Why communism will work, and capitalism won’t.

Daniel:

Every decision would have to be made democratically.

Why do I feel this would be the result?

 

Truthisnonexistent:

No I didn't imply anything.

Yeah kid, you did.

 

Truthisnonexistent:

Profit isn't exploitation? Dictionary is lying to me again!

Yes, it is. Now either show that profit is exploitation or leave. And remember, little Marxist drone: repeating your slogans won't make it true. Further, you have no ability to actually argue a point. Do you think this is like revleft where it's one big self-contratulatory circle-jerk on feeling bad for those who live in poverty and hating those who have a penny more than you do? Well it's not. We demand evidence for claims, not sob stories. You claim that profit is exploitation. Well show it. Don't just parrot the slogans, kid. If we wanted that, we'd all go watch Mr1001Marxists' channel on YouTube and give ourselves a lobotomy (which is pretty much the same thing).

 

Daniel:

Truthisnonexistent:

It puts wealth in the hands of the undeserving.

 Your argument boils down to: exploitation is wrong because the money is going to underserving hands, and those undeserving hands do not deserve the money because they are gained through exploitation. You, miss, are begging the question.

Truthisnonexistent:

No, I'm saying that such a situation will never happen in a wage system.

However, it does. It's usually called: selling at a loss. Such as, when a firm goes out of businnes and liquidiates. Sometime they sell their stuff below cost.

Truthisnonexistent:

A minority's well being should not be put in front of everyone's well being.

Why not? Also, could you rephrase that statement so that it is less figurative? Pretty please?

Truthisnonexistent:

My definition of capitalism:  A market system based on free enterprise while the means of production are privately owned.

So, would you agree that we haven't had capitalism (as defined by you) for at least the past 100 years?

Truthisnonexistent:

You speak of the failed socialism in Russia. How about the failed capitalism in Africa or South and Central America?

Examples pleas. I don't want to guess which examples you are refering to.

Truthisnonexistent:

Now I know you are going to complain and say it's not real capitalism, well it is. Their economic system is a market economy which is based on free enterprise and private ownership of the means of production.

Where was the free enterprise? The mere existence of the state makes it not "real capitalsim".

Truthisnonexistent:

Yeah, I just reread it I left some words and punctuation out. Realistically the worker would not want to take less than full value, it's a meaningless question.

So why do they do it?

Truthisnonexistent:

The owner's resources that the owner purchased through worker exploitation. The worker's essentially payed for the resources.

How is worker exploitation necessary for a capitalist owner to acculate the capital? If I plant an apple tree in my backyard, and then hire a worker to pick the apples, did I come about my resources through exploitation?

Truthisnonexistent:

Yes I do understand the difference. You can't blame the people of Africa that were exploited by colonial capitalism for not accepting free market capitalism because the very people that benefit from our current capitalism don't want free market capitalism.

"Colonial capitalism"? You mean mercantalism?

Question: what is Marx's formal definition for capitalism?

 Taras Smereka, fix your quotes. You are misquoting me for something that what's-her-name wrote.

 

Truthisnonexistent:

How does it not follow? In a capitalist business i.e. a business that is privately owned,  the workers will not be payed for what they produce because the owner reaps profit.

Re-read the exchange. Your answer didn't follow from my question.

 

Truthisnonexistent:

They don't deserve it. What's wrong with theft? What's wrong with murder? You think you're so damn witty for asking these meaningless, redundant questions that lead to nowhere but more questions from you.

 Can I get an non-emotional response, please?

Truthisnonexistent:

You have no moral objection to slavery? You don't see anything unnatural with a human owning another human? You don't see ducks owning other ducks, you don't see cows owning other cows. It doesn't happen in nature, it is unnatural.

So humans shouldn't own ducks? Not even collectively? Anyway, you fail to prove that renting = ownership. Thus, your question about slavery is irrelevant at this point.

Truthisnonexistent:

I cannot tell you because it is preference. In socialism you can work as long as you want, or not work at all. If worker A works ten hours but only produces 10 shirts. He will be payed for the 10 shirts not the 10 hours.

I still don't understand what it means since you have failed to provide a definiton.

Truthisnonexistent:

As long as no exploitation is involved. So that individually owned business would be a one person business most likely, unless the business owner would pay the workers for what they produce. The workers would not settle for anything less seeing other workers get payed higher wages for the same work.

So what you are saying is that two people can each have 100% ownership of a factory?

My argument is this. The workers produce more than they are rewarded for. The capital in which they are not rewarded but produce goes00 to the owner's pocket. That is wrong. Btw, I'm a dude.

