Pages: 1 2 3

 

2009-11-19 06:17:53
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5645|London, England

Jenspm wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

So, in a nutshell, what you are saying is the everyone (well, most anyway), has the potential to make it to the top.

But of course, not everyone can be at the top, society needs "workers". Why should those that are lucky enough to get a top position earn more than others if indeed, as is the premise of a true communistic system, everyone does everything they can to use their full potential?
Firstly, there's no such thing as luck. Because there is no luck it takes a lot of hard work and skill to reach it to the top. Sure, some of those positions are handed out via nepotism or connections but the vast majority are not. The reason those people on top deserve higher compensation than the people on the bottom is because there are very few that can perform those jobs, while there are many that can perform the lower tier jobs. Supply and demand dictates their compensation. How many mail room clerks can perform well as a CEO? None, or they would not be mail room clerks. How many CEOs can perform the job of a mail room clerk well? All. While everyone may be working at capacity, the capacity of those at the top of the system is obviously greater, and more valuable.
But if, as you (kind of) said, everyone is born with an equal chance and if, as is the premise of a communist system, everyone does their best to fully use their full potential, what else is there than a bit of luck that gets them to the top jobs?


Personaly, I don't think we're all born equal in terms of skill - some are naturally more talented at leading a company than others, for example, and will thus have a much greater chance at getting these CEO-jobs you keep talking about. What Communism problematises is - if we agree that we are all created equal at birth, why should those who are born with a great mind have a better chance at having a better financial life than those who aren't?
Because as I said, being born intelligent does not equate with success. There are as many men of genius that have died in the gutter as have succeeded. No matter how intelligent you are born, you have to work hard to exercise your brain and learn as much as you can in a given field in order to collect that big payday. It's not just handed to people because of the way they were born.

So, what you want is for everyone to make the same wage as long as they are putting forth max effort right? How do you judge max effort? If we're all getting paid the same I'm going to be a janitor. I'll be the best damned janitor ever. The hours are good and there isn't much work involved and I don't have to use my brain. Good luck finding people to fill jobs that are dangerous or highly technical or highly stressful. The people that would gravitate to those jobs because they are higher paying will all be sitting in the janitors shack with me.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-11-19 06:41:14
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5645|London, England

oug wrote:

Common need for defense? From whom? Is the whole planet in need of defense from aliens? Or is it in terms of countries? And if it's the latter, why? Is it because of the differences in the quality of life maybe?
It has little to do with quality of life. Hitler didn't start WWII because Poland had a better quality of life than Germany. The Austrian-Prussia War didn't begin because Prussia was mad at the Viennese because they had better composers. The Napoleonic Wars didn't start because everyone was jealous of the French. WWI didn't start because people really cared about the Serbs. We certainly didn't invade Iraq and Afghanistan because we were jealous of the way they were living. Most wars in our history haven't been about quality of life, they've been about conflicting ideas and the egos that drive them. If there has ever been an imbalance the weaker country sure as hell isn't the one that starts the fight.

The only reason societies formed in the first place was for common defense against enemies. Everything else came after that.

oug wrote:

Saying a country has a capitalistic society is not a fallacy, the capitalistic system of trade etc does have an effect on society's ethical principles and does formulate its character to a great extent as you have clearly shown throughout this conversation by valuing the life of a successful person more than that of a not so successful - in capitalist terms always.
Yes, capitalistic ideas flow throughout our society and the terms are easily transposed. My own personal beliefs about a persons worth are just that, personal. I hold intelligent people in higher regard than stupid people because I recognize the hard work that it took to get there. Learning new ideas and concepts is not the easiest thing in the world and someone who is unwilling to put forth the time and effort to pick up a book and learn something new that they can share in conversation is not worthy of my time. If I wanted to hear the plot of the new tv series I would watch it myself.

Same goes for a man that busts his butt to get to the top. They are worthy of my highest respect because they show that someone can in fact do that. It gives me hope for myself.

