Right-Wing Nuts think Environmentalism is "Marxism"
Jeff Candy
>Jeff Candy (Jeff....@jet.uk) wrote:
>: The fundamental principle of socialist ethics is the sacrifice
>: of the individual to the 'collective'.
>
> Correct.
>
>: This is why socialists have a negative view of individual and
>: property rights.
>
> Somewhat correct.
>
>: Even if it sounds strange, in a socialist system, you do not 'own'
>: yourself. Rather, you are owned by the collective.
> Nonsense!
Really? It appears to me to be true by definition, and is a
very fundamental aspect of socialism. The simple notion of
involuntary taxation is an example: taxes are taken from you
by force. This is quite clearly legalized theft. It persists
in all mixed economies of today, and is a socialist principle.
The greater the degree of socialism, the greater the degree of
legalized force and theft. The novelty of capitalism was to
'grant' individual and property rights to citizens.
This is very basic stuff, Scott.
>: If you and your neighbor are cooperating for mutual benefit,
>: then you lose if he suffers a setback. This is not the case
>: in a socialist economy.
>Ansolute nonsense. Please how a person who operates in a collective
>benefits from the setback of his fellow members of the collective?
Read carefully: The idea is realted to 'one less mouth to feed'.
Consider a two-person collective. If we split everything
50/50, and I am much more capable and productive than you,
then I might actually consider you better off dead -- for
both emotional AND economic reasons.
Under the bizzare assumption that all members of a collective
work as hard as possible, all would presumably suffer due to
the setback of one. This is not an aspect of real-world
collectives, however. There is a sort of optimization problem
that occurs when one is deciding how to act 'collectively'.
Since subsistence is guaranteed by the collective, and since any
fruits of your labor in *excess* of that generated by your fellow
man will be TAKEN from you and redistributed, it optimal for
you to minimize your labour and maximize your 'need'.
> You really don't have a clue do you?
I have done nothing more or less than paraphrase the
libertarian view of socialist politics and ethics, which
is derived from Rand's philosophy of objectivism.
Now, are you capable of critizing these idea with
something substantive?
Jeff Candy ----------------------------------
Analytic Theory Group http://hagar.ph.utexas.edu/~candy/
JET Joint Undertaking ----------------------------------
===============================================================================
The above article is the personal view of the poster and should not be
considered as an official comment from the JET Joint Undertaking
===============================================================================
Jeff Candy
>Jeff....@jet.uk (Jeff Candy):
>| The fundamental principle of socialist ethics is the sacrifice
>| of the individual to the 'collective'. ...
>I don't agree. In almost all of the socialist writing I've read,
>from the 19th and 20th centuries, the arguments have been that
>socialism would deliver a better deal, if not more goods, to most
>people, including, presumably, the reader of the material.
But the false guarantee of a 'better deal' COST the citizens
their individual and property rights. This was considered
necessary to the collective's existence. Historically,
extreme cases of this philosophy (Communist China, Russia,
North Korea, and East Germany) are horrifying.
>You're mixing up socialism with conservative ideas like
>nationalism and religion.
I don't think so ... I've never been criticized for that
before :)
>The idea that collectivities can be beneficial for their
>constituents is not socialism; it's the basis for human
>society, and especially of capitalist enterprise.
Your definition of collective seems to be straying.
Socialism enforces a collective. In no way does the
operation of a pure system of Laissez-Faire economics
enforce a collective, it makes cooperation to mutual
benefit *voluntary*.
>It's true that once socialists got power, they very often started
>talking about sacrificing the interests of the individual to the
>team, party, nation, or future, but very capitalistic corporate
>managers do this too. It is a common administrative tactic not
>peculiar to socialism.
Corporate managers have no such power, unless they act illegally.
This is the so-called anti-industrial myth (my clever term!).
Let me add that, though, that I found your ideas on this
topic quite balanced -- especially for someone who is so
anti-singularity :)
Ciao
Gordon Fitch
| >| The fundamental principle of socialist ethics is the sacrifice
| >| of the individual to the 'collective'. ...
g...@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) wrote:
| >I don't agree. In almost all of the socialist writing I've read,
| >from the 19th and 20th centuries, the arguments have been that
| >socialism would deliver a better deal, if not more goods, to most
| >people, including, presumably, the reader of the material.
Jeff....@jet.uk (Jeff Candy):
| But the false guarantee of a 'better deal' COST the citizens
| their individual and property rights.
I hope it will not be tedious of me to draw your attention
to the fact that you spoke of a "fundamental principle", not
of problems in realizing a principle. It may be that
socialism is unrealizable, but that was not its intent, and
neither was "sacrifice of the individual to the collective"
its intent. All you need to do to find this out is to
read the material.
Jeff....@jet.uk (Jeff Candy):
| This was considered
| necessary to the collective's existence.
Rather reasonably. No socialist polity -- not even a
_nominally_ socialist polity -- has been set up without
being attacked by liberal states and sometimes corporations.
Jeff....@jet.uk (Jeff Candy):
| Historically,
| extreme cases of this philosophy (Communist China, Russia,
| North Korea, and East Germany) are horrifying.
You forgot Vietnam and Cuba. The Vietnamese suffered
hundreds of thousands of casualties which they could have
avoided simply by submitting to the colonial domination
of the West. One of the disadvantages of being a socialist
is getting shot at, generally by proxies of liberal
Western democracies. It seems to me in condemning the
misdeeds of socialist governments and movements one might
want to take this factor into consideration. Basically,
liberalism has carried on unremitting war against every
other kind of social organization it has encountered,
unless the other submitted to a subordinate, obedient
status, like Saudi Arabia does. This sets up certain
conditions in which horrifying acts become normal.
| ...
gcf:
| >The idea that collectivities can be beneficial for their
| >constituents is not socialism; it's the basis for human
| >society, and especially of capitalist enterprise.
Jeff....@jet.uk (Jeff Candy):
| Your definition of collective seems to be straying.
| Socialism enforces a collective. In no way does the
| operation of a pure system of Laissez-Faire economics
| enforce a collective, it makes cooperation to mutual
| benefit *voluntary*.
However, the usual socialist line is that the workers
really don't have any real power, so they're forced into
authoritarian corporate collectivities anyway. They
regard the laissez-faire vision as a cruel deception, do
they not?
gcf:
| >It's true that once socialists got power, they very often started
| >talking about sacrificing the interests of the individual to the
| >team, party, nation, or future, but very capitalistic corporate
| >managers do this too. It is a common administrative tactic not
| >peculiar to socialism.
Jeff....@jet.uk (Jeff Candy):
| Corporate managers have no such power, unless they act illegally.
| This is the so-called anti-industrial myth (my clever term!).
| Let me add that, though, that I found your ideas on this
| topic quite balanced -- especially for someone who is so
| anti-singularity :)
I'm talking about that principle we were noticing in the
beginning, not what kind of power they have or had.
--
}"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Timothy D Fay
>g...@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) wrote:
>>The idea that collectivities can be beneficial for their
>>constituents is not socialism; it's the basis for human
>>society, and especially of capitalist enterprise.
>Your definition of collective seems to be straying.
>Socialism enforces a collective. In no way does the
>operation of a pure system of Laissez-Faire economics
>enforce a collective, it makes cooperation to mutual
>benefit *voluntary*.
I'm a socialist, but I don't believe forced colectivization.
One of us must have his definition of "socialism" wrong, and I
doubt that it is me... :)
Conversely, there is nothing "voluntary" about laissez-faire
economics in a capitalist model. I certainly didn't vote for
this economic system, yet it is forced on me everywhere I go.
In fact the whole concept that captialism can somehow be
"laissez-faire" is ludicrous. Capital, almost by definition,
is a coercive force, i.e., "money talks." People with money
very often have the means to force their will on others, just
as the leaders of the old Soviet collectives could force others
to do their bidding. The mechanism of oppression differs, but
the result is still the same.
>>It's true that once socialists got power, they very often started
>>talking about sacrificing the interests of the individual to the
>>team, party, nation, or future, but very capitalistic corporate
>>managers do this too. It is a common administrative tactic not
>>peculiar to socialism.
>Corporate managers have no such power, unless they act illegally.
And, of course, we know corporate managers would _never_ consider
any illegal acts in the pursuit of their duties. But if you don't
think corporate managers have great power over individual lives,
then I suggest getting a job in order to discover this Truth for
yourself. :)
--
Reply to: fayx...@maroon.tc.umn.edu
-- http://www.tc.umn.edu/nlhome/m279/fayxx001 --
"My mental facilities are TWICE what yours are -- you pea brain!"
-Percival McLeach
++++ Stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal! ++++
++++ if you agree copy these 3 sentences in your own sig ++++
++++ more info: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm ++++
Jeff Candy
>Jeff Candy (Jeff....@jet.uk) wrote:
>>Socialism enforces a collective. In no way does the
>>operation of a pure system of Laissez-Faire economics
>>enforce a collective, it makes cooperation to mutual
>>benefit *voluntary*.
>I'm a socialist, but I don't believe forced colectivization.
>One of us must have his definition of "socialism" wrong, and I
>doubt that it is me... :)
Are you suggesting that in your ideal socialist state, I
will be allowed to *choose* if I wish to pay taxes to
subsidize education, welfare -- and anything else that
happens to be socialized?
>Conversely, there is nothing "voluntary" about laissez-faire
>economics in a capitalist model. I certainly didn't vote for
>this economic system, yet it is forced on me everywhere I go.
The system in the US (and Europe) now is a mixture of capitalism
and socialism -- of freedom and control. And note that having
to *work* for any benefits you wish to receive is a natural
state of being, not a coercive phenomenon.
>In fact the whole concept that captialism can somehow be
>"laissez-faire" is ludicrous. Capital, almost by definition,
>is a coercive force, i.e., "money talks."
This is old, worn, but certainly grade A Marxist rhetoric.
Incidentally, what should "talk"? Ineptitude, need, laziness?
>People with money very often have the means to force their
>will on others,
You would like it the other way around, I suppose?
>And, of course, we know corporate managers would _never_ consider
>any illegal acts in the pursuit of their duties. But if you don't
>think corporate managers have great power over individual lives,
>then I suggest getting a job in order to discover this Truth for
>yourself. :)
Why shouldn't they exert an influence? And why do you presume
that, as a rule, these will be negative and harmful?
I paid taxes in three damn countries last year, spare me the
helpful advice about how to discover the truth :)
Jeff Candy ----------------------------------
Analytic Theory Group http://hagar.ph.utexas.edu/~candy/
JET Joint Waffle House ----------------------------------
Chris Wright
>Conversely, there is nothing "voluntary" about laissez-faire
>economics in a capitalist model. I certainly didn't vote for
>this economic system, yet it is forced on me everywhere I go.
>In fact the whole concept that captialism can somehow be
>"laissez-faire" is ludicrous. Capital, almost by definition,
>is a coercive force, i.e., "money talks." People with money
>very often have the means to force their will on others, just
>as the leaders of the old Soviet collectives could force others
>to do their bidding. The mechanism of oppression differs, but
>the result is still the same.
Capitalism is not what you are describing above. Your description is
the modern evolution of what was Capitalism and is now Plutocracy, or
a society based on the consumption and production of wealth.
Capitalism, in it's purest sense, is a trade of goods for goods. In
other words, Capitalism is most accurately "barter." A "Good" can be
money, if "money" stands for something an individual values, but it
can also a skill, a piece of knowledge, a tool, or anything else that
a person can "capitalize" on to make his or her life easier.
Of course, this is a very general definition, and I'm sure there are
thousands of economists waiting in the wings to correct me, but then,
that's their supply, and I'm introducing the demand. :)
Christopher B. Wright (bren...@richmond.infi.net, TeamOS/2)
+---------------------------------------------------------
+ "We are all born individuals - why is it so many of us die copies?"
+ (Edward Young)
+----------------------------------------------------
+ It's a shame politicians don't eat their young.
+ If they did, the gene pool would be cleaned up considerably.
Soren Groth
>From: Jeff....@jet.uk (Jeff Candy)
>Subject: Re: Right-Wing Nuts think Environmentalism is "Marxism"
>Date: Thu, 07 Mar 96 13:09:47 GMT
>soren...@mailbox.swipnet.se (Soren Groth) wrote:
>>If we define socialist economy
>>in the way shared by all socialist movements, from anarchists
>>to extreme stalinists, it is that there is no private ownership
>>to the means of production - it says nothing about other types of
>>ownership.
>The statement 'no private ownership of the means of production'
>is indeed included explicitly in, for instance, the platform of
>the Canadian Socialist Party. However, this requirement supports
>implicitly my original claim: that you do not own yourself.
>Consider: If I construct a device or process that amounts to
>something which is classified, in vague socialist terms, as a
>'means of production', what then? Presumably, it is the public,
>not I, that 'owns' this innovation. Thus, I am forcibly detached
>from the creative process of my own mind.
>How can I own myself if my ideas, creativity, and innovation
>are public goods?
First, you are part of that public, though it depends on the political
system, totalitarian or libertarian socialist, if that also means you have any
influence.
I'll agree that in a strictly marxist-leninist model of socialist economy
you will be victimized by the collective idea.
What do you mean by owning your ideas, creativity and innovation.??
I still think it's nonsense. In capitalist economy your creativity can be
owned by a company, every salary worker does not own himself. So that's no
point !! If you're lucky you can get well paid, but how many skilled
innovators have not been cheated on their ideas, and someone else made the big
bucks and taken all the credits.
Your ideas are still public goods, when it's used it becomes public, only if
you keep it totally to yourself it is owned by you.
So it comes down to the fact, that in a socialist economy, you will get paid
for the actual work of thinking, inventing and creating, like everybody else
get paid for what they do, you can even be honoured and praised for your
skills, but you can not sell your idea, get a provision, speculate a.s.o.
The invention is not worth much, before it's used in production. Who ownes
the products, you as the inventer or the producer,
As an anarchist, I don't fear socialist economy, because it will work in a
system where the individual still have his/her rights, and through the
federalist system fully can participate in the decisionmaking process of that
society.
Rick Cordes
>I wrote:
>
>>> The fundamental principle of socialist ethics is the sacrifice
This is classic sophistry. If there is a fundamental
principle to socialist ethics, it is perhaps "from each according
to their abililty; to each according to their need". Be that as it
may -while we're are at paper tigers- you implicitly think the above
is a bad idea: do you conversely think the sacrifice of the
collective to the individual is a good idea?
>
>>> Even if it sounds strange, in a socialist system, you do not 'own'
>>> yourself. Rather, you are owned by the collective.
>
>...
>
>The statement 'no private ownership of the means of production'
>is indeed included explicitly in, for instance, the platform of
>the Canadian Socialist Party. However, this requirement supports
>implicitly my original claim: that you do not own yourself.
