Cuomo's Brownshirts put squeeze on AIG

[Skeptic]

Beware, Shuize. Like Socrates, you're asking logical questions that seem not to lead in the direction of a Marxist conclusion. If "Lefty Sergeant" ever comes to power, you'll having it coming, you proto-fascist!

 

[aerosolben]

They aren't capitalists, that's the thing. It was an argument against communism.

Yes, quite - perhaps I phrased myself poorly.

I meant, the man in question has no reason to build bridges for a group that has nothing to offer him in a capitalist society, either. Removing communism from the picture does not solve that particular problem.

Dr. A has addressed a lot of the rest about how the man is compensated, but:

My question was why would he work for a community with nothing to offer him? Especially when his own community has a surplus of goods they are willing to pay him so long as the bridges remain built and he makes himself product.

He wouldn't, I suppose. I don't see how this is a problem for communism, though. I mean, "community" is right in the name.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Yes, quite - perhaps I phrased myself poorly.

I meant, the man in question has no reason to build bridges for a group that has nothing to offer him in a capitalist society, either. Removing communism from the picture does not solve that particular problem.

No he doesn't and that is something capitalism will admit freely. Communism tries harder to hide that fact however, mostly because Marx never gave a working example of how a stateless and classless pure society would work. He focused his time on criticizing capitalism without ever providing a better alternative.

He wouldn't, I suppose. I don't see how this is a problem for communism, though. I mean, "community" is right in the name.

Ok, you're still failing to understand me. Forget about his dilemma on where to work. He's already working for his own community that he resides in and is well compensated for his work. Now, he's approached by another poorer community. If there is no incentive for him to work for this other community, how do they get him to build a bridge for him? The short answer is they can't.

 

[mhaze]

In the communist system , various thugs take turns pointing their guns at him, while in capitalism, they wave briefcases of money in his face.

 

[Damien Evans]

Bollocks.

You owe a working man every bloody cent you promised him. Speculators deserve what they get if, and only IF, they have done something for somone.


If you gamble and lose, bend over and take it. you still owe laborers for any services rendered, every dime of it, before any of your investors or managers get their unearned share of what is left of the company. That includes old age pensions. Just putting up with the crap that the investor class habds a working man should be compensated. Do you think that working people would have any reason to sit there and take the abuse if they could not count on a comfortable old age?

The investor class are a breed apart from working people. Their reward is in the risk, the thrill of the game. Don't tell a worn-out, weary old man about to retire that, "Hey, sometimes you win, some times you lose. Get back in the game."

These people have had their fun and it is time they started taking their lumps like responsible grown-ups. Reagan is dead and his policies are starting to smell like his corpse as well.

You have an irrational hatred of white-collar workers.

 

[Dr Adequate]

In the communist system , various thugs take turns pointing their guns at him, while in capitalism, they wave briefcases of money in his face.

By KF's hypothesis, people who need the man's services don't have briefcases of money, nor, indeed, anything else that he wants.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Ok, you're still failing to understand me. Forget about his dilemma on where to work. He's already working for his own community that he resides in and is well compensated for his work. Now, he's approached by another poorer community. If there is no incentive for him to work for this other community, how do they get him to build a bridge for him? The short answer is they can't.

But surely the communist answer to that would be that the communist society is all one big community and that one of the conditions for which this community pays him is that he's works where it tells him to.

The idea of sub-communities --- towns, say, within a larger nation --- competing in a free market to acquire necessary basic infrastructure doesn't sound terribly communist, does it? It's not even how things such as roads and bridges are provided in the good old capitalist USA.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Who the hell decides what "provisions' are necessary anyway? The government? Internet badass wannabes?

When you get down to it, what Lefty is saying all boils down to:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.​

 

[Cobalt]

When you get down to it, what Lefty is saying all boils down to:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.​

Indeed, I'd just want to expand upon that. Who determines what "need" is necessary? Who determines who needs more than another?

And what I wonder if he realizes is that if you do go through with such a plan, that you'll still have class warfare? The masses, and the government who controls their lives.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

By KF's hypothesis, people who need the man's services don't have briefcases of money, nor, indeed, anything else that he wants.

Probably because Marx advocated the complete removal of paper currency from the system and advocated what was essentially a return to tribalism.

 

[DC]

Indeed, I'd just want to expand upon that. Who determines what "need" is necessary? Who determines who needs more than another?

