NationStates Jolt Archive

personally, i am a supporter of communism (by karl marx, not the facist dictatorship that it often turns into), for the reasons of social equality etc. if you look at the nationstates "world" alot of the more left wing, socialist or communist nations have the more beautiful environments, lush forrests etc. and the only thing the capitalist, right wing nations have are good economy and industry.

however with this said, i dont think capitalism or communism could work. human beings are naturally selfish, and through this, communism would turn into facism, and capitalism would turn into corporatism. both facism and corporatism being equally corrupt. communism can ony work if everyone agrees to it (and a special resposibility for the government to stay within the intrests of the people), and capitalism can only work if everyone is kind and ignores greed (again, a special responsibility on corporate bosses to focus on the quality of service, and not the profit). the problem is both of those things are against human nature.

the alternative is socialism, a less extreme version of communism, but not yet capitalism

It could have probably worked in some circumstances. I think had it been introduced early enough in Japan it might have been very successful.

I don't think it will work now. I don't even think the concepts behind Communism--on paper--approach anything resmbling "pretty" or even "well-meaning."


But libertarianism looks a bit like this:http://sinai.critter.net/gallery/monster.gif

If capitalism is so fair, then what's the point of inventing an alternative economic system like Communism? If capitalism is so good then why bother starting global revolutions during the 20th Century like the 1917 Revolution by the Bolsheviks in Russia?

The Tsar's Russia was hardly a free market capitalist society. Up until the 1860s there were laws which actually set aside a certain amount of the population as slaves, and even after this the government meddled with the economy all the time. Neither slavery nor government meddling in the economy are compatible with laissez-faire philosophy.

if you look at the nationstates "world" alot of the more left wing, socialist or communist nations have the more beautiful environments, lush forrests etc. and the only thing the capitalist, right wing nations have are good economy and industry.


Take a look at the real "world". 90 years of industry-crazed communism in the USSR left dumps like Magnitogorsk and Krasnoufimsk where pretty much the whole population suffers from radiation-related disease and where virtually no plant or animal life whatsoever can thrive. Check out those beautiful environments.

and capitalism can only work if everyone is kind and ignores greed

This is false. Self-interest in the marketplace drives producers to create products which consumers will pay for, thus ensuring the livelyhood of the producer. This is a widely accepted part of economic theory.


If you actually analysed the economic development of a capitalist country, it's got as much free market as the restricted buying and selling in the Middle ages.

Even if this were true, the hypothetical system would still have a hell of a lot more free market than a planned economy. Of course, if you actually take a look at a modern capitalist country, comparing it to the middle ages would be a total joke.

Take a look at the real "world". 90 years of industry-crazed communism in the USSR left dumps like Magnitogorsk and Krasnoufimsk where pretty much the whole population suffers from radiation-related disease and where virtually no plant or animal life whatsoever can thrive. Check out those beautiful environments.

The Tsar's Russia was hardly a free market capitalist society. Up until the 1860s there were laws which actually set aside a certain amount of the population as slaves, and even after this the government meddled with the economy all the time. Neither slavery nor government meddling in the economy are compatible with laissez-faire philosophy.

you have to remember that the same can happen with communism. the USSR, however much they call themselves communist, they were really not, they were actually totalitarian. in marx's 'scientific socialism' or communism, the state owns the means of production, and that means the people, not the government. i dont know about you, but i believe that the good people of russia would not dump radioactive waste on their own people.

the same happens in alot of countries, they call themselves "communist", when they actually are totalitarian, this puts a bad name to communism, and gets people prejudiced against it, so they arent willing to find out what it actually stands for, just thinking it is 'evil', which is absurd, since when can an economic system be 'evil'.

This is false. Self-interest in the marketplace drives producers to create products which consumers will pay for, thus ensuring the livelyhood of the producer. This is a widely accepted part of economic theory.

Yes, thats why huge companies like nike pay less than a dollar for shoes that we pay over $100 for. and why banks have s**t opening hours, s**t service, high intrest rates (for loans) low interest rates for bank accounts, and still make WAY over $9,000,000 PROFIT (NOT gross intake) a year.

there is a difference between self interest driving the market towards better products, and self interest driving the market towards ripping the consumer off. the latter just leads down the slippery slope to corporatism, which is sickly corrupt. and i fear that is where america, and unfortunateley maybe australia is headed.

you know i heard a story where in a city in america, ford bought the public transport system, and shut it down so the people would have to buy more cars to compensate. this is hardly an ideal society

however, i do recognise that communism is not perfect either, and it does have its faults

Even if this were true, the hypothetical system would still have a hell of a lot more free market than a planned economy. Of course, if you actually take a look at a modern capitalist country, comparing it to the middle ages would be a total joke.

now its my turn, if you look at the real "world", there is truth in what soviet utopia is saying, believe it or not. the truly free capitalist market could only lead to monopolising, which in turn prevents other companies from coming in to challenge, and you get about as much freedom, as soviet utopia said:
it's got as much free market as the restricted buying and selling in the Middle ages

Because some people made the poor judgement in thinking that equality and safety were more valuable than freedom. What they didn't realise is that by giving away their freedom they ensured that there would be no equality or safety.

ahem.... i cannot see how giving away freedom ensures that there is no equality or safetey. the freedom given away in communism is far less than the freedom given away in capitalism. in capitalism, how good an education you get depends on the money your perants have, and what job you get depends on how good an education you get, and how much money you earn depends on what job you get. this process just repeats itself over and over untill you cannot escape from your "class" in society. as well, i bring back my other argument about monopolising (see above paragraph). however in communism you are free to do nearly whatever you like, exept that wich constricts other peoples freedom.

its sad that so many people value profit over anything else these days.

i don't think it would ever work... i don't really beleive in all that spread-the-wealth stuff. i mean, i'm middle class. but the lower end definately. but i dont think capitalism is bad. look, you don't have the right to give everyone equal pay or stuff when they don't do equal work. i mean, i think manual labor should be payed a good amount, but not as much as a huge business exec. cuz his job is much harder. maybe not physically... but still... and plus, communism goe's against human nature. am i gonna let some poor lazy farmer get as much money as me, the doctor who spent years and years paying for college tuition? NO WAY. in fact. thats total bull. ya know what i mean? if people were nice, and everyone was altruistic, communism would be perfect. but we're not like that. people suck. the perfect government in my idea would be a direct democracy. not the republic one we have. a direct one. which means it would be small. but centralized. like. almost to the point of township kind of thing. although i think, a monarchy/empire that had a truly caring monarch would be very good. too bad the good people never get so powerful.

Okay then, I'll skip our previous post and go straight to this one.

I have a feeling that our differences lie deeper than you realize. I believe that we have a very different set of core values. However, that doesn't mean we can't have a reasonable discussion.

*nods* I didn't want to imply we would automatically agree, but I do think that we could "make" something societal together and both be happy with the result... (maybe that's an idea for an exercise, n'est-ce pas?)

First, let me say that we can disregard negative connotations regarding the terms that we use. I know that when you refer to communism you are not referring to Stalinist communism, and you know that when I am referring to capitalism, I am not referring to corporatism.

Check, although I'm not sure what you mean by "corporatism". Could be either the Modern term of guilds acting like quality and prince controlling mechanism, or corporations that weigh on the free-market in order to get a bigger piece of the pie. Didn't mean the first, but did mean the latter (they are, after all, part of the system - intended or not, I don't care).


