Cuomo's Brownshirts put squeeze on AIG

[mhaze]

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

Wouldn't this place an upper limit on the number of bridges that got built? To be more precise, an arbitrary cap on the bridge designer/builder's income would not be matched with the actual market demand for bridges. Seems like a classic inefficient market.

This would imply that to have it "moral" (well, by your standards) society suffers? I kind of have a problem with that...

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

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.

Nevermind that capitalist nations typically foster a desire for greater wealth right? We're talking apples and oranges here. Need v. Want. Communism works by supplying only the need and not the want.

 

[aerosolben]

Nevermind that capitalist nations typically foster a desire for greater wealth right? We're talking apples and oranges here. Need v. Want. Communism works by supplying only the need and not the want.

Errr...okay? Still not seeing a bridge being built here.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Errr...okay? Still not seeing a bridge being built here.

That's because you're presupposing that he wouldn't want money.

 

[Dr Adequate]

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.

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.

At least one of us, possibly both, needs to learn more about Communism before continuing this discussion. I'm not really sure exactly what Marx had in mind after the "withering away of the State". If you have any relevant quotations, please let me know.

Premising your criticism of Communism on whatever that is, however, seems to be putting the cart before the horse. It's a bit like criticizing the 9/11 bombers on the grounds that a harem of 72 virgins would be more trouble than it's worth.

 

[DC]

Wouldn't this place an upper limit on the number of bridges that got built? To be more precise, an arbitrary cap on the bridge designer/builder's income would not be matched with the actual market demand for bridges. Seems like a classic inefficient market.

This would imply that to have it "moral" (well, by your standards) society suffers? I kind of have a problem with that...

thats not about the companys profit, its about wages beeing payd.
for company profit i would see something in the direction of Silvio Gesell's „Freigeld“, money that expires, or looses worth over time, so you will invest.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

At least one of us, possibly both, needs to learn more about Communism before continuing this discussion. I'm not really sure exactly what Marx had in mind after the "withering away of the State". If you have any relevant quotations, please let me know.

I know exactly what Marx had in mind after the "withering away of the State". Communal ownership, he even cites pre-civilized tribes as an early form of communism. See: Primitive Communism.

Premising your criticism of Communism on whatever that is, however, seems to be putting the cart before the horse. It's a bit like criticizing the 9/11 bombers on the grounds that a harem of 72 virgins would be more trouble than it's worth.

Ahh, in other words it's completely invalid to criticize an ideology for what it states and any possibly scenarios that may follow.

 

[aerosolben]

That's because you're presupposing that he wouldn't want money.

That's the whole point of this discussion. Allow me to recap:

You said:

How does this group who needs his skills hire him if they have nothing to offer?

I pointed out that a hypothetical capitalist community with nothing to offer isn't getting a bridge either.

You now seem to want to insist that the capitalists DO have something he wants - that renders this whole hypothetical comparison rather moot, unless you are arguing that capitalist communities always have things bridge builders want and it is fundamentally impossible for communist ones to.

Perhaps there is some more reasonable point you are attempting to make, but it's really not coming through.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Perhaps there is some more reasonable point you are attempting to make, but it's really not coming through.

Essentially that communism doesn't reward hardwork. My question is how do you get the bridge-builder to work if they don't have any incentive for him to work for them. Marx believed people in a pure communist society would work for nothing and give everything they had only for a day's provisions as lefty seems to believe. That is my criticism, namely that this is a pipedream.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Marx believed people in a pure communist society would work for nothing and give everything they had only for a day's provisions as lefty seems to believe. That is my criticism, namely that this is a pipedream.

Could you cite that? I'm pretty sure you're misattributing.

 

[mhaze]

....You now seem to want to insist that the capitalists DO have something he wants - that renders this whole hypothetical comparison rather moot, unless you are arguing that capitalist communities always have things bridge builders want and it is fundamentally impossible for communist ones to..

That could be the case. Less selection of consumer goods in communism for example. Particularly if cultural standards of the society frowned and/or penalized to much acquisitions.

 

[aerosolben]

Essentially that communism doesn't reward hardwork. My question is how do you get the bridge-builder to work if they don't have any incentive for him to work for them. Marx believed people in a pure communist society would work for nothing and give everything they had only for a day's provisions as lefty seems to believe. That is my criticism, namely that this is a pipedream.

