Do you know any Communists?

wendell borton wrote: »

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.

You're right, things can't continue like this but we're not going to change. More likely we make ourselves extinct.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You ave yet to define an exclusive position.

Its pretty easy to understand.

The word exclusive implies exclusion. We are physical beings (made of matter). By virtue of the fact we occupy physical space - we exclude others from that space. I cant stand where you are sitting right now.

Similarly. In society there is a division of labour. The dividing up of socially productive tasks and their required skill sets.

The social requirements for those different tasks and skill-sets varies and is limited.

Therefore - at any given time - someone, somewhere, engages in these tasks at the exclusion of others.

Those engaging in the task therefore occupy an exclusionary social position.

No, education, acquired relevant skills, and general aptitude for one's job determine a person's worth to a company.

Wrong. That's like saying that all of the unemployed builders are of worth to existing construction companies.

They arnt. They are only of worth when the companies need them. Otherwise - in capitalism at least - they are worthless.

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.

But they are only 'worth' that value because they occupied an exclusionary position -> not everyone is in a position to acquire the cultural capital needed to succeed in college.

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?

He is not a philosopher but a sociologist.

Bourdieu, along with many others, identify that the class system is stable. And that people born to different social classes are acculturised and socialized to occupy social positions -> including certain social tasks.

This disposition people are born into is called their habitus. Ways of speaking, tastes in fashion, work ethic, sense of humour - in short, everything that a person is.

This habitus allows them to integrate into their immediate surroundings and social position.

However, in broader terms, different social classes compete for real social resources, and use various means to maintain their exclusive social position.

So it is very relevant to what I am saying.

First, how does society organise labour?

Labour is organised in accordance with the requirements of the economic logic of the mode of production, and of the forces of production.

This is a complicated area. For example - Marx states that there are definite relations of production.

So, for example, there are 'technical relations' - intrinsic human-machine relationships. These effect the 'social relations' of production - that is, how the machines are operated and integrated within the broader social structure.

A simple example would be a steam engine. A steam engine has a definite technical relation. It requires, say, three people to operate. Fireman, pressure controller and, oh, a water filler.

It does not need an electrician. It does not need an IT technician. It does not need a sociologist. The technology has definite requirements.

Similarly, to operate the technology efficiently, there are definite social relationships. How those three personnel interact.

If you have 20 steam engines you might need a supervisor and a clerk.

Secondly, no. Not anyone can be a doctor. Some people lack the commitment, work ethnic and sheer intellect to be a doctor.

See above. there is ample evidence that 'motivation', work ethic and intelligence are based upon a persons disposition/habitus.

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.

Why? - just so I can configure my argument.

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.

Money is pretty recent phenomenon. Pre-historic and ancient societies were very much communist.

coolemon wrote: »

I never said he didn't have a right to the job. But by rewarding the job with a high salary you are essentially rewarding him for simply occupying a position nobody else can have by virtue of his occupancy.

He is being rewarded (salary) for the work he does and the experience he brings, not for the position he fills. This is slipping into semantics.

Let's change tack a second, if you had acquired a business tomorrow, what would determine what you paid your employees.. or would you pay them all the same salary regardless?

KyussBishop wrote: »

So the end-result of the economic system you advocate is our own self-destruction, and you support that? Great.

At the same time as well, you and others defend it as the best system we have - which is lazy thinking, as there are a lot of ways to modify capitalism to make it work without destroying ourselves in the long-run.
However, the response to that is usually free-market types feeling ideologically offended, that their preferred policies (that lead to 'long-term-guarantee-destruction') are threatened, and thus they argue against that.


Not exactly in anyones self-interest really; it exemplifies short-term thinking, without any mind for the long-term cost. That's a pattern throughout all of the free-market led thinking.

You cannot change human nature. Our economic system is the best system we have given our level of technology.

Of course we're going to go extinct. I hope you're not labouring under the illusion that human society is some how perpetual. I wouldn't be surprised if we're all dead by 5k years.

karma_ wrote: »

How on earth can the 'best' system be one that makes up prematurely extinct? Of course we will eventually become extinct when the sun expands and fries the planet but what the hell? What you promote is just sheer insanity.

Human civilisation as we know it is really only roughly 10k years old. With peak oil realistically a little over a century away and no energy source to replace it I'm not optimistic about the future at all.

KyussBishop wrote: »

No it isn't. You don't know anything about human nature - you can't make any kind of objective statement about that, it's a fallacy.

Straight away, you can fix capitalism by fixing the monetary system:
The monetary system in its current form, creates neverending growth of debt, that cannot be paid and must implode eventually - and economic growth is used to delay this inevitable bust, into the future,

It's the broken monetary system that mandates neverending economic growth, and this can be fixed, by giving government the ability to spend without increasing its debt - this would allow economic sustainability, without accelerating growth - and can be used to transition to a steady-state economy.

Ok so how are you going to implement it?

karma_ wrote: »

Altruism most certainly exists

Many philosophers will argue it doesn't.. charity? helping others? fundamentally self-interest

Competition is fine, up to a point

It's everything. Even in a communist system - people, groups of people, companies, businesses, countries compete against each other.

It's just that communism tries to strip it out as an unnecessary evil

Whereas capitalist economic systems take advantage of it

Theres nothing new in your arguments either, just the same nonsense regurgitated by objectivists and libertarians daily.

You live in a world that has 99% adopted the capitalist economic system and principles, that's all the proof you should need.

This debate is merely theory

coolemon wrote: »

Its pretty easy to understand.

The word exclusive implies exclusion. We are physical beings (made of matter). By virtue of the fact we occupy physical space - we exclude others from that space. I cant stand where you are sitting right now.

Similarly. In society there is a division of labour. The dividing up of socially productive tasks and their required skill sets.

The social requirements for those different tasks and skill-sets varies and is limited.

Therefore - at any given time - someone, somewhere, engages in these tasks at the exclusion of others.

Those engaging in the task therefore occupy an exclusionary social position.

What you're describing is supply and demand. That the jobs like any other resource are limited. This creates competition which pushes candidates to work hard to meet the requirements.

Wrong. That's like saying that all of the unemployed builders are of worth to existing construction companies.

They arnt. They are only of worth when the companies need them. Otherwise - in capitalism at least - they are worthless.

But they are only 'worth' that value because they occupied an exclusionary position -> not everyone is in a position to acquire the cultural capital needed to succeed in college.

That's assuming all workers are equally productive. They aren't and the most qualified, most productive workers are the ones who get the job. Again, determined by competition, this is basic supply and demand. Usually in business a person proves their productivity and work ethnic by supplying their academic results but there are other methods, it varies by industry.

He is not a philosopher but a sociologist.

Bourdieu, along with many others, identify that the class system is stable. And that people born to different social classes are acculturised and socialized to occupy social positions -> including certain social tasks.

This disposition people are born into is called their habitus. Ways of speaking, tastes in fashion, work ethic, sense of humour - in short, everything that a person is.

This habitus allows them to integrate into their immediate surroundings and social position.

However, in broader terms, different social classes compete for real social resources, and use various means to maintain their exclusive social position.

So it is very relevant to what I am saying.

I totally disagree with everything you have told me of Bourdieu. Any child in Ireland can grow up to be what ever they want to be. All they need is a little hard work and dedication. Being born to a working class family may be a handicap but it does not rule a person out of the running. I know a guy who was raised by a single mother in a working class family who went on to be a senior accountant on a six figure salary.

Labour is organised in accordance with the requirements of the economic logic of the mode of production, and of the forces of production.

This is a complicated area. For example - Marx states that there are definite relations of production.

So, for example, there are 'technical relations' - intrinsic human-machine relationships. These effect the 'social relations' of production - that is, how the machines are operated and integrated within the broader social structure.

A simple example would be a steam engine. A steam engine has a definite technical relation. It requires, say, three people to operate. Fireman, pressure controller and, oh, a water filler.

It does not need an electrician. It does not need an IT technician. It does not need a sociologist. The technology has definite requirements.

Similarly, to operate the technology efficiently, there are definite social relationships. How those three personnel interact.

If you have 20 steam engines you might need a supervisor and a clerk.

Who allocates the positions? What if you have 20 firemen and only 3 pressure controllers and water fillers?

Under free market capitalism demand for the former two would push up wages for the former two until demand is levelled off. How would your system regulate itself?

See above. there is ample evidence that 'motivation', work ethic and intelligence are based upon a persons disposition/habitus.

A person's motivation is based on their desire to succeed.

Why? - just so I can configure my argument.

He has the monetary means to achieve it.

