what Marxism really is.....

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby phoneutria » Wed Sep 16, 2020 4:19 am

oh yeah i forgot to add that before the 70s most women were housewives
the 70s and 80s had a boom of women going into the workforce
also after computers there was a surge of indian immigrant engineers
and these two groups wages are lower than the average white male
so obviously wage average goes down
but that doesn't mean that people are getting paid less
the women went from zero to more than zero
indias went from like dirt cookies and mangoes to US dollars
and mens wages continued to go up
even as the agerage went down

so like, you average the height of your kids every year
but this year you had a baby
so when you calculate the average you see that it went down
do you go into a panic that your kids are shrinking?
lol kropo fucks sake
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby phoneutria » Wed Sep 16, 2020 4:25 am

omfg dirt cookies and mangoes
cracked myself up with that one
sorry, carry on
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Silhouette » Thu Sep 17, 2020 9:58 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:1) he's the reason obsrvr is on this forum

He may as well be James at this point.

It's one thing to venerate the odd household-name philosopher so highly, though still a little lame and adolescent. But to do the same for some random guy on the internet who clearly lacks anything close the base philosophical knowledge that's standard and evident from philosophers who earned their fame for actually progressing on this base knowledge instead of merely protesting against superficial understandings of various prevailing academic ideas of today?
And the guy stumbles into a thread to blindly and incorrectly criticise others for being unable to change their religion, while at the same time painting James as this "hero" and potential saviour alongside various references to Abrahamic texts...

I dunno, sock puppet or not, it just doesn't add up.

obsrvr524 wrote:I'm not all the way reading through James' SAM corp posts so I shouldn't comment yet.

Right, SO WHY... won't you afford the same courtesy to Marx??

You've made up your mind about Marxism without even knowing that Communism is stateless, while constantly fawning over some poster making the same fundamental mistake.

I'm not fully into the whole anti-nuclear-family thing either, though I appreciate the anti-nepotist sentiment.
It's funny though, how few people seem to comment on the anti-nuclear-family consequences of Individualism, no matter how politically married it often is with family values on the conservative right. The whole reason for this marriage is because Individualism is quite obviously counter to any group cohesion by its own essence, and it needs moderation to work. The application of Individualism to free market principles presupposes unconstrained movement of labour, which is exactly what you see in practice with kids in much of the Western world leaving home as standard to make their own living, often travelling abroad and taking job opportunities wherever they happen to come up to "ideally" move fluidly according to purely rational choices based on the market pricing mechanism.... except if it's specifically countered by an accompanying family-oriented culture to except a specific type of individualism, to fit in the "motivation" of supporting/providing for family, along with all the anti-meritocratic nepotism that this involves.

But of course being pro-family only makes you "so very anti-communist" but not "so very anti-capitalist" at all :icon-rolleyes:
Because I guess you can be pro-Capitalist yet also cherry pick pro-family, but not pro-Communism yet also cherry pick pro-family "for reasons"...

obsrvr524 wrote:Is there anyone else on this board who thinks that given a million families who have an otherwise normal education of skills and theories but never even heard of capitalism or dictatorships would merely keep working hard each day developing new innovative technologies and ways of doing things without ever slacking off or deciding to get a little more for less by deciding that enough has long passed and it just isn't worth it?

The attitude that "everyone is fundamentally lazy" is so lazy.
It's funny how so many people with this attitude will answer that obviously they'd work even if they didn't have to, it's just other people who wouldn't. Good old cognitive biases...

Lacking an authentically chosen purpose to work on is hugely detrimental to human mental health, almost as much as being directly or indirectly forced to deny it in favour of having to work full-time in jobs you hate. Often it's the latter that turns people away from work to fuel the prejudice that everyone's lazy.
Motivation is at the core of this topic.
You argue that we need a State (whilst also praising some poster for replacing the State with a constitution) to loom over everyone to enforce the imperative to work like a strict father-figure.
Capitalism offers the biggest carrots for winning with the inbuilt implication that if you're part of the population who are not employable you get no carrots whatsoever as its "stick" (unless you marry it with the state as a tough-love mother-figure).
There's more to motivation than either of these approaches offer, which has a lot to do with Marx's theory of Alienation amongst other things - work is central to human purpose, and this doesn't exclude all the unpleasant and/or necessary stuff by any means. Passing down all the unpleasant and necessary tasks to the least fortunate, for the worst pay, is pretty much the most efficient way possible to demotivate them.
It may very well be the case that "enemies" are necessary to satisfy a sense of purpose for many people. That's a problem, but making the poor the enemy isn't the solution.
It may very well be the case that the ownership class will fabricate an enemy if there isn't one, or if it's them. That's a problem, but the enemy of everyone is the kind of false presumption that you jumped into this thread with.
You'd rather assume I'm just teenager-talking rather than open to many possibilities as I've been trying to communicate. I'm pro-science, I want possibilities to be sufficiently and precisely explored, including all the ones you've already ruled out - sorry.

