|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: High Tory Socialists?
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Equal wealth ought to imply equal obligations, which would include an equal obligation to work.
So you're going to force me to work. Nice. Bring on the gulag camps. What a wonderful society.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
In an ideal society we'd hope there would be fewer jobs that have no point other than to contribute to somebody else's profits. And rather more jobs that either contribute meaningfully to the common good or else are interesting to do for their own sake.
Fuck the common good, it's not worth shovelling shit for. I think you're vastly overestimating the average person's desire to work just for the sake of working.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
In an ideal society we'd hope there would be fewer jobs that have no point other than to contribute to somebody else's profits. And rather more jobs that either contribute meaningfully to the common good or else are interesting to do for their own sake.
Jobs that contribute to someone's profits only actually generate profits because someone else wants to pay for it to happen. Just because you personally don't appreciate the work that is done doesn't mean that nobody else does.
I personally don't see any value in Rihanna's singing career, but millions of other people disagree, and have made her very wealthy.
There are plenty of jobs which are actually worthless, and don't contribute to anyone's profits either - mostly along the lines of collecting data and writing reports that nobody will actually read, but are required for some historical reason.
And then there are classes of jobs that are obviously useful, necessary for the common good, but unpleasant. Few people, I suggest, would volunteer for a job like "cleaner of the municipal toilets" if they were able to get paid the same for doing something less crappy.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Equal wealth ought to imply equal obligations, which would include an equal obligation to work.
So you're going to force me to work. Nice. Bring on the gulag camps. What a wonderful society.
Errrmm ... that happens already. Apart from the 'independently wealthy', people work because if they don't then they starve and freeze from lack of money. That sounds like 'forced to work' to me. (Well, in reality they claim benefits but JSA is supposed to be conditional on at least trying to find work.)
Though FWIW I don't think I'm personally in favour of equal pay so much as equal bargaining power. At the moment the amount you can leverage from your employer is proportional to a.) how hard you're prepared to work (which is within your control) and b.) the premium the market places on your skills (which isn't). In my fantasy universe it would be proportional to a.) alone.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
You're forgetting Marvin's pet delusion: that one day he might get the chance to be 'independently wealthy' (that is, to depend on the labour of others rather than of himself). Therefore he is perfectly happy to be screwed by the system just so long as he thinks there's the slightest possiblity that he might become one of the screwers.
This is a great mystery: he's a good chap and capable of truly staggering insight at times, especially in spiritual matters, but he is also the embodiment of 'false consciousness'.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
At the moment the amount you can leverage from your employer is proportional to a.) how hard you're prepared to work (which is within your control) and b.) the premium the market places on your skills (which isn't). In my fantasy universe it would be proportional to a.) alone.
How does self-employment work in Ricardus's fantasy universe?
Or suppose we imagine two hairdressers in Ricardus land - Laid-back Laura, who is a talented artist, but doesn't want to get out of bed before 10am, and Try-hard Tracy, who is eager to work her fingers to the bone cutting hair, but isn't actually very good at it, so she leaves her customers looking like haystacks.
Which one would you want to cut your hair? Which one would everyone want to cut their hair? Now, how do you arrange for Tracy to be paid in proportion to the effort she puts in?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
You're forgetting Marvin's pet delusion: that one day he might get the chance to be 'independently wealthy' (that is, to depend on the labour of others rather than of himself).
A man can dream, can't he? Better a dream that never comes true than the certain knowledge that no way of bettering my circumstances can or will exist, which is what I'd have under socialism.
quote:
Therefore he is perfectly happy to be screwed by the system just so long as he thinks there's the slightest possiblity that he might become one of the screwers.
I'm hardly being screwed by the system when I can afford mist of the things i want, including a foreign holiday every year. Last year was Cuba. How many times would I be able to go to the Carribbean under the sort of socialism you guys are advocating?
[ 01. August 2013, 21:15: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
How does self-employment work in Ricardus's fantasy universe?
I think there are two separate questions here.
On the one hand, if you're self-employed then you pay yourself whatever you like. That's what self-employed means.
However I think your question is also about how the price of goods and services (for example, haircuts) would be determined. In that instance I don't have any particular objection to the operation of the free market, again providing it takes place on a level playing field (which is what market regulation is supposed to achieve).
You can then ask: so why should goods and services be subject to the free market, but not employment contracts? And I would reply: because an employment contract is a trade in a human being, and human beings are not goods and services.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
A man can dream, can't he? Better a dream that never comes true than the certain knowledge that no way of bettering my circumstances can or will exist, which is what I'd have under socialism.
I think a true socialist would say your circumstances would improve as society as a whole got better (and therefore you got a proportional share in a larger pie). Which would give you a pretty strong incentive to work for the common good ...
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
You can then ask: so why should goods and services be subject to the free market, but not employment contracts? And I would reply: because an employment contract is a trade in a human being, and human beings are not goods and services.
But when I pay for a haircut, or for a plumber to fix my water leak, or for someone to mow my lawn, clean my house or care for my children while I'm out, it is precisely the services of a human being that I'm purchasing.
I'm purchasing a one-off service rather than an ongoing set of services - why should that make a fundamental difference?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
But when I pay for a haircut, or for a plumber to fix my water leak, or for someone to mow my lawn, clean my house or care for my children while I'm out, it is precisely the services of a human being that I'm purchasing.
No, apart from a few marginal situations you're only paying for the service, not for the human being. There's nothing to stop the plumber subcontracting the work to one of his mates, or turning it down if he doesn't like it while accepting other commissions.
Conversely I can't send my mate into work to do it for me, or decide not to work tomorrow because it's sunny.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
How much will you pay me to do them?
Tell you what - you do the work, I'll take all the money, and then I'll pay you 75% of it. More than fair, I think you'll agree.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
No, apart from a few marginal situations you're only paying for the service, not for the human being. There's nothing to stop the plumber subcontracting the work to one of his mates, or turning it down if he doesn't like it while accepting other commissions.
When I hire a babysitter, or a plumber or whatever, I am hiring a specific person. My usual babysitter most certainly does not have the option of just sending her friend around - although if she's busy that night she does recommend a friend, but we don't hire the friend because my kids don't know her.
The plumber I have used in the past bids for work on the basis that he will be doing it personally, and provides examples of other work that he, personally, has done in the neighbourhood, and our agreement has been that he, personally, will do the work. He doesn't have the option to unilaterally subcontract.
But I think we've got a little sidetracked. You are happy, it seems, for Joe the self-employed plumber to be able to advertise for business, and to receive a greater or lesser amount of business, and hence income, according to his merits and reputation. However, you would like his brother, Moe, who works for a plumbing company as an employee, to be paid the same amount regardless of whether or not he's any good at plumbing.
If Joe is a bad plumber, you're happy for him to have no income, whereas if Moe is a bad plumber, you expect him to be paid the same as Eddie Expert.
I don't understand why.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Fuck the common good, it's not worth shovelling shit for.
In that case, why care whether anybody bothers to work?
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I think a true socialist would say your circumstances would improve as society as a whole got better (and therefore you got a proportional share in a larger pie).
I can't imagine society getting better in a socialist system.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Fuck the common good, it's not worth shovelling shit for.
In that case, why care whether anybody bothers to work?
Well that's the thing, isn't it. The shit still needs to be shovelled, but who the hell is going to volunteer to do it without the economic incentive (i.e. without getting paid)?
This is where socialism always falls down. If everybody gets exactly the same pay regardless of whether they're a CEO, a data analyst, a street sweeper, an athelete, a miner or unemployed, then there's no reason for anyone to put in any extra effort or to do something they don't want to do. Virtually everyone is going to choose to do the easy jobs, or indeed to just sit around playing Xbox all day.
You could, of course, institute an "if you don't work, you don't get anything" law (passing over the fact that such a law is already in violation of the "everyone gets the same" ethos of socialism). In which case I'll declare myself a professional golfer. I'm working, because I'm playing golf. That's my job, and it doesn't matter if I'm any good at it or not. I'll hack round Carnoustie or Wentworth, finish last in every tournament, and still get paid the same as the winner. Job done. Money please.