Money is pretty recent phenomenon. Pre-historic and ancient societies were very much communist.

Typical Marxian dogma. Money was invented because it was convenient. And thank goodness it was.

KyussBishop wrote: »

I've explained right in my post how to implement it.

No you explained how it could be implemented. What I would like to know is how you propose to implement it.

Because I don't think it can be implemented.

Note that is operating under the fallacy that debt can't be perpetual. Why can't it be? After a bust we just start borrowing again. Just as we're doing.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What you're describing is supply and demand. That the jobs like any other resource are limited. This creates competition which pushes candidates to work hard to meet the requirements.

Yes, of course there is supply and demand. And scarcity.

But rather than seeing them as a process of individual achievement - they are seen as historical and economic material processes.

The socio-economic structure requires, oh, 10,000 doctors. And therefore the socio-economic production of doctors reflects that. Similarly, society needs 200,000 cleaners - and therefore - a cultural form is shaped to produce people with that class disposition to fill those positions.

So rather than seeing a cleaner as being a cleaner because of some personal failure or attribute - Marxism explains it in material terms - of economic requirements. Not individual achievement or failure.

That's assuming all workers are equally productive. They aren't and the most qualified, most productive workers are the ones who get the job.

In an ideal world. In reality, those who get the job get it for a myriad of complex reasons. Timing (age, economic conditions, seeing the advert before others), their habitus, social connections and so forth.

Usually in business a person proves their productivity and work ethnic by supplying their academic results but there are other methods, it varies by industry.

Academic results are a product of obtaining exclusive cultural capital. Not everybody can obtain that capital, and such capital is actively guarded by the social classes who maintain it.

Any child in Ireland can grow up to be what ever they want to be. All they need is a little hard work and dedication. Being born to a working class family may be a handicap but it does not rule a person out of the running.

In an ideal world. But the reality is very different. The class system is stable. Social mobility is limited and class reproduction is evident.

http://globalsociology.com/files/2012/01/Comparing-Economic-Mobility-1fhl7b2.png

Who allocates the positions? What if you have 20 firemen and only 3 pressure controllers and water fillers?

In the existing society positions are allocated based upon complex social and economic factors - some of which are only touched on above.

Under free market capitalism demand for the former two would push up wages for the former two until demand is levelled off. How would your system regulate itself?

In capitalism, money is the means of exchange - the means of obtaining that which motivates us as humans. So if someone is actively seeking 'social status' - or the reproduction of their social-status-disposition, they will do this by seeking to occupy exclusive social positions [in capitalism]. These positions give monetary reward which are exchanged for that which they seek.

With communism, the system would be self-regulatory (in my view). In communism, people are motivated for the exact same reasons. Social value would be obtained from exclusive social positions. There is less to be gained, for example, by working in a job where social recognition is less than in a position which gives high recognition and status.

Therefore, people would be actively striving to acquire jobs which meet our human motivations. But not everyone can have them, like capitalism.

A person's motivation is based on their desire to succeed.

Well its based, I think accurately, upon those motivators in Maslows hierarchy.

He has the monetary means to achieve it.

Yes, and so what is your point?

Typical Marxian dogma. Money was invented because it was convenient. And thank goodness it was.

I never said it was. Historical materialism does an excellent job at explaining the origins of money in material terms.

Jonny7 wrote: »

The lack of genuine competition, opportunity to gain a higher salary, standards set by the government instead of the market and so on

1)There would be plenty of competition in a communist society.

2)Money is not a factor in human motivation (see Maslows hierarchy).

3) Communism is stateless.

Just compare modern day North Korea with South Korea
Countries behind the then Iron Curtain with their counterparts
Cuba with anywhere

In each case, dozens of examples, an excuse is always given

They have nothing to do with what we are talking about. North Korea and Cuba are capitalist, not communist.

Jonny7 wrote: »

There's no evidence of this. Compare, for example, the car industry (or virtually any industry) from capitalist economic based countries to communist based and there is a clear and very striking difference

There are no 'communist based' countries. Not in the sense you are using it.

Gotta disagree

With Maslow?

Please explain.

We're on the wrong page then, I am referring to real world examples.

No, your referring to 'words' various regimes have uses to justify themselves. Its like me saying 'democracy' doesn't work because look at the DPRK.

What you are talking about is a Communist State - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_state

Not communism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

Different things altogether. Apples and oranges.