I'd rather talk with phon because she's read some Marx and has some familiarity with the topic.

To quote her: "more to come".
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby obsrvr524 » Thu Sep 17, 2020 10:42 pm

Silhouette wrote:
Magnus Anderson wrote:1) he's the reason obsrvr is on this forum

He may as well be James at this point.

It's one thing to venerate the odd household-name philosopher so highly, though still a little lame and adolescent. But to do the same for some random guy on the internet who clearly lacks anything close the base philosophical knowledge that's standard and evident from philosophers who earned their fame for actually progressing on this base knowledge instead of merely protesting against superficial understandings of various prevailing academic ideas of today?
And the guy stumbles into a thread to blindly and incorrectly criticise others for being unable to change their religion, while at the same time painting James as this "hero" and potential saviour alongside various references to Abrahamic texts...

I dunno, sock puppet or not, it just doesn't add up.
After observing James (along with others) for years and then trying to find error in what he has said, I can competently defend much of it and by doing so discover that he was even more right than I thought. From there, a person begins to actually think much like him (or anyone else they have studied). If it makes you feel better, it pisses off my wife too. If I believed and studied you, I would start sounding like you (maybe she would like that better). It is just a hazard of the practice. Why do you think people publish books if not to get others to think as they do (although James never published a book that I am aware of). I wish he had been more politically verbose. I had serious questions, especially about Americans).

Silhouette wrote:You've made up your mind about Marxism without even knowing that Communism is stateless, while constantly fawning over some poster making the same fundamental mistake.

Another false and lazy accusation and a bit hypocritical - turning everything into a personal attack.

Silhouette wrote:But of course being pro-family only makes you "so very anti-communist" but not "so very anti-capitalist" at all :icon-rolleyes:
Because I guess you can be pro-Capitalist yet also cherry pick pro-family, but not pro-Communism yet also cherry pick pro-family "for reasons"...

Capitalism doesn't promote anti-family values (take care of your own). Communism does (obey only the dictates of the State, disassociate from family, religion, and any other concerns you might have).

Silhouette wrote:Lacking an authentically chosen purpose to work on is hugely detrimental to human mental health, almost as much as being directly or indirectly forced to deny it in favour of having to work full-time in jobs you hate.

I agree with that.

Silhouette wrote:You argue that we need a State (whilst also praising some poster for replacing the State with a constitution) to loom over everyone to enforce the imperitive to work like a strict father-figure.

That is not at all what I argued. And a constitution establishes a State. James was proposing a constitutional small group that if replicated enough would organically (voluntarily) grow into a State.

My point was that some decision making authority is needed to prevent rising dictatorships, even if they are merely clansmen or tribes willing to use and abuse. Out of millions of families I don't see how none of them, for generations, would not decide to take more than they give. Preventing that would take some very heavy social programming of every infant. Who chooses what is to be programmed? The Chinese Communist Party made that decision. Look what they do now. The Soviet Union tried that. Where are they now?

Silhouette wrote:You'd rather assume I'm just teenager-talking rather than open to many possibilities as I've been trying to communicate.

That isn't an assumption. And just about every teenager says what you just said. When they haven't learned why they are wrong they go preaching that their parents must be wrong. It makes them feel better (protecting their bubble of belief in false hopes).


Are you really proposing that there is no authority enforcing demands in a true communistic society and that would be stable for generations? How do you defend that extreme supposition? Science certainly can't back it up.
              You have been observed.
obsrvr524
 
Posts: 391
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Fri Sep 18, 2020 11:44 am

While Shillouette, Magnus, Prom, Von Rivers, lamb, etc. are fiddling with Marxist toys:




A real, relevant, informative conversation is being had.