We both agree that societal values are determined subjectively. We all value goods, labor, dollars, and each other differently.

OK

Where we differ is in how we mold society to handle these differences. I am arguing that subjective valuation is natural and should not be hindered.

I agree

Capitalism offers individuals the ability to decide how much they value a good and how much they value their own labor or another person's labor. It does away with objective valuation and allows people to trade depending on their own core values.

I disagree. They have to calculate an extra factor, nanely "what can I get with what I have?". Their core value is often interfered by this restriction, that is not decided nor seeked out by them personally. Sometimes that means, they can't get food or shelter. Most often that means, that some can get all they want, while a lot more others can't even get what they need. And it often isn't even connected to the amount of labour produced.

Communism handles the problem of subjective valuation in the exact opposite fashion. It takes away the subjective valuation in exchange for a society set objective value. Labor is no longer a free commodity, it is now a society possessed commodity.

Disagree. Labour is indeed a society possessed commodity, but up to a certain level (although in totalitarian communism, it was indeed usurped completely). Subjective valuation is not taken away (at least, I wouldn't do that). There would still be choice, if that's what you are implying. It makes no sense to create a society that envisions only one solution for very individual "problems". The fact that I would propose a bottom-up organic communistic model with a democratic decision-making-process (like the original sovjet idea, only better ;) ), makes it so that ideas, suggestions, even "whims" can be carried through if there's enough backing. Also, there would be personal initiative, even on economic matters - otherwise there would be no dynamism. The state does not (and wants not to) decide what you should make and what you should consume - it only implies regulations regarding (IMO) environmental and resource/labour cost, i.e. what should NOT be done (and oh yes, there's a difference between those two). For instance, the most conspicuous of luxuries would be "not done", like flying Beluga-caviar from the other part of the globe, or having gas-waisting SUV's when normal cars will suffise. But now I'm already starting over to the cultural part of "consumption". There would, indeed, be regulations that would forbid the production and consumption of certain goods (like the ones that are mentioned above), but they would not be decided upon through a top-down totalitarian model. The public would still decide.
The most marked difference is that there will no longer be laboured to gain profit. The work that is to be done, is to be carried out by all parts of society based on skill and prowess, and the work that needs to be done is decided upon by all parts of society as well. If people vote for clean streets, then there will have to be people to clean them - often, you'll see that the ones that demand will be also the ones that do. Jobs that "no one wants to do" are either broken down into very small pieces and are communaly done, or are otherwise conducted through rota-programmes and the like. So yes, chances are you'll have to clean the street during your lifetime - but not in the demeaning way that you would envisage. Such "community" jobs will be carried out by said "community", in programmes that offer a wide variety of other social projects as well (education, being with friends, etc.). The point is to create a communal sense of responsability, thus: a cultural level. That goes for economic production as well. The production you will be personally responsible for, is "yours", is as much an appropriation of yourself as possible, to make you more "connected" with what you do. It's like an artisan who creates a chair all by himself and is proud of what he achieved. The extra-value is now placed upon the production, and no longer upon the consumption or posession of goods (Coca-cola is no longer "a way of life", it's just a drink - producing the Cola, however, will be more personal and will become more culturally elevated through sheer anthropomorfical connectivity). In such a cultural milieu, there will be less people who want to consume in an extravagant manner in order to feel better. And btw, if you don't agree that said consumption is indeed an essential part of modern capitalism, there's a serious amount of literature you can read that will convince you otherwise.

2. The Nature of Free Market Valuation

I am unsure what you believe about the nature of the free market and its valuation of labor. I do feel that you misunderstand the very nature of the free market, though. You see the free market is a market that is free of economic coersion.

Indeed. That actually IS what free market means (the "no coercion" part).

By eliminating all instances of economic theft, the economy becomes completely democratic. All individual values in society factor into the value of a good. If the members of society feel that a good belongs on the market, then they will offer a monetary value to those that provide it. As the price of a good rises over its fair value, then inventories of the good will rise, and the companies inhabiting the market will lower prices to liquidate the inventories and avoid waste. As the prices go lower, inventories will drop and the companies will both raise prices and produce more.

You're forgetting the monetary aspect and the accumulation of capital that is existant in capitalism. Only those that have money, can offer it. And those that have lots of money, can offer more, can get a predominant "weight" on your ideal system, thus creating a lobsided consumption process that in the end favours them the most. You see, with the monetary aspect, the end result is not an equilibrium that will rectify itself when out of balance - it is, through the monetary "shadow economy" I told you about earlier, a system that is not unlike a grand melee on a battlefield: the ones with the short swords go down first, the ones with the long swords can hang on a bit longer, and in the end the ones with the horse and pike will be left standing. Capitalism pits every subject against every other subject, and decides (on a "rational" basis most often) which one is "stronger". The one that "wins", usurps some of the economic prowess of the "loser", and goes on until it is defeated, or in the end be the last one standing. Once there is a movement of increasing power on one end, that movement will only accelerate, especially in a totally free market, where only the amount of money you have constitutes your power.

In essence, I would agree with your system. But you are forgetting the concept of profit in your equation, and the monetary accumulation altogether, IMO. If capitalism really was like that, I'd be on board. Your "free market" looks a lot like the one I proposed above - which is what I already meant by "we would agree just fine".

As for labor, the demand for goods drives this. As the society's aggregate demand for goods rises, so does the demand for labor. Labor is valued at the level of utility it provides for society. If a company needs to produce more goods to fulfill society's needs, it will hire more workers, in order to hire more workers, wages will rise. The same goes if demand for goods drop.

I agree. Yet in practice, it doesn't seem to work like that. You'll say "because the market isn't free enough", I say "because of capital accumulation and thereby created differences of power levels" (sounds quite marxist, doesn't it? But I'm not a marxist, you know - that whole "class battle" concept exists only by the very nature of capitalism, and is not something that belong "automatically" to any society. It's an evolution-state, nothing more, nothing less.) I would envisage the same (or a very similiar) system in my above-mentioned communistic model, because of its bottom-up organic connotation. The only thing that wouldn't happen, is the "wage" aspect. Other incentives would be used. In the end, it still boils down to "if they really want it, then they'll really work for it" - simple, and democratic.

So capitalism does not rely on this impersonal arbitrary process that you say it does. It relies on the personal values and wants of everyone within the society.

I don't see how you come to this conclusion through what you stated, since you didn't speak of capital during the whole of the above discourse.

3. The fairness of Capitalism

I obviously believe in the exploitation of the worker. I would like for you to point out just where the exploitation takes place.

Okay. All ears.

In my opinion, a capitalism offers the worker sufficient opportunities to provide his labor. Exploitation of the worker would require every one of these places to be offering him less than his labor value. However, the profit motive would not allow this to happen.

Wrong. The capitalist only "needs" to make profit. How this is achieved, is up to "his rational decision". Often this is by adjusting wages like you proposed, but not always. There are other methods of achieving more profit: most of them pass through the shadow monetary economy (investment, lobbying, etc.), sometimes it involves market incentives (price-wars, advertising), sometimes it involves what I would consider "unethical" practices.
A capitalist will get a list of possible solutions that will enhance his profit (he's not content with what he has, he has to have more or be consumed by others - also a point I loathe, since such a teleological progress-driven approach is like lemmings during the early wintertime: bent on self-destruction.) He will choose "rationally", only held back by ethics (which a true capitalist often just plain won't use, since they're not rational). That's how the following solution offers itself: shrimp are caught in the North-Sea. Then they are shipped to Oostende (Belgian city) in a refrigerated-truck. From there, they are flown to Brussels (Belgian capital) in a refrigerated plane. From there, they are flown to f*ing Thailand (the other end of the world) to be processed and packaged by low-wage labourers, and then flown back. (My environmentalist heart weeps, btw.) And why? Because of a 0.15 euro profit per pound of shrimp. This "sounds" rational, but that's only because social and especially environmental "variables" are not entered into the equation. Capitalism, plain and simple, favours the "cheap" solution, which is not necesseraly the "best" one, since a monetary value cannot ever be equalised with a subjective value, especially not in a culture that has more eye for the short-term gain - and beyond, it is also decided on an amoral basis, which might be fine if it were pure economics with no social repercussions. But we both know that isn't how it works.
Capitalist often don't choose the "good" path of innovation and wage-adjustments. They only want more profit, with the good old adagio "the economy must grow or we'll fall dead in the street by tomorrow" branded into their foreheads. How they achieve said profit, is up to them. You might think that's OK, but I don't. That's probably where we differ. The positivistic nature of capitalism you advocate, or even seem to recognize, simply is not conducted in real life because the capitalist system in the end favours the strong, who will - through rational, profit-driven volition - eventually abolish your system.

Take this for example, a worker offers labor utility at a rate of $20/hr. One company offers him a $10 an hour wage. Another company recognizes that they can make a profit simply by offering him a $15/hr wage. Another company can better this by offering him $19/hr. This continues until a company offers him a wage that equals the utility he provides.

This supposes a shortage of workers, and no means of coercion to make workers actually labour. There are other means of getting people to accept lower wages. Making (or keeping) them poor, for instance, will do quite nicely. (see Wallerstein on this)

4. The Role and Morality of Government

Society cannot govern itself on morality. It must strive to be as objective as possible, and that means that it must ignore all but the most universal moralities. Anything further than that would mean further subjection of the individual to society.

An individual is only an individual because there are others, a society, to recognize him as such. It's like this: if there were no mirros, you would never actually be able to see you existed. We are, by nature, social animals, and we ALWAYS act as such (even when we expressively "detach" us from society, like hermits). Society is driven, is created, by morality, by codes of conduct, by socialization systems. True individuality can only exist because there's a moral cadre that allows this - much like how the free market only exists because there an institutional cadre that allows this (google for "new institutional economics" and "new economic history", Douglas North etc. to learn more on this). You are an individual, whether you like it or not, only by the grace of others, only through culture, value, and morality. The "natural state" of the human being is NOT (like it says in some declarations of supposed universal reach) as an individual. That's a cultural state, and as such determined through your predecessors and the values and morality-shifts they advocated and/or battled. Individuality IS emotion, and it IS societal.

5. Luck, Risk and Reward, Safety and Freedom

This is a matter of risk versus reward. All decisions have a measure of uncertainty, this is the risk and reward concept, a decision can work out bad or it can work out good, depending on the circumstances. Where safety and freedom come into play is in the determination of the risk and reward allowed. Safety can be considered a limitation on reward in order to limit risk. This runs counter to freedom, which determines the maximum level of risk and reward allowed, maximum freedom = maximum risk = maximum reward possible.

Your definition of freedom is a peculiar one. I believe that if you were to say to a thousand random people that this is freedom, at least half would go like "Eh, no thank you". I can see why you would oppose freedom with security, and I even agree with this. But I still do not believe that your idea of freedom should be ordered upon (strange choice of words, no?) the whole world, since I'm convinced that there would not be a total majority who would want it. I know I don't want that, and I know that I'm not alone in this. Freedom, for me, is the offering of chances, not the offering of maximum reward/failure. The chance, for instance, to not participate in a risk, and not be punished for that. The chance to do what I want to do. The chance to be able to go to university, without me being rich. The chance to be safe from extreme risk. Capitalism doesn't offer me freedom - it offers me a predetermined choice. That's not freedom.

Luck comes into play when we are considering the risk. In order to eliminate the luck we must eliminate the risk. This means we must use safety as a limitation to risk and reward. To add safety means to reduce freedom.

So to eliminate luck, you would have to eliminate freedom.

I quoted this apart, because it would otherwise be a bit much ;)
But my answer is in effect the same as the one above... There will always be luck and bad luck. But it is society's duty to "take away the sharp edge" of both, IMO. Because, in my opinion, that's why people work and live together in the first place (o woe the teleological aspects... that's not what I mean, I think you know what I do mean). And taking away the sharp edge does not mean doing away with freedom altoghether. A concept so ephemere and subjective as freedom cannot be caught by a simpe equation of "risk and security", although I do see your point. It's just that, it's YOUR point. YOUR freedom. It's by no means "universal". And, hence, should not be considered as such.

I'm looking forward towards continuing this - although I must say exams are approaching steadily (I can see the dorsal fin ;) ), so it might be a while.
And what about my "idea": how about you and me try to work on an economic system that makes us both happy? I'm dying to see if (and how) that would work...

ahem.... i cannot see how giving away freedom ensures that there is no equality or safetey.

Because if the individual rights are taken away, the restrictions that keep the people in power from oppressing the individual are also taken away.

the freedom given away in communism is far less than the freedom given away in capitalism.

You can't possibly back that up because it isn't true.

in capitalism, how good an education you get depends on the money your perants have, and what job you get depends on how good an education you get

I call bullshit. My mother is a single mother from a small farming community with two other children. I attended college for five years.

and how much money you earn depends on what job you get.

What is the problem with this? Some jobs offer more to society than others. Should a person who studies for six years to become a doctor be paid the same as an individual who cleans bathrooms?

this process just repeats itself over and over untill you cannot escape from your "class" in society.

Show me that class mobility doesn't exist within capitalism.

however in communism you are free to do nearly whatever you like, exept that wich constricts other peoples freedom.

Can you clean someone else's house for a little extra money? Can you buy a jet ski?

its sad that so many people value profit over anything else these days.

Who said anything about profit (other than you, that is)?

This has nothing to do with profits, it has everything to do with allowing the individual to determine their own values and make their own choices.

I disagree. They have to calculate an extra factor, nanely "what can I get with what I have?". Their core value is often interfered by this restriction, that is not decided nor seeked out by them personally. Sometimes that means, they can't get food or shelter. Most often that means, that some can get all they want, while a lot more others can't even get what they need. And it often isn't even connected to the amount of labour produced.

I have argued that in a free market system, the only way a person can build wealth is through labor.

The ASSUMPTION is that a person will be able to afford the goods that his labor could produce, meaning that if someone wanted something, all they would have to do is work hard enough to get it.

Before you say it, I will admit that many people are never given the opportunity to provide enough labor to purchase the things they desire. I believe this is due to two things, genetics and education. You can erase biological differences, and I support heavy government support of education, so I am addressing the problem. If only it weren't with socialist methods. ;)

Disagree. Labour is indeed a society possessed commodity, but up to a certain level (although in totalitarian communism, it was indeed usurped completely). Subjective valuation is not taken away (at least, I wouldn't do that). There would still be choice, if that's what you are implying. It makes no sense to create a society that envisions only one solution for very individual "problems". The fact that I would propose a bottom-up organic communistic model with a democratic decision-making-process (like the original sovjet idea, only better ;) ), makes it so that ideas, suggestions, even "whims" can be carried through if there's enough backing.

This doesn't address the problem of requiring a person to get the go ahead of society before acting autonomously. An individual is not acting freely if he/she is forced to choose from society approved choices.

Also, there would be personal initiative, even on economic matters - otherwise there would be no dynamism. The state does not (and wants not to) decide what you should make and what you should consume - it only implies regulations regarding (IMO) environmental and resource/labour cost, i.e. what should NOT be done (and oh yes, there's a difference between those two).

This is much more like socialism than communism, which is the subject of our conversation, but I will give your plan a listen.

For instance, the most conspicuous of luxuries would be "not done", like flying Beluga-caviar from the other part of the globe, or having gas-waisting SUV's when normal cars will suffise. But now I'm already starting over to the cultural part of "consumption". There would, indeed, be regulations that would forbid the production and consumption of certain goods (like the ones that are mentioned above), but they would not be decided upon through a top-down totalitarian model. The public would still decide.

That is setting objective values to subjectively valued entities.

And democracy does not save one from authoritarianism or oppression. Direct democracy can be as totalitarian as a dictatorship.

The most marked difference is that there will no longer be laboured to gain profit. The work that is to be done, is to be carried out by all parts of society based on skill and prowess, and the work that needs to be done is decided upon by all parts of society as well.

You are very vague on this, will there be no compensation for labor? Other than that, it is the same as capitalism.

If people vote for clean streets, then there will have to be people to clean them - often, you'll see that the ones that demand will be also the ones that do. Jobs that "no one wants to do" are either broken down into very small pieces and are communaly done....

This is the same as a democratic capitalism, only with socially forced labor.

In a democratic capitalism, the members of society decide that the streets need to be cleaned. They express their desires through the democratic process like you would have in your system. They then trade the wages (which they got in exchange for labor) in the form of taxes, for clean streets.

They choose to have clean streets, so they work and give the compensation for their labor to the government, who, in turn, pays someone who chooses to clean the streets.

The point is to create a communal sense of responsability, thus: a cultural level.

I believe that society should mold government, not vice versa.

That goes for economic production as well. The production you will be personally responsible for, is "yours", is as much an appropriation of yourself as possible, to make you more "connected" with what you do. It's like an artisan who creates a chair all by himself and is proud of what he achieved. The extra-value is now placed upon the production, and no longer upon the consumption or posession of goods (Coca-cola is no longer "a way of life", it's just a drink - producing the Cola, however, will be more personal and will become more culturally elevated through sheer anthropomorfical connectivity).

I don't know how you can plan on doing this. Even if you could pull off this change, I can't imagine factory workers would be any more attached to their products than they are now.

In such a cultural milieu, there will be less people who want to consume in an extravagant manner in order to feel better. And btw, if you don't agree that said consumption is indeed an essential part of modern capitalism, there's a serious amount of literature you can read that will convince you otherwise.

I don't disagree with you. Utility is not entirely need based.

You're forgetting the monetary aspect and the accumulation of capital that is existant in capitalism. Only those that have money, can offer it. And those that have lots of money, can offer more, can get a predominant "weight" on your ideal system, thus creating a lobsided consumption process that in the end favours them the most.

I don't quite follow your deduction here. How is the lopsided consumption process created?

You see, with the monetary aspect, the end result is not an equilibrium that will rectify itself when out of balance - it is, through the monetary "shadow economy" I told you about earlier, a system that is not unlike a grand melee on a battlefield: the ones with the short swords go down first, the ones with the long swords can hang on a bit longer, and in the end the ones with the horse and pike will be left standing.

I fail to see why it will not return to an equilibrium. It is impossible for it to not return to an equilibrium.

Capitalism pits every subject against every other subject, and decides (on a "rational" basis most often) which one is "stronger". The one that "wins", usurps some of the economic prowess of the "loser", and goes on until it is defeated, or in the end be the last one standing. Once there is a movement of increasing power on one end, that movement will only accelerate, especially in a totally free market, where only the amount of money you have constitutes your power.

In essence, I would agree with your system. But you are forgetting the concept of profit in your equation, and the monetary accumulation altogether, IMO. If capitalism really was like that, I'd be on board. Your "free market" looks a lot like the one I proposed above - which is what I already meant by "we would agree just fine".

Explain again how profit and wealth accumulation decreases someone elses economic power.

I also don't see capitalism as pitting everyone against each other. People must work for one another to maintain their own well being.

I agree. Yet in practice, it doesn't seem to work like that. You'll say "because the market isn't free enough", I say "because of capital accumulation and thereby created differences of power levels" (sounds quite marxist, doesn't it? But I'm not a marxist, you know - that whole "class battle" concept exists only by the very nature of capitalism, and is not something that belong "automatically" to any society. It's an evolution-state, nothing more, nothing less.)

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Don't get ahead of yourself. You need to show that it doesn't happen. Marx couldn't suitably show exploitation, I seriously doubt that you could. (Not a knock against you, just saying that, if the foremost proponent of a theory couldn't actually mathematically show it, then you probably couldn't either)

it still boils down to "if they really want it, then they'll really work for it" - simple, and democratic.

That is a classic capitalist argument.

I don't see how you come to this conclusion through what you stated, since you didn't speak of capital during the whole of the above discourse.

Capital can only be rendered through labor, they are inseperable and interchangeable.

Okay. All ears.

I meant that you obviously believe exploitation, and I would like for you to explain it to me.

Wrong. The capitalist only "needs" to make profit. How this is achieved, is up to "his rational decision". Often this is by adjusting wages like you proposed, but not always. There are other methods of achieving more profit: most of them pass through the shadow monetary economy (investment, lobbying, etc.), sometimes it involves market incentives (price-wars, advertising), sometimes it involves what I would consider "unethical" practices.
A capitalist will get a list of possible solutions that will enhance his profit (he's not content with what he has, he has to have more or be consumed by others - also a point I loathe, since such a teleological progress-driven approach is like lemmings during the early wintertime: bent on self-destruction.) He will choose "rationally", only held back by ethics (which a true capitalist often just plain won't use, since they're not rational).

A capitalist will not pick and choose between profitable management choices. His job is to maximize profit and so will take on ALL measures to increase profit. This means that profit motives and free market pressures always apply to wages.

Capitalism, plain and simple, favours the "cheap" solution, which is not necesseraly the "best" one,

I prefer the word "efficient" to "cheap", but that you are correct.

since a monetary value cannot ever be equalised with a subjective value, especially not in a culture that has more eye for the short-term gain - and beyond, it is also decided on an amoral basis, which might be fine if it were pure economics with no social repercussions. But we both know that isn't how it works.

Money is not equalised with a subjective value. Money is given an objective value to make it easier for people of differing subjective values to come to an agreement. $20 equals the same amount to both of them. Brine shrimp has a different value to both of them.

