Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

I never wrote any article about "fascism shadowing socialism" that's ridiculous. An outright lie [nation=short]Pevvania[/nation]. Have one of your people provide proof or retract the statement. I never wrote an article about fascism at all, not on NS or in my private time.

---

"Stop lying. The Great North Korea and DPRK were the most notable victories, the former of which was founded by that 'Comrade Mark' guy. You managed to retake the latter region, but restoring a shattered community is more difficult than clicking the 'refound' button." - [nation=short]Pevvania[/nation]

I'm going to accuse you of lying and you're going to bounce back with the same accusation?lol

Only one of us have proof I guess. Let's take a look at that - what has Dprk looked like in all of NS history?

https://web.archive.org/web/20130708174712/http://www.nationstates.net/region=dprk

And what does it look like today? Still in the same hands? Well a switch from myself to Comradeland but yes, basically - so where's your shattered community? The role players in TGNK?

The Great North Korea might have been founded by a leftist at one point in time but before it had any connection to our region. A search of the RMB history reveals that region kept begging for a merger between NK and TGNK and I kept putting it off because I didn't think it was real life political. In essence yes, you won a leftist region, a role play North Korean region - take your pick there's a half dozen, and none of them hold embassies with us or have any real connection to us, none of them are a part of the leftist military on NS, none were a part of CAPS and none were/are North Korea's "satellite regions" so you can't claim a victory there, not against North Korea.

So your "numerous victories" against North Korea are actually just a misunderstanding and a role play region. If you want to discuss the history of The Dprk I'm all ears also - since its just another region that had role players and fools - and is so young when compared with the history of "forever in leftist hands" Dprk - that "is" actually tied to North Korea (Since it was refound when it CTE from role play hands in 2011 by none other than myself.)

So you actually have no victories against North Korea now do you?

Pevvania wrote:Not at all. V Ming just has a tendency to exaggerate things.

I read the article, and you did not. I know what she was getting at, and so does she.

I do? Comradeland wrote an article called "The Allure of Fascism" which was a damning paper of the ideology. I doubt it compared the two social systems as "shadows" - but regardless your clearly confused because I didn't write anything like that.

Pangaean Brigade wrote:That pev, would be an oxymoron, you cannot have a communist regime as that involves a state.

No pev, no.

You know what I mean. A communist regime is generally defined as an autocratic socialist government that seeks to achieve communism.

Post self-deleted by Condealism.

"7 minutes ago: Embassy cancelled between Slavija and Libertatem"

Oh dear what happened there?

Didn't they co-author WA security council resolution #158 with you guys?

Trouble in paradise?

Mussolini:

Raised taxes, increased social welfare, regulated the economy, imprisoned and killed his opponents, attempted to conquer northern Africa.

Stalin:

Raised taxes, regulated the economy, imprisoned and killed his opponents, conquered the Baltic states, attempted to conquer Finland.

Hitler:

Raised taxes, increased welfare spending, regulated the economy, attempted to conquer continental Europe, committed genocide against an "undesirable" group.

Pol Pot:

Violently redistributed wealth, regulated the economy, committed genocide against an undesirable group.

Regardless of what their ideologies state, in practice that's quite a pattern.

Right-Winged Nation, Hallo Island

And silence. I figured as much.

Pangaean Brigade wrote:Ad hominem.

As much as I hate seeing fallacies, you really should stop using the fact that your opponent's argument contained fallacies as an argument in and of itself.

Yeah, fallacious arguments probably aren't the best, but just because an argument contained a fallacy doesn't automatically render it an invalid argument.

The belief that it does is in fact a fallacy itself.

Also, I don't think some of those are necessarily ad hominem; ad hominem is a character attack upon your opponent intended to dislodge their argument, not just mentioning personal traits or even generalizing.

Post self-deleted by Kings Island.

The Defender Alliance wrote:I never wrote any article about "fascism shadowing socialism" that's ridiculous. An outright lie [nation=short]Pevvania[/nation]. Have one of your people provide proof or retract the statement. I never wrote an article about fascism at all, not on NS or in my private time.I do? Comradeland wrote an article called "The Allure of Fascism" which was a damning paper of the ideology. I doubt it compared the two social systems as "shadows" - but regardless your clearly confused because I didn't write anything like that.

That might have been it. But you don't exactly have the best track record when it comes to reliable statements or intellectual honesty (i.e., saying on your RMB that the libertarian right has been a bigger threat than Nazism in the past year, and then after TI proposed liberating CAPS you complained that "it legitimizes the enemy as a real threat") so I'll keep that statement un-retracted for now unless I see this article.

The Defender Alliance wrote:"Stop lying. The Great North Korea and DPRK were the most notable victories, the former of which was founded by that 'Comrade Mark' guy. You managed to retake the latter region, but restoring a shattered community is more difficult than clicking the 'refound' button." - [nation=short]Pevvania[/nation]

I'm going to accuse you of lying and you're going to bounce back with the same accusation?lol

Actually, you did not use the word 'lying' once in your first post.

The Defender Alliance wrote:Only one of us have proof I guess. Let's take a look at that - what has Dprk looked like in all of NS history?

https://web.archive.org/web/20130708174712/http://www.nationstates.net/region=dprk

And what does it look like today? Still in the same hands? Well a switch from myself to Comradeland but yes, basically - so where's your shattered community? The role players in TGNK?

