Why Capitalism Always Aggregates Wealth

[Dean]

Well, before I've discussed some of the obvious facts: having more money begets political and economic clout which allows one to posture one's assets in a market. And "risk" isn't a unique trade-off that justifies the profits: does anyone remember Enron or see the pensions being rescinded contemporaneously?

But the fact of wealth accumulation can be proven in simple terms, understanding the simple facts of capital and wage-labor.


The simple form of trade is as follows:
Commodity-Money-Commodity for laborers - this ends on the acquisition and consumption of use-value.
(Laborer sells his labor for money which is used to purchase commodities)

Monet-Commodity-Money - this ends on money, which is in turn re-invested. Hence the circular, infinitesimal and exponential character of capital.
(Capitalist purchases capital and sells it at a profit)

Suppose the following variables:

Wage Laborer:
1$/hr wage rate (C-M)

Capitalist:
90$ cost & value of Capital
1% return on capital
1 hour capital cycle (M-C)

We can assume an equal (8 hours/day) velocity of exchange.

Firstly, the only thing that is necessary to engage in capital accumulation is the 90$ cost of capital. Small investments have disincentivization in the form of brokerage fees, small returns versus potential utility, and cost-of-living which marginalizes the available start up funds.

Further, I've assumed that both individuals have the same start-up funds simply to show the disparity as a ratio of change.


What happens after 8 hours?
Laborer: $98.00, Capitalist: $97.45

40?
Laborer: $130.00, Capitalist: $133.99

160 hours (1 month):
Laborer: $250.00, Capitalist: $442.24

What if the laborer earns a handsome wage at 10% and we go for another month?
(+160 hours, 320 hours total)
Laborer: $426.00 Capitalist: $2173.11

A three time increase in wages? ($3.30)
(+160 hours, 480 hours total)
Laborer: $954.00 Capitalist: $10678.30

Even providing the most generous raises cannot stem the disparity. The fact is that wages are largely nominal, while capital accrual is exponential, by nature of the static character of the value of labor sold, and the dynamic character of capital accrual. After a point, the capitalist can even pay the wage-laborers rate as a negligible portion of their surplus value - which can either account for the M-C-M or compound its value.

[RGacky3]

This is why we have to look at the big picture and why Capitalist arguments about dudes they know that just worked hard and made it, don't hold up. Capitalism does not reward productivity, it rewards wealth, and that system is not only unjust, its unsustainable.

[Revolution starts with U]

The best way to make money is to have money.
Besides, get them to go further in those stories. Most times the people had someone helping to pay their bills; parents, girlfriend, inheritance etc.

[danyboy27]

really interresting but i dont understand the formula.. is there a way you could explain it in a more simple way?

[Bud Struggle]

This is why we have to look at the big picture and why Capitalist arguments about dudes they know that just worked hard and made it, don't hold up. Capitalism does not reward productivity, it rewards wealth, and that system is not only unjust, its unsustainable.

You are right there. On thing I will agree with you Communists on is the problem of passing on wealth from on generation to the next. It just concentrates money in a few hands. I'm all for large death taxes (which would in effect have the rich people either spend or give away their wealth in charity) and have every generation start from scratch.

[Robert]

Capitalism does not reward productivity, it rewards wealth, and that system is not only unjust, its unsustainable. That's four different points:

1. Capitalism does not reward productivity - it does not invariably reward productivity, and perhaps does not reward it to your satisfaction. But just try being unproductive, in any society, and see how much your material condition improves.

2. It rewards wealth - I don't see it as much of a reward. The heirs of Bill Gates will not lead very fulfilling lives if all they do is eat, drink and be merry all day. Girls, yachts, champagne, parties, caviar, lobster, sports cars, seaside bungalows. Imported pistachio nuts. Hmmm. Not too shabby after all. :lol: Anyway, as Bud points out, this can be addressed to an extent through inheritance taxes. I'm not too crazy about what governments would end up doing with the tax money, but nothing's perfect.

3. The system is unjust - It doesn't try to be "just." It's trying to be efficient and responsive to the majority will. And until you and a majority (my vote counts too, sorry:() actually do something to change it instead of crying about it, it does represent the majority will. Until you take up arms against I won't take you seriously.

4. It's unsustainable - No more unsustainable than communism is. Or was, I should say. Something about the dustbin of history comes to mind.

[RGacky3]

But just try being unproductive, in any society, and see how much your material condition improves.


If you have enough money you can be unproductive as hell, or just get into finance.


2. It rewards wealth - I don't see it as much of a reward. The heirs of Bill Gates will not lead very fulfilling lives if all they do is eat, drink and be merry all day. Girls, yachts, champagne, parties, caviar, lobster, sports cars, seaside bungalows. Imported pistachio nuts. Hmmm. Not too shabby after all. :lol: Anyway, as Bud points out, this can be addressed to an extent through inheritance taxes. I'm not too crazy about what governments would end up doing with the tax money, but nothing's perfect.


If you want to talk about fulfilling lives I'm sure Dr. Phill has forums too, but we are talking about economics.

As for inheretence taxes, thats fine, but its impossible to not have loopholes, and again, your not solving the actual problem, just trying to undo it each generation.


3. The system is unjust - It doesn't try to be "just." It's trying to be efficient and responsive to the majority will. And until you and a majority (my vote counts too, sorry:() actually do something to change it instead of crying about it, it does represent the majority will. Until you take up arms against I won't take you seriously.


According to most people the point is to be just, i.e. reward those who deserve reward.

As far as the majority, if everyone had the same amount of money you'd be telling the truth, but I suppose, the majority WANT 2 billion people to go hungry, and they WANT the top 1% to pretty much control everything. I also guess the Subjects of the Roman Empire WANTED to be subjected???

Thats a terrible argument.


4. It's unsustainable - No more unsustainable than communism is. Or was, I should say. Something about the dustbin of history comes to mind.

Socialism is more sustainable than Capitalism, if you want me to explain why I will.

[Robert]

According to most people the point is to be just, i.e. reward those who deserve reward.

"Most people" don't worry about economic justice for society; they worry about themselves first and their families second. I realize you want to change the system, or so you claim. Most don't.

Second, even if you are right, you are going to have to convince "most people" that there are greater opportunities for establishing a society where initiative and hard work are better rewarded (I'm not interested in any argument that there is zero chance for a working man to improve his material conditions under capitalism), through revolutionary Syndicalism/ Mutualism/ Anarchism/ Socialism/ Communism -- than through private ownership of property, limited by regulatory structures, vigilant judicial systems, and graduated tax rates. There is nothing inherent in capitalism that prevents any of that, and nothing in communism that guarantees it. Au contraire. History tells me and the masses quite the opposite. EVERYONE has given up on communism except the North Koreans and Revleft. And serious labor reforms and legal reforms have occurred in the last two centuries, greatly benefitting millions, all without revolution. That would gall the hell out of me if I were a communist.

For whatever reason you can't get any serious, substantial support for wholly displacing capitalism. Don't you wonder why that is?

[Bud Struggle]

According to most people the point is to be just, i.e. reward those who deserve reward.

If the point was being completely just--then at least half the people in the US would starve to death in the first six months of that plan.

[Queercommie Girl]

"Most people" don't worry about economic justice for society; they worry about themselves first and their families second. I realize you want to change the system, or so you claim. Most don't.

Second, even if you are right, you are going to have to convince "most people" that there are greater opportunities for establishing a society where initiative and hard work are better rewarded (I'm not interested in any argument that there is zero chance for a working man to improve his material conditions under capitalism), through revolutionary Syndicalism/ Mutualism/ Anarchism/ Socialism/ Communism -- than through private ownership of property, limited by regulatory structures, vigilant judicial systems, and graduated tax rates. There is nothing inherent in capitalism that prevents any of that, and nothing in communism that guarantees it. Au contraire. History tells me and the masses quite the opposite. EVERYONE has given up on communism except the North Koreans and Revleft. And serious labor reforms and legal reforms have occurred in the last two centuries, greatly benefitting millions, all without revolution. That would gall the hell out of me if I were a communist.

For whatever reason you can't get any serious, substantial support for wholly displacing capitalism. Don't you wonder why that is?

That is the sign that socialism is already emerging within the framework of the capitalist society. Proto-Capitalism also began to emerge within feudal societies centuries before feudalism was actually totally abolished by revolutionary means.

This is why I am convinced that a genuine revolutionary must understand the importance of transitional strategies, and work both within the system to build up working class and socialist forces as well as preparing for a revolution. As the Chinese socialist saying goes: one should have "one red heart, two preparations".

In principle socialism could arise through sustained reformism rather than a qualitatively distinct revolution, but in practice history has shown that reformism generally is not sustainable without major reversals within its process.

One thing is clear though, all the social, political and economic rights people have now are not something "given" by the capitalist class, but only emerged as a result of grassroots and proletarian struggles.

[Bud Struggle]

In principle socialism could arise through sustained reformism rather than a qualitatively distinct revolution, but in practice history has shown that reformism generally is not sustainable without major reversals within its process. For my money I think that is just what is going to happen. It will be a long slow process. Revolutions are just too unstable and tend to gravitate to the Glorious Leader school of Social government. And when he falls it all falls. Also, any chance of Revolution in the most backward places. You can't get farther from Revolution than places like the United States. Even in Europe--the most militant places are the economic backwaters like Greece.


One thing is clear though, all the social, political and economic rights people have now are not something "given" by the capitalist class, but only emerged as a result of grassroots and proletarian struggles. I'll agree there.

[Robert]

Iseul, that is one seriously outstanding post. I'd point out all its attributes but I don't like commies who are smarter than me.:lol: Kidding.

Seriously man, you are good!

As for this:


One thing is clear though, all the social, political and economic rights people have now are not something "given" by the capitalist class, but only emerged as a result of grassroots and proletarian struggles.

I know no one who would disagree. Do you?

[RGacky3]

If the point was being completely just--then at least half the people in the US would starve to death in the first six months of that plan.

Why would they starve to death?

[Bud Struggle]

Why would they starve to death?

Well not literally but a good number of people, maybe half, really couldn't exist without other people in society to prop them up in some way. If you only got what you actually deserve in life--a lot of people wouldn't make it very far.

[mykittyhasaboner]

"Most people" don't worry about economic justice for society; they worry about themselves first and their families second. I realize you want to change the system, or so you claim. Most don't.

So, if most people are concerned with their well being, wouldn't you think they are concerned about whether or not an economic system is "just"?

Most people do want to change the system, regardless if they are on the right track or not. This is clearly evidenced by the massive amounts of strikes and demonstrations which have recently taken place....one could even say the election of a dark skinned man proposing reform for US president could be an indication.

Most people in this world make shit in exchange for their work, if they have work at all. You don't think billions of people living in poverty want to change and improve their conditions?

Clearly, your head is up your ass.


Second, even if you are right,Rgacky was right.


you are going to have to convince "most people" that there are greater opportunities for establishing a society where initiative and hard work are better rewardedSocialism, "from each according to their ability, to each according to their work."

Having seen this work in practice, it is quite clear that socialism rewards hard work and initiative much more than capitalism does.



(I'm not interested in any argument that there is zero chance for a working man to improve his material conditions under capitalism)Of course there is a chance, it's just very slim for the overwhelming majority of people to join the profiteers and speculators who chill all day in great luxury. The reality is, there is no real opportunities for social mobility in capitalist society.


There is nothing inherent in capitalism that prevents any of that,Laborers are exploited, they are paid less than the value they produce. That is an inherent feature of capitalism which prevents people from not only receiving the correct (read "just") amount of compensation from their work; it also greatly reduces the chance that a working individual will raise their own living standards.




EVERYONE has given up on communism except the North Koreans and Revleft.So, the Maoists in India, Nepal, Bangladesh, the Philippines, the continued survival of the Cuban revolution, nor the populist movements in Latin America have any kind of devotion to socialism? None of the militant and striking workers in north America or Europe want to fight for socialism?


And serious labor reforms and legal reforms have occurred in the last two centuries, greatly benefitting millions, all without revolution.Without revolution, yes. Without class struggle? Absolutely not.

The only reason why those reforms exist is because people fought for them, and many were killed at the hands of pigs employed by capitalist barons or states.


That would gall the hell out of me if I were a communist.Good thing you've chosen the wrong side. Workers wouldn't want people like you trampling all over their struggles with words of condemnation and ignorance.


For whatever reason you can't get any serious, substantial support for wholly displacing capitalism. Don't you wonder why that is?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckwzV8ddwdA&feature=player_embedded#!

Greece
http://thecommune.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/downwithplutocracy.jpg

France
http://nimg.sulekha.com/business/original700/france-europe-strikes-2010-9-7-8-30-44.jpg

Nepal
http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/nepal/Buddhas_Breakfast_-_Maoist_May_Day_2010_-_1.jpg

Venezuela
http://alternavox.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/89000_pa170044_122_557lo1.jpg

US
http://www.hammerstrike.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/mayday20103839567111.jpg

[Robert]

Boner, I've actually been down in the trenches of those French demonstrations you depict. Several times. Maybe 2-3% of those people want to end capitalism, but won't do anything about it; 25% want reform; another 25% favor the status quo and are only there to oppose austerity initiatives like raising the retirement age to 62:lol:, and the other 45% are just enjoying a day off from work or classes.

I believe a substantial portion of the Greeks you depict are public servants who are opposing austerity, not clamoring for revolution. You know what revolution would do to their jobs and pensions. So do they.

I acknowledge the strength of the Spanish socialist party, but the Spanish haven't even deposed their king, for heaven's sake. I know he's just a figurehead, but the spanish, like the British, love their monarch. What does that tell you?

[Revolution starts with U]

I know no one who would disagree. Do you?

Mises.org/community/forums
specifically;
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/20309.aspx
To put it in laymen's terms, the OP is saying unions/labor movments can only raise wages at the expense of other workers(sic), and that wages across the board are only raised through the sophistication of capital (technology)[sic].

[Jazzhands]

2. It rewards wealth - I don't see it as much of a reward. The heirs of Bill Gates will not lead very fulfilling lives if all they do is eat, drink and be merry all day. Girls, yachts, champagne, parties, caviar, lobster, sports cars, seaside bungalows. Imported pistachio nuts. Hmmm. Not too shabby after all. :lol: Anyway, as Bud points out, this can be addressed to an extent through inheritance taxes. I'm not too crazy about what governments would end up doing with the tax money, but nothing's perfect.

I would call having literal boatloads of awesome shit a good reward. Fulfilling? Maybe, maybe not. But they have their reward, regardless of whether they're "fulfilled" by it.


3. The system is unjust - It doesn't try to be "just." It's trying to be efficient and responsive to the majority will. And until you and a majority (my vote counts too, sorry:() actually do something to change it instead of crying about it, it does represent the majority will. Until you take up arms against I won't take you seriously.

Majority will? Under capitalism? This is one of those "people vote with money" arguments. I actually do agree with this argument, because it means that people with a lot of money can vote a lot more than normal people. Hence, it's a rigged election every time. Also, WE HAVE taken up arms against the system, in case you haven't noticed the past 100 years of history.



4. It's unsustainable - No more unsustainable than communism is. Or was, I should say. Something about the dustbin of history comes to mind


It's funny because WE INVENTED THAT DAMN LINE.

[Robert]

It's funny because WE INVENTED THAT DAMN LINE. Yes, I know that.:rolleyes: I was trying to be funny. Sorry if it made you angry.

I think we all may be misunderstanding you guys or vice versa. The manifestations depicted in Boner's post look to me like leftists struggling for reform through the established democratic institutions of their countries.

If that is all you guys are struggling for, I have NEVER opposed it and hope I have never dis-respected the serious minded reformists among them or among you. I do not retract my claim that substantial numbers don't even want reform, they just like to walk in parades. But if you all start winning elections, I'll respect the results. Wish you would respect it when my side wins.

But my sense is or was that the Revleft mainstream HATES reformism and liberal democrats and progressivism and should therefore despise the reformers in those parades. Are you telling me they aren't reformists or that reformism is a good thing now?

[mykittyhasaboner]

Boner, I've actually been down in the trenches of those French demonstrations you depict. Several times. Maybe 2-3% of those people want to end capitalism, but won't do anything about it; 25% want reform; another 25% favor the status quo and are only there to oppose austerity initiatives like raising the retirement age to 62:lol:, and the other 45% are just enjoying a day off from work or classes.

I believe a substantial portion of the Greeks you depict are public servants who are opposing austerity, not clamoring for revolution. You know what revolution would do to their jobs and pensions. So do they.

I acknowledge the strength of the Spanish socialist party, but the Spanish haven't even deposed their king, for heaven's sake. I know he's just a figurehead, but the spanish, like the British, love their monarch. What does that tell you?

It tells me that your not making an argument, your just talking about your supposed experiences. I'm not interested. It also tells me that your ignoring my replies the rest of your ignorant post.

[Robert]

Oh, they're not supposed.

But anyway, you think the Greek public servants want revolution? The French teachers? The French transportation workers? Let's not kids ourselves.

You're "illustrating" your claim that communism is catching on with examples of reformism. You're more on my side than you want to admit.

[Revolution starts with U]

No revolutionary with any self-worth would idly sit on the sidelines waiting for the revolution.

[RGacky3]

If you only got what you actually deserve in life--a lot of people wouldn't make it very far.

I think most people would agree that everyone deserves food.


Boner, I've actually been down in the trenches of those French demonstrations you depict. Several times. Maybe 2-3% of those people want to end capitalism, but won't do anything about it; 25% want reform; another 25% favor the status quo and are only there to oppose austerity initiatives like raising the retirement age to 62:lol:, and the other 45% are just enjoying a day off from work or classes.


A: I doubt your telling the truth. (Why the hell would you go to a french demonstration, to get people on revleft?)
B: What did you do take a poll?

Your full of shit.

Actually I've spent time at the Tea Parties maybe 2-3% want to end taxes, 95% of the people there are there because they hate the war in Iraq, true story.


I acknowledge the strength of the Spanish socialist party, but the Spanish haven't even deposed their king, for heaven's sake. I know he's just a figurehead, but the spanish, like the British, love their monarch. What does that tell you?

It does'nt tell you anything.


I believe a substantial portion of the Greeks you depict are public servants who are opposing austerity, not clamoring for revolution. You know what revolution would do to their jobs and pensions. So do they.


Again, you don't know what your talking about, your just taking it off the top of your head, and the top of your head is stupid.


But anyway, you think the Greek public servants want revolution? The French teachers? The French transportation workers? Let's not kids ourselves.


And you think they want capitalism???

[Robert]

And you think they want capitalism???I know they want reform. Don't you get it? That's what we're arguing about, whether they want reform versus revolution, not whether they "want" capitalism. You shouldn't let a lot of pretty red flags and tee shirts fool you.

Yeah, it's true, I've lived in France and been there many times. Big deal. I walked and talked among the demonstrators on the ground, and those marches were always going on. It's been going on for years, always the same slogans. They usually get what they want (reform, not revolution, capiche?), and then they go back to work. Now they're demonstating against pension reform, meaning they want the status quo. Which is ... quick, anybody?

Gacky, the reason you've never been to a Tea Party or, I suspect, any other kind of rally is that you are on this board most of the day, every day, and presumably sleep at least 5 or 6 hours. I hope you have a job. If so, that gives you even less time to actually get out in the street and do anything other than berate all the "morons" who try to engage you in civil discussion in this little chatroom. Fun and all, but hardly revolutionary. Your and Boner's angry responses confirm what I always suspected. You've never been anywhere near a workers rally, have you? If you did, I think you were chanting for reform, not revolution.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Oh, they're not supposed.

But anyway, you think the Greek public servants want revolution? The French teachers? The French transportation workers? Let's not kids ourselves.


You've been proven wrong. Have some dignity and stop clamoring for some kind of argument which you cannot possibly make.

Considering that the picture I provided of striking Greek workers, you know with the red flags and the PAME banner, make up a communist labor union...it is very likely that they are in favor of revolution. :rolleyes:

And who the fuck are you to say that all of those people are "public servants" anyway? Why does it matter?

....and about the French. Oh how you underestimate the French workers... who are some of the most militant workers in Europe.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/27/bossnapping-france-workers-fight-layoffs

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/13/france-workers-car-factory

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/aug/20/france-transport-river-seine-pollution

A little history for you. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZoxdjaTrE&feature=player_embedded#%21)



You're "illustrating" your claim that communism is catching on with examples of reformism. You're more on my side than you want to admit.Poor strawman. If you think what is going on in India and Nepal is merely reformism, then your either as stupid as I thought, lazy to to do simple research, or your some kind of chauvinist who could care less about people in Asia.

Workers striking is not reformism. It's class struggle. Reformism doesn't have anything to do with this. Reformists have been exposed a hundred times over in the past century and I don't think we'll be making the same mistakes again.

Fighting for every last concession that the capitalist state will give to workers is exactly what they should be doing to mobilize workers into conscious organization, and providing a basis for a real alternative. You say that these protests and strikes are merely a response to austerity--but that is exactly the point. The state is eliminating concessions for workers because of a crisis they created, and workers will be forced to pay for it. Struggling workers learn from their mistakes and deserve recognition as human beings fighting for their well being; unlike your ilk who do nothing but lend support to reaction and imply that all of those people are simply cogs not capable of thinking for themselves.

How dare those who worked all their lives want their pensions! Don't they know resistance is futile?

[mykittyhasaboner]

I know they want reform. Don't you get it? That's what we're arguing about, whether they want reform versus revolution, not whether they "want" capitalism. You shouldn't let a lot of pretty red flags and tee shirts fool you.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikinews/en/6/6b/AKROPOLI3.jpg

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/KKE:_Interview_with_the_Greek_Communist_Party

Pretty symbolic.




Yeah, it's true, I've lived in France and been there many times. Big deal. I walked and talked among the demonstrators on the ground, and those marches were always going on. It's been going on for years, always the same slogans. They usually get what they want (reform, not revolution, capiche?), and then they go back to work. Now they're demonstating against pension reform, meaning they want the status quo. Which is ... quick, anybody?You don't understand the severity of this economic crisis do you?


Gacky, the reason you've never been to a Tea Party or, I suspect, any other kind of rally is that you are on this board most of the day, every day, and presumably sleep at least 5 or 6 hours. I hope you have a job. If so, that gives you even less time to actually get out in the street and do anything other than berate all the "morons" who try to engage you in civil discussion in this little chatroom. Fun and all, but hardly revolutionary.Look. If your going to post on here, then post opinions (preferably ones based in fact; i know, i'm asking a bit too much from you on that one). Don't try and personally belittle others. Regardless of who they are or whether or not they agree with you.


Your and Boner's angry responses confirm what I always suspected. My responses aren't "angry". I'm astonished at how you manage to conjure up such an idea while reading words on the internet. At the moment I'm actually quite relaxed, with tobacco in my pipe and a fresh cup of coffee, listening to various jazz drummers. Not exactly an "angry" scene.


