|
| Thread: A few questions for socialists/communists/left-anarchists/etc. |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · NEXT» |
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted December 19, 2008 06:12 AM |
|
|
A few questions for socialists/communists/left-anarchists/etc.
Found this on another message board, and I'd like to see some of our left-wingers answer these questions:Quote:
You always seem to espouse the idea of a worker keeping the "full product of his labor". The obvious question is how that even works out at all in the service industry if there is no money to serve as a marker. (What is the product of a barber's labor? Piles of hair to sweep up?) Would each worker in say, the classic example...
You know what. I stopped typing this post there. Why you might ask? Because it's all so god damned pointless. Arguing with you communists is like trying to punch fog. There's nothing tangible to attack. You rarely point out any specifics to your system, you rarely provide the way in which something would work etc. etc. For the most part (Actionrat being the rare exception, he tries at least) all you people do is post negatively about capitalism, mention something about "the worker" and then dodge 90% of all questions asked because you claim that the situation in question would not apply in your system. Instead of continuing my relentless (and utterly pointless) structured attack on your vague "fog" of an ideology I am just going to post a flurry of questions.
-You say that workers should be able to keep "The full product of their labor". You say that workers not being able to keep the full product of their labor is one of the main downfalls of capitalism. What exactly do you mean by this? Is it more of a metaphorical statement? If Person A works in a widget factory, does he get to keep all the widgets he made that day? How do his widgets get out to the people? Is he trading his widgets for the products he needs? (I'm assuming the answer here is "NO", though how you think you can prevent trading without a government is beyond me) If not, I assume that mean's that he's simply giving them away and then accepting the "gifts" from others, correct?
--How are things distributed in general? The only remotely efficient method I can think of would be some sort of community distribution center that everyone donates to. Who heads the distribution center? Is it a democratically elected position? Who oversees the voting process if it is a democratically elected position? Are they democratically elected too? Where does that end?
-Isn't equality one of the main goals of your society? How can equality be achieved without some sort of central bureaucracy? IE, if goods are distributed by free choice of individuals, what is stopping the best "beggars" from being better off in your society?
-Is there a supervisor in your factories? How is he put into place? What is the "product of his labor"? Does he get a cut of the factory workers product? Why would the factory worker in question then not be making less than the full product of his labor?
-What if it's a service industry? As said earlier, what is the product of a barber's labor? The barber's supervisor's?
-"From each according to his ability, too each according to his need" seems to be a big underlying theme in your system. Who is deciding need? Is there some sort of objective measure? "Need" seems like an extremely subjective thing to me.
-What is stopping trading of goods? (Trading as in actual trading- I want this, you want that. Agreed let's exchange. ) If it is acceptable, what is to stop accumulation of wealth? Everyone wins in a mutually agreeable trade. Someone always wins more in real value based on supply and demand.
-What is stopping your society from being invaded by an outside source? Toppled by an inside source? Even unified states, with the power to draft an army and fund it through taxation are not immune to revolution. How would a loosely connected stateless communist society be protected in any way from being taken over? (From the outside or inside)
-How are the bad jobs getting done without monetary incentive? Do you think a person will say "Society would benefit from more wood! I am going to give up my current career and become a logger though it is a highly dangerous and strenuous job!" In areas where the personal negatives outweigh the personal+collective benefits, how do things get done to any reasonable degree? Society may benefit from having steel, but it can get by perfectly fine without it. As an individual, what is my motivation for working in a steel mill knowing that the personal risks are great, the job is strenuous and the work environment is horrible?
-Why has very near every attempt at a communist revolution failed miserably? Is this a flaw in Marx outline for the revolution?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
friendofgunnar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
able to speed up time
|
|
posted December 19, 2008 07:36 AM |
|
|
I've also got a question for people that lived in states that used to be communist. What were the restaurants like? How many were there? What kinds of food did they offer? etc...
The reason I ask is because restaurants seem to be the epitome of free market enterprise. You open your restaurant, create your own menu, cook the food that is served, and then you live or die based on the quality of your product. So how does that (did that) function in a communist society?
