|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted May 20, 2014 03:17 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 15:22, 20 May 2014.
|
Marxism /=/ communism. That social democrats liked redistribution doesn't make them communists. They still strongly supported industrial capitalism. The only real attempt towards communism failed miserably and led to the fall off true Social democracy (they basically made a law which eventually would have led to unions taking control of all private enterprise). The Nordic model also doesn't have minimum wages.
Fauch said:
xerox said:
Well, as long as they go by the notion that communism can never exist on any scale as long as there's just a little bit of capitalism, I feel safe in that such a day will never come.
what's so scary about communism?
It's scary when implemented by force. I don't want there to be a day when I feel like eating a Cheeseburger, and then I get arrested for going to an underground McDonalds restaurant.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted May 20, 2014 03:32 PM |
|
Edited by Baklava at 15:37, 20 May 2014.
|
Just looked into it, didn't know that there's no minimum wage in the Nordic model. Even smarter, economically, as long as worker associations do their job. These worker associations are a legacy of socialist thought as well.
And I never said social democracy is communism. I said it's a love child of communism and capitalism, which it is.
Marx doesn't mention Marxism in his works - he mentions communism. Again, communism doesn't only mean Leninism and bolshevism.
On the flipside, you have "communism" heavily influenced by capitalism, such as in China. Both Chinese communism and Nordic social democracy are the result of these two opposing ideas co-existing on the same planet, yet they're as different as they are. It's a whole pantheon out there.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 20, 2014 03:35 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 15:37, 20 May 2014.
|
xerox said:
Marxism /=/ communism. That social democrats liked redistribution doesn't make them communists. They still strongly supported industrial capitalism.
I think what Baklava is trying to tell you is, during the 20th century, Marxism AND its political agenda about the communist ideal, led to a softer, nerfed kind of capitalism in general. Not exactly as Marx had foreseen it, actually in a reverse way, but the thesis/anti-thesis/synthesis dialect had substantiated.
There is a huge difference between 19th century wild capitalism and the modern democracies of the world regarding union rights, wages, work hours, etc... These did not drop from the sky, they were demanded by the influence of socialist ideologies. This is especially true for Northern European countries where working class is relatively quite wealthy compared to the rest of the world.
Edit to Bak: I see you are quite fast there, yourself, gun slinger 
|
|
Baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted May 20, 2014 03:39 PM |
|
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2014 04:52 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
That means, that neither the pure predator/individual capitalist/libertarian approach makes sense, nor the hive-mind/full social/equalitarian pure communist: both "ismns" cater only to one side of the coin.
Libertarianism isn't predatory, it's cooperative - people associating voluntarily and deriving mutual benefit from their interactions. Even in a disaster scenario, people can still find ways to cooperate, even if the exchange is unequal. It's socialism that's predatory, with one group forcibly extracting wealth from another.Quote:
Anyway. There seem to be people here who advocate the following. Putting someone a cocked gun to the head to take advantage of someone is bad.
Taking advantage of a cocked gun that HAPPENS to be held at someone's head is just fine.
First, there's the question - would it be better if you weren't allowed to take advantage of it? You're not the cause of them having a gun to their head, the blame for that is on someone else. The only difference is, in one scenario you're allowed to do something that benefits them in exchange for doing something in return, and in another you're not allowed to get anything out of it (so you don't do anything). Which is better for the person being held at gunpoint? Despite all the moral posturing of "exploitation"'s opponents, if someone can help me when I'm in a bad situation, it's better than if they're not allowed to, even if I have to pay a high price for it.
Second, removing guns from people's heads and letting people exchange when they're in bad situations are entirely separate issues.
As for the working class, they're rich because they're productive.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 20, 2014 05:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It's socialism that's predatory, with one group forcibly extracting wealth from another.
It's as if you're talking about some pillagers plundering a chateau. Socialism formulates your "extracting of wealth" as the workers demanding their fair share of the production values which they are a part of creating with their labor. Just picture the working conditions of the 19th century industrial cities for a while before replying to this. It was okay to work people almost to death if it meant more profit.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2014 05:21 PM |
|
|
"Socialism" was the wrong word, "welfare statism" is more what I'm talking about. Although if the workers didn't want it, they could've refused. They weren't being held at gunpoint. They were in a bad situation, but that's no one's fault, and no one should be forced to fix it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted May 20, 2014 05:31 PM |
|
|
Sharply back on topic, are you implying that forbidding a peddler to sell for irrationally high prices (in times of high demand coerced by natural disaster) would make him unable/unwilling to peddle his wares and therefore render him less helpful to society?
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 20, 2014 05:34 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 17:47, 20 May 2014.
|
Yes, they weren't held at gunpoint but in the real word, most people HAVE TO work, mvass. And it IS someone's fault if they intentionally reproduce the horrid conditions of work to make profit. Since the lower classes are powerless to change any of that unless they unite, that's what socialism suggests. So unlike your proposition of "if you don't like it, you are free to choose starving" it comes with the proposition of "if you don't like it, organize against it." Let me tell it to you by the words of your own Roderick Long:
build[ing] worker solidarity. On the one hand, this means formal organisation, including unionization—but I'm not talking about the prevailing model of 'business unions' ... but real unions, the old-fashioned kind, committed to the working class and not just union members, and interested in worker autonomy, not government patronage
I know this guy isn't a socialist but I don't think even you would claim, there is nothing from the ideological heritage of Marxism there.
Baklava said:
Sharply back on topic, are you implying that forbidding a peddler to sell for irrationally high prices (in times of high demand coerced by natural disaster) would make him unable/unwilling to peddle his wares and therefore render him less helpful to society?
As I mentioned, he presents a fake duality. There are alternatives. (And mvass, we are not talking about the welfare state here, all the options in the poll are alternatives.)
