Why Socialism?

[cashfl0w_d0nkey]

I would address more points, but I have little time today. This is utter poppycock. Check out birthrates of the wealthy and educated compared to birth rates of the poor. Evolution is all about propagation, and those not propagating are not spreading their genes nearly to the same extent as those having 3+ kids. Wealth has nothing to do with survival in the vast majority of the western world in this day and age. That is one of the reasons for getting away from a purely capitalistic system. Sure wealthy people are normally healthier and live longer, but that means nothing in the context of evolution because we can already reproduce in our mid teens!

The most important question of all regarding capitalism is, "how much is enough"? Most capitalists would probably answer there can never be 'enough'. This is sick and perverse mind set linked to primitive instinct.

Do you define survival simply as not dying? I don't. I consider someone with wealth to be surviving better than someone with none. Look at access to mates, etc.

I'll get to the rest when I'm not at work.

 

[Shimmer.Fade]

Check out an ecology book.

 

[cashfl0w_d0nkey]

How are businesses unified here, exactly?

I didn't mean unified with one another. I meant unified internally.

 

[cashfl0w_d0nkey]

Check out an ecology book.

You check out an ecology book. Sexual behavior is not related to survival? Wanting to be wealthy to have prime access to mates is not survival?

 

[Bardeaux]

I do think minimum wage should be eliminated. .... Let me try an example. Let's say an old lady wants to greet customers at walmart for 5 dollars an hour. She is not interested in doing anything else. If she was able to get the job, she would not let her supervisor assign her a task, in any circumstance, that isn't a greeter.

How would she have the upper hand in the arrangement? Would she demand that she get this in writing during the interview, or would she just refuse to do anything else once she is asked?

at a minimum wage the employer doesn't have to worry about what they ask you to do, you are an "up in the air" employee. They simply ask you to do something else because the cart pusher and shelf stocker are paid the same. You might as well be doing what they are doing as far as your supervisor is concerned. If the old lady was a greeter and they asked her to do something else she would resist, because those guys make more. This works out a lot better because people have assigned task for the wage they agreed upon and would not let their employer push them around, and the employer would recognize this as well and not expect an employee paid substantially less to perform the same duties as someone paid more. Wages would be all over the place for each specific task. This results in more employment, and happier employees. The old lady may only be getting 5 dollars an hour, but she isn't and will never end up working that hard either.

I worked for a very similar sort of store as Walmart and everyone on the exact same team in the exact same department is making something different. Only brand new (within 90 days) hires are making the same wages. It depends on seniority, on performance etc. It's a flexible and individual thing even though it was also unionized.

Ok, let's say in your scenario this old lady wants a job at walmart for $5 an hour. Why wouldn't there be 100 more old ladies willing to do the exact same job (maybe even push carts on the side) for $4? Maybe there is a guy who'll do it for $2? Or a child who'll do it for $1. What would stop wages from plummeting to almost zero in a race to absolute poverty and maximum exploitation?

I keep hearing this sentiment from you...are you against banking/lending or just not understanding how integral lending is to innovation? You keep phrasing it in a manner implying that financial products are not actual products ('produce absolutely nothing'), and that their markets are somehow inferior to markets for physical widgets. This is completely inaccurate.

Financial institutions don't simply lend money in exchange for interest. That may be true on Sesame Street, but certainly isn't the case on Wall Street. Capital is required for many things, including "innovation" as it were. My problem with banks is the centralization of capital into private hands when they make up such an enormous stake of the entire global economy. If concentration of government power is so terrible how is concentration of economic power any better? Why do we need one singular company with it's own private interests controlling enough wealth to outspend entire nations?

I couldn't disagree more with this. Maybe it's the types of work we've done, but I have zero idea what you mean by being nice will destroy you in business, or that business is like politics. Business is about production, politics is about popularity; there's very little overlap theoretically, and *IME* there's little/none in practice (I'll give you that, of the businesses we hear about on television, there's the 'crony capitalism' phenomena wherein the two arenas overlap significantly, but that's not capitalism and it's the exception not the norm)

I'm not talking about Jimbo's Tool Shed competing with Bob's Drills and Bits. Where there is heavily concentrated capital, there is a lot riding on the results of business performance. Much like in politics, there is a lot riding on who gets into office and who doesn't. If your firm is worth $200 billion are you going to play nice with the other firms who are competing for your consumers, or are you going to be a ruthless son of a bitch in order to take them all down and claim as much of your market as you can? Are you going to pay your workers extraordinarily well, or are you going to cut costs everywhere you can in order to stay competitive? If other firms are cutting costs you better do the same if you want to stay afloat.

