quote:

---

Originally posted by bc_anglican:
Christianity does emphasize charity and justice for the poor and dispossessed. It also emphasizes an economy based on stewardship and fairness IMHO.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:
I see Marxism and Christianity as being as alike as chalk and cheese. Marxism is a theory that is rooted in materialism and is concerned with who owns the means of production. I see CHristianity as spiritual and Jesus tells people not to worry about "what shall we eat or what shall we drink or what shall we wear...But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness and all these things will be given you as well". THere is no basis of comparision between CHristianity and socialism let a lone saying that they are the same IMO.

THe Marxist obsession is distribution of capital, I don't think Jesus would have got too excited about such things his focus was on GOd's kingdom. I also see the early church sharing everything in common as being a reaction to the belief that the end of the world was imminent rather than the basis of a long term economic system.

---

Evangeline, first up don't confuse 'Marxism' with 'socialism'. All Marxists are socialists, but not all socialists are Marxists. Think 'Christian' and 'Catholic' for a comparison.

Second up, there is a lot of confusion about what the word 'materialism' means in a Marxist context. Such confusion has, before now, reached even the Vatican, so you can be forgiven. 'Materialism', for Marx, contrasts with the 'idealism' of Hegel's account of human society. The idea is that causal primacy in human social relations rests with changes in the material, embodied, relations between human beings (and non-human nature), rather than with abstract ideas (or the World-Spirit, or whatever). I see nothing objectionable for Christians in this idea. It might be wrong, but it is an idea Christians can hold. Engels subsequently developed a theory of 'dialectical materialism', which became Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy; this is a more thoroughgoing metaphysic and might present more problems for Christians. Although I know some people who claim to believe both.

As for Jesus not being too bothered about who gets the worlds resources. I guess we'll have to disagree.
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Acts says that the early Christians held all things in common - so, ideally, yes, socialist.
 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
I'm actually slightly averse to using Acts as a blueprint for socialism. First, the passage describes the internal discipline of the Christian community, not society as a whole. Second, I consider 'socialism' to be a modern possibility - a way of organising industrial society.

I consider the argument for socialism to be one to do with how we might live well in modern times. It is, if you like, a natural law argument. Not one which turns on historical revelation. Not one which can be read out of the pages of the Bible.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
I think we can safely summarise the feeling of the meeting

Is Christianity the same as socialism? Obviously not.

Can Christians be socialists? Obviously they can.

Ought Christians to be socialists? That is a genuine question.
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
Should socialists be Christians?
 

---

Posted by Zwingli (# 4438) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Acts says that the early Christians held all things in common - so, ideally, yes, socialist.

---

quote:

---

If socialism were a system of 'forced equality' it would merely be replacing the legally imposed norm that your £500 share options are to be both defended and honoured to the same extent as my £500 monthly housekeeping with the imposed norm that you are to be defended and honoured as much as me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
Should socialists be Christians?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zwingli:
Socialism is entirely about forcing people to act as though they loved each other -

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zwingli:
"Do not show favour to the rich, or partiality the poor" as it says in the law of Moses somewhere..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
I'm actually slightly averse to using Acts as a blueprint for socialism. First, the passage describes the internal discipline of the Christian community, not society as a whole. Second, I consider 'socialism' to be a modern possibility - a way of organising industrial society.

I consider the argument for socialism to be one to do with how we might live well in modern times. It is, if you like, a natural law argument. Not one which turns on historical revelation. Not one which can be read out of the pages of the Bible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makepiece:
Socialism aims to reduce poverty and suffering through control of the state.

---

quote:

---

Christians believe that these can be reduced through peoples hearts changing and becoming more generous.

---

quote:

---

Christianity however has clear spiritual goals which would be neglected in socialism.

---

quote:

---

Erich Fromm saw the possibility of common ground between the two and whilst he had a point, it would surely mean blurring where the state ends and the individual begins which is the main problem with socialism and could certainly be harmful to the spiritual goals of christians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zwingli:
Socialism is entirely about forcing people to act as though they loved each other -

---

No it isn't. I it isn't entirely about that. Its hardly about that at all.

Some socialists, including ones you might even have heard of such as Karl Marx, devoted lots of their time to showing why they thought that people acting in their own self interest would produce with socialism or communism.

Lots of socialist anarchists have similar ideas. Some of them have quite a big downer on altruism, they think it gets in the way.

---

quote:

---

As a matter of fact, I don't believe that anyone has a right to be super-rich. Full stop. No matter how hard they have worked. Their money is usually made of the back of other people, anyway.

But this is an arguement I have had 1000 times with different shipmates, and will doubtless have yet again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 206:

He provides employment for dozens of people (primarily blue collar types as his business has to do with down and dirty construction projects) and I've had the opportunity to meet several of them. Without exception, they are grateful for their opportunity to share in his success.

---

quote:

---

There's always another way of telling it.

---

quote:

---

Erich Fromm saw the possibility of common ground between the two and whilst he had a point, it would surely mean blurring where the state ends and the individual begins which is the main problem with socialism and could certainly be harmful to the spiritual goals of christians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
The only way for communism or socialism to work is to have enough of the former to force the latter to give up their hard work and money.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bc_anglican:
By socialism, I mean any economic system where equality, and not growth is the main priority.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
I mean collective ownership of the means of production which is not State ownership.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 206:
I hear you: it's just none of them have ever mentioned being exploited.

---

quote:

---

Ergo, the percentage they are giving him is too great - even if reducing it to a more accurate quantity would make very little difference to their paychecks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 206:
I know so little about socialism: does it provide opportunity and incentive to advance the way capitalism does?

---

You'd have to ask an economist, but off the top of my head: Low-cost access to further education allows children from poor backgrounds to enter the more lucrative graduate jobs. (OK there are well-paid non-graduate jobs, but on average graduates are paid more.)

Incentives: if you help those down on their luck, then when you're down on your luck people will help you.
 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
I think many of us would argue that the notion of 'opportunity and incentive to advance' is so situated within a capitalist framework that it is nigh-on meaningless to ask it of socialism. It is, so to speak, to load the dice in capitalism's favour. Would socialism give people space to realise their creative projects, to grow as people? I certainly hope so. Would people have plenty of opportunities to compete with each other, and to secure favour for themselves to the exclusion of others? I hope not.

One of the curious things about capitalism is that it makes us think that competitiveness and the desire to do better than others are virtues. Which would suprise classical ethicists.
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
"Greed, for want of a better word, is good. Greed is right."
 

---

Posted by 206 (# 206) on :
 

quote:

---

One of the curious things about capitalism is that it makes us think that competitiveness and the desire to do better than others are virtues. Which would suprise classical ethicists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 206:
I am biased in thinking opportunity, incentive to advance and prosperity are, generally speaking, good.

Of course, like anything else, they can be taken to extremes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:

quote:

---

Originally posted by 206:

He provides employment for dozens of people (primarily blue collar types as his business has to do with down and dirty construction projects) and I've had the opportunity to meet several of them. Without exception, they are grateful for their opportunity to share in his success.

---

Or, to look at it a different way, they provide profits for him, and they are subject to the ideological delusion that he is doing them a favour.

There's always another way of telling it.

---

quote:

---

And, obviously, it depends what you mean by "advance".

---

quote:

---

However, by some definitions he would be considered 'super-rich'. You seem to be suggesting the state should further limit (they get their fair share at least via taxes) how much money he makes:

can you explain who is capable of fairly doing that and what criteria they should use? Do you anticipate any downside to the state acquiring more control over him and his money?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
IMO, In order for a socialist to be "Christian" they have to let go of the idea that businesspeople deserve to be judged. Judge not lest ye be judged and all that.

---

So these texts don't apply?:

Mat 19:23 And Jesus said to his disciples, "Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 19:24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Luk 1:53 he has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent empty away.
Luk 6:24 "But woe to you that are rich, for you have received your consolation.
Luk 12:21 So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God."
1Ti 6:9 But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and hurtful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction.
Jam 1:11 For the sun rises with its scorching heat and withers the grass; its flower falls, and its beauty perishes. So will the rich man fade away in the midst of his pursuits.
Jam 2:5 Listen, my beloved brethren. Has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which he has promised to those who love him?
Jam 2:6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you, is it not they who drag you into court?
Jam 5:1 Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you.
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
Show me anywhere where it says that you get to judge the rich in those texts. In other words, I do not see a text in there that says, you are the god, judge the rich man, and you have Jesus permission to take his money.

Its between the "rich" man and his gods. Not the socialists and theirs.

And oh btw, I am fairly sure the people sitting at their keyboards here are "rich" by ANY standard Jesus had at the time. I am sure he couldn't even imagine the wealth we control every day. You ready to give up ALL your wealth and follow him?

Didn't think so.

[ 29. April 2007, 15:43: Message edited by: Mad Geo ]
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
If you don't sense judgement in those, you haven't read and sensed them.
 

---

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
If it were up to me, everyone would own their own business and that way no one would listen to Marxists.

---

quote:

---

Some would prefer to work at the going rate. If they don't like that rate, they can go somewhere else.

---

quote:

---

To "take" people's money and give it to someone else, no matter how high-minded and noble, is still a TAKE.

The problem with the socialist scenario is that it has to assume that all businesses, as evidenced by various posts here, have to be assumed to be assholes in order to justify the "take". Problem is, there are many many business people that pay a fair wage, pay their own reasonable salary, and barely make it. And the socialist philosphy assumes that it is still "Right" to screw them and do the "take" anyway. I mean they are businesspeople, fuck 'em.

---

quote:

---

IMO, In order for a socialist to be "Christian" they have to let go of the idea that businesspeople deserve to be judged. Judge not lest ye be judged and all that. It's between the gods and the businessperson as to whether they did well by their fellow humans, not socialists.

---

quote:

---

You're right, I make money off the backs of other people. They give me their backs to use.

---

quote:

---

True socialists...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
So have most socialists been. The opposite point of view is sometimes met with among Greens. But on the whole socialists have been all in favour of prosperity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 206:

quote:

---

And, obviously, it depends what you mean by "advance".

---

Sure it does but getting into those kinds of details has proven difficult in this thread.

I know they weren't addressed to you but would you be willing to answer my earlier questions?

---

quote:

---

However, by some definitions he would be considered 'super-rich'.

---

quote:

---

You seem to be suggesting the state should further limit (they get their fair share at least via taxes) how much money he makes:
can you explain who is capable of fairly doing that and what criteria they should use?

---

quote:

---

Do you anticipate any downside to the state acquiring more control over him and his money?

---

quote:

---

And do socialists generally think individuals should be limited by the state as to how much money they make?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Henry Troup:
I once read a proof (probably by James Blish) that Marxism is a Christian heresy.

Christianity promises eternal peace; Marxism promises peace on earth.

Christianity promises peace that passes understanding; Marxism promises peace through dialetical materialism.

There were other points; and I may have mangled these two that I recall.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
capitalism rests on the assumptions of individualism: that people are discrete monads, that all relationships among them are contractual, and so there can be no obligations of one to another except those voluntarily assumed (except for negative obligations to refrain from using force, etc.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
It may be eternal but we are asked to pray that the kingdom comes 'on earth as it is in heaven'. Socialism is a practical outworking of that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
It may be eternal but we are asked to pray that the kingdom comes 'on earth as it is in heaven'. Socialism is a practical outworking of that.

---

So when did God tell you that Heaven is socialist?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
It may be eternal but we are asked to pray that the kingdom comes 'on earth as it is in heaven'. Socialism is a practical outworking of that.

---

So when did God tell you that Heaven is socialist?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
Socialist non-Christian weighing in.

No.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
I can just shrug my shoulders and say, 'socialism would make human beings more human, therefore it belongs to God's Kingdom'.

---

(Which incidentally, as DOD would doubtless agree, does not mean that 'Christianity is the same as socialism'.)
 

---

Posted by 206 (# 206) on :
 
Thanks for the responses.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Socialism, in all its various forms, is really set of political responses to perceived problems of capitalism. In particular that it tends to concentrate money (and hence political power) in the hands of the owners of capital, and to remove it from workers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 206:
If it's not going to derail this thread I'd benefit from hearing how anyone thinks transferring more money and power to the workers should work out in practice.

Who makes what decisions, who decides who makes what decisions, how are the profits more fairly distributed: just anything.

---

quote:

---

The problem is that you're asking how to establish a socialist society in the middle of a recalcitrant capitalist one. `Money', `power', and `profits', in the sense you mean them, are capitalist concepts, not socialist ones.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 206:
Thanks for the responses.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Socialism, in all its various forms, is really set of political responses to perceived problems of capitalism. In particular that it tends to concentrate money (and hence political power) in the hands of the owners of capital, and to remove it from workers.

---

If it's not going to derail this thread I'd benefit from hearing how anyone thinks transferring more money and power to the workers should work out in practice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
It may be eternal but we are asked to pray that the kingdom comes 'on earth as it is in heaven'. Socialism is a practical outworking of that.