So naturally that doesn't solve the problem. The inevitable next step is the government dictating exactly which jobs each of us will do. Welcome to the gulag, comrade.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Fuck the common good, it's not worth shovelling shit for.
In that case, why care whether anybody bothers to work?
Well that's the thing, isn't it. The shit still needs to be shovelled, but who the hell is going to volunteer to do it without the economic incentive (i.e. without getting paid)?
This is where socialism always falls down. If everybody gets exactly the same pay regardless of whether they're a CEO, a data analyst, a street sweeper, an athelete, a miner or unemployed, then there's no reason for anyone to put in any extra effort or to do something they don't want to do. Virtually everyone is going to choose to do the easy jobs, or indeed to just sit around playing Xbox all day.
You could, of course, institute an "if you don't work, you don't get anything" law (passing over the fact that such a law is already in violation of the "everyone gets the same" ethos of socialism). In which case I'll declare myself a professional golfer. I'm working, because I'm playing golf. That's my job, and it doesn't matter if I'm any good at it or not. I'll hack round Carnoustie or Wentworth, finish last in every tournament, and still get paid the same as the winner. Job done. Money please.
So naturally that doesn't solve the problem. The inevitable next step is the government dictating exactly which jobs each of us will do. Welcome to the gulag, comrade.
The problem is, is that this isn't socialism. This is the thing you've made up so you can reject socialism every time someone says "Socialism is the answer to this problem". Your imaginary socialism is only going to be workable in a AI-overseen, highly automated, post-scarcity society (a la Banks' Culture or my own nascent Freezone), and in those situations, it actually doesn't matter whether or not you're a socialist, a libertarian, an arch-Tory or whatever, because the system you operate in is simply the landscape - you can do pretty much whatever the hell you want on top of that.
But you do keep on raising this parody of socialism and knocking it down. Much harder to argue against say, the happiest country in the world, Denmark, or the other social democratic Scandinavian states.
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But you do keep on raising this parody of socialism and knocking it down. Much harder to argue against say, the happiest country in the world, Denmark, or the other social democratic Scandinavian states.
To clarify, are we holding out the Kingdom of Denmark as a good example of a socialist state?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But you do keep on raising this parody of socialism and knocking it down. Much harder to argue against say, the happiest country in the world, Denmark, or the other social democratic Scandinavian states.
To clarify, are we holding out the Kingdom of Denmark as a good example of a socialist state?
I think this is exactly the sort of "all or nothing" absolutist view of what constitutes a "socialist state" that Doc Tor's pointing out here. It's as if we can't put the USA forward as an example of a capitalist state on the grounds that it does not practice complete economic libertarianism.
Very few people who consider themselves socialists are fully signed up to the complete state control of the means of production to the exclusion of all else, or indeed the abolition of constituational monarchy as an absolute precondition. Many of is would see it as a "nice to have", but we can get on with socialising whilst happily ignoring largely impotent constitutional monarchs.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The problem is, is that this isn't socialism. This is the thing you've made up so you can reject socialism every time someone says "Socialism is the answer to this problem".
On the contrary, it's exactly what Jade and Ricardus have been advocating.
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Equal distribution of wealth is the whole point of socialism, surely you know this?
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Equal wealth ought to imply equal obligations, which would include an equal obligation to work.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Well, a social democratic one, let's say- along with the Kingdoms of Sweden and of Norway.
In fact, if you look around the world at the most egalitarian societies- not, I grant you, the same thing as socialist ones- there is absolutely nothing to suggest that monarchy is inconsistent with equality- in fact, if anything, one might almost believe that the opposite were true. Take, for example, the countries discussed in Wilkinson & Pickett's 'The Spirit Level'. the five most equal, accvording to their reckoning, are (can't remember the precise order) Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, and Japan- three kingdoms, one empire and one republic.
As an egalitarian and social democratic monarchist, I can't tell you quite how pleased I am about this.
You might also want to note that all these countries seem to have found a way of combining egalitarianism with compettitive and essentially capitalist economies.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The problem is, is that this isn't socialism. This is the thing you've made up so you can reject socialism every time someone says "Socialism is the answer to this problem".
