Log in

View Full Version : How to counter these arguments?



Catmatic Leftist
26th May 2011, 22:29
Person 1:
Slavery is not legal. Producers cannot force anyone to take a job, nor can they force people to work for less than they deserve. People earn a direct value of the time they invest.
I started working for a company about 4.5 years ago staight from college. I worked very hard at this new employer and after 1.5 years I was promoted to run a facility across the country. A year after that I realized my employer was not doing things right, so I quit. I started my own company doing the same thing. Things got a little dry a few months ago so I went to work full-time for another employer. I now work a full time job, and run my own business. I control my life and who I work for. In a free society we all can do this. No one is tied to anyone.
Production cannot exist without a person creating the means of production. A person trades part of their life via time and energy invested to create a business. Since this person has part of their lives invested in the creation of the means of production they own the means of production just as they own their own lives. If you take ownership of this production in any way you are stealing the producer's life. That being said, the producer does not have the right to steal from others by forcing people to work him/her without compensation for their time. The producer also does not have the right to harm the environment of which he/she shares with others.

Person 2:
The exploitation you're talking about has nothing to do with property rights, it's about power. During the industrial revolution, corporations were unleashed from their restrictive corporate charters to make profit with impunity. The "little guy" had no voice, and if he didn't like it, he was fired, which eventually led to worker's unions, etc. The same thing goes on in other countries today largely because of the economic policies imposed on those countries by the World Bank/International Monetary Fund.

I am personally very anti-corporation and feel the world would be much better off if all we had were small businesses, so I fully agree with you that exploitative employers is a serious issue and corporations need to be kept on a short leash. However, I do not agree that this sort of exploitation flows naturally from property rights. The communism you're alluding to suffers from the same problem as all forms of collectivism-- it places the needs of a group over the rights of an individual and it is up to the government to decide what is best. No one in the history of government has ever made a decision that was bad for them, personally, in favor of what is good for someone else. So it ends up merely deferring the exploitation rather than removing it. A democratic republic is based on the notion that the rights of the individual must supersede the rights of a group, or else minorities have only the rights that the majority allows.

ColonelCossack
26th May 2011, 22:37
Is person one basically saying that anyone can become rich if they try hard enough? i'm a bit confusled...:confused: If so, tell person 1 that not everyone can become rich. it wouldn't work, under capitalism, because the system would collapse. a dollar in one person's pocket means a dollar less in someone else's. Please correct me if I misunderstood the question.

La Peur Rouge
26th May 2011, 22:46
Person 1:
I control my life and who I work for. In a free society we all can do this. No one is tied to anyone.
So I assume he must produce his own food, energy, clothes. He must have constructed his own home, gave himself medical treatment when he was sick/injured, built his own vehicle, educated his children.

Because no one is tied to anyone...right?

Rooster
26th May 2011, 23:25
Person 1:
Slavery is not legal.

Slavery is not legal for a variety of historical reasons. Slavery became mostly pointless once capital came onto the scene coupled with an increase in population, making it more cost effective to let workers fend for theirselves and to compete with each other for wages.


Producers cannot force anyone to take a job, nor can they force people to work for less than they deserve.

They can force you through society and against worker's struggles. If you don't work, you don't eat. A large surplus of unemployed people creates competition for jobs, forcing people into roles they don't want to do, making them worry about their job security, making them try to stay in line and work harder by doing socially unacceptable things. Capitalists constantly try to remove the safe guards of welfare and break up unions to increase this job insecurity.


People earn a direct value of the time they invest.

They do, yes, but the humans can create more value through surplus value. A person making shoes all day normally won't be able to purchase a single pair of those shoes with their days labour.


I started working for a company about 4.5 years ago staight from college. I worked very hard at this new employer and after 1.5 years I was promoted to run a facility across the country. A year after that I realized my employer was not doing things right, so I quit. I started my own company doing the same thing. Things got a little dry a few months ago so I went to work full-time for another employer. I now work a full time job, and run my own business. I control my life and who I work for. In a free society we all can do this. No one is tied to anyone.

If anyone can do this when why doesn't everyone do this?


Production cannot exist without a person creating the means of production. A person trades part of their life via time and energy invested to create a business. Since this person has part of their lives invested in the creation of the means of production they own the means of production just as they own their own lives. If you take ownership of this production in any way you are stealing the producer's life. That being said, the producer does not have the right to steal from others by forcing people to work him/her without compensation for their time. The producer also does not have the right to harm the environment of which he/she shares with others.

A capitalist does not produce anything. A worker is the one who produces. A capitalist does steal from the worker through exploitation from the various means (plus others) that I have mentioned above. A capitalist did not create the means of production, workers made the means of production. Workers use the means of production, workers purchase the iteams created by these means of production. A capitalist who invests into the creation of a company, then employs people, then decides to sell off or close down the company, destroys the livelihoods of the employees. This also isn't a question of bourgeois rights regarding property. These rights were created in the first place to enforce capitalist production.


Person 2:
The exploitation you're talking about has nothing to do with property rights, it's about power. During the industrial revolution, corporations were unleashed from their restrictive corporate charters to make profit with impunity. The "little guy" had no voice, and if he didn't like it, he was fired, which eventually led to worker's unions, etc. The same thing goes on in other countries today largely because of the economic policies imposed on those countries by the World Bank/International Monetary Fund.

Property rights is power. Unions started up to reduce the length of the working day, to provide job security, to maintain wages and to improve or maintain the workers conditions. I also have no idea what this person is arguing. If these processes were at work during the industrial revolution and again under the World Bank and IMF, then does that not suggest that the main problem is capitalism that under lines both of these time frames?


I am personally very anti-corporation and feel the world would be much better off if all we had were small businesses, so I fully agree with you that exploitative employers is a serious issue and corporations need to be kept on a short leash. However, I do not agree that this sort of exploitation flows naturally from property rights.

It's a little late to go back in time to a world before monopoly. The whole point of capitalism is the continued accumlation of capital. The way to do that is to exploit sections of the work force, making them work harder, work longer and for less pay. There's a problem with this if it was allowed to continue. The problem is that people will get sick of it and won't be able to afford the actual products being produced. Capitalists need to constantly invest in their buisnesses to ensure that they won't go out of business. Usually that means expansion, the removal of competition or the undermining of competition.


The communism you're alluding to suffers from the same problem as all forms of collectivism-- it places the needs of a group over the rights of an individual and it is up to the government to decide what is best.

No it doesn't. It takes state out of the hands of capitalists and puts it into the hands of the majority, the proletariat. We have to unite as a class to destory our class slavery to allow us to be free individuals. To be able to work without being exploited, to be able to enjoy life to it's fullest.


No one in the history of government has ever made a decision that was bad for them, personally, in favor of what is good for someone else.

Ever hear of the Iraq war? The Poll Tax?


So it ends up merely deferring the exploitation rather than removing it. A democratic republic is based on the notion that the rights of the individual must supersede the rights of a group, or else minorities have only the rights that the majority allows.

Yeah, those individuals who have the most power (ie, the minority which consists of big business) has power of the majority, the people who slave away every day making capitalists rich. This is cheifly done through the ownership of the means of production. How do you pacifiy a work force? You take your business elsewhere, you create mass unemployment, you break up labour power.