[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
You are free to buy and possess anything that you can afford with the money that you earned through your work.
[/quote]
Really?
And what if he saves and buys machinery and produces even more?
What if he hires people to work on his machines and yet produces even more?
Seems to me you commune will look like Hong Kong in a few years.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]Dustin wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Capitalism needs the government to protect private property. Socialism needs government to protect the new society against expropriated capitalists and their allies. Communism needs government not at all.
Anarchists seem to think we don’t need it at all, but I think most of them are kidding themselves in this regard.[/quote]
Private property can be protected without the government.
[/quote]
Yes, whatever you say.[/quote]
So you agree with me?
Awesome!
Hmmm… so now socialism is supposedly a mix of socialism and capitalism, with capitalism being okay if it’s small enough and the socialists deem that I earned my capital with my work. (Do business management or other intellectual inputs count as work, or only hand labor?)
So in this new version I can own the means of production unless the socialists think it has grown too much, and then I cannot own the bakery anymore, correct? Instead the folk that have been doing the routine hand work there are supposed to own it, or socialists as a whole.
But what if I don’t want to give it over when it is “too big” and employs “too many” people? How will they take it from me if not by government force backed by guns? Perhaps mob rule using fists and clubs?
Precisely how can socialism work except as theft, by those who did not create wealth, from those who do, by violence or threat of violence?
Explain, please. I started the bakery myself, using money I’d earned at other jobs. I did all the work: I earned enough money to expand and hire a worker. This process continued and now my bakery is the size that Marx had in mind. I don’t want to and don’t agree to lose ownership.
Explain how it comes to belong to “the people” or “the workers” save by force and theft.
Also, if there is this threshold between having the bakery that you think it’s okay for me to own, versus achieving more success – providing more goods and services that people find valuable and choose to pay for, as well as providing more jobs for more workers – and thereby having it taken from me, why would I want to produce such an amount of valuable goods and services? Would I not be better off keeping the total value I produce, via my bakery, to something mediocre?
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]PederLustzo wrote:
(WARNING: I didnt read the thread to this point)
I’m neither a socialist nor a communist but I read “Das Kapital” , Karl Marx principle work about econommics and he had one example in it that has me thiniking about it from now till then, it goes somewhat like this:
“Premise: Money is solidified/crystalizied human workforce.(e.g. you “trade” your workforce for money at your workplace)
So lets look at this:
A bakery worker works 8 hours every day and produces baked goods worth 300 $. His boss pays him 200 $ a day for his work (just an example).
So this bakery worker recieves 100 $ LESS money than his work is worth AND the bakery-owner recieves 100 $ MORE worth of goods than he pays for. Sum this up over years and decades and our bakery-worker will get ever poorer while the bakery-owner will get ever richer.
How is this possible? Well, because the bakery-owner owns the production facility.
How can we precent this? Production facilities should be comunity owned”
And this is the most basic principle of communism, everything else what came afterwards had not much to do with economics.
[/quote]
yes this sums up the basics of marx very well.
[/quote]
That is basically the labor theory of value which is complete and utter nonsense, and we know that for over 200 years now.
But even if Marx did not know that, even though he could have, today one should know that value is not objective but subjective and ordinal and not cardinal.
And everyone who has not undrstood what I just wrote is probably a socualist because his theoretical economic knowledge is so hopelessly outdated that he might as well deny the germ theory of disease .
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
You are free to buy and possess anything that you can afford with the money that you earned through your work.
[/quote]
Really?
And what if he saves and buys machinery and produces even more?
What if he hires people to work on his machines and yet produces even more?
Seems to me you commune will look like Hong Kong in a few years.
[/quote]
He would not be at all competitive with the huge cooperatives which would dominate manufacturing and other capital-intensive industries, and so he would barely tread water or go out of business. His choice.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Hmmm… so now socialism is supposedly a mix of socialism and capitalism, with capitalism being okay if it’s small enough and the socialists deem that you earned your capital with your work. (Does business management count as work, or only hand labor?)
So in this new version you can own the means of production unless the socialists think it has grown too much, and then you cannot own the bakery anymore. Instead the folk that have been doing the routine hand work there are supposed to own it, or socialists as a whole.
But what if you don’t want to give it over when it is “too big” and employs “too many” people? How will they take it from you if not by government force backed by guns? Perhaps mob rule using fists and clubs?
Precisely how can socialism work except as theft, by those who did not create wealth, from those who do, by violence or threat of violence?
Explain, please. I started the bakery myself, using money I’d earned at other jobs. I did all the work: I earned enough money to expand and hire a worker. This process continued and now my bakery is the size that Marx had in mind. I don’t want to and don’t agree to lose ownership.
Explain how it comes to belong to “the people” or “the workers” save by force.[/quote]
There is no “too big.” If you earn money through work, you can dispose of it in any way you wish. See my post to Orion.
Socialism, so far as I know, has never advocated (outside of some fringe groups) the total and utter socializaation of every single thing. It is about the recognition of what is properly social and what is not.
Smaller businesses and independent producers would gradually become obsolete. There is no need to abolish them.
[quote]orion wrote:That is basically the labor theory of value which is complete and utter nonsense, and we know that for over 200 years now.
But even if Marx did not know that, even though he could have, today one should know that value is not objective but subjective and ordinal and not cardinal.
And everyone who has not undrstood what I just wrote is probably a socualist because his theoretical economic knowledge is so hopelessly outdated that he might as well deny the germ theory of disease .
[/quote]
The subjective value theories fail to describe reality and result in circular reasoning. The labor theory is the only one capable of describing our reality (not necessarily important to an Austrianist, who does not take reality into account).
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]PederLustzo wrote:
(WARNING: I didnt read the thread to this point)
I’m neither a socialist nor a communist but I read “Das Kapital” , Karl Marx principle work about econommics and he had one example in it that has me thiniking about it from now till then, it goes somewhat like this:
“Premise: Money is solidified/crystalizied human workforce.(e.g. you “trade” your workforce for money at your workplace)
So lets look at this:
A bakery worker works 8 hours every day and produces baked goods worth 300 $. His boss pays him 200 $ a day for his work (just an example).
So this bakery worker recieves 100 $ LESS money than his work is worth AND the bakery-owner recieves 100 $ MORE worth of goods than he pays for. Sum this up over years and decades and our bakery-worker will get ever poorer while the bakery-owner will get ever richer.
How is this possible? Well, because the bakery-owner owns the production facility.
How can we precent this? Production facilities should be comunity owned”
And this is the most basic principle of communism, everything else what came afterwards had not much to do with economics.
[/quote]
yes this sums up the basics of marx very well.
[/quote]
That is basically the labor theory of value which is complete and utter nonsense, and we know that for over 200 years now.
But even if Marx did not know that, even though he could have, today one should know that value is not objective but subjective and ordinal and not cardinal.
And everyone who has not undrstood what I just wrote is probably a socualist because his theoretical economic knowledge is so hopelessly outdated that he might as well deny the germ theory of disease .
[/quote]
I didnt say that I share Marx opinion but the threadtitle was “Explain communism to me” - and so i did 
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:That is basically the labor theory of value which is complete and utter nonsense, and we know that for over 200 years now.
But even if Marx did not know that, even though he could have, today one should know that value is not objective but subjective and ordinal and not cardinal.
And everyone who has not undrstood what I just wrote is probably a socualist because his theoretical economic knowledge is so hopelessly outdated that he might as well deny the germ theory of disease .
[/quote]
The subjective value theories fail to describe reality and result in circular reasoning. The labor theory is the only one capable of describing our reality (not necessarily important to an Austrianist, who does not take reality into account).
[/quote]
Look, this is not even up for debate.
No economist worth his salt that I know of, no matter what school he belongs to, believes in objective price theories since Pareto.
And Pareto wrote his book on ordinal utility around 1850.
So sorry.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Hmmm… so now socialism is supposedly a mix of socialism and capitalism, with capitalism being okay if it’s small enough and the socialists deem that you earned your capital with your work. (Does business management count as work, or only hand labor?)
So in this new version you can own the means of production unless the socialists think it has grown too much, and then you cannot own the bakery anymore. Instead the folk that have been doing the routine hand work there are supposed to own it, or socialists as a whole.
But what if you don’t want to give it over when it is “too big” and employs “too many” people? How will they take it from you if not by government force backed by guns? Perhaps mob rule using fists and clubs?
Precisely how can socialism work except as theft, by those who did not create wealth, from those who do, by violence or threat of violence?
Explain, please. I started the bakery myself, using money I’d earned at other jobs. I did all the work: I earned enough money to expand and hire a worker. This process continued and now my bakery is the size that Marx had in mind. I don’t want to and don’t agree to lose ownership.
Explain how it comes to belong to “the people” or “the workers” save by force.[/quote]
There is no “too big.” If you earn money through work, you can dispose of it in any way you wish. See my post to Orion.
Socialism, so far as I know, has never advocated (outside of some fringe groups) the total and utter socializaation of every single thing. It is about the recognition of what is properly social and what is not.
Smaller businesses and independent producers would gradually become obsolete. There is no need to abolish them.[/quote]
What exactly is properly social? Who gets to decide this? Why?
So, socialism is the abollishment of competition?
[quote]PederLustzo wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]PederLustzo wrote:
(WARNING: I didnt read the thread to this point)
I’m neither a socialist nor a communist but I read “Das Kapital” , Karl Marx principle work about econommics and he had one example in it that has me thiniking about it from now till then, it goes somewhat like this:
“Premise: Money is solidified/crystalizied human workforce.(e.g. you “trade” your workforce for money at your workplace)
So lets look at this:
A bakery worker works 8 hours every day and produces baked goods worth 300 $. His boss pays him 200 $ a day for his work (just an example).
So this bakery worker recieves 100 $ LESS money than his work is worth AND the bakery-owner recieves 100 $ MORE worth of goods than he pays for. Sum this up over years and decades and our bakery-worker will get ever poorer while the bakery-owner will get ever richer.
How is this possible? Well, because the bakery-owner owns the production facility.
How can we precent this? Production facilities should be comunity owned”
And this is the most basic principle of communism, everything else what came afterwards had not much to do with economics.
[/quote]
yes this sums up the basics of marx very well.
[/quote]
That is basically the labor theory of value which is complete and utter nonsense, and we know that for over 200 years now.
But even if Marx did not know that, even though he could have, today one should know that value is not objective but subjective and ordinal and not cardinal.
And everyone who has not undrstood what I just wrote is probably a socualist because his theoretical economic knowledge is so hopelessly outdated that he might as well deny the germ theory of disease .
[/quote]
I didnt say that I share Marx opinion but the threadtitle was “Explain communism to me” - and so i did
[/quote]
Yeah, I know, but sometimes the complete and utter lack of knowledge when it comes to economics pisses me off.
I guess you were the wrong target.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:That is basically the labor theory of value which is complete and utter nonsense, and we know that for over 200 years now.
But even if Marx did not know that, even though he could have, today one should know that value is not objective but subjective and ordinal and not cardinal.
And everyone who has not undrstood what I just wrote is probably a socualist because his theoretical economic knowledge is so hopelessly outdated that he might as well deny the germ theory of disease .
[/quote]
The subjective value theories fail to describe reality and result in circular reasoning. The labor theory is the only one capable of describing our reality (not necessarily important to an Austrianist, who does not take reality into account).
[/quote]
But you know what, I will give you the basics.
Both of us have preferences.
Those are ordinal, i.e. you can say that you like an orange more than a banana but not that you like a banane 1,7 times more than an apple.
If you could actually do that, you would have a cardinal utility function.
Now even though everyone has an ordinal utility “function”, everyone has a different one, which makes trade possible.
If I like a banana more than an orange and you like the orange more than the banana we trade and, get this !!!, we are both better off.
There is no exploitation as long as the exchange is voluntary.
An objective price theory postulates that things have “value” in and of itself. These leads to resuÃ?¶ts that are blatantly absurd.
F.E. if you are thirsty and you drink you are not thirsty anymore and suddenly water becomes less important to you. If the value of water was objective this should not happen, but since it is subjective, i.e. depends on how much you want it, it does.
If the labor theory of value was right, you could dig a ditch in the moirning and fill itg uop again in the eveneing and it would have an objective value. But, if it has “value” why is noone going to pay for it? Because they do not, subjectively, value it at all.
Objective prioce theories break down at the slightest challenge and cannot account for things like decreasing marginal utility, voluntary exchange and other, most basic economic activities people perform daily.
I.e. they are bullshit.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
You are free to buy and possess anything that you can afford with the money that you earned through your work.
[/quote]
Really?
And what if he saves and buys machinery and produces even more?
What if he hires people to work on his machines and yet produces even more?
Seems to me you commune will look like Hong Kong in a few years.
[/quote]
He would not be at all competitive with the huge cooperatives which would dominate manufacturing and other capital-intensive industries, and so he would barely tread water or go out of business. His choice.
[/quote]
Yeah then I will ask you yet again:
Why not build a huge awesome cooperative and show those capitalist pigs?
But if you do, tell us in advance, because your production meetings will be well worth a plane ticket.
[quote]animal6fat9 wrote:
government control of every aspect of your life.
it has never succeeded anywhere.
[/quote]
never succeeded anywhere? China, the biggest economy in the world, vietnam, cuba, and Laos. are all Marxist/Leninist socialist countries and Bangladesh, Egypt, India, Libya, Sri lanka, Syria and Tanzania, all make constitutional references towards socialism. Define succeed
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Socialism, so far as I know, has never advocated (outside of some fringe groups) the total and utter socializaation of every single thing. It is about the recognition of what is properly social and what is not.
[/quote]
ALL relationships are social! So does this mean there should be interference by the planners to direct these relationships?
And I am speaking in broad strokes with the term relationships because I am not merely speaking about family, sex, etc., but also about those relationships we have with employers, customers, et al.
So where do Socialists draw the line?
[quote]jkeating wrote:
[quote]animal6fat9 wrote:
government control of every aspect of your life.
it has never succeeded anywhere.
[/quote]
never succeeded anywhere? China, the biggest economy in the world, vietnam, cuba, and Laos. are all Marxist/Leninist socialist countries and Bangladesh, Egypt, India, Libya, Sri lanka, Syria and Tanzania, all make constitutional references towards socialism. Define succeed[/quote]
Top 10 GDP per capita (in order from 2009 IMF)
Qatar
Luxemourg
Norway
Brunei
United States
Switzerland
Hong Kong
Ireland
Netherlands
Austria
down near 100 is China (the biggest economy in the world lolololol) at 97 … you might want to reevaluate your argument…
[quote]jkeating wrote:
[quote]animal6fat9 wrote:
government control of every aspect of your life.
it has never succeeded anywhere.
[/quote]
never succeeded anywhere? China, the biggest economy in the world, vietnam, cuba, and Laos. are all Marxist/Leninist socialist countries and Bangladesh, Egypt, India, Libya, Sri lanka, Syria and Tanzania, all make constitutional references towards socialism. Define succeed[/quote]
Would you invest your life’s savings in any of these countries? Now define ‘succeed’.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Hmmm… so now socialism is supposedly a mix of socialism and capitalism, with capitalism being okay if it’s small enough and the socialists deem that I earned my capital with my work. (Do business management or other intellectual inputs count as work, or only hand labor?)
So in this new version I can own the means of production unless the socialists think it has grown too much, and then I cannot own the bakery anymore, correct? Instead the folk that have been doing the routine hand work there are supposed to own it, or socialists as a whole.
But what if I don’t want to give it over when it is “too big” and employs “too many” people? How will they take it from me if not by government force backed by guns? Perhaps mob rule using fists and clubs?
Precisely how can socialism work except as theft, by those who did not create wealth, from those who do, by violence or threat of violence?
Explain, please. I started the bakery myself, using money I’d earned at other jobs. I did all the work: I earned enough money to expand and hire a worker. This process continued and now my bakery is the size that Marx had in mind. I don’t want to and don’t agree to lose ownership.
Explain how it comes to belong to “the people” or “the workers” save by force and theft.
Also, if there is this threshold between having the bakery that you think it’s okay for me to own, versus achieving more success – providing more goods and services that people find valuable and choose to pay for, as well as providing more jobs for more workers – and thereby having it taken from me, why would I want to produce such an amount of valuable goods and services? Would I not be better off keeping the total value I produce, via my bakery, to something mediocre?[/quote]
I think what he is trying to say is that once you are not baking the goods yourself, but you are the owner of a commune producing bakery, there is a certain “cap” as to how much profit you can put in your pocket, presumably something near the level that the workers get. So this would mean more money for the workers, less for the owners.
I guess you could compare it somewhat to taxes. What happens when you avoid taxes? When you get caught, you have to pay it and you might to jail. So there will probably be a limit how much money the owners and people who don’t produce something can get. If you take more profit and get caught, you probably will have to pay it back and you might go to jail. There must be some sort of a force, eg police, who does the forcing.
I guess you could call taxes theft too, on some level. As for the motivation to own a bakery, perhaps you might get slightly more money and you probably wont have to do so much hard work as the baker.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
You are free to buy and possess anything that you can afford with the money that you earned through your work.
[/quote]
Really?
And what if he saves and buys machinery and produces even more?
What if he hires people to work on his machines and yet produces even more?
Seems to me you commune will look like Hong Kong in a few years.
[/quote]
He would not be at all competitive with the huge cooperatives which would dominate manufacturing and other capital-intensive industries, and so he would barely tread water or go out of business. His choice.
[/quote]
Yeah then I will ask you yet again:
Why not build a huge awesome cooperative and show those capitalist pigs?
But if you do, tell us in advance, because your production meetings will be well worth a plane ticket.
[/quote]
Yes they would…lol
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
You are free to buy and possess anything that you can afford with the money that you earned through your work.
[/quote]
Really?
And what if he saves and buys machinery and produces even more?
What if he hires people to work on his machines and yet produces even more?
Seems to me you commune will look like Hong Kong in a few years.
[/quote]
He would not be at all competitive with the huge cooperatives which would dominate manufacturing and other capital-intensive industries, and so he would barely tread water or go out of business. His choice.
[/quote]
Yeah then I will ask you yet again:
Why not build a huge awesome cooperative and show those capitalist pigs?
But if you do, tell us in advance, because your production meetings will be well worth a plane ticket.
[/quote]
Yes they would…lol[/quote]
See, Ryan? This quoted text contains two examples of subjective valuation and I will provide one more just for illustration:
I would not pay to listen to you speak, ever!