Communism v Capitalism

[Revitallia]

Not totally true. My father was the son of Irish immigrants who were poor even by Irish farming standards. He had 9 siblings. He got no financial aid in college or law school. He worked his ass off, paid off his student debt, and was lucky enough to raise from dirt low to upper middle class, debatably even rich. And Joe and Bob don't live in that system, they live in the perfect communist society. So no, it wouldn't be fair. And that's the point I'm trying to make.

I don't know how many more ways I can say it, and frankly at 1:15 AM I don't have the energy to. Capitalism and Communism are both bad systems. However, the consequences of a falling capitalist system aren't as severe as those of a falling communist system.

Did your father come to the US during the baby boomer times (when college was cheap as fuck and jobs plentiful) or to any developed modern European country where college is subsidized. If so, then I wouldn't be that surprised.

However, there are tons and tons of immigrants that come and only end up in shit jobs, and often attempt to do shady things just so they can feed their families. Same happens to actual citizens.

It doesn't matter. What you described with Joe and Bob wasn't Communist; it wasn't scientific. It was fantasy.

My grandfather was an immigrant, as I said. He worked 3 jobs, including holidays and a lot of weekends. As I said before, I'm acutely aware of the imperfections of capitalism. However, I don't think they are as severe as the imperfections of communism.

And with Joe and Bob you still missed the point. It wasn't a literal scenario. It was an anecdote to bring the point across that if some people work harder than others, they should be rewarded for that. I understand that in practical capitalism, there's plenty of unfairness. But I don't think that communism is the solution to these problems, I think that it would aggravate it.

Anyway, it's 1:30 AM over here so I gotta get to sleep.

[Pandeeria]

Did your father come to the US during the baby boomer times (when college was cheap as fuck and jobs plentiful) or to any developed modern European country where college is subsidized. If so, then I wouldn't be that surprised.

However, there are tons and tons of immigrants that come and only end up in shit jobs, and often attempt to do shady things just so they can feed their families. Same happens to actual citizens.

It doesn't matter. What you described with Joe and Bob wasn't Communist; it wasn't scientific. It was fantasy.

And with Joe and Bob you still missed the point. It wasn't a literal scenario. It was an anecdote to bring the point across that if some people work harder than others, they should be rewarded for that. I understand that in practical capitalism, there's plenty of unfairness. But I don't think that communism is the solution to these problems, I think that it would aggravate it.

Holy hell, please read this at the very least: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_socialism when you're not tired.

[Revitallia]

Yes, because they'd want to make sure those numbers were 100% accurate. Not like it'd be a conflict of interest or anything like that.

Why would it be a conflict of interest to monitor their penal system may I ask?

I... I can't even have a discussion with anyone who's like this. It's a complete absence of common sense and history knowledge.

If Stalin's gulags didn't write the stuff down, then they possessed plausible deniability.

[Al Ashabiyah]

Why would it be a conflict of interest to monitor their penal system may I ask?

I... I can't even have a discussion with anyone who's like this. It's a complete absence of common sense and history knowledge.

If Stalin's gulags didn't write the stuff down, then they possessed plausible deniability.

That is such a stupid idea. They did not see their actions as wrong, and therefore had no desire to conceal it.

[Trotza]

Well first of all he didn't even assign a type of amount or condition to it, so for all I know he could mean lets all be equally dirt poor, as he did not clarify much at all. Secondly, there's no reason to try and attach such an arbitrary concept to the idea of "fairness", which is where I think he made a mistake by assuming such.

I generally trust folks who say "equality before the law", even if they don't yet define the laws in question. I mean, it'd be a bit cartoonish if they then said "and that law is no wisdom teeth in ones mouth passed 8pm." Or, more seriously, "everyone shall work on an agricultural commune or they will be shot." I mean, the last one happened, but, I wouldn't really expect it as a rule.

