to be fair, libertarians aren't the only ones who use a morality argument for taxes. plenty on the left say it is immoral not to tax those who can more easily pay.

but, again, I'll say this current shit in England more than likely has nothing to do with socialism, except for showing how some well-meaning policies can turn people into such monsters. and even that is reaching

8/10/2011 5:06:27 PM

Quote :

"Oh, I understand the difference."

Then how would you mark it as anything other than anarchy? Are they fighting to establish a new government? Then it is anarchy.
It's not as if socialism is the only kind of system that can be achieved through violent revolution, any kind can AND HAS. For example, capitalism, fascism, dictatorship, etc. have all come from violent revolutions in certain points in history. It is not a quality of socialism alone.

Quote :

"The riots going on are remarkably similar to how Marx said socialism/communism would have to be achieved."

There is little belief orthodox marxism in the modern world, even Engels believe it to be better achieved through gradual means.

Quote :

"You're a fool if you believe that socialism could be achieved through reform."

I would say that you are a fool for not realizing that it has many times before. Many many many industries have been nationalized over the history of the world either through compensated nationalization or expropriation. I'm noting the difference because you don't seem to know it, but it seems you want to focus on expropriation, which is not the only way to nationalize an industry. I really feel like all of this is really just an effort on your part to get away from the original argument because it was just so stupid. So let's just get back to that one, riots in the UK are anarchy, not any sort of effort at a socialist revolution.

8/10/2011 5:27:45 PM

Quote :

"It's not as if socialism is the only kind of system that can be achieved through violent revolution, any kind can AND HAS. For example, capitalism, fascism, dictatorship, etc. have all come from violent revolutions in certain points in history. It is not a quality of socialism alone."

true. even in Civ, there's anarchy whenever you change civics

8/10/2011 5:44:57 PM

Quote :

"One could imagine a variety of ways by which this happens, and seizing a factory, for instance, is not even the same sort of violent act as these riots. This is just break down of order and disrespect of all rules, conventional, ethical, legal, whatever."

How the fuck is seizing a factory any different? It's okay to seize a factory that you didn't build or pay for, but it's wrong to steal a TV from a store? If anything, seizing a factory is much, much worse.

Quote :

"The rioters themselves have little solidarity and no vision for what to make the world into whatsoever. No goals except chaos. They're just rioters. "

That's bullshit. They have goals - to get us much for themselves as they can take.

Quote :

"Quite honestly I'm sick and fucking tired of the mental sloppiness of libertarian arguments. You never want to descend into the real issues, you always want a quick and easy silver bullet (like making taxes about *morality*) that allows you to avoid the difficulty of scientific thought."

Cry about it. All matters that involve the unauthorized use of force are moral matters.

Quote :

"Then how would you mark it as anything other than anarchy? Are they fighting to establish a new government? Then it is anarchy. It's not as if socialism is the only kind of system that can be achieved through violent revolution, any kind can AND HAS. For example, capitalism, fascism, dictatorship, etc. have all come from violent revolutions in certain points in history. It is not a quality of socialism alone."

Hahaha. You actually don't know what the definition of anarchy is. Anarchy means no state. It doesn't mean "chaos." It doesn't mean "social unrest."

8/10/2011 5:47:42 PM

Quote :

"All matters that involve the unauthorized use of force are moral matters."

what would be an example of an authorized use of force? Wouldn't a government doing just about anything kind of be an "authorized use of force"? [/devil's advocate]

8/10/2011 5:51:58 PM

An authorized use of force would be something like an MMA fight, where both participants agreed to the terms of the fight. If, at any point during the fight, one of the fighters "tapped out," further use of force would not be authorized.

Many people are fine with the government using force. Most people are fine with taxation to some degree. This is mainly because they've been taught that, without taxes, vital services could never be provided. I disagree with that, but that's what people believe. In those cases, taxation is not immoral.

However, there exist people that do not like being taxed and do not like what the tax money is used for. I'm an example of one of those people. I don't like that my money bails out banks. I don't like that my money is used to kill people. I don't like that my money is used to build favor for career politicians so that they can be re-elected. I don't like that my money is used to lock up drug offenders and prostitutes.

[Edited on August 10, 2011 at 6:05 PM. Reason : ]

8/10/2011 6:04:01 PM

Quote :

"Anarchy means no state. It doesn't mean "chaos." It doesn't mean "social unrest.""

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy
anarchy - political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.

Quote :

"However, there exist people that do not like being taxed and do not like what the tax money is used for. I'm an example of one of those people. I don't like that my money bails out banks. I don't like that my money is used to kill people. I don't like that my money is used to build favor for career politicians so that they can be re-elected. I don't like that my money is used to lock up drug offenders and prostitutes."

Stop playing the victim. Stop expecting the government to cater to you. You don't like it, take some responsibility for your situation and do something about it, stop whining for the government to help you.

8/10/2011 6:10:17 PM

do you like that your money sometimes goes to things that you might like? like roads? education?

as well, comparing a form of entertainment to force used by government is laughable, dude

8/10/2011 6:10:22 PM

Quote :

"Stop playing the victim. Stop expecting the government to cater to you. You don't like it, take some responsibility for your situation and do something about it, stop whining for the government to help you."

Okay, bro. I'm going to go stop the U.S. military, be back in a few. Are you fucking stupid?

Quote :

"do you like that your money sometimes goes to things that you might like? like roads? education?"

It's obviously preferable to the alternative. I mean, it would have been awesome if the government didn't piss away a bunch of money in Iraq/Afghanistan and invested in fiber network infrastructure here, but it didn't happen.

In any case, the market is much better at providing solutions than government ever will be.

Quote :

"as well, comparing a form of entertainment to force used by government is laughable, dude"

You asked for an example of authorized use of force. The taxation thing is an also example. I guess there's an argument to be made that if someone consents to force, it ceases to be force. If that's true, then you can just strike "unauthorized" from my statement since it's redundant.

[Edited on August 10, 2011 at 6:16 PM. Reason : ]

8/10/2011 6:13:52 PM

Quote :

"Okay, bro. I'm going to go stop the U.S. military, be back in a few. Are you fucking stupid?"

They don't care what you do as long as you don't break it's laws within it's borders.

8/10/2011 6:18:47 PM

Quote :

"You asked for an example of authorized use of force. "

yes, but implicit in that request was for an example that wasn't absurd. The two brutes in the ring may be fighting each other, and it may be some kind of force, but it's simply not comparable to a government exercising any kind of force

^ and they don't even care about that, lol.

8/10/2011 6:21:15 PM

Quote :

"They don't care what you do as long as you don't break it's laws within it's borders."

I love when you do this. You start talking about "they" and "it" without specifying who or what the fuck you're talking about. I'm not going to be your academic writing teacher here, dude. You need to learn how to communicate.

Who doesn't care what I do as long as I don't break whose laws within what borders? You said "if you have a problem with the government do something about it." I'm saying I cannot do anything against the most powerful military in the world.

8/10/2011 6:33:51 PM

fml

[Edited on August 10, 2011 at 6:36 PM. Reason : ]

8/10/2011 6:35:50 PM

Destroyer can you switch back to being thoughtful instead of simply insuring the TWW socialism thread has the appropriate level of stupidity? Enough of this UK tangent. It has nothing to do with socialism. Next.

8/11/2011 7:42:47 AM

I don't think Marx envisioned Socialist revolution occurring by teenagers destroying things for no reason and stealing consumer goods just to take home and continue to loaf around. The entire point of Socialist revolution is to seize the means of production so that laborers can labor freely and not have to sit around unemployed while factories are shuttered by the owners. Stealing a TV, burning a van, and going back to your home to smoke weed has nothing to do with any of that.

8/11/2011 10:34:37 AM

Quote :

"Destroyer can you switch back to being thoughtful instead of simply insuring the TWW socialism thread has the appropriate level of stupidity? Enough of this UK tangent. It has nothing to do with socialism. Next."

It was as good a time as any to make a point, since we're pretty much at a dead end in this debate. My post was actually inspired by various Facebook friends that identify themselves as Marxists making status updates about how this was a worker's revolt. Similar posts popped up on /r/Socialism. The socialists with half a brain quickly realized that they couldn't be associated with the idiot rioters in the UK, though I'm sure they'd be more than willing to blame the riots on the exploitative nature of capitalism.

I've learned a lot about actual socialism (not social democracy, not "mixed economies") in the past couple months, but there is no legitimate road map to socialism that anyone has been able to identify.

If the problem is privilege, then the working class must take goods and capital by force. I don't see any other option. Capital owners are not going to voluntarily cede ownership. Not only that, but capital owners (in collusion with the state) have ensured that the population will never become educated enough to manage capital.

The other huge problem is that literally every time the "working class" takes over capital, they end up becoming just as bad or worse than the previous capital owners. Why? Because they're human and once they get a taste of power, they cling to it. That's why I always go back to human nature. There would need to be a fundamental change in how people think of property.

8/11/2011 12:45:05 PM

[Edited on August 11, 2011 at 1:42 PM. Reason : ...]

8/11/2011 1:39:30 PM

Quote :

" I've learned a lot about actual socialism (not social democracy, not "mixed economies") in the past couple months, but there is no legitimate road map to socialism that anyone has been able to identify."

You still haven't read Workers' Councils it would seem. Want a copy? I can email it to you.

8/11/2011 1:55:48 PM

I've ready about Workers' Councils, though I'm not sure I've read Workers' Councils. If you let me know the author I'm sure I can find it.

8/11/2011 2:25:57 PM

Quote :

"I'm saying I cannot do anything against the most powerful military in the world."

Take some responsibility for your situation, leave, start a revolution, whatever.

Quote :

"My post was actually inspired by various Facebook friends that identify themselves as Marxists making status updates about how this was a worker's revolt."

Your friends are retarded (mentally disabled).

Quote :

"I've learned a lot about actual socialism (not social democracy, not "mixed economies") in the past couple months, but there is no legitimate road map to socialism that anyone has been able to identify."

Well you seem like quite the expert considering you've been studying it for months, but there are several you just fail to even try to understand them (road maps to socialism).

Quote :

"I don't see any other option. Capital owners are not going to voluntarily cede ownership. "

There are many examples on nationalization, start by studying them(the examples of nationalization).

Quote :

"Not only that, but capital owners (in collusion with the state) have ensured that the population will never become educated enough to manage capital."

I don't know what they hell you are talking about. I have never heard of any such mechanism.

8/11/2011 5:39:14 PM

So...I've decided that I don't believe in the value of "hard work" for 40+ hours a week. I don't think that makes you a good person, and I don't think it should be necessary for the health of society or for a person to live a dignified life.

What economic system should I subscribe to?

8/11/2011 5:59:49 PM

welfare

8/11/2011 6:56:57 PM

^^is that for serious?

i dont want to be mean if that sarcasm just went over my head.

8/11/2011 7:16:40 PM

Quote :

"I don't know what they hell you are talking about. I have never heard of any such mechanism."

of course you have. It's called "public education." You mean you don't know about our stellar public education system, where students, on average, are way behind where they should be in math and reading? And you don't think that's a coincidence? The entire point of public education was to dumb down the masses in the guise of "helping them learn."

8/11/2011 7:22:48 PM

^^It's serious.

8/11/2011 8:57:15 PM

Quote :

"So...I've decided that I don't believe in the value of "hard work" for 40+ hours a week. I don't think that makes you a good person, and I don't think it should be necessary for the health of society or for a person to live a dignified life."

Do you believe in the value of hard work at all, then? Would you rather there just be fewer goods and services available? That's essentially what you're saying.

I mean, I get what you're saying to some degree. You think everyone could be happy working a lot less. That's true, but some people see the value of working 40 or 100 hours a week. They have goals that are only achievable by laboring that much, at least in their mind. You'd rather not do that, which is fine.

Free market capitalism doesn't say you have to work 40 hours a work. You can work however much you want, or not at all - just don't think that you're entitled to other people's work.

8/11/2011 9:47:12 PM

Quote :

"You can work however much you want, or not at all - just don't think that you're entitled to other people's work."

Of course unless you "own" something in which case you're entitled to as much as your improved bargaining position will win you

8/12/2011 7:28:45 AM

Quote :

"Do you believe in the value of hard work at all, then? Would you rather there just be fewer goods and services available? That's essentially what you're saying."

Not really. Hard work for 40+ hours a week is only necessary for a decent life because so much of the value laborers produce is sucked into corporate profits. Holding that up as a "value" is basically taking pride in your willingness to be exploited. Need I pull up our old favorite graph that contrasts productivity, wages, and corporate profits? Or perhaps the change over the past 40 years of the CEO/worker pay ratio?

Quote :

"You can work however much you want, or not at all - just don't think that you're entitled to other people's work."

Lol unless you're a shareholder or executive. Why do so many people who constantly glorify "free market capitalism" only seem to understand the implications of the first 2/3's of that phrase?

[Edited on August 12, 2011 at 10:57 AM. Reason : .]

8/12/2011 10:55:41 AM

Someone called in on the Democrat line on CSPAN earlier, went on complaining about Republicans and then said "the rich have the money, why can't we just take it?".

At least idiots like him are becoming more open about their immorality.

8/12/2011 1:23:33 PM

Yeah it's only cool if the rich are taking money from everybody else.

Take money back from them via the essential and legitimate mechanism of taxation? That disgusts you. Manipulating government until you've backed the labor market into a corner, draining people of surplus value? You're behind that.

Remind me again how you stand by your stated principles and aren't just a loyalist/stooge for established wealth?

[Edited on August 12, 2011 at 1:27 PM. Reason : .]

8/12/2011 1:25:46 PM

He wasn't talking about established wealth or anything else. In his whole rant, he was lamenting the fact that "they" have money and we can't just go and take it from them. I normally think those oversimplified cartoons are stupid, but this guys argument was just that simple:



Before I even respond to the rest, I'd ask what your background guiding principle(s) is/are. I think we'd agree on some things, as I'm not a voluntaryist/anarcho-capitalist, but until I know why you argue what you do, it's kind of tough to attack it. For instace, I'm not against all taxes, but I'd guess that we have vastly different ideas as to why certain taxes should be in place, etc.. As for government and the labor market, I think that there should be little to no involvement, thus manipulating the government wouldn't be of any consequence as they wouldn't have any teeth to do anything. You're looking for the (economic) fascists where certain interests use the government for their own personal/corporate gain.

8/12/2011 2:06:38 PM

Oh look...McDanger failed to persuade folks here with..well, he didn't have an argument so I guess the failure is self evident....so now he is picking on the new guy.

Quote :

"Need I pull up our old favorite graph that contrasts productivity, wages, and corporate profits? Or perhaps the change over the past 40 years of the CEO/worker pay ratio? "

Sure, please post the chart.

[Edited on August 12, 2011 at 3:09 PM. Reason : .]

8/12/2011 3:09:07 PM

Wages and Productivity

http://www.eoionline.org/images/constantcontact/wpr/2009/fig1_ProdWages.jpg

Yikes all that extra productivity but it's not being reflected in wages. Where's all that money going. Surely to cheaper products or something...



Hrm hey wait a minute [note: stops at 2005. Right now it's over 300]


dammit.


[Edited on August 12, 2011 at 3:37 PM. Reason : [Edited on August 12, 2011 at 3:31 PM. Reason : linked because huge image]]

8/12/2011 3:30:20 PM

Quote :

"Yikes all that extra productivity but it's not being reflected in wages."

Why should it be reflected in wages? Humans now versus 30 years ago are more productive because technology made them so, not because they are genetically superior.

Regarding CEO pay. Companies have grown and consolidated so it's no surprise the guy at the top is getting paid more and more money. If you take 2 CEOs from two different companies of 100 employes and merge those companies causing 1 CEO to disappear, then the CEO/Worker ratio just doubled.

Or, for a real world example, take IBM. Take all the pay and compensation for the CEO and distribute it to all of IBMs workers and they'll get a whopping ~$70 raise. Man, that dude is fleecing the piss out of the employees huh?

8/12/2011 5:12:00 PM

Quote :

"Humans now versus 30 years ago are more productive because technology made them so, not because they are genetically superior."

What the hell does that mean? Does this mean you should only get a higher wage if you are genetically superior? Aside from it being completely off the wall, irrational, and racist, I really don't know what you are trying to say.

Technology makes us more productive, our wages should reflect that.

8/12/2011 5:18:39 PM

Are you kidding? Should we pay the robots their just salary. Thats what you guys are suggesting.

8/12/2011 5:35:40 PM

Did you have a stroke or something? Maybe you're not reading it or something.

[Edited on August 12, 2011 at 6:02 PM. Reason : ]

8/12/2011 6:02:21 PM

No, I'm reading the typical Kris quality post. Just because we are more productive doesn't automatically mean we should get more money...well, to everyone that lives in reality, not this mythical socialism you guys think can evolve naturally from here but haven't explained how that will happen.

8/12/2011 7:22:04 PM

Quote :

"Just because we are more productive doesn't automatically mean we should get more money..."

Who deserves the benefits of increased automation from say, the invention of cheap digital computing? The workers driving that increased productivity, or the guy holding a slip of paper saying "I own this thing"?

8/13/2011 8:17:50 AM

So one guy goes out and risks his capital to try and make his business more productive. If he fails the worker is out of a job. If he succeeds, the worker input of the same effort produces more product thanks to the new tool. Worker keeps his job.

It's fairly easy to see who should reap this reward.

[Edited on August 13, 2011 at 11:04 AM. Reason : a]

8/13/2011 11:04:22 AM

Quote :

"Just because we are more productive doesn't automatically mean we should get more money"

Then what should justify how much money we should make? If I make 4 oranges and you make 8, who should be paid more in a capitalist system? In capitalism, wages should track productivity.

This is one of the worst arguments I've seen you make. A much more reasonable argument to make would be that wages have not followed productivity due to increased international competition. This could account for the stagnant wages with the increase in CEO pay. I don't see how this argument wasn't completely obvious to you, but you seem to have gone with the classic not bother to read and just say "socialism is bad".

8/13/2011 12:21:01 PM

Quote :

"If I make 4 oranges and you make 8"

et ceteris paribus, sure. But baldy is probably arguing that it's not that simple, and looking at his previous post, that's may be exactly what he is saying.

8/13/2011 2:54:57 PM

Quote :

"et ceteris paribus, sure."

Well this is the aggregate, as dictated by the graph, and the only reasonable argument to the poster of the graph is what I posted.

8/13/2011 4:15:25 PM

Quote :

"So one guy goes out and risks his capital to try and make his business more productive. If he fails the worker is out of a job. If he succeeds, the worker input of the same effort produces more product thanks to the new tool. Worker keeps his job. It's fairly easy to see who should reap this reward. "

Maybe I'm reading this wrong but by this logic it seems that every increase in wages since the dawn of the industrial revolution is unjust in your eyes.

8/15/2011 12:47:51 PM

Quote :

"Technology makes us more productive, our wages should reflect that."

Only if you can convince your employer to do so.

A freely negotiated settlement is always just in my mind.

And everyone keeps talking about wages, as if only one form of compensation mattered. Should I produce a graph comparing productivity versus company car provision?

And rational analysis would include everything, wages, 401K contribution, pensions, healthcare provision, parking allowances, cost of living adjustments, free tickets to already free events, etc.

Quote :

"Not really. Hard work for 40+ hours a week is only necessary for a decent life because so much of the value laborers produce is sucked into corporate profits."

the federal reserve tracks this share of the economy over time. It goes up and down with economic fortunes, but the long term average is about 10%. As such, if you eliminated all profit from the economy, everyone's wages would go up just over 10%. Not revolutionary and definitely not going to convince someone currently working two jobs to quit one of them.

[Edited on August 15, 2011 at 2:55 PM. Reason : .,.]

8/15/2011 2:45:02 PM

Quote :

"Only if you can convince your employer to do so."

I don't have to convince him, the market will do that.

Quote :

"And everyone keeps talking about wages, as if only one form of compensation mattered. Should I produce a graph comparing productivity versus company car provision? And rational analysis would include everything, wages, 401K contribution, pensions, healthcare provision, parking allowances, cost of living adjustments, free tickets to already free events, etc."

Wages are by far the largest part of average total compensation.

8/15/2011 5:47:20 PM

Quote :

"LoneSnark: the federal reserve tracks this share of the economy over time. It goes up and down with economic fortunes, but the long term average is about 10%. As such, if you eliminated all profit from the economy, everyone's wages would go up just over 10%. Not revolutionary and definitely not going to convince someone currently working two jobs to quit one of them."

Fine. It's sucked into rich people getting it.

8/15/2011 8:45:34 PM

Quote :

"A freely negotiated settlement is always just in my mind."

What's "free" about a settlement you negotiate under threat of unemployment otherwise? When your food, housing, and health are on the line, that's hardly a free choice. Just because circumstances are holding a gun to your head and not a physical person doesn't make the choice free.

Quote :

"the federal reserve tracks this share of the economy over time. It goes up and down with economic fortunes, but the long term average is about 10%. "

Source, please. One that includes the up "and down".


[Edited on August 16, 2011 at 9:45 AM. Reason : .]

8/16/2011 9:43:33 AM

Eh, I couldn't find the graph I'm used to finding after less than 30 seconds on google. But here is a reference from a New York Times article:
"Corporate profits are at their highest share since the 1960's.: 10.3% " The figure from the federal reserve is even higher than this reporting as not all profits are earned by corporations.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0CE4DF113EF93BA1575BC0A9609C8B63&pagewanted=all

Quote :

"What's "free" about a settlement you negotiate under threat of unemployment otherwise? When your food, housing, and health are on the line, that's hardly a free choice. Just because circumstances are holding a gun to your head and not a physical person doesn't make the choice free."

Quite true. I guess the correct phrasing would be "as free as god made you". It was God or nature or whatever philosophy you enjoy that put you in the position of wanting the assistance of others to help you survive. Of course, we are all in that same boat, including your employer. If others refuse to transact with your employer then he too finds himself at the mercy of nature.

8/16/2011 10:04:38 AM

The employer is not in the same boat. He owns a scarce resource (property) that gives him a considerable advantage over the vast majority of people who do not and instead must sell their labor for money. If he can't fill the position at all, that is assuming that nobody is desperate enough to work for however little he demands (unlikely), the worst that happens is he sells the property and himself becomes a laborer. "Same boat" my ass.

8/16/2011 10:07:04 AM