Are labor supply and freedom related?

[Velociryx]

Well, Che...we'll just have to agree to disagree then.

The economy as Marx lived it, does not exist anymore in the industrialized world.

A buggy whip was a marvelous invention for its day, but I promise you, if you whip your Chevy Tahoe with one, no matter how hard you do it, it's not going to make the Tahoe go ANY faster, or work any better.

And in his day, Marx had a lot to be angry about.

A pity, though, that his legacy is such a brutish and bloody one.

Also a pity that history has clearly demonstrated that communist "exploitation" has been ANYTHING but voluntary.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


From you with your flip quote that you could take things that someone else had that did not "cost" them anything. I'm glad you clarified this.

Labor is cost.

But if his helping you out is offering you a job on terms similar to those I set out, is that exploitation?

That depends on if he is doing it for our benefit or his.

[Velociryx]

quote:

But if his helping you out is offering you a job on terms similar to those I set out, is that exploitation?


That depends on if he is doing it for our benefit or his.

Why does this matter, who gets to decide such things, and do you realistically propose to tell the difference?

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
Continuing our sidebar discussion (I've been busy with actual work for once )...



Not within a tribe. Vis-a-vis members of other tribes - outsiders. In the modern context, outsiders don't necessarily mean the people in the next settlement over. It might mean people who have a different skin color, political affliation, sexual orientation, economic status... etc.

I'm talking, in a very general sense, about the "us vs. them" mentality. I think it's fair to say that such a mentality is part of all of us, and isn't something one can attribute to capitalism. I do allow that under capitalism it may manifest itself as class warfare, but that's just the symptom of the problem.

-Arrian

I see your point, but withing a capitalist system you have different tribes, or interest groups.

[Velociryx]

*shakes head sadly*

And you HONESTLY BELIEVE there wouldn't be different tribes or "interest groups" in your classless utopia?

Kid....my God...

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
quote:

But if his helping you out is offering you a job on terms similar to those I set out, is that exploitation?


That depends on if he is doing it for our benefit or his.

Why does this matter, who gets to decide such things, and do you realistically propose to tell the difference?

-=Vel=-

This we know, that individuals are required to act in their own interest in the capitalist system. If they don't they pay the full consequence of not doing so. They can not expect anyone else to act in their interest if they act in someone elses interest and it backfires for them.

[Velociryx]

Kid...

This we know:

It is in ANY RATIONAL INDIVIDUAL's best interest to act in their own self interest.

This is in no way tied to, or dependent upon a particular economic system.

Why do you believe that it is?

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
*shakes head sadly*

And you HONESTLY BELIEVE there wouldn't be different tribes or "interest groups" in your classless utopia?

Kid....my God...

-=Vel=-

Well, for one 'classless' means there will be no class based interest groups. Without the need to form these groups for mutual benefit they will fade away.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Kid...

This we know:

It is in ANY RATIONAL INDIVIDUAL's best interest to act in their own self interest.

This is in no way tied to, or dependent upon a particular economic system.

Why do you believe that it is?

-=Vel=-

Go on and believe this if you wish. I don't care to debate it.

[Velociryx]

Well, for one 'classless' means there will be no class based interest groups. Without the need to form these groups for mutual benefit they will fade away.

Incorrect. They will manifest themselves differently, and they will be required to be more covert (cos I'm pretty sure that would be a punishable offense in your world), but they'll definitely be there.

Of course, the biggest "class" distinction will be party members vs. non-party members, and/or former pigdogs vs. the rest.

-=Vel=-

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Well, Che...we'll just have to agree to disagree then.

The economy as Marx lived it, does not exist anymore in the industrialized world.

Capitalsm may now wear velvet gloves in the West, but its true nature is still there for all to see in the rest of the world. And it's not afraid to take out the mailed fist in the West, either.

And in his day, Marx had a lot to be angry about.

Maybe so, but that's not why he became a communist. Moral indignation is not the basis of Marxism. Marx deliberately set about to change socialism from a utopian movement based on horror the conditions of the masses of people to one based on science and logic, on understanding the motion and develpoment of capitalism, and on building a social movement to bring about its end and rationally create a new society.

A pity, though, that his legacy is such a brutish and bloody one.

Yep. But that's not the entirety of it, and it's hardly his alone. Capitalism's legacy is every bit as brutish and bloody. Far more so, in fact. Recall Twain's quote about the two terrors.

Also a pity that history has clearly demonstrated that communist "exploitation" has been ANYTHING but voluntary.

-=Vel=-

Irrelevent to our discussion, and wrong on particulars.

[Velociryx]

:: shrug:: Hey, if you don't want to act in your own self interest, we won't have many more debates anyway, as you will likely be up for the Darwin award one year soon....

-=Vel=-

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


This we know, that individuals are required to act in their own interest in the capitalist system. If they don't they pay the full consequence of not doing so. They can not expect anyone else to act in their interest if they act in someone elses interest and it backfires for them.

People in general usually act in their own self interest regarless of the economic system. Some people act in the interest of others frequently in instances where it does not harm their own self interest. A smaller number of people will act in the interest of others even when it is directly contrary to their self-interest ( ie giving away money anonomously, acts of herosim at risk to your own life)

I think all of these things are true regardless of economic system but can vary culturally or by size of community. I believe smaller groups will more often act communally or in the groups interest. As groups get larger, there is more of a disconnect between the person'r self interest and the group interest so when Kid talks about worldwide communism, I see a state so far away and so divorced from the average person's perception of their self-interest that getting as much from and giving as little to, the state will be common

[Velociryx]

The steel gauntlet days are gone. If they return, we'll fight them. Until and if that day arrives, I think it's a bit like chicken little going on about the sky falling. Further, IF the day comes, the fight probably won't look remotely like "communism."

Utopic societies all have one thing in common. They look FANTASTIC on paper....

No denying that capitalism is not without fault, however, capitalism has raised the standard of living for more people, and more quickly than communism ever dreamt of. So far, about the only thing it has brought is death, and lots of it.

And yes, the bloody legacy and dictatorial nature of communism IS relevant to the discussion, because your "kinder, gentler" brand is a direct descendant, and in fact, is the ONLY form of communism the world has seen in practice.

You must face not only the opposition of a robust and thriving rival system, but the ghosts of your ancestors.

-=Vel=-

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
:: shrug:: Hey, if you don't want to act in your own self interest, we won't have many more debates anyway, as you will likely be up for the Darwin award one year soon....

-=Vel=-

Are you kidding? It would be in his self-interest not to have these debates.