NationStates Jolt Archive

Please, I wish to develop an accurate class picture of the people of NSG, so please answer my poll to help me develop this picture for the economic basis of NSG, for any political picture of NSG would be innaccurate if it did not ultilize the Marxist analysis of the class forces involved.

haha.

also, what poll?

edit: there it be

This should be good...

aka "AP lists all the capitalist pigs"

This should be good...

Oh, it'll be a blast. What kind of popcorn should we get?

Or should we go for something, hmm... Different?

None of the above. I don't believe in labeling individual human beings according to Marxist terminology.

None of the above. I don't believe in labeling individual human beings according to Marxist terminology.
You'll find that reality isn't dependant upon your acceptance of it, it is true whether you like it and choose to accept it or not.

Within a material world ALL people are classified according to their relationship to the means of production in the economy.

You haven't made it an open poll so we can't see who chooses which option. This will make it more difficult to work out who needs to go up against the wall first when the revolution comes.

Eh comrade, eh?

You haven't made it an open poll so we can't see who chooses which option. This will make it more difficult to work out who needs to go up against the wall first when the revolution comes.

Eh comrade, eh?
Well, I'll see if that can be fixed. As for now, it's three for proletarian and none for anything else.

I'm a student without a job.

Andaras, I'll take part in your poll.

I'm proletariat. I work so I can survive.

I'm curious though. Would a hunter/gatherer or a self-sufficient farmer be part of the lumpenproletariot?

The fundamental problem with outdated marxist labels. I am by all measure the "upper class". I make good money, I'm highly educated, I don't do manual labor. But as an attorney, I sell my services, which technically makes me the Proletarian

I'm a student without a job.

Declassed individual I spose, considering you are leeching off the wage labor of your parents to get-by, correct?

What do you call someone who worked for a government educational institution (public university) and is now retired?

The lack of an "inbetween option makes Zombie Stalin (http://www.vimeo.com/1223566) mad.

Declassed individual I spose, considering you are leeching off the wage labor of your parents to get-by, correct?

do you think people can be a combination of multiple categories? for example someone who goes to a state school, but who also works, they would be both proletariat and declassed, no?

The fundamental problem with outdated marxist labels. I am by all measure the "upper class". I make good money, I'm highly educated, I don't do manual labor. But as an attorney, I sell my services, which technically makes me the Proletarian

Pssh. Lawyers don't sell their services to survive, they sell them to spread their evil lawyerliness around the world. Duh.

Pssh. Lawyers don't sell their services to survive, they sell them to spread their evil lawyerliness around the world. Duh.

true, it's less survival, more a perk.

do you think people can be a combination of multiple categories? for example someone who goes to a state school, but who also works, they would be both proletariat and declassed, no?

Or what about people who perform the some functions of petite-bourgeois but are in financial trouble and therefore earning a paycheck to survive so they can pay off the bills?

do you think people can be a combination of multiple categories? for example someone who goes to a state school, but who also works, they would be both proletariat and declassed, no?

Or what about a low paid human resource manager? They would be both Bourgeois and Proletarian

That actually brings up a point in which most people are 'declassed' at birth until they are in the workforce they are declassed, and are taken care of by leeching off the wages of proletarians, either directly through parents, immediate family, or indirectly through government welfare which is taken from the wages of proletarians and capital earnings of the bourgeois.

At different times in our lives we are 'declassed' if only on a temporary basis, for example a student until we get a job, or maybe we hold down casual work. If we are laid off on redundency we are declassed until we find more wage-labor.

This being said, VERY FEW individuals become permanently declassed, mostly these are the 'lumpenproletariat', who live off the benefits of 'informal' criminal ventures, and it's also possible for people to become permanent suckers on the teet of government welfare, although especially here in Australia that kind of culture is tied to crime and the 'bogan' culture.

Or what about a low paid human resource manager?

Wouldn't that be petite bourgeious-whatever?

Well, I'll see if that can be fixed. As for now, it's three for proletarian and none for anything else.

It reminds me of the Life of Brian scene when the priest asks if there's any women in the crowd.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOdARZ3bs0k

That actually brings up a point in which most people are 'declassed' at birth until they are in the workforce they are declassed, and are taken care of by leeching off the wages of proletarians, either directly through parents, immediate family, or indirectly through government welfare which is taken from the wages of proletarians and capital earnings of the bourgeois.

At different times in our lives we are 'declassed' if only on a temporary basis, for example a student until we get a job, or maybe we hold down casual work. If we are laid off on redundency we are declassed until we find more wage-labor.

This being said, VERY FEW individuals become permanently declassed, mostly these are the 'lumpenproletariat', who live off the benefits of 'informal' criminal ventures, and it's also possible for people to become permanent suckers on the teet of government welfare, although especially here in Australia that kind of culture is tied to crime and the 'bogan' culture.

Correct me if I am wrong here.

Going from this, would people are are live off of the grid so to speak, like hunter/gatherers and self-sufficient farmers (farmers who grow enough food to feed themselves and their families) be entirely declassed, as they are not a part of the system?

true, it's less survival, more a perk.
Yes but can everyone be a lawyer? They are by definition in a minority and thus can demand more money for their services, so I believe the proper definition would be professional upper-strata proletarian, in the same court as famous sports players for example. It's arguable of course that these people aren't oppressed because of the exorbinant amount of money they get paid by proportion of their labor.

And indeed there is class conflict in the sports industry. Basketball players, hockey players go on strike. This points to the blatant fact that no matter how big the outlays on wages (variable capital) there is always a battle over how much surplus the capitalist takes.

It seems that ball players- because they have a monopoly over a highly prized skill, are able to command much more of the surplus created in a sports franchise than any other worker.

Correct me if I am wrong here.

Going from this, would people are are live off of the grid so to speak, like hunter/gatherers and self-sufficient farmers (farmers who grow enough food to feed themselves and their families) be entirely declassed, as they are not a part of the system?
That's correct, but you'll notice that even self-employed people may do wage-labor on the side, in which case they would be exploited.

You'll find that reality isn't dependant upon your acceptance of it, it is true whether you like it and choose to accept it or not.

Within a material world ALL people are classified according to their relationship to the means of production in the economy.

Within an animal world all people are classified according to their genitalia. Let's make that the new basis of politics.

That's correct, but you'll notice that even self-employed people may do wage-labor on the side, in which case they would be exploited.

Alrighty then. Thanks for your answers.

Within an animal world all people are classified according to their genitalia. Let's make that the new basis of politics.
Animals have politics?

Animals have politics?

They have hierachies and social pecking orders.

Alrighty then. Thanks for your answers.
Many Marxists also think the highly skilled self-employed to be a variation of the petite-bourgeois, so for example big sports players who are the 'face' of the giant corporations sponsoring them, so these people are in effect managing the property which backs them up by promoting it in the public eye.

Animals have politics?

Most assuredly.

Many Marxists also think the highly skilled self-employed to be a variation of the petite-bourgeois, so for example big sports players who are the 'face' of the giant corporations sponsoring them, so these people are in effect managing the property which backs them up by promoting it in the public eye.

While I'm by no means a Marxist, I can see how Marxists would think this. The reasoning behind this does make sense within the Marxist context.

So can no one see the poll results?

They have hierachies and social pecking orders.

They have more than that. They have alliances, systems of trade, "class warfare", etc.

Upper-middle class. I exploit the proletariat and do so with a sardonic smile and a big club.

So can no one see the poll results?

I see them, but not who specifically voted for what.

They have more than that. They have alliances, systems of trade, "class warfare", etc.
o.O

I have to say, I don't know much about that sort of thing, but I am imaging the thesis right now:

Class Struggle in the Animal Kingdom
:)

Upper-middle class. I exploit the proletariat and do so with a sardonic smile and a big club.
Please, this are Marxist definition, I really don't wish for the pseudo-'classless' American definitions to come into this.

I am bourgeois, then. I own a small business, but I pay my workers shitty wages, overwork them, and generally abuse them at will, physically and emotionally.

Sorry, Andares, but I live in a rather more advanced society than that of Marx, so I don't really fit any of his rather limited options. I therefore chose option 4.

They have more than that. They have alliances, systems of trade, "class warfare", etc.

Read Watership Down. It's a very political book.

Ah, the idealism.

Andaras, are you a proletarian? I picture you as one of those upper-middle class, manicured lawn, three car owning bourgeois fellows, myself. Just like what's his name...you know, that Chomsky guy.

Read Watership Down. It's a very political book.

very good book whether you try to get a message from it or just want a good read. Bigwig pwns!

Sorry, Andares, but I live in a rather more advanced society than that of Marx, so I don't really fit any of his rather limited options. I therefore chose option 4.
Yeah I admit I should have added more option than simply that four one, but what I meant is that if someone is going to sell their labor in the future (but is currently declassed) then they should pick proletarian for obvious reason. By declassed/lumpenproletariat I meant permantly declassed, which I would expect no one would have picked.

Yeah I admit I should have added self-employed, but unless we have an subsistence farmers or survivalist nuts on NSG I think it's ok. You'll notice that those you might think are self-employed, namely like electricians (my father for one) are in fact wage-laborers yet in the form of a contract.

Sorry, Andares, but I live in a rather more advanced society than that of Marx, so I don't really fit any of his rather limited options. I therefore chose option 4.

I'm kind of leaning towards that, too. I mean, I come from a decently wealthy family with my education and living paid for, but on the other hand I work behind a convenience store counter and, every now and then, I actually do need that monetary supplement to stay afloat. However, still, I have access to to more money should I wish to ask for it and I could easily find myself a number of scholarships should I suddenly become bereft of all moral conscience.

o.O

I have to say, I don't know much about that sort of thing, but I am imaging the thesis right now:

Class Struggle in the Animal Kingdom
:)

From Alpha to Omega: The rise and fall of wolves in the pack

Read Watership Down. It's a very political book.

So I've been told. I'll give it a look if you recommend it.

Andaras, are you a proletarian? I picture you as one of those upper-middle class, manicured lawn, three car owning bourgeois fellows, myself. Just like what's his name...you know, that Chomsky guy.
Lol, no I am of the proletariat.

Lol, no I am of the proletariat.

I apologize for the mistake.

What is your position on sweatshops? My stepbrother owns one in Mexico. The children are paid precious little, and the sanitation is abysmal, but it keeps them out of the brothels.

I'm kind of leaning towards that, too. I mean, I come from a decently wealthy family with my education and living paid for, but on the other hand I work behind a convenience store counter and, every now and then, I actually do need that monetary supplement to stay afloat. However, still, I have access to to more money should I wish to ask for it and I could easily find myself a number of scholarships should I suddenly become bereft of all moral conscience.
Again, I'll say this to confirm, their is no idealism, utopianism or otherwise in my words, I do not think the bourgeois themselves are evil, just that bourgeois property and society itself sets the environment and scene for inequality and injust acts in society.

Also, as I said earlier even to the smallest extent all of us is declassed in some way, a friend or family gives us some money to bail us out etc.

The definition to make is as follows, proletarians generally sell themselves as a means of production in return for a means of subsistence.

The definition to make is as follows, proletarians generally sell themselves as a means of production in return for a means of subsistence.

They don't sell themselves cheaply enough, as far as I'm concerned. Damned minimum wage. Without it, I would easily earn twice as much as I do now.

Might I ask why socialists are so busy trying to enforce 'equality'? I believe that all human beings are of equal value, and I try to treat every person the same without any regard for their ancestry, wealth, or abilities, but our individual talents and weaknesses will separate us into 'classes' of work according to what we are best at doing. Some are good administrators, some are skilled laborers. This is not an evil inequality, and it appears that many socilaists seek to punish some because of their natural talents.

Again, I'll say this to confirm, their is no idealism, utopianism or otherwise in my words, I do not think the bourgeois themselves are evil, just that bourgeois property and society itself sets the environment and scene for inequality and injust acts in society.

Also, as I said earlier even to the smallest extent all of us is declassed in some way, a friend or family gives us some money to bail us out etc.

The definition to make is as follows, proletarians generally sell themselves as a means of production in return for a means of subsistence.

