New study/experiment. Uber conservatives now get a diagnosis?

[DanaC]

@ Orthodoc

If I say on this quite politically minded board that I am a Marxist, there will be an assumption that I am referring to Marx's revolutionary programme of change, in which he both favoured, and predicted as inevitable, a workers' revolution which would create a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' as a temporary stage en route from capitalism to classless society.

If I were to say the same thing to a politically minded person from Britain, France, or Germany, they would most likely assume I was referring to 'modern marxism', a school of thought which underpins European socialist theory and, to an extent, practice.

If, however, I said I was a Communist, they may assume that I lean towards, or directly support classical Marxism, or (even more likely) orthodox Marxism.

The world now is, in many ways, a very different place to the one Marx, and the many other Communists of the 18th Century, inhabited. Revolution was in the air. It was talked of, written about and plotted for in towns and cities across the continent. The gulf that had become so apparent between the employer class and the working class, continued to widen and discontent was gathering pace.

Marx was a very clever man, but he lived in the time that he lived and however much he may have thought he could predict the future, he had no Crystal ball either.

But his analysis of how capitalism functioned and related to the social conditions of the day had merit. The same analysis can be applied to the modern world, but it won't paint an 18th century picture.

[lookout123]

marx's problem begins with the BS that anyone has a right to the fruits of my labor other than me and my family.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

You throw "equality" around like it's the be all, end all, to every social ill. There has never been equality in anything, and I don't think it's achievable or in most cases desirable. What we should be striving for is trying to eliminate stumbling blocks for people to advance their personal achievement, but if the kid has an IQ of 75 he's not going to Harvard, no matter what tools we give him.

I do not want equality in everything and never implied it, I just want to get rid of the stumbling blocks as well. I do not want the guy with the 75 IQ to go to Harvard, I want the everyone with a potential 175 IQ to have an equal chance to show that they can go to Harvard.

Give every kid a solid basic education in the 3-Rs, then in High School provide different paths to choose from that will prepare them to make their way in the world. There is no equality and no system that's not hierarchical. If you chose to live in a society, rather than Ted Kazinski's cabin, then you have to deal with it, like everyone else. But, unlike the commie states, you still have the free choice of the cabin.

I agree with this. I never wanted equality in every aspect if there was a misunderstanding there.

Biologically, there is even less equality than politically.

Thats what I was saying the whole time...

No, the guy that shot the dear shared it with the others, but he still got the best cut. That's the way it's always been, commensurate reward for value. It doesn't matter that 12 other hunters worked just as hard, if they didn't produce results.

He got the best cut, but the other people didn't go hungry either.

Not unless the people want it, and I don't hear much clamor except from a few idealists.

Thats why I don't think a leftist government is possible right now and would never fight for one either.

Your right, a manager that takes on the responsibility and accepts the same compensation as the workers, has no class.

No class? That shows that he would have a lot of class, the word you are looking for is fool.

No, not society's value of skill and effort. Society doesn't determine jack shit. It's the boss, the owner, of the business that determines the value of skill and effort, and determines the compensation, not society.

Ok, thats still not a direct representation of skill and effort then. A manager still does not work 50 times harder or is 50 times more skilled even if he or she thinks so.

What the fuck are you talking about? You said whites and blacks "were told to be equal". I presumed you were talking about the civil rights movement and federal court rulings/legislation. They were not told to be equal, they were told not to fuck with each other.

So giving blacks the right to vote is telling them "not to fuck with each other"?

You're dreaming. "Socially accepted" is a bullshit term that means nothing, except politically correct. It's politically correct to say that whites and blacks should have the same rights, but that doesn't mean everyone feels that way... ask any skinhead. It doesn't even guarantee a majority feel that way, it just means they'll agree in polite (PC) conversation.... and polls. The truth is in their actions.

Ok, your right on that but the point I am trying to get at is that racism has gone down since every generation is being raised in a society that is less and less racist.

It's contrary to human nature, there was always chiefs and shamans in every society.

I am not denying that, I am talking about how much power the chiefs and shamans should have over the population. And just because there is a leader doesn't mean there is a class difference.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

So giving blacks the right to vote is telling them "not to fuck with each other"?

The civil rights movement didn't give blacks the right to vote, which already existed, it told whites to stop interfering with the blacks right to vote. It also told whites (and blacks) not to interfere with anybody's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Keeping in mind all the laws in the world won't make it happen, on an individual basis, just punish people who persist. The only thing that makes it happen in a non-institutional environment, is personal contact building respect, like you said.