Fine. I don't see how that has any relevance to the argument at hand.

The owners of society (minority) should not be receiving surplus capital while the majority of society has financial troubles. Why this shouldn't happen you ask, because I am generally pro-human. I don't like to see humans suffer.

No I will not agree because many countries have free enterprise, market economies, property rights and private ownership of the means of production.

I'm referring basically to the whole continent of Africa, various South American nations ect ect, do I really need to go into that? When you think of prosperity you don't think of those areas.

Free enterprise: Business governed by the laws of supply and demand. 

I never said renting is equivalent to ownership, I said that renting yourself to an institution is very very similar to selling yourself to an institution. Except when you own something you actually take care of it. When you rent something you are careless. That was an argument  used to defend chattel slavery against wage slavery. How the hell did you get humans shouldn't own ducks out of, in nature ducks don't own other ducks.?

Undesirable working hours = working hours in which are considered undesirable

No.

 

 

Truthisnonexistent:

My argument is this. The workers produce more than they are rewarded for. The capital in which they are not rewarded but produce goes00 to the owner's pocket. That is wrong.

Prove it. No slogans. No chanting. No sob stories. Proof. Now.

Truthisnonexistent:

My argument is this. The workers produce more than they are rewarded for. The capital in which they are not rewarded but produce goes00 to the owner's pocket. That is wrong.

Why?

Truthisnonexistent:

The owners of society (minority) should not be receiving surplus capital while the majority of society has financial troubles.

Again, why?

Truthisnonexistent:

Free enterprise: Business governed by the laws of supply and demand.

And?

Truthisnonexistent:

That was an argument  used to defend chattel slavery against wage slavery.

You still haven't proven it's so.

 

 

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Truthisnonexistent:

No I didn't imply anything.

Yeah kid, you did.

 

Truthisnonexistent:

Profit isn't exploitation? Dictionary is lying to me again!

Yes, it is. Now either show that profit is exploitation or leave. And remember, little Marxist drone: repeating your slogans won't make it true. Further, you have no ability to actually argue a point. Do you think this is like revleft where it's one big self-contratulatory circle-jerk on feeling bad for those who live in poverty and hating those who have a penny more than you do? Well it's not. We demand evidence for claims, not sob stories. You claim that profit is exploitation. Well show it. Don't just parrot the slogans, kid. If we wanted that, we'd all go watch Mr1001Marxists' channel on YouTube and give ourselves a lobotomy (which is pretty much the same thing).

 

I just did. If you are going to deny the dictionary, I don't know how I can prove it to you. I can't argue a point? You're the one that keeps throwing insults and mentioning revleft like I actually care. While slipping in jokes about youtube users like it has any relevance to me. I was in no way repeating slogans. I showed you facts, mathematics, and definitions. I hate this slogan because all you "anarcho" capitalists use it but you are straw manning the hell out of me to the point in which you say I masturbate to the impoverished all whilest calling me a child and implying I'm immature. Grow up.

 

Truthisnonexistent:

Chinese workers make $1.75 a day

Vietnamese workers make $l.60 a day

Indonesian workers make $2.46 a day

 

These wages are low compared to what?  Their wages are low because their per-head quota of capital is much less then that of the more capitalistic nations.  I don't expect for you to understand this because it is not intuitive.  I don't know why you think that you can analyze this stuff on the basis of intuition.  If you relied on intuition, you would claim that the world is flat. 

The only way to increase the standard of living is by capital accumulation.  For that you need the savings of capitalists and entrepreneurs. 

If you can't have a discussion here without devolving into immaturity, then goodbye.

Truthisnonexistent:

I just did.

No kid, the dictionary isn't evidence. And yes, you are repeating Marxist slogans. We've heard it before; it's unimpressive and immature.

As for what you "showed"; you showed us nothing but sob stories. What makes the sob stories evidence of exploitation? Show it, kid. Show it.

Markus:

But communism, despite all this, is still a "noble concept" and that is because there is a nugget of pure gold at the centre of this ideology -and that is socialism - an ideal of treating people fairly.

Am I the only one who sees the irony of using "gold" as a metophor for socialism?

Truthisnonexistent:

Oh yeah those stupid Africans rejecting capitalism. They sure were pretty accepting of British capitalism and look where that got them! Look at all the entrepreneurs that existed then.  But you know what they need to do? Become entrepreneurs! Yes, it solves everything!

 

It's a shock isn't it?  Africans rejecting capitalism!  I don't see why those "studpid" africans have to be any different then you. 

 

 

Yet, when many African nations accepted a free market in cell phones, strangely literacy shot up (granted not to US or EU levels) due to popular use of SMS and web surfing. Who woulda thunk?

Truthisnonexistent:

Daniel:

Truthisnonexistent:

It puts wealth in the hands of the undeserving.

 Your argument boils down to: exploitation is wrong because the money is going to underserving hands, and those undeserving hands do not deserve the money because they are gained through exploitation. You, miss, are begging the question.

Truthisnonexistent:

No, I'm saying that such a situation will never happen in a wage system.

However, it does. It's usually called: selling at a loss. Such as, when a firm goes out of businnes and liquidiates. Sometime they sell their stuff below cost.

Truthisnonexistent:

A minority's well being should not be put in front of everyone's well being.

Why not? Also, could you rephrase that statement so that it is less figurative? Pretty please?

Truthisnonexistent:

My definition of capitalism:  A market system based on free enterprise while the means of production are privately owned.

So, would you agree that we haven't had capitalism (as defined by you) for at least the past 100 years?

Truthisnonexistent:

You speak of the failed socialism in Russia. How about the failed capitalism in Africa or South and Central America?

Examples pleas. I don't want to guess which examples you are refering to.

Truthisnonexistent:

Now I know you are going to complain and say it's not real capitalism, well it is. Their economic system is a market economy which is based on free enterprise and private ownership of the means of production.

Where was the free enterprise? The mere existence of the state makes it not "real capitalsim".

Truthisnonexistent:

Yeah, I just reread it I left some words and punctuation out. Realistically the worker would not want to take less than full value, it's a meaningless question.

So why do they do it?

Truthisnonexistent:

The owner's resources that the owner purchased through worker exploitation. The worker's essentially payed for the resources.

How is worker exploitation necessary for a capitalist owner to acculate the capital? If I plant an apple tree in my backyard, and then hire a worker to pick the apples, did I come about my resources through exploitation?

Truthisnonexistent:

Yes I do understand the difference. You can't blame the people of Africa that were exploited by colonial capitalism for not accepting free market capitalism because the very people that benefit from our current capitalism don't want free market capitalism.

"Colonial capitalism"? You mean mercantalism?

Question: what is Marx's formal definition for capitalism?

 Taras Smereka, fix your quotes. You are misquoting me for something that what's-her-name wrote.

 

Truthisnonexistent:

How does it not follow? In a capitalist business i.e. a business that is privately owned,  the workers will not be payed for what they produce because the owner reaps profit.

Re-read the exchange. Your answer didn't follow from my question.

 

Truthisnonexistent:

They don't deserve it. What's wrong with theft? What's wrong with murder? You think you're so damn witty for asking these meaningless, redundant questions that lead to nowhere but more questions from you.

 Can I get an non-emotional response, please?

Truthisnonexistent:

You have no moral objection to slavery? You don't see anything unnatural with a human owning another human? You don't see ducks owning other ducks, you don't see cows owning other cows. It doesn't happen in nature, it is unnatural.

So humans shouldn't own ducks? Not even collectively? Anyway, you fail to prove that renting = ownership. Thus, your question about slavery is irrelevant at this point.

Truthisnonexistent:

I cannot tell you because it is preference. In socialism you can work as long as you want, or not work at all. If worker A works ten hours but only produces 10 shirts. He will be payed for the 10 shirts not the 10 hours.

I still don't understand what it means since you have failed to provide a definiton.

Truthisnonexistent:

As long as no exploitation is involved. So that individually owned business would be a one person business most likely, unless the business owner would pay the workers for what they produce. The workers would not settle for anything less seeing other workers get payed higher wages for the same work.

So what you are saying is that two people can each have 100% ownership of a factory?

My argument is this. The workers produce more than they are rewarded for. The capital in which they are not rewarded but produce goes00 to the owner's pocket. That is wrong. Btw, I'm a dude.

How is it that they are not being "rewarded" as much as they produce? Btw, my bad. Your avatar fooled me. The girl in the pic, though. It's a girl, right?

 

Truthisnonexistent:

Fine. I don't see how that has any relevance to the argument at hand.

You said it is exploitation when a worker get paid less than the value of the whatever it is they produce. According to you, how is this value determined?

Truthisnonexistent:

The owners of society (minority) should not be receiving surplus capital while the majority of society has financial troubles. Why this shouldn't happen you ask, because I am generally pro-human. I don't like to see humans suffer.

How did "financial troubles" get into this debate? So, stealing money from the owners for the benefit of the workers is "pro-human"?

Truthisnonexistent:

No I will not agree because many countries have free enterprise, market economies, property rights and private ownership of the means of production.

Which ones?

Truthisnonexistent:

I'm referring basically to the whole continent of Africa, various South American nations ect ect, do I really need to go into that? When you think of prosperity you don't think of those areas.

When I think of prosperity, I think of the de-socialism-nization of China.

Truthisnonexistent:

Free enterprise: Business governed by the laws of supply and demand. 

What?

Truthisnonexistent:

I never said renting is equivalent to ownership, I said that renting yourself to an institution is very very similar to selling yourself to an institution.

You, "[r]enting yourself to another human is no different then being owned by another human." Source: http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/8834/227208.aspx#227208

Truthisnonexistent:

Except when you own something you actually take care of it. When you rent something you are careless.

Hasty generalization.

Truthisnonexistent:

 That was an argument  used to defend chattel slavery against wage slavery.

What?

Truthisnonexistent:

How the hell did you get humans shouldn't own ducks out of, in nature ducks don't own other ducks.?

You said that [blah blah blah]. You're the one who brought up ducks.

 

Truthisnonexistent:

Undesirable working hours = working hours in which are considered undesirable

Lol. I get it now.

Truthisnonexistent:

No.

Then, you admit that an individual cannot own a means a of production, since only the collective. Thus, your whole spiel about the democracy allowing the an individual to own a factory was false.

I will allow you time to finish answering the remainder of my previous post.

DD5:

The only way to increase the standard of living is by capital accumulation.  For that you need the savings of capitalists and entrepreneurs. 

 

This.

Truthisnonexistent:

When the Communist Manifesto was written even conservatives advocated dictatorship.

http://marxmyths.org/hal-draper/article2.htm

No modern communists advocates a dictatorship. Stalinists aren't communists at all.

The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx & Engels - written 1958.

The Law by Frederic Bastiat - written 1960.

... excuse me? Granted Bastiat wasn't a conversative, I'm just assuming your still stuck in your BS paradigm - so you'd more than likely classify him as one. And if not, then why propose a strawman?

GilesStratton:

GilesStratton:

What's "1 litre of fruit juice - (5 oranges + 1 grapefruit + 1 lemon + 2 limes + 2 hours use of juicer + a quarter litre of water + 2 hours of unskilled labour)"?

 

Markus is still not willing to answer my challenge.

I don't know Giles. It's almost like you need to know the price of each factor of production and the price of the final product to figure that out.

Truthisnonexistent:

I don't really understand your argument? Two spouses can collectively own a house. You and your friend can collectively own a business. What problem do you see with workers democratically controlling the workplace?

That sounds too much like some kind of corporation.

Jon Irenicus:

If you can't have a discussion here without devolving into immaturity, then goodbye.

I hope you're referring to Knight of BAAWA.

 

Truthisnonexistent has been nothing but polite, slightly wrong, but polite.

Wilmot of Rochester:

Jon Irenicus:

If you can't have a discussion here without devolving into immaturity, then goodbye.

...

 Truthisnonexistent has been nothing but polite, slightly wrong, but polite.

And slightly (read: very) circular.

Truthisnonexistent, profits do not equal exploitation. That's PHISICALY impossible.

This is the simplest way that I can put it.

Lets say you, and I are hobby farmers, and we both live in the upper northern hemisphere. I produce 100 oranges  this year, and you produce 100 apples. You want oranges, and I want apples. Will you exchange with me 50 apples for 1 orange? No? How about 1 apple for 1 orange? Is that fair?

Lets say that I think so. I really want apples. I have enough oranges, and an apple or two would be nice. I agree to this exchange. EVEN THOUGH, my factors of production are more expensive for me.. I have to build a big a green house. Water the trees. Deal with disease, and pest issues that orange trees don't normally experience. You on the other hand just let your apple trees grow in the front yard, with a minimum amount of care. EVEN IF you get hit with a tent caterpillar infestation, you will still produce 100 perfectly fine apples.

Still, I'm happy that I was able to exchange 1 orange for one apple.

Who is exploiting who?

My *profit* is that I value one apple more than one orange. Your profit is that you value one orange more than one apple. How many apples you have in total, and how much they cost you to produce does not invalidate MY value judgment of one of your apples.

For a third party to say that this exchange is gratuitous because your so wealthy with easy apples, and I'm so poor with difficult oranges, would it's self be a value judgement of apples, vs oranges. A value judgement which the two of us obviously don't share, as we have traded.

In short, if there was no profit to be had, no one would trade anything-- AT ALL... Ever.