Left-wing discussion

[nemafakei]

Newton's law is an excellent example of the idea of model refinement, something which we MOST bring more of into government. Especially given that Newton was only out by the gamma factor in relativity, and some other weird stuff in quantum, and 99% of us need not be remotely concerned with either of those parts of the universe.

[Caid Ivik]

For Earth it was enough. As showed Kepler, it was enough even for whole solar system. There is little truth on every influental theory - some things are true even in that Marx'.

[Edric O]

Caid:

1. If they'd rather not think for themselves, they can always just not vote. See, that's the beauty of democracy, Caid: it gives people freedom.

Your argument seems to be that "we shouldn't force people to think if they don't want to". Fine, then let them choose for themselves whether they want to think or not, instead of forcing them to obey your orders! Freedom, Caid, FREEDOM!

2. You are arguing semantics, Caid! The original meaning of "bourgeois" was, of course, "city-dweller". But the meaning has changed over time, and Marx used the term "bourgeois" to refer to the social class who owns the means of production. If you don't like it, fine, use another word! It's not like the name matters...

3. LOL! Investing capital is just something we humans invented in the past few hundred years. It's not a "fruitful act", it's just another ephemeral human convention. So is money. You need to think outside the box, Caid! Money and capital are purely human inventions.

Of course, if you want to talk about God, you should remember that Jesus's teachings are distinctly socialist. He always supported the poor and talked about how corrupt and greedy the rich generally are, to the point of saying "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God". (Matthew 19:24)

[nemafakei]

Edric, think about it for a little; he has some reason.

Yes, it is true that there should be managers or administrators helping run the place and organise the workers, dedicated ones, who know what they are doing, whenever a company is large enough to require them - but, Caid, why should they be paid any more than workers? Insofar as they work as hard on an individual basis as the operational workers, surely they should receive the same, and, surely should not be giving themselves bonuses over and above what the average worker gets?

[Caid Ivik]

Who tells it is just to pay leaders more then workers? I wouldn't say it has some logic. It in society to pay more to those working more with mind. It is in no ideology, only nazism and communism tried to put a "working force" to history. But that's another extreme. Cause of humanity is to find a balance, well, it is hard, but any trying is fruitful.

1. Well, you have the point. Company management is composed of those, who wanted to "vote". It is simplified view, but true.

2. Bourgeois was always used against the so-called middle class. There is the largest part of the wealth of nations.

3. But sewing and harvesting aren't. Just change the word "investment" with "sewing" and "harvest" with "income". Those are natural things, or, if you want, gifts of God to our mind. About your point on Jesus, well, it doesn't mean it's impossible. He wasn't also talking generally anytime. Don't forget how Pharsees were angered when he had eaten with toll collectors - they did not knew he teached them the main problem of wealth: rich one faces more seductions, he has more possibilities, more freedom. But that doesn't mean he is doomed to be evil, main thing is to find a best way of charity. I wouldn't say Jesus was poorest guy of Israel, anyway. Middle class. Bourgeois ;)

[Edric O]

Caid, you seem to live under the delusion that the capitalist property owner somehow works more than his employees, or works "better" (e.g. "with the mind" - which just goes to show for the 100th time that you think the boss is somehow "inherently superior" to his workers, much like Hiler thought Germans were "inherently superior" to Jews). But in reality, the opposite is true. The capitalist owner actually works LESS than his employees and receives MORE money. This is because a certain part of the value produced by each worker goes into the capitalist owner's pockets (that's what "hiring" someone actually means). So the owner receives a lot of money for doing absolutely nothing.

1. Yes, that's how it should be and how it will be when socialism is established. Not how it is in your beloved capitalism.

2. Like I said, you can use the word any way you like. Just keep in mind that when I say "bourgeois", I mean capitalist property owners.

3. Ha ha ha ha!! You think that sewing and harvesting are the same as investing and receiving income? LOL! Sewing and harvesting are things you do yourself. Investing and receiving income require a much more complicated system, and can only work through inter-human interactions. As a result of these interactions, you get richer and others get poorer. That's not what happens when you simply sew and harvest!

What Jesus meant was that rich people face far more temptations (just like you said - you are right about this). It's harder for them not to sin. Which leads to the fact that most rich people are corrupt, which is exactly the situation we have today.

But that was only one verse. Read also Luke 6:20-26, Matthew 19:16-24 (also described in Mark 10:17-25 and Luke 18:18-25), Matthew 21:12-14 (also described in Mark 11:15 and John 2:14-16), Acts 2:44-47, James 5:1-8... there are many socialist verses in the Bible, comrade! :)

Oh, and Jesus was a carpenter. I'd call that working class...

[Caid Ivik]

It is you who said working with mind is superior to hand work... But first you should try to manage some companies and then compare what is harder.

1. Then we all live in utopical socialism. Every employee has a treaty with his chief, where he democratically accepts his authority. Capitalism is based on democracy. People don't work where it is planned, but where they choose.

2. I own some property too. And also some money in investment funds, altough it is minimal cash (but slovak crown raised last year, so the benefits are enormous 8) ). People aren't socially polarized.

3. Why would someone become poorer? Only the investor: he loses some money, but also he trusts the target, that if it will become beneficial, it will share with him the income.

Lk 6,20: Do you mean that socialism will bring everybody to poor status?

Mt 19,21: Well, not everybody can be perfect. Some people are active spiritually, some by materially. Jesus preferred spiritual work, what is understandable, he wasn't here to solve social situation...

Mt 21,12: If there would be Lenin mobilising revolutionaries, he would banish him too.

Act 2,44: This band created something like a kibuc or better a monastery. Most possibly they negotiated with outer world like before.

Jms 5,1: And this one is about problem of death. But why should I be poor on this world, when I might help others to salvation with my wealth? Without wealthy people, even missions wouldn't be as broad as today.

Carpenters of that were mostly free artisans. They worked alone, I wouldn't say Jesus was a part of proletary class as described by Marx. Well, the world before industrial revolution was slightly different...

[Edric O]

No type of work is "superior" to another. However, some require a higher education than others, and so the people who practice them should be rewarded for the extra time and effort they spent by getting that higher education. But this is not the case with capitalist property owners. They get money by doing absolutely nothing, simply because a large part of the value of their employees' labour goes to the property owner instead of going to the actual worker who earned it.

1. No, we do not live in socialism, because employees do not democratically accept the authority of their boss. Every boss is equivalent to a dictator. The fact that workers can choose between different dictators doesn't make them democratic leaders. And it happens very often that workers do not get a choice on who to work for.

2. Yes, thanks to left-wing reforms, capitalism has managed to avoid the kind of extreme social polarization that almost caused its downfall in the 1920's and 30's. But this doesn't apply to GLOBAL capitalism: The world is extremely polarized, as the gap between rich countries and poor countries is already immense and continues to grow.

3. Do I have to explain everything to you? Money does not magically appear out of nowhere. When an investor gets back more than he invested, he receives money that he did not work for. Obviously, someone else did. So, in fact, the investor receives part of the fruit of someone else's labour.

I won't comment on the Bible quotes, because you are free to interpret them however you like...

As for Jesus, you are right. He did not live in a capitalist society, so trying to figure out what capitalist social class He would belong to is pointless.

[Caid Ivik]

0. If owner did nothing, then his firm would quickly fall. He must oversee whole process, manage it, search for market partners etc.. He can hire some people for it, but still he can't give them all power.

1. Well, I don't know how it's in Romania, but here on north of Donau we have things called "contracts", and when employer breaks it, he flees or is lynched by militant angered workers, hasted by omnipotent unions. Whatever, I can say he deserves it...

2. Most of those countries are led by dictators, who proclaim themselves as communists. But that's unimportant. Main thing is that most "poor" countries live in permanent civil war. And between guns is everything silent. Most of these conflicts were started by support of USSR.

3. Future investor first works to make a capital, which he will divide to two parts: one will be spend for his own purpose, other part invested to other trusted subject. Investor receives truth from someone's else labor, that's true, but it is investor, who boosts him to work, so I think there is justice.

See Mt 25,15 ;)

[Sardauker-Kirov]

I'm at the center of ideoligies.

I'm neither Communist or Capitalist(Hell, I would rather be a fascist/communist than a Capitalist)

I think some of you should take a look at what happened 30 years ago or more, people worked for Capitalist dogs and yes, you must work if you wish to survive and have privileges in the community.

But if you work for a outrageous minimum wage and the owner is getting tons of money.

Then that is basicly slavery and like Edric said, 'typical' Capitalism.

The owner does however WORK. He plans everything, upgrades the organization and expands it.

But still, the workers are the ones that are suffering and doing the PHYSICAL and MENTAL work.

While the owner can just lay on the couch, read a book, etc etc.

But a important person once said.

" The goverment(organization) is the brains of the community, the people is the body. Without the brains, the body can't move, but without the body, the brains cannot command or live. "

[Caid Ivik]

Planning and organizing is a mental work. Which can bring even more suffering to worker. Anyway, I wouldn't look only on that bad side, like physical work has to mean something hard and unpleasant. For example winers, they are whole days in vineyard, but without some love for that work they cannot succeed.

[Sardauker-Kirov]

It's like playing a game, Command and Conquer, in the beginning of the game, building the base up, building units and planning defenses can be very stressful.

But if you managed it correctly, you can enjoy it and let the 'workers' do it.

And those workers are the UNITS.

;D

[Dude_Doc]

Planning and organizing is a mental work. Which can bring even more suffering to worker. Anyway, I wouldn't look only on that bad side, like physical work has to mean something hard and unpleasant. For example winers, they are whole days in vineyard, but without some love for that work they cannot succeed.

Ahh. Finally someone who understand...

[Caid Ivik]

It's like playing a game, Command and Conquer, in the beginning of the game, building the base up, building units and planning defenses can be very stressful.

But if you managed it correctly, you can enjoy it and let the 'workers' do it.

And those workers are the UNITS.

;D

I would rather compare it to Total Annihilation, where Commander is directly on the battlefield.

[Edric O]

0. Let me put it this way: The boss needs the workers, but the workers don't need the boss. Then why is it that the boss gets the lion's share of everything the workers earn?

1. Yes, we all have contracts, and we all have organizations that fight to ensure that the contracts aren't bad for the workers. But the trouble is that their definition of "bad" is "something worse than the accepted norm". But seeing how capitalist property relations themselves are inherently bad for any employee, all the trade unions do is to make sure that things don't get TOO bad...

2. Oh, come on, not the idiotic "all dictators are communists" crap again! There are only FIVE (5) countries in the world whose leaders proclaim themselves communists:

Cuba - the only one whose leaders are actually honestly trying to build socialism/communism

China - where Coca Cola, McDonald's, and thousands of other private corporations can be found at every street corner... not exactly my idea of "communism"...

Vietnam - similar to Cuba, but is slowly becoming more like China

Laos - where the vast majority of people are peasants growing their own food... it may call itself communist, but most of the country pre-industrial anyway, so it can be neither communist nor capitalist

and North Korea - the last remaining Stalinist Dictatorship

So, even assuming that all these 5 countries are communist (which they are not, but I'll assume it for the sake of the argument), what about the over 100 CAPITALIST countries where thousands of people starve to death on a daily basis?

As for conflicts supported by the USSR: First of all, none of those conflicts is still going on today. Second, they were wars of national liberation from capitalist colonial power. Wow, imagine that... those commies actually wanted freedom for their people! Such evil... ::)

3. So what's your point? I explained how an investor gets money earned through someone else's work, and even you admitted that it's true. But I cannot understand how you can see any "justice" in this process. Even assuming that the worker wouldn't have a job without the investor (which is only true in a capitalist economy), how is it fair that the worker keeps giving the investor part of his earnings forever?

And Mt 25,15 is a parable. It's about how we should prepare for our meeting with God, not about anything in this world...

[Caid Ivik]

0. You've made a circle, but whatever. As you need father, they need chief. Well, we can't generalise, but in mass production it is like this.

1. Let unions do their work. I don't like only when they are just tools of politicians. If agrees or not, that's employee's decision. Thinking one won't agree with something bad.

2. Ethiopia, Somalia and many more starving countries haven't found the way of driving state. It is not capitalism, just because those people use money, it is anarchy. About decolonialism, do you think that in India, China, Canada, latin or arab world, if we take countries, which made some progress from then, were liberated by communists? China and Latin America were hit by the Red Revolution when they were already souverene states. Just people were impatient due to slow economy growth.

Without these countries we have Africa. In Uganda we had a nice country. Colonialism was presented on one military fortress and tourists, which wanted to see Ukerewe. Natives lived their own life, without confronting whites or muslims, which lived in towns. Then Uganda was stormed by some "liberation army", and from then they are at civil war between tribes. Some were supported by communists, other by maoists. That's same in Zair, Rwanda, Burundi, Congo, Mozambique etc..

3. Let's simplify it once again. I make a shovel. That's MY work. I give it to you to dig a hole for someone. You will receive a payment for that hole. Don't you think there is some justice to giving me that shovel, or its financial value, back?

4. Now you see. Some capitalism is needed even in soul management...

[nemafakei]

Please quantify.

Are you each talking about all companies, large companies only (large on what scale?), or what?

Remember that a vast company cannot work without some administration.

Try also to consider the word 'administrator' rather than 'boss' or 'manager'.

[Caid Ivik]

Well, I've said for mass production, but it is also for any firm with larger number of employees, firm with 3 members not, but with 30 is required some administrative system (PCE...). It may be used also for a bank, where are also hundreds of workers, which work on chairs for high wages, I don't know exactly if these are part of Marx' proletariate as well ;D

[Edric O]

0. Well, if your best argument is "As you need father, they need chief"... no comment. ::)

1. Unions are a very good thing. I applaud their efforts, and I support them all the way. I'm just saying that unions are not enough. They're just patching up the problem instead of really addressing it.

2. LOL, so just because it represents the "dark side" of capitalism, you refuse to accept the fact that it really IS capitalism?

Tell me, how do you define capitalism? I define it as the economical system in which the means of production are privately owned, and in which there are no priviledged or under-priviledged classes determined at birth (in other words, no aristocrats or serfs). That is a simple, concise definition. And it proves that capitalism is starving over 1,000,000,000 human beings.

I never said that communists liberated ALL colonies. They just liberated SOME of them. And by the way, a country can be a colony even without having official recognition as such. Take Cuba under the dictator Batista for example. They were *theoretically* independent, but were practically under complete US domination. Another similar example is South Vietnam.

If you think colonialism in Uganda (and all over Africa) was just about pretty fortresses and tourists... you have a lot of history to read, my friend...

3. Of course there is! But there is no justice in me giving you the money for that shovel over and over again, for the rest of my life. You see, an investor doesn't just get his money (in your example, his shovel) back. Nor does he get 2 times his money back, or 3 times. He just keeps getting money forever, until either the business stops working or he dies.

4. LOL. Good one. :)

[Caid Ivik]

0. OK, when you'll become a chief of Dacia factory, then contact me about your results of socialisation...

1. Patching, but do we need more? Spaceship needs only small correction jets to maneuver, not a next engine.

2. Well, if you call the rule of kalasnikov a capitalism, then ok...

3. And if the treaty was based on share of income for whole existence of the digger firm?

Apropos, point "2" is being discussed in about 2-3 other threads, so I consider there is no need to repeat it all here once again.

[Dude_Doc]

Ok, another question (to Edric). You have previously said that there will be democracy in your communist vision. Now, you've also said that if people votes for a right-wing government, it will be so. Then, wouldn't the "communism/socialism" disappear?

What if people decide to insert free-trade again? Would you restrict that? Then, there wouldn't be much democracy, would it?

Look. To make everyone live in an utopia, you must force them into it. And force means authorian government, not very democratic. The only thing is to have a "reset" button, as one could call it. But that is also a restriction, because if there is a point where power becomes too powerful, and where power can be "cancelled", then that is a restriction too, not mention an un-democratic act also.

[Edric O]

IF they vote to return to capitalism, Dude_Doc. IF.

But if socialism/communism works properly, THEY WON'T. Because they'd have no reason to return to an ancient system of exploitation like capitalism or feudalism.

In our present-day democracy, people COULD vote to return to feudalism. But do you see anyone doing that? No, because they all know that capitalism is better. Similarly, no one will vote to return to capitalism once communism is established, because they will all plainly see that communism is better.

You cannot FORCE people into utopia, just as you cannot FORCE people to be free. And besides, utopia is not what I want to build. Communism is not a perfect system. It is only a better system.

[nampigai]

Edric, do you really in you wildest imagination believe that communism will ever be a reality.

[Edric O]

Caid:

0. Well, I suppose that means that this point of discussion is closed. We each presented our arguments, and it's up to the people who read them to decide.

1. After many years in service, the old engine gets worn out, and a new and better engine is invented. You can still tweak the old engine and make it work a few extra years, but sooner or later you'll have to get the new one.

2. You can easily have capitalism without democracy, just like you can have democracy without capitalism. They are not tied together.

3. What? I have no idea what you mean by that...

In any case, it seems that this debate is pretty much over... like I said, we each presented our arguments, and the conclusion is left to the reader.

[Edric O]

Edric, do you really in you wildest imagination believe that communism will ever be a reality.

Of course. Just like 18th century thinkers believed that democracy would one day be a reality.

Think outside the box, Namp...

Nothing can last forever. Sooner or later, capitalism will fall. What comes after that is completely up to us. Despite what capitalist propaganda tells you, communism is very much possible and feasible. And it is the best economical system that humans have invented so far. So why NOT communism?