[9th Engineer]

So then if we were able to offer every kid the same highschool education and loan opportunities for college, that would be perfect equality. Equal opportunity, then it's up to the individual to use it.

manager still does not work 50 times harder or is 50 times more skilled even if he or she thinks so.

That's not important, if his labor is 50x more valuable to the success of the company then 1 worker, then he deserves 50x the pay in order to retain him.

Do you honestly think that there are enough individuals who are willing to work and sacrifice more then others for the same pay to fill all spots that would demand that? How do you rationalize telling that person he needs to travel 2 weekends a month when his buddies get to picnic with their families during that same time? How do you convince him to take on responsibilities that could cost him his job if something goes wrong, and how do you compensate him for his extra dedication to the company? A pat on the back and a 'good job, keep it up'?

Also, you are mixing two ideas which are anathema to each other. You say that the reward system would be based on additional respect and prestige. Then you say that all employees must be considered equally valuable. The self-esteem police have rampant power even in our current society, think of what they would be like under your system. I'd bet my life that under your rules anyone asking for additional respect or prestige as their reward would be torn apart as 'classist'. It already happens in socialist systems, just as the canadian doctor in here.

[9th Engineer]

Cicero, it seems to me like your posts are 10% motivated by your encounter with the monday morning guy, and 90% motivated by recent, serious upheavals in your life. I certainly don't want to poo-poo any crises you're having, but it sounds like we should be talking this over in the health forum or whichever is most appropriate. There's waaaay more personal undercurrent then political opinion showing itself in your writing.

[DanaC]

So then if we were able to offer every kid the same highschool education and loan opportunities for college, that would be perfect equality. Equal opportunity, then it's up to the individual to use it.

Agreed.

That's not important, if his labor is 50x more valuable to the success of the company then 1 worker, then he deserves 50x the pay in order to retain him.

If the other workers weren't there, would the company still prosper? He may be more difficult to replace than other workers and therefore more money is paid to retain him, but in order for the company to prosper it needs people to do all the necessary jobs. A wristwatch may have more expensive components than the battery, but if it that £1.50 battery goes flat the watch stops working. The battery is as important (more so?) than the gold strap holding the watch onto your wrist.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

That's not important, if his labor is 50x more valuable to the success of the company then 1 worker, then he deserves 50x the pay in order to retain him.

And how do you actually know that a manager's labor is 50 times more valuable than an worker's?

Do you honestly think that there are enough individuals who are willing to work and sacrifice more then others for the same pay to fill all spots that would demand that? How do you rationalize telling that person he needs to travel 2 weekends a month when his buddies get to picnic with their families during that same time? How do you convince him to take on responsibilities that could cost him his job if something goes wrong, and how do you compensate him for his extra dedication to the company? A pat on the back and a 'good job, keep it up'?

Once again, I do not agree with equal pay, I am just against the extremities. And to answer your question, those are the reasons why I don't think you can make a switch from a right-winged society to a left-winged one. If a left-winged society is going to succeed, a new system of rewards would have to be in place and I have no idea what they are or if they are even possible, I just know that our current way of living isn't the only way.

How do you convince him to take on responsibilities that could cost him his job if something goes wrong

You say that like only a manger is at risk at losing their job if something goes wrong. Shit rolls downhill.

Also, you are mixing two ideas which are anathema to each other. You say that the reward system would be based on additional respect and prestige. Then you say that all employees must be considered equally valuable. The self-esteem police have rampant power even in our current society, think of what they would be like under your system. I'd bet my life that under your rules anyone asking for additional respect or prestige as their reward would be torn apart as 'classist'. It already happens in socialist systems, just as the canadian doctor in here.

Do you purposely put words in my mouth or are you really that bad at reading comprehension? I have said numerous times that I am not a communist and I am not looking for a classless society. I am only defending some of their views because I have felt they haven't been proven wrong yet.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

And how do you actually know that a manager's labor is 50 times more valuable than an worker's?

You and I don't have to, we aren't paying him. That's the concern of his employer, not ours.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

I'm not so sure. Reagan's "wellfare queen" was an early example of the right wing noise machine, and I suspect that the stories of women having babies to increase their checks have been similarly overblown.

No, they aren't.

Admittedly, my crack ho with the 9 babies doesn't get an increase in her check because of them ... since she's not a fit parent and doesn't have custody of any of her kids, but I'm still paying for each of those kids, and will probably see them on a regular basis when they are older.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by lookout123

To answer your question, I don't have a problem with charity groups. I support a few myself. There is a huge difference between a charity group that I can voluntarily give my time and money to, and the government that takes my money with no promise of efficiency.
....

I accept your apology [/Stephen Colbert]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

...Could it be that entry-level jobs don't give enough of an improved quality of life, over welfare subsustence, to make it worth getting a job? I've read where people get a job, and have a lower standard of living than when they were on welfare. When employed, they have to pay for health insurance, childcare, transportation, maybe better clothing, etc. Perhaps the increase in minimum wage will widen this gap....

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

...
Yes, that's exactly the problem. Damn little incentive to risk giving it up.

And it's the people making gobs of money at the top end that are taking away the ability to increase wages at the bottom end. There is a limited amount of wealth in the system - what goes to one person is no longer available to go to someone else.

Originally Posted by orthodoc

England saw the inevitable result of drastic forced distribution of wealth when the supertax was in place. Those who had previously earned more either left the country or stopped earning. ...

I've heard this argument before, and I don't think it's valid. When someone "stops earning" his "production" doesn't just dissappear. Someone else, who wants to earn has the opportunity to fill the "production hole" and make money for themselves. The one who "stopped earning" has to do something with his wealth. Even if he just puts it in the bank, the bank can use it to fuel the economy.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

....
When the efforts became organized, for economies of scale, barter was no longer practical, so money was used to keep track of individual efforts. That paycheck is the reward for your effort to survive, which is as natural as it comes.There never has been, there is not now and there never will be, a classless society.
It is impossible to have a "society" without organization, and organization needs leadership, so that the pigs will always be more equal than others.....

But how much more equal?

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

You have to understand what money is, how and why people get it, as well as why people want it. Stop thinking of money as something that justs exists and should be divided up. Realize it's a representation of, a reward for, skill and effort.....

The richest people in the country typically get their wealth, or the start of their wealth, from family. It isn't a reward for *their* skill and effort, it's handed to them on a silver spoon.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

...No, the guy that shot the dear shared it with the others, but he still got the best cut. That's the way it's always been, commensurate reward for value. It doesn't matter that 12 other hunters worked just as hard, if they didn't produce results. ...

You've asked who determines "need" and "ability". Who determines "comensurate reward"? The best cut is one thing. In our society, the guy who shot the deer gets the meat, and throws the gnawed bones and knuckles to the rest of the team.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

The richest people in the country typically get their wealth, or the start of their wealth, from family. It isn't a reward for *their* skill and effort, it's handed to them on a silver spoon.

And if they too are not at least moderately skilled and motivated, they lose it again very quickly.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by wolf

Admittedly, my crack ho with the 9 babies doesn't get an increase in her check because of them ... since she's not a fit parent and doesn't have custody of any of her kids,

Well, there you go. Sounds like a prostitute who spends her money on drugs instead of birth control, not a welfare queen.

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

When the government tried to help, they created several generations of welfare dependant groups, that gave up working and just squirted out babies to increase their monthly stipend. A tremendous disservice to those people.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Yes. By giving them just enough to get by, but not enough to get out, they perpetuated the ghettos.

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

I'm not so sure. Reagan's "wellfare queen" was an early example of the right wing noise machine, and I suspect that the stories of women having babies to increase their checks have been similarly overblown.

Welfare these days is quite different than it was before Clinton. When Clinton was president he inacted the 'welfare reform bill'

Welfare had a term limit on it. Welfare recipients HAD to look for work after a certain amount of time. They got help with child care and transportation.
Welfare these days is actually hard to get and for any smart person not worth the hassle.



Welfare reform
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_reform

[lookout123]

were those the same wonderful clinton reforms that had people all upset at the horrible, heartless GOP for screwing over teh underprivileged?

at the end of the day what i hear is a lot of whining and bitching because some people think it is unfair that "the rich people" have more money than the rest of us. quit your bitching and get on your life. if you think wealth redistribution is such a marvelous idea, get off your ass, do what it takes to create wealth (versus confiscating it) and then decide if you feel like redistributing it at the government's whim. As for me, I will work hard to achieve my goals and create some small measure of wealth for me and my family. and i will try my hardest to not give uncle sam one penny more than i have absolutely have to. and i will continue to fund charities and help those around me the best i can.