Is profit different from unfair tax?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
We're equal now...me too. I walked away from my job on my 35th birthday, knowing that the job market sucks. So now we're alllll nice and equal.

Oh, we are the same age too.

Originally posted by Velociryx
This will make a good experiment, I think.

You keep applying the principles YOU cling to, and I'll apply mine. We'll compare notes in the weeks ahead and see how we both fare. Since we're starting off on an equal footing (both unemployed) that's about as "fair" as it gets, yes?

-=Vel=-

I only apply the principles of hard work and sticky to it ness.

[Ramo]

Kid does have a point. If you assume that the state has moral rights to the property in the world, it has the moral right to tax all it wants. Similarly, if you assume that capitalists have moral rights to the means of production, they have moral rights to deny the workers all the profit made from their labor. I don't see why one assumption is any better than the other.

[Kidlicious]

Cool sigs Ramo :b

[Berzerker]

It's not about how one state has done compared to another.

By definition there can be no communist govt while the capitalists control the world.

Capitalists have never controlled the world, just parts of it like the communists controlled part of it. So it IS about comparing states and their economic systems with each other. The communists lost. But with communism, according to your logic, capitalism cannot be allowed to co-exist (because it is superior). Is that true for capitalism? Nope. If a group of people, or even a state, want to have a communist system and don't threaten to impose that system on others, capitalism will allow it to exist. That speaks volumes about the morality of the two systems. Communism = convert or die. Capitalism = live and let live... Isn't it a little ironic that communism resembels the Inquisition?

[Ramo]

Thanks Kid.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Capitalists have never controlled the world, just parts of it like the communists controlled part of it. So it IS about comparing states and their economic systems with each other. The communists lost. But with communism, according to your logic, capitalism cannot be allowed to co-exist (because it is superior). Is that true for capitalism? Nope. If a group of people, or even a state, want to have a communist system and don't threaten to impose that system on others, capitalism will allow it to exist. That speaks volumes about the morality of the two systems. Communism = convert or die. Capitalism = live and let live... Isn't it a little ironic that communism resembels the Inquisition?

In your opinion the capitalists allowed the communist states to exist? Silly

Gotta go to class. I'll catch up tomorrow.

[Flubber]

Vel


KId-- I should go back and pick out some of your " best " quotes since to me , you sound so patently absurd, but you are essentially spouting the same thing over and over-- In rebuttal I'll say this slow

YOUR SYSTEM DOES NOT WORK.


AS soon as you start paying people the same regardless of performance, performance suffers. . .. THis is a common phenomenon -- people can be performing at rate x for 10 years . . you offer a performance bonus and sufddenly they all increase production.

As soon as you tell the best and brightest that their effort or intelligence will not be compensated , they leave. As soon as you start compensating the same for all sorts of jobs, certain jobs get more popular since some jobs are less desirable than others. If I was paid the same , I probably would rather mow lawns than work an office job ( exercise and fresh air would be nice) although I think I would most like to be a security guard since I love to read. Oh oh and I'd want the day shift and don't dare offer a shift differential for those that work mights or weekends

You will probably reject my arguments since I MUST be part of the oppressive elite. Lets see, my grandfathers were labourers, my parents were a school teacher and a nurse and I have held a job continuously since I graduated high school ( and often two or three at a time) and always worked while attending college. I was handed nothing so you can stick any mention of the elite where the sun don't shine. Its because I come from modest roots that I don't buy the argument that the people that have less " have no choice"

Jobs I have held:

Labourer (ditch-digger - literally)
Dishwasher
Bartender
Fish plant worker
Fish plant supervisor
Pizza Cook
Computer Lab attendent
Store Clerk
Tax Assessor
Lawyer

Despite all the jokes about the profession, my job as a lawyer is the hardest of them all. There is almost constant stress, long hours and personal responsibility and accountability for my work. While I have doubts about my value to society LOL, I make no apologies if someone wants to pay me well to apply my trained brain to their problems.
You might say that a diswasher is responsible etc but its not true to the same extent . .. As a dishwasher I left precisely when my shift ended and EVERY dish there became someone else's responsibility. I think that is true of many higher paid jobs in that the person is not interchangeable .. . no other individual picks up the workload at the end of some arbitrary shift change.

If I could make a similar income, I probably would have never stopped being a bartender. I enjoyed seeing all the people and listening to the music--

In your perfect system Kid, if you could design it, how would you entice people into the harder jobs?? err ummm perhaps pay them more

[Velociryx]

What I'm genuinely curious to know is this:

Rather than b*tch and moan about not owning the means of production, why not go out and acquire them?

The means to do so are certainly there...what do you want to do? I can give you a step-by-step outline to acquire the means of production to do whatever it is you want to do.

But....that would involve WORK (or would it? You don't seem to believe that acquiring and organizing the means of production is "work" per se, so if not work, then what term shall we use for that?) And your plan is MUCH easier, because it does not involve work....it merely involves taking the means of production by force, and that's a lot less hassle than actually working for it, so you prolly woulnd't be particularly interested in my step-by-step plan, but assuming you were, once you have acquired these means of production, I suppose you'll just let your employees use your equipment free of charge, paying them the full value of whatever they produce using the machine you paid for, because to do any less would be a violation of your principles, true?

It'll be an interesting company you run!

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

And thank ya, Flubber!

-=Vel=-

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

Kid does have a point. If you assume that the state has moral rights to the property in the world, it has the moral right to tax all it wants. Similarly, if you assume that capitalists have moral rights to the means of production, they have moral rights to deny the workers all the profit made from their labor. I don't see why one assumption is any better than the other.

When you say "capitalists have a moral right to the means of production" you are saying they have the moral right to their own labor and property. When you say the state has the moral right to all the property, you're saying one group of people have the moral right to forcibly seize the property and labor of others. The two are not analogous...

If I'm a capitalist, just how do I deny my employees the profit from their labor and stay in business? Unlike communism, if I don't cut my workforce in on the profit, they will seek employment with a capitalist who will. And the reality is that the worker "profits" off the labor of the employer too... If I own a business and I buy machinery, the worker I hire to run the machinery profits from my investment. His labor and skills are worth less without my machinery, so his increased productivity due to my labor results in "profit" for both him and me. I profit from his labor combined with my labor and he profits from his labor combined with my labor. We both profit off each other...

[Flubber]

Whats funny about the whole " ownership of the means of production" argument is that while most large corporations have many wealthy stockholders, a large proportion of the stocks are owned by average workers through their RRSPs, or pension funds, college funds for children etc. So a large chunk of the profit that is exploited by the " capitalists" is appropriated for the benefit of the workers.

[Ramo]

When you say "capitalists have a moral right to the means of production" you are saying they have the moral right to their own labor and property.

Their own property? What does that mean exactly? Argument by definition ain't gonna work.

When you say the state has the moral right to all the property, you're saying one group of people have the moral right to forcibly seize the property and labor of others. The two are not analogous...

What if it's the state's "own" property and we're all just squatters?

If I'm a capitalist, just how do I deny my employees the profit from their labor and stay in business?

It's pretty easy. Just look at the biotech industry.

Unlike communism, if I don't cut my workforce in on the profit, they will seek employment with a capitalist who will.

Bringing up some sort of strawman Stalinism? I'm not an authoritarian.

And the reality is that the worker "profits" off the labor of the employer too... If I own a business and I buy machinery, the worker I hire to run the machinery profits from my investment. His labor and skills are worth less without my machinery, so his increased productivity due to my labor results in "profit" for both him and me. I profit from his labor combined with my labor and he profits from his labor combined with my labor. We both profit off each other...

Well, of course the worker gains more from the existence of the means of production than without (under most circumstances), but he'd be in a better position if he owned it along with the rest of the workers.

Rather than b*tch and moan about not owning the means of production, why not go out and acquire them?

It takes a little more than just a little bit of initiative for a Bengali farm worker to take over his land without force. Only in situations where taking over the means of production peacefully is not a legitimate possibility do I advocate force. I'm a syndicalist for a reason.

[Berzerker]

Kid -

In your opinion the capitalists allowed the communist states to exist? Silly

Gotta go to class. I'll catch up tomorrow.

You didn't read my post close enough, I said:

If a group of people, or even a state, want to have a communist system and don't threaten to impose that system on others, capitalism will allow it to exist.

You forgot that part...

You've already admitted communism must be imposed globally so it is not the intention of the communist to allow capitalism to co-exist. Therefore, capitalists are put in the position of convert or die... They seek a third option, self-defense... There is nothing inherent to the capitalist system that requires the absence of communism everywhere, but as you've acknowledged, there is something inherent to communism requiring the absence of capitalism everywhere... And one reason communism has failed is because the communists could not rid the world of capitalism. Why does that matter? Because this inherency in communism requiring the absence of capitalism is communism' inability to compete...

It's no coincidence communists build walls to prevent escape to capitalism.

[Ramo]

Whats funny about the whole " ownership of the means of production" argument is that while most large corporations have many wealthy stockholders, a large proportion of the stocks are owned by average workers through their RRSPs, or pension funds, college funds for children etc. So a large chunk of the profit that is exploited by the " capitalists" is appropriated for the benefit of the workers.

Yep, and I'd like to see that proportion 100% instead of the much, much smaller number it typically is, and just as importantly, I'd like to see the workers with some genuine control over how the business operates. Corporations are typically extremely authoritarian, hierarchial institutions. Democracy in the economy and all that shtick...

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

Their own property? What does that mean exactly? Argument by definition ain't gonna work.

You know what it means, and we aren't going to get into another "the land was stolen" debate. We've gone through that one before and you know my position.

What if it's the state's "own" property and we're all just squatters?

Isn't that what communism comes down to (in theory, not in practice)? How can we all be squatters when the state is run by people? Doesn't that mean one group of people own the land and another "squats"?

It's pretty easy. Just look at the biotech industry.

Provide a specific because it's not only not easy, it's non-existent.

Bringing up some sort of strawman Stalinism? I'm not an authoritarian.

Huh? Introducing a strawman in response to a strawman I didn't bring up? We're debating communism in this thread, not anarchism. But would you really allow capitalists to co-exist with anarchism? Or would you find a reason to accuse the capitalist who doesn't want to sell out to the workers of stealing property and then just seize their assets?

Well, of course the worker gains more from the existence of the means of production than without (under most circumstances), but he'd be in a better position if he owned it along with the rest of the workers.

Then tell Kid because he refuses to understand that both parties "profit". Now, does capitalism prohibit a group of workers from buying out the investments of the owner and owning their own business? Nope... That too is capitalism...