"Communism is the greatest evil unleashed on humanity" (1 Viewer)

[Admiral Nelson]

Oh yeah, those two years make you infinitely superior.

I forget sometimes.

 

[bigboyjames]

Oh yeah, those two years make you infinitely superior.

I forget sometimes.

meh, he could've backed up his point with something other than what his eco teacher shoved down his throat from day 1.

 

[Zeitgeist308]

communism is a fantastic idea in theory, but we all know it's not going to work in a practical situation

As BBJ already said, you people are such sheep aren't you. Don't worry about facts and evidence if you keep bleating "works in theory, not in practice" enough times it might make it true!

Oh yeah, those two years make you infinitely superior.

I forget sometimes.

If you have a point, make it. All this shows me is you have nothing to add to the debate.

Zeitgeist pretty much showed me this ideology.

I'm glad I could do that! If you are interested I strong suggest that after your HSC you pick up some of the works from the reading list I recommended earlier, if not even to critique them, after all a reading Marx is always worthwhile, what ever your opinion of him and this writings.

 

[withoutaface]

I'm afraid I have no idea what you are saying here, we aren't discussing a "system of government". Also could you please provide a quote.

Structure for society, then.

1. Sorry buddy but the LTV is not a justification of workers revolution. You can quite easily argue the case for socialism solely on the basis of social and historical necessity. The class struggle stands independent of value theory.

Yes, yes we've all heard this arguement before (especially in debates between Libertarians and Social-Democrats on sweat-shop labour). You are correct in stating that both parties (the employee and employer) benefit, sure the workers are better off employed than on the street or trying to produce the same goods without the productive property possessed by the capitalist. However you ignore the reality of exploitation. Yes, the 16 year old is better off being paid $45 for an 8-hour day than having no income at all, but irrelevant of this, in the former case he is being exploited.

I'd argue that it's not a real issue to have a sixteen year old on that kind of a wage. In general, they're not paying for their own food or shelter and so the option of not working is a very real and viable one.

If this situation were extended to older workers who are supporting families, I'd argue that there is nothing preventing them from opening their own business. If the work done by the employer is easy or overcompensated, then such an action would see the original business crushed under the weight of its own greed and overpriced goods.

Would you care to explain the predominance of chattel slave relations in ancient societies or it's continued existence even up to the present day?

Slavery flies in the face of everything true capitalism stands for, as it goes against the fundamental tenet that an man's body is his and his alone.

Bosses and workers do not exist just because of the way individuals choose to act,these roles exist externally to the individuals who carry them out. It is not just rational self-interest driving each component part of the system, but rather the needs of the system driving the actors.

Again, there is nothing preventing people going outside the current system and establishing businesses run directly by the workers on the bottom rung. The fact that such occurrences are rare implies that this is not the most efficient mode of production.

I'll respond to the rest later.

 

[Trefoil]

Again, there is nothing preventing people going outside the current system and establishing businesses run directly by the workers on the bottom rung. The fact that such occurrences are rare implies that this is not the most efficient mode of production.

It doesn't imply that at all - it could just imply that it's difficult to start, for various reasons (e.g. corporatism has too much of a stronghold).

 

[withoutaface]

It doesn't imply that at all - it could just imply that it's difficult to start, for various reasons (e.g. corporatism has too much of a stronghold).

What's your definition of corporatism?

 

[Trefoil]

Big businesses forming out of the free market and slowly edging out competition, warping the law to suit themselves, and exploiting workers by hiring desperate people at lower wages so they don't have to pay honest wages for their previous workers.

The unregulated free market places no restrictions on their emergence, can't, and once they're established it becomes very difficult to rout them.

 

[Admiral Nelson]

If you have a point, make it. All this shows me is you have nothing to add to the debate.

I have absolutely nothing to add to the debate - and I don't pretend otherwise. I just find unjustified elitism a tad annoying. You argue with what's being said, not who is saying it.

 

[withoutaface]

Big businesses forming out of the free market and slowly edging out competition, warping the law to suit themselves, and exploiting workers by hiring desperate people at lower wages so they don't have to pay honest wages for their previous workers.

The unregulated free market places no restrictions on their emergence, can't, and once they're established it becomes very difficult to rout them.

The free market ensures that the businesses which float to the top are those which offer superior products, doesn't have laws to warp and ensures that if a company is treating their workers like shit there's nothing preventing them from working elsewhere.

 

[ASNSWR127]

The free market ensures that the businesses which float to the top are those which offer superior products, doesn't have laws to warp and ensures that if a company is treating their workers like shit there's nothing preventing them from working elsewhere.

There is also nothing to prevent the other business' treating them like shit so we are all treated like shit...

except for the rich

 

[withoutaface]

There is also nothing to prevent the other business' treating them like shit so we are all treated like shit...

except for the rich

How about the part where the business which treats their employees best will get the best quality labour?

 

[ASNSWR127]

How about the part where the business which treats their employees best will get the best quality labour?

How about it wouldn't work like that because everyone will need work and not every corporation can have the best workers because there aren't enough spots and if they all treat their workers like shite then they don't need to.

it still leaves room for lots (indeed the majority) to be left behind.

Sorry mate you are defending a system which is dying...

 

[withoutaface]

How about it wouldn't work like that because everyone will need work and not every corporation can have the best workers because there aren't enough spots and if they all treat their workers like shite then they don't need to.

it still leaves room for lots (indeed the majority) to be left behind.

