[quote]florelius wrote:
if all labour its importent, why doesnt all get the same pay?[/quote]
Because they are not equally important, duh. They require different amounts of skill, education, and connections.
The more skill, education, and/or connections a job requires, the more it will pay (in general).
[quote]666Rich wrote:
There are plenty of people who are “upper class” that do not own property in the idea that you mean. How about employee stock ownership plans that are common to many companies. Thus many workers are part owners of the company. Or is it those who own the commercial property the company sits on. This could be a commercial brokerage or the firm itself… are they really seeing all the benefits? Or do you mean those who own the equipment, somtimes it is leased, sometimes it is owned.
Furthermore, many of these “workers” may not own the property of their place of employment but CAN own property. Furthermore many of the industrious ones can eventually quit being “workers” and join the property owning class with relative ease and make money out of it that way.
Thus your argument is really nebulous and does not answer my question other than in a very rudimentary non real world example.[/quote]
this is semantics, I use the marxist definitions of a socialclass, you use a different definition. we can only have a constructive debate if we use the same definitions. if we keep on debating with differnet definitions, we will debate different topic, who will make this debate useless.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
if all labour its importent, why doesnt all get the same pay?[/quote]
Because they are not equally important, duh. They require different amounts of skill, education, and connections.
The more skill, education, and/or connections a job requires, the more it will pay (in general).[/quote]why
ok ,thats how it is, but what makes this right if every act of labour benefits all?
and why does the owners/capitalist deserve more money than the workers?
why is this so importent for you to preserve it? duh…
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
if all labour its importent, why doesnt all get the same pay?[/quote]
Because they are not equally important, duh. They require different amounts of skill, education, and connections.
The more skill, education, and/or connections a job requires, the more it will pay (in general).[/quote]why
ok ,thats how it is, but what makes this right if every act of labour benefits all?
and why does the owners/capitalist deserve more money than the workers?
why is this so importent for you to preserve it? duh…
[/quote]
Yeah well. maybe he invests some time and energy to be a tad more productive than the average ditch digger and expects to be compensated for it later?
Otherwise he could just grab a shovel himself and leave all this “thinking” to somebody else.
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]666Rich wrote:
There are plenty of people who are “upper class” that do not own property in the idea that you mean. How about employee stock ownership plans that are common to many companies. Thus many workers are part owners of the company. Or is it those who own the commercial property the company sits on. This could be a commercial brokerage or the firm itself… are they really seeing all the benefits? Or do you mean those who own the equipment, somtimes it is leased, sometimes it is owned.
Furthermore, many of these “workers” may not own the property of their place of employment but CAN own property. Furthermore many of the industrious ones can eventually quit being “workers” and join the property owning class with relative ease and make money out of it that way.
Thus your argument is really nebulous and does not answer my question other than in a very rudimentary non real world example.[/quote]
this is semantics, I use the marxist definitions of a socialclass, you use a different definition. we can only have a constructive debate if we use the same definitions. if we keep on debating with differnet definitions, we will debate different topic, who will make this debate useless.
[/quote]
He was just pointing out that you live in a conceptual world that no longer accurately describes reality if it ever did.
Today, everyone can be a “capitalist”, most people just choose not.
[quote]florelius wrote:
biography wise does not cut it, you must read books of marx and books of other marxist to understand what they believe in, not what some other author thinks of them and there teories.
the question about power: I see what you meen, this is why marxist believe that you need a socialist phase, a phase with a state who can protect the revolution because, the upper class is not going to give a way there power and kapital without defences. this is the difference between marxists and anarcist, the anarcist wants the communist phase to start right a way.
about the former “communist” states: they failed because they made a socialist revolution in feudal countries. marx is very clear on the fact that you need the capitalist phase before you can take the next step into socialisme.
[/quote]
What they believe in. Yes that’s the word - belief.
And for your information, I’ve read into the works themselves, wasn’t very impressed, however.
I liked Engels articles about military history a lot more.
I’m more the fan of realism.
Escapism is fun, too , as long as it is honest:
If the theory hasn’t worked -nowhere(!), don’t you think the theory is to blame? ie that it is poppyock?
In fact, if you look at the fans of said works, and talk to them, it gets pretty clear how much they are rooted in reality. And how much is wishful thinking.
Not far from my house, I could read posters of the marxist party cheering juche. Do they have a point? Do you think juche can transition into something useful?
@power issue
I think you have it backwards: to think of socialism as a “phase” and that it’s going to transition smoothly is a time-proven recipe for a disaster.
The GDR wasn’t feudal AT ALL. They has capitalism. So where was the problem?
Also, Marx’ ramblings about upper class are outdated. Today, it’s much, much more complicated.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
@Lifticus
At least Orion takes the rifle.
Talk about delusions! Of course you’d take up the rifle as well!
Same with organized power. (See Austra and the EU, above)[/quote]
I have no problem extinguishing a thug’s life.
Just because I would choose not to take up arms at the whim of a government to kill people on the other side of the world does not make me a pacifist.
[/quote]
While even one thug has the attacker’s advantage, you will definitely encounter problems if the thugs outnumber you.
On your island you soon would face the dilemma of distrust.
Violence would have to be organized, with known implications…
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
In fact, any time there is organized aggression there are two classes automatically being created:
Those that benefit from the organized aggression and those that inevitably must suffer from it.[/quote]
Beautiful, now what’s left is to perceive that organized violence is inherent to the human race.
[quote]florelius wrote:
china, russia etc was not communist but socialist. yes in SOCIALIST china there was classes, the partyleaders ruled the people. communisme was never reached in these countries. again because they where feudal to begin with, not capitalist.
Its not about hijacking, its aboute taking whats yours. the workers has produced all the material wealth, but som parasite take it, so under a socialist revolution they take it back.
[/quote]
Yep, the old dodge. "it wasn’t real communism, because real communism would be awesome!
Works like a charm with religious extremism, bureaucracy, radical feminism etc.
BTW, I heard Fabuloregnocracy is even more [b]AWESOME[/b]!
[quote]
ok I will try to answer your question.
a worker/proletarian is a person who doesnt own productiv property exept for he`s labour, so the only thing he can offer to the market is himself/herself. this is most people of the world to day, and they are a class because they share a common interrest, the interrest of the workers. the opposit of this class is the upperclass ( the capitalists). In between this classes are people of power but who doesnt have any property. they are similar to the workers but at the same they are similar to the capitalist. hope this answered your question[
the engineer are also a worker. he sels his labour for money.[/quote]
Especially today, this model sucks royally.
There are soooo many subdivisions of “labour”, “upperclass parasites” etc, it simply doesn’t work anymore.
I’ll grant you that “Labour” has a worth, yes, but it cannot be measured directly or better, objectivly. That slope’s slipperiness has lead into catastrophe so many times.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Wrong. You’re problem is you don’t see the massive value management brings to a company. Until you’ve actually managed a company, or awoken from your hilarious naivete, you will continue to love “communism” because it rewards those who you think do all the work.
In reality, labor does relatively less “work,” so long as you define “work” not as physical labor, but as any and all factors that go into the mass scale production of any good or service for a profit.[/quote]
What is certainly true is that managment has the power not only to magnify but also to nullify, destroy work or even increase it with no benefit at all.
Curiously enough, that was more the speciality of socialist or communist governments.
Labour can also easily do “more” work then managment.
Proper managegment, in turn can look for optimization based on new oportunities like market niches.
In any case, as long as you try to measure everything in “work units”, you shall fail.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
if all labour its importent, why doesnt all get the same pay?[/quote]
Because they are not equally important, duh. They require different amounts of skill, education, and connections.
The more skill, education, and/or connections a job requires, the more it will pay (in general).[/quote]
No.
Above all, it’s the abilty to judge labour subjectivly . Then come cultural reasons. Then comes education, then the rest.
In a globalized world, the consumer can individually decide very esily what he will pay.
Simple, yet prodactive work can therefore be assessed to a penny.
Good management in the other hand, is hard to gauge.
Why are german clerks hideously overpaid? Or our politicians.? Are they skilled and educated? Hell no. Same with lots of management.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
biography wise does not cut it, you must read books of marx and books of other marxist to understand what they believe in, not what some other author thinks of them and there teories.
the question about power: I see what you meen, this is why marxist believe that you need a socialist phase, a phase with a state who can protect the revolution because, the upper class is not going to give a way there power and kapital without defences. this is the difference between marxists and anarcist, the anarcist wants the communist phase to start right a way.
about the former “communist” states: they failed because they made a socialist revolution in feudal countries. marx is very clear on the fact that you need the capitalist phase before you can take the next step into socialisme.
[/quote]
What they believe in. Yes that’s the word - belief.
