I am being exploited!

[cheXrules]

God, I can't believe what the work force has submitted and succumbed to!

I did some volunteer work and those fat cats running it kept all the profit toward their little "organization." They used my labor to further their interests of this group, and it sickens me!

I'm going to go do some more volunteer work tomorrow, but I don't know how to stand up and demand they stop exploiting me!

[bolshevik butcher]

Sorry i dont get you, if your volunteering ten surley your meant to be working for free :blink:

[cheXrules]

They aren't paying me anything! I know!

[Decolonize The Left]

Yes please do clarify, when you say you did volunteer work, it is implied that you will be working for free. That's what the word means.

I mean perhaps they should give you a lunch break or water or something, but money is not part of the deal. Please explain.

-- August

[Camarada]

There are people really being exploited in the Third World right now.

please don't ignore them. You are much better off than them. and they work to survive

if you do volunteer work voluntarily, and they don't pay you, you're not being exploited

[cheXrules]

Ive done alot of work for them, and they have offered me some financial compensation for my work, and to encourage me to stick around and do more work.

I had volunteered to do some paid work at a fast food resturant, and they paid me minimum wage there, so I left that place.

The place I work for now is now offering to pay me even less!

[Camarada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 10:27 PM
Ive done alot of work for them, and they have offered me some financial compensation for my work, and to encourage me to stick around and do more work.

I had volunteered to do some paid work at a fast food resturant, and they paid me minimum wage there, so I left that place.

The place I work for now is now offering to pay me even less!
Who are you working for?

Well, if they promised to pay you, and they're not paying you what they said, then you should demand the payment

[cheXrules]

No, they are not breaking any agreements.

I have been working for them without pay, doing volunteer work, they have started to pay me roughly 2 bucks an hour for the same work, as a thanks sorta.

[cheXrules]

I feel like I am doing something wrong

I think I am going to quit and protest this organization. People should not be allowed to do work without getting paid at least a set minumum wage. Doing that "volunteer" work is totally supporting their capitalistic system.

I'm quitting tomorrow.

[Camarada]

what organization are you working for?

[cheXrules]

It's a small local organization in town called Food For You, that serves up food for local people, and they rely on donations and exploited labor

[coda]

Is it a non-profit charitable organization that is feeding poor and homeless people? if it is they generally rely on volunteer workers besides the organizational staff who get paid.

[cheXrules]

I think it's a normal business, the owner keeps some of the profit.

But because they rely on cheap labor, they can afford to offer very low priced meals. And it attracts many poor families.

[cheXrules]

I think the owner is a pro-capitalist, he said something about being a liberty librarian or something. I think Ill go in and talk to him tomorrow about the situation, and see what his excuse is.

[Decolonize The Left]

Look man, there are 2 situations:
1) You are on the payroll for minimum wage.
2) You are volunteering for NO money.

There is no in between, UNLESS you have an agreement to be paid in cash (not in check w/taxes) after you work each day. This is called being payed "under the table". If he is paying you in cash after each day's work, then he can pay you under minimum wage, in fact he can pay you whatever he wants. If he's paying you in check every 2 weeks, he MUST pay you minimum wage. If you're volunteering, you make no money.

-- August

[cheXrules]

Thats the thing, its pure exploitation!

That's why I don't think volunteer work should be allowed, everyone deserves to be paid fairly.

[Decolonize The Left]

That's total shit. The word "volunteer" means you are knowingly not going to be paid. Many times the organization can't afford to pay the grunt workers, and the people who are volunteering do it because they believe in the cause.

If you volunteered for some work, you should have known you wern't gonna be paid. And it's not exploitation, because it's VOLUNTEER work. Which means the workers know and accept that they won't be paid, and work anyway.

You really don't have an argument, I'm sorry.

-- August

[coda]

<<liberty librarian>>>

A libertarian, maybe?

Volunteer work is not oppossed in communism. You should check out all the volunteer work Che did and the volunteer sugarcane program he initiated in Cuba.

[cheXrules]

yeah, I think he said libertarian

Im new to this whole socialism thing, so try to explain something to me.

If a worker gets paid 3 dollars an hour for a job he volunteered for, it is exploitation. But if I continue to work for free it is not?

[coda]

Well, volunteer work by definition means you are agreeing to work for free --- in other words, you are donating your time for free. if you get paid for volunteering.. that&#39;s actually pretty generous on behalf of the organization or whoever.

The difference between volunteering and working is that in volunteering you want to be there to help the cause, and in working you don&#39;t want to be there, wouldn&#39;t be there, but need the wages, so are there for the wage only.

You have to figure out if you are volunteering or working. and you have to find out if you are working for a volunteer organization or if it&#39;s a real job.

[cheXrules]

What if you get paid for what you like to do?

[Warren Peace]

You should check out all the volunteer work Che did and the volunteer sugarcane program he initiated in Cuba.

Yeah, Che inspired me to volunteer. You&#39;re not being exploited by capitalism if you&#39;re volunteering, you&#39;re helping people who are exploited by capitalism. ;)

I only volunteer for direct action. For example, giving food to homeless people is direct action. Moving boxes around at a pantry isn&#39;t direct action; you&#39;re not directly helping anyone.

"We forge ourselves through daily action" -Che Guevara

[coda]

<<What if you get paid for what you like to do?>>

that&#39;s work too&#33; anything you get paid to do is work. anything you do that isn&#39;t paid is volunteer or hobby.

In communism we will all be volunteering to keep society going as money will not hold the incentive anymore.

[David]

What if i don&#39;t want to volunteer? i mean, since there is no incentive, i&#39;d have no more if i worked than if i didnt, right?

[*Hippie*]

You can still be exploited by volunteering. I know because it happened to me. I was in a government funded volunteer travel youth program here in Canada a few years ago. Our last station was in Ontario working for a French film festival called "Francoscenie".
We were supposed to be two participants per workplace but this capitalist asshole called "Felix" somehow convinced the gov. to give all 10 of us for the first 2 weeks. Felix was very hard to work under. He made us carry and lift sharp, dirty, heavy objects and paint in the hot sun for hours. When I would take a break because I simply couldn&#39;t handle the work, he would call me lazy and threaten to call my project leader. It was a 10 minute walk to the restrooms. He was prejudice against english speakers and would not speak english even though he was quite capable. We were clearing out a stage area for the festival concert and this place was a total DUMP beforehand. We had to clear the land, dig weeds and everything. While working there, I met a guy who was there doing community service for some small theft crime (another unpaid worker).
The night of the Festival, I tried to go backstage and talk to some people and I was not permitted there. They charged &#036;25 a ticket and over 1000 people showed up. I was so pissed, I felt very exploited. When I signed up for the program, we were working non for profit organizations. But there is no doubt in my mind this Felix guy was pocketing MUCH of the profit. He showed way too much personal interest and control over us not to be. And there was not one paid employee actually doing the labor of clearing out this dump area. It was just after this and a few other experiences when I became a Marxist and I realized my feelings were validated. I was justifed in being angry at this pig&#33; :che:
I would have gladly done the work if I knew my labor was going to a good and just cause. But it wasn&#39;t.

If you will be volunteering, I would meet with the organization first, find out if they are trustworthy. Many of these "non-profits" are just as greedy and exploitative as a regular business.
:angry:

[*Hippie*]

i mean, since there is no incentive, i&#39;d have no more if i worked than if i didnt, right?

The incentive is to better society. Volunteer work is not for your personal monetary profit. There is no financial incentive. It is about giving your time and labor power to the benefit of others. It is about actually feeling your labor is going to a just cause rather than to fill a capitalist&#39;s wallet. And if the volunteer work is for something you believe in, you will feel 1000x better at the end of the day.
Even if you only have 10 hours a week to give, it is good to give your labor. ;)

[David]

but i&#39;m lazy and i want to play video games all day.

and you cant be exploited while volunteering, because you are free to leave at any time. unless you are forced to stay there, then that&#39;s slavery

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by *Hippie*@Aug 13 2005, 10:12 PM
You can still be exploited by volunteering. I know because it happened to me. I was in a government funded volunteer travel youth program here in Canada a few years ago. Our last station was in Ontario working for a French film festival called "Francoscenie".
We were supposed to be two participants per workplace but this capitalist asshole called "Felix" somehow convinced the gov. to give all 10 of us for the first 2 weeks. Felix was very hard to work under. He made us carry and lift sharp, dirty, heavy objects and paint in the hot sun for hours. When I would take a break because I simply couldn&#39;t handle the work, he would call me lazy and threaten to call my project leader. It was a 10 minute walk to the restrooms. He was prejudice against english speakers and would not speak english even though he was quite capable. We were clearing out a stage area for the festival concert and this place was a total DUMP beforehand. We had to clear the land, dig weeds and everything. While working there, I met a guy who was there doing community service for some small theft crime (another unpaid worker).
The night of the Festival, I tried to go backstage and talk to some people and I was not permitted there. They charged &#036;25 a ticket and over 1000 people showed up. I was so pissed, I felt very exploited. When I signed up for the program, we were working non for profit organizations. But there is no doubt in my mind this Felix guy was pocketing MUCH of the profit. He showed way too much personal interest and control over us not to be. And there was not one paid employee actually doing the labor of clearing out this dump area. It was just after this and a few other experiences when I became a Marxist and I realized my feelings were validated. I was justifed in being angry at this pig&#33; :che:
I would have gladly done the work if I knew my labor was going to a good and just cause. But it wasn&#39;t.

If you will be volunteering, I would meet with the organization first, find out if they are trustworthy. Many of these "non-profits" are just as greedy and exploitative as a regular business.
:angry:
I am in complete support of this post...and I think it&#39;s an instructive story for everyone who is considering volunteer work under capitalism.

The people who run these operations think nothing at all is "wrong" about using people to construct their own career paths.

A de-centralized group run by anarchist volunteers -- "Food Not Bombs" comes to mind -- is one thing. No one is making any money off your labor.

But "volunteer work" is a snake-pit of entrepreneurial hustlers...don&#39;t be suckered&#33;

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[cheXrules]

But payment is still payment, it doesnt matter if its green peices of paper, cans of food, or labor itself.

You are right, they make no money. So their currency is labor. They are keeping themselves afloat by exploiting my free labor.

The organization is profiting from my hard work. Someone is benefitting from my hard work.

[Decolonize The Left]

Indeed, you must thoroughly research your cause before volunteering. There are many good non-profits, most are good, but there are some, many others which are twisted, and it is these which you must watch out for.

Most non-profits post all their information on the web, and you most certainly can ask for it in person. Since they are working for the purpose and not for profit, they have no reason not to show you. This usually includes who gets paid what pecentage, etc... These are good things to check out as they will show the structure of the organization.

Always do your research, as it&#39;s your time you are offering. And in our world today, we put a price on time...

-- August

[Decolonize The Left]

Che I don&#39;t think you understand the nature of volunteer organizations today. You cannot call all volunteer work the exploitation of labor, simply because YOU CHOOSE TO WORK FOR FREE. This is your choice and therefore it means you can stop at any time, or choose to work elsewhere.

Yes someone is benefiting from your hard work. If you care to do any research as to what the organization is working for, you will know who is benefiting from your work. Almost all the time it is the people who suffer under our capitalist society. So you should be proud that you are helping them, and that is payment in itself.

I thought that was the whole reasoning behind our cause, that we are trying to help the people who can&#39;t help themselves. And we are doing this by educating them so they can make the change for themselves... am I wrong?

-- August

[coda]

<< I was in a government funded volunteer travel youth program here in Canada a few years ago. .>>

that particular circumstance sounds like they were making you work off the free travel.
did the program cover all your travel and eating and sleeping expenses or did you have a certain monetary allowance.

the keyword is "government funded". I would definetely steer clear of those non-profits that are funded by government -- there are many others that aren&#39;t.

[cheXrules]

I was just thinking, what if they offered the poor people jobs? Then he could still offer cheap food while giving those down on their luck an oppurtunity to make money.

Too bad no matter what, they will still be exploited. Oh well.

[Decolonize The Left]

Che do you not read anything I post? I really don&#39;t think you understand the term "volunteer work" so I&#39;ll lay it out on it&#39;s own:
----------
vol·un·teer
n.

1. A person who performs or offers to perform a service voluntarily
----------
v. vol·un·teered, vol·un·teer·ing, vol·un·teers
v. tr.

To give or offer to give voluntarily: volunteered their services; volunteer to give blood.

v. intr.

1. To perform or offer to perform a service of one&#39;s own free will.
2. To do charitable or helpful work without pay
---------
Do you understand? These are dictionary defintions...

-- August

[cheXrules]

Well, I&#39;m considering to volunteer to sit on my ass all day and collect welfare checks.

Does the government take part of that check to give to my social security account?

I figure that if I don&#39;t support capitalistic businesses, I am empowering the weak.

Man this socialism kicks ass for me.

[Decolonize The Left]

Rather than volunteer for some shit you don&#39;t even believe in, why don&#39;t you educate yourself. Go get a library card and check out some books on socialism, communism, anarchism, whatever interests you, and read up.

This way you&#39;ll feel better about what you&#39;re talking about, and you will be using your time productively. Try it, I think you&#39;ll be pleasently amused.

-- August

[cheXrules]

Ive made my decision.

Im am going to collect welfare checks. That way instead of being exploited, I can become the exploiter. I can exploit the hard work of those pouring their labor into the system, and live off that.

This is really starting to work out well for me, Marx was a genius.

[Decolonize The Left]

I hope you&#39;re kidding...

So you&#39;re basically saying you want to be totally fucking useless for the rest of your life? Fair enough...

-- August

[cheXrules]

Whats the point of working anyway. What&#39;s the point of anyone working.

Face it, you might as well join me. You will be working, or volunteering in your case, for me. My poor ass that will...err, can not get a job, will live off the hard work of the spirited workers.

Im sorry that I will be exploiting you work, don&#39;t deny that I will be, but I just don&#39;t want to work. At least Im getting back at the capitalists this way.

I could try to start a business, and exploit other people to work for me, but I could do absoultely nothing and get the same fair amount by doing nothing.

The choice is clear

[Decolonize The Left]

So I was right. You&#39;re saying you want to be totally fucking useless... Well good for you. You can wither away in your little broken down house which will smell of unwashed dishes, and pee, and when you die, you will cry, because you accomplished nothing in your life. Your life was worthless, and you will feel terrible. But you need&#39;nt worry, because given the fact you won&#39;t be doing anything, you will probably spend a lot of time in the hospital, and eventually all your pain will be relieved with the sweet arrival of death.

Best of luck.

-- August

[Red Heretic]

It&#39;s rather sad no one has realized that he is sarcastic yet... Either way


Regarding the myth of the "Welfare Queen"

By Rev. Uncle Neil

In our glittering capitalist paradise, wasting away from want has been abolished; opportunity abounds. No one goes hungry if they have but a modicum of intelligence or drive. The free market has furnished all of society’s members with an elevated quality of life, regardless of color, gender, or national origin. This collective affluence comes as the result of hard working, risk taking entrepreneurs who plot the course of production in the interest of all. In the midst of all this abundance, there are those who rather than working for a living, and making a contribution, prefer to live parasitically off of the compassionate—but foolish—policies of the government. These lay-abouts content themselves to suckle upon the federal teat whilst the rest of us actively create the abundance that supports them. Such are the welfare Queens. The welfare queen is more than simply dead weight, or a fifth wheel; she is a leech, a lamprey. This vampire lives off of the life-blood of a prosperous capitalist society and makes no restitution for the privilege; no, the welfare queen contents herself to sit upon her federally subsidized throne (i.e. the couch), and collect check after check of government money. This lazy, dark skinned leech dares to have us subsidize her existence whilst producing child after child to increase the benefits she receives. At least, this is the manner in which women of color who happen to be welfare recipients are depicted in the bourgeois media. The welfare queen is mere fiction, albeit a powerful and popular one, which has been instilled in the mind of the white public, and is maintained by the pontification of reactionary politicians, scholars and the kept press. A brief analysis will illustrate this.

The conventional representation of social welfare is that it constitutes a disproportionate share of federal spending. In actuality, only a sliver of the annual budget is allocated for the purposes of poverty assistance, and the vast majority of welfare beneficiaries are children, not adult women. One of the largest and most attacked social welfare programs, the AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children (now TANF, or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families)) has provided help to the more impoverished members of American society since 1935. This program has been one of the least manipulated or abused. The federal government estimates the rate of fraud within AFDC at about 2 to 3 percent. Fraud with the IRS tax code and unemployment programs is estimated at 25 percent. Moreover, this aid was, and is, by no means excessive. In 1992, just as an example, the average yearly AFDC family payment was &#036;4,572 (U.S. Social Security Administration). In that year, the poverty level for a mother with two children was &#036;11,186, a figure not even touched by the aforesaid amount (and that was prior to “reform” under the so-called Personal Responsibility Act that further lowered the benefits conferred upon welfare recipients). According to William Kornblum and Joseph Julian, authors of the sociology textbook, Social Problems:
The poorest 20 percent of U.S. households received less than 5 percent of all income in 2000. In 2001, 26.4 percent of female-headed families were below the poverty threshold, and in such families the average income was about 60 percent less than the median income of all families. Sixteen percent of children under the age of 18 are living in poverty. Almost 23 percent of the black population and 21.4 percent of the Spanish speaking population have incomes well below the official poverty line, as compared with the number of whites below the poverty who constitute 9.9 percent of the total white population. (Kornblum 177)
Welfare programs simply mitigate the adverse effects of capitalism and are not an actual cure for them (that would be socialism). The Wealthy and their media have unremittingly endeavored to strip the poor, particularly poor women of color, of any and all safety nets, arguing from their palatial mansions, country clubs, executive board rooms and yachts that austerity is good for one’s character. Conservatives make ostentatious displays of their dedication to ‘family values’ whilst simultaneously undermining actual families.

In theory, a free market is a system wherein “all economic decisions and actions by individuals regarding transfer of money, goods, and services are voluntary, and are therefore devoid of coercion and theft” (wikipedia). Free market reality is ‘market discipline’ for the poor, and socialism for the wealthy (the very same wealthy who’s media incessently poured scorn and derision upon any and all manifestations of socialism in the third world). The same fiscal responsibilty expected of the poor is basically rejected in toto by the rich. The degree to which the private sector is publicly subsidized is staggering. Corporations such as General Electric, Wal-Mart, Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, and others feed at the federal trough with great ravenousness.

Seeing as the notion of the welfare queen is a total fiction, why has it endured? It is because it serves a necessary ideological function. The welfare queen is the perfect scapegoat for economic troubles: a black female parasite. The strategy is simple: blame poverty on the poor. Capitalism—as it exists, not any sort of ideological abstraction of the concept—has engendered its own ideology: if you are poor, you are individually responsible, if you can&#39;t find employment it is your own ineptitude at work etc. There are no social classes, and those who are wealthy are simply over-achievers. To believe that capitalism has not reduced millions residing on this planet into economic vassalage requires a near Orwellian historical revisionism. The apologists for capital would have us believe that the rich have simply cleverly and successfully advanced their own interests, not accumulated wealth through the expropriation of the productive power of others, essentially constituting an obfuscation of parasitism.

The apologists of capital tell us that we are ‘free.’ Thus black women are to be held responsible for their wretchedness. Freedom is an interesting notion according to the American bourgeoisie. If we can go out to the street corner and denounce the president as a vile scoundrel without fear of violent reprisal, we are expected to believe that we are then free. If we can worship the deity of our choosing, then we are expected to believe ourselves free. What of economic vassalage? It is true that the laborers in this country (the U.S.) constitute a privileged, reformist-minded, petty bourgeois labor aristocracy, yet I would imagine that in the U.S., existence, as a janitor is still unpleasant. How much freedom does the average U.S. janitor enjoy when compared to the freedom enjoyed by the average C.E.O. or investment banker? Who is presented with more options in life? The answer is obvious. The production of material goods is managed in a totally undemocratic manner, and this is labeled &#39;freedom.&#39; This in of itself is a powerful implication against the bourgeois notion of freedom; however, a short examination of the variety of governments supported by the U.S. military-industrial complex will indicate that the contempt of the American bourgeois towards actual freedom goes much further. In reality, only certain sectors can properly be said to be ‘free,’ insofar as such a thing is at all possible (a topic best limited to philosophy perhaps).

Few notions are as outlandish as the concept of individual autonomy, which I contend is almost totally inapplicable to humanity. The reasons are simple: no person is completely autonomous or independent. We are all dependent upon one another; that is to say that human society is a series of interdependencies. Even the hermit, who might be claimed to have apprehended the essence of independence and autonomy, still relies upon the land for sustenance. Self-reliance is a joke, and in my view serves certain class interests. Rush Limbaugh, as well as other reactionaries who pollute the airwaves with their noxious doggerel, assert that self-reliance and personal responsibility together form the cornerstone of western society. One might as well argue theology, as it bears a similar applicability to the real world. One does not exist in a social vacuum, nor will one ever. This computer that I am typing on is not of my own creation; the clothes upon my person are not of my own make. I have procured their use through the efforts of others. Collective autonomy is perhaps a feasible goal, but individual autonomy is an unrealistic idea, which bears little or no resemblance to the world we inhabit. The wretched legacy of slavery, racism, and poverty is laid upon the unfortunate head of the black woman, and she is attributed culpability for the privilege.


Works Cited:
Macionis, John J. Sociology. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1999

Kornblum, William, and Joseph Julian. Social Problems. New Jersey:
Pearson Education Inc., 2004

Ruth, Sheila. Issues in Feminism. California: Mayfield Publishing Company, 2001

[cheXrules]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 06:10 AM
So I was right. You&#39;re saying you want to be totally fucking useless... Well good for you. You can wither away in your little broken down house which will smell of unwashed dishes, and pee, and when you die, you will cry, because you accomplished nothing in your life. Your life was worthless, and you will feel terrible. But you need&#39;nt worry, because given the fact you won&#39;t be doing anything, you will probably spend a lot of time in the hospital, and eventually all your pain will be relieved with the sweet arrival of death.

Best of luck.

-- August
But I would be a poor, needy person. You should share with me so I don&#39;t have to be so poor.

[Decolonize The Left]

Thank you RH, for posting this article. It had many valid points and was very informative.

Also, I had no idea he was being sarcastic, and I still am unsure...silly me.

-- August

[cheXrules]

Ok, yes, I have only been a little sarcastic.

I am not going to go on welfare, just wondering about your idea on that, so I made a hypothetical situation.

Your right, I would just have a shitty life if I took that path, so I am gonna work.

[*Hippie*]

Thanks redstar2000 ;)


that particular circumstance sounds like they were making you work off the free travel.
did the program cover all your travel and eating and sleeping expenses or did you have a certain monetary allowance.

Yeah, it was free travel and housing (had to share a house with 10 people).
They provided food but we didn&#39;t really get to choose what to eat. We only had &#036;21 a week for spending.
It was called "Katimavik" if anyone wants to look it up. I wouldn&#39;t recommend it to anyone.

[Decolonize The Left]

I wasn&#39;t pissed that you were hypothetically going on welfare. I was pissed that you wern&#39;t gonna do anything with your life. That&#39;s all, I just wanted you to do something so when the time came, you could die in peace, knowing you helped people, or at least, helped yourself.

-- August

[cheXrules]

But would you be willing to work like a slave so I can sit on my unproductive ass and do nothing.

Do you think that is right for that to be done to you?

[coda]

<<Yeah, it was free travel and housing (had to share a house with 10 people).
They provided food but we didn&#39;t really get to choose what to eat. We only had &#036;21 a week for spending.
It was called "Katimavik" if anyone wants to look it up. I wouldn&#39;t recommend it to anyone.>>>

it sounds like it really sucked. I hope the travel was good for you though.



So, Chexrules.. what is your point? Are you pro-capitalist arguing that working on behalf of society (i.e. communism) without a cash incentive is as much exploitation as Capitalism is?

[cheXrules]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 07:08 AM
So, Chexrules.. what is your point? Are you pro-capitalist arguing that working on behalf of society (i.e. communism) without a cash incentive is as much exploitation as Capitalism is?
Yes. If you are being forced to work or pay taxes into a communistic society, you are being exploited.

Incentives are different for everyone. For some people, it is cash, and for others, it is the good feeling of helping people and the community.

I am not against communism neccessarily, so long as it is not forced. I think if individuals want to live in a communistic society of working for the common good, all the power to them, so long as they don&#39;t use force to keep people in or work. That would be anarcho-communism.

Have you heard of the Free State Project? It&#39;s a bunch of capitalists and liberty-minded people who want to move en masse to New Hamphire in order to create a state less dependent on govt and more focused on individual rights.

Why don&#39;t you start a Social State Project? Or just start your own township and make it a Communist paradise. Or move to Venezuela?

[Decolonize The Left]

I couldn&#39;t do those things you suggested because it still doesn&#39;t help the millions of people who suffer under capitalism today.

-- August

[David]

the people who feel exploited by capitalism could move to the communist state, and the people who like capitalism could move to new hampshire.

wouldnt that work?

[bolshevik butcher]

No, as to really work communism would have to cover the world or at least a significant portion of it. Anyway you cannot hae a state in communism as it is a tool of calss opression and has as such disapeared. You could have a socialsit state however. I am not though a fan of just rynnning away to other countries or just forming a commune in the middle of nowhere.

[David]

if you want communism all over the world, what would you do if i wanted to start a capitalist community?

[Political_Punk]

Originally posted by cheXrul[email protected] 14 2005, 07:05 AM
But would you be willing to work like a slave so I can sit on my unproductive ass and do nothing.

Do you think that is right for that to be done to you?
well, I don&#39;t think you would sit on your ass, b/c you would want to work for the greater good of mankind - b/c the feeling you get from such an idea would pay better than any kind of money....

[Political_Punk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 04:33 PM
if you want communism all over the world, what would you do if i wanted to start a capitalist community?
I would think someone who wanted to start up any kind of society wouldn&#39;t have the right to force anyone else to take part, right?

I mean, Che Guevera fought for the people - I couldn&#39;t see him killing anyone for simply not agreeing w/ him....

[Capitalist Turkey]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 14 2005, 11:21 AM
No, as to really work communism would have to cover the world or at least a significant portion of it. Anyway you cannot hae a state in communism as it is a tool of calss opression and has as such disapeared. You could have a socialsit state however. I am not though a fan of just rynnning away to other countries or just forming a commune in the middle of nowhere.
So are you advocating the use of force, to force everyone into a system of communism for the common "good"?

And your not dedicated enough to run off to a commune? So I guess you should just be happy with the status quo, and sit back and enjoy a coke.

As for me, I am probably going to run off to the free state and try to make a difference, and work for liberty.

[Capitalist Turkey]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 10:20 PM
There are people really being exploited in the Third World right now.

please don&#39;t ignore them. You are much better off than them. and they work to survive
This is why we must send space ships into space, in order to help these other worlds.

[bolshevik butcher]

Actually im boycotting coke just now. No, i wnat to change the world, there are certainly situations where force is justified. i dont see why force isnt justified int he right situation. As for your quote the individual is much more free under socialism than capitalism. David, i couldnt tell you not to form your commune, you and oyur cpaitalists bddies would be aloud to go and form a commune.

[Capitalist Turkey]

Boycotting is a common action in a capitalistic society. It keeps businesses from controlling their customers.

Boycotts are definitely good for the market.

[bolshevik butcher]

Im not going to have a fight with you about that. Btw are you jsut ehre to cause trouble or do you want to have a serious discussion?

[Capitalist Turkey]

I am serious about the boycott thing. It&#39;s how business owners are kept in check.

If they displease their employees, the workers leave, the company fails.

If they displease their customers, the customers leave, the company fails.

Vote with your feet, and your money.

[bolshevik butcher]

Yeh, it is a good way to protest.

[Capitalist Turkey]

In a capitalist society, workers can still form unions. But the business owner can decide to not allow unions too. Thats his business, his property. If a majority of the work force wants unions, and businesses will not accept them, oppurtunity arises for a business owner to embrace unions and gain a plethora of workers.

So is it wrong for a business to not allow unions? If so, I guess it would be wrong for them to not start the company in the first place, because them not starting a company has costed many people jobs.

Its about the principle of freedom. People should be able to start their own business. The reason why it&#39;s hard to do so now is because of licenses and minimum wage laws.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 14 2005, 06:24 PM


Its about the principle of freedom. People should be able to start their own business. The reason why it&#39;s hard to do so now is because of licenses and minimum wage laws.
So are you advocating to abolish the minimum wage?

[Decolonize The Left]

To Capitalist and David:
I think what Political and Cleched are doing, is they can&#39;t just "run off and hide in a little communist commune". This solves DONE of the problems which capitalism creates and sustains in our world today. In order to change the system, you have to work from within the system. Not run off to some unknown land and live there. Who does that help? You and whoever you go with. It doesn&#39;t help the millions of people who suffer under the capitalist system in America and abroad. Only a change in government will help those people.
Correct me if I&#39;m wrong, but that&#39;s my interpretation of what you mean.

And I feel the exact same way. They&#39;ve got me by their sides. You&#39;ve got to boycott, protest, educate the public, dowhatever you can to show other people that many people feel the same way they do.

-- August

[Capitalist Turkey]

Originally posted by viva le revolution+Aug 14 2005, 07:27 PM--> (viva le revolution @ Aug 14 2005, 07:27 PM)
Capitalist [email protected] 14 2005, 06:24 PM


Its about the principle of freedom. People should be able to start their own business. The reason why it&#39;s hard to do so now is because of licenses and minimum wage laws.
So are you advocating to abolish the minimum wage? [/b]
Yes, I truely believe it is not necessary, so long as there is a free market.

Now if there was a government controlled corporation empire, like what we have today, it wouldn&#39;t be so pretty.

It&#39;s hard to find workers if you only offer 1 dollar an hour.

[Capitalist Turkey]

Should we use force to bring about communism?

Like go up and say "Hey you, this is no longer your land. This land now belongs to the Laborers of America."

Sorta like that?

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 14 2005, 05:43 PM
I am serious about the boycott thing. It&#39;s how business owners are kept in check.

No, boycotts are only seriously effective when the boycott is being carried out by the bourgeoisie. It is the bourgeoisie that controls the money, so "voting with you money" means letting the bourgeoisie make all of the decisions

[Decolonize The Left]

None the less, a boycott is a step. If enough people boycott, things will change. It has happened before many times in America, where the poor boycotted and things changed.

And a boycott doesn&#39;t take any of your time, you just have to give up some pleasentries you had before. Ex: I stopped drinking soda all together. Not only because many of the companies are corporations, but also because it&#39;s terrible for you. There are no redeeming qualities in soda.

So it&#39;s easy, and it&#39;s simple. And if enough people do it, it works. I think it&#39;s a great form of protest.

-- August

[bolshevik butcher]

wait red heretic are yous aying that if all the protaletariat didnt buy a product it would be an ineefective boycot?&#33;

[Red Heretic]

Ehh.. I sort of said that in a wierd way. Sorry.

What I mean is that the only real way to fix corporations is revolution. (well really we have to abolish them all together when we take state power).

The idea that "corporations are democratic, and you vote with your dollars" is actually the idea the those who control all of the dollars get to maintain a dictatorship over society.

[Decolonize The Left]

In theory you&#39;re correct Heretic. The only way to get rid of corporations is through revolution. BUT revolution won&#39;t happen until the people rise up for themselves. And a good way to spread the word is through boycotts, whenever people see boycotts, they wonder WHY the people are boycotting. And when they find out they usually join in. It&#39;s a great way to spread solidarity among the people.

So why sit back and knock all our discussions on ways to bring the public together, we are working towards the revolution more than you if this is your stance....

-- August

[Political_Punk]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 14 2005, 09:38 PM
Ehh.. I sort of said that in a wierd way. Sorry.

What I mean is that the only real way to fix corporations is revolution. (well really we have to abolish them all together when we take state power).

The idea that "corporations are democratic, and you vote with your dollars" is actually the idea the those who control all of the dollars get to maintain a dictatorship over society.
hey... again, just new to this communism/socialism thing, and politics in general actually...

anyway, what do you mean specifically, by "fixing corporations w/ revolution"?.

On one hand, I heavily criticize and am against any corporation getting any kind of financial assistance from the gov&#39;t (ie- corporate welfare). And if any of them are abusing their workers via bad working environments or some other form abuse, then they (workers) have many options such as forming a union, reporting to the gov&#39;t, or simply quitting their job and telling everyone what a terrible place it is work. Or they could even take an ad out in the local paper/drop leaflets or somehow otherwise put some information out there...

I worked for a company and I was really underpaid in what I did, so I simply applied around, found something else and quit. Of course I always give that place a bad name, when asked. And of course, I will never buy anything from again.

At the same time, I am not suggesting I&#39;d want to blow up a place like that....Is that what you mean by "revolution"?

The idea that your dollars are democratic and you vote w/ your dollars I think works very well... if it&#39;s profit-based, then obviously companies don&#39;t want a bad name, so they&#39;ll lay off the 2nd hand quality - or if not, they&#39;ll simply offer an inferior product at a cheaper price (usually, but not necessarily). Regardless, the latter was just another great example of how "voting w/ your dollars" is very effective and a very realistic approach, b/c you can choose to help sustain said company or simply go elsewhere.

Look at cars for example, they&#39;re far superior technologically and durability wise than they&#39;ve ever been... and why is that? I mean, even base models offer amenities that were seen as luxuries years ago...and why? b/c the people have spoken w/ their dollars. And yes, they&#39;re safing b/c of some gov&#39;t laws, but now you so often hear a that surpasses the gov&#39;t regulations. Companies will compete to have their products safer and more durable. That&#39;s why I firmly believe in how and why voting w/ my dollars, works.

I&#39;m sorry, I just can&#39;t see this conspiracy to maintain a dictatorship over society... Communism sounds nice, but I don&#39;t know why people would want to live in a society based on eroding everyone&#39;s standard of living to the lowest common denominator.

[Camarada]

Boycotts can change things if enough people get involved.

the bus boycotts of the Civil Rights Movement , to take one example

[CrazyModerate]

Wow. I can&#39;t believe how so many of you guys have no sense of humour. It was a crappy joke, ("omg i said i would work for no money and they gave me no money wha-?"), but you guys had no clue. You actually thought he was being serious. You guys need a sense of humour&#33;

[banned rebel]

you guys need a lot more than a sense of humor.

[Decolonize The Left]

Wow. I can&#39;t believe how so many of you guys have no sense of humour. It was a crappy joke, ("omg i said i would work for no money and they gave me no money wha-?"), but you guys had no clue. You actually thought he was being serious. You guys need a sense of humour&#33;

Isn&#39;t this your first post in this thread? Anyway, we have totally moved on from the original topic of cheXrules&#39;s "exploitation". And on the topic of humor, it&#39;s very hard to discern who is being humorous and who isn&#39;t when you are communicating with posts. There is no voice infliction to help detect humor or sarcasm.

And on a different note, yes we didn&#39;t know he was kidding, so how does that make us need a sense of humor? Perhaps if we knew he was kidding, we would have shown our sense of humor, and taken it lighter... You statement is incoherent, as it does not feasible make any sensible connections.


you guys need a lot more than a sense of humor.

I&#39;m fairly new here so I&#39;ll make this brief. This is a totally ignorant and childish thing to say, and it does not advance your argument what-so-ever. 3-year olds can make this argument... grow up.
---------
Back to the topic at hand,
Thank you Camarada for returning to the discussion. Your point is quite valid and supports the argument that boycotts do work very well. I&#39;ll let Heretic comment on Political Punk&#39;s post, as it ws directed at him.

-- August

[CrazyModerate]

Nobody is so stupid as to say "I got a job in which I knew I would earn no money, it was completely voluntary, I wanted to do it and we had an aggreement that I would recieve no money. But now I am not recieving any money&#33; I am being exploited&#33;" and be serious.

The first time I saw his posts, before looking at the latter parts of the thread, I knew he was joking. I did have the advantage of knowing he was banned, but come on. Its the reactionaries, puritans, elitists and fascists that are supposed to be so uptight&#33;

I&#39;m sure the only thing that prevented Marx from smiling was the massive weight of his absolutely huge beard, which must have caused great strain on his facial muscles.

[Decolonize The Left]

I didn&#39;t know he was joking. With the consistent amounts of spelling errors and lack of punctuation I figured he could be that dumb.

-- August

[CrazyModerate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 03:47 AM
I didn&#39;t know he was joking. With the consistent amounts of spelling errors and lack of punctuation I figured he could be that dumb.

-- August
lol. You made me laugh, I once again have hope for the revolution (unless everyone tries to grow a beard, such a revelation could prove to be disastrous.)

[Decolonize The Left]

I&#39;m rather young and full of anger/energy/vision, which is why I&#39;m here. To learn more about what other people think, and to hone my arguments and figure out what I really believe. But I&#39;m sorry that you ever lost hope in the revolution, for I feel with each day it grows closer.

-- August

[CrazyModerate]

It was a joke&#33; But as I said, we cannot follow Che, Marx, and Castro in every way. The beards... the doom they would bring&#33; I don&#39;t have the time to explain it&#33;

[Decolonize The Left]

We most certainly should not follow Che, Marx, etc... in every way, that would lead to our doom. As the times change, the tactics for succesful revolutions change with them. We cannot possibly equate the situation in Cuba before the revolution, to the situation in the US now, it would be futile.

The situation in the US requires very different tactics. Mainly because the public isn&#39;t anywhere near ready for an uprising, they arn&#39;t educated enough as to other options of government, as well as what is really happening in the government today. Only after a massive change in political opinion in the public towards the left, will anything near a revolution begin to occur and have success.

-- August

[JimmyCarlBlack]

viva la New Hampshire&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 14 2005, 09:38 PM
Ehh.. I sort of said that in a wierd way. Sorry.

What I mean is that the only real way to fix corporations is revolution. (well really we have to abolish them all together when we take state power).

The idea that "corporations are democratic, and you vote with your dollars" is actually the idea the those who control all of the dollars get to maintain a dictatorship over society.
Yeh, i get what you mean, Corporations most deffinatley arent democratic institituions. We do have some power over them as we are there market. However as you say the only realy way to make them democratic would be to put them under workers control.

I&#39;m sorry, I just can&#39;t see this conspiracy to maintain a dictatorship over society... Communism sounds nice, but I don&#39;t know why people would want to live in a society based on eroding everyone&#39;s standard of living to the lowest common denominator.

Well its not a conspiracy as such, its just that the ruling class keeps itself in control via the government and funding presendential campagins etc. Now as for communism, it is not about what you describe above. Just becuase people are equal doesnt mean they&#39;ll all be living the lowest common denominator. They might have the same standard of livng but hat emans everone will be working collectovley to raise everyones starndard of living rather than jsut their own.

[Decolonize The Left]

On the topic of living at the lowest common denominator, I&#39;ll provide a quick comparison:

Capitalism in the US:
Standard of living: very high.
Why? 1% of the population controls 95% of the wealth. This as a ratio, will raise the standard of living, simply because there is so much wealth in this 1%. But the standard of living does not show who has the wealth, it only shows on average, how much people have. So when you look at it, around 30-40% of the population in the US is living near the lowest common denominator already. And it will continue to get worse as long as the neo-conservatives stay in power.

Communism in the US (hypothetically of course):
Standard of living: Average to High
Why? Let&#39;s say you took all the wealth of that 1%, and you dispersed it equally among the 50% at the bottom. What would happen? The standard of living would stay practically the same, as no wealth has been lost, and you would raise the standard of living for hundreds of thousands of people to the medium (what we call middle-class). Of course there would be no classes, so everyone would be on practically the same terms as far as standard of living goes. Take note, that they are not at the bottom, rather the people who were at the bottom have been brought up to the middle with the inordinate wealth of the super-rich. As opposed to capitalism, no one will be living at the lowest common denominator...

-- August