 

[Bardeaux]

People decide if a monopoly rises though, and they can certainly end one. All it takes is a little coordinated purchasing.

Right, but individual consumerism is often at odds with collective coordination.

What I meant was whether or not people realize it, they want good companies that practice good business procedures providing them with these wants. People would be a lot more keen to this if they weren't more worried about how well their favorite sports team was doing this season.

Yeah, but what do you do about this? Ban sports? If it's not sports, it's television. People are making a killing by providing sports and television entertainment, I thought thats what capitalism was all about? People want to be dulled and pacified by mindless junk, and people are producing it and selling it to them. It's mutual exchange!

This is false, the only reason people look the other way currently is because the climate is so skewed away from true capitalism that they have no real choice in the matter.

What climate? I keep hearing about this true capitalism. Has there ever been true capitalism to provide an example? Was it when slaves were picking cotton and driving the southern economy? Or when children were working in coal mines? When and where has there ever occurred your version of true capitalism?

And how don't they have a choice? You can choose to purchase sweatshop free, American made clothing, fair trade coffee, small business products etc. But they're much more expensive than picking up a $3 shirt at Walmart. The choices are there right now.

 

[Escher's Waterfall]

You check out an ecology book. Sexual behavior is not related to survival? Wanting to be wealthy to have prime access to mates is not survival?

Actually, I could see it not being a sound behavioral strategy at times in history. Look at cities - good capitalistic opportunities, but historically European cities were so full of disease that they weren't self-sustaining: they relied on continued rural migration in order to maintain and grow their populations.

Not to mention social factors. Anecdotally, I kid my SO about her family dying out - they became urban educated city dwellers and stopped breeding.

 

[Bardeaux]

I consider someone with wealth to be surviving better than someone with none. Look at access to mates, etc.

This is because you're analyzing this from a non-objective perspective. Leave your ideological opinions at the door, and I'll leave mine as well.

There are different social constructs that may place one individual in a better living situation than another. This has always been the case since the dawn of civilization. A high priest in ancient Egypt was far more likely to live a long, fruitful and comfortable life than a slave. This is because power was given to these men on the grounds of their religious capacity. A lord in feudal Europe was much more likely to live a much more lavish and comfortable lifestyle than one of his serfs. Lords were given these privileges mostly due to the family they were born in and their bloodline. In capitalist society, money is the key to excess resources, and an excess in resources is the key to survival and security.

The men in these examples were given this security because of the social structure in which they lived. Having tons of currency didn't always have such a profound influence on your lifestyle. Having learned a great deal about religious practice doesn't guarantee security today. Social orders produce different methods of survival and comfort and they are always changing. One isn't any more inherent in humans than another.

 

[superelephant]

How would she have the upper hand in the arrangement? Would she demand that she get this in writing during the interview, or would she just refuse to do anything else once she is asked?

Both.

I worked for a very similar sort of store as Walmart and everyone on the exact same team in the exact same department is making something different. Only brand new (within 90 days) hires are making the same wages. It depends on seniority, on performance etc. It's a flexible and individual thing even though it was also unionized.

Unions negotiate wage increases, so that doesn't exactly count. Did the wage increases correspond with an increase in responsibility, or were they based on performance, seniority etc within the "up in the air" principle as I defined it earlier?

Ok, let's say in your scenario this old lady wants a job at walmart for $5 an hour. Why wouldn't there be 100 more old ladies willing to do the exact same job (maybe even push carts on the side) for $4? Maybe there is a guy who'll do it for $2? Or a child who'll do it for $1. What would stop wages from plummeting to almost zero in a race to absolute poverty and maximum exploitation?

