Jeremy Corbyn (Vol. 3)
Discussion
Gecko1978 said:
Its funny how some people are convinced if one person who is richer pays a person who is poorer to do a job, that person is being exploited. They are only exploited if they have no alternative, no free market that allows them to seek other options. If you push trollys round a supermarket car park and get £8 an hour, you are not forced to stay at ABC Supermarket, you can look to go to DEF Cash an Carry who might pay more. Also you can choose to change your skills. You are only exploited if the employer controls the whole labour market and removes any choice for you.....which is kind of like a planned econmomy really....which is what Marx's was in favour of and as such undoes your argument.
Your counter only applies if you only consider the current situation within a capitalist system. As I said, as things stand at the moment having 'a job' is better than having 'no job'. But owning the means of production and having direct and democratic control over what happens to the product of your labour would be better than having to sell your labour to a capital. Regardless of whether you push trolleys for ABC Supermarket or DEF Cash-n-Carry, you have no choice but to sell your labour. It's not a matter of 'an employer' controlling the whole labour market, it's a case of capital as a whole controlling the labour market as a whole. People should be productive but they should have control over whatever economic production they perform.
wormus said:
Not everyone is cut out to be employer and that’s ok but Labour need to learn that people are not equal. We have different skills and aspirations. What we do deserve is the same opportunity to succeed.
Left-wing politics in entirely about striving for equality of opportunity. It's about providing a level playing field for all with equal access to education, services, experiences and capital. In a fully realised ideal social-democratic society it wouldn't matter how big a bank balance your parents had, what jobs they did, where you lived or any of that - everyone would have equal access to the things that allow people to acheive their desires and their potential. The current system wastes a huge amount of human endeavour and potential because untold thousands of people can't realise or fulfil it, and the strongest indicator of a child's future success is the income of their parents. It's not (or should not be) about milling everyone off into interchangeable, entirely identical drones in the name of equality. Marx and Engles specifically called this out - that such an outcome was not only impossible but morally reprehensible and against the entire philosophy they espoused. The idea is that social and material differences shouldn't matter or determine your life choices.
There will always be workers, middle-managers and directors, as a matter of sheer practicality - a business needs thousands of people assembling widgets or tapping numbers into spreadsheets, a hundred or so managers and a dozen or so directors. And you can't do your widget-assembling job and run a board meeting at the same time. But it should be a matter of cooperation, control and choice. Not going into the widget factory because you have no alternative, even if it does pay better than the gizmo factory down the street.
2xChevrons said:
Gecko1978 said:
Its funny how some people are convinced if one person who is richer pays a person who is poorer to do a job, that person is being exploited. They are only exploited if they have no alternative, no free market that allows them to seek other options. If you push trollys round a supermarket car park and get £8 an hour, you are not forced to stay at ABC Supermarket, you can look to go to DEF Cash an Carry who might pay more. Also you can choose to change your skills. You are only exploited if the employer controls the whole labour market and removes any choice for you.....which is kind of like a planned econmomy really....which is what Marx's was in favour of and as such undoes your argument.
Your counter only applies if you only consider the current situation within a capitalist system. As I said, as things stand at the moment having 'a job' is better than having 'no job'. But owning the means of production and having direct and democratic control over what happens to the product of your labour would be better than having to sell your labour to a capital. Regardless of whether you push trolleys for ABC Supermarket or DEF Cash-n-Carry, you have no choice but to sell your labour. It's not a matter of 'an employer' controlling the whole labour market, it's a case of capital as a whole controlling the labour market as a whole. People should be productive but they should have control over whatever economic production they perform.
.
Take an example Mr Nike an Mr Pike Mr Nike designs trainers, gets somone to make them, another to market them, a third to sell them. All of thoes people are directed by Mr Nike to sell his idea an paid as a result.
Mr Pike does all 3 roles his shoes are low quality an no one buys them - is in control of his own capital but Mr Nike has just got an advert in the super bowl break and has a private jet now....who is the winner
2xChevrons said:
Left-wing politics in entirely about striving for equality of opportunity. It's about providing a level playing field for all with equal access to education, services, experiences and capital. In a fully realised ideal social-democratic society it wouldn't matter how big a bank balance your parents had, what jobs they did, where you lived or any of that - everyone would have equal access to the things that allow people to acheive their desires and their potential. The current system wastes a huge amount of human endeavour and potential because untold thousands of people can't realise or fulfil it, and the strongest indicator of a child's future success is the income of their parents.
It's not (or should not be) about milling everyone off into interchangeable, entirely identical drones in the name of equality. Marx and Engles specifically called this out - that such an outcome was not only impossible but morally reprehensible and against the entire philosophy they espoused. The idea is that social and material differences shouldn't matter or determine your life choices.
There will always be workers, middle-managers and directors, as a matter of sheer practicality - a business needs thousands of people assembling widgets or tapping numbers into spreadsheets, a hundred or so managers and a dozen or so directors. And you can't do your widget-assembling job and run a board meeting at the same time. But it should be a matter of cooperation, control and choice. Not going into the widget factory because you have no alternative, even if it does pay better than the gizmo factory down the street.
Sorry, that’s bullsIt's not (or should not be) about milling everyone off into interchangeable, entirely identical drones in the name of equality. Marx and Engles specifically called this out - that such an outcome was not only impossible but morally reprehensible and against the entire philosophy they espoused. The idea is that social and material differences shouldn't matter or determine your life choices.
There will always be workers, middle-managers and directors, as a matter of sheer practicality - a business needs thousands of people assembling widgets or tapping numbers into spreadsheets, a hundred or so managers and a dozen or so directors. And you can't do your widget-assembling job and run a board meeting at the same time. But it should be a matter of cooperation, control and choice. Not going into the widget factory because you have no alternative, even if it does pay better than the gizmo factory down the street.
t. Left wing politics has always been based on the assumption that it’s somebody else’s problem to fix whereas conservatism is about equal opportunity for all and those who don’t work, don’t eat. Low taxes make people aspire to do better.Some of us started from very humble beginnings to do quite well for ourselves. Are you saying we don’t deserve it?
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 20th August 00:02
2xChevrons said:
Gecko1978 said:
Its funny how some people are convinced if one person who is richer pays a person who is poorer to do a job, that person is being exploited. They are only exploited if they have no alternative, no free market that allows them to seek other options. If you push trollys round a supermarket car park and get £8 an hour, you are not forced to stay at ABC Supermarket, you can look to go to DEF Cash an Carry who might pay more. Also you can choose to change your skills. You are only exploited if the employer controls the whole labour market and removes any choice for you.....which is kind of like a planned econmomy really....which is what Marx's was in favour of and as such undoes your argument.
Your counter only applies if you only consider the current situation within a capitalist system. As I said, as things stand at the moment having 'a job' is better than having 'no job'. But owning the means of production and having direct and democratic control over what happens to the product of your labour would be better than having to sell your labour to a capital. Regardless of whether you push trolleys for ABC Supermarket or DEF Cash-n-Carry, you have no choice but to sell your labour. It's not a matter of 'an employer' controlling the whole labour market, it's a case of capital as a whole controlling the labour market as a whole. People should be productive but they should have control over whatever economic production they perform.
wormus said:
Not everyone is cut out to be employer and that’s ok but Labour need to learn that people are not equal. We have different skills and aspirations. What we do deserve is the same opportunity to succeed.
Left-wing politics in entirely about striving for equality of opportunity. It's about providing a level playing field for all with equal access to education, services, experiences and capital. In a fully realised ideal social-democratic society it wouldn't matter how big a bank balance your parents had, what jobs they did, where you lived or any of that - everyone would have equal access to the things that allow people to acheive their desires and their potential. The current system wastes a huge amount of human endeavour and potential because untold thousands of people can't realise or fulfil it, and the strongest indicator of a child's future success is the income of their parents. It's not (or should not be) about milling everyone off into interchangeable, entirely identical drones in the name of equality. Marx and Engles specifically called this out - that such an outcome was not only impossible but morally reprehensible and against the entire philosophy they espoused. The idea is that social and material differences shouldn't matter or determine your life choices.
There will always be workers, middle-managers and directors, as a matter of sheer practicality - a business needs thousands of people assembling widgets or tapping numbers into spreadsheets, a hundred or so managers and a dozen or so directors. And you can't do your widget-assembling job and run a board meeting at the same time. But it should be a matter of cooperation, control and choice. Not going into the widget factory because you have no alternative, even if it does pay better than the gizmo factory down the street.
Can you not see how you've defeated your own argument.
2xChevrons said:
Left-wing politics in entirely about striving for equality of opportunity. It's about providing a level playing field for all with equal access to education, services, experiences and capital. In a fully realised ideal social-democratic society it wouldn't matter how big a bank balance your parents had, what jobs they did, where you lived or any of that - everyone would have equal access to the things that allow people to acheive their desires and their potential. The current system wastes a huge amount of human endeavour and potential because untold thousands of people can't realise or fulfil it, and the strongest indicator of a child's future success is the income of their parents.
It's not (or should not be) about milling everyone off into interchangeable, entirely identical drones in the name of equality. Marx and Engles specifically called this out - that such an outcome was not only impossible but morally reprehensible and against the entire philosophy they espoused. The idea is that social and material differences shouldn't matter or determine your life choices.
There will always be workers, middle-managers and directors, as a matter of sheer practicality - a business needs thousands of people assembling widgets or tapping numbers into spreadsheets, a hundred or so managers and a dozen or so directors. And you can't do your widget-assembling job and run a board meeting at the same time. But it should be a matter of cooperation, control and choice. Not going into the widget factory because you have no alternative, even if it does pay better than the gizmo factory down the street.
Excellent post. The bold bit, it should be, but people are people. It's not (or should not be) about milling everyone off into interchangeable, entirely identical drones in the name of equality. Marx and Engles specifically called this out - that such an outcome was not only impossible but morally reprehensible and against the entire philosophy they espoused. The idea is that social and material differences shouldn't matter or determine your life choices.
There will always be workers, middle-managers and directors, as a matter of sheer practicality - a business needs thousands of people assembling widgets or tapping numbers into spreadsheets, a hundred or so managers and a dozen or so directors. And you can't do your widget-assembling job and run a board meeting at the same time. But it should be a matter of cooperation, control and choice. Not going into the widget factory because you have no alternative, even if it does pay better than the gizmo factory down the street.
2xChevrons said:
Left-wing politics in entirely about striving for equality of opportunity.
Also going to have to call bull$h1te on that."Equality of opportunity" is very much NOT what the left wing is about - this is in fact one of the cornerstones of the right wing social politics.
The left wing is all about "equality of outcome", which is an entirely different proposition to "opportunity".
"Equality of outcome" comes at the expense of "equality of opportunity".
"Equality of Outcome" is all about ensuring quotas of certain people within society are met within all areas of employment,education and representation in all manners of activities.
And this comes at the expense of "equality of opportunity" - it is a sliding scale in that to have one you can not have the other.
See one of the many interviews with Jordan Peterson about this particular issue (link below).
In your example of lets say "education", the "equality of outcome" model would ensure that quotas of ethnic background individuals were placed on to available Oxford/Cambridge courses even if their grades/intelligence may be lower than other non-ethnic background candidates that may have shown a clear step ahead. And then to ensure this equal distribution of placements were seen in all courses no matter the subject nor the final degree qualification.
Thus ensuring the outcome was equal rather than the opportunity.
With the right wing, the opportunity definition being that if one works hard and achieves higher grades than others, then one has the opportunity to gain accomplishments. Its the individual's choice rather than the state.
If also to apply the left wing "outcome" quota to employment.....employers are being forced to meet ethnic/LGBTQ+ background criteria rather than simply hiring people that are best qualified for the job.
As Peterson explains in his videos, to apply "equality of outcome" means that there will have to be radical changes to how businesses are run, in that many areas where one ethnic group is 'stronger', they will have to be removed in order that a balance is struck. Similarly this can be applied to all groupings of people within a society.
Now of course I'm not saying that there should be discrimination against ethnic background or LGBTQ+ or gender or whatever, but rather the best qualified individual should gain the position rather than an "outcome quota".
Similarly by producing "outcome quotas" this in itself is a form of discrimination against those that are better qualified.
Which places the left wing social political position in to an ironic spouting of diminishing circle of returns.
Jordan Peterson on "outcome" vs "opportunity". (Just one of many on youtube).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQYFVw-s2t0
Halb said:
Excellent post. The bold bit, it should be, but people are people.
This is the core problem with Marxism, post-modernism, 'woke'ness, 4th wave feminism etc. They all have a good prima facie intellectual case, they all have an intent to make the world a better place, they all originate with good intent. However, none of them offer how to translate and integrate the ideas into the real world in any practical sense. They are taken, first, literally, and then, as humans are humans, get usurped and used for the profit, power and influence of individuals who are obsessed to the exclusion of all else, so quickly get drunk. Ultra-authority and violence are the only things that can force them into being in their full-blown form, so against the flow do these ideas go.The frame of reference is isolated from the reality of the world - to Sartre a rug could be interpreted as a symbol of the confining social mores of the day, it could be a representation of labour/profit, it could be cultural appropriation, but, interesting though this is, it's just a f
king rug.What should have remained a consideration, becomes an obsession. What should be a check on excesses, becomes excessive in itself. What starts with compassion, ends in death and misery.