I don't really see how that resolves my dilemma with the options presented, unfortunately. Sometimes the "selling of myself as a means of production" is for a means of subsistence, sometimes it is not, and I often find myself bouncing between these two states. Now, rather than being stuck in some odd eternally liminal class status, I would say that these poll options are not exhaustive and there are many situations one might find one's self in that disallow being neatly placed into a Marxist scheme.

As far as future goes, that seems somewhat irrelevant as in the foreseeable short-, and even mid-, run my future is extremely similar to my present. Nor do I think my situation is at all unique so I can't really be discounted as just some random outlier.

Might I ask why socialists are so busy trying to enforce 'equality'? I believe that all human beings are of equal value, and I try to treat every person the same without any regard for their ancestry, wealth, or abilities, but our individual talents and weaknesses will separate us into 'classes' of work according to what we are best at doing. Some are good administrators, some are skilled laborers. This is not an evil inequality, and it appears that many socilaists seek to punish some because of their natural talents. The voice of common sense

That actually brings up a point in which most people are 'declassed' at birth until they are in the workforce they are declassed...

have you considered the idea of habitas?

Proletarian.

I sell my "art". *nod*

Please, I wish to develop an accurate class picture of the people of NSG, so please answer my poll to help me develop this picture for the economic basis of NSG, for any political picture of NSG would be innaccurate if it did not ultilize the Marxist analysis of the class forces involved.

Andaras, what do YOU do?

Please, I wish to develop an accurate class picture of the people of NSG, so please answer my poll to help me develop this picture for the economic basis of NSG, for any political picture of NSG would be innaccurate if it did not ultilize the Marxist analysis of the class forces involved.

I don't fit clearly in the classes used to describe a schematized version of the british society in the second half of XIX century.

I am a salary worker (hence a proletarian), but I also have a secondary job as freelance webmaster (hence a petite-bourgoise, theorically, though I get very little for it).
My wage is above the italian average for salary workers - yet my working conditions are below (I can be fired within 5 minutes, while it is almost impossible to fire 'normal' salary workers in Italy). Does this make me a lumpen?
My culture (being also an university student, and since my parents are both high school teachers) is clearly in the upper ranks - that is, the cultural level only the bourgoisie could attain (theorically).

Might I ask why socialists are so busy trying to enforce 'equality'? I believe that all human beings are of equal value, and I try to treat every person the same without any regard for their ancestry, wealth, or abilities, but our individual talents and weaknesses will separate us into 'classes' of work according to what we are best at doing. Some are good administrators, some are skilled laborers. This is not an evil inequality, and it appears that many socilaists seek to punish some because of their natural talents.

Some happen to be born into poverty with little to no money to afford a decent education so that their only viable alternative is some low-paying labor. Of course, I guess some people can passionate about those kinds of jobs, I guess...but it seems absurd to me that some people's natural talents can lead them to work at an assembly line...or in some parts of the world...a sweatshop.:rolleyes:

The whole wage-slavery thing had me thinking the other day - Marxists seem to think that working for a fixed wage, rather than being paid an equal share of the profits of a business amounts to slavery.

This concept of being paid an equal share of profits intrigues me - what happens if a business (that is, a worker owned collective) makes a loss? Take General Motors for instance. If workers there received a fair share of the profits, they would each owe $134,000 to GM's creditors for 2007 - thats the $38 billion loss spread evenly among the 280,000 employees.

Sorry to double post, but this seems quite valid here.

To all commies in western society:

Well rather than moaning about something you can’t change, why don’t you get up of your arse and make the most of it. Equal society would be nice, but it’s not going to happen. So you, me, and everybody should have aspirations to get to the top of the pyramid, as it were. If my success depends on people working in a factory then so be it. Me and my family are well fed, happy and have money to spend on cars and snooker tables and what have you.

People in the factory could’ve gotten to my level, nothing to stop them but them selves. Look at people like Sir Sugar, started off as a barrow boy and now is one of the wealthiest men in the country, so don’t give me the bollocks of oppressed workers. If there capable and have the determination to do something then they can, but many choose not to or are incapable.

This is purely hypothetical of course; I don’t own a factory or anything or even have my own family yet.

What about people that own property such as land and expolits it for their own gain?

What about people who own shares in companies? Where would they fit as both may also be selling a service to survive.

Of course, I guess some people can passionate about those kinds of jobs, I guess...but it seems absurd to me that some people's natural talents can lead them to work at an assembly line

Well some people are good at these jobs and would be better at this than doing something else just like the high class lawyer in the street might not be any good at doing this sort of job. SO why wouldn't they take passion in their work I think that no matter what your job and what you may have to do you should take pride in it and do the best job that you can.

So you, me, and everybody should have aspirations to get to the top of the pyramid, as it were.

Doesn't the very concept of a "pyramid" immediately negate the ability of "everybody" to get to the top?

People in the factory could’ve gotten to my level, nothing to stop them but them selves. Look at people like Sir Sugar, started off as a barrow boy and now is one of the wealthiest men in the country, so don’t give me the bollocks of oppressed workers. If there capable and have the determination to do something then they can, but many choose not to or are incapable.

If you honestly believe in that "anyone can get to the top if they want to, the only obstacle is their own laziness etc." nonsense I'd suggest you haven't seen enough of the world, or even of your own immediate vicinity. It isn't even about being "oppressed" or anything like that. It's just the real world. In the real world parents get strokes and cannot work, and your utility bills turn red, your water gets turned off, and you get evicted from your home. In the real world people grow up with divorced parents, single parents, absent parents, and parents who simply can't afford to give them the same advantages other kids can take for granted. The reason you hear stories about people overcoming disadvantaged circumstances to become successful is precisely because they are rare and hence noteworthy.

Apparently my family exploits people. :)

snip

You do realize right that a pyramid isn't square shaped?

Apparently my family exploits people. :)

Then why don't you confront your family on this, anyone with a heart who didn't like exploitation would.

Then why don't you confront your family on this, anyone with a heart who didn't like exploitation would.

Oh, well, my husband doesn't think it's exploitation to pay people a living wage and make available for them health insurance and retirement plans, but your poll says we exploit them, so it must be true.

I'm personally, one of those slave people who sells my labor in order to buy chocolate and cat food.

Oh, well, my husband doesn't think it's exploitation to pay people a living wage and make available for them health insurance and retirement plans, but your poll says we exploit them, so it must be true.

I'm personally, one of those slave people who sells my labor in order to buy chocolate and cat food.

Exploitation isn't a buzzword, you can exploit any resource, but when you start exploiting human beings and treating them like an economic commodity to be bought an sold - well that's when human dignity and respect is degraded and people reduced to labor prostitution; selling themselves and their labor for but a pittance of their true social product.

So don't give me that stereotype crap, because you know what your husband does, and nothing can whitewash exploitation, not even telling yourself 'heaps of people do it' can make it right.

It doesn't matter what you give your workers, because under capitalism it's always the appropriation of the products of the labor of others by the owner to sell them at a higher rate than what they were produced for, that is using humans as a commodity, and it is wrong.

Exploitation isn't a buzzword, you can exploit any resource, but when you start exploiting human beings and treating them like an economic commodity to be bought an sold - well that's when human dignity and respect is degraded and people reduced to labor prostitution; selling themselves and their labor for but a pittance of their true social product.

So don't give me that stereotype crap, because you know what your husband does, and nothing can whitewash exploitation, not even telling yourself 'heaps of people do it' can make it right.

It doesn't matter what you give your workers, because under capitalism it's always the appropriation of the products of the labor of others by the owner to sell them at a higher rate than what they were produced for, that is using humans as a commodity, and it is wrong.
There is a solution to this "problem" I assume?

I sell silliness which I manufacture myself to those that need it at a sizeable profit. What class does that put me in? People always tell me I have none. *nod*

There is a solution to this "problem" I assume?
I wouldn't presume to tell you what to do, I was merely giving my opinion, that is after all what NSG is for right?

The fundamental problem with outdated marxist labels. I am by all measure the "upper class". I make good money, I'm highly educated, I don't do manual labor. But as an attorney, I sell my services, which technically makes me the Proletarian

You're completely correct, and this is one of many problems with Andaras' bullshit. His position is unfalsifiable, because Andaras will not let any piece of evidence or research count against him by dismissing anything that has conclusions contrary to his position as bourgeois propaganda and trying to justify their bourgeois interests. Never mind the fact that pretty much nobody at all in academia and research is involved in anyway with the hiring and certainly not exploitation of the proletariat.

I wouldn't presume to tell you what to do, I was merely giving my opinion, that is after all what NSG is for right?

I would like to hear your opinion on the "problem" of paying people a living wage.

You're completely correct, and this is one of many problems with Andaras' bullshit. His position is unfalsifiable, because Andaras will not let any piece of evidence or research count against him by dismissing anything that has conclusions contrary to his position as bourgeois propaganda and trying to justify their bourgeois interests. Never mind the fact that pretty much nobody at all in academia and research is involved in anyway with the hiring and certainly not exploitation of the proletariat.
But actually on the contrary, given the minority makeup of NSG, the kinda class makeup he talks about is so small and in such a tiny minority that it can be dismissed outright as an aberration, considering that the vast amount of people don't live in his nice happy bourgeois utopia (he must avoid driving through certain parts of his city to deny social problems or something).

I hear this all the time, it's basically:
Q. workers with shares in business.
A. So completely tiny it's laughable.

I have to admit though, NSG must have a quite the 'rich parents' student phenomenon going on, I seriously have not seen this much bourgeois-utopian idealism since I went to a Trot meeting....

I would like to hear your opinion on the "problem" of paying people a living wage.
Have you not been reading this thread?... Like at all?

To start off with, it's theft, your expropriating people of what they produce and then selling it by passing it off as your own property, hell a worker can produce a pencil but if he puts it in his pocket he's a thief, if that aint a system for private property I don't know what is.

To each the full product of their labor!

Have you not been reading this thread?... Like at all?

To start off with, it's theft, your expropriating people of what they produce and then selling it by passing it off as your own property, hell a worker can produce a pencil but if he puts it in his pocket he's a thief, if that aint a system for private property I don't know what is.

To each the full product of their labor!

Explain it to me like you would explain it to a child. This "theft" seems dubious.

Do you think there's no labour involved in managing and running a shop? Granted some surplus value is extracted but that's nothing compared to some other examples I could think of. The small-time shopkeeper is not the real problem, and neither can you really put them in the "bourgeois" class. What was that guy saying about outdated labels?

Give the guy a break and fight the right battles. This is a perfect example of why socialism has difficulty striking a chord at the time when the crisis of capitalism has, arguably, never been more evident. Not that I'm in a hurry to identify myself as being of the same political stripe as someone who quotes Stalin in his sig, mind you.

Have you not been reading this thread?... Like at all?

To start off with, it's theft, your expropriating people of what they produce and then selling it by passing it off as your own property, hell a worker can produce a pencil but if he puts it in his pocket he's a thief, if that aint a system for private property I don't know what is.

To each the full product of their labor!

An employer provides something his employees could not obtain without him. Suppose I own a grocery store. I provide the building, I schedule the deliveries, I arrange advertising, and I hire stock boys, checkout clerks, cleaning staff, bakers, and butchers. I need to pay the staff, maintain the store, resupply what's sold, and feed, shelter, & clothe myself. How do you operate such a complex food distribution system under socialism? I am laboring to provide for the needs and desires of the community and I provide an otherwise nonexistant work opportunity, yet you would seem to hate the grocery store manager because he 'oppresses the masses'.

The problem I see with Marxism is that anyone who does not directly produce a product is assumed to be dead weight and should be eliminated. Capitalism is sometimes harsh but always fair. If there is an overabundance of something, prices fall and production is reduced. Where there is a shortage, prices rise and production increases in response. The eeeeeevil middlemen do provide a service - they coordinate delivery from the producer to the consumer through considerable effort. Their 'unjust profits' are compensation for their effort to transport and store goods so they are available to the consumers.

Do you think there's no labour involved in managing and running a shop? Granted some surplus value is extracted but that's nothing compared to some other examples I could think of. The small-time shopkeeper is not the real problem, and neither can you really put them in the "bourgeois" class. What was that guy saying about outdated labels?

