Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Melissia wrote:Thing is, free market is only really good when it's properly regulated.

Well, it only exists when its regulated.

biccat wrote:I'm not aware of any businesses that own a person's labor, or who don't give value in exchange for that labor. If you do, perhaps you should report them to the local authorities.

Communist governments give value in exchange for personal labor.

Namely, the food, water, and shelter necessary to survive.

Just saying.

As for you not being aware of businesses that own a person's labor... look at the pharmaceutical industry, the entertainment industry, heck, even the friggin' food industry. The person making a burger at mcdonald's doesn't own their labor. The person working for Pfizer doesn't own their labor. The person working for Electronic Arts doesn't own their labor.

Only the ones who own their own business (the self-employed) really own their labor...

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:I'm not aware of any businesses that own a person's labor, or who don't give value in exchange for that labor. If you do, perhaps you should report them to the local authorities.

Communist governments give value in exchange for personal labor.

Namely, the food, water, and shelter necessary to survive.

Giving value in exchange for labor isn't sufficient. Slaves were given food, water, and shelter for their labor, but they most certainly were owned.

Melissia wrote:As for you not being aware of businesses that own a person's labor... look at the pharmaceutical industry, the entertainment industry, heck, even the friggin' food industry. The person making a burger at mcdonald's doesn't own their labor.

Sure they do. They can quit. The ability to deprive someone of the use of a good is one of the fundamental concepts of ownership.

Obviously it might not be a good idea to quit if you're making minimum wage at a burger joint, but that's reality for you.

biccat wrote:
Nope, I do it by my own free will.

So there exist means by which providing for the interests of others at the expense of your own (with the nominal caveats regarding possession and interest) which are not based on force and compulsion.

Thank you for making my point again.

biccat wrote:
The inherent difference between Feudalism and Communism, at least for purposes of this conversation, is that Feudalism isn't invoked to "help others." It is a self-serving, top-down theory of governance. Communism, on the other hand, is a bottom-up theory that enslaves those who will work for the benefit of those who won't.

That's completely wrong. Communism has never been about helping others, or enslaving those who work to those who don't, not in theory or practice. I suggest you revisit Marx and Lenin, or even the history of Communist Russia, because what you're pedaling now is just an American Conservative talking point. You are very obviously confusing Communism with Socialism, they are not the same at all.

As regarding the difference between Feudalism and Communism: Feudalism was often invoked for the benefit of others via divinity. Not all beneficial claims need to be material, in the classical sense.

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:I'm not aware of any businesses that [...] don't give value in exchange for that labor.

Communist governments give value in exchange for personal labor.

Giving value in exchange for labor isn't sufficient.

There's something off and inconsistent here. I must look into this logical inconsistency later.

Also biccat, you always have the choice of not working in a communist society. The consequences you suffer aren't that different (not eating, poverty, etc), either. The main difference is only that in a communist country is that the government has a monopoly on all businesses, whereas in a capitalistic country, business and government are (mostly) separate. There can still easily be monopolies without heavy government regulation. And even WITH government regulation in some markets (Apple's rise to actually properly compete with Microsoft, for example, is pretty recent, and electricity companies often have effective monopolies).

biccat wrote:
Sure they do. They can quit.

Slaves can quit too, the consequences are simply more severe.

dogma wrote:So there exist means by which providing for the interests of others at the expense of your own (with the nominal caveats regarding possession and interest) which are not based on force and compulsion.

Obviously you didn't read what I wrote.

The only way to provide for the interests of others at the expense of your own is through force or compulsion. There is no other way. Of course, you could change that person's interest, which is what having a family does. I provide for my family because it's in my interest, not because of some other influence. I could walk away from them (if that were in my interest) and the only way to make me provide for their well-being would be...force or compulsion.

dogma wrote:That's completely wrong. Communism has never been about helping others, or enslaving those who work to those who don't, not in theory or practice. I suggest you revisit Marx and Lenin, or even the history of Communist Russia, because what you're pedaling now is just an American Conservative talking point. You are very obviously confusing Communism with Socialism, they are not the same at all.

I've obviously been brainwashed by that totally-not-communist statement of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Perhaps you should look up how production and consumption work, and how production is accomplished. Hint: it's not by the consumers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:There's something off and inconsistent here. I must look into this logical inconsistency later.

I hope so, because you're missing a ton of context.

Melissia wrote:Also biccat, you always have the choice of not working in a communist society.

Tell that to the people in the Gulags.

As an aside, I'm just glad something like this isn't happening here:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2011/09/greek-banks


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:I hope so, because you're missing a ton of context.

Or you never actually put any context in there in the first place.

Oh wait. That IS what happened.

biccat wrote:And where does the State (that is the bureaucratic entity that governs the economy) receive the resources to do so?

What do you think owning the means of production means?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:I don't need to reword myself to be more specific because we don't have "economic slavery" here in the U.S. Nor do we have anything even remotely approaching it.

Ahahahahaha.

There have been multiple successful cases of farming corporation being prosecuted for inflincting involuntary servitude in the last ten years, but this is recognised as being just the tip of the iceberg. They're paid an annual salary of about $7,000, and besides being incredibly low, it's also less than they were paid in the 70s, and that's for working six and seven day weeks, up to 16 hours a day. About half are housed in conditions that are classified as 'grossly unsatisfactory'. Their poverty and terrible living conditions have led to a vast number of health conditions, including about 80% suffering intestinal parasites from being provided with contamined water.

There's about 2 million migrant farm hands working in the US living like that, a situation you'd be happy to describe as economic slavery if it were happening anywhere but in the US. But you're so happy in your little bubble of free market driven self satisfaction you were entirely unaware of how people were living in your own country.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:No, economic slavery is not an inherent component of Communism, but it is a necessary result of Communism.

