The Great Fallacy of Marxism

[emprworm]

lol! well said gunwounds.

i am now a canadian permanent resident 2 years away from full citizenship.

[Dante]

lazy poor people who dont give a rat about getting off their cannibus-smoking hemherroidic, dingleberried, bacterial infested anal cavaties to go find work.

oh but you WILL find them marching in anti-bush protests, legalize hemp rallies, gay pride marches, friday night alchohol bashes, bath houses, michael moore movies, and the like.

you will NOT find them studying, looking for work, etc.

How dare you?! You ignorant, prejudiced, intolerant, bigoted, self-centred, moronic... How dare you? You think everyone who disagrees with what you stand for is automatically a layabout? You think everyone in an anti-Bush rally or a pride march is unemployed and sitting about all day draining your taxes?

Ahem, "Before you criticise someone, walk a mile in their shoes." I've tried being intolerant, have you tried being tolerant?

I try to be accepting, I try to be tolerant. I refuse to let people with beliefs different to mine annoy me... usually. Some things are beyond the pale though...

[nemafakei]

"i also question how the poverty is distributed.  among the lazy, among the uneducated, among the unmotivated, among the sit-around-and-smoke-cannibus--and-protest-against-america-all-day, among the criminals, among the drop-outs (its more fun to party..who needs school!  ROCK ON DUDE!)...among the greedy (i DESERVE to have the government subsudize me)."

Ideally, those would be mostly the people who should be poor. I'm a bit hesitant about such as uneducated, becasue that depends on whose fault it is, but otherwise, I'm pretty much in complete agreement with you.

The next stage is, of course, how society can determine between the two. Your way, presumably, is capitalism, my way is a more left-wing system of which you know. I accept that the welfare state as it stands in most countries is open to abuse by "the greedy (i DESERVE to have the government subsudize me)", but I believe there must be a safety net for those who have lost out through no fault of their own, but by chance.

[emprworm]

How dare you?! You ignorant, prejudiced, intolerant, bigoted, self-centred, moronic... How dare you? You think everyone who disagrees with what you stand for is automatically a layabout? You think everyone in an anti-Bush rally or a pride march is unemployed and sitting about all day draining your taxes?

Ahem, "Before you criticise someone, walk a mile in their shoes." I've tried being intolerant, have you tried being tolerant?

I try to be accepting, I try to be tolerant. I refuse to let people with beliefs different to mine annoy me... usually. Some things are beyond the pale though...

rofl dustscout.  You're so funny.  I thought you were amoral.  How could I possibly rile you up?  Dustscout, take a look at your bigotry for a moment.

Everytime you slam, devour, insult, thrash, bash, trash and smash Christianity, you trample upon my beliefs, and the beliefs of many others.  Do not think for a second that you- someone who routinely insults someone else's personal belief system- are going to now be immune from someone countering YOUR moral system.  When you dish it out dustscout, you need to learn to take it.

I am not insulted when you bash Christianity.  It doesn't bother me.  In turn, when you encounter someone who opposes your moral (or amoral or whatever) views, don't be so personally affected by it.  You'll find life is easier, happier.  :)

[emprworm]

The next stage is, of course, how society can determine between the two. Your way, presumably, is capitalism, my way is a more left-wing system of which you know. I accept that the welfare state as it stands in most countries is open to abuse by "the greedy (i DESERVE to have the government subsudize me)", but I believe there must be a safety net for those who have lost out through no fault of their own, but by chance.

one of the few posts by Nema I can agree with.

[Edric O]

Well, what do we have here? It seems Emprworm refused to give up on his illogical position and kept attacking secondary arguments for over a page, while ignoring the simple mathematical truth that proves my point.

I will re-state that mathematical truth after I'm done, but for now I'll just dissect and refute Emprworm's nonsense:

When some of you try to claim that wealth isn't created...

For the record, I never made such a ridiculous claim. Quite the contrary:

OF COURSE wealth is created, fool! Once again, your argument is nothing more than one giant STRAWMAN, born as a result of the fact that you don't have a single damn clue about Marxism... or basic economics, for that matter.

Moving on...

When others of you refer to the SUM of wealth remaining constant, you still have not been able to refute that at time T (where T is a point in ancient history) the SUM TOTAL OF WEALTH WAS X, and at time T=NOW the SUM TOTAL OF WEALTH IS Y which is > X

And how do you measure wealth, exactly?

In order to measure something, you need a measuring unit that remains constant. For example, in order to measure length, you use the meter. The length of a meter remains constant. If a meter was longer today than yesterday, then it would be useless for measuring anything. So you need some sort of constant unit in order to measure wealth. Money and gold is useless, because their value changes over time.

You say "the sum of total wealth was X, and now the sum of total wealth is Y". X what? Y what? How do you measure wealth? How do you compare the wealth of 2000 years ago with the wealth of today? What's your measuring unit?

Or perhaps you admit that there is no measuring unit, and that you can't compare the wealth of 2000 years ago with the wealth of today? In that case, we remain with the fact that wealth changes, but you can't measure this change in terms of quantity. It only makes sense to compare the wealth of today with the wealth of today. To compare the rich of today with the poor of today. Not with the "rich" or "poor" of the past.

Edrics argument fails in this regard as well.  In his example, a community of 100 people have gold nuggets at 2 dollars each.  When more gold is discovered, all the nuggets drop in value.

Yes, it's known as the law of supply and demand. Do you deny its existence? Were you paying any attention at all during your economics class in highschool?

Again, Edric is presenting a scenario that denies increased wealth.

Wrong. I'm only showing you that the "increase in wealth" (if you wish to call it that way) makes no difference in the relationship between rich and poor.

And we can empirically disprove edrics argument quite easily:

Gold is worth about 400 bucks an ounce over the last 10 years

The amount of Gold known in existence today is greater than that of 10,000 years ago by a huge factor.

Therefore, using Edric's logic, one ounce of gold 10,000 years ago must have been worth millions of times more the amount it is today (since tonnes of new gold is discovered every single year)

But of course that is rediculous.  Gold has always had a relatively stable worth.  The amount of gold it takes to buy bread today is roughly the same as it was 1000 years ago.  This happens to be historical fact.  Such goes Edric's theory.

Supply and demand, you fool. SUPPLY AND DEMAND. The supply of gold 1000 years ago was less than the supply of gold today. But the value of gold was the same. Therefore, the demand for gold must have been smaller 1000 years ago than it is today.

Simple, isn't it? Amazing how Emprworm's "arguments" are blown away by basic knowledge of economics.

Furthermore, Emprworm, you're assuming that bread had the same value 1000 years ago that it has today (in order to compare it with gold, you make this implicit assumption). But such an assumption is completely baseless. How, exactly, can you compare the value of an object 1000 years ago with the value of that same object today? After all, you have no measuring unit. And so we return to the point I've made above...

All of you marxists who demand that wealth must necessitate poverty fail to understand this simple logic...

I have proved your "simple logic" to be simply incorrect. And now allow me to re-iterate MY simple mathematical argument, which is an irrefutable truth (and which you conveniently ignored in your posts):

In order for someone to have more than average, others must have less than average. Therefore, in order for someone to be rich, others must be poor.

[Edric O]

And the refuting of Emprworm's pseudo-arguments continues...

all i need to do is take one single 20th century artifact back to nomad tribes and I will be extremely wealthy.

Perfectly true. However, you're forgetting one thing: You may also take a mundane artifact of the nomadic tribes into the 20th century and you'll ALSO be extremely wealthy. Imagine owning a hand-crafted piece of clothing that was made 5000 years ago and that is still in perfect condition. You could sell it for millions of dollars.

A nomadic tribesman could come into the 20th century, sell his posessions, and get tens of millions of dollars for them. By your logic, that would mean your average barbarian was as wealthy as a modern-day millionaire...

But in reality, of course, you can't compare the wealth that existed thousands of years ago with the wealth that exists today.