---

So when did God tell you that Heaven is socialist?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 206:
Thanks for the responses.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Socialism, in all its various forms, is really set of political responses to perceived problems of capitalism. In particular that it tends to concentrate money (and hence political power) in the hands of the owners of capital, and to remove it from workers.

---

If it's not going to derail this thread I'd benefit from hearing how anyone thinks transferring more money and power to the workers should work out in practice.

Who makes what decisions, who decides who makes what decisions, how are the profits more fairly distributed: just anything. If you could create Socialism the way you think it should be, what would it look like?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Some anarchists, to be fair, would be unhappy with the suggestion that people are 'discrete monads'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stars:
This is why the 'welfare state' (bless its cotton socks) couldn't and didn't do that much to alleviate poverty; the benefits given to the poor were more or less sucked straight back off them.

---

That's the point I'm trying to make, I think, and it does not invalidate the notion that socialism is a good thing, in principle. Dishing out `benefits' is another attempt to establish a little bit of socialism within a prevailing capitalist milieu. It's going to fail, in the same way that building a house on quicksand will fail -- you can work hard to make the house the best house you can possibly build, but in the end it's on quicksand, and it's gonna sink.

But (taking up 206's point) the problem is not an inability of one `side' to grasp the other side's concepts. A socialist is perfectly capable of understanding what `profit' means, in the same way that I am capable of understand what `slavery' means even though it is not a feature of my society. When you talk about `redistributing profits' you a presupposing a society in which `profit' is a crucial economic notion and that is not, ipso facto, a socialist society. It's house-on-quicksand time again.

This is why, I think, Marx and his palls tended to see the transition from a capitalist society to a socialist one in terms of (metaphorical or actual) bloody revolution ( something which I don't espouse ) The systems are so incompatible that they can hardly exist side-by-side. In order for socialism to get a proper foothold, people's entrenched attitudes would have to change, and change radically, first.

Now, I don't know how to establish a socialist society, any more than I know how to establish a Christian society, except by walking the walk and hoping that my example is one that people would want to follow. Trying forcibly to `convert' people to socialism is as practicable as forcing them to convert religion.
 

---

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
capitalism rests on the assumptions of individualism: that people are discrete monads, that all relationships among them are contractual, and so there can be no obligations of one to another except those voluntarily assumed (except for negative obligations to refrain from using force, etc.)

---

That's not capitalism, that's anarchism. Capitalism is quite compatible with authoritarian political structures and an unequal and unfree society. As are some kinds of socialism of course just as other kinds of socialism fit perfectly well into, maybe even require, the kind of free-association libertarian society you describe.

There is no reason to think that capitalism somehow arises naturally from individual freedom. Probably quite the opposite - to start it going you have to have laws that construt certain rather artificial kinds of property that are not "natural" at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
If it were up to me, everyone would own their own business and that way no one would listen to Marxists.

---

Surely that would in practice mean workers' collectives, which is itself a fairly Marxist idea?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Some would prefer to work at the going rate. If they don't like that rate, they can go somewhere else.

---

Unless they're in a hirers' market of course...

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

To "take" people's money and give it to someone else, no matter how high-minded and noble, is still a TAKE.

The problem with the socialist scenario is that it has to assume that all businesses, as evidenced by various posts here, have to be assumed to be assholes in order to justify the "take". Problem is, there are many many business people that pay a fair wage, pay their own reasonable salary, and barely make it. And the socialist philosphy assumes that it is still "Right" to screw them and do the "take" anyway. I mean they are businesspeople, fuck 'em.

---

Which posters? Who here* has said that businessmen automatically deserve to be screwed?

All I have said is that if there is a large discrepancy between the wage per drop of sweat of the employer, and the wage per drop of sweat of the employee, then the employer is creaming off too high a percentage. I didn't say all businessmen do that, did I? And I acknowledge that the employer probably does work harder, and (as 206 says) there are other variables to be taken into consideration.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

IMO, In order for a socialist to be "Christian" they have to let go of the idea that businesspeople deserve to be judged. Judge not lest ye be judged and all that. It's between the gods and the businessperson as to whether they did well by their fellow humans, not socialists.

---

Surely you could say the same about any suspected wrongdoer? (Not that I suspect all businessmen of wrongdoing.)

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

You're right, I make money off the backs of other people. They give me their backs to use.

---

I couldn't comment on your business methods.

---

quote:

---

However, if you mean that, as a general rule, employees voluntarily give themselves to their employers and consequently employers are entitled to do what they like, then might I once again invite you to consider the concept of the hirers' market?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

True socialists...

---

Yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

* If I asked "who in real life", then the answer would be almost any political figure on the French Left, but none of those august personages are posting to my knowledge.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

Socialism, in all its various forms, is really set of political responses to perceived problems of capitalism. In particular that it tends to concentrate money (and hence political power) in the hands of the owners of capital, and to remove it from workers.

---

quote:

---

Socialism reacts to that concentration of power in much the same way as the idea of democracy reacted to the concentration of power in the hands of the aristocracy - its really a radical extension of democracy into the marketplace and the workplace. To use a very old quote the point is to return to the workers (by hand or by brain) the full fruits of their industry.

---

quote:

---

Not to limit the income of anyone but to make sure they don't limit the lives of others. Socialism is about people collectively taking control of their own lives, their economic and productive lives as well as party politics and public government, between elections as well as during them.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Do you anticipate any downside to the state acquiring more control over him and his money?

---

Of course. Governments are usually pretty bad at running business, they ought to keep out of it in general.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Papio clearly believes that businessmen deserve to be screwed (although I am getting that from his numerous posts all over the boards to that affect, as well). For example, he said on this thread, “I don't believe that anyone has a right to be super-rich. Full stop. No matter how hard they have worked. Their money is usually made of the back of other people, anyway.”

Sure sounds like “screw businessmen” to me. He clearly assumes that if you work hard and make money, your bad.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Not quite as fun as

The Socialist Christian Catechism!

---

Did you know that your in-box is full?
 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
No.
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
I don't hate all employers. I do 1) think they are not the only people with legitimate complaints, 2) think that if they screw their workforce, they deserve no sympathy from anyone, ever, 3) tend to think they are more likely to be wrong than the workforce is, 4) think the should, by and large, stuff their multi-nationals up their arse, 5) think they should STFU and 6) think that large numbers of them are both corrupt and incompetant, and that any employer who doesn't see the value of a contented workforce is dumb as shit, 7) Thimnk that huge wealth is always a privelledge and NEVER a "right". Never. Never. Never.

---

1) Agreed
2) Agreed, but we almost certinaly disagree on what constitutes a "screwing" there.
3) Yes, because the mob of employees always knows what is best for the business. Suuuuurre. As someone wise once said, if everything was ran by a majority, we would all eat pizza at every meal, and drink Coors. Employees don't know dick, and remember, I am also an employee too.

Now here is where it gets very interesting.

You say that you don't hate employers and yet you also say that they should stuff their multi-nationals up their arse, Shut the Fuck Up (with no limiting modifiers), a majority are corrupt and incompetant, and some are outright dumb as shit.

Nope no hatred there. I feel the love POUNDING from your keyboard. A regular pillar of employer agape. Your "Shut the fuck up" gave you away Papio.

Papio's post is as clear a reason as any I could have hoped for to show why IMO Christianity and Socialism are incompatable. Christianity wants you to love your neighbor. Socialism requires a certain hatred for employers that is incompatible with Christianity.


 

---

Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Papio's post is as clear a reason as any I could have hoped for to show why IMO Christianity and Socialism are incompatable. Christianity wants you to love your neighbor. Socialism requires a certain hatred for employers that is incompatible with Christianity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:


But, as I understand it, a theme of Christianity is that you won't get fulfilment from stuff, at least much beyond your daily bread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
But, as I understand it, a theme of Christianity is that you won't get fulfilment from stuff, at least much beyond your daily bread.

---

Not at all. Is it lands flowing with milk and honey, water being changed into wine, or the Lord preparing a banquet on his mountain, that gives you this idea?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:

The countries that embrace a mixed economy where capitalism is allowed to flourish fare far better than those that don't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Your right, I would say that we have an increase in the measurement of depression, not actual depression.

Besides, people now live 67ish years to find their happiness instead of 35ish years. That in and of itself is a HUGE change.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
If everyone owned their own business, there would be no workers, only owners.

---

quote:

---

But to address your hirer’s market crisis, if it is a hirers market, what would you do to correct it? Take more from the hirers? Notice the “take”.

---

quote:

---

As for “Creaming off too high a percentage”, the problem I have with that is, Who gets to decide “Too High”.

---

quote:

---

Some businesses spend say 30% of their money on say, marketing, some 70%. If the socialists take 30% of their money, one business can cut it’s marketing budget for the financial molestation it just got from the socialists. The other business goes bankrupt. This is a simple example, of course, but it does show the problem with the socialist approach.

---

quote:

---

I love that. You just accused someone of wrongdoing and then tried to take it back. The bias shows up in the rather sneaky word “all”.

---

quote:

---

You have done exactly what I said socialists shouldn’t do. You are looking for the needle in the haystack and think it is relevant in order to justify the socialist “take”. Many, if not most businesspeople are like you and me. Small groups of people trying to get by as ethically and humanely as they can.

---

quote:

---

It is again telling that the assumption is that employers are bad. That they would “Do what they like?”. As if employees had no choice in the matter, no possibility of leaving ever. No power to decide. Poor employees, they are just babes in the woods. How disempowered they are.

---

quote:

---

Employees can go back to school, start a business, change jobs, work on the side, get a second job, whatever. In short, they are limited only by their own imagination and hard work for themselves.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

True socialists...

---

Yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

---

What…..

….ever.

Interesting colloquialism though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
if every day is a tooth-and-nail struggle for basic survival, you don't have time to be depressed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Not quite as fun as

The Socialist Christian Catechism!

---

Not 'fun'. It is quite succinct summary of my beliefs.

Happy Workers' Day - May 1st - everyone!
 

---

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :
 
And happy 10 years of Blair.
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
Isn't Our Beloved TB meant to be a Christian Socialist?
 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
Yes, well.

Happy International Workers Day!
 

---

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :
 
He's part of CSM. As seems to be just about any christian in labour. Or any christian who can be bothered to join, who's slightly to the left if they're having a leftist day. Apparently, they've decided to try and get more hardcore socialist again.

I don't know if Ken (or DOD?) knows anything about them.

[X-posted with the short one. I was replying to Papio.]

[ 01. May 2007, 13:45: Message edited by: Dinghy Sailor ]
 

---

Posted by wesleyswig (# 5436) on :
 
The Christian socialist Movement (CSM) has reached a very high profile within the Labour Party due to, first, John Smith then Tony Blair being members. At the 2001 general election their list of members included quiet a few who are now in cabinet.

The CSM fits in rather nicely with Blairs pious and community based philosophy - it is said that through the bible he found out how he could turn away from Marxism - therefore he is replacing marxist with quasa christian politics and morals.

Regards
John
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Happy International Workers Day!

---

You too!

(Dinghy Sailor - yes, that is what I was thinking of. Any further information would be appreciated.)

(And now I have Xposted with Wesleywig)

[ 01. May 2007, 13:52: Message edited by: Papio ]
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Season's Greetings, comrades!

Anyone who wants a suitable soundtrack for International Workers Day can download everything from Billy Bragg's revised Internationale to the the Song of the Soviet Tankmen from websites listed here

Avanti Popolo!
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
In honor of May Day, I plan to go waste a sustantial chunk of change on a capitalist spending spree. I will eat at a very posh restaurant for lunch, I will buy something Completely Frivolous and of no necessity whatsoever, and pick up a copy of "The Wealth of Nations" preferably in hardback with leather binding. Lastly, I plan to buy a copy of "The Communist Manifesto" and burn it in secret so it gets no press at all, which is what it deserves.


 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
I wonder if there are anti-capitalist protests in London this year? Anyone know?
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
And happy 10 years of Blair.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
and pick up a copy of "The Wealth of Nations" preferably in hardback with leather binding.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
If everyone owned their own business, there would be no workers, only owners.

---

Yes, but I would have thought that a business would need more than one person in it. Or at least, several your self-employed people would have to band together to do certain tasks. Which in practice is not much different from a workers' collective (i.e. where all the workers are also shareholders).

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

But to address your hirer’s market crisis, if it is a hirers market, what would you do to correct it? Take more from the hirers? Notice the “take”.

---

Retraining schemes. But I'll come back to this.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

As for ”Creaming off too high a percentage”;, the problem I have with that is, Who gets to decide “Too High”;.

---

It should be possible to calculate, in a reasonably objective way, the discrepancy between the pay-per-drop-of-sweat of the various members of a company. (And I think I should acknowledge here that it doesn't have to be the senior management who are being paid a sum disproportionate to the amount of work they put in. Look at Premiership footballers...)

---

”Reasonably Objective” Again, by who’s standard?

Yes, let’s look at high paid athletes. They are a singularly talented business person. They are the 1% of the 1%. They have trained their entire lives to do ONE thing better than anyone else not at their level. Entire corporations and tens of thousands of people have jobs because of them. From janitors to the coaches to the shareholders in the corporation to the CEO. All of them rely on that athlete to do his job. So they pay him well so he stays there instead of moving somewhere where the pay is better.

