Freedom in the US due to exploitation of other countries?

[RadioRaheem84]

This is probably an obvious duh to you guys but I was doing some thinking on my way home from work. After visiting France last summer, I noticed that in the US you really are a lot more "free" in some sense over living in Europe. What I mean by that is I didn't feel restricted by the sort of obvious social classes and that I had access to a lot of things (junk) that could help me climb the ladder. It made me think that the US is "free" because of three things; the liberal interpretation of the constitution, the gains workers won in the thirties and the exploitation of developing nations. Also, toss in cheap credit. Most European nations seemed a little more self reliant and had more restriction on capital than the US. It didn't look like they relied heavily on cheap imported goods from the third world. I found easier access to cheap suits, clothes, cars, things, electronics here in the States. Easier to hustle your way to the top if one wants to ride the wave of cheap imported goods. The sense of freedom is heavily revolved around consumer choices and using those goods to further your own ends too.

That's why with the advent of the crash, we're told that we're going to have to tighten our belts and learn to live a life that is below the standard we're living at now. The "freedom" came mostly from the introduction of cheap credit and cheap goods (exploitation of other nations).

[Atlee]

You're right, it is a "duh" question. I know what it is you're talking about too. The thing here is that credit is given when we should not have it. The credit is given by capitalists and those goods... yeah, capitalists are taking the labor and reselling it with the materials to what they call "value added" which loosely translates to 300%-1000% markup. Look up where you have the set of clothes you're wearing right now. In most parts of the world that around $2 per day labor cost and at the most $13 per day labor cost in South or Central America.

I've been privy to some hot topic conversations. One was where a man got pissed so guy was unionizing his shop in Central America. His family had already moved from New England to Southern USA to find low wages in textiles and get away from union. He said it would be cheaper to move all the equipment to China and have everything boated back then to pay $65 a week to each employee plus benefits.

Capitalists are middlemen (or women) who are exploiting the material like our current oil rig issue in the Gulf and sell the product or ruining the environment or abusing the labor cost (time is money says Max Weber) by paying as little as possible to separate you the worker from what you truly own.

I might have gone off on a tangent .... what we need to do is starve the machine by our shear will. Pull your belts real tight and start doing for ourselves and comrades.

[ContrarianLemming]

What freedom are we talking about?

Americas freedom is not due to exploitation, the poorest societies can be free, it also worth knowing that france is far more equal, freeer and more left wing then the USA, I think your feelings there would better be called home sickness

The gains workers won in the 30's were not as great as europes, and the USA was far more brutal towards labour movements then Europe ( well not "far" more brutal)

Europe relys just as much on foreign goods as the US, depending on the nation.

all acounts seem to indicate that the USA is less free then Europe, with far more noticable classes, as opposed to,say, France or Denmark

[RadioRaheem84]

I am speaking of the "freedom" which we're told to enjoy. I see this only in the sense of consumer choice mainly.

[Palingenisis]

I am speaking of the "freedom" which we're told to enjoy. I see this only in the sense of consumer choice mainly.

In fairness you probably stand much more of a chance of "making a million" in the USA than you do here in Ireland, but you also stand more of a chance of sinking to a very dark place. My impression is that there is much more of a carrot over there but also much more of a stick.

I just want to live in a stable socialist society.

[The Vegan Marxist]

No matter what anyone says, every working class person in the first world, although may be oppressed &/or hampered through the work they put forth, they are not particularly exploited from such, but rather are those still exploiting third world people. Every first worlder, no matter who you are, are still benefiting from the first world. And I'm sure there are those who would say, well the workers that come in from Mexico are being exploited through their work, & I would respond by saying yes, they do get exploited, but they're not a first worlder, & in fact come from Mexico, which is considered third world. So this would still be considered the first world exploiting those of the third world.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

No matter what anyone says, every working class person in the first world, although may be oppressed &/or hampered through the work they put forth, they are not particularly exploited from such, but rather are those still exploiting third world people. Every first worlder, no matter who you are, are still benefiting from the first world. And I'm sure there are those who would say, well the workers that come in from Mexico are being exploited through their work, & I would respond by saying yes, they do get exploited, but they're not a first worlder, & in fact come from Mexico, which is considered third world. So this would still be considered the first world exploiting those of the third world.

How do first world workers exploit third world workers? Where is your evidence? How does "they...are exploiting third world people" follow from "Every first worlder, no matter who you are, are still benefiting from the first world"?

[The Vegan Marxist]

How do first world workers exploit third world workers? Where is your evidence? How does "they...are exploiting third world people" follow from "Every first worlder, no matter who you are, are still benefiting from the first world"?

The items they use, in which were produced or traded in through third world countries, were developed through the exploitation of the third world. This is common knowledge no matter who you are.

And it led to that because the things we benefit from were put in place for us because of the exploitation against the third world people.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

The items they use, in which were produced or traded in through third world countries, were developed through the exploitation of the third world. This is common knowledge no matter who you are.

Capitalists produce goods for a profit through the exploitation of labor, since when was that something peculiar to the third world? By that logic every worker exploits every other worker. You have provided absolutely no backing for your absurd claim that first world workers are not exploited.

[RadioRaheem84]

In fairness you probably stand much more of a chance of "making a million" in the USA than you do here in Ireland, but you also stand more of a chance of sinking to a very dark place. My impression is that there is much more of a carrot over there but also much more of a stick.

