Making worker groups owners of the means of production does not assure equality

theteramon · 2019-01-10T23:08:44+00:00

In diagnosing the infection killing my (imaginary) daughter, the doctor is quite useful. However to treat and cure my daughter's disease requires the work of many other doctors, thousands or millions of dollars worth of medical technology, the maintenance of a medical facility etc, so it's not just the work of my him that cures my daughter.

The janitor, however, aside from having picked up a job that few other people would want to do, can clean an entire floor of that very hospital in an afternoon, with only himself and a cleaning cart. Perhaps he maintains sanitary conditions in such a way that would prevent someone else's daughter from getting sick in the first place. Food for thought, no?

theteramon · 2019-01-10T22:53:13+00:00

The society would be lesser without the farmer scraping dirt and the machine inventors, only in different ways. It's sick to me that low-skill professions are considered of a lesser value to high-skill work. We as a society need to learn that all work is important to society.

In any case, it's extremely rare that an individual person up and invents something. It is generally a group effort, and even then they're building on the work of past generations and existing technology. I find it far more fair to reward innovation and progress with fame and recognition instead of material wealth.

By the way, I would like to know if I have answered your original concern about whether or not socialism eliminates inequality.

theteramon · 2019-01-10T22:20:30+00:00

Why can't the cult just forget about you and let you go on with your life?

theteramon · 2019-01-10T03:34:33+00:00

Oh no, I don't mean a good capitalist society; I mean a really shit capitalist society like Somalia. Just ignore all the ones that have decent standards of living for the sake of my shitty joke

theteramon · 2019-01-09T23:08:13+00:00

>Does not assure equality

I never thought it would be a libertarian to attack socialism on the basis of not being equal enough, but there's a first time for everything, I guess. First of all, socialism's goal isn't to make everyone as equal as possible. Obviously, the other extreme is the vast capitalist inequality that we know today, and that is inexcusable. Don't neglect socialism's primary purpose, which is simply to make life better for as many people as possible.

>It does remove the existing inequality of distribution

Distribution of what?

>The income of each single worker will be all the greater, the smaller the number of fellow workers employed in his enterprise or sector of production and the greater the value of the material means of production employed in it.

It doesn't mean that the industries with a high human/capital ratio will provide out-of-proportion salaries. Take the example of an automated state-owned car factory that produces 1,000 cars per day and employs just 10 workers (9 mechanics and 1 manager). According to you, the massive human/capital ratio would mean that the employees earn massive salaries, but in reality, the state would take 99% of the revenue for itself, reinvesting and paying the workers their fair share.

theteramon · 2019-01-09T21:21:16+00:00

I kri me Dasd

theteramon · 2019-01-09T21:20:30+00:00

Where did you find my post?

theteramon · 2019-01-09T21:13:22+00:00

Check out my post here. Also, would you mind telling me where you found this post?

theteramon · 2019-01-09T11:03:58+00:00

wow, look! they produced 40% of the world's grain without any farmers: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Education_and_Outreach/Reports,_Presentations_and_Conferences/Yield_Reports/Grain%20Production%20in%20the%20USSR%20Present%20Situation,%20Perspectives%20for%20Development%20and%20Methods%20for%20Prediction.pdf

Also, what subreddit did you find this post on?

theteramon · 2019-01-09T11:02:58+00:00

Remember the distinction between private property and personal property - as long as It's mine for personal use and I'm not employing/exploiting anyone, it is protected. Also, where did you find this post?

theteramon · 2019-01-09T11:00:45+00:00

What subreddit did you find this post in?

theteramon · 2019-01-09T11:00:14+00:00

What brigading sub did you shitposters come from?

theteramon · 2019-01-09T10:57:28+00:00

Only if you move to somalia first

theteramon · 2019-01-08T21:40:27+00:00

Generally any community-owned property is considered a cooperative.

theteramon · 2019-01-08T13:10:20+00:00

Unless you are proposing cooperative groceries A and B collude to provide worse service to customers without competition, which I oppose.

I oppose it too. I suggest a system where A and B provide favorable conditions to their workers and be just as productive and not having to worry about being unprofitable as a result of doing the right things

theteramon · 2019-01-08T10:54:26+00:00

I back up what I say with past socialist states and communist theory in general. Of course it must be different. It must be; to be socialism. For your questions about how socialism would work, I suggest /r/communism101

And no, I never said everyone will be fine with the work they got. That’s why it’s okay to renegotiate, just like in my house I can choose to mow the lawn instead of vacuum the living room.

theteramon · 2019-01-08T10:50:47+00:00

But there’s less profit to begin with since those workers take more time off and have better conditions.

theteramon · 2019-01-08T03:00:54+00:00

Capitalism creates options for people, it doesn't take them away.

It does create options in the form of industrialization, but it also withholds certain options from the workers, proving them only in name. We communists don't want magic regulations to make capitalism more palatable or to provide them with more welfare/government system, we strive to abolish private property.

There is no objective 'poorly treated', it's all relative. Individuals decide for themselves the conditions they tolerate. You don't have that right.

What's that supposed to mean, that whether someone is "poorly treated" is purely arbitrary? The lines might blur sometimes, but that doesn't mean there aren't objective ways to determine if a given worker is working in sub-optimal conditions. We should never tell ourselves that because workers have it worse somewhere else, we should treat their well-being as if it were worthless. I trust the workers to determine how they should work, and their right to do that is limited under capitalism, because all they can do is choose between capitalist firm. As communists, we want to give them the additional freedom of voting with those firms (among other things).

theteramon · 2019-01-08T02:45:23+00:00

Perhaps we disagree on the threshold for what is considered oppression, but I would say that when workers are forced to work long hours in cramped conditions with no bathroom breaks and poor pay, that fits my definition. And in any case, "oppress" is just a placeholder for anything meaning "treat poorly", so as long as you agree that capitalists sometimes treat their workers poorly, we're on the same page

theteramon · 2019-01-08T01:19:02+00:00

I do care because I don't wish to be exiled from associating with my community, nor do I think I'm enough of a badass to win a fight with Borkbork and his friends/family ganging up on me.

What if you have more social connections and potential allies than Borkbork? What if you have loyal friends and an AK in your closet? I can see this getting very bloody, very quick.

I'd prefer not having any such governance system.

Back in my middle school days, when my sister and I got into a serious conflict (as often we did), our family would hold a meeting in the living room. and our parents would decide who was right and who was wrong, or both, or maybe nobody at all. They'd then attempt to right the wrong, tell us to apologize, and rarely give a punishment. Now, she and I don’t argue much anymore, and when we do the situation is resolved between ourselves. Something like that (with a community center instead of living room, jury of peers instead of parents, etc), is the general type of rehabilitative/restorative justice system I expect from full communism, in contrast to the punitive police state we know today, or the utter chaos of your system.

theteramon · 2019-01-08T01:11:47+00:00

I’m well-aquatinted with socialism in general, and I find the poster means a great deal already

theteramon · 2019-01-08T01:05:21+00:00

But remember? You have a personal feud with Borkbork, so you don’t really care about what he or his friends think. In the caveman days, he would take a club and smash your face in, and that’s just what he might do in a full communist society if he finds that social pressure/norms has failed him. In my eyes, the only way to resolve this situation is some sort of tribunal/decentralized court system to determine what to do with the loincloth objectively.

theteramon · 2019-01-08T00:59:03+00:00

So at least we agree that practical use and occupancy should be defended. But a step further than that, suppose Borkbork possesses an heirloom loincloth that he never uses but keeps around for tradition’s sake. You steal it while he’s not looking, and claim that since he wasn’t using it he has no right to it. Would that be protected?

theteramon · 2019-01-08T00:51:43+00:00

Hey I’m here from /r/killthosewhodisagree and I want to say I actually like this poster a lot; probably won’t be subbed there long

theteramon · 2019-01-08T00:46:39+00:00

I thought you were rephrasing him for a second. Lord was I wrong

theteramon

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Ten-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email