structuring institutions. Are you planning to make everybody into expert on everything? Life is a reality dictated to us without our consent. We do many things in life for our own good even if reluctantly. We have to. Is life itself a tyranny?

The things we're talking about don't create value, they don't have value. They have a price, which is used by the greedy and opportunistic to extort money from people to obtain those necessary services.

How come? Only if something has a value you can attach price to it.

Consumers don't have any say in a company's wages. So yes, it is entirely dependent upon the desire of the capitalist for the maximal profit margin that he can manage to obtain. The rest is distributed to the workers on the basis of placation, not on reward. He manipulates his workforce into continuing to return for exploitation, so that his profits can continue to collect.

Thats all true I was trying to point out other forces in the process of production which depends heavilly on consumers as well. Dont you think if the consumers were less greedy themselves and more conscious they could actually force their will on the producer?

Well what do you mean by "progress?"

You can give me your own definition and answer to it.

We don't have to do that. There is another way. But it requires the conscious reorganization of society, and the destruction of the structures which require humanity to behave in this manner. And first among those structures is private property.

The problem I see here is that you are thinking of "conscious reorganisation" of society without making man more conscious himself. I think its necessary to make man more conscious foremost and than the structure of society will change and adapt itself but more likely these processes are interwined. The thing is than conscious man will always create conscious society while ignorant man will likely fail to support anything but ignorant one unless he is led by illumined dictator or leader.

When you use a word like "however," it negates that which came before it. So you don't actually think greed is bad, which is why you rush to justify it.

Yes, I believe you can view things in different angles. So if I am sitting I will see you as higher then me however if I stand on the chair I will look at you from above.

You confuse greed with self-interest. Self-interest is what drives class struggle, and class struggle is what tears down all unjust social structures.

You can try to attribute man's slow enslavement of nature to his personal needs to any number of things, but for something as social as that, greed will never explain it.

Can you say greed is very low form of self-interest? Isnt greed often part of our ambitions and co-driving force behind it? I mean is it really that far between desire and greedy desire? Doesnt ambition almost always contains some greed in it ?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I don't think we're much like animals. The fact that I'm typing on a computer and having a conversation with someone literally thousands of kilometers away is proof enough of that.

Well I have used word semi-animal. Animals fight so do we. Animals are greedy so we are. Should I go on?

 

[Masada]

Well I have used word semi-animal. Animals fight so do we. Animals are greedy so we are. Should I go on?

Animals are greedy?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Animals are greedy?

Have you ever seen pack of lions fighting for slayed pray? Thats purest greed.

 

[Masada]

I take it you've never heard about anthropomorphism then. Because I doubt you'd find a single biologist who would characterize lions as being greedy in the human sense. The chief issue being that lions eat only as much as they need to.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I take it you've never heard about anthropomorphism then. Because I doubt you'd find a single biologist who would characterize lions as being greedy in the human sense. The chief issue being that lions eat only as much as they need to.

I dont say there is no difference. Human greed is not as instinctive but more sophisticated and supported by reason and while in animal case its something completely natural its disgusting in man. Thats all.

 

[Masada]

tl;dr animals aren't greedy in any meaningful sense.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

tl;dr animals aren't greedy in any meaningful sense.

I do see human greed as animal part of man. What is it to you? A perversion?

 

[Masada]

Animals aren't greedy; so I'm not sure what to make of it. I also think its a cop-out to blame human vices on our supposed 'animal side'.