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted December 19, 2008 11:27 AM |
|
|
Quote:
-You say that workers should be able to keep "The full product of their labor". You say that workers not being able to keep the full product of their labor is one of the main downfalls of capitalism. What exactly do you mean by this? Is it more of a metaphorical statement? If Person A works in a widget factory, does he get to keep all the widgets he made that day? How do his widgets get out to the people? Is he trading his widgets for the products he needs? (I'm assuming the answer here is "NO", though how you think you can prevent trading without a government is beyond me) If not, I assume that mean's that he's simply giving them away and then accepting the "gifts" from others, correct?
I got an example: Everybody who works earns X, and products all get a static and reasonable price.
I guess there would be trading hubs, where somebody would work on trading them at the set price. Everybody would work as much as they could, and everybody gets an equal amount for it.
Lets say you got a burning passion for saving people, become a doctor and problem solved  Since it does not matter what your proffesion is, might as well work towards what you want to become. I would guess it would still be like today, certain jobs got certain benefits in its ways.
Quote:
--How are things distributed in general? The only remotely efficient method I can think of would be some sort of community distribution center that everyone donates to. Who heads the distribution center? Is it a democratically elected position? Who oversees the voting process if it is a democratically elected position? Are they democratically elected too? Where does that end?
Everything needs a system, by setting up a system you can clean up alot of mess. Lets say factory A disturbes to alot of goods, to alot of the centers. I guess there would be somebody in charge of how much to receive, to avoid waisting.
Who controlls it? I guess the question is what system of election the place got, or how its controlled.
Democraty is not really captalistic, its another way of selecting leaders.
Quote:
-Isn't equality one of the main goals of your society? How can equality be achieved without some sort of central bureaucracy? IE, if goods are distributed by free choice of individuals, what is stopping the best "beggars" from being better off in your society?
I got no clue, maybe some system? Some distubution limitation as points or some kind of currency just for the sake of stopping abuse of the system i guess, everybody that works gets a set amount per day.
Quote:
-Is there a supervisor in your factories? How is he put into place? What is the "product of his labor"? Does he get a cut of the factory workers product? Why would the factory worker in question then not be making less than the full product of his labor?
Everybody earns the same. But lets move on. The cheif would become some kind of inspector, i guess the inspector also could be trained in maintanance of the machines over there. And i guess it could be a bit like in the old greek society: Everybody are allowed to question the productivity, since the list of disturbution must be kept open. How? Somehow.
It needs to be an open society.
Quote:
-What if it's a service industry? As said earlier, what is the product of a barber's labor? The barber's supervisor's?
A barber would do what a barber does do best, work with hair. How could it not be a proffesion? Not everybody can cut hair good and make people happy about it, etc.
The barbers work is the barbers work. I cannot se how its complicated.
Quote:
-"From each according to his its ability, too each according to his need" seems to be a big underlying theme in your system. Who is deciding need? Is there some sort of objective measure? "Need" seems like an extremely subjective thing to me.
I guess Einstein would have achived the exact same results in a communist society because he had the passion.
Lets say you got somebody with a driving lust to do someting, now lets put that somebody somewhere so it can work as much as it feels like. The inspectors role would also be to stop workers when they are reaching levels of strain or work that harmfull.
Quote:
-What is stopping trading of goods? (Trading as in actual trading- I want this, you want that. Agreed let's exchange. ) If it is acceptable, what is to stop accumulation of wealth? Everyone wins in a mutually agreeable trade. Someone always wins more in real value based on supply and demand.
The question is also: Is ther someting to win?
Trading is trading, i guess its a complex matter. And i really lack a clue, but also consider everything got a flat value unless the source of its changes dramaticaly(less supply).
Quote:
-What is stopping your society from being invaded by an outside source? Toppled by an inside source? Even unified states, with the power to draft an army and fund it through taxation are not immune to revolution. How would a loosely connected stateless communist society be protected in any way from being taken over? (From the outside or inside)
Well, i would say why not? Every type of election system can be used. Tax is another matter. To tax you would need a reason to tax, or a purpose. In a valuebased society tax is usually taken in the ruling forces to spend it on someting reasonable(that is atleast what its suppose to be spent on). In soviet, china, and similar they where only part of the world. They could have wars because there was soebody to fight.
Now lets say entire Asia, Europa and Africa where a communist society.
Who are we going to invade? Lets say America and Australia do not care, about us. Then what reason do we have to care?
And what stops a capitalistic society from getting new leaders? New leaders is someting that happens to stop corruption and to clean up.