As I said, "Marxism" has taken the mantle and title of 'revolutionaries' which are, underneath, merely socialist anti-class, criminals under the veneer of avant gard "progressivism".

When in reality, it is not Progress but severe Regress. Not evolution, Devolution of society and civilization. 0 steps forward, 10 steps backward.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2753
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby surreptitious75 » Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:44 am

obsrvr524 wrote:
[ although James never published a book that I am aware of ]

Rationale Metaphysik : Affektanz Ontologie / James S Saint [ 20I9 ]
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1490
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby surreptitious75 » Sat Sep 19, 2020 5:59 am

Fully Automated Luxury Communism by Aaron Bastani is the Communist Manifesto for the the twenty first century
Robots do all the essential work and the workers have more leisure time as a consequence
Technology benefits every one so this time around the revolution will be not be a class one
Machine intelligence is the next stage in human evolution and so it will happen anyway regardless of anything else

However the name Communism has rather negative connotations here in the West and so should therefore be avoided if the idea is to gain any credibility
Like all nascent ideas [ Bastanis book was published last year ] it needs time to be considered so I would wait for I00 years to see if it has been successful

Passing thought : the Internet is a Communist ideal because it is universal even though it was ironcally developed by American capitalists
The currency of the future will be less manufactured goods [ though they will obviously still exist ] and more information and knowledge
Although unlike manfactured goods they can be manipulated or interpreted at will and indeed have been ever since the Net became universal
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1490
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Mithus » Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:17 am

surreptitious75 wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:
[ although James never published a book that I am aware of ]

Rationale Metaphysik : Affektanz Ontologie / James S Saint [ 20I9 ]

There is also an English edition of the book: Rational Metaphysics:Affectance Ontology, but James did not publish it. Between 2014 and 2018 I compiled thousands of his posts, sorted them (with his help), translated them into German. and in early 2019 I published the German edition, half a year later the English edition. It was not planned from the beginning that it would become a book and I am not even sure if James ever learned that it exists.
..... panta rhei .............................................
User avatar
Mithus
 
Posts: 211
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 10:05 pm

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Meno_ » Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:20 pm

Mithus wrote:
surreptitious75 wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:
[ although James never published a book that I am aware of ]

Rationale Metaphysik : Affektanz Ontologie / James S Saint [ 20I9 ]

There is also an English edition of the book: Rational Metaphysics:Affectance Ontology, but James did not publish it. Between 2014 and 2018 I compiled thousands of his posts, sorted them (with his help), translated them into German. and in early 2019 I published the German edition, half a year later the English edition. It was not planned from the beginning that it would become a book and I am not even sure if James ever learned that it exists.



&best to Arminius, as always. .

How is James? Say hello please, as well, from orbie

Danke!
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7088
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: what Marxism really is.....

Postby Silhouette » Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:37 am

phoneutria wrote:"prevent counter-revolution", in other words to keep a group of workers in power
as opposed to the capitalist state according to marx
which he said ... is a force for keeping a group of people in power
and "the workers as The State"
as opposed to "the people as State", which is what a democracy is

so we just have to trust that these "workers"
have our best interests at heart
they're all silhouettes
cuz if they're not
the despotic inroads kick in
to "prevent counter-revolution"

that sounds great because corruption in the public arena is unheard of!

yes, sil
extremely naive

When people think of "The State" today, they think of anything from an indirect democracy to autocracy - but it's always a delegation of power to a minority.
The more things sway towards an autocracy, the harder it is to elect any change, but the more things sway back in the other direction (even further than indirect democracy) the closer we get to direct democracy - and the ease of change increases proportionately.

Though this can be a bad thing because short-termism is encouraged if things might change too easily, and any inevitable mistakes (especially for risky decisions) can be too easily punished. If expectations are too high, and if there's a mess to clear up from previous attempts, there's not enough time and opportunity to live up to those expectations or to get out of any holes left by predecessors.
But the reason it's a good thing is because people keep each other in check dynamically and in real time. This is actually the same kind of mechanism that the market uses under Capitalism - except instead of 1 vote per person, the more money you have the more votes you have. Funnily enough, this is exactly why Capitalism and Democracy are so incompatible - because the voting criteria clash. Is it one vote per person or one vote per dollar? The more inequality, the more votes, the more impotent, discouraged and disparaged the majority are. The more Capitalism, the less Democracy, the more big you can win compared to others, the more things tend towards autocracy. But at least with Indirect Democracy, this trajectory of Capitalism is maybe slowed or provides superficial motivation due to the appearance of slowing this trajectory.