Take a Hummer with a mounted gatling gun to the asian plains during the mongolian wars of Ghengis Kahn and you will single handedly win the war....all would worship and despair you.  You would rule the world.

...until you ran out of gas and bullets, at which point you would be slaughtered and your head would be proudly displayed on a warlord's pike.

Emprworm, take ten times more than all the gold in the world, go through a time machine and go back to when nomadic hunting tribes were the norm then see how much wealth you really have.

So ace thinks Gold is worthless to ancient civilizations?

Guess he never heard of the Mayans or the Aztecs?

So Gunwounds doesn't even know the difference between NOMADIC HUNTING TRIBES and the Mayans or the Aztecs?

Nomadic hunting tribes had no use for gold. If anything, it would be worse than useless, because carrying around such a heavy metal would slow them down.

The Mayans and the Aztecs were advanced civilizations, and they did value gold... but not too much. In fact, they had so much gold that it was quite cheap compared to other things. The Mayans valued jade (a blue-green semi-precious stone) far more than gold. And for the Aztecs, cocoa beans were worth more than their weight in gold.

[Edric O]

i also question how the poverty is distributed.  among the lazy, among the uneducated, among the unmotivated, among the sit-around-and-smoke-cannibus--and-protest-against-america-all-day, among the criminals, among the drop-outs (its more fun to party..who needs school!  ROCK ON DUDE!)...among the greedy (i DESERVE to have the government subsudize me).

The lazy? They're all in business, getting rich off other people's hard work.

The uneducated? They get pushed through college on their daddy's money.

The unmotivated? They hire other people to manage their multi-million dollar companies so they can take a vacation in the Bahamas.

The criminals? They sponsor bloddy wars and become rich Oil Lords.

The drop-outs? They become Presidents of the United States.

The greedy? They run your country, your economy, and your lives.

...Parasites...

Parasites? Parasites?? There is only ONE parasitic class, and that is the bourgeoisie.

When a poor man receives $100 from the government to keep him alive, you call him a parasite. When a filthy rich billionnaire who sits on his fat ass all day receives $1,000,000 from his hard-working employees and goes to buy himself a new luxury yacht, you call him a "successful businessman"!

You complain about the pennies you give to the poor, but you don't seem to mind the bucketful of money you give to the rich. That is your greatest idiocy, Emprworm, and that is the kind of attitude that makes you such a willing and blissfully ignorant servant of big business. Hey, if you're lucky, maybe your masters will even make you president of the United States one day - like they did with their other puppet.

As for the original subject of this topic, I've said it before, and I'll say it once again:

In order for someone to have more than average, others must have less than average. Therefore, in order for someone to be rich, others must be poor.

[emprworm]

In order for someone to have more than average, others must have less than average. Therefore, in order for someone to be rich, others must be poor.

nonsense.

Wealth Based on Hard Work:

In order for someone to work, study and motivate themselves more than average, others must work, study, and motivate themselves less than average.  In order for someone to strive more and care about themselves more than average, others must strive less and care about themselves less than average.  In order for someone to work more than average, others must work less than average.  Hence, some deserve to have more than average, while others deserve to have less than average.

Wealth Based on Luck

In order for one man to get lucky, someone else does not need to be unlucky.  Luck for one person never ever depends on "bad luck" for another.  Random events are not subject to dualism.  The  principles of communism is a massive flaw in philosophical thought because it demands all societal events are dualistic.  This type of "taoistic" philosophy is nonsense, as there is no facts to back it up.  math tells us simply that a random event that happens to one person, which that person happens to consider as fortunate, does not require that an equally but negative random event happen to someone else. 

Two men, john and bob are inventors.  John invents something new to society - a beanie baby.  Its just a stupid doll filled with sand.  Yet for some reason, as luck would have it, everyone wants one and is willing to pay him 10 dollars for one.  He gets rich.  He got lucky.  No one got unlucky.  No one needs to get unlucky.  Bob never manages to invent anything that people want, and never gets rich.  Does John steal this away from him?  Of course not.  If John's beanie baby never took off, Bob still would be poor.  Bob's unluckiness is fully independent of Bob's luckiness.  This is a great thing in a society - the ability to stumble upon good fortune - because it is a tremendous motivating force, and does not take away from anyone else at all.  The ability to stumble upon good fortune does NOT require that others have bad fortune.  To say so is poor reasoning, and bad logic.

