Communism is for selfish and greedy people who are made because those who work hard get paid more.
Again people: In true communism there isn't money. Working for wages and wages being required for everything is the requirement for money which means society is based around the acquisition of money - Capitalism.
In Communism you work for the benefit of others and others work for the benefit of you.
People become doctors because they provide healthcare for the other people who are providing different things for them.
Communist countries in the past have never reached communism, the Soviet Union saw that it would be impossible to suddenly convert a society from money based to a system of collective benefit, so the change was to be gradual. Then before long the government was corrupt and had become focused on money, having lots and lots of money to do everything, and thus people needed money to do anything because to do anything money was still required.
[QUOTE=cheesedelux;23070062]Again people: In true communism there isn't money. Working for wages and wages being required for everything is the requirement for money which means society is based around the acquisition of money - Capitalism.
In Communism you work for the benefit of others and others work for the benefit of you.
People become doctors because they provide healthcare for the other people who are providing different things for them.
Communist countries in the past have never reached communism, the Soviet Union saw that it would be impossible to suddenly convert a society from money based to a system of collective benefit, so the change was to be gradual. Then before long the government was corrupt and had become focused on money, having lots and lots of money to do everything, and thus people needed money to do anything because to do anything money was still required.[/QUOTE]
Hmm, let's see, nobody actually works for material things, the driving motive to get people to work together should be 'for the better of the state'. Yeah, that works perfectly.
[QUOTE=cccritical;23070662]Hmm, let's see, nobody actually works for material things, the driving motive to get people to work together should be 'for the better of the state'. Yeah, that works perfectly.[/QUOTE]
except there is no state, and you completely misinterpreted his message
also if you must wrongly attach a phrase to his post, a better one would be for your community
[QUOTE=Chippay;23067663]um, no.
capitalism is an economic theory. this is a fact. it has nothing to do with government and or life. sure, stable. prosperous, and arguably free governments are conductive to capitalism, but that doesn't change facts.
and the fact you think social democracy is oppressive and laissez-faire democracy protects individual life is the most absurd thing i've ever heard.
are you joking or trolling or what?
[editline]11:53PM[/editline]
tomcat i'm kinda dissapointed you just ignored my last post not going to lie[/QUOTE]
Sorry to hurt your feelings dude.
Real life an all, got distracted ya know?
[QUOTE=Chippay;23019317]socialism, contrary to national socialism, doesn't have one specific branch. socialism takes inspiration from numerous ideals and societies prior to the labour movement. i tend to shy away from the word 'ubermensch' because of it's attachment to the nazi state. as do the vast majority of socialist organizations today.[/QUOTE] The point is, they are both theories on how to build a "better" society, through some pretty extreme measures. Socialists shy away from nearly all of the disasters their political movements have caused in the past 100 years. Because it doesn't get them any votes when people remember the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor]Holodomor[/url] or the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward"]Great Leap Forward[/URL]. Same reason why most modern national socialists are also holocaust deniers. Bringing up their past failures reminds people of why it's a shitty idea to vote for them. So they just try to rewrite history to distance themselves from it.
[quote]and? i'm not really sure how this is a retort to any point i made in what you quoted.
as a sidenote though, just because socialist governments did do it, doesn't mean they should have done it.[/quote] But it happened. Over and over again. The suffering that national socialism caused happened for a decade. The suffering that socialism caused happened for an entire century. I'm sorry but if you look at the statistics, socialism was the [I]real[/I] holocaust of the 20th century.
[quote]i'm not your history teacher, you have both the time and the knowledge to find these out on your own. if you have an issue with one of my examples, raise it.[/quote] You provided them as examples. You are confident that they are examples of it. The burden of proof is on you, not me.
[quote]you're confusing capitalism with the ideals of western democracy.
capitalism is an economic theory
communism is a socio-economic theory
capitalism is not a system of government[/quote]When it comes down to it, capitalism is when individuals can buy or sell capital i.e. the means of production. Communism is when private property is abolished and only "society" as a whole can own them, and not individuals.
[QUOTE=Levithan;23068480]If I'm a doctor, I don't want to be payed the same as a janitor.[/QUOTE]
ok? this is relevant how?
[editline]09:33PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ragy;23069924]Communism is for selfish and greedy people who are made because those who work hard get paid more.[/QUOTE]
lol, you have no idea how communism works.