And what I wonder if he realizes is that if you do go through with such a plan, that you'll still have class warfare? The masses, and the government who controls their lives.

the People could determine it by democratic decisions.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

But surely the communist answer to that would be that the communist society is all one big community and that one of the conditions for which this community pays him is that he's works where it tells him to.

It isn't a big community anymore than the AnCaps wet-dream is a giant orgy of capitalism. Marx advocated the elimination of the state, so the world won't be "one big community" it'll be a very large number of individual communities each with their own means of production competing for one another for resources. Sounds like pre-civilized tribalism? Well that's because it is. Marx even used tribal societies as a model for his theory.

The idea of sub-communities --- towns, say, within a larger nation --- competing in a free market to acquire necessary basic infrastructure doesn't sound terribly communist, does it? It's not even how things such as roads and bridges are provided in the good old capitalist USA.[/QUOTE]

I've highlighted what won't exist according to Marx in his theory of communism. After the dictatorship of the proletariat secures the world they'll move to eliminate large government and have everything decided by local communities. So your whole argument here is a non-sequitor.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

the People could determine it by democratic decisions.

Of course! Now why can't an employer and an employee decide what the value of his work is?

 

[Cobalt]

Of course! Now why can't an employer and an employee decide what the value of his work is?

Cuz they aren't people. Duh.

 

[DC]

Of course! Now why can't an employer and an employee decide what the value of his work is?

well i think there should be limitations . a minimum but also a maximum.
but thats my personal oppinion. because i think it is imoral when managers "earn" more a day than non management workers a month.

 

[aerosolben]

No he doesn't and that is something capitalism will admit freely.

OK - but why isn't it a problem for capitalism then? I don't see how admitting a failure makes it less of a failure in a practical sense.

If there is no incentive for him to work for this other community, how do they get him to build a bridge for him? The short answer is they can't.

Yes, but this is true regardless of the economic system. Your answer seems to be (as far as I can tell) that communism fails because it won't admit that. I guess in an academic sense maybe, but in any practical environment they'd probably just work it out (ignoring the myriad other issues with communism for the moment).

My answer is that the situation is actually relatively rare; generally, some sort of barter system would be worked out in the absence of currency (political bargaining/bartering is how a lot of international situations get resolved currently).

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

well i think there should be limitations . a minimum but also a maximum.
but thats my personal oppinion. because i think it is imoral when managers "earn" more a day than non management workers a month.

Why though? Labor is a dime a dozen but a man who actually is educated and has ideas is rare. Why shouldn't a person with ideas and education be paid more?

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

OK - but why isn't it a problem for capitalism then? I don't see how admitting a failure makes it less of a failure in a practical sense.

Capitalism will at least give you that choice. Strictly speaking in a communist society you have to work even if it won't benefit you. "From each according to his ability to each according to his need". Capitalism doesn't require people to work more than they are being paid, communism does. That's the fault. Lenin at least proposed a reward system, which is what we already have and therefore becomes redundant.

Yes, but this is true regardless of the economic system. Your answer seems to be (as far as I can tell) that communism fails because it won't admit that. I guess in an academic sense maybe, but in any practical environment they'd probably just work it out (ignoring the myriad other issues with communism for the moment).

Basically yes, of course under a capitalist system, which I would say would most likely be a part of a liberal democracy, there at least exists the option of the government to hire this man to build the bridge. Under a true communist system there is no government, which is where the fault lies.

My answer is that the situation is actually relatively rare; generally, some sort of barter system would be worked out in the absence of currency (political bargaining/bartering is how a lot of international situations get resolved currently).

The situation today is relatively rare. But I'd be willing to bet a shiny penny that under the anarcho-tribalist communes that Marx advocated it would become very common.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

well i think there should be limitations . a minimum but also a maximum.
but thats my personal oppinion. because i think it is imoral when managers "earn" more a day than non management workers a month.

A minumum wage? Well we could debate that. But a maximum wage just seems silly and far more likely to drive talent out of our country and to others not offering such a silly requirement. I'd rather the market decided.

 

[aerosolben]

there at least exists the option of the government to hire this man to build the bridge.

But, in your hypothetical, the government has nothing the man wants. Presumably he would turn them down, then, and this option becomes moot - the government/community still doesn't have its bridge.