Quote:
-How are the bad jobs getting done without monetary incentive? Do you think a person will say "Society would benefit from more wood! I am going to give up my current career and become a logger though it is a highly dangerous and strenuous job!" In areas where the personal negatives outweigh the personal+collective benefits, how do things get done to any reasonable degree? Society may benefit from having steel, but it can get by perfectly fine without it. As an individual, what is my motivation for working in a steel mill knowing that the personal risks are great, the job is strenuous and the work environment is horrible?
Its not about earning money. Meaning someting to make the factorys not horrible must be done, society where standards are needed.
Have you heard about the early factorys? THOSE where horrible places to work, but it was the only choice to earn money aka a living.
But why steel? I agree. Someting else could have been used, but lets say we only use steel for some special buildings and devices where its needed.
Lets say we use wood for the most buildings unless the area got a way to high chance of catching on fire, then some other material must be used.
"Why do i want do this?" "Because people need it, and you get someting to do"
Quote:
-Why has very near every attempt at a communist revolution failed miserably? Is this a flaw in Marx outline for the revolution?
Well...........
The chance of corrupted leaders, along with the fact that for some weird reason it does not become an open society when its born maybe?
The fact that when communism enters and similar it only a bit of the world that still is a part of a capitalistic society.
Lets say capitalisme now where a in a small country in a world where its communistic, could it work? It has to become big enogh before anything can happen.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 19, 2008 02:03 PM |
|
|
Well, the times they are a-changing.
The problems societies had 150 years ago are a thing of the past for that part of the world. We have to think globally now, obviously, which means that the focus of things have changed. That in turn means, theories and solutions based on a situation 150 years in the past are not valid anymore.
To give you an example, with the internet a lot more DIRECT democracy would be possible. My opinion is, that too many people that have no idea what they are doing, do too much bull. The real question is, who should decide what, and this is the central point in our current system as well. The actual rulers are those that "help" a government find a decision. Advisors, commitees think-tanks and so on. This is more or less a covert thing below the surface of open politics, and this should change.
There is the question of decision-finding and decision making as in WHO decides a question, and HOW to decide. HOW to decide is a question of organisation: today, with the internet, basically EVERYONE is ELIGIBLE (not necessarily able) to help deciding.
Which leaves the question of WHO should decide. The answer is, the people who know best or are in the best position to do. So the actual task of a government is to determine the people best qualified and able and justified to decide the tasks that have to be decided.
At this point system comes in. If a government decides that the owners of the means of productions are best qualified to decide about ecology, something is wrong - just as wrong as letting those decide who have nothing...
Communism, capitalism and democracy as we know it are all dead in my opinion and not really suited to solve the problems and challenges humanity is facing. What we need is a controlled social capitalism that is DIRECTED by those who a) are qualified to decide and b) have the least personal interest in terms of gain or loss depending on the decision.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 19, 2008 02:27 PM |
|
|
The guy in your quote thinks too capitalistic for a socialistic view. Here two quotes for example:
Quote:
Someone always wins more in real value based on supply and demand.
Supply and demand isn't the 'God' deciding the value in socialism
If you go extreme you might as well say the supply and demand of nukes, or humans (slaves), is ok, right?
Quote:
-What is stopping your society from being invaded by an outside source? Toppled by an inside source? Even unified states, with the power to draft an army and fund it through taxation are not immune to revolution. How would a loosely connected stateless communist society be protected in any way from being taken over? (From the outside or inside)
Same thing could be asked in capitalism. What is stopping the very big corporations from enslaving, literally, the people? Being above the law and all that power...
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 19, 2008 03:09 PM |
|
|
del_diablo:
Quote:
I got an example: Everybody who works earns X, and products all get a static and reasonable price.
But what if this amount X is less than the "full product of their labor" (whatever that means)?
Quote:
The cheif would become some kind of inspector, i guess the inspector also could be trained in maintanance of the machines over there.
Who would this chief be? Where would he come from? Would he be elected or appointed? If he would be appointed, who would appoint him? If he would be elected, who would monitor the elections?
Quote:
A barber would do what a barber does do best, work with hair. How could it not be a proffesion?
No, the question is, how much would the barber get paid? How would the "full product of his labor" be determined?
Quote:
I guess Einstein would have achived the exact same results in a communist society because he had the passion.