Listen to red alert 3 theme while reading this
Mind = blown
Fuck you you fucking ignorant fuck communism is so fucking gay why would you fucking even say this your so stupid i hate you i hope you go get fucking hit by a fucking flaming bus you fucking assmunch go die and fucking take all your friends/fellow believers with you! Ahhhhhhhhhhh!
[QUOTE=Ragy;23069924]Communism is for selfish and greedy people who are made because those who work hard get paid more.[/QUOTE]
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
Because obviously under capitalism, a guy who works 12 hours a day in a metallurgy factory in July isn't working harder than his boss who just signs papers, invests and shits in air conditionned rooms.
[sp]I am surprised of how stupid you can be, my son.[/sp]
[QUOTE=kayOkay;23146418]:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
Because obviously under capitalism, a guy who works 12 hours a day in a metallurgy factory in July isn't working harder than his boss who just signs papers, invests and shits in air conditionned rooms.
[sp]I am surprised of how stupid you can be, my son.[/sp][/QUOTE]
The reality is that there are few people who can invest millions of dollars in new factories and equipment, and tons of people who can work an assembly line. People get paid based on how in demand their type of work is.
For example, I got paid minimum wage when i was bagging groceries 8 hours a day. Because it's a job that nearly anybody can do. Jobs that require little training and little investment don't command very high wages. Janitors don't make lots of money because nearly anybody can be trained to pick up trash in a matter of minutes. Only a select few people can perform brain surgery or run an entire company. Hence those jobs are fewer in number and pay more.
[QUOTE=tomcat13;23148341]The reality is that there are few people who can invest millions of dollars in new factories and equipment, and tons of people who can work an assembly line. People get paid based on how in demand their type of work is.
For example, I got paid minimum wage when i was bagging groceries 8 hours a day. Because it's a job that nearly anybody can do. Jobs that require little training and little investment don't command very high wages. Janitors don't make lots of money because nearly anybody can be trained to pick up trash in a matter of minutes. Only a select few people can perform brain surgery or run an entire company. Hence those jobs are fewer in number and pay more.[/QUOTE]
True, but it's a vicious circle, in order to invest millions you need millions, in order to get millions you generally need to spend an entire life laddering, or be one of those lucky bastards and be born rich and beautiful.
Same goes about studies, or qualifications, in order to be a good student, you need an encouraging family, a good environement and a bright perspective of your future, but there is no need for me to insist on how getting all that is difficult without an already existing base, a good one.
Which is why I believe that communism, as a whole, is way better than capitalism. Under capitalism, everything is based on the value of something (be it qualifications, manners, money, fame,...), and the more you have of it, the easier it is to get more. The opposite goes the same way, we all hear success stories about those who started small and grew big, but honestly, everyday the rest of us crash trying to do the same.
Communisim and socialism, I believe, would give a chance to everyone by giving more importance to the human part of society than to it's capitals. But again, the socialist ideal is slowly dieing in today's world, thanks to medias and right-wing politics. I personally hoped that this crisis would give more thoughts to those who suck capitalism so much... guess it didn't work :/
Anyway, I wrote too much lol. [sp]gosh how I love political debates :o[/sp]
[QUOTE=kayOkay;23150129]True, but it's a vicious circle, in order to invest millions you need millions, in order to get millions you generally need to spend an entire life laddering, or be one of those lucky bastards and be born rich and beautiful.
Same goes about studies, or qualifications, in order to be a good student, you need an encouraging family, a good environement and a bright perspective of your future, but there is no need for me to insist on how getting all that is difficult without an already existing base, a good one.
Which is why I believe that communism, as a whole, is way better than capitalism. Under capitalism, everything is based on the value of something (be it qualifications, manners, money, fame,...), and the more you have of it, the easier it is to get more. The opposite goes the same way, we all hear success stories about those who started small and grew big, but honestly, everyday the rest of us crash trying to do the same.
Communisim and socialism, I believe, would give a chance to everyone by giving more importance to the human part of society than to it's capitals. But again, the socialist ideal is slowly dieing in today's world, thanks to medias and right-wing politics. I personally hoped that this crisis would give more thoughts to those who suck capitalism so much... guess it didn't work :/
Anyway, I wrote too much lol. [sp]gosh how I love political debates :o[/sp][/QUOTE]
I dont see your reasoning on how communism would somehow make this better. It seems your criticism is that too few or the wrong people are becoming successful? The matter of fact is that there are some lines of work that require a shitload of training and time investment. You have to go to medschool for fucking [I]years[/I] to be a doctor, it's extremely difficult and medschool students usually need to take out a lot of loans in order to afford it. To top it all off, nearly half the people who enter medschool flunk out.
So really, doctors HAVE to make a lot of money, otherwise it would end up like the Soviet Union in the 1980s when nobody wanted to be a doctor and their health care system crumbled. The thing about capitalism is that when a job is in demand, people become more willing to pay somebody to do said job. When housing is in demand, guess who hires more workers and raises pay to attract more workers? The construction industry. And when demand for housing slows, they lay off workers because people are no longer willing to pay as much for a new house. A free market is very efficient at producing what people want, and when they want it. Communism and socialism have always been historically terrible at this. Hence the reason why in the Soviet Union every family got a free car, but you had to be put on a fifteen year waiting list for 4 horse power sedan that broke down all the time. But it's "free" right?
I dont see in any way how communism could do this better. Having some commisar tell you "comrade we need more houses, i dont give a shit if you hate working construction, you will now be a construction worker! it's your duty to society, comrade! and when we dont need you to build houses we will make you wash dishes!"
But hey, if you think that's a better system then by all means hop on the next boat to North Korea.
It seems to me that most of you are indoctrinated into capitalist lies eversince childbirth which shows that alot of you need to put aside everything you have been told all your lives and start researching what Marxism/Communism/Socialism is actually all about.
Let me give you a hint of what Marxism's main point in a nutshell...well have you ever had a car with a bad engine? How many times did you try to "fix up" the same engine or even giving it a "newer" appearance but the car eventually keeps breaking down no matter what? How long does it take you to realize it was the engine itself? As as you finally come to that realization, you change the entire car engine and replaced it with a new one which the car now runs smoothly without any breakdowns.
Now apply that same logic to our political structure you'll come to realize that it's our system capitalism is the main problem no matter how many times you try to fix it up it will always inevitably switch back to the main problem with the system itself. This is where revolution comes in which is the equivalent of replacing your car engine with a new one.
Also does anyone remember the Unions during the 1920s where people fought and died to get vacation time, 8 hour work time, paid more? This is a example of a revolution is like. Even though the Unions was also a example that "reforming" the system doesn't help much since it'll inevitably revert back to it's original form when Ronald Reagen and Thatcher came to the scene hence why we're actually slowly regressing back to the 19th century as long we stay under capitalism.
Overall Capitalism is a system where the wealthy elites control the means of production (like the MPAA/RIAA, Corporations, etc) while Socialism/Communism is actually a system where we the common people are the ones controlling the means of production.
Also think about it. Would any of these current events (BP Oil Spill, Wars, etc) be happening today if we live under socialism? Of course not since under socialism the system would make it actually impossible for these things to happen.
You know, capitalism by definition means that resource will form a capital, a center point, and that the rest will be less fortunate.
Communism means that it will be shared equally, or with a just basis.
Communism is kinda moral, capitalism is NOT.
[QUOTE=kayOkay;23158808]Communism is kinda moral, capitalism is NOT.[/QUOTE]
Yup, Capitalism is just another excuse for a few individuals to be selfish and say "fuck you" to the people. And for those who say "but selfishness is human nature" is a perfect example how successfully people have been indoctrinated (or doped) into capitalist thinking patterns. There is no "human nature" but rather human behavior (or rather selfishness is more like a mental disorder).
Also here is some large points why capitalism is a fucked up system...
- Worker exploitation.
- Wage Slavery.
- Imperialism - Iraq, Afghanistan, etc etc.
- Poverty.
- Third World nations.
ALL of that exists within capitalism. No exceptions. It always will. Ask them if they agree with that. Since capitalism an emotion-based control of our resources that lead to instability, crisis, war and exploitation
[QUOTE=Nannak;23160845]Yup, Capitalism is just another excuse for a few individuals to be selfish and say "fuck you" to the people. And for those who say "but selfishness is human nature" is a perfect example how successfully people have been indoctrinated (or doped) into capitalist thinking patterns. There is no "human nature" but rather human behavior (or rather selfishness is rather mental disorder).
Also here is some large points why capitalism is a fucked up system...
- Worker exploitation.
- Wage Slavery.
- Imperialism - Iraq, Afghanistan, etc etc.
- Poverty.
- Third World nations.
ALL of that exists within capitalism. No exceptions. It always will. Ask them if they agree with that. Since capitalism an emotion-based control of our resources that lead to instability, crisis, war and exploitation[/QUOTE]
But it's kinda thanks to speeches like yours that communism and socialism in general is looked down, at... :/
[QUOTE=kayOkay;23160957]But it's kinda thanks to speeches like yours that communism and socialism in general is looked down, at... :/[/QUOTE]
What?
sorry I forgot about this thread
[QUOTE=Novistador;23018708]ok, first of all, the only way someone can be forced to do anything is through the use of force. Physical force exerted, or threatened upon them by another human being. [/quote]
through the use of force yes. it does not have to be physical or from another human being, that is completely arbitrary. my point still stands, people work because [i]they have to in order to live[/i]. The 'voluntary' part of the trade is shallow.
[QUOTE=Novistador;23018708]I've already put fourth that the idea of "your forced by the requirements of existence" is silly. Yes it is still an act you must carry out, but to compare it to violence from another human being is absurd. [/quote]
When did I compare it to violence from another human being? I said that employment is hardly voluntary as you either do it or die/live miserably. There's not much freedom in that situation.
[QUOTE=Novistador;23018708]If you want to live you must acquire the things necessary to advance your life, here you have a choice of producing, robbing, or begging. Robbing will only work in the short term before you killed or caught, as your actions make you a liability to the life of everyone around you, Begging leaves your future not only uncertain, but destroys any self respect you may have, which leaves the question of why you would want to live in the first place. [/quote]
I'm not arguing people shouldn't produce. Where the hell did you get that? You're acting like I'm advocating a hippie commune.
[QUOTE=Novistador;23018708]Production of some value is the only way to survive long term for a human being, productive human beings don't become liability to the lives of their peers, but help and advance them.[/quote]
I absolutely agree. But this has nothing to do with the argument.
[QUOTE=Novistador;23018708]Now in our civilized world of reason and technology, no one must produce all the products they wish to utilize, we have specialized and in our specialization become very good at specific things, allowing us to trade these very good things with others, and thus maintain our lives. [/quote]
Yes this is an effect of socialized production, also a component of socialism. What are you arguing for?
[QUOTE=Novistador;23018708]Your contention seems to be that if businesses never made a profit, and (heres where I'm fuzzy) either always broke even, or use all profits to pay all employees equal wages, or gave all their profits in taxes, or something. They would only sell enough product so that every one of their employees could survive. Thus when one does make a profit, the employees work more than they would have to if they were just subsiding on the bare necessity's, or current requirements(without growth).
But my main problem with this business model is first of all why you think any specific employee (physical laborer or otherwise) is entitled to more than they have agreed to work for, and more than their employer is willing to pay them. Sure the company makes a profit that is I suppose greater than their cost of living for lets say a year, but what entitles them to more of the profits than their agreement allows for, they are not the only people involved in the process, they didn't own the raw materials or tools, they simply sold the service of using them for a specific end, and were compensated for that service, according to a wage they accepted.[/quote]
First, your confusion on this is due to the fact that you have made little attempt to understand my point on value and price. You can't, or refuse to, understand any concept of value other then what the price a market magically gives, just like the proponents of the 'calculation problem'. It's vulgar economics.
Every society with division of labor has social surplus. In capitalism it manifests as capital, which in turn uses labor to produce more surplus of value to make capital grow, and the cycle repeats.
The relationship between capital and labor is wholly parasitical. The source of all new value in a market is labor, it is the only means for capital to expand itself. While labor produces so it can sustain itself, capital employs labor to produce so it can produce beyond its needs to sustain itself, and thereby produce more social surplus and allow capital to command greater wealth.
Labor is paid according to the price of its commodity form, which is according to supply and demand. The relationship of supply and demand for labor, like any another commodity, is determined by its cost of production, with times of prices above the cost of production balanced by the times of prices below the cost of production.
Therefore, any worker who is employed by the capitalist is paid a wage that floats around the cost for that worker to come back and work more the next day. Ironically, he does this himself during his employment with the capitalist; part of his working day is dedicated to covering the costs of employing him, with the rest dedicated to producing new value for the capitalist. This new value is never seen or used by the laborer, it is used by the capitalist to expand his capital.
This relationship is what marx called exploitation. There is a surplus of labor-time given to the capitalist that is unpaid for, it takes form in capitalism as profit.
But this is not an argument of unfairness. This relationship would be considered fair by capitalists, and not surprisingly so. They live their lives based on the exchange of commodities, not by their usefulness like the working class does, but by their exchange-value, the amount of labor-time necessary to create one commodity in proportion to another. This is the reason why a low-paid but critical form of labor like construction work is priced less then something as comparatively useless as a Ferrari.