Under Capitalism, you're supposed to be able to vote the businesses you want to see into power - and the market is supposed to keep them all in check according to Classical Liberal theory.
In the same way, with more direct democracy, you vote the people you want to be in power into power and your vote goes against the people you don't want to be in power. This "market" (i.e. elections) is what keeps those in power in check.

So yeah, not naive whatsoever - exactly the opposite. It's the only mechanism we have to keep people in check: other people. And they don't all have to be Silhouettes - preferably there ought to be a wide variety of them and in greater numbers than any group of people in charge, so any group responsible for any job can't forcibly overstay their welcome if directly democratically voted out.
Makes me lol when people think I'm naive - like this obsrvr kid.

phoneutria wrote:i am not disputing that profit is revenue minus expenses
i am saying that the reason things are worth more than what production expense is not labor
a cake is not worth more than a bag of flour because somebody worked to make it
it is worth more because it is delicious and people want to eat it
what creates value is not labor, it's use!

Labour is not what physically transforms the raw materials into the final product?
"Use" literally transforms these raw materials into the final product?
No.
"Use" is the instruction of what to do with raw materials - it informs the labour.
Labour is what's paid (an expense to the company) for the service of actually causing the cake to exist, not the "user". The user (consumer) has to do the paying of the labour in exchange for the extra value of the cake (commodity), by paying the price. The price is the wage expense plus surplus value. If the labour was paid in full for the value of causing the cake to come into existence, they would receive the full price paid (minus the cost of sales, overheads etc. and with the apportioned means of production absorbed). The same goes for the suppliers of the raw materials: the labour involved in acquiring the raw materials is paid for by the cake company via the supplier company. If the labour force of the suppliers was paid the full price paid by the cake company with the same concessions, the labour would actually receive full compensation for their labour instead of being profited from.

You don't get any monetary reward as a consumer for preferring better cakes. The company that provides the better cake gets that reward. The labour satisfies the demand by supplying the better cake. "Profit" is the process of filtering off some of the value added by the labour instead of paying the labour in full for the value they added.

Basic accountancy.

phoneutria wrote:there are always consequences
the difference is that people are less likely to be reckless and stupid
when it's their own money that is at stake
or when they can suffer immediate and direct punishment

public enterprises are wasteful and ridden with corruption
because it's not their money they are squandering
and the people running them are not accountable to anyone
it's a trickle of resources
in which every administrative layer takes out a little chunk
until at the bottom there is not enough to provide the most basic needs
to the people who need it the most
don't tell me it ain't so comrade
i live in soviet brazil

Right - there's some motivational value to private ownership. I don't dispute that.
I dispute that it's the only way to motivate, the primary way, or the best way - however you'd class this idiosyncratically "capitalist" source of motivation.

See, here's the rub:
if the only/primary/best way to motivate under Capitalism is to have your own money be at stake - as a source of suffering punishment,
a) why is this source of motivation restricted only to capitalists when it comes to the work environment? Employees only outnumber employers more, the bigger the company and the bigger the motivation of having your own money at stake. So why is the labour force, the vast majority of a company, not privy to this motivation? Surely they're only going to be more, in your words, "reckless and stupid" the less "immediate and direct punishment" they suffer from not privately owning the means of production that they're the ones actually using?
b) why are capitalists martyrs for taking on risk, when the reward for taking on more risk is even more risk - which way around is it? Is the extra capital the reward or the suffering? If risk was so awful so as to be so much more rewarded for taking it on, why would the reward be even more awfulness from even more risk? And conversely, if being burdened with even more risk was more rewarding then punishing, then why would it deserve so much more reward for taking it on?

Absolute nonsense - and the sooner you appreciate this, the sooner you can see through the facade of capitalist motivations:
a) it's obviously far more of a reward to be "burdened" by risk, and the more you dilute this reward among more people, the less of a risk it is in both absolute and relative terms. It has to be rare to be effective, and if you follow this logic through to its extreme, the least recklessness and stupidity ought to go to the least number of people (one) staking the most amount (all) of the money. So the model implicitly requires a denial of its motivational idiosyncrasy to the largest majority that it can sustain if not to a maximum one.
b) employees using the means of production as though they owned them, but without actually owning them are not motivated in this capitalistic way, enjoyed by and rewarded only to a minority. Without a majority of employees, there's less people to extract surplus value from, actually reducing the overall impact of the capitalist motivation for just the few. And without this capitalistic motivation applying to the employed majority, their motivations are not capitalistic - in fact they're no different from any regime run by anyone threatening no income at all if you don't accept the lowest pay that they can persuade you with for what you do for them. By the very same logic of capitalistic motivations, employees are actually harming the capitalistic motivations reserved for employers if they don't accept the lowest wage possible for the most amount of work. The more they ask for, the less of the value earned by the labour of a company can go towards an increased "risk" with which to reward the capitalist. In this way it actually benefits Capitalism for there to be a sufficient pool of unemployment, firstly to filter off only the most compliant and competent wage labourers who are motivated to do more for less, and secondly to act as a threat for hindering maximum capitalistic motivation if employees ask for the actual recompense that they earn as a result of their wage labour. Even too many Capitalists dilute the capitalistic motivation by saturating markets.

phoneutria wrote:I don't understand what your point is here.
Silhouette wrote:Yes, we should all feel very grateful for what we have today, because things used to be worse.

my point is that today's dollars
i'm my pocket dollars, right now dollars
are worth more than future dollars
the standard business skills routinely assigned to employees
are done in exchange for today's dollars
no matter if the thing they made yields a profit or not
they can pay their bills and take their ladies out to a nice steak dinner

It's a simple point: Feudalism, which we had before Capitalism, was worse than Capitalism - and we should all feel very grateful for the progression. Now let's keep progressing to what's next in the same way.
Yes, with inflation, money now is worth more than future money.
Not incidentally does inflation more and more benefit those with capital invested in (fixed) assets and therefore with more collateral to secure credit if they need something more liquid. It also makes debt cheaper for wage labourers, incentivising them to rack up more and more debt, driving apart the growing wealth disparity and lessening the need for wage increases (because they can just incur more debt instead). More debt and credit means more risk and market instability, which means more and worse recessions/depressions/crashes. So inflation increases have to be controlled, obviously avoiding hyperinflation to ensure money at least has some value and remains rare enough (or at least concentrated among a sufficiently rare enough number of people) to be able to reliably continue as the means by which surplus value can be filtered off the physical labour actually performed by employees, to go to the employer like a tax.

phoneutria wrote:this isn't an argument
where's the accountancy and knowledge of how money works?
all i'm seeing is:

sil: why should employers pay themselves so much?
pho: because they set that up
sil: but that's not fair!
pho:... -.-

Actually:
"sil: but that's not optimal."

phoneutria wrote:i'm totes in favor of knowledge sharing
the things we have now thanks to open-source for example
tesla dude for example
released all of his tech papers
so anyone who wants to build an electric car can do it

the thing is that i think that people should also be able to make a living off of their work
when their work is intellectual
so like you're a philosopher and you write something pretty amazing
or a painter who made a really beautiful thing that everyone loves
and you want to sell some books so you can live off of that
and people selling pirated or knock-offs are sorta doing a shitty thing imo
so it's nice that that kind of work is private commercial use for 50 years
but there's a fair use clause for people who are not making money to be able to use it
and then after those 50 years it's completely free to share and use

the thing i'm most uncool with is the wanting to take over a person's actual business that they built
fuck that
take the knowledge and build your own

"Totes in favour of knowledge sharing" yet not to the point where e.g. Elon Musk literally shares all his knowledge in real time with all competition and everyone else without absolutely no pay barrier whatsoever, I assume?
That would actaully maximise the benefit of all knowledge progression - if that were REALLY the goal of Capitalism. For the majority of those under Capitalism (wage labourers), private property functions more as a barrier to "taking the knowledge and building your own". Companies make sure employees sign "Conflict of Interest" agreements, preventing them from using the private means of production (that they'll be using, just not owning) for their own gain rather than the employer's gain - because "Conflict of Interest" really just means the interests of the poorer who have to sell their labour conflicting with the interests of the richer who can afford to own means of production, and the richer win.