2xChevrons said:
Left-wing politics in entirely about striving for equality of opportunity. It's about providing a level playing field for all with equal access to education, services, experiences and capital. In a fully realised ideal social-democratic society it wouldn't matter how big a bank balance your parents had, what jobs they did, where you lived or any of that - everyone would have equal access to the things that allow people to acheive their desires and their potential. The current system wastes a huge amount of human endeavour and potential because untold thousands of people can't realise or fulfil it, and the strongest indicator of a child's future success is the income of their parents.
Equal access to 'experiences'? Isn't that part of 'services'?I find your posts interesting and hope you continue to try and educate we poor, deluded free-marketeers of our errors. In the meantime in the paragraph I quoted you chastise the offspring of 'wealthy' parents by implication, and aspire to the admittedly idealised position of providing opportunities for all according to ability. Just how could this be approached in the real world when parents and children make poor choices all the time? Surely you'd have to remove the benign influence at some stage?
The Don of Croy said:
Equal access to 'experiences'? Isn't that part of 'services'?
I find your posts interesting and hope you continue to try and educate we poor, deluded free-marketeers of our errors. In the meantime in the paragraph I quoted you chastise the offspring of 'wealthy' parents by implication, and aspire to the admittedly idealised position of providing opportunities for all according to ability. Just how could this be approached in the real world when parents and children make poor choices all the time? Surely you'd have to remove the benign influence at some stage?
I think you're onto something here. Maybe some form of compulsory program of education & training for all citizens (let's call them comrades) about how to live every aspect of their lives, with re-education for parents who don't follow it, at remote camps.I find your posts interesting and hope you continue to try and educate we poor, deluded free-marketeers of our errors. In the meantime in the paragraph I quoted you chastise the offspring of 'wealthy' parents by implication, and aspire to the admittedly idealised position of providing opportunities for all according to ability. Just how could this be approached in the real world when parents and children make poor choices all the time? Surely you'd have to remove the benign influence at some stage?
andy_s said:
The frame of reference is isolated from the reality of the world - to Sartre a rug could be interpreted as a symbol of the confining social mores of the day, it could be a representation of labour/profit, it could be cultural appropriation, but, interesting though this is, it's just a fking rug.
Ah, but humans have been cursed with self-awareness which means they have to justify everything for it to make sense.king rug.The Don of Croy said:
2xChevrons said:
Left-wing politics in entirely about striving for equality of opportunity. It's about providing a level playing field for all with equal access to education, services, experiences and capital. In a fully realised ideal social-democratic society it wouldn't matter how big a bank balance your parents had, what jobs they did, where you lived or any of that - everyone would have equal access to the things that allow people to acheive their desires and their potential. The current system wastes a huge amount of human endeavour and potential because untold thousands of people can't realise or fulfil it, and the strongest indicator of a child's future success is the income of their parents.
Equal access to 'experiences'? Isn't that part of 'services'?I find your posts interesting and hope you continue to try and educate we poor, deluded free-marketeers of our errors. In the meantime in the paragraph I quoted you chastise the offspring of 'wealthy' parents by implication, and aspire to the admittedly idealised position of providing opportunities for all according to ability. Just how could this be approached in the real world when parents and children make poor choices all the time? Surely you'd have to remove the benign influence at some stage?
Mothersruin said:
What about working class parents that work extremely hard, fight their way to excel and are able to then buy a house in the catchment area of a top school - are their children not allowed to be given the best chance or should they be dragged down to the lowest common denominator to keep the lefties happy?
Jezza says "Yes".Actually, he says that all schools should be equally as good, but the reality is that it's easier to be disinterested than enthusiastic and the whole of society is dragged down.
I have always found the left idea of equality to be a little confused. We know as humans we have infinate wants but limited resources so thoes have to be allocated. However as we are all different they can not be allocated equally an fairly as that would deliver a result while equal not optimal for anyone.
I have heard the term "Luxury Autonomous Communism" used as a way of describing sharing the rewards for all due to advnaces n technology. But "For all" implies an equal distribution which then comes into conflict with the limited resources concept. So we end up with an ever decreasing return where what is delivered for everyone is a poor quality output and the idea of "Better" is restricted because its not equal i.e. We have 100 Plain Chocolate bars for 100 people - a better out come might be Chocolate with a cream filling but if we do that we can only make 90 Plain bars and 3 Cream filled ones so what do we do make the 100 plain bars 90 and 3 (then the 3 people get special treatment and 7 people get nothing etc).
The free market under the same solution delivers many more types of bars some plain some chocolate so chocolate with cream by not fixating on one outcome for all everyone gets to eat and if they want something nicer they work harder to pay for that but are not restricted from buying it.