Then there are those like my father. My father is a genius. Literally. Probably one of the smartest men on the planet and no one knows his name because he's wasted his life on drugs and alcohol due to self esteem issues. He now lives on public assistance and is quite happy to sit in his studio apartment and listen to his Doors CDs and read books that I couldn't comprehend without years of study. He's the epitome of wasted talent and skill all because he lacked motivation and maturity. He disgusts me and it's why I haven't spoken to him in years now.

oug wrote:

Well then in your opinion should this nice thing not be the foundation of our society? If not, why. Btw what you're describing - public school, food for everyone etc - are things that have been provided by a system of government that to some degree redistributes wealth - or in your terms punishes successful people and rewards failure. And of course if you think that everyone can have free education and a free dinner then you're living in fantasy world.
Public schooling was a system designed by Thomas Jefferson here in America. He felt that all kids should receive three years of schooling and then the best student out of a district should get a free ride to college. While the amount of schooling has certainly increased over time, it was still a meritocratic system. The system as he designed it required the parents of the children to pay for the schooling directly. What we have now instead is a system where everyone in a school district is required to pay property taxes in order to fund the local school. It doesn't matter if you never had kids or that your kids graduated. You're forced to pay no matter what. Even if you send your kids to private school you're still required to pay local property taxes to fund that school.

Now, there are a few ways of looking at this. You can look at it as a social contract that you have with the local school district when you move to the town. This social contract would state that the school district must keep costs down and provide a worthy education. There are many holes in this argument because you are never given a choice. It doesn't matter where you live in America, the same system applies. I happen to not agree with the way things are run. If you have kids you should provide for their education yourself. I'm not talking ruinous private school tuition but there are other options. The current system does not work.

As for providing food to everyone... That's not a right. You aren't given a food stipend at birth. It's just very hard to go hungry in America because we invented things like the Dollar Menu. There are soup kitchens etc.

Redistribution of wealth is a topic that was covered in another thread last week so if you want to have that discussion go look that up.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-11-19 10:41:14
Jenspm
penis
+1,716|7019|St. Andrews / Oslo

JohnG@lt wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


Firstly, there's no such thing as luck. Because there is no luck it takes a lot of hard work and skill to reach it to the top. Sure, some of those positions are handed out via nepotism or connections but the vast majority are not. The reason those people on top deserve higher compensation than the people on the bottom is because there are very few that can perform those jobs, while there are many that can perform the lower tier jobs. Supply and demand dictates their compensation. How many mail room clerks can perform well as a CEO? None, or they would not be mail room clerks. How many CEOs can perform the job of a mail room clerk well? All. While everyone may be working at capacity, the capacity of those at the top of the system is obviously greater, and more valuable.
But if, as you (kind of) said, everyone is born with an equal chance and if, as is the premise of a communist system, everyone does their best to fully use their full potential, what else is there than a bit of luck that gets them to the top jobs?


Personaly, I don't think we're all born equal in terms of skill - some are naturally more talented at leading a company than others, for example, and will thus have a much greater chance at getting these CEO-jobs you keep talking about. What Communism problematises is - if we agree that we are all created equal at birth, why should those who are born with a great mind have a better chance at having a better financial life than those who aren't?
Because as I said, being born intelligent does not equate with success. There are as many men of genius that have died in the gutter as have succeeded. No matter how intelligent you are born, you have to work hard to exercise your brain and learn as much as you can in a given field in order to collect that big payday. It's not just handed to people because of the way they were born.

So, what you want is for everyone to make the same wage as long as they are putting forth max effort right? How do you judge max effort? If we're all getting paid the same I'm going to be a janitor. I'll be the best damned janitor ever. The hours are good and there isn't much work involved and I don't have to use my brain. Good luck finding people to fill jobs that are dangerous or highly technical or highly stressful. The people that would gravitate to those jobs because they are higher paying will all be sitting in the janitors shack with me.
no, I don't want a communistic system, simply because it won't work at all. I'm just defending the fact that Marx's theory and ideology isn't bullshit.

As for all you are saying: that is correct, in todays society. As I've said quite a few times now, a communistic system depends on people doing their absolute best for society. And this is why it won't work in reality, because people, sadly, won't do their best if they're paid the same when doing fuck-all.

And your last statement, "If we're all getting paid the same I'm going to be a janitor.", is a perfect example of this. The communistic system will not work, because the humans today (like you, myself and 99% of this world) have no desire to work harder if there is no real prize at the end.

So Marx's communistic system wouldn't work with the people of today, but that doesn't mean his theories are bullshit. That would be like saying Keynes' theories were bullshit because he wanted to print money to increase the demand.
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/26774/flickricon.png https://twitter.com/phoenix/favicon.ico
2009-11-19 10:51:44
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5645|London, England

Jenspm wrote:

no, I don't want a communistic system, simply because it won't work at all. I'm just defending the fact that Marx's theory and ideology isn't bullshit.

As for all you are saying: that is correct, in todays society. As I've said quite a few times now, a communistic system depends on people doing their absolute best for society. And this is why it won't work in reality, because people, sadly, won't do their best if they're paid the same when doing fuck-all.

And your last statement, "If we're all getting paid the same I'm going to be a janitor.", is a perfect example of this. The communistic system will not work, because the humans today (like you, myself and 99% of this world) have no desire to work harder if there is no real prize at the end.

So Marx's communistic system wouldn't work with the people of today, but that doesn't mean his theories are bullshit. That would be like saying Keynes' theories were bullshit because he wanted to print money to increase the demand.
Ah, but Keynes' theories were bullshit But that's a different topic.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-11-19 15:25:54
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6806|Πάϊ

JohnG@lt wrote:

The only reason societies formed in the first place was for common defense against enemies. Everything else came after that.
You're only thinking of enemies as an outside paragon for some reason. There are enemies within a society as well. The objective was to stay alive, if that's not being met then you can bet there's something awfully wrong with the system...


JohnG@lt wrote:

Yes, capitalistic ideas flow throughout our society and the terms are easily transposed. My own personal beliefs about a persons worth are just that, personal. I hold intelligent people in higher regard than stupid people because I recognize the hard work that it took to get there. Learning new ideas and concepts is not the easiest thing in the world and someone who is unwilling to put forth the time and effort to pick up a book and learn something new that they can share in conversation is not worthy of my time. If I wanted to hear the plot of the new tv series I would watch it myself.
Fine. Only here we're not discussing our personal preferences in terms of character, we're talking about people's rights within a society. That's quite objective. And it has nothing to do with their profession or with whether they contribute to society or not.


JohnG@lt wrote:

Then there are those like my father. My father is a genius. Literally. Probably one of the smartest men on the planet and no one knows his name because he's wasted his life on drugs and alcohol due to self esteem issues. He now lives on public assistance and is quite happy to sit in his studio apartment and listen to his Doors CDs and read books that I couldn't comprehend without years of study. He's the epitome of wasted talent and skill all because he lacked motivation and maturity. He disgusts me and it's why I haven't spoken to him in years now.
Your father sounds like a really cool guy... The Doors are my alltime favorite band
Two thoughts on this: First, how is it that you acknowledge your father's genius and yet you charge him with childish flaws? How can a man of intellect be so burdened by things that are so profound? Has it ever occurred to you that maybe there's something more to it?
And secondly, you seem to consider that we are somehow required to "produce", and that if we - for some reason - choose not to, we are failures. Why is that? Why is it for example not a necessity to help your fellow man, but it's a necessity to be productive? You said we only help other because we like to, so isn't it fair to say that we should only produce if we feel like it? Why is production relevant to our rights as human beings?

JohnG@lt wrote:

It's just very hard to go hungry in America because we invented things like the Dollar Menu. There are soup kitchens etc.
I think there's no point in arguing this, so I'm just going to recite an incident as it happened to a close friend of mine. He was sitting in some park in LA, and he notices a guy holding an icecream who accidentally drops like a small chunk on the pavement without noticing and keeps going. So then this woman comes right behind him, kneels down and licks the damn icecream off the street. Now you can make whatever you want out of that, but me, it makes me sick to think that there's people in such a dreadful situation. Especially when we're talking about the wealthiest country in the world.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Redistribution of wealth is a topic that was covered in another thread last week so if you want to have that discussion go look that up.
I know I made the thread.
ƒ³
2009-11-19 16:20:58
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5645|London, England

oug wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

The only reason societies formed in the first place was for common defense against enemies. Everything else came after that.
You're only thinking of enemies as an outside paragon for some reason. There are enemies within a society as well. The objective was to stay alive, if that's not being met then you can bet there's something awfully wrong with the system...
I'm well aware there are internal enemies within the system. You seem inclined to grant the tyranny of the majority absolute power. I do not.

oug wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Yes, capitalistic ideas flow throughout our society and the terms are easily transposed. My own personal beliefs about a persons worth are just that, personal. I hold intelligent people in higher regard than stupid people because I recognize the hard work that it took to get there. Learning new ideas and concepts is not the easiest thing in the world and someone who is unwilling to put forth the time and effort to pick up a book and learn something new that they can share in conversation is not worthy of my time. If I wanted to hear the plot of the new tv series I would watch it myself.
Fine. Only here we're not discussing our personal preferences in terms of character, we're talking about people's rights within a society. That's quite objective. And it has nothing to do with their profession or with whether they contribute to society or not.

oug wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Then there are those like my father. My father is a genius. Literally. Probably one of the smartest men on the planet and no one knows his name because he's wasted his life on drugs and alcohol due to self esteem issues. He now lives on public assistance and is quite happy to sit in his studio apartment and listen to his Doors CDs and read books that I couldn't comprehend without years of study. He's the epitome of wasted talent and skill all because he lacked motivation and maturity. He disgusts me and it's why I haven't spoken to him in years now.
Your father sounds like a really cool guy... The Doors are my alltime favorite band
Two thoughts on this: First, how is it that you acknowledge your father's genius and yet you charge him with childish flaws? How can a man of intellect be so burdened by things that are so profound? Has it ever occurred to you that maybe there's something more to it?
And secondly, you seem to consider that we are somehow required to "produce", and that if we - for some reason - choose not to, we are failures. Why is that? Why is it for example not a necessity to help your fellow man, but it's a necessity to be productive? You said we only help other because we like to, so isn't it fair to say that we should only produce if we feel like it? Why is production relevant to our rights as human beings?
My father seems like a cool guy to you? To each their own. He's just a burnt out wannabe hippie ex-vietnam vet who has daddy issues still.
His genius is evident. Give him a complex equation to solve and he'll do it with no problem. He could be a math, physics or chemistry professor at any university in the country if he so desired.
His childish flaws are also evident. Alcoholism, drug abuse, womanizing, domestic abuse, failing to keep track of the money he spends, blaming other people for problems he creates etc. You want to blame his alcoholic mother like he does? Fine. I don't see it as an excuse because I didn't follow in my fathers footsteps when it came to these things. Quite the opposite. I learned from his mistakes and chose not to repeat them.

Even in your egalitarian communistic system you would be required to work in order to receive food, clothing and shelter, no? If you received things without work how would you punish the shirkers? If everyone only produced when they wanted to, we would all starve. Give a man a choice between being lazy or being productive and 99% of the population would choose to be lazy. I think we found out what happens when Marxism meets reality and people choose not to work, they're cast as political radicals and are purged. Lovely. At least in our current system the lowest among us can count on charity in order to survive. In a communistic society you're even more dependent on the bottom feeders being productive for the system to work.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-11-19 16:22:32)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard