the labor theory of value is bunk

[lauralh]

oh yeah, felonies are always REALLY REALLY BAD CRIMES. wtf.

I got some really cool comments from the communism is stupid thing (and some really asinine ones).

purgatorius:

Marx is one of my favorite fantasy writers.

You should check out "Towards a Ruthless Criticism of Everything Existing," something amazing he wrote before he invented sharing.

fritz_da_kat:

Communism assumes everybody is a class enemy, until he proves himself a worthy, obedient and brainwashed member of the new order.

It is a common misconception that communism ideas are generally good, but they were badly implemented in the various communist regimes: communism ideas themselves entail murder.

lisa:

i believe all humans have a right to education, food, shelter and a job, some of the premise of communism. a community where all of these are provided *by the community* in my opinion would be a hell of a lot better off than our sad country.

tyrven:

I initially started my business with social democratic ideals. It failed miserably. I am not willing to say this was fully a flaw in the structure as much as a conflict between the structure and American culture. It could be argued, however, that this culture is bread directly out of biological programming and thus human nature not social conditioning. Regardless, I've implemented a free market capitalist approach and it has been incredibly successful, even despite violating my original ideals.

sisyphus:

there is no human nature that cannot be overcome with enough socialization. People mate for life and become celibate monks. When there are plenty of resources, people share. It's scarcity that creates assholes. Why do all these selfish people swap millions of mo3's daily? Because it costs them something. Communism isn't 'contrary to human nature' it's the only hope for improving human nature.

perich
Communism is stupid because removing the price system from the market structure as a means of resource allocation results in an inability to efficiently allocate resources. In other words, in your(*) heady desire to give everyone a "right" to health care, education, shelter, food and a job, you guarantee that almost everyone will have less of all-of-the-above then if you'd let the market do its work.

Communism doesn't work on paper. Communism doesn't work in practice. Communism doesn't work in hypothetical communes filled with immortal robots that are bulletproof with laser eyes. It's just stupid.

Comments

[trixiefirecat.livejournal.com]

aww, i was just being funny.

[herbaliser.livejournal.com]

it's ok! I've just heard that "in theory, communism is GREAT" or "if only human nature were different communism would be perfect" so many times that it's just dead.

[trixiefirecat.livejournal.com]

but i'm a print designer! i make everything look good on paper! it's my job.

[tyrven.livejournal.com]

Actually, the model is hardly autocratic, that's the whole point.

I believe that most problems in corporate America (waste, environmental misconduct, politics, bureacracy, etc) stem from this decoupling of authority, responsibility and accountability.

Your average American business is internally organized according to Aristocratic authoritarian ideals instead of free market principles. By empowering individuals they are given ownership over their decisions and it ultimately becomes a more (genuinely) democratic process.

Of course, like any system, ultimate authority does tend to be defined by resources (in a business, that's money). The laws of supply and demand and reactions to scarcity will undermine the ideals of any model.

[tyrven.livejournal.com]

In your typical American business you have a set elite that has authority over employees (this may be a business owner, upper management or board of directors). They have (and often exercise) ultimate authority. Even in progressive "employee owned" companies stock is just used as a morale booster than a real tool for authority.

Technically the system is free market: employees can come and go as they please. It's a highly polarized free market, however. It would be like saying you have a choice of what grocier you go to but once you choose you must sign a contract with them saying that you will purchase what they tell you and not shop at any competitors.

A couple years ago I turned all of my employees into independent business owners. I work with them on the same basis that my clients work with me; a true free market system. When I have a project, they have the right to turn it down. If I want to work on an "internal" investment (say, an automation tool) they make the decision as to whether it makes business sense for them to participate as a partnership; if it doesn't I have the option of hiring them in as a "work for hire" (although their decision will weigh on my confidence in the project). If they want to work for someone else, they can. If they want to change their rates, they can.

The business's "staff" is highly autonomous, independent and personally motivated. As a result, I have been able to minimize middle management (read: corporate authority), pay them a higher percentage of project revenue and increase profit margins for the business (which has allowed me to minimize my involvement).

[tyrven.livejournal.com]

Ooops, I forgot to end an italics :).

[sarahbliss.livejournal.com]

Especially asinine was the "As it is now, if you don't have food, shelter and an education, you have only yourself to blame." comment, which obviously didn't take into consideration the many people who *can't* work, like the extremely disabled, or elderly people who are too old to work and saw their nest egg go *poof* in the last few years, or children who need to eat but have no money because they have really idiotic parents (I dislike kids, but it isn't their fault they were born). Society has some responsibility to help these types of people. I could give the example of a partially government-funded program at a company I worked for. The funds were used to pay for a department that was set up for people with disabilities (blindness, no legs, severe epilepsy, and such) to work, doing small simple assembling jobs that were nonetheless challenging for them. But you could tell they were happy to be able to work somewhere. This was in a tiny town, and I wouldn't be surprised if that program has now been slashed. Where are those people supposed to find work?

And, about a year after I moved to Seattle, so many people became unemployed, and every day I saw posts saying things like "I hope this job I interviewed for calls me back, because is the only one out of the 682 places I applied to that has interviewed me so far, and rent is due and my car is broke down and my unemployment stops next week and..."

I'm not saying the government should give them jobs, but I am saying the government could do better with closing the wage gap by say, ending corporate welfare to welfare queens like Boeing (3 billion dollars to create a mere 1500-2000 jobs...the math on that one just doesn't add up), while at the same time Locke did not give the voter-mandated pay raises to teachers, many whom already have to scrimp and pinch to make ends meet. I'm sure that really boosted their morale. :-/ Maybe some of them needed that money to pay for further education to get a better job. Bah.

Those are the reasons why I believe that if you don't have a job or shelter or the like, sometimes it might not be for lack of trying.

It was a good thread to read, especially Fritz's posts. My reply was asinine because the subject is tired and so was I.

[herbaliser.livejournal.com]

we're going to ToST tonight, honey, if you feel ok!