On the contrary, it's exactly what Jade and Ricardus have been advocating.
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Equal distribution of wealth is the whole point of socialism, surely you know this?
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Equal wealth ought to imply equal obligations, which would include an equal obligation to work.
Socialism is quite happy with differences of wealth. What it's not happy with is having very rich people at the same time as people not being able to afford to eat. Neither is it overly amused with unearned wealth.
One of the core tenets of socialism is dignity through labour, and that means getting a proper day's pay for a proper day's work. That applies as much to the shelf stacker at Tescos as it does to Fred Goodwin.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Spot on. As someone once said to me, 'We're not called the Labour Party for nothing, you know.'
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
One of the core tenets of socialism is dignity through labour
One of the core tenets of Marvin is "get as much as you can for as little work as possible". I don't view work as good or dignified, I view it as a necessary evil. If I won the lottery I'd never work again, and I wouldn't feel any less dignified for that decision.
[added clarity]
[ 02. August 2013, 10:51: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
One of the core tenets of socialism is dignity through labour
One of the core tenets of Marvin is "get as much as you can for as little work as possible". I don't view work as good or dignified, I view it as a necessary evil. If I won the lottery I'd never work again, and I wouldn't feel any less dignified for that decision.
[added clarity]
I don't play the lottery because, duh, unearned wealth, but if someone was to hand me screeds of cash for film rights or somesuch, I'd still spend 60 hours a week making shit up and writing it down.
That pretty much applies to most of the creative types I know. I mean, JK Rowling, she's not short of a bob or two, and look, still working. That also applies to most of the science types I know too. In fact, I'm willing to bet that most people with meaningful and/or satisfying work would continue with it in some form or other even if you handed them a sack of money. Or do something else equally meaningful and/or satisfying that could be classed as labour.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Well that's the thing, isn't it. The shit still needs to be shovelled, but who the hell is going to volunteer to do it without the economic incentive (i.e. without getting paid)?
The trouble is, that in our blissful capitalist paradise, the people who shovel shit (literally or figuratively) are being paid the absolute minimum the bosses can get away with (and threatened with a life without benefits if they refuse), whereas those in positions of power and influence (bankers for example) aren't content with just having that power and influence but demand, and get, astronomical salaries too.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosa Winkel
Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
One of the core tenets of socialism is dignity through labour
One of the core tenets of Marvin is "get as much as you can for as little work as possible". I don't view work as good or dignified, I view it as a necessary evil. If I won the lottery I'd never work again, and I wouldn't feel any less dignified for that decision.
[added clarity]
This is one of the areas in which we come close to agreement. Some areas of socialism make The Worker to be some kind of holy figure. It is this thinking that led to the imprisonment of unemployed people in the GDR. I'm all for respecting workers, by which I mean those who enable institutions to run, but work isn't the be all and end all for me.
My understanding is that this view was like Marx's, who had visions of people being able to do different things as well as work, such as paint.
--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project
Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
That pretty much applies to most of the creative types I know. I mean, JK Rowling, she's not short of a bob or two, and look, still working. That also applies to most of the science types I know too.
Yes, some people are lucky enough that their favourite hobby also pays enough to be a job. Good for them, but they're hardly the majority.
quote:
In fact, I'm willing to bet that most people with meaningful and/or satisfying work would continue with it in some form or other even if you handed them a sack of money. Or do something else equally meaningful and/or satisfying that could be classed as labour.
I have no doubt that many people would continue to do their jobs even if they didn't need the money. I doubt there's enough of them to keep a whole country going while the rest of us take a five-decade vacation though.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
That pretty much applies to most of the creative types I know. I mean, JK Rowling, she's not short of a bob or two, and look, still working. That also applies to most of the science types I know too.
Yes, some people are lucky enough that their favourite hobby also pays enough to be a job. Good for them, but they're hardly the majority.
quote:
In fact, I'm willing to bet that most people with meaningful and/or satisfying work would continue with it in some form or other even if you handed them a sack of money. Or do something else equally meaningful and/or satisfying that could be classed as labour.
I have no doubt that many people would continue to do their jobs even if they didn't need the money. I doubt there's enough of them to keep a whole country going while the rest of us take a five-decade vacation though.
And no one's suggesting there are. However, you put the problem very well: the rich/ultra-rich are parasitic on working society, and the fewer there are of them, the better for everyone.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
My understanding is that this view was like Marx's, who had visions of people being able to do different things as well as work, such as paint.
Eight hours labour, eight hours rest, eight hours recreation. Again, impeccable socialist credentials.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Well, there is work and there is work isn't there?
There is work as in doing stuff that you are good at doing because it is useful or interesting or because your own peculiar mental illnesses compal you to do it or because ti makes you or someone else feel happy or sexy or contented or because to makes your garden grow or your house beautiful or your city safe or whatever. Which is a ncie job if you can get it. (Read News from Nowhere by William Morris!)
And there is work as in being some other man's servant and doing whatever you are ordered to whether it is of any interest to you or not and then seeing most of whatever benefit there is to anyone from your work going to the bosses.
If your work is all or mostly of the second sort then Marvin's reaction to it is inevitable. Indeed honourable. In that sort of situation identifying with the bosses requirements would be a sort of Stockholm Syndrome. Participation in your own oppression. You deserve to be bored and fed up with that kind of work, you are entitled to be angry at the social conditions that force you and others into it, you ought to want to escape from it.
What Marvin descibes is exactly what Marx called "alienation". Marvin is a socialist in embryio, he just doesn't realise it yet ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
And no one's suggesting there are. However, you put the problem very well: the rich/ultra-rich are parasitic on working society, and the fewer there are of them, the better for everyone.
What I'm hearing is: you want to keep everybody poor so that they have to keep going to work. You don't want anybody to have a way out of the soul-crushing drudgery of having to go to a place they don't want to go and do shit they don't want to do for five or more days a week for the whole of their adult lives.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
If your work is all or mostly of the second sort then Marvin's reaction to it is inevitable. Indeed honourable. In that sort of situation identifying with the bosses requirements would be a sort of Stockholm Syndrome. Participation in your own oppression. You deserve to be bored and fed up with that kind of work, you are entitled to be angry at the social conditions that force you and others into it, you ought to want to escape from it.
I do want to escape from it, ideally to the golf course. That's why I dream of being rich enough that I don't have to do it any more. Socialism offers me no escape, not even in my dreams. All it offers me is the knowledge that nobody else can escape either.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
In fact...
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And there is work as in being some other man's servant and doing whatever you are ordered to whether it is of any interest to you or not and then seeing most of whatever benefit there is to anyone from your work going to the bosses.
That's pretty much how I envision life under socialism. The government tells me what to do whether I like it or not, and all the benefit goes to The State rather than to me.
At least under capitalism I get paid.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
]What I'm hearing is: you want to keep everybody poor so that they have to keep going to work. You don't want anybody to have a way out of the soul-crushing drudgery of having to go to a place they don't want to go and do shit they don't want to do for five or more days a week for the whole of their adult lives.
No, that's capitalism. That's what we have now, and that's what you're complaining about. More socialism means less of what you're complaining about. More capitalism means more of what you're complaining about.
All your saying is "wah, why aren't I rich?" Which, with your hypercapitalist views, should be relatively easy to fix. Work harder.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
More socialism means less of what you're complaining about.
Really? More socialism means less work and more time (and ability) to do whatever I want?
quote:
All your saying is "wah, why aren't I rich?" Which, with your hypercapitalist views, should be relatively easy to fix. Work harder.
Three promotions in five years says I'm moving in the right direction. With a bit of luck and a lot of hard work, I might even be in a position to retire by the time I'm 55. Obviously that's later than I'd prefer, but if it's the best I can get I'll take it.
If you're saying that socialism would allow me to retire at 45 (or even earlier) and spend the rest of my days travelling the world and playing golf or cricket then I'll gleefully become a socialist. Somehow I doubt that's what you have in mind.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
More socialism means less of what you're complaining about.
Really? More socialism means less work and more time (and ability) to do whatever I want?
quote:
All your saying is "wah, why aren't I rich?" Which, with your hypercapitalist views, should be relatively easy to fix. Work harder.
Three promotions in five years says I'm moving in the right direction. With a bit of luck and a lot of hard work, I might even be in a position to retire by the time I'm 55. Obviously that's later than I'd prefer, but if it's the best I can get I'll take it.
If you're saying that socialism would allow me to retire at 45 (or even earlier) and spend the rest of my days travelling the world and playing golf or cricket then I'll gleefully become a socialist. Somehow I doubt that's what you have in mind.
You haven't made a million before you're thirty? What have you been doing with your life? But it must be your fault because you weren't working hard enough...
In answer to your second question, no. But socialism would have already allowed you to spend more of your time travelling the world and playing golf. As it is, everything good about your workplace is a result of socialism, not capitalism. Paid sick leave, enforceable contracts, paid holidays, work breaks, decent working conditions... as I've said before, we've tried laissez faire capitalism before. It sucked. We rejected it.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You haven't made a million before you're thirty? What have you been doing with your life? But it must be your fault because you weren't working hard enough...
I haven't got any skills or ideas that anyone would be willing to pay that kind of money for. Not sure how that's anyone else's fault.
quote:
In answer to your second question, no. But socialism would have already allowed you to spend more of your time travelling the world and playing golf.
I don't believe that. For one thing, if I can't earn enough money to afford to do those things then how am I supposed to do them? Do you think anyone under a socialist government as outlined on this thread would be able to casually drop over two grand on an annual holiday?
quote:
As it is, everything good about your workplace is a result of socialism, not capitalism. Paid sick leave, enforceable contracts, paid holidays, work breaks, decent working conditions... as I've said before, we've tried laissez faire capitalism before. It sucked. We rejected it.
We've tried and rejected full-on socialism as well. The answer is somewhere in the middle, but it's somewhere that allows people to get rich if they're skilled or lucky enough to do so.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You haven't made a million before you're thirty? What have you been doing with your life? But it must be your fault because you weren't working hard enough...
I haven't got any skills or ideas that anyone would be willing to pay that kind of money for. Not sure how that's anyone else's fault.
So working hard - the capitalist's refrain - isn't enough. Look everyone, we agree on something.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
In answer to your second question, no. But socialism would have already allowed you to spend more of your time travelling the world and playing golf.
I don't believe that. For one thing, if I can't earn enough money to afford to do those things then how am I supposed to do them? Do you think anyone under a socialist government as outlined on this thread would be able to casually drop over two grand on an annual holiday?
Not casually. But if that's how you wanted to spend your money, then yes. Again, you're fixated with the idea that a more equal society would be a poorer society: it's the other way around - the more inequitable a society is, the poorer the vast majority, including all the middle classes, are. If you saved your money, you could spend it on whatever you wanted.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
As it is, everything good about your workplace is a result of socialism, not capitalism. Paid sick leave, enforceable contracts, paid holidays, work breaks, decent working conditions... as I've said before, we've tried laissez faire capitalism before. It sucked. We rejected it.
We've tried and rejected full-on socialism as well. The answer is somewhere in the middle, but it's somewhere that allows people to get rich if they're skilled or lucky enough to do so.
We haven't tried full-on socialism - the closest we came to a socialist government was post-war, and we've been living off that legacy ever since, despite every attempt to erode it away. And again, you seem to think that a socialist society would not allow people to get rich. You're wrong.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So working hard - the capitalist's refrain - isn't enough. Look everyone, we agree on something.
Sure. Not everyone can be a millionaire, just like not everyone can be a Premiership footballer. In both cases, if you haven't got the raw talent it doesn't matter how hard you train.
quote:
Not casually. But if that's how you wanted to spend your money, then yes. Again, you're fixated with the idea that a more equal society would be a poorer society: it's the other way around - the more inequitable a society is, the poorer the vast majority, including all the middle classes, are. If you saved your money, you could spend it on whatever you wanted.
You may have missed my point. My wife and I earn enough right now that we don't have to save for foreign holidays - we get to do all the other things we want, and there's enough left over for them anyway. Well, not this year but that's because we decided to spend seven grand on a new car instead. It's not a case of "pick the one thing you want the most and save up for it".
