free market

[SPQR]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

Sweeden, Norway, Switzerland, Canada, Japan, Australia

Can you show me that UN-Index please, but form my knowledge of those countries and looking at the definition of socialism, I wouldn't classify those countries as socialist countries. They may have a very good social system but that doesn't mean they are socialist countries.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Yeah but who wants a high life expectancy, just because you live longer you think your so good, in the USA we say 'to hell with longevity, live fast die young'.

Is that what we say, Kemosabe?

Last I checked, life expectancy at birth in the US was reasonably high. And as soon as we outlaw tobacco, automobiles, firearms and alcohol, I'm sure it will be much higher.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

they would even have computers right now to post on that forum. no, the captial is the evil and only exploids the poor

I'm sure the people on the forum you've linked to are idiots (but I can't speak German very well so I can't confirm that). However, the above argument you've made is rubbish.

The argument is not whether capitalism (or feudalism, or whatever really) has never achieved anything. It's whether certain changes would improve things. Saying "But capitalism invented computers!" is silly and is wholly irrelevent. Without feudalism, it's debatable whether we would have had say, roads, or nations, or whatever. Does that make feudalism a good thing?

[Baron Morte]

I think that capitalism did that in a fraction of time it would take for a comunist nation to do it. But on the other hand, the average quality of life falls dramatically.

[SPQR]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Or maybe that's a less developed country - live.

Less developed why? The gouvernment back then tried really hard to build up a nation with the ideology of Marx. Marx was like a God here. Statues of him everywhere and they even tried to build up the perfect Socialist City called Karl-Marx-Stadt (Chemnitz today).
Eastern-Germany was still one of the most developed socialist countries, yet it collapsed. No miracle if you look how well the Western part developed at the same time.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I'm sure the people on the forum you've linked to are idiots (but I can't speak German very well so I can't confirm that). However, the above argument you've made is rubbish.

The argument is not whether capitalism (or feudalism, or whatever really) has never achieved anything. It's whether certain changes would improve things. Saying "But capitalism invented computers!" is silly and is wholly irrelevent. Without feudalism, it's debatable whether we would have had say, roads, or nations, or whatever. Does that make feudalism a good thing?

ofc you can always change something and try to make things better for everyone, i dont want a puppet state that is run by the largest companies and cant make any changes neither, but so far all attempts of socialism (i think you define the term the same way i do) failed.
that didnt happen because of the evil dictators who exploided the masses to build a large military, but because the system itself doesnt work. without a free market there never is any need for innovation and development (unless ofc, you have a military race with another superpower and need a powerful military). the whole concept is just doomed to stagnation and if capitalism means that there are a few people who are richer than others, but in the end everyone, even the poor are better off than with socialism, i can very well ive with it.

[Baron Morte]

First one to point out that poor from capitalism are in a condition which is a lot worse than the one of the regular socialist citizen

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

First one to point out that poor from capitalism are a lot worse than regular socialist citizen

that depends on how you define poor and if you think if people feel better if everyone has to live in equally poor conditions.

[Baron Morte]

People in africa die of hunger in a chain of events directly connected with capitalist people just being ignorant and/or indifferent.

People in Nort Korea died of hunger due to crop failures, western embargoes, and utter moronic leaders

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by SPQR

Less developed why? The gouvernment back then tried really hard to build up a nation with the ideology of Marx. Marx was like a God here. Statues of him everywhere and they even tried to build up the perfect Socialist City called Karl-Marx-Stadt (Chemnitz today).
Eastern-Germany was still one of the most developed socialist countries, yet it collapsed. No miracle if you look how well the Western part developed at the same time.

You don't understand. Socialism can't fail. If a socialist country fails well, then, it must not have been a socialist country to begin with.

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

First one to point out that poor from capitalism are in a condition which is a lot worse than the one of the regular socialist citizen

Exactly. The Berlin wall was built to keep the poor capitalists out.

[wu_trax]

to come back to the orginal topic:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3287263.stm
seems to look more like its the US which doesnt manage to sell its goods in china is the problem, not the chinese goverment.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Exactly. The Berlin wall was built to keep the poor capitalists out.

hey, it was build to protect the citzens of the GDR from facism.

