America losing social mobility

[New Tolerance]

From the Economist.com:

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayS...tory_id=3518560 (http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3518560)

comments? What do the capitalists have to say about this?

[Latifa]

Well thats hardly suprising.

[redstar2000]

They remain mysteriously silent. :unsure:

Perhaps this is "too hot to handle" for them.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Professor Moneybags]

Maybe it's because competition has been replaced with the politics of pull. I wonder who put that mechanism in place ?

[Dysfunctional_Literate]

Capitalists really don't want social mobility anyway. They want to stay above everyone else and have all the workers believe they have a chance to move on up to keep them busy and pacified.

[praxus]

You already got your ass beat down over at Capitalist Paradise, why the hell are you posting it again?

[New Tolerance]

You already got your ass beat down over at Capitalist Paradise, why the hell are you posting it again

If you are referring to me then I have say that you are not very observant, or even objective.

Check the date, I posted this topic here before I posted on Capitalist Paradise.

Further more, how is it possible for me to be beaten? Beaten on what arguement? I didn't present any kind of arguement, I was trying to figure out your views on the subject. (this kind of associative thinking doesn't sound very objective to me)

[Discarded Wobbly Pop]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 6 2005, 01:28 PM
Maybe it's because competition has been replaced with the politics of pull. I wonder who put that mechanism in place ?
Pinko scum of course :D

[redstar2000]

Capitalist Paradise

Isn't that the name of a homeless camp underneath the Eisenhower Expressway in Chicago?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 2 2005, 10:30 PM
From the Economist.com:

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayS...tory_id=3518560 (http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3518560)

comments? What do the capitalists have to say about this?
Why would I want to move up in class? I don't like those people nor do I enjoy thier company. I don't enjoy thier entertainment or hold thier values. So why would I even want to be like them, hang out with them, or join them? They can keep ther Buffy and Jodie country club to themselves. I'm going to the monster truck o'ramma and hang out with my friends.

[NovelGentry]

Joining their class doesn't mean you have to associate with them. I associate with people from a different class than myself. What moving up in classes WOULD provide you is a better life, an easier and more comfortable life. Given this, it's doubtful someone wouldn't want to move up in class unless they hold moral reasons not to. Keep this excerpt from my book in mind.



Capitalism is indeed an infringement on the freedom of all men. It is first and foremost an infringement on the freedom of the working class, who must recognize wage-slavery as an order of survival. It is too, however, an infringement on the freedoms of the ruling class who are forced to uphold the mechanisms of capitalism or face the same fate as the working class. Subsequently the infringement on the freedom of the ruling class looks to extend the infringement on the freedom of the working class, i.e. the members of the ruling class are no more free to stop exploiting those of the working class than those of the working class are to be free from that exploitation, by chance that if they did, they too would be subjected to such exploitation.

[STI]

Maybe it's because competition has been replaced with the politics of pull. I wonder who put that mechanism in place ?

Ya. That's what'll solve the problem. More deregulation.

[Professor Moneybags]

Capitalism is indeed an infringement on the freedom of all men.

Non sequitur.


It is first and foremost an infringement on the freedom of the working class, who must recognize wage-slavery as an order of survival.

Productive effort is a requirement for survival regardless of the political system. Putting a loaded title (not to mention a self-contradicting one) like "wage slavery" to it does not alter the fact.

<snip the circular arguments>

[NovelGentry]

Productive effort is a requirement for survival regardless of the political system.

Indeed it is, but not the production for another individuals profit.

By the way, on your "Non-Squitur" I think it&#39;s funny you&#39;re saying such a thing about part of a book, furthermore, part of a chapter, even futher, a single paragraph of it. It&#39;s apparent that you don&#39;t have the full context of the book. The way in which it relates to AMIC&#39;s argument is very simply that the freedom to choose class doesn&#39;t really exist. As a working class person you cannot be free from wage slavery... you can try, and if you succeed it&#39;s not based on the fact you&#39;re free to become whatever you want, but because on some level the bourgeoisie let things slip a bit too far. Furthermore, as a member of the bourgeoisie you&#39;re not precisely free to move down in class -- it WILL cost you, more to the point, in doing so you give up the freedom you had before. I&#39;m not so sure you can say a person is FREE if it their freedom which they must give up to obtain something.

[Professor Moneybags]

Indeed it is, but not the production for another individuals profit.

If someone else "needs" my labour and I cannot refuse to give it without being punished, then I am producing for another individual&#39;s profit.

[all-too-human]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 11 2005, 05:10 PM
If someone else "needs" my labour and I cannot refuse to give it without being punished, then I am producing for another individual&#39;s profit.
that&#39;s quite the jab.

What Gentry is talking about is exploitative use of productive effort. Stalin&#39;s motivational practices are besides the point.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by all&#045;too&#045;[email protected] 16 2005, 05:26 AM

If someone else "needs" my labour and I cannot refuse to give it without being punished, then I am producing for another individual&#39;s profit.

that&#39;s quite the jab.

What Gentry is talking about is exploitative use of productive effort.
That is an exploitative use of productive effort.