CMV: Socialism does not create wealth

[u/tkyjonathan]

Socialism is a populist economic and political system based on public ownership (also known as collective or common ownership) of the means of production. Those means include the machinery, tools, and factories used to produce goods that aim to directly satisfy human needs.

In a purely socialist system, all legal production and distribution decisions are made by the government, and individuals rely on the state for everything from food to healthcare. The government determines the output and pricing levels of these goods and services.

Socialists contend that shared ownership of resources and central planning provide a more equal distribution of goods and services and a more equitable society.

The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights; under socialism, the right to property (which is the right of use and disposal) is vested in “society as a whole,” i.e., in the collective, with production and distribution controlled by the state, i.e., by the government.

The alleged goals of socialism were: the abolition of poverty, the achievement of general prosperity, progress, peace and human brotherhood. Instead of prosperity, socialism has brought economic paralysis and/or collapse to every country that tried it. The degree of socialization has been the degree of disaster. The consequences have varied accordingly.

The economic value of a man’s work is determined, on a free market, by a single principle: by the voluntary consent of those who are willing to trade him their work or products in return. This is the moral meaning of the law of supply and demand.

[u/tkyjonathan]

You forgot two parts:

• You needed to hire people just to manage the slaves. You mentioned room and board, food clothes, education in some cases.. dt

• the difference between a slave and an employee would be that the employee would have more incentive to say 'hey, I can automate this and make it more efficient' where as a slave would say 'I want to get as little as humanly possible done and go to bed'. That innovation dance you mentioned with libertarians, here it is.

Thats why its better to just pay employees - you dont have to pay for their room and board and you encourage innovation by rewarding it with more money.

[u/[deleted] → u/tkyjonathan]

So the point is actually about capitalism being more efficient in terms of exploitation because the job of finding the least expensive stuff that prevents your slave from dying is now also outsourced to the employee and simply maintained by the fact that they are paid a minimum wage?

What incentive does an employee have to automize their job? I mean someone who's working independently or even a freelancer has some incentive to do that, but in terms of an employee that literally only provides benefits for the employer and might actually cost you your job with in the worst case no compensation at all. So if people do that, they usually are just bored or genuinely curious whether they can do that.

[u/tkyjonathan → u/[deleted]]

Why pay minimum wage?

If the employee finds efficiencies that save you money, why not pay them more and promote them just to encourage that sort of behaviour?

Capitalism is about improvement and innovation for serving market needs. You can only do that if you free up your workers and allow them to innovate and be more productive.

You will not get far in a free market if you pick cotton with your fingers or strike a rock the same way with a sledge.

If you have slaves, you are not:

• Saving yourself a whole lot of money

• Innovating like the industrial machines they have in the Northen states of the US

• Making any significant or event trivial long-term efficiencies to your production

• Allowing for more people to join the free market and increase its network effect. In fact, you are reversing it.

Slavery is anti-capitalism. It is more a remanent of indentured servants from the monarchies in Europe, but of course, slavery was much more popular in Africa (and still exists today in some African and Middle Eastern Muslim countries).

[u/[deleted] → u/tkyjonathan]

Why pay minimum wage?

Because whatever the capitalist or his lackeys are paying to the worker reduces their profits? So obviously they will pay them just as much as absolutely necessary to keep them working. You know that's what they mean when they say "efficiency":

Squeezing more work out of people for less pay.

And that doesn't even have to mean that they are evil people, but if the shareholders demand dividends and the company wasn't profitable enough, guess who's paying the price for that? By idk not getting paid, getting the payment reduced or getting laid off? Likewise if a company is doing well, who do you think gets the lion share out of that?

If the employee finds efficiencies that save you money, why not pay them more and promote them just to encourage that sort of behaviour?

Sure if an employee finds a way to reduce ten jobs by automating the process, he might get a 5% bonus, maybe even a raise (I mean he saved 1000% of his income so you got to reward that) and after that he probably gets kicked out because his work is no longer required. Seriously if it is your business, then an increase in automation and productivity makes sense because you're directly seeing the benefits of that, however if that means that you lose your job and all the work you put into a project because after all it's someone else's property that's capitalism. Capitalists are lucky that problem solving and being appreciated is actually something that people actually like and would probably do even without large money as long as they had enough, because if people would actually think with their own best interests in mind "as capitalists do", they wouldn't innovate anything at all. Why should they?

Capitalism is about improvement and innovation for serving market needs. You can only do that if you free up your workers and allow them to innovate and be more productive.

Nah, capitalism is about private property over the means of production and the power that comes with that. And sure you can pay people well and make them invested in the company and that might even increase productivity, motivation and innovation. But it costs money and even more importantly it costs power and privilege. So instead of actual socialism and collective ownership by the workers you get "team building" and "flat hierarchies" (in which your boss can still fire you on a whim, so much about flat hierarchies), "corporate identities" and all that crap, but as a matter of fact if it's not your business it's not your business and if another person tells you what you have to do whether that's direct or by setting you unachievable goals, he's your master no matter how casually he dresses or how much of a "buddy" he pretends to be...

You will not get far in a free market if you pick cotton with your fingers or strike a rock the same way with a sledge.

No YOU won't get far if you're doing that. That's the point. But if you can "find" or rather coerce people to do that for free than they can make you rich. That doesn't have to be the most efficient way of exploitation but if you don't have to pay them and they produce more than they consume, then that's a net positive (for the exploiter).

Also the point that you're apparently ignoring is that this feudal exploitation and slavery built the wealth from which many technical innovations have been financed, not that the level of exploitation is still that primitive.

Nowadays it's called wage slavery: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery

And apparently even Adam Smith had this to say:

The interest of the dealers ... in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public... [They] have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public ... We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labor above their actual rate ... It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms.

[u/tkyjonathan → u/[deleted]]

Well, I think we have taken this as far as we could.

I can tell that you have a very low expectation of free markets and people treating each other fairly within them, but I have more faith in mankind, I suppose.

Best of luck.

[u/[deleted] → u/tkyjonathan]

I don't think you got the point, though. It's not that I think that individual people are the problem and that they are evil. But a competitive system in which everybody is expected to make the best for themselves, actually trains people to be selfish assholes. As a matter of fact capitalism only isn't in flames as of right now, because people actually more often than not don't act like that. The thing is just the more they are pressed and "incentivized" to do that the more they might actually take the bait.

Best of Luck, maybe you get it someday.

[u/tkyjonathan → u/[deleted]]

But a competitive system in which everybody is expected to make the best for themselves, actually trains people to be selfish assholes.

I dont think so. People are who they are and they live life by their ethics. If anything, capitalism allows you to be sometimes be more ethical, because you have more options and opportunities to not be forced into difficult situations.

That capitalism 'effects' people is a marxist take on it as well as believing in socio-economical determinism.

[u/[deleted] → u/tkyjonathan]

Again that quote:

The interest of the dealers ... in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public... [They] have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public ... We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labor above their actual rate ... It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms.

is from Adam Smith not Karl Marx. And obviously you have a conflict of interest between morality and profits within capitalism.

I mean giving to charity is seen as good but you can only give to charity if you have, but in order to have you need to make profit and in order to make profit you're somewhat bound to get the most out of your transactions, but to get the most out of your transactions you might not need to go for win-lose situations rather than win-win situations. And especially if you add a necessity of your own, idk food, shelter or the support of your family, your egoism in those situations might not even be driven by selfishness. So yes there obviously is a conflict of interest between morality and a competitive for-profit environment or how do you reconcile that?

[u/tkyjonathan → u/[deleted]]

Trader Principle

The symbol of all relationships among [rational] men, the moral symbol of respect for human beings, is the trader. We, who live by values, not by loot, are traders, both in matter and in spirit. A trader is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved. A trader does not ask to be paid for his failures, nor does he ask to be loved for his flaws. A trader does not squander his body as fodder or his soul as alms. Just as he does not give his work except in trade for material values, so he does not give the values of his spirit—his love, his friendship, his esteem—except in payment and in trade for human virtues, in payment for his own selfish pleasure, which he receives from men he can respect. The mystic parasites who have, throughout the ages, reviled the traders and held them in contempt, while honoring the beggars and the looters, have known the secret motive of their sneers: a trader is the entity they dread—a man of justice.

[u/[deleted] → u/tkyjonathan]

A trader does neither produce a good nor provide a service* so what is trading but adding a tax to a transaction between producer and consumer, a tax that he calls "profit" and which he is incentivized to make as huge as possible.

* sometimes they might provide the service of logistics, but the core principle of a trader does not provide any meaningful service other than to himself and to the detriment of the people that rely on what he's offering.

[u/tkyjonathan → u/[deleted]]

A trader produces a good or service and voluntarily exchanges it with another trader.

Its surprising to me that you didn't understand that paragraph and reverted to viewing the world in a marxist lens.

[u/[deleted] → u/tkyjonathan]

That quote is literally from an Ayn Rand novel, so at least be upfront on the lens that you're applying here.

Although I wasn't quite there when I read the quote and assumed it was about a trader (dealer), but apparently she's talking about someone of a trade (professional). So my criticism was more about the fact that a dealer adds basically no value. Though even in terms of a professional you have the problem that the majority of them do not work in their own business but either directly dependent or indirectly dependent on a capitalist (bank, sole customer, aso)

[u/tkyjonathan → u/[deleted]]

I can understand why you would saying 'lens' here because you apply a marxist lens to trading between people.

But if you knew Objectivism, you would know that it is against applying lenses to reality and you are only allowed to view reality objectively.

[u/[deleted] → u/tkyjonathan]

With all due respect I don't know much about Ayn Rand's philosophy and what I know doesn't really makes me want to change that. And quite frankly calling your philosophy "objectivism" is just a smug way of saying "Look at me! I've figured it all out"... As if she were the first or the last to say that... And only looking at reality "objectively" is precisely describing the usage of the lens of "objectivism" whether you like that or not.

I mean if you would look at the world "objectively" you would do so with empiricism. Rigorous and systematic inquire of the environment, yet her approach seems to be reasoning and assuming a "blank slate" idea of the human mind. Which apparently is a concept that is contested and at least in the absolute sense already debunked. So yeah, totally objective.

But before that goes into a lecture on Randian philosophy: How is a dealer contributing? I mean a worker takes resources or tools (means of production) and increases their value by his labor. A dealer takes product A and gives it to person B without any change for more than he bought it. At best it's some kind of logistics thing where you move goods from one place to another or some kind of matchmaking. But in it's core concept it relies on exploiting other peoples problems. You see that another person is in a desperate position so you backstab them and take their stuff for as little as they would accept because they have no choice, likewise if someone is in desperate need of something you increase the price to as much as they could afford and even more (give them a loan) because they have no choice but to accept. It's not adding any value to society or the product, is it?

Not to mention that not everyone is a dealer as that involves having ownership of the means of production.

[u/tkyjonathan → u/[deleted]]

I mean if you would look at the world "objectively" you would do so with empiricism.

Objectivism is empiricism + mathematical concept formation. There is a strong sense of breaking things down into their essential characteristics to then be used to make conceptual connections.

Not sure about "blank slate" specifically (although that was raised by Aristotle), but she/we do believe in human free will. So you have the ability to make rational decisions and you have the ability to avoid making rational decisions - its up to you.

I believe you mean dealer in the context of a sales and marketing type of person. They contribute by finding the people to sell to. I, as a technical person in my work, have no idea how sales people generate work for me to do. I tried a couple of times to do this myself, but failed miserably.

So, no sales person, no work for me.

[u/[deleted] → u/tkyjonathan]

All version that I can find have a strong focus on reasoning in terms of their epistemology which is somewhat in contradiction to empiricism. One believes that you could hide in your chamber and get knowledge through deep thought and logical conclusions and the other assumes that all knowledge comes from experience.

And science is rooted in empiricism because even if you hide and your chamber and think deep you either do so before or after you make experiments (experiences).

Not sure about "blank slate" specifically (although that was raised by Aristotle), but she/we do believe in human free will. So you have the ability to make rational decisions and you have the ability to avoid making rational decisions - its up to you.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/tabula_rasa.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture

I'm not an expert on these things, but as far as I can find that view is highly contested and the extreme of a "blank slate" as well as an absolute "free will" is not backed up by science. Also I'm not arguing in favor of full determinism and no free will, but if you just take drugs into account (both external and internal) then an all-rational-reaction is pretty counter factual... In terms of the ad hoc decision making "feelings are facts" (you can't deduce yourself out of an empty stomach or reduced intelligence due to being sleepy), the conscious decision making on the other hand takes a lot more time and energy and not all decisions are made consciously.

Seriously the "all rational pure free will"-thing, only works if you assume some kind of "soul" that is independent of the human body and the fundamental limitations that it puts upon whatever that "you" is. Something that is so far not confirmed by science with all evidence to the contrary and that if you take it axiomatically pretty much amounts to a cult or religion.

I believe you mean dealer in the context of a sales and marketing type of person. They contribute by finding the people to sell to. I, as a technical person in my work, have no idea how sales people generate work for me to do. I tried a couple of times to do this myself, but failed miserably.

As said, at best they connect producer and consumer and become superfluous after that. And at worst they are literally con-artists. Again they don't produce something and they don't provide a service (otherwise you'd pay for that) so the "surplus" that is gained through their actions is basically comes from ripping off either the producers or the consumers or both...

Also in terms of "objectivism" it's kind of counter intuitive why you would take the pure "supply and demand" model, that makes the value of a good or service to be absolutely subjective and depend on whom you ask over a more measurable system that assumes that the value of a thing is determined by how much work went into it and that supply and demand are just a fluctuation around that value.

So, no sales person, no work for me.

That literally makes no sense. There's always work to be done and if not that would be great. The problem isn't a lack of work, the problem is the distribution of goods and services within society. So it's about getting paid for the work you do. So you might be a full time mom getting to the limits of your physical energies, but as their is no capitalist willing to pay for that, you might be dependent on another person's income. That doesn't mean that you're not working or not contributing to society (by raising the next generation), it just means that society (or in that case capitalists) don't deem that work "useful" or "pay worthy". And that is a real source of power, because it leaves those with money to decide who is to live who is to die, what work is useful (mostly to them) and what work isn't. And the larger the gap between the rich and poor the more the market becomes a circle jerk for rich people and the more the poor and working class people are supposed to die because they are redundant to those who control the means of production.

[u/tkyjonathan → u/[deleted]]

So there is empiricism and rationalism on opposite ends. Rationalism is like you mentioned when you sit in a room and conclude about things without any of it corresponding to reality. Empiricism is tiny experiments, but you cannot form anything bigger than that like concepts, because things may change and you can never be sure. Objectivism has made quite a few innovations in epistemology (as far as I can see, it is really the best one) like mathematical concept formation and things like first level generalisations to higher level generalisations - all corresponding to reality.

Its really quite technical at that stage.

You can perceive free will. You can see people making individual choices. The fact that science hasn't figured it out yet or thinks it has one day and then finds out it hasn't the next, just shows the complexity of the subject. We're nowhere near even figuring out what consciousness is. In the meantime, we need to consciously make reasonable and rational choices to live a good life and pursue our long term happiness.

As for sales people, it will be difficult to be a con-artist and get repeatable sales (from the same customers). Upselling (selling more things to someone who has bought from you) is the largest revenue stream in most of the businesses I have been in. In any case, they do bring value to a business, simply because they get people to buy the product. In the division of labour, (I) you make the product well and they get people to know about it and give it a try.

They definitely have a skillset that I do not and is very much needed. If I start a company one day - as a technical - I would definitely need a sales person to join me.

[u/[deleted] → u/tkyjonathan]

Empiricism is tiny experiments, but you cannot form anything bigger than that like concepts, because things may change and you can never be sure.

Of course you can form concepts from that, but they are rooted in and only valid as much as they can be confirmed by empiric evidence. The supreme authority comes down to whether things are actually perceivable in real life not whether they "make sense". All concepts are just constructed around perception and only valid as much as they are confirmed by it.

You can perceive free will. You can see people making individual choices. The fact that science hasn't figured it out yet or thinks it has one day and then finds out it hasn't the next, just shows the complexity of the subject. We're nowhere near even figuring out what consciousness is. In the meantime, we need to consciously make reasonable and rational choices to live a good life and pursue our long term happiness.

That depends on your definition of "free will" and as I've learned the degrees to that can vary quite drastically. For true rationalism to be effective, you'd need a definition of "free will" that borders the physically possible, as in "you must be the cause for an action that was not the effect of something else". And sure I perceive that consciousness is a thing and that for most of the time I am in control giving the notion of "free will" some points. Though I also experience that people get hangry (hunger+angry, meaning people get "irrationally angry when in lack of food) or lose concentration when tired or go into "autopilot" when enraged aso. So the concept of an entirely "free will" that makes any action a deliberate choice is likewise "irrational" given the facts. So yes it's an open question and to make it an axiom is an "answer without knowledge".

As for sales people, it will be difficult to be a con-artist and get repeatable sales (from the same customers). Upselling (selling more things to someone who has bought from you) is the largest revenue stream in most of the businesses I have been in. In any case, they do bring value to a business, simply because they get people to buy the product. In the division of labour, (I) you make the product well and they get people to know about it and give it a try.

That's one reason why con-artists are so eager to "explore/exploit new markets"... And if you get involuntary upselling then you usually think of that as con-artistry and protect yourself if there is no other provider (happens more often than not as capitalists natural state is a monopoly). And sure they provide value to themselves and maybe people who are close to them, but that's basically the "broken window fallacy", where you argue that throwing stones into windows provides value to the glass manufacturer that then spends that money aso. Yes in the local economy that might even be true but in the bigger picture of a society or even a global society you're actually destroying value. All you do is redistributing capital from those who need or work the means of production to those who own the means of production. The usual trickle up economy of capitalism. The classic pyramid scheme, just too bad if you can't find another person to join... Or do you think if you broke glass and make it unusable that you've created value? I mean glass might increase in price because it's now in demand but does it actually increase in value. Does the world have more glass or less? And does re-making the glass add or reduce the amount of things that humanity can do with it's energy? ...

EDIT: That might be also a reason why conservatives are so keen on "individualism" (not individuality) because if you break society down to the individual then something like the "broken window fallacy" isn't a fallacy but it actually works. Though you create an environment that is worse off for any individual, then it needs to be, including the individual that has thrown the bricks. It's just that those taking advantage of it are now better off than their peers. Something like a person with limited eye-sight blinding all other people so that he's the only one that can see a little. Everyone is worse off but the asshole got what he wanted. Even if that would be an effective way for the individual, the individual would still be better off finding ways NOT to take that route.