Do you know any Communists?

karma_ · 24-02-2014 06:00PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Indeed he did. A visionary man, though for obvious reasons I'll stop short of calling him great.

Because he favoured welfare capitalism?

Iwasfrozen · 24-02-2014 06:06PM

coolemon wrote: »

I maintain that reward are not based upon those attributes you mention - or if they are, they do not reflect the broader processes. Firstly, to obtain certain skills, certain types of knowledge, certain types of experience and so on, one needs to occupy certain social positions - to access certain social connections, access to certain types of cultural and economic capital.

What do you mean?

A person achieves a high social position through education. that education is free of charge there's really no excuse.

These are all obtained through occupying an exclusionary social position and an exclusionary social space. The career occupation that results from the accumulation of these skills, experience and so on, is one garnered through the occupation of an (exclusionary) social position.

Again, I don't know what you're talking about. A person who has accumulated useful skills is far more valuable than someone who hasn't. Wouldn't you agree?

coolemon wrote: »

As for why someone would be willing to take on your career choice. Well that question is asked in your frame of mind, which is loaded with all types of ideological assumptions (as with mine). For example I dont think people work for money at all, but rather for what they can obtain with money - social status, security, basic needs and so on. Maslows Hierarchy does a good job of explaining human motivation irrespective of the economic system.

It's not a matter of prospective. If we all inhabit the same the same society then there must be non objective rewards enticing us to a specific career path. So If a person (non objective average person) was living in your perfect world why wuld they become an actuary?

karma_ wrote: »

Because he favoured welfare capitalism?

Because he was a big dirty anti-semite.

Tiddlypeeps · 24-02-2014 06:15PM

coolemon wrote: »

The system you point to does not work. It might work in your mind because the problems I mentioned are trivialised. And those I mentioned are by no means exhaustive.

It works better than any other system I am aware of.

You have not mentioned any problems with the Scandinavian model. For example working conditions in Asia are not Norways fault. Just because its citizens like to buy iPads does not mean the country as a whole is responsible for the working conditions where those iPads are produced. Working conditions are not as straight forward as that, Apple provide employment, if they were to pull their factories out tomorrow do you think those employees would be better off? Fixing working conditions is in developing countries is not that simple. This is entirely off topic anyway.

The point stands that Norway regularly ranks as the happiest country in the world. Unemployment is very low. Education rates uptake is very high and the quality is fantastic. Financial inequality is very low. The health service is free and is fantastic. Tax rates are high, but as previously mentioned the population are very content so this is obviously not that big of an issue to them.

I would consider that a very successful system. What problems do you have with this system (other than conditions in other countries which they have little/no control over)?

coolemon wrote: »

And there you go with the usual "it has been tried". I already told you that it is based upon historical materialism. It does not matter whether it has been tried or not for that reason.

I am not using "it has been tried" as an argument to say it cannot work. I am using it to say that "there are no working examples of my ideology" is not a good enough argument to dismiss the question of how your system would be implemented. The fact is it has been tried, so unless you can come up with some ways that it should be done differently it's unlikely you will be convincing anybody to move over to your way of thinking.

coolemon · 24-02-2014 06:16PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What do you mean?
A person achieves a high social position through education. that education is free of charge there's really no excuse.

No. A person achieves a high social position through the acquisition of certain cultural attributes, social connections and economic means. And even if two people were to have identical attributes (an impossibility), there may be only one social position available - thus it is exclusionary.

Pierre Bourdieu' theories explains this very well.

A person who has accumulated useful skills is far more valuable than someone who hasn't. Wouldn't you agree?

No, I don't agree.

That's like saying a doctor is more useful than a cleaner in the operation of a hospital. The hospital does not operate without either.

Wealth is socially produced, not the product of an individual.

So If a person (non objective average person) was living in your perfect world why wuld they become an actuary?

For the same reasons they would become an actuary in this society.

On the one hand, because they occupy a social position. And on the other because they seek everything an actuary seeks in this society - status, acceptance, self-worth, and so on.

See Maslows Hierarchy.

KyussBishop · 24-02-2014 06:23PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Have you ever stopped to consider even for a second that people in the financial sector tend to be anti-regulation because they enjoy finance and they enjoy how the system works? Not everything is about money Kyuss and I can guarantee you only a small minority of financial professionals are corrupt and internal discipline is very harsh when (not if) they're caught.

Eh, deregulation = decriminalization of fraud; and yes, I'm sure the financial sector does very much enjoy the system working in that fashion.

The very fact that fraud is treated with internal discipline shows that it is not really dealt with harshly at all: People who commit fraud should go to prison, not get an internal slap on the wrist.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

KyussBishop wrote:

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.

This is what you said, Actuaries. Not some Actuaries, Actuaries. I reject your premise that all Actuaries/Accountants are corrupt, I have no doubt there are a corrupt minority in this profession just like any other profession but to tar everyone with the same brush does a massive dis-service to the industry.

Saying 'actuaries' in plural, does not mean all actuaries - you are deliberately lying about what I have said.

You are trying to perpetuate this lie now again, since I made it clear in my last post that this was not the truth: You are proving that you know, that what you are claiming is false, that you are lying, by repeating this a second time when I've already shown that is not what I said.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'm aware life assurance firms are financial institutions but I think you'll find their involvement with the sub-prime mortgage sector to be rather limited. Constrained to perhaps investments but not to the amount that would cause the crisis.

You are being dishonest again now, by implying I said life assurance firms were involved in the subprime mortgage crisis; probably doing this, in attempt to make your backtracking look like a rebuttal - a rebuttal to an imaginary argument I did not make.

coolemon · 24-02-2014 06:23PM

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

It works better than any other system I am aware of.

You have not mentioned any problems with the Scandinavian model. For example working conditions in Asia are not Norways fault. Just because its citizens like to buy iPads does not mean the country as a whole is responsible for the working conditions where those iPads are produced. Working conditions are not as straight forward as that, Apple provide employment, if they were to pull their factories out tomorrow do you think those employees would be better off? Fixing working conditions is in developing countries is not that simple. This is entirely off topic anyway.

I never said the country as a whole was responsible for the working conditions in a factory in China.

I said the systems were inseparable.

They are interconnected. You cant laud the Scandinavian model and then deny that the very foundations on which that model are based are interconnected with exploitation and barbarism elsewhere.

The system (ie. global capitalism), does not work.

The point stands that Norway regularly ranks as the happiest country in the world. Unemployment is very low. Education rates uptake is very high and the quality is fantastic. Financial inequality is very low. The health service is free and is fantastic. Tax rates are high, but as previously mentioned the population are very content so this is obviously not that big of an issue to them.

I would consider that a very successful system. What problems do you have with this system (other than conditions in other countries which they have little/no control over)?

The problem is that I don't see Norway as a "system" - but one part of a system.

For example, you cant separate the happiness and standard of living of Romans from the Roman empire. Or of Londoners in the 1800's from the slaughter the British empire enacted globally.

I am not using "it has been tried" as an argument to say it cannot work. I am using it to say that "there are no working examples of my ideology" is not a good enough argument to dismiss the question of how your system would be implemented. The fact is it has been tried, so unless you can come up with some ways that it should be done differently it's unlikely you will be convincing anybody to move over to your way of thinking.

No, I probably wont convince you. But that is because you do not understand the basis of the Marxist paradigm - historical materialism.

Jonny7 · 24-02-2014 06:30PM

coolemon wrote: »

No, I don't agree.

That's like saying a doctor is more useful than a cleaner in the operation of a hospital. The hospital does not operate without either.

Anyone can pick up a brush

However to become a doctor takes many years of training and a certain level of intelligence and drive

Hence a doctor is more highly valued (and thus more highly paid)

Society/common sense will never deem both to be equal in terms of value, therefore the only society whereby both would be paid the same is one which has to force unequal values

Iwasfrozen · 24-02-2014 06:31PM

coolemon wrote: »

No. A person achieves a high social position through the acquisition of certain cultural attributes, social connections and economic means. And even if two people were to have identical attributes (an impossibility), there may be only one social position available - thus it is exclusionary.

Pierre Bourdieu' theories explains this very well.

No a person achieves a social position by education. Nothing else. If you're sufficiently clever companies will snap you up, then you can work your way up from the inside but its all about education.

No, I don't agree.

That's like saying a doctor is more useful than a cleaner in the operation of a hospital. The hospital does not operate without either.

Wealth is socially produced, not the product of an individual.

A doctor is much more valuable to the operation of a hospital than a cleaner. Doctors are hard to replace but anyone can be a cleaner.

Pu it this way if need be a doctor could mop a floor but if a cleaner tried to do a doctors job people would die. Clearly the doctor is more important.

For the same reasons they would become an actuary in this society.

Money, status, prestige. All of these would be meaningless in your society.

On the one hand, because they occupy a social position. And on the other because they seek everything an actuary seeks in this society - status, acceptance, self-worth, and so on.

See Maslows Hierarchy.

Status and social position is meaningless if there is no financial superiority to reinforce it.

Acceptance? From who? No one becomes an actuary to be accepted.
Self worth? If your sense of self worth is dependent on a good job then you're doing something wrong.

The only motivation is monetary. No one will go trough 14 exams in your society for "acceptance" or "self worth". If you don't already have those you aren't going to make it through the exams to begin with.

I'm well aware of Maslows Hierarchy, I did the leaving cert.

KyussBishop · 24-02-2014 06:34PM

coolemon wrote: »

No, I probably wont convince you. But that is because you do not understand the basis of the Marxist paradigm - historical materialism.

It's up to you to explain this, not to point people at long articles or other authors.

There's nothing wrong with pointing to such articles (do it routinely myself), but I always try to explain what I'm posting, and clarify that when questions are asked.

It's certainly not going to help credibility, when you use (what looks like) "look at 'x' and get then back to me" or "you just don't understand" as a rebuttal (I know this is not what you have said exactly, but it sure reads like it).

coolemon · 24-02-2014 06:40PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No a person achieves a social position by education. Nothing else. If you're sufficiently clever companies will snap you up, then you can work your way up from the inside but its all about education.

So it pre-supposes that companies want you and are actively recruiting.

So to occupy an exclusive social position, the exclusionary social position needs to exist in the first place.

Unless you want Microsoft to pay you because you have a highly educated Phd in Philosophy.

A doctor is much more valuable to the operation of a hospital than a cleaner. Doctors are hard to replace but anyone can be a cleaner.

But yet everybody cannot be a doctor...

So the doctor is there because he has managed to occupy an exclusive social position.

Pu it this way if need be a doctor could mop a floor but if a cleaner tried to do a doctors job people would die. Clearly the doctor is more important.

Put it this way. If cleaners were not there, MRSA would break out all over the place. Thus more doctors would need to be recruited - reducing the exclusivity of the social position of a doctor.

Money, status, prestige. All of these would be meaningless in your society.

Money would yes. The rest, no.

Status and social position is meaningless if there is no financial superiority to reinforce it.

Funny that. I dont see that on Maslows Hierarchy.

Acceptance? From who? No one becomes an actuary to be accepted.

How do you know?

The only motivation is monetary.

I'm well aware of Maslows Hierarchy, I did the leaving cert.

You must have failed on the question of Maslows hierarchy then.

coolemon · 24-02-2014 06:42PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

Hence a doctor is more highly valued (and thus more highly paid)

Only because the position of the social occupation is exclusionary.

Iwasfrozen · 24-02-2014 06:43PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Eh, deregulation = decriminalization of fraud; and yes, I'm sure the financial sector does very much enjoy the system working in that fashion.

The very fact that fraud is treated with internal discipline shows that it is not really dealt with harshly at all: People who commit fraud should go to prison, not get an internal slap on the wrist.

I nearly choked on my pepsi...

Revocation of license is not a slap on the wrist. Give me six months in prison any day.

Eh, deregulation = decriminalization of fraud; and yes, I'm sure the financial sector does very much enjoy the system working in that fashion.

For the umpteenth time not everyone who works in the financial sector is corrupt, no doubt a minority are but they are very harshly dealt with when (not if) they are caught.

Saying 'actuaries' in plural, does not mean all actuaries - you are deliberately lying about what I have said.

You are trying to perpetuate this lie now again, since I made it clear in my last post that this was not the truth: You are proving that you know, that what you are claiming is false, that you are lying, by repeating this a second time when I've already shown that is not what I said.

I did no such thing, I quoted you exactly. You said Actuaries. Not some Actuaries. Imagine I said "Farmers are polluting the environment" instead of "some Farmers are polluting e environment."

I accept that you ave subsequently clarified your view but that doesn't change the fact that you originally tarred us all with the same brush.

You are being dishonest again now, by implying I said life assurance firms were involved in the subprime mortgage crisis; probably doing this, in attempt to make your backtracking look like a rebuttal - a rebuttal to an imaginary argument I did not make.

Well then clarify for me so I can make a rebuttal. How did life assurance firms contribute in a significant way to the crisis? More significant than say, all the idiots in America who bought houses they couldn't afford?

coolemon · 24-02-2014 06:45PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

It's up to you to explain this, not to point people at long articles or other authors.

In a sense, it is. But at the same time I don't think this is the right place to explain it as im engaging in multiple debates at the same time. So, if you want, read up on historical materialism yourself. No sweat off my back if you do or don't understand it.

Tiddlypeeps · 24-02-2014 06:51PM

coolemon wrote: »

I never said the country as a whole was responsible for the working conditions in a factory in China.

I said the systems were inseparable.

They are interconnected. You cant laud the Scandinavian model and then deny that the very foundations on which that model are based are interconnected with exploitation and barbarism elsewhere.

The system (ie. global capitalism), does not work.

The problem is that I don't see Norway as a "system" - but one part of a system.

For example, you cant separate the happiness and standard of living of Romans from the Roman empire. Or of Londoners in the 1800's from the slaughter the British empire enacted globally.

Weather you like it or not they are separate. It is not at all comparable to Rome and the Roman empire. Rome was part of and actually ruled the rest of the roman empire. A more apt example would be comparing Ireland to the roman empire since we were not really part of it (unless my memory of history is really failing me), but would have traded with it.

I don't see any value in ignoring the Scandinavian model simply because it interacts with the rest of the world. We can argue that all day tho since it's pretty subjective and pointless I won't be commenting on it again.

Do you disagree that the rest of the world would likely be much better off if they adopted a lot of their philosophies towards health care, education, social welfare and taxation? I acknowledge that you believe your system is superior to this, but lets say for arguments sake it was proven beyond all doubt to be unworkable, do you think the Scandinavian system is a nice alternative?

With that last question I'm just trying to get an idea of where you are coming from with your criticisms of the system. Is it coming from a "yea thats fine but my way is better" point of view or is it that you actually believe that Norway is an inherently bad system.

Just for the record I'm not a total advocate for the scandinavian system, it has got flaws. I'm very on the fence about all economic theory, it just seems to be the best I've come across to date.

coolemon wrote: »

No, I probably wont convince you. But that is because you do not understand the basis of the Marxist paradigm - historical materialism.

Thats a cop out. For one I'm not sure how you can say that since I have deliberately refused to engage in discussion on the system itself and have instead chosen to focus on can it be implemented. Discussion of one is futile if the later is proven to be impossible. You continue to proclaim that it is possible without providing a single shred of evidence other than "read up on it". This tells me that you either don't want to share that information for some reason or that it doesn't exist.

Iwasfrozen · 24-02-2014 06:53PM

coolemon wrote: »

So it pre-supposes that companies want you and are actively recruiting.

So to occupy an exclusive social position, the exclusionary social position needs to exist in the first place.

Unless you want Microsoft to pay you because you have a highly educated Phd in Philosophy.

Of course not. You must be educated in a skill tat is useful to the firms operation. Of course they want you, as long as your skills are relevant. People are always dieing or retiring and these people must be replaced.

But yet everybody cannot be a doctor...

So the doctor is there because he has managed to occupy an exclusive social position.

No, some people do not ave the motivation, work ethic or sheer intelligence to be a Doctor. The Doctor is there because he managed get 600 points in his leaving cert and pass his medical exams, nothing more.

Put it this way. If cleaners were not there, MRSA would break out all over the place. Thus more doctors would need to be recruited - reducing the exclusivity of the social position of a doctor.

It's a good ting cleaners are cheap then. Its not how important ones service is that dictates ones wage, that would be impossible to judge. But ow replaceable a person is. Anyone can be a cleaner.

Money would yes. The rest, no.

The other two are not enforceable without money.

Funny that. I dont see that on Maslows Hierarchy.

That's because it's not on Maslow's Hierarchy. You place too much emphasis on Maslow.

Jonny7 · 24-02-2014 06:56PM

coolemon wrote: »

Only because the position of the social occupation is exclusionary.

Not in the slightest

Anyone can become a doctor. I think you are confusing limiting factors such as social mobility, access to education, background, intelligence, drive, etc (which can be benefits or drawbacks towards a certain profession) as actual qualifiers for that profession

KyussBishop · 24-02-2014 07:01PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I nearly choked on my pepsi...

Revocation of license is not a slap on the wrist. Give me six months in prison any day.

I repeat: People who commit fraud (who break the law) should go to prison.

If an actuary can assist others in committing fraud for years, earning a huge salary and bonuses - which may net them a huge sum, worth decades of work - then walk away with just losing their license, then they are above the law and getting away with a significant crime.

You're also automatically assuming that fraud will be discovered: In control fraud, all protections from fraud are removed by the CEO, so that there is nobody to hold anyone else accountable, except for external regulators.

You're also speaking out from two sides of your mouth here:
1: You want to deregulate the industry i.e you want to decriminalize fraud, yet
2: You are claiming actuaries will still be held to a high standard - both mutually contradictory positions, when you advocate removing high standards put in place by regulations.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

For the umpteenth time not everyone who works in the financial sector is corrupt, no doubt a minority are but they are very harshly dealt with when (not if) they are caught.

Uhm, no they aren't? In your own example, nobody goes to prison - and you automatically assume that fraud is always discovered; based on what exactly?

The whole point of engaging in fraud, is that the people involved don't want it to be discovered, and will take measures to prevent that - so your faith there isn't backed by anything.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Well then clarify for me so I can make a rebuttal. How did life assurance firms contribute in a significant way to the crisis? More significant than say, all the idiots in America who bought houses they couldn't afford?

I never said they did - you made that up.

I guess the actuaries (plural != all) in America, didn't adequately check the risk of giving loans, to homeowners who couldn't afford them - yea?
I'm sure all of those actuaries lost their licenses then, for doing such a shítty job....no, largely they are completely unaffected, while the rest of the public pays for the crisis they participated in creating, and for the bailout given to the industry they work in.

coolemon · 24-02-2014 07:11PM

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

I won't be commenting on it again.

Do you disagree that the rest of the world would likely be much better off if they adopted a lot of their philosophies towards health care, education, social welfare and taxation?

If the rest of the world had the same standard of living (ignoring where exactly that standard of living derives) - then yes, I am sure that would be great.

But that is idealistic and, in my view, not rooted in any type of reality.

Consciousness and ideology - such as a belief in a Scandinavian model - in the Marxist paradigm - is usually explained in terms of economic realities.

And the reality is that a Scandinavian model will not be implemented more broadly, nor could it.

you think the Scandinavian system is a nice alternative?

Yes. In the same way I think Roman Abromiviches lifestyle is a nice alternative. But that's is not economically logical or possible.

Is it coming from a "yea thats fine but my way is better" point of view or is it that you actually believe that Norway is an inherently bad system.

As you have seen, my 'alternative' is pretty threadbare in terms of detail. So I cant go pronouncing my "model" as better. At this stage I think all us Marxists and anarchists can do is put forward a critique of capitalism and start a discussion.

But to answer your other question. I don't see Norway as something separate systemically. Therefore however nice a country it might be to visit, the economic realities are masked. In the same way I don't see slave labour when I look at a phone in a shop. Or breath toxic air when I buy an orange from south Africa. These problems are outsourced.

karma_ · 24-02-2014 07:14PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

Not in the slightest

Anyone can become a doctor. I think you are confusing limiting factors such as social mobility, access to education, background, intelligence, drive, etc (which can be benefits or drawbacks towards a certain profession) as actual qualifiers for that profession

And that's why in a capitalist system is so fundamentally flawed, it absolutely needs vast portions of the population to be uneducated and untrained, it requires poverty to sustain itself. I love all this talk I see now and again about how the free market would lift people out of poverty when the fact is the opposite is true.

coolemon · 24-02-2014 07:20PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Of course not. You must be educated in a skill tat is useful to the firms operation. Of course they want you, as long as your skills are relevant. People are always dieing or retiring and these people must be replaced.

No, they don't want you so long as your skills are relevant. They only want you when an exclusive position becomes available.

And the availability of those exclusive positions determines their pay level and, in broader terms, the extent of the social emphasis on producing workers to fill those exclusive positions.

No, some people do not have the motivation, work ethic or sheer intelligence to be a Doctor. The Doctor is there because he managed get 600 points in his leaving cert and pass his medical exams, nothing more.

No, you are wrong. People are pre-disposed (habitus) to particular cultural forms, social connections and economic means in order to fill social requirements and exclusionary social positions.

Read up on Pierre Bourdieu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FXPnkwSCyE

But ow replaceable a person is. Anyone can be a cleaner.

Anyone could be a doctor, if society organised the production of such labour.

That's because it's not on Maslow's Hierarchy. You place too much emphasis on Maslow.

Yes. Its not on Maslows hierarchy. And instead of questioning Maslows hierarchy, did you ever stop to question that maybe you are wrong?

Money is not a motivator. Money is only the means of exchange to achieve other motivational factors. They are outlined in maslows hierarchy.

coolemon · 24-02-2014 07:23PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

Not in the slightest

Anyone can become a doctor.

Wrong. A person can only become a doctor if the social positions are available.

That's like saying anybody can become President. They cant. Only one person in every seven years can become President.

KyussBishop · 24-02-2014 07:36PM

That 'social exclusionary' view of job positions, is actually a pretty good way of looking at this, and it can be seen most visibly right now by: High unemployment.

Not only are specific jobs exclusionary, but participation in the labour force is exclusionary - and this is something (keeping a 'reserve army of labour') that is very beneficial for the powerful in capitalism.

I don't know much of Marxist theory, but its unique perspective on a lot of things (such as 'dialectics' EDIT: Unfortunately, the article is pretty opaque - but I have seen this explained elsewhere, in a much more lucid way), can be incredibly useful for getting bang-on criticisms of capitalism.

As I said earlier, it's often said that Marx was right about everything he said about Capitalism, and wrong about everything he said about Communism - as impractical as communism may be, the criticism of capitalism is very good.

coolemon · 24-02-2014 07:54PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

That 'social exclusionary' view of job positions, is actually a pretty good way of looking at this, and it can be seen most visibly right now by: High unemployment.

Not only are specific jobs exclusionary, but participation in the labour force is exclusionary - and this is something (keeping a 'reserve army of labour') that is very beneficial for the powerful in capitalism.

I don't know much of Marxist theory, but its unique perspective on a lot of things (such as 'dialectics' EDIT: Unfortunately, the article is pretty opaque - but I have seen this explained elsewhere, in a much more lucid way), can be incredibly useful for getting bang-on criticisms of capitalism.

As I said earlier, it's often said that Marx was right about everything he said about Capitalism, and wrong about everything he said about Communism - as impractical as communism may be, the criticism of capitalism is very good.

Sure I see it every week when I collect my welfare. The lucky bastard behind the screen dishing the money out with his cushy little job.

By virtue of him having that job he excludes me and everyone else from having it.

And, if you look at the case with the gob****es out marching for Sean Quinn - it is exactly this logic that they do not understand.

Instead of seeing Sean Quinn simply as someone who occupied an exclusionary position - at the right time, with the right connections, with the right farm with gravel underneath - he is a walking demigod. He produced those jobs. He produced the need for cement, for gravel, for car insurance, and so on.

It is completely illogical. Marx called it "the great men theory of history"

It is by virtue of Sean Quinn occupying that well paid social position that others are excluded. Property ownership is fundamental to the process of maintaining his gains through his exclusionary social position.

KyussBishop · 24-02-2014 07:58PM

On the dialectics thing, I first heard about that from Steve Keen, and I've found a brief description of it starting on the end of page 3 of this - it's not easy to understand, but is a far sight easier to understand than the walls-of-text everywhere else on the Internet:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/23739828_A_Marx_For_Post_Keynesians/file/9c96051b9fccc32f87.pdf

coolemon · 24-02-2014 08:04PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

On the dialectics thing, I first heard about that from Steve Keen, and I've found a brief description of it starting on the end of page 3 of this - it's not easy to understand, but is a far sight easier to understand than the walls-of-text everywhere else on the Internet:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/23739828_A_Marx_For_Post_Keynesians/file/9c96051b9fccc32f87.pdf

TBH, I am not sure of the usefulness of dialectics. I have yet to see it being used convincingly to explain something, and it has been widely used by pseudo-Marxists to justify just about anything.

Historical materialism, on the otherhand, is probably the most useful of Marx's contribution in my view - in terms of framing an overall picture of social processes.

Iwasfrozen · 24-02-2014 08:08PM

coolemon wrote: »

No, they don't want you so long as your skills are relevant. They only want you when an exclusive position becomes available.

You ave yet to define an exclusive position.

And the availability of those exclusive positions determines their pay level and, in broader terms, the extent of the social emphasis on producing workers to fill those exclusive positions.

No, education, acquired relevant skills, and general aptitude for one's job determine a person's worth to a company. A person's worth to a company is reflected in their pay packet. For example graduate level employees tend to make 30k a year in most companies. This is because while they have the formal education necessary for the job they lack the relevant experience and command a lower wage.

In this sense ones wage can be seen as ones "value" or "worth" to the company. You could also view it as how easily a person can be replaced should the need arise.

No, you are wrong. People are pre-disposed (habitus) to particular cultural forms, social connections and economic means in order to fill social requirements and exclusionary social positions.

I don't know what these terms are in context but it seems their related to some Philosopher you subscribe to. Can you define them before we can move on?

Read up on Pierre Bourdieu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FXPnkwSCyE

No, this is a discussion forum not University. I have no intention of reading up on some random philosopher. You're supposed to be able to break down his arguments are describe them to us.

Anyone could be a doctor, if society organised the production of such labour.

First, how does society organise labour? Secondly, no. Not anyone can be a doctor. Some people lack the commitment, work ethnic and sheer intellect to be a doctor.

Yes. Its not on Maslows hierarchy. And instead of questioning Maslows hierarchy, did you ever stop to question that maybe you are wrong?

Money is not a motivator. Money is only the means of exchange to achieve other motivational factors. They are outlined in maslows hierarchy.

The two are not mutually exclusive. A top financial broker who earns six figures is in a much better position to reach self-actualization than a bin man.

Money is resources. The allocation of money is the allocation of resources. Who gets a lager piece of the spoils is very much a motivator and as been since the pre historic age.

Jonny7 · 24-02-2014 08:20PM

karma_ wrote: »

And that's why in a capitalist system is so fundamentally flawed, it absolutely needs vast portions of the population to be uneducated and untrained, it requires poverty to sustain itself. I love all this talk I see now and again about how the free market would lift people out of poverty when the fact is the opposite is true.

Not at all.

From an economic point of view, general capitalism is the result of hundreds of years of trial and error .. it's the best system we have (of which there are an almost infinite combination of conditions)

Human beings operate in self interest and competition. How many people in your job would refuse a pay rise? or volunteer to pay extra tax? none, and neither would you - that hasn't changed much if at all throughout the centuries

If human beings were motivated purely by the need to help others, to enrich others as part of some beehive mentality - then a communist system would suit best - but we aren't - and as far as i can see we are nowhere near that stage

Therefore we stick with a system that takes full advantage of our self-interest, greed and competition

karma_ · 24-02-2014 08:31PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

Not at all.

From an economic point of view, general capitalism is the result of hundreds of years of trial and error .. it's the best system we have (of which there are an almost infinite combination of conditions)

Human beings operate in self interest and competition. How many people in your job would refuse a pay rise? or volunteer to pay extra tax? none, and neither would you - that hasn't changed much if at all throughout the centuries

If human beings were motivated purely by the need to help others, to enrich others as part of some beehive mentality - then a communist system would suit best - but we aren't - and as far as i can see we are nowhere near that stage

Therefore we stick with a system that takes full advantage of our self-interest, greed and competition

It's an exploitative full stop. In our most basic state we are altruistic and that's been a virtue for centuries as well, our earliest communities were altruistic and collective in nature and without collective effort we do not progress. Just because there are people who are genuinely selfish like Rand and her acolytes who promote the theory that greed and selfishness is good and altruism doesn't actually exist does not make that so, just a weak attempt to legitimise something abhorrent.

Jonny7 · 24-02-2014 08:31PM

coolemon wrote: »

By virtue of him having that job he excludes me and everyone else from having it.

He doesn't have a "right" to that job, neither do you. He got it through competition. Competition that involved factors such as education, training. When the economy is good more positions may be available, if things are bad, then he may lose his job and less positions available

wendell borton · 24-02-2014 08:37PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Money is resources. The allocation of money is the allocation of resources. Who gets a lager piece of the spoils is very much a motivator and as been since the pre historic age.

While that's been true for most of history things cant continue that way, just look at all harm to the environment and countless human suffering that the exploitation of resources has caused.

Do you know any Communists?

Comments