 |
| |
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:18
|
|
 I'll take that to be a concession of defeat.
Can't give an answer of substance, so we resort to one line quips...that's how it goes, right?
Oh, and while I'm here, let us examine another bit of Kidatopia....that part about the boss in your utopia (the one who orders (forces) people to relocate, telling them where to work and for how long.
You said that at least in your system, he would gain no privledge by virtue of BEING the boss.
Let's take a look at that:
His privledges (off the top of my head, and I'm sure I'm missing many) would be:
1) The fact that he himself does not have to relocate
2) The power to rip families apart at will (send daddy to the mill and leave mommy at home)
3) The above power could be abused (and don't think it won't happen) if the Boss lusts after the worker's wife.
4) Kickbacks! Lotta money to be made in accepting bribers from people who don't wanna go.
5) For that matter, it'd be easy to engineer a situation to gain said kickbacks. Simply recommend someone for departure when you KNOW they don't want to leave....then, accept payment to pick someone else. Rinse and repeat as often as you desire.
6) Got a rival you don't like? Send him to work in the coal mines!
But oh no...he has no privledge at being the boss in your utopia.
Nope.
None at all.
Your ideology is built on outdated economic ideas that belong in the dustbin of history.
They have been tried.
They failed, and they left a bloody legacy behind.
Any ideology which begins by saying "once we kill off all the (fill in the blanks)" should raise a big honkin red flag in your mind.
Yet you embrace it.
And you say you want justice.
Uh huh.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
aneeshm
|
 |
Indore , Madhya Pradesh
Jul 2001
time: 10:48
|
|
A clarification here - in case you missed it , Kidicious , I said that Berz has utilised only a tiny fraction the the usable land . You have practically 99.5 % of the island left to do with as you please . And 50 % of the island is fertile land , so you have about 49.5 % of the island's fertile land , Berz has only 0.5 % , because that is his limit of cultivation - he cannot cultivate any more .
He chooses to use his time productively to cultivate the land and to try to rear animals on it . You do something else .
Thus , you get caught in the cycle described above . And BTW , you do have free time .
I'd like you to tell me exactly where fairness ends and exploitation begins , in the scenario I described .
quote:
Berz worked the land , and reared animals to the best of hsi ability , so that he could have food come winter . You didn't . Seeing that you are starving , he offers you food in place of your labour . Now , he is free to increase his standard of living , while you are not ( you spend your time working the land owned by Berz ( which he came to own because he used it , you had the same chance ) , while he spends his time building new stuff which is both useful for agriculture , and is also for day-to-day living ) .
The "compensation" he gets is a direct result of working the land ( in the form of food , which will sustain him ) . By manas of this compensation , however , he has a stranglehold on your labour , which you give him ( if you want to live ) .
Now that he has plenty of spare time , he spends it , as said before , to build useful stuff . He is the only one who has it . Now , to keep you working on his farm , he offers you some of the stuff ( which eh knows you really want ) in exchange for your labour . Because you yearn , after a long year without , for the basic comforts of life , you accept his offer . This cycle repeats , with him constantly building better things , and you buying them in exchange for labour .
|
Please tell me where exactly the exploitativeness manifests itself ( quote the exact place ) .
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
Let's make the example a little more commie-friendly.
Let's say that Kid isn't facing starvation over the winter because he didn't cultivate his land, but rather that his land was flooded (nearby stream overflowed due to heavy rains) and his crops were destroyed. Natural disaster.
Ok, then. He's now in a tough spot. What does he do? Well, clearly in this example there is no society and thus no social safety net. He must seek help from his neighbor. Beserker, being a decent fellow, offers him food & shelter for the winter in exchange for labor over the same period.
Then, come spring, Kid can go back to his land and try again. That doesn't strike me as exploitation.
However, if Beserker demands that Kid agree to work for him forever and turn over his former lands as well, that's going a tad far, isn't it? But in our hypothetical 2-person island, what is Kid's recourse? There are only three I can think of:
1) Starve (uh, no)
2) Steal
3) Murder
This, however, is why modern capitalist societies provide some form of safety net...
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
aneeshm
|
|
Indore , Madhya Pradesh
Jul 2001
time: 10:48
|
|
@ Arrian
Berz never asked that Kid work forever . It was just that , having worked once , Berz made some stuff which Kid just *HAD* to have to get his standard of living back a little to normal . He made toilet paper fashioned from some leaves , or something , along with salt for food , and meat which Berz reared , together with a way of cooking , a fishing net for fish , a crude boat , and a rather good shelter , which was weatherproof . All these things were offered to Kid in exchange for his working the land again for the next season . He also found the way of salting fish which would preserve it well into the winter .