Yeah, if there was no minimum wage, everyone would be working for 1 cent an hour! 8) Do you actually believe there are people out there with no self worth whatsoever? Do you think companies would replace competence with potential havoc just to save a dollar an hour? 2 dollars an hour? really?

Right, but individual consumerism is often at odds with collective coordination.

? Individual consumerism is collective coordination, whether it's realized or not. Do you question the fact that most people are unaware enough (because sports, TV etc) to think favorably of walmart?

Yeah, but what do you do about this? Ban sports? If it's not sports, it's television. People are making a killing by providing sports and television entertainment, I thought thats what capitalism was all about? People want to be dulled and pacified by mindless junk, and people are producing it and selling it to them. It's mutual exchange!

I usually can convince people that they are morons for lapping that shit up. (though they usually just look for others to re validate their previous notions) Unfortunately I haven't spoken with the entire world yet.

What climate?

economic.

I keep hearing about this true capitalism. Has there ever been true capitalism to provide an example Was it when slaves were picking cotton and driving the southern economy? Or when children were working in coal mines? When and where has there ever occurred your version of true capitalism?

true capitalism isn't something that can exist outright, it is an adherence to principles. (slavery isn't in line, since people aren't property, child labor is a parents responsibility. I have no idea why someone would let their child work in a coal mine, for any reason.) The market was freer back then but the potential for a truly free market hadn't yet arrived anyway. It might not even be possible yet. The market could potentially be as free as it's ever been right now though.

And how don't they have a choice? You can choose to purchase sweatshop free, American made clothing, fair trade coffee, small business products etc. But they're much more expensive than picking up a $3 shirt at Walmart. The choices are there right now.

But is there a is real choice? a choice that can be made without causing financial ruin in most cases? $3 shirts at walmart is the exact skewing I'm referring to.

 

[Shimmer.Fade]

You check out an ecology book. Sexual behavior is not related to survival? Wanting to be wealthy to have prime access to mates is not survival?

Dude what population are you observing? In all the human ones I know poor guys have no trouble banging poor chicks, and the birth rates among impoverished/poor people compared to the wealthy shows that they are procreating far more than wealthy or educated people. Look at India, or even the US, and you will see poor people having more babies.

You can argue that the wealthy people give perhaps more advantages to their offspring, but these advantages go towards raising quality of life, and not towards any sort of reproductive advantage. If you realllly want me to, and can't find out this stuff on your own I can find you data supporting my argument tomorrow.

 

[Shimmer.Fade]

Oh look superelephant, the system sure does sort itself out.

Wal-Mart Asks Workers To Donate Food To Its Needy Employees

"Please donate food items so associates in need can enjoy Thanksgiving dinner," reads a sign accompanied by several plastic bins.

Gee Wal-Mart, you don't happen to have any food would you? You couldn't possibly use any of that 15 billion in profit to pay your employees better could you? Once again.. how much is enough?

http://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-asks-customers-to-donate-food-2013-11

 

[Bardeaux]

Both.

Then surely she would find a hard time finding employment with Walmart. The little old lady in your scenario has absolutely no advantage over her potential employer, who will just find a less demanding person to hire instead.

Unions negotiate wage increases, so that doesn't exactly count. Did the wage increases correspond with an increase in responsibility, or were they based on performance, seniority etc within the "up in the air" principle as I defined it earlier?

The union negotiates the incremental wages and raises, but beyond that there is room for negotiation between the employer and the employee at this particular store. Aside from seniority raises negotiated by the union, added responsibility garnered individual raises for certain employees. For instance, my team leader who was not a manager and held the exact same title as myself, earned quite a bit more as he took on much more responsibility for the team as a whole.

Yeah, if there was no minimum wage, everyone would be working for 1 cent an hour! 8) Do you actually believe there are people out there with no self worth whatsoever? Do you think companies would replace competence with potential havoc just to save a dollar an hour? 2 dollars an hour? really?

You didn't answer my question though. What would stop wages from falling to the lowest bidder? The most basic principle of economics suggests that wages would plummet. With a surplus in the labor market, labor is much less valuable than if there is a labor shortage. With so many people out of work, there's no reason to suggest that workers will not begin competing with one another for whatever work they can find by offering a lower price for their labor.