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

that depends on how you define poor and if you think if people feel better if everyone has to live in equally poor conditions.

Sortof an interesting basic question isnt it? It is better to have a society where everyone lives at 60%, or a society where 2/3 live at 40% or below and 1/3 lives at 90% or above?

(The percentages are just contrivances to make a point, they dont mean anything specific)

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

(The percentages are just contrivances to make a point, they dont mean anything specific)

thats the problem with the argument. you cant say what these figures really are.
(and the 100% wont be the same in both systems, at least not over a longer term. meaning: on the long term the 40% in the one system might result in a higher standard of living than the 60% of the other)

[Baron Morte]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Exactly. The Berlin wall was built to keep the poor capitalists out.

You must be kidding to think that there are "poor people" in the sense of the word in europe.
I only hope you are kidding.

[SPQR]

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

You must be kidding to think that there are "poor people" in the sense of the word in europe.
I only hope you are kidding.

Sorry, he is just freely quoting the eastern-german gouvernment from back then

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

You must be kidding to think that there are "poor people" in the sense of the word in europe.
I only hope you are kidding.

The people of former yugoslavia may disagree.

[Baron Morte]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

The people of former yugoslavia may disagree.

every generalisation is flawed.
And you are picking a coutry thorn by civil war. Try a stable one.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

People in africa die of hunger in a chain of events directly connected with capitalist people just being ignorant and/or indifferent.

People in Nort Korea died of hunger due to crop failures, western embargoes, and utter moronic leaders

your posts in this thread are getting exponentially stupider


Dante: fair enough, I might be thinking of a different index then. Id still say that those categories you listed favour socialist countries though, since they are measuring the % of people with access /possession of facility X, rather than looking at the quality of services open to the middle/upper classes . Countries with more egalitarian systems are obviously going to do better than those that dont focus on getting everyone to round about the same level. Also, GDP is utterly irrelevant to quality of life, since it doesnt take taxation etc into account.

[Bunga]

Originally Posted by SPQR

Can you show me that UN-Index please, but form my knowledge of those countries and looking at the definition of socialism, I wouldn't classify those countries as socialist countries. They may have a very good social system but that doesn't mean they are socialist countries.

There has already been a link to it posted in this thread. Just go to www.un.org and search in the Economic section for the HDI.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by SPQR

All those things didn't really damage Western Germany, did they?
People in Eastern Germany again were not as happy...

I think the dead people would hasten to disagree. As some random fag once wrote in some paper I have no interest in ever reading more people (per thousand) died in capitalist india due to famines/starvation than did in maoist china in the same period.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

If we had always been comunists, and capitalism would arise in the 2oth century, im pretty certain that it would fail and collapse in a fraction of the time, and also it would have done terrible unspoken tragedies on its population

That's the worst argument in history. The only reason communism was bloody invented was that capitalism had huge problems. As Marx would say the essential nature of humanity precludes the advent of communism before the effects of capitalism take place, or something.

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

every generalisation is flawed.
And you are picking a coutry thorn by civil war. Try a stable one.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say "stop making them".



PS Discussions on how well western Europe did after WWII are just crap as it completely avoids that sterling example of socialist thinking (or let's keep the evil commies out) Marshall Plan. It's like praising the architectural skills of someone who just shot the architect in the head and stole his plans.

[SPQR]

Originally Posted by Bunga

There has already been a link to it posted in this thread. Just go to www.un.org and search in the Economic section for the HDI.

Thank you Mister *********. I still can't find the index that classifies those countries mentioned above as socialistic countries. If you have found that index, it surely wouldn't be a problem for you to just give the link, but I suppose you haven't....

[SPQR]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

PS Discussions on how well western Europe did after WWII are just crap as it completely avoids that sterling example of socialist thinking (or let's keep the evil commies out) Marshall Plan. It's like praising the architectural skills of someone who just shot the architect in the head and stole his plans.

Of course the Marshall Plan was everything that contributed to western Europe's success after WWII. NEVER could we accept that it had somehow something to do with their capitilistic systems (yes, not pure capitalism but surely not socialism).

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by SPQR

NEVER could we accept that it had somehow something to do with their capitilistic systems

I think the point is that a great proportion of the world adopted similar economic systems to Western Europe (in the post-war period, and indeed today). Certainly, if we look at proportion of social provision (or nationalised industries), etc - parts of Latin America were certainly "more capitalist" than Europe. Out of the all regions which adopted "near capitalism" Europe (and North America/Japan obviously) did best (i.e. ended up with highest living standards).

We can draw a number of conflicting conclusions from this, if we wish.
1. The white man is clearly superior, and any country where he is based will do well. The Japs are clearly honorary whites (South Africa style!)

2. (Western) Europe and North America (if we take 1945 as our baseline) even where damaged by war started from a far higher evel of development than the rest of the world, so it's only natural this trend would continue.

3. Western Europe, North America (and indeed parts of the Pacific Rim) simply were better managed for reasons unknown.

4. The nature of Imperialism means that the limited resources in the world are disproportionately controlled by the powerful, and their allies. The countries which fell outside this favoured circle were either directly attacked, or had limited access to external resources (for a variety fo reasons).

5. Some random other reasons.

So saying "Western Europe's sucess is down to capitalism" is absolutley fine (and indeed, probably slightly more correct is we take the longer term view going back to 1492) but then we need to start to think of why capitalism didn't do so well elsewhere, even where ocassionally tried enthusiastically.

[laputa]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

PS Discussions on how well western Europe did after WWII are just crap as it completely avoids that sterling example of socialist thinking (or let's keep the evil commies out) Marshall Plan. It's like praising the architectural skills of someone who just shot the architect in the head and stole his plans.

How on earth can you classify the Marshall Plan as an example of socialist thinking?

Rebuilding Europe through rapidly growing economies in a stable environment was an absolute necessity for the American economy. Not only as a potential market but also to get at least a part of the huge amounts of debts paid back as fast as possible. I wouldn't classify this as socialist thinking. But it isn't really capitalistic either. It simply was the only logical thing to do and in America's best interest. Politically and economically.

[laputa]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

5. Some random other reasons.

e.g. climate

[laputa]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

so·cial·ism n.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I don't actually agree withis discription of socialism but it's good enough for you.

For a 'true' definition I would have gone to the Manifesto, you can all no doubt help me find the bit which talks about widescale state intevention because after reading it a dozen times I still haven't come across it.

How do you know what is good enough for me?? What means of production are you actually talking about? The ones in the US or the ones in Europe? If we are talking about Europe and Germany as the the largest beneficiary of the plan in particular the means of producing and distributing goods were indeed in public hands - at least to a large extent. However, this was an indispensable step towards stabilizing a country destroyed nearly to its very bone. There had to be a central authority to distribute foreign exchange, to establish a government and to lead Germany back on the path of democracy.
But the Marshall plan did not create this system, it merely used it for distributing its help.

[laputa]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

I wouldn't call the AMrshall plan socialist but if I try to explain it to you it might push out other important information from your tiny mind.

I don't know you, never talked to you but I am really interested to know from what part of my posts did you get the impression that I have a 'tiny mind'?

Instead of turning to insults you should have rather tried to explain your point.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

I apologise I'm very tired I'm sure you are a great thinker, I was merely trying to goad you into a proper argument so that I wouldn't feel like I was just spamming the forums for the sake of it.

I like your nick btw, it is an excellent film.

The basis of my theory is that in fact US and European planners are anti-capitalist, they understand as indeed Adam Smith understood that capitalism is a bad thing and thus OK for the masses, but big business should be protected from it. We don't really have capitalism but rather a sort fo inverse socialism where the poor subsidise the rich through taxation.

http://www.netaccountants.com/income.html

[Nodrog]

Youre claiming that a country with a hideously large welfare state, and which forces everyone who isnt poor to pay 40% income tax + other taxes (so around 55-60% in total) is anti-socialist and geared towards helping the rich?

rite

[Dante Hicks]

Rich people don't pay employment (income) taxes.

[queball]

What do you have against the service sector?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by laputa

How on earth can you classify the Marshall Plan as an example of socialist thinking?

Rebuilding Europe through rapidly growing economies in a stable environment was an absolute necessity for the American economy. Not only as a potential market but also to get at least a part of the huge amounts of debts paid back as fast as possible. I wouldn't classify this as socialist thinking. But it isn't really capitalistic either. It simply was the only logical thing to do and in America's best interest. Politically and economically.

The Marshall Plan involved giving billions of dollars to European countries which would not be paid back in order to boost them to a level whereby interactions would be mutually beneficial as people moved onto an equal market footing. The plan was obviously motivated by fears of the Soviet Union/a need for an enemy to perpetuate the system of corporate welfare (depending on who you talk to) but the effects of it, and the plan itself, were quite clearly socialist. Surprisingly to some socialism may sometimes be the "logical" course of action.

Originally Posted by Tocatta & Fugue

I have nothing against the service sector but there is the idea of being alienated from products of ones labour and becoming just another bureacratic drone, selling your life to an essentially worthless profession best characterised by it's monotony and soullessness.

This always got me. To be honest I have very little interest in being able to bring home the products of my labour. I mean if I worked in a processing planet for silage I'd goddamn well hope I didn't have to bring the products of my labour home. It also implies that it's actually possible for all people to simultaneously receive the actual products of their labour. The idea that capital just springs into existence and your labour on this produces something which is then essentially yours completely ignores the fact that capital doesn't just spring into existence and has to be created. You could probably have an economically effective communist state (assuming they all worked, weren't corrupt and dishonest) if you had some sort of separate system producing capital to be used in these schemes but there's not going to be this magical quantity of capital which remains in perpetuity once it's been created under the capitalist/feudalist state.



PS I'm hoping the end of your sentence is sarcastic or else you just got hit on the head by a giant ACME anvil that insists on talking complete crap every ten seconds. Just in case you're not and have snapped completely out of reality into never-never land where stalin was misunderstood and lenin was basically a nice guy some people actually really enjoy their lifes monotonously spent in a soulless profession being a bureacratic drone because they do other things OR might actually recognise what they're doing and not be short-sighted enough to think that the fact that their labour cannot be directly recognised and separated means they're not actually doing anything. After all, it's the essence of society really.




PPS Essence, lol.

[wu_trax]

labor is always a service, no matter if you use that labor to build a house or to cut someones hair. there isnt much of a diffrence, at least for the person which privdes the labor

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I mean if I worked in a processing planet for silage I'd goddamn well hope I didn't have to bring the products of my labour home. It also implies that it's actually possible for all people to simultaneously receive the actual products of their labour.

This is being unnecessary literal. At no point has anyone ever suggested that you should keep all your labour, or bring your products home (say). Where the hell did you get that from? Why would anyone want that?

If you read most Marxist (or even non-Marxist) texts on the subject, the alienation from one's labour is more about the process. A craftsman keeps the same amount of his produce (generally) but is thought of less alienated since he's in control (to a greater extent) to the entire labour process. He's more connected to his products since the entire design process is more his, he makes it under his own energy, as it were. What was it that Von Humboldt said about the servant who tended gardens? We admire what he does, but despise what he is.

The thing about parts of the service sector is that they are similar to the factory - you are doing the same labourious task with no greater context (often at least, obviously there are exceptions).

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

The thing about parts of the service sector is that they are similar to the factory - you are doing the same labourious task with no greater context (often at least, obviously there are exceptions).

examples? i think ithe opposite is true: its not as likely that you do the same few tasks the whole day in the service sector as it is in a factory.
(but then, we dont have much of a low-cost service sector here, neither customers nor the currently unemployed have much of an intrest in such things)

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

examples? i think ithe opposite is true: its not as likely that you do the same few tasks the whole day in the service sector as it is in a factory.

Examples? OK, typist, receptionist, call-centre operator, data-entry clerk, "administrator", waiter/waitress, porter, bus driver, claims assesor, bank clerk, cashier, customer services officer, etc, etc....

I said it's often the case, and since there are literally tens of thousands of people who do the above jobs in the United Kingdom alone I don't see why it's a particularly controversial statement.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

This is being unnecessary literal. At no point has anyone ever suggested that you should keep all your labour, or bring your products home (say). Where the hell did you get that from? Why would anyone want that?

So what do you mean here? Should I be allowed to trade them for certain things? I'm sure I have to do something with the products of my labour. (The actual line was a joke hoping to prompt off a "discussion", which seems to have worked nicely.)

If you read most Marxist (or even non-Marxist) texts on the subject, the alienation from one's labour is more about the process. A craftsman keeps the same amount of his produce (generally) but is thought of less alienated since he's in control (to a greater extent) to the entire labour process. He's more connected to his products since the entire design process is more his, he makes it under his own energy, as it were. What was it that Von Humboldt said about the servant who tended gardens? We admire what he does, but despise what he is.

The point here is that the craftsman pays for his wood/iron/whatever whereas the factory worker doesn't. The craftsman has purchased the basic essentials of his trade from somebody else (or dug them up out of the ground I suppose) whereas the factory worker is only participating in part of the process, ie the making of x from y (just realised I'm talking about basic labour theory to you so I'll assume your degrees aren't massive fakes and skip over needless banalities). Basically my problem with it is that you're making basic assumptions about people and their inability to not feel alienated from their labour (seeing as there's nothing wrong with the abstract concept of being alienated from your labour but more how human beings perceive this and perceive the effects of it). This entire way of thinking is in opposition to most philosophies of individual rights and potential and reduces human beings to mechanical cogs in a factory in their totality (rather than the capitalist system whereby you can do this if you want to in some aspects of your life).

The thing about parts of the service sector is that they are similar to the factory - you are doing the same labourious task with no greater context (often at least, obviously there are exceptions).

That's relative human perception though and is the sort of general pronouncement on the capabilities of human beings that I feel smacks of absolutism and unnecessary pronouncements in areas where it's not needed.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Examples? OK, typist, receptionist, call-centre operator, data-entry clerk, "administrator", waiter/waitress, porter, bus driver, claims assesor, bank clerk, cashier, customer services officer, etc, etc....

I said it's often the case, and since there are literally tens of thousands of people who do the above jobs in the United Kingdom alone I don't see why it's a particularly controversial statement.

I've worked as a waiter. What exactly should I have been feeling or what exactly was wrong with what I was doing while I worked?

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Examples? OK, typist, receptionist, call-centre operator, data-entry clerk, "administrator", waiter/waitress, porter, bus driver, claims assesor, bank clerk, cashier, customer services officer, etc, etc....

I said it's often the case, and since there are literally tens of thousands of people who do the above jobs in the United Kingdom alone I don't see why it's a particularly controversial statement.

but in most of these jobs you get to meet lots of diffrent people every day whih already makes them more intresting than for example putting some material into a mashine and pushing two buttons.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

So what do you mean here? Should I be allowed to trade them for certain things? I'm sure I have to do something with the products of my labour.

You can do whatever you like really. I think this is part of the problems that "liberal capitalists" (for want of a non-shit term) get when reading from anything that isn't liberal or capitalist. Because you're so hung up on contract theory and viewing everything in terms of relationship with the state that you miss the whole, richer, wider possibility of political discourse. Karl Marx made this point sometime ago in "The Jewish Question" so I'll skip it.

Point is : Yes, you can trade your labour for whatever you want. No-one is trying to ban you from doing so. We're merely reflecting that it damages (or at the very least debases) human capacity and thus x and y social arrangements would be better. This isn't a "rights" issue basically. You can also go round calling someone else Baron if you want. We don't need laws against feudalism, nor capitalism.

That's relative human perception though and is the sort of general pronouncement on the capabilities of human beings that I feel smacks of absolutism and unnecessary pronouncements in areas where it's not needed.

Well, ultimately if people want to continue doing these things, then I wouldn't want them to stop, obviously. The point is that a large number (on anecdotal level I'm speaking here, I've not personally surveyed everyone in the world) of people aren't happy with it. You can make some banal point about "Well, they're not forced to do it!!!" which is perfectly true, but unhelpful. It's about promoting social arrangements which make it easier for people not to have to do work like that. Unpleasant work (in the broadest sense, i.e. unpopular to most people) will always be around, but that doesn't necessarily mean we have to cheerfully give a shrug to a gigantic waste of human potential.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

but in most of these jobs you get to meet lots of diffrent people every day whih already makes them more intresting than for example putting some material into a mashine and pushing two buttons.

Most factory work isn't that tedious either, so both cases are stereotyped. I've briefly worked in a couple of factories, and there was no-one whose job it was to "merely press two buttons".

Yes, most jobs have some 'perks' (which is why most industries can retain staff for more than 3 seconds) from long breaks, to meeting interesting people, to the secretary with big tits who works on the third floor. This doesn't change the fundamental nature of such jobs however.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I've worked as a waiter. What exactly should I have been feeling or what exactly was wrong with what I was doing while I worked?

I think T&F has covered most of the substantive points here, but you're again being rather silly. If you enjoy it, cool. You can be a waiter all your life. If you're not going to do this (and one would presume not), then why not?

Fundamentally, if there are people who enjoy doing tedious tasks then that's fine. Similarly, if there are people who enjoy being in prison, or whatever then cool. This is about maximising human freedom and potential (as I say again) not taking away people's freedom to do a certain type of work.

p.s. I've never worked as a waiter, so I can't really comment too much. My wife was a waitress for some years, and utterly despised the abuse, low pay, sexual harrassment, and utterly brainlessness of it all.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Essentially what Dante said. In the service sector you are a great distance away from decision making in your organisation and input into the processes of that product even though you sell it. In fact usually you will have no say in how it's sold. In a bureaucratic field you may not even fully understand what it is your company does and not though ignorance but becasue it is considered that you can't be trusted, thus you are alienated from what is you actually do.

Buy some shares lol. I just don't see the problem with trading my labour. I couldn't be ****ing bothered going to set up a restaurant and run the thing. I just wanted a summer job so I could drink heavily and buy shiny things (the first one usually lead to the second). In effect I really don't care.

Furthermore in many places of work the very essence of how you do your job is scrutinized, what you say, the clothes you wear, what order tasks are done. Go into a MacDonalds and you will see people essentially turned into machines. Even in offices, people who will never see anyone outside of the organisation will be told to wear suits. Emails are censored and behaviour is censured as if e were mischief making children.

So I re-iterate my contempt for the service sector, I tried to some up it up easily but I guess some people need it spelled out, again I pay for my overestimation.

Set up a company which allows it's employees more responsibility lol. The fact that some people's feelings might be hurt is hardly a valid reason for changing the nature of society.


PS In your communist state would I be allowed to go to work naked?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

PS In your communist state would I be allowed to go to work naked?

And yet again, we come back to a rights based argument.

I would presume that public nakedness would be legal (although it's illegal now, so *shrug*). In terms of working, I presume that a decision would either be based on health & safety concerns but more importantly a decision made by your co-workers.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

You can do whatever you like really. I think this is part of the problems that "liberal capitalists" (for want of a non-shit term) get when reading from anything that isn't liberal or capitalist. Because you're so hung up on contract theory and viewing everything in terms of relationship with the state that you miss the whole, richer, wider possibility of political discourse. Karl Marx made this point sometime ago in "The Jewish Question" so I'll skip it.

If you're proposing a society that isn't based on consent I'd seriously just wander off into the jungle now.

Point is : Yes, you can trade your labour for whatever you want. No-one is trying to ban you from doing so. We're merely reflecting that it damages (or at the very least debases) human capacity and thus x and y social arrangements would be better. This isn't a "rights" issue basically. You can also go round calling someone else Baron if you want. We don't need laws against feudalism, nor capitalism.

Crap. You perceive, or others may perceive, that it damages or debases human capacity. You can't make giant statements concerning all human beings just because you think it's right unless it's categorically proven that nothing else will work (which communism hasn't exactly shown yet).

Well, ultimately if people want to continue doing these things, then I wouldn't want them to stop, obviously. The point is that a large number (on anecdotal level I'm speaking here, I've not personally surveyed everyone in the world) of people aren't happy with it. You can make some banal point about "Well, they're not forced to do it!!!" which is perfectly true, but unhelpful. It's about promoting social arrangements which make it easier for people not to have to do work like that. Unpleasant work (in the broadest sense, i.e. unpopular to most people) will always be around, but that doesn't necessarily mean we have to cheerfully give a shrug to a gigantic waste of human potential.