When winter came after the first season , Kid naturally claimed his payment . The agreed-upon payment was a big bunch of bananas every two days . Berz made him an offer - he could live on bananas and risk malnutrition from lack of protein , or he could consent to work for the salted fish and the and the animals Berz had reared . Kid , being natually conscious of his health , chose the second option .
The next season , Berz made irrigation canals , diverted the freshwater stream from a nearby place , and constructed a crude form of plumbing for both the shelters , but it was Kid's job to pump the water if he wanted all these things . He also sold salted fish , along with spiced meat ( he has grown a small herb garden in the first year ) , in exchange for Kid's labour .
I repeat , Berz never made Kid work forever . He just made such things that Kid did not think he could live without , thus Kid is now living in a cycle where Berz makes better things all the time , and Kid buys them in exchange for labour .
Last edited by aneeshm on 02-12-2004 at 20:05
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:18
|
|
arrian and aneeshm
I think we need to try to put this in kids language.
If Bezerker has laboured mightily, putting in 1000 man-hours into agriculture while Kid was sunbathing, this created value. Now that Kid needs food, it seems even on Kid's logic he would need to work fo Bezerker for 25 hours each for 20 weeks to just get to 500 man-hours to "entitle" him to one-third of the produce. If next year Kid worked the same , they could be entitled to half each and in 10 years hence on the same arrangement Bezerker would be theoretically entitled to 16.67% of the produce since he would have worked 1000 of the 6000 hours involved in the production.
Kid any objection to this?? Its all based on work and people are getting compensated directly on the work they put in.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:18
|
|
The main problem I see with Kid's theory (which has mutated and evolved a good bit from earlier iterations...this is the first time Kid has mentioned Taxes in the Kidaverse, meaning that he intends to exploit everyone, by taking some of the value of their production, for example), is that if it's not "sweat labor" it's not work.
Kid places no value on other contributions to a productive effort.
If I loan Kid the money he needs to go buy a tractor, I am not to be compensated in any way, even though without the money I loaned him, said tractor would be a dream. Nope. Nosir. Not allowed to collect any interest on the money lent.
This, however, is exploitation.
I worked hard for that money. It is a store of value, representing my own hours of labor, and if Kid borrows it from me, then until he pays it back, I lose access TO my stored labor for some specified period of time.
This needs to be compensated (interest tacked onto the amount owed), else HE is exploiting ME, but ooooohhhhh no. Kid will tell you that because I'm not working alongside him, my contribution is meaningless.
Kid wants to be able to borrow my tractor at will (either for free, or for whatever amount HE determines is "fair" compensation), and per his ideology, if this is unacceptable, then the exploited worker has the right, duty, and obligation to kill the owner of said device and make off with it...for the good of all, you see.
Doesn't sound so good for the former owner of said tool.
And he wonders why people aren't flocking to his utopic ideology??
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:18
|
|
Vel
While I agree with your approach, I am trying to show the fallacy of kid's distinctions even if we accept his premises that only work "counts". The bezerker kid island is a perfect example since we have set the scene with utopian equality at the beginning but now through work and only work, Bezerker has an asset of value, whether it be a farm or a tool or whatever. Now the question to kid is the manner in which the small two person society could allow kid to use or harvest that asset. Taking it for free means that kid is TAKING the value of Bezerker's sweating back-breaking work for NOTHING. THat HAS to be EXPLOITATION.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You know that comic book series is a joke, right? |
Perhaps--- we are talking kid's version of communism here. I still remember that he indicated that Mrs Flubber MUST go to work. We would not have the option for her to stay at home with baby Flubber and for us to make do as a single-income family (at the state mandated fair wage of course)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I wonder how fair it is to have five or six people all hammering kid at once. |
I think kid enjoys it.
Plus when 5 or 6 of us are at him, he can skip the most troublesome arguments and go on to some other argument where he does have a leg to stand on.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I have nine pages of catch up to do. The problem I have with these kid v everyone debates is that people keep saying BS stuff, like vel did about kid wanting party bosses to tell people where to live and what jobs to do. Kid is sometimes inconsistent, and that makes it a lot easier for everyone to twist what he's saying around. I don't really want to deal with that. |
Kid is OFTEN inconsistent. After 3 or 4 or these threads he still hasn't given a straight answer on something as simple as whether in his brand of communism one person could earn a higher hourly wage than another. He initially indicated no but there was a lot of inconsistency when we questioned how people would be encouraged to do the harder dirtier more dangerous jobs without incentives.
Che-- if you want to jump in and defend communism I know that I won't hold you to ANYTHING that kid has said. I appreciate that there are as many flavors of communism as there are of capitalism.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Flubber
Kid is OFTEN inconsistent. After 3 or 4 or these threads he still hasn't given a straight answer on something as simple as whether in his brand of communism one person could earn a higher hourly wage than another. He initially indicated no but there was a lot of inconsistency when we questioned how people would be encouraged to do the harder dirtier more dangerous jobs without incentives.
Che-- if you want to jump in and defend communism I know that I won't hold you to ANYTHING that kid has said. I appreciate that there are as many flavors of communism as there are of capitalism. |
I think part of Kid's problem is he seems to try and be recreating communism, without going back and learning from the "masters." In The State and Revolution, Lenin argued for the necessity of pay disparity during the period of transition from capitalism to communism, but that it should be limited to no more than five times the amount of the lowest pay scale.
This is necessary because some jobs are more important than others, some require more training than others, etc. It is also necessary because people will be emerging from a class society. I would note, however, that even in capitalist soiety, the hardest, dirties, and most dangerous jobs are not the best rewarded. It's true that certain jobs like oil well fire fighter or underwater construction, etc. are both exceedingly dangerous and and financially lucrative.
Consider the armed forces, however. There is very little actual reward for military service. Yet millions of people voluneteer for such work, because they believe in their country. The GI Bill sucks broken glass, and there isn't a lot of call for most skills you learn in the military, despite what most vets will tell you. Also consider the millions who voluneer to be police officers and firefighters. Consider all the social workers and teachers. There's lots of unrewarded or poorly rewarded and necessary work that gets done in capitalist society. There's no reason to assume that all these people would suddenly become greedy and lazy in a socialist society.
The experience of the Soviet Union does teach us a lot, both good and bad. During the first Five Year Plan, people threw themselves into rebuilding the country. Reward for extra hard work was social: getting a medal or being recognized on news real, getting a park named after you, etc. People belived they were building a better tomorrow, and so they were more than willing to sacrifice. Within a decade they turned an agrarian country wrecked by war into an industrial powerhouse. I'm not saying it wasn't a great cost.
Fear is not so great a motivator as to produce the results that the USSR got. Only belief can do that. Fear gets people to do the bare minimum. Hell, one of the legacies of slavery still with us today is of the lazy Black person, because slaves did no more than they were told, and often shirked much of that. Fear only works wonder for as long as the adrenaline is flowing. Then you burnout.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
At the risk of being dragged in, I'll do a quick in and out question.
Che,
So why wasn't it sustainable across multi-generations? |
Mutliple reasons.
First and foremost, I'd say that that kind of energy isn't sustainable in the long run. You do a lot of injury to body and mind when you put all of your energy into work. At a certain point, you're just going to fail.
Second, the Soviets didn't deliver on their promise for a better tomorrow. When your idol turns out to have feet of clay, a lot of your zeal is going to wane.
As for reason number two, I think there are two main reasons for the failure to deliver.
2 A. Would be the nature of Stalin's regime itself. I'll come back to this in a moment.
2 B. Was the Nazi invasion, which ended up destroying much of what had been built. Imagine if you spent a couple of years building a model train set in your basement, putting all your free time into it, and then some theives destroy it whil trying to steal it. Very likely, your heart will be broken and you won't have as much motivation to rebuild. Some will, many won't.
Back to 2A. Stalin's Five Year Plans were created with political goals in mind, without regard to what resource they had, and what they could accomplish. Because of this, they would always fall short. Not only would the goods then not be delivered to the Soviet peoples in terms of a better life, but because of the climate of fear in the USSR, people were too afraid to contradict the boss or tell him they weren't meeting their goals. The government of the USSR operated in an air of unreality, and when reality came crashing down on them in the form of reason 2 B., they never really recovered mentally.
That, unfortunately, is the limit of my knowledge. I know there was a burst of energy in the 50s, and then it seemed to stagnate. I would hazard a guess that the same forces of post-war gloom and alienation aflicted the Soviets, but since they lacked political and intellectual freedom, they were unable to come up with a way to escape. We did only by embracing Huxley and drinking our soma.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-12-2004 18:57
Oh, quite so, and carry on! I was just ranting aloud while waiting for his return! 
|
|