This is taking into consideration that government subsidies are no longer existent. No one in their right mind would work for minimum wage as it stands now if they can make more by taking government subsidies, let alone if there is no minimum wage. So without a government safety net, people will become desperate. Desperate enough to work for $2 an hour rather than not working and not having an income at all.

How will this actually help anyone aside from the employers?

? Individual consumerism is collective coordination, whether it's realized or not. Do you question the fact that most people are unaware enough (because sports, TV etc) to think favorably of walmart?

Individual consumerism is uncoordinated activity. There are trends in the market, sure. But people aren't shopping with any particular goal in mind other than what's in their own self interests. Every year there are Black Friday boycotts and every year Black Friday smashes the sales records of previous ones. I don't think it's because people are distracted by TV that they continue to support Walmart. I think people care more about saving money than whatever consequences this may have on the rest of society. It's not that I blame the consumers. I like to be thrifty too, who doesn't? The problem is that such low prices provided by unsavory entities like Walmart are of more value to consumers than putting a stop to slave labor and vast exploitation of workers abroad.

People may be aware of this exploitation and they might even be opposed to it. But the financial incentive to keep supporting it outweighs the desire to change the world.

(child labor is a parents responsibility. I have no idea why someone would let their child work in a coal mine, for any reason.)

Well, families back then needed the money. There were no minimum wage laws or government safety nets either, you see

Again, desperation.

But is there a is real choice? a choice that can be made without causing financial ruin in most cases? $3 shirts at walmart is the exact skewing I'm referring to.

Many people in the business world would call this a triumph. An enterprise capable of delivering goods for such extra low prices and expand into every town in America. Isn't this a great capitalist success story? Even with a laissez-faire structure, wouldn't this be an example of capitalist achievement?

 

[superelephant]

Then surely she would find a hard time finding employment with Walmart. The little old lady in your scenario has absolutely no advantage over her potential employer, who will just find a less demanding person to hire instead.

There is not going to be a less demanding person, 5 dollars an hours isn't that much you'd be absolutely pressed to find anyone who will do anything for that much.

The union negotiates the incremental wages and raises, but beyond that there is room for negotiation between the employer and the employee at this particular store. Aside from seniority raises negotiated by the union, added responsibility garnered individual raises for certain employees. For instance, my team leader who was not a manager and held the exact same title as myself, earned quite a bit more as he took on much more responsibility for the team as a whole.

This isn't working, how much did you make, and how much did he make? The numbers will allow me to make my point.

You didn't answer my question though. What would stop wages from falling to the lowest bidder? The most basic principle of economics suggests that wages would plummet. With a surplus in the labor market, labor is much less valuable than if there is a labor shortage. With so many people out of work, there's no reason to suggest that workers will not begin competing with one another for whatever work they can find by offering a lower price for their labor.

People having self worth, that fact that 5 dollars an hour isn't much at all, the fact that inflation is the highest it's ever been and they realize walmart is making more profits the ever before. I did answer your question, the logical extent of your logic was that everyone would be working for 1 cent an hour, can you think of a reason why this would not be the case? That is your answer.

This is taking into consideration that government subsidies are no longer existent. No one in their right mind would work for minimum wage as it stands now if they can make more by taking government subsidies, let alone if there is no minimum wage. So without a government safety net, people will become desperate. Desperate enough to work for $2 an hour rather than not working and not having an income at all.

This whole idea that people can't eat and live without income is a complete fallacy. It's not common yet, but you'll see when we witness the collapse of the dollar. After the initial chaos, people will band together to make there own markets with food that's available (markets that have nothing to do with mass enterprise) They will farm and hunt and do what's necessary to live, walmart be damned. People need food, water and oxygen to live, not money or walmart. In a free market these things would be a lot more common

Individual consumerism is uncoordinated activity. There are trends in the market, sure. But people aren't shopping with any particular goal in mind other than what's in their own self interests. Every year there are Black Friday boycotts and every year Black Friday smashes the sales records of previous ones. I don't think it's because people are distracted by TV that they continue to support Walmart. I think people care more about saving money than whatever consequences this may have on the rest of society. It's not that I blame the consumers. I like to be thrifty too, who doesn't? The problem is that such low prices provided by unsavory entities like Walmart are of more value to consumers than putting a stop to slave labor and vast exploitation of workers abroad.

(lol just checked) walmart has 34 million likes (and some change) on facebook, whether they realize it or not the masses are coordinating to make walmart successful. I understand this concept is foreign to you, but it's the truth.

People may be aware of this exploitation and they might even be opposed to it. But the financial incentive to keep supporting it outweighs the desire to change the world.

What desire to change the world? They are supporting walmart ergo they are content with the world. (because did you see the game last night!)

as for those who don't support it and continue to shop there, this may shed a little light.

http://www.azcentral.com/business/consumer/articles/0613biz-walmarttheft13-ON.html?&wired

Well, families back then needed the money. There were no minimum wage laws or government safety nets either, you see

Again, desperation.

/facepalm.

Many people in the business world would call this a triumph. An enterprise capable of delivering goods for such extra low prices and expand into every town in America. Isn't this a great capitalist success story? Even with a laissez-faire structure, wouldn't this be an example of capitalist achievement?

It may be a success story, but being able to buy shitty things for a low price is no triumph.

 

[Bardeaux]

There is not going to be a less demanding person, 5 dollars an hours isn't that much you'd be absolutely pressed to find anyone who will do anything for that much.

There will definitely be someone less demanding. Someone walking into an employer's office for an interview demanding this and that is much less attractive to an employer than someone walking in demanding nothing and taking what they're given.

This isn't working, how much did you make, and how much did he make? The numbers will allow me to make my point.

Well, we're going to have to let this one go because this is none of your business, frankly.

He made more than I did. Partly because of his seniority and partly because of his extra responsibility.

People having self worth, that fact that 5 dollars an hour isn't much at all, the fact that inflation is the highest it's ever been and they realize walmart is making more profits the ever before. I did answer your question, the logical extent of your logic was that everyone would be working for 1 cent an hour, can you think of a reason why this would not be the case? That is your answer.

I didn't say anything about working for one cent, that was your exaggeration. You should ask an Australian to work for $10 an hour, which is well above the American federal minimum wage. They would say there's no way anyone would get out of bed to work for such wages no matter what the cost of living is like. Your sense of worth is going to change when employers start refusing to pay more than a few dollars an hour when there is a large portion of the workforce willing to work for only a few dollars an hour.

Removing the minimum wage doesn't put power into the hands of the worker to negotiate the price of their labor. There is a surplus of labor. If you won't work for $4 an hour, someone will. It puts power into the hands of the employer to find the laborer with the lowest bid on their labor.

It would be the equivalent of me walking into Walmart today and demanding $15 an hour and full medical benefits.

(lol just checked) walmart has 34 million likes (and some change) on facebook, whether they realize it or not the masses are coordinating to make walmart successful. I understand this concept is foreign to you, but it's the truth.

So 34 million people are getting together and collectively making the decision to support Walmart before going out to shop there? No. What's happening is a consequence of unplanned, uncooperative and uncoordinated consumerism.

What desire to change the world? They are supporting walmart ergo they are content with the world. (because did you see the game last night!)

I'm still not understanding what football has to do with consumer awareness. Lets pretend for a second that every consumer in America is fully aware of the harm Walmart causes right under their noses. Will consumer habits change overnight or will consumers still support Walmart because it's a much cheaper alternative to buying more expensive, more socially responsible products elsewhere?

/facepalm.

So.... why did it occur? Did kids just really enjoy working in coal mines for shits and giggles? Did it provide their parents with endless entertainment?

It may be a success story, but being able to buy shitty things for a low price is no triumph.

This sort of thing was certainly held up as a triumph during the cold war.

 

[cashfl0w_d0nkey]

Dude what population are you observing? In all the human ones I know poor guys have no trouble banging poor chicks, and the birth rates among impoverished/poor people compared to the wealthy shows that they are procreating far more than wealthy or educated people. Look at India, or even the US, and you will see poor people having more babies.

You can argue that the wealthy people give perhaps more advantages to their offspring, but these advantages go towards raising quality of life, and not towards any sort of reproductive advantage. If you realllly want me to, and can't find out this stuff on your own I can find you data supporting my argument tomorrow.

Has a family with one successful child not survived in a sense better than a family with five gangbanger children? You're the one trying to make this conversation about genetics. If you look at what I'm trying to say it's obviously true. The pursuit of money is about survival (and yes, quality of life is part of this ). People aren't just pursuing money for no reason. Money is seen to equal greater survivability.

Anyway I'm so far off topic now I'm just giving up on my original point.

 

[Shimmer.Fade]

superelephant, for someone who pretends to know a bit about economics you don't seem to understand the simple principle of supply and demand, and where this leads. Employers are in a position to create demand for work by cutting jobs, and employees in low positions cannot create the same demand for their labor because they have no influence over how many people there are and how many positions are available. The employer will always have the upper hand unless an external force steps in and forces the employer to be accountable for pay its workers a living wage.

Moreover, it is extremely presumptuous of you to dismiss history, and say that things would be different now. You have no clue.

There is not going to be a less demanding person, 5 dollars an hours isn't that much you'd be absolutely pressed to find anyone who will do anything for that much.

Are you delusional? There are currently people in the US working for less on the black market where there is no minimum wage.

People having self worth, that fact that 5 dollars an hour isn't much at all, the fact that inflation is the highest it's ever been and they realize walmart is making more profits the ever before.

None of these things will guarantee that wages would not plummet. People having self worth leads them to do anything to feed themselves and their children.

This whole idea that people can't eat and live without income is a complete fallacy. It's not common yet, but you'll see when we witness the collapse of the dollar. After the initial chaos, people will band together to make there own markets with food that's available (markets that have nothing to do with mass enterprise) They will farm and hunt and do what's necessary to live, walmart be damned. People need food, water and oxygen to live, not money or walmart. In a free market these things would be a lot more common

Please prove with logic or data why this is a complete fallacy. I'm pretty sure most people call that reality. Income generally does (in this society), but does not have to equal something monetary, it can also be in the form of goods/services.
It seems you assume we live in an unlimited environment where everyone will have enough game to hunt and enough land to farm. Fat fucking chance. Who owns most of the land in the US now anyhow? You think these people are going to be so nice as to let joe blow go hunting on their private reserve? I will tell you now, if the rest of you idiots manage to fuck up society so bad that it comes to this if you set foot on my hunting, fishing, and farmland without explicit permission I will shoot you. You do not want to bring out the tiger in people who are currently content (morally as well as logistically).

 

[ebola?]

WTF really?

Really.

Capitalism is trade amongst consenting individuals, socialism is an org (the state) having a hand in all such trades.

Okay. I'll try explaining this with an empirical bent. If we have a late-feudal period town where individual artisans trade among each other, is it capitalism? If we have an agrarian society where cattle are traded in return for social obligations, is it capitalism? If I own slaves who make agricultural products which I seize and sell on the market, is it capitalism?

If a bureaucratized state seizes control of trade (but in particular industry) to produce for an autocrat, military conquest, or for a class of clergy, is it socialist? In short, defining capitalism as consensual trade and socialism as state "control of trade" lacks sufficient historical specificity; people have made exchanges of varied sorts prior to the existence of anything resembling modern industry, and the state has intervened in economic matters too varied to fit within a single, useful umbrella of economy type. It also needs be noted that the nation-state as we know it is a pretty recent invention, and that early Christian anarchists arguably emerged prior to the system of Westphalian nation-states.

While capitalism may 'conceal domination' and all that you're espousing, that's not inherent to it

Which aspects of capitalism are inherent, which are peripheral, and why? We can begin with the item of trade, the commodity. A commodity is an item produced with the purpose of trade. Thus, commodities lack truly inherent qualities but instead mark the material distillation (and representation) of the social conditions under which they're produced and distributed and the social practices effected by these conditions. To focus on trade itself is myopic, as such focus fails to elucidate the system which conditions such trading activity in the first place. Central to any socio-economic system instead are conditions of laboring activity, and with modern capitalism, the class-relation between worker and capitalist loom centrally. Yes, trade in the labor-market is key, but what of the conditions which shape what these trades look like and the resulting consequences?

Another hypothetical example might prove revealing: imagine a society composed entirely of true worker-cooperatives (all workers sharing in revenue and direction of processes of guiding production and distribution). I would argue that this is not capitalist, as the class-relation central to capitalism is absent, an alternate set of social conditions shaping the practices of trade that occur, resulting in an alternate set of social consequences.

Capitalism is trade from POV of those in the trade.

Right, but again, why does trading take precedence over its bases?

ebola

 

[ebola?]

Is there any reason so suspect more/less government abuses in a socialist setup?

It depends. Being whatever...anarchist-like thing I am, I don't think that state control could administer a socialism that remains legitimately socialist. So yes, I'd expect any experiment following in the footsteps of the Soviet Union, Mao's China, etc. to be a failure (in fact, some go so far as to call such politico-economic configurations "state capitalist", party elites behaving like one massive capitalist in exploiting a proletariat that continues to exist as such a class).

Because my problems w/ socialism center around fairness(we'll leave this one aside for this thread, would clumsy things up wayy too bad right now), and efficiency/innovation; if I can get past those, I'm still just perplexed at the practical implementation of a socialist system that wouldn't make today's 'mixed' american system seem downright wholesome in comparison. *IMO*, the bigger a gov is, and the more points that can be abused, there will be; A socialist setup requires more 'administration' than a capitalist one does, and in a practical administratino sense, I wonder at how it could ever be implemented irl w/o being a nightmare.

So instead, a viable socialism would need empower workers to collaborate to direct production and distribution themselves, as they see fit as a group, with participation of all those involved. I envision localized workplaces as the lynch-pin of such collaborative decision making, but some sort of federalism would be necessary for interfirm coordination, particularly over large geographical areas. And while I think that socialist revolution might initially involve trade among worker's cooperatives via currency, I don't consider this type of implementation of worker's empowerment a worthy ultimate goal, nor should it necessarily characterize the majority of economic activity even in periods of transition.

I would say that a requirement of such an ideal state is that the monopoly over legitimated violence stays pure and objective.

Right, and therein lies the problem: I think that the modern centralized state, as an institution, conditions the corruption of those who wield it as a tool (in addition to remaining subject to corruption via external influences). Thus, I think that we have to find solutions to ensure optimally fair and safe cooperation via alternate institutions.

The check to this reward in my opinion should be competition: A business that is conscious of social responsibility should be able to easily outcompete a non-socially conscious competitor, and so there should be a race to the bottom of sorts to have the least burden on society possible. This doesn't happen because of regulation that creates barriers to entry in the market and consumers that do not collectively look out for their own best interests. Businesses are unified in their approach to making money from society. Society can be unified as well in its response to such behavior.

For several reasons, this proposal is insufficient to check pathologies that develop as capitalism is set in motion:
1. Negative externalities lead businesses to save production costs in ways that cause harm outside of those factors affecting price and quantity sold.
2. Because processes of production are de-linked from processes of sale and consumption (in terms of time, space, and people involved), consumers usually lack the awareness necessary to use collective behavior to place a check on negative externalities.
3. As markets mature, ownership of capital tends toward oligopoly, reducing the efficacy of competition in curtailing harms caused by large firms.
4. With circulation of mass-media, firms play a key role in the construction of the very desires and identities of consumers, leading again to production and consumption that might otherwise be regarded as harmful.
5. Most consumers work under severe financial constraint, limiting their ability to amass and consolidate collective power.
6. Oligopolic firms use economic power to influence the regulatory framework under which they operate, leading to further injustices.

^right here enters the need for the 'worthless' bankers who produce nothing. Allocation of capital (via free markets, not state-allocation) is one of the most fundamental girders upon whihc modern society is built.

Now, the relationship between finance capital and production of tangible goods and services is rather complex, and I'll admit that I'm dissatisfied with my understanding thereof. However, given the most recent economic crisis and anemic recovery, how well is such allocation currently functioning? Why would we expect profit-motivated financiers of various stripes to condition efficient and just production and distribution?

I'll give you that, of the businesses we hear about on television, there's the 'crony capitalism' phenomena wherein the two arenas overlap significantly, but that's not capitalism and it's the exception not the norm

On what bases can we conclude such outcomes exceptional? Why wouldn't we expect economic and political power-bases to interpenetrate?

ebola

 

[Jabberwocky]

It depends. Being whatever...anarchist-like thing I am, I don't think that state control could administer a socialism that remains legitimately socialist. So yes, I'd expect any experiment following in the footsteps of the Soviet Union, Mao's China, etc. to be a failure (in fact, some go so far as to call such politico-economic configurations "state capitalist", party elites behaving like one massive capitalist in exploiting a proletariat that continues to exist as such a class).

Yes, I think of those instances in the real-world-examples of why practical implementation would be ...difficult, to say the least. For all the problems the current mixed economies have with corruption at the top, socialist systems seem to be custom-made for concentrating power; it's a manner of concentrating political power that businesses could only hope to achieve via business/$ in a mixed/capitalist economy.

So instead, a viable socialism would need empower workers to collaborate to direct production and distribution themselves, as they see fit as a group, with participation of all those involved. I envision localized workplaces as the lynch-pin of such collaborative decision making, but some sort of federalism would be necessary for interfirm coordination, particularly over large geographical areas. And while I think that socialist revolution might initially involve trade among worker's cooperatives via currency, I don't consider this type of implementation of worker's empowerment a worthy ultimate goal, nor should it necessarily characterize the majority of economic activity even in periods of transition.

Where does all of this collaborative harmony come from, in socialist setups? Maybe it's the ppl i've met through life, but most aren't worth a shit and w/o $ to motivate them I shudder to think how unproductive they'd be.. If people aren't motivated by acquisition of goods (money/food/etc), what makes them get up and go to their socialist coop? This gets more a % of the population working productively than capitalism?

Now, the relationship between finance capital and production of tangible goods and services is rather complex, and I'll admit that I'm dissatisfied with my understanding thereof. However, given the most recent economic crisis and anemic recovery, how well is such allocation currently functioning? Why would we expect profit-motivated financiers of various stripes to condition efficient and just production and distribution?

The current allocation is functioning...not so great. IMO this is an indictment of our state-run banking system though, not of private bankers.

On what bases can we conclude such outcomes exceptional? Why wouldn't we expect economic and political power-bases to interpenetrate?

ebola

On what base(s) can we conclude crony capitalism isn't the norm of business in america? Am I missing a joke or something?

 

[superelephant]

There will definitely be someone less demanding. Someone walking into an employer's office for an interview demanding this and that is much less attractive to an employer than someone walking in demanding nothing and taking what they're given.

Why would there be? explain what's going through someones mind in the instance of someone believing that any wage below 7 an hour is a good wage to sell themselves to a billion dollar coporation. The lower you pay someone the more likely they are to not fulfill their obligations effectively. Unless your saying that walmart doesn't care whether their employees have showered, have eaten anything in a week. And that's assuming they need income to eat, which is not true whether they take the initiative or not. I used to raise chickens and get lots of eggs/meat in a self sustaining little farm (at 19-20 years old, mind you) I put together in the back of where I reside, A suburb where all the houses are close as shit and there virtually is no back yard, I still built a coup back there, obtained some really inexpensive chicks, fed them with worms I obtained from digging around the econ river, chased them around in the little bit of space I had for exercise. I would let some reproduce at certain times while separating them and just collecting the eggs at others. I would slaughter them myself and eat the meat when I felt they were old enough. (mostly the males) I would sell some meat and eggs (completely not up to code but everyone that bought from me was extremely satisfied) when I could if I wanted something only cash could buy. I considered quiting my job toward the end of this little escapade because I did not need any cash to live. I'm glad I didn't though, because one of the neighbors (that never bought from me) got tired of roosters making noise in the morning and called the home owners association (regulatory body ) and they made me stop all of it. The point being, if we lived in a free market, (without regulation and minimum wage, although this kind of thing may even blossom simply without a minimum wage), this kind of thing would be extremely common, people would not need to work, because they would have their own means of sustaining themselves. employee's would be scarce, not employers. Employers would have to be surrender to the demands of those they employ if they wanted to have even a single employee. Having a job would be an option This is why walmart and shitty wages could not even exist in a free market. I'm busy so the rest is going to have to wait.