Capitalism v Communism

[Flame]

If by that you mean strategy games, then yeah I dabble. Was way more into RTS during Blizzard's prime though.

so would you go to real war?

the point I'm trying to make is in TV, books and video games it may make seem cool. once you try real communism, and you live it. its not.

capitalism may have its problems. socialism may or may not be better, but communism is not the answer.

 

[Foxi4]

I'm not talking strictly about minimum wage, I'm saying nearly everybody is underpaid relative to the value they're generating for the company. Save for the few people on top who do no work at all, anyway.

You know this one anecdotally also, or do you have some experience at the top? Either way, there's no shame in delegating things to other people if your time is more valuable then the cost benefit from doing the job yourself. The reason why one hires a cleaner is not because they can't clean themselves, but because the few hours they would've spent cleaning would be a net loss compared to what they could be earning by doing their usual job. This applies across all strata of society, from the bottom to the top. Your mom didn't tell you to wash the dishes after dinner because she was lazy, she did that because she was resting after finishing her real job that puts food on the table. There's also no shame in enjoying wealth that is inherited - our ancestors worked for it so that future generations could keep it and enjoy the fruits of their labour. That's their money, not yours - if investing said wealth provides proceeds and dividends then that's great.

Which means you're a part of the problem because you believe taxpayers should have to subsidize corporate wages to an even greater extent than they already are.

I'm part of the solution - I'm the "taxation is theft" guy. You're the guys offering stimulus packages, subsidies and "safety nets" that others have to pay for. Don't blame me for the wastefulness, I didn't start it.

It's a little bit of both. Communism has undeniably existed in certain forms throughout history, though never in the form I would've preferred. And being tried out for a month before a military coup is staged by the CIA is just about as good as never having been tried at all.

Them glow in the darks just ruining our freedom 24/7, dang it.

The market did not self-correct, fast food workers walked out on the job en masse and forced it to correct with external pressure. At least in some places. In others they're still stuck with a worker shortage because boomers refuse to budge on the slave wages.

That's literally a self-correction by the market. You just described the mechanism.

 

[Xzi]

the point I'm trying to make is in TV, books and video games it may seems cool. once you try real communism, and you live it. its not.

capitalism may have its problems. socialism may or may not be better, but communism is not the answer.

The grass is always greener, sure. I'm a democratic socialist, so I'm not even advocating for full-on communism here, but the amount of resistance you run into when trying to make things even slightly better for the working class in America is quite telling. Even fully abolishing slavery (13th amendment) seems a step too far for capitalists.

 

[Foxi4]

The grass is always greener, sure. I'm a democratic socialist, so I'm not even advocating for full-on communism here, but the amount of resistance you run into when trying to make things even slightly better for the working class in America is quite telling. Even fully abolishing slavery (13th amendment) seems a step too far for capitalists.

If I can't have an army of indentured child servants manufacturing cigars for me in a cramped space with no windows or ventilation then am I really free? No. No, I am not.

 

[smf]

If I can't have an army of indentured child servants manufacturing cigars for me in a cramped space with no windows or ventilation then am I really free? No. No, I am not.

Yes you are really free.

Are we really free if we can't murder you painfully and slowly for wanting child servants?

 

[Xzi]

That's their money, not yours - if investing said wealth provides proceeds and dividends then that's great.

We're simply not gonna agree on that, you're taking money away from those who generate revenue and redistributing it to useless leeches on society who rarely leave their luxury hotel rooms. Oligarchy is oligarchy, and it's no more moral or ethical in capitalism than it is in communism.

I'm part of the solution - I'm the "taxation is theft" guy. You're the guys offering stimulus packages, subsidies and "safety nets" that others have to pay for. Don't blame me for the wastefulness, I didn't start it.

But you're advocating for continuing it, which means you're still part of the problem. Take away corporate welfare and we could provide social welfare without raising taxes at all. Hell we'd still have money left over for other things as well.

That's literally a self-correction by the market. You just described the mechanism.

Somebody once told me the market likes stability, but now apparently a general strike every couple years is just a necessary component to keeping employers honest with their wages. Since this sounds just like dealing with Comcast's shitty customer service, I vote them for the official mascot of capitalism.

 

[_abysswalker_]

Poverty often times has a lot to do with character. Not always, but often.

You have no idea whether that's often or not and what kind of character fits the bill really. What's the point of this statement anyway? Cause I can only re-construct it as "if you are poor you probably got what you deserved" - hope I misunderstood.

 

[smf]

I'm part of the solution - I'm the "taxation is theft" guy.

No, you're the problem, not the solution.

Taxation isn't theft. Taxation should be better implemented, but you need it for the common good.

 

[SG854]

It's mostly based on desperation, if you think capitalism is great because you can watch all the desperate people running around trying to find a job that pays enough money to support their family while having to do things that you aren't prepared to do for less money than you get. Then you're the piece of shit wrong with capitalism.

There are some jobs that are better which are locked off to some people based on their background, which ironically is that rich people want to live under socialism that benefits them but not the poor.

A system where you can apply for someone elses job and get it if you demand a lower pay than them would be proper capitalism.

That's just how life is. We were living in desperation for most of human history. When running around as hunter gatheres, worrying everyday whether or not we'll be attacked by animals. It wasn't until recently especially nowadays where we are living in a much safer time overall that doesn't have to deal with stuff like that. TV's, video game cosnoles, taking vacations to different countries wasn't possible in the past.

Desperate is the only way we'll get people to work jobs that otherwise no one will work. People live a more comfortable life because someone out there is doing all the uncomfortable stuff that other people won't do. Digging ditches to build roads, collecting garbage, working late night shifts for when you need an item or food at night, working in shipping factories at night to make sure packages gets delivered on time, working the high risk emergency medicine.

Unless you think these people shouldn't do these jobs. Because these are jobs only desperate people go to. Should these jobs exist or not?

 

[smf]

You have no idea whether that's often or not and what kind of character fits the bill really. What's the point of this statement anyway? Cause I can only re-construct it as "if you are poor you probably got what you deserved" - hope I misunderstood.

No, I don't think you misunderstood.

Foxi4 is one of those people who got lucky and then looks down on people who aren't lucky.

If poverty is deserved, then he deserves to be homeless. The universe doesn't work like that though.

 

[FAST6191]

On wages, particularly minimum ones, then I do need to inject a favourite phrase at this point. That being the real minimum wage is zero -- if I am paying through the nose then I want something for my money. No olds, single parents, disabled people, dumb people, students with odd schedules, sick people... of course I will not say that when you don't get a call back (if I can't find a gap in your job history, grades I care about, someone else in the pile that was better... then my HR person is being fired too) but we all know the real reason.

Though more generally do learn game theory enough to negotiate your salary and basic accounting too.
That being how much do you cost (more than your wages if they also have to do pensions, any food, liability insurance and so on), how much do you bring in (would accounting say you are a cost/expense or a producer, can vary between companies as well -- my mechanic maintaining my fleet of lorries is a cost, my mechanic I sell the services of to those walking through the door is a different matter even if they do the same job), some idea of your efficiency (back to the mechanic thing then maintaining one of my limited number of bays/lifts when I could have someone that does twice as much* in the same time represents a loss according to most accountants). Similarly know the cost of acquiring new staff even if you are the one looking to be staff (or stay being staff, or negotiating a raise) -- how rare are they, how quickly will they be up to speed, how easy is it to find a replacement (which also factors back into the whether you are an expense or an earner for the company). There are other factors too -- whizz kid that leaves after 3 months leaves me in the lurch if it is a skilled job so I might take the proven one with kids and a mortgage even if they are not as hot as I know the crushing demands of debt and kids will keep them coming back, though the interview and job posting will use phrases like this company will treat you like family and want someone committed to the future of the company. Also why anybody with poisonous frog coloured hair and a likelihood to speak to HR** on occasions other than being hired or fired will be ignored as well.

*if you can't walk into a job and size everybody up as far as who works hardest, who has the most skills, who can sort the bastard legacy things and so forth then gain that as well. Any manager vaguely competent, and any technically proficient person will likely be able to watch for half an hour and give you a very good guess as to who is who there.

**in case it was not obvious then HR is not your friend. They are paid by the company (in economics this is known as an incentive) and there to mean you cause as little grief to the company as possible, you can go rot for all they care as long as it does not come back on them. Or more generally there is a reason the resources are humans for them.

Take all that to heart and the world of work gets a lot less mysterious, also will be able to see why "what they are/you are worth" is a reassuring platitude at best (usually offered by a politician that wants something from you) and utter drivel if you are being realistic. Yes it sucks that the gravy train that saw your possibly great grant parents on up do enough that high school can plausibly pass them and then own a house by 25 solely from a factory job, don't know that there is much that can be done about that though just yet if we are going to continue to value personal freedoms.

That kind of claim is ridiculous, ask any Chinese immigrant how things work back at home.

I'll take that bet. Guy that runs the local Confucius Institute says things run like a dream.

 

[smf]

Unless you think these people shouldn't do these jobs. Because these are jobs only desperate people go to. Should these jobs exist or not?

A rota system might be fairer.

Or some system where the more money you make, the more toilets you have to clean. Like community service but enforced by the IRS.

 

[chrisrlink]

Corruption is, and always has been, a huge problem in communist and post-communist societies. Communist administrations are objectively some of the most corrupt, by any metric, for the reasons listed above and more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_China
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Cuba
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_North_Korea

All of these countries score very poorly in the CPI, or the Corruption Perceptions Index. Sorting out any administrative issues more often than not requires greasing multiple hands - the more communist the country is, the worse it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

You will notice that nearly all of Europe and North America score very well on the CPI. Post-communist and communist countries not so much.

View attachment 269189

I was also unaware of environmental issues that crop up suddenly, prompted solely by regime change. Funny how that works.
I am familiar with how the U.S.S.R. grew to be a superpower in such a short time frame - by way of annexation and exploitation of its immediate neighbours, including Poland, my home. It's also fairly easy to feed a growing population if you systematically murder large swathes of it, as was the case in Ukraine.
...person? And a communist? That's an oxymoron.

Jokes aside, me not being a huge fan of the government does not make me an anarchist, and I do not feel kinship towards anarchists. Government is necessary and has very specific, limited functions. What I oppose is the government overstepping the boundaries of its authority and intruding on the private lives of the citizens. There's a big difference.
You're right - they're worth less. Amazon has even made huge strides in operating stores with *no* front of house staff, only warehouse workers, which too can be replaced by machinery in many cases. Their contribution is just not that valuable, and there's an ample amount of people looking for jobs in retail. If you feel unsatisfied with your wage, there are 10 other people with the same skill set available. The pandemic is a special circumstance because the government is actively disincentivising returning to work, so there's a bit of a labour crunch. For now.

I honestly feel the US's CPI is outdated since 2016 (coincidence?), to at most orange Corruption in the US has grown mor rampant even since Trumps Departure not saying it wasn't bad with him but anti voter bills anti LBGTQ bills are being pushed or have passed in droves within the past few weeks to months and who's passing that crap? Why the same racist corrupt party who gave trump power

 

[SG854]

A rota system might be fairer.

Or some system where the more money you make, the more toilets you have to clean. Like community service but enforced by the IRS.

So punished for making too much money?

I don't know how popular that system will be. Especially if they are a garbage man that makes more then minimum wage, dealing with toxic waste and at risk for contracting diseases, for then to be having to be punished for making more then average minimum wage and forced into labor by cleaning toilets.

Usually higher risk shitier jobs are getting payed more so you'll be punishing those people. Who are already going through lots of crap to provide for their families.

How many people will actually would want that? And I mean normal people not the rich.

 

[smf]

Though more generally do learn game theory enough to negotiate your salary and basic accounting too.

They should teach game theory in schools and offer a free wage negotiation service, to make it a real zero sum game.
That would solve a lot of the inequality.

Something that stops CEO's creaming so much money off the top would be good too.

So punished for making too much money?

Punished for abusing your luck and manipulating your position, right.

It would require some other changes as well, because the people who would normally do those jobs would still need paying despite their work being done by jeff bezos.

I think most people would be perfectly happy to find out that they won the lottery and some rich person was covering their shifts. So they could have time to enroll in a college course etc

You'd need to come up with an algorithm for it, but say once you'd earned over a certain amount more than your lowest paid employees you could be forced to do their job. Which would ultimately mean that people at the top wouldn't want to get paid far more than their lowest paid employees.

 

[SG854]

They should teach game theory in schools and offer a free wage negotiation service, to make it a real zero sum game.
That would solve a lot of the inequality.

Something that stops CEO's creaming so much money off the top would be good too.



Punished for abusing your luck and manipulating your position, right.

It would require some other changes as well, because the people who would normally do those jobs would still need paying despite their work being done by jeff bezos.

The economy is not a zero sum game. Both sides benifit. You pay them money and you get goods and services in return. You both benefit.

Your life is much better off because of it. You have a refrigerator, electricity, a TV. You are living a more comfortable life because of it. Again would you rather live in a cave 20,000 years ago or today? Or even live 200 years ago or today which is better?

They should teach game theory in schools and offer a free wage negotiation service, to make it a real zero sum game.
That would solve a lot of the inequality.

Something that stops CEO's creaming so much money off the top would be good too.



Punished for abusing your luck and manipulating your position, right.

It would require some other changes as well, because the people who would normally do those jobs would still need paying despite their work being done by jeff bezos.

I think most people would be perfectly happy to find out that they won the lottery and some rich person was covering their shifts. So they could have time to enroll in a college course etc

That I can get behind. If a corporation is abusing their position and doing things especially illegal to restrict a free market then the market is no longer free.

I do not agree with luck though. Some are lucky and some are not. That's just life. We shouldn't punish people for hitting the lottery.

 

[smf]

I do not agree with luck though. Some are lucky and some are not. That's just life. We shouldn't punish people for hitting the lottery.

Yes we definitely should be punishing people who are far luckier than the unluckiest.
Otherwise it causes too many social problems.

What about you can pay yourself how much you want, but if an employee is paid less than 1/4 what you are paid then they are legally allowed to kill you. That would put luck back into it and even out skills, because some people are better at murder than others but society puts limits on what they are allowed to do with that luck.

I actually think that communism within a company is not a bad idea, if you have 20 employees working 8 hours a day then you require all those employees to make money. So why should 1 of them get paid 100 times more than the others? They all have to eat, they all have to put in effort.

 

[Deleted User]

The economy is not a zero sum game. Both sides benifit. You pay them money and you get goods and services in return. You both benefit

One benefits more than the other. And it's not employees. Money is power. Who has more money? The owner. Why do you think amazon could get away with making workers piss in bottles? Why do you think crunch culture is still acceptable in the video game industry and keeps happening? That's just two examples out of many. I don't see many people on the top who feels like they are about to drop from work exhaustion, or worry about the lack of overtime, or the lack of any control over job. Where a lot of places here in the united states the employer can just fire you for no reason at all.
That hasn't happened by chance. That wasn't consented by the working class. That's capitalists on the top pushing law and the government over. There's a reason wages aren't updated yearly anymore. And that's those ontop.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I've answered the question of index validity above. University researchers have no conflict of interests here, the entire index is commissioned

Again and your not listening to the problem with it. Financial backing. From ExxonMobil and other western countries. At this point if you want to keep ignoring this point we can end this strand of discussion here.

You actually might be from another planet. Here's the definition of the word "corruption", so we can talk about the same thing without hippie dippie hyperbolic terminology.

So... you don't see any problem with exxon backing a person who matches their views, giving large political contributions. Which happens to add to the person's ability to say, put advertisements up? No? You don't see that as a problem? Even though that would be bribery, doesn't have to be text book corruption. I guess we live on two different earths then.

 

[SG854]

Yes we definitely should be punishing people who are far luckier than the unluckiest.
Otherwise it causes too many social problems.

What about you can pay yourself how much you want, but if an employee is paid less than 1/4 what you are paid then they are legally allowed to kill you. That would put luck back into it and even out skills, because some people are better at murder than others but society puts limits on what they are allowed to do with that luck.

I actually think that communism within a company is not a bad idea, if you have 20 employees working 8 hours a day then you require all those employees to make money. So why should 1 of them get paid 100 times more than the others? They all have to eat, they all have to put in effort.

Not everyone who is lucky abuses their luck. Some are grateful and even give back.

One benefits more than the other. And it's not employees. Money is power. Who has more money? The owner. Why do you think amazon could get away with making workers piss in bottles? Why do you think crunch culture is still acceptable in the video game industry and keeps happening? That's just two examples out of many. I don't see many people on the top who feels like they are about to drop from work exhaustion, or worry about the lack of overtime, or the lack of any control over job. Where a lot of places here in the united states the employer can just fire you for no reason at all.
That hasn't happened by chance. That wasn't consented by the working class. That's capitalists on the top pushing law and the government over. There's a reason wages aren't updated yearly anymore. And that's those ontop.

The workers are payed before the owner even sees a pay check.

In the case of the ultra rich like Amazon. The pee in the bottle thing is not unerversially true. There is many warehouse throughout the country. That was only true in some location. But not all locations.

There's some places like Burger King that treats their workers like crap. But some BK locations where the manger is cool. Usually the top head guy can't manage all locations by themselves so they employ managers at individual locations to help run the buisneses. It's really the individual and not the company as a whole if the manager is crap. And will get fired if things get out of hand.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

One benefits more than the other. And it's not employees. Money is power. Who has more money? The owner. Why do you think amazon could get away with making workers piss in bottles? Why do you think crunch culture is still acceptable in the video game industry and keeps happening? That's just two examples out of many. I don't see many people on the top who feels like they are about to drop from work exhaustion, or worry about the lack of overtime, or the lack of any control over job. Where a lot of places here in the united states the employer can just fire you for no reason at all.
That hasn't happened by chance. That wasn't consented by the working class. That's capitalists on the top pushing law and the government over. There's a reason wages aren't updated yearly anymore. And that's those ontop.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


Again and your not listening to the problem with it. Financial backing. From ExxonMobil and other western countries. At this point if you want to keep ignoring this point we can end this strand of discussion here.

So... you don't see any problem with exxon backing a person who matches their views, giving large political contributions. Which happens to add to the person's ability to say, put advertisements up? No? You don't see that as a problem? Even though that would be bribery, doesn't have to be text book corruption. I guess we live on two different earths then.

Also the top managers work way more hours then me. I always told my friends that I can't work the hours they work. They work for hours and hours. It's crazy how little free time they have.

 

[Foxi4]

We're simply not gonna agree on that, you're taking money away from those who generate revenue and redistributing it to useless leeches on society who rarely leave their luxury hotel rooms. Oligarchy is oligarchy, and it's no more moral or ethical in capitalism than it is in communism.

There's nothing to agree or disagree about here. They pay employees to do job X which generates a product Y. They sell that product and use the revenue to pay the workers and keep the business going. Whatever is left at the end of that transaction belongs to them, since they created the enterprise that generates said revenue. Nobody is being robbed - you guys are the ones trying to rob people.

But you're advocating for continuing it, which means you're still part of the problem. Take away corporate welfare and we could provide social welfare without raising taxes at all. Hell we'd still have money left over for other things as well.

I advocate against you. That's a very specific thing.

Somebody once told me the market likes stability, but now apparently a general strike every couple years is just a necessary component to keeping employers honest with their wages. Since this sounds just like dealing with Comcast's shitty customer service, I vote them for the official mascot of capitalism.

The market does like stability, and also self-corrects when needed. Those statements do not cancel each other out.

No, you're the problem, not the solution.

Taxation isn't theft. Taxation should be better implemented, but you need it for the common good.

Joke flew over your head, as most things tend to, which is why I normally don't respond to you anymore.

Again and your not listening to the problem with it. Financial backing. From ExxonMobil and other western countries. At this point if you want to keep ignoring this point we can end this strand of discussion here.

So... you don't see any problem with exxon backing a person who matches their views, giving large political contributions. Which happens to add to the person's ability to say, put advertisements up? No? You don't see that as a problem? Even though that would be bribery, doesn't have to be text book corruption. I guess we live on two different earths then.

I don't have a problem with it because I know how commissioning a study works. You on the other hand engage in conspiracy theories - if you want to question the validity of a peer-reviewed source, you must support that claim. The CPI index was constructed by independent researchers who were merely commissioned by the association in question (Transparency International), a nonprofit, non-governmental association that is sponsored by a wide variety of donors. They're even partnered with the United Nations, are they unreliable too? I'm sorry that I didn't ask the Chinese or the Cuban government if they're corrupt or not - I have a feeling they would say "of course not", but that had no backing of research behind it. Until you can provide a study that disproves these findings, it's 1 to nil.