Why not? These are moral precepts. They don't have substance. What's important is consistency, and no one can call him inconsistent. Perhaps owing to the guy only have a couple posts itt, but hey, simplicity is best for consistency.

We're talking about two economic ideologies, specifics are kind of important when you think one or the other can be applied to the whole world. If I wanted to hear overly simplistic yet consistent statements lacking any substance, I'd turn on the tv and see if anything about Trump is on. Regardless, do I think everyone should have the exact amount of money as everybody else, which was his original "point", if you can even call it that. No, I don't. Equality in that sort of way is not equivalent to fairness, so it is not a moral rule to apply here, much less live by.

[Revitallia]

I... I can't even have a discussion with anyone who's like this. It's a complete absence of common sense and history knowledge.

If Stalin's gulags didn't write the stuff down, then they possessed plausible deniability.

That is such a stupid idea. They did not see their actions as wrong, and therefore had no desire to conceal it.

According to Russian statistics, over 1,000,000 died in the gulag camps. If that doesn't concern you...

Anyway now I'm really going to bed.

[Trotza]

Yes, because they'd want to make sure those numbers were 100% accurate. Not like it'd be a conflict of interest or anything like that.

Why would it be a conflict of interest to monitor their penal system may I ask?

Because they aren't going to openly admit that they're committing unspeakable crimes against other human beings.

[Al Ashabiyah]

That is such a stupid idea. They did not see their actions as wrong, and therefore had no desire to conceal it.

According to Russian statistics, over 1,000,000 died in the gulag camps. If that doesn't concern you...

Anyway now I'm really going to bed.

Which Russian stats?

[Trotza]

I... I can't even have a discussion with anyone who's like this. It's a complete absence of common sense and history knowledge.

If Stalin's gulags didn't write the stuff down, then they possessed plausible deniability.

That is such a stupid idea. They did not see their actions as wrong, and therefore had no desire to conceal it.

They did, in more ways then one. Throughout their entire lifespan, even as they sought to expand their ideological influence across the world, they continued to act covertly to hide their actions and intent. I can imagine domestic affairs would be no different.

[Al Ashabiyah]

That is such a stupid idea. They did not see their actions as wrong, and therefore had no desire to conceal it.

They did, in more ways then one. Throughout their entire lifespan, even as they sought to expand their ideological influence across the world, they continued to act covertly to hide their actions and intent. I can imagine domestic affairs would be no different.

Hiding your intent so it cannot be countered is the same as keeping records on your penal system.
/S

[Kubra]

Well, then it seems to did not intend to deceive, merely deceived by accident. What slip of the finger had you using a definition you do not yourself hold for apparently figurative purposes? Could you purpose explain to the both of us this figurative use, so we may better learn?

I assume earnings, in context, are the sum of values produced, before cost subtraction. There's something very sanitary about my definition, I don't suppose you've got a more human one handy?

I used profit in the way because the poster I was responding to used profit only in relation to business owners, ignoring the fact that employees also make "profits." Profits was also used by the poster in what seemed to be "unjustified" earnings, based on how he or she spoke: saying employees of a business owner can never be fully compensated because money has to be taken to form the profit of the business owner. Which implied that profits are things received only by taking the rightful earnings of workers (which makes profits themselves un-rightful in a way). I was merely using the definition of profit I had believed the poster held based on his or her beliefs so that it would be easier for the poster to understand. That is why I used the definition of a word in the way I do not define it.

You did not have to be rude about it through allegations at me.

Alright, I see. The point is clearer. SInce you have clarified for me, it is only right I clarify for you.
Pandeeria (and myself, I suppose I ought to add) take the marxist perspective on value production and realization. The employee does not get his fair share of profit because the owner of capital, who is considered unproductive, gets the lions share, while the employee receives wage considered not a dividend of profit, but a cost subtracted in the calculation of profit.

