Do you know any Communists?

karma_ · 24-02-2014 12:59PM

jank wrote: »

Of course the simple flaw of that is ignoring the fact that a surgeon's time is vastly more valuable than a street cleaner. Not everyone's output of labour is the same and not everyone is equal in capacity, work ethic or capacity. Thus a LTV system is fundamentally flawed and would never work.

And is an actuaries or a bankers time more valuable still than a surgeons? Of course not, despite what they would have you believe.

Tiddlypeeps · 24-02-2014 01:02PM

karma_ wrote: »

And is an actuaries or a bankers time more valuable still than a surgeons? Of course not, despite what they would have you believe.

You are missing the point about, even assuming an actuaries, a bankers and a surgeons time have the same value, should they have the same value as a cashier who has invested no time in training to do the job they are in?

24-02-2014 01:02PM

jank wrote: »

Of course the simple flaw of that is ignoring the fact that a surgeon's time is vastly more valuable than a street cleaner. Not everyone's output of labour is the same and not everyone is equal in capacity, work ethic or capacity. Thus a LTV system is fundamentally flawed and would never work.

Indeed, charges are not just based on hours but also reflect the training and skillset developed to be able to do that work. If it takes 4 years of college, possibly a postgrad, and then however many years after that to qualify, of course that should be reflected

karma_ · 24-02-2014 01:05PM

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

You are missing the point about, even assuming an actuaries, a bankers and a surgeons time have the same value, should they have the same value as a cashier who has invested no time in training to do the job they are in?

When I speak about value I'm talking about the benefit each brings to society. I put it to you that it is yourself who has missed the point.

jank · 24-02-2014 01:06PM

coolemon wrote: »

This is a question that, for you to understand, would require you to fully understand my broader political outlook in greater detail. Otherwise your ideological presuppositions and assumptions will not mesh with mine, leading to misunderstranding.

But I will explain.

I propose having no money. I believe in a society of 'free access' (within reason). A subjective intangible and non-quantifiable 'market' of needs would operate. I believe under certain conditions people can consume, and want to consume, based upon an objects use value alone, and where social values are not attached to objects in the same way it occurs under capitalism.

I would take the fact that when things are freely available, they are not accumulated. This as no social value (social status, prestige etc.) is derived from their accumulation. Leaves are not accumulated - they have no social value. Aluminium cans are thrown away on the street - they have little to no exchange value and no social value. Unlike when Napolian wanted plates and spoons made from aluminium when access to the material was restricted and exclusionary, for example.

Well if you want to have a scarify of goods such as phones, cars, food and clothes than no better way than to start with a communist society.

karma_ · 24-02-2014 01:08PM

jank wrote: »

Well if you want to have a scarify of goods such as phones, cars, food and clothes than no better way than to start with a communist society.

Supply and demand the oldest economists cliche in the book. I could teach a parrot to be an economist.

jank · 24-02-2014 01:10PM

karma_ wrote: »

And is an actuaries or a bankers time more valuable still than a surgeons? Of course not, despite what they would have you believe.

Well i know both are highly paid but the market dictates wages. It is deemed the best way to distribute the price of labour. If you have a better way then I am all ears but totalitarian methods to regulate labour into channels or vouchers or whatever you want to call it at best results in a stagnant economy and at worst results in mass famine and death.

coolemon · 24-02-2014 01:13PM

jank wrote: »

Of course the simple flaw of that is ignoring the fact that a surgeon's time is vastly more valuable than a street cleaner. Not everyone's output of labour is the same and not everyone is equal in capacity, work ethic or capacity. Thus a LTV system is fundamentally flawed and would never work.

I think it is flawed myself. Thats why I dont believe in it. I was simply pointing out that Marx did not advocate a "central banking" system.

That confusion comes fromn conflating Communist States with what Marx advocated, which is socialism and communism.

jank · 24-02-2014 01:14PM

karma_ wrote: »

Supply and demand the oldest economists cliche in the book. I could teach a parrot to be an economist.

Yea, those North Koreans are swimming in milk and grain and the moment, laughing at their wealth and lot at those pesky South Koreans. Who needs food when you are issued a non existent state allowance of cloth.

http://watermarked.impactphotos.com/1260078.jpg

karma_ · 24-02-2014 01:17PM

jank wrote: »

Well i know both are highly paid but the market dictates wages. It is deemed the best way to distribute the price of labour. If you have a better way then I am all ears but totalitarian methods to regulate labour into channels or vouchers or whatever you want to call it at best results in a stagnant economy and at worst results in mass famine and death.

I'm fed up with the lame old tactic of falling back to what the 'market decides'. That's horseshít too and as fundamentally flawed as you think communism is. Personally I don't think communism is workable but at the same time, capitalism is just as bad an option. And the only thing I can think of that would be even worse is what the libertarians crave as we would just replace the state with corporations and then things would get really, really bad.

coolemon · 24-02-2014 01:18PM

jank wrote: »

Well if you want to have a scarify of goods such as phones, cars, food and clothes than no better way than to start with a communist society.

Not really. It is the complete opposite. Capitalism actually manufactures scarcity. It requires it to survive. From planned obselescence to tweaking the bodywork each year of a car which is otherwise exactly the same.

It wants you to consume. And it makes you feel inadequate if you dont. Resulting in perpetual scarcity.

karma_ · 24-02-2014 01:20PM

jank wrote: »

Yea, those North Koreans are swimming in milk and grain and the moment, laughing at their wealth and lot at those pesky South Koreans. Who needs food when you are issued a non existent state allowance of cloth.

http://watermarked.impactphotos.com/1260078.jpg

Non sequitur, no idea why you even brought this up.

KyussBishop · 24-02-2014 01:25PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I totally disagree. The wages a person demands in our society is based on their education, skill, experience and the amount of personal risk and responsibility they are willing to take on. That a person from a wealthy background has easier access to the first one is irrelevant. It just makes it more challenging for others. I wasn't from a wealthy background but thanks to free education I was able to pull myself up.

How does a communist society order labor allocation?

For example I'm currently studying actuarial science. I'm not putting myself through 14 hard exams because I enjoy it. I'm doing it because Actuaries are paid a lot of money. Why would anyone be an Actuary in your society?

Uhm, miscalculation (often deliberate) of risk, and fraudulent reselling of assets with a premium low-risk rating, when they were in fact extremely risky, is what contributed enormously to the economic crisis.
Actuaries played their part in destroying a chunk of the world economy, and they still have their salaries and bonuses - they don't face personal risk anywhere near proportionate to the damage they can cause.

The way fraud works today, is that corrupt actuaries/accountants get hired by CEO's in banks/financial institutions, in order to cook the books and give financial instruments rosy classifications, so that institutions can (on paper) make a lot of short term profits, which get distributed to complicit workers (including the actuaries/accountants) and CEO's as immediate salary and bonus payments, while the firm itself becomes insolvent (pending a rescue/bailout later on - i.e. the public pays for all their reckless profits).

Since there is often only an obscured paper trail left behind, and no willingness on the part of authorities to really investigate this stuff (and with complicit paid off workers, having no incentive to blow the whistle), the people involved just get to walk away and do the whole thing again in another firm.
This is how Accounting Control Fraud works.

These days, I'm starting to come more around to the idea that many Libertarians (not all, but the most dedicated among them) are really just the trainee financial fraudsters of the future - and that it is plainly visible that most of them don't actually believe the crap they are spouting, but it is advantageous for them (and other free-marketeers) to spout that line, as it makes them compatible to fit in with the right circles, demonstrating that they can be trusted to stay quiet about fraud, so they can participate and share the gains.

It's no coincidence, that the mindset displayed, seems to merge perfectly with one that would excuse and participate in fraud - indeed, it (fraud) is something that free-marketeers and Libertarians often try to deny or pour-doubt on the very existence of it, which all fits pretty well.

jank · 24-02-2014 01:27PM

karma_ wrote: »

I'm fed up with the lame old tactic of falling back to what the 'market decides'. That's horseshít too and as fundamentally flawed as you think communism is. Personally I don't think communism is workable but at the same time, capitalism is just as bad an option. And the only thing I can think of that would be even worse is what the libertarians crave as we would just replace the state with corporations and then things would get really, really bad.

How is it just as bad? The free market may have it flaws for sure but to say that is its as bad as Communism is just horse manure. Yet you say this, probably typing on a nice and shiny iPad or Laptop made by a big bad corporation, might even be made by a South Korean while 100 miles north things can get some bad economically that people are forced to engage in cannibalism. The reason why we live in a world of plenty today is because of trade and 'the market'.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 24-02-2014 01:30PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Uhm, miscalculation (often deliberate) of risk, and fraudulent reselling of assets with a premium low-risk rating, when they were in fact extremely risky, is what contributed enormously to the economic crisis.
Actuaries played their part in destroying a chunk of the world economy, and they still have their salaries and bonuses - they don't face personal risk anywhere near proportionate to the damage they can cause.

The way fraud works today, is that corrupt actuaries/accountants get hired by CEO's in banks/financial institutions, in order to cook the books and give financial instruments rosy classifications, so that institutions can (on paper) make a lot of short term profits, which get distributed to complicit workers (including the actuaries/accountants) and CEO's as immediate salary and bonus payments, while the firm itself becomes insolvent (pending a rescue/bailout later on - i.e. the public pays for all their reckless profits).

Since there is often only an obscured paper trail left behind, and no willingness on the part of authorities to really investigate this stuff (and with complicit paid off workers, having no incentive to blow the whistle), the people involved just get to walk away and do the whole thing again in another firm.
This is how Accounting Control Fraud works.

These days, I'm starting to come more around to the idea that many Libertarians (not all, but the most dedicated among them) are really just the trainee financial fraudsters of the future - and that it is plainly visible that most of them don't actually believe the crap they are spouting, but it is advantageous for them (and other free-marketeers) to spout that line, as it makes them compatible to fit in with the right circles, demonstrating that they can be trusted to stay quiet about fraud, so they can participate and share the gains.

It's no coincidence, that the mindset displayed, seems to merge perfectly with one that would excuse and participate in fraud - indeed, it (fraud) is something that free-marketeers and Libertarians often try to deny or pour-doubt on the very existence of it, which all fits pretty well.

it's hard to know if you actually believe the **** you come out with or if you're just that much of a troll

"people I disagree with are evil. it's obvious because look at how much they disagree with me"

jank · 24-02-2014 01:30PM

coolemon wrote: »

Not really. It is the complete opposite. Capitalism actually manufactures scarcity. It requires it to survive. From planned obselescence to tweaking the bodywork each year of a car which is otherwise exactly the same.

It wants you to consume. And it makes you feel inadequate if you dont. Resulting in perpetual scarcity.

Now you are getting all philosophical. People are free to consume or not. That is their choice. But tell me what does Capitalism make scarce? Give me some concrete examples because it is probably scarce as a result of low or none existent demand. The demand for iPads for example is greater then works by Ashley Cole.

jank · 24-02-2014 01:34PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

These days, I'm starting to come more around to the idea that many Libertarians (not all, but the most dedicated among them) are really just the trainee financial fraudsters of the future - and that it is plainly visible that most of them don't actually believe the crap they are spouting, but it is advantageous for them (and other free-marketeers) to spout that line, as it makes them compatible to fit in with the right circles, demonstrating that they can be trusted to stay quiet about fraud, so they can participate and share the gains.

It's no coincidence, that the mindset displayed, seems to merge perfectly with one that would excuse and participate in fraud - indeed, it (fraud) is something that free-marketeers and Libertarians often try to deny or pour-doubt on the very existence of it, which all fits pretty well.

Im in IT myself but do work in the financial sector, so where can I get my 'Satan's Army' Membership card. It will look cool next to my flybys card and my Nandos Membership card. Hope it comes with life insurance!

karma_ · 24-02-2014 01:35PM

jank wrote: »

Now you are getting all philosophical. People are free to consume or not. That is their choice. But tell me what does Capitalism make scarce? Give me some concrete examples because it is probably scarce as a result of low or none existent demand. The demand for iPads for example is greater then works by Ashley Cole.

God forbid anyone gets philosophical. You think it's a choice? LOL We are trained to consume, it's watered and fed to us on a daily basis and if we didn't the whole system would fall around us and collapse.

Ever wondered why is there a demand for iPads, when cheaper alternatives are in most cases a superior product? Mate you don't even understand your own ideology and in itself that's terrifying.

coolemon · 24-02-2014 01:38PM

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

It's meaningless because those are not the circumstances we are in and are unlikely to be anytime soon.

If you were to include a workable plan for moving society towards the right ideological form for the system to work then that would be different. But without that the whole concept is a meaningless thought excercise.

But you see that is what ideology is - a way of perceiving the world a certain way. And you have perceived the world as 'not the circumstances we are currently in'.

I perceive it completely different. I think that the overwhelming majority of social activity already revolves around the absence of money. From interactions within families, to helping your fellow co-worker complete a task at work, to virtually all of your activity apart from that which directly determines your payment at the end of the week.

You know I can think of endless examples where, despite the absence of financial reward, people will engage in labour - spontaneously or otherwise. Helping a neighbour repair something, trying to put out a fire caused by local youth, cutting the green areas of an estate when the managment company is having problems doing so.

Capitalism, in my view, warps what would already occur. That is, people wanting to work. And it was Marx's contention that the socialisation of labour - through industrial armies in factories etc. - would bring about that type of consciousness.

KyussBishop · 24-02-2014 01:39PM

coolemon wrote: »

No need to be so hostile.

A communist society will require a different ideological form. If thats "peopels brains working differently", as you put it, then yes.

Communism must be built by the people themselves, not a "design" imposed on them from a state.

This is, unfortunately, why it will never happen - at least, not in any currently imagined form.

You have to build economic/political/societal systems that are robust in the face of exploitation, and this is why all anarchist (or close to it) based systems are impractical: It's pretty easy for them to be exploited by a small group exercising disproportionate power.

In order for a Communist society like that to work, people wouldn't just need to voluntarily adopt a different ideological mindset, they would need to force that on others - just won't work.

jank · 24-02-2014 01:45PM

karma_ wrote: »

God forbid anyone gets philosophical. You think it's a choice? LOL We are trained to consume, it's watered and fed to us on a daily basis and if we didn't the whole system would fall around us and collapse.

Ever wondered why is there a demand for iPads, when cheaper alternatives are in most cases a superior product? Mate you don't even understand your own ideology and in itself that's terrifying.

So, you are basically saying that humans are robots programmed to consume by evil capitalists… is that the crux of your argument?
People are free to buy crap or not. I don't buy $hite hence I have more money in my bank account for stuff I actually want to do and places I want to see. That is my choice as it is everyones choice to buy crap or not.

There is a demand for iPads because it is marketed towards wealthy westerns as cool and 'niche'. I am not getting into the whole iOS vs Android thing but again people are free to pay extra for a product they personally think is better. And for them maybe it is better. Apple products are generally popular with the pinko liberals anyway.

tony007 · 24-02-2014 01:47PM

jank wrote: »

Now you are getting all philosophical. People are free to consume or not. That is their choice. But tell me what does Capitalism make scarce? Give me some concrete examples because it is probably scarce as a result of low or none existent demand. The demand for iPads for example is greater then works by Ashley Cole.

Not when the effects of consumption include a lack of resources or huge environmental damage.

coolemon · 24-02-2014 01:47PM

jank wrote: »

Capitalism make scarce? Give me some concrete examples because it is probably scarce as a result of low or none existent demand.

It makes social value scarce.

The desire for a new car, for example, is mainly one based upon social value.

Prestige, social status, self-worth and so on.

Thats why all the lovely used Mercedes on carzone are at knock down prices. Because id look like a wannabe driving one.

And not because the used cars have changed, but because the manufacturer has intentionally created new social value with their new models.

karma_ · 24-02-2014 01:49PM

jank wrote: »

So, you are basically saying that humans are robots programmed to consume by evil capitalists… is that the crux of your argument?
People are free to buy crap or not. I don't buy $hite hence I have more money in my bank account for stuff I actually want to do and places I want to see. That is my choice as it is everyones choice to buy crap or not.

There is a demand for iPads because it is marketed towards wealthy westerns as cool and 'niche'. I am not getting into the whole iOS vs Android thing but again people are free to pay extra for a product they personally think is better. And for them maybe it is better. Apple products are generally popular with the pinko liberals anyway.

You don't even know what freedom is, you talk as if you do as is often the case with indoctrinated libertarians but the concept is totally alien to you.

Pinko liberals? LOL again.

KyussBishop · 24-02-2014 01:51PM

jank wrote: »

How is it just as bad? The free market may have it flaws for sure but to say that is its as bad as Communism is just horse manure. Yet you say this, probably typing on a nice and shiny iPad or Laptop made by a big bad corporation, might even be made by a South Korean while 100 miles north things can get some bad economically that people are forced to engage in cannibalism. The reason why we live in a world of plenty today is because of trade and 'the market'.

The 'free market' is as bad as communism, because they are both a purely theoretical/fictional state, that economies can never reach in reality - and talking about reality as if it can attain a utopian state of pure communism, is just as bad as talking about reality as if it can attain a utopian state of pure free-markets.

coolemon · 24-02-2014 01:51PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

In order for a Communist society like that to work, people wouldn't just need to voluntarily adopt a different ideological mindset, they would need to force that on others - just won't work.

And this is the key problem that Marxist sociologists have tried to explain.

But I am hopeful. I think the conditions for communism are already in place - as I have explained in my previous posts.

tony007 · 24-02-2014 01:53PM

jank wrote: »

So, you are basically saying that humans are robots programmed to consume by evil capitalists… is that the crux of your argument?
People are free to buy crap or not. I don't buy $hite hence I have more money in my bank account for stuff I actually want to do and places I want to see. That is my choice as it is everyones choice to buy crap or not.

There is a demand for iPads because it is marketed towards wealthy westerns as cool and 'niche'. I am not getting into the whole iOS vs Android thing but again people are free to pay extra for a product they personally think is better. And for them maybe it is better. Apple products are generally popular with the pinko liberals anyway.

You're presuming that our purchases are based on informed decisions. If that were the case, advertising and marketing would be largely banned.

KyussBishop · 24-02-2014 01:57PM

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

it's hard to know if you actually believe the **** you come out with or if you're just that much of a troll

"people I disagree with are evil. it's obvious because look at how much they disagree with me"

Ok Digby, describe an incentive I would have to lie about my beliefs? Just one incentive.

I have described in my post there, an incentive Libertarians/free-marketeers have to lie about their beliefs:
It puts them in a position where they can deny and create justifications for fraud, and (purely by coincidence) many of them happen to be working or moving towards working in finance - a place where fraud is protected, and where people get ridiculously rich through fraud.

I mean really, it's pretty routine for free-marketeers and Libertarians to outright deny, play-down or excuse fraud - it's their unspeakable F word, and you pretty much never hear them acknowledge the existence of it, other than in very brief-passing or lip-service (usually to say "gosh no, I'd never support that" - while posting to regularly play down its existence, and make out as if that the financial/banking industry can do no wrong, and that it's all gubberments fault).

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 24-02-2014 01:57PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

This is, unfortunately, why it will never happen - at least, not in any currently imagined form.

You have to build economic/political/societal systems that are robust in the face of exploitation, and this is why all anarchist (or close to it) based systems are impractical: It's pretty easy for them to be exploited by a small group exercising disproportionate power.

In order for a Communist society like that to work, people wouldn't just need to voluntarily adopt a different ideological mindset, they would need to force that on others - just won't work.

It can work, just not on a national level in today's society. Whether it could work in a utopia is debateble, but even then it's relative.

Tiddlypeeps · 24-02-2014 02:02PM

coolemon wrote: »

But you see that is what ideology is - a way of perceiving the world a certain way. And you have perceived the world as 'not the circumstances we are currently in'.

I perceive it completely different. I think that the overwhelming majority of social activity already revolves around the absence of money. From interactions within families, to helping your fellow co-worker complete a task at work, to virtually all of your activity apart from that which directly determines your payment at the end of the week.

You know I can think of endless examples where, despite the absence of financial reward, people will engage in labour - spontaneously or otherwise. Helping a neighbour repair something, trying to put out a fire caused by local youth, cutting the green areas of an estate when the managment company is having problems doing so.

Capitalism, in my view, warps what would already occur. That is, people wanting to work. And it was Marx's contention that the socialisation of labour - through industrial armies in factories etc. - would bring about that type of consciousness.

I'm just gonna ask outright because you keep dancing around the issue.

How would you actually implement the system you are talking about? I'm talking logistics here, not vauge fuzzy ideas of what the world will look like when it gets there, I'm asking how do you get it there?

karma_ wrote: »

God forbid anyone gets philosophical. You think it's a choice? LOL We are trained to consume, it's watered and fed to us on a daily basis and if we didn't the whole system would fall around us and collapse.

Ever wondered why is there a demand for iPads, when cheaper alternatives are in most cases a superior product? Mate you don't even understand your own ideology and in itself that's terrifying.

This is a load of crap tbh. I don't want to derail the thread but I think it's important to make the point, show me this iPad alternative that is both cheap and superior.

Do you know any Communists?

Comments