Well, the situation seems to be that the communist bridge guy works because the rest of his community takes care of his other needs - a cooperative effort towards a complete whole (NB: Not judging how this works in reality, but I believe you've granted it for the purpose of the argument). If another community wants his services, too, they would need to enter this shared ecosystem in some fashion - presumably through barter.

I haven't read Marx's writings in a long time or in great depth, so perhaps he conceived of something else happening.

That could be the case. Less selection of consumer goods in communism for example. Particularly if cultural standards of the society frowned and/or penalized to much acquisitions.

Less doesn't mean none. That was an intentionally absurd proposition intended to reinforce my point - I sincerely hope you're not actually intending to agree that Communism means absolutely nothing of valuable to anyone outside the community can ever be produced ever.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Could you cite that? I'm pretty sure you're misattributing.

"From each accoriding to his ability, to each according to his need"

 

[DC]

"From each accoriding to his ability, to each according to his need"

is it correct that this slogan is the only thing you have ever read from Marx?

 

[quixotecoyote]

"From each accoriding to his ability, to each according to his need"

hmm, that sounds a bit different than

in a pure communist society would work for nothing and give everything they had only for a day's provisions

Perhaps you should look beyond the sound-bite.

Care to have another go?

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

is it correct that this slogan is the only thing you have ever read from Marx?

Which is roughly the equivalent of me accusing you of only having read about capitalism when it concerns some rather shady treatment of workers. It's a rather useless statement my friend.

hmm, that sounds a bit different than



Perhaps you should look beyond the sound-bite.

Care to have another go?

So you're saying that Marx didn't expect people to work for more than they would be paid? It's right there in the statement, a man will work to the limit of his ability and be paid in what he needs (a day's provisions). Lenin at least stated people would be rewarded for their work.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Well, the situation seems to be that the communist bridge guy works because the rest of his community takes care of his other needs - a cooperative effort towards a complete whole (NB: Not judging how this works in reality, but I believe you've granted it for the purpose of the argument). If another community wants his services, too, they would need to enter this shared ecosystem in some fashion - presumably through barter.

I haven't read Marx's writings in a long time or in great depth, so perhaps he conceived of something else happening.

This largely depends on how much into Marx you're willing to go. Marx' writing were largeley criticisms of capitalism and his visions and/or predicitions of a communist society and how one would come about, he never got too big into how these societies would work after the dictatorship of the proletariat, presumably because it was besides the point. I'm going based on his early model of communism which was believed by him and Engels to have been before the rise of city states.

However, bartering doesn't seem like much of an option because Marx specifically envisioned communism as eliminating the production of surplus goods which was part of his theory on how workers are exploited. Realistically I agree with you and that is precisely what would happen. But for arguments sake and a more academic approach to Marxist theory, they wouldn't have been able to barter their way into the society because they wouldn't have surplus goods to barter. And my hypothetical already stated they have what the other community has.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I know exactly what Marx had in mind after the "withering away of the State". Communal ownership, he even cites pre-civilized tribes as an early form of communism. See: Primitive Communism.

Sure, communal ownership. That's kind of implicit in the word "communism". I'd got that far.

If yu know exactly what Marx had in mind, could you please say?

Ahh, in other words it's completely invalid to criticize an ideology for what it states and any possibly scenarios that may follow.

Those are indeed other words. Very other words. However, that is not what I said in other words.

 

[aerosolben]

I'm going based on his early model of communism which was believed by him and Engels to have been before the rise of city states.

However, bartering doesn't seem like much of an option because Marx specifically envisioned communism as eliminating the production of surplus goods which was part of his theory on how workers are exploited.

If you're planning to use it for trade, it's not really "surplus" is it? But, yes, I suppose I'm not aware of him addressing it in great detail.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Sure, communal ownership. That's kind of implicit in the word "communism". I'd got that far.

If yu know exactly what Marx had in mind, could you please say?

As in specific quotes? That would require me to do a bit of hunting, it's been awhile since I picked up the Communist Manifesto or Das Kapital.

Those are indeed other words. Very other words. However, that is not what I said in other words.

Please explain your statement then as I was, apparently, confused by the comparison.

If you're planning to use it for trade, it's not really "surplus" is it? But, yes, I suppose I'm not aware of him addressing it in great detail.

Well I suppose that's true but my hypothetical already addressed the lack of resources or the part of the poorer community. It's kind of a hopeless debate without Marx giving a better explanation of his economic model of Communism, and I don't think we'll be getting one anytime soon.