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2014 06:13 PM |
|
|
Bak:
It's unlikely that sellers would refuse to sell altogether, unless the price ceiling was set really low, but it is likely that they'd sell less than they would if prices had been allowed to rise as much as they would in a free market. In practice, this means shortages and people standing in line (an unproductive activity). And some mutually beneficial exchanges are prevented.
Artu:
They have to work, but that's hardly the capitalist's fault, is it? He didn't design humans to need food, that's just a law of nature.
But as for Long's point, there are two issues here. First, unions are cartels. Just like the hypothetical water cartel organizes to raise the price of water, unions are cartels that organize to raise the price of labor. If you don't like business cartels, you should dislike unions for the same reason. Second, a problem with modern unions is that they're protected by the state - striking workers are protected from being fired, employers are required to recognize union representatives, etc - this is the "government patronage" that Long is talking about. He thinks that unions would be successful without this patronage. I am doubtful, but workers organizing into unions is free association too. What I object to is plunder (such as that of a revolution or a welfare state), not voluntary collective bargaining.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2014 06:23 PM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
JollyJoker said:
That means, that neither the pure predator/individual capitalist/libertarian approach makes sense, nor the hive-mind/full social/equalitarian pure communist: both "ismns" cater only to one side of the coin.
Libertarianism isn't predatory, it's cooperative - people associating voluntarily and deriving mutual benefit from their interactions. Even in a disaster scenario, people can still find ways to cooperate, even if the exchange is unequal. It's socialism that's predatory, with one group forcibly extracting wealth from another.Quote:
Anyway. There seem to be people here who advocate the following. Putting someone a cocked gun to the head to take advantage of someone is bad.
Taking advantage of a cocked gun that HAPPENS to be held at someone's head is just fine.
First, there's the question - would it be better if you weren't allowed to take advantage of it? You're not the cause of them having a gun to their head, the blame for that is on someone else. The only difference is, in one scenario you're allowed to do something that benefits them in exchange for doing something in return, and in another you're not allowed to get anything out of it (so you don't do anything). Which is better for the person being held at gunpoint? Despite all the moral posturing of "exploitation"'s opponents, if someone can help me when I'm in a bad situation, it's better than if they're not allowed to, even if I have to pay a high price for it.
Second, removing guns from people's heads and letting people exchange when they're in bad situations are entirely separate issues.
As for the working class, they're rich because they're productive.
That's wrong in each and every point, most importantly in your description of what's TAKING ADVANTAGE OF means. It does NOT mean, that you are not allow to get anything out of it: NO ONE expects that you just GIVE AWAY your stuff. TAKING ADVANTAGE is something VERY different from normal business practise.
It means, making EXTRA profit out of other people's misfortune. ADDTIONAL and UNREASONABLE profit, that's SOLELY based on the dire straits another person is in.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2014 06:28 PM |
|
|
Who decides what's reasonable? You? What makes you the arbiter? And why does it matter what's "reasonable", anyway? As long as both are made better off by the transaction, there's no problem.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2014 06:28 PM |
|
|
/offtopic:
jj, if you used italics instead of caps in your posts, i think it would be more efficient at getting your message across. when you use caps, it's both hard on the eyes, and makes it seem like you're yelling the words, instead of merely emphasizing them. just an observation.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2014 07:13 PM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
It's socialism that's predatory, with one group forcibly extracting wealth from another.
and what about the current system, where ultra rich people own 90% of total wealth? isn't it predatory?
mvassilev said:
As for the working class, they're rich because they're productive.
that's the point of socialism.
in the current system, being more productive mostly means more wealth for the upper classes, not for the workers (or maybe a little bit)
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2014 07:17 PM |
|
|
Fauch said:
and what about the current system, where ultra rich people own 90% of total wealth? isn't it predatory?
The extent to which it's predatory depends on the unjust state privileges that the well-connected wealthy have. What matters is not the distribution of wealth, but how it's achieved. If it's voluntary exchange, it's fine even if some are rich and others are poor. If it's forced, it's bad regardless of whether it makes everyone equal or unequal.
Fauch said:
in the current system, being more productive mostly means more wealth for the upper classes, not for the workers (or maybe a little bit)
Wages are determined by productivity - when workers become more productive, they're paid more.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 20, 2014 07:19 PM |
|
|
mvass said:
They have to work, but that's hardly the capitalist's fault, is it?
Are you deliberately being vague here? They don't ask the capitalist for free money so that they can stop working, they are uniting by organizing to change the working conditions into something better for themselves. What's wrong with that?
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2014 07:26 PM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
Wages are determined by productivity - when workers become more productive, they're paid more.
oh, I didn't know wages were proportionnal to productivity. on the contrary, I thought unemployment was used as a threat to keep wages low, independently of increases in productivity. you can also add competition with countries with low labor cost, and disparition of protectionisms, making competition between workers of various countries even fiercer.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 20, 2014 07:33 PM |
|
|
mvass said:
Wages are determined by productivity - when workers become more productive, they're paid more.
Oh, I missed this one. So, dear mvass, tell me, how is the weather in Jupiter? Is it fun to sit on the gas clouds? How is the food like there?
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2014 07:42 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 19:44, 20 May 2014.
|
On Nordic model: All communist thought is Marxist, but not all Marxist thought is communism. Social democrats supported the originally Marxist idea of income redistribution. That doesn't make them any more communist than say, the modern American Democrats.
As for unions, I find the idea of workers voluntarily organizing to improve their conditions to be a very liberal thought. The problem is the introduction of union rights. Most achievements for workers were made before unions got government support.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 20, 2014 07:46 PM |
|
|
|
Nobody said Nordic countries are communist regimes. Don't do the straw man.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