Einstein worked for the government anyway, so it doesn't make much of a difference in his case. But that's not answering the question. How is "need" determined?
Quote:
Its not about earning money. Meaning someting to make the factorys not horrible must be done, society where standards are needed.
Some jobs are going to be horrible no matter what standards society introduces. What about them?
Quote:
Lets say capitalisme now where a in a small country in a world where its communistic, could it work?
Yes, if the Communists don't invade it.
JJ:
With the Internet, more direct democracy is possible? More like direct hacking. And people who aren't interested in gain and loss in a given situation are unlikely to care about any aspect of the situation in the first place.
TheDeath:
Quote:
Supply and demand isn't the 'God' deciding the value in socialism
You're missing his point. Regardless of how socialism is arranged, there is still going to be stuff and people wanting stuff. Thus, supply and demand will still exist. So who is going to stop voluntary exchange, if there is no government?
Quote:
If you go extreme you might as well say the supply and demand of nukes, or humans (slaves), is ok, right?
I have no problem with the supply and demand of nukes. It's their use that's problematic. As for slaves, we have discussed this numerous times. Suffice to say that slavery is inefficient.
Quote:
What is stopping the very big corporations from enslaving, literally, the people?
Obviously, the government. But many socialists claim that the state will "wither away" when socialism is achieved. Who then?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 19, 2008 03:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So who is going to stop voluntary exchange, if there is no government?
Obviously first, there has to be a government, at least for police and stuff. In socialism you mostly NEED a government to keep order, and not allow capitalists to rise, of course. That would blow the system (socialism) so it wouldn't even be considered that way anymore.
Then, one thing is EXCHANGE, and another is PRODUCTION. The latter is one that meets demand, not the former.
Quote:
I have no problem with the supply and demand of nukes. It's their use that's problematic. As for slaves, we have discussed this numerous times. Suffice to say that slavery is inefficient.
Who cares if it's inefficient? What do you mean by efficiency? Isn't it to meet the demand? If people want slaves, isn't it the most efficient way to give them slaves? That's how businesses go. Efficiency in capitalism = money (supply). If people demand slaves, you need a supply of it to be efficient.
Then again, let's focus on the nuke thing. That's exactly what I'm talking about. What if there are many people who demand nukes? Should we give them, meet their demands? It would be efficient, in capitalism that is.
Then, you say "let's ban nukes" because of the consequences of their use... well no one in business demands something to not use it.
Then why stop here? Let's go further: let's ban cars, because they pollute (just as nukes kill). Of course I've nothing against cars too, as long as they aren't used. Right?
See the analogy? Who decides where do we draw the line? It's obvious that capitalism is subjective, and that line needs to be drawn somewhere -- on one hand, you want to meet the demands, but ONLY IN SOME PRODUCTS, which is subjective and hypocrite so to speak. Of course, no one's gonna blame you of that if your system is NOT based on supply and demand.
Quote:
Obviously, the government.
That's like saying "Who's going to stop the revolution? Obviously, the government."
not very helpful.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted December 19, 2008 03:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But what if this amount X is less than the "full product of their labor" (whatever that means)?
I guess then somebody would starve to death then or someting?
X is X. X is a set amount because it works that way.
I know of cases already where you can do more work that you will get paid for, get over it.
Quote:
Who would this chief be? Where would he come from? Would he be elected or appointed? If he would be appointed, who would appoint him? If he would be elected, who would monitor the elections?
You already got a system to look at. Mind to start asking questions about your own system please?
Who? Somebody. Might as well be a council of the entire workforce.
Where? Who cares?
Elected or appointed? Ask the workers. Or som reasonable commity that is of reasonable people who knows what their doing.
Who would monitor the elections? As its suppose to be done: Get in a neutral or do a safe election.
Quote:
No, the question is, how much would the barber get paid? How would the "full product of his labor" be determined?
Is it X or? Cuz i got no idea It works and does its job, and thus it gets paid for working.
Quote:
Einstein worked for the government anyway, so it doesn't make much of a difference in his case. But that's not answering the question. How is "need" determined?
Let somebody find a working definition or someting to replace that word. Need is usually defined in the basic needs. We need X and Y and Z so we can survive. Need is more of a capitalisme term nowadays
Quote:
Some jobs are going to be horrible no matter what standards society introduces. What about them?