Give the guy a break and fight the right battles. This is a perfect example of why socialism has difficulty striking a chord at the time when the crisis of capitalism has, arguably, never been more evident. Not that I'm in a hurry to identify myself as being of the same political stripe as someone who quotes Stalin in his sig, mind you.

Can you explain it to me simply? I'm unsure I have ever heard it without a capitalist slant.

Andaras can you tell us what your job is?

Can you explain it to me simply? I'm unsure I have ever heard it without a capitalist slant.

What was it you wanted me to explain?

What was it you wanted me to explain?

Whatever it is that Andaras is on about. Theft and exploitation inherent in a capitalist society.

An employer provides something his employees could not obtain without him. Suppose I own a grocery store. I provide the building, I schedule the deliveries, I arrange advertising, and I hire stock boys, checkout clerks, cleaning staff, bakers, and butchers. I need to pay the staff, maintain the store, resupply what's sold, and feed, shelter, & clothe myself. How do you operate such a complex food distribution system under socialism? I am laboring to provide for the needs and desires of the community and I provide an otherwise nonexistant work opportunity, yet you would seem to hate the grocery store manager because he 'oppresses the masses'.

A store-manager doesn't exploit 'the masses' as it were, that is just you projecting and stereotyping rather than dealing with the entirety of the issues. A petite-bourgeois does simply manages the lower level property of his bourgeois employer, and he does so for a high salary and even connections in the business itself.

At that rate also the petite-bourgeois is a dying class, as 'automated' techniques improve in various industries the need for a lower-level manager is being diminished. Marx of course wrote quite clearly on the 'proletarianization' of the petite-bourgeois as they are forced into wage-labor themselves.

Again, as many many people on this thread are doing, you are projecting a strawmen to argue with, and you misunderstand Marxism on almost every level.

Also Smunkee in answer to your question, turn your enterprise into a cooperatively owned and run workplace. Employees vote on their salaries, on reinvestment strategies, etc. Everyone has a say in decisions equal to the degree that those decisions effect them.

But, if you want an economic explanation, if we take the entire social product (W) we can both agree that workers produce all of W. From a marxist perspective, W is divided into v (variable capital-the amount workers are paid for producing w) and s (surplus value- the amount appropriated by capitalists (W=S+V). S is the profit.

Andaras what's your job??

But, if you want an economic explanation, if we take the entire social product (W) we can both agree that workers produce all of W. From a marxist perspective, W is divided into v (variable capital-the amount workers are paid for producing w) and s (surplus value- the amount appropriated by capitalists (W=S+V). S is the profit.

So in an exploitation free system, W=V and S=0? That is all profits generated by the organisation are paid to the workers?

Whatever it is that Andaras is on about. Theft and exploitation inherent in a capitalist society.

Well, the basic idea is that the creation of value is entirely the product of labour. The process of taking flour and turning it into bread, for instance, creates value because the bread is more valuable (or in other words, commands a higher price than) the raw material: flour. This is done directly by labour, and indirectly because labour is also required to make the machines, etc.

Now, what is inherent in a capitalist system is profit. Orthodox economics assumes all firms are seeking to maximise profit because that is (I'm simplifying here) how the market mechanism in a capitalist system works.

In order to make profit, one must have more revenue than cost. One therefore must charge more for a good than what it cost to make it, which includes the wage of the labour which produced that good. The person whose labour went into making the good does not, therefore, fully benefit from the value they have created because the wage they are paid is less than the value they have created. This is what Andaras calls theft and exploitation, the latter because capitalist societies coerce labour because the alternative is starving to death. It can also be referred to as surplus value.

To an extent he's right about this being theft and exploitation, but not more so than his opposite number who would regard taxes as theft and whines about his money paying for other people's kids to go to school.

Well I would class myself as upper-middle. That is all.

To an extent he's right about this being theft and exploitation, but not more so than his opposite number who would regard taxes as theft and whines about his money paying for other people's kids to go to school.

Thats quite a good parallel, one that I haven't considered before. How does a Marxist or libertarian justify either taxation or capitalism as theft without justifying the other as theft?

I'm kind of leaning towards that, too. I mean, I come from a decently wealthy family with my education and living paid for, but on the other hand I work behind a convenience store counter and, every now and then, I actually do need that monetary supplement to stay afloat. However, still, I have access to to more money should I wish to ask for it and I could easily find myself a number of scholarships should I suddenly become bereft of all moral conscience.

I'm sort of in this boat. I have a job, but more for the non-monetary perks than for the paycheck (the ability to do research as an undergrad in a field that is damn interesting, a foot in the door when I apply for graduate studies, etc.) and can call on funds from my family if I need to (which is rare).

Guess I have to go with Option 4.

But actually on the contrary, given the minority makeup of NSG, the kinda class makeup he talks about is so small and in such a tiny minority that it can be dismissed outright as an aberration, considering that the vast amount of people don't live in his nice happy bourgeois utopia (he must avoid driving through certain parts of his city to deny social problems or something).

I hear this all the time, it's basically:
Q. workers with shares in business.
A. So completely tiny it's laughable.

I have to admit though, NSG must have a quite the 'rich parents' student phenomenon going on, I seriously have not seen this much bourgeois-utopian idealism since I went to a Trot meeting....

OR maybe reality is calling?
Please tell us all how we're all rich and exploiting the downtrodden again. I haven't had that good a laugh in a while.
Please then tell us that we're all in denial and we don't know how bad we have it and how the system is exploiting us.

Hint: if everyone else in the world is wrong, it's just possible that you're not as right as you thought.

and it is wrong.

And you call your position scientific? Ahahahhahahaha.

Well, the basic idea is that the creation of value is entirely the product of labour. The process of taking flour and turning it into bread, for instance, creates value because the bread is more valuable (or in other words, commands a higher price than) the raw material: flour. This is done directly by labour, and indirectly because labour is also required to make the machines, etc.

Now, what is inherent in a capitalist system is profit. Orthodox economics assumes all firms are seeking to maximise profit because that is (I'm simplifying here) how the market mechanism in a capitalist system works.

In order to make profit, one must have more revenue than cost. One therefore must charge more for a good than what it cost to make it, which includes the wage of the labour which produced that good. The person whose labour went into making the good does not, therefore, fully benefit from the value they have created because the wage they are paid is less than the value they have created. This is what Andaras calls theft and exploitation, the latter because capitalist societies coerce labour because the alternative is starving to death. It can also be referred to as surplus value.

To an extent he's right about this being theft and exploitation, but not more so than his opposite number who would regard taxes as theft and whines about his money paying for other people's kids to go to school.

Except, it is not. It's contract work.
I provide you with the flour, milk, eggs, mixers, ovens, etc. which I have purchased, and provide the place in which to do the work (either because I have purchased it, built it, or am renting it).

I am paying you your salary, plus providing health insurance, to make bread.

You can choose to work for that salary, or choose to seek a better job, or choose to run your own business baking bread out of your kitchen and selling it yourself, taking on all the risks of running a business and managing your own health care... or you can choose to do the same work for someone else for the perceived stability and safety of the position.

You are free to leave my employ whenever you wish, and I may force you to leave my employ if I have cause.

That hardly seems theft or slavery.

What seems theft to me is deciding that those who have NOT taken any of the risk or made any investment deserve more than the person who has provided the necessities to do the job. Remember, you don't HAVE to work for someone -- you can be self-employed.

the kinda class makeup he talks about is so small and in such a tiny minority that it can be dismissed outright as an aberration.

The class you're talking about is a minority amongst the high earners, since the majority of high earners in business are not themselves owners of the business they work for, even if the owners themselves make more money. But even if your simplistic and old fashioned view where you're either a labourer working in the factory or a factory owner (with nothing in between) is true, that still doesn't address my main point. Because my main point was that researches and academics are not bourgeois because they have nothing to do with the hiring and exploitation of workers, which means that every time you dismiss a source as bourgeois propaganda, you're entirely inaccurate.

Marxist ideas of the hierarchy don't really work, since your relationship to the means of production doesn't always determine what class you belong to, and can very easily become blurred.

I.e.:

* I am a student. I get some government financial support
* I am a landlord. I own property which I rent out when I'm not using it.
* I am a tenant. I'm renting property to live in at the moment.
* I'm a casual worker.

not sure can somebody explain to this rural peasant what they mean those names in the voting thingy

Criminal earnings, fuck yeah!

On second thought, I guess I'd be proletariate. But the choices are simplistic, which is why I guess I chose none of the above. For a start, just because you hire someone does not mean you are exploiting them. Secondly, the world is not composed of rich fat cats and poverty-stricken laborers. One can work for a living and still have a good job, which one likes, and which I would hardly define as exploitation, or labor in a negative sense of the word.

Doesn't the very concept of a "pyramid" immediately negate the ability of "everybody" to get to the top?

Like I say, you should have aspirations to get to top. Do your best at school, or work hard at your job and try to get promotion, seize the initiative etc. I believe, if you do this then you can get higher up the pyramid, many will fail but if you succeed then they don’t matter in terms of my pyramid analogy.

If you honestly believe in that "anyone can get to the top if they want to, the only obstacle is their own laziness etc." nonsense I'd suggest you haven't seen enough of the world, or even of your own immediate vicinity. It isn't even about being "oppressed" or anything like that. It's just the real world. In the real world parents get strokes and cannot work, and your utility bills turn red, your water gets turned off, and you get evicted from your home. In the real world people grow up with divorced parents, single parents, absent parents, and parents who simply can't afford to give them the same advantages other kids can take for granted. The reason you hear stories about people overcoming disadvantaged circumstances to become successful is precisely because they are rare and hence noteworthy
I never said laziness, but incapable. As in they don’t posses the needed traits to go far. I believe that all those disadvantages only make it harder to get higher up the pyramid, but it’s still possible. It’s not fair but hey, life isn’t fair.

You do realize right that a pyramid isn't square shaped?
Like I say, not everybody makes it. Hopefully I will and to me, that’s what matters.

Explain it to me like you would explain it to a child. This "theft" seems dubious.

No fair Smunkee, you know from past experience he can't manage it...

I work for a credit cooperative, doing strange evaluations of market risk in the trading of financial derivatives and estimates of the future value of present assets to calculate their adjusted present values. So what am I in your system?

not sure can somebody explain to this rural peasant what they mean those names in the voting thingy
Ask some of the lefties still left in Machester when you go to market there :p

As to myself - in terms of what money I and my parents earn, somewhere like petit-bourgeois (although my father works to help turn people of the criminal classes into business owners, so I have no idea where he'd actually go). In terms of upbringing, bourgeois. Used to be very much a champagne socialist, lost that when I had to pay taxes. Just as you will.

The fundamental problem with outdated marxist labels. I am by all measure the "upper class". I make good money, I'm highly educated, I don't do manual labor. But as an attorney, I sell my services, which technically makes me the ProletarianTechnically, it makes you petit-bourgeoisie. (The definition isn't exactly right in the poll.)

Technically, it makes you petit-bourgeoisie. (The definition isn't exactly right in the poll.)
Petit-bourgeois would be the adjective.

Or what about a low paid human resource manager? They would be both Bourgeois and ProletarianNo, they'd be proletarian, although Marx recognized that managers in general might be subverted against the workers' cause by identifying themselves with capitalists.

The definition in the poll is wrong. Petit-bourgeois are not managers; they are shopkeepers and professionals, people who may own their businesses but are likely to work alongside their employees; people who sell their work or their expertise, but are not in a determinate relation of "wage-earner" with respect to some determinate "employer."

Petit-bourgeois would be the adjective.Was I using an adjective? :)

I don't really see how that resolves my dilemma with the options presented, unfortunately. Sometimes the "selling of myself as a means of production" is for a means of subsistence, sometimes it is not, and I often find myself bouncing between these two states. Now, rather than being stuck in some odd eternally liminal class status, I would say that these poll options are not exhaustive and there are many situations one might find one's self in that disallow being neatly placed into a Marxist scheme.Marx never held these to be exhaustive in that sense. As sociological classes, they describe various relations to production that were even less exhaustive when he coined the terms. At the time, Europe had a very large peasantry as well as a landed aristocracy, both of which represented "old forms," social classes that Marx argued capitalist production was pressing out of existence.

His theory does not present a schema that insists "all people are one of these things." Rather he argues that the capitalist mode of production increasingly presses people into one of these classes.

In the real world parents get strokes and cannot work, and your utility bills turn red, your water gets turned off, and you get evicted from your home. In the real world people grow up with divorced parents, single parents, absent parents, and parents who simply can't afford to give them the same advantages other kids can take for granted.

True. But Renner doesn't seem so much concerned with acknowledging and addressing the inequality of opportunity in life. His economic theory seems to revolve around getting the less privileged to shut up about it so he doesn't have to listen while he's climbing up their backs to the top of the pyramid.

To each the full product of their labor!

I thought it was to each according to their need.

Capitalism is sometimes harsh but always fair. If there is an overabundance of something, prices fall and production is reduced. Where there is a shortage, prices rise and production increases in response.

I will assume you're referring to pure capitalism, not the way it most often works in practice, with the government paying farmers to let their crops rot so they can keep prices high.

Andaras can you tell us what your job is?

Might as well give it up, man.

I guess I'm a "professional upper-strata proletariat" or whatever it was Andaras said well compensated workers were.

I'm still not entirely sure who the bourgeois are though. There are very few family run multi-nationals.

AP, darling, in what part of Commie Disneyland do you reside?

:rolleyes:

Was I using an adjective? :)
An adjectival noun...

not sure can somebody explain to this rural peasant what they mean those names in the voting thingyWell, if you're really a rural peasant you may need a "none of the above." :)

Proletariat: earn a wage/salary through productive labor.
Lumpen-proletariat: "rabble proletariat," may earn wages through non-productive labor, like mercenaries or servants; career gamblers; prostitutes; swindlers, various types of parasitic criminal; pre-welfare non-workers. Defined by Marx in various ways over the years depending, for the most part, on how pissed he was at them as a class. At times he regarded them as merely the "refuse" of classes... at his more rational and systematic, he tended to think of them as a distinct social class with a particularly parasitic relationship to the bourgeoisie. Counter-revolutionary either way.
Bourgeoisie: owners of the means of production who purchase labor-power from proletarians; regarded by many Marxists as inherently non-productive, though this is disputed even within Marxian economic theory.
Petit-bourgeoisie: shopkeepers and professionals who may work in their own shops or hire themselves out for contracts, but who do not essentially relate to productivity as "the money" or merely the "organizer" of production; they are both owners and productive workers.

An adjectival noun...Actually, I was using a predicate noun. ;)

An adjectival noun is when one uses an adjective as a noun. Say, "the young."

EDIT: Of course, so much of this depends on the grammar of specific languages. Thinking back (YEARS AGO) to my Japanese classes, I seem to recall a different definition. :)

Actually, I was using a predicate noun. ;)
Alright, let's swap the last word a bit -

"Technically it makes you proletariat"

Doesn't quite sound right to me "A member of the" would have made more sense to my tired British mind.
An adjectival noun is when one uses an adjective as a noun. Say, "the young."
Quite, which is what you should have used imo.

Alright, let's swap the last word a bit -

"Technically it makes you proletariat"

"Technically, it makes you trash."

"Technically, it makes you trash."
Is that the same word class?

"Technically, it makes you trash" sounds fine. The same again with "proletariat" doesn't. "Proletarian" does, though.

Alright, let's swap the last word a bit -

"Technically it makes you proletariat"

Doesn't quite sound right to me "A member of the" would have made more sense to my tired British mind.I suppose, but then I had the grammatical logic of a poll/survey in my head, where everything tends to take a noun form. (Really, if you do survey work and you're asked to clarify, using proper grammar will result only in blank stares. It makes you start to wonder, why did we want to know what these halfwits think, again?)

My mother's a proletariat/boguies. She works in a factory, and owns stock in said factory. What do you say to THAT Andaras? Along with most of the other workers in her shift? And my Grandfather, who works at Wal-Mart and owns share?

But of course, my family is such a coincidence, and the ACTUAL amount is very small, and *Insert кoммциіѕт propaganda*

By the way Andaras, what do you do for a living?

My mother... works in a factory, and owns stock in said factory.What's your point?

And my Grandfather, who works at Wal-Mart and owns share?Again, what's your point?

But of course, my family is such a coincidence, and the ACTUAL amount is very small, and...No, no. Nearly half of American households own some stock, though usually not very much. The question from a social science standpoint is, then, whether their participation in corporate ownership makes a significant difference in their daily relation to social activities such as production. The answer is, for most people, an unqualified "no." Workers are still workers, even if they take some extra income through investments. Owners are still owners, even if they spend long hours in business meetings.

No, no. Nearly half of American households own some stock, though usually not very much. The question from a social science standpoint is, then, whether their participation in corporate ownership makes a significant difference in their daily relation to social activities such as production. The answer is, for most people, an unqualified "no." Workers are still workers, even if they take some extra income through investments. Owners are still owners, even if they spend long hours in business meetings.
So? Both are needed. What's the problem then?
What's your point?

Again, what's your point?
How Andaras was yakking on about how few workers actually own stock and all of that.

*Insert кoммциіѕт propaganda*

*squints* Comm...commtsi-ist?

So? Both are needed. What's the problem then?

The problem a lot of people seem to have with capitalism is that one group has far more share of the pie than it really should, not whether it's needed or not.

The problem a lot of people seem to have with capitalism is that one group has far more share of the pie than it really should, not whether it's needed or not.

The bigger share of the pie comes to them, because it requires more skill, rarer skills, or more training. They have a bigger share of the pie, true, but they earned that bigger share, one way or another.

It's been a while since I studied Marx, but remembering my anthropology courses Durkheim spoke very interestingly on organic and mechanical solidarities, which I think is relevant to the Marxist image.

Certainly the terms in AP's poll are more relevant to societies where people are organized according to the expertise and ability to produce, but only in the extreme capitalist system of exploitation and profit. This brings concepts like rational self-interest (a la Tonniës) and rational modernity (a la Weber) into play.

It's convenient to forget the societal interactions of economic players and focus entirely on profit and wage, when concepts of prestige, skill, and status are equally important to the equation. There's no shortage of powerful businesspeople who do it for the power instead of the money, or for percieved social benefit.

The bigger share of the pie comes to them, because it requires more skill, rarer skills, or more training. They have a bigger share of the pie, true, but they earned that bigger share, one way or another.

How did a Wall Street floor trader earn those hundreds of thousands of dollars? In the sense that he clocks in each day does what he's told, sure. But considering that his entire purpose is the artificial manipulation of a concept, I certainly don't think he earned it.

Of course, this is more philosophical. Within the confines of the existing system, members of the "bourgeousie" have earned their wealth or status, but one has to look at what was accomplished to do it, at the benefit it brings to society, and what happened to bring it along.

There was a thread somewhere that discussed communitarianism and it's opposition to the classical liberal ideals of individualism and personal freedom, which have completely influenced economic theory and philosophy for several centuries. We can compare those concepts to Durkheim's idea of organic solidarity, Bruhl's concepts of logical and pre-logical thinking, and Weber's breakdown of cultures by the sources of legitimacy they derive.

In a Marxist system, legitimacy seems to derive from multiple sources; in that they syste perpetuates itself until one cog in the machinery breaks down and the whole shebang falls apart.

Please, I wish to develop an accurate class picture of the people of NSG, so please answer my poll to help me develop this picture for the economic basis of NSG, for any political picture of NSG would be innaccurate if it did not ultilize the Marxist analysis of the class forces involved.

I am a bourgeois. I live off the screams of my wage slaves who mow my lawns and cook my dinners for me. Even as we speak, I am robbing a proletariat of his capital, by having him shine my shoes instead of his own. And what does he get in return??? A MEASLY 5 DOLLLARS!!!! *maniacal evil laughter, lightening crashes in the background*

How did a Wall Street floor trader earn those hundreds of thousands of dollars? In the sense that he clocks in each day does what he's told, sure. But considering that his entire purpose is the artificial manipulation of a concept, I certainly don't think he earned it.

He did earn it. He earned it by investing his hard earned money in different companies. By selling that stock he bought in those companies, he invested in other companies. He risked his money, boosted other companies, and ended up with more money for everyone. When someone gets a big piece of the pie, it isn't because they took it from other people, but rather, because they made the pie bigger. Okay?

I run a highly profitable illicit activties and goods empire.

He did earn it. He earned it by investing his hard earned money in different companies. By selling that stock he bought in those companies, he invested in other companies. He risked his money, boosted other companies, and ended up with more money for everyone. When someone gets a big piece of the pie, it isn't because they took it from other people, but rather, because they made the pie bigger. Okay?

That is stunningly naive.

That is stunningly naive.

:rolleyes:

He did earn it. He earned it by investing his hard earned money in different companies. By selling that stock he bought in those companies, he invested in other companies. He risked his money, boosted other companies, and ended up with more money for everyone. When someone gets a big piece of the pie, it isn't because they took it from other people, but rather, because they made the pie bigger. Okay?

On a serious note, not really. He earned what he earned by manipulating an abstract concept, not by actually working to earn it. Would you say a politician who seizes power through manipulating the legal system is just as legitimate as one who earns it through a democratic vote?

He did earn it. He earned it by investing his hard earned money in different companies. By selling that stock he bought in those companies, he invested in other companies. He risked his money, boosted other companies, and ended up with more money for everyone. When someone gets a big piece of the pie, it isn't because they took it from other people, but rather, because they made the pie bigger. Okay?

I haven't argued that they're stealing the pie from someone less fortunate, but saying they're making the pie bigger is a rather naive simplification of the large financial markets and systems of the modern economy.

The stock market and financial management is based entirely upon the manipulation of nonexistent wealth and capital, and is only tangentially related to production of goods and selling of services. Stockbrokers create and expand wealth through artificial means, and in a world where the banknote no longer has any guarantor of concrete worth behind it (gold, silver, oil, manganese, Oxy-clean, whatever you like) it essentially boils down to the exploitation of other people's money.

I'm not suggesting this is a bad thing. I'm not suggesting it's a good thing, either. What I believe, though, is that the person who works making cars or clothes has actually earned the compensation for their labor; i.e. a wage or salary. The stockbroker has simply benefited from a lucky throw of the dice.

I haven't argued that they're stealing the pie from someone less fortunate, but saying they're making the pie bigger is a rather naive simplification of the large financial markets and systems of the modern economy.

The stock market and financial management is based entirely upon the manipulation of nonexistent wealth and capital, and is only tangentially related to production of goods and selling of services. Stockbrokers create and expand wealth through artificial means, and in a world where the banknote no longer has any guarantor of concrete worth behind it (gold, silver, oil, manganese, Oxy-clean, whatever you like) it essentially boils down to the exploitation of other people's money.

I'm not suggesting this is a bad thing. I'm not suggesting it's a good thing, either. What I believe, though, is that the person who works making cars or clothes has actually earned the compensation for their labor; i.e. a wage or salary. The stockbroker has simply benefited from a lucky throw of the dice.
The lucky throw, however, HAS enriched everyone. These people who invest in the stock market give companies money for their stock, said money goes towards hiring workers, paying existing workers,etc,. See?

How did a Wall Street floor trader earn those hundreds of thousands of dollars? In the sense that he clocks in each day does what he's told, sure. But considering that his entire purpose is the artificial manipulation of a concept, I certainly don't think he earned it.

Wait wait wait.

When did "earn" come to exclude anything involving tasks of abstract or conceptual manipulation?

So what, philosophers, musicians, artists, mathematicians, theoretical physicists.... they don't earn their wage?

On a serious note, not really. He earned what he earned by manipulating an abstract concept, not by actually working to earn it.

Yeah, yeah. And Einstein just manipulated abstract concepts. He deserved no payment for any of it and should, frankly, have gotten a real job like farming or mining!

