I think that one thing that should be made perfectly clear is that an
employee is -NEVER- paid their full value. If they were, the employer
would make no profit off of them, and that is the purpose of employing
people in the first place.
To put it VERY simply, employment is a form of exploitation.
I make handcrafted goods and sell them at a profit. I reap the full
value of my employment as an artist, because it is self-employment. If
the demand for my product became greater than the rate at which I can
supply it, I might hire another person to assemble my goods, while I
focus on artistic design. I will pay that person enough that
they won't leave me for another employer, but less, hopefully far less,
than I am making by selling the goods that they assemble. That means
I am profiting from their labor. Therefore their labor is worth more
than I'm paying them. I wouldn't pay them the full value of their
labor, because then I would reap absolutely no benefit from their
employment. If that were the case, then we would be partners in the
business, because we would be sharing equally in the rewards of our
labor.
Pardon me if I was a little long-winded, but I've had people argue the
"employment is exploitation" statement before, and since it's really not
the point of my argument I wanted it to be perfectly clear so as to not
waste time arguing about it.
To get on with it; since employment is exploitation, the less scrupulous
the employer, the more distant the rate of pay will be from the
employee's actual value. The most profitable businesses pay their
workers a tiny fraction of the value of their labor.
This is not a problem if there are more jobs than there are workers. A
worker can take their skill elsewhere, and because the employer NEEDS
that worker to continue making a profit, there is assurance that the
worker will get at least a livable compensation for their labor,
although it will never be what the work is worth.
If there are more workers than jobs, there is no need for employers to
compete with each other by keeping wages high. They don't need any
individual laborer to stay with them, because there are many who need to
work. The compensation for work drops and profits rise. Since people
have to work to live, it conditions become disturbingly close to
slavery, where a human being works hard day after day and their employer
profits enourmously from the work done while the employee just gets to
survive.
Yes, I approve of increases in the minimum wage, at least enough to keep
up with increases in the cost of living, brought about in part by the
constant drive for higher profit.
More so do I approve of laws requiring employers to actually pay a wage
reflective of the value of the work done.
you're trying to do away with a basic tenet of modern economics, which is that there is always advantage in being in control of the means of production.
don't think you're getting paid enough for helping someone else produce something?
go buy your own means of production and do it for yourself. This encourages entrepreneurship and gives natural incentives to saving money, investing wisely,and working hard. If you try to artificially legislate economic equality between the laborers and those who own the means of production, the BEST thing that can happen is that every aspect of your economy will decline and settle out at the lowest common denominator.
by the way, there's a term for that sort of economic system. It's called "communism".
I don't work for anyone, actually. I also have no employees currently, though I've had up to four. I paid them roughly double the minimum wage here in Oregon, because I wish to remain true to my core values. My ultimate goal with each employee is to see them self-employed; my protege now owns two of her own businesses and is successful in the field I trained her in. I have coached other people into successful self-employment. It's not for everyone; having an employer does have benefits. So to speak.
I'm just posting a bunch of old essays of mine my husband found on his hard drive. I was pretty young when I wrote them, and most are not very well developed.
In this one, I'm not advocating communism, I'm stating an inevitable truth of the marketplace; that employment is exploitation by necessity. I am also advocating a more equitable wage that is more reflective of the value each employee brings to the employer. Of course, after I wrote it I realized that the most elegant way to achieve that would be to reduce the work week, but whatever.
gb2France!
You seem to be conflating the economic term of exploitation with the moral use of the word.
Thought you'd like to know.
Right, that was sort of the point.
you talking to me or her?
I couldn't figure that out myself. I assumed me, but it makes more sense if you?
Nigel.
Also, I'm staring to get drunk and don't feel like making much beyond vague points, at least until I sober up and can grab my political economy texts.
that's a great idea.
I'm leaving to go get drunk.
I'm well on my way. Not going to get as drunk as last night, though.
Yay Drunk! :banana:
Yes!!! I got drunk AND laid. Teh bestest!
When you wrote this essay was it just something you felt like putting into words or was there more to it. It reminds me of something, don't recall what right this moment, and I will post it if I can find it.
ECH and Cain may have already gotten to it though.
Well.
It seems to me to be more of an economic partnership. When I work for a company I fully expect to help the company to profit.
1) I get paid. If I don't like the pay rate I can leave.
2) As long as the company makes a profit they stay in business and I continue to get paid.
3) That said, we depend on employers as much as they depend on us.
Sure, there are some companies that exploit, the same as lazy employees exploit companies. I am currently in the process of being promoted, because I did my job. So many employees show up for a paycheck and don't want to do one more iota than they have to do for it. So I see it as a two way street.
Employment should be a mutually beneficial arrangement, yes. It isn't always, unfortunately, especially for people who are less intelligent and have more limited choices.
I did at some point have a lot more to it than this, but I don't know where it all is. It'll turn up eventually, I think. My friend was doing this zine in the 90's called "Retarded Whore" and it inspired me to write a lot of anti-corporate rants.
I think it's interesting that more people get stuck on the first part, which is just a factual description of the necessity for employers to profit from the labor of employees. People get really stuck on the word "exploitation", which is pretty much why I used it in the first place... it's a hot button of sorts. I was really into this stuff ten years ago, but at the moment I believe there are much more major issues to address, such as the rapid erosion of democracy, freedom, and human rights in the US. And slavery. Have you guys heard about the recent slavery in North Carolina? NOT SHITTING YOU. I'll try to find that news story.
:mittens:
Nigel, I think I love you.
However, I don't think it's viable for everyone to be petty bourgeois, like you seem to be advocating.
Capitalism cannot exist without exploitation.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on December 07, 2007, 10:27:56 PM
the BEST thing that can happen is that every aspect of your economy will decline and settle out at the lowest common denominator.
And how exactly did you come to that conclusion?
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on December 07, 2007, 10:27:56 PM
by the way, there's a term for that sort of economic system. It's called "communism".
That's one weird definition of communism you have there.
Oh, not North Carolina, Oklahoma. And it's happening all over the place... totally crazy.
http://www.indiaresource.org/news/2003/4166.html
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 09:18:44 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on December 07, 2007, 10:27:56 PM
the BEST thing that can happen is that every aspect of your economy will decline and settle out at the lowest common denominator.
And how exactly did you come to that conclusion?
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on December 07, 2007, 10:27:56 PM
by the way, there's a term for that sort of economic system. It's called "communism".
That's one weird definition of communism you have there.
1. because that's what happens when you remove any sort of incentive for personal success from a larger economic system.
2. no, I think that "an economic system in which the workers are in control of the means of production" is pretty much the textbook definition of communism.
Quote from: Nigel on December 08, 2007, 09:26:31 PM
Oh, not North Carolina, Oklahoma. And it's happening all over the place... totally crazy.
http://www.indiaresource.org/news/2003/4166.html
that's certainly fucked up, but it's not slavery.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on December 08, 2007, 09:30:42 PM
1. because that's what happens when you remove any sort of incentive for personal success from a larger economic system.
2. no, I think that "an economic system in which the workers are in control of the means of production" is pretty much the textbook definition of communism.
1. Do you have any evidence of this? Or is it just pure speculation?
2. That isn't what you said though. What you did say was more like your biased opinion of what a communist economy would be like.
Quote from: Nigel on December 07, 2007, 09:49:02 PM
I think that one thing that should be made perfectly clear is that an
employee is -NEVER- paid their full value. If they were, the employer
would make no profit off of them, and that is the purpose of employing
people in the first place.
To put it VERY simply, employment is a form of exploitation.
I make handcrafted goods and sell them at a profit. I reap the full
value of my employment as an artist, because it is self-employment.
So everyone should make knick knacks and we would live in a utopia.
Gotcha.
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 09:12:44 PM
:mittens:
Nigel, I think I love you.
However, I don't think it's viable for everyone to be petty bourgeois, like you seem to be advocating.
Capitalism cannot exist without exploitation.
It's a pack of bullshit.
What are stupid people going to do? Is EVERYONE or even the MAJORITY of people able to run their own business?
This is nothing more than Ayn Rand Libertarian bullshit.
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 09:42:04 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on December 08, 2007, 09:30:42 PM
1. because that's what happens when you remove any sort of incentive for personal success from a larger economic system.
2. no, I think that "an economic system in which the workers are in control of the means of production" is pretty much the textbook definition of communism.
1. Do you have any evidence of this? Or is it just pure speculation?
2. That isn't what you said though. What you did say was more like your biased opinion of what a communist economy would be like.
1. pure speculation in that I have never taken any formal economic theory classes....experiential evidence, however, stemming from my time as a business owner.
2. what?
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on December 08, 2007, 09:44:49 PM
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 09:42:04 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on December 08, 2007, 09:30:42 PM
1. because that's what happens when you remove any sort of incentive for personal success from a larger economic system.
2. no, I think that "an economic system in which the workers are in control of the means of production" is pretty much the textbook definition of communism.
1. Do you have any evidence of this? Or is it just pure speculation?
2. That isn't what you said though. What you did say was more like your biased opinion of what a communist economy would be like.
1. pure speculation in that I have never taken any formal economic theory classes....experiential evidence, however, stemming from my time as a business owner.
2. what?
1. Economic theory classes hardly give you clairvoyance. And how does owning a business give you experiential evidence of communism?
2. Exactly what I said.
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 09:42:04 PM
2. What you did say was more like your biased opinion of what a communist economy would be like.
Nonexistent. Ever.
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 09:53:07 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 08, 2007, 09:50:07 PM
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 09:42:04 PM
2. What you did say was more like your biased opinion of what a communist economy would be like.
Nonexistent. Ever.
:sad:
Deal with it, hippie. Communism has failed for exactly the same reason as capitalism has (though in a different way).
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 08, 2007, 09:54:51 PM
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 09:53:07 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 08, 2007, 09:50:07 PM
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 09:42:04 PM
2. What you did say was more like your biased opinion of what a communist economy would be like.
Nonexistent. Ever.
:sad:
Deal with it, hippie. Communism has failed for exactly the same reason as capitalism has (though in a different way).
The state?
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 10:01:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 08, 2007, 09:54:51 PM
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 09:53:07 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 08, 2007, 09:50:07 PM
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 09:42:04 PM
2. What you did say was more like your biased opinion of what a communist economy would be like.
Nonexistent. Ever.
:sad:
Deal with it, hippie. Communism has failed for exactly the same reason as capitalism has (though in a different way).
The state?
Because we're human, most likely.
Quote from: Pope Naughty Nasturtiums on December 08, 2007, 10:06:04 PM
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 10:01:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 08, 2007, 09:54:51 PM
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 09:53:07 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 08, 2007, 09:50:07 PM
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 09:42:04 PM
2. What you did say was more like your biased opinion of what a communist economy would be like.
Nonexistent. Ever.
:sad:
Deal with it, hippie. Communism has failed for exactly the same reason as capitalism has (though in a different way).
The state?
Because we're human, most likely.
Oh. So I guess we should just forget about finding solutions to poverty, war and exploitation and kill ourselves.
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 10:01:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 08, 2007, 09:54:51 PM
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 09:53:07 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 08, 2007, 09:50:07 PM
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 09:42:04 PM
2. What you did say was more like your biased opinion of what a communist economy would be like.
Nonexistent. Ever.
:sad:
Deal with it, hippie. Communism has failed for exactly the same reason as capitalism has (though in a different way).
The state?
No. The fact that neither system serves the individuals that live under it.
Communism demands that I be an ant; capitalism that I be a slave.
A plague on both their houses. Communists and capitalists will only gain my grudging respect if they settle their differences in a pit fight to the death.
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 10:12:23 PM
Oh. So I guess we should just forget about finding solutions to poverty, war and exploitation and LAUGH AT THE MONKEYS.
Yep.
But here's a hint: You aren't going to solve poverty, war, and exploitation by CLINGING TO A FAILED IDEOLOGY.
UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG!
Just saying.
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 10:12:23 PM
Quote from: Pope Naughty Nasturtiums on December 08, 2007, 10:06:04 PM
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 10:01:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 08, 2007, 09:54:51 PM
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 09:53:07 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 08, 2007, 09:50:07 PM
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 09:42:04 PM
2. What you did say was more like your biased opinion of what a communist economy would be like.
Nonexistent. Ever.
:sad:
Deal with it, hippie. Communism has failed for exactly the same reason as capitalism has (though in a different way).
The state?
Because we're human, most likely.
Oh. So I guess we should just forget about finding solutions to poverty, war and exploitation and kill ourselves.
:)
This sounds like the correct motorcycle.
(But srsly, these problems are so large, complex, and ugly that they've pretty much ingrained themselves into the human condition, and pretty much every form of society will have its downtrodden. There is no mass solution, no sort of freeing revolution. The only revolution is the one inside yourself, the one that lets you know that you don't have to subject yourself to the trappings of other people's bullshit.)
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 08, 2007, 10:16:56 PM
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 10:12:23 PM
Oh. So I guess we should just forget about finding solutions to poverty, war and exploitation and LAUGH AT THE MONKEYS.
Yep.
But here's a hint: You aren't going to solve poverty, war, and exploitation by CLINGING TO A FAILED IDEOLOGY.
UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG!
Just saying.
Well, it's better to try and change things than to just complain about them, right?
If there's a problem, fix it.
Quote from: Pope Naughty Nasturtiums on December 08, 2007, 10:20:16 PM
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 10:12:23 PM
Quote from: Pope Naughty Nasturtiums on December 08, 2007, 10:06:04 PM
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 10:01:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 08, 2007, 09:54:51 PM
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 09:53:07 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 08, 2007, 09:50:07 PM
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 09:42:04 PM
2. What you did say was more like your biased opinion of what a communist economy would be like.
Nonexistent. Ever.
:sad:
Deal with it, hippie. Communism has failed for exactly the same reason as capitalism has (though in a different way).
The state?
Because we're human, most likely.
Oh. So I guess we should just forget about finding solutions to poverty, war and exploitation and kill ourselves.
:)
This sounds like the correct motorcycle.
(But srsly, these problems are so large, complex, and ugly that they've pretty much ingrained themselves into the human condition, and pretty much every form of society will have its downtrodden. There is no mass solution, no sort of freeing revolution. The only revolution is the one inside yourself, the one that lets you know that you don't have to subject yourself to the trappings of other people's bullshit.)
While I agree with you in part, a starving child isn't going to get out of his situation through a revolution inside himself.
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 10:21:55 PM
Well, it's better to try and change things than to just complain about them, right?
If there's a problem, fix it.
Like I said, failed ideologies won't fix a fucking thing...in fact, it will only make things worse.
Why are you listening to some bearded retards from Russia, anyway? How likely is it that they had the answer? Judging from history, they were more like Scientologists.
Use your head. Think up something new.
Goddamn it.
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 10:23:38 PM
While I agree with you in part, a starving child isn't going to get out of his situation through a revolution inside himself.
"Give a child a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Give him a gun, and he'll eat for the rest of his life."
Just a reminder: http://www.anxietyculture.com/bluffecon.htm
Sometimes tweaking performance can work better than destroying the entire system and rebuilding another one which also doesn't work perfectly.
Quote from: Cain on December 08, 2007, 10:28:22 PM
Just a reminder: http://www.anxietyculture.com/bluffecon.htm
Sometimes tweaking performance can work better than destroying the entire system and rebuilding another one which also doesn't work perfectly.
It never worked at all.
And even if it did, it forces me to be an ant. Fuck you AND that "starving child" (boy, they really ate well in the Soviet Union). I am not an ant. I reject your system, and I will kill you if you attempt to force it on me.
But that's just me.
EDIT: Sorry, I thought that was Davedim.
TGRR,
Tired.
Actually, I wasn't talking about communism. Some of the above ideas are actually fairly interesting, could benefit people, and don't require restructuring the entire economy.
Edit: ah, OK. Yeah, I'm not davedim
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 08, 2007, 10:25:10 PM
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 10:21:55 PM
Well, it's better to try and change things than to just complain about them, right?
If there's a problem, fix it.
Like I said, failed ideologies won't fix a fucking thing...in fact, it will only make things worse.
Why are you listening to some bearded retards from Russia, anyway? How likely is it that they had the answer? Judging from history, they were more like Scientologists.
Use your head. Think up something new.
Goddamn it.
I don't really cling to any one ideology.
I completely agree that the revolution in Eastern Europe failed.
I am neither a Leninist or a Stalinist.
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 10:34:10 PM
I don't really cling to any one ideology.
I completely agree that the revolution in Eastern Europe failed.
Now for the bonus round: Why?
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on December 08, 2007, 09:33:20 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 08, 2007, 09:26:31 PM
Oh, not North Carolina, Oklahoma. And it's happening all over the place... totally crazy.
http://www.indiaresource.org/news/2003/4166.html
that's certainly fucked up, but it's not slavery.
That particular article should have been a good jumping-off point for people who are interested in reading more about it... one particular case was basically slavery. They paid the employees $2/hour, but coerced them into remaining onsite, housing them in the factory and not allowing them to leave the premises or have any contact with the outside world. Anyone who complained was told to keep their mouth shut and threatened. Anyway, that's a whole different topic.
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 10:34:10 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 08, 2007, 10:25:10 PM
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 10:21:55 PM
Well, it's better to try and change things than to just complain about them, right?
If there's a problem, fix it.
Like I said, failed ideologies won't fix a fucking thing...in fact, it will only make things worse.
Why are you listening to some bearded retards from Russia, anyway? How likely is it that they had the answer? Judging from history, they were more like Scientologists.
Use your head. Think up something new.
Goddamn it.
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?action=post;quote=462438;topic=14556.30;num_replies=42;sesc=1f2b0d827c56f4f8472f592561e9b0bb
Post reply
I don't really cling to any one ideology.
I completely agree that the revolution in Eastern Europe failed.
I am neither a Leninist or a Stalinist.
Trot! Gramsci-ist! Debord-ist! Uh...Lukacs-sit!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 08, 2007, 10:36:36 PM
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 10:34:10 PM
I don't really cling to any one ideology.
I completely agree that the revolution in Eastern Europe failed.
Now for the bonus round: Why?
The state.
In before UNNNNG.
Quote from: Cain on December 08, 2007, 10:37:15 PM
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 10:34:10 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 08, 2007, 10:25:10 PM
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 10:21:55 PM
Well, it's better to try and change things than to just complain about them, right?
If there's a problem, fix it.
Like I said, failed ideologies won't fix a fucking thing...in fact, it will only make things worse.
Why are you listening to some bearded retards from Russia, anyway? How likely is it that they had the answer? Judging from history, they were more like Scientologists.
Use your head. Think up something new.
Goddamn it.
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?action=post;quote=462438;topic=14556.30;num_replies=42;sesc=1f2b0d827c56f4f8472f592561e9b0bb
Post reply
I don't really cling to any one ideology.
I completely agree that the revolution in Eastern Europe failed.
I am neither a Leninist or a Stalinist.
Trot! Gramsci-ist! Debord-ist! Uh...Lukacs-sit!
lol
Anarcho-syndicalist.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 08, 2007, 09:42:44 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 07, 2007, 09:49:02 PM
I think that one thing that should be made perfectly clear is that an
employee is -NEVER- paid their full value. If they were, the employer
would make no profit off of them, and that is the purpose of employing
people in the first place.
To put it VERY simply, employment is a form of exploitation.
I make handcrafted goods and sell them at a profit. I reap the full
value of my employment as an artist, because it is self-employment.
So everyone should make knick knacks and we would live in a utopia.
Gotcha.
No, actually I didn't propose any solutions in that essay, I just outlined what I perceived to be a problem. You seem to be confusing my attempt to clarify and define the terms I used with a proposed solution to the problem.
The intended gist of the article is that the economy currently favors employers very heavily, and employees need something closer to fair and reasonable compensation based on their productivity.
Quote from: Nigel on December 08, 2007, 10:36:58 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on December 08, 2007, 09:33:20 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 08, 2007, 09:26:31 PM
Oh, not North Carolina, Oklahoma. And it's happening all over the place... totally crazy.
http://www.indiaresource.org/news/2003/4166.html
that's certainly fucked up, but it's not slavery.
That particular article should have been a good jumping-off point for people who are interested in reading more about it... one particular case was basically slavery. They paid the employees $2/hour, but coerced them into remaining onsite, housing them in the factory and not allowing them to leave the premises or have any contact with the outside world. Anyone who complained was told to keep their mouth shut and threatened. Anyway, that's a whole different topic.
Yep, that's slavery.
Quote from: Nigel on December 08, 2007, 10:40:37 PM
No, actually I didn't propose any solutions in that essay, I just outlined what I perceived to be a problem.
What, that companies have to make a profit to survive?
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 10:38:35 PM
Anarcho-syndicalist.
All you need to know about Anarchism™ is that it was invented by the French.
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 10:49:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 08, 2007, 10:42:31 PM
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 10:37:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 08, 2007, 10:36:36 PM
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 10:34:10 PM
I don't really cling to any one ideology.
I completely agree that the revolution in Eastern Europe failed.
Now for the bonus round: Why?
The state.
WRONG.
Please try again.
Outside of the state and it's lackeys, I can't really see the problem.
That's because you are looking at it wrong.
The state isn't the problem, it's a symptom. We are - as primates - pack animals. Take the government away, and a surrogate system will instantly appear. In a week, you'll have government again.
So saying "if it wasn't for the state, we'd be free" is like saying "if it wasn't for gravity, I could rollerskate on the ceiling".
Come on, think this all the way through...Why has communism never worked?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 08, 2007, 10:52:03 PM
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 10:49:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 08, 2007, 10:42:31 PM
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 10:37:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 08, 2007, 10:36:36 PM
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 10:34:10 PM
I don't really cling to any one ideology.
I completely agree that the revolution in Eastern Europe failed.
Now for the bonus round: Why?
The state.
WRONG.
Please try again.
Outside of the state and it's lackeys, I can't really see the problem.
That's because you are looking at it wrong.
The state isn't the problem, it's a symptom. We are - as primates - pack animals. Take the government away, and a surrogate system will instantly appear. In a week, you'll have government again.
So saying "if it wasn't for the state, we'd be free" is like saying "if it wasn't for gravity, I could rollerskate on the ceiling".
Come on, think this all the way through...Why has communism never worked?
The lack of a centralised state doesn't amount to a war of all against all IMO.
And as for your question, is it because people are inherently stupid?
Because the way I see it, they're only like that due to a lack of education.
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 10:58:29 PM
The lack of a centralised state doesn't amount to a war of all against all IMO.
And as for your question, is it because people are inherently stupid?
Because the way I see it, they're only like that due to a lack of education.
1. Who said it did? I didn't say that. I just said lack of a centralised state is
impossible.
2. Nope. It's because they are primates and not ants.
3. HAW HAW! Some of the dumbest people I know are stuffed full of useless education. A few of them, and some of the dumbest, are communists.
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 10:23:38 PMWhile I agree with you in part, a starving child isn't going to get out of his situation through a revolution inside himself.
True. Really, all this philosophizing is just to make ourselves feel better.
If you really want to help, you're going to actually help the suffering person one on one. There's no one solution for everybody, and I know people don't care enough to really dedicate themselves that much.
But the least we can do is realize that all this suffering is our fault as silly humans, and get over this "us against them" mentality.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 08, 2007, 11:18:15 PM
Quote from: Pope Naughty Nasturtiums on December 08, 2007, 11:16:41 PM
and get over this "us against them" mentality.
Why?
CAN'T U SEE?
CUZ DEN WE CAN LIVE IN A MAGICAL UTOPIAN VEGAN FOREST WITH UNICORNS THAT CRAP ORGANIC LENTILS AND WE CAN ALL LIVE OFF OF HUGS AND STARLIGHT!!!!
Quote from: Pope Naughty Nasturtiums on December 08, 2007, 11:30:16 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 08, 2007, 11:18:15 PM
Quote from: Pope Naughty Nasturtiums on December 08, 2007, 11:16:41 PM
and get over this "us against them" mentality.
Why?
CAN'T U SEE?
CUZ DEN WE CAN LIVE IN A MAGICAL UTOPIAN VEGAN FOREST WITH UNICORNS THAT CRAP ORGANIC LENTILS AND WE CAN ALL LIVE OFF OF HUGS AND STARLIGHT!!!!
FINALLY SOMEONE IN THIS THREAD UNDERSTANDS ME
Quote from: Pope Naughty Nasturtiums on December 08, 2007, 11:30:16 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 08, 2007, 11:18:15 PM
Quote from: Pope Naughty Nasturtiums on December 08, 2007, 11:16:41 PM
and get over this "us against them" mentality.
Why?
CAN'T U SEE?
CUZ DEN WE CAN LIVE IN A MAGICAL UTOPIAN VEGAN FOREST WITH UNICORNS THAT CRAP ORGANIC LENTILS AND WE CAN ALL LIVE OFF OF HUGS AND STARLIGHT!!!!
But I hate people and naturally want to oppose them. :sad:
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 11:32:20 PM
FINALLY SOMEONE IN THIS THREAD UNDERSTANDS ME
This is bullshit.
I'm gonna go shit on the neighbor's car.
Quote from: davedim on December 08, 2007, 11:32:20 PM
Quote from: Pope Naughty Nasturtiums on December 08, 2007, 11:30:16 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 08, 2007, 11:18:15 PM
Quote from: Pope Naughty Nasturtiums on December 08, 2007, 11:16:41 PM
and get over this "us against them" mentality.
Why?
CAN'T U SEE?
CUZ DEN WE CAN LIVE IN A MAGICAL UTOPIAN VEGAN FOREST WITH UNICORNS THAT CRAP ORGANIC LENTILS AND WE CAN ALL LIVE OFF OF HUGS AND STARLIGHT!!!!
FINALLY SOMEONE IN THIS THREAD UNDERSTANDS ME
GODDESS BLESS, MOON-BROTHER!!11
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 08, 2007, 10:43:40 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 08, 2007, 10:40:37 PM
No, actually I didn't propose any solutions in that essay, I just outlined what I perceived to be a problem.
What, that companies have to make a profit to survive?
No, that's not the problem. The problem is AFTER the explanation that companies need to make a profit from employee labor.
Quote from: Nigel on December 09, 2007, 12:03:54 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 08, 2007, 10:43:40 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 08, 2007, 10:40:37 PM
No, actually I didn't propose any solutions in that essay, I just outlined what I perceived to be a problem.
What, that companies have to make a profit to survive?
No, that's not the problem. The problem is AFTER the explanation that companies need to make a profit from employee labor.
Sorry. Not getting it. Please spell it out for the toofless old bastids in the peanut gallery.
The REALLY REAL reason the USSR failed is because selling your one useful resource worth hard currency to your allies at sub-market prices is FUCKING STUPID.
What's really amusing is all the NeoCons are now whining because Russia, now being a free market paradise, no longer subsidies its oil sales to Ukraine etc...as well as buying up shares in European companies.
Is it just me or did we swap flags at the end of the Cold War and are now having a go at it from the opposite sides?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 09, 2007, 12:05:14 AM
Quote from: Nigel on December 09, 2007, 12:03:54 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 08, 2007, 10:43:40 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 08, 2007, 10:40:37 PM
No, actually I didn't propose any solutions in that essay, I just outlined what I perceived to be a problem.
What, that companies have to make a profit to survive?
No, that's not the problem. The problem is AFTER the explanation that companies need to make a profit from employee labor.
Sorry. Not getting it. Please spell it out for the toofless old bastids in the peanut gallery.
I don't think it's you that's the toothless old bastard here. I am, basically, too old to care about that essay anymore, and just posted it with a bunch of other old crap that nobody should pay any attention to.
I think the gist of where I was going before my attention span ran out and I hastily threw on that last sentence (did you notice that? It's like I went "fuck this, I'm done writing, how can I end it now?") is that lower-level employees lack the market leverage to insist on a wage that is commensurate to the profit they bring their employer. Just getting a new job isn't an easy option for many people, and like I mentioned before, if you are a lower-functioning person for any reason (say you had the misfortune of being born with less intelligence, or you have a chronic illness) you really get screwed in the bargaining-chip department. I'm neither a Communist nor a Libertarian (I hate that Ayn Rand Manifest-Destiny bullshit) but I do believe that the proper function of a society is to do two things: create a system in which people have the opportunity to excel and benefit from their excellence, and at the same time a system which affords its weakest members the opportunity to survive and thrive. As the old saw goes, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link...
Anyway, the essay is only a fragment of a line of thought, and a partially-developed fragment, at that.
Communism failed because it was the perfect pen for mindless sheep. When they finally all nodded off to sleep no one cared and the fence fell down. It gave the primates the perfect excuse to become perfectly apathetic, and then their apathy swallowed them whole. Oh, and the rest of us aren't much different.
Quote from: Hawk on December 20, 2007, 03:59:34 PM
Communism failed because it was the perfect pen for mindless sheep. When they finally all nodded off to sleep no one cared and the fence fell down. It gave the primates the perfect excuse to become perfectly apathetic, and then their apathy swallowed them whole. Oh, and the rest of us aren't much different.
i find that this is correct, and should be consumed with a tall glass of water.
I disagree.
It failed because after 80 odd years of wading around in blood up to their knees, the various armies of the Warsaw Pact realized if their system was so great, why did they have to keep on killing people who disagreed? They decided to not do it anymore (a very courageous decision by Gorbachev) and when the protests, which had been a fairly regular occurence under Communism, eventually erupted again, there was no-one especially willing to slaughter everyone. There was also the little issue of several countries being up to their eyeballs in debt to Germany, Canada and the USA, who used some sweet trade deals as a carrot. With no Soviet armies at their backs, most people said "what the heck" and the whole edifice came crumbling down.
Some people will have you believe its because Communism was based on a faulty view of human nature and worked from that to try and become a total system, but that's bullshit. My evidence? Neoliberalism is exactly the same, yet isn't being seriously challenged anywhere in the Western world. As soon as the countries in question fail to back up their economic policies with military might, it will crumble like the rest of them.