Let it happen. And more spesificaly, what are you aiming at?
Quote:
Yes, if the Communists don't invade it.
Actually, the system will be so small and they cannot go into the other coutry because of the currency barrier either. They would be very isolated of. Unless thier pretty big. And big as in lets say Brittania+ Irland. Since it got no direct borders.
Quote:
Obviously, the government. But many socialists claim that the state will "wither away" when socialism is achieved. Who then?
Revolutions is someting that happens. Lets look at the french revolution, the goverment could not really supress the people very well then? Somebody doing a state-taking is however another issue.
____________
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted December 19, 2008 03:42 PM |
|
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted December 19, 2008 03:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
QUOTE WARS!!!!!! 
Thy dare not!
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 19, 2008 04:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
JJ:
With the Internet, more direct democracy is possible? More like direct hacking. And people who aren't interested in gain and loss in a given situation are unlikely to care about any aspect of the situation in the first place.
Is that so with you? Are you a person who is interested in things only when gain or loss is involved?
Is anyone paying you for making statements here, then? Because you seem to care a lot.
So where does that lwave your point?
The maint point here is that you have to cut those people out from decision finding that will gain or lose the most. If, for example, the question was, whether to hire more teachers or not it would be folly to ask the unemployed teachers. It would be folly as well to ask those who think that teachers are doing nothing the whole day, have tons of holidays and are overpaid.
|
|
DeadMan
Known Hero
The True Humanitarian
|
|
posted December 19, 2008 08:57 PM |
|
|
I'm hardly a communist or anarchist, although I'm somewhat of a left-winger, so I'll attempt to answer these questions.
Quote:
-You say that workers should be able to keep "The full product of their labor". You say that workers not being able to keep the full product of their labor is one of the main downfalls of capitalism. What exactly do you mean by this? Is it more of a metaphorical statement? If Person A works in a widget factory, does he get to keep all the widgets he made that day? How do his widgets get out to the people? Is he trading his widgets for the products he needs? (I'm assuming the answer here is "NO", though how you think you can prevent trading without a government is beyond me) If not, I assume that mean's that he's simply giving them away and then accepting the "gifts" from others, correct?
Kind of. There would be a sort of widget-to-money exchange rate, where he could keep part of his widgets and exchange the rest for money. This rate would, of course, be determined by impartial central planners, not by any greedy capitalists. And they would take the widgets and sell them - though not seeking a profit, of course.
Quote:
--How are things distributed in general? The only remotely efficient method I can think of would be some sort of community distribution center that everyone donates to. Who heads the distribution center? Is it a democratically elected position? Who oversees the voting process if it is a democratically elected position? Are they democratically elected too? Where does that end?
At each workplace, there would be an exchange center where the workers can exchange whatever they make for money. Then what they exchanged would be taken to the distribution center, headed by someone appointed by the central planners.
Quote:
-Isn't equality one of the main goals of your society? How can equality be achieved without some sort of central bureaucracy? IE, if goods are distributed by free choice of individuals, what is stopping the best "beggars" from being better off in your society?
Bureaucracy would exist to a certain extent, of course. That is unavoidable. But it's a small price to pay for equality. But ther would be no beggars, as everyone would be guaranteed employment and the disgusting mentality of greed would be eliminated along with the capitalist system.
Quote:
-Is there a supervisor in your factories? How is he put into place? What is the "product of his labor"? Does he get a cut of the factory workers product? Why would the factory worker in question then not be making less than the full product of his labor?
There would be a guy managing stuff, but he wouldn't exactly be a supervisor. He is, of course, appointed by the central planners (or, more likely, appointed by someone appointed by the central planners), and they determine what his labor is worth. And he gets his money from them, not from the worker.
Quote:
-What if it's a service industry? As said earlier, what is the product of a barber's labor? The barber's supervisor's?
What I have said previously applies to manufacturing industries. Service industries would necessarily function somewhat differently. A barber would get money as determined by the central planners, as there would be no widgets for him to exchange. His supervisor would function in a similar way.
Quote:
-"From each according to his ability, too each according to his need" seems to be a big underlying theme in your system. Who is deciding need? Is there some sort of objective measure? "Need" seems like an extremely subjective thing to me.
"Need" is a very simple and objective thing. "Need" means everything one needs to survive (that is, food, water, oxygen, shelter, clothes) and function spiritually (mosques, churches, sinagogues, etc). Plus education, of course.
Quote:
-What is stopping trading of goods? (Trading as in actual trading- I want this, you want that. Agreed let's exchange. ) If it is acceptable, what is to stop accumulation of wealth? Everyone wins in a mutually agreeable trade. Someone always wins more in real value based on supply and demand.
There would be no significant trading of goods - at least, not for profit. Much of today's trading is motivated by persoal greed. Sure, people would borrow each other's stuff, and let others borrow their stuff, but that doesn't really count.
Quote:
-What is stopping your society from being invaded by an outside source? Toppled by an inside source? Even unified states, with the power to draft an army and fund it through taxation are not immune to revolution. How would a loosely connected stateless communist society be protected in any way from being taken over? (From the outside or inside)
And this is why we need a world state. It wouldn't be stateless, of course. It would not be possible allow a single capitalist state to remain, or the people would be tempted to move there because of the higher standard of living, selfishly overlooking the greater equality in the socialist area. And there would be no one to topple it from the inside, because people would realize their nature as cogs in the machine of the state.
Quote:
-How are the bad jobs getting done without monetary incentive? Do you think a person will say "Society would benefit from more wood! I am going to give up my current career and become a logger though it is a highly dangerous and strenuous job!" In areas where the personal negatives outweigh the personal+collective benefits, how do things get done to any reasonable degree? Society may benefit from having steel, but it can get by perfectly fine without it. As an individual, what is my motivation for working in a steel mill knowing that the personal risks are great, the job is strenuous and the work environment is horrible?
They wouldn't be selfish. Once they'd realize that society needs them, they'd jump at the chance to help.
Quote:
-Why has very near every attempt at a communist revolution failed miserably? Is this a flaw in Marx outline for the revolution?
Because most of their leaders were atheists and materialists.
____________
I don't matter. You don't matter. But we matter.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 20, 2008 01:57 AM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Quote:
In socialism you mostly NEED a government to keep order, and not allow capitalists to rise
Whoa. Whoa. Stop right there. What do you mean by that? Why should people not be allowed to exchange voluntarily (if it's not stuff like nukes, of course)? Of course, capitalists are a natural outcome of that, but, so?
Quote:
Then, one thing is EXCHANGE, and another is PRODUCTION. The latter is one that meets demand, not the former.
You can create all the widgets you want, but if no one else gets them, then they're not satisfying much demand.
Quote:
If people want slaves, isn't it the most efficient way to give them slaves?
But slavery itself - the institution - is inefficient. I seriously doubt that a slave owner would be able to compete in the modern economy on any significant scale.
Quote:
What if there are many people who demand nukes? Should we give them, meet their demands? It would be efficient, in capitalism that is.
Well, here we tread on something slightly different - that is, the use of nukes is harmful, and why would people buy nukes if not to use them? So, to prevent their use, we have to prevent their exchange. It's utilitarian.
Quote:
Who decides where do we draw the line?
It's not as hard as you think. It's through the use of maximization of utility. Obviously, causing death is a severe decrease in the system's utility, so it should be prevented.
Quote:
That's like saying "Who's going to stop the revolution? Obviously, the government."
Ah, but many socialists say that under socialism, there will be no government.
del_diablo:
Quote:
I know of cases already where you can do more work that you will get paid for, get over it.
I disagree with that claim. But we're talking about socialism here - and socialism is all about people getting the "full share of their labor". So what if they don't? Is socialism irrelevant, then?
Quote:
You already got a system to look at. Mind to start asking questions about your own system please?
I already know about my system. If anyone has questions about it, they are welcome to ask them.
Quote:
Who? Somebody. Might as well be a council of the entire workforce.
So the entire workforce - everyone who's working in the factories and farms, etc, is going to be walking around all the factories and farms to make sure that everyone is working?  If everyone is inspecting, then who is working?
Quote:
Who would monitor the elections? As its suppose to be done: Get in a neutral or do a safe election.
Who appoints the neutral? And what is a "safe election"? Who decides that?
Quote:
It works and does its job, and thus it gets paid for working.
How much?
Quote:
We need X and Y and Z so we can survive.
What are X and Y and Z? And what if we produce more than enough to satisfy X, Y, and Z? How would we distribute the extra stuff? On what basis?
Quote:
Let it happen. And more spesificaly, what are you aiming at?
Under socialism, who would do those jobs?
Quote:
Actually, the system will be so small and they cannot go into the other coutry because of the currency barrier either. They would be very isolated of. Unless thier pretty big. And big as in lets say Brittania+ Irland. Since it got no direct borders.
If Great Britain and Ireland were capitalist, and the rest of the world was socialist, it would only be a matter of time before Britain and Ireland would be better than the rest of the world put together.
JJ:
Usually the experts in the field have some monetary interest in it as well. As interested as I am in politics, I doubt I could run the Treasury Department or Department of Defense - and those who would be able to would have some other motives. Either you'll have people who know what to do but won't tell you, or you'll have people telling you who don't know much about the problem.
DeadMan:
Trust me, you don't want to get into a discussion about atheism or selfishness with me.
But your main problem is your reliance on the central planners. Who would they be? Where would they come from? Why would they necessarily do what's best for the people? How would they solve the economic calculation problem - that is, how would they know what exchange rate to use, etc.?
All:
Blargh, quote wars.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted December 20, 2008 02:13 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 02:14, 20 Dec 2008.
|
Quote:
All:
Blargh, quote wars.
You post a thread consisting of a heap of listed questions, you answer every single answer people give you, and then you complain about quote wars?
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 20, 2008 02:56 AM |
|
|
Quote wars, because I'm responding to people's answers to the questions.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
|
posted December 20, 2008 03:43 AM |
|
Edited by Vlaad at 06:03, 20 Dec 2008.
|
Whoa, what a hodgepodge of ideological and economic questions. Theory aside, no socialist economy is based on barter. LOL As for other issues, production is still dependant on supply and demand, but instead of free market you've got a centrally planned economy.
By the way, although I've grown up in a socialist country, I didn't see free public transportation until I came to the US.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 20, 2008 06:09 AM |
|
|
But how is demand determined under a socialist economy?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted December 20, 2008 10:04 AM |
|
|
Quote:
But how is demand determined under a socialist economy?
Lets say we got 3 villages.
Village 1 is filled with vegetarians.
Village 2 is the arveage.
Village 3 have a higher amount of childeren.
So V1 would likely get less meat imported. V2 the arveage. V3 would likely it to be more milk and similar.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 20, 2008 02:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
JJ:
Usually the experts in the field have some monetary interest in it as well. As interested as I am in politics, I doubt I could run the Treasury Department or Department of Defense - and those who would be able to would have some other motives. Either you'll have people who know what to do but won't tell you, or you'll have people telling you who don't know much about the problem.
I don't see any ground for that claim, especially not for the bold print. What makes you think so?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 20, 2008 02:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Whoa. Whoa. Stop right there. What do you mean by that? Why should people not be allowed to exchange voluntarily (if it's not stuff like nukes, of course)? Of course, capitalists are a natural outcome of that, but, so?
If you had taken the other quote into account (next one) it would be pretty obvious. You allow people to exchange -- doesn't mean you allow to produce or use whatever they want though. An obvious example would be nukes -- they can exchange nukes, but they don't even exist since they are not allowed to build nukes.
"if it's not stuff like nukes" -- who decides what? Isn't that a bit.. socialistic?
Quote:
But slavery itself - the institution - is inefficient. I seriously doubt that a slave owner would be able to compete in the modern economy on any significant scale.
What do you actually mean by "inefficient". What determines efficiency? Isn't that the amount of money you get? (I mean, in 'value' of course, not in inflation)
If your products sell like bread (slaves in this context) then you are extremely efficient. What's the problem? Isn't efficiency to meet the demand? If people want to blow the entire Earth up, then the most efficient way to do it is to give them nukes and stuff. After all, if that's what they want, efficiency is to supply their demand.
Quote:
Well, here we tread on something slightly different - that is, the use of nukes is harmful, and why would people buy nukes if not to use them? So, to prevent their use, we have to prevent their exchange. It's utilitarian.
"harmful" -- that's not really capitalistic. But by that logic, the use of cars is 'harmful' as well, let's say because they pollute. Right?
Who determines 'harm'? Government? That is a communistic path (i.e everything owned by the government because it knows what it's "best").
also you just had to split my post into so many quotes
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
| |
|
|