I'm getting confused. Promoting social arrangments which make it easier for people not do I'd support as a method of changing the nature of the system. For me it just all goes back to the fact I don't support unnecessary systems and I'd actually prefer an anarchy if it wasn't for the fact it so clearly doesn't work. To me it's similar to censoring shit books. Sure they're shit and most people dislike them but I cannot fathom how anyone thinks they can tell people what they can and cannot read.

<3 minimalism

Originally Posted by Tocatta & Fugue

Low pay, strict time limits, the fact that often your desire to help the customer will directly contradicted my the management's policies on condiment use. The fact that you have to show respect for revolting and often rude customers, the subservient nature of the role which makes you not only a servant but a second class citizen in the eyes of those you work with.

Of course these things aren't true for you then you have had a vastly different experience then the majority of waiters and waitresses, and no getting to binge on baileys afterwards and stairing at the waitresses tits doesn't make up anyhting.

Yeah you're right, I didn't give a ****ing toss about any of that. I like how you and dante are referring to the majority here in an attempt to justify your arguments. Does the fact that the majority thinks or feels something make actions based on those thoughts valid? I just don't support your methods here. If you wanted to organise a massive union and negotiate with employers through that I'd be fine with that but dictating terms to people and then expecting them to accept them regardless is something I find completely abhorrent.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I think T&F has covered most of the substantive points here, but you're again being rather silly. If you enjoy it, cool. You can be a waiter all your life. If you're not going to do this (and one would presume not), then why not?

1) I like variety 2) My ideal job would be to get paid to write political commentaries for a newspaper (the fact that I'd prefer this job to any other doesn't mean all other jobs are then automatically shit)

Fundamentally, if there are people who enjoy doing tedious tasks then that's fine. Similarly, if there are people who enjoy being in prison, or whatever then cool. This is about maximising human freedom and potential (as I say again) not taking away people's freedom to do a certain type of work.

The maximising potential bit I'm a bit confused over. Do you mean actualising potential? This would be an essential difference here (you supporting the right to happiness as opposed to me supporting the right to the support of happiness).

p.s. I've never worked as a waiter, so I can't really comment too much. My wife was a waitress for some years, and utterly despised the abuse, low pay, sexual harrassment, and utterly brainlessness of it all.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess she got another job?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

And yet again, we come back to a rights based argument.

I would presume that public nakedness would be legal (although it's illegal now, so *shrug*). In terms of working, I presume that a decision would either be based on health & safety concerns but more importantly a decision made by your co-workers.

How about if they ordered me to go to work naked?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Thus proving the point. You on the other hand have no point, or if you do it's a sort of vague, "well I'm alright so what's everyone else complaining about" point which is not really worthy of discussion.

My point was that different people have different opinions and different preferences and making giant sweeping claims isn't the sort of thing I admire.




PS I thought the point was that capitalism was evil or whatever and communism was great and the fact she went out and got another job which she can do under capitalism would be an argument in support of that system.




PPS Most of my points concern me due to the fact I like me more than I like most other people (denise richards excepted).

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

PS I thought the point was that capitalism was evil or whatever and communism was great and the fact she went out and got another job which she can do under capitalism would be an argument in support of that system.

The point is that certain problems exist under current social/poltical/economic arrangements. We're trying to state that we believe some of these problems stem from something inside capitalism. Therefore, we would like for x,y, z modifications to take place which (we think, obviously) would improve things.

You may disagree with x,y, z modification for various reasons, but on a "meta" level, I don't see what's so outrageous. Bizarre questions as to whether you'd be allowed to be "forced" to work naked aside, I'm not exactly sure what your point is. You seem to be disagreeing with various things that haven't even been posted.

Like this bit for example :

Yeah you're right, I didn't give a ****ing toss about any of that. I like how you and dante are referring to the majority here in an attempt to justify your arguments. Does the fact that the majority thinks or feels something make actions based on those thoughts valid? I just don't support your methods here. If you wanted to organise a massive union and negotiate with employers through that I'd be fine with that but dictating terms to people and then expecting them to accept them regardless is something I find completely abhorrent.

What the hell are you on about here? Who is dictating what, ffs? What methods don't you support?

Who is being dictated to? What terms? Are you on crack?