I am against intellectual property, even though that's where my own greatest strengths lie.
I don't want to get paid for the best content that this forum can muster, nor any words, music, coding etc. that I write - I especially don't want to have to rely on my creativity and the consistent provision of intellectual quality just to pay my bills. I want to be free to create whenever creativity strikes me: as all creatives know, it strikes when it wants and the best you can do is try and fuel/tempt it. Making creativity into a job is a sure way to go stale and burnt out, as artists and creators eventually prove over and over again - all the time, everywhere, no matter how prolific they might start out to be. Capitalism has pushed creativity to the highest quantity and the lowest quality. If I can help sustain a level of tangible wealth to a point where I neither have to worry about it, nor have to have all my time and energy consumed by it (as is currently the case), preventing my opportunity to provide intangible value, then I'll happily contribute in exchange for the value I actually provide. Anything above the tangible ought to be as free as possible, whether it improves the supply of tangibles or not - and such improvements in supplying tangibles ought to free up time for intangibles without the necessity to continue to either be locked into full-time wage labour just to maintain enough income to pay already richer people, else I have to become the exploiter myself.

Silhouette wrote:You're way overestimating the power of employees in this whole arrangement that we've currently got going on.
phoneutria wrote:no i'm not
you're underestimating it

Hopefully I've explained why I'm not underestimating anything above.

phoneutria wrote:all the power to us
i mean they
they work their asses off to learn stuff constantly and stay on top of the market
they're diligent and dependable and have good ethics
they get shit done
employers love them
they fucking earned it
we live in a society that provides equal rights
to anyone who wants to pursue studies or learn a trade
and form a career
there was a time when i couldn't go to school if i wanted, or own land
now i have the same rights as any man thank fuck
and before you start taking the pains of the poor people
i'm from the fucking third world
the house i grew up in had a tin roof
my parents toughed it for years so i could go to school
it is in everyone's power to be that person
there is a tiny proportion of that because people are shit
most people on the planet are doing the bare minimum that they have to do to get by
hierarchies form naturally
not because of classes
but because people are different
the pareto principle
you know this shit
don't make me type it

Yeah, I support rewarding those who work their asses off to learn stuff constantly and stay on top of the market, who are diligent and dependable and have good ethics, who get shit done.
The question isn't whether they should be rewarded, it's by how much.
If they're so very valuable, then they can get paid a wage that proportionately reflects the greater value that they contribute: more than the wage paid to a less valuable worker, but in proportion.
Just none of this routine and "legal" surplus value scamming.
Parents can still afford to improve conditions for their kids like yours did, and you can continue to appreciate the opportunity to do so.
Pareto all the way - hence why you know I know this shit: because its the foundation for what my actual economic solution is. Natural hierarchies, yes please. Superimposed hierarchies that create class struggle though? That's the question.

phoneutria wrote:see the above
in fact everyone is replaceable
but the pool of the good people to pick from is very small
so when a company finds a good employee they hold on to them
we have a system in place that encourages good ethics, hard work, and efficiecy
why the fuck would you want to mess with that?

Replaceable? You mean to perform certain roles that a job/process requires? Sure, but not replaceable as living humans. A lack of income is a great way to risk humans living. Capitalists competing with each other to drive down costs, as they so obviously do (again - basic accountancy) is a prime path towards lack of income - this is why my economic solution encourages expenditure, and competes only on revenues (reflecting how much people actually want to give to the company, as representative of the quality of what they supply) as a means for companies and their employees to spend and thereby maximise their points to prove them to be even more desirable as a company/employee. But under Capitalism, even paying good employees as little as employers can get away with is the aim, to get the most out of them for the longest they can get away with. The best people are always moving on, and usually to other companies not least because there's a wider variety of experience across multiple companies than just upwards within one, and the same company doesn't always have just the right slots opening up at just the right times to enable progression. Moving around can help you find a better fit, grow your network etc. - companies shouldn't expect to hold onto the best employees. Ideally they should grow them as best they can to help them move on as fast as they can, but not wanting capitalist competition to benefit from acquiring your "asset" is counter to this ideal.

We do indeed have a system that encourages work ethic, hard work and "efficiency", but the degree to which specifically Capitalist principles are responsible is more limited than most people seem to realise, and certainly not in the way that most people seem to appreciate.

phoneutria wrote:don't forget that it is capitalism that is for all effects eliminating absolute poverty from the world
it's not like it's something they put there to replace poverty
it's the thing that is making it go away
so yay for capitalism indeed
and yay for free market

Again, yay for the improvements that Capitalism made upon Feudalism.
Now it's time for even more yay to improve on Capitalism.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Previous

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron