Communism

HarryW

Quote:

---

Please try not to be patronising. I'm not trying to patronise you, and I'll thank you not to take this kind of stance with me. Always be aware that there are no absolute truths and you may well be wrong just as I may well be wrong. Coming from a position where you are convinced of your own correctness is not productive and is no better a stance in my eyes to the kind of stance many of the religious fanatics around here take.

---

OK, point taken. I did not mean to be patronising and I inapropriately took that tone out of frustration for not being able (I feel) to convey my point.

I do, however, find it ironic that you are accusing me of having an absolute point of view in asserting the relativistic nature of wealth when you, whilst insisting there are no absolute truths, are asserting the absolute nature of wealth! :eek:

Quote:

---

I think you are confusing needs with wants. Those luxuries are not necessary. They are both meeting their needs to the same extent.

---

Yes, I am confusing them but I am confusing them deliberately as I see no real basis for distinction. Gold has value because we want it and not because we need it. I would add to my wealth by increasing my possesion of gold so therefore is it not fair to consider wealth to be the value of all the things we both need and want.

Quote:

---

That is beside the point though. What I would like to point out is that you have gone from a position of saying the wealth of one person in an economy cannot increase without a decrease in wealth somewhere in that economy, to saying that someone can increase the amount of wealth they have without a corresponding decrease.

---

I see what you are saying here but I was asked to draw comparison between two un-related economies. I could also argue that one person can not have an economy because no transactions ever take place. Therefore, does it make sense, even, to talk about one-person economies?

Quote:

---

Gotcha. Any nicknames we should know about? Preferably insulting ones ;)

---

Skinny white ***** is probably the most common :p

Quote:

---

The availability of the raw materials to make the shoe is not the main issue. The shoe-ness of those materials is unavailable to those who don't know how to get at it.

---

What, exactly, do you mean by "shoe-ness"? The materials used in shoes can also be used to make other products like jackets. All of the leather produced in an economic system doesn't necessarily go to the production of a single product, and different products have different demands, and are valued accordingly.

Quote:

---

It's a little like sculpture - the sculpture is already there in the material, you just have to know how to reveal it.

---

Right, but in sculpting the statue, you don't add anything to the economic system. Someone merely pays you for it; part of which is paid for the introduction of the materials, the rest is to be circulated throughout the economic system (food, clothes, sculpting tools, Da Vinci Weekly, etc.).

Quote:

---

d I inapropriately took that tone out of frustration for not being able (I feel) to convey my point.

---

Bloody hell, I know exactly what you're talking about. You get it all figured out perfectly in your head, and there's no possible way you can write about it without either confusing everyone or sounding like a nut.

Yes I think so because you were essentially contesting that the total wealth in an economy cannot grow. When you can prove (well not quite prove in the formal sense, but become pretty convinced) the base case that an individual can increase their wealth without any interaction with anyone else, it makes sense to consider economies with larger numbers of people as a set of individual economies, and if an individual economy can grow without any interaction with anything outside it, then the superset of economies can also grow. I don't think transactions between different people are required to have an economy, just pretty inevitable.

The two economies were deliberately unrelated. They were supposed to demonstrate that from identical initial circumstances, the economies' wealths can diverge due to the different actions of those involved in them. ie people can create wealth, and people can destroy wealth.

I concede the point about absolute/relative wealth. In the end everything is measured relative to something and I suppose you ought to consider it as such, even if it is convenient to think of it as absolute. Anyway, this was not central to the debate so I'm going to try and put that subject down now;)

Did anyone consider what wealth actually is, if it's a numeric measurement, how do you measure it? In you can't, how do you compare it? In case you can't, why this discussion?=

Quote:

---

What, exactly, do you mean by "shoe-ness"?

---

I mean the value that is added to the raw materials that make the shoe in order to create it. It's kind of a fuzzy concept, admittedly.

Agreed, all the leather that is produced does not go towards shoe manufacture, but not everybody knows how to make something else out of it. The principle applies to all value-adding activities that take raw materials, perform some service with those materials and produce a product that is greater than the sum of its parts. The exact value is unimportant, the point is that the value of the product is (or should be) greater than the value of the resources used to produce it, and the process of production itself has its own value that cannot be ignored or written off as non-contributory to the economy.

The statue was just a kind of a metaphor, although similar principles apply.

According to my dictionary, wealth is the total value of exchangeable (liquid) goods in one's possession.

So you don't have any wealth unless there is someone you can trade with? what is value?

Quote:

---

I mean the value that is added to the raw materials that make the shoe in order to create it. It's kind of a fuzzy concept, admittedly.

---

But there isn't any value added to a material outside of its price, which is affected by supply and demand, which is what I think you're getting at. The more shoes are demanded, the more must produced to satisfy the demand, and thus the value of the leather goes up. Yea or nay?

Quote:

---

The exactly value is unimportant, the point is that the value of the product is (or should be) greater than the value of the resources used to produce it, and the process of production itself has its own value that cannot be ignored or written off as non-contributory to the economy.

---

Right, but in paying extra in the markup of a product beyond the original material cost isn't adding wealth to the system. It's merely taking wealth that I have somehow accumulated, and transfering it to the employees of the shoe factory, who give their wealth to food, the grocer gives his wealth to buy food for himself, and it all funnels down throughout the system. But all of these exchanges add nothing to the system, other than the introduction of the shoe leather.

The shoes are more useful than the leather on its own. They represent more value to the economy than the leather on its own. If you are calling wealth the sum of the values in the economy, then by making shoes out of leather you have introduced wealth in the process.

(for your first question: yea.)

They are of more value, but they aren't adding wealth to the system.

is there anyone to admit they know what thye are talking about?

Quote:

---

They are of more value, but they aren't adding wealth to the system

---

That contradicts the idea that wealth is the sum of the values in the system. Maybe that's not what you think of as wealth, but that came up somewhere in this thread. Seems reasonable to me.

no? :(

Okay, let's say a unit of leather has an industrial worth of $5. Shoes are sold at $100. The markup, therefore, is $95. We create the following economy:

-The farmer, who creates the leather, has no money at the moment.
-The shoemaker has $20 to spend on producing shoes.
-The consumer has $150 to spend on shoes and the like.

At the present time, the total worth of the system is $170. Now, the farmer kills his cow and produces a unit of leather. Now the situation looks like this:

-Farmer $0 (with $5 in commodity)
-Shoemaker $20
-Consumer $150

The farmer, having created this new product out of something that wasn't previously in the system and at no expense, has $5 worth of leather. The total value of the system is now $175.

Now, the shoemaker buys the leather:

-Farmer $5 (now in cash)
-Shoemaker $20
-Consumer $150

The shoemaker now has $5 worth of leather, maintaining the value at $175. The consumer buys the shoes, to produce the final result.

-Farmer $5
-Shoemaker $120
-Consumer $50

The total wealth of the economy has increased no more than the initial value of the leather.

Kedaman

Quote:

---

is there anyone to admit they know what thye are talking about?

---

I would like to think that I know what I am talking about.

HarryW

Quote:

---

Yes I think so because you were essentially contesting that the total wealth in an economy cannot grow.

---

I'm not contesting that the total wealth (of an economy) can grow. I am saying that the wealth of an economy (when considered as a whole) is a meaningless concept. You can only consider the wealth of subsets of that economy and then an increase in wealth in part of the economy is a decrease in wealth to another part of the economy.

Quote:

---

When you can prove (well not quite prove in the formal sense, but become pretty convinced) the base case that an individual can increase their wealth without any interaction with anyone else, it makes sense to consider economies with larger numbers of people as a set of individual economies, and if an individual economy can grow without any interaction with anything outside it, then the superset of economies can also grow.

---

I think you are trying to use a reductionist approach to prove your point but I think that it is inherantly flawed. The behaviour of an ecomomy can never be understood by an analysis of it's parts. The behavior of an ecomony are emergent properties that arise from the complex interactions between it's constituent members.
An economy of one is not really an economy as there are no interactions. You cannot (I beleive) view a large ecomony as a set of unrelated individual economies. That just won't work.

Hmm, that's not what I mean. They don't have to be unrelated, but it's easier to prove the point if they are.

Anyway this is all coming down to semantics as debates often do. Kind of losing interest...

Yeah. This is crap for Cliff's Notes.

HarryW

Quote:

---

Hmm, that's not what I mean. They don't have to be unrelated, but it's easier to prove the point if they are.

---

Well, if the behavor of an economy could be understood in terms of it's parts (without respect to the interaction of those parts), there would be no such things as stock brokers; we would have mastered the art of predicting the world economy a long time ago.