It seems you people are defining the concept "to earn" as "to work as a good communist laborer, preferably in poor conditions." No doubt according to your skewed definitions you are absolutely correct in that stockbrokers (et al) don't earn their wages and are in fact swindling thieves.

But, back to reality, the definition of "earn" in English is:

to receive as return for effort and especially for work done or services rendered

Well, I don't see anything there about "...except in the case of intangible services" or "...as long as it's hard, physical labor."

So you're wrong.

Would you say a politician who seizes power through manipulating the legal system is just as legitimate as one who earns it through a democratic vote?

This really isn't analogous to the situation at hand. But yes, as long as either politician isn't breaking the law, they are both legitimate.

Wait wait wait.

When did "earn" come to exclude anything involving tasks of abstract or conceptual manipulation?

So what, philosophers, musicians, artists, mathematicians, theoretical physicists.... they don't earn their wage?

Of course not. They are brutally oppressing the proletariat :D.

The lucky throw, however, HAS enriched everyone. These people who invest in the stock market give companies money for their stock, said money goes towards hiring workers, paying existing workers,etc,. See?

Still doesn't change the fact that it's an excercise in imaginary, precarious wealth. Financial market stability is a relatively rare occurence; a cursory review of American financial history shows that the long period of stability and growth from the end of the Second World War to the modern day is little more than an anomaly; financian and economic crises plagued the 19th and early 20th centuries. Let's also not forget those were times when you could turn in a dollar bill and recieve an amount of gold from the bank!

It's hard to see where the financial example fits into Marxist theory; I would be inclined to say that the stockbroker is a part of the capital class that utilizes the investments and wealth of the proletariat and petite-bourgeousie to enrich themselves. And, as has been mentioned by another, if we look at the actual benefit the average stockholder recieves from their investment as compared to say, people like Warren Buffet or Kirk Kerkorian, the actual influence and power if quite small.

Please note, though, I'm not a Marxist, or even a capitalist. I'm just evalutating the information as I see it, within whatever lens is appropriate.

Still doesn't change the fact that it's an excercise in imaginary, precarious wealth. Financial market stability is a relatively rare occurence; a cursory review of American financial history shows that the long period of stability and growth from the end of the Second World War to the modern day is little more than an anomaly; financian and economic crises plagued the 19th and early 20th centuries. Let's also not forget those were times when you could turn in a dollar bill and recieve an amount of gold from the bank!

Still doesn't change the fact that company now has more money.

Please note, though, I'm not a Marxist, or even a capitalist. I'm just evalutating the information as I see it, within whatever lens is appropriate.
You seem to be viewing from a rather cracked lens, scratches in it roughly spelling out "Anti-capitalist"

Still doesn't change the fact that company now has more money.

However "company" breaks down.

You seem to be viewing from a rather cracked lens, scratches in it roughly spelling out "Anti-capitalist"

Hurr hurr hurr commie joke hurr hurr.

I don't ascribe to any major political economic philosophical system. That is the truth.

When someone gets a big piece of the pie, it isn't because they took it from other people, but rather, because they made the pie bigger. Okay?

Isn't that called inflation? And isn't it sort of not so good?

Would you say a politician who seizes power through manipulating the legal system is just as legitimate as one who earns it through a democratic vote?

Scalia would. ;)

Still doesn't change the fact that company now has more money.

Right, so. A guy buys 100 shares of a company at $5 a pop, takes a nap, comes back and sells them for $10 each. He's doubled his money, the company's earned. Why? Because somewhere out there, another company (or people) lost. You don't "make the pie bigger", you redistribute the portions. Hence the ever-widening divide between the upper class and the rest of the U.S.

Still doesn't change the fact that it's an excercise in imaginary, precarious wealth. Financial market stability is a relatively rare occurence; a cursory review of American financial history shows that the long period of stability and growth from the end of the Second World War to the modern day is little more than an anomaly; financian and economic crises plagued the 19th and early 20th centuries. Let's also not forget those were times when you could turn in a dollar bill and recieve an amount of gold from the bank!

When you have a model and you change the factors in that model to produce a different result, it usually suggest that there is a possiblity of causation between the changed factors and the new result. If I place a pot of previously stable water above a flame should I conclude that the observable fact that the liquid water is now turning into gas is an anomaly, or should I consider the possibility that the flame has caused the water to turn into gas?

I am paying you your salary, plus providing health insurance, to make bread.

I'm explaining the other point of view. You can have the most impressive factory but it won't produce anything without some labour being involved. Likewise, I can have all the skills but I won't produce anything if I don't have the capital. However, the power balance between the capital owner and the worker is generally weighted very far towards the capital owner's side. Hence the present discussion.

You are free to leave my employ whenever you wish, and I may force you to leave my employ if I have cause.

That hardly seems theft or slavery.

I'm not saying that it is, I'm explaining why some people see it that way. But I should also point out that such abundant freedom of choice in employment doesn't exist except in theoretical economics.

Wait wait wait.

When did "earn" come to exclude anything involving tasks of abstract or conceptual manipulation?

So what, philosophers, musicians, artists, mathematicians, theoretical physicists.... they don't earn their wage?

I don't think that's what he quite meant to imply. However, financial markets today are only vaguely connected to the production of goods. I think it's fair to say that financial market speculation where all you're doing is watching numbers and buying and selling based on little more than the whims of the rather irrational stock market does very little to contribute towards the economy.

Furthermore, the kind of piecemeal investing most people who own shares do has, as others have already pointed out, little impact compared to those who own big shareholdings. We're talking enough to actually give you some power over the company's direction. Except through extraordinary collective action with a lot of fellow shareholders, your little stock portfolios won't give you power over jack, let alone make a meaningful contribution to the process of production.

He did earn it. He earned it by investing his hard earned money in different companies. By selling that stock he bought in those companies, he invested in other companies. He risked his money, boosted other companies, and ended up with more money for everyone. When someone gets a big piece of the pie, it isn't because they took it from other people, but rather, because they made the pie bigger. Okay?

(1st bold)Loop.
Where did he get his starting money? You assume he earned it the "hard" way.
Did he get them working as a salaryman, or inherited them? Was he able to get an university degree -hence a more profitable job- because he came from a rich family, or did he got through because of own talents and study? Money can ruin meritocracy sometimes.

(2nd bold).Not always true, you know. There is a finite upper limit to the size of the "pie" (this involves things like finite amount of energy available, finite amount of matter available, entropy).
Also, by merely investing money here and there (and getting income shares, of course), one doesn't "create" a bigger pie. The guys in R&D do, the intelligent worker who comes up with a good suggestion does, the CEO who thinks of a better way to produce and sell does, even the customer who files a meaningful complaint does. "Pure" investors don't - they merely buy a slice of the pie from people who need to sell that slice (their work) for a living.

Wait! Why do commies drink herbal tea?



Coz proper tea is theft!

Capitalists cannot 'earn' anything because they can only invest via appropriating the social product of the workers and then passing it off as your own property.

All class society is one class expropriating another.

Capitalists cannot 'earn' anything because they can only invest via appropriating the social product of the workers and then passing it off as your own property.

All class society is one class expropriating another.

Shit man that's true of all life isn't it.

AP, darling, in what part of Commie Disneyland do you reside?

:rolleyes:

Fantasyland.

With a bit of luck, I'll be an intern soon. That's about as close as you get to exploitation in the developed world!

Of course, it may be for a rather excellent financial services company for, by and full of rich people.

Take that, marxism! :p

When you have a model and you change the factors in that model to produce a different result, it usually suggest that there is a possiblity of causation between the changed factors and the new result. If I place a pot of previously stable water above a flame should I conclude that the observable fact that the liquid water is now turning into gas is an anomaly, or should I consider the possibility that the flame has caused the water to turn into gas?

I don't understand your analogy because I don't see how it applies to my example.

I don't think that's what he quite meant to imply. However, financial markets today are only vaguely connected to the production of goods. I think it's fair to say that financial market speculation where all you're doing is watching numbers and buying and selling based on little more than the whims of the rather irrational stock market does very little to contribute towards the economy.

Furthermore, the kind of piecemeal investing most people who own shares do has, as others have already pointed out, little impact compared to those who own big shareholdings. We're talking enough to actually give you some power over the company's direction. Except through extraordinary collective action with a lot of fellow shareholders, your little stock portfolios won't give you power over jack, let alone make a meaningful contribution to the process of production.

This. Terms like speculation exist for a reason; financial behavior that is unconnected to traditional macroeconomic indicators. Market speculation, like what is allegedly occuring with the current oil markets, or what helped cause the Crash of 1929, isn't based on production of goods or expenses, it's entirely based on an imagined shift in the market.

The "market" being of course a hugely abstract concept in an of itself.

Capitalists cannot 'earn' anything because they can only invest via appropriating the social product of the workers and then passing it off as your own property.

All class society is one class expropriating another.

This is rather simplistic, and in corporate systems is actually the opposite of the truth. Companies like General Electric in the US are publicly owned with boards of "elected" directors and chairmen. For all intents and purposes, the capital that is held by GE is held by the entire entity of the company, and managed by (using your terminology) the petit-bourgousie of upper and middle management.

Yes, the CEO and other executives are responsible for the money, but it's not really their money, it's the sum of the capital available to the corporate entity. Things aren't quite so clearcut as Ayn Rand or Marx would have us believe, we can't get stuck using terms that developed out of the nascent economic situation of the late 19th century.

With a bit of luck, I'll be an intern soon. That's about as close as you get to exploitation in the developed world!

Of course, it may be for a rather excellent financial services company for, by and full of rich people.

Take that, marxism! :p

If unpaid interns don't belong to the exploited proletarian class, I don't know who does. :D

Wait a second, I've remembered that I do employ someone. He picks up just over minimum wage and the best part is that he's got a degree from UCLA. Way to go exploitation!

Does this make me bourgeois? It would be a step up in the world.

I am bourgeois, then. I own a small business, but I pay my workers shitty wages, overwork them, and generally abuse them at will, physically and emotionally.

It's the American Dream.

By the way Andaras, what do you do for a living?

Smart money says he's a student/kid. Probably never held a job.

I don't understand your analogy because I don't see how it applies to my example.

My point was that the reduced volatility of the economy since World War Two, far from being an anomaly, is in fact directly linked to changes in economic policy designed to create economic stability such as central bank independence and predictable monetary policy. To simply call economic stability an anomaly is to completely ignore the economic changes that have taken place - much like placing water over heat and concluding that any change that takes place must simply be an anomaly.

My point was that the reduced volatility of the economy since World War Two, far from being an anomaly, is in fact directly linked to changes in economic policy designed to create economic stability such as central bank independence and predictable monetary policy. To simply call economic stability an anomaly is to completely ignore the economic changes that have taken place - much like placing water over heat and concluding that any change that takes place must simply be an anomaly.

I see, and it's a very good analogy. I think it's a little bit of both, then, as we have to factor in economic policies as well as the real-world political considerations, along with a myriad other factors. Things like monetary policy, war and peace, trade frequency, tech innovation... but it still doesn't change the fact that in a historical scale, the period of American economic stability is an anomaly, within the confines of the American economic scene. I also mean anomaly in the sense that it's out of the ordinary or irregular.
We're seeing right now the faltering of that economic policy, which has basically gone unchanged since the forties. A planned/orchestrated anomaly, but still an anomaly. There's a lot of guessing that goes on in economics.

To continue your analogy: Someone has erased the words on my stove's heat dial, so I have no idea how hot the flame is getting. If my water is boiling too hot, it's going to splash over everywhere. If it's boiling too long, it's going to evaporate and leave me with a red-hot kettle. If I use distilled water, I get a funky taste that I don't get with well water.

Of course, we can look at world systems theories, which suggest that economic hegemony/stability are cyclical. Wallerstein's argued that American economic power has followed on the heel of British hegemony, and before them the Dutch... each state using a different system of economic management that provided incredible growth and profit, but faltered as newer and more innovative systems arrived.

Which is why I advocate we all return to mercantilism. It's the last thing Wall Street would expect. :D

Smart money says he's a student/kid. Probably never held a job.

Probably a junior or senior in high school.