>
>Consider: If I construct a device or process that amounts to
>something which is classified, in vague socialist terms, as a
>'means of production', what then? Presumably, it is the public,
>not I, that 'owns' this innovation. Thus, I am forcibly detached
>from the creative process of my own mind.
>
>How can I own myself if my ideas, creativity, and innovation
>are public goods?
Presumably you have read Ann Rand, as well as, L. Ron Hubbard
and Eric Hoffer but with your equivocations upon what is meant by
the "means of production" coupled to your somambulant evocation
of what is understood as the alienation of labor, you are an
astrologer in an astronomy class. The preponderance of humanity
fit the worker category. These people sell their labor to capitalists
who sell the products. As productivity increases, the value of labor
declines while the profits reaped by the exploitation of the
surplus value of products increases. Even with bandaids like taxes
and other welfare measures (and without social convulsions) this
leads to the accumulation of wealth and war and revolution. So,
unless you believe that most can become capitalists, then most
are forced to live lives of diminishing returns (while others
never need touch their principle), alienated from their labor and
the means of production.
>
>This is a recurring idea in objectivist literature, and not
>something I've cooked up to plaster all over usenet.
From what you say, the recurring element of this art deco
elitism is the misrepresentation of socialist philosophy.
>To your point regarding the distinction between economics
>and politics, I used the word 'ethics' in my post. Politics
>and economics are consequent to the notion of ethics.
Only if you believe in Moses. If you believe in socialism,
ethics is consequential to politics which is consequential to
economics. This is dialetical materialism, and history is better
described thusly than by modernist reinventions of idealism.
Gordon Fitch
| >> of the individual to the 'collective'.
cor...@Hawaii.Edu (Rick Cordes) wrote:
| > This is classic sophistry. If there is a fundamental principle
| > to socialist ethics, it is perhaps "from each according to their
| > abililty; to each according to their need".
Jeff....@jet.uk (Jeff Candy):
| What a wonderful idea!
| The is the doctrine of robbers and their victims, not of free men.
| ...
Oh, it is not. It's the doctrine of the tribe and the family.
It's not socialism, either. Socialism is the ownership or
control of the means of production by the working class, or by
the people generally. Both of these theories may be defective,
but (1) they're different from each other, and (2) they're no
more necessarily violent than liberalism.
--
}"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Rick Cordes
>>> of the individual to the 'collective'.
>
>cor...@Hawaii.Edu (Rick Cordes) wrote:
>
>> This is classic sophistry. If there is a fundamental principle
>> to socialist ethics, it is perhaps "from each according to their
>> abililty; to each according to their need".
>
>The is the doctrine of robbers and their victims, not of free men.
You are incapable of logic. Robbers and their victims espouse
the same doctrine? Robbers and/or victims are not free men? Humanitarian
principles are not wonderful ideas?
>
>> Be that as it may -while we're are at paper tigers- you
>> implicitly think the above is a bad idea:
>
>I explicitly claim that it is a bad idea.
Go suck eggs. In the above, it is implied not stated.
>
>> do you conversely think the sacrifice of the collective to
>> the individual is a good idea?
>
>The sacrifice of group (a) to group (b) is a bad idea. Get it?
Always? Sometimes? Never? You grasp of ethics is laughable.
>
>I said previously:
>
>>> The statement 'no private ownership of the means of production'
>>> is indeed included explicitly in, for instance, the platform of
>>> the Canadian Socialist Party. However, this requirement supports
>>> implicitly my original claim: that you do not own yourself.
>
>>>Consider: If I construct a device or process that amounts to
>>>something which is classified, in vague socialist terms, as a
>>>'means of production', what then? Presumably, it is the public,
>>>not I, that 'owns' this innovation. Thus, I am forcibly detached
>>>from the creative process of my own mind.
>
>>>How can I own myself if my ideas, creativity, and innovation
>>>are public goods?
>
>> Presumably you have read Ann Rand, as well as, L. Ron Hubbard
>> and Eric Hoffer but with your equivocations upon what is meant by
>> the "means of production"
>
>It is my nature to be unequivocal. Now, where have socialists
>clearly stated what in hell *they* mean by "means of production"
>(and not using 19th Marxist rhetoric)? I am afraid that public
>ownership of said "means" is, to me, frightening.
So you don't understand what is meant by the "means of
production", much less Marxist analysis, and you're frightened
by, for example, the public highway system. Bit of a primitive,
aren't you?
>> coupled to your somambulant evocation of what is understood as
>> the alienation of labor, you are an astrologer in an astronomy class.
>
>Oh boy. Whether I'm somnambulating, or completely comatose, isn't
>really important. I'm waiting for someone to justify an alleged
>right of society to the expropriation of the fruits of *my* labour.
>Does this sound like astrology to you? How ironic ... socialists
>typically strike me as being the logically vacuous ones. I have a
>Ph.D. in Physics, I can differentiate (no pun intended).
Foghorns like you asleep at the wheel, and that
really isn't important? Society is a balancing act of rights,
and this necessarilly entails give and take. The purpose of
government is social justice which works to keep that fair. [That
you think your Ph.D. in physics is relevant to this issue or
this arguement is part and parcel of your fatuity.]
>
>> The preponderance of humanity fit the worker category. These
>> people sell their labor to capitalists who sell the products.
>> As productivity increases, the value of labor declines while the
>> profits reaped by the exploitation of the surplus value of products
>> increases.
>
>Oh, how simple is modern economics! Let me ask you, what is your
>formal training in economics? Is is so substantial that you can
>base your notion of ethics on your assumed understanding of the
>dynamics of economic systems?
(More sophistry. Refutation by innuendo, followed by a
request to see a badge.) However substantial one's understanding
of economic systems is, of course it is a basis for their ethics.
>> Even with bandaids like taxes and other welfare measures (and
>> without social convulsions)
>
>you're losing me ...
Can you understand the notion of someone knowing no mechanics?
You simply know virtually no Marxism.
>> this leads to the accumulation of wealth and war and revolution.
>> So, unless you believe that most can become capitalists, then most
>> are forced to live lives of diminishing returns (while others
>> never need touch their principle), alienated from their labor and
>> the means of production.
>
>What a crock. A capitalist is any member of the set of individuals
>who exist in a free society. Socialists miss this idea regularly.
>My rich uncle does not grant me the privilige of being a capitalist;
>rather, it is a way of life I lead by consequence of the fact that
>I am a member of a free society -- by consequence of the fact that
>I cannot forcibly take from someone "according to their ability",
>according to "my need".
Capitalism is liberty? This is another of your equivocations.
Capitalists invest money for their livelihood; workers sell their
labor, and lapdogs yap.
>> From what you say, the recurring element of this art deco
>> elitism is the misrepresentation of socialist philosophy.
>
>"Art deco elitism"?
You really don't get that? What can you possibly know
about anything you're talking about?
>Socialism is the doctrine which rewards incompetence and laziness,
>and legalizes theft. Stop skirting the issue based on economic
>nonsense coupled with perverted interpretations of history (as
>in "accumulation of wealth and war and revolution").
Socialism is a 19th century development in classic western
philosophy, and it arose in part in response to the nature of
capitalism. It explains war and poverty based upon economics.
What is nonsense, is any model for the evolution of society that
is without a material basis like yours.
Cyrill Vatomsky
>cyr...@netcom.com (Cyrill Vatomsky) wrote:
>
><tongue-in-cheek, about compulsion to pay taxes in a
> socialist system>
>
>
>>Seriously, socialism can only survive when everybody agrees to play
>>nice and not to cheat. On any scale, be it a little commune of dopers
>>in Norther California or one sixth of the world.
>
>Its funny you should mention No. Cal. dopers. A buddy of mine
>dragged me to a No. Cal. herbalist school/commune about two
>years ago, where his girlfriend was a 'student'. This place
>was solid evidence for genetic de-evolution. We argued alot
>about the evils of genetically engineered vegetables, among other
>things. Actually, I had agreat time thanks to the variety of
>cool brew pubs in the area.
My wife used to work in No. Cal and had to inspect several of those
communes for complience with environmental and health regulations. She
said that some of them were the worst cases in terms of violating the
basic sanitation concepts known even to ancient Babylonians. I was always
amazed by the hipocricy of many hippie/environmantalist communes. Just a
side angry note :-)
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyrill Vatomsky | Office (one of) : (408)479-1528 |
| Internet : cyr...@netcom.com |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Candy
>I missed the original by Jeff Candy, but ...
>This must be an American working at JET, 'cause I thought
>Europeans were quite well aware that many of their own countries
>are quite socialist.
*Canadian* working at JET, in fact. I'll be returning to my
preferred country of employment, the US, quite soon.
>I believe they consider themselves quite free.
Considering oneself free is not tantamount to living in
a free society. You're free to sit in a pub here so long
as its not past 11:00pm, then it becomes illegal. You're
free to spend about 70% of your money. If you own a store,
you're free to open on Sunday, so long as it isn't after
4:00pm. Yes, some people here with no grasp of the world
around them consider themselves free.
>Many democracies are quite socialist. Taxes which pay for roads
>and schools are quite a socialist entity.
Quite right. A democracy is the logical equivalent of "mob rule".
Good philosophical principles, which define individual and property
rights, are better, and dare I say, fairer. The KKK is a good example
of a democracy in which *most* of the people are happy.
The part about corporations being socialist is silly, *unless*
they are given special powers by government (which happens all
the time in the UK), or hampered by baloney like antitrust (which
happens in the US). In a free (non-socialist, non-democractic)
society, corporations are necessarily non-socialist. This fact
never seems to sit well with a certain percentage of people, who
appear to have an irrational fear/hatred of corporations, progress
and income disparity.
Rick Cordes
>Rick Cordes (>) ; My last post (>>)
>
>>>What a wonderful idea!
>>>The is the doctrine of robbers and their victims, not of free men.
>
>> You are incapable of logic.
>
>
>> Robbers and their victims espouse the same doctrine?
>> Robbers and/or victims are not free men?
>> Humanitarian principles are not wonderful ideas?
>
>consequences.
>(ii) Robbers, and thus victims, may clearly occur in a free society.
>A society founded on the premise that one may rob, based on "need",
>is not a free one.
>(iii) If you steal my wallet and give it to a beggar, you are not a
>humanitarian, you are a thief.
>
>>Go suck eggs.
>
>Sigh.
Sigh yourself. If you don't like the insults, stop slandering
the astronomers. Get it? Your expurgations of the above passages are
likewise uningenuous.
>>>The sacrifice of group (a) to group (b) is a bad idea. Get it?
>
>>Always? Sometimes? Never? You grasp of ethics is laughable.
>
>Give me a RELEVANT EXAMPLE where the sacrifice of group (a)
>to group (b) -- without the consent of group (a) -- is a good
>idea. And then tell me by what moral right it is justified.
Everything else being equal, when group (a) is recompensed
for their contribution to the world more than group (b).
>> So you don't understand what is meant by the "means of
>> production", much less Marxist analysis,
>
>"Means of production" is a concept which socialists and objectivists
>do not agree on. The post to which your original reply was directed
>was aimed at the objectivist idea of "man's mind" as the most
>fundamental means of production. I think the Marxist concept is
>more along the lines of tractors and coal furnaces -- but I await
>your more comprehensive delineation.
Ah, The Idea Man. Beethoven composed his 9th without his
ears but its performance requires the life work of other people.
Resources and machines are the means of production. Anything that
enhances the productivity of a worker (and thereby ultimately lowers
the demand for their labor) is a machine. Possession of the means of
production, buying labor and selling products, therefore is made
more advantageous than selling labor and buying products.
>> and you're frightened by, for example, the public highway system.
>
>The power of arbitrary taxation frightens me. I'm suprised you didn't
>ask if the police force frightens me -- since their income is derived
>from taxation. Public finance of the police and military are required
>for the operation of a free society. No, the US public highway system
>doesn't frighten me -- not as much as motorways in Europe do. The roads
>in this particular area are extremely narrow, dangerous and congested,
>despite the high marginal tax rate.
Where to begin. How is taxation in a democratic society
necessarilly arbitrary, even in one with a flawed guarantee of property
rights? Your sole evocation of the police and military as requirements
to a free society is notable. Finally, you now grant that public
ownership of some of the means of production doesn't frighten you?
>> Foghorns like you asleep at the wheel, and that really isn't
>> important? Society is a balancing act of rights, and this
>> necessarilly entails give and take.
>
>Stop. This is what we are arguing about, and something we don't agree
>on. Do I need to keep reminding you every other sentence? Note that
>a right which contradicts another right (requiring give and take)
>cannot be a valid right in the first place. This explains, for example,
>why there is no such thing as the right to a job. Think carefully about
>this before launching your next insultory remark.
Like liberty and equality? The material resolution of
contradictions between rights like those is a fundamental problem
you seem to think does not exist. The right to a job, or a
fair share of wealth is not a valid right, so what materially is?
>> The purpose of government is social justice which works to
>> keep that fair.
>
>The government's purpose (in a free society) is NOT to put a bum
>on one platter of scale, and my tax dollars on the other. The
>purpose of a government is to ensure a fair game -- not to fix
>the outcome.
Objectively, the only necessary condition for taxes to be fair
is that if you gross more, you net more, while, on the other hand,
taxation is not necessarilly fair because someone pays more taxes than
someone who makes less. It can not be a fair game when certain
occupations and talents unfairly command higher standards of living
at the cost of others'. The only way government can insure it is a, as
you put it, fair game, is to regulate it.
>> [That you think your Ph.D. in physics is relevant to this
>> issue or this arguement is part and parcel of your fatuity.]
>
>If you can claim that I am "an astrologer in an astrology class",
>I can, with the SAME DEGREE OF RELEVANCE, state that I have a Ph.D.
>in physics. And I'm not fat either.
No doubt you think this is logic. Just because you have formal
training in some specialized branch of physical science does not mean
your social philosophy is on a par. You are an idealist posting to a
materialist newsgroup; so stands my comparison. That you appear
to think that because both astronomers are physicists and you are a
physicist that you cannot embrace notions, as benighted as astrology,
seems to me, is a conceit.
>>> Oh, how simple is modern economics! Let me ask you, what is your
>>> formal training in economics? Is is so substantial that you can
>>> base your notion of ethics on your assumed understanding of the
>>> dynamics of economic systems?
>
>> (More sophistry. Refutation by innuendo, followed by a
>> request to see a badge.) However substantial one's understanding
>> of economic systems is, of course it is a basis for their ethics.
>
>Objectivist ethics are fundamentals, laissez-faire economics is
>their consequence. That socialist ethics are a function of economics
>is not suprising -- since it is economics that socialists seek to
>organize, control, limit and cripple.
Ethics are not fundamentals; objectivist ethics are ideals.
Laissez-faire economics is a phase of social development. From what
planet are you that from time immemorial economics, for good and for
bad, has not always been organized, limited and controlled, and by
its very nature will continue to be so?
>>>"Art deco elitism"?
>
>> You really don't get that? What can you possibly know about
>> anything you're talking about?
>
>What we are really discussing is extremely simple and basic.
>In fact, it is painfully so. I'll ask again: by what moral
>right can some members of society take from others based on
>"need", and in amounts proportional to the victims' "ability".
>You need to devote less time to tangential remarks and comments,
>and more to the FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION.
It seems to me that is is justified to the extent it maximizes
the average standard of living while minimizing the disparity in the
standards of living, i.e., perhaps what could be called the right of
the greater good for all.
>> Socialism is a 19th century development in classic western
>> philosophy, and it arose in part in response to the nature of
>> capitalism.
>
>Fine.
>
>> It explains war and poverty based upon economics.
>
>Now, is it correct? I am reminded of the Goethe's theory of light,
>which was also remarkably elaborate and (to some) convincing. It
>was also wrong.
It is more correct to base explanations of war and
poverty on economics than on ethics or ether.
>> What is nonsense, is any model for the evolution of society that
>> is without a material basis like yours.
>
>Where on earth did you get the idea I was attempting to model
>the evolution of society? I simply want to decide upon the rules,
>not fix the game!
It's not a game, it needs fixing, and what do you imagine can
be sensibly construed from your you were not "...attempting to model
the evolution of society? [You] simply want to decide upon the rules,
not fix the game!"?
>
Jeff Candy
>>Where on earth did you get the idea I was attempting to model
>>the evolution of society? I simply want to decide upon the rules,
>>not fix the game!
cor...@Hawaii.Edu (Rick Cordes) wrote:
>It's not a game, it needs fixing,
.. said the socialist.
Thank you for stating plainly my original asessment of
socialism.
Jeff Candy ----------------------------------
Analytic Theory Group http://hagar.ph.utexas.edu/~candy/
JET Joint Undertaking ----------------------------------
Jeff Candy
>>"Means of production" is a concept which socialists and objectivists
>>do not agree on. The post to which your original reply was directed
>>was aimed at the objectivist idea of "man's mind" as the most
>>fundamental means of production. I think the Marxist concept is
>>more along the lines of tractors and coal furnaces -- but I await
>>your more comprehensive delineation.
>
(Rick Cordes) replied:
> Ah, The Idea Man. Beethoven composed his 9th without his
> ears but its performance requires the life work of other people.
No Beethoven = no ninth. Its simple. Endless numbers of mediocre
musicians and composers can not give us a "ninth". The life work
of countless imbeciles cannot give you the creation of a single
genius, no matter how much you WANT or NEED.
> Resources and machines are the means of production. Anything that
> enhances the productivity of a worker (and thereby ultimately lowers
> the demand for their labor) is a machine.
(i) "... and thereby ultimately lowers the demand ..."
Gee, this sounds like "zero-sum" economics. If you FIX the demand
for widgets, and enhance the productivity of the average widget
builder, demand for widget builders will decrease. Brilliant!
Now Mr. Economics, how flat has the demand function been for personal
computers, or automobiles, or ski boots, or bottled beer, since the
ninteenth century? (Hint: zero-sum economics is wrong).
(ii) "Anything that enhances the productivity ... is a machine".
This scores quite high on the "absurdity" scale. Have you ever heard
of the "travelling salesman" problem?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
ASIDE COMMENT FROM DUARTE BORBA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
It has been shown that a society "based on", communist, Marxist,
socialist, public owned system does not work at all. It is obvious
for me why that is so. If you disagree with this you have at least
recognized that communist economies failed, what ever the reason,
while capitalist (free market) economies succeeded.
>> Anything that
>> enhances the productivity of a worker (and thereby ultimately lowers
>> the demand for their labor) is a machine.
That sentence reveals where your line of thoght is wrong,
- New ideas
- Good coordination and organization
- Competition and Reward
can enhance the productivity and are not machines. This concepts
do not fit in a "need" and "ability" based framework, popular in
"Marxist and socialist" societies.
> Possession of the means of
> production, buying labor and selling products, therefore is made
> more advantageous than selling labor and buying products.
This sentence also reveals where your line of thoght is wrong,
it does not make any sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
END OF ASIDE COMMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Cordes
>I said:
>
>>>Where on earth did you get the idea I was attempting to model
>>>the evolution of society? I simply want to decide upon the rules,
>>>not fix the game!
>
>
>>It's not a game, it needs fixing,
>
>
>Thank you for stating plainly my original asessment of
>socialism.
...squawked the ostrich who hid as he ran away.
Rick Cordes
>I wrote:
>
>>>"Means of production" is a concept which socialists and objectivists
>>>do not agree on. The post to which your original reply was directed
>>>was aimed at the objectivist idea of "man's mind" as the most
>>>fundamental means of production. I think the Marxist concept is
>>>more along the lines of tractors and coal furnaces -- but I await
>>>your more comprehensive delineation.
>>
>
>
>> Ah, The Idea Man. Beethoven composed his 9th without his
>> ears but its performance requires the life work of other people.
>
>musicians and composers can not give us a "ninth". The life work
>of countless imbeciles cannot give you the creation of a single
>genius, no matter how much you WANT or NEED.
The life work of countless other non-objectivists are
and were still required for the performance of the 9th.
>> Resources and machines are the means of production. Anything that
>> enhances the productivity of a worker (and thereby ultimately lowers
>> the demand for their labor) is a machine.
>
>(i) "... and thereby ultimately lowers the demand ..."
>
>Gee, this sounds like "zero-sum" economics. If you FIX the demand
>for widgets, and enhance the productivity of the average widget
>builder, demand for widget builders will decrease. Brilliant!
Sounds like you like to use pop-words that you don't know the
meaning of to launch into tangetial harangues that trumpet your
ideological partisanship. Zero-sum economics was never alluded to
until you wove it into your latest straw-man.
>Now Mr. Economics, how flat has the demand function been for personal
>computers, or automobiles, or ski boots, or bottled beer, since the
>ninteenth century? (Hint: zero-sum economics is wrong).
The answer, Mr Zero, whether or not you postulate
a zero-sum or an expanding growth model, is as productivity
increases, the component value of the labor involved is
the only thing that can or will ultimately decline.
>(ii) "Anything that enhances the productivity ... is a machine".
>
>This scores quite high on the "absurdity" scale. Have you ever heard
>of the "travelling salesman" problem?
Try to construct an arguement on your own. How is this
absurd, particularly in this age of copyrights and patents?
Your reponses have become more gratuitous and even less
substantive. You have flacked numerous issues to which I have
responded, which you in turn either totally ignore or indulge
in macaroni. Your increasingly feeble efforts are just not
worth the time.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ASIDE COMMENT FROM DUARTE BORBA
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
SILENCE, COMRAD POOPSKI WILL NOW SPEAK!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>It has been shown that a society "based on", communist, Marxist,
>socialist, public owned system does not work at all.
Based only in name. A similar arguement made after the
republic fell 2000 years ago, was that democracy was shown not
work at all.
>It is obvious
>for me why that is so.
Well.
>If you disagree with this you have at least
>recognized that communist economies failed, what ever the reason,
>while capitalist (free market) economies succeeded.
No to the former; succeeded at what to the latter?
>>> Anything that
>>> enhances the productivity of a worker (and thereby ultimately lowers
>>> the demand for their labor) is a machine.
>
>That sentence reveals where your line of thoght is wrong,
>- New ideas
>
>- Good coordination and organization
>
>- Competition and Reward
> can enhance the productivity and are not machines.
How is it wrong to think of a cookbook as a machine?
>This concepts
>do not fit in a "need" and "ability" based framework, popular in
>"Marxist and socialist" societies.
Which concepts? Says who? How not?
>> Possession of the means of
>> production, buying labor and selling products, therefore is made
>> more advantageous than selling labor and buying products.
>
>This sentence also reveals where your line of thoght is wrong,
>it does not make any sense.
Well if it reveals where my line of thought is incorrect, it
must make a little sense, so, like, make with the reasoned discourse.
Jeff Candy
>>> Resources and machines are the means of production. Anything that
>>> enhances the productivity of a worker (and thereby ultimately lowers
>>> the demand for their labor) is a machine.
I isolated the phrase:
>>(i) "... and thereby ultimately lowers the demand ..."
saying:
>>Gee, this sounds like "zero-sum" economics. If you FIX the demand
>>for widgets, and enhance the productivity of the average widget
>>builder, demand for widget builders will decrease. Brilliant!
Cordes responded:
> Sounds like you like to use pop-words that you don't know the
> meaning of to launch into tangetial harangues that trumpet your
> ideological partisanship. Zero-sum economics was never alluded to
> until you wove it into your latest straw-man.
Zero-sum -- in the most general sense of the expression -- posits
a fixed amount of wealth. You stated CLEARLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY
that demand for labour is a decreasing function of net productivity
(dL/dp < 0). Are new jobs not created in your model? Is demand time
independent (dD/dt=0) in your model? Your economic "model", which
clearly forms the basis for your subsequent goals regarding (if I
may) social engineering, is NOT valid. You fix functions which
are NOT fixed, just as zero-sum fixes overall wealth.
Regarding EXACTLY this point, I said previously:
>>Now Mr. Economics, how flat has the demand function been for personal
>>computers, or automobiles, or ski boots, or bottled beer, since the
>>ninteenth century? (Hint: zero-sum economics is wrong).
> The answer, Mr Zero, whether or not you postulate
> a zero-sum or an expanding growth model, is as productivity
> increases, the component value of the labor involved is
> the only thing that can or will ultimately decline.
Listen up ... each country has an easy-to-calculate number which is
a good 9albeit simplified) indicator of economic prosperity: Gross
National PRODUCT (likewise GDP) per capita. This is a measure of
productivity (hence the name). In Canada, the number is > 22,000 (US $).
In North Korea it is < 1,000 (US $). Thus, the productivity ratio is
CANADA/PRNK > 22. Now, is the "component value of the labour" --
something which you have not bothered to quantify -- somehow much
higher in Korea? Are Korean hog farmers 20 times more "valuable" than
Canadian farmers?
I questioned the definition:
>(ii) "Anything that enhances the productivity ... is a machine".
.. saying
>This scores quite high on the "absurdity" scale. Have you ever heard
>of the "travelling salesman" problem?
You replied:
>Try to construct an arguement on your own. How is this
>absurd, particularly in this age of copyrights and patents?
Machines increase productivity. A clever idea increases productivity.
Alas, clever ideas are not machines. Your definition is not adequate.
> Your reponses have become more gratuitous and even less
> substantive. You have flacked numerous issues to which I have
> responded, which you in turn either totally ignore or indulge
> in macaroni. Your increasingly feeble efforts are just not
> worth the time.
How ironic we should *both* feel the same way!
My colleague Duarte commented:
>>If you disagree with this you have at least recognized that
>>communist economies failed, what ever the reason, while
>>capitalist (free market) economies succeeded.
>No to the former; succeeded at what to the latter?
If you say "no" to the former, then you cannot be taken seriously
in any rational discussion. Wake up and smell the coffee; take
a look at the SCOREBOARD.
"Mises was right and Lenin was wrong. That is the great lesson
of the 20th century"
--- Yuri N. Maltsev, Former Soviet Economist
Jeff Candy ----------------------------------
Analytic Theory Group http://hagar.ph.utexas.edu/~candy/
JET Joint Undertaking ----------------------------------
===============================================================================
Duarte Borba
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> ASIDE COMMENT FROM DUARTE BORBA
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> SILENCE, COMRAD POOPSKI WILL NOW SPEAK!
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>It has been shown that a society "based on", communist, Marxist,
>>socialist, public owned system does not work at all.
> Based only in name. A similar arguement made after the
> republic fell 2000 years ago, was that democracy was shown not
> work at all.
>>It is obvious
>>for me why that is so.
> Well.
>>If you disagree with this you have at least
>>recognized that communist economies failed, what ever the reason,
>>while capitalist (free market) economies succeeded.
> No to the former; succeeded at what to the latter?
Can Rick Cordes explain me a couple of points ?
- What do you mean by " COMRAD POOPSKI " ?
- Which " Republic fell 2000 years ago" and why ?
In return I will explian him two points,
THE THEORY:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- YOU own your work ---> most work hard -
-> some get rich ---> economy improves
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- THE STATE owns YOUR work ---> some work hard ---> get nothing
---> some work less ---> get the same
(time goes by)
--> nobody works that hard ---> economy stagnates
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE EXPERIMENT:
- History of the XX century has told as a lesson via the present state
of the economies of
USA <---> RUSSIA , etc.
SOUTH KOREA <---> NORTH KOREA
WEST GERMANY <---> EAST GERMANY (befor unification)
one just have to study it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
====================================================================
For direct E-Mail please respond to Duarte...@jet.uk
Rick Cordes
>cor...@Hawaii.Edu (Rick Cordes) wrote:
>
>>>> Resources and machines are the means of production. Anything that
>>>> enhances the productivity of a worker (and thereby ultimately lowers
>>>> the demand for their labor) is a machine.
>
>I isolated the phrase:
>
>>>(i) "... and thereby ultimately lowers the demand ..."
>
>saying:
>
>>>Gee, this sounds like "zero-sum" economics. If you FIX the demand
>>>for widgets, and enhance the productivity of the average widget
>>>builder, demand for widget builders will decrease. Brilliant!
>
>Cordes responded:
>
>> Sounds like you like to use pop-words that you don't know the
>> meaning of to launch into tangetial harangues that trumpet your
>> ideological partisanship. Zero-sum economics was never alluded to
>> until you wove it into your latest straw-man.
>
>Zero-sum -- in the most general sense of the expression -- posits
>a fixed amount of wealth. You stated CLEARLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY
>that demand for labour is a decreasing function of net productivity
>(dL/dp < 0). Are new jobs not created in your model? Is demand time
>independent (dD/dt=0) in your model? Your economic "model", which
>clearly forms the basis for your subsequent goals regarding (if I
>may) social engineering, is NOT valid. You fix functions which
>are NOT fixed, just as zero-sum fixes overall wealth.
In no way did I anyway evoke a zero-sum economic model,
moreover, the inferences you draw above, do not support that I
did. Which functions, exactly, are you alledging that I fix?
In my model, productivity saves labor, not jobs; in
your model, I assume, productivity generates jobs and one must
indeed here assume a open-ended growth economy. For the sake of
this point, you can have it either way: in either instance, it is
the value of labor that endemically gets squeezed as indeed the
marketability and value of both labor and products are to be
distinguished.
Ooooo, the new pop-word, "social engineering". You
mean like any kind of concerted endeavor that historically
has been a role of government?
>Regarding EXACTLY this point, I said previously:
>
>>>Now Mr. Economics, how flat has the demand function been for personal
>>>computers, or automobiles, or ski boots, or bottled beer, since the
>>>ninteenth century? (Hint: zero-sum economics is wrong).
>
>> The answer, Mr Zero, whether or not you postulate
>> a zero-sum or an expanding growth model, is as productivity
>> increases, the component value of the labor involved is
>> the only thing that can or will ultimately decline.
>
>Listen up ... each country has an easy-to-calculate number which is
>a good 9albeit simplified) indicator of economic prosperity: Gross
>National PRODUCT (likewise GDP) per capita. This is a measure of
>productivity (hence the name). In Canada, the number is > 22,000 (US $).
>In North Korea it is < 1,000 (US $). Thus, the productivity ratio is
>CANADA/PRNK > 22. Now, is the "component value of the labour" --
>something which you have not bothered to quantify -- somehow much
>higher in Korea? Are Korean hog farmers 20 times more "valuable" than
>Canadian farmers?
You take a war torn, third world dictatorship, call that
communism, and compare it with a tranquil pool in the west. You then
compare their per capita GNPs, and spuriously allege that I would say
their labor values are proportionate. The value of labor that goes into
a product, is equal to how much labor was required to make the product.
What you are perhaps trying to argue is that enhanced productivity
makes skills more marketable, and therefore increases the value of
labor but I can argue more persuasively that the marketability will
decline, for all skills, from the bottom to the top, as the demand
factor progressively encroaches.
>I questioned the definition:
>
>>(ii) "Anything that enhances the productivity ... is a machine".
>
>.. saying
>
>>This scores quite high on the "absurdity" scale. Have you ever heard
>>of the "travelling salesman" problem?
>
>You replied:
>
>>Try to construct an arguement on your own. How is this
>>absurd, particularly in this age of copyrights and patents?
>
>Machines increase productivity. A clever idea increases productivity.
>Alas, clever ideas are not machines. Your definition is not adequate.
A clever idea is not a machine, yet, they can be copyrighted
and patented, and yet they are not a machine nor the means of
production, nor I suppose owned? You fly, in the face of reality.
>> Your reponses have become more gratuitous and even less
>> substantive. You have flacked numerous issues to which I have
>> responded, which you in turn either totally ignore or indulge
>> in macaroni. Your increasingly feeble efforts are just not
>> worth the time.
>
>How ironic we should *both* feel the same way!
It would be ironic if you were wrong and I thought you
you didn't know it and you knew you were wrong, and thought
I didn't know it. So, yes perhaps it is ironic, and not just
tit-for-tat. Go play in the street.
>My colleague Duarte commented:
>>>If you disagree with this you have at least recognized that
>>>communist economies failed, what ever the reason, while
>>>capitalist (free market) economies succeeded.
>
>>No to the former; succeeded at what to the latter?
>
>If you say "no" to the former, then you cannot be taken seriously
>in any rational discussion. Wake up and smell the coffee; take
>a look at the SCOREBOARD.
What an arguement. You also think something like this
establishes the validity of judeo-christianity-mohammedism because
it's survived for 2700+ years, inspite of its complicity in
keeping people subjugated and at each others throats for the
whole time? Social Darwinisn is neither science nor of course, the
basis for social philosophy.
>"Mises was right and Lenin was wrong. That is the great lesson
>of the 20th century"
>
> --- Yuri N. Maltsev, Former Soviet Economist
Perhaps, in the circle jerks that pass for political
discourse in the circles you travel in, the above quote from
this old hand adds a special frisson, but for anyone else it
has the relevance of a bronx cheer. You quote someone whom by
your own lights was yesterday at least a fraud, and imagine
this pirouette from the portfolio of a fool means something?
Rick Cordes
>
>
>- What do you mean by " COMRAD POOPSKI " ?
You appear to be Candy's sidekick. My understanding
is russian jokes (popular in the baltics, etc...) often
contain an apparatchik and a unfortunate aide who always
bears the brunt of the joke. In american fiction, the
hero often is not without a companion for whom
english is not their first language. My intention was
to twig you both for your apparent roles in our present
state of affairs.
>
>- Which " Republic fell 2000 years ago" and why ?
Roman. Lack of material democracy and civil rights,
corruption and militarism.
>In return I will explian him two points,
>
>THE THEORY:
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>- YOU own your work ---> most work hard -
> -> some get rich ---> economy improves
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>- THE STATE owns YOUR work ---> some work hard ---> get nothing
> ---> some work less ---> get the same
> (time goes by)
>
>--> nobody works that hard ---> economy stagnates
I will agree the former is more or less true to the extent
that most work hard and some get rich, while on the otherhand it is
peculiar that you would think the latter describes communism when
we have been debating the characterization about who owns the
means of production and who owns the products. So, yes, Stalinism
nor Maoism is communism, and it a shame the communist revolution
was betrayed. Have you ever read THE REVOLUTION BETRAYED? It is
by the author after whom the newsgroup to which you are posting
is named.
>THE EXPERIMENT:
>
>- History of the XX century has told as a lesson via the present state
>of the economies of
>
> USA <---> RUSSIA , etc.
>SOUTH KOREA <---> NORTH KOREA
> WEST GERMANY <---> EAST GERMANY (befor unification)
>
> one just have to study it.
At the beginning of the 20th century, Russia was a serfdom
and america had been a civil democracy for a century and a half;
at the end of WWII, Russia was in ashes and a collection of, for
the most part, third world states and america had all the chips.
You do understand experimental design, don't you?
Jeff Candy
My sincere apologies to Mr. Cordes, as well as
to other followers of the thread.
Jeff Candy
Jeff Candy
>- What do you mean by " COMRAD POOPSKI " ?
(Mr. Cordes exclaimed)
> You appear to be Candy's sidekick. My understanding
> is russian jokes (popular in the baltics, etc...) often
> contain an apparatchik and a unfortunate aide who always
> bears the brunt of the joke. In american fiction, the
> hero often is not without a companion for whom
> english is not their first language. My intention was
Borba is the brightest student I have ever met. Borba and
I are the only hope (the "Pope" not withstanding) that fuckheads
like you have ... He is PORTUGUESE you clod, not Russian.
We are (among ... sorry Gou Yong) the first people on earth to
work (successfully) on the problem of fast particle containment
in reactor plasmas. We are both PISSED that if we succeed in
solving the problem, stellar fuckheads like you will benefit.
He and I are funded HEAVILY (gee Ricky, here's argument fodder)
and constitute the ONLY hope that FUCKHEADS like you will have
of a bright future. Let me emphasize that I want you to
KISS MY NATURAL WHITE ASS.
Dr. Jeff Candy
Jeff Candy ----------------------------------
Analytic Theory Group http://hagar.ph.utexas.edu/~candy/
JET Joint Undertaking ----------------------------------
===============================================================================
Rick Cordes
>cor...@Hawaii.Edu (Rick Cordes) wrote:
>
>>In my model, productivity saves labor, not jobs; in
>>your model, I assume, productivity generates jobs and one must
>>indeed here assume a open-ended growth economy. For the sake of
>>this point, you can have it either way: in either instance, it is
>>the value of labor that endemically gets squeezed as indeed the
>>marketability and value of both labor and products are to be
>>distinguished.
>
>
>This was the contention of Marx as well -- that increased
>productivity leads to the capability of one man to do the
>"work" of many (for concreteness, say n). This increase in
>productivity, then, reduces the demand for men by the intuitive
>factor 1/n. This much is true, but it remains so only for
>the short term.
>
>What is non-Marxist is the recognition that the market has
>an intrinsic "free energy". By this I mean that new jobs are
>sitting idle, and are "freed" when productivity reaches a
>value high enough to liberate workers from their current
>field. This scenario is much less intuitive than the simple
>"job lost - none found" prediction, but is by now a familiar
>concept in modern economics.
This concept was not at all lost on Marx, and you
again, this time in a very large way, reveal your ignorance
of marxism. Moreover, there are populism and modernism but
there is no modern economics without marxism. This potential
for prosperity and leisure time, to expand human endeavor is
hardly denied in marxism, only that by capitalism it is
increasingly and disproportionately concentrated, and
ultimately, misfortunately directed.
>" ... labor and products ... "
>
>I think the relevant variable in this situation is likely
>v/c, where v is the value of workers labour, and c is the
>**average** cost (not the cost of what the worker is producing)
>of an ensemble of products.
So who assembled the ensemble? Why the distinction?
The higher the ratio v/c, the higher
>his standard of living -- this much is certain. Now, you state
>that v is a decreasing function of the overall productivity of
>the work force - say p. Further, I get the impression that you
>feel that the ratio v/c decreases as well (is that so?). History
>(as in 1890-1990) shows that this ratio has been a *strongly*
>increasing function of time (and consequently, an increasing
>function of p). Now, a Marxist may envisage the scenario whereby
>machines completely eliminate the need for workers -- such that v
>is driven towards zero. The fault lies in *not* explaining the
>dynamical behaviour of the cost, c.
You are on your way to reinventing the wheel but
you tail off, tantalizingly on the question of the dynamical
relations of c. You say Standard of living is proportionate
to L/M for Workers where L is the market value of their
labor, while, M is the market value of products but for the
capitalist, their standard of living is proportionate to
D/M, where, D=M-pL, so, W=L/M and C=1-pW=WD/L. "p" is the
cost factor for the costs of production, means and resources,
and is in the first approximation inversely related to P,
productivity. Now, we disagree as to the relationship of
P to W but if, as you I think you agree, C is proportionate
to P, then,
C = P = (M-pL)/M = (M-L/P)/M, and L=MP(1-P).
So, roughly speaking, the value of labor ultimately
decreaces with productivity.
>> The value of labor that goes into a product, is equal to how
>> much labor was required to make the product.
>
>Only if the wage and price system is forced. In a free market,
>it is surely false. Consider that two competing products (say
>two different hockey sticks of *similar* quality): the market,
>in a natural way, usually assigns the same price to both articles,
>even if one required 100 times the labor of the other. Any other
>pricing mechanism is artificial. Furthermore, the amounts of
>labour being equal (as in "a days work"), the value of the work
>must increase with the market price of the good being produced.
>Can you see that the interrelationships are complicated, and
>not understood in Marx's time, let alone by Marx himself?
>
>> What you are perhaps trying to argue is that enhanced productivity
>> makes skills more marketable, and therefore increases the value of
>> labor but I can argue more persuasively that the marketability will
>> decline, for all skills, from the bottom to the top, as the demand
>> factor progressively encroaches.
>
>Where is your evidence? I recall asking you about the time-history
>of demand curves for various of today's popular products. It appears
>that free market show the opposite trend to the one you suggest.
The demand curve where? You may imagine that a growing percent
of the worlds population can afford computers but do you think
this is the same for cars, or either ultimately? Do you think more
people have jobs today and work fewer hours, or fewer people have
jobs and work longer hours? Why do you think unions whose only
bargaining chip is the passive withdrawl of their labor, are
increasingly ineffectual?
>>A clever idea is not a machine,
>
>That is correct.
>
>>yet, they can be copyrighted and patented,
>
>That is correct. Does the US patent office have a clause
>that states "only machines are patantable"? That would be
>too restrictive -- like Marxism.
>
>> and yet they are not a machine
>
>No, they aren't. Has the definition changed since Mrs. Hall's
>first grade class?
>
>> nor the means of production,
>
>I say they are.
>
>>nor I suppose owned?
>
>Not by anyone but their rightful owner.
>
>>You fly, in the face of reality.
>
>You would be better just accepting that your phrase "anything
>that enhances the productivity ... is a machine" is wrong.
If you will recall, this discussion was upon
ownership of the means of production and if you now acknowledge
machines and ideas can both be owned, then sure, a machine is a
machine, and an idea is an idea, and we may talk about
cookbooks another day.
>> It would be ironic if you were wrong and I thought you
>> you didn't know it and you knew you were wrong, and thought
>> I didn't know it. So, yes perhaps it is ironic, and not just
>> tit-for-tat.
>
>If I knew I was wrong, then I'd admit it. This makes it not
>ironic. Too bad.
You see, you say things, and they just don't make it.
How does it make my hypothetical example not ironic? What
is too bad?
>>Go play in the street.
>
>Ah, vintage Rick.
One likes to be appreciated. You get the joke
though: I say maybe it isn't just tit-for-tat, and then
give the zetz?
Scott Nudds
: He and I are funded HEAVILY (gee Ricky, here's argument fodder)
: and constitute the ONLY hope that FUCKHEADS like you will have
: of a bright future. Let me emphasize that I want you to
: KISS MY NATURAL WHITE ASS.
First you will have to lift that KKKlan uniform of yours.
--
Jeff Candy
**Once again**, I apologize profusely to the group at large,
and especially to Mr. Cordes for a terrible "flame" which
I posted a few days ago. Though I do not agree with some of
Rick's ideas, I have much more respect for him than what was
implied by my unfortunate, disgusting post. Suffice it to say
I was NOT in my right mind when it was composed.
Moving on,
In article cor...@Hawaii.Edu (Rick Cordes) says:
> I will agree the former is more or less true to the extent
> that most work hard and some get rich, while on the otherhand it is
> peculiar that you would think the latter describes communism when
> we have been debating the characterization about who owns the
> means of production and who owns the products. So, yes, Stalinism
> nor Maoism is communism, and it a shame the communist revolution
> was betrayed. Have you ever read THE REVOLUTION BETRAYED? It is
> by the author after whom the newsgroup to which you are posting
> is named.
No.
Its curious that some refer to Marxism as "a beautiful theory",
some to it as "a beautiful theory which didn't work" and others
to it as "an insidiously evil theory". I have heard all these
characterizations at one time or another. Thus, it is apparent
that either everyone is not referring to the same theory, or
that different criteria are being used to judge a theory "moral"
or "immoral". As to the former, I will try to read "The Revolution
Betrayed" (if I can bear it); as to the latter, this is the point
of our debate about who "owns" the means of production --- and of
course must be lost or won on philosophico-economic (not historical)
grounds.
Thus ... about our debate: The recent appearance of variables
*and* quantifiable statements about cost and productivity is most
encouraging. However, as a consequence, I need a few days to
ferret out a few books and do my homework, as it were.
Jeff Candy
>>THE EXPERIME>>
>>- History of the XX century has told as a lesson via the present state
>>of the economies of
>>
>> USA <---> RUSSIA , etc.
>>SOUTH KOREA <---> NORTH KOREA
>> WEST GERMANY <---> EAST GERMANY (befor unification)
>>
>> one just have to study it.
>
> At the beginning of the 20th century, Russia was a serfdom
> and america had been a civil democracy for a century and a half;
> at the end of WWII, Russia was in ashes and a collection of, for
> the most part, third world states and america had all the chips.
> You do understand experimental design, don't you?
>
Jeff Candy ----------------------------------