I cannot help but be a bit defensive when accused of trolling by a guy who gives two definitions as if one were supposed to distinguish the two in rather ambiguous context. I should rightly think I'm being taken for a ride and respond in kind, shouldn't I?

[Trotza]

They did, in more ways then one. Throughout their entire lifespan, even as they sought to expand their ideological influence across the world, they continued to act covertly to hide their actions and intent. I can imagine domestic affairs would be no different.

Hiding your intent so it cannot be countered is the same as keeping records on your penal system.
/S

Well let me put it this way. If they truly didn't see what they were doing was wrong, then that would make those who carried it out even more horrible than I'd already assumed.

[Korouse]

But the sweatshop worker works harder than the CEO. And who gets more reward? The CEO. In capitalism people don't get what they deserve.

That is more of a inevitability than an injustice, it's impractical to believe you can forge a system where results are always proportional to efforts every single time. For example, if I did something nice I wouldn't automatically expect some direct and exact positive result from it, it'd be unrealistic, because life doesn't and never will work that way. Besides, if you don't like what a CEO is making, then fight it. But don't expect business owners to willingly throw away their rights on who they can hire and what they can pay.

You're forgetting the point. Despite the workers as a whole contributing more to the value than the CEO, they're paid less, thus leading to a system where the more productive economic class is being exploited by another.

[Trotza]

I used profit in the way because the poster I was responding to used profit only in relation to business owners, ignoring the fact that employees also make "profits." Profits was also used by the poster in what seemed to be "unjustified" earnings, based on how he or she spoke: saying employees of a business owner can never be fully compensated because money has to be taken to form the profit of the business owner. Which implied that profits are things received only by taking the rightful earnings of workers (which makes profits themselves un-rightful in a way). I was merely using the definition of profit I had believed the poster held based on his or her beliefs so that it would be easier for the poster to understand. That is why I used the definition of a word in the way I do not define it.

You did not have to be rude about it through allegations at me.

The employee does not get his fair share of profit because the owner of capital, who is considered unproductive, gets the lions share, while the employee receives wage considered not a dividend of profit, but a cost subtracted in the calculation of profit.

More of a nitpick here, but you seem to be making a giant corporation generalization here. I can assure you there are plenty of small businesses where the owner is not making a lion's share of anything. That is still capitalism, but doesn't seem to quite follow your guidelines of hierarchy and exploitation, considering the person at the "top" does not have much of an advantage at all over their employee.

[Cynesera]

Capitalism most certainly does not give everyone an equal opportunity.

[Parhe]

I used profit in the way because the poster I was responding to used profit only in relation to business owners, ignoring the fact that employees also make "profits." Profits was also used by the poster in what seemed to be "unjustified" earnings, based on how he or she spoke: saying employees of a business owner can never be fully compensated because money has to be taken to form the profit of the business owner. Which implied that profits are things received only by taking the rightful earnings of workers (which makes profits themselves un-rightful in a way). I was merely using the definition of profit I had believed the poster held based on his or her beliefs so that it would be easier for the poster to understand. That is why I used the definition of a word in the way I do not define it.

You did not have to be rude about it through allegations at me.

Alright, I see. The point is clearer. SInce you have clarified for me, it is only right I clarify for you.
Pandeeria (and myself, I suppose I ought to add) take the marxist perspective on value production and realization. The employee does not get his fair share of profit because the owner of capital, who is considered unproductive, gets the lions share, while the employee receives wage considered not a dividend of profit, but a cost subtracted in the calculation of profit.

I cannot help but be a bit defensive when accused of trolling by a guy who gives two definitions as if one were supposed to distinguish the two in rather ambiguous context. I should rightly think I'm being taken for a ride and respond in kind, shouldn't I?

I'm too tired at this point to respond to the substance (I may later on if I check in and see you are still active in this thread). However, I can understand what Pandeeria meant by his usage of profit (although I may not agree).

I apologize for saying you were trolling. I was not very happy because of the bad faith comment and, truth be told, I actually did think you were trolling (for which I also apologize).

[Korouse]

The employee does not get his fair share of profit because the owner of capital, who is considered unproductive, gets the lions share, while the employee receives wage considered not a dividend of profit, but a cost subtracted in the calculation of profit.

More of a nitpick here, but you seem to be making a giant corporation generalization here. I can assure you there are plenty of small businesses where the owner is not making a lion's share of anything. That is still capitalism, but doesn't seem to quite follow your guidelines of hierarchy and exploitation, considering the person at the "top" does not have much of an advantage at all over their employee.

Exploitation still applies even for small businesses. Especially when they're trying to expand. A few people apart of the hierarchy will still be deciding what you do and how much you get paid, and that's part of what Socialism wants to abolish.

[Trotza]

That is more of a inevitability than an injustice, it's impractical to believe you can forge a system where results are always proportional to efforts every single time. For example, if I did something nice I wouldn't automatically expect some direct and exact positive result from it, it'd be unrealistic, because life doesn't and never will work that way. Besides, if you don't like what a CEO is making, then fight it. But don't expect business owners to willingly throw away their rights on who they can hire and what they can pay.

You're forgetting the point. Despite the workers as a whole contributing more to the value than the CEO, they're paid less, thus leading to a system where the more productive economic class is being exploited by another.

And you missed my point. There are no set guidelines in capitalism for how much a CEO should make. So if you don't like it, argue against that, but don't act like it discredits all capitalism, of which there is many forms.

[Kubra]

I generally trust folks who say "equality before the law", even if they don't yet define the laws in question. I mean, it'd be a bit cartoonish if they then said "and that law is no wisdom teeth in ones mouth passed 8pm." Or, more seriously, "everyone shall work on an agricultural commune or they will be shot." I mean, the last one happened, but, I wouldn't really expect it as a rule.

Why not? These are moral precepts. They don't have substance. What's important is consistency, and no one can call him inconsistent. Perhaps owing to the guy only have a couple posts itt, but hey, simplicity is best for consistency.

We're talking about two economic ideologies, specifics are kind of important when you think one or the other can be applied to the whole world. If I wanted to hear overly simplistic yet consistent statements lacking any substance, I'd turn on the tv and see if anything about Trump is on. Regardless, do I think everyone should have the exact amount of money as everybody else, which was his original "point", if you can even call it that. No, I don't. Equality in that sort of way is not equivalent to fairness, so it is not a moral rule to apply here, much less live by.

Is it the simplicity you dislike, or the substance? Come now, you've never made a simple statement? "Thou shalt not kill" is a simply statement, if I wanted to be anal I could ask "why the imperative?" but one could simply respond "because." It would be consistent, and it's not really a statement one wants to disagree with, is it?
Now, of course, we've got very labyrinthine set of precepts, proverbs, and penal codes that define the act of killing, when it is bad and when it is good and when it is bad but doable. Some of it is what we agree with, some of it is what we do not. It does not leave me with a positive impression of complexity as a measure of soundness.

It was not his point. His question was not "Why not make it so?" His question was simply "why not try?" As he said, why not push those limits? He never said anything about succeeding.

[Kubra]

Alright, I see. The point is clearer. SInce you have clarified for me, it is only right I clarify for you.
Pandeeria (and myself, I suppose I ought to add) take the marxist perspective on value production and realization. The employee does not get his fair share of profit because the owner of capital, who is considered unproductive, gets the lions share, while the employee receives wage considered not a dividend of profit, but a cost subtracted in the calculation of profit.

I cannot help but be a bit defensive when accused of trolling by a guy who gives two definitions as if one were supposed to distinguish the two in rather ambiguous context. I should rightly think I'm being taken for a ride and respond in kind, shouldn't I?

I'm too tired at this point to respond to the substance (I may later on if I check in and see you are still active in this thread). However, I can understand what Pandeeria meant by his usage of profit (although I may not agree).

I apologize for saying you were trolling. I was not very happy because of the bad faith comment and, truth be told, I actually did think you were trolling (for which I also apologize).

Naw, I'm kinda winding down now that it's later in the day, and I ought to fully admit that some of my snark was unjustified.
Sorry man.

[Kubra]

The employee does not get his fair share of profit because the owner of capital, who is considered unproductive, gets the lions share, while the employee receives wage considered not a dividend of profit, but a cost subtracted in the calculation of profit.

More of a nitpick here, but you seem to be making a giant corporation generalization here. I can assure you there are plenty of small businesses where the owner is not making a lion's share of anything. That is still capitalism, but doesn't seem to quite follow your guidelines of hierarchy and exploitation, considering the person at the "top" does not have much of an advantage at all over their employee.

Insofar as profit is calculated after the payment of wages, yeah he def getting the lions share of profit.

[Korouse]

You're forgetting the point. Despite the workers as a whole contributing more to the value than the CEO, they're paid less, thus leading to a system where the more productive economic class is being exploited by another.

And you missed my point. There are no set guidelines in capitalism for how much a CEO should make. So if you don't like it, argue against that, but don't act like it discredits all capitalism, of which there is many forms.

It does discredit all forms of Capitalism, because this is what happens under Capitalism.

I'm not going to argue for reform within Capitalism either, because there's much more things to fix in Capitalism other than a CEO's pay, and because that would never lead to the empowerment of the working class.

[Trotza]

More of a nitpick here, but you seem to be making a giant corporation generalization here. I can assure you there are plenty of small businesses where the owner is not making a lion's share of anything. That is still capitalism, but doesn't seem to quite follow your guidelines of hierarchy and exploitation, considering the person at the "top" does not have much of an advantage at all over their employee.

Exploitation still applies even for small businesses. Especially when they're trying to expand. A few people apart of the hierarchy will still be deciding what you do and how much you get paid, and that's part of what Socialism wants to abolish.

Well it is their business and their right, so I don't mind if someone is benefiting from the fruits of their labor. Whether or not an employee is is their own problem, and they can find their own work. Oh no but Trotza what if they can't get a job. Well that's not the business owner's responsibility. If anything counts as exploitation, the authoritarianism of socialism used to cow the people into submission would certainly suffice.

More of a nitpick here, but you seem to be making a giant corporation generalization here. I can assure you there are plenty of small businesses where the owner is not making a lion's share of anything. That is still capitalism, but doesn't seem to quite follow your guidelines of hierarchy and exploitation, considering the person at the "top" does not have much of an advantage at all over their employee.

Insofar as profit is calculated after the payment of wages, yeah he def getting the lions share of profit.

Profit is also calculated after costs, that's kinda a biggie to some of us.

[Kubra]

Profit is also calculated after costs, that's kinda a biggie to some of us.

I wasn't aware that payment of wages was separate from costs.

[Trotza]

And you missed my point. There are no set guidelines in capitalism for how much a CEO should make. So if you don't like it, argue against that, but don't act like it discredits all capitalism, of which there is many forms.

It does discredit all forms of Capitalism, because this is what happens under Capitalism.

I'm not going to argue for reform within Capitalism either, because there's much more things to fix in Capitalism other than a CEO's pay, and because that would never lead to the empowerment of the working class.

The "working class", if you could even make such a broad generalization, have no right to what is not theirs. If you want to empower yourself, do it thorough political means, don't think that giving capitalism such a narrow definition is justification for throwing it out. The "bourgeoisie" have just as much right to private property as anyone else. But please, feel free to actually elaborate on all these things to fix in capitalism, so that I may address them directly.

Profit is also calculated after costs, that's kinda a biggie to some of us.

I wasn't aware that payment of wages was separate from costs.

Paying wages is a cost. But not all costs are wages obviously.