I have heard the term "Luxury Autonomous Communism" used as a way of describing sharing the rewards for all due to advnaces n technology. But "For all" implies an equal distribution which then comes into conflict with the limited resources concept. So we end up with an ever decreasing return where what is delivered for everyone is a poor quality output and the idea of "Better" is restricted because its not equal i.e. We have 100 Plain Chocolate bars for 100 people - a better out come might be Chocolate with a cream filling but if we do that we can only make 90 Plain bars and 3 Cream filled ones so what do we do make the 100 plain bars 90 and 3 (then the 3 people get special treatment and 7 people get nothing etc).
The free market under the same solution delivers many more types of bars some plain some chocolate so chocolate with cream by not fixating on one outcome for all everyone gets to eat and if they want something nicer they work harder to pay for that but are not restricted from buying it.
Edited by Gecko1978 on Tuesday 20th August 15:09
Gecko1978 said:
The free market under the same solution delivers many more types of bares some plain some chocolate so chocolate with cream by not fixating on one outcome for all everyone gets to eat an if they want something nicer they work harder to pay for that but are not restricted from buying it.
+1. https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/man-wh...
MWM3 said:
2xChevrons said:
Gecko1978 said:
Its funny how some people are convinced if one person who is richer pays a person who is poorer to do a job, that person is being exploited. They are only exploited if they have no alternative, no free market that allows them to seek other options. If you push trollys round a supermarket car park and get £8 an hour, you are not forced to stay at ABC Supermarket, you can look to go to DEF Cash an Carry who might pay more. Also you can choose to change your skills. You are only exploited if the employer controls the whole labour market and removes any choice for you.....which is kind of like a planned econmomy really....which is what Marx's was in favour of and as such undoes your argument.
Your counter only applies if you only consider the current situation within a capitalist system. As I said, as things stand at the moment having 'a job' is better than having 'no job'. But owning the means of production and having direct and democratic control over what happens to the product of your labour would be better than having to sell your labour to a capital. Regardless of whether you push trolleys for ABC Supermarket or DEF Cash-n-Carry, you have no choice but to sell your labour. It's not a matter of 'an employer' controlling the whole labour market, it's a case of capital as a whole controlling the labour market as a whole. People should be productive but they should have control over whatever economic production they perform.
wormus said:
Not everyone is cut out to be employer and that’s ok but Labour need to learn that people are not equal. We have different skills and aspirations. What we do deserve is the same opportunity to succeed.
Left-wing politics in entirely about striving for equality of opportunity. It's about providing a level playing field for all with equal access to education, services, experiences and capital. In a fully realised ideal social-democratic society it wouldn't matter how big a bank balance your parents had, what jobs they did, where you lived or any of that - everyone would have equal access to the things that allow people to acheive their desires and their potential. The current system wastes a huge amount of human endeavour and potential because untold thousands of people can't realise or fulfil it, and the strongest indicator of a child's future success is the income of their parents. It's not (or should not be) about milling everyone off into interchangeable, entirely identical drones in the name of equality. Marx and Engles specifically called this out - that such an outcome was not only impossible but morally reprehensible and against the entire philosophy they espoused. The idea is that social and material differences shouldn't matter or determine your life choices.
There will always be workers, middle-managers and directors, as a matter of sheer practicality - a business needs thousands of people assembling widgets or tapping numbers into spreadsheets, a hundred or so managers and a dozen or so directors. And you can't do your widget-assembling job and run a board meeting at the same time. But it should be a matter of cooperation, control and choice. Not going into the widget factory because you have no alternative, even if it does pay better than the gizmo factory down the street.
Can you not see how you've defeated your own argument.
However I think there is a scenario where it works - and I'd bloody love it.
Iain M Bank's Culture.
Molecular assembly and faster than light travel, meaning that there is an absolute surfeit of resources - in theory anyone could build a big Orbital for themselves (with a surface area many thousands the size of Earth's). No one does though.
Then, all the boring stuff like running the joint is done by AI.
So. Three technologies needed. The last could probably sort the other two.
Let's get on it. Mind the T1000 on the way though.
As I often say, read "The road to serfdom" by Hayek.
Central message: if you take the financial motive out of people's lives, how do you compel them to do things?
So in a socialist system, the state is inexorably drawn towards violence as other means fail.
(Except expressed far better than I have put it)
Central message: if you take the financial motive out of people's lives, how do you compel them to do things?
So in a socialist system, the state is inexorably drawn towards violence as other means fail.
(Except expressed far better than I have put it)
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff