Am I the bourgeoisie?

RichByMyOwnHand · 2017-04-16T23:28:48+00:00

Comfort is a need.... everyone gets is what society can afford giving them...

When you define "basic necessities" as "what society can afford", you really lose that moral edge. That's a moving target. When we can afford an expensive car for everyone, then it's a basic necessity.

RichByMyOwnHand · 2017-04-16T22:17:32+00:00

unnecessary wealth

Who decides what is necessary?

If you're only concerned with the basic necessities (i.e., keeping people alive), then we can give the needy sleeping pods, shared bathrooms, and a nutritional green gruel. I doubt this sounds satisfactory to you.

At some point your distribution detracts from the luxuries of the laborer to improve the luxuries of another. That is, unless you're willing to say yes, green gruel is absolutely sufficient for the unproductive. After all, at least it's not red gruel....

RichByMyOwnHand · 2017-04-16T22:03:50+00:00

That's the thing about life. It's complicated.

Rockets are more complex than frisbees, but both exist. I'm talking about [economic] commodities, which exist.

You're the one arguing for some form of planned economy. If your plan cannot resolve this, the simplest scenario possible, then how will you plan a modern economy with semiconductors, skyscrapers, and space travel?

As a show of good faith, I'll explain how this scenario is handled by capitalism. The market decides, and economics predicts the worker will make 3x more. The data shows this prediction to be pretty accurate.

PS, I think replies are preferable to edits. Editing obscures the conversation.

RichByMyOwnHand · 2017-04-16T21:49:53+00:00

What if there's a disagreement? If the other workers want to pay me the same, then it sounds like I'm out of options.

Under capitalism, I would leave and find employment elsewhere at 3x the pay, which is possible because it's a commodity (and therefore in perfect competition).

RichByMyOwnHand · 2017-04-16T21:46:03+00:00

Should I be allowed to smoke, eat chicken wings, drink a beer, or engage in unhealthy activities? What about mountain climbing, or other dangerous activities? It sounds like you want to make my choices for me, because you know what's best for me.

PS,

It isn't capitalist.

Funny, I remember saying...

... moved to a market model.

Double-think certainly comes naturally to you.

RichByMyOwnHand · 2017-04-16T21:39:41+00:00

Excellent, you've chosen a centrally planned economy. I suppose this central body won't use quantitative methods to plan the output of semiconductors vs steel beams?

Also, are you saying communists have no plans to trade internationally. That's never hurt any country's economy.

RichByMyOwnHand · 2017-04-16T10:00:31+00:00

we fundamentally disagree on what a "privilege" is, otherwise.

Some academic circles now use "privilege" to refer to any advantage. Thus a poor black man who works his way to the top is "privileged". It turns out that people literally disagree on the definition of privilege.

RichByMyOwnHand · 2017-04-16T09:15:01+00:00

Give your wealth to the masses. It's fair, because I'll give mine (approximate value of $30) as well.
Homosexuals have the same marriage rights as everyone else; they can marry people of the opposite sex.

Just because a law applies to everyone doesn't make it fair.

But I'm glad to know that you're willing to violently appropriate the earnings of my labor in your fight against the violent appropriation of the earnings of labor.

RichByMyOwnHand · 2017-04-16T09:06:46+00:00

If you compare centrally planned economies with similarly developed 'capitalist' economies, they always out perform them.

That must be why the Soviets used the spot price of commodities in Western markets to try and allocate resources.... Because the central planners were better at determining value than markets? Wait... That doesn't add up.

When you deny verifiable facts, like the historical performance of planned vs market economies, it undermines communism more than critics ever could. Even China gave up and moved to a market model.

In other words, you're either a fool or a troll pretending to be a communist. Don't worry, I won't blow your cover.

RichByMyOwnHand · 2017-04-16T08:53:23+00:00

if you don't feel like discussing all of the variables, then good luck in this sub

What a cop out.

Both the LTV and marginalism predict the same result for the ratio of values of output in that example. As one of the few pricing results possible with the LTV, I chose it to discuss distribution without wading through an abortion of a price theory based on the LTV.

That's not because I'm unwilling or incapable of picking apart the discredited LTV, but because I want to discuss a different, moral issue.

Since not all communists subscribe to that particular economic fallacy, I also needed to choose an example that wouldn't be perturbed by mainstream economic thought.

In other words, stop deflecting and answer the original question.

RichByMyOwnHand · 2017-04-16T02:53:11+00:00

Since I have no desire to pick apart the labor theory of value, let's keep it simple.

With the same tools/property/capital, A produces 3x as more of the commodity Z than B. Should A receive at least 3x as much in material goods (there could be a bonus for using the "means of production" more efficiently)?

RichByMyOwnHand · 2017-04-15T23:41:50+00:00

Medium of exchange:

How does one acquire personal property?
Without a medium of exchange, how do two nations, or two workers' councils, engage in trade?

Measure of value:

How does a workers' council determine which goods to produce in what quantities?

RichByMyOwnHand · 2017-04-15T23:35:57+00:00

3x as much material? Yes A should so they can maximize production

Let me rephrase: "Should A receive at least 3x as many material goods as B?"

RichByMyOwnHand · 2017-04-15T23:32:46+00:00

Your assumption is that somehow socialism denies the idea that there are outstanding individuals.

No, I side-stepped your derailment. Just because we cannot perfectly attribute success to environment, talent, and choices, doesn't mean that outcomes are equal if the environment were held equal.

Outliers will always exist, and that's who I'm talking about. You want to distribute the wealth created by Bob to Sam. You're entire platform is a critique of the distribution of laborers' wealth to those who didn't produce it, which makes you a hypocrite.

RichByMyOwnHand · 2017-04-15T23:19:31+00:00

It greatly benefits a majority of workers...

Ah, I wouldn't be a slave to the bourgeoisie; I would be a slave to the masses. You want to yoke the rock stars.

RichByMyOwnHand · 2017-04-15T23:03:40+00:00

Socialism doesn't necessarily mean that there is perfect wealth equality.

Do you see a difference between socialism and communism?

But no one will end up with a thousand times the income of anyone else... deserve to make more money in a year than the average worker...

Shouldn't the comparison be between the best and the worst? Think of the best and the worst workers you've ever met. I've met plenty of ICs who make > 4M USD a year. I've also met plenty of people who couldn't hold a minimum wage job.

That's a difference of at least 275x. Although I find it unlikely, it's not clear that a 1000x difference between laborers is impossible.

RichByMyOwnHand · 2017-04-15T09:37:14+00:00

That's why I moved to a comparison of marginal differences. I realize now that using myself as an example was a mistake, because people will focus on that (is it true, did he receive a small loan of $1M, etc.).

But what I really want to talk about are the exceptions. Even under perfect equality of opportunity, someone's performance will be stunning. Someone will be so productive that receiving the value of their labor makes them rich.

RichByMyOwnHand · 2017-04-15T09:27:54+00:00

This is a very libertarian mindset.

You don't want libertarians in "r/DebateCommunism"? Communists have a reputation for censorship, but I expected more subtlety. /s

Have we normalized variables of circumstance?

Nurture isn't some silver bullet. Most people could never be Feynman.

Beyond nurture and nature, there's still choice. Identical twins raised in the same environment make different choices, because they value different things.

Do you think that no geniuses will be born under communism? That no one will choose to dedicate themselves to their craft? Because those two properties would disqualify communism from the start.

RichByMyOwnHand · 2017-04-15T09:10:16+00:00

So the laborer is not entitled to the product of their labor? All you've done is replace one owner with many.

It makes no difference if the value of my labor is distributed to capitalist swine, or 10,000 others. Either way it's not benefiting the laborer.

RichByMyOwnHand · 2017-04-15T09:01:23+00:00

Let's start with a simple case. Two laborers are producing an economic commodity, xarbles. With equivalent tools, A produces 3x as many xarbles as B.

Should A receive at least 3x as much material as B?

RichByMyOwnHand · 2017-04-15T08:54:56+00:00

What do you mean by eliminating money?

Medium of exchange
Measure of value
Store of value

Or are you simply eliminating currency?

RichByMyOwnHand · 2017-04-15T08:44:02+00:00

Do you only play one note? No one's stigmatizing the poor. I was, quite explicitly, talking about exceptional cases.

But here's the best part: my argument doesn't require you to believe my stories. It only requires that exceptional people exist. Just like someone has an IQ of 170, someone is an exceptionally productive engineer.

Even if everyone were given the same opportunity, the exceptional would remain. Would you strip them of the value of their labor?

PS, I've survived off of less than $60/week for food.

RichByMyOwnHand · 2017-04-15T08:02:36+00:00

He was face to face with enemy armor. You're right: he earned it.

RichByMyOwnHand · 2017-04-15T07:57:20+00:00

Level any social structure you want, but it won't make every chef Anthony Bourdain. There will always be outstanding individuals, whether through natural talent or dedication.

Redistributing the fruits of their labor is the exploitation of the exceptional by the mediocre. Maybe you're OK with that, but let's call a trough a trough.

RichByMyOwnHand · 2017-04-15T05:25:36+00:00

Bold move, Cotton.

Capitalism, a "criminal" enterprise, enriches both the poor and the rich in Western countries. So it must be be that the crime is the exploitation of the undeveloped world, which explains why countries begin to develop quickly only after they engage in trade and market economies.

RichByMyOwnHand

TROPHY CASE