I think that capitalists actively work to increase demand (in the general sense) by convincing people that they need more, new and better products. The suppliers therefore increase the value of their products. If we realised that we don't need the things that they are trying to sell us, we become wealthier by virtue of the fact that we demand less. This is what communism tries to achieve and what capitalism works against.

Quote:

---

Well, if the behavor of an economy could be understood in terms of it's parts (without respect to the interaction of those parts), there would be no such things as stock brokers; we would have mastered the art of predicting the world economy a long time ago.

---

That's not what we're talking about, we're talking about increases in wealth. This isn't about building an accurate model of the economy and predicting what stocks are up and what are down tomorrow. I think you're barking up the wrong tree with this.

I have little more to say on this subject, it's not getting anywhere.

That's exactly what happens when you don't know what you are talking about

Hmmm ...

We veered off from a discussion about Capitalism vs. Communism
and arrived at the discussion about the mechanics of Economy and wealth.

Someone explain me the logic in thàt :D

Many of those posting to this thread have harped about greed being an inherent evil in most people, claiming that it subverts noble causes like communism. The word greed is being used when concepts like ambition, self preservation, desire for profit, wanting to support one’s family, et cetera are more descriptive of the motivating instincts labeled as greed by advocates of communism.

The use of the word greed to describe less malicious motives is an example of begging the question, a standard fallacious argument. Any argument in favor of communism or against capitalism which uses this technique should be dismissed without further discussion.

Simonm: The following are replies to some of your remarks.

Quote:

---

It seems to me that the defence of capitalism always lies in comparisons to the old, outdated systems that preceded it:

---

First, what is wrong with pointing out that capitalism was an improvement on its predecessors? I did not see you denying that it was an improvement over feudalism.

One of the reasons I often compare capitalism with feudalism is the fact that so many of my liberal teachers and others have often compared working conditions and wages in the 18th and 19th centuries with 20th century working conditions and wages. This comparison is usually intended to imply that labor unions and liberal legislation are responsible for the difference between modern times and the early industrial revolution.

You are snide in the way you use language without presenting any worthwhile arguments. For example: You used the word always in the above remark. Perhaps you are not very well read on this subject. This is not a common argument in favor of capitalism, yet you are trying to imply that it is so critical an argument that it is always employed. You used the phrase old & out dated systems instead of mentioning feudalism. Anybody with a knowledge of the feudal system, would readily agree that capitalism was an improvement. To avoid people making such a conclusion, you avoided the use of the word feudalism, just in case a reader had not read or had not remembered the system being compared.

Quote:

---

It always amazes me how capitalists think that wealth can be generated out of nothing.

If you knew the first thing about economics you would know this to be impossible.

---

More fallacious methods: It aLways amazes me and If you knew the first thing. Introduce your remarks with phrases that imply that there is no argument. Follow up with some inane argument. I wonder if you took a course in How to be a demagogue or perhaps it was a course in How to use fallacious methods of debate.

From what you have posted to this thread and elsewhere, it is obvious to me that I know a lot more about economics than you do. Notice that I also know how to use fallacious arguments. This paragraph is an example of attack the man, not the argument. Perhaps I shall attack your flakey arguments about wealth being relative later in this post. BTW: I happen to know a fair amount about economics for a person who only took a few introductory courses. Do you (Simonm) really know anything about the subject?

Quote:

---

Your own remarks illustrate the roots of your irrational hatred and distrust for communism.

---

Gee, I was just mentioning attack the man as an example of a fallacious argument. You, of course, already knew that one.

I had a father who was successful, happy, and well adjusted. His profit sharing approach to running a business was a classical example of capitalism at its best. He set up a situation where his and his employees self interests were best served by working hard and cooperating with each other. He was liked, admired, and respected by everyone who knew him: Friends, neighbors, employees, causal acquaintances, colleagues at the Engineer’s Club. Yet you claim that I am irrational to view him as a roll model and adopt my thoughts to be compatible with his?

“Each works according to his abilities; Each is rewarded according to his needs.” This is an evil concept.

Quote:

---

How can this be an evil concept? OK, I can understand it being labled as idealistically immature, unrealistic or simply misguided but to call it "evil" is just another example that your attidute towards communism is irrational.

---

Once again, a fallacious argument: Ask a rhetorical question and then label an opposing point of view irrational. Then follow up with some not very relevant comments and opinions.

The basic principle of communism is evil because it lays a subtle ground work for denying just compensation to the best and the brightest, while appealing for support to the greed of those who are less competent. In the name of a noble cause, it justifies enslaving the competent in order to gain the support of the stupid and incompetent.

Quote:

---

It is offensive for those who respect the ideals of socialism for you to suggest that the system in the USSR was a "logical consequance" of those ideals.

---

I intended the remark as offensive to liberals and out right communists. You people deserve to be insulted for your attempts to enslave the best and the brightest. Please note that all the attempts at communism have resulted in tyrannical systems. Most have failed miserably, leaving a mess behind them. The most successful socialist countries are supported by current and previous capitalist activities.

How much evidence do you need to recognize a bad concept?

This post was too long a while ago. I will forgo making comments about your dippy ideas about wealth being a relative value.. Just one question on this subject. Is the average person in the industrial nations better off now than he/she was 500-1000 years ago? Your arguments about relative wealth imply that you do not think so.

Guv

Look mate, I am sorry to be so derrogatory to you in my response to your last post. I know you are generally very intelligent, have a lot more life experience that me and, in most subject,s you probably know a good deal more than me.

That is precisely why I fail to understand your irrational disklike for the ideals of socialism and communism. And I do stand by that appraisal of your attitude towards the subject being irrational. Youv've siad as much yourself, anyway.

Quote:

---

First, what is wrong with pointing out that capitalism was an improvement on its predecessors? I did not see you denying that it was an improvement over feudalism.

---

There is nothing wrong with pointing out this fact and no, I would not dispute the fact either. What I am saying, however, is that it is not much of a defence of capitalism to set against "old, outdated systems that preceeded it". Feudalism being one of them. Not because it is not better than feudalism, but it because it is a cheap argument. Argue it's benefits on today's standards.

Quote:

---

From what you have posted to this thread and elsewhere, it is obvious to me that I know a lot more about economics than you do.

---

That's great! Care to demonstrate that by talking about it?

Quote:

---

Perhaps I shall attack your flakey arguments about wealth being relative later in this post.

---

Well, you obviously chose not to and that is a shame because I would have liked to have seen them.

You chose to concentrate your critisisms on my method of argument rather than on the point of my argument. That is fair enough though; I'm sure it was an easier target.

Quote:

---

I had a father who was successful, happy, and well adjusted. His profit sharing approach to running a business was a classical example of capitalism at its best. He set up a situation where his and his employees self interests were best served by working hard and cooperating with each other. He was liked, admired, and respected by everyone who knew him: Friends, neighbors, employees, causal acquaintances, colleagues at the Engineer’s Club. Yet you claim that I am irrational to view him as a roll model and adopt my thoughts to be compatible with his?

---

Are you dilliberately misinterpreting the point of what I said or am I simply a bad comunicator? I suspect the later so I'll go ahead and clarify. I was not (at least intending to be) critisising your father for one moment. It sounds like he was a good man and from the way he ran his business it certainly sounds good. Unfortunately, what I more often see in the way companies are run is the directors rewarding themselves for cutting labour costs (in terms of either saleries, benefits or jobs). It is few and far between for companies to adopt this approach and when I do see it, it is usually because of some socialist leanings of the director(s). I believe that profit sharing with the workers is a socialist approach and encapsulates the whole ethic of what communism is about: Everyone sharing in the fruits of everyone's labour. Not just the share holders and directors.

Quote:

---

The basic principle of communism is evil because it lays a subtle ground work for denying just compensation to the best and the brightest, while appealing for support to the greed of those who are less competent. In the name of a noble cause, it justifies enslaving the competent in order to gain the support of the stupid and incompetent.

---

OK, I did retort to this but you dismissed it as irrelevant and merely an opinion. You didn't actually attempt to counter my arguments merely dismiss them. Can I assume therefore that I failed to explain them properly?

Quote:

---

I will forgo making comments about your dippy ideas about wealth being a relative value..

---

Well, other than your statement that you think those ideas are "dippy", you have failed to address them. Perhaps you don't think them worthy of address.

I think a lot of the problems here are caused simply by the fact that I do not have enough time to formulate a more structured response and end up rushing (being at work). Obviously much of what I say appears incoherant and I sometimes end up offending people due to failing to articulate myself properly.