Communist societies have flourished. Nothing that could sensibly be called economic slavery occurred among the Australian Aboriginals, for instance.

What you're attempting to do here is comment on broad economic forces, without having any kind of grounding in economic history. It's making you sound ridiculous.

Communism almost certainly requires an oppressive government to remain as long as we continue to view material things as the primary form of gaining status. But it is utterly ridiculous to propose that the economic conditions that cause private property to drive status have always existed, and will always exist. These factors are about 200 years old, and even the briefest grounding in economic history will show you how quickly things change.

biccat wrote:
Obviously you didn't read what I wrote.

The only way to provide for the interests of others at the expense of your own is through force or compulsion. There is no other way. Of course, you could change that person's interest, which is what having a family does. I provide for my family because it's in my interest, not because of some other influence.

It is very obviously from some other influence, that of your family; having it if we're being particular. If you had no family, there would be no influence instructing you to provide for it.

biccat wrote:
I could walk away from them (if that were in my interest) and the only way to make me provide for their well-being would be...force or compulsion.

You're moving the goal posts.

biccat wrote:
I've obviously been brainwashed by that totally-not-communist statement of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Perhaps you should look up how production and consumption work, and how production is accomplished. Hint: it's not by the consumers.

I still don't see a statement affirming that Communism is about working for others.

It is, however, cute that you extrapolate from Communism but not Feudalism, or even Capitalism. How very honest.

dogma wrote:Well, it only exists when its regulated.

Well, the term perfect market only really exists in the political rhetoric of the right wing, and it's efforts to fight market regulation. In economics they talk about perfect markets, and the conditions needed to meet that criteria have nothing to do with regulation. Indeed, if you look at the closest things we have to perfect markets, such as the stock market, they're the most heavily regulated markets.

sebster wrote:Indeed, if you look at the closest things we have to perfect markets, such as the stock market, they're the most heavily regulated markets.

You accuse me of not "having any kind of grounding in economic history" and yet you make this type of absurd statement?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:What do you think owning the means of production means?

From the context of your question, I assume you think that it means owning people and their labor. However, the term "means of production" generally refers to non-human contributions to manufacture. Under Marxist Communism, the state owns the factories and machines, but labor is not owned by the state.

sebster wrote:There have been multiple successful cases of farming corporation being prosecuted for inflincting involuntary servitude in the last ten years, but this is recognised as being just the tip of the iceberg. They're paid an annual salary of about $7,000, and besides being incredibly low, it's also less than they were paid in the 70s, and that's for working six and seven day weeks, up to 16 hours a day. About half are housed in conditions that are classified as 'grossly unsatisfactory'. Their poverty and terrible living conditions have led to a vast number of health conditions, including about 80% suffering intestinal parasites from being provided with contamined water.

Terrible living conditions are not the same as slavery. I'm not sure where you get that idea.

However, I acknowledge that there are instances of illegal slavery in this country, but the illegality of slavery and the resources we dedicate towards stopping slavery both here and abroad argues against public acceptance of slavery.

sebster wrote:Communist societies have flourished. Nothing that could sensibly be called economic slavery occurred among the Australian Aboriginals, for instance.

Small, voluntary communist societies can work because they don't have the means or ability to forcibly compel others and there's generally no need for central planning on the level of a national economy. However, when those communist societies interact with outside capitalist actors, communism fails.

sebster wrote:Communism almost certainly requires an oppressive government to remain as long as we continue to view material things as the primary form of gaining status...even the briefest grounding in economic history will show you how quickly things change.

This was Marx's basic thought: that somehow if you change incentives then you can change behavior. Even as incentives have changed, however, self-interest has continued. It is an evolutionary necessity and I'd argue is a necessary part of the human condition.

dogma wrote:It is very obviously from some other influence, that of your family; having it if we're being particular. If you had no family, there would be no influence instructing you to provide for it.

Yes, outside forces can change people's incentives. For example, I desire a ham sandwich. If I had turkey in the fridge, I might desire a turkey sandwich. But that doesn't change the fact that it is my interest that I am serving.

dogma wrote:You're moving the goal posts.

Umm...no, I'm not. Self-interest governs human actions. If my self-interest is no longer coincident with those of my family, there's no way to ensure that I care for them.

dogma wrote:It is, however, cute that you extrapolate from Communism but not Feudalism, or even Capitalism. How very honest.

The original post I responded to was concerning Communism, not Feudalism or Capitalism. I'm not sure why you've decided to start being a again, but please take your petty insults elsewhere.

biccat wrote:
Yes, outside forces can change people's incentives. For example, I desire a ham sandwich. If I had turkey in the fridge, I might desire a turkey sandwich. But that doesn't change the fact that it is my interest that I am serving.

Given that sort of definition any action you take is in your interest, which is fine, but it breaks your argument.

biccat wrote:
Umm...no, I'm not. Self-interest governs human actions. If my self-interest is no longer coincident with those of my family, there's no way to ensure that I care for them.

Yes, self-interest governs human action, and as you've shown a number of times the provision for the interests of others can be accomplished without force or compulsion (well, maybe not compulsion, as we can compel ourselves).

You made no mention of external (whatever that means) stimuli as distinct from internal, you simply claimed that force or compulsion are necessary preconditions for the placement of the interests of another over your own; which is plainly false.

biccat wrote:
The original post I responded to was concerning Communism, not Feudalism or Capitalism. I'm not sure why you've decided to start being a again, but please take your petty insults elsewhere.

Probably because you started speaking as an ideologue, which is the sort of thing that deserves petty insults.

I'm sure we've all learnt a lot from this thread, but it appears the, inevitable,impasse has been reached.