You've never been anywhere near a workers rally, have you? If you did, I think you were chanting for reform, not revolution.You know, this is really starting to get ridiculous. Some people live in areas where there is no activity. So what if Rgacky hasn't been to a workers rally, at least he/she knows that class struggle isn't merely a fight for reform.

[Robert]

imply that all of those people are simply cogs not capable of thinking for themselves. Boner, you know damned well I don't think anything so insulting.

"They" are capable of thinking and they do think. They just don't all think the same thing. Some want revolution, or at least what I think you mean by revolution. But that's a minority. The sincere ones want reform. Some just want a day off from work. Okay, I don't know the exact percentage.

It's obvious you are interested in debating these points since you keep coming back and trying to refute my claims, though you've now stooped to attributing arguments to me that I never made. I'm happy to continue discussing this or anything else further with you once you learn to keep a reasonably civil tongue. Thank you for the links and the fotos.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Boner, you know damned well I don't think anything so insulting.

It would seem like it.


"They" are capable of thinking and they do think. They just don't all think the same thing. Some want revolution, or at least what I think you mean by revolution. But that's a minority. The sincere ones want reform. Some just want a day off from work. Okay, I don't know the exact percentage.

So if you didn't go around polling people, and you cannot prove that what you say is true...then what was the point?


It's obvious you are interested in debating these points since you keep coming back and trying to refute my claims, though you've now stooped to attributing arguments to me that I never made.

Your pretty much attributing opinions to entire masses of workers. So I think it's at least a little bit acceptable to draw logical conclusions from what you've said so far.



I'm happy to continue discussing this or anything else further with you once you learn to keep a reasonably civil tongue.

I fail to see how any of this was uncivil. If you can't handle other people's opinions, regardless of how they are put forth, then why post here?


Thank you for the links and the fotos.

Anytime.

[Lt. Ferret]

oh so you guys can claim without sources that the demonstrators in europe want revolution but the guy that was there that says otherwise needs a poll?

cool story, bro.

[Revolution starts with U]

Did you not see the hammer and sickles? Did you not see the "rise up" poster?
Where do you get the idea that they provided no evidence for their claim, other than ad hoc jibber-jab, like Mr. Robert:confused:?
EDIT: Also the evidence provided for militant french workers

[Nolan]

This tree needs trimmed.

[danyboy27]

reformist are revolutionaries who are too scared or advocating what they really believe beccause they know damn right that would mean going on the offensive and they are just scared shitless.

in this time of worldwide economic crisis, the only thing that is allowing the politician or keep doing what they do right now and keep the reformist/revolutionaries at bay is the police.

remove that factor and i assure you, a lot of those so called moderate will suddenly become more agressive and their demands will be more radical.

[RGacky3]

I know they want reform. Don't you get it? That's what we're arguing about, whether they want reform versus revolution, not whether they "want" capitalism. You shouldn't let a lot of pretty red flags and tee shirts fool you.



They want reform because thats their only option, but if you think their end goal is just reformed capitalism .... LOOK AT THEIR BANNERS, look at what they are saying.

We are talking about end results here.


Yeah, it's true, I've lived in France and been there many times. Big deal. I walked and talked among the demonstrators on the ground, and those marches were always going on. It's been going on for years, always the same slogans. They usually get what they want (reform, not revolution, capiche?), and then they go back to work. Now they're demonstating against pension reform, meaning they want the status quo. Which is ... quick, anybody?


So let me get this straight, you walked along the crowd and talked to people asked them if their goal was reformed capitalism or socialism and there resonce was something like "We'll I'm all for the ruling class and capitalism, we just need to tweek it a little bit." I've been at demonstrations too, and the tone toward capitalism and capitalists was'nt as if it was a good thing that needed a bit of tweeking.


Gacky, the reason you've never been to a Tea Party or, I suspect, any other kind of rally is that you are on this board most of the day, every day, and presumably sleep at least 5 or 6 hours. I hope you have a job. If so, that gives you even less time to actually get out in the street and do anything other than berate all the "morons" who try to engage you in civil discussion in this little chatroom. Fun and all, but hardly revolutionary. Your and Boner's angry responses confirm what I always suspected. You've never been anywhere near a workers rally, have you? If you did, I think you were chanting for reform, not revolution.

I've been to many rallies, I've been part of organizing campains, never been to a tea party though.

Most rallies are about single issues, but assuming that the people there are perfectly ok with capitalism is just idiotic.

[Lt. Ferret]

Did you not see the hammer and sickles? Did you not see the "rise up" poster?
Where do you get the idea that they provided no evidence for their claim, other than ad hoc jibber-jab, like Mr. Robert:confused:?
EDIT: Also the evidence provided for militant french workers


because like, 50-60 people trespassing on the acropolis is somehow proof that the entire nation of greece wants a communist proletarian dictatorship? get real.

[Revolution starts with U]

Way to miss the point Ray Finkle
They provided evidence, while the opponent provided ad hoc analysis

[Lt. Ferret]

thats not evidence. a non-contextual picture certainly does not trump a first hand account.

[Revolution starts with U]

Why don't you try that reasoning in a courtroom?
HA! Photos are less reliable than memories... since when? wtf?!

[ckaihatsu]

reformist are revolutionaries who are too scared or advocating what they really believe beccause they know damn right that would mean going on the offensive and they are just scared shitless.




in this time of worldwide economic crisis, the only thing that is allowing the politician or keep doing what they do right now and keep the reformist/revolutionaries at bay is the police.


*Both* of these points actually speak to the capitalist state as a whole, including all of its various types of bureaucracies and political supporters, in continuing in its role as the "mediator" between the interests of labor and the interests of capital. In other words the capitalist state today occupies the position that the king and the royal court occupied in relation to the peasants and the rising merchant class in the early part of the last millenium (in Northern Europe). As the merchants enjoyed mobility and increasing wealth through their trade networks the peasants had to make a choice -- they could "make a break" away from royal lands and turn themselves into "free laborers" in the nascent urban areas, or they could continue in their sharecropping role under the patronage and paternalism of the crown.

Yes, there were numerous rebellions of the poor at the time, but what they faced wasn't just the force of physical threats -- it was the entire *system* of noble and religious rule, then composing what we would call the 'mainstream' today.





remove that factor and i assure you, a lot of those so called moderate will suddenly become more agressive and their demands will be more radical.


Those we call the 'moderates' today *are* the mainstream, and they are in a political position of being *clients* of the capitalist state as it exists today. It is *not* to "moderates" and "centrists" that revolutionaries appeal to -- they are the very fixtures of bourgeois rule and are even *showcased* as the visible personifications of such a system of rule.





[W]e have *zero* need to be concerned about the right or far-right, because it's a *given* that they will defend their privileged material interests to the bitter fucking end.

What concerns *us* is the capitalist *state*, since that's the supposedly benign, quasi-collective modern approach to the administration of society. If the state *didn't* exist we could just swamp the capitalists and the right, presumably in street battles, without interference from the state. But since the state *does* exist it plays the "middleman" role to "mediate" between the interests of labor and capital.

So.... Our day-to-day awareness *has* to involve the politics of the state since that's at the center of it all. And who are the main *upholders* of the supposedly public-interest government?

Yup -- liberals.

Liberals, by definition, are *not* anti-capitalists because they actually provide a political *smokescreen* -- "environmentalism", etc. -- to conceal their fundamental support for the *continuation* of the capitalist state.

If the "average Joe" identifies with their *own* interests as workers, for a bigger paycheck, for improved public services, for more accurate political representation in the workplace, etc., then they are more *class conscious*. If they instead look more towards "change" in the way government is run, then they are liberal reformists and are articulating a set of politics that is *not* in their own best interests as workers (wage-earners).

We can be fancy or we can be plain in making this clear, but the point is to disabuse liberals / workers of the illusions they have that the ruling class will somehow decide to give its revenue *back* to the people it skimmed it from, without a fight.