|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
 Posted - 04/15/2002 : 03:57:35 [Permalink]
|
One thing to bear in mind that is that communism as envisaged by Marx and the early socialists of the 19th century had little or nothing to do with dictators and the Soviet Union. They envisaged a classless society where the workers owned and controlled the means of production.
Socialism comes in so many different types it's difficult to say exactly what is meant by it. Some people equate it with communism, others with just any left-wing form of government. Our own Labour Party (in Britain) had a clause in its constitution promising the state ownership of industry, but dropped it recently, for example.
"Be realistic, demand the impossible" - graffiti from Paris, May 1968. |
 |
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 04/16/2002 : 22:24:58 [Permalink]
|
I've been gone for a few days; in case this thread's still alive, I have some remarks. Apologies for the lengthiness; that wasn't my original intent.
Seb> I was initially a bit confused by the "utopia" remark, but I see where you're coming from, although that's an awful strict interpretation.
Snake> There are definitely degrees of validity, and truthful aspects to the points you make, yet I *really disagree* with some of your conclusions…
VOCATIONAL TRAINING: Yes, I think vocational training's great and it has it's place, but I don't think it's "the answer" to nearly the extent you imply. One reason: there are plenty of people out there with IQ's under 85 or 90, for instance, and there aren't that many new (marketable) skills they can learn, within the limits of practicality. What about them? I don't consider a doctor any "better" than they are- we NEED people who will perform menial tasks, as much as we need surgeons- if there wasn't anyone who'd drive the trucks of food to our supermarkets, or pick up our garbage, how vital their roles are would quickly become evident. Some of these people work VERY hard, and I respect them. I truly believe a bus driver has a tougher job than you realize (I'd have a difficult time coping with it, myself) and I think doctors deserve BETTER salaries because they have unusual skills requiring extensive training and education as you noted, yet I don't think they should have twin Rolls Royce in their driveways and own helicopters, while the aforementioned groups are (literally) a paycheck or two from having their furniture next to the curb along with their kids.
PAY VS. EDUCATION: Actually, doctors are a bad example because *their average incomes are not that high*… probably even less than commensurate, considering what they contribute to society… but there are plenty of jobs which don't contribute very much (or anything at all- rather, they "manipulate quantities") relative to their absurdly high salaries. In fact, I think "What's Contributed To Society vs. Salary" is probably a better ratio to consider than "Education And Training vs. Salary" (admittedly, the former can be harder to define/measure.) These are the jobs that illustrate the "trouble" with capitalism, and there are far too many of them throughout the employment hierarchy, from the 40K mid-manager of the "non-profit" organization who does virtually nothing, to the $multimillion-salaried CEO who pays almost no taxes (percentage-wise) while grocery clerks work their tails off for change, only to get further clobbered by the tax scales. As was mentioned in other's posts, those with "upper hands" (social, political, financial, etc.) have historically demonstrated the ridiculous extremes of inequity they'll press their advantages to, when there's nothing to "moderate" their business behaviors. By the way, how much do you think Mike Tyson's contribution to society is worth? 15 million for the (likely soon forthcoming) Lennox Lewis fight? He *really is* extremely skilled, and has extensive education and training (in his field.) Is he worth that salary? The promoters think so, and free-market doctrine says so. Mike's an interesting case of Capitalism in action- oh, yea, I almost forgot- speaking of doctors, Mike Tyson has an (honorary) Ph.D. in Communications (believe it or not, HE REALLY DOES- but please don't ask how that's possible, because I have no clue…based upon his monumental and innovative advancements in the Art of Intimidation, and to the Fistic Sciences, I suppose.)
LACK OF INCENTIVE: While parked near a homeless shelter years ago, I witnessed a loud, staggering drunk "tossed out" as he bellowed "I'm TRYING TO get straight and you won't gimme' a place to stay you (expletives) !!!" This sounds like the kind of disgusting, arrogant, obnoxious, immature drunk you described, and he made me angry- but it made me realize how tempting it can be to focus on especially aggravating slobs and therein over-generalize/scapegoat. Like many ideas discussed on this website, it's hard to precisely define, and harder (impossible?) to quantify "motivation," "maturity," "arrogance," etc. but nonetheless, I suspect we'd agree that those were two repulsive drunks deserving of very little assistance/sympathy, pending attitude adjustments. If they were the norm, I'd concur with your views totally, but I honestly think they're the exceptions to the rule, so I disagree.
DRUG LAWS: I couldn't agree more.
Getting way too long. Enough.
Edited by - ronnywhite on 04/16/2002 22:35:25 |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2002 : 01:32:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Getting way too long. Enough.
Yes, well. I wish I had as much time on my hands to reply to everything as you did. 
I don't know anything about those boxer guys you refer to, only that they are fighters so I don't know about the Ph.D.
There are too many other things to answer point by point, some of which you know I disagree and other things are misunderstood or slightly off the point. Too bad we can't chat live. I can't spell and hate to type.
Ronny do you ever get up north? Although I live in LA county I belong to a Freethinkers group in Ventura. You should go debate with them some time.
Later,
nlm
* * * * * *
*Carabao forever. |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2002 : 01:42:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I don't know anything about those boxer guys you refer to, only that they are fighters so I don't know about the Ph.D.
But, about sports people, actors for that matter too, when they get those outragous paychecks, who's fault is that?
I don't watch sports on TV or go to games or go to movies (unless they are for free, like those preview tickets they are always giving out) so I don't support them with my money. I have a clear conscience. I think basketball is about the stupidest sport, very amusing. Watching someone run back and forth throwing a ball in a net. Catching it and running the other way to throw it again. How dumb is that, but if people are idiot enough to pay high prices to go to those games, how can anyone complain the players are getting too much.
Does answer any part of your post?
* * * * * *
*Carabao forever. |
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2002 : 17:59:30 [Permalink]
|
Ronnywhite> The comparison to 19th century Britain, when we talk about capitalism in its pure form, is because that is a very “good” example of what will happen, if profit is allowed to be the purpose of society. And by that I mean capitalism defined as “1) The most important means of production (factories, land, machinery and transportation) is owned or controlled by a small minority of the population. 2) The majority of the population are denied ownership or control over the means of production, and are forced to make a living by selling their ability to work to the capitalists. They're furthermore forced to sell their labour under circumstances that allow the capitalists to make a profit from it. 3) The means of production are divided between different capitalists (individuals, groups or states), that produce and compete with one another. The competition is measured by profit. The constant competition for profit forces those, who control each mean of production, to exploit their workers as much as they can.”
Before the invention of unions, laws to protect workers and so on, capitalism was “pure”. We've not had pure capitalism in the 20th or 21st century. There are customs, and other national or regional protections against foreign producers.
Seb> But people are not only driven by self-interest. Sure, we always hear “It will always be necessary to have leaders.” “People are basically selfish”, “Some people always want more than others” or “Revolutions will always go wrong and lead to tyranny.”
All of that is really based on the old biblical idea about Original Sin, passed on since the times of Adam and Eve. The idea, that there is a fundamental flaw in human nature, which makes true equality and corporation between humans impossible, seems a convenient answer to all the evils of the world like racism and sexism.
And there are many examples of greed and selfishness, just look at the Enron scandal. But what about the people who risk their lives to save others. Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for 27 years for a cause he believed in. The students on The Square of Heavenly Peace in China, when the tanks came rolling. Parents who devote their lives to take care of their handicapped children and the money charities can raise, when others are in trouble.
Even when governments plan the most hideous imperial wars, they know that to get public support they have to sell their plans by claiming they have a descent motive. The British claimed they entered WW I to save poor little Belgium. And saving poor Kuwait was used as an excuse in the oil-war in the golf.
I'm not saying this to prove that humans are basically selfless. I'm just pointing out that it's ridiculous to claim, that humans are born greedy. Especially when recalling that this is how people behave in a capitalistic society, which constantly encourages greed, competition and a general pecking-order.
It's all a matter of circumstances. And I would not say there is any kind of balance in society today. Unemployment, exploitation of the third world, starvation, homeless, wars and massive pollution shows nothing but lack of balance.
Snake> How come a doctor should get paid more than the guy who picks up my trash? I'd rather not have people become doctors, surgeons and physicians for the money. And what would happen if the trash wasn't picked up? I'm happy someone wants the job of driving my bus to work every day or sit behind the counter at my grocery store. Why should they be considered “less” because they don't have a fine education? Especially in countries where education isn't free, you could have the next Einstein walking around, but his parents were too poor to put her in college.
Sure, the “social cases” who gargle around with an odour of five days of constant drinking and ten days without a shower are not a pretty sight. But you honestly think the guy chose that situation?
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss." |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2002 : 16:52:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
VOCATIONAL TRAINING: Yes, I think vocational training's great and it has it's place, but I don't think it's "the answer" to nearly the extent you imply.
Hum! Did I say something about vocational education? I must go back and read some of my posts sometime!
quote:
One reason: there are plenty of people out there with IQ's under 85 or 90, for instance, and there aren't that many new (marketable) skills they can learn, within the limits of practicality. What about them?
Won't there always be people needed at every level no matter what skill is required? Perhaps we need to get the overpopulation discussion in on this debate too.
quote:
I don't consider a doctor any "better" than they are- we NEED people who will perform menial tasks, as much as we need surgeons- if there wasn't anyone who'd drive the trucks of food to our supermarkets, or pick up our garbage, how vital their roles are would quickly become evident.
Excuse me but didn't you just conterdict yourself? You said above ''there aren't that many new (marketable) skills''. You didn't mean truck drivers then, right? When you said we need people to pick up our garbage, etc.quote:
Some of these people work VERY hard, and I respect them.
Great, then would you mind giving my room mate a little larger tip, next time you park in the car lot he works at.
quote:
I truly believe a bus driver has a tougher job than you realize (I'd have a difficult time coping with it, myself)
If you think you couldn't do it, then you are not obligated to take that kind of a job. Not everyone is suited for everything. I wouldn't mind being a doctor and I could learn to if I wanted to (I like science) but I can't stand the sight of blood, therefore I wouldn't consider doing that job. Don't most people kind of drift into something they feel comfortable with? It may not be perfect or ideal but I can't think anyone would absolutely do something they really hated. I myself have done a lot of things in life, when I'd transfer to a job I thought I wanted and found it wasn't what I expected I took another. The phone company give one a 6 month period to stay on a new job or not(at least that's what they did when I worked there)
quote:
and I think doctors deserve BETTER salaries because they have unusual skills requiring extensive training and education as you noted, yet I don't think they should have twin Rolls Royce in their driveways and own helicopters, while the aforementioned groups are (literally) a paycheck or two from having their furniture next to the curb along with their kids.
There are many different factors in what you are saying.
1. Doctors are competative, I would think, as in any other business. If a doctor has a good reputation in his field, it means he's doing 'something' right and should get paid for his expertise.
2. I don't think the average doctor actually has a Rolls Royce. LOL, although we see a lot of them in Los Angeles, there are far more doctors here than expensive cars.
3. What one pays to see a doctor doesn't go directly to the doctor. There are plenty of other overhead expenses. How do you know, even if you see a doctor driving a RR, he isn't in debt just to keep up an image?
4. Next, so what if he is driving a fancy car, he's helping the economy and paying the wage of the 'little guy' who's making that car. Why would you deny a doctor or anyone else the car of his choice because YOU can't afford one?
5. Who's fault is it if someone is a pay check away from the street? If people don't live within their means or learn to budget then the doctor shouldn't buy a new car? I don't think so. Makes me angry when I see people complain they don't have money to buy food when I see them smoking or buying potato chips and beer or soda. Or whatever people complain they don't have when it's a luxury and they think it's a nessessity. People love to be victims when they are told they should be.quote:
PAY VS. EDUCATION: Actually, doctors are a bad example because *their average incomes are not that high*… probably even less than commensurate, considering what they contribute to society…
Sheesh, NOW you say that, after I just said not all doctors have big cars. Are we conterdicting ourself again? RONNY!
quote:
LACK OF INCENTIVE: While parked near a homeless shelter years ago, I witnessed a loud, staggering drunk "tossed out" as he bellowed "I'm TRYING TO get straight and you won't gimme' a place to stay you (expletives) !!!" This sounds like the kind of disgusting, arrogant, obnoxious, immature drunk you described, and he made me angry- but it made me realize how tempting it can be to focus on especially aggravating slobs and therein over-generalize/scapegoat. Like many ideas discussed on this website, it's hard to precisely define, and harder (impossible?) to quantify "motivation," "maturity," "arrogance," etc. but nonetheless, I suspect we'd agree that those were two repulsive drunks deserving of very little assistance/sympathy, pending attitude adjustments. If they were the norm, I'd concur with your views totally, but I honestly think they're the exceptions to the rule, so I disagree.
This(these posts) is a difficult way to explain everything. I don't know and possibly you didn't know the entire situation with the drunk you saw and the one I was talking about of course there is more to the story then I could mention at one time. So I guess that's a wash but I don't agree that they are small execptions.
Like the people who say they can't afford something because the item is too expensive as if they are entitled to have it rather than making a choices to buy it or not or earn/save the money if they really want it, I think there are more of them then the truly needy. In other words, people complain of being poor when they don't do anything to help themself.
quote:
|
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2002 : 09:32:39 [Permalink]
|
Omega> The comparison to 19th century Britain
I agree with everything you said, and you described the elements of capitalism as well as I could imagine. The basic concept of exploitation remains the same, yet I feel cultural factors, degree of social/media control, etc. makes how much exploitation can be endured with what effects differ. In one place/time, what would result in uprisings, insurgencies, etc. might be passively accepted in another.
Snake> But, about sports people, actors for that matter too, when they get those outragous paychecks, who's fault is that?
Who's fault? The nature of the system- a different angle of exploitation. Some occupations are hard to describe in terms of what they contribute to society (entertainers don't make an item, or provide a clearly utilitarian service like a doctor or plumber) yet I feel that by "doing what they're doing," they redirect cash flow and redistribute buying power. When Tyson swings his fists, he creates monetary "vector fields," of sorts, redirecting many millions of dollars. The resulting redistributions are detrimental to society's interest, in my opinion (e.g. the $5 bet would have been better spent on bread and eggs, as it assuredly would have in a Socialist society.) I mentioned Tyson's honorary PhD because I think it's funny.
>people out there with IQ's under 85 or 90
The numbers I just threw out as examples; I don't know how trainable (specifically) who is and for what. The point was we can't make everyone into network engineers, and the positions that yield good wages tend to be more than many people can handle. Why retrain them for another crummy wage to replace the one they have? Lifelong retraining to achieve stagnation? That's grim.
>Won't there always be people needed at every level no matter what skill is required?
Nah. It's a question of changing supplies and demands- how many skill sets for what positions- and an even balance of national scope at any given time would be miraculous.
>Great, then would you mind giving my room mate a little larger tip, next time you park in the car lot he works at.
Nah. I love the principle, but I'm a notorious cheapskate in practice.
>If you think you couldn't do it, then you are not obligated to take that kind of a job. Not everyone is suited for everything.
I agree. In the long run, finding a good fit is best for everyone.
> RE doctors, rolls royces, contradictions, etc
I didn't mean to imply that they ARE so overpaid, but to express my objection to outrageously huge wage discrepancies in any field. A few doctors fit the suit (Hollywood plastic surgeons, maybe) but most probably make equitable salaries. I wasn't clear.
>So I guess that's a wash but I don't agree that they are small execptions.
I'm not sure; these things would be hard to measure. I suspect most aren't that way, but I may be wrong.
>> Please email info on Ventura group.
Edited by - ronnywhite on 04/20/2002 13:40:37 |
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2002 : 16:43:40 [Permalink]
|
Ronnywhite> Of course certain factors may change the workings of capitalism, depending on geography and general history. The reason I use this as an example, is that “pure” capitalism (as defined in my previous post) has not been in place since that time. Trade Unions, customs, governmental aid to national producers, tax barriers etc. etc. etc. have all done theirs, to give us a restricted kind of capitalism. However, globalisation is doing what it can, to change this.
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2002 : 23:56:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
> RE doctors, rolls royces, contradictions, etc. I didn't mean to imply that they ARE so overpaid, but to express my objection to outrageously huge wage discrepancies in any field. A few doctors fit the suit (Hollywood plastic surgeons, maybe) but most probably make equitable salaries. I wasn't clear.
Wouldn't those 'Hollywood doctors' LOL, actually it's Berverly Hills doctors, or any profession like that, but wouldn't they be part of the 'redirected cash flow' you speak of? If I'm understanding you correctly, then I think we have another conuterdiction.
quote:
>> Please email info on Ventura group.
In the middle of writing to you about it now.
* * * * * *
*Carabao forever. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
