Too disturbing to not share word of

[cormacobear]

You can move this too the right forum if you want but since this is too important to not share with as many friends of the proletarian as possible.

MEXICO: STRIKERS SHOT AND KILLED DURING STEEL MILL OCCUPATION

Police shot and killed two workers, another was crushed to death in a melee,
and over 40 others were wounded, most by gunshots, when authorities launched an
assault to expel striking workers occupying the SICARTSA steel mill in Lazaro
Cardenas, Michoacan, Mexico on April 20.

Reports from the scene suggest that others may also have been killed or may die
from their wounds. Workers and townspeople retook the plant, but were then
besieged by the police. Parts of the plant have been taken over by the Mexican
Army and the Mexican Navy.

Mexican unions have demanded the resignation of the country's secretary of
labour, the impeachment of the country's president, the punishment of those who
are guilty for the violence, and the recognition of the elected leader of the
mine workers union.

Your support is urgently needed -- please send off your protest emails today:

http://www.labourstart.org/cgi-bin/solidar...mpaign.cgi?c=89 (http://www.labourstart.org/cgi-bin/solidarityforever/show_campaign.cgi?c=89)

[red team]

A prime example of what kind of "rights" and "freedoms" you would expect in a Capitalist "Democracy". Essentially none. You have the right to property, but that's none of your business because you know the boss is only going to pay you enough for food and shelter and not much else, otherwise why would you want to work for his shitty company anyway?

And furthermore, it's not his factory to begin with in the first place. How did he manage to get the money to buy that factory in the first place? He worked and saved up all that money from his labour? :lol: The only way to get that much money as to be able to afford an entire factory is to steal it from the labour of others through profits. The ownership of the factory is illegitemate because it was bought from stolen money in the first place.

And also because all free persons can only work for the full benefits of their own labour any profit taking is illegitimate because you cannot agree to have an unequal exchange for something including your labour if you're a free person. That is you cannot agree to have yourself exploited if you should remain free. Even if you want to be less exploited by demanding a higher wage and better working conditions these property owning parasites sic their mercenary dogs at you. Disgusting.

[Tungsten]

red team

A prime example of what kind of "rights" and "freedoms" you would expect in a Capitalist "Democracy". Essentially none.
How ever will we live without the right to take over steel facotries we didn't even build? How terrible...

Even if you want to be less exploited by demanding a higher wage and better working conditions these property owning parasites sic their mercenary dogs at you. Disgusting.
It can't be disgusting if justice isn't relevent.

[red team]

How ever will we live without the right to take over steel facotries we didn't even build? How terrible...


The owners didn't build it. Owners never build anything. Also, money from owners comes from exploitation so their rights of ownership over anything is questionable.


It can't be disgusting if justice isn't relevent.

Justice is relative. Relative to cappies (including cappie judges and laws) they are in the wrong. Relative to the workers and commies they are in the right. We intend to make it official by being the judges and writing the laws.

The morality of the methods used in enforcing those laws is irrelevant as is demonstrated. We fully intend to follow that rule by employing whatever methods, no matter how brutal, to outlaw exploitation when we are in power.

The minor change is that we'll call it "exploitation breaking" instead of "strike breaking".

[Tungsten]

What happened to my post?

[Oh-Dae-Su]

probably you put something very relevant which really backfired to the bull crap these people say and of course some mod took it off ;)

[overlord]

This is terrible news, but those workers have no right to strike. If they don't like their conditions they can quit.

And If someone thinks the owners only built that factory with the labor of the workers, what's stopping the workers building their own factory if that is all it takes?

If you don't want to be exploited, stop working and go live in the jungle is all I can say.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

well thats a bