Lets refer back to Fallout 3 for this one
[img]http://www.deviantart.com/download/132023618/Liberty_Prime___Death_by_Jay13x.jpg[/img]
Liberty Prime even knows the answer
[QUOTE=Black Milano;30295753]I know jack shit about political stuff, mostly because I've found that it's useless. What really shapes the playing field and makes things work is, you guessed it, economics.[/QUOTE]
I think I'd disagree crucially here. It's quite interesting when you look into the way politics/economics is taught. Politics degrees seem to give critical/radical orientated theories a much louder voice (at least, they do in my university), while economics degrees lean massively on neoliberalism. Remember it's in the interests of the people in power for everyone to believe in neoliberalism.
[QUOTE=Comrade82;30296005]Marxism manifest.[/QUOTE]
How do people decide how much should be produced? how are producers and buyers coordinated?
In essence, how do i, as a producer, decide how many sheep to breed or fields to cultivate?.
[editline]6th June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Robbobin;30296732]I think I'd disagree crucially here. It's quite interesting when you look into the way politics/economics is taught. Politics degrees seem to give critical/radical orientated theories a much louder voice (at least, they do in my university), while economics degrees lean massively on neoliberalism. Remember it's in the interests of the people in power for everyone to believe in neoliberalism.[/QUOTE]
I really don't know what to say, since i don't study anything politics related i'm at a loss here.
Economics degrees, in my country, tend to be completely apolitical and positivistic. You just study the most used micro/macro models and discuss them. It's not just neoliberalism, it's much more neutral than that.
[QUOTE=Comrade82;30296005]Marx lists the elementary factors of production as:
labour, "the personal activity of man." (Capital, I, VII, 1.)
the subject of labour: the thing worked on.
the instruments of labour: tools, labouring domestic animals like horses, chemicals used in modifying the subject, etc.
Some subjects of labour are available directly from Nature: uncaught fish, unmined coal, etc. Others are results of a previous stage of production; these are known as raw materials, such as flour or yarn. Workshops, canals, and roads are considered instruments of labour. (Capital, I, VII, 1.) Coal for boilers, oil for wheels, and hay for draft horses is considered raw material, not instruments of labour. The subjects of labour and instruments of labour together are called the means of production. Relations of production are the relations human beings adopt toward each other as part of the production process. In capitalism, wage labour and private property are part of the relations of production.
Calculation of value of a product:
If labour is performed directly on Nature and with instruments of negligible value, the value of the product is simply the labour time. If labour is performed on something that is itself the product of previous labour (that is, on a raw material), using instruments that have some value, the value of the product is the value of the raw material, plus depreciation on the instruments, plus the labour time. Depreciation may be figured simply by dividing the value of the instruments by their working life; eg. if a lathe worth £1,000 lasts in use 10 years it imparts value to the product at a rate of £100 per year.
value = mp + lt
Where: value is the value of the product;
mp is the value of the means of production;
lt is the labour time.
[editline]6th June 2011[/editline]
The ratio between the wages [the value of the labour(-power)] and the surplus value—or, alternatively speaking, the ratio between the necessary and surplus labour time—Marx called the rate of surplus value.
s′ = s / V = st / lt Where: s′ is the rate of surplus value
s is the surplus value;
V is the variable capital (the wages);
st is the surplus labour time;
nt is the necessary labour time;
[editline]6th June 2011[/editline]
Expenditure:
= mp + lv where lv is the value of the labour(-power).
Income:
= value of product
= mp + lt
Difference:
= lt - lv
= surplus value
[editline]6th June 2011[/editline]
Income:
= value of product
= mp + lt (other workers) + lt (capitalist while he works)
[editline]6th June 2011[/editline]
Labour(-power) is unique among commodities in that it is the only commodity that both has value and creates value: all commodities have value, only labour(-power) creates value. The value created by labour(-power) is simply the time during which it was exerted. This follows from the labour theory of value's definition of value as embodied labour time.
Example:
Suppose I[who?] spend three hours creating some product; and suppose also that in the process I consume means of production that sometime in the past required two hours to produce – i.e., they have a value of two hours. The value of my product will be:
mp + lt = 2 + 3 = 5 (in units of hours.)
[editline]6th June 2011[/editline]
Decided to post his (Marx) basic equations and descriptions.
*Note Found on Wikipedia, didn't want to type descriptions and equations myself*[/QUOTE]
[img]http://warptubes.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/tldr-500x339.jpg[/img]
They never did it correctly. If they had better ways of creating resources and a less strict government it mighty work but as logn as it is ruled by one person it will be bad because even if the ruler is a cool guy he will die eventually.
[editline]6th June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=shatteredwindow;30274116]Communism is good in theory, but is ruined by human nature.[/QUOTE]
There is no such thing as human nature. Not to say im a communist but people aren't just born a jerk.
I REALLY don't want to have to argue this point again.
We really should just band the communist vs capitalist conversations on here, because EVERY time they end up the same way.
Someone starts it, the majority say no, Wakka and marlkarx and Jiyoon come in and argue for it, and it goes on for 10 pages, until only 4 people are really arguing against the communist side, and then it ends up with both sides flaming and agreeing to disagree before quitting.
Every time. And it's tiresome.
Inborn free rider problem, I personally would love to take advantage of the free medical care (i received it when i was in Russia (despite the fact that the country collapsed it still manages to provide free healthcare)). Didn't pay a darn thing, here i go to a doctor, he charges me 2k! Yes 2k$ and I have insurance, which paid half, for a small filling in my tooth. It's so emotionally infuriating i tell you.
Personally i seem to boil it down to the fact that you can't have the best of both worlds, perfect legal rights without possibility of abuse, and a degree of fairness all delivered to you for free. But you can take advantage of it by travelling abroad hehe.
The idea behind communism is extremely good, but it won't work.
[QUOTE=Crazy Knife;30301243]
Personally i seem to boil it down to the fact that you can't have the best of both worlds[/QUOTE]
Yes we can, and that's exactly what we should be doing, straight-following capitalism doesn't work and straight-following communism doesn't work either, we should pick the best of everything and stop condemning things because that single aspect comes from an specific political ideology, like you Americans and the "communist" health care and many other examples. Well i do think spending less on the military is better than dying because you can't afford your heart surgery, that's a fucked up sense of priority there, it's simply unbelievable how you guys live with that and think that's ok.
Anyways... i don't think communism would work perfectly and neither does capitalism, following any of those outdated ideas to the core is just terrible.
No it wouldn't, there would always be a human person who will follow his/her desire for more.
Aside from Communism, Capitalism and Socialism aren't good systems either.
They are the better ones of the given and therefore we take them.
[QUOTE=Comrade82;30296005]*Note Found on Wikipedia, didn't want to type descriptions and equations myself*[/QUOTE]
So you copypasted
[QUOTE=Black Milano;30299045]I really don't know what to say, since i don't study anything politics related i'm at a loss here.
Economics degrees, in my country, tend to be completely apolitical and positivistic. You just study the most used micro/macro models and discuss them. It's not just neoliberalism, it's much more neutral than that.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't really making much of a point or anything in that post :smile:
I think in a way, because economics has been so divorced from all of the social aspects in politics, it's perspective is automatically different to most political perspectives. I could be wrong in saying this and I'm sure it's fairly naive, but I'd see economics as being really efficient and great at moving money around, but lacks the moral justification behind everything. Because economics is so apolotical, it doesn't recognise with enough emphasis the injustices created purely by capital accumulation.
To be honest I think your ideal state of economics and mine would be roughly the same thing so maybe it's a bit of a moot point. I think what I want to happen is much less controversial than people seem to think; I just believe the means to production should belong to those who produce through it, whether by seizing it or it being given to them because it's the moral thing to do. Even if [i]all[/i] property isn't shared, businesses should at least be ran as co-operatives owned by those working in them. Economics has this horrible picture of the human condition because it rewards the wrong kinds of things.
[QUOTE=Detective P;30299974]I REALLY don't want to have to argue this point again.
We really should just band the communist vs capitalist conversations on here, because EVERY time they end up the same way.
Someone starts it, the majority say no, Wakka and marlkarx and Jiyoon come in and argue for it, and it goes on for 10 pages, until only 4 people are really arguing against the communist side, and then it ends up with both sides flaming and agreeing to disagree before quitting.
Every time. And it's tiresome.[/QUOTE]
I intended this thread not to be an argument. It was supposed to see people's opinions on whether Communism could be successful or not depending on its leader.
[editline]7th June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=CheeseMan;30303067]So you copypasted[/QUOTE]
Yes, but I knew the equations before hand and after not getting sleep for 48 hours, you really don't want to type all the equations yourself....
[QUOTE=Comrade82;30313758]I intended this thread not to be an argument. It was supposed to see people's opinions on whether Communism could be successful or not depending on its leader.[/QUOTE]
You never answered my questions.
Communism works, but not with humans. For example ants are "communist"
Maybe in a Tropico sized island.
[QUOTE=Black Milano;30315778]You never answered my questions.[/QUOTE]
Which were?
Interesting how the vast majority on many issues say one thing, but quickly bugger off and then a few people are left to argue something out.
[QUOTE=Comrade82;30318225]Which were?[/QUOTE]
How do people decide how much should be produced? how are producers and buyers coordinated?
In essence, how do i, as a producer, decide how many sheep to breed or fields to cultivate?.
retoasting them.
[QUOTE=Second-gear-of-mgear;30317277]Maybe in a Tropico sized island.[/QUOTE]
That reminds me, next time I play Tropico I need to try this.
Free housing, free restaurants, no pay, and a rich and happy army to keep them in line incase it doesn't work our the way I intend.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