Perhaps it was The Dprk. It was most certainly one or the other. But this was two years ago.

The Defender Alliance wrote:The Great North Korea might have been founded by a leftist at one point in time but before it had any connection to our region. A search of the RMB history reveals that region kept begging for a merger between NK and TGNK and I kept putting it off because I didn't think it was real life political. In essence yes, you won a leftist region, a role play North Korean region - take your pick there's a half dozen, and none of them hold embassies with us or have any real connection to us, none of them are a part of the leftist military on NS, none were a part of CAPS and none were/are North Korea's "satellite regions" so you can't claim a victory there, not against North Korea.

http://www.nationstates.net/page=display_region_rmb/region=north_korea?start=325

Of course it wasn't part of CAPS because I took it down more than two years ago. I'm aware that you didn't have a high opinion of that region, but that doesn't change the fact that North Korea was allied to it and had embassies with it. I call that a victory.

The Defender Alliance wrote:So your "numerous victories" against North Korea are actually just a misunderstanding and a role play region. If you want to discuss the history of The Dprk I'm all ears also - since its just another region that had role players and fools - and is so young when compared with the history of "forever in leftist hands" Dprk - that "is" actually tied to North Korea (Since it was refound when it CTE from role play hands in 2011 by none other than myself.)

The DPRK was connected to The Great North Korea, which was connected to your region. It was a satellite of a satellite, I suppose. And that was enough of a connection for me to infiltrate it.

The Defender Alliance wrote:So you actually have no victories against North Korea now do you?

New Fasces

2 years 53 days ago: Embassy closed with The Great North Korea.

2 years 89 days ago: Embassy opened with The Great North Korea.

Nah, I'd say we do :)

The Defender Alliance wrote:"7 minutes ago: Embassy cancelled between Slavija and Libertatem"

Oh dear what happened there?

Didn't they co-author WA security council resolution #158 with you guys?

Trouble in paradise?

Libertatem loses an embassy? Must be the end of the region as we know it

North Korea loses an embassy? Just another degenerate roleplaying region that had nothing to do with them

All hail Grand Poobah V Ming!

And in other news, while everyone was lollygagging here, I managed to scoop up Marxism Leninism.

While the tag raids are an impressive fireworks display, the Communists might want to work on keeping the regions they do have. :)

Oh look a distraction... Hallo, has the board looked at my proposed changes?

Pevvania wrote:And in other news, while everyone was lollygagging here, I managed to scoop up Marxism Leninism.

While the tag raids are an impressive fireworks display, the Communists might want to work on keeping the regions they do have. :)

<3

Pevvania wrote:And in other news, while everyone was lollygagging here, I managed to scoop up Marxism Leninism.

While the tag raids are an impressive fireworks display, the Communists might want to work on keeping the regions they do have. :)

Huh - I don't know how you keep doing that when even we aren't looking. Must be magic.

Condealism wrote:Huh - I don't know how you keep doing that when even we aren't looking. Must be magic.

Reason I hired pev number 457

He is also a wizard.

Miencraft

Fraud passes. War is 3 yay 1 nay and 1 absent, so, I don't know where that puts it. Pass, I guess?

Hallo Island wrote:Fraud passes. War is 3 yay 1 nay and 1 absent, so, I don't know where that puts it. Pass, I guess?

War? What do you mean?

Pevvania wrote:War? What do you mean?

WAR act.

Muh Roads wrote:WAR act.

Ah, right.

Also, the TOTAL RECALL Amendment seems to have passed.

I love your flag, lol. Ironically, Marx, in part, agrees with you. He viewed the slogan 'property is theft' as moronic because it conceded that property exists in the first place.

Pevvania wrote:Ah, right.

Also, the TOTAL RECALL Amendment seems to have passed.

I love your flag, lol. Ironically, Marx, in part, agrees with you. He viewed the slogan 'property is theft' as moronic because it conceded that property exists in the first place.

Excellent.. I'll update the laws soon.

Pevvania

Hallo Island wrote:Fraud passes. War is 3 yay 1 nay and 1 absent, so, I don't know where that puts it. Pass, I guess?

Since the new citizenship requirements have passed, I'd like to apply.

I request an emendation of the TOTAL RECALL Amendment that allows one recall to take place per term rather than three.

What objective standard is used to measure the true value of someone's labor?

If I believed I should get a thousand dollars per day, yet my employer is only giving me a hundred per day, am I being robbed of the $900 I think I deserve?

This is rather subjective, is it not?

Miencraft, Kings Island, Pevvania, Condealism

Condealism wrote:I request an emendation of the TOTAL RECALL Amendment that allows one recall to take place per term rather than three.

I would support such an amendment.

Kings Island wrote:Since the new citizenship requirements have passed, I'd like to apply.

You should maybe go click the big ol' "CITIZENSHIP" link in the RMB.

Kings Island wrote:

Pol Pot:

Violently redistributed wealth, regulated the economy, committed genocide against an undesirable group.

Guess who liberated Cambodia from Pol Pot, Vietnam.

Oh and I am pretty sure Pol Pot was supported by the US.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:What objective standard is used to measure the true value of someone's labor?

If I believed I should get a thousand dollars per day, yet my employer is only giving me a hundred per day, am I being robbed of the $900 I think I deserve?

This is rather subjective, is it not?

I know you think this is a "Gotcha!" but the people who thought all this stuff up considered this, which you would know if you had even a cursory understanding of the ideology you claim to hate.

First, a definition of the term "labour-power":

Karl Marx wrote:By labour-power or capacity for labour is to be understood the aggregate of those mental and physical capabilities existing in a human being, which he exercises whenever he produces a use-value of any description.

Now Marx isn't the easiest read, that's for sure, but he's saying that "labour-power" is the sum of all the mental and physical exertion expended on producing some kind of commodity that has an actual purpose ("use-value" -- as opposed to something like raw linen, which has value but not much practical use in and of itself unless it's turned into a coat or whatever), whether that labor is in education (primarily mental exertion) or construction (primarily physical exertion) or anything else.

Karl Marx wrote:The value of labour-power is determined, as in the case of every other commodity, by the labour-time necessary for the production, and consequently also the reproduction, of this special article.

In this, Marx is saying that we can determine the value of someone's labor power by seeing what they have to put in to produce their work and also what they need to revitalize themselves -- you can't work people to death, after all.

Karl Marx wrote:The minimum limit of the value of labour-power is determined by the value of the commodities, without the daily supply of which the labourer cannot renew his vital energy, consequently by the value of those means of subsistence that are physically indispensable. If the price of labour-power fall to this minimum, it falls below its value, since under such circumstances it can be maintained and developed only in a crippled state. But the value of every commodity is determined by the labour-time requisite to turn it out so as to be of normal quality.

The minimum value of someone's labor is what the laborer needs to survive and get through each day.

From Capital, Vol. I.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch06.htm

This is a gross simplification, but if you read through bits of Capital (even if you disagree with Marx), you can see what he has to say about it instead of thinking you're the first brilliant economic philosopher to imagine how to determine what someone's labor is worth.

Post self-deleted by Pangaean Brigade.

Pangaean Brigade wrote:Guess who liberated Cambodia from Pol Pot, Vietnam.

Oh and I am pretty sure Pol Pot was supported by the US.

Not quite. The furthest extent of "US support" was that the United States recognized the Khmer Rouge - and not the Vietnam-installed puppet government - as the actual government of Cambodia, and treated them as such. This wasn't because the American government liked Pol Pot; it was because they hated Vietnam.

Pevvania wrote:So you want an international system of wealth redistribution?

Sort of.

Pevvania wrote:Pretty much what the west has been doing for the past seventy-odd years?

Aaaaaand nope, you lost it, you see, that is just called charity.

What we leftists want is the violent overthrowal of the capitalist and bourgeoisie classes by the proletariat, and the re-distribution of wealth among the entire of the proleteriat.

Trf Submarine Group I wrote:The minimum value of someone's labor is what the laborer needs to survive and get through each day.

By that argument, a minimum-wage American worker is paid far more than the value of their labor. Isn't that the opposite of what capitalism's opponents proclaim?

Pangaean Brigade wrote:What we leftists want is the violent overthrowal of the capitalist and bourgeoisie classes by the proletariat, and the re-distribution of wealth among the entire of the proleteriat.

"Violent" in this case doesn't necessarily mean bloodshed, although it's no secret that the capital/bourgeois classes aren't going down without a fight.

Restructuring society is in and of itself a violent act, even if no actual human beings are harmed.

Condealism wrote:Not quite. The furthest extent of "US support" was that the United States recognized the Khmer Rouge - and not the Vietnam-installed puppet government - as the actual government of Cambodia, and treated them as such. This wasn't because the American government liked Pol Pot; it was because they hated Vietnam.

Nope, recognising them isn't all they did.....

(I could probably try to find a better source but for now this is all I have)

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/US_PolPot.html

Condealism wrote:By that argument, a minimum-wage American worker is paid far more than the value of their labor. Isn't that the opposite of what capitalism's opponents proclaim?

No, they aren't. Minimum wage is not a livable wage in most parts of the United States.

Feel free to see the discrepancy between a living wage, poverty wage, and current minimum wage in most municipalities in the United States on this MIT website: http://livingwage.mit.edu/

Trf Submarine Group I wrote:"Violent" in this case doesn't necessarily mean bloodshed, although it's no secret that the capital/bourgeois classes aren't going down without a fight.

Restructuring society is in and of itself a violent act, even if no actual human beings are harmed.

Yes, peacefully if we can, violently if we must.

Condealism wrote:Not quite. The furthest extent of "US support" was that the United States recognized the Khmer Rouge - and not the Vietnam-installed puppet government - as the actual government of Cambodia, and treated them as such. This wasn't because the American government liked Pol Pot; it was because they hated Vietnam.

This is extra stuff Condealism, but Thatcher helped Pol Pot too.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-thatcher-helped-pol-pot/5330873

Post self-deleted by Pangaean Brigade.

Trf Submarine Group I wrote:No, they aren't. Minimum wage is not a livable wage in most parts of the United States.

Feel free to see the discrepancy between a living wage, poverty wage, and current minimum wage in most municipalities in the United States on this MIT website: http://livingwage.mit.edu/

You say it's not a livable wage - yet the vast majority of people who make it are currently, y'know, living. It's kind of difficult to make the argument that someone is incapable of surviving and making it through each day when that's clearly precisely what they're doing.

Miencraft

Post self-deleted by Trf Submarine Group I.

Condealism wrote:You say it's not a livable wage - yet the vast majority of people who make it are currently, y'know, living. It's kind of difficult to make the argument that someone is incapable of surviving and making it through each day when that's clearly precisely what they're doing.

*puts fingers in ears* LA LA LA YOUR PROOF IS NO MATCH FOR ANECDOTAL """EVIDENCE"""!

From the website I linked:

Mit wrote:The living wage model is an alternative measure of basic needs. It is a market-based approach that draws upon geographically specific expenditure data related to a family’s likely minimum food, child care, health insurance, housing, transportation, and other basic necessities (e.g. clothing, personal care items, etc.) costs. Detailed description of the data used in the tool can be found on the landing page of each state.

It's even "market-based"! I thought y'all loved the market.

Trf Submarine Group I wrote:*puts fingers in ears* LA LA LA YOUR PROOF IS NO MATCH FOR ANECDOTAL """EVIDENCE"""!

I know it might be difficult to see it through your red-tinted goggles, but reality isn't an anecdote. At the very least, it's an enormous amalgamation of anecdotes.

Condealism wrote:I know it might be difficult to see it through your red-tinted goggles, but reality isn't an anecdote. At the very least, it's an enormous amalgamation of anecdotes.

It must be really nice to dismiss non-biased evidence when it doesn't fit your pre-determined world view. I bet you didn't even look into the website.

"Minimum wage isn't a living wage? NOT ACCORDING TO STORIES I'VE HEARD ABOUT POOR PEOPLE! Did you know that 99% of 'POOR' people own a REFRIGERATOR????"

—Condealism, probably

Condealism wrote:Not quite. The furthest extent of "US support" was that the United States recognized the Khmer Rouge - and not the Vietnam-installed puppet government - as the actual government of Cambodia, and treated them as such. This wasn't because the American government liked Pol Pot; it was because they hated Vietnam.

Actually, if you take into account the US bombing of Cambodia, that has a major role in the Khmer Rouge's rise to power. That was the greatest amount of (admittedly rather indirect) support they could possibly have given them.

Trf Submarine Group I wrote:It must be really nice to dismiss non-biased evidence when it doesn't fit your pre-determined world view. I bet you didn't even look into the website.

"Minimum wage isn't a living wage? NOT ACCORDING TO STORIES I'VE HEARD ABOUT POOR PEOPLE! Did you know that 99% of 'POOR' people own a REFRIGERATOR????"

—Condealism, probably

Cute, but misquoting me, hypocritically lecturing me on biased preconceptions, and making a bet that you would lose (I briefly looked up my city. Ha.) isn't going to help you.

You said that "the minimum value of someone's labor is what the laborer needs to survive and get through each day." In other words, the value of an unskilled laborer's labor is equal to the minimum amount they need to survive on a day-to-day basis - and, as evidenced by the fact that 15% of the American population isn't suddenly keeling over and dying from being underpaid, that's clearly what minimum wage workers are accomplishing. That, and more.

Pangaean Brigade wrote:Guess who liberated Cambodia from Pol Pot, Vietnam.

Oh and I am pretty sure Pol Pot was supported by the US.

Vietnam liberated Cambodia for political, not humanitarian, reasons, as it was aligned with China and launched frequent border skirmishes against it. Pol Pot was not supported by the US, but the US did unintentionally create his regime when they invaded Cambodia in 1970, giving Pol Pot the popular support he needed to launch a coup.

Trf Submarine Group I wrote:I know you think this is a "Gotcha!" but the people who thought all this stuff up considered this, which you would know if you had even a cursory understanding of the ideology you claim to hate.

First, a definition of the term "labour-power":

Now Marx isn't the easiest read, that's for sure, but he's saying that "labour-power" is the sum of all the mental and physical exertion expended on producing some kind of commodity that has an actual purpose ("use-value" -- as opposed to something like raw linen, which has value but not much practical use in and of itself unless it's turned into a coat or whatever), whether that labor is in education (primarily mental exertion) or construction (primarily physical exertion) or anything else.

In this, Marx is saying that we can determine the value of someone's labor power by seeing what they have to put in to produce their work and also what they need to revitalize themselves -- you can't work people to death, after all.

The minimum value of someone's labor is what the laborer needs to survive and get through each day.

From Capital, Vol. I.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch06.htm

This is a gross simplification, but if you read through bits of Capital (even if you disagree with Marx), you can see what he has to say about it instead of thinking you're the first brilliant economic philosopher to imagine how to determine what someone's labor is worth.

Economically illiterate rubbish. If the labour theory of value was true, then a man digging a hole with a spoon over the course of a week is entitled to more compensation than a drill operator digging the same sized hole in a few seconds.

Pangaean Brigade wrote:Sort of.Aaaaaand nope, you lost it, you see, that is just called charity.

What we leftists want is the violent overthrowal of the capitalist and bourgeoisie classes by the proletariat, and the re-distribution of wealth among the entire of the proleteriat.

No it's not. Foreign aid is paid for by the government. That's wealth redistribution.

Nothing can come out of violence except more violence. What we ancaps want is a peaceful overthrow of the political and corporate classes by the proletariat, who benefit most from capitalism and are oppressed by the state.

Trf Submarine Group I wrote:No, they aren't. Minimum wage is not a livable wage in most parts of the United States.

Feel free to see the discrepancy between a living wage, poverty wage, and current minimum wage in most municipalities in the United States on this MIT website: http://livingwage.mit.edu/

Actually, the minimum wage is a living wage. Somebody working $7.25 for 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, which in itself is an improbability considering that most minimum wage workers get a raise within six months of employment, makes $14,500, which is significantly above the federal poverty line of $11,770, only if you don't count taxes. So because of the policies you support - that is, taxation - many poor people can barely make ends meet. The key to raising wages is lowering the cost of living, not trapping more blacks and youths into dependency by pricing them out of the market.

Miencraft, Condealism

Free Cork wrote:Actually, if you take into account the US bombing of Cambodia, that has a major role in the Khmer Rouge's rise to power. That was the greatest amount of (admittedly rather indirect) support they could possibly have given them.

It was indirect. Again, the US's military actions in that part of the world were out of spite for existing opponents - while their actions may have helped Pol Pot in one way or another, they weren't really any fans of his.

Condealism wrote:Cute, but misquoting me, hypocritically lecturing me on biased preconceptions, and making a bet that you would lose (I briefly looked up my city. Ha.) isn't going to help you.

You said that "the minimum value of someone's labor is what the laborer needs to survive and get through each day." In other words, the value of an unskilled laborer's labor is equal to the minimum amount they need to survive on a day-to-day basis - and, as evidenced by the fact that 15% of the American population isn't suddenly keeling over and dying from being underpaid, that's clearly what minimum wage workers are accomplishing. That, and more.

Technically, isn't the value of someone's labour determined by the value they generate in the workplace?

Condealism wrote:It was indirect. Again, the US's military actions in that part of the world were out of spite for existing opponents - while their actions may have helped Pol Pot in one way or another, they weren't really any fans of his.

Arguably yes, they weren't fans of his, but that doesn't necessarily absolve them of any blame.

Again, anything positive anyone ever says about the minimum wage is contradicted by the vast majority of credible studies: http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~dneumark/min_wage_review.pdf

Free Cork wrote:Technically, isn't the value of someone's labour determined by the value they generate in the workplace?

Bingo - your friend merely said that the minimum value of labor was the cost of compensating them for living. (Which, while a very humane position, isn't very accurate.)

Thing is, minimum wage workers are more often than not unskilled workers - someone willing to work, without a specialization, for minimum wage contributes no more to a business than anyone else willing to do the same (that is to say, almost everyone else). In other words, the "value" of unskilled labor is negligible at best... yet, when you consider the minimum wage, it pays relatively well in comparison to its "value".

Minimum wage laws are simply documents that outlaw employment below a certain level of compensation, and expect all low-skilled workers to generate enough revenue to still be employable or get laid off. What a monstrous tool of oppression.

Great article on the Foundation for Economic Education's website.

In Praise of Capitalist Globalisation

http://fee.org/anythingpeaceful/detail/in-praise-of-capitalist-globalization

Renowned economist Xavier Sala-i-Martin finds that [B]absolute poverty rates have fallen around 80% and “measures of global welfare [have] increased by somewhere between 128% and 145%” since 1970.[/B] The source of this progress isn’t a massive wealth redistribution program; it’s massive wealth creation — that is, economic growth.

Economists David Dollar and Aart Kraay found that, in a global sample of over 100 countries, [B]changes in the income growth of the bottom 40% of the world’s income earners are highly correlated with economic growth rates.[/B] On the other hand, changes in inequality have contributed relatively little to changes in social welfare of the poor.

Seminal research produced by Roman Wacziarg and Karen Horn Welch suggests that freer trade is an important determinant of economic prosperity, which is an important determinant of poverty reduction. Using quantitative analysis and a thorough review of country-specific case studies of free trade reforms, Wacziarg and Welch found that after countries reformed their trade policies in favor of freer trade, average investment and economic growth surged quite dramatically. Indeed, “[B]countries that liberalized their trade regimes experienced average annual growth rates that were about 1.5 percentage points higher than before liberalization.[/B]”

While protectionists argue that policies restricting trade are necessary to reduce poverty by protecting domestic industries, empirical evidence favoring this assertion is scarce. A 2004 review of the evidence on trade liberalization (reform towards freer trade) by Alan Winters found that:

[B]"In the long run and on average, trade liberalization is likely to be strongly poverty alleviating, and there is no convincing evidence that it will generally increase overall poverty or vulnerability."[/B]

In 2014, a decade later, Winters published another review to see if new evidence had changed that conclusion. The finding? [B]“The conclusion that liberalization generally boosts income and thus reduces poverty has not changed.”[/B]

Consider a study on trade liberalization in Indonesia, which found that liberalization in the form of reductions of import tariffs led to an increase in disposable income among poor households, which allowed them to pull their children out of the labor force, ultimately leading to “a strong decline” in the incidence of child labor.

But free trade is only one aspect of economic freedom. Research using measures of how free an economy is in general has similarly shown that [B]countries with more economic freedom enjoy lower poverty rates and that increases in economic freedom are associated with decreases in poverty rates (and vice versa).[/B]

And here's another thing - the problem with assigning an arbitrary value to labor on the basis of income and position alone is that it doesn't factor in the most important part: Labor.

Let's say (and bear in mind that this is more a parable than an anecdote) a man has a cushy office job, and he's savvy enough to pretend he's working - and let's say this ruse is effective enough that he continues to keep his job. This metaphorical man provides no services to his company's customers, nor is he in any way involved in the production - his only labor is maintaining a facade so that he can relax. If such a man existed, would he be entitled to enough money to survive, let alone the full income his company pays him?

Condealism wrote:And here's another thing - the problem with assigning an arbitrary value to labor on the basis of income and position alone is that it doesn't factor in the most important part: Labor.

hey wow it's almost like you didn't read anything I posted!!

Condealism wrote:Let's say (and bear in mind that this is more a parable than an anecdote) a man has a cushy office job, and he's savvy enough to pretend he's working - and let's say this ruse is effective enough that he continues to keep his job. This metaphorical man provides no services to his company's customers, nor is he in any way involved in the production - his only labor is maintaining a facade so that he can relax. If such a man existed, would he be entitled to enough money to survive, let alone the full income his company pays him?

no and if you actually read what I quoted from Marx instead of going on an anecdotal bent about poor people not literally dying in the streets (except for when they do) you would have known this

"The value of labour-power is determined, as in the case of every other commodity, by the labour-time necessary for the production, and consequently also the reproduction, of this special article."

jacking around in an office is not time that is necessary for the production of whatever commodity of labor your fictional office guy is producing.

What's your opinion of this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

Anecdote -

1. a short account of a particular incident or event, especially of an interesting or amusing nature.

2. a short, obscure historical or biographical account.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Yes, some below the poverty line do indeed die prematurely for a plethora of reasons (the majority of which are indeed related to their low incomes, or lack thereof). Some. My point is that most don't, indicating that the minimum wage is more than survivable for most. Rather, I should say the minimum wage, coupled with welfare and charity... hmm. Charity - or should I say "just charity"? So there are already systems in place for redistributing wealth, and you can't deny that they exist - what do you know?

As for putting production over time, allow me to redirect you to Pevvania's statement about the spoon and the drill - just because something takes longer doesn't mean it's worth more. For instance, the fictional office guy could take 12-hour shifts, and what would his laziness be worth?

Actually, you tell me - according to your labor theory of value, what would his laziness be worth?

Condealism wrote:As for putting production over time, allow me to redirect you to Pevvania's statement about the spoon and the drill - just because something takes longer doesn't mean it's worth more.

no shіt.

Marx (and obviously Marxists) don't think that someone digging a hole with a spoon is worth more than someone drilling. the value of the labor produced by the guy with the spoon is infinitesimal compared to the driller, so the value of their labor is consequently worth much less than the driller's.

Condealism wrote:For instance, the fictional office guy could take 12-hour shifts, and what would his laziness be worth?

Actually, you tell me - according to your labor theory of value, what would his laziness be worth?

seriously? this is an easy goddamn question. a five-year-old could answer this.

if labor creates value, the absence of labor has no value.

Pangaean Brigade wrote:Guess who liberated Cambodia from Pol Pot, Vietnam.

Oh and I am pretty sure Pol Pot was supported by the US.

I'm actually fine with the Vietnamese, the war was largely a nationalist struggle.

Trf Submarine Group I wrote:seriously? this is an easy goddamn question. a five-year-old could answer this.

if labor creates value, the absence of labor has no value.

Exactly. Despite the fact that the allegorical man makes an income, he provides no value to his company, and thus is not entitled to even a single cent of his income. In a capitalist society, if his boss were to uncover his facade, he would not only be fired, but given a very poor reputation, possibly preventing him from ever being hired in that field - or even any field - ever again. Or, to use your words, he would essentially be prevented from making more than the "minimum value" of labor, primarily because he wouldn't be making anything at all.

But wait... didn't you say the minimum value was a non-zero amount, enough to compensate the man for staying alive? How could the minimum - his supposed right to make a living - be worth more than the actual value - zero? And how can an utter lack of value even have a minimum?

Pangaean Brigade wrote:Sort of.Aaaaaand nope, you lost it, you see, that is just called charity.

What we leftists want is the violent overthrowal of the capitalist and bourgeoisie classes by the proletariat, and the re-distribution of wealth among the entire of the proleteriat.

Although I give to charity myself, I agree that revolution is the only long term solution to third world poverty.

This is how informed your friends in the International Republican Union are: http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=12536882

Condealism wrote:Exactly. Despite the fact that the allegorical man makes an income, he provides no value to his company, and thus is not entitled to even a single cent of his income. In a capitalist society, if his boss were to uncover his facade, he would not only be fired, but given a very poor reputation, possibly preventing him from ever being hired in that field - or even any field - ever again. Or, to use your words, he would essentially be prevented from making more than the "minimum value" of labor, primarily because he wouldn't be making anything at all.

But wait... didn't you say the minimum value was a non-zero amount, enough to compensate the man for staying alive? How could the minimum - his supposed right to make a living - be worth more than the actual value - zero? And how can an utter lack of value even have a minimum?

Sounds like someone needs to read up on the ideas of "He who does not work, neither shall he eat" and "To each according to his contributions" that were enshrined in the Soviet Constitution!

Alright, I'm starting to get tired of this back and forth.

Visiting communists, I value your opinions and willingness to civilly debate the topic. For those of you being not so civil, please stop.

Libertatemites, yes you are all very smart and can use big words, but at the end of the day you're just wasting your time.

Everyone, if you want to continue this please find somewhere else to do it. Maybe a forum thread or a chatzy.

PS, who watches House if Cards? Just finished the first season. It's my new favorite thing.

Miencraft, Pevvania

Humpheria In Libertatem wrote:Everyone, if you want to continue this please find somewhere else to do it. Maybe a forum thread or a chatzy.

Here's an IRC. Just use your nation name so we know who we're arguing with:

https://client00.chat.mibbit.com/?channel=%23FullCommunism&server=irc.esper.net

Condealism wrote:

As for putting production over time, allow me to redirect you to Pevvania's statement about the spoon and the drill

Wait, so pevvania has also made other arguments that hold no ground?

Kings Island wrote:I'm actually fine with the Vietnamese, the war was largely a nationalist struggle.

Well most of the war was nationalistic, up until vietnamese fought vietnamese.

Pangaean Brigade wrote:Well most of the war was nationalistic, up until vietnamese fought vietnamese.

Yeah, it started with the French Indochina war, an anticolonial struggle.

Humpheria In Libertatem wrote:Alright, I'm starting to get tired of this back and forth.

Visiting communists, I value your opinions and willingness to civilly debate the topic. For those of you being not so civil, please stop.

Libertatemites, yes you are all very smart and can use big words, but at the end of the day you're just wasting your time.

Everyone, if you want to continue this please find somewhere else to do it. Maybe a forum thread or a chatzy.

PS, who watches House if Cards? Just finished the first season. It's my new favorite thing.

I watch House of cards, I watch the new season of it a few days after that season comes out.

Guys word of warning, so the terminator series created two crappy sequels after judgement day, two strikes. I decide to use a three strike policy and gave genysis a try. DO NOT GIVE YOUR CASH AWAY, AVOID THIS MOVIE!!! All hopes of getting a good terminator movie is dead

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Guys word of warning, so the terminator series created two crappy sequels after judgement day, two strikes. I decide to use a three strike policy and gave genysis a try. DO NOT GIVE YOUR CASH AWAY, AVOID THIS MOVIE!!! All hopes of getting a good terminator movie is dead

Yeah, I figured it would be. Thanks for the tip.

Post self-deleted by Right-Winged Nation.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Guys word of warning, so the terminator series created two crappy sequels after judgement day, two strikes. I decide to use a three strike policy and gave genysis a try. DO NOT GIVE YOUR CASH AWAY, AVOID THIS MOVIE!!! All hopes of getting a good terminator movie is dead

Too bad, I thought it might be good after hearing Stern's interview with Arnold.

Muh Roads wrote:Too bad, I thought it might be good after hearing Stern's interview with Arnold.

My brother liked it, but for me it was another letdown

Condealism wrote:I request an emendation of the TOTAL RECALL Amendment that allows one recall to take place per term rather than three.

Second.

Citizenship application sent! If it's accepted, I'll also shortly announce the formation of a new political party and provide a link to the first part of it's platform.

Muh Roads

Humpheria In Libertatem wrote:Alright, I'm starting to get tired of this back and forth.

Visiting communists, I value your opinions and willingness to civilly debate the topic. For those of you being not so civil, please stop.

Libertatemites, yes you are all very smart and can use big words, but at the end of the day you're just wasting your time.

Everyone, if you want to continue this please find somewhere else to do it. Maybe a forum thread or a chatzy.

PS, who watches House if Cards? Just finished the first season. It's my new favorite thing.

Yes. Please go elsewhere. It's getting old. Just watch the news and we'll see who wins. Both sides need to stop talking. You've beaten the dead horse so much there is nothing left to beat. Call it a draw if you must. You're all smart, you're all pretty, now take your gloves, go home.

Making people upset on Facebook with my "radical and outrageous" opinions is evidently my new favorite passtime.

Tyrinth, Kings Island, Midland County

Muh Roads wrote:Making people upset on Facebook with my "radical and outrageous" opinions is evidently my new favorite passtime.

same

Hey, I guess this is a Libertarian Region?

Libr wrote:Hey, I guess this is a Libertarian Region?

Quite Libertarian.

Kings Island wrote:Quite Libertarian.

Cool, I'll fit right in Then.

Libr wrote:Cool, I'll fit right in Then.

We have all types; moderates, minarchists, ancaps.

Kings Island wrote:We have all types; moderates, minarchists, ancaps.

And a few people who aren't libertarians.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz6bVde-rpQ

Muh Roads wrote:Making people upset on Facebook with my "radical and outrageous" opinions is evidently my new favorite passtime.

I remember being 14. It was pretty neat!

Trf Submarine Group I wrote:I remember being 14. It was pretty neat!

I'm sure he remembers it fondly as well. As I recall, 2005 was a good year for him.

Kings Island, Pevvania, Muh Roads

I've been inactive for a while. What's been going on?

Trf Submarine Group I wrote:I remember being 14. It was pretty neat!

Muh Roads is in his 20s. Pissing people off on the internet is a universally beloved pasttime.

Muh Roads

Trf Submarine Group I wrote:no shіt.

Marx (and obviously Marxists) don't think that someone digging a hole with a spoon is worth more than someone drilling. the value of the labor produced by the guy with the spoon is infinitesimal compared to the driller, so the value of their labor is consequently worth much less than the driller's.

seriously? this is an easy goddamn question. a five-year-old could answer this.

if labor creates value, the absence of labor has no value.

Why not? By your own definition, "The value of labour-power is determined, as in the case of every other commodity, by the labour-time necessary for the production". The man with a spoon takes far longer to produce the hole than the driller, but according to you the driller has produced something more valuable by, it seems, a completely different standard of value. Which is it? Is value determined by labour or muh feels?

Pevvania wrote:Why not? By your own definition, "The value of labour-power is determined, as in the case of every other commodity, by the labour-time necessary for the production". The man with a spoon takes far longer to produce the hole than the driller, but according to you the driller has produced something more valuable by, it seems, a completely different standard of value. Which is it? Is value determined by labour or muh feels?

i'm not gonna sit here and spoon-feed you Marx. if you're interested in understanding it, then read Capital yourself. if you're not, I'm definitely not interested in wasting my time dumbing it down for you

Pangaean Brigade wrote:Wait, so pevvania has also made other arguments that hold no ground?

I have cited every claim I've made with evidence. You have not been able to counter a single one of my points. I urge you that instead of rejecting what we say, think about it with an open mind. You might learn something.

Humpheria In Libertatem wrote:Alright, I'm starting to get tired of this back and forth.

Visiting communists, I value your opinions and willingness to civilly debate the topic. For those of you being not so civil, please stop.

Libertatemites, yes you are all very smart and can use big words, but at the end of the day you're just wasting your time.

Everyone, if you want to continue this please find somewhere else to do it. Maybe a forum thread or a chatzy.

PS, who watches House if Cards? Just finished the first season. It's my new favorite thing.

If there's a 1% chance of being able to change somebody else's mind then it's worth it. Discussion and debate is what turned me into a libertarian and then an ancap. The trouble with Marxists is that evidence does not phase them, but it's worth a shot nevertheless.

House of Cards is awesome. Keep watching... big things are coming up.

Miencraft

Pevvania wrote:If there's a 1% chance of being able to change somebody else's mind then it's worth it. Discussion and debate is what turned me into a libertarian and then an ancap. The trouble with Marxists is that evidence does not phase them, but it's worth a shot nevertheless.

such phenomenal evidence as wordpress blogs, wikipedia, and anecdotes from Bulgarian dudes. A+ effort

Trf Submarine Group I wrote:i'm not gonna sit here and spoon-feed you Marx. if you're interested in understanding it, then read Capital yourself. if you're not, I'm definitely not interested in wasting my time dumbing it down for you

I'll read Capital if you read Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt. https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Economics%20in%20One%20Lesson_2.pdf

Trf Submarine Group I wrote:such phenomenal evidence as wordpress blogs, wikipedia, and anecdotes from Bulgarian dudes. A+ effort

Come on, don't be disingenuous. Nearly all of the evidence I provided came from meta-analyses or literature reviews of studies. All the evidence you and your flock have provided comes from archaic theories and muh feels. If you want, I can comb through the past day or two of the RMB and paste every link here.

Weren't you guys given an IRC you could do this in?

Pevvania wrote:I'll read Capital if you read Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt. https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Economics%20in%20One%20Lesson_2.pdf

i have no reason to believe that you actually will read Capital, so let's pretend that I agreed to read that book and you agreed to read Capital and we'll both live out the reality of not doing it.

Pevvania wrote:Come on, don't be disingenuous. Nearly all of the evidence I provided came from meta-analyses or literature reviews of studies. All the evidence you and your flock have provided comes from archaic theories and muh feels. If you want, I can comb through the past day or two of the RMB and paste every link here.

i've posted memes, sure, but the stats from those memes come from legitimate books written by scholars who have done a lot of work studying the realities of the Soviet Union and DPRK. I gave the sources for those with my posts. nothing I posted was from a review.

if you consider Capital or citing Marx directly to be "archaic theories" then lmao okay

Condealism wrote:Weren't you guys given an IRC you could do this in?

I created it; no one showed up. The demand for an IRC is too low, while the demand for dicussion on the RMB is quite high. it's simple economics

There was an equal demand for cessation - perhaps your willingness to refrain from provoking us is in low supply.

Miencraft

Condealism wrote:There was an equal demand for cessation - perhaps your willingness to refrain from provoking us is in low supply.

I'm engaging in an entirely cordial discussion. Obviously Pevvania and others in here are willing to entertain further conversation. If Humpheria really wants us to stop, he can get on Liberosia and ban us from the region (which will prevent us from being able to post) or turn off embassy posting altogether.

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.