But isn't the reason why socialism and communism are doomed to failure because we as humans have not evolved beyond thinking only of ourselves and our individual situations? Collectivism is a noble goal but one that is inherently flawed because there will always be someone who controls, someone who has more power, someone who abuses the naive faith and trust that is put blindly into the hands of humans who become more corrupt with every passing day.

And the fact is, no matter how rosy we want to paint to humanity, or a form of government, self-interest almost always supercedes that of collective interests. That is the nature of the beasts we are, the rule of survivalism.

__________________
Those who cannot think or take responsibility for themselves need, and clamor for, a leader.

Dude, I am just discussing my understanding of Marxist economics, if you want to discuss history that's the different subject.

We have that now. People just don't make said products available for free, although you are certainly free to do that if you like. No one is stopping you. The problem you might have, however, is that many of us aren't playing that game. The fruits of my labor belong to me, not you, and I will provide them as I see fit.

__________________
This space for rent.

How does society determine how much of its product to give back to you? And how does it determine who is allowed the positions that will gain more product?
How does it determine the value of product in general?

Fair enough... but what is a better determinant of value? It seems to me that we eventually end up trading one seemingly arbitrary system for one that's even more arbitrary.


I ask about income tax, because I'm starting to fall more in line with the ideas of the single tax... something that capitalists and socialists alike hate!
Seems to me that income and sales tax, as well as capital gains tax and the type of property tax we see, are all government taking of people's labor and product of labor...
I guess it's a necessary evil... but it makes more sense if there's another way.

What about land value? Land and natural resources are not the product of anyone's labor and yet people allegedly "buy" and "sell" it and reap huge rewards from it. The concentration of land ownership in few hands is insane (especially consider who really owns most homes- banks).
It seems that if anything is to be taxed for use in public good, it should be land and natural resources.

Of course it is pointless to try to get hardcore capitalists to buy into it, as most are more interested in maintaining the current wealth status quo than any form of justice or economic efficiency... But I figure some of the young socialists, as they get older and get a better grasp on economic reality (I realize some socialists actually are pretty learned on it, but in general...), maybe they'll start to give it some thought and look into ol' Henry George.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

That is because you don't understand how wage-labor works, I assume you work for a wage, yes? If so can you honestly say you receive all the product of your labor? Of course not. You only receive a tiny portion of the value of your labor in the form of a wage, this is because capitalism sees the workers (you) as a commodity and wage is a form of investment to keep you fed to keep working. But because capitalism constantly tries to drive down costs it will naturally drive down the amount it must invest in you (your wage and conditions) to maximize your productivity? That is exploitation because we humans do not think about each other as simply machines, we deserve dignity etc.

I find it interesting that you are defending your wage, something which is a tiny portion of what you will receive under socialism.

How do you determine what part of wages goes to the people in administrative positions? Like it or not, they are necessary in most business to keep things running.
But they don't really produce anything themselves as much as they support the production...
How do you determine what slice they get from the people who do the production part?

And who is financing this whole operation?

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

Actually, the taxing land thing would make liberals nuts. Because the 3 richest people on Earth would be paying next to nothing in taxes, while Iowa corn farmers would be paying through the teeth. They couldn't actually afford to produce anything. You would have a massive disparity in taxes. Keep in mind that taxes have to be paid in cash and the mere fact you have land does not mean you are generating any cash.

__________________
This space for rent.

Just as an FYI, I have a Masters in Econ. So I indeed have a limited understanding of wages.

First, I don't produce anything tangible, so there is no product. Second, even if did make widgets or whatever, what makes you think I want or need any widgets? It's not very efficient for me to carry around widgets I don't want to trade for eggs. Third, because wages are determined by supply and demand, the value of my labor IS my wage. Which is the part you apparently don't understand.

__________________
This space for rent.

That would explain why the more famous people to like it lately were conservatives (Buckley and Churchill)... but still I think once you get around all that...
I'm against farm subsidies anyway.
And I don't think rich liberals should be subject to different laws from rich conservatives or get in the way of a good idea.

But to be honest, I'm not even married to the idea. I just think it's good food for thought.
I do think land and natural resources are no one's actual earned product and function better as public goods. I also think income tax, while a necessary evil in the current system, is a drain on productivity (and I don't think sales tax is much better).
I can also see expanding the logic to tax for pollution as that is a use of unowned natural resource (air, water, or whatever).

There must be some plausible way to push the tax burden from individuals' labor to the use of nature's resources... which are themselves a public good and thus make a great and just way to raise money for other public goods.
Really it kills everyone's ability to whine about taxes (not actually taken from individuals) while setting taxes to market values of particular goods (thus limiting the total power of taxation)...
But there's just that matter that people seem to think nature is itself a commodity that belongs to people who buy it from whoever ultimately STOLE it in the first place! Despite the fact that its use affects the whole human race!

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

Not sure how you do that. You would be shifting the burden to a few people, relatively speaking. Income is easy to tax.

__________________
This space for rent.