I just want to live in a stable socialist society.

yes exactly. In the US, there is much more of chance to land the American dream of being a millionaire but it comes at a really high price if you fail. There is a huge carrot that millions are following daily and they pretty much hustle, and I do mean hustle as in the street variant of the word, to get to the top. It's humiliating and degrading but people do it. This is the "freedom" that's projected as a plus in our society over in Ireland.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Capitalists produce goods for a profit through the exploitation of labor, since when was that something peculiar to the third world? By that logic every worker exploits every other worker. You have provided absolutely no backing for your absurd claim that first world workers are not exploited.

First World wage earners have more access to capital and a better standard of living than much of the Third World bourgeoisie. So I'd highly consider workers in the first world as being exploited.

[Scary Monster]

No matter what anyone says, every working class person in the first world, although may be oppressed &/or hampered through the work they put forth, they are not particularly exploited from such, but rather are those still exploiting third world people. Every first worlder, no matter who you are, are still benefiting from the first world. And I'm sure there are those who would say, well the workers that come in from Mexico are being exploited through their work, & I would respond by saying yes, they do get exploited, but they're not a first worlder, & in fact come from Mexico, which is considered third world. So this would still be considered the first world exploiting those of the third world.

This is Total Bullshit, not to mention unmarxist, and you know it. You cant generalize an entire population and say "every first worlder exploits every other worker in the world", that just isnt fair. We didnt choose to be born here. Some may be aware of what goes on in the third world, but i dont think they realize how the entire system runs on it and how it grants them their current lifestyle,or at least, theyd like to do something about it, but they have a life, like taking care of family, before they can start worrying about "external" things. And how are you any better than every other first worlder? You would have to be living in a forest in total seclusion to not "benefit from the exploitation of the third world".

[The Vegan Marxist]

This is Total Bullshit, not to mention unmarxist, and you know it. You cant generalize an entire population and say "every first worlder exploits every other worker in the world", that just isnt fair. We didnt choose to be born here. Some may be aware of what goes on in the third world, but i dont think they realize how the entire system runs on it and how it grants them their current lifestyle,or at least, theyd like to do something about it, but they have a life, like taking care of family, before they can start worrying about "external" things. And how are you any better than every other first worlder? You would have to be living in a forest in total seclusion to not "benefit from the exploitation of the third world".

It's not bullshit & I'm not saying it's their fault. Don't put words in my mouth. But that doesn't take away the fact that, when part of the first world, whether you agree with it or not, you're still partaking in the exploitation & harm against the third world.

[ContrarianLemming]

In fairness you probably stand much more of a chance of "making a million" in the USA than you do here in Ireland, but you also stand more of a chance of sinking to a very dark place. My impression is that there is much more of a carrot over there but also much more of a stick.

I just want to live in a stable socialist society.

Quite the opposite, in a study of economic mobility (I can source it if you want) found that the US has among the lowest economic mobility, evil socialist Sweden was highest, along with Finland. Ireland was not in the survey

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

It's not bullshit & I'm not saying it's their fault. Don't put words in my mouth. But that doesn't take away the fact that, when part of the first world, whether you agree with it or not, you're still partaking in the exploitation & harm against the third world.

No, they're not, and you have provided no evidence or even a logical argument to show that this is the case. Such a claim would have to be based on a detailed study of the world economy, but if you were basing your conclusions on something like that as opposed to idiotic third worldist dogma then you would have posted some evidence already.

[The Vegan Marxist]

No, they're not, and you have provided no evidence or even a logical argument to show that this is the case. Such a claim would have to be based on a detailed study of the world economy, but if you were basing your conclusions on something like that as opposed to idiotic third worldist dogma then you would have posted some evidence already.

Point out to where we don't exploit or harm third world people.

[9]

^That is not an argument, 'The Vegan Marxist'. The burden of proof is on you.

[The Vegan Marxist]

^Actually, it is an argument, because one is so quick in demanding evidence in such. So I ask for the contrary, & if none is provided, then behold, my evidence.

[9]

^Actually, it is an argument, because one is so quick in demanding evidence in such. So I ask for the contrary, & if none is provided, then behold, my evidence.

lol you are quite the Marxist, I see; someone else can take this one, I have better things to do with my time.

[Robocommie]

Capitalists produce goods for a profit through the exploitation of labor, since when was that something peculiar to the third world? By that logic every worker exploits every other worker. You have provided absolutely no backing for your absurd claim that first world workers are not exploited.

I don't think he's trying to say that first world workers are not exploited, just that they benefit indirectly from the exploitation of third world workers. For instance, all the clothes I wear were cheap in part because they were made in shops off of exploited sweat shop labor. Consumer goods get made cheap as hell and so first world workers can afford a lifestyle that is far better than a lot of people elsewhere do. This does not of course mean there is no exploitation, poverty or suffering, with lots of people living paycheck to paycheck and going deep into debt just to pay bills, but it's pretty hard to say that it's the same situation as folks who are literally living in corrugated tin shacks and drinking well water that is maybe clean enough for human consumption.

I don't think this is meant to put blame on anyone, nor does it need to result in opposition - it doesn't mean that third world workers should be opposed to first world workers. That's illogical, to me. Just because we all benefit doesn't mean we're bad people, or anything like that. And we should still press for workers of the world uniting.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I don't think he's trying to say that first world workers are not exploited, just that they benefit indirectly from the exploitation of third world workers. For instance, all the clothes I wear were cheap in part because they were made in shops off of exploited sweat shop labor. Consumer goods get made cheap as hell and so first world workers can afford a lifestyle that is far better than a lot of people elsewhere do. This does not of course mean there is no exploitation, poverty or suffering, with lots of people living paycheck to paycheck and going deep into debt just to pay bills, but it's pretty hard to say that it's the same situation as folks who are literally living in corrugated tin shacks and drinking well water that is maybe clean enough for human consumption.

I don't think this is meant to put blame on anyone, nor does it need to result in opposition - it doesn't mean that third world workers should be opposed to first world workers. That's illogical, to me. Just because we all benefit doesn't mean we're bad people, or anything like that. And we should still press for workers of the world uniting.

If one can point out where first world workers are exploited, then I'll grant you that argument. But you're right when you said we benefit from what exploits & harms those of the third world. We may not like it, or may agree with it, but we're force to partake in such a lifestyle, in which is why, if one goes to my thread on Maoism-Third Worldism, I point out how first world workers will need to leave & help out those of the third world as we wage global war against the exploiters, which at the most are those of the first world.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Here's an example of First World exploiting the Third World:


Ethiopia is on the verge of a crisis. 6.2 million Ethiopians face starvation unless something is done. Already 80,000 children under 5 years of age are suffering from acute malnutrition, according to reports. This latest famine threat happens a quarter century since 1 million died in the 1984 famine that caught the media’s attention worldwide. The 1984 famine was a partial result of imperialist policies that forced the growing of cash crops instead of food crops. Even during the famine, Ethiopia continued to export both cash crops and its own food crops to the First World. Its own farmers cannot make a living because processed First World food imports flood the home market.

“Since… January, the country continues to face several humanitarian challenges in food and livelihood security, health, nutrition, and in water and sanitation,” State Minister for Agriculture Mitiku Kassa stated.

Ethiopia needs 121 million before year’s end to head off the famine. Ethiopia is not alone. Famine, starvation, and widespread malnutrition are very real threats for peoples of the Third World. According to the World Health Organization, starvation is the greatest single threat to the public health. Starvation is the biggest factor contributing to child mortality, being present in half of all cases. Starvation currently affects more than a billion people, 1 out of every 6 people. Starving people reside almost exclusively in the Third World. This is the case even though the world produces enough food to feed its entire 6 billion population. In fact, enough food is produced to feed twice as many people.

Yet famine and widespread starvation no longer exist for First World peoples. In fact, First World peoples have too much food. According to a 2004 USDA-funded study, Amerikan families throw away 14% of their food. This accounts for 43 billion dollars worth of discarded food by Amerikan households alone. Fast food chains can waste as much as 40% of their food. Supermarkets waste about 1%. And, a shocking 40% to 50% of all food ready for harvest in the US never gets eaten. (3) Commodity markets drive growers in the US to plow under their crops. Amerikans are wasting at least 75 billion dollars in food a year. Amerikans waste several times more food than is needed to stop the crisis in Ethiopia. In addition, the US spends about 1 billion dollars just disposing of its food waste.

There is no reason for anyone on the planet to starve. Enough food is produced so that everyone can eat. The problem is distribution and power. Capitalism-imperialism is a system that distributes too much food to the wealthy countries and too little food to the exploited countries. This is the part of the irrationality, or “anarchy” as Marx put it, at the heart of capitalism. Distribution does not match up with needs. Instead, profits are place ahead of people. The First World eats the Third World.

Sources:

1. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091022/wl_africa_afp/ethiopiadroughtaid

2. http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20041122/foodwaste.html

3. http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2009/08/16/amerikans-first-worlders-waste-food-third-worlders-starve/

4. http://gadaa.com/oduu/?p=609

[Zapatas Guns]

Most people in America exploit the 3rd world. It just cannot be helped. Hell sometimes Walmart is the only store for 100's of miles. What choice is there? On the other side of the coin there are people in America that live totally off the grid and who makes their own food that in no way interact with the outside that is exploitative of the 3rd world.

1st world workers are in no way less exploited than their 3rd world counter parts though.

Tell me that a guy working at McDonalds, earning $7.25 an hour and on food stamps is supposed to support a family or himself? Milk is $3/gal, gas is $2.75/gal and rent for a studio apartment where I live is $450/month. You will have no legal council to fight any injustices against yourself. You will not have access to a quality university education. You do not have health care( well maybe or maybe not now). If you ever get in debt it will follow you around for a very long time and you have almost no chance of paying it off. Any emergency or anything that needs a large lump sum of money will be devastating.

There is no other real safety net where I live. There is no "upward mobility" in this situation. Worse yet a worker like this is more likely to live in a bad area with lots of crime, full of other people trying to get ahead so they can survive.

Then you must hear ridicule from others for being a "lazy freeloader" or someone that was "too stupid" to go to college. [How dare someone get welfare so they can eat! How dare they steal from real "workers!" /end sarcasm]


America is a game that can only be won by people that are already winning. Only people with wealth and power matter here. Everyone else, your on your own and fuck you.

[Scary Monster]

first world workers will need to leave & help out those of the third world as we wage global war against the exploiters, which at the most are those of the first world.

C'mon man, this is totally stupid. I dont know where to begin. Do you honestly believe 90% of the US' population is just gonna up and leave their home? And you make it sound like because of the US' over-abundance of food, that every working person in the US has plenty to eat. Most working class people have food stamps and such, even then, theyre just crumbs tossed out by the state. I used to know this girl who worked her ass off at starbucks and had a son, but she only qualified for about 150 bucks in food stamps per month, they didnt have much to eat. The problem is in the way this food is distributed. The first world's working people dont get to have access to this food abundance either, even though we dont have nearly as much starvation as the third world. I thought this was obvious to a so-called Marxist.

[RadioRaheem84]

I don't get how you guys interpreted vegan marxists to mean that he was saying first world workers aren't exploited. I thought he was trying to say that first world workers have limited choices but to consume in a society horribly exploiting the third world. We indirectly fuel a whole cycle of exploitation. I can see where he is wrong though as it's all exploitation. I mean that's a given.

[The Vegan Marxist]

C'mon man, this is totally stupid. I dont know where to begin. Do you honestly believe 90% of the US' population is just gonna up and leave their home? And you make it sound like because of the US' over-abundance of food, that every working person in the US has plenty to eat. Most working class people have food stamps and such, even then, theyre just crumbs tossed out by the state. I used to know this girl who worked her ass off at starbucks and had a son, but she only qualified for about 150 bucks in food stamps per month, they didnt have much to eat. The problem is in the way this food is distributed. The first world's working people dont get to have access to this food abundance either, even though we dont have nearly as much starvation as the third world. I thought this was obvious to a so-called Marxist.

90% of those in the First World will never leave their lifestyles because of them being net-beneficiaries to the Capitalist system, in which are helped developed through the exploitation of those within the Third World. And I make it out to where there's enough food in the first world to feed absolutely everyone, & the majority do get enough food as statistics show. But the problem is that those in the first world also waste shit loads of food, which could go to those starving in the third world.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Most people in America exploit the 3rd world. It just cannot be helped. Hell sometimes Walmart is the only store for 100's of miles. What choice is there? On the other side of the coin there are people in America that live totally off the grid and who makes their own food that in no way interact with the outside that is exploitative of the 3rd world.

1st world workers are in no way less exploited than their 3rd world counter parts though.

Tell me that a guy working at McDonalds, earning $7.25 an hour and on food stamps is supposed to support a family or himself? Milk is $3/gal, gas is $2.75/gal and rent for a studio apartment where I live is $450/month. You will have no legal council to fight any injustices against yourself. You will not have access to a quality university education. You do not have health care( well maybe or maybe not now). If you ever get in debt it will follow you around for a very long time and you have almost no chance of paying it off. Any emergency or anything that needs a large lump sum of money will be devastating.

There is no other real safety net where I live. There is no "upward mobility" in this situation. Worse yet a worker like this is more likely to live in a bad area with lots of crime, full of other people trying to get ahead so they can survive.

Then you must hear ridicule from others for being a "lazy freeloader" or someone that was "too stupid" to go to college. [How dare someone get welfare so they can eat! How dare they steal from real "workers!" /end sarcasm]


America is a game that can only be won by people that are already winning. Only people with wealth and power matter here. Everyone else, your on your own and fuck you.

The idea that we're just as exploited in the first world as those in the third world is absolutely absurd! Tell that to those living within the third world where the vast majority have no homes & no food whatsoever. Food stamps are also grossly abused by those who don't need any, or as much as they use day-to-day.

[Atlee]

... well the workers that come in from Mexico are being exploited through their work, & I would respond by saying yes, they do get exploited, but they're not a first worlder, & in fact come from Mexico, which is considered third world. So this would still be considered the first world exploiting those of the third world.

UMS to the USA is technically a second world supporting the first. A third world has much less.

[Zapatas Guns]

The idea that we're just as exploited in the first world as those in the third world is absolutely absurd! Tell that to those living within the third world where the vast majority have no homes & no food whatsoever. Food stamps are also grossly abused by those who don't need any, or as much as they use day-to-day.


Food stamps are a necessity for many people in America. The U.S. is full of very rich and powerful people but just because it is the wealthiest doesn't mean there aren't any people that need help.

Are there people that have it worse off? Of course. I didn't mean to make it sound like others across the world have it any easier. I was only giving facts.

I'd like to point out RadioRaheem84 made what I thought was a good point.

"first world workers have limited choices but to consume in a society horribly exploiting the third world"

The problem is capitalists making other people in the proletariat complicit in their own exploitation.

The only other real choice in America is to live on a bunch of land with other people and live off the grid by making your own products. If you try to work and bring in a wage like most Americans, you will undoubtedly be forced to buy some products that were manufactured unethically or foods that have harmful additives.

[Devrim]

Here's an example of First World exploiting the Third World:

'Exploitation' actually has a real meaning in Marxist terms. It has nothing to do with how bad people's wages, working conditions and lives are. It is a term that refers to the extraction of surplus value.

If we take as an example two car factories, both where I know people so I know a little about the conditions there, VW in Hanover in Germany, and Tofaş in Bursa in Turkey. It is obvious that the workers in Germany have the best wages and conditions. They do less work, in a better environment, and receive more money for it. The question is which is more exploited. Although it is a mathematical relationship and we don't have all the figures at hand, I would almost certainly imagine it is the ones in Germany, productivity is considerable higher, and the product has a higher unit price.

Many workers in the so-called 'third world' work in almost desperate conditions. The actual extraction of surplus value, and therefore the rate of exploitation is actually very low though.

Devrim

[Devrim]

After visiting France last summer, I noticed that in the US you really are a lot more "free" in some sense over living in Europe. What I mean by that is I didn't feel restricted by the sort of obvious social classes and that I had access to a lot of things (junk) that could help me climb the ladder. It made me think that the US is "free" because of three things; the liberal interpretation of the constitution, the gains workers won in the thirties and the exploitation of developing nations. Also, toss in cheap credit. Most European nations seemed a little more self reliant and had more restriction on capital than the US. It didn't look like they relied heavily on cheap imported goods from the third world. I found easier access to cheap suits, clothes, cars, things, electronics here in the States. Easier to hustle your way to the top if one wants to ride the wave of cheap imported goods. The sense of freedom is heavily revolved around consumer choices and using those goods to further your own ends too.

I suppose a lot of it depends on what you mean by 'free'. To me being able to buy a lot of 'junk' isn't really it. I have six weeks paid holiday a year (including two weeks religious ones). This is quite common in this country. This leaves me 'free' to spend my time how I want. How many do people usually get in the US?

Devrim

[anticap]

I don't get how you guys interpreted vegan marxists to mean that he was saying first world workers aren't exploited.

I admit being confused there, since he did say this...


If one can point out where first world workers are exploited, then I'll grant you that argument.

...but on the other hand he's doling out thanks to people who're saying that he didn't mean that. :confused:

Anyway...


The idea that we're just as exploited in the first world as those in the third world is absolutely absurd!

Believe me when I tell you that I derive no pleasure in saying this, but the sweatshop worker is paid a "fair wage" for the value of her labor-power. Note the sneer quotes: I am fully aware that there is no such thing as a "fair wage" under capitalism, since workers are not paid the full value of what they produce. What I mean is that, in Marxist terms, the value of labor-power as a commodity is the bundle of goods that is necessary to "reproduce" the laborer, according to the standard of living in that time and place. For sweatshop workers living in corrugated aluminum shanty towns, that bundle of goods is not great. More on this concept below...


Food stamps are also grossly abused by those who don't need any

In the U$, wages have remained stagnant for 30 years, while worker productivity has gone up. Those workers have been offered credit in lieu of wages (http://www.rdwolff.com/content/capitalism-hits-fan-movie), which they've eagerly accepted in order to attempt to maintain their expected standard of living. If Food Stamps are necessary to supplement this, then they are needed, in that sense, and qualified workers would have to be foolish not to apply for them, considering that the capitalist class has pocketed the fruits of workers' increased productivity.

I'm not engaging in apologetics for the differences in lifestyles between First and Third Worlders. I take wisdom from the Third-Worldist movement as well, though I don't count myself among them. I don't deny that First-Worlders benefit from the exploitation of the Third World, and I believe that anyone who does deny this is, well, in denial. But as I was saying before, in Marxist terms there is a standard of living in each locale, and meeting that standard is what is meant be "reproducing" the laborer. The standards will vary according to advances in productive technology, past workers' struggles (and the ability to maintain those gains), etc. For First-Worlders, the bundle of necessary goods is much more substantial than for Third-Worlders; but it is an outright falsehood to say that First-Worlders are not exploited under capitalism. Workers in the First World, as in the Third World, are paid less than the value of what they produce. That, in a nutshell, is what defines capitalist exploitation. Where capitalism exists, exploitation exists.

Finally, let me make it clear that, as an anti-capitalist, I would not be unfavorable toward any leftist proposal that would shift the difference there.

[Devrim]

The idea that we're just as exploited in the first world as those in the third world is absolutely absurd! Tell that to those living within the third world where the vast majority have no homes & no food whatsoever.

As I tried to point out being exploitated, and being in poverty aren't the same thing. Engineers in the West are probably much much more explioted than workers in third world sweat-shops.


Food stamps are also grossly abused by those who don't need any, or as much as they use day-to-day.

Think about who you sound like.

Devrim

[The Vegan Marxist]

As I tried to point out being exploitated, and being in poverty aren't the same thing. Engineers in the West are probably much much more explioted than workers in third world sweat-shops.



Think about who you sound like.

Devrim

I know what I sound like, & I know there's a reason why people abuse them. I came from the projects where, the idea of doing whatever we can to survive is justifiable. Was just pointing out the fact that not everyone needs food stamps.

[AK]

Point out to where we don't exploit or harm third world people.
Everywhere.

We ourselves don't. We take the jobs that are on offer here in the First World, because the Bourgeoisie has exploited the Third World's labor power whilst reducing the amount of manual work we do. We have no choice in the matter. We take what little we are given.

[Devrim]

I know what I sound like, & I know there's a reason why people abuse them. I came from the projects where, the idea of doing whatever we can to survive is justifiable. Was just pointing out the fact that not everyone needs food stamps.

It depends what you mean by need. Personally, I think I need food stamps (we don't have them in this country). I am nowhere near starving, but after the rent has been paid, we struggle to pay the bills on time, and if you look at our diet, the last time we bought 'red meat' was over a month ago. I suppose it depends what 'need' means. If it means that it is something to stop you actually starving then I would imagine that you are right. There are probably many people who don't need them. I don't think that those people are breakfasting on cavier though.

Devrim

[RadioRaheem84]

I suppose a lot of it depends on what you mean by 'free'. To me being able to buy a lot of 'junk' isn't really it. I have six weeks paid holiday a year (including two weeks religious ones). This is quite common in this country. This leaves me 'free' to spend my time how I want. How many do people usually get in the US?

Devrim

In the US we're taught that the ultimate freedom is to sink or swim, get rich or die trying. Working and simply enjoying life is looked down upon unless you're making six figures. The point is to make it big. The US seems like it can be helpful to someone who is looking for riches, as the cheap junk, cheap credit can help them hustle their way through life. I've also noticed that there is more intermingling with the classes here in the US (although that is changing).

Point is, in terms of social mobility and being able to become middle class, have a job, good benefits and work to live, then Europe is better than the US, as in the US you live to work. But in terms of opportunities to land it "big", the US is far better. Although the door is narrow as can be, but apparently, the "freedom" to get there is what matters.

To make it short and sweet, it seems like most of the reason why the US is this "free" or the workers have this standard of living is because of the harsh exploitation of the third world countries.

[black magick hustla]

I know a few college students that have food stamps and dont really "need" them. I don't dissaprove though. I its ok with me if people are able to hustle the bosses and the state and get away with it.

[Palingenisis]

I know a few college students that have food stamps and dont really "need" them. I don't dissaprove though. I its ok with me if people are able to hustle the bosses and the state and get away with it.

Thats something I dont understand....Not for any moral reasons.

Just welfare bureaucrats are the last people on earth that I want to deal with. I have only ever gone near them when I really had to.

[The Gallant Gallstone]

I know a few college students that have food stamps and dont really "need" them. I don't dissaprove though. I its ok with me if people are able to hustle the bosses and the state and get away with it.

I respectfully disagree.

Though they may "hustle" the bosses, the experience only solidifies the hold of capitalist values over them.

I'm not saying it's a major issue, or something that needs bloody denunciation, but I'm suspicious of all methods of "getting over" or "hustling" institutions, even if they thoroughly deserve it.

We're not just fighting the institutions, but the values of predatory cynicism that makes those institutions possible.

[which doctor]

Thats something I dont understand....Not for any moral reasons.

Just welfare bureaucrats are the last people on earth that I want to deal with. I have only ever gone near them when I really had to.
but you get more $$$ to spend on blow if the government's paying for your food. what's not to like?

[Robocommie]

I think the thing about making use of welfare if you don't really need it to get by is that it reduces the availability of help to those who do.

[eyedrop]

Point is, in terms of social mobility and being able to become middle class, have a job, good benefits and work to live, then Europe is better than the US, as in the US you live to work. But in terms of opportunities to land it "big", the US is far better. Although the door is narrow as can be, but apparently, the "freedom" to get there is what matters.

As far as I was aware better social mobility means that it's easier in more social democratic countries to strike it big and more people do. So Europeans have a bigger chance of striking it big, while it may be possible that in the US more people believe they can strike it big due to propaganda and culture.

The chance for striking it really big could be higher in the US though.

[Palingenisis]

I think the thing about making use of welfare if you don't really need it to get by is that it reduces the availability of help to those who do.

Another thing to remember is that long term welfare dependence is soul destorying. I have seen it around the estate that I grew up on. Its not nice.

[eyedrop]

Another thing to remember is that long term welfare dependence is soul destorying. I have seen it around the estate that I grew up on. Its not nice.

In my experience welfare money can be very work intensive for the money you get as well. Endless schemas to fill out and involuntary meetings and courses.

[Devrim]

In the US we're taught that the ultimate freedom is to sink or swim, get rich or die trying.

I think I'd rather have the extra-four weeks a year paid holiday, thanks very much.:)


Point is, in terms of social mobility and being able to become middle class, have a job, good benefits and work to live, then Europe is better than the US, as in the US you live to work. But in terms of opportunities to land it "big", the US is far better. Although the door is narrow as can be, but apparently, the "freedom" to get there is what matters.

I am not sure about this at all. As somebody pointed out that social mobility is higher in Europe.


in a study of economic mobility (I can source it if you want) found that the US has among the lowest economic mobility, evil socialist Sweden was highest, along with Finland. Ireland was not in the survey

I think 'Eyedrop' is probably on the right lines when he says this:


As far as I was aware better social mobility means that it's easier in more social democratic countries means that more people strike it big. So Europeans have a bigger chance of striking it big, while it may be possible that in the US more people believe they can strike it big due to propaganda and culture.

Is it possible that you are buying into the propaganda of the 'America dream'?


To make it short and sweet, it seems like most of the reason why the US is this "free" or the workers have this standard of living is because of the harsh exploitation of the third world countries.

My impression, based only on two short visits to the US and the anecdotes of friends, is that working class living standards are lower than in North West Europe. I would like to see some stats on this, and also on the previous point.

Devrim

[Palingenisis]

In my experience welfare money can be very work intensive for the money you get as well. Endless schemas to fill out and involuntary meetings and courses.

The first I ended up on the dole within weeks I was in some utter joke of a "scheme" which obviously not about "getting people into work" or even just self-improvement but keeping you off the unemployment stats...However they do tend to give up on longtimers.

[syndicat]

United for a Fair Economy did a study in 1997 on the Forbes 400 list of the 400 richest people in USA. 42 percent were born with enough wealth to qualify for the list. Another 27 percent were born with some wealth, grew up in a prosperous professional family (e.g. Bill Gates) and got some startup capital from their family. The other 31 percent were not born into wealthy families but may have been from middle income or skilled worker households. According to Lester Thurow, about 50 to 70 percent of wealth is based on inheritance...this includes inheritance of houses.

To take an example of a relevant statistic, only 6 percent of people who graduate from 4 year college are from low income families...the same level as in 1970.

Average real wage for males with only high school diplomas has dropped 25 percent since early '70s. Defined benefit pensions are disappearing and the numbers of entry level jobs with even 401ks has been declining. Health insurance coverage has been shrinking and Obama's plan will not guarantee affordable coverage. As the movie Sicko points out a majority of people who entered personal bankruptcy due to medical bills already had health insurance.

There has been a huge decline in the value of the minimum wage since the late '60s since Congress has refused to raise it for long periods.

Although the percentage of high school graduates starting college has gradually risen for a long time....1/3 in '50s, half in '70s, nearly 2/3 now...the percentage of students from working class families at the elite 4 year colleges and PhD granting universities has shrunk in recent decades, as grant aid has declined and tuition has skyrocketed. typically what happens is that working class students don't finish college because they can't afford to.

The decline in the standard of living for the working class in the USA since the early '70s is the longest and most severe decline in the entire history of the USA.


In the US, there is much more of chance to land the American dream of being a millionaire

This is false. Social mobility is much more in northern Europe than in USA.

Overall we can say that class mobility is not very great in the USA and over the past 40 years the class structure has become more rigid.

This may be masked because USA has no feudal tradition and many members of the elite like to similate being folksy. For relating with their "lessers" anyway. They also have their collections of cars, multiple houses and condos in various cities, their elite clubs, and on and on.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

My impression, based only on two short visits to the US and the anecdotes of friends, is that working class living standards are lower than in North West Europe. I would like to see some stats on this, and also on the previous point.

Devrim

From what I can tell from people I know in the U.S., the living standard of working class people in the U.S. are indeed significantly lower than in North-western Europe. There was a report in a newspaper of the conditions of average working class people in the U.S. some years ago, and many were surprised what kind of injustices they were facing, what with de-facto obligatory over-time, bad working conditions, extremely long working days, the bad health coverage, the lack of decent day care provisions, the horribly short semesters and so on so forth.

[syndicat]

USA is the only first world country where there is ZERO legally mandated paid time off. No requirement of paid vacation, paid sick days, paid holidays. It's up to the employer.

USA also deals with a lot of its "reserve army of unemployed", who are a potential threat of social unrest (i.e. riots), by stuffing them in prison on minor charges. 1.5 percent of the whole population...overwhelmingly working class men (mainly black and Latino) and quite a few women...are in prison. By comparison in northern Europe typically this is 0.2 percent and in Spain and Portugal is 0.3 percent. This is done through mandatory long sentences and harsh penalities for mere drug possession. The "War on Drugs" is class and race-biased. This began in the early '80s during the big recession when there was huge unemployment.

[Red Commissar]

If I may take a line from the Internationale, "freedom is merely privelage extended unless enjoyed by one and all".

[eyedrop]

This study (http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/small-business-2009-08.pdf) (Just scroll down and look at the shiny graphs) also shows that there are fewer people attempting for the "American Dream" in the US than Europe, in that it scores low on self-employment and small businesses, in comparison to European countries.

Self employment and owning small businesses are generally the only way to make it, since you don't make it by working for someone.

[syndicat]

exploitation in ordinary English is to "take advantage" of someone to gain an unearned benefit. Marx tried to give a way to quantify this in terms of his labor time accounting scheme. but we don't need to adopt his labor theory of value to understand exploitation.

Labor exploitation refers to unwarranted gains that the exploiter receives from the labor of others due to their domination over those others. Capitalist income derived from ownership and management of firms is unwarranted because it is not based on their actual work being socially necessary. Their role is parasitic.

So, if we want to know who exploits workers in third world countries, we need to look at who gains profits or managerial income from the productive activity of laboring people in those countries. In fact this pool of profit is divided along the way. You have subcontractors in China or some other third world country who make some profit. And then you have the massive monopolistic trading and marketing firms, like Cargill (which buys from fairly powerless farmers for example) or Wal-mart. And these firms then make huge profits off the labor of the producers, as well as off their own workers, and workers in transport and distribution all along the global production chain. even in the USA the share of food revenue that goes to growers has shrunk over the years, due to market power of the big guys, despite the fact that growers in the USA are typically very large businesses with multiple farms, employees, etc. It's just that they are weaker in bargaining terms compared to the big processing and trading companies.

If you say that a worker who buys a shirt at Wal-mart is exploiting workers in third world countries, then where do they dominate others in such a way as to gain an unwarranted income? Are you saying that their income from their work is unearned? But if their employers make a profit off their labor, in fact they are exploited.

The people who are exploiting workers and peasants in third world countries are the capitalists. The dominant capitalists in this game are centered in the first world countries. That's because of the unequal power balance between capitalist countries....capitalism globally is a system of uneven development. first world capitals have power advantages they can use to suck monopoly profits out of the third world. For example, capital is scarcer in the third world, so banking entities in the first world can charge higher interest and call in the enforcers of the IMF etc to force payments of the debt sucked out of third world productivity.

Also, the massive trading monopolies like Cargile and ADM can use their massive market power to lower prices paid to third world farmers, and similar relations apply in cases of mineral and lumber extraction.

But these profits do not go to workers in the first world. They go to the capitalists.

[RadioRaheem84]

Guys like I said, you live to work in the US. Social Mobility to me is climbing up from working class to middle class with relative ease, which is practically fading fast in the US. The US has one of the worst if not the worst record on labor. When I meant "big" , I meant that in the US, one can hustle their way to big bucks too, but this is a large fairy tale we tell the workers to keep the spirits up. Mostly, we think of rap stars, musicians, athletes, actors, writers, small/midsize business folk and youtube 15 min fame as people who've "made it" in the US land of dreams.

[Scary Monster]

Ive been working in the US in fast food and retail while attending college for the past few years now. This is how it is, and giving an objective statement of working life, though some of this may have been mentioned by syndicat already, and id like to know how this compares to working life in europe or wherever you guys are from:

-Working 8 hours a day, with a 30 minute break at most places, 5 days a week. In addition to the 8 hours, if you need to go overtime, then you have to do it. Some employers pay overtime, some dont. If they call you in on your day off to work a couple hours when theyre short on workers, then youre expected to come in, although this is not mandatory. However your boss would not continue to hold you in high regard, and so you lose "job security points" (a term i made up hehe).

-You dont start getting paid vacation or bonuses until like a couple years after your "Probation Period". When youre a new employee, youre on probation during your first few months. During this time, if youre late once or do a minor fuck up, theres a good chance youre fired. Paid vacation days for senior workers (as in workers who have been there for like 10 years) are at most a month for, say, managers and supervisors.

-8 to 12 dollars per hour (and about 17 dollars/hour for entry level employees with degrees or certification), usually working 25-38 hours a week, is what most workers make in California (mind that the cost of living is extremely high. The cheapest rent in the 'ol Barrios in east LA goes for about 600 bucks a month for a one bedroom apartment). In fast food and retail, supervisors make only a couple bucks more than entry level workers. When i used to work at Jack in the Box, supervisors only made 20 cents more than new entry-level restaurant crew :lol:

[RadioRaheem84]

8 to 12 dollars per hour (and about 17 dollars/hour for entry level employees with degrees or certification)

8 to 12? Amazing! 17 with certificate or degree? Even more amazing! I can't even find this anywhere in Texas. I mean thank God the cost of living is so cheap otherwise I would sink in this State. And I have a degree!

[Scary Monster]

8 to 12? Amazing! 17 with certificate or degree? Even more amazing! I can't even find this anywhere in Texas. I mean thank God the cost of living is so cheap otherwise I would sink in this State. And I have a degree!

Yup yup. How much do you make over there in TexAss? Im 22 and havent worked at a good steady job for a while, so ive yet to make more than 8.50 per hour. My mom has been workin at the same place for 10 years, and she just got up to the 17 bucks per hour mark a year or so ago. But she doesnt have a college degree. She works in customer service for this small business, a trustee/third party that sets up court appearances over the phone (which saves everyone time and money by the way). Other folks in my trade school has worked for LA county for a couple years, and one of em makes 13 bucks an hour. Im tellin ya, unless youre a manager or you have seniority in the workplace and a university degree, you aint makin more than 20 dollars an hour.

[Zapatas Guns]

8 to 12? Amazing! 17 with certificate or degree? Even more amazing! I can't even find this anywhere in Texas. I mean thank God the cost of living is so cheap otherwise I would sink in this State. And I have a degree!


No kidding I don't make anywhere near that and I have a degree too.

[Scary Monster]

No kidding I don't make anywhere near that and I have a degree too.

But again, you would have to keep in mind that here in los angeles, its one of the most expensive places to live in the entire country. Just considering rent alone, before factoring in maitaining a car, transportation, bills: Even in Watts, or skid row in downtown, the lowest rent would be about $500/month. But if youre talking about the average amount of rent most usually pay (like me), then most of the time it will be around $950-$1500 dollars/month for a 1 or 2 bedroom apartment, depending on the area. And thats not even in one of those upper scale, bourgie areas near the coast or in west hollywood. Those would be $2,000 and up. Im not even gonna mention how much a freakin house would cost you :lol:

[syndicat]

in some working class areas where I was looking into house prices in L.A., such as Highland Park, Lincoln Heights, El Sereno, Temple-east Echo Park, the lowest house prices I could find were around $300,000-325,000.

where I'm living now, in San Francisco, cost of living is even higher than in L.A. there is a city minimum wage which is indexed to inflation and I think it may currently be around $10. but this is not considered a living wage here.

[black magick hustla]

I respectfully disagree.

Though they may "hustle" the bosses, the experience only solidifies the hold of capitalist values over them.

I'm not saying it's a major issue, or something that needs bloody denunciation, but I'm suspicious of all methods of "getting over" or "hustling" institutions, even if they thoroughly deserve it.

We're not just fighting the institutions, but the values of predatory cynicism that makes those institutions possible.

i don't think it is symptomatic of "capitalist values" nor is there anything predatory about it. i think at the very most it is morally equal to people who hold the fake idea that working for a living under these conditions is "morally superior". the state and the bosses to me are the enemy and i do not care if people manage to hustle them and get away with it

[RadioRaheem84]

Yup yup. How much do you make over there in TexAss? Im 22 and havent worked at a good steady job for a while, so ive yet to make more than 8.50 per hour. My mom has been workin at the same place for 10 years, and she just got up to the 17 bucks per hour mark a year or so ago. But she doesnt have a college degree. She works in customer service for this small business, a trustee/third party that sets up court appearances over the phone (which saves everyone time and money by the way). Other folks in my trade school has worked for LA county for a couple years, and one of em makes 13 bucks an hour. Im tellin ya, unless youre a manager or you have seniority in the workplace and a university degree, you aint makin more than 20 dollars an hour.

I have a degree from a pretty good school and I am only making about 12.50 an hour. This is mostly because I missed the recruiting time right before graduation and I took the first job that hired me for fear of waiting a long time to land a job. I probably could've gotten 15 if I had haggled a bit more, but I am just working until I can get into grad school.

Point is, I think most of my friends who have graduated and have not networked their behinds off are making 15 an hour tops. I have yet to meet a single graduate friend of mine making more than that except for the ones that schmoozed their way into corporate America, and they're making 35-45k a year. Although all of them hate their job.