[quote=Adam Smith;434334]The value of any commodity, therefore, to the person who possesses it, and who means not to use or consume it himself, but to exchange it for other commodities, is equal to the quantity of labour which it enables him to purchase or command.[/quote]
So, for the owners of capital and, what they pay a laborer [i]is[/i] fair. And for anyone else who accepts bourgeois economics, it is fair. But for those who accept working class ideology, marxism, it is unfair. It is yet another contradiction in the capitalism, the relationship between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. We see now that ideology and the science of economics are as class driven like anything else in capitalist society.
There is not one universal truth, not one ideology to conquer them all, but opposing classes. The conflict between marxism and the various capitalist ideologies is not an intellectual struggle for 'what really is the truth', it is yet another front class struggle is fought on. This is why on both sides the proponents are convinced they are right. We're demonstrating it at this very moment.
[quote=Adam Smith;434334]But suppose some sort of worker is able to sell only enough of their product to subside for a year, perhaps they sell televisions. Where are they to get the components for these televisions?, How are they to handle any other of the crucial parts of bringing a product to market if all they posses is the ability to handle one link in the chain. I mean its all well and good to say that the profits from one HD television could pay for one makes living for a year, but if theres no way one man could ever produce such a product whats the use of saying such a thing, especially as a critique of making profits.[/QUOTE]
Capital does not enable labor to work, labor is always able to do that, it simply gives labor permission to produce using its private property. Production is a social relation, and I've never stated anything to the contrary.
You're attacking me on the grounds that labor cannot produce without capital, and so it is! In capitalism.
Just like earlier with your ideas of value, here you adopt a vulgar position on production. That is, capital is the only means for labor to work efficiently. Period.
It is for that reason why you are asking me this question. And since I'm not of that opinion, this argument makes no sense to me and is not an argument against workers' self-management at all.
EDIT:
[QUOTE=Earthen;23025416]In a modern capitalist society the majority of people don't have to work excessive hours and by modern I mean Europe and the US/Canada. Naturally there are extremes of poverty in developed nations wherein people have to take on many jobs. But then again quite a lot of those people have other socially related worries... i.e. single mother, losing everything, lack of proper education, oppression by certain groups, etc...[/quote]
Capitalism is a global system, your distinction between modern (i.e. first world) and 'developing' (i.e. third world) capitalism is completely arbitrary. What we have now, with most of the world's population living in standards far below ours at the top of the food chain, super exploitation of third world labor, and the domination of third world markets by foreign super corporations [b]IS[/b] modern capitalism.
[QUOTE=Earthen;23025416]I don't see why you can't understand that in a capitalist economy the majority of the time everybody gets the amount of money they deserve for their work.[/quote]
This is not a reply to.
[quote=Me;434343]Prove that is the amount he deserves. The rest of your post doesn't. 'Anyone can do it' doesn't disprove the fact that he is forced to work longer then he needs to to live and isn't even paid for the time.
[/quote]
This is you scratching you head as to why I disagree with you.
[QUOTE=Earthen;23025416]In communism it wouldn't matter how long you work, you still get the same amount of money, therefore there is no incentive to work overtime.[/quote]
That's a load of shit and alone proves you have no knowledge of even basic marxism.
Labor is paid according to the phrase: From each according his ability, to each according to his work. Meaning, you are paid according to how much you produce. See [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_voucher]Labor vouchers[/url]. This is distinguished from capitalism where labor is paid its cost of reproduction, i.e. what it needs to come back and work more the next day, AKA the standards of living.
[QUOTE=Earthen;23025416]What I meant by capitalist was modern European countries, you have countries like Somalia that are simply anarcho-capitalism. You failed to realize my note about social circumstances. Name one European country that has gone from modern, developed capitalism to dictatorship.[/quote]
Sorry but capitalism is capitalism. Your wanting to distinguish them to save your own position is completely arbitrary.
Let's have third world nations rely on themselves for investments instead of us and see how quickly 'modern' (i.e. first world) capitalism experience crises and turn to the state to brutally preserve the status quo. This is the case for every capitalist dictatorship to come into fruition.
[QUOTE=Nannak;23157847]It seems to me that most of you are indoctrinated into capitalist lies eversince childbirth which shows that alot of you need to put aside everything you have been told all your lives and start researching what Marxism/Communism/Socialism is actually all about.
