 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:32
|
|
Note: people disagree with Rand over whether the truth of tautologies is due to something about the world. Most contemporary philosophers do not believe that logical statements are about the world because tautologies are true a priori. Most philosophers believe that tautologies are true independently of the way the world is and that logic does not describe the world at all. This conception of logic is basic to Russell and the early Wittgenstein, the two premier thinkers on the status of logic in the last 150 years.
Thus they wouldn't take the A is A thing as justifying Rand's Objectivist claim.
But they would agree with her that tautologies are necessarily true and that logical rules are the same for everyone.
Last edited by Agathon on 04-01-2004 at 09:02
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:32
|
|
PARABLE OF THE FIELD OF PART TWO
The next spring the field workers returned to find that the farmer had been killed for his own greed. They decided themselves to plant the field and harvested it. But since one of the field workers had a horse, they agreed to allow him to use the horse to plow and plant the field and that the rest of them would harvest the field and share the harvest 50-50 with the field worker who did all the planting.
At harvest time the other field workers returned to conduct the harvest. At the end of the day, the field workers returned and split the contents of their baskets with the planter. At the end of the line the same field worker who harvested nothing in the year before again came forward with his basket empty. He said to the planter, "I am sorry I have harvested nothing, I fell asleep under the shady oak tree and just now woke up. But even though I have nothing to share with you can you give me the $10 the farmer would have paid me for reporting to work and going into the field?"
The planter shook his head no.
At this, the field worker went and sought out the Communist Party member and explained that he had gone into the field with the rest of the field workers and has received nothing from the planter for his time and that if he did not receive at least $10 he and his family would starve.
The Communist Party member took his gun and went to accost the planter. He said, " In our great Communist paradise, we live by the motto, 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.' Will you pay this worker a living wage which is his right under our system."
The planter tried to explain the agreement the field workers had with each other to plant and harvest, but the Communist party member interrupted him abruptly and said, "When will you running-dog landlords ever learn?" And with that, he pulled the trigger.
The planter fell dead, a victim of his own greed.
Last edited by Ned on 05-01-2004 at 03:01
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:32
|
|
Can any of the anti-communists here's argue against Marx's theories as separate from Lenin's and Mao's, which is what most you you are actually arguing againts, as Neds "parable's show"? Becuase for Marx, communism was only possible in a highly developed capitalist society, ie, only once Capitalism had reached it's most porductive phase: so all these shortages people ascribe would not exist.
Take the US today- everyone today could be given shelter, cloathing, full nutrition, and full preventive health care without forcing poverty of any kind. Now, would the system have as many luxury good around? NO, it would not- but imagine how much energy and resources went into making something utterly unnecessary, like an SUV, and how all that energy could easily have gone into meeting the bsaic needs of all individuals in this society, and still leave energy for toehr useless things like wide screen TV's and so forth.
Marx never envisioned communis coming into being in societies too poor to meet all the needs of eeryone, which is why for him it could only come after the full development of the productive abilities of capitalism (which Marx acknowledges as the most productive economic system): what marx advocates against are the moral and social implications of this most productive economic system- he never argues communism could do better economically, but socially and moraly- but again, only in a system rich enough to afford it.
Does anyone have arguements vs this, as compared to the Leninist and Maoist additions of politicallydriven vanaguards that could somehow kickstart the progress prior to the ful development of the productive forces of capitalism?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
 |
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
How about the freedom to start your own business instead? Oh, we wouldn't have that freedom under communism because some bureaucrat has decided what we will do. And what happens under communism if you refuse to work at the job assigned to you? Off to the gulag? Execution to educate others about the greater good? Starvation? Oh, welfare? That system has worked wonders on out-of-wedlock birthrates, the greatest factor wrt poverty. |
Who said I, or Agathon, or GePap, is communist?. Referencing Marx does not make me communist.
What you've got to understand, Berzerker, is that the Corporation is the epithome of oligarchy. As legal entities, they survive humans. Corporations are mini-states whose power is growing, and those of the financial elite are inheriting their control from father to son just like a monarch would. Yes, there are those exceptional cases of poor persons rising in social class because of talent and valor. But yet upgrading your social class involves the necessary separation between the elite and the masses- and thus the idea that becoming part of the oligarchs is hard or impossible for most.