Let’s assume that you penalize that footballer with redistributive taxation. He leaves for say America. Then the next guy, then the next until we have all of your team and you are left with middling players. Nobody comes to see the games, they watch the American team because they are properly paid and broadcast in HDTV worldwide. They have to lay off the janitor, then the coach leaves for America too, thousands of jobs are lost.

I again simplify, of course. But here’s an interesting thought….

Los Angeles doesn’t have a football (American) team and hasn’t for a long time. I’m sure the reasons for that are legion, on the other hand, if I was an owner I wouldn’t put a team here either because it is a pain in the ass to do business in Los Angeles. All those jobs are in other cities all over the US. Point to ponder.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Some businesses spend say 30% of their money on say, marketing, some 70%. If the socialists take 30% of their money, one business can cut its marketing budget for the financial molestation it just got from the socialists. The other business goes bankrupt. This is a simple example, of course, but it does show the problem with the socialist approach.

---

This is not really relevant. I was not talking about company taxes but about redistributive taxation to redress the discrepancy between earnings and workrate.

As far as company taxes go you may well be right. Ségolène Royal was recently accused of wanting to impose so many charges patronales on small businesses that they would no longer be able to hire anyone. She didn't have an answer to that...

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I love that. You just accused someone of wrongdoing and then tried to take it back. The bias shows up in the rather sneaky word “all”;.

---

No sneakiness was intended. I made what could be read as a blanket condemnation of businessmen and then qualified it. I don't think it is in doubt that there are unethical businessmen around, or that plenty of businessmen aren't.

But the existence of evil businessmen is not quite the point.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

You have done exactly what I said socialists shouldn’t do. You are looking for the needle in the haystack and think it is relevant in order to justify the socialist “take”. Many, if not most businesspeople are like you and me. Small groups of people trying to get by as ethically and humanely as they can.

---

As I have said, it is a question of redressing the discrepancy between workrate and earnings. I don't think the management has to be evil for there to be a discrepancy.

If the senior management's earnings are disproportionately high relative to the salaries of the employees, then there is still a "take" happening, by the senior management, from the employees, whatever the employees' actual quality of life.

You, I think, are arguing that this is OK as long as the employees still earn enough to live decently, which is what happens in most businesses. If this is correct, though, then it should be equally OK to tax the employers provided they are left with a decent residue.

You seem to be arguing that it is OK to take from the employees, without any real justification beyond "because I can", but not from the employers even when the tax is to be used for social improvement.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

It is again telling that the assumption is that employers are bad. That they would “Do what they like?”;. As if employees had no choice in the matter, no possibility of leaving ever. No power to decide. Poor employees, they are just babes in the woods. How disempowered they are.

---

Sweatshops.

I have already said that I think the real underclass these days is mostly found in the developing world, rather than the West.

That said, even in the West I don't believe employees are as empowered as you claim:

---

I had not seen your comment on the developing world. In that we can agree. I actually favor unions in places that are less developed. Amazing isn’t it?

I have said before (not on this thread) that Unions have a time and place. That time and place is very very narrow IMO. If for no other reason than Unions (at least in America) are so corrupt that they make Enron look like a bunch of angels. But in some places, the government is so corrupt that they can make Unions look like angels. Unions fuck the employees worse than any bad businessman can (again, in America) that is one of many reasons I hate them here.

The west’s employees are plenty empowered, thus my sarcasm of how disempowered Socialistas want to make us think they are so as to justify the take.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Employees can go back to school, start a business, change jobs, work on the side, get a second job, whatever. In short, they are limited only by their own imagination and hard work for themselves.

---

They are limited by their financial resources. Also by the unemployment rate. In a hirers' market, unless retraining schemes are offered cheaply or free of charge, it is far easier to retrain if you have money - and it has already been established that money is not proportionate to amount of hard work.

And I don't see how this discrimination is in the employers' interests either, because it gives them a much smaller pool of possible employees to choose from.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

True socialists...

---

Yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

---

What…

...ever.

Interesting colloquialism though.

---

I was trying to accuse you of the No True Scotsman Fallacy in a humorous manner - the clue was in clicking the link. It didn't really work though ...

---

I clicked the link and figured it out. I just didn’t buy the accusation. Thus the “whatever” .


 

---

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
”Reasonably Objective” Again, by who’s standard?

---

quote:

---

Let’s assume that you penalize that footballer with redistributive taxation. He leaves for say America. Then the next guy, then the next until we have all of your team and you are left with middling players. Nobody comes to see the games, they watch the American team because they are properly paid and broadcast in HDTV worldwide. They have to lay off the janitor, then the coach leaves for America too, thousands of jobs are lost.

---

quote:

---

He had a whole list of other things like that, but the short was, it was HELL to do business in France and I guarantee it affects their economy, not too mention their disgruntled unemployed youth that riot in the streets.

---

quote:

---

Actually I think it was relevant. If there are more ethical businessmen around than not, why even bring it up?

---

quote:

---

That whole process is voluntary. The consumer wants their stuff, the employee wants a job, and the employer wants to provide her with a job. It’s all accepting the terms of a contract.

---

quote:

---

Only the socialist is interfering by taking money from anyone by force, justified by a contorted assumption that something bad is happening when people willingly do business with each other.

---

quote:

---

Unions fuck the employees worse than any bad businessman can (again, in America) that is one of many reasons I hate them here.

---

quote:

---

Thus the statement I said “Hard work for themselves”. I paid for my early education through private school by doing laundry, picking raspberries and zucchini squash (Horrible work), and by cleaning toilets. Excuse me if I have little sympathy for “limited financial resources” when it comes to getting ahead.

---

quote:

---

It's a difficult one, but there is certainly an argument for allowing socialists to have a certain primacy in defining the word 'socialism'. And therein lies the rub: some of you just don't seem to realise what utter extremists some of us are.

---

Well, I realise it which is why you give me the heebie jeebies.

But I'd very much appreciate hearing your definition: as I mentioned before I know very little about it and am open to learn.
 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
Socialism, like God, is best defined negatively.

Socialism is the type of society which would be brought about by the appropriation of the means of production by working people, and (therefore) through the abolition of class society. Given that most of us our socialists not least because we believe that people should be in control of their own conditions of existence, it seems a little counterproductive to provide too detailed a blueprint. Although, inevitably, there needs to be a balance. One has to believe enough about what socialism might be like, to make it worth struggling for.
 

---

Posted by Stars (# 10804) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Socialism, like God, is best defined negatively.

Socialism is the type of society which would be brought about by the appropriation of the means of production by working people, and (therefore) through the abolition of class society. Given that most of us our socialists not least because we believe that people should be in control of their own conditions of existence, it seems a little counterproductive to provide too detailed a blueprint. Although, inevitably, there needs to be a balance. One has to believe enough about what socialism might be like, to make it worth struggling for.

---

quote:

---

To whom is an injustice being done? Presumably to the capitalists who own the machine and construction industries. Well, no doubt, in terms of a theory of justice which is compatible with capitalism. But given that socialists, by defintion, reject such a theory of justice, we might be forgiven for not caring very much.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
I'm not entirely sure how that follows. (Leaving aside that I don't think socialism has ever been tried, and so is not a dismal failure.)

---

quote:

---

Your point seems to be that things like machines and factories are themselves produced. The socialist claim is that they are indeed and, under capitalism, they are produced by alienated labour in the class interests of capital. And that workers in the machine-building and construction industries ought to take control of their own productive activity, as well.

---

quote:

---

To whom is an injustice being done? Presumably to the capitalists who own the machine and construction industries.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
What about the view that an injustice is being perpetrated by the capitalists upon the workers, and that the employers don't actually have any moral right to their wealth and never did have any such right, and got it by fraud and immorality?

If you except such a view then socialism is by no means an injustice upon the capitalists.

---

quote:

---

What about the view that an injustice is being perpetrated by the capitalists upon the workers, and that the employers don't actually have any moral right to their wealth and never did have any such right, and got it by fraud and immorality?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Reasonably Objective Again, by who’s standard?

---

Hours worked, stress, risks entailed (physical or financial) all seem capable of objective measurement to me. A crude measurement, granted, but better than simply assuming the market value is the correct one.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Let’s assume that you penalize that footballer with redistributive taxation. He leaves for say America. Then the next guy, then the next until we have all of your team and you are left with middling players. Nobody comes to see the games, they watch the American team because they are properly paid and broadcast in HDTV worldwide. They have to lay off the janitor, then the coach leaves for America too, thousands of jobs are lost.

---

That is indeed the flaw of socialism...

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

He had a whole list of other things like that, but the short was, it was HELL to do business in France and I guarantee it affects their economy, not too mention their disgruntled unemployed youth that riot in the streets.

---

Again, you're quite right.

However, at the risk of releasing a few true Scotsmen myself, I think it's a case of bad socialism rather than socialism per se. High company taxes, like social security contributions, are regressive - big corporations can handle them, but small businesses are crippled. If businesses are to be taxed at all it should, under a socialist model, be the other way round.

Making your workers unsackable (or virtually) is contrary to Karl Marx' aphorism "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

Also, the power given to the unions is wholly destructive. The French have not done anything to engage the workers in the decision-making process - they have merely entrenched both sides in a permanent conflict and given the employees more armaments.

A proper "empowerment" of the workers would be something like this scheme set up by O2, where the lower-level employees get the right to sit at board meetings. The reason being, that they might be crap at things like risk management and market analysis, but they do have a better immediate knowledge of the problems customers have with their products and the difficulties the workers may have implementing their programmes.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Actually I think it was relevant. If there are more ethical businessmen around than not, why even bring it up?

---

I didn't bring it up - you did. You seemed to be using "judge not lest ye be judged" in order to rule out any discussion of business ethics. My point was that, by that argument, we can't have any ethical discussion at all.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

That whole process is voluntary. The consumer wants their stuff, the employee wants a job, and the employer wants to provide her with a job. It’s all accepting the terms of a contract.

---

Yes, but the terms of the contract are dictated to a large extent by the conditions of the market, which are out of the control of the participants. So it's voluntary in that as all parties are happy with the result, but involuntary in that they didn't individually have much control over it.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Only the socialist is interfering by taking money from anyone by force, justified by a contorted assumption that something bad is happening when people willingly do business with each other.

---

Not quite. I'm saying that the government "take" in the form of taxation is morally equivalent to the "take" of the worker who gets a disproportionate share of the pot.

In both cases the conditions are mostly out of the hands of the participants. The workers are limited by the conditions of the market, of which they nonetheless form a small part. The taxpayers are limited by the law, over which they nonetheless have a small amount of power by virtue of being voters. In both cases, however, no real harm is done as long as the worker or the taxpayer get a decent residue.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Unions fuck the employees worse than any bad businessman can (again, in America) that is one of many reasons I hate them here.

---

That's the workers' fault for electing stupid people.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Thus the statement I said “Hard work for themselves”. I paid for my early education through private school by doing laundry, picking raspberries and zucchini squash (Horrible work), and by cleaning toilets. Excuse me if I have little sympathy for “limited financial resources” when it comes to getting ahead.

---

Yes, but the point is that if you came from a richer background you wouldn't have to do all this. And that assumes that the fruit-picking and toilet-cleaning jobs are available in the first place.

---

Your not serious…..

Fruit picking and toilet cleaning will always be with us. Those jobs are not fungible, they cannot be shipped out of the area that they are done like say telemarketing.

quote:

---

You're not complaining, I admire you for it and I'm not going to indulge in vicarious outrage on your behalf. But I don't see how the situation is in anyone's favour. If you're retraining as a discombobulator, and all the discombobulator colleges demand huge fees, then most of the successful graduates will be those who have been able to give full attention to their studies because they're not holding down part-time jobs on the side. So that when the discombulation plant goes on a recruitment drive for workers to carry on its vital economic activity, the graduate pool will be skewed towards the rich rather than towards those who have a real innate talent for discombobulation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stars:
. Another way to ask the same question is if the workers produce the means of production, why do they keep hiring capitalists to provide them with the means of production?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stars:
I don't go about simply accepting things for no reason.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 206:
I have to admit my participation in this discussion has been made more difficult by someone insinuating I'm 'greedy' and applying the 'puke' emoticon to my motives.

---

quote:

---

I think you'd be forgiven if you were perfectly OK with someone coming and taking your stuff.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stars:
. Another way to ask the same question is if the workers produce the means of production, why do they keep hiring capitalists to provide them with the means of production?

---

What a bizarre question, but one which focuses the (from my point of view) mistake the rest of your post is premised on. You seem to equate economic causation with monetary causation: producing things with providing money so that things may be produced. These are not the same thing. One of Marx's greatest insights was to give an account of how, under capitalism, relations between people (and between people and non-human nature) are viewed as supervening upon monetary relations (the paradigm case of so-called 'commodity fetishism').

When I say that workers produce the means of production I mean 'produce' in the ordinary everyday sense of 'build', 'make through their work'. I do not mean 'put up the money for' - that they cannot do this answers, in part, your question as to why workers can't just get under with socialism in a market system (although there are other ideological and organisational issues as well). Logically, at least, one can produce something in the former sense without 'producing' in a fashion mediated by the money nexus. Socialism might be thought of as the realisation of this logical possibility.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stars:
I don't go about simply accepting things for no reason.

---

Me neither.

That's why I have some difficulty with capitalism.

---

quote:

---

I think DOD is already doing a good job of answering your question to me, and my post really was just instead as a subsidury (sp?).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
I feel I've already answered the points in that post, in my previous post.

In essence, you seem to miss the point that socialists typically make an ethical claim and a subjunctive claim about market exchange: (a.) it would be better were human productive relationships not to be mediated by the money nexus, and (b.) it is possible for human productive relationships not to be mediated by the money nexus. You might disagree with either. But demanding, of socialists, that they justify their beliefs as if they didn't hold both, misses the target somewhat.

---

quote:

---

I don't think capitalism is necessarily fraudulent. I think capitalist ideology frequently is.

---

quote:

---

Here's an opportunity for common ground: do you think socialist ideology could be fraudulent?

Even infrequently? Or is it somehow as pure as the driven snow compared to capitalism?

---

I think most socialists would say that some forms of socialist ideology are fraudulent. Those that legitimate state capitalism, for example.
 

---

Posted by 206 (# 206) on :
 

quote:

---

I think most socialists would say that some forms of socialist ideology are fraudulent. Those that legitimate state capitalism, for example.

---

Fair enough.

But you know I have been asking for more precise definitions.
 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stars:
You can’t reply, ’oh, it’s because of the money nexus’, because I am showing you that it is the existence of that very 'money nexus'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 206:

quote:

---

I don't think capitalism is necessarily fraudulent. I think capitalist ideology frequently is.

---

Here's an opportunity for common ground: do you think socialist ideology could be fraudulent?

---

quote:

---

The way I'm using the word 'ideology' is, I think, probably slightly different from yours.

---

quote:

---

But, if you mean, do I think that some 'socialist' ideas are bad, then, yes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
Stars - I'm going to be ignoring you from now on, make of that what you will. I don't really care.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 206:
Exactly: that's why (again) I'm asking, as humbly as I can, for more precise definitions about all of this.

---

quote:

---

The way I'm using the word 'ideology' is, I think, probably slightly different from yours.

---

quote:

---

But, if you mean, do I think that some 'socialist' ideas are bad, then, yes.

---

quote:

---

Socialism, I think, would enable us to be imperfect more safely.

---

quote:

---

Callan - do you think a true belief can serve to perpetrate an unjust social order? Think about the way the reality of crime is used to crush civil liberties.

I'm not, of course, saying we shouldn't believe the truth. I'm just saying that society might be such that we might need to turn our attention to Eagleton's later work - on tragedy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Given that most of us our socialists not least because we believe that people should be in control of their own conditions of existence,

---

Hey, now there's something I can get behind .

I choose for my conditions of existence to be lying by a pool eating steak and drinking G&T all day. Here's hoping there are enough people who choose hard work, graft and productivity to enable me to do so . OK I jest, but I hope to make a serious point thereby. If the "money nexus"*, as you call it, is removed, what is there to motivate any given individual to actually do anything?

As I see it there are two remaining options: relying on their innate goodness or coercion. But one is clearly never going to happen, and the other is abhorrent - especially to Christianity. All that remains is the profit motive...

[ 02. May 2007, 20:33: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If the "money nexus"*, as you call it, is removed, what is there to motivate any given individual to actually do anything?

---

quote:

---

Ideology in its original sense means "an untrue belief which legitimises and sustains an unjust social order".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Well, even under capitalism we are motivated to do all sorts of worthy things without monetary incentive.

---

quote:

---

And I wager, you'd get bored of sitting by the pool with the G&Ts!

---

quote:

---

But it seems reasonable to me to think that a significant component of human behaviour is socially conditioned. So, in a capitalist society, there will be a tendency for people to seek a monetary incentive for work (albeit a non-absolute tendency, as I said above). We need not suppose this would be present in a non-capitalist society. It is worth a try.

---

quote:

---

I certainly think there is an innate human capacity to find fulfilment in creative work. I suppose that makes my position an optimistic one: albeit not abstractly optimistic. I think that this capacity is more or less easilty fulfilled in different social circumstances.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stars:
You can’t reply, ’oh, it’s because of the money nexus’, because I am showing you that it is the existence of that very 'money nexus'

---

Actually I could. I could claim that people are so bedazzled by the ideological pull of the money nexus, that they can't imagine any other way of doing things.

---

quote:

---

I do, broadly speaking, think that. But your question confuses me. Are you claiming that a given workers pay money to the capitalist who employs her?

---

quote:

---

I simply don't think that's true - I think that capitalists extract a surplus on the value of labour, but I don't see that as a monetary payment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
It is the “crudeness” of the measurement that causes me to get off the train. There is few “reasonably objective” means by which I am prepared to justify the take. I live in a state where physical risks are absolutely controlled by the state, no need for socialism there, unless you consider that a form of socialism (which I do). Hours worked results in extra pay, a trivial form of socialism that seems also reasonable to me. Stress? Excuse me while I laugh. If I got extra pay for stress I wouldn’t have to work. So would almost any worker. About as subjective as it gets.

---

quote:

---

The problem as I see it is not with whatever individual programs a socialist system would come up with to help the working class. It is the unintended consequences of those programs that are difficult or can never be controlled for.

---

quote:

---

No real harm is done? That’s a pretty big assumption.

---

quote:

---

Taxation is a form of Harm. If my business goes into a bad spell due to circumstances beyond my control, the 30% taxes I pay sure could save it, but taxes are not optional, they are forced upon me.

---

quote:

---

Your not serious…..

Fruit picking and toilet cleaning will always be with us. Those jobs are not fungible, they cannot be shipped out of the area that they are done like say telemarketing.

---

quote:

---

I have to disagree that the market will ignore the talented over the rich though.

---

quote:

---

Because the free market never has unintended consequences?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
By "stress" I am trying to acknowledge that some jobs, such as simultaneous interpreter or heavy manual labour, may require great physical or mental concentration even if the total number of hours worked is comparatively low. AFAIK this is perfectly possible to calculate medically, at least roughly.

But crude though any such measurement may be, why should market forces be any less crude? If the CEO of Burger King earns x times more than his lowest-ranking burger flipper, does it really follow that he does x times as much work, even allowing for stress and financial risks?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stars:
In a pure socialist system, I should imagine, people will be paid for holding their breath (after they have filled in the proper application form and subjected themselves to a long and rigorous 'veracity of stress claim enquiry').

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stars:
In a pure socialist system, I should imagine, people will be paid for holding their breath (after they have filled in the proper application form and subjected themselves to a long and rigorous 'veracity of stress claim enquiry').

---

Why don't you kick that straw man a bit harder? He must still have a bit of stuffing left.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stars:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stars:
In a pure socialist system, I should imagine, people will be paid for holding their breath (after they have filled in the proper application form and subjected themselves to a long and rigorous 'veracity of stress claim enquiry').

---

Why don't you kick that straw man a bit harder? He must still have a bit of stuffing left.

---

It's not a straw-man, it is an illustration of the weakness a ludicrous concept by highlighting its ludicrous possibilities. You are invited to explain how a socialist government is going to distinguish between stressful or uncomfortable activities that are also 'work', and so should be remunerated; and those that are simply done for a gas.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
Consensus? Common fucking sense? Sheesh!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Stars, what you are describing bears no resemblance whatever to any known or proposed socialist community. I'm not sure who will appear to rebut your claims in specifics, since these seem to be challenges directed at no real target.

T.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
It is the “crudeness”; of the measurement that causes me to get off the train. There is few “reasonably objective” means by which I am prepared to justify the take. I live in a state where physical risks are absolutely controlled by the state, no need for socialism there, unless you consider that a form of socialism (which I do). Hours worked results in extra pay, a trivial form of socialism that seems also reasonable to me. Stress? Excuse me while I laugh. If I got extra pay for stress I wouldn’t have to work. So would almost any worker. About as subjective as it gets.

---

By "stress" I am trying to acknowledge that some jobs, such as simultaneous interpreter or heavy manual labour, may require great physical or mental concentration even if the total number of hours worked is comparatively low. AFAIK this is perfectly possible to calculate medically, at least roughly.

But crude though any such measurement may be, why should market forces be any less crude? If the CEO of Burger King earns x times more than his lowest-ranking burger flipper, does it really follow that he does x times as much work, even allowing for stress and financial risks?

And hours worked does not result in more pay - it only results in more pay than those doing a similar job to you.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

The problem as I see it is not with whatever individual programs a socialist system would come up with to help the working class. It is the unintended consequences of those programs that are difficult or can never be controlled for.

---

Because the free market never has unintended consequences?

Incidentally, I wouldn't call the French riots entirely a consequence of socialism (and it's not as though America never has riots). Other than the things we have mentioned, the issues are 1.) racial discrimination (four out of five companies discriminate at some stage in the hiring procedure according to this report); 2.) cronyism shutting out the marginalised (professional education in France puts great emphasis on internships, and the best internships go to the ones with contacts); 3.) they are twats (everyone in, say, Seine-Saint-Denis has the same problems, but only a minority of them feel the need to burn cars - and I'm entitled to say that because I've worked in one of the relevant districts).

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

No real harm is done? That’s a pretty big assumption.

---

Which is why I specified as long as the taxpayer gets a decent residue.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Taxation is a form of Harm. If my business goes into a bad spell due to circumstances beyond my control, the 30% taxes I pay sure could save it, but taxes are not optional, they are forced upon me.

---

No, they aren't - or at least no more than your pay conditions.

If you don't like your tax-bill, you can vote for a government that will reduce it, and if enough voters agree with you then it will go down. If you don't like the going rate for your kind of job, you can negotiate, and if enough of the interested parties in the market agree then the going rate will increase.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Your not serious….

Fruit picking and toilet cleaning will always be with us. Those jobs are not fungible, they cannot be shipped out of the area that they are done like say telemarketing.

---

No, but the number of people looking for that sort of job is variable.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I have to disagree that the market will ignore the talented over the rich though.

---

I didn't say it would ignore them totally, only that it would be skewed against them.

I'm pretty sure it has been statistically demonstrated that students from state schools at the highest-ranking British universities on average do better than those from private schools with equivalent grades at A-level. The explanation given being that the relative advantages of a private school helps a mediocre pupil to get ahead at that level and thus enter university, but once at university, where there's a level playing field, the lower innate ability shows through.

Now on the world ranking of Great Injustices Throughout the Ages this hardly registers, but then the gulf between private and state education in the UK is not that wide.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 206:
How about this:

the 'invisible hand' (i.e. innumerable individual economic decisions) of the free market is at least marginally less likely to screw things up compared to a much more limited group of 'central planners'?

ISTM that could be supported by democratic and Christian principles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stars:
I have simply asked a few questions and pointed out some rather obvious problems with the principles i see outlined here.

---

Outlined here? Outlined where?

Who here has suggested state management of prostitution or synchronised swimming or whatever it is that floats your boat?

[ 04. May 2007, 02:04: Message edited by: ken ]
 

---

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
I think the nearest was me, for saying that people ought to be paid according to the amount of work they do, and that this should take into account intensity of the work as well as hours worked. It seems to me fairly obvious that this is not what happens under free market capitalism, which means that the rich do not necessarily have an inalienable right to their wealth, which means that it isn't theft if the state pinches a bit.

Certain posters seem to be assuming that by redistributive taxation I'm suggesting the state should take money off the rich and give it to those doing underpaid stressful jobs even if those jobs have no value whatsoever, which is not something I've ever said.
 

---

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
Incidentally, I should probably add:

1. I'm not sure I would personally self-identify as a socialist. At any rate I don't want anyone to think that anything I've said counts as the One True Socialism.
2. In world terms the argument over the discrepancies between burger-flippers and the CEO of Burger King is a side-issue, because, if there is an inequitable distribution of wealth, it is primarily that between the First World and the developing world.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stars:
I have simply asked a few questions and pointed out some rather obvious problems with the principles i see outlined here.

---

Outlined here? Outlined where?

Who here has suggested state management of prostitution or synchronised swimming or whatever it is that floats your boat?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stars:
Wage managment is described.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stars:
Wage managment is described.

---

No, redistribution of wealth is justified on the grounds that it is inequitably distributed under pure capitalism, as can be verified by comparing workloads across differing payscales.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stars:
Since wages are managed, i should imagine prostitute's wages will be managed..or will prostitution be illegal?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stars:
Since wages are managed, i should imagine prostitute's wages will be managed..or will prostitution be illegal?

---

Not all models of socialism are such that `wages' is even a meaningful concept. In an ideal world, perhaps, people do what they can in return for what they need. People don't take more than they need, because ownership and consumption aren't linked to status and self-fulfilment as they are for most people now.