Maybe that means we're not in "the vast majority". I don't know, I haven't done the maths. But I doubt we'd be as well-off in your ideal society. Hell, you pretty much outright state that we wouldn't.
quote:
And again, you seem to think that a socialist society would not allow people to get rich. You're wrong.
What happened to all that stuff about the equal distribution of wealth then?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Fuck the common good, it's not worth shovelling shit for.
In that case, why care whether anybody bothers to work?
Well that's the thing, isn't it. The shit still needs to be shovelled, but who the hell is going to volunteer to do it without the economic incentive (i.e. without getting paid)?
If the shit is not worth shovelling, why does it need to be shovelled? Clean streets? Not worth shovelling shit for.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So working hard - the capitalist's refrain - isn't enough. Look everyone, we agree on something.
Sure. Not everyone can be a millionaire, just like not everyone can be a Premiership footballer. In both cases, if you haven't got the raw talent it doesn't matter how hard you train.
quote:
Not casually. But if that's how you wanted to spend your money, then yes. Again, you're fixated with the idea that a more equal society would be a poorer society: it's the other way around - the more inequitable a society is, the poorer the vast majority, including all the middle classes, are. If you saved your money, you could spend it on whatever you wanted.
You may have missed my point. My wife and I earn enough right now that we don't have to save for foreign holidays - we get to do all the other things we want, and there's enough left over for them anyway. Well, not this year but that's because we decided to spend seven grand on a new car instead. It's not a case of "pick the one thing you want the most and save up for it".
Maybe that means we're not in "the vast majority". I don't know, I haven't done the maths. But I doubt we'd be as well-off in your ideal society. Hell, you pretty much outright state that we wouldn't.
quote:
And again, you seem to think that a socialist society would not allow people to get rich. You're wrong.
What happened to all that stuff about the equal distribution of wealth then?
I seem to spending all my time trying to correct your misconceptions, deliberate or otherwise, about socialism. Why don't you look at more-socialist countries (I've already mentioned Denmark) and see how impoverished and unhappy everyone is there?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I seem to spending all my time trying to correct your misconceptions, deliberate or otherwise, about socialism.
You specifically stated that in a socialist society I wouldn't be rich enough to casually drop two grand on a foreign holiday. Which would mean I'd be worse off than I am now. Was that a misconception?
Jade and others have stated that a key tenet of socialism is the equal distribution of wealth. Is that a misconception?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
If you think that communism is the only form of socialism then yes, you are right.
Clue: It isn't.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
If you think that communism is the only form of socialism then yes, you are right.
Clue: It isn't.
So Jade and Ricardus were lying?
[ 02. August 2013, 17:42: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If you're saying that socialism would allow me to retire at 45 (or even earlier) and spend the rest of my days travelling the world and playing golf or cricket then I'll gleefully become a socialist. Somehow I doubt that's what you have in mind.
In other words, 'if socialism was in my own self-interest I'd be for it; since it won't benefit me I'm agin it.'
I know this isn't that sort of Christian website, so I won't say it. But it's not only Christians that want to see a just society irrespective of the personal benefits. And even on the most self-centred view of things, it's obvious that a vastly unequal society is an inefficient and unhappy one, for all and not just the poor. To pick up Marvin's example of the shit-shovellers, when we had a laissez-faire system with virtually no public expenditure on the infrastructure of society, we had open sewers and cholera epidemics. These obviously affected the poor more than the rich, because the latter could escape to the country and away from the sources of pollution; but the rich, especially in the cities, suffered too from having the shit of the poor dumped in their streets. It was only with the quasi-socialist initiative of building proper sewers and employing public health officers that the quality of life for all was able to improve.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
If you think that communism is the only form of socialism then yes, you are right.
Clue: It isn't.
So Jade and Ricardus were lying?
No. They are describing aform of socialism. But not all forms of socialism.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
In other words, 'if socialism was in my own self-interest I'd be for it; since it won't benefit me I'm agin it.'
Yes. Deal with it.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
