America is not socialist

[oldscratch]

Well it looks we are all in agreement that America is not socialist. That’s a least a good starting point.
And if you want to keep thinking that America is controlled by the workers The Ryan, go for it. I’m no longer going to try and convince someone who puts forth a serious argument that household pets also control america. I will address some of your other points tomorrow though.

[pldennison]

Throw a rock into a pack of dogs, and the one that barks is the one who got hit . . .

Myrr21:

I’m glad you know me so well.

I don’t.

In case you’re wondering, I have plenty of ambition. I plan to carve out a comfortable existance for myself, and work on contributing what I can to the field of chemistry. Hell, I want to work on HIV protease inhibitors and optical memory and protein folding all sorts of other revolutionary developments–only time will tell how much I’m able to contribute. And guess what? I have no profit motive. If I was interested in profit, I’d study computers instead. If I was interested in profit, I wouldn’t plan on teaching in an academic institution–should I have the chance.

Terrific. More power to you, says I. Now, here’s a question: What gives you the moral authority to make that decision for everyone else? By what right do you (or you, oldscratch or Olentzero) derive the moral authority to say, “Neither pldennison nor anyone else has the right to achieve as much success and make as much money as they can through honest means.”

See, for some of us, there is a thing as enough profit.

“What you mean, ‘us,’ Kemo Sabe?” – Tonto

I only need so much to live comfortably. Think of the vast majority of teachers out there–a teaching salary is far below what could be earned in industry (I know; two of them are barely paying half my tuition).

Right. You know why? Because they derive greater utility from additional hour spent teaching than they would from each additional dollar of compensation, up to a certain point. It’s perfectly tied in with those nasty capitalist concepts, “utility” and “substitutability.” Just as in my situation, when it came down to brass tacks, I was offered a choice between staying in Cleveland and taking a position similar to the one I was offered in DC, or taking the position in DC. I took the one in DC.

Millions of people are willing to work for very little is their needs are taken care of. And there’s millions more who would be happy to work for nothing if it meant that they were housed, clothed, fed, given medical attention, and their children educated for free.

I’ll bet–they don’t get paid, AND all the other suckers pay for all their stuff? Sounds like Paradise! Where do I sign up? It isn’t “free,” my friend; somebody pays for it.

. . . in Italy . . . My GF at the time injured her arm, and th family we were staying with took her to the hospital and got her treated. For free.

“Free” my ass. Somebody paid for it, and somebody got paid for it, at some point in the transaction. The fact that you didn’t do it means someone else did. TAANSTAFL.

[Myrr21]

First off, what’s the seconf “A” in there stand for? I know what the acronym means, but you must be using a slightly different wording or something…

OT: I think this browser’s wacked–your underline only showed up when highlighted.

Now then, do adress this issue. Yes somebody paid for it–those who were able to. It was free to us, who needed it–and heck, we were foreigners. That’s the point; the society as a whole paid for the society as a whole to be provided whatever medical attention they need. Sounds terrible to me :roleyes:

[Myrr21]

Well, I appear to have evaded ChiefScott’s wrath through a temporary lapse in my typing and editing skills. sigh

[Gaudere]

The Ryan

If you really expect socialism to allow everyone to do whatver they want, you’re an idiot.

Olentzero

I do, so go stick a sock in it, you fat bastard.

[Moderator Hat ON]

Cool it or take it to the Pit. That goes for all of you, by the way.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

[pldennison]

Yes somebody paid for it–those who were able to.

Are you unable to afford your own medical care?

It was free to us, who needed it–and heck, we were foreigners. That’s the point; the society as a whole paid for the society as a whole to be provided whatever medical attention they need.

Right. Those who are willing to work hard and provide for their basic needs are required, at gunpoint, to take care of the needs of others. Sounds fair to me.

Oh–if there are people not paying but taking out, “society as a whole” did no such thing. But, hey, soak the rich and all that.

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by oldscratch *
Sorry if it was confusing. Wasn’t meant to be. If you notice I didn’t say the owner didn’t work, I simply said he wasn’t a fellow worker.

Oh, he isn’t a fellow worker. Okay. So what you really meant was that the means of production aren’t controlled by fellow workers. Apparently there are different types of workers, and you want the means of production to be controlled by the “right” kind of workers. I suspected this from the beginning, but I wanted to get you to admit it so that it wouldn’t look like I was putting words in your mouth.

For example a slave owner may work, that doesn’t make them a slave. It might be better if we seperated the terms out of common English usage and applied the original terminology. Just because the bourgeoise works, it is not a memeber of the proletariat? That’s what I was aiming for. Make more sense?

What do you mean by “original meaning”? The original meaning of the word “worker” is “one who works”. If you work, you’re a worker.

The fact that you would equate the control a goldfish has over me to workers control over society, and use that to make an argument that workers do control society, therefore we live in a socialist society.

Now you’re just manipulating my words. You’re the one who brought the goldfish into this discussion. You’re the one that compared goldfish to workers; I never did so. And I never said that the US is socialist, either; I simply said that I don’t find your explanation for why it isn’t to be convincing.

The question you asked is analagous to asking the founding fathers what would happen if the americans wanted to go back to British rule. What happens then? Well, I really wouldn’t know what would happen then as it’s a rather silly question

I disagree. let’s what other dopers think

I suppose if they wanted it they could have it. Go for it. If the majority wanted it that would be their descision.

So why is it okay to use violence to force them into this situation?

[The_Ryan]

RickJay

Has anyone inserted any thoughts around basic psychology or economics into the discussion?

Apparently, socialists don’t believe in economics. If we got rid of money, somehow all our worries would go away :rolleyes:

Olentzero

quote:

Originally posted by pldennison
Yes, they can, and we have a word for businesses run by such people: “Bankrupt.” Or, if you prefer, “Insolvent.”

---

So we get rid of the profit system and this problem goes away. Simple enough.

Yes, that certainly is a rather simple (minded) answer. The loss of profits is the sympton, not the problem itself. Without good managers, your business will be very inefficient. In a capitalist society, that means that the company goes out of business, and the workers and owners suffer. In a socialist society, it means that it stays in business, and everyone suffers.

Myrr21

I used profit to mean both all the money a person receives and the amount they receive beyond what is necessary to live a comfortable life.

The first is the correct use. The second is an excuse to consider yourself more “deserving” of money than the rich.

First off, what’s the seconf “A” in there stand for?

It’s an A. it doesn’t stand for anything but “a”. Perhaps what’s confusing you is that it’s in the wrong place. Does “TANSTAAFL” make more sense to you?

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
I disagree. let’s what other dopers think
**

Geez. I knew I should have previewed that. Let’s try again.

[Myrr21]

The first is the correct use. The second is an excuse to consider yourself more “deserving” of money than the rich.

You might care reading all of what I wrote–not just the part you can offer a sarcastic reply to. The quote you cited there is a minor correction to my reply to * the exact same statement made by pldennison. * You just countered my argument with the exact argument it was replying to. If you have something new to add, I’ll adress it.

I posted the correction because I used “profit” in two places where I meant “profit” in one and “wages” in the other.

Now then, let’s adress a few other issues. First off, I have a pretty good knowledge of economics. Now completely thorough, but I understand it. And FTR, Marx did too–he spent hours on end studying economic data in England. But I’m not really a socialist, so where does that leave me?

So how about it, since you know economics? I’ll be glad to debate you point by point on this, but you can’t just throw out “economics” as the counter argument. It’s the same as the evolutionists just saying “protein homology” and leaving it at that. Protein homology does support evolution, but you can’t just say the word and then condemn everybody who disagrees with you as ignorant. I have a working knowlege of economics, and if you want to use it as evidence instead of mantra, we can do that. if not, then leave it out.

I knew that that “A” couldn’t be right there. I just didn’t realize where it should go, since I usually leave “a” out of acronyms…

pldennison: First off, what if I am unable to afford medical coverage? Do I not deserve it? Your “being held at gunpoint” analogy doesn’t hold up. In the very OT thread on Libertarianism, you said yourself–on the issue of defence–that if you can’t live in a society where people don’t provide for the common good (defence in that case–but is this any different?) you move elsewhere.

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by Myrr21 *
The quote you cited there is a minor correction to my reply to * the exact same statement made by pldennison. * You just countered my argument with the exact argument it was replying to.

Really? Just where did pldennison say “The first is the correct use. The second is an excuse to consider yourself more ‘deserving’ of money than the rich”?

but you can’t just throw out “economics” as the counter argument.

Huh? When have I used “economics” (the word, not the concepts), as an argument? What are you talking about?

[Myrr21]

Really? Just where did pldennison say “The first is the correct use. The second is an excuse to consider yourself more ‘deserving’ of money than the rich”?

Where he said this:

“Profit” is only a dirty word, frankly, to the unambitious. It’s a rather petulant way of pointing out that someone makes more money than someone else does.

Same argument, different wording (on the second part of your statement). Good lord man, I even quoted him when I posted that.

Huh? When have I used “economics” (the word, not the concepts), as an argument? What are you talking about?

Well, I was mostly referring to RickJay, but then you added this:

Apparently, socialists don’t believe in economics.

That pretty much sums up exactly what I was talking about. But, as I said, I’m not strictly a socialist; I just believe that a lot of the ideas behind it are good and should be implemented. So do I not count in this?

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by Myrr21 *

Really? Just where did pldennison say “The first is the correct use. The second is an excuse to consider yourself more ‘deserving’ of money than the rich”?

Where he said this:

“Profit” is only a dirty word, frankly, to the unambitious. It’s a rather petulant way of pointing out that someone makes more money than someone else does.

Same argument, different wording (on the second part of your statement).

Well, of course we’re making the same argument. And you and oldscratch and Olentzero are making another argument. Just because I’m makinmg the same argument as someone else doesn’t mean I’m not adding anything new.

Apparently, socialists don’t believe in economics.

That pretty much sums up exactly what I was talking about.

You seem to be misunderstanding what I was saying. I wasn’t attempting to prove socialism wrong simply by stating that socialists don’t believe in economics. I was explaining why I wasn’t using very much economics in the debate: the socialists don’t seem to find it convincing. I think you are confusing a statement made during an argument for a statement made in an argument.

[Myrr21]

You can say the same thing as pldennison, but I was simply pointing out that using the very thing I was replying to as a rejoinder to my post just isn’t good debate protocol, or whatever.

I still fail to see where you’ve included any solid economics into this. But maybe I just missed it…when I have a minute I’ll look through. Other than that, all I’ve seen is you–but more RickJay–throwing the word out as if that explains everything…

[Myrr21]

Sorry, misread your last post a little (switch a word here and there…). Anyway, feel free to bring econ into this. i’ll take you on; and possibly lose. But I do know a bit of it…

[Myrr21]

Though you know I’ll be fighting blindfolded, having an econimics text with me but not my copies of Marx sigh

[Olentzero]

OK, Gaudere, I apologize for my Pit-worthy behavior here in the GD. It wasn’t appropriate. My assessment of The Ryan’s personality still stands, however.

Well, it looks like we’re all stuck on personal definitions of several key terms here, and this is what’s producing most of the hairsplitting. Let me throw out several definitions, and if we all agree on them, then we can proceed with the debate in that framework. If not, then it’s time to take a break until oldscratch decides to start a new thread.

Worker. (Also employee.) One who is compelled to sell his labor power for wages in order to survive; control of the means of production is limited in general to operation and maintenance of machinery.

Capitalist. (Also owner, boss, or employer.) One who claims ownership over the means of production, by which is meant the right to decide what is produced, how it is produced, how much is produced, and what is done with the final product, is claimed as his and his alone. Provides money for investment in machinery, payment of wages, and costs of operation, in return for which he claims the right to the majority of, if not all of, the profit (q.v.) engendered from production.

Profit. The remaining surplus value from a cycle of production, after the costs of production (including wages (q.v.) have been accounted for.

Wages. That portion of the capitalist’s total income which is given over to the workers in return for the sale of their labor power, either from surplus value already generated by production or against anticipated surplus value to be generated in the future.

Capitalism. Production organized with the goal of engendering profit for the capitalist.

Socialism. Production organized for the meeting of human needs, having as its basis the elimination of the profit system, or capitalism.

OK, I think that about covers the basics. If you all (oldscratch included) are willing to accept these definitions as the foundations for continuing the argument, all well and good. But if not, then there’s really no reason to continue since we can’t even agree on a basic framework within which to carry on the debate.

And The Ryan says socialists don’t believe in economics. :rolleyes:

[The_Ryan]

So you believe that in socialism, workers don’t exist?

[RickJay]

The basis for socialist thought appears to be arbitrarily defining words so they fit a particular political agenda.

In the real world:

A WORKER is a person who engages in an activity for the purpose of adding value to something, be it either a physical product or a service. Workers can be paid a wage, can be working for themselves, or could be working for the sheer hell of it. Volunteers are workers. So are capitalists and “bosses.”

A WAGE is anything that is given in exchange for a person acting as a worker. WAGES are not necessarily tied into profit; people are paid wages from organizations that make no profit and have no intention of making one.

A BOSS is a type of worker who leads others in the conducting of work. Is it wrong to state that “Boss” and “Capitalist” are sysnonymous; most bosses are merely employees. I work in a company with a hundred managers and not one of them owns any peice of the company.

A CAPITALIST is a person who owns or exerts control over an enterprise that exists for the purpose of making a profit.

[Myrr21]

Here we go, from the dictionary:

Main Entry: work·er
Pronunciation: 'w&r-k&r
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a : one that works especially at manual or industrial labor or with a particular material – often used in combination b : a member of the working class
2 : any of the sexually underdeveloped and usually sterile members of a colony of social ants, bees, wasps, or termites that perform most of the labor and protective duties of the colony

Well, since we’re obviously not talking about #2, let’s look at #1. Gee it says * especially at manual or industrial labor * and * a member of the working class. *

Now stop accusing us of making words up, unless you’re going to check your own definition. In fact, “worker” seems to be closely related to “work”, which–strictly speaking–is the force required to move a mass over a distance. Makes sense that the term “worker” refers more to manual labor, then.