"There has never been true communism."

[Immanuel Can]

All the cases BEFORE the idea of, and the label of, "communism" even came into existence. Also those cases that are still in existence today, when this is being written, which have not been effected by those people, nor by those societies, that do not live by 'true communal standards'.

This doesn't "clarify" either.

WHY NOT?

Because it doesn't identify anything.

And, if that did NOT 'clarify' either, then what I would suggest one does now; is just ask ANOTHER clarifying question.

I did that. I asked...

I ask again, "Which community?" -- specifically...and by name, please.

And you sent me only this:

Ah okay, now we are getting somewhere. The True 'aboriginal communities'.

And here's another clarifying question, though I asked it already:
Which ones? By name.

The Sioux? The Aborigines of Australia? The pygmies of Congo?

I asked for names, not vague categories, please. Clarify.

Just answer. It's that easy. I need no more explanation. Just a name or names.

[Age]

This doesn't "clarify" either.

WHY NOT?

Because it doesn't identify anything.

And, if that did NOT 'clarify' either, then what I would suggest one does now; is just ask ANOTHER clarifying question.

I did that. I asked...

I ask again, "Which community?" -- specifically...and by name, please.

And you sent me only this:

Ah okay, now we are getting somewhere. The True 'aboriginal communities'.

And here's another clarifying question, though I asked it already:
Which ones? By name.

The aboriginal ones.

The Sioux? The Aborigines of Australia? The pygmies of Congo?

What does the word 'aboriginal' mean, to you?

I asked for names, not vague categories, please. Clarify.

And I gave you the VERY SPECIFIC name - 'aboriginal'.

Just answer.

I did. You just do NOT know what I mean by that answer.

It's that easy.

I KNOW, and that is WHY I have ALREADY done it.

I need no more explanation. Just a name or names.

Aboriginal.

By the way, what does 'True communal living' even mean, to you?

[Immanuel Can]

The Sioux? The Aborigines of Australia? The pygmies of Congo?

What does the word 'aboriginal' mean, to you?

Unresponsive. What matters is which YOU mean.

Since you're scared to answer, I know why. You don't want to pin your claim down to any particular "aboriginal true communists" because you know that any claim at all is vulnerable to counter-evidence.

In other words, you know you're bluffing.

Ironically, that supplies the answer. I guess you did "clarify," even by accident.

[Belinda]

It is indecent to take a huge slice of profits when ordinary shareholders have been deprived due to bad management or market forces.

Name this "indecent" person, who is stealing from his "ordinary" shareholders. We have means to prosecute him.

No, I am not envious, so stop slandering me if you please.

If you're not envious and spiteful, why would you judge the CEO of whom you spoke, especially if you don't know who he is? All you say you know about him is that he's wealthy...so what reason, other than sheer envy, could inspire anyone to accuse him of doing evil? You don't have any other facts in hand, it seems...

Or did you have some particular one in mind, whom you can show is doing evil? Again, we can prosecute him. We have laws.

I wish.

Which nation do you refer to when you say "we" ?

[Immanuel Can]

It is indecent to take a huge slice of profits when ordinary shareholders have been deprived due to bad management or market forces.

Name this "indecent" person, who is stealing from his "ordinary" shareholders. We have means to prosecute him.

No, I am not envious, so stop slandering me if you please.

If you're not envious and spiteful, why would you judge the CEO of whom you spoke, especially if you don't know who he is? All you say you know about him is that he's wealthy...so what reason, other than sheer envy, could inspire anyone to accuse him of doing evil? You don't have any other facts in hand, it seems...

Or did you have some particular one in mind, whom you can show is doing evil? Again, we can prosecute him. We have laws.

I wish.

Which nation do you refer to when you say "we" ?

Well, just about everywhere in the world has laws pertaining to embezzlement, theft or other forms of stealing. So I would say "we" is pretty much the whole world.

Continue accordingly. Who are these vicious and "indecent" people? Or were you only imagining some, as I suspected?

[henry quirk]

anyone who ain't socialist, I reckon

if the milk of human kindness doesn't pour from you like piss after a long night of drinkin', if the welfare of all ain't your primary motivation: you are a vicious, indecent thing

you only deserve half your dime (if that much), the other nickel (or more) belongs to everyone else

ain't that right, B

[Immanuel Can]

you only deserve half your dime (if that much), the other nickel (or more) belongs to everyone else

ain't that right, B

Interestingly, it never bothers these Socialists, who complain loud and long about how the rich, industrious and successful are "stealing" from the poor, that they are empowering the lazy, unimaginative and non-contributing to steal from the successful...and not just to take half their money, but also their incentive, their time, their sweat, their creativity and their effort.

Theft comes in many packages. Only Socialism calls them virtue.

[Belinda]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... -19-crisis

UK's largest firms fail to cut CEO pay to navigate covid crisis.

Nobody deserves to be paid such lot in comparison with others.

If we want to protect as many jobs as possible and give the lower paid workers who have got the country through this crisis the pay rise they deserve, we will need to rethink the balance of pay between those at the top and everybody else.

[henry quirk]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... -19-crisis

UK's largest firms fail to cut CEO pay to navigate covid crisis.

Nobody deserves to be paid such lot in comparison with others.

If we want to protect as many jobs as possible and give the lower paid workers who have got the country through this crisis the pay rise they deserve, we will need to rethink the balance of pay between those at the top and everybody else.

best solution: stop doin' business with those who offend your sensibilities

[Immanuel Can]

Nobody deserves to be paid such lot in comparison with others.

How do you know?

Is it your contention that there's no way they can have earned their pay? What if the welfare of the entire company rests on their activities, including all the jobs of all the people employed there...would that justify paying them more? How much more? How did you decide?

But it seems that "earning it" doesn't bother you, if you want to pay indigent people a "living wage." That means you don't care what they do, or fail to do. You want to pay people who've earned nothing at all.

[Belinda]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... -19-crisis

UK's largest firms fail to cut CEO pay to navigate covid crisis.

Nobody deserves to be paid such lot in comparison with others.

If we want to protect as many jobs as possible and give the lower paid workers who have got the country through this crisis the pay rise they deserve, we will need to rethink the balance of pay between those at the top and everybody else.

best solution: stop doin' business with those who offend your sensibilities

[Belinda]

Nobody deserves to be paid such lot in comparison with others.

How do you know?

Is it your contention that there's no way they can have earned their pay? What if the welfare of the entire company rests on their activities, including all the jobs of all the people employed there...would that justify paying them more? How much more? How did you decide?

But it seems that "earning it" doesn't bother you, if you want to pay indigent people a "living wage." That means you don't care what they do, or fail to do. You want to pay people who've earned nothing at all.

Compared with medics and nurses who have been in the line of fire against covid, compared with compared voluntary carers, compared with farm workers and other workers who put food on the tables, compared with army veterans, compared with intellectuals who show the best way into the future, CEOs take enormously more than their fair share.

The entire wealth of a company rests on the work force.The members of the work force are the colleagues of the management and shareholders. As a fair minded man, you may consider the workers should share more equally in the profits.

[Immanuel Can]

CEOs take enormously more than their fair share.

Well, this makes two incorrect assumptions.

First, it assumes that wealth is a matter of "shares," which presupposes that wealth is a zero-sum game...that new wealth cannot be created, but there's only a fixed amount of it, so it has to be divided into "shares." Secondly, that "fair" can be accorded without regard for what the CEOs or the workers actually do...which you don't know. You don't really have an idea of what's "fair" here, or whether any disparity is reasonable, unreasonable, or "enormous." But you decided it's "enormous" anyway.

As for "unfairness," is it defined as the difference between the CEO's earnings and those of the workers? Why would we assume that? We don't know anything about either one of them, and what does it matter anyway what the CEO earns if the workers earn far more than workers in other countries and situations do for the same kind of job? And if we use that metric, are we using anything more than a comparison between somebody else's possessions and our own...a rather covetous metric, wouldn't you agree?

But we need much more information. Did the CEO invest hugely in the company, or make risks and sacrifices to get it where it is? Did he educate himself for years at great expense, and put off earning for many of them in order to do it? Did he work 60 hour weeks, mortgage his house, put off all kinds of pleasures in order to make the company go? And the workers...are their jobs fairly simple? Do they work 40 hour weeks? Are they rich in benefits and perks? What did they risk in coming to the company, and how much value do they actually add?

Now, perhaps it will turn out to be true that something "unfair" is involved. But with as little information as you have, it's not very likely you're the right person to say what it is. Still, you feel qualified to pronounce judgment against the unknown CEO, for what you don't know he/she does, on behalf of the workers whose activities you don't know, and to pronounce it an "enormous" injustice.

For someone to judge such a person not knowing anything at all about the particulars of her circumstance, or about the allegedly "unfairly treated" workers, is very dubious. You'll have to forgive me for pointing it out, but that sure sounds like nothing but envy. One thing it's bound not to be is "fairness."

[henry quirk]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... -19-crisis

UK's largest firms fail to cut CEO pay to navigate covid crisis.

Nobody deserves to be paid such lot in comparison with others.

If we want to protect as many jobs as possible and give the lower paid workers who have got the country through this crisis the pay rise they deserve, we will need to rethink the balance of pay between those at the top and everybody else.

best solution: stop doin' business with those who offend your sensibilities

not sure what you're grinnin' about: I scored the point, not you

[Gary Childress]

CEOs take enormously more than their fair share.

Well, this makes two incorrect assumptions.

First, it assumes that wealth is a matter of "shares," which presupposes that wealth is a zero-sum game...that new wealth cannot be created, but there's only a fixed amount of it, so it has to be divided into "shares." Secondly, that "fair" can be accorded without regard for what the CEOs or the workers actually do...which you don't know. You don't really have an idea of what's "fair" here, or whether any disparity is reasonable, unreasonable, or "enormous." But you decided it's "enormous" anyway.

As for "unfairness," is it defined as the difference between the CEO's earnings and those of the workers? Why would we assume that? We don't know anything about either one of them, and what does it matter anyway what the CEO earns if the workers earn far more than workers in other countries and situations do for the same kind of job? And if we use that metric, are we using anything more than a comparison between somebody else's possessions and our own...a rather covetous metric, wouldn't you agree?

But we need much more information. Did the CEO invest hugely in the company, or make risks and sacrifices to get it where it is? Did he educate himself for years at great expense, and put off earning for many of them in order to do it? Did he work 60 hour weeks, mortgage his house, put off all kinds of pleasures in order to make the company go? And the workers...are their jobs fairly simple? Do they work 40 hour weeks? Are they rich in benefits and perks? What did they risk in coming to the company, and how much value do they actually add?

Now, perhaps it will turn out to be true that something "unfair" is involved. But with as little information as you have, it's not very likely you're the right person to say what it is. Still, you feel qualified to pronounce judgment against the unknown CEO, for what you don't know he/she does, on behalf of the workers whose activities you don't know, and to pronounce it an "enormous" injustice.

For someone to judge such a person not knowing anything at all about the particulars of her circumstance, or about the allegedly "unfairly treated" workers, is very dubious. You'll have to forgive me for pointing it out, but that sure sounds like nothing but envy. One thing it's bound not to be is "fairness."

I would say that if a CEO is making hundreds of millions working the same number of hours while workers at the lowest levels can barely afford rent and utilities in a slum, then it doesn't seem very fair to me either. I assume a company charges what it can sell a product for. The greater the share the upper echelons take, the less that can be distributed to workers from the proceeds of sales. It's simple economics. And right now companies are shipping jobs overseas lowering real wages in the US in order to take advantage of people in poorer nations of the world. The US is declining as a result, infrastructure is falling apart, we've become dependent on China for just about everything. I don't see how that's good for the US.