Sorry mate you are defending a system which is dying...

If that was the case then neither price competition nor product innovation would occur, since they are based on the same premises (showing a group of people that they provide the best 'deal').

 

[ASNSWR127]

If that was the case then neither price competition nor product innovation would occur, since they are based on the same premises.

false statement.

the reason this does not occur is thanks to government intervention.

The very thing you disagree with

 

[KFunk]

Slavery flies in the face of everything true capitalism stands for, as it goes against the fundamental tenet that an man's body is his and his alone.

Nah dude, interpedendence is where it's at. Everything belongs to the universe I'm afraid.

 

[withoutaface]

Nah dude, interpedendence is where it's at. Everything belongs to the universe I'm afraid.

Mmm? Interedependence comes about organically because every human being has a different comparative advantage.

 

[withoutaface]

false statement.

the reason this does not occur is thanks to government intervention.

The very thing you disagree with

Explain how it is false. Competing for labour is the same deal as holding an auction. The highest price/best package wins, especially when that labour is collectivised and well represented.

 

[ASNSWR127]

Explain how it is false. Competing for labour is the same deal as holding an auction. The highest price/best package wins, especially when that labour is collectivised and well represented.

so you advocate a union approach to it then? well that goes against lasse faire, no?

Or we could just have regulation where everyone knows where everyone stands and we can all work for the benefit of our society?

Otherwise it is a 'dog eat dog' world

 

[Trefoil]

How about it wouldn't work like that because everyone will need work and not every corporation can have the best workers because there aren't enough spots and if they all treat their workers like shite then they don't need to.

it still leaves room for lots (indeed the majority) to be left behind.

Sorry mate you are defending a system which is dying...

Spot on.

 

[Zeitgeist308]

You're now talking LTV, which you've already said pages ago is irrelevant to your system of government

[...] could you please provide a quote.

1. Sorry buddy but the LTV is not a justification of workers revolution. You can quite easily argue the case for socialism solely on the basis of social and historical necessity. The class struggle stands independent of value theory.

Lets clear up a few things here:

It is incorrect to say that the LTV is "irrelevant to you system of government". Even with your clarification with the term "structure for society" you still make no sense. In what sense is the LTV irrelevant to a communist mode of production? If you are saying that the LTV is a theory of capitalist economic functioning you would be correct, thus insofar as communism is not capitalism the LTV does not operate and is thus "irrelevant".

However we all know this is not the sense in which you are using it. What you are trying to communicate is rather that the LTV is irrelevant to my arguement in favour of the abolition of capitalism and "in favour of" communism. Whilst this is indeed correct I don't understand your point. Basically we've started arguing the the LTV (in a very shallow and simplified manner), you have either gotten tired or confused and can't think up a further arguement so you have fallon back on the fact that the correctness of the LTV is irrelevant to the larger arguement.

I'd argue that it's not a real issue to have a sixteen year old on that kind of a wage. In general, they're not paying for their own food or shelter and so the option of not working is a very real and viable one.

I'm not sure the point you are making here. If anything what you have done with the above example is provide empirical evidence in favour of the LTV. Since the labour-power of the 16 year-old is less to reproduce when compared to an adult worker (ie. The parents of the child provide for them largely, they do not have mortgages or rent to pay, families to provide for etc. etc.), the value (expressed in money as price) of the 16 year-old's labour-power is less.

If this situation were extended to older workers who are supporting families, I'd argue that there is nothing preventing them from opening their own business.

Except for maybe insufficient capital to do so or inability to enter the market and compete with large, already established businesses.

If the work done by the employer is easy or overcompensated, then such an action would see the original business crushed under the weight of its own greed and overpriced goods.

Once again, I'm not sure where you are going with this? Of course competition always drives individual capitalists to invest increasingly in more efficient technology and methods of production which (forgetting the countervailing tendencies) leads to an increasing “organic composition to capital” (the ratio of constant to variable capital) leading to a “falling rate of profit”.

Ergo, both benefit from the transaction, or it would not occur,

Would you care to explain the predominance of chattel slave relations in ancient societies or it's continued existence even up to the present day?

Slavery flies in the face of everything true capitalism stands for, as it goes against the fundamental tenet that an man's body is his and his alone.

And this has what to do with the matter at hand? The point I was trying to make is that both parties need not benefit from a socio-economic relation they enter into for it to occur, unlike you asserted.

Again, there is nothing preventing people going outside the current system and establishing businesses run directly by the workers on the bottom rung.

1. If you are implying workers cooperatives “outside the current system” I'm afraid I'm going to have to break it to you that they are capitalist enterprises. Cooperatives merely result in the “self-exploitation” of the workers who operate them being forced to compete on the market where they are forced into the same practices of other private companies or are forced out of the market and back into the arms of their former bosses.


2. How many workers with families to feed and mortgages to pay have the option to or would willingly choose to move to the “bottom rung”.

The fact that such occurrences are rare implies that this is not the most efficient mode of production.

Adding to what Trefoil already stated, cooperatives are not a “mode of production”, they are capitalist enterprises. The fact that feudal, slave or “primitive communist” relations are “less-efficient” has long been established.

I'll respond to the rest later.

If it's going to be a repeat of this, quite frankly, don't bother.