View Full Version : Workers are FREE under capitalism
Capitalist Lawyer
25th July 2005, 23:19
Hey, be proud! Your ideology is practiced all over the world. Of course the downside to this, is that everyone can see that it doesn't work.
Listen. Workers under free market capitalism are FREE to work or not. They are free to accept the wages they are offered or not. They are free to start their own business or not. There's no slavery involved in free market capitalism, therefore your continued attempts to call it slavery only continue to illustrate the emptiness of your argument.
Listen. Workers under free market capitalism are FREE to work or not.
If they refuse to work, they starve.
If they refuse to accept the "wages offered", they starve.
That is not freedom, you're damn right it's slavery.
Capitalist Lawyer
26th July 2005, 03:18
If they refuse to work, they starve.
Wrong. They can start their own business and work for themselves.
If they refuse to accept the "wages offered", they starve.
Wrong. They can start their own business and work for themselves, or they can improve their skills and seek employement elsewhere where their skills are in better demand.
That is not freedom, you're damn right it's slavery.
Nope... it's called EARNING what you receive instead of just getting something for nothing from everyone around you.
Wrong. They can start their own business and work for themselves.
Wrong. They can start their own business and work for themselves.
...or they can't. Starting a business is both expensive and risky. If you're a poor starving worker, what is the likelyhood that you can realistically "make it on your own"?
or they can improve their skills
Which costs money.
Nope... it's called EARNING what you receive
"EARNING" for the owners you mean. Sure, they give their workers some scraps from their tables, but if the workers actually recieved what they'd earned, this forum wouldn't exist! :lol:
jasontkennedy
26th July 2005, 03:38
QUOTE
Wrong. They can start their own business and work for themselves.
...or they can't. Starting a business is both expensive and risky. If you're a poor starving worker, what is the likelyhood that you can realistically "make it on your own"?
QUOTE
or they can improve their skills
Which costs money.
LSD is exactly right. Pretending that people are given equal opportunity in this country is a joke! Restaurants are some of the most "low risk" buisnesses to start, and something like 80% fail in the first year. It is usually based on lack of investment capital. But, I suppose if you slave for enough years at just above the amount needed to live, you might one day come up with enough investment capital to open your buisness. And besides, children of the wealthy have to work just as hard to get into good schools and start their own buisnesses with lots to invest. Oh wait, no they don't.
Professor Moneybags
26th July 2005, 15:22
Originally posted by Lysergic Acid
[email protected] 25 2005, 03:03 PM
But if not, I'm shocked that you're taking the line of the Chinese Communist Party. We didn't invade Iraq, it was always ours. :lol:
I'm talking about the oil that Iraq (and Iran too) illegally nationalised. It was ours.
If I park my car in your driveway is it still mine or does it become yours ?
Capitalist Lawyer
26th July 2005, 16:02
...or they can't.
But they can.
Starting a business is both expensive and risky.
Wrong. My nephew started his own business with nothing and working a few hours a week pulled in an average of $300 a month last year. If he had been doing it more on a full time basis, and reinvested in equipment to make himself more productive, he'd have been able to feed and house a small family quite easily.
If you're a poor starving worker, what is the likelyhood that you can realistically "make it on your own"?
Quite high if one is willing to work at it. Witness the immigration wave of the early 20th Century for how well they did shortly after arriving here with next to nothing to their names.
Which costs money.
Nope. There's any number of gov't grants available for doing so.
"EARNING" for the owners you mean.
And if you're the owner, then you're doing it for yourself. If you're not the owner, you're most certainly the owner of the wages you've earned (outside of what the gov't takes from you of course.)
"EARNING" for the owners you mean. Sure, they give their workers some scraps from their tables, but if the workers actually recieved what they'd earned, this forum wouldn't exist!
But they have received what they've earned minus what the gov't takes from them. The fact that you're still talking like they aren't only shows you continue to ignore the facts of the matter.
Professor Moneybags
26th July 2005, 16:10
Originally posted by Lysergic Acid
[email protected] 25 2005, 03:03 PM
On the other hand, nearly all of the capitalist nations we point to today, do have functional capitalist economices.
...They just don't fit any definition of capitalism. Furthermore, the actions of the individuals in question clearly do not meet any standard of "capitalist" behaviour.
violencia.Proletariat
26th July 2005, 16:15
ok capitalist lawyer, then answer to every poor person in a capitalist country is to start there own buisness? im sure that will work out real well :lol:
Wrong. My nephew started his own business with nothing and working a few hours a week pulled in an average of $300 a month last year. If he had been doing it more on a full time basis, and reinvested in equipment to make himself more productive, he'd have been able to feed and house a small family quite easily.
Annectodal evidence is useless. The statistical facts remain. The mast majority of small buisnesses fails, and all businesses cost money to start.
Quite high if one is willing to work at it. Witness the immigration wave of the early 20th Century for how well they did shortly after arriving here with next to nothing to their names.
And witness how many of them still have "nothing to their names". Immigrants are some of the poorest in the US.
Nope. There's any number of gov't grants available for doing so.
Which don't provide nearly enough, don't deal with the issue of interveneing costs, and don't removed the inherent risk of any such venture.
Otherwise, why doesn't "everyone" start a successful personal business?
The fact is that that option is simply not available for most people.
But they have received what they've earned minus what the gov't takes from them.
No, if they'd recieved what they'd earned then there would be nothing left over for the Bosses to takes as "profit".
...They just don't fit any definition of capitalism.
Sure they do. They have private ownership, capital, currency valuation, fucntioning markets, value exchange, ownership over production, labour cost, etc...
No "communist" country has ever had the communist equivalencies.
Furthermore, the actions of the individuals in question clearly do not meet any standard of "capitalist" behaviour.
What individuals?
Capitalist Lawyer
26th July 2005, 18:14
Annectodal evidence is useless.
Got it. Facts don't matter to you.
The statistical facts remain. The mast majority of small buisnesses fails, and all businesses cost money to start
HELLOOOOH... ours is a system of profit AND loss. Without loss, the system can never better itself. The closing of a business doesn't represent failure of the system but rather failure of the business and opportunity to improve on the business model. The opportunity to improve on the business model is open and freely accessible to every US citizen. Doesn't matter how much jack you have to start with. Start and sustain a crappy business model and all the money in the world won't keep it from failing. It will simply delay the inevitable.
Immigrants are some of the poorest in the US.
Make up your mind... is it immigrants that are the poorest or blacks that have crappy education system foundation surrounding them but that have been here for generations? The question is, on a percentage basis, which pulls themselves up from poverty to middle class or riches faster? The imbedded generations or the new blood?
Otherwise, why doesn't "everyone" start a successful personal business?
Because not everyone has the intestinal fortitude or the IDEAS to do so.
The fact is that that option is simply not available for most people.
You can continue to claim that but it simply isn't true. Present a solid enough business model and there is plenty of investment capital waiting to assist you.
No, if they'd recieved what they'd earned then there would be nothing left over for the Bosses to takes as "profit".
Wrong. The labor receives what they earn and the bosses and owners receive what they earn. The prices/wages are settled by the free market in the laws of supply and demand. There simply isn't a more free system developed yet. Again, you can continue to deny that they haven't received what they've earned, but your claims will continue to be in conflict with the facts.
Got it. Facts don't matter to you.
Fact matter but stories about your "cousin" don't.
HELLOOOOH... ours is a system of profit AND loss. Without loss, the system can never better itself. The closing of a business doesn't represent failure of the system but rather failure of the business and opportunity to improve on the business model.
I agree. Loss is indeed a part of the capitalist system.
That doesn't refute the fact that most people who start businesses will fail and therefore starting your own business is not an option for most workers.
Make up your mind... is it immigrants that are the poorest or blacks that have crappy education system foundation surrounding them but that have been here for generations?
Note I said "among the poorest". There are a lot of marginalized groups in capitalism.
Because not everyone has the intestinal fortitude or the IDEAS to do so.
...or the money, or the opportunity.
But even if your model was true, it still reinfoced my point that for most workers, starting a business is simply not an option. They have no choice but to accept the wages given ...or starve.
You can continue to claim that but it simply isn't true.
But didn't you just claim that?
"not everyone has the intestinal fortitude or the IDEAS to do so"
It seems that we both agree that opening a business is not available to everyone, we just disagree on why.
The prices/wages are settled by the free market in the laws of supply and demand.
So what?
Capitalist Lawyer
27th July 2005, 03:09
Sorry.....I didn't see this thread.
QUOTE
Facts matter...
Sorry, but your history proves otherwise.
QUOTE
That doesn't refute the fact that most people who start businesses will fail and therefore starting your own business is not an option for most workers.
Sorry, but your statement makes no sense. It equates to, "I've tried to ride a bicycle once and fell down... therefore it's not an option for me to try again." In other words... it's defeatist.
QUOTE
There are a lot of marginalized groups in capitalism.
Only by your twisted definitions.
QUOTE
...or the money, or the opportunity.
Nope... the opportunity is boundless, and the money is widely available from many different sources.
QUOTE
They have no choice but to accept the wages given ...or starve.
Wrong. They are free to increase their skills in a myriad of different ways and increase their demand by doing so. Increasing their demand will increase the wages they can demand.
QUOTE
It seems that we both agree that opening a business is not available to everyone, we just disagree on why.
No... I disagree that business is not AVAILABLE to everyone. It is. Not everyone has the ideas or intestinal fortitude to open a business. Sorta like just because I can't paint the Mona Lisa doesn't mean making art is not AVAILABLE to me. It is.
QUOTE
So what?
Clearly the obvious needed to be stated.
Sorry, but your history proves otherwise.
Is that your ad hominem way of avoiding the fact that the strongest evidence you could muster for your case was well, my nephew did it?
Sorry, but your statement makes no sense. It equates to, "I've tried to ride a bicycle once and fell down... therefore it's not an option for me to try again." In other words...
No, it's more like "most people who jump off a bridge die, so I won't jump off a bridge".
This is about statistics, not personal experience. But I see that this is a difference you have trouble grasping.
it's defeatist.
And rightly so!
Most people who try and "start businesses" are indeed "defeated". That's how your precious "market" works.
And, as opposed to your "bicycle" example, they are not "falling down once", they are falling and breaking their necks.
When your small business fails, and you don't have an in with the man upstairs, it isn't just the business that's hurt, it's you. You are, quite literally, ruined. And with the new bankruptcy law just passed, it's even harder now to put your life back together.
Not only is starting a business a hopelessly risky venture, but the penalty for failure is sharp and steep. Again, it is simply not a realistic option for most people.
Nope... the opportunity is boundless, a
If the opportunity were "boundless", why don't more people do it?
Oh wait, it's because they lack the "intestines"... strange how. by your definition, "intestines" seems to mean white, male, and rich! :lol:
and the money is widely available from many different sources.
And what happens when the business fails, as most businesses do? Where does the money come from to pay the "investors" back? I'm sure that those "widely available" donors weren't doing it out of charity!
In fact, how did you get the money anyway? I bet you had to get "screened" to check your "credit" and "work history", see if you're "trustworthy".
Well, here's a hint, most starving workers ain't working, have lousy credit, and don't really "look the part" of the businessman. They're about as likely to get a loan as you are to join the RCP.
Wrong. They are free to increase their skills in a myriad of different ways and increase their demand by doing so.
All of which cost money.
No... I disagree that business is not AVAILABLE to everyone. It is. Not everyone has the ideas or intestinal fortitude to open a business. Sorta like just because I can't paint the Mona Lisa doesn't mean making art is not AVAILABLE to me. It is.
Yes it does.
Being an artist is not an available career choice for you, you simply do not have the talent for it. Likewise, by your own standard, opening a business is not available for most workers.
The difference, of course, is that art is not a matter of life or death. Well, the game of capitalism is a life or death one, and if workers lack the "skills" to "start a business" (nebulous as those skills are), they have no choice but to accept the wages offered or starve.
...which takes us back to where we started. :rolleyes:
If they refuse to work, they starve.
If they refuse to accept the "wages offered", they starve.
That is not freedom, you're damn right it's slavery.
violencia.Proletariat
27th July 2005, 03:58
yes starting buisnesses work well. my sister's employer had plenty of capital to start with and even had tv commercials yet the buisness just closed. the other place she worked part time, a mechanics place, they just closed. ive seen like 5 restaurants in this one building in town, they all close. pet store closed here, bike shop too. Our mills which employed a few thousand people closed a year or so ago, 1 in 10 people that worked there couldnt read. Capitalism works just fine if you ask me. And now some billionaire is coming into the area to develope it, which means the cost of living goes up, which means the poor are in deep shit since this whole area is lower middle/lower class.
The Garbage Disposal Unit
27th July 2005, 08:45
$300 a month? Fuck, privillaged brat must be pretty well subsidized by Mum and Dad or have a flair for dumpster diving. Anyone else here tried to live on mimimum wage (works out to over three hundred a month, thankfully)? Assuming the average worker could start a business that would bring in $300 a month, why the fuck would they want to? They'd be not only out of business, but on the fucking street in no time flat. Reinvest? Hahahahahaha. What planet do you live on?
Back to the problem of antedoctal evidence, the specific case of yr spoiled nephew's "success" (:lol:) doesn't really reflect the functionings of the capitalist system at large, and the brutal failure that faces most people (and even more so than the folks on this internet message board, the 3 billion living at or below the poverty line).
Wandering, breifly, higher up in the thread, by what means did American and British companies "fairly" accquire the rights to that oil?
Goddamn, why do cappies have such short memories, and why is coercion/violence only coercive/violent when the perpetrators aren't white?
Fuck, it's 5am, I can't deal with this bullshit.
Professor Moneybags
27th July 2005, 14:38
Originally posted by Lysergic Acid
[email protected] 26 2005, 03:29 PM
...They just don't fit any definition of capitalism.
Sure they do. They have private ownership,
...violated on a daily basis and subject to revocation at any time.
Capitalist Lawyer
27th July 2005, 15:37
Is that your ad hominem way of avoiding the fact that the strongest evidence you could muster for your case was well, my nephew did it?
Actually, I've given you countless examples, and you continue to ignore the facts. So to answer your question... no.
And rightly so!
No... and WRONGLY so for we haven't come from nothing to the richest nation on earth in a short 200 years because of a defeated system.
And, as opposed to your "bicycle" example, they are not "falling down once", they are falling and breaking their necks.
Wrong. Most people who have a failed business start another one.
Again, it is simply not a realistic option for most people.
And you are, again, quite simply... wrong.
If the opportunity were "boundless", why don't more people do it?
A much larger percentage of the population used to do it. Now, they go on welfare.
Where does the money come from to pay the "investors" back?
This question right here only serves to illustrate the level of ignorance you have about the system. When a business fails... NO ONE pays the investors back. They lose their money. That's why THEY have value in our system in spite of your continued attempts to paint them as leeches. They used their smarts to pick and choose the best options for investment and by doing so increase the amount of capital available and pare the system down to survival of the fittest.
All of which cost money.
And that money is widely available.
Likewise, by your own standard, opening a business is not available for most workers.
Nope... opening a business is AVAILABLE for all people.
...which takes us back to where we started.
Which is that you couldn't be more wrong, and history has proven it many times over.
This is getting tiresome. Unless you have something new to offer, there's not much point in continuing the discussion.
bur372
27th July 2005, 15:52
okay this is a first a capitalist who supports the socialist idea of smaal scale ownership. Any way there is no way a small scale company could compete witha corporation. wal mart can sell stuff cheaper than small scale company's can buy wholesale
Yes that 1 in 10 million worker will be able to set up a succesful company put for the majorty this is simply not an option.
It's kinda like saying that each and every one of the workers who and are in sweatshop labour and cannot read and write could become aa ceo. possible but incredily unlikely.
Professor Moneybags
27th July 2005, 16:13
Originally posted by Virgin Molotov
[email protected] 27 2005, 07:45 AM
Wandering, breifly, higher up in the thread, by what means did American and British companies "fairly" accquire the rights to that oil?
They bought it. They were the only countries with the means to access it. The arabs who owned the land didn't care at the time...until they realised there was money to be made and wanted it back.
Just like those farmers who cursed their "worthless" oil-soaked farmland because it was no good for farming and sold it for pennies.
Goddamn, why do cappies have such short memories, and why is coercion/violence only coercive/violent when the perpetrators aren't white?
Yes, coercion/violence is the only possible way of dealing with other people. No other means is possible. <_<
(Why is every god-damned issue race-related to you ? Arabs are "white"; they're caucasian.)
Back to the problem of antedoctal evidence, the specific case of yr spoiled nephew's "success" (:lol:) doesn't really reflect the functionings of the capitalist system at large, and the brutal failure that faces most people (and even more so than the folks on this internet message board, the 3 billion living at or below the poverty line).
That assumes that the entire world is capitalist. Do we have to go through all this again ?
Actually, I've given you countless examples
No, you've given exactly one.
But, please, show me where you provided another one!
Wrong. Most people who have a failed business start another one.
And then fail again.
Most people who try and start a successful small business, will never have one.
A much larger percentage of the population used to do it.
At some points in history, more people did it. At some points, less did. It usually speaks to the level of income disparity, which is particularly high now.
But even when there are higher rates of small business ownership, the rate of failure is still always above 70-75%. No matter when we're talking, starting a business has always been a risky proposition, especially if one is a starving worker.
Now, they go on welfare.
Oh, the capitalist welfare boogieman! I knew that it had to come into the discussion eventually!
It's good to see that you're still so predictable. :)
This question right here only serves to illustrate the level of ignorance you have about the system. When a business fails... NO ONE pays the investors back.
Clearly you have not kept up with changes in bankruptcy law. Current law says that the court can decide appropriate "living expenses" which you must adhere to ...while you pay back your investors.
Besides, you failed to address the point that most workers are unlikely to even get approved in the first place!
And that money is widely available.
Again, you have to meet certain standards. If we're talking about education, then you probably have to meet certain educational standards (unless your rich). Most working class people to not meet those requirements.
Nope... opening a business is AVAILABLE for all people.
How can you keep saying this when you've already admitted that most people lack the "ability" to do so?
Is this like how being a human bird is "AVAILABLE" for me ...I just lack the ability to fly?
Sorry, but we're talking practicality here, not fucking theory. Workers in practice do not have the option to starta business and so are forced to accept the wages offered.
Which is that you couldn't be more wrong, and history has proven it many times over.
How? Where? When?
Look at what's happening to small business everywhere? Large corporations have been swallowing and crushing the small businessmen everywhere for decades now.
Of course there are still small businesses, but nearly all of them are started by capitalists and their children.
Recent studies have shown that the single biggest factor in whether or not a small business will succeed is whether or not the owner's parent owned a business. It looks like class is hereditary after all!
The Feral Underclass
27th July 2005, 16:38
Originally posted by Capitalist
[email protected] 27 2005, 03:37 PM
And that money is widely available
From who?
Banks and building societies are not at all likley to loan a minimum wage worker the money to start a profit making business.
There are alternatives of course. In Britain you can get a Princes Trust loan of up to £2,000 and you must be unemployed or working 16 hours a week to become eligable.
So lets assume an unemployed person got their finger out, took a Princes Trust loan and started a small cafe and was making £1,000 a month. They're making money yes, but your whole argument is based on the premise that having money makes you free. It doesn't. You aren't free from all the rubbish that running a business comes with. Taxes, health inspections, regulations, debts, interest rates and ultimately you will need more people to sell their labour to you if your business expands, creating the whole issue over again.
All it creates is an opportunity for you to buy products which appear to make your life better. Ok, they make your life more comfortable, but is it necessary to create such a complex and exploitative system just to be comfortable?
Your argument also implies that all workers can become business owners? How is that possible? The whole purpose of having a working class is so that a capitalist minority can use them to create wealth. Without them, how would business/the rich make their money?
red_orchestra
27th July 2005, 18:43
Capitalism is based on exploitation of kind or another. Free market capitalism is no different. However, not all buisnesses out there are evil.... I can think of several that make profits and send money to 3rd world nations to better their people. So it isn't so black and white when it comes to the individuals running the company.
Capitalism as a pure ideology is pretty much based on exploitation... slavery can come in many forms...including economic-based slavery. Go figure.
romanm
27th July 2005, 23:05
Amerikkkans are not exploited except in vary rare cases. In fact Amerikkkans, even the so called ""Amerikan working class" are net exploiters of the rest of the world - as has been scientifically proven again and agian by MIM.
Publius
28th July 2005, 02:04
And rightly so!
Most people who try and "start businesses" are indeed "defeated". That's how your precious "market" works.
And, as opposed to your "bicycle" example, they are not "falling down once", they are falling and breaking their necks.
When your small business fails, and you don't have an in with the man upstairs, it isn't just the business that's hurt, it's you. You are, quite literally, ruined. And with the new bankruptcy law just passed, it's even harder now to put your life back together.
Not only is starting a business a hopelessly risky venture, but the penalty for failure is sharp and steep. Again, it is simply not a realistic option for most people.
Good, we don't want inefficient failures in our market.
And Sam Walton obviously was able to compete with Sears.
And with the advent of the internet and Ebay, literally ANYONE can start a business and sell products.
And with the advent of the internet and Ebay, literally ANYONE can start a business and sell products.
And in all likelyhood, they will fail miserably.
Good, we don't want inefficient failures in our market.
No, and that's why the "market" "weeds" them out.
But then don't claim that "anyone" can start a business!
Mujer Libre
28th July 2005, 02:20
Originally posted by Lysergic Acid
[email protected] 28 2005, 01:05 AM
And with the advent of the internet and Ebay, literally ANYONE can start a business and sell products.
And in all likelyhood, they will fail miserably.
Besides which, you need PRODUCTS to sell, which usually take money to acquire... And if you really want to compete, advertising, which AGAIN costs money. And I doubt that you're going to get a business loan if you're either unemployed or a low income earner, especially if you have NO business experience.
Publius
28th July 2005, 02:25
And in all likelyhood, they will fail miserably.
Good.
No, and that's why the "market" "weeds" them out.
But then don't claim that "anyone" can start a business!
Anyone CAN start a business, if they're good enough.
But most people aren't.
Anyone CAN start a business, if they're good enough.
But most people aren't.
Let's go over this slowly.
The use conditional statement "if they're good enough" logically means that the subject clause is only true if the conditional is true. In your next sentence you state that this condition is not met for most people.
Logically, therefore if "most people aren't [good enough]", then "most people" "CAN [not] start a business".
Which is the point I've been trying to make to CI for 2 pages.
Mujer Libre
28th July 2005, 02:34
Originally posted by Lysergic Acid
[email protected] 28 2005, 01:30 AM
Anyone CAN start a business, if they're good enough.
But most people aren't.
Let's go over this slowly.
The use conditional statement "if they're good enough" logically means that the subject clause is only true if the conditional is true. In your next sentence you state that this condition is not met for most people.
Logically, therefore if "most people aren't [good enough]", then "most people" "CAN [not] start a business".
Which is the point I've been trying to make to CI for 2 pages.
And being "good enough" has very little to do with it. It's more like if the circumstances are right, like if they can afford to get a business up and running, if they have had access to training in management or accounting or whatever...
Publius
28th July 2005, 02:48
Let's go over this slowly.
The use conditional statement "if they're good enough" logically means that the subject clause is only true if the conditional is true. In your next sentence you state that this condition is not met for most people.
Logically, therefore if "most people aren't [good enough]", then "most people" "CAN [not] start a business".
Which is the point I've been trying to make to CI for 2 pages.
No, everyone can START a business.
But most of them will fail.
No, everyone can START a business.
But most of them will fail.
I thought "Anyone CAN start a business, if they're good enough.".
Regardless, though, the fact remains that business ownership is not realistic alternative for most workers, meaning that they are required to accept the wages offered to them ...or starve.
Publius
28th July 2005, 12:57
Originally posted by Lysergic Acid
[email protected] 28 2005, 02:27 AM
I thought "Anyone CAN start a business, if they're good enough.".
Nothing prevents them from STARTING the business, just succeding with it.
Sorry for not being clear.
Regardless, though, the fact remains that business ownership is not realistic alternative for most workers, meaning that they are required to accept the wages offered to them ...or starve.
What's the problem with work or starve?
It's an unavoidable fact of life, communist or capitalist.
Professor Moneybags
28th July 2005, 14:24
Originally posted by Publi
[email protected] 28 2005, 11:57 AM
What's the problem with work or starve?
It's an unavoidable fact of life, communist or capitalist.
I keep telling them that, but they don't listen.
What's the problem with work or starve?
It's not "work" or starve, it's "work for me" or starve. But you're right, it is an essential feature of capitalism.
Capitalism forces workers to accept the "wages offered" on pain of starvation. Accordingly, the so-called "voluntary contract" that workers enter into is not actually so voluntary at all since the penalty for not entering into it is suffering and death.
It's an unavoidable fact of life, communist or capitalist.
That work is required? Absolutely.
But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about being forced to do specific work, for specific "pay", with no real alternative. And that is not a "fact" of communism!
OleMarxco
28th July 2005, 16:26
That's quite silly, Capitalist-fools.....it's not a fact of nothin', it's a artifical "truth",
subjectively made by HUMANS......
"What's wrong with Work or Starve"?...
...Uh...huhuhuhuh...I knew we had to deal with these sort's of INHUMANITIES.
What kind of fuckin' ROBOT-ATTITUDE is that? Is the system poor?
Can't they feed their workers? Or is it..."Not before you're useful to us,
we will not grant you any welfare. Our rightists-parties are working hard
towards a future of a nontolerant, "buisness"-sociey withouth welfare. HUZZAH!"
...The empire must fall, and the Rebel Alliance shall crush your Death-Star :P
Plus, any buisness which is started is still exploiting someone else.
I'd see you go all the way withouth hiring someone else to do some
part of your "buisness", with the haunting threathing shadow in the
back called "Bankrupcy", you have to stay on your toes to make
a living, and there's not always some welfare to fall back on there,
no. The competition requires you to act greedy, fast and Capitalist.
And they don't just hand out money. There's beurocracy <_<
Having alot of money and a good economy does not mean a fair
redistrubition, to the one's who really struggle for themselves and
to improve sociey. Shady buisnessman? Sure, tax-cut! The kind
beggar on the corner who is polite? HELL NO! :rolleyes:
Plus, most jobs are like; "How much the work is worth". Not
how much "you can live on it". Only welfare thinks so - and then
you usually "do nothing", meanwhile road-sweeps and lawyers get's
totally different payment, even if they're equally useful, just think of it!
One makes sure justice is served, the other keeps our road's are safe!
Publius
28th July 2005, 16:50
syn·tax Audio pronunciation of "syntax" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sntks)
n.
1.
1. The study of the rules whereby words or other elements of sentence structure are combined to form grammatical sentences.
2. A publication, such as a book, that presents such rules.
3. The pattern of formation of sentences or phrases in a language.
4. Such a pattern in a particular sentence or discourse.
Use syntax. Reading your post was like reading a non-sensical poem magnet.
And tell me how communism will feed the worlds population without forcing ANYONE to work.
Is there some part of Marxist metaphysics/mystacism I'm missing?
violencia.Proletariat
28th July 2005, 16:59
Originally posted by
[email protected] 28 2005, 11:50 AM
And tell me how communism will feed the worlds population without forcing ANYONE to work.
tell me how capitalism IS NOT feeding the worlds population While Forcing people to work ;)
Publius
28th July 2005, 17:18
tell me how capitalism IS NOT feeding the worlds population While Forcing people to work ;)
I'm certain you'll find almost a 1:1 ration between the world's starving the world's unemployed.
The people it's 'forcing' to work are, obviously, the wealthiest.
Clearly the problem isn't with capitalism, but with the lack of it. This can be attributed to a number of things, namely malfeant, ineffective government.
The people it's 'forcing' to work are, obviously, the wealthiest.
:lol:
That's only "obvious" to you.
It is the "wealthiest" who work the least and who have the easiest work. The poor world longer, harder, and more.
Sorry but your "correlation" falls flat on its ass.
violencia.Proletariat
28th July 2005, 17:25
Originally posted by
[email protected] 28 2005, 12:18 PM
tell me how capitalism IS NOT feeding the worlds population While Forcing people to work ;)
I'm certain you'll find almost a 1:1 ration between the world's starving the world's unemployed.
The people it's 'forcing' to work are, obviously, the wealthiest.
Clearly the problem isn't with capitalism, but with the lack of it. This can be attributed to a number of things, namely malfeant, ineffective government.
because capitalism doesnt provide enough jobs, it still doesnt feed everyone. and with a world of globalization wouldnt you think the stronger nations would just love to keep these "weak" governments weak so they will be in a position to accept trade deals, etc.
Invader Zim
28th July 2005, 19:54
In order to set up a sucessful buisness, one "usually" has to invest considerable capital. Most people do not have the financial means to make such investments.
Capitalist Lawyer
29th July 2005, 03:44
No, you've given exactly one.
But, please, show me where you provided another one!
No... I've given you plenty. Sam Walton for example.
Again, as long as you continue to ignore the facts and wish to make up your own definitions, this "discussion" is pointless and redundant.
Ultra-Violence
29th July 2005, 04:00
Listen. Workers under free market capitalism are FREE to work or not. They are free to accept the wages they are offered or not. They are free to start their own business or not. There's no slavery involved in free market capitalism, therefore your continued attempts to call it slavery only continue to illustrate the emptiness of your argument.
Capitilist Lawyer why do you defend a system that expliots poeple! Capitilism is slavery. You either work or you starve and you earn a tiny portion of the capital you actulay produce! and when you say some thing so blunt and stupid like this please post some evidence that PROVES capitilism isnt slavery i would love to see it.
:hammer:
violencia.Proletariat
29th July 2005, 04:27
Originally posted by Capitalist
[email protected] 28 2005, 10:44 PM
No, you've given exactly one.
But, please, show me where you provided another one!
No... I've given you plenty. Sam Walton for example.
Again, as long as you continue to ignore the facts and wish to make up your own definitions, this "discussion" is pointless and redundant.
dude, do you not get it? just because you have 3 or 4 examples of people who have started sucessful buisnesses doesnt mean anything, when compared to the millions who cant.
No... I've given you plenty. Sam Walton for example.
:lol:
The world "walton" does not appear once in any of your posts in this thread. The only time it appears at all is in a post by Publius after I made the comment you quoted.
Nice try, though! :D
Again, as long as you continue to ignore the facts and wish to make up your own definitions
"make up my own definitions"?
You were just caught in a blatant lie, I wouldn't be getting moralistic I if were you!
But, I'll bite, what definitions did I "make up"?
this "discussion" is pointless and redundant.
Yes, that often happens when one of the parties in the discussion resorts to making crap up!
No... I've given you plenty. Sam Walton for example.
:lol: :lol:
Professor Moneybags
29th July 2005, 14:43
Originally posted by Lysergic Acid
[email protected] 28 2005, 02:00 PM
It's not "work" or starve, it's "work for me" or starve.
You still think you're being forced by other people to "work or starve", as opposed to nature ?
But you're right, it is an essential feature of capitalism.
It's an essential feature of nature and reality. If you think revolutions are going to overthrow that, then you're going to be as dissapointed as a starving North Korean.
Professor Moneybags
29th July 2005, 14:53
Originally posted by
[email protected] 28 2005, 03:26 PM
That's quite silly, Capitalist-fools.....it's not a fact of nothin', it's a artifical "truth",
subjectively made by HUMANS......
"What's wrong with Work or Starve"?...
...Uh...huhuhuhuh...I knew we had to deal with these sort's of INHUMANITIES.
Go and live on a desert island and see how artificial "work or starve" is.
What kind of fuckin' ROBOT-ATTITUDE is that? Is the system poor?
Can't they feed their workers? Or is it..."Not before you're useful to us,
we will not grant you any welfare.
I hope the computer you're typing this nonsense on isn't yours. If it is, then why are you wasting time here and not selling it to feed starving Africans ? Or are they "not useful" to you ? Welfare consists of money forcibly extracted from some people to given to others. Welfare is not moral it is stealing and it is exploitation.
Plus, any buisness which is started is still exploiting someone else.I'd see you go all the way withouth hiring someone else to do some
part of your "buisness",
LTV nonsense again.
Having alot of money and a good economy does not mean a fair
redistrubition,
There's no such thing as "fair redistribution". It's called stealing when done by force.
to the one's who really struggle for themselves and
to improve sociey. Shady buisnessman? Sure, tax-cut! The kind
beggar on the corner who is polite? HELL NO! :rolleyes:
But you're not advocating handing money to the beggar on the street, you're advocating handing him stolen goods. No country can redistribute its way into prosperity.
Professor Moneybags
29th July 2005, 14:56
Originally posted by
[email protected] 28 2005, 04:18 PM
I'm certain you'll find almost a 1:1 ration between the world's starving the world's unemployed.
That's correct. Africans are starving because the US stole all their food and there is a drought in Ethiopia because the US stole all of the rain.
Professor Moneybags
29th July 2005, 15:00
Originally posted by Ultra-
[email protected] 29 2005, 03:00 AM
Capitilist Lawyer why do you defend a system that expliots poeple!
It doesn't in any morally significant sense. Your system, on the other hand, does.
Capitilist Lawyer why do you defend a system that expliots poeple! Capitilism is slavery. You either work or you starve and when you say some thing so blunt and stupid like this please post some evidence that PROVES capitilism isnt slavery i would love to see it.
The onus is on you to prove the positive, bubba.
You still think you're being forced by other people to "work or starve", as opposed to nature ?
Are you physically incapable of reading?
It's not the "working" part that I object to, it's the "working for" part. Being forced to work in specific areas for specific "pay".
Please try and keep up with the rest of the class.
bur372
29th July 2005, 17:39
Go and live on a desert island and see how artificial "work or starve" is.
in the example you give you are working for nature rather than working for someone else.
Mujer Libre
29th July 2005, 23:41
Originally posted by
[email protected] 29 2005, 04:39 PM
Go and live on a desert island and see how artificial "work or starve" is.
in the example you give you are working for nature rather than working for someone else.
Not to mention working for yourself, controlling how much you do and thus how much you get out of it. Nobody is coming up behind you and taking your coconuts while you pick them...
Ultra-Violence
30th July 2005, 02:35
It doesn't in any morally significant sense. Your system, on the other hand, does.
How does my "SYSTEM" expliot people it hasnt existed yet because your system keeps poeple ignorant and distacted so they dont know their Bieng explioted by "YOUR SYSTEM"
The onus is on you to prove the positive, bubba.
whats onus???
Qwerty Dvorak
30th July 2005, 15:38
excuse me, but everyone keeps talking about workers in developed capitalist countries, but what about people in africa, asia and south america? they are most certainly NOT free they work in appaulling conditions for appaulling wages. this is where the capitalists make their REAL killing today. faced with revolution in their own countries, the capitalists expanded into what we now call the third world, and raped the economies, resources and dignities of these countries and their people. by doing this, they were able to at least support some of their own workers. and as a result... well, look at africa.
Professor Moneybags
30th July 2005, 16:23
Originally posted by
[email protected] 30 2005, 02:38 PM
excuse me, but everyone keeps talking about workers in developed capitalist countries, but what about people in africa, asia and south america? they are most certainly NOT free they work in appaulling conditions for appaulling wages.
They're not capitalist either.
this is where the capitalists make their REAL killing today. faced with revolution in their own countries,
I don't recall the US or any country in western europe ever coming close to revolution. Certainly not in recent times.
Professor Moneybags
30th July 2005, 16:26
Originally posted by Ultra-
[email protected] 30 2005, 01:35 AM
How does my "SYSTEM" expliot people it hasnt existed yet
It's partially in place and it exploits people.
because your system keeps poeple ignorant and distacted so they dont know their Bieng explioted by "YOUR SYSTEM"
Nobody's being kept ignorant. There's no book burnings and very little censorship.
whats onus???
Burden of proof.
violencia.Proletariat
30th July 2005, 19:04
Originally posted by Professor
[email protected] 30 2005, 11:23 AM
I don't recall the US or any country in western europe ever coming close to revolution. Certainly not in recent times.
france in 1968. from what ive read the fbi was very set on destroying the groups that were around in vietnam, maybe because they were a threat, hmmmm.
Mujer Libre
31st July 2005, 01:59
Originally posted by Professor
[email protected] 30 2005, 03:26 PM
because your system keeps poeple ignorant and distacted so they dont know their Bieng explioted by "YOUR SYSTEM"
Nobody's being kept ignorant. There's no book burnings and very little censorship.
You have GOT to be joking. People are being kept ignorant by an education system that actively discourages free thinking and questioning. The way kids learn to get good marks is to churn out what the teacher wants. Then there's the media. Watching the "news" on any commercial TV network is enough to turn you into a braindead zombie. Aside from the spin they put on issues, world issues (that don't occur in Western Europe or the US) are only covered if they are impossible to ignore.
We're constantly being told that consuming will make us happy, people who challenge any of the norms are dismissed or feared or whatever. It' the old iron fist in a velvet glove.
Hegemonicretribution
31st July 2005, 03:32
The whole point of businesses is that they make money. Say some business makes money, reinvests, makes more money ad infintium and is basically this giant money making machine. Then another company chooses to offer a rival service, but the company with money and power chooses to exercise tactics that will help it continue to make more money (crushing the little guy). I know most of you rightwingers are against monopoly, but even an oligopoloy has the power to disadvantage the little guy for their own gain.
There is still a possibility now for people to invent, but if that is the only way to escape working for someone then you may as well take your chances on reality t.v. or gambling.
If we actually had real capitalism, then perhaps things wouldn't be quite as bad, all the half measures and favouritist protectionism, just make things worse. Of course there would be a dramatic shift if there was a capitalist revolution, and everyone was competing in an entirely free market. I would be perhaps even positive about this prospect if the capitalist ideology wasn't inherently flawed. Things may not be as bad (for everyone, although many would be worse off) but this isa step in the wrong direction.
Ultra-Violence
1st August 2005, 17:15
It's partially in place and it exploits people.
How is it partially in place it Does not exist period! Give me some evidence that it exist partialy some where.
Nobody's being kept ignorant. There's no book burnings and very little censorship.
NO CENSORSHIP!HA EVEN YOU CANT BELIEVE THAT! :lol:
Blackwater
1st August 2005, 21:52
Originally posted by Lysergic Acid
[email protected] 25 2005, 11:16 PM
Listen. Workers under free market capitalism are FREE to work or not.
If they refuse to work, they starve.
If they refuse to accept the "wages offered", they starve.
That is not freedom, you're damn right it's slavery.
Actually, not eating and dying isn't economics, but Biology. :o I know.
And taking money and property forcibly from people—simply for working harder—is slavery.
Qwerty Dvorak
4th August 2005, 15:17
Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jul 30 2005, 03:23 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Jul 30 2005, 03:23 PM)
[email protected] 30 2005, 02:38 PM
excuse me, but everyone keeps talking about workers in developed capitalist countries, but what about people in africa, asia and south america? they are most certainly NOT free they work in appaulling conditions for appaulling wages.
They're not capitalist either.
this is where the capitalists make their REAL killing today. faced with revolution in their own countries,
I don't recall the US or any country in western europe ever coming close to revolution. Certainly not in recent times. [/b]
the russian revolution set off a large number of socialist movements around the world, that would last the entire cold war (except in america, where they were hunted down by mccarthy.) anywho, look at nike (for just one example), who pay workers in south korea 50 cents for making what we pay like 50 dollars for. do you think workers over here would be free under those wages? well, what makes workers in south korea any different?
LSD
4th August 2005, 15:33
Actually, not eating and dying isn't economics, but Biology.
Yes, biology dictates that you die if you don't eat, but the question here is that, knowing that, why aren't they eating?
They aren't eating because stores won't give them food, stores won't give them food because they don't have little pieces of paper called "money", they don't have "money" because they refused to accept "wages offered", and that's economics.
Capitalism dictates that if you do not "consent" to being exploited, you starve, and that isn't biology!
And taking money and property forcibly from people—simply for working harder—is slavery.
Who are these people who are "working harder"?
The capitalists!? :lol:
The point of a revolution is to finally bennefit those who are "working harder"!
Publius
4th August 2005, 17:18
Yes, biology dictates that you die if you don't eat, but the question here is that, knowing that, why aren't they eating?
They aren't eating because stores won't give them food, stores won't give them food because they don't have little pieces of paper called "money", they don't have "money" because they refused to accept "wages offered", and that's economics.
Capitalism dictates that if you do not "consent" to being exploited, you starve, and that isn't biology!
No, it's actually physics.
There is only a finite amount of time, a finite amount of resources, and a finite speed at which those resources can be moved, used and developed.
Who are these people who are "working harder"?
The capitalists!? :lol:
The point of a revolution is to finally bennefit those who are "working harder"!
Then tell me, why are the rich, rich?
Lord Testicles
4th August 2005, 17:29
Then tell me, why are the rich, rich?
You need money to make money for example you cant make a large profit on the stock market if you dont put a lot of money in or you cant set up a profitable company with a few pence. I dont see the rich on the factory floor making products or cleaning schools and however more rich that factory worker or cleaner gets the employer will always be richer. Most rich people are born or inherit fortunes and have mommy and daddy to pull them out of trouble if they mess up their newly set up company :lol:
Publius
4th August 2005, 19:36
You need money to make money for example you cant make a large profit on the stock market if you dont put a lot of money in or you cant set up a profitable company with a few pence. I dont see the rich on the factory floor making products or cleaning schools and however more rich that factory worker or cleaner gets the employer will always be richer. Most rich people are born or inherit fortunes and have mommy and daddy to pull them out of trouble if they mess up their newly set up company :lol:
'Most'?
More than half of the world's current billionares are self-made.
black magick hustla
4th August 2005, 19:59
Originally posted by
[email protected] 4 2005, 06:36 PM
You need money to make money for example you cant make a large profit on the stock market if you dont put a lot of money in or you cant set up a profitable company with a few pence. I dont see the rich on the factory floor making products or cleaning schools and however more rich that factory worker or cleaner gets the employer will always be richer. Most rich people are born or inherit fortunes and have mommy and daddy to pull them out of trouble if they mess up their newly set up company :lol:
'Most'?
More than half of the world's current billionares are self-made.
I like how that isnt true.
Unless you think that inheritance is SELF MADEl
Capitalists sound like monarchists, in fact.
HEY WAIT, THE KING'S ANCESTOR WAS A RBAVE GENERAL WHO WAS CHOSEN BY THE PEOPLE AS KING, I AM HIS 544354354 descendant THEREFORE I HAVE THE RIGHT FOR THE THRONE.
But most capitalists don't "support" kings, what is the meaning of this! :o
Publius
4th August 2005, 20:12
Originally posted by
[email protected] 4 2005, 06:59 PM
I like how that isnt true.
Unless you think that inheritance is SELF MADEl
Capitalists sound like monarchists, in fact.
HEY WAIT, THE KING'S ANCESTOR WAS A RBAVE GENERAL WHO WAS CHOSEN BY THE PEOPLE AS KING, I AM HIS 544354354 descendant THEREFORE I HAVE THE RIGHT FOR THE THRONE.
But most capitalists don't "support" kings, what is the meaning of this! :o
Do you have any facts or statistics to back up your story, or is it just that, a story, a piece of fiction you and other commies made-up?
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2004/f...040228wor3.html (http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2004/feb/28/yehey/world/20040228wor3.html)
Among the 587 billionaires, 326 are self-made and 16 are high school dropout
And your post didn't even make any fucking sense.
LSD
4th August 2005, 20:28
There is only a finite amount of time, a finite amount of resources, and a finite speed at which those resources can be moved, used and developed.
Absolutely true ...but also completely irrelevent.
While it goes without saying that production is finite, there is no reason to believe that capitalism's particular brand of production is the best solution. Indeed, it is ripe with useless duplication and endless misappropriations.
Furthermore, this entirely line is diversionary as we weren't talking about production, we were talking about employment, and whether or not requiring workers to accept "wages offered" with absolutely no say in their determination is a form of slavery.
It is.
Then tell me, why are the rich, rich?
Luck, chance, and a grasp of the essentials.
More than half of the world's current billionares are self-made.
"self-made" is a meaningless term.
http://www.responsiblewealth.org/notalone/
black magick hustla
4th August 2005, 20:40
Originally posted by Publius+Aug 4 2005, 07:12 PM--> (Publius @ Aug 4 2005, 07:12 PM)
[email protected] 4 2005, 06:59 PM
I like how that isnt true.
Unless you think that inheritance is SELF MADEl
Capitalists sound like monarchists, in fact.
HEY WAIT, THE KING'S ANCESTOR WAS A RBAVE GENERAL WHO WAS CHOSEN BY THE PEOPLE AS KING, I AM HIS 544354354 descendant THEREFORE I HAVE THE RIGHT FOR THE THRONE.
But most capitalists don't "support" kings, what is the meaning of this! :o
Do you have any facts or statistics to back up your story, or is it just that, a story, a piece of fiction you and other commies made-up?
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2004/f...040228wor3.html (http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2004/feb/28/yehey/world/20040228wor3.html)
Among the 587 billionaires, 326 are self-made and 16 are high school dropout
And your post didn't even make any fucking sense. [/b]
"statistics", ahahahahahahaa
It is funny, because "self made" is such an ambiguous term. Where they "real working class", did they had better status because of living in imperialist countries?
Even if iwhat you say was correct, congratulations, they found a way to opress people easy!, I don't see where making other people accumulate your wealth is "self-made". Thus they didn't accumulate their wealth by "hard work", it was by chance!
I don't see JK ROWLING working as hard as a guy in a factory in some third world country, do you?
Please answer me. :o
Also, what does this mean:
"New York City is home to the most billionaires, with 31, followed by Moscow, with 23, Hong Kong, with 16, and Paris, with 10"
Moscow is ran by a fucking oligarchy of buisnessmen who are filthy rich, even Putin admitted it in a interview, and Putin is "anti-communist" believe me. New York City is the economic capital of United States, I don't know much about Hong Kong, so I guess I can't defend my argument there, but Paris is also the capital of one of the most imperialist countries ever!
See the connection? :unsure:
Also, my post DID make sense. Most kings are descendants of a War chief or someone who was "brave" and "who risked his life for his people". Rich people are are descendants of people who "risked something" or who "worked hard".
It makes perfect sense!
Blackwater
4th August 2005, 21:58
Ah, :D, that good old "Imperialism," argument.
Too bad the British were able to have the largest empire, and still have the highest standard of living, and the Socialists covered most of the worlds land mass, and have some of the poorest people.
What's the difference? Socialism and capitalism.
And why is that? Because socialism happened in poor nations.
black magick hustla
5th August 2005, 04:48
Originally posted by
[email protected] 4 2005, 08:58 PM
Ah, :D, that good old "Imperialism," argument.
Too bad the British were able to have the largest empire, and still have the highest standard of living, and the Socialists covered most of the worlds land mass, and have some of the poorest people.
What's the difference? Socialism and capitalism.
Socialism appears in places where people are the most opressed. This places are poor nations.
Blackwater
5th August 2005, 05:08
And none of those nations really get anywhere, do they?
Of course they do! Look at everything that Cuba has accomplished.
Hefer
5th August 2005, 07:58
Of course they do! Look at everything that Cuba has accomplished.
To bad their not truely communist; nor has there ever been a communist country. Besides Cuba is just another pawn in the Imperialists hands.
To bad their not truely communist; nor has there ever been a communist country. Besides Cuba is just another pawn in the Imperialists hands.
We were never talking about communism.
Andy Bowden
5th August 2005, 12:08
How is Cuba a pawn in Imperialist hands? I've always thought Cuba has made a brave stand against American Imperialism. :huh:
Lord Testicles
5th August 2005, 17:57
cuba has the best health and education system in the world, i cant find any sorces on this tho
Ultra-Violence
5th August 2005, 19:58
you capitilist havent made one single good arguement that workers are free under capitilsm yet! :lol:
and those self made bilionares what a joke mast of them got lucky from the .com boom and capitilsim is like the lottery for every 1 winner there are millions of losers :angry:
so just give it up CAPITILISM IS SLAVERY!
:hammer:
Hefer
5th August 2005, 21:12
How is Cuba a pawn in Imperialist hands? I've always thought Cuba has made a brave stand against American Imperialism
Plz........ Come on think about it, if Cuba is a problem with U$ expanionism they would have been annihilated a long time ago; there's a U$ base right on Cuban soil. Cuba is not a threat, nor can they do anything without assistance. It doesn't seem logical, if someone is in your way, and had the power to do so, then why won't you? Unless you didn't have to because you had them in your control.
Blackwater
5th August 2005, 21:21
Originally posted by Ultra-
[email protected] 5 2005, 06:58 PM
you capitilist havent made one single good arguement that workers are free under capitilsm yet! :lol:
and those self made bilionares what a joke mast of them got lucky from the .com boom and capitilsim is like the lottery for every 1 winner there are millions of losers :angry:
so just give it up CAPITILISM IS SLAVERY!
:hammer:
Under capitalism the workers have the freedom to do what they want with their money, which means they have the right to do what activities they want. Liberty and capitalism go hand in hand.
Cuba was a pawn of the Soviets, who ruled over 15 other countries. So much for standing up against imperialism. And now we have a base there.
LSD
5th August 2005, 21:38
Under capitalism the workers have the freedom to do what they want with their money
Yes, but how do they get that money and how much do they get?
Cuba was a pawn of the Soviets, who ruled over 15 other countries. So much for standing up against imperialism. And now we have a base there.
You've had a base there for 100 years, ever since you invaded a soverign nation and stole her land (not for the first time... <_<).
Karl Marx's Camel
5th August 2005, 22:24
Workers under free market capitalism are FREE to work or not. They are free to accept the wages they are offered or not. They are free to start their own business or not.
They are not workers when they start a business.
Ultra-Violence
6th August 2005, 06:18
Under capitalism the workers have the freedom to do what they want with their money, which means they have the right to do what activities they want. Liberty and capitalism go hand in hand.
Sure they can spend their money how ever they want but they way they earn it is a whole different story. They actually get a small portion of what they actualy make. you as capitilist know that they make lots of money for you but get rewarded for their efforts with only a small potrion pf the profits :angry:
Cuba was a pawn of the Soviets, who ruled over 15 other countries. So much for standing up against imperialism. And now we have a base there.
PROVE IT THAT THEY WERE SOVIET PAWNS!
Karl Marx's Camel
6th August 2005, 10:50
you as capitilist know that they make lots of money for you but get rewarded for their efforts with only a small potrion pf the profits :angry:
They don't get "a small portion of the profits". Well, at least not according to Marx, and I tend to agree with him on this one:
Originally posted by Karl Marx wrote
Wages, therefore, are not a share of the worker in the commodities produced by himself. Wages are that part of already existing commodities with which the capitalist buys a certain amount of productive labour-power.
Andy Bowden
6th August 2005, 17:07
The reason the US cannot invade Cuba is not because they confront their interests - in supporting the Sandinista's, ANC and Angolan govt amongst others they showed their internationalist commitment - the reason the US cannot invade Cuba at the present time is -
a) They need a pretext
b) American casualties from possible invasion and resulting guerilla war would be horrendous.
If the USA emerges from Iraq succesfully, we will no doubt hear claims of "Cuban bioweapons" being voiced in the media, with the aim of invasion.
MoscowFarewell
6th August 2005, 21:27
There is no freedom when you strive to earn money for a living.
Karl Marx's Camel
9th August 2005, 12:15
If the USA emerges from Iraq succesfully, we will no doubt hear claims of "Cuban bioweapons" being voiced in the media, with the aim of invasion.
You think if they emerge from Iraq "succesfully", they will aim for an invasion of Cuba?
Andy Bowden
9th August 2005, 13:38
If they can successfully destroy the resistance in Iraq, then yes I think the US will try to attack some of the other "Axis of Evil' countries on it's list. Wether the US will invade Cuba, Iran or North Korea first is anyones geuss though.
quincunx5
9th August 2005, 14:15
There is no freedom when you strive to earn money for a living.
Guess what. You have to strive all the time! If you don't like the work you are doing, switch to something else. Don't tell me you work 168 hours/week and don't have time to learn anything else.
They don't get "a small portion of the profits". Well, at least not according to Marx, and I tend to agree with him on this one.
Yeah well the problem with Marx is that he is wrong. Workers are paid regardless if the capitalist makes money. The capitalist takes a risk in a business. He hires people because there is work to be done, people VOLUNTARILY enter into the work contract. They get paid. If the product of their labour does not create profits for the capitalist, the workers were still paid! The Capitalist lost.
They are not workers when they start a business.
They are not mutually exclusive. I can be working for somebody else, and also working for my self, as well as hiring others. I can sell my home, sell my car, whatever I please.
Yes, but how do they get that money and how much do they get?
Whatever they VOLUNTARILY agreed to.
Vanguard1917
9th August 2005, 14:45
Nope... it's called EARNING what you receive instead of just getting something for nothing from everyone around you.
It's the capitalist that "gets something for nothing". While he sits around in his cozy villa in the south of France with his mistress drinking expensive bottles of wine, workers are doing all the productive work.
In capitalist society the labour of the many is the wealth of the few.
balderdash
9th August 2005, 14:55
Under Capitalism the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.
I suppose you could say it's freedom, but then again, it's not as if anything will get better for lower classes under this system. They will continue to struggle with wages while others live it up on private islands.
quincunx5
9th August 2005, 16:20
Under Capitalism the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.
That's only from a relative point of view. The poorer may or may not get poorer relative to the rich. The rich likewise.
Does you running faster than me make me slow?
Take a given industrial nation, and you will see that over time the poor got richer. Yes the rich might have gotten richer at a faster pace, but so what?
How are the rich accountable for the poor?
Prior to and for most of civilization people were poor!
It's the capitalist that "gets something for nothing". While he sits around in his cozy villa in the south of France with his mistress drinking expensive bottles of wine, workers are doing all the productive work.
The workers live somewhere too! They have homes and they have families. They have food, shelter, clothing, furniture, television, radio, books. Especially if we are talking about France.
If it wasn't for the workers the capitalist would be sitting in a nice cozy apartment in Paris with his wife and drinking a moderately priced bottle of wine. The workers would be outside on the street begging for money.
In capitalist society the labour of the many is the wealth of the few.
Except those few individuals invested in something that became a loss. They lost their money. Meanwhile the workers had something to do, and they made money in the process. Even if they are fired, they came out ahead.
We'reTheFirstToDie
9th August 2005, 16:36
That's only from a relative point of view. The poorer may or may not get poorer relative to the rich. The rich likewise.
Does you running faster than me make me slow?
Take a given industrial nation, and you will see that over time the poor got richer. Yes the rich might have gotten richer at a faster pace, but so what?
How are the rich accountable for the poor?
Prior to and for most of civilization people were poor!
The reason the rich are getting rich is becasue they are expoliting the poor.
If someone is running faster than you, then yes, you are slow, compared to them. Yes the poor are poor, compared to the rich. there is no real 3rd option.
quincunx5
9th August 2005, 16:47
The reason the rich are getting rich is becasue they are expoliting the poor.
If someone is running faster than you, then yes, you are slow, compared to them. Yes the poor are poor, compared to the rich. there is no real 3rd option.
You make no sense. There is a third option. By VOLUNTARILY entering into a contract you both stand to benefit. You're thinking is zero-sum, that is not how things work.
If you build a nice house, and I build a shitty house, do we both not have a place to live? Does the fact that your house is better leave me to die in the cold? No, I have a place to live.
Get out of your zero sum view!
Forward Union
9th August 2005, 18:01
If it wasn't for the workers the capitalist would be sitting in a nice cozy apartment in Paris with his wife and drinking a moderately priced bottle of wine. The workers would be outside on the street begging for money.
Exactly, you've just stated that these workers have nothing else to do but sell their labour. Your also suggesting that without a boss they would not be able to sell their labour and thus, would not make money.
Whereas the boss would still be ok. So one class is free to choose whether to start a business or not. The other is forced to be exploited. I conclude from that, that the working class is not free. Stating that the workers are dependant and should be thankful that the owner lets them get exploited is no defence, fuck the bosses.
Forward Union
9th August 2005, 18:06
Originally posted by
[email protected] 9 2005, 03:47 PM
If you build a nice house, and I build a shitty house, do we both not have a place to live? Does the fact that your house is better leave me to die in the cold? No, I have a place to live.
A more realistic metaphore would be; What if I make you build me two houses, and let you live in my shed?
quincunx5
9th August 2005, 18:35
A more realistic metaphore would be; What if I make you build me two houses, and let you live in my shed?
Well that is just stupid, and unrealistic. Does a significant portion of people in industrial nations live in sheds?
Either way a shed is better than outside!
quincunx5
9th August 2005, 18:52
A more realistic metaphore would be; What if I make you build me two houses, and let you live in my shed?
You can't make me do anything! I will consider if the reward of a shed is worth building you two houses. If I can chop down the trees myself and get all the tools I need I can go build my own shed. If I can't do that I might just have to build you two houses. Either way I am not forced to do either, since I still have the option of surviving outside.
If someone else comes along and accepts your offer, that's their choice. In a capitalist society someone will VOLUNTARILY agree to do it, and I will not think any less of them for it. They decided that it was benefitial to them.
The fact that you have a better living arrangement does not bother me in the slightest. Your benefit is not my loss. Only your gain is higher than my gain.
But it may have to be higher because you are trying to house two families, where as I currently intend to live alone (for example).
quincunx5
9th August 2005, 19:13
A more realistic metaphore would be; What if I make you build me two houses, and let you live in my shed?
And one more thing. Should I decide to build you two houses, I will greatly increase my knowledge of building houses. You see I have no experience building houses, so doing it just for the knowledge and skill maybe worth to me in it of itself.
I can then use my knowledge and skill to build other people houses but obviously I would be able to demand much better terms because I will have proof of the great job that I did. I will be in greater demand than those who have not had the same opportunity to build a home. I will also have a place to live while I'm in the process of building other people's houses.
Ofcourse If no "Rich" people are around for me to build houses for, I will have not have good use of my newly acquired knowledge and skill.
Do you undestand how wealth is generated?
Quincon, this "voluntary" contract that you speak of is no such thing. What's the other option besides "volunteering" to this contract? Death? I'm guessing you'd say "go somewhere else where you'd get paid better!" But this isn't the problem.
The problem is that EVERYWHERE workers go, they will be exploited for their labor. It is required for workers to be exploited for a business in a capitalist society to survive. To run at a profit, a business must pay its workers less than the value of the work they do (i.e. the value of the product/service they create). This means that workers are really only getting paid for part of the work they do, and the rest of the time they work, they are essentially working for nothing (as the value of their work goes towards profit for the company and not for the worker). This is exploitation; it is in every business. If it wasn't in a business, since the business isn't making a profit, it would go under.
Let me refine this example that Additives Free gave. Let's put it more into a capitalist setting. You build two houses for me, and I will give you money (this is a metaphor for any job). Now let's pretend you don't have a place to live. You will take that money and buy some land or rent some property to live on (this is the "shed").
But what if you don't build the houses, as you say you don't want to (remember building houses is symbolic of all jobs in general, so you can't just get another job; it represents the system as a whole). You say you will go chop wood and build a shed yourself (i.e. you don't want to be part of the system).
This is where the problem comes in. Where will you get the wood to chop? Private property? That's illegal. City/state/federal property? Illegal. Even worse, where will you build this shed? Private property? City/state/federal property? Again, illegal and you will be kicked off the land and probably get a ticket, which you will have to get a job to pay off.
But let's assume that you somehow find a piece of land that is unowned, that you claim as your own. You now own that property. You have to pay taxes on it. You have to get a job to pay taxes.
I think this really expands this analogy and is a lot clearer as to what Additives Free was trying to say.
quincunx5
9th August 2005, 21:55
Quincon, this "voluntary" contract that you speak of is no such thing. What's the other option besides "volunteering" to this contract? Death? I'm guessing you'd say "go somewhere else where you'd get paid better!" But this isn't the problem.
What is it with you? Any alternative to "exploitation" is instant death? Are there no charity organizations in capitalism?
The problem is that EVERYWHERE workers go, they will be exploited for their labor. It is required for workers to be exploited for a business in a capitalist society to survive.
You work, you live! That is a given in ANY society. You still have to feed, shelter, and cloth yourself. Are you exploited by nature? One could argue that.
To run at a profit, a business must pay its workers less than the value of the work they do (i.e. the value of the product/service they create).
Businesses are not urged to run at a profit. There are non-profit businesses. The workers would not create anything of value unless someone told them what to do and how to do it, and of course if there was someone to do it for.
This means that workers are really only getting paid for part of the work they do, and the rest of the time they work, they are essentially working for nothing (as the value of their work goes towards profit for the company and not for the worker).
They work for nothing because they can easily be replaced! If someone is willing to do their job for less they will be kicked out. If their job is important and it's very difficult to replace them, then they should demand more pay. They can take their experience some place else.
Some companies have profit sharing. There is no single best way to run a business.
This is exploitation; it is in every business. If it wasn't in a business, since the business isn't making a profit, it would go under.
Don't pretend you know my work place, and every one else's. The business would go under if it consitently lost money. Profit can be made one year, loss in another, guess what? The workers pay does not change in proportion to profit or loss.
I think this really expands this analogy and is a lot clearer as to what Additives Free was trying to say.
It is not clearer. You see things in Black and White. I can't explain the many shades of Grey to you.
You use Exploitation as a dirty word every chance you get. Would you consider compulsory secondary education "exploitation"? You don't want to go to school, but you are forced to anyway. Unless you can have your parents homeschool you.
What is it with you? Any alternative to "exploitation" is instant death? Are there no charity organizations in capitalism?
Ugh. Come on. If you don't work, you don't get money. If you don't get money you can't buy food. If you can't buy food you die. Yes there are alternatives, but they are not enough to live off of for your whole life and not large enough for everybody to choose.
You work, you live! That is a given in ANY society. You still have to feed, shelter, and cloth yourself. Are you exploited by nature? One could argue that.
THAT IS NOT WHAT THE PROBLEM IS. We aren't arguing about work and live, don't and die. We're arguing about work for less than the value of your work and live, don't and die.
Businesses are not urged to run at a profit. There are non-profit businesses. The workers would not create anything of value unless someone told them what to do and how to do it, and of course if there was someone to do it for.
Businesses are urged to run at a profit. Non-profit businesses usually serve a specific purpose; and again they are not large or numerous enough for all workers to consider (just like charities). Are you arguing for management here? Why can't the workers tell themselves what to do and how to do it, and do it for themselves?
They work for nothing because they can easily be replaced! If someone is willing to do their job for less they will be kicked out. If their job is important and it's very difficult to replace them, then they should demand more pay. They can take their experience some place else.
So you admit to the exploitation of man by man! And when they take their experience elsewhere, they will be exploited.
Some companies have profit sharing. There is no single best way to run a business.
What's your point?
Don't pretend you know my work place, and every one else's. The business would go under if it consitently lost money. Profit can be made one year, loss in another, guess what? The workers pay does not change in proportion to profit or loss.
I do know your work place, and everybody else's. They all abide by the same rules of economics dictated by the capitalist system. And yes it does change in proportion to profit or loss. Have you heard of layoffs? If a business ran at a loss, it would cease to be. So it needs to make a profit to survive.
It is not clearer. You see things in Black and White. I can't explain the many shades of Grey to you.
Black and white in what sense? Capitalist and communist? What shades of grey? You haven't described any.
You use Exploitation as a dirty word every chance you get. Would you consider compulsory secondary education "exploitation"? You don't want to go to school, but you are forced to anyway. Unless you can have your parents homeschool you.
How is this related to the wage system/workers/capitalism?
Drathir
9th August 2005, 22:53
Black and white in what sense? Capitalist and communist? What shades of grey? You haven't described any.
Socialism. In essence, anyone that wants to have a full fledged Capitalist nation or a full fledged Communist nation are pretty much ignorant. A captilast nation wouldnt survive coz half the people would starve due to the whole kill or be killed nature, and communism wouldnt survive; if the people are the goverment, in a country with 200 million+, you woud would have too many different opinions. If you decide on the most voted for idea, then in essence its an anarchy(pure demcracy, however you wish to call it). Plus in any type of economic/politicol system, there will always be exploited people no matter what... as good as communism or socialism sounds, there will never be a perfect society under any type of government if isnt merged with another eco-political system.
quincunx5
9th August 2005, 22:57
Ugh. Come on. If you don't work, you don't get money. If you don't get money you can't buy food. If you can't buy food you die. Yes there are alternatives, but they are not enough to live off of for your whole life and not large enough for everybody to choose.
How many times do you need to be told:
You work, you live! That is a given in ANY society. You still have to feed, shelter, and cloth yourself. Are you exploited by nature? Please answer my question.
Businesses are urged to run at a profit.
I have never seen a formal nationl/state/local law that says this, anywhere at any time. In a capitalist society the choice is yours to run your business how you see fit. If you want to keep it private and small -- that is your choice.
Why can't the workers tell themselves what to do and how to do it, and do it for themselves?
It's called a partnership. It is also very acceptable.
Non-profit businesses usually serve a specific purpose; and again they are not large or numerous enough for all workers to consider (just like charities).
Statistics please. Any industrial nation will suffice. Forget it, even that will not prove your point. People can choose to not go to charity and just continue being "exploited".
So you admit to the exploitation of man by man! And when they take their experience elsewhere, they will be exploited.
I think history shows exploitation of man by man! Except now you don't get beaten to death. The physically strong do not control the weak. These days your idea of "exploitation" is simply unequal benefits. Apparently this worked so much better
than being beaten, that the world population shot up significantly since the early 20th century, by something like 6 times. You'd think if capitalism was so bad the population would probably decrease, remain the same, or only rise slightly.
What's your point?
Profit sharing is exactly what you are whining about that doesn't exist in your black and white view. Granted proft sharing is followed differently in various businesses.
I do know your work place, and everybody else's. They all abide by the same rules of economics dictated by the capitalist system.
No you do not. Economics exists without money. Do you need me to explain this too?
And yes it does change in proportion to profit or loss. Have you heard of layoffs? If a business ran at a loss, it would cease to be. So it needs to make a profit to survive.
If it ceases to be, you go to another job. If you are downsized, then someone else like you but better got to keep their job. But this business might have paid you for 5 years, until they realized they have to close doors. You got paid for 5 years, while some "rich" folks, as well as the mutual funds of some "middle" and "poor" folk lose a portion of their wealth.
Black and white in what sense? Capitalist and communist? What shades of grey? You haven't described any.
Black = You die, White = You are exploited. Grey: You are "exploited", you "exploit" others, you barter, you move to a different place, you live in a commune, you go to a charity, you learn to fish, you go live in an indian reservation, you beg. There are so many choices in life, but you always, always have to work for them. Don't concern yourself with the luxuries of the rich, and don't tell me they sat on their ass all day doing nothing.
How is this related to the wage system/workers/capitalism?
Please, just answer the question.
Is going to school "exploitation", because you don't want to do it?
KC
10th August 2005, 01:39
You work, you live! That is a given in ANY society. You still have to feed, shelter, and cloth yourself. Are you exploited by nature? Please answer my question.
Did you miss my response to this in my last post? Or did you just avoid it? Here, let me quote myself:
THAT IS NOT WHAT THE PROBLEM IS. We aren't arguing about work and live, don't and die. We're arguing about work for less than the value of your work and live, don't and die.
Maybe you should read my posts.
I have never seen a formal nationl/state/local law that says this, anywhere at any time. In a capitalist society the choice is yours to run your business how you see fit. If you want to keep it private and small -- that is your choice.
We aren't talking about the petty bourgeois here. We're talking about bourgeois business practices. There is a difference. And you fail to grasp basic economics. When a business opens, it has competition. To compete it needs to grow. If it doesn't grow then it will go out of business; it will be destroyed by its competitors.
It's called a partnership. It is also very acceptable.
What? Partnership is ownership of a company by two people. What does this have to do with anything? Again, don't think of the petty bourgeois; that's not who we are talking about.
Statistics please. Any industrial nation will suffice. Forget it, even that will not prove your point. People can choose to not go to charity and just continue being "exploited".
I don't understand what this has to do with anything.
I think history shows exploitation of man by man! Except now you don't get beaten to death. The physically strong do not control the weak.
You are correct! We have evolved to a point where this doesn't happen. But just because capitalism is better than past societal structures doesn't mean it's the best.
These days your idea of "exploitation" is simply unequal benefits.
No. My idea of exploitation is workers being underpaid for their work. Companies are effectively stealing from their workers.
Apparently this worked so much better than being beaten, that the world population shot up significantly since the early 20th century, by something like 6 times. You'd think if capitalism was so bad the population would probably decrease, remain the same, or only rise slightly.
Capitalism isn't bad, compared to feudalism and slavery; you're correct. It's better than these. But that doesn't mean it's the best. I never said that capitalism is worse than these past systems; and I'd agree with you that it's better.
Profit sharing is exactly what you are whining about that doesn't exist in your black and white view. Granted proft sharing is followed differently in various businesses.
Getting underpaid less is still getting underpaid. So I'm sorry but profit sharing doesn't solve the problem I'm talking about. Of course, if the business gave ALL its profits to the workers, then we're talking.
No you do not. Economics exists without money. Do you need me to explain this too?
Go right ahead.
If it ceases to be, you go to another job. If you are downsized, then someone else like you but better got to keep their job. But this business might have paid you for 5 years, until they realized they have to close doors. You got paid for 5 years, while some "rich" folks, as well as the mutual funds of some "middle" and "poor" folk lose a portion of their wealth.
The point was, that businesses need to make a profit to survive. Which you agree with. And if you get another job, you are again exploited. And your sparkly view of life makes me laugh. Somone like me but better gets to keep their job? That's not what happens. They fire me, and hire some dude from India that will do my job for 5% of what i did it for.
Black = You die, White = You are exploited. Grey: You are "exploited", you "exploit" others, you barter, you move to a different place, you live in a commune, you go to a charity, you learn to fish, you go live in an indian reservation, you beg. There are so many choices in life, but you always, always have to work for them. Don't concern yourself with the luxuries of the rich, and don't tell me they sat on their ass all day doing nothing.
We were talking about workers here. If you exploit others you aren't a worker. Barter what? Explain. Move to a different place? Anywhere you go the same system is in place so that does nothing. Living in a commune is pointless, you still have to pay for it and that defeats the purpose of the commune. Charities I covered above. Fishing costs money. Can't live on an indian reservation unless you're an indian. Begging is same as going to a charity. Tell me, what do the Hiltons do? Has Paris Hilton had to work a day in their life? How about her sister?
Please, just answer the question.
Is going to school "exploitation", because you don't want to do it?
No, because who is exploiting you?
Here's some sources that might help you:
Petty Bourgeois (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/frame.htm)
Bourgeoisie (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/frame.htm)
Exploitation (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=exploitation)
MoscowFarewell
10th August 2005, 02:43
Quin, you're sad. You try to justify with the idea something is better than nothing and that's all you are using. When Bill Gates dies, his children will be the two richest people in the world. They didn't work for it obviously and nor will they have to work. When my mother dies, I will still have to work and so will my brother. While me and my bro are binded to work to make a living, they sit on their asses living off the inheirtance. Can you justify that for me?
quincunx5
10th August 2005, 04:31
Did you miss my response to this in my last post? Or did you just avoid it?
I got the last post, and you did not answer my "nature exploits you" question.
We aren't arguing about work and live, don't and die. We're arguing about work
for less than the value of your work and live, don't and die.
If I had to repeat myself it's because you didn't get it. You wouldn't have
work if no one gave it to you.
We aren't talking about the petty bourgeois here. We're talking about bourgeois
business practices.
Why do you need to make the distinction? I never made it.
From the link you provided about Petty Bourgeois:
These people are the foundation of the capitalist dream (aka "American dream"):
to start a small buisness and expand it into an empire. Much of capitalist
growth and development comes from these people, while at the same time
capitalism stamps out these people more and more with bigger and better
industries that no small proprieter can compete against.
Do you not see the deception here? "while at the same time capitalism stamps
out these people", Why can't they just honestly say that one of the people you
were competing against happend to do things in a successful manner (i.e.
selling the most for the least). Why do they need to make it seem that a
"third party" (capitalism) stepped in and fucked everyone over? When it was
just a better shmuck than you who sold people what they wanted and needed for
the least. Not to mention the fact that there are some things big businesses
do not do well, they can't compete on all terms. There are some things that a
small businesses can do better.
Also from your link:
Thus for the past few decades in the U.S., petty-bourgeois are given an
enourmous variety of incentives, tax breaks, grants, loans, and ways to escape
unscathed from a failed buisness.
Do you not see the deception here? It was not the only group to receive these.
The poor, the rich, the middle, the needy, the undereducated, the
overeducated, and big businesses all have gotten different treatment
through-out US history as well as other industrial nations.
And you fail to grasp basic economics. When a business opens, it has
competition. To compete it needs to grow. If it doesn't grow then it will go
out of business; it will be destroyed by its competitors.
I grasp economics just fine. Yes a new business may have competition when it
opens. But it may also not. It may have something new and unique. They may
have a new invention, something that will keep them competition free for a
little while. See above. A small business can find a niche and still compete
with the big players. Again, the real riches are made from selling the most
for the least. But if quality is more important than cost, there is a fortune
to be made there too. The 10-employee firm I work for can compete with
companies varying from 10 to 200 times it's size!
No. My idea of exploitation is workers being underpaid for their work.
Companies are effectively stealing from their workers.
Sometimes I borrow things from work, and sometimes I bring my useful junk to
work.
Sometimes I work less than I should, and sometimes I feel like working more
than I should.
Sometimes I browse the web, or do not do the things I was asked to do and other
times I do things I wasn't asked to do, but needed to get done anyway.
Sometimes I make costly mistakes, and sometimes I find ways to save operating
costs.
Sometimes I say or do the wrong thing, and other times what I say
changes everything that we do.
Sometimes my employer is right, and other times he is SO wrong.
But in the end I get respect for telling him why he is wrong.
If I am happy, who is stealing from me? Dare not say my employer. He sweats
the most when anyone fucks up.
And your sparkly view of life makes me laugh.
Thanks, you too!
Somone like me but better gets to keep their job?
My mistake. Obviously no two people are alike, they must have had some quality
that was considered important. Does that make you angry?
What? Partnership is ownership of a company by two people.
It can be as many people as you like. This way the "workers tell themselves
what to do and how to do it, and do it for themselves".
Getting underpaid less is still getting underpaid.
Yet still better than not getting paid.
That's not what happens. They fire me, and hire some dude from India that will
do my job for 5% of what i did it for.
Dude, what do you have against some dude from India? So what? Remember just
because some person will do the job for less does not mean he will do a better
job. He might cost 20 times less, but his productivity is 1/25 of yours.
Especially if he works from India. Some companies are learning this obvious
fact.
We were talking about workers here. If you exploit others you aren't a worker.
Black and White. Why can't you be both. You are both
an employer and and employee. You work for some business and you employ a nanny
to watch your kid. Or you work for a business and employ your kid to do some
chores.
Move to a different place? Anywhere you go the same system is in place so that
does nothing.
Why do you want to have a world revolution, when you can just revolt in some
location, get some land, setup communism. And then completely close your doors
to capitalism. Except to allow some refugee migration. Wouldn't that still
work? No ofcourse not, it's either the world or nothing? You might die
of old age before that revolution comes.
Living in a commune is pointless, you still have to pay for it and that defeats
the purpose of the commune.
Ask the Amish what they pay for their land, or Petition to allocate public land
for communal living.
Fishing costs money.
Humans were eating fish before money was made. Those ancestors of ours were
fucking amazing.
Can't live on an indian reservation unless you're an indian.
Is that so? Are you afraid that they will not let you into their culture?
Begging is same as going to a charity.
Oh, come on it's a little harder.
Tell me, what do the Hiltons do? Has Paris Hilton had to work a day in their
life? How about her sister?
I was wondering how long it would take for you to mention them. They didn't do
much, but they still did more than some. I think she did have to work some
days in her life. Didn't she have that show were she did disgusting things she
didn't want to do? I'm sorry I do not really know that much about her sister.
If your definition of work is nothing but physical labor, then I get the
feeling you never worked a day in your life either.
Here is why I understand economics and you don't. Aside from being born rich,
the mere fact that you are talking about her is what makes her richer. Other
people do the same, it's not just you. This raises the demand for her. So she
ends up appearing more often. Then she stars in a movie and people for some
reason go see it and pay good money for it. She gets a share. Her share is
what you have a problem with. But is her popularity hurting you in any way?
No you do not. Economics exists without money. Do you need me to explain this
too?
Go right ahead.
Ok, well you see one uses Economics to decide how they should spend their time,
either at work or at home or an a trip. You know you can't do everything at
once. So you have to decide what you do when.
You are a doctor with many diversely ill patients. You want to
maximize the number of people you save. You will use Economics to direct
nurses and techinicians and manage your time to best achieve that goal.
Please, just answer the question.
Is going to school "exploitation", because you don't want to do it?
No, because who is exploiting you?
Perhaps now that you undestand that utilization of time is an economics
problem, I can make myself clearer.
You are exploited because you have no choice but to go to school (if your
parents do not want to homeschool you, or don't have any, or the state simply
has a law). You feel that your time would be better served learning on your
own, because you simply prefer reading to lecturing (whatever personal
reasons). Now you are at school and you are bored, you can't communicate with
your peers and you can't be doing other work in your classes (you only get
recess).
Can you argue that you are being exploited because you are getting
undereducated?
Your time and energy is stolen by the educating class that and you do not get
the full education you deserve.
Pontificate on that.
Martyr Machine
10th August 2005, 04:53
Starting a business is both expensive and risky.
Only because of socialists like you who insist on massive regulations on business that prevent small businesses from getting their start.
quincunx5
10th August 2005, 04:58
Quin, you're sad. You try to justify with the idea something is better than nothing and that's all you are using. When Bill Gates dies, his children will be the two richest people in the world. They didn't work for it obviously and nor will they have to work. When my mother dies, I will still have to work and so will my brother. While me and my bro are binded to work to make a living, they sit on their asses living off the inheirtance. Can you justify that for me?
You use fluffy emotional arguments, arguments of that is "just" and "unjust", and nothing else.
You can read my thoughts on inheritence here (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=38814)
As for Bill Gates, IIRC, he has tried to be a stern father and not spoil his children. Also, IIRC he intends to give each child $10 million, forget how much to his wife, and the majority to his charity organization.
Would you be *****ing if your mother left you say $100K? A Million?
It basically comes down to you arguing that they have no right to receive, and me arguing that the father has the right to give.
MoscowFarewell
10th August 2005, 05:22
But they have a right not to work like the rest of society?
KC
10th August 2005, 05:28
I got the last post, and you did not answer my "nature exploits you" question.
That is because it is irrelevant. If you want me to answer then my response is no, and that is because I give as much as I receive in nature.
If I had to repeat myself it's because you didn't get it. You wouldn't have
work if no one gave it to you.
So we shouldn't strive for better conditions? We should just settle for what we have now because it's better than nothing?
Why do you need to make the distinction? I never made it.
Because the distinction is needed. You keep talking about them when they aren't relevant.
Sometimes I borrow things from work, and sometimes I bring my useful junk to
work.
Sometimes I work less than I should, and sometimes I feel like working more
than I should.
Sometimes I browse the web, or do not do the things I was asked to do and other
times I do things I wasn't asked to do, but needed to get done anyway.
Sometimes I make costly mistakes, and sometimes I find ways to save operating
costs.
Sometimes I say or do the wrong thing, and other times what I say
changes everything that we do.
Sometimes my employer is right, and other times he is SO wrong.
But in the end I get respect for telling him why he is wrong.
If I am happy, who is stealing from me? Dare not say my employer. He sweats
the most when anyone fucks up.
So because you're happy, that means that nobody is stealing from you? That's pretty funny. Yes your employer is stealing from you; the value of your work is less than the value of your paycheck; someone's stealing from you! And so what if he sweats the most when anyone fucks up. He needs to steal from you for his business to survive. That's what profit is.
Thanks, you too!
You really think my view of life is sparkly?
My mistake. Obviously no two people are alike, they must have had some quality
that was considered important. Does that make you angry?
This is beside the point. The original point I was making was that losses are reflected to the workers, and this has nothing to do with that.
Yet still better than not getting paid.
Yet still not better than earning what you should.
Black and White. Why can't you be both. You are both
an employer and and employee. You work for some business and you employ a nanny
to watch your kid. Or you work for a business and employ your kid to do some
chores.
Petty bourgeois is irrelevant.
Why do you want to have a world revolution, when you can just revolt in some
location, get some land, setup communism. And then completely close your doors
to capitalism. Except to allow some refugee migration. Wouldn't that still
work? No ofcourse not, it's either the world or nothing? You might die
of old age before that revolution comes.
I would love if that worked. But what location is there where it will provide everything needed for its citizens? I didn't think there was such a place. That is why there must be a world revolution. And I probably will die of old age; but I know it's coming.
Ask the Amish what they pay for their land, or Petition to allocate public land
for communal living.
Good luck.
Humans were eating fish before money was made. Those ancestors of ours were
fucking amazing.
Where would I fish? In some polluted river? I would have to travel to a place to fish (probably up north; 4 hour drive), set up camp (which costs money to own; the tent and all that, that is), take a few days off work (which costs money; I could go over the weekend I guess) and all that and more just so I can have the chance of providing enough fish to eat for a week.
Oh, come on it's a little harder.
You'd be surprised. :P
I don't even want to finish this; someone else can.
On edit, stop mentioning the petty bourgeois. They are irrelevant!
quincunx5
10th August 2005, 07:30
because I give as much as I receive in nature
Prove it.
So we shouldn't strive for better conditions? We should just settle for what we have now because it's better than nothing?
If striving for better conditions means limiting people's freedom, then no. Communism makes the vague promise of "freedom", but it does so at it's expense.
It is the exact opposite of freedom. It's funny how in a real capitalist society it is perfetly fine to discuss communism. Yet in communism, no such freedom is actually guaranteed.
Because the distinction is needed. You keep talking about them [petty burgeois] when they aren't relevant.
A significant portion of the population is not relevant? Are the poor still relevant?
Do you only care about the poor? Are the rich inhuman?
Petty Burgeois is not quantitatively clearly defined. At what point does one cross into being a plain old Burgeois in our modern time?
So because you're happy, that means that nobody is stealing from you? That's pretty funny. Yes your employer is stealing from you; the value of your work is less than the value of your paycheck; someone's stealing from you! And so what if he sweats the most when anyone fucks up. He needs to steal from you for his business to survive. That's what profit is.
Somehow I knew you feed me the same bullshit lines. Which is why I left out the details for now. We have not had increasing profit since before I worked there. Any actual profit that was made simply covered previous years' losses. We are making a huge come back, perhaps we will make an actual profit in 2006. I may not be around then, I might go to another place or start my own business. The point is that I would have had 6 years of happy employment and increase in skill.
My employer makes less than some of his employees. Yet he still works the most.
The point of all this is that capitalism does not urge you to do anything.
This is the part where you tell me the facts are irrelevant and that I'm still exploited.
This is beside the point. The original point I was making was that losses are reflected to the workers, and this has nothing to do with that.
You will find another job. The capitalist lost money, maybe significant money. Your loss is only the time it takes you to find another job.
If you were in the typewriter industry, would you really be surprised that you lost your job because computers came along?
The market shifts resources where it's most demanded. The fact that you can't see it is because there is no completely free market left in the world.
Good luck.
Don't you think it's much easier to petition your government than to start a revolution? If you support organized communism you would have to do the same!
Any new ideas will need to get majority support. That's why communism will be stagnant.
Where would I fish? In some polluted river? I would have to travel to a place to fish (probably up north; 4 hour drive), set up camp (which costs money to own; the tent and all that, that is), take a few days off work (which costs money; I could go over the weekend I guess) and all that and more just so I can have the chance of providing enough fish to eat for a week.
Communism would still have the remaining polluted rivers. You come up with these lame excuses for why you can't do things. Maybe that's your problem.
You really think my view of life is sparkly?
I don't even know that means. I'm just polite by nature. Capitalism urges me to be polite.
I would love if that worked. But what location is there where it will provide everything needed for its citizens? I didn't think there was such a place. That is why there must be a world revolution. And I probably will die of old age; but I know it's coming.
Oh you need to have equality, so you can't settle on any given place. The point is that the society is closed off except to refugees. The location does not really matter. What matters is equality, right?
If our current society actually managed to make space travel practial,would you urge a solar system-wide revolution, a milky-way galaxy revolution, perhaps completely universal revolution?
quincunx5
10th August 2005, 07:41
But they have a right not to work like the rest of society?
There is no right not to work, just as there is no right to work.
That is not freedom.
They will work because they want to work, they won't do it just to survive, they have an advantage and that's perfectly fine.
Their advantage takes away absolutely nothing from me at all.
Get out of your zero-sum thinking.
They may make unsound investments, and end up poor. They may invest their money wisely creating work to be done for the poor (enriching them in the process).
KC
10th August 2005, 15:49
Petty bourgeois isn't necessary because:
Though distinct from the ordinary working class and the lumpenproletariat, who rely entirely on the sale of their labor-power for survival, the petty bourgeois remain members of the proletariat rather than the haute bourgeoisie, or capitalist class, who own the means of production and buy the labor-power of others to work it. Though the petty bourgeois do buy the labor power of others, in contrast to the bourgeoisie they typically work alongside their own employees; and although they generally own their own businesses, they do not own a controlling share of the means of production.
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petty_bourgeois)
Forward Union
10th August 2005, 17:19
Well that is just stupid, and unrealistic. Does a significant portion of people in industrial nations live in sheds?
Did I not use the term "metaphor?"
Either way a shed is better than outside!
but they earned two houses.
quincunx5
10th August 2005, 18:23
Though distinct from the ordinary working class and the lumpenproletariat, who rely entirely on the sale of their labor-power for survival, the petty bourgeois remain members of the proletariat rather than the haute bourgeoisie, or capitalist class, who own the means of production and buy the labor-power of others to work it. Though the petty bourgeois do buy the labor power of others, in contrast to the bourgeoisie they typically work alongside their own employees; and although they generally own their own businesses, they do not own a controlling share of the means of production.
That's great and all but does not stand up to scrutiny. Hello? The moment you put your money in the bank, the bank is in debt to you. It returns you interest for your investment. Someone comes along and borrows the money, then they become in debt to the bank, and in turn the bank is still in debt to you. That is what capitalism is. Money you save floats around to everyone who chooses to take it. You don't know exactly who provided what money at what time. It is collected and redistributed and then returned with interest. That's the beauty of it. We rely upon each other to survive.
So would you consider my employer a wage slave to you? Is he still a slave once he returns the money with interest to the bank? How does he not own the means of production before/after the debt is returned? Are the bank owners slaves even though their survival relies upon constantly needing to receive, give and protect the money that each and every individual entrusts it with?
Do you think that the rich just sit around doing nothing? No, they have to communicate with others. They go to factories, make deals with other businesses, work alongside their employees, etc. They can't just give a decree of "hey you managers, go out and do stuff, while I sit here". They have to make sure that the managers do not screw them over. Throwing money around does not actually get things done by itself.
By that definition, Burgeoise can only really exist in Monarchy, Communism, and myriads of other forms of government, but not in a society based on the market with only the least amount of government possible,
quincunx5
10th August 2005, 18:49
Did I not use the term "metaphor?"
Yes you did, but you did it because the market allows that kind of thing to happen. In fact it did happen, people did live in sheds. But living in sheds was an improvement over what they had. If it didn't seem like it then it's because most of them moved out of their sheds and into something better. Hardly anyone in an industrial nation live in sheds (I define hardly as less than 1%)
but they earned two houses.
And you earned a shed. They demolished their house to make two new houses for their expanding family, or private busines, or whatever.
They also started out just like you, building houses for other people. They did that for 45 years, now they are old and tired and can no longer do it themselves. They give you a deal to which you voluntarily agree. You get to learn their trade and get a shed, while they get two houses and perhaps the joy of teaching you that trade.
To say that they are not entitled to two new houses after 45 years of hard work (including teaching you), while you are entitled to the same though you perhaps labored for a year is to advocate slavery!
45 years of knowledge and hardwork + Teaching != 1 year of inexperienced labor.
If the shed is 2/45ths the size of two homes, then you can argue you got more than the product of your labor.
cheXrules
13th August 2005, 18:37
Originally posted by Lysergic Acid
[email protected] 26 2005, 03:47 PM
And witness how many of them still have "nothing to their names". Immigrants are some of the poorest in the US.
I know, those Irish and Italians are so damn poor!
Karl Marx's Camel
13th August 2005, 19:27
FREEEEEDOM!
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/image/0,1587,1103859_1,00.jpg
(Indonesia, bourgeois paradise)
FREEEEDOM!
http://www.alleyns.livingaid.org.uk/images/tools/lco_ideas.jpg
(ibid)
FREEEDOM!!!
http://www.smeru.or.id/newslet/2003/ed07/200307front.jpg
(ibid)
THERE'S NO BETTER WAY TO DIE!
http://www.ecosyn.us/ecocity/Challenges/famine/nkorea-famine.jpg
(Somewhere where cheap labor exist)
quincunx5
13th August 2005, 19:33
Yes show pictures of people living under opressive government regimes, and then tell me that capitalism did this.
Propaganda speaks louder than good arguments.
Karl Marx's Camel
13th August 2005, 19:37
Yes show pictures of people living under opressive government regimes, and then tell me that capitalism did this.
Do you know who Suharto is? (this is a very relevant question)
quincunx5
13th August 2005, 19:41
Yes I do, capitalism does work well under totalitatian regimes.
This thread dealth with mostly industrial nations.
Karl Marx's Camel
13th August 2005, 20:08
capitalism does work well under totalitatian regimes.
I agree.
This thread dealth with mostly industrial nations.
I don't give a shit if you were discussing camels posing in swimsuits. Indonesia is still capitalist.
quincunx5
13th August 2005, 20:17
Why don't you show me some happy people in indonesia?
eukreign
13th August 2005, 20:40
NWOG - I followed the link in your sig http://www.namyth.com. In the left hand side towards the bottom there is a flash animation. This flash animation shows Personal Freedom, Individualism and, gasp, CAPITALISM! Why would a communist website advertise capitalist propoganda?
Karl Marx's Camel
13th August 2005, 21:15
Why would a communist website advertise capitalist propoganda?
Because I found the site openly humorous, and silly.
Karl Marx's Camel
13th August 2005, 21:21
Why don't you show me some happy people in indonesia?
That will be a little hard, considering the average worker use half their wage on clean drinking water. Yes, half their wage. They can't even afford the buttons on the shirts they produce, or the shoelaces of the shoes they produce. But they are sold in the West, and the shirts and shoes they produce sometimes cost several hundred dollars.
The only one happy group in Indonesia would be the bourgeois, and the children of the bourgeois who drive around in cars costing millions, eating fancy dinner parties with people responsible for the massacre of around a 1,3 million Indonesians, the start of liberalism in Indonesia.
Another central question: Why should I post pictures of happy people in Indonesia?
Karl Marx's Camel
13th August 2005, 21:23
By the way, I did do a search for happy people in Indonesia, but all I found were poor, exploited people. Great, eh?
On the other hand, I did a search on "happy cuban", and what was the first picture I found?
http://www.havana-rentals.com/images/cubans_happy_kids2.jpg
But I guess it was just a coincidence...
eukreign
13th August 2005, 21:26
Why don't you show me some happy people in indonesia?
That will be a little hard, considering the average worker use half their wage on clean drinking water. Yes, half their wage. They can't even afford the buttons on the shirts they produce, or the shoelaces of the shoes they produce. But they are sold in the West, and the shirts and shoes they produce sometimes cost several hundred dollars.
The only one happy group in Indonesia would be the bourgeois, and the children of the bourgeois who drive around in cars costing millions, eating fancy dinner parties with people responsible for the massacre of around a 1,3 million Indonesians, the start of liberalism in Indonesia.
Another central question: Why should I post pictures of happy people in Indonesia?
Exactly! Bourgeois are government! Government is bad! Has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH CAPITALISM!
When I say that communism didn't work in the USSR, you argue that that wasn't real communism. This is the same thing, true capitalism cannot exist when there is tyranny.
Gnosis
14th August 2005, 04:01
There are many more slaves in this system then you might be allowed to believe, and in that way you too are a slave. Try to keep an open mind about it, okay? Sure, we can choose to work or not to work, but can you not see how we are enslaved by the existence of that choice alone? That choice is a manditory one within the borders of this way of life. We are forced to accept the existence of the reality of the paid employment from the moment we are born. We feel the stresses it causes our fathers and mothers, we are taught we must learn in school in order to find the right job so tha when we are older we will have the right home and fit into this community correctly and have three children and feed them and cloth them correctly. Is this not slavery? It is not a choice, really, more like a conditioning which we accept as natural behavior because thats all we know unless we see something in our time which shows us otherwise. So where is our freedom? To work is to work whether we are paid or not. To be obligated to show up at a place at a time and be expected to perform at the highest level as possible is not freedom but sacrifice of self. It is often considered hororable and with good reason, but it is not free by any means. To be paid money is to sell your soul to the machine whther you enjoy your stay or not, whether you "own" your own business or not.
When it comes to freedom, i see none. I am not even exercising freedom when I type these words. Did I choose to be born in this country? Did I choose to be conditioned into speaking english, or typing this fast or watching the weather news or working at my local butchery as a cashier for 7 hours a day for 6.75 an hour only to come home and find what i consider my lifes true work laying neglected on the floor? I suppose it is up for debate...
I see no freedom here, and I believe it to be a product of very well written propaganda mixed with hours in front of the television that you do see freedom here.
Blackwater
14th August 2005, 04:08
Originally posted by
[email protected] 14 2005, 03:19 AM
There are many more slaves in this system then you might be allowed to believe, and in that way you too are a slave. Try to keep an open mind about it, okay? Sure, we can choose to work or not to work, but can you not see how we are enslaved by the existence of that choice alone? That choice is a manditory one within the borders of this way of life. We are forced to accept the existence of the reality of the paid employment from the moment we are born. We feel the stresses it causes our fathers and mothers, we are taught we must learn in school in order to find the right job so tha when we are older we will have the right home and fit into this community correctly and have three children and feed them and cloth them correctly. Is this not slavery? It is not a choice, really, more like a conditioning which we accept as natural behavior because thats all we know unless we see something in our time which shows us otherwise. So where is our freedom? To work is to work whether we are paid or not. To be obligated to show up at a place at a time and be expected to perform at the highest level as possible is not freedom but sacrifice of self. It is often considered hororable and with good reason, but it is not free by any means. To be paid money is to sell your soul to the machine whther you enjoy your stay or not, whether you "own" your own business or not.
When it comes to freedom, i see none. I am not even exercising freedom when I type these words. Did I choose to be born in this country? Did I choose to be conditioned into speaking english, or typing this fast or watching the weather news or working at my local butchery as a cashier for 7 hours a day for 6.75 an hour only to come home and find what i consider my lifes true work laying neglected on the floor? I suppose it is up for debate...
I see no freedom here, and I believe it to be a product of very well written propaganda mixed with hours in front of the television that you do see freedom here.
Freedom or Slavery is not determined by how you start off, it's your ability to go from there.
quincunx5
14th August 2005, 04:34
Another central question: Why should I post pictures of happy people in Indonesia?
So you can show me both sides of the story.
I live in New York, half my money is stolen from me every paycheck, does that automatically make me unhappy? No it just makes me pissed.
The only one happy group in Indonesia would be the bourgeois, and the children of the bourgeois who drive around in cars costing millions, eating fancy dinner parties with people responsible for the massacre of around a 1,3 million Indonesians, the start of liberalism in Indonesia.
What cars cost millions? and how many of them are driving them?
Perhaps Indonesia can't support 220+ million people for other reasons?
Indonesia's population grew way faster than it's economy, hence the resulting deaths.
Take a look here: Indonesia, Economy (http://www.eh.net/encyclopedia/?article=touwen.indonesia)
Read it carefully. Note table 1, and compare to Japan. Note table 4, "New Order" period.
Here's something interesting from the url:
In 1958-1965, growth rates dwindled, largely due to political instability and inappropriate economic policy measures. The hesitant start of democracy was characterized by a power struggle between the president, the army, the communist party and other political groups. Exchange rate problems and absence of foreign capital were detrimental to economic development, after the government had eliminated all foreign economic control in the private sector in 1957/58.
There's other goodies.
EDIT: fixed url.
Freedom Works
14th August 2005, 04:35
Yeah Gnosis, sorry, but you are a slave to your own life. You are not a slave to any other, legitimately.
Slave means that you are owned, and owning means you have complete domination of something. Does private enterprise have complete dominitaion of you?
What about government? Little more, wouldn't you think?
KC
14th August 2005, 04:39
I believe he was talking about wage-slavery. I could be wrong, though.
Freedom Works
14th August 2005, 04:58
Ya know, I heard of these things from my friend, it's these green things that grow out of the ground. I guess we aren't slaves!
KC
14th August 2005, 05:06
Grass?
Freedom Works
14th August 2005, 05:11
Food.
KC
14th August 2005, 05:13
Food.
What food? Stuff that grows out of the ground. Like plants. You need property to grow food.
Freedom Works
14th August 2005, 05:20
Then homestead some.
KC
14th August 2005, 05:24
What land can I homestead?
Freedom Works
14th August 2005, 05:27
Ignorant communist, not just land can be homestead!
KC
14th August 2005, 05:29
You're correct. My apologies! Then what can I homestead?
Freedom Works
14th August 2005, 05:35
Water, the sky, below the earth.
KC
14th August 2005, 05:40
Ok so I can get free water, and if I want the sky I can have some of that, but the earth is private property. I can't homestead that.
Freedom Works
14th August 2005, 05:42
That is such an asinine argument.
KC
14th August 2005, 05:44
Well explain to me what land there is to homestead please?
Freedom Works
14th August 2005, 05:55
Apply this (http://www.sub-find.com/trilobis65.htm) to homesteading the ocean.
KC
14th August 2005, 06:00
How am I supposed to get that? How can I even get a boat? Build one? Where do I get the tools?
quincunx5
14th August 2005, 06:05
Well explain to me what land there is to homestead please?
There isn't much because the US is not what it used to be.
Here's something: 261 Million Acres (http://www.blm.gov/nhp/facts/acres.htm)
They are managed but you can try to homestead first, then appeal later.
P.S. Freedom Works, do not bother with Lazar, he does not have the initiative to do anything! He looks for excuses why he can't accomplish anything.
KC
14th August 2005, 06:08
Quinconx5, Freedom Works here has tried offering an alternative to participating in the capitalist system, and I intend to find out what he means by this. He has not provided any evidence to back up his claim, and that is what I am looking for.
As for this link, it is publically owned. Publically owned means owned by the government. Hence, it cannot be homesteaded.
quincunx5
14th August 2005, 06:15
As for this link, it is publically owned. Publically owned means owned by the government. Hence, it cannot be homesteaded.
Lazar what you fail to understand is that it's not publicly owned. It's MANAGED.
The reason why the US was the most successful capitalist nation was because it incorporated many strange homesteading arrangements into one cohesive property rights system. There were Tomohawk Rights, Squatters rights, Homestead Act.
George Washington himself was pissed off that squatters were able to get land away from him. He could not do anything about it.
Freedom Works here has tried offering an alternative to participating in the capitalist system, and I intend to find out what he means by this. He has not provided any evidence to back up his claim, and that is what I am looking for.
Go right ahead, I cannot stop you or him, I just gave him a warning. If Freedom Works read the rest of the thread he would see what I'm talking about.
KC
14th August 2005, 06:18
Lazar what you fail to understand is that it's not publicly owned. It's MANAGED.
The BLM manages surface activities on 261 million acres of public land, located primarily in the 12 Western States, including Alaska. The agency manages subsurface mineral estate as follows:
The reason why the US was the most successful capitalist nation was because it incorporated many strange homesteading arrangements into one cohesive property rights system. There were Tomohawk Rights, Squatters rights, Homestead Act.
George Washington himself was pissed off that squatters were able to get land away from him. He could not do anything about it.
Go right ahead, I cannot stop you or him, I just gave him a warning. If Freedom Works read the rest of the thread he would see what I'm talking about.
Point these instances out to me.
EDIT:
Let me provide some information on the Homestead Act:
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 ended homesteading; the government believing that the best use of public lands was for them to remain in government control. The only exception to this new policy was Alaska, for which the law allowed homesteading until 1986.
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Act)
quincunx5
14th August 2005, 06:26
Point these instances out to me.
I grow weary of your requests.
You are nitpicking. (was/is - it's a GDP or GDP/cap issue. I don't care)
The land is public, but do you pay taxes to pay for imaginary property taxes for this land? No! it doesn't work like education, social security or health care.
So go live there, and then tell me who stops you?
We also already discussed Indian Reservations, too.
KC
14th August 2005, 06:29
Everybody can't fit on indian reservations.
So go live there, and then tell me who stops you?
The government will. They will demand property tax.
quincunx5
14th August 2005, 06:30
the government believing that the best use of public lands was for them to remain in government control.
Yes, Unfettered Capitalism has been declining ever since the late 19th/early 20th century.
This is a government problem, indeed. Your government has stolen your land from you.
KC
14th August 2005, 06:33
Yes, government's job is to protect private property. Without the government doing this, nobody will be a part of the capitalist system as they can achieve everything they need working much less and for themselves than more for someone else.
quincunx5
14th August 2005, 06:34
Everybody can't fit on indian reservations.
Obviously, I was talking about you as an individual. Get out of your collectivist framework for just a second, please.
The government will. They will demand property tax.
Go and see, report back, tell everyone!
Appeal the government.
You will have to do that anyway because people like you are expanding it everyday.
KC
14th August 2005, 06:37
Obviously, I was talking about you as an individual. Get out of your collectivist framework for just a second, please.
The problem isn't an individual one it is a societal one.
You will have to do that anyway...
So you admit that I have to do that anyways.
Freedom Works
14th August 2005, 06:38
I offer freedom. I believe that freedom works.
If you do not want to participate in the government capitalist system, you do not have to. Businesses to not force you to buy their products or services. They do not force you to work for them.
There is always a choice.
If you want to participate in a communist system, fine by me. That is great. But violence, force, fraud and coercion are not. Would you agree?
KC
14th August 2005, 06:40
There is always a choice.
But what choice is there? Death?
But violence, force, fraud and coercion are not. Would you agree?
Aside from the revolution, yes I agree with you.
Freedom Works
14th August 2005, 07:17
But what choice is there? Death?
Not working. You are not a slave because you die if you do not work, you are a slave if someone is using force to make you work. Slavery is great, as long as you can quit.
Aside from the revolution, yes I agree with you.
That is highly subjective. And a cop out.
KC
14th August 2005, 07:24
Not working. You are not a slave because you die if you do not work, you are a slave if someone is using force to make you work. Slavery is great, as long as you can quit.
We're talking about wage-slavery. It is different than regular slavery.
That is highly subjective. And a cop out.
Not really. I agree with you that a society shouldn't have those things. But I also realize that revolution is violent. Is violence always wrong? Of course not. Should a society be based around any of these? Of course not. Is that clearer for you?
Freedom Works
14th August 2005, 07:31
Is violence always wrong? Of course not. Should a society be based around any of these? Of course not. Is that clearer for you?
The initiation of force is ALWAYS WRONG. To deny that is solely to justify evil to yourself. The ends NEVER justifies the means.
KC
14th August 2005, 07:32
Was the initiation of force in the American Revolution wrong? Or do you consider that retaliatory? In that case, I support retaliatory force but not initiation of force.
Freedom Works
14th August 2005, 07:50
Then you cannot support communism unless it is voluntary. And if it is voluntary that means they will have to produce things that anyone who does not want to live in your society would. I believe that people will choose to be capitalist, but some misguided individuals may want to start a commune. That is fine by me, as long as you don't force people to enter, or not let them leave.
Freedom works for everyone.
KC
14th August 2005, 07:56
Then you cannot support communism unless it is voluntary. And if it is voluntary that means they will have to produce things that anyone who does not want to live in your society would. I believe that people will choose to be capitalist, but some misguided individuals may want to start a commune. That is fine by me, as long as you don't force people to enter, or not let them leave.
Freedom works for everyone.
There is such thing as laws, you know. You don't always need violence to control people. And why do you think that someone that would be brought up in a communist society would choose capitalism?
Freedom Works
14th August 2005, 08:08
There is such thing as laws, you know. You don't always need violence to control people.
No, but you do need force(or threat of force) to do so. Otherwise it's persuartion, and that is perfectly fine.
And why do you think that someone that would be brought up in a communist society would choose capitalism?
Why do I think so? Because evidence and logic used in conjunction with freedom will produce the most likely and best answer (otherwise known as SCIENCE). Your point about government indoctrination is a great one, today when most people exit the government indoctrination centers that they were forced to go to, they believe more goverment is good, and capitalism is evil and exploiting people.
A point about exploitation, exploitation is to employ to the greatest possible advantage. This is fine, there is nothing evil (Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction, it doesn't CAUSE the suffering) about that. If you are sick, and I know how to cure you, should I be forced to do so?
quincunx5
14th August 2005, 08:09
And why do you think that someone that would be brought up in a communist society would choose capitalism?
Because they are free to do whatever they want.
Communism still has free will, no?
KC
14th August 2005, 18:18
Just because they're able to think that doesn't mean it's possible that they will. Where are all the feudalists here?
Capitalist Turkey
14th August 2005, 18:22
Didn't you know that people are too stupid to do anything on their own?
This is why we need communism, so we can force everyone through the system to work for everyone else.
Like if I want some cool sneakers, instead of paying some people to make it, I can tell them to make them for me for the common good.
Communism is awesome, free labor!
Comrade Hector
16th August 2005, 09:15
Originally posted by Professor
[email protected] 26 2005, 02:40 PM
I'm talking about the oil that Iraq (and Iran too) illegally nationalised. It was ours.
Who the hell says its illegal? Bush?
If I park my car in your driveway is it still mine or does it become yours ?
So what your saying is that the USA put all that oil in Iran and Iraq, and they stole it from the USA? How the republican mind amuses me!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2020 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.