Why has Communism failed everywhere ? A chance for commies to explain

[aneeshm]

@ Kid

In a capitalist economy , both the worker and employer agree on a wage , and the worker gets it . The worker agrees because he thinks he will be better off with a job than without . The employer agrees because he thinks he will be better off with the worker working for him than without . Where is the exploitation , if no force or fraud in involved ?

Remember , Kid , that there is no absolute wealth . There is only percieved wealth and value . An employer might value the worker at a wage of a dollar a month . The worker may value himself at a billion dollars a month . The upper limit the employer percieves is 1500 $ . The lower limit the worker percieves is 1200 $ . They agree on 1350 $ . Both the worker and employer think they have got a deal ( a good deal , as the worker gets 150 $ more than he percieves his minimum is worth , and the employer gets 150 $ he percieves the worker is worth more than ) .

All the things you talk about are simply disagreements in percieved value . You really need Economics 101 .

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Sigh, you changed what I said and then declared it a contradiction. I said "killing", not "destroying" by winning over more consumers. You are now equating killing others with a higher marketshare. Yes UR, freedom includes the potential of driving me out of business by giving my customers a better deal.

What's the difference between "killing" and "destroying" with regards to inanimate entities? If you can kill inanimate entities, that is.

[Bosh]

You're describing anarchism to which I am certainly sympathetic, but to your hypothetical, I'd love to live in such a society.

Right, but I wouldn't necessarily like to live in the society that you're talking about. As far as I'm concerned libertarians are far to concerned with moral absolutes and lose sight of simple but very important things like what makes a society a good place to live in. You can't eat moral absolutes.

Similarly, libertarians seem never to think about what social conditions would facilitate the establishment of libertarianism. All we generally get is preaching about moral absolutes that are very nice as far as they go, and very little of the flexible pragmatism that is needed to remake society (much of the same could be said about commies).

[Berzerker]

You answered your own question, UR.

[Berzerker]

Right, but I wouldn't necessarily like to live in the society that you're talking about.

What was I talking about? You brought up the voluntary society...

As far as I'm concerned libertarians are far to concerned with moral absolutes and lose sight of simple but very important things like what makes a society a good place to live in. You can't eat moral absolutes.

The greatest mass starvations were man-made through government - government that dismissed moral absolutes.

Similarly, libertarians seem never to think about what social conditions would facilitate the establishment of libertarianism. All we generally get is preaching about moral absolutes that are very nice as far as they go, and very little of the flexible pragmatism that is needed to remake society (much of the same could be said about commies).

A widely held belief in freedom is the social condition needed.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


It isn't just an assertion. If you get to exploit me, but I don't get to expoit you than that's unfair by any reasonable standards.

Hmm kid-- you always try to make debate personal about you and me-- Are you trying to get me to say something that you will twist into a claim that I said you were a lazy-ass or that I was better than you or whatever tangent you then go on?

But if you want to get into it at an individual level, I don't flinch.

How exactly did I "get to exploit you" or anybody for that matter? I didn't inherit any money or anything.

Also, you say " I don't get to exploit you". What exactly has prevented you from doing anything?

Note that your words imply that someone had an ability to get into a position that it is not possible for you to attain. Why not? I can guarantee you that there are people who had the worst possible economic starting point and terrible family lives that have become owners of businesses. So what prevents you or someone else from attaining this. Perhaps ability ? perhaps hard work?

I'm not saying that it is equally easy but you appear to claim its impossible.

[Flubber]

@ kid again

And exactly who is the worker and who is the capitalist these days anyway? Do you have to be one or the other or can you be both?

I ask because most corporations are very widely held. For example I know an electric utility where the top 3 shareholders are

1. a teacher's pension fund
2. a public service pension fund
3. a registered retirement savings plan

So when you get into it, the "owners" of the company are about a hundred thousand individuals who go to work every day and merely want to earn a return on their investment so they may retire in comfort.

I saw somewhere that something like 70% of canadians over the age of 35 own some stock somehow. Even if the number is 80% (or 40%) are we all naughty naught capitalists? If so , what does that mean?

I believe that what it means is that the separation into workerand capitalist is archaic and not in tune with the current reality. Heck leaving aside stock, every third or 4th tradesperson I met when we built our house owned their own business. For example, the painter did most work himself but sometimes hired others to work for him. How evil !!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by aneeshm
@ Kid

In a capitalist economy , both the worker and employer agree on a wage , and the worker gets it . The worker agrees because he thinks he will be better off with a job than without . The employer agrees because he thinks he will be better off with the worker working for him than without . Where is the exploitation , if no force or fraud in involved ?

An agreement does not insure a fair deal. There's a thing called negotiating power that you need to consider.

Remember , Kid , that there is no absolute wealth . There is only percieved wealth and value. An employer might value the worker at a wage of a dollar a month . The worker may value himself at a billion dollars a month . The upper limit the employer percieves is 1500 $ . The lower limit the worker percieves is 1200 $ . They agree on 1350 $ . Both the worker and employer think they have got a deal ( a good deal , as the worker gets 150 $ more than he percieves his minimum is worth , and the employer gets 150 $ he percieves the worker is worth more than ) .

It's got nothing to do with how much each agent values the product produced by the worker. The value depends on how value the product is to society.

All the things you talk about are simply disagreements in percieved value . You really need Economics 101 .

Economics 101 is propaganda. I've taken it. In fact I have a BA in economics.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Kid

That's nice, but where did I mention "within a species"? I said, and I repeat again, survival of the fittest includes killing the competition. How am I wrong? Answer without changing what I said, please. And you're still wrong, if killing within a species occurs, and it does, then survival of the fittest does include killing members of your own kind. And if the strong take all the resources causing the weak to die, how do you explain babies?

Natural selection is not limited to killing within species. So it's compatable with libertarianism. In fact there are those libertarians who believe that it's good for society for the least productive producers to fail and be removed from the market place. Have you heard of the Austrian School of Economics? The neoclassical school does not consider this beneficial, but they are only one type of libertarian.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious

It's got nothing to do with how much each agent values the product produced by the worker. The value depends on how value the product is to society.

Excuse me-- we are talking about trying to determine how much to pay someone and you have to determine the societal worth of the product?? What if society assigns no value to the product? Does the worker get paid nothing?

Also who exactly is "society' and how do they determine things? Are we envisioning a planning committee here?


It is probably useless to talk to kid about "fair value" of labour anyway since he has been quite explicit in both his methodology and his reasoning that it is not possible at all for even the most fair-minded and generous capitalist to pay a fair wage.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


Hmm kid-- you always try to make debate personal about you and me-- Are you trying to get me to say something that you will twist into a claim that I said you were a lazy-ass or that I was better than you or whatever tangent you then go on?

If it offends you I will use third parties for my purposes.

But if you want to get into it at an individual level, I don't flinch.

How exactly did I "get to exploit you" or anybody for that matter? I didn't inherit any money or anything.

You (errr Tom) established a govt that gives you that right.

Also, you say " I don't get to exploit you". What exactly has prevented you from doing anything?

Tom is rich and I (er Dave) is poor.

Note that your words imply that someone had an ability to get into a position that it is not possible for you to attain. Why not? I can guarantee you that there are people who had the worst possible economic starting point and terrible family lives that have become owners of businesses. So what prevents you or someone else from attaining this. Perhaps ability ? perhaps hard work?

I don't really know. Maybe it's because I haven't become set in a career that suits me yet, or I haven't found the perfect business opportunity. None of that is really relevant though.

I'm not saying that it is equally easy but you appear to claim its impossible.

No. I don't. It doesn't matter if it is easy or hard. The fact is that some people are able to exploit others and others are not. Whether you are able to exploit others is greatly determined by your wealth. Of course you can be rich and either very unlucky or not good with money and lose all your wealth, and also a very poor person can be very good with money or very lucky, but normally whether or not you are an exploiter or the exploited depends on how wealthy you are.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
@ kid again

And exactly who is the worker and who is the capitalist these days anyway? Do you have to be one or the other or can you be both?

I ask because most corporations are very widely held. For example I know an electric utility where the top 3 shareholders are

1. a teacher's pension fund
2. a public service pension fund
3. a registered retirement savings plan

So when you get into it, the "owners" of the company are about a hundred thousand individuals who go to work every day and merely want to earn a return on their investment so they may retire in comfort.

I saw somewhere that something like 70% of canadians over the age of 35 own some stock somehow. Even if the number is 80% (or 40%) are we all naughty naught capitalists? If so , what does that mean?

I believe that what it means is that the separation into workerand capitalist is archaic and not in tune with the current reality. Heck leaving aside stock, every third or 4th tradesperson I met when we built our house owned their own business. For example, the painter did most work himself but sometimes hired others to work for him. How evil !!

Owning a little stock does not make me a capitalist, and it does not make the issue of exploitation archaic. That would be nice for you, but simply isn't true.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


Excuse me-- we are talking about trying to determine how much to pay someone and you have to determine the societal worth of the product??

Because the worker should be paid what the social value of the product minus what ever is needed to maintain production.

What if society assigns no value to the product? Does the worker get paid nothing?

That wouldn't be rational. Society values the worker. If the worker doesn't get paid then he can't survive and be productive i the future. Society has an interest is maintaining the workers survival and finding productive employment for him.

Also who exactly is "society' and how do they determine things? Are we envisioning a planning committee here?

By society I mean what ever benefit someone or everyone has recieved from the work done.

It is probably useless to talk to kid about "fair value" of labour anyway since he has been quite explicit in both his methodology and his reasoning that it is not possible at all for even the most fair-minded and generous capitalist to pay a fair wage.

Of course it isn't possible. The game for the capitalist is to buy something for less than it's value and sell it for more than it's value. If any capitalist doesn't do that it's out of altuism, and that capitalist will not be able to stay in business indefinitely.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I agree that capitalists should be rewarded for their risk. The basic rules I have very little problem with.

Profit exceeds compensation for loss. In fact the two are mutually exclusive. Risk is a cost.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious

I don't really know. Maybe it's because I have become set in a career that suits me yet, or I haven't found the perfect business opportunity. None of that is really relevant though.

Totally relevant if you are saying that it is not possible for you to become a business owner and employ people. IT is possible-- its just that you choose not to do it. There's nothing wrong with that choice.

Originally posted by Kidicious

No. I don't. It doesn't matter if it is easy or hard. The fact is that some people are able to exploit others and others are not. Whether you are able to exploit others is greatly determined by your wealth. Of course you can be rich and either very unlucky or not good with money and lose all your wealth, and also a very poor person can be very good with money or very lucky, but normally whether or not you are an exploiter or the exploited depends on how wealthy you are.

This makes no sense. I accept that initial wealth makes it easier for some people to become business owners. So what?

Since the size of the business would appear to me to be irrelevant to your theory of exploitation, I assume that the working painter who cobbles together a few dollars to start his own painting business and employes others is just as much a capitalist exploiter pig to you as the uber-rich.

But who cares about the uber rich guy? While its easier for him than me to own stuff, there's ample opportunities out there and he doesn't prevent me even a little bit from doing anything.

Originally posted by Kidicious

If it offends you I will use third parties for my purposes.

Funny stuff -- But the fact of the matter is that you keep bringing personal circumstances into this. Its unnecessary but it does not offend me. I just find it curious that you seem to refer to me as a capitalist or "rich" when I don't meet your criteria for the former and I don't meet my own for the latter .


And I still don't see where you couldn't be the "capitalist" if you wanted. Start a business and do some bookeeping/ accounting. Advertize and attract enough work that you need help and hire someone else. Voila-- suprisingly easy. heck a neighbor at age 18 is making money hiring other kids to mow lawns. The kids make money and the customers get their lawn mowed regardless of which teen is away.

Ah capitalism