Probably a junior or senior in high school.

Or a college student. Though you'd think someone in college would have time to do better than the copy paste spam he usually does.

Andaras, what do YOU do?

Andaras can you tell us what your job is?

Andaras what's your job??

By the way Andaras, what do you do for a living?

We're willing to hear. We're wanting to hear. We're waiting to hear.

Andaras, how do you earn your living?

None of the above, and unusually, I'm not being facetious.

Isn't that called inflation? And isn't it sort of not so good?

No. It's not inflation, and it's very good. You think mankind still has the same amount of money (All items converted to their value in that time, and converted into US dollars) as they did in the entire world back in 1300 AD? No. The USA alone probably has more then the entire world did back then. The (Figurative) pie has become larger, MUCH larger.

Right, so. A guy buys 100 shares of a company at $5 a pop, takes a nap, comes back and sells them for $10 each. He's doubled his money, the company's earned. Why? Because somewhere out there, another company (or people) lost. You don't "make the pie bigger", you redistribute the portions. Hence the ever-widening divide between the upper class and the rest of the U.S.
http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk294/Tombombadil9/laugh_up_one__s_sleeve_by_DavedeHaa.gif

Andaras, how do you earn your living?
*joins the bandwagon of peer pressure*

Andaras, what do you do for a living?

I suspect that Andaras is a commie and probably under the age of 25.

I suspect that Andaras is a commie and probably under the age of 25.
What tipped you off? XD.

*In before Andaras reveals himself to be a billionaire businessman in his mid 30s and admits that his entire NSG posting history was an elaborate joke*

Chairman Roflmao :p

The (Figurative) pie has become larger, MUCH larger.

Shush, you. When an indigent farmer grows a potato in the Crimea, at that very moment 2/3 of a box of fries disappears from some lonely child's Harpy Meal.

When you have that extra shot of Cap'n Morgan before bedding down with an overweight tranny in Kansas City you cause six Indonesians to fall into hypoglycemic shock.

Every time you so much as type a single character into your computer, you cause another Guatemalan to lose the ability to read.

The electricity used-up in sending this post prevented the electrocution of twenty nine squirrels and mitigated the growth of brain tumours in more than 100 children living near high-tension lines in Idaho (which grows more potatoes than the Crimea, in any case).

I suspect that Andaras is a commie and probably under the age of 25.

I suspect we'll never find out, as he'll probably never post in this thread again, wait 3 days (or until he thinks its safe to post without receiving nothing but "what do you do for a living" posts) and then make a new thread with more copy paste trash.

Shush, you. When an indigent farmer grows a potato in the Crimea, at that very moment 2/3 of a box of fries disappears from some lonely child's Harpy Meal.

When you have that extra shot of Cap'n Morgan before bedding down with an overweight tranny in Kansas City you cause six Indonesians to fall into hypoglycemic shock.

Every time you so much as type a single character into your computer, you cause another Guatemalan to lose the ability to read.

The electricity used-up in sending this post prevented the electrocution of twenty nine squirrels and mitigated the growth of brain tumours in more than 100 children living near high-tension lines in Idaho (which grows more potatoes than the Crimea, in any case).

For some really odd reason, this post reminded me of the series of commercials they have for XX, that Mexican beer (which is actually pretty good).

I suspect we'll never find out, as he'll probably never post in this thread again, wait 3 days (or until he thinks its safe to post without receiving nothing but "what do you do for a living" posts) and then make a new thread with more copy paste trash.
I'll pledge to ask him "what do you for a living?"
Anybody else with me?

I'll pledge to ask him "what do you for a living?"
Anybody else with me?

We could just keep this thread on the main page forever. He'll never come back then.

We could just keep this thread on the main page forever. He'll never come back then.

I second this, and ask again:

What do you do for a living Andaras?

Please, I wish to develop an accurate class picture of the people of NSG, so please answer my poll to help me develop this picture for the economic basis of NSG, for any political picture of NSG would be innaccurate if it did not ultilize the Marxist analysis of the class forces involved.

Ya mean real-life, or NS?

I'm studying accounting...what does this make me?

I'm studying accounting...what does this make me?

First on the wall! :p

(seriously SERIOUSLY kidding here.)

I'm studying accounting...what does this make me?

Accountants don't play the game, they keep the score.

No. It's not inflation, and it's very good. You think mankind still has the same amount of money (All items converted to their value in that time, and converted into US dollars) as they did in the entire world back in 1300 AD? No. The USA alone probably has more then the entire world did back then. The (Figurative) pie has become larger, MUCH larger.

You seem to be unawares of the concept of "proportions" which is what the "figurative" pie I mentioned referred to...the same top 10% still own many times more than the bottom 50% of the population...how at all is THAT fair?

Income equality and fairness have little to do with each other. Ethiopia has more income equality than the Netherlands, but I doubt many poor Ethiopians consider their situation to be 'fairer' than poor Dutch people.

He did earn it. He earned it by investing his hard earned money in different companies. By selling that stock he bought in those companies, he invested in other companies. He risked his money, boosted other companies, and ended up with more money for everyone. When someone gets a big piece of the pie, it isn't because they took it from other people, but rather, because they made the pie bigger. Okay?

And my contention is that everyone doesn't end up with more money. Someone bought the stocks he sold. He now has their money. Unless he bought stock in a printing press.

No. It's not inflation, and it's very good. You think mankind still has the same amount of money (All items converted to their value in that time, and converted into US dollars) as they did in the entire world back in 1300 AD? No. The USA alone probably has more then the entire world did back then. The (Figurative) pie has become larger, MUCH larger.

I'm not arguing that everything in the world has a fixed value. That wouldn't make a lot of sense with regards to consumable goods and resources, certainly. What I'm arguing is that your "a guy trading stocks doesn't take money (or pie, whatever) from anyone, he makes MORE of it" is simplistic and, to me, irrational.

If you would like to explain it in more detail so I can understand, I would be interested. If not, that's fine, but do me the courtesy then of simply declining instead of resorting to mockery.

What I'm arguing is that your "a guy trading stocks doesn't take money (or pie, whatever) from anyone, he makes MORE of it" is simplistic and, to me, irrational.
What does a guy trading securities, or currencies, or derivatives or whatever actually do?

He gets money from a source, and distributes it somewhere where it will produce returns. That source could be himself or an investor who wants him to do this. In neither case is he taking money that could be better used elsewhere, unless you think that the owners of this money don't know how to spend it properly.

So he then distributes this money to people that need it to produce some sort of return. That's obvious if they buy new shares, or buy them for their dividends. But because they provide the liquidity of constantly trading markets, even short-run investors generate the mechanism that distributes capital to the sources where it should be most productive.

And assuming that this process wouldn't have happened otherwise and capital is now used more productively than before, the pie has gotten a little bit bigger. And in the long run or on average at least, that extra benefit is reflected by the differential in returns between the broker and putting it into a safe or under your mattress.

Income equality and fairness have little to do with each other. Ethiopia has more income equality than the Netherlands, but I doubt many poor Ethiopians consider their situation to be 'fairer' than poor Dutch people.

Then look at from a worldwide perspective. The top earners still have way more than the rest of the world.

Income equality and fairness have little to do with each other. Ethiopia has more income equality than the Netherlands, but I doubt many poor Ethiopians consider their situation to be 'fairer' than poor Dutch people.
But if you put it that way, you've got to also notice the income disparity between Ethiopia and the Netherlands.

I would fit into your Bourgeois category. However I feel it is more of a partnership with others that allows me to gain wealth. They are not my slaves to exploit after all.

Declassed individual I spose, considering you are leeching off the wage labor of your parents to get-by, correct?

Clearly this category should have been just plain "leech".

I'm fairly sure Andaras has said before he's a colle- UNIVERSITY student.

You seem to be unawares of the concept of "proportions" which is what the "figurative" pie I mentioned referred to...the same top 10% still own many times more than the bottom 50% of the population...how at all is THAT fair?
Life ain't fair. Communists can't seem to deal with it. I can. Can you?
And my contention is that everyone doesn't end up with more money. Someone bought the stocks he sold. He now has their money. Unless he bought stock in a printing press.



I'm not arguing that everything in the world has a fixed value. That wouldn't make a lot of sense with regards to consumable goods and resources, certainly. What I'm arguing is that your "a guy trading stocks doesn't take money (or pie, whatever) from anyone, he makes MORE of it" is simplistic and, to me, irrational.

If you would like to explain it in more detail so I can understand, I would be interested. If not, that's fine, but do me the courtesy then of simply declining instead of resorting to mockery.
Alright. *Sighs*

The man who trades stock, he gives money to the company by buying said stock. The company, using this money, increases the budget for a certain department. Maybe not right away, but eventually. That department uses the extra budget to give someone a raise, or hire someone new.

Back to the man. He sells those stocks and gets back his money + profit, and buys stock in a different company, repeating the cycle. He sells those stocks, and gets more money. For the man, it's all about timing, and some luck.

Back to the man. He sells those stocks and gets back his money + profit, and buys stock in a different company, repeating the cycle. He sells those stocks, and gets more money. For the man, it's all about timing, and some luck.
But for the profit to be anything other than a redistribution, the other person also has to do well out of the deal. And that requires that the real, underlying value of the share (meaning: the company) has to have gone up.

Otherwise the profit isn't the pie getting any bigger, but simply someone paying more than they should have.

Accountants don't play the game, they keep the score.

Well, that means I'm in the clear when the revolution comes. After all, you can't have a Five Year Plan without people to keep track of the plan, right?

Then look at from a worldwide perspective. The top earners still have way more than the rest of the world.

So... everyone who lives on more than $20 per day is receiving an unfair share?

But if you put it that way, you've got to also notice the income disparity between Ethiopia and the Netherlands.

Thats was my point - income equality means little compared to income level and living standards.

This poll is dogmatic and stupid.

I would say I'm a proletarian if you want to fit me into one of the neat little boxes in the top, as I've only worked wage jobs and never owned any business.

Back to the man. He sells those stocks and gets back his money + profit, and buys stock in a different company, repeating the cycle. He sells those stocks, and gets more money. For the man, it's all about timing, and some luck.

That money has to go and come from somewhere. By selling the stock he is taking his money out of that company, and that company no longer has that money. The first company now has less money to invest, and the second now has more; the money doesn't magically regenerate, and it cannot be created out of thin air - if that is happening, the money supply is increasing and that means inflation is indeed occuring.

Yes, the pie gets bigger in the sense that money invested would, theoretically, finance capital expenditures which in turn allow for more production. However, this isn't the case with the example being discussed where money isn't invested in a company long-term but constantly moved about in a speculative manner. That may result in the investor having more money than when he started, but it does not meaningfully enrich anyone else or help to "make the pie bigger".

And the pie also cannot continue expanding indefinitely, because resources are finite and scarce. There might be more money now than in the year 1300, but we still have the same amount - if not less - of natural resources.

Life ain't fair. Communists can't seem to deal with it. I can. Can you?

You acknowledge things aren't right, but you're perfectly fine with it and not only that, you've got a conceited attitude about not caring about it. Are you expecting that to gain you respect and admiration or something?

I will ask AP the same question that everybody else has asked him

Where do you get your money from AP?

I don't expect him to answer especially as he has yet to answer my other question. What category would I fit in AP I own property which I 'exploit' (I prefer lease out or use to their fullest potential) I also own shares in various companies that 'exploit' their workers, however, I also sell my services to a company for money, where do I fit?

That money has to go and come from somewhere. By selling the stock he is taking his money out of that company, and that company no longer has that money. The first company now has less money to invest, and the second now has more; the money doesn't magically regenerate, and it cannot be created out of thin air - if that is happening, the money supply is increasing and that means inflation is indeed occuring.

Selling stock you hold doesn't take money out of a company. It just transfers ownership rights to someone else, the company itself is unaffected by the transaction. The company itself only gains or loses money when buying shares directly from a company or selling them back to the company.

Selling stock you hold doesn't take money out of a company. It just transfers ownership rights to someone else, the company itself is unaffected by the transaction. The company itself only gains or loses money when buying shares directly from a company or selling them back to the company.

The value of the shares may go up or down based on the transaction and that would definitely affect the company. Even if you aren't directly selling your shares back to the company, how can a company not be affected by transactions involving its shares?

Furthermore, you're just further illustrating my point - the money has to go somewhere, in this case, now someone else has got to put his money in to replace the money you have taken out. Buying and selling shares does not magically create investment capital everywhere you go or in other words, keep "making the pie bigger".

The value of the shares may go up or down based on the transaction and that would definitely affect the company. Even if you aren't directly selling your shares back to the company, how can a company not be affected by transactions involving its shares?

I never said that it won't affect the share price. You made a frankly ridiculous claim that selling shares in a company somehow means that the company loses money. Selling shares could affect that share price of the company which could cause the company to lose investment through opportunity cost if the price movement discourages investment in new stock, or it could cause the company to gain investment if the price movement encourages investment in new stock or it could have no effect on investment at all if the company has no new stock available or does not affect investors hold or sell attitudes. So the statement "By selling the stock he is taking his money out of that company" is in no way an accurate statement now is it?

Furthermore, you're just further illustrating my point - the money has to go somewhere, in this case, now someone else has got to put his money in to replace the money you have taken out. Buying and selling shares does not magically create investment capital everywhere you go or in other words, keep "making the pie bigger".

Now that I have illustrated the fact that selling shares doesn't make a company lose money, perhaps you could tell me who does lose money when stock is traded? The person buying the shares loses nothing, because instead of the money he now has ownership rights with a value equivalent to the money*. He can only lose money if the price of those shares subsequently falls. The person selling the shares has not profited at anyone's expense.

*He may have paid a small brokers fee.

You made a frankly ridiculous claim that selling shares in a company somehow means that the company loses money

I didn't, and if that's the meaning you picked up, perhaps I phrased it wrong. I said that when an investor withdraws his investment, in this case by selling shares, the company has less capital and less money to work with.

So the statement "By selling the stock he is taking his money out of that company" is in no way an accurate statement now is it?

But that is, effectively, what you are doing when you sell your shares. You are taking the money you have invested out of the company. Someone else might buy the shares from you, or the company might buy them back, but your money is no longer in that company.

I didn't, and if that's the meaning you picked up, perhaps I phrased it wrong. I said that when an investor withdraws his investment, in this case by selling shares, the company has less capital and less money to work with.

No it doesn't. The company still has the money. If I buy a car off of you then sell it to someone else it doesn't affect your cash position in any way - you still have the money I gave you for the car.

But that is, effectively, what you are doing when you sell your shares. You are taking the money you have invested out of the company. Someone else might buy the shares from you, or the company might buy them back, but your money is no longer in that company.

Yes it is. Whoever bought the shares originally put money in the company which it can then do whatever the hell it likes with that money. When the shares are traded at a later date the initial investment is completely unaffected.

Now that I have illustrated the fact that selling shares doesn't make a company lose money, perhaps you could tell me who does lose money when stock is traded?

The person selling the shares has not profited at anyone's expense.

Are you reading the same posts I think I'm typing? I've not been saying anyone loses money as a result of shares being traded, neither that someone profits at another's expense.

What I have said is that you don't keep creating more investment by selling shares and buying others. The shares have to be bought and sold by other parties. You don't make the pie bigger just because you conducted a share trade. That is all.

Yes it is. Whoever bought the shares originally put money in the company which it can then do whatever the hell it likes with that money. When the shares are traded at a later date the initial investment is completely unaffected.

Firstly, that assumes someone else bought the shares, which is reasonable enough, I'll grant you that. But the money in the company isn't person A's anymore, it's now person B's. And anyway, this is all rather tangential to the point I was trying to make: you don't create new investment just because you sold your shares in one company and bought some in another.

edit: And I should add, the situation I now realise Conservative Morality is arguing happens assumes that the price of the shares always go up, which anyone can tell you is a weak assumption to make.

Are you reading the same posts I think I'm typing? I've not been saying anyone loses money as a result of shares being traded, neither that someone profits at another's expense.

What I have said is that you don't keep creating more investment by selling shares and buying others. The shares have to be bought and sold by other parties. You don't make the pie bigger just because you conducted a share trade. That is all.

A trade itself doesn't increase the size but the market for trading does - one only needs to look at the increased amounts of private investment taking place compared with as little as thirty years ago to see how much investment has grown.

Firstly, that assumes someone else bought the shares, which is reasonable enough, I'll grant you that. But the money in the company isn't person A's anymore, it's now person B's. And anyway, this is all rather tangential to the point I was trying to make: you don't create new investment just because you sold your shares in one company and bought some in another.

The money in the company is not person B's. The money in the company is the company's money. The ownership of the company has now passed to person B but person A has received an equal value of cash.

edit: And I should add, the situation I now realise Conservative Morality is arguing happens assumes that the price of the shares always go up, which anyone can tell you is a weak assumption to make.

Market indexes will tell you otherwise.

A trade itself doesn't increase the size but the market for trading does - one only needs to look at the increased amounts of private investment taking place compared with as little as thirty years ago to see how much investment has grown.

You are right, but that's not what CM was saying, nor was it the point I was aiming to refute. He seems to be saying that selling some shares and buying others would in and of itself create more investment out of thin air - not a word about trading markets etc., which I hope you'll agree is simply wrong, if not completely ridiculous. If I were in a charitable mood I'd say he just really, really oversimplified, but given the kind of tone he takes I'm not inclined to be.

Market indexes will tell you otherwise.

If you care to look back to where this whole discussion started, we were talking short-term trades, and in the short-term, there is no real assurance that a single particular stock will increase in price over time.

It obviously looks better when you only take the broad index into account over the very long term (for instance, the Dow Jones Industrial Average may now be lower than where it was 12 months ago, but the upward trend is there, I'll give you that), but in terms of single particular shares, the truth is anything can happen. How many people predicted the bursting of the dotcom bubble? And I'm sure up to the day the SEC came knocking, Enron shares would've looked really a good investment. Your company might merge into another one or announce steep losses tomorrow, and the price could also be driven up or down on little more than rumour, or even the expectation of how people would react to the rumour. There's a reason economists consider the stock market irrational.

...which ties everything back into the original digression, that the financial markets are predicated on the manipulation of abstract concepts of capital, and have only tangential connexions to the actual production of goods and services.

The last several posts have simply proved this. We're discussing investment capital, share prices, and expanding pies without even mentioning production or services. Stock trading and investment practices can certainly bring money to companies and investors, but unless those companies in which money is invested actually provide a service or produce goods... you see my point, i'm sure.

Now watch, as I brilliantly reconnect the scattered strands of the topic:

In Marxist terminology, the financial "experts" of Wall Street and the larger financial world are squarely in the bourgeouis category, as they utilize the capital of others to create wealth for themselves. Investment in General Electric is possible because GE utilizes labour to produce goods, which then influences prices, and in turn affects the stock market. The initial production of a GE 60w lightbulb probably took three or four people to complete (Fordism at work), three or four people who will never be making as much money as the man on Wall Street is taking home by simply manipulating the shares of the GE company stock.

In Marxist terms, of course.

...which ties everything back into the original digression, that the financial markets are predicated on the manipulation of abstract concepts of capital, and have only tangential connexions to the actual production of goods and services.

Financial markets are closely linked to the prduction of goods and services - the value of shares is after all based on the expected future cash flows which come from the production of goods and services by the businesses issuing those shares. Not to mention the basic service that financial markets provide in allowing investors to increase the value of their savings and helping businesses to raise finance.

Life ain't fair. Communists can't seem to deal with it. I can. Can you?

Perhaps because you live in relative comfort compared to the people living in absolute poverty? It's called perspective.

Life ain't fair. Communists can't seem to deal with it.

We can "deal with it" perfectly fine.

Unlike you, however, we want to do something about it.

We can "deal with it" perfectly fine.

Unlike you, however, we want to do something about it.

Moral progress is a pesky little thing, isn't it?

Oh, it'll be a blast. What kind of popcorn should we get?

Or should we go for something, hmm... Different?

How about something like Crunch and Munch or Fiddle Faddle, except good (AKA toffee covered popcorn).

Hey Andaras is online. Let's see if he answers any questions.

Hey Andaras is online. Let's see if he answers any questions.

I answer legitimate questions from those willing to learn, not from bourgeois kiddies who think their right-wing-propaganda education represents the sum of human knowledge.

I answer legitimate questions from those willing to learn, not from bourgeois kiddies who think their right-wing-propaganda education represents the sum of human knowledge.

Now what do you do for a living. No empty buzzwords!

I just noticed this thread is still alive!

Did Andaras tell what she does for a living yet?

I just noticed this thread is still alive!

Did Andaras tell what she does for a living yet?

I throw bombs into the houses of bourgeois scum like you.

We can "deal with it" perfectly fine.

Unlike you, however, we want to do something about it.
The only way you can change the way life works is by killing everybody. There will always be inequality, capitalists just deal with it. Communists and Socialists seem to want to try and change it, which we Capitalists believe is impossible (At least in large numbers).
I answer legitimate questions from those willing to learn, not from bourgeois kiddies who think their right-wing-propaganda education represents the sum of human knowledge.
Once again, what do you do for a living? Exactly, not just "Oh, I'm a proletariat"

I throw bombs into the houses of bourgeois scum like you.

Ooh, careful. That could be construed as a personal threat and flaming.

I throw bombs into the houses of bourgeois scum like you.

That would make you Lumpenproletariat/classless, no?
*Lines up Andaras up against the wall, blindfolds him*

The only way you can change the way life works is by killing everybody.

Really? So nothing whatsoever has changed in all the years of human history?

There will always be inequality,

Perhaps, just as there will always be violence, prejudice, and corruption. But that is no reason to not try to reduce their presence.

Communists and Socialists seem to want to try and change it, which we Capitalists believe is impossible

Yes, advocates of capitalism do often seem pretty convinced that the rules of their system are engraved into nature and morality... but I see little reason to believe any such thing.

I throw bombs into the houses of bourgeois scum like you.
a) UC Berkely undergrad with a hygene problem, then? Or is that redundant?

b) I have a house?

or c (if you prefer)) You know, I just two days ago scrubbed the entire bathroom, swept all of the floors in th' apartment, did th' few dishes in the sink, ran a load of towels and curtains, bought more toilet paper, and passed a compulsory nudity law. I really think th' word "scum" is a bit out of place.

The only way you can change the way life works is by killing everybody.
... riiiiight.
There will always be inequality, capitalists just deal with it.
Nobody else but capitalists try to deal with inequality? Bullshit right there.
Communists and Socialists seem to want to try and change it
Also us centrists to be honest. Hard to keep things steadily progressing with entire classes left behind.
which we Capitalists believe is impossible (At least in large numbers).
I'd disagree with that. Not all capitalists think that dealing with inequality is pointless, indeed many of them agree that the more money the base of the economy has, the more it will spend.

a) UC Berkely undergrad with a hygene problem, then? Or is that redundant?

First, lay off UC Berkeley.

Second, he's in Australia, I'm pretty sure.

Really? So nothing whatsoever has changed in all the years of human history?

Read it. The way life works (Inequality between everyone)

Perhaps, just as there will always be violence, prejudice, and corruption. But that is no reason to not try to reduce their presence.

Inequality is different. Inequality is both good and bad. I'd rather be a middle-class cashier (I realize it's not a high-paying job, but for the sake of the example), watching as thousands of people richer then me walk by, then a poor cashier anywhere else, with everyone making the same than me.

Yes, advocates of capitalism do often seem pretty convinced that the rules of their system are engraved into nature and morality... but I see little reason to believe any such thing.
I see plenty of reason to believe such a thing. Finite resources for one. Even with animals you can see the lack of equality (Dog packs, ants, the sort). Nature itself is against Communism, and so is mankind.

Ooh, careful. That could be construed as a personal threat and flaming.
Personal vengeance of the petite-bourgeois, I support collective vengeance, class against class violence.

... riiiiight.

Yep.

Nobody else but capitalists try to deal with inequality? Bullshit right there.

No, capitalists ACCEPT inequality.
Also us centrists to be honest. Hard to keep things steadily progressing with entire classes left behind.

*Rants about centrists*:soap::D

I'd disagree with that. Not all capitalists think that dealing with inequality is pointless, indeed many of them agree that the more money the base of the economy has, the more it will spend.
Hmm? I never said the lower class shouldn't get richer, only that MOST capitalists believe that there will always be a large gap between rich and poor, and that inequality is a part of life that must be accepted.

I see plenty of reason to believe such a thing. Finite resources for one. Even with animals you can see the lack of equality (Dog packs, ants, the sort). Nature itself is against Communism, and so is mankind.

Yes, some inequality will always exist. Even in a communist utopia, it would be a logistic nightmare to insure everyone has exactly the same amount of stuff. But when most people talk about ending inequality, they don't mean closing the gap between the guy who makes a million and the one who makes 990,000, but between the guy who makes a million and the one who makes 8,000. That inequality is not the product of finite resources, it is completely societal.

Yes, some inequality will always exist. Even in a communist utopia, it would be a logistic nightmare to insure everyone has exactly the same amount of stuff. But when most people talk about ending inequality, they don't mean closing the gap between the guy who makes a million and the one who makes 990,000, but between the guy who makes a million and the one who makes 8,000. That inequality is not the product of finite resources, it is completely societal.
Actually, that is the result of finite resources. Tell me, how many people have a head for mathmatics? I sure as heck don't. Should they be paid the same to work on advanced math problems as some cashier paid to push numbers into a box and announce the numbers in a dull monotone?

Personal vengeance of the petite-bourgeois, I support collective vengeance, class against class violence.

Still not answering the question rich boy.

Still not answering the question rich boy.

he wants the rich to buy nuclear weapons and use them against the poor. Class warfare. He owns a Uranium mine in Colorado.:D

Personal vengeance of the petite-bourgeois, I support collective vengeance, class against class violence.
Don't get banned for this again, mate.
Yep.
Uhu. Simply not the case. Things are much, much less stratified than they once were around the world, and a long time ago, things were fairly communal. The times, they have a-changed, to re...tensify Bob Dylan to suit my purposes.
No, capitalists ACCEPT inequality.
Quite, which is rather complacent.
*Rants about centrists*
We're pretty good.
Hmm? I never said the lower class shouldn't get richer, only that MOST capitalists believe that there will always be a large gap between rich and poor, and that inequality is a part of life that must be accepted.
The use of "we" suggested you agreed with this particular worldview in my eyes, sorry if this was not the case.

Actually, that is the result of finite resources. Tell me, how many people have a head for mathmatics? I sure as heck don't. Should they be paid the same to work on advanced math problems as some cashier paid to push numbers into a box and announce the numbers in a dull monotone?
I certainly don't think people should be paid the same for jobs with such different levels of skill. But if you're a cashier because you have no other option, that's not fair. And much income inequality is so large that it is difficult to make the case it is deserved. For example, does a CEO really do 360 times as much work as the average worker?

Don't get banned for this again, mate.

Not my problem the Mods are pro-bourgeois.

Not my problem the Mods are pro-bourgeois.

Well...it is, actually, as you are vocally anti-bourgeois.

Uhu. Simply not the case. Things are much, much less stratified than they once were around the world, and a long time ago, things were fairly communal. The times, they have a-changed, to re...tensify Bob Dylan to suit my purposes.

Stratified?

Quite, which is rather complacent.

I accept that some people will be athletically weak, and so I'm not going to do a thing about it. Is that complacent?

We're pretty good.

Blech.

Not my problem the Mods are pro-bourgeois.
Saying you're into chucking bombs and the like will test any mod's patience. Even on that circlejerk of a forum, RevLeft.

Not my problem the Mods are pro-bourgeois.

I must admit, you are amusing. However you're dodging in a really transparent manner. What do you do for a living?

Stratified?
Classtabular.
I accept that some people will be athletically weak, and so I'm not going to do a thing about it. Is that complacent?
No, but suggesting that this will not change is.
Blech.
You hate us because we are wise. You know this.

Saying you're into chucking bombs and the like will test any mod's patience. Even on that circlejerk of a forum, RevLeft.

Well I am on Revleft, and I've heard much 'worse', either way class warfare requires 'diverse' tactics.

Not my problem the Mods are pro-bourgeois.

I believe what you meant to say was "Not my fault the Mods are pro- bourgeois." It certainly is your problem if you are banned.... er, again.

I certainly don't think people should be paid the same for jobs with such different levels of skill. But if you're a cashier because you have no other option, that's not fair. And much income inequality is so large that it is difficult to make the case it is deserved. For example, does a CEO really do 360 times as much work as the average worker?
A CEO has to have done something to get there (Most of the time). And you ALWAYS have another option. Unless Big Brother tells you otherwise, but that doesn't happen without big C Communism or a police state.:D

But tell me this: Can you honestly say that leadership is easy? If ANYTHING happens, even if it's out of your control, you get blamed for it. See: Jimmy Carter (Might not agree with the man, but he's always blamed for everything that happened in his term),U.S. Grant, several other leaders whose names I cannot remember at this moment of the night...

Well I am on Revleft, and I've heard much 'worse'
Those people often get barred.

Also they have an absolutely tragic fear of "fascism". A paranoia about it, even.
either way class warfare requires 'diverse' tactics.
*sighs*

Classtabular.



No, but suggesting that this will not change is.

I'm pretty sure there will still be Athletically weak people, no matter what you do. I am living proof of this, as is most of my family.

You hate us because we are wise. You know this.
Pfft. *Required gun smiley*:gundge:

Read it. The way life works (Inequality between everyone)

Even inequality hasn't stayed constant. Early (pre-agricultural) human societies appear to have been rather egalitarian. Ancient despotisms were decidedly less so than modern social democracies. Gender inequality is in decline. Racial inequality increased substantially with the slave trade and Western imperialism, and has lately weakened (at least in some respects). Equality between sexual orientations is being achieved in Western democracies. Even leaving aside considerations of history, economic inequality varies widely even among developed countries.

At one time or another, all those social phenomena have been labeled "natural", and unchangeable.

Inequality is different. Inequality is both good and bad. I'd rather be a middle-class cashier (I realize it's not a high-paying job, but for the sake of the example), watching as thousands of people richer then me walk by, then a poor cashier anywhere else, with everyone making the same than me.

Right, but here it's not that inequality isn't bad, it's that there are compensating advantages (greater wealth).

Also, while I would certainly say that all else being equal greater economic equality is better, it's important to note that socialists and communists are most fundamentally concerned with equality in a rather different sense: relational inequality, inequality in power.

Person A has a fancier car than Person B? Alright. Person A wields power over Person B through his ownership of the workplace? We see a problem.

It is the dispossession of the working class, their lack of ownership and control over the means of production with which they work, that socialism tries to correct. We would rather have a lower Gini coefficient, yes. But most essentially we want freedom and self-determination for all: workers' control over their own labor and its conditions.

And, to my mind, that's far more important than more wealth and productivity.

I see plenty of reason to believe such a thing. Finite resources for one.

And what does that have to do with their distribution?

Even with animals you can see the lack of equality (Dog packs, ants, the sort).

Animals vary, but with human beings, there's a lot of evidence that we are naturally rather egalitarian.

A CEO has to have done something to get there (Most of the time). And you ALWAYS have another option. Unless Big Brother tells you otherwise, but that doesn't happen without big C Communism or a police state.:D
The CEO should make more than anyone else in the company; I agree. But 360 times as much?

Also, I disagree that you always have another option...sort of. It appears to me that a college education and a good job are possible for any American citizen. But it is much, much easier for me to become, say, a CEO, than it is for someone living off of food stamps. This has nothing to do with how hard I have worked, or even my innate abilities. This is inequality.
But tell me this: Can you honestly say that leadership is easy? If ANYTHING happens, even if it's out of your control, you get blamed for it. See: Jimmy Carter (Might not agree with the man, but he's always blamed for everything that happened in his term),U.S. Grant, several other leaders whose names I cannot remember at this moment of the night...

No, I don't think leadership is easy, and stick with my statement above. However, I will add that with many CEOs, the quality of leadership and the benefits are not connected. Just look at the nefarious golden parachutes for men who drove their companies into the dirt.

I must admit, you are amusing. However you're dodging in a really transparent manner. What do you do for a living?

I'd rather not give away personal information to the enemy thanks.

I'm pretty sure there will still be Athletically weak people, no matter what you do. I am living proof of this, as is most of my family.
Being pretty sure is one thing, saying that this will never change, and indirectly taking steps to keep this going is another.

I'd rather not give away personal information to the enemy thanks.
Admit it, you're a hedge fund manager. ;)

loletariat.

Admit it, you're a hedge fund manager. ;)
Nah, he works for the Australian intelligence services. Trying to see who agrees with his revolutionary stuff, so he cant send his mates in to pick them up.

What exactly is the capital used on Nationstates to begin with? We can't have a capitalist labor structure without, you know, labor and the resultant product.

I'd rather not give away personal information to the enemy thanks.

So, that means we're right. Either unemployed living off the government teet, or off your parents.

Power to the people indeed. It's not surprising though. A great many modern communists are like that. I'm not sure what Lenin's motivation for starting his revolution were, but I can tell you the common modern ones. Paint yourself as a hero to the people, against those with wealth an influence, even while you have it yourself. In doing so you speak to the common man and rob your opponents in the name of "equality". You take their land, their money, and then you're unopposed in your power. Anyone who disagrees is an agent of the bourgeois.

Sure communism won't work, everyone knows it won't. It never has and isn't likely to until scarcity is eliminated. That's not an issue for the leader of the revolution. It's about power, personal power. It's about destroying your enemies, building yourself up as a hero to stroke your own ego. While you live in decadence the people starve and die. If you're good you'll set up a cult of personality like Kim Jong-il. The people will worship you for stomping on them then.

That's the goal of communists, don't delude yourself thinking otherwise.

Nah, he works for the Australian intelligence services. Trying to see who agrees with his revolutionary stuff, so he cant send his mates in to pick them up.

Interesting to see how you revert to immature personal attacks when confronted.

I have found that this is a common bourgeois tactic utilized against Communists, they criticize based on an individualist and personalized basis.

What they fail to realize though about Communists such as myself is that we do not care for personal individual matters, we only care about the class forces involved.

snip

Exactly, more bourgeois personalized individualist attacks.

I do not think in an individualist reactionary way, I only consider the collective class economic forces involved, so your words are meaningless to me.

What they fail to realize though about Communists such as myself is that we do not care for personal individual matters, we only care about the class forces involved.

Maybe that's why I've always found your concept of Communism as little cold. (And this is a genuine criticism I have, not a personal attack.) Part of the appeal of Communism to many and socialism to me is that it promises a better life for the poor proletariat, but you don't seem really concerned about him at all. You appear to want a Communist state for its own sake, not for the betterment of the people.

Maybe that's why I've always found your concept of Communism as little cold. (And this is a genuine criticism I have, not a personal attack.) Part of the appeal of Communism to many and socialism to me is that it promises a better life for the poor proletariat, but you don't seem really concerned about him at all. You appear to want a Communist state for its own sake, not for the betterment of the people.

When taking on the entire structure of bourgeois society, it does not pay to take things on a personal basis. If one gets involved over every time a worker gets thrown onto the street or underpaid then you are only taking on a tiny part of bourgeois society. Nay more than that attacking bourgeois society on a personalized case-by-case basis is reactionary and reformist, because it only seeks to deal with the excesses and symptoms of the losses incurred by capital on workers, but it does not seek to destroy the disease itself; capitalism.

When taking on the whole world as it seems it does not pay to be emotionally attached to petty instances of injustice and inequality, but to see capitalism in a scientific and objective way, and to attack it in it's entirety.

I answer legitimate questions from those willing to learn, not from bourgeois kiddies who think their right-wing-propaganda education represents the sum of human knowledge.

You are from Australia mate, you know there is no such thing in this country.

And you are yet to answer my question, not the one about how you get your money but what category I fit in?