[nemafakei]

Wealth Based on Luck

In order for someone to be luckier than average, others need to be less lucky than average. Just the same as before!

"Bob's unluckiness is fully independent of Bob's luckiness"

Assuming one of the Bobs should be a John, so also is Bob's laziness independant of John's hard work. It's just that the averages depend on each other.

[Dante]

rofl dustscout.

[SurlyPIG]

In order for someone to have more than average, others must have less than average. Therefore, in order for someone to be rich, others must be poor.

Um...duh?

That's because of the very definition of subjective comparison.  That's like saying "In a normal statistical distribution, 50% of people are below average."  What colour is Napoleon's white horse?

[emprworm]

Wealth Based on Luck

In order for someone to be luckier than average, others need to be less lucky than average. Just the same as before!

impossible.

no one is "luckier than average".

[Edric O]

Thank you for finally replying to my main statement, Emprworm. Too bad you ignored everything ELSE I've said in my recent posts.

For your information, ignoring my arguments will NOT magically make them go away - but right now let's just concentrate on your two strawman replies to my central statement:

Wealth Based on Hard Work:

In order for someone to work, study and motivate themselves more than average, others must work, study, and motivate themselves less than average.  In order for someone to strive more and care about themselves more than average, others must strive less and care about themselves less than average.  In order for someone to work more than average, others must work less than average.  Hence, some deserve to have more than average, while others deserve to have less than average.

This argument is a strawman, because I never brought up the issue of what people do or don't deserve. I am only pointing out that in order for some to be rich, others must be poor. Whether they deserve it or not, and who deserves what, is another discussion entirely.

(in fact, I think we've already had *that* discussion in several older topics, such as this one)

Just out of curiosity, do you even read all the posts in a topic you're replying to?

Because if you did, you would have read this post of mine addressed to Wolfwiz:

Notice that I wasn't discussing what is fair and what isn't. I only explained the reasons why some people must be poor in order for others to be rich, without passing any moral judgement. So I'm afraid you rushed to conclusions.

Given the fact that I've explained socialism and communism in quite a lot of detail in recent months (so much so that some people are getting fed up with it ;) ), you should know that I do NOT want a system in which every individual has an average amount of wealth, and I certainly don't believe such a system would be fair. As long as personal wealth exists, there must be some deviation from the average in order to reward those who work more, or who work better. That's what socialism does. There are rich and poor in socialism, but the difference between them is extremely small compared to the vast gap that exists under capitalism. As for communism, that's a whole different story, since personal wealth no longer exists (as a result of the abolition of private property).

So please try to improve your reading skills.

Wealth Based on Luck

In order for one man to get lucky, someone else does not need to be unlucky.  Luck for one person never ever depends on "bad luck" for another.  Random events are not subject to dualism.  The  principles of communism is a massive flaw in philosophical thought because it demands all societal events are dualistic.  This type of "taoistic" philosophy is nonsense, as there is no facts to back it up.  math tells us simply that a random event that happens to one person, which that person happens to consider as fortunate, does not require that an equally but negative random event happen to someone else.

Again, a strawman. HOW the money was earned is irrelevant to our discussion. We are not talking about HOW rich people got rich, but about the fact that the existence of rich people requires the existence of poor people.

In other words, it's impossible for everyone to be rich. If some people are rich, others are poor. And this is just one of the reasons why blaming the poor for their poverty is idiotic. (much like blaming the unemployed for their lack of a job is also idiotic, since a 5% unemployment rate is REQUIRED by any capitalist market economy - so 5% of the workforce inevitably gets "sacrificed" to unemployment, through no fault of their own)

Two men, john and bob are inventors.  John invents something new to society - a beanie baby.  Its just a stupid doll filled with sand.  Yet for some reason, as luck would have it, everyone wants one and is willing to pay him 10 dollars for one.  He gets rich.  He got lucky.  No one got unlucky.  No one needs to get unlucky.  Bob never manages to invent anything that people want, and never gets rich.  Does John steal this away from him?  Of course not.  If John's beanie baby never took off, Bob still would be poor.

Unless Bob also has a silly invention, which he also sells for $10, and which people used to buy until John's Beanie Babies came along.

In other words, John's good luck is bad luck for whoever was receiving all those $10 bills before people started spending them on Beanie Babies. It's quite common for a man to have a stroke of luck that makes him rich and puts another man out of business.

But even if I concede your point, the fact remains that just because one man's good luck doesn't necessarely cause another man's bad luck, that doesn't justify allowing people to get filthy rich or fall into abject poverty based on nothing more than good luck or bad luck. This makes men slaves to the roll of the dice, and allows random events to dictate the course of their entire lives. It is unjust and immoral. A fair society should NEVER award wealth based on luck.

[nemafakei]

"There is no such thing as "luckier than average" luck by definition excludes "average""

The sum of all luck excludes all average... if you roll a hundred dice, the average score will be about 3.5 - but that doesn't mean some dice have higher scores than average!

"math is not easily refuted."

But, unfortunately, it is easily abused.

[emprworm]

"There is no such thing as "luckier than average" luck by definition excludes "average""

The sum of all luck excludes all average... if you roll a hundred dice, the average score will be about 3.5 - but that doesn't mean some dice have higher scores than average!

"math is not easily refuted."

But, unfortunately, it is easily abused.

you cant define a single die roll as "luckier than average" since every single number has the same chance of coming up.

[nemafakei]

"and even in your example-  say i give a million dollars to everyone that rolls a 1.  the average doesn't change, and no one is "less lucky".  so even using your example the postulation that for one to be "luckier than average" someone else must be "less luckier than average" is obtusely false."

So if I roll a one, and I receive a million dollars, I am no luckier than someone who rolls a two.

Please define, then lucky, because you seem to be using a definion different to then one I am, namely: "receiver or frequent receiver of more benefit than expected, due to chance"

[emprworm]

"and even in your example-

[Anathema]

Rich and poor are measured by the standards of living of current time. If everybody would be "rich" according to our standards, then those who even posses marginally less money or goods are the poor. If everybody has the same amount of money and goods, then the words rich and poor are meaningless.

60 years ago a household with a car was considered to be wealthy, and not being able to afford a car didn't make you any poorer from most others. Today just about every household has a car. Poor are those who can't afford a car nowadays.

[emprworm]

Rich and poor are measured by the standards of living of current time. If everybody would be "rich" according to our standards, then those who even posses marginally less money or goods are the poor. If everybody has the same amount of money and goods, then the words rich and poor are meaningless.

60 years ago a household with a car was considered to be wealthy, and not being able to afford a car didn't make you any poorer from most others. Today just about every household has a car. Poor are those who can't afford a car nowadays.

my points exactly.  poor is often defined in terms of greed and envy.

[nemafakei]

That is why it is the wealth gap that is so often definitive of our society's

"you are lucky.  but no one else is "less luckier than average""

So I am lucky.

Now the average allocation by chance of wealth to people rolling that die is a little under 166,667 dollars. Since I have had the good fortune to recieve a million, I am wealthier than that average, and since it occured by chance alone, I am luckier than that hypotetical-average-person. The other 5 in 6 who failed to roll a 1 receive nothing, less than the expected value (defined as Σnp, here the 167,000 figure, the average): these people are less lucky than average.

[Dude_Doc]

Just a side question: Are these threads going anywhere? It seems you talk about the same thing every week... Just a note.

[Cyborg]

Just a side question: Are these threads going anywhere? It seems you talk about the same thing every week... Just a note.

That's the point.

We're discussing for the fun of it.

[nemafakei]

Ever played tennis against a brick wall?

[Cyborg]

nope, but I've thrown ball with a wooden one.