And because of technological evolution, the means of production are becoming increasingly expensive- which means that business is less and less about benefitting from your work, but getting control of the already existent means of production through the advantages provided by your birth (school and family wealth). Publicly held companies with thousands of shareholders obey that logic; no one can afford full control, and no one wish it anyway (Gates, Dell, for instance, have been selling their stocks like hell since the 90s); the only thing in control is their charter, which defines profit as their sole objective. Corporations work for humans even before they are there; they buy advertisements and build multi-billion factories. For the Indonesian teenager, there is no such thing as hiring 1000 workers, giving 30 millions a year to Jordan, and selling his shoes in the US.
The only thing left is to become part of the economic logic created by Corporations and sell them your work, at an usually unfair price because of the power they hold over you. (Your primary goal is to avoid starvation, not to create a business). Agathon was right here; since a Corporation's goal is to increase productivity of its facilities, it can only alienate humans in making them a gear of their inner workings (independantly of their free will, again: because the economic logic has become the only one able to provide for basic needs). Why do you think there has been serious talk in the FTAA to make schools a private merchandise? Because the 'economic logic' wants the schools to teach humans an ability that will help them sell their workforce, whereas a public school's aim is (still) to teach someone how to become a citizen before anything else- which is not compatible with a Corporation's agenda.
Chaplin, Kafka, and some philosophers whose name I forget have described this power in detail. Some went as far as to compare it with the (almost overused) literary figure of the 'Train' and the 'Holocaust', in which the complex stratification of the work involved are responsible of a 'deshumanization' process, which makes it possible for a gear to work only in regard to the next one, without considering the global figure- i.e., "I was only driving", "I was only filling the registry", "I was only pulling the lever", "I was telling him to pull the lever because the general told me to", "I was only doing research on 'pesticides' ", or "My job is to make the missiles take off; where they come down, that is not my department".
As if morale was not everyone's department (!!!)
Since you have problems with my thesis  , let's put it straight.
1.The right to found a business is not economic freedom; it is only a legal mean to enforce it (which in its current state is being abused).
2. Economic freedom is part of everyone's dignity. Benefitting from your work is sufficient for it to be achieved. There needs to be some restriction on the extent by which you can benefit someone else's work, i.e. how ownership of the means of distribution and their rampant proliferation under corporate law gives undue power to the oligarchy behind it.
3. (Know this tale of the king who had two sons when he died? He asked one of them to separate his heritage in two parts, and the the other son would choose which one he gets. So the son decided one would have the political power, while the other would hold the treasury. The eldest took the 'power', so the younger took the money. Guess which one overtook the other in the end?)
Morale: because of the money and the power involved, economic freedom is probably the part of human dignity that can the most easily gobble up the others and enslave them. As in: want to paint? Buy your stuff! Want to eat? Buy your food! A Corporation is what truly holds the means of production; and its goal, in fact, is to generate profit- which has nothing to do with dignity (even economic freedom). Profit is neverending in its nature, and overwhelmingly absurd; dignity is fairly descriptible and more possibly attainable. Human dignity should be and end in itself, while the capitalist logic is denying it to make everyone a tool of a single, inalienable goal (which serves the oligarchy).
That is immoral.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
|
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
You do if they agree to be "exploited", if I choose to be "exploited", that too is my freedom. Of course, according to your fictional definition of "freedom", you'd get to over rule all our contracts since we can neither exploit with consent nor consent to be exploited leaving only you to decide which contracts are devoid of exploitation. Ironically, many religious fundies agree with you. To them, prostitution, strip clubs and pornography are exploitive and not even the people employed in these businesses are free to choose to be exploited. |
In Canada, it took a Supreme Court ruling to determine that certain contracts, when they are blatantly violating one's fundamental rights, can be denied by the Court. I heartily agree with this.
About the exploited workers, put it the other way: is it acceptable to accept a contract which denies one's freedom? Think Immanuel Kant here.
And about the strip clubs: I have nothing against them. I think using your body as you see fit is part of freedom, as long as no one is forcing you to.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-01-2004 06:38
|