And for your information, I’ve read into the works themselves, wasn’t very impressed, however.
I liked Engels articles about military history a lot more.
I’m more the fan of realism.
Escapism is fun, too , as long as it is honest:
If the theory hasn’t worked -nowhere(!), don’t you think the theory is to blame? ie that it is poppyock?
In fact, if you look at the fans of said works, and talk to them, it gets pretty clear how much they are rooted in reality. And how much is wishful thinking.
Not far from my house, I could read posters of the marxist party cheering juche. Do they have a point? Do you think juche can transition into something useful?
@power issue
I think you have it backwards: to think of socialism as a “phase” and that it’s going to transition smoothly is a time-proven recipe for a disaster.
The GDR wasn’t feudal AT ALL. They has capitalism. So where was the problem?
Also, Marx’ ramblings about upper class are outdated. Today, it’s much, much more complicated.
[/quote]
please explain why marx`s rambling about upper class is outdated?
[quote]florelius wrote:
why
[/quote]
I’m going to assume this is a question, despite the lack of punctuation. Well, florelius, the capitalists, as you call them, are the ones who buy all the materials and means of production, organize all the other pieces of labor, and make huge and important desicions that have billion dollar effects.
Low-skilled laborers are called such for a reason.
Jesus fucking Christ. I really hope English isn’t your first language. Every act of labor doesn’t benefit all. Why the hell are you saying that? An act of labor benefits the company, which benefits the companies owners and everyone who buys from the company, and therefore, it benefits the laborer himself. But you’re missing the important fact that the laborer’s efforts are only a tiny piece in a very large, very complex puzzle.
Look above. They provide the capital and organize everything. The workers are replaceable from a very large pool, the capitalists are hardly replaceable at all.
Because it is, essentially, the preservation of liberty and freedom.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
if all labour its importent, why doesnt all get the same pay?[/quote]
Because they are not equally important, duh. They require different amounts of skill, education, and connections.
The more skill, education, and/or connections a job requires, the more it will pay (in general).[/quote]
No.
Above all, it’s the abilty to judge labour subjectivly . Then come cultural reasons. Then comes education, then the rest.
In a globalized world, the consumer can individually decide very esily what he will pay.
Simple, yet prodactive work can therefore be assessed to a penny.
Good management in the other hand, is hard to gauge.
Why are german clerks hideously overpaid? Or our politicians.? Are they skilled and educated? Hell no. Same with lots of management. [/quote]
So you just missed the in general thing did you?
Also, politicians and government workers are an OBVIOUS exception. They’re paid to be incompetent because they have no competition to drive them. Dur.
[quote]florelius wrote:
please explain why marx`s rambling about upper class is outdated?[/quote]
He lived in an age of Imperialism, where the upper class actually had direct political power. Today, the upper class has vastly IN-direct power.
One cannot be “born” into power anymore. The children of the rich more often than not end up not-rich.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Talk about a complete dodge!
Weapon issue - Weapons do not make a peaceful society!
you say fuck waziristan, I say fuck the swiss. Great way to make a point. On the world map, the riflebound countries are mostly shit holes. Try another way.
Libertarian ZakÃ??t - completely of the point. What do I care about some american study? We’re talking about the world here! Are german conservatives more inclined to give bread to the poor then FDP salarymen? Do brazil hardcore catholics treat the poor better then the chilean chicago boys? So many questions…
And I already told you, I’m not really a fan of state welfare.
[/quote]
Well I do not care for the different -stans.
They are in no way, shape or form comparable to us whereas the US are. In the US however wherever shall-issue concealed carry laws were introduced violent crimes went down.
Switzerland and Austria that basically have shall issue laws and where concealed carrying is verboten but a misdemeanor crimes with guns make the headlines because they are extremely rare.
So you can dismiss this and all the studies that demonstrate this over and over again but that is just hoblophobe nonsense, it is the irrational fear of inanimate objects that have no base in reality.
As to whether Germans are more inclined to give to charity as Americans, no, probably not. More than one century of a state welfare system has destroyed the part of the civil society that took care of that. Ironically this is where you would have found the “muendigen Bürger” a democratic republic so desoperately needs. I wonder how that will play out when the welfare systems collapse as they invariably will. I also wonder how the “free market” and “unchecked greed” will be to blame this time for a government created problem that everyone with a calculator could and has seen coming since the 80s.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
the issue is
[quote]the implementation of an idea [/quote] itself
Libertarianism has failed here.