---

quote:

---

I concede that people (well, most people) today aren't ready for this kind of thing.

---

quote:

---

As for prostitution, whether it's legal or not is an ethico-legal problem, not an economic one. However, I concede that it is a more pressing problem where the economy is planned rather than in a free market, because people actually have to face up to the fact that prostitution happens. In a capitalist society we can conveniently sweep it under the carpet.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stars:
Consumption is pleasing to the individual, work is not; this is not some artefact of bourgeois values, it is a simple human fact.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stars:
Consumption is pleasing to the individual, work is not; this is not some artefact of bourgeois values, it is a simple human fact.

---

Balls. I enjoy my job - designing web pages - but I still get rewarded for it.

---

quote:

---

Conversely, as an athsmatic, I'm obliged to take medicines that I dislike. This is consumption, and I pay for it (despite our national health service).

---

quote:

---

To assume that all work is unwelcome and all consumption is welcome is to caricature the economic system in a startling way.

---

quote:

---

I'm sorry you clearly dislike your job so much. Perhaps a socialist government might be able to find you one more suited to your skills?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Afterthought: The obvious answer for prostitution is not to nationalise it, but to syndicalise it. Dispense with the pimps, and let the prostitutes manage their own business, approve their own new recruits, and so forth. If you wanted an example of an exploitative type of capitalist 'investor', a pimp is fairly canonical.

T.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stars:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stars:
Consumption is pleasing to the individual, work is not; this is not some artefact of bourgeois values, it is a simple human fact.

---

Balls. I enjoy my job - designing web pages - but I still get rewarded for it.

---

Part of the way you enjoy the results of your work is by looking in satisfaction at what you have created

As a developer, myself, I know perfectly well that development happens as psychological cycles of work and play; you concentrate to create an outcome then play by watching your creation unfold. The play is not strictly necessary for the outcome but taking it away makes the concentration and discipline soulless and unrewarding, the effort part is the work

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Conversely, as an athsmatic, I'm obliged to take medicines that I dislike. This is consumption, and I pay for it (despite our national health service).

---

You obviously enjoy / prefer the medicine[/QB]
I enjoy not choking to death on the inside of my own throat, but I also happen to consider that a basic right. Taking two different kinds of foul-tasting medication by inhalation I do not enjoy. Just trust me.

quote:

---

Let me ask you a question, if you were given the choice between consuming the medicine and producing it, which would you choose?

---

A straight either/or choice? Producing. I always wanted to be a chemist, even a very basic one. I'd much rather do a moderately remunerative production job in chemistry than spend the rest of my life dependent on bad-tasting drugs.

quote:

---

[QUOTE]
To assume that all work is unwelcome and all consumption is welcome is to caricature the economic system in a startling way.

---

It really isn't, the principle is very sound, but it does require a moment's thought to understand it. People will tend to engage in the smallest amount of effort they can to enjoy a particular preferred outcome. This is why low prices are preferred to high prices, but amazingly, socialists contend this.[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Tell me, if work is enjoyable, why are low prices preferred to high prices?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I'm sorry you clearly dislike your job so much. Perhaps a socialist government might be able to find you one more suited to your skills?

---

If work itself were intrinsically enjoyable there would be no need to compensate people for it but there might be a need to pay people to stop working long enough to consume or we may drown in all the cough medicine being greedily produced. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stars:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Afterthought: The obvious answer for prostitution is not to nationalise it, but to syndicalise it. Dispense with the pimps, and let the prostitutes manage their own business, approve their own new recruits, and so forth. If you wanted an example of an exploitative type of capitalist 'investor', a pimp is fairly canonical.

T.

---

Here we agree fully

But a pimp doesn't use the power of capital to trap prostitutes into providing services to him for nothing; he uses the power of territory. He 'gives' her access to territory, something that would have entirely existed without his intervention, but without which she cannot work. He actually provides her with an imaginary service - something that was already there but that she can't replace; protection rackets, more or less, work in the same way. Of course, in the 'legitimate' economy the very same territorial power and resultant economic exploitation exists.

---

quote:

---

This discussion of prostitution in a socialist society reminds me of the time the Socialist Workers put up a poster offering a discussion of 'The Socialist Answer To The Drug Trade'. Someone scrawled underneath: "Nationalise It!"

---

 

---

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stars:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ricardus:
[qb] Three posts above, you write - "think the nearest was me, for saying that people ought to be paid according to the amount of work they do"

That's wage managment.

I agree that wealth is very unjustly distributed presently, but i don't think you can fix it by managing wages.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stars:

But a pimp doesn't use the power of capital to trap prostitutes into providing services to him for nothing; he uses the power of territory.

---

quote:

---

He 'gives' her access to territory, something that would have entirely existed without his intervention, but without which she cannot work.
He actually provides her with an imaginary service - something that was already there but that she can't replace;

---

quote:

---

protection rackets, more or less, work in the same way.

---

quote:

---

Of course, in the 'legitimate' economy the very same territorial power and resultant economic exploitation exists.

---

Of course! You are not far from enlightenment, little grasshopper!
 

---

Posted by Stars (# 10804) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:


[QB][QUOTE]

The more extreme socialists would argue that all capitalism is like this on some level.

---

quote:

---

I disagree, but I do think that society and government have a positive duty to prevent such situations arising.

---

quote:

---

Celebrity is a form of economic rent. Jessica Alba can get paid money for being Jessica Alba.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stars:

But a pimp doesn't use the power of capital to trap prostitutes into providing services to him for nothing; he uses the power of territory.

---

That is a form of capital - a form of ownership.

The pimp has rights of ownership and usufruct that are recognised by others in the same business, even if not by the state.

---

quote:

---

Economic rent, as it is called. Controlling access to a unique resource (or at least one in short supply) Celebrity is a form of economic rent. Jessica Alba can get paid money for being Jessica Alba. Arguably so are many senior positions in large organisations, including private companies. The CEO of a large company gets more money than they are "worth" in ordinary theories of wages.

---

quote:

---

ken writes:
To some extent, but they are more like simple extortion.

---

Both examples are extortion, and both use the rationale of a form of territorial ownership

If I hadn’t made myself clear yet, I’m insinuating that territorial ownership (as it is presently instituted) is a form of state legitimized private extortion

stay cool
 

---

Posted by Telepath (# 3534) on :
 

quote:

---

If the high price she were paid relied on the fact that nobody else was allowed to be pretty, or allowed to stand in a particular way, or wear a particular colour or stand in a particular place, she would be commanding a form of (what I would call) economic rent

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
The Economist did a special survey on Executive Pay in their Jan. 18 edition Article

---

quote:

---

So yes, there are problems with executive pay, and there certainly is with some business ethics in some (Minor) cases. But I am often not prepared to use government, socialist or otherwise, to “fix” it as the solution is nearly always worse than the problem.

---

quote:

---

Pay conditions can be voluntarily changed fairly easily. Send out a resume, interview a few times, get an offer, negotiate a better pay rate or benefits, take the job.

Taxation, at least in America, is a one way vector, always increasing and it’s a real bitch to get regulators to not spend money. Basically impossible.

I would also add this, if taxation is not a “harm” than one has to be willing to say you are willing to stand behind anything your government does with those tax dollars in your name. In other words, if everything the government did was good, im my or your opinion, than we would probably not see it as harmful. But you and I both know, that is not how it is.

---

quote:

---

I am against my money going to Iraq, for example. That is a direct Harm to me. Someone is taking my tax money and spending it where I don’t want them too. That’s a harm.

---

quote:

---

I don’t want to get into the significant differences between the American educational system, and Britains. Our university systems are hugely different as I understand it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stars:
Consumption is pleasing to the individual, work is not; this is not some artefact of bourgeois values, it is a simple human fact.

---

Balls. I enjoy my job - designing web pages - but I still get rewarded for it.

---

quote:

---

Conversely, as an athsmatic, I'm obliged to take medicines that I dislike.

---

quote:

---

I'm sorry you clearly dislike your job so much. Perhaps a socialist government might be able to find you one more suited to your skills?

---

Ha. HAHAHAHA!!!

No, seriously. Do you honestly think a socialist government would be able to give everyone a job they'd enjoy doing? What kind of trip are you on, exactly?

For the record, there's no job in the world I'd enjoy doing. Maybe there are some I'd like more than others, but as long as I had to turn up every day I'd hate it eventually. And not many jobs allow you to only turn up when you feel like it...
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stars:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
Stars - I'm going to be ignoring you from now on, make of that what you will. I don't really care.

---

would it help if i said i'm sorry?

I really have no beef with socialists beyond the fact that their arguments are erroneous, confuse people and so block progress. Their hearts are very often in the right place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stars:
This kind of ‘trade’ has an entirely different kind of nature, yet the left miss this distinction in their determination to prove black is white and that capitalism itself is evil.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Its even in the bloody Communist Manifesto IIRC.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bc_anglican:
One of my friends use to say that Marxism was just a secular form of Christianity. I wonder about this sometimes.

Christianity does emphasize charity and justice for the poor and dispossessed. It also emphasizes an economy based on stewardship and fairness IMHO.

By socialism, I mean any economic system where equality, and not growth is the main priority. Socialism doesn't only mean statist socialism, in which government planning is the principal means of economic growth.

So is Christianity and socialism the same thing?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Business is an amoral enterprise. All the whining in the world won't make it immoral or moral, only individual businesspeople and corporations will.

---

quote:

---

Technically you are correct. On the other hand, there is a phenomenal amount of vacant land worldwide. You could build ponds in all but the most dense of places such as Britain.

---

quote:

---

All of this is an analogy, of course. The bottom line is that we are not talking about land, we are talking about business

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
It's yet again one of the reasons that people immigrate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Telepath:
If, instead, the landlord had to pay rent to the rest of us for the privilege of exclusive access to land which belongs to all the land's inhabitants by birthright, withholding land from productive use would become too costly for the landowner, rather than for the economy as a whole.

---

Now, that an idea I like. And it's fairer then the current system in which a tiny minority of a tiny minority get all the land and all the money and we are all supposed to look up to them whilst they screw us and feel sorry for them when the evil socialists say wasty things about them. How corrupt is that?

[ 07. May 2007, 17:36: Message edited by: Papio ]
 

---

Posted by Telepath (# 3534) on :
 
Actually, I almost never hear socialists (or anybody) criticizing land speculators. But feel free to start, Papio
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Telepath:
I think you'll find that America does in fact have a finite amount of productive land.

---

quote:

---

As for not liking it - I don't get why you would like it or even accept it.

---

quote:

---

Why would you want to pay enormously inflated costs on every part of the production process, then watch your business go under as soon as the inevitable bust happens? Why would you enjoy paying rent to a landowner (whose privileges are reinforced by governmental might) even as you resent paying VAT and income tax on everything you produce?

---

quote:

---

I could, by virtue of being the first to arrive at your dinner party, eat all the food and guzzle all the punch and burp "if you don't like it, welcome to the world" at the other guests, but just because I can do something doesn't make it a good idea. And I see no sense in the idea that things must be a certain way.

---

quote:

---

I also think that there is such a thing as natural law; as a Christian, I don't think I can ignore that (bringing us back to the thread title), although ISTM neither could most conscientious individuals of whatever persuasion.

---

quote:

---

Like I said, I see no sense in the idea that things must be a certain way. We've been conditioned to assume that it's natural for landowners to monopolize the space and the rest of us to pay rent for access to that space, just as serfs paid tribute to the lords of their estates. If, instead, the landlord had to pay rent to the rest of us for the privilege of exclusive access to land which belongs to all the land's inhabitants by birthright, withholding land from productive use would become too costly for the landowner, rather than for the economy as a whole.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Many problems with the free market can be attributed to

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gort:
I seriously doubt that even a majority of them started with substantial amounts of inherited money.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gort:
I seriously doubt that even a majority of them started with substantial amounts of inherited money.

---

I don't. Even though I was talking about Britain.

Most people die in the social class that they were born into.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Warren Buffet started his career with $5000 (~$42,000 today) that he had saved from a newspaper route. At the age of 14!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
That aside, I find it almost impossible to believe that a 14 year old kid had already managed to save the equivalent of approx £21, 000 from a paper round. That sets off my bullshit detector somewhat. (And, no, I am not accusing you of lying).

---

That's a bit ageist of you isn't it Papio?

Maybe you'll believe the BBC more readily? It looks like he's been amazingly generous too. According to other articles, he's given away something like $35 million. Sheesh!

And I really wish that I'd been the one to have this idea!.

Some people just have the skill, I guess!
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
I find that hard to believe Papio. He's the second richest man in the world and recently gave away much of his fortune to Bill Gates Foundaition.
Here's a recent story in the UK. And the bigger one.

The rest of the stories I told are simply history. You simply do not understand, or don't care. People work HARD to make their money here. Work. Not inherit. Even those that inherit work hard a lot of the time. The hardest. Just ask Ivanka Trump.

There's a reason we are the richest nation in the world. Not because we inherit it, but because we work for it. We believe in the American Dream and it happens to many.

Not that there is anything wrong with the way other countries do their thing necessarily. I just am saying that your assumtions were grossly incorrect.
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:
That's a bit ageist of you isn't it Papio?

---

quote:

---

There's a reason we are the richest nation in the world. Not because we inherit it, but because we work for it. We believe in the American Dream and it happens to many.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:
That's a bit ageist of you isn't it Papio?

---

No. It isn't. To say that one can make that amount of money by doing a paperround for a few years is bullshit. The end. I won't believe that he did so no matter how many links Geo cites. Sorry.

---

Well, I gave you a link as well. He had enough money to buy shares when he was 11. He had enough to buy land at 17. I'm sure he did more than have a paper round - his shares alone will have brought extra money in - but I think MadGeo's point was that he worked hard to develop the raw material he clearly had as an entrepreneur.

I don't understand why this upsets you so much, but I think such natural skill is amazing. To me it isn't any different from, say, a skill at painting or playing a musical instrument or engineering. Some people just seem to instinctively know which financial decisions are going to bring the best return. He's clearly given a lot of people work in his lifetime and he's decided to give away billions.

*sigh* I wouldn't mind having that kind of money. Not that it would change me, obviously.
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
Geo cited the guy as an example of someone who started out penniless, which is clearly bullshit.

There is a moral difference between being a billionaire and being an excellent guitar player. I'm sorry, but there just is.
 

---

Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimmy B:
The problem with the Great American Dream, is that for every 1 that makes it, 10,000 get trampled underfoot and you don't hear about those.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:
...I don't understand why this upsets you so much, but I think such natural skill is amazing...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
Geo cited the guy as an example of someone who started out penniless, which is clearly bullshit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimmyB:
The problem with the Great American Dream, is that for every 1 that makes it, 10,000 get trampled underfoot and you don't hear about those.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
Not to mention that the argument that you can tell how hard someone works by looking at their bank balance is just bullshit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:
I'm sure you cann't deny that Richard Branson has created jobs can you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:
they've worked hard to get there.

---

quote:

---

littlelady:
But I don't resent the minority who happen to combine hard work with everything else it takes to make stupendous amounts of money. It's a bonus when they decide to give it all away.

---

Actually I can admire them and in fact unceasingly praise them if it can be shown they made their money without exploiting others.

I can think of one person who made money while trying to care for his workers, at the mo: the original founder of the Sidchrome factory (high quality Australian tools). He did such things as give the workers shares in the factory and organised holiday villas for their use. I expect he's long gone now, and I have a vague memory that Sidchrome now base their operations in China.


[ETA: Gawd, GK, I would be relieved to hear that! Even $5 is still low though and a 40 hr week on that is less than what an Australian with family receives on Unemployment allowance]

[ 08. May 2007, 07:09: Message edited by: Jimmy B ]
 

---

Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
Why does that mean that I have to admire him, want to be like him and see him as some sort of folk hero? Which seems to be what the pro-super-rich are suggesting. That worship of such people is mandatory. I don't like Branson, or Trump, or Buffet or Gates etc. Sorry but I am entitled to dislike them...

---

You are entitled to remain as dirt-poor as you desire. When you claim some moral high ground by condemning those who choose to be otherwise, it sounds a bit strident. No one has suggested making worship of the wealthy mandatory. You are pointedly ignoring the "self-made" argument that was being discussed.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Per the "Latest Numbers" table in the center of the page, the Federal Minimum Wage is $5.15/hr. The State Minimum Wage has to be at least that much. In some states, it's higher.

And no, you can't really live on it.


 

---

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:
I'm sure you cann't deny that Richard Branson has created jobs can you?

---

Why does that mean that I have to admire him, want to be like him and see him as some sort of folk hero?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Per the "Latest Numbers" table in the center of the page, the Federal Minimum Wage is $5.15/hr. The State Minimum Wage has to be at least that much. In some states, it's higher.

---

Well, that's about the same as the minimum wage in the UK. We have higher sales tax than anywhere in the States I think (17.5% nationally), so what we gain on you guys in the hourly rate we probably lose once we purchase anything.
 

---

Posted by Jimmy B (# 220) on :
 
Mm, just searched on the Sidchrome guy I mentioned - he was still going 2 years ago, John Siddons.

There is something ironic in that this guy, who put into practice what I consider to be ethical and Christian-centred practices with regards his workers, is actually a thorough-going rationalist who has written a book (The Immortality of Goodness on a religion/God-free morality!

 

---

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :
 
Papio, btw: Branson began his life as an entrepreneur as a teenager, so I do think there is something about being an entrepreneur that is a natural skill.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimmy B:

quote:

---

littlelady:
But I don't resent the minority who happen to combine hard work with everything else it takes to make stupendous amounts of money. It's a bonus when they decide to give it all away.

---

Actually I can admire them and in fact unceasingly praise them if it can be shown they made their money without exploiting others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
I just think is absolutely fucking obscene, beyond the nth degree of disgusting, for anyone to have that much money in this world. Not to mention that the argument that you can tell how hard someone works by looking at their bank balance is just bullshit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
...But whatever the merits or otherwise of individuals, the system stinks of shit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gort:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
...But whatever the merits or otherwise of individuals, the system stinks of shit.

---

...and smells of roses compared to the rotting corpse of regimented totalitarianism that some of the hanky-squeezing socialist bleeding hearts would shackle us with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:
they've worked hard to get there.

---

My point is - even if that is so, so what?

---

quote:

---

The difference between rent, which I am choosing to pay, and VAT is that I have No CHOICE on the VAT. That is the difference. VAT is forcibly removed. Rent, I can buy away from and will, shortly.

---

quote:

---

It IS natural for landowners to own their land.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Per the "Latest Numbers" table in the center of the page, the Federal Minimum Wage is $5.15/hr. The State Minimum Wage has to be at least that much. In some states, it's higher.

---

Well, that's about the same as the minimum wage in the UK. We have higher sales tax than anywhere in the States I think (17.5% nationally), so what we gain on you guys in the hourly rate we probably lose once we purchase anything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stars:
This kind of ‘trade’ has an entirely different kind of nature, yet the left miss this distinction in their determination to prove black is white and that capitalism itself is evil.

---

In which way do "the left miss this distinction" between land ("real property") and personal property? It is a commonplace on the left. John Locke made it. Its even in the bloody Communist Manifesto IIRC.

---

quote:

---

The people who miss the distinction are those so-called-libertarian conservatives who try to claim that different forms of property all arise naturally and inevitably from personal property, or from human biology, or from natural morality.

---

They are nearly right. Lets put it this way, they are as right as most of the left
 

---

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stars:
Consumption is pleasing to the individual, work is not; this is not some artefact of bourgeois values, it is a simple human fact.

---

Balls. I enjoy my job - designing web pages - but I still get rewarded for it.

---

Good for you - you're one of the very few that actually enjoy their job. Most of us don't have that luxury. We just have to do what we can.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Conversely, as an athsmatic, I'm obliged to take medicines that I dislike.

---

No you're not. You have decided that taking the medicines is better for you than not taking them - no-one has forced you to take them. In this sense you are in the same boat as all of us who have to do jobs we dislike because the consequences of not doing them are worse.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I'm sorry you clearly dislike your job so much. Perhaps a socialist government might be able to find you one more suited to your skills?

---

Ha. HAHAHAHA!!!

No, seriously. Do you honestly think a socialist government would be able to give everyone a job they'd enjoy doing? What kind of trip are you on, exactly?

---

quote:

---

For the record, there's no job in the world I'd enjoy doing. Maybe there are some I'd like more than others, but as long as I had to turn up every day I'd hate it eventually. And not many jobs allow you to only turn up when you feel like it...

---

You're an anarchist at heart, I guess.

T.
 

---

Posted by 206 (# 206) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Telepath:
Speculation in land drives the rent disproportionately high.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
You assume that there is a fixed supply of ponds. In business, that is the exception not the rule. A better analogy would be that people come in and dig hoels and build ponds and take out the monopolist. THAT's business.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Telepath:
That's as may be. However, I don't see any reason why it should be any more "natural" for the rest of us to pay the landowners for access to land on which to exist, than it would be for those landowners to pay the rest of us for their own exclusive access to that land.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimmy B:
The problem with the Great American Dream, is that for every 1 that makes it, 10,000 get trampled underfoot and you don't hear about those.

---

quote:

---

Big wealth can be made easily where there exists big differentials in wages. I just checked the US min wage. In Kansas it's $2.65 an hour. That's disgusting. But hell yeah, anyone can fill a factory full of minions paying them $2.65 an hour and get rich. I'm surprised you don't have more millionaires, not less.

---

quote:

---

I'd rather not have the chance to make big money and know that my fellow countrypeople are paid a living wage - people on unemployment allowance here receive more in a week that most of the US on the minimum wage. And they don't have to sell their house if they become sick to pay for medical expenses.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

There's a reason we are the richest nation in the world. Not because we inherit it, but because we work for it. We believe in the American Dream and it happens to many.

---

Yes, your billionaires work for it. But others work very hard for very little, for your billionaires.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
If we implemented your sociliast helath care system here it would be a disaster. Full stop. The reasons for this is legion. I will not bother to get into that either as it would derail but suffice it to say we will be trying it soon, and you heard it here first that it will suck duck butter.

---

I'll bite. What's so terrible, and so difficult, about healthcare - especially emergency healthcare - that's free at the point of use?

T.

ETA: Spelig

[ 08. May 2007, 15:23: Message edited by: Teufelchen ]
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
I don't want to go through that discussion again. Suffice it to say that our other governmental systems run so well ( ) that I have no faith in the future Universal Healthcare that is inevitable as a train wreck. Just look at how well the money is being spent to repair Iraq or how shitty out elementary education system is. Multiply that times 300 milllion Americans. Shake well. One shit cocktail to go.

It helps to remember that the bigger the population, the bigger the government, the shittier it gets. Our Population is 5 times yours and spread out over 40 times the area. Logistics alone are a money hole. Blah Blah Blah.

It doesn't matter. Just remember, 10 years from now, you heard it from Mad Geo first.
 

---

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :
 
So implement it at a state level?

T.
 

---

Posted by Stars (# 10804) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:


The answer to the `how much is too much' question must surely be something along the lines of `when you have more than is necessary to satisfy your reasonable needs'. Of course, we then get side-tracked into a discussion of what is `reasonable' here.

---

quote:

---

The problem is that when we ask `how much wealth is too much?' we are using the strongly capitalist concept of wealth (personal, proprietory wealth), which presupposes that an answer can be found within a capitalist system.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Telepath:
Guess I out-resent you.

---

• Where is the free-choice?
• Is force being applied somewhere?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
As I said before, some socialism appears to be required in order to deal with the holes that the free market cannot or will not address. But add too much socialism to the mix, and the bread falls. The bigger the bread, the more socialism, the more likely the falling.

Socialism requires capital to sustain it and yet strangles it to survive. It's a leach that can kill the host. Or at least drive the host somewhere else for treatment.

I hardly think that Christianity wants to ally itself with the moral equivelant of a leach. Christianity wants poeple to be voluntarily loving to each other, not coercively.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:
I'm sure you cann't deny that Richard Branson has created jobs can you?

---

Why does that mean that I have to admire him, want to be like him and see him as some sort of folk hero? Which seems to be what the pro-super-rich are suggesting. That worship of such people is mandatory. I don't like Branson, or Trump, or Buffet or Gates etc. Sorry but I am entitled to dislike them.

Why does that mean I have change my mind about anything I have said on this thread?

I can do good work with something without having any right to have it in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
based on assumptions about which you don't seem to be willing to discuss, when confronted with points that clearly demonstrate your asumptions were invalid, is such a great quality to strive for?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
Do you honestly think that landlords, employers and corporations never employ force? Do you honestly think that employees and tenants are always free? Really?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
MOSTLY landlords, employers, and even corporations do not use force.

---

quote:

---

I don't get to choose to opt-out of socialist medicare systems when I retire. I have to pay into it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
Very, very few millionaires started off literally penniless. Most of them inherited substantial sums of money, like Richard Branson.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I don't get to choose to opt-out of socialist medicare systems when I retire. I have to pay into it. In addition to the monies I save for myself.

I certainly don't get to choose much less see any part of the monies that go into welfare systems.

Force, force, force. No choice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
You want to take their money away.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
It's your moral duty to pay into it!

---

Here we go with the morals again.

I suppose I can grant you that this is again one of those things that we probably have to have in a capitalist soceity. But I question whether the "moral" is as clear as you make it out to be. Let's play a "what if"....

What if, when the Baby Boomers retire, all 40 gazillion of them (a technical term ) and sink Medicare/Social Security. Blow it up. Gone.

There are not enough young people to support the socialist behemoth under the wieght of Boomers. Do we simply screw the younger people for more? Tax them until they bleed? How can that be moral? Taking from the next generation because the Baby Boomers (who are generally quite a wealthy lot themselves) "get theirs"? Or do we screw the Boomers out of the monies thay have put into for 45 years, maybe? Is that moral?

Or do we privatize? Do we turn it over to Corporations under the State like Chile has done quite succesfully? Oh heaven's NO! We can't do that. Privite never works. Excpet for when it does. Like in Chile.

Do you see the moral entanglements I am setting up here? As I have said:

This Is An Amoral Situation.

You can wish it to not be, but that is just a wish. Anytime you take money from one person and give it to another, it is still a TAKE. It may be a morally justified TAKE, in your view, but do two wrongs make a right? And how does that corrupt your soul? That it's perfectly okay to screw someone for their money under some position you think is "right".

I'm not saying I don't make that choice myself, mind you. I've already said I might. I just simply do not declare it always to be the moral choice. It's simply a choice.
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:

I for one think that subsidies to business are both against capitalism (by artificially preferring one entrepreneur over another) and socialism (by using public funds to contribute to private corporate profit, instead of to enhance the public good). Welfare may not be wonderful, but it's better than handouts to (for example) banking consortia. (Which is what the privatisation of UK railways amounts to.)

T.

---

I think subsidies to business ARE a form of socialism.

More seriously. I despise business subsidies worse than any social program you could devise. In that I am VERY consistent. I don't want to give money to Papio's Programs, and I sure as shit want to take all business subisides and give them back to the taxpayer.

Fuck that.
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
but do two wrongs make a right? And how does that corrupt your soul? That it's perfectly okay to screw someone for their money under some position you think is "right".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
Do you honestly think that landlords, employers and corporations never employ force? Do you honestly think that employees and tenants are always free? Really?

---

"Always" is such a loaded word, I won't go there.

We are talking about two "systems". Systems are complex, nasty, messy things. So we are not evaluating "Always" we are evaluating "Mostly".

MOSTLY landlords, employers, and even corporations do not use force. They are interested in doing business with us. Doing business requires cooperation, not coercion. If you don't like the way a landlord, employer, or corporation does business, you have the choice to go to another landlord, employer, or corporation with your business. That's choice.

I've lived under at least ten landlords in my lifetime. Never felt like I didn't have a choice as to move out, always moved out when I wanted to. Never evicted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Per the "Latest Numbers" table in the center of the page, the Federal Minimum Wage is $5.15/hr. The State Minimum Wage has to be at least that much. In some states, it's higher.

---

Well, that's about the same as the minimum wage in the UK. We have higher sales tax than anywhere in the States I think (17.5% nationally), so what we gain on you guys in the hourly rate we probably lose once we purchase anything.

---

£5.52/hr = $11.04hr at recent exchange rates.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
but do two wrongs make a right? And how does that corrupt your soul? That it's perfectly okay to screw someone for their money under some position you think is "right".

---

Requiring people to perform their moral duty is not a wrong at all.

It doesn't corrupt anyone's soul. What corrupts souls is the view that to be human is to endlessly consume more and more and more at the expense of everyone else. THAT is the evil here.

I don't accept that I am screwing anyone. If I don't deserve to have something, I have no complaint if it is taken away.

---

• "Moral Duty".
• "Evil"
• "Expense of EVERYONE else".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
See to me, Marvin, the fact that most people hate their jobs and are in jobs that don't exactly match their skills simply is more evidence that capitalism needs to be replaced by something less inhuman.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
You want to take their money away.

---

Yep. I do. And give it to those who deserve to have it more than they do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
You want to take their money away.

---

Yep. I do. And give it to those who deserve to have it more than they do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
You can deny that you are a young, white, and (lower) middle class (or whatever you actually are, but I am pretty sure I am clsoe to right).

---

Gee, that's so relavent isn't it?

quote:

---

Spot the fallacy:

---

quote:

---

Originally Posted by Littlelady
Who is worthy of wealth in your view, Papio?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:
Making a moral judgement about a person's worthiness for anything is to risk being on the receiving end of someone else's judgement about your own worthiness. If socialism advocates such judgement then that is another difference between it and Christianity, since in Christianity the teaching is that the only person equipped to judge anyone is God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
You want to take their money away.

---

Yep. I do. And give it to those who deserve to have it more than they do.

---

Since this thread asks whether Christianity is the same as socialism, and if socialism says that the rich should be robbed to give to the poor, then socialism and Christianity are not alike.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
You want to take their money away.

---

Yep. I do. And give it to those who deserve to have it more than they do.

---

Since this thread asks whether Christianity is the same as socialism, and if socialism says that the rich should be robbed to give to the poor, then socialism and Christianity are not alike. Christianity encourages the rich to give to the poor (and indeed encourages the poor to give to the poor!); it doesn't advocate taking wealth from the rich. Without the rich, there would be no support for the poor.

Who is worthy of wealth in your view, Papio? And what exactly is 'wealth'? £15,000 pa or £150,000 pa or £1,500,000 or what?

Making a moral judgement about a person's worthiness for anything is to risk being on the receiving end of someone else's judgement about your own worthiness. If socialism advocates such judgement then that is another difference between it and Christianity, since in Christianity the teaching is that the only person equipped to judge anyone is God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:
Making a moral judgement about a person's worthiness for anything is to risk being on the receiving end of someone else's judgement about your own worthiness. If socialism advocates such judgement then that is another difference between it and Christianity, since in Christianity the teaching is that the only person equipped to judge anyone is God.

---

quote:

---

You know, I have always found socialism more honest and realistic than Christianity in that regard. Most of the most dogmatic and judgemental people I have ever met in my life have been Christians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
Most of the most dogmatic and judgemental people I have ever met in my life have been Christians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:

quote:

---

Originally Posted by Littlelady
Who is worthy of wealth in your view, Papio?

---

No-one. No-one who has ever lived, ever will live or lives currently. No-one at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
Well, Jesus angrily condemned humanity for it's lack of generosity (the poor you will always have with you)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:
Making a moral judgement about a person's worthiness for anything is to risk being on the receiving end of someone else's judgement about your own worthiness. If socialism advocates such judgement then that is another difference between it and Christianity, since in Christianity the teaching is that the only person equipped to judge anyone is God.

---

It's not about judging worth, moral or otherwise, it's about judging need. I wouldn't presume to judge another person's worth, but I think I could have a fair stab at the relative needs of different groups of people.

---

Fair enough (I think) but I was responding at that point to Papio's comment regarding worth.

Your preference for relative need as a measure by which to judge raises the question in my mind: when does a need become big enough or valid enough to merit a financial response? For example, many of the 'landed gentry' became cash poor in the mid 20th century (particularly once the socialists raised taxes to 70% or whatever the higher rate tax was in the 1970s), which is why they sold off their inherited properties or developed them into wildlife/amusement parks. Yet which socialist would dip into their pockets or advocate other pockets be dipped into to help the landed gentry?

And would you only make the judgement about groups of people? What about individuals? (Or perhaps I'm being pedantic there? ) It strikes me that Jesus dealt with individuals: he helped the Roman centurian, the Samaritan woman, the prostitute, the tax collector. He didn't exclude anyone from his help (albeit mostly pastoral). So far as I can remember, the only grouping he did in this context was 'the poor' and 'the rich', but who knows where his dividing line was?

quote:

---

To ask a socialist how much wealth is too much is pointless because, on the whole, socialists don't see wealth in monetary terms. Or in any terms at all, in some cases.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
So the only alternatives are being dirt poor or being a billionaire? Is that honestly what you think?

BTW, Judas here is a typical capitalist. He *claims* it's to benefit society, but really he was going to be the only one who benefitted.

---

Typical Capitalist.



Yes, because Warren Buffet and Bill Gates certainly aren't doing ANYTHING to benefit society. No, Not.....At.....All.

Hell, even without their Supermassive Philathropy Beyond All Before It, Bill Gates and Buffet did more to benefit society with their corporations than anyone here probably will ever dream of, with the possible exception of Simon perhaps. Without Gates, 90% of whatever gets done with Windows and Office might not have gotten done as effectively. Without Buffet, a whole host of companies would not be providing us as effectively with things we actually need. You know, like underwear, insurance, medical devices, furniture, and homes.

This assumption that capitalism is all about greed or even profit is fallacious. Many businesses serve to fill a need in society. MANY.
 

---

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:
Since this thread asks whether Christianity is the same as socialism, and if socialism says that the rich should be robbed to give to the poor, then socialism and Christianity are not alike.

---

It doesn't. It says that taxation should be used
to lessen the inequalities between rich and poor. And Christianity does say that people should pay their taxes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
Well, Jesus angrily condemned humanity for it's lack of generosity (the poor you will always have with you) and believed it was a sin to be rich (easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle then for a rich man to enter heaven). He commanded the rich young ruler to give all his money to the poor if he wanted to become a Christian.

---

Since this isn't Kergymania I don't want to get too bogged down in what the Bible does (or doesn't say) but Jesus got mad about a few things, though I have always read the verse you included as being a statement of fact rather than an expression of anger. As for Jesus believing it was a sin to be rich that is not so at all. Jesus believed it was wrong to hold on to riches, to make them your god. Because there are people who do make material goods/money their god, it is therefore harder for them to get into heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. When given the choice, it would seem that the rich young ruler preferred his riches to Jesus.

I rather think it is socialists who see wealth as a sin.

Class dismissed.
 

---

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
We should also recognise that profit is not the end-point of the money flow. When money becomes profit, it doesn't suddenly stop being money and taken out of the economy.

Part of the profit is paid to shareholders, who spend it or save it.

The remaining profit is retained by the company and either spent (investing in new plant, new businesses etc) or put in the bank.

The money spent is returned to the economy and the recievers of the money are enriched.

The money deposited in the bank is loaned out to people to buy houses, cars and holidays, or to start up businesses, or it is lent to businesses to invest in new plant, new opportunities etc.
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
No Deano, you don't understand. Shareholders must be evil too! I mean they have to be right? They are affiliated with money, which is the root of all evil, ya know? They can't possibly do anything good because they were tainted by the presence of a CORPORATION <Shudder> <Shudder>. You know, those artificial constructs composed of lots of human beings that are clearly evil in their mission to create something bigger than themselves by banding together towards SOME end. Oh, of course I forgot, becuase it's a CORPORATION, those ends can't be good. Why, even if they make tires, thsoe are EVIL tires. Or if they make baby diapers, well you'll probably have an evil baby, since it was diapered by a corporation. Forget cars, those are always made by corporations.




 

---

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
Well, Jesus angrily condemned humanity for it's lack of generosity (the poor you will always have with you) and believed it was a sin to be rich (easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle then for a rich man to enter heaven). He commanded the rich young ruler to give all his money to the poor if he wanted to become a Christian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
This assumption that capitalism is all about greed or even profit is fallacious. Many businesses serve to fill a need in society. MANY.

---

Well, yeah, because if no one needed their services, there would be no customers. However, businesses will only fill the need if there is a profit to be made. No business will survive serving people who can't pay, no matter how badly they need the service. And there's often a lot more profit to be made selling things people *don't* need.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:
Money is being taken from people when they are taxed. They have no choice but to pay if they want to stay out of jail.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by OliviaG:
IIRC, the last time we covered this ground, a number of Shipmates in different countries pointed out that one does not go to jail for being unable to pay one's taxes. One MAY go to jail for tax EVASION, which is something completely different. OliviaG

---

quote:

---

The poor are always with us because reality is polar: right down to the positive/negative charges of the particles that form matter. Every state of being has its polarity. As long as there are the wealthy there will be poor. As long as there are poor, there will be the wealthy. As long as we continue to wish to experience this material reality, there will be polarity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by OliviaG:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
This assumption that capitalism is all about greed or even profit is fallacious. Many businesses serve to fill a need in society. MANY.

---

Well, yeah, because if no one needed their services, there would be no customers. However, businesses will only fill the need if there is a profit to be made. No business will survive serving people who can't pay, no matter how badly they need the service. And there's often a lot more profit to be made selling things people *don't* need.

---

Bzzzt.

There are Non-Profit Businesses (NPOs). They serve people that can't pay when they badly need a service. Ah those wiley businessmen, imagine the audacity to form businesses that do not make money! Doing all those good works without the socialists that would take money in order to help. What Bastards.



[ 10. May 2007, 23:22: Message edited by: Mad Geo ]
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
No Deano, you don't understand. Shareholders must be evil too! I mean they have to be right? They are affiliated with money, which is the root of all evil, ya know? They can't possibly do anything good because they were tainted by the presence of a CORPORATION <Shudder> <Shudder>. You know, those artificial constructs composed of lots of human beings that are clearly evil in their mission to create something bigger than themselves by banding together towards SOME end. Oh, of course I forgot, becuase it's a CORPORATION, those ends can't be good. Why, even if they make tires, thsoe are EVIL tires. Or if they make baby diapers, well you'll probably have an evil baby, since it was diapered by a corporation. Forget cars, those are always made by corporations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:
Fair enough (I think) but I was responding at that point to Papio's comment regarding worth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
There are Non-Profit Businesses (NPOs). They serve people that can't pay when they badly need a service.

---

quote:

---

Many key business performance measures don’t work for most not-for-profit organizations. For example, the “bottom line” measurement of profit or loss indicates how effective a business is at achieving its goal of generating profits for the owners. However, generating profits is not a goal for NPOs. These organizations have no owners, often provide goods and services to constituents free of charge and typically seek resources from people and organizations that do not expect economic benefits in return. Thus, the bottom line doesn’t work for NPOs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
And I just ain't ever going to agree that taxation is theft or immoral. I really don't think it is. I think people do *agree* to pay tax in so far as they willingly live in this country.

---

Double posting to say I'm with Papio: paying taxe is one of the responsibilities of citizenship, just as charity is one of the responsibilities of a Christian. Christians get to decide for themselves* what they will do in terms of charity, but in a democracy, it's a collective decision which is binding on individuals. I understand this is very hard for some people to accept. OliviaG

*or in consultation with their spiritual adviser, or they tithe, or they get "guilted" into giving, but it's still fundamentally an individual decision

ETA grammar

[ 11. May 2007, 00:29: Message edited by: OliviaG ]
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
So the only alternatives are being dirt poor or being a billionaire? Is that honestly what you think?

---

quote:

---

BTW, Judas here is a typical capitalist. He *claims* it's to benefit society, but really he was going to be the only one who benefitted.

---

quote:

---

Matthew 26:6-13
While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table.
When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. "Why this waste?" they asked. "This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor."

Aware of this, Jesus said to them, "Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me. When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her."

---

quote:

---

Mark 14:3-9
While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head.

Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, "Why this waste of perfume? It could have been sold for more than a year's wages and the money given to the poor." And they rebuked her harshly.

"Leave her alone," said Jesus. "Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me. She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare for my burial. I tell you the truth, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her."

---

quote:

---

John 12: 3-8
Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus' feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.
But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, "Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages." He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

"Leave her alone," Jesus replied. " It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And that message is no more supportive of Socialism than it is of Conservatism, Communism, Fascism, Marxism or Blairism. End of.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Once all billionaires are eliminated, will you go after the millionaires? After all, they would then be the ones with a disproportionate share of the wealth.

And after the millionaires have been removed, whom will you go after? Those who have thousands? Those who have more (by any amount) than the average wealth of the country? If you achieve your initial Socialist goals where exactly will you stop?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

quote:

---

The poor are always with us because reality is polar: right down to the positive/negative charges of the particles that form matter. Every state of being has its polarity. As long as there are the wealthy there will be poor. As long as there are poor, there will be the wealthy. As long as we continue to wish to experience this material reality, there will be polarity.

---

Seems similar to the Unity of Opposites, don't you think?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I can say this Papio. Go ahead and tax the rich at 70%. They will flee your country and then we will simply show you what's its like to watch your country die. Because if you could actually pull that off (which it won't) that is what would happen eventually.

---

We had that situation in the UK during the 1970s. It was a desperate time here. Very bleak. At that time, the higher rate earnings tax was more like 80% (it might have gone even higher, not sure). No-one wanted to come here. Thatcher had a helluva job on her hands to reverse it all, but she did. She certainly began the process of recovery anyway.

However, 10 years of Labour, albeit in its 'new' guise, has seen taxation increasing alarmingly, though this time by stealth rather than the crush-the-rich approach of old style Labour.

Papio's comment reminds me of why I never, EVER, want to see leftwingers running our country again. Please God, spare us that!
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
I never ever want to see your part in power again, so I won't take that personally.

In the 70s there was rubbish on the streets, I agree. In the 80s, it was human beings, which for some reason Tories think was better.

The Tories economic record:

Record unemployment
Record homelessness
Record child poverty
Low Wages
Monetarianism
Black Wednesday
Boom and Bust.

No thanks.

[ 11. May 2007, 16:36: Message edited by: Papio ]
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
Forget negative equity for millions.

And a high level of work related deaths.
 

---

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
The Tories economic record:

---

Was such that your party, when it came to power, publically stated it would maintain Tory fiscal policy for the first two years of its first term.

Mmmm. Must have been bad then!

Without what the Tories did, Brown would not have had all that money to spend (and then, when he had spent it all, he started raising taxes so he could spend some more ... hmmm ... where have come across that approach before I wonder ...)

(PS: Glad you're not taking it personally. It was only your comment and not you that reminded me. )
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
Tax and spend was always better then monetarism. Still is. And Brown is still a better chancellor than anyone the Tories have ever had in their entire history.

Labour wasted their first term, though, by not realising that most people didn't like the Tories. Or not daring to believe it.
 

---

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
But I thought you thought Brown and Blair were just Thatcherites in disguise?
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
But I thought you thought Brown and Blair were just Thatcherites in disguise?

---

quote:

---

I do, more or less and part from the minimum wage, but they are still better than anyone in the Tory party.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

quote:

---

I do, more or less and part from the minimum wage, but they are still better than anyone in the Tory party.

---

Well it's good to that objectivity is alive and well on the left!

---

quote:

---

Nor do I believe that they stand a chance of winning the next election, quite honestly.

---

Well there we agree! I think it will be a hung Parliament with Labour having the Largest party and looking to the Liberal Democrats to support it. I think it will last until the LibDems realise that they will not be given PR and the Government will fail. The Conservatives WILL win that election.

I fully expect to have to vote in two general elections within 18 months to 2 years.
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
And you know how I would vote. Both times.
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
Ah, another popular tactic of the left. When their flawed policies and failures are pointed out they immediately launch into a "well your side were bad too" tirade in order to deflect attention away.

I suspect this is because they have no decent answers, but other reasons are possible.

Hence how we appear to have gone from discussing high tax rates for the über-rich (and the inevitable loss to the country of most of the higher paid people, leaving it worse off by far) to a straightforward party political slagfest.
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Ah, another popular tactic of the left. When their flawed policies and failures are pointed out they immediately launch into a "well your side were bad too" tirade in order to deflect attention away.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Ah, another popular tactic of the left. When their flawed policies and failures are pointed out they immediately launch into a "well your side were bad too" tirade in order to deflect attention away.

I suspect this is because they have no decent answers, but other reasons are possible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
the inevitable loss to the country of most of the higher paid people, leaving it worse off by far

---

quote:

---

We had Old Labour and the unions. We had the fucking Tories. The Tories were worse. You lose.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
the inevitable loss to the country of most of the higher paid people, leaving it worse off by far

---

In my estimation that would be the same kind of 'loss' which is involved in the removal of a diseased appendix. Just so long as they don't even think about taking their loot with them.

But, if you want to believe that your betters are such wonderful, innovative, entrepenurial people that the rest of us would just wander around saying 'ug' without them, go ahead. 's a free country.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stars:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
the inevitable loss to the country of most of the higher paid people, leaving it worse off by far

---

In my estimation that would be the same kind of 'loss' which is involved in the removal of a diseased appendix. Just so long as they don't even think about taking their loot with them.

But, if you want to believe that your betters are such wonderful, innovative, entrepenurial people that the rest of us would just wander around saying 'ug' without them, go ahead. 's a free country.

---

Hold on a second.
Unless you are arguing that the very presence of rich people causes others to be poor, then this argument becomes absurd. You tax rich people, and instead of paying they leave. How does this help anyone exactly?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stars:
Hold on a second.
Unless you are arguing that the very presence of rich people causes others to be poor, then this argument becomes absurd.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Incidentally, Richard Branson and Paul Daniels both threatened to leave Britain if Labour won in 1997. I, for one, am still waiting.

---

quote:

---

This is just basic arithmetic, isn't it? For every extra (say) £1000 that X gets, he must increase the total wealth in society by more than £1000, or somebody else has less.

---

quote:

---

Henry George's view tends to go down well with the granola classes.

---

quote:

---

On the other hand, if one - in a money-based economy - is hungry or in want of shelter, it doesn't help much to convince oneself that 'money isn't the same as wealth'. 'Let them eat cake'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:

If X has more, then Y must have less, unless X's surplus contributes to Y more than it takes away from Y.

---

quote:

---

This is just basic arithmetic, isn't it? For every extra (say) £1000 that X gets, he must increase the total wealth in society by more than £1000, or somebody else has less.

---

quote:

---

Proponents of capitalism often argue that this does, in fact, happen. `A rising tide lifts all boats' and all that. It's not clear that economics really works this way, particularly if a society is resource-constrained. And even if it does, it's difficult to ensure that the surplus generated by all the rich Xs doesn't just go to other rich Xs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stars:

In one day, I make 5 wicker baskets, and you make 50
You become wealthy, I less so
You leave because of high taxes
I still have five baskets a day
How am I helped by your absence?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stars:
Hold on a second.
Unless you are arguing that the very presence of rich people causes others to be poor, then this argument becomes absurd.

---

On the contrary, I think that the presence of poor people helps others to be rich.

---

quote:

---

That is not, however, what I see as being damaging in the 'don't do anything nasty, or the rich will leave our shores' argument. What is pernicious about that argument is the suggestion that the overwhelming mass of humanity are so lacking in initiative that society would fail miserably, were it not for the improving effect of a few visionary, entrepenurial, spirits (who happen to be filthy rich.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:


Thus bourgeois ideology's account of production. Here are some alternatives.


Liberal scenario*:

I make 5 wicker baskets using tools you give me, in conditions determined by you.
At the end of each day you give me the money-value of half a wicker basket and either re-invest or pocket the rest.

---

quote:

---

You leave because of high taxes.
I don't give a flying toss.
Someone else takes over your role. Same shit. Difference boss. Slightly better welfare state.

---

quote:

---

Socialist scenario:

We make wicker baskets etc.
We take the wicker basket factory away from you.

*Seen through Marxian eyes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Henry George's view tends to go down well with the granola classes. On the other hand, if one - in a money-based economy - is hungry or in want of shelter, it doesn't help much to convince oneself that 'money isn't the same as wealth'. 'Let them eat cake'.

Money is not a physical product of labour, true. Money oughtn't to be the stuff of wealth, undoubtedly. But it is. In fact. Really. Such is capitalist society. And therein lies the difference between liberals and radicals. The former think that the world is basically OK, it simply requires that we look at it the right way (and perhaps do some tinkering around the edges). Us radicals, meanwhile, think that it requires serious change in order to be the kind of world where the liberals would be right.

The difference mirrors pretty exactly that between Pelagians and orthodox Christians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stars:
You can't abolish money, just as you can't abolish numbers. People count and money is counting

---

quote:

---

By Divine Outlaw Dwarf
either re-invest or POCKET the rest.

(my emphasis added)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
Money doesn't stop moving ever.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stars:
In one day, I make 5 wicker baskets, and you make 50
You become wealthy, I less so

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stars:
You can't abolish money, just as you can't abolish numbers. People count and money is counting

---

Spot the fallacious reasoning:

P1: Counting cannot be abolished.
P2: People count money.
C: Money cannot be abolished.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stars:
In one day, I make 5 wicker baskets, and you make 50
You become wealthy, I less so

---

I don't become wealthy. I merely become the owner of 50 wicker baskets. Moreover, I've probably had to pay somebody for the raw materials to make the wicker baskets, and the tools to make them with. So at this stage I'm actually running at a loss.

---

quote:

---

My wicker baskets only become wealth if I can exchange my wicker baskets for something that has value as a medium of exchange -- money, salt, bread, Levis, whatever it happens to be at the time.

---

quote:

---

But I'm a basket-maker, not an advertiser, or a distributor, or an accountant. Unless people are beating a path to my door to purchase my superior wicker baskets, I probably don't have any way to turn my wicker baskets into wealth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stars:

I wrote: "Money is counting"

I didn't conclude, particularily; i asserted that money is an example of counting and abolishing it would be like trying to abolish scores in sport.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
they should be able to afford a decent ciabatta from Waitrose.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stars:
You don’t have to turn them into wealth, they are wealth, but you may wish to exchange them for other wealth and people may be able to make this more efficient for you and so they will, of course, want to be paid to do so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
the inevitable loss to the country of most of the higher paid people, leaving it worse off by far

---

In my estimation that would be the same kind of 'loss' which is involved in the removal of a diseased appendix. Just so long as they don't even think about taking their loot with them.

---

quote:

---

But, if you want to believe that your betters are such wonderful, innovative, entrepenurial people that the rest of us would just wander around saying 'ug' without them, go ahead. 's a free country.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
The analogy with sport is interesting. As I see it the problem is that you see 'sport' as analogous to 'human social existence', whereas it may just be analogous to 'certain historically contingent forms of society'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:

I'm not clear what you're suggesting. If you are claiming that 'money is counting' is a statement of identity (so that, for all x, if x is 'counting' then x is 'money', and x is money if and only if x is 'counting') then that's self-evidently wrong.

---

quote:

---

If you are saying that money is an instance of counting, then that's undoubtedly correct,

but to argue from this basis that money cannot be abolished without counting thereby being abolished is to commit precisely the fallacy I noted above.

---

quote:

---

The analogy with sport is interesting. As I see it the problem is that you see 'sport' as analogous to 'human social existence', whereas it may just be analogous to 'certain historically contingent forms of society'.

---