Let me give you a hint of what Marxism's main point in a nutshell...well have you ever had a car with a bad engine? How many times did you try to "fix up" the same engine or even giving it a "newer" appearance but the car eventually keeps breaking down no matter what? How long does it take you to realize it was the engine itself? As as you finally come to that realization, you change the entire car engine and replaced it with a new one which the car now runs smoothly without any breakdowns.
Now apply that same logic to our political structure you'll come to realize that it's our system capitalism is the main problem no matter how many times you try to fix it up it will always inevitably switch back to the main problem with the system itself. This is where revolution comes in which is the equivalent of replacing your car engine with a new one. [/QUOTE]
Unicorns are superior to horses, we should have a Unicorn instead of a horse, regardless of how many horses we have killed in the process of trying to nail horns onto their foreheads.
[quote]Also does anyone remember the Unions during the 1920s where people fought and died to get vacation time, 8 hour work time, paid more? This is a example of a revolution is like. Even though the Unions was also a example that "reforming" the system doesn't help much since it'll inevitably revert back to it's original form when Ronald Reagen and Thatcher came to the scene hence why we're actually slowly regressing back to the 19th century as long we stay under capitalism. [/quote] Don't get me wrong i believe workers have every right to organize collectively, but you seem to think that our entire economic system can be improved if we just pay our low income workers more money and give them fewer hours. It doesn't work like that. We paid a pretty heavy price for a lot of the programs you just mentioned. Minimum wage laws increased unemployment drastically because businesses were forced to lay off workers or give their current workers fewer hours and thus less income. People who once had jobs were forced out onto the streets when they were laid off en-masse. We went from an age where one working man with a blue collar job could afford a house, a car, and make enough money to support a stay at home wife and two children. It's because of these laws that this is no longer possible, and now it's the norm for both a husband and a wife to work blue collar jobs and still not make enough to support a family of four. Everything comes with a price.
Economist Henry Hazlitt explained the minimum wage effect best:
[quote=Henry Hazlitt] the harmful results of arbitrary governmental efforts to raise the price of favored commodities. The same sort of harmful results follow efforts to raise wages through minimum wage laws. This ought not to be surprising, for a wage is, in fact, a price. It is unfortunate for clarity of economic thinking that the price of labor’s services should have received an entirely different name from other prices. This has prevented most people from recognizing that the same principles govern both. Thinking has become so emotional and so politically biased on the subject of wages that in most discussions of them the plainest principles are ignored. People who would be among the first to deny that prosperity could be brought about by artificially boosting prices, people who would be among the first to point out that minimum price laws might be most harmful to the very industries they were designed to help, will nevertheless advocate minimum wage laws, and denounce opponents of them, without misgivings.
Yet it ought to be clear that a minimum wage law is, at best, a limited weapon for combatting the evil of low wages, and that the possible good to be achieved by such a law can exceed the possible harm only in proportion as its aims are modest. The more ambitious such a law is, the larger the number of workers it attempts to cover, and the more it attempts to raise their wages, the more certain are its harmful effects to exceed any possible good effects.
The first thing that happens, for example, when a law is passed that no one shall be paid less than $106 for a forty-hour week is that no one who is not worth $106 a week to an employer will be employed at all. You cannot make a man worth a given amount by making it illegal for anyone to offer him anything less. You merely deprive him of the right to earn the amount that his abilities and situation would permit him to earn, while you deprive the community even of the moderate services that he is capable of rendering. In brief, for a low wage you substitute unemployment. You do harm all around, with no comparable compensation.
The only exception to this occurs when a group of workers is receiving a wage actually below its market worth. This is likely to happen only in rare and special circumstances or localities where competitive forces do not operate freely or adequately; but nearly all these special cases could be remedied just as effectively, more flexibly and with far less potential harm, by unionization.
It may be thought that if the law forces the payment of a higher wage in a given industry, that industry can then charge higher prices for its product, so that the burden of paying the higher wage is merely shifted to consumers. Such shifts, however, are not easily made, nor are the consequences of artificial wage-raising so easily escaped. A higher price for the product may not be possible: it may merely drive consumers to the equivalent imported products or to some substitute. Or, if consumers continue to buy the product of the industry in which wages have been raised, the higher price will cause them to buy less of it. While some workers in the industry may be benefited from the higher wage, therefore, others will be thrown out of employment altogether. On the other hand, if the price of the product is not raised, marginal producers in the industry will be driven out of business; so that reduced production and consequent unemployment will merely be brought about in another way.
When such consequences are pointed out, there are those who reply: “Very well; if it is true that the X industry cannot exist except by paying starvation wages, then it will be just as well if the minimum wage puts it out of existence altogether.” But this brave pronouncement overlooks the realities. It overlooks, first of all, that consumers will suffer the loss of that product. It forgets, in the second place, that it is merely condemning the people who worked in that industry to unemployment. And it ignores, finally, that bad as were the wages paid in the X industry, they were the best among all the alternatives that seemed open to the workers in that industry; otherwise the workers would have gone into another. If, therefore, the X industry is driven out of existence by a minimum wage law, then the workers previously employed in that industry will be forced to turn to alternative courses that seemed less attractive to them in the first place. Their competition for jobs will drive down the pay offered even in these alternative occupations. There is no escape from the conclusion that the minimum wage will increase unemployment.[/quote] Better than i could have explained it anyway.
[quote]Overall Capitalism is a system where the wealthy elites control the means of production (like the MPAA/RIAA, Corporations, etc) while Socialism/Communism is actually a system where we the common people are the ones controlling the means of production.[/quote] This is really no different from "the jews control everything, thus we must pass laws to take it all away from them." If we only get rid of this minority in our society, everything will be better! And the first seeds of totalitarianism are sown.
[quote]Also think about it. Would any of these current events (BP Oil Spill, Wars, etc) be happening today if we live under socialism? Of course not since under socialism the system would make it actually impossible for these things to happen.[/quote]But they did happen under socialism.
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War[/URL]
[B]"[/B]Socialist Republic of Vietnam[B]"[/B] invades "Democratic Kampuchea" which sparks a war with the "People's Republic of China."
Every single side in that war was Pro-Marxist. That Marxism will somehow solve all the worlds problems and stop all the wars is probably the biggest farce propagated by communists ever. It's like you really do think that if you had the power to socially re-engineer society all of the bloodshed and disagreements will magically go away. It's unbelievably naive.
[quote=Conscript]First, your confusion on this is due to the fact that you have made little attempt to understand my point on value and price. You can't, or refuse to, understand any concept of value other then what the price a market magically gives, just like the proponents of the 'calculation problem'. It's vulgar economics.
Every society with division of labor has social surplus. In capitalism it manifests as capital, which in turn uses labor to produce more surplus of value to make capital grow, and the cycle repeats.
The relationship between capital and labor is wholly parasitical. The source of all new value in a market is labor, it is the only means for capital to expand itself. While labor produces so it can sustain itself, capital employs labor to produce so it can produce beyond its needs to sustain itself, and thereby produce more social surplus and allow capital to command greater wealth.
Labor is paid according to the price of its commodity form, which is according to supply and demand. The relationship of supply and demand for labor, like any another commodity, is determined by its cost of production, with times of prices above the cost of production balanced by the times of prices below the cost of production.
Therefore, any worker who is employed by the capitalist is paid a wage that floats around the cost for that worker to come back and work more the next day. Ironically, he does this himself during his employment with the capitalist; part of his working day is dedicated to covering the costs of employing him, with the rest dedicated to producing new value for the capitalist. This new value is never seen or used by the laborer, it is used by the capitalist to expand his capital.
This relationship is what marx called exploitation. There is a surplus of labor-time given to the capitalist that is unpaid for, it takes form in capitalism as profit.
But this is not an argument of unfairness. This relationship would be considered fair by capitalists, and not surprisingly so. They live their lives based on the exchange of commodities, not by their usefulness like the working class does, but by their exchange-value, the amount of labor-time necessary to create one commodity in proportion to another. This is the reason why a low-paid but critical form of labor like construction work is priced less then something as comparatively useless as a Ferrari.[/quote] I still see you're working your labor theory of value hocus pocus so I guess that's my que to respond. Yes there is a relationship between labor and price. But the value of an object a laborer produces does not depend exclusively on the amount of labor he puts into it. It depends on the value that the buyer is willing to pay for it. A worker's products are worth nothing if nobody is willing to buy it. Regardless of what type of machines or how many hours he puts into its production. Everything derives its value from the mutually agreed upon prices by buyers and sellers.
Picasso's paintings would be worth nothing if nobody wanted to buy them. But because the demand for his paintings is so high, and the number of paintings he made is so low, the price is greater than what most of us will make in a lifetime. It's that simple. It has very little to do with how long he spent on his paintings, what type of canvas he used, or the quality of his paintbrushes and paints. It's supply and demand pure and simple.
Furthermore, if this Ferrari has no use, then why will people pay often hundreds of thousands of dollars for one? Why will people shell out money for tickets to a formula one race to watch a bunch of "worthless" as you call them, cars race around a track? You are ascribing your own personal value system upon objects that other people clearly do value.
[QUOTE=tomcat13;23182044]Unicorns are superior to horses, we should have a Unicorn instead of a horse, regardless of how many horses we have killed in the process of trying to nail horns onto their foreheads.[/QUOTE]
No, you don't really understand what Marxism is all about (it's not about everything looking the same but rather the working classes controlling the means of production).
[QUOTE=tomcat13;23182044]This is really no different from "the jews control everything, thus we must pass laws to take it all away from them." If we only get rid of this minority in our society, everything will be better! And the first seeds of totalitarianism are sown.[/QUOTE]
You think this is a conspiracy theory? No it's not, it's how our system works scientifically. Don't go repeating your masters words like a parrot when they cry about "totalitarianism" (the fear that the working classes are going to take their power away by the working classes).
[QUOTE=tomcat13;23182044] But they did happen under socialism.[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War[/URL]
[B]"[/B]Socialist Republic of Vietnam[B]"[/B] invades "Democratic Kampuchea" which sparks a war with the "People's Republic of China."
Every single side in that war was Pro-Marxist. That Marxism will somehow solve all the worlds problems and stop all the wars is probably the biggest farce propagated by communists ever. It's like you really do think that if you had the power to socially re-engineer society all of the bloodshed and disagreements will magically go away. It's unbelievably naive.[/QUOTE]
Socialism doesn't exist yet.
Or maybe it's just a waste of time arguing with liberals like yourself
[QUOTE=Nannak;23183200]No, you don't really understand what Marxism is all about (it's not about everything looking the same but rather the working classes controlling the means of production). [/QUOTE] If you go back one page you will see that I posted this exact same thing. Marxism is about abolishing private property.
[quote]You think this is a conspiracy theory? No it's not, it's how our system works scientifically. Don't go repeating your masters words like a parrot when they cry about "totalitarianism" (the fear that the working classes are going to take their power away by the working classes).[/quote] It's about as scientific as the scientific racism of the early 20th century that claimed that because only european countries had undergone the industrial revolution that other peoples were inferior. About as scientific as the neo nazis who point out that Jews make up only 2% of America's population and yet they make up 10% of congress and because a large portion of Forbe's wealthiest people in the world are Jewish, that there fore jews must control everything.
You take a scientific statistic and then make an unscientific conclusion from it.
[quote]Socialism doesn't exist yet.[/quote]Neither do Unicorns.
unicorns are the same as economic theories, true story
you're a joke tomcat
[QUOTE=Warhol;23186077]unicorns are the same as economic theories, true story[/quote]They have about the same likelihood of existing.
[quote]you're a joke tomcat[/QUOTE]
At least I'm capable of actual debate.
take a guess, which is more real
[img]http://www.deadofsummer.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/unicorn_hoveround.jpg[/img]
[img]http://esceurovision.com/song/flag/Norway-flag.gif[/img]
1st
sums it up:
[url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=965741[/url]
[QUOTE=melindagreen;23189636]sums it up:
[URL]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=965741[/URL][/QUOTE]
I have an empty bottle of this stuff in my closet. Tastes boring but the bottle was too novel to pass up.
I have 6 of them in the cub-bard. Straight from Russia my grandmother brought back with her in the 80's
[QUOTE=ProboardslolV2;22927779]So the communist manifesto. Pretty big fucking deal, as it inspired the most evil government known to mankind: The USSR.[/quote]
Evil is subjective, but USSR isn't the worst government ever.
Also, communism is good THE[b]in[/b]ORY, but no society can succeed in implementing it.
[QUOTE=melindagreen;23190139]I have 6 of them in the cub-bard. Straight from Russia my grandmother brought back with her in the 80's[/QUOTE]
You can get it here in the US at most novelty stores for like $2.
I got mine at a BevMo
[QUOTE=GhostG45;23190314]Evil is subjective, but USSR isn't the worst government ever.
Also, communism is good THE[B]in[/B]ORY, but no society can succeed in implementing it.[/QUOTE]
It isn't even really good in theory. Even in theory it requires some pretty bizarre restrictions on personal freedom.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.