Maybe communism has the better PR (hardly), but Libertarianism fails TO EVEN START for a reason.
It’s a fantasy to ignore the power issue.
And just proclaiming some sort of “civil society” will emerge and fix everything won’t do the trick.
Then why is my fantasy worse? The king would fix things, too, only in a decisively more awesome way.
Seems to me people always long more for some king then for an amorphous concept they instinctivly distrust.
[/quote]
That is also wrong because the 18th and the 19th century was the big time of libertarianism.
It gave us the constitutional republic, the separation of church and state, separation of powers. human rights and a whole nation founded on libertarian principles, the USA.
To claims that this was never tried and has never worked are blatantly false.
[quote]orion wrote:
Well I do not care for the different -stans.
They are in no way, shape or form comparable to us whereas the US are. In the US however wherever shall-issue concealed carry laws were introduced violent crimes went down.
Switzerland and Austria that basically have shall issue laws and where concealed carrying is verboten but a misdemeanor crimes with guns make the headlines because they are extremely rare.
So you can dismiss this and all the studies that demonstrate this over and over again but that is just hoblophobe nonsense, it is the irrational fear of inanimate objects that have no base in reality.
[/quote]
Excuse me, but the “let everyone carry” is pure madness, from so many angles.
Everytime I really took my sweet time and checked, the (two or three I saw) statistics were complete shit. Like some small village that goes open carry or some creative manipulating.
In Germany, the last schoolshooter used some self constructed molotov cocktails. Nothing really happened.
In america, he would have easily killed a dozen. Please, tell me now that an armed teacher would have shot the guy! Yes we all should be armed with an AR15 in “Heston-World”. Always ready for terrorists!
I actually witnessed some young would be gangsters brandishing guns not far from where I live- probably gas toys, but with real guns there would have been blood.
The point is that guns can, at best, only stop the worst excesses of guncrimes. They cannot stop aforementioned young hotheads or psychopaths from doing what they want to do. They can merely kill them- after blood has been spilled. But if we massively spread guns, the numbers of shooters increases as well.
In Waziristan or some parts of the US, I’d sure buy me a gun or five.
But in Germany, it’s simply unreasonable.
[quote]orion wrote:
That is also wrong because the 18th and the 19th century was the big time of libertarianism.
It gave us the constitutional republic, the separation of church and state, separation of powers. human rights and a whole nation founded on libertarian principles, the USA.
To claims that this was never tried and has never worked are blatantly false. [/quote]
There were no libertarian governments, please refrain from parroting fantasy!
There was slavery, and later a titanic and disgustingly bloody war with draftees!
With such logic, you could claim the roman republic was libertarian.
Sure, libertarian ideas were floating around in 18th and 19th, because of historical reasons. (discussed in one of my laste posts)
But this window of opportunity is now closed.
As an optimistic outlook, two such windows may be open again someday:
Human ressource organization through virtual, transparent information grids can -in theory- change a lot. But perhaps, the more unproductive structures of government opression will prevail. Hard to say at the moment.
The second possibility enters science-fiction, with concepts like colonization of distant planets. Nearly impossible to seriously discuss.
[quote]florelius wrote:
please explain why marx`s rambling about upper class is outdated?[/quote]
Can a landlord throw you out on the streets without warning you for like a year?
Is there an upper class that can openly whip you, or forbid you to whistle?
Can only a distinct class vote or purchase property?
Can top managment fire your ass without warning after a few years or openly forbid labour unions?
…
you may not believe, but times have changed (of course, partly because of Marx)!
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
So you just missed the in general thing did you?
Also, politicians and government workers are an OBVIOUS exception. They’re paid to be incompetent because they have no competition to drive them. Dur.[/quote]
But it’s not true, and that is rather important to realize.
As long as there is no product and no (mass)consumer, you’ll have a hard time gauging a price, and therefore, a salary.
Politicians and government workers will tell you they work very hard, and indeed, we can at least assert they ofte work long hours.
Students in Germany, for instance pay almost nothing for their, often excellent, education.
They enjoy a good life compared to a labourer. So the argument with invested effort and money is bunk.
There are some nice books that show that you could have let decide monkeys the majority of big corporate deals, with largely the same results. It’s hard to analyze if a new managment decision to fire 1000, 5000 or even 10000 people is reasonable or not.
How would you explain the regular failings of corporate or bank giants? Certainly not competition alone. Don’t they have the best managers?