Capitalist often don't choose the "good" path of innovation and wage-adjustments. They only want more profit, with the good old adagio "the economy must grow or we'll fall dead in the street by tomorrow" branded into their foreheads. How they achieve said profit, is up to them. You might think that's OK, but I don't. That's probably where we differ. The positivistic nature of capitalism you advocate, or even seem to recognize, simply is not conducted in real life because the capitalist system in the end favours the strong, who will - through rational, profit-driven volition - eventually abolish your system.

How?

This supposes a shortage of workers, and no means of coercion to make workers actually labour. There are other means of getting people to accept lower wages. Making (or keeping) them poor, for instance, will do quite nicely. (see Wallerstein on this)

This does not suppose a shortage of workers, why would it?

How does an employer make a worker poor?

An individual is only an individual because there are others, a society, to recognize him as such. It's like this: if there were no mirros, you would never actually be able to see you existed.

So we only become aware of our own existence through the recognition of others? I completely disagree with that.

We are, by nature, social animals, and we ALWAYS act as such (even when we expressively "detach" us from society, like hermits). Society is driven, is created, by morality, by codes of conduct, by socialization systems. True individuality can only exist because there's a moral cadre that allows this - much like how the free market only exists because there an institutional cadre that allows this (google for "new institutional economics" and "new economic history", Douglas North etc. to learn more on this). You are an individual, whether you like it or not, only by the grace of others, only through culture, value, and morality. The "natural state" of the human being is NOT (like it says in some declarations of supposed universal reach) as an individual. That's a cultural state, and as such determined through your predecessors and the values and morality-shifts they advocated and/or battled. Individuality IS emotion, and it IS societal.

OK, you are going to have to explain this better. How is our individuality determined by society?

Your definition of freedom is a peculiar one. I believe that if you were to say to a thousand random people that this is freedom, at least half would go like "Eh, no thank you". I can see why you would oppose freedom with security, and I even agree with this.

That is because many would prefer safety to freedom

But I still do not believe that your idea of freedom should be ordered upon (strange choice of words, no?) the whole world, since I'm convinced that there would not be a total majority who would want it.

The beauty of freedom. It cannot be forced onto people.

A political system based on freedom would allow people to work to guarantee their safety. A political system based on safety would not allow people to work to guarantee their freedom.

My system would never oppose the formation of communistic communities, while a communistic system would never let communities adopt my system.

I know I don't want that, and I know that I'm not alone in this. Freedom, for me, is the offering of chances, not the offering of maximum reward/failure. The chance, for instance, to not participate in a risk, and not be punished for that. The chance to do what I want to do. The chance to be able to go to university, without me being rich. The chance to be safe from extreme risk. Capitalism doesn't offer me freedom - it offers me a predetermined choice. That's not freedom.

Maximum freedom does not force you to accept maximum risk, it just allows you to accept the maximum risk. If you want less risk, you can accept less risk, you just get less reward. And I don't even get what you are saying about a predetermined choice.

Tell me this, would you go to college if there were no economic reward to it?

I quoted this apart, because it would otherwise be a bit much ;)
But my answer is in effect the same as the one above... There will always be luck and bad luck. But it is society's duty to "take away the sharp edge" of both, IMO.

At least you are espousing socialism and not communism.

Because, in my opinion, that's why people work and live together in the first place (o woe the teleological aspects... that's not what I mean, I think you know what I do mean). And taking away the sharp edge does not mean doing away with freedom altoghether. A concept so ephemere and subjective as freedom cannot be caught by a simpe equation of "risk and security", although I do see your point. It's just that, it's YOUR point. YOUR freedom. It's by no means "universal". And, hence, should not be considered as such.

Freedom is objective. I doubt you can arrive at a different form of pure freedom than complete elimination of objective valuation.

I'm looking forward towards continuing this - although I must say exams are approaching steadily (I can see the dorsal fin ;) ), so it might be a while.
And what about my "idea": how about you and me try to work on an economic system that makes us both happy? I'm dying to see if (and how) that would work...

I would be amazed if we made it anywhere, but it is an intriguing idea and I would like to pursue it.

And good luck on your exams.

Because if the individual rights are taken away, the restrictions that keep the people in power from oppressing the individual are also taken away.

who said anything about individual rights being taken away, although freedom is included in rights, freedom isnt the soul purpose of rights. a persons individual right to freedom isnt the only 'right' there is out there.
social inequality and lack of safety does not nessesarily follow from lack of freedom

and besides, freedom being taken away has nothing to do with security, safety and equality. in school many 'freedoms' are taken away, but that dosent effect equality and safety. in america (and many other western nations) i dont have the freedom to walk outside naked, or drink underage, or drive cars without a licence, or smoke marijuana(sp?). but that dosent take away any equality or safety, some of those restrictions on freedom accually increase safety.

if you arent talking about those freedoms, then what other freedoms can communism restrict. the freedom to monopolise the market (which takes away equality), the freedom to buy public services (takes away equality), the freedom to exploit the worker, (takes away equality). safety depends wholly on what type of neighborhood you live in/what people you live near etc., while this can be broght on by equality or freedom restrictions, it isnt dependent on it.

You can't possibly back that up because it isn't true.
watch me. in capitalism, corporations greed (with few exceptions) monopolises the market, which gives you "as much 'free market' as the restricted buying and selling in the middle ages". if you wanted to start a phone company, you couldnt, because the monopoly the current companies have prevents smaller companies from making a break. if you wanted to start a car manufactoring company, you couldnt, because you wouldnt have the money to.

I call bullshit. My mother is a single mother from a small farming community with two other children. I attended college for five years.
okay, maybe i exadurated a little there, but the general idea still holds. if you have rich parents then they can send you to a posh private school, get a better education, and have a better chance of getting into college. if you look at the stats, private schools have a much higher percentage of students going through to college than state schools.

What is the problem with this? Some jobs offer more to society than others. Should a person who studies for six years to become a doctor be paid the same as an individual who cleans bathrooms?
that i can see, but should a corporate CEO be paid more than a teacher? sureley the teacher is doing more for society than an asshole (it is proven that corporate CEO's are among the most selfish people in society) trying to make money off services that should be free. and just think of what society would be like without garbage collection or bathroom cleaners or anyone to do maintenence on our roads. even though these jobs are seen as 'low', they are just as important.
communism works on the principle that if everyone does their bit, it works like a jigsaw puzzle and the output is much greater

Show me that class mobility doesn't exist within capitalism.
another exaduration, let me clarify. maybe it dosent exists at the moment, but if you look to the future, in capitalism, the gap between the rich and the poor will only get bigger and bigger, making it harder to change 'class'.
wheras in communism, there is no 'class' to be worried about. everyone is equal. (idealy)(and without totalitarinism brought on by corruption)

Can you clean someone else's house for a little extra money? Can you buy a jet ski?
i agree that there still are some problems with communism, but i also think that its a whole lot better then capitalism.
and you can buy a jetski. i dont know about the cleaning someone elses house.

Who said anything about profit (other than you, that is)?
one of my random thoughts
but incase you hadnt noticed, the whole principle of capitalism is to capitalise, and make profit. unlike communism, which acts for the good of the community. (capitalise means to act like an opportunist and enterprise. in the case of corporations which capitalism is based upon, it translates to make profit. ;) )

I have argued that in a free market system, the only way a person can build wealth is through labor.

Hmm... Yet some people get a headstart. Current capitalist society is like playing Monopoly (TM) with a total of 4 players, where one player gets 10000$ and the other three get 500$. Free market all by itself is fine (as a game), it's just the distirubution of starting factors and the lobsidedness of capital accumulation (see below) that make it "asocial" and as such unfit to govern society in the way it does now - because, let's face it, today we work for the economy, and not the other way round (like it should be, IMO).

The ASSUMPTION is that a person will be able to afford the goods that his labor could produce, meaning that if someone wanted something, all they would have to do is work hard enough to get it.

See above for the random factors.

Before you say it, I will admit that many people are never given the opportunity to provide enough labor to purchase the things they desire. I believe this is due to two things, genetics and education. You can erase biological differences, and I support heavy government support of education, so I am addressing the problem. If only it weren't with socialist methods. ;)

Don't feel bad. Socialist methods are in fact pretty natural. They go back a long way (anthropologically and sociologically speaking).


This doesn't address the problem of requiring a person to get the go ahead of society before acting autonomously. An individual is not acting freely if he/she is forced to choose from society approved choices.

My point is, that in capitalism you don't get the free choice since you require to have capital to ever get a choice (which some people either don't have enough of or don't even have). Communism (which I propose) would in fact allow you to act autonomously. Say that you would want a grained wooden chair, painted with flowers (or something, whatever). You can post on your local or regional forum that you would want such a chair (maybe even find someone to make an artist's impression so as to have a better view of it). If anybody can make such a chair, you order it. If enough people would want such a chair, maybe a more efficient mass-production process could be enacted, that all depends of course. If nobody wants to make you such a chair, you have two choices: 1) either choose one of the chairs already available (originated in a similar fashion, but with higher public approval), or 2) learn how to make one yourself (if you feel strongly about your design, you'll probably have a higher incentive to learn to make one, since maybe you could even make it your primary occupation). You don't need capital (from yourself or as a loan) to go ahead and create, just skill (which you can freely learn through public education) and materials (which are provided by society unless there's a public ban on such materials, for instance nuclear fission elements etc., or are restricted in some way, like certain chemicals etc.) The only thing you "have" to do, is to be considered useful in society - and such consideration is decided by the public (often fairly obvious - like doctors). Also, you would probably have more than one possible occupation - not only would this make possible a more fluid adaptation to changing wishes and needs, but it would also make it more pleasant for (some or most) people to be able to switch professions once in a while. And since education on a wide variety of subjects is open to all who want to learn, you can try to be what you want to be all the time - and because even full-time education will always include some practical productivity, even then will you be "plugged in" into society's production process.
So, indeed, there will be "society's approved choices", but they are not imperative nor definite, since they can be changed at all time by enough backing - and with enough backing, I don't mean a majority (see case of chair). And if you stand alone in a certain choice, you can still go for it and maybe even win some people over as you do so (see case of learning to make a chair).


This is much more like socialism than communism, which is the subject of our conversation, but I will give your plan a listen.

Socialism, communism, they often intersect. Keeping in mind the original post, if the question was inherently "can russian totalitarian communism work?", then I would have said no. But commune-ism (as I read it), can, IMO. So that's why I'm still having this discussion.


That is setting objective values to subjectively valued entities.

Eh? It's only calculating an extra variable, in this case the destruction of the environment and the factor on needless conspicuousness (a tautology, I know). Most people only buy Beluga caviar not because it's "so good", but because it's expensive and flown in from far away - because it's conspicuous. And there's nothing inherently "wrong" with that (sign of the times), however I would (and could) only approve it if it were not so devastating to the environment and, to a lesser degree, societal framework.

And democracy does not save one from authoritarianism or oppression. Direct democracy can be as totalitarian as a dictatorship.

Indeed. One should always have the availability of processes that either stall or hinder totalitarian reflexes, or means of providing more info on the subject at hand as to prevent oppressive reactions, IMO. Public forums would allow this, I think. If given the choice, the majority will always be compassionate, I think. But have to get enough info and involvement.


You are very vague on this, will there be no compensation for labor? Other than that, it is the same as capitalism.

It's kinda like how I explained it above. You should consider it like; society offers you stuff, and you compensate for that stuff with your production/labour - it's, thus, the other way round than in the current system. I don't know how I could explain it any clearer than this, without giving another, more detailed example like the one I gave above: it's a concept of interaction, just like capitalism, but without the factor of profit and with an inverse reprocity.

This is the same as a democratic capitalism, only with socially forced labor.

No it's not. Do you see CEO's of large companies clean streets? At least I don't. "Broken down into small parts" means that they be made as much a communal responsiblity as possible, and "solved" in a corresponding manner. Either someone volunteers to do it (and as such considers this his "primary labour", making it so that he doesn't "have to do" anything else), or several people break it down and volunteer for it (as a secondary labour, several secondary labours make up one primary) or it is broken into very small parts and distributed amongst the whole of the active community (people above and below certain age, eligible to work, you know what I mean) - in essence, this means that for instance every person eligible to work will have to do such communal work (in groups, probably, because that's both more efficient and more pleasant) for about 2 hours a week. In essence, it is socially forced that if there aren't any volunteers do it, it indeed gets "forced" upon the whole of the community. But since they want to get it done in the first place, I don't see why you would want to use the word "forced" which does have negative connotation. It's not like they're expending their labour for some deus ex machina figure totally outside their community.

In a democratic capitalism, the members of society decide that the streets need to be cleaned. They express their desires through the democratic process like you would have in your system. They then trade the wages (which they got in exchange for labor) in the form of taxes, for clean streets.

A lot of said trade gets lost in the conceptuality of economic growth and strive towards profit, which a communal system would both eliminate. Thus, it would no longer be necessary to work a stated 38 hours a week, since the job can be done in less. It is waste-elimination on a pre-emptive basis.

They choose to have clean streets, so they work and give the compensation for their labor to the government, who, in turn, pays someone who chooses to clean the streets.

With every trade, there is loss and waste, especially when there's profit involved. I do note, however, that your system is second-best, IMO. Today I hear voices to privatize even the most basic things, which is IMO back to the middle-ages what efficiency and economic thinking is concerned. The system I propose, however, is IMO the most efficient on that matter, mostly because of the ergonomic and societal "softening" of the work load.


I believe that society should mold government, not vice versa.

I believe society should be EQUAL to government, and the latter should reflect and procure the former. It's not a higher-lower figure, IMO. One cannot live without the other. And both should be able to influence the other, if it benefits the other.


I don't know how you can plan on doing this. Even if you could pull off this change, I can't imagine factory workers would be any more attached to their products than they are now.

Neither could I, that's why I would abolish most factories. Since mass-production is for the most part driven on a rational profit-increasing manner, when the concept of profit is no longer "necessary" to maintain society, a more hands-on approach in smaller sized manufacturies with less division of labour would suffise. And when robotics (or even the newest technology of laser-sculpture) can help to eliminate the dullest of chores, then that's even better - since that would also mean more time to do other things and less waste of resources. Less division of labour and smaller sized production units would create, by definition, a greater attachment to the end-product in those labourers involved, since they would no longer consider it a skill-less and mind-numbing job. It would also create less production (but not as little as you would think), but since economic growth and the hitherto needed overproduction would be no longer required, that would be compensated.


I don't disagree with you. Utility is not entirely need based.

I'm glad you agree with what I stated, but I must say that I believe the concept of utility to be a very subjective one - and always to be need based. Some people's needs are just plain different than other's - even when the same product is concerned! (Never fails to amaze me, btw)


I don't quite follow your deduction here. How is the lopsided consumption process created?

Let's say 10 people each own 10$. An equal division. One starts producing item X, which all people want, but only one of them bids 5$, the rest bid 4$. So, the price will be set at 4$ (sell more). So far so good. One person then owns 46$ (the producer), the other nine each own 6$. 10 people now own item X, yet only one owns 46$. One of the others starts producing item Y. Three people need it, one of them being the guy that has 46$. He bids 7$, which outbids the others by definition: furthermore, they're not willing to spend 100% of their capital on one thing (notice how 7$ is only about 15% of his capital - a forebode of the lobsidedness). Now, two people own item X and Y, and the other eight only own item X. One of the two XY owners, furthermore, owns 39$, the other one owns 13$ and the rest still own 6$. Economic division: 10% of the population own 39% of the wealth, another 10% own 13% of the wealth, and 80% own 48% of the wealth. Furthermore, 20% of the population will own 100% of item Y. Now, let's say there's a possibility for producing item Z - however, it will cost 15$ to start the production, with a proposed price of the item of 3$, which everyone will need (cost, thus, 15$, 5 labourers at 3$ - income 30$ => profit 15$). Only the owner of the 39$ can start production on his own, and still have money to spare to buy other things. He's the capitalist. Three of the 6$ owners decide they want to earn too, and decide to pool together. They devote almost 90% of their personal wealth into the project, whereas the 39$-owner only needs to applt about 40% (lobsided, again). Result: the spouses of the 6$-owners say nay. But, whoopie, the 39$ owner says: you know, I'll lend you the money to produce, just pay me back after you sold it all, but since I'm taking chances here, pay me a 10% intrest. So, the 39$ owner offers 12$ to the three others, seemingly covering the risk, who each have to pay upfront only 1$. Production is underway, and 10 items Z are sold to all people. The ex-39$-owner now has 24$ (39 minus 12 loan minus 3 item Z) and items XYZ, the ex-13$-owner now has 10$ and items XYZ, three ex-6$-owners now each have items XZ and 11$, the 5 other ex-6$ owners (also being the labourers) now have 6$ and items XZ. Payback time: the Z-making 11$ owners each pay 4,4$ (for a total of 13,2$) to the 24$ owner, putting him at 37,2$, and them at 6,6$. He effectively paid 1,8$ for his item Z, even though he already is relatively rich (again, lobsidedness). Furthermore, he didn't "do" anything, the others were working for him. The position of the others is still "relatively" okay (not in my book , but hey), since they get two of the three items (while the rich one has them all AND the money, which is also not fair), but they still have money to spend on stuff. And this "positive" image only exists if a) only labour is required, b) said labour has to be sought at the current market (and not somewhere cheaper but less accesible to others with less wealth) and c) all of the items Z are effectively sold at the highest possible price in order to make it so that the three risk-takers can repay their debt. And, last but not least, that EACH of the persons starts out with the SAME chances - which is also not the case in the real world.
The problem "really" starts when other items arise that not only require labour, but also resources: the one with the most capital can offer to bid the most in an absolute amount, and still offer only a relative fraction of his total wealth, effectively outgunning the others and gaining a monopoly position, which would even strengthen his position. Not only that, the rich one doesn't need others to produce, he's rich enough to do it by himself - thus, making the risk relatively smaller. He can benefit also by not producing, but lending money to others and let them take all the chances (since they have to repay anyway, regardless of profit). The lobsidedness not only resides in the possession of capital and goods, but also in the fact that more capital also means more ability to get even more capital, and having said ability concentrated in a lesser amount of persons, thus lessening risk of personal malpractices and the like.

I fail to see why it will not return to an equilibrium. It is impossible for it to not return to an equilibrium.

See above. It would, however, stay in equilibrium if there were no shadow economy to provide friction - if, for instance, banks were not allowed to ask more intrest than they offer rents, and thus were not allowed to make profit.


Explain again how profit and wealth accumulation decreases someone elses economic power.

See above. I would like to add, that unless there's regulation to prevent that, a capitalist market will ALWAYS ultimately strive towards a monopoly by a private corporation. A monopoly by a private corporation that, as we all know, is pretty bad for most who have to suffer it - especially when it's, oh I don't know, water and such. And then the capitalists argue, that monopoly by the state is even worse - wrong, since the state does not need to make profit. The state can (and should) sell at the same amount as it cost to produce the good. Furthermore, the state can much more easily be controlled to make sure it does so, whereas a company is much less transparant. (Although I must admit this depends heavily on the state itself - some, more totalitarian states are indeed bent of profit as well, and are not transparent to boot. This is also wrong, of course, IMO)

I also don't see capitalism as pitting everyone against each other. People must work for one another to maintain their own well being.

In capitalism, a majority of the population works for all the population, and a capital-owning minority puts said majority to work. Lobsided. Furthermore, the concept of competition allows for the waste of labour and resources in a battle against each other, which will eventually eliminate the competition (sometimes making them economically powerless on the whole) and create a monopoly or cartel (which is just as bad for those who are on the receiving end of it). Competition in se is not bad, yet since the strive is towards a position of more economic power, status-quo will not be held - even if it takes unethical means to do so. Because, you can make more profit not only by improving or innovating your product, but also by destroying the product of the competition, sometimes (semi-)legally, sometimes illegaly, with both options becoming more accessible when more capital is available. And as soon as you break the status-quo, it will become increasingly easier for the more powerful to "outmarket" the less powerful. Thus, again, lobsided. The concept of profit and the "belief" that the economy must grow (it indeed has to in order to make capitalism "work" for the capitalist, yet it doesn't have to to make society work...) makes it so that capitalism creates lobsidedness through the very nature of money-redistribution and the equality of money (a relative) with needed goods (an absolute).
People don't work for one another in capitalism, they work a bit for themselves and a lot for a capital-owner. That's a big difference, IMO. One good point, however, is the stimulation of efficiency and innovation - but, sadly, those noble means of profit-increasing don't always win out over the less noble ones.


Whoa, whoa, whoa. Don't get ahead of yourself. You need to show that it doesn't happen. Marx couldn't suitably show exploitation, I seriously doubt that you could. (Not a knock against you, just saying that, if the foremost proponent of a theory couldn't actually mathematically show it, then you probably couldn't either)

I wasn't talking about the concept of exploitation (although I find the above mentioned example, with the capital-owner having a lot more economic power than the non-capital-owner a fairly good example of exploitation, thus a capital-propelled power-shift in favor of already existant capital). It's just that the marxists propose the concept of "class-struggle" as the motor of history - they tend to reduce each and every confrontation to a battle of the powerful versus the powerless, with shifts of power and the like. And I disagree with that. I think that's just describing effects, not causes. That's all I meant.


That is a classic capitalist argument.

It's a classic economic argument. And because capitalism is, still, an economic system (at least, as it starts off), it's part of it. It's also part of barter economy, and any kind of other economy where the consumers decide on the production.


Capital can only be rendered through labor, they are inseperable and interchangeable.

Capital can also be rendered through simulacraed labour, and through trading of goods. Labour is part of capital, yet not the other way round. Capital begenders more capital over a period of time ("you got to have money, to make money", etc.). The same cannot be said of labour.


I meant that you obviously believe exploitation, and I would like for you to explain it to me.

I did that above as far as I'm concerned - although I can imagine we would differ about the meaning of the term. To me, the sheer concept of profit is pretty close to exploitation as it is...


A capitalist will not pick and choose between profitable management choices. His job is to maximize profit and so will take on ALL measures to increase profit. This means that profit motives and free market pressures always apply to wages.

I don't see why. He wouldn't have to take all choices - he would choose the one that costs less while making the most profit. No matter what the "subjective" value of said measure is. And even if what you say is true, it definitely DOESN'T mean that motives and pressures always apply to wages. I just argued that they aren't! They can also apply to resources, production-processes, lobbying, bribery, etc... Let's say a CEO is offered the following choice: make 100$ more income by increasing the wage with a total of 90$ (10$ profit), make 100$ more income by offering 50$ more for resources (50$ profit: the competition can only offer 20$ or so more, thus you outmarket them, able to cut their production, thus heighten their prize while also elevating yours but slightly less, etc.). Believe you me, he'll choose the last option. It's often not an "and-and" but an "or-or" choice.


I prefer the word "efficient" to "cheap", but that you are correct.

You make a good point. It is often about semantics. Often one can make money by "misdirection", or as I would put it "lying blatantly". It is sad that the same things we forbid our children to do (lying, stealing) are just the "values" that are uphold in capitalist shadow-economy (but they are, of course, named a bit different, quite more euphemistically).
That being said, I don't object the word "efficient", mind you. But the meaning of that word also seems to differ greatly.


Money is not equalised with a subjective value. Money is given an objective value to make it easier for people of differing subjective values to come to an agreement. $20 equals the same amount to both of them. Brine shrimp has a different value to both of them.

Nope. 20$ for one means 1% of his capital, and for the other means 10% of his capital. Both like a loaf of bread the same amount, yet one has to spend 25% of his capital to obtain it on a daily basis, the other has to spend only 2,5%. Money IS equalised with a subjective value, since it IS that bottle of shampoo, it IS that piece of pie, it IS that wheel of your car, it IS that cruise in the pacific. And, sadly, monetary expense it IS that relative amount of someone's whole being - relatively less for the more fortunate, relatively more for the less fortunate - wherein resides the lobsidedness.
But what I actually meant with the statement you answered, is that money can't (morally) be given a subjective value, yet that is exactly what happens - and the subjectiveness favours not those that need, but those that have.



How?

This does not suppose a shortage of workers, why would it?

How does an employer make a worker poor?

See the above parts. An employer can make (or keep) a worker poor, since he is the one that controls the consumptive goods (it's his money after all, isn't it?).
I'll give the current example of Chinese textiles to provide a bit of an, um, explanatory tale. For years, Western companies have moved their production facilities to China to make use of the ridiculously cheap labour-cost. They paid, for years and years, the least amount possible (in accordance with Chinese prices), and sold at the highest amount possible (in accordance with Western prices). Needless to say, they made a buckload of profit. All the while, they argumented their "slightly unethical" practice by saying that "it was the for the best and most efficient" and "at least they now have an income" (still not enough to elevate them, but hey) and "now they can at least gain some capital" etc. So what happens now? Chinese companies are starting to emerge, using their own capital (provided by low-intrest government loans), and using their own labour, AND setting prices to their own market (thus, ridiculously lower than Western prices), AND exporting those goods to the West. And what does the West do? Scream bloody murder because, in effect, for the first time, the profit is no longer flowing back to the West. Hah-hahaha-hah. Sounds a bit karmic. The fact the Western industries kept wages at an all time low (while it was not even "necessary", yet very "rational"), makes it so that the Chinese market didn't elevate itself to the Western level, and when homemade production finally kicks in, the West suffers its own harsh laws. The same happened in our very own industrial revolution, about at the end of the 18th century, when previously poor regions elevated themselves. And at that time, the rich regions also objected, even though they exploited the same poor regions for years, and were kicked in the soft parts through the same methods they themselves used. Inertness, a lack of long-term thought and a lust for profit were their downfall.



So we only become aware of our own existence through the recognition of others? I completely disagree with that.

Why? How would you put it then?


OK, you are going to have to explain this better. How is our individuality determined by society?

Socialization, transposed values, etc... Edit: If you really want to know, this'll take hours of time (which I don't have) to elaborate on. Point is, that it takes language and conceptuality to acknowledge "individuality", both as term and meaning, and that these are transposed values (meaning: they are "outlined" and "given value" by others, who are inherently not you (duh!), for instance your parents, magazines, newspapers, radiospeakers, even abstract concepts or fantasy creatures. Then, afterwards, you get to criticize and juxtapose your own values and concepts, sort of "amending" the transposed concepts. Furthermore, one needs to know that there are "others" to know that there is a "self" - it's sort of like "war" can't exist without the concept of "peace".)


That is because many would prefer safety to freedom

Indeed. Maybe we could make it so that each has his own part of society? A totally free part and a safe part? Maybe? So each can have his/her go at it?


The beauty of freedom. It cannot be forced onto people.

Tell that to almost every Western (i.e. for the most part American) battleground the last forty years. I feel strongly that many will disagree.

A political system based on freedom would allow people to work to guarantee their safety. A political system based on safety would not allow people to work to guarantee their freedom.

Semantics. Subjective valuation of the terms "freedom" and "safety" could just as easily turn your logic around.

My system would never oppose the formation of communistic communities, while a communistic system would never let communities adopt my system.

Wrong. The one cannot exist within the other, in effect; your system would destroy itself by choosing communism, and so would the communist system by choosing yours. The only solution I can think of, is co-habitation with full implementation of each's system within it's own space, and free traffic between those spaces. Communism cannot choose for capitalism, and the other way round.

Maximum freedom does not force you to accept maximum risk, it just allows you to accept the maximum risk. If you want less risk, you can accept less risk, you just get less reward. And I don't even get what you are saying about a predetermined choice.

Capital predetermines your choice. That's what I meant. But on the whole, I would agree with your formulation.


Tell me this, would you go to college if there were no economic reward to it?

Yes, I already am. Believe me or not. My going to college has everything to do with my desire to do what I want to do, even though the income is not so good, and uncertain at best.


At least you are espousing socialism and not communism.

The new communism (which equals more the original in philosophy) is very different form the russian communism. Current socialism equals more the original communism (it originated there, too, so that's only logical).


Freedom is objective. I doubt you can arrive at a different form of pure freedom than complete elimination of objective valuation.

Freedom is subjective, and very individual. You just cannot say "if you have that, and that, and also that, then you're free". It doesn't work like that.


I would be amazed if we made it anywhere, but it is an intriguing idea and I would like to pursue it.

And good luck on your exams.

Seeing as I have exams (and just blew three hours typing, hehe), we'll have to pursue that some other time... But I'm all for it! And don't be too pessimistic, we might surprise ourselves ;)

I don't think it will work now. I don't even think the concepts behind Communism--on paper--approach anything resmbling "pretty" or even "well-meaning."

"... while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic."

-- Karl Marx, "The German Ideology."

What about that doesn't sound "pretty"? (I happen to agree that this aspect of communist thought is rather hopelessly romantic -- a characteristic of much 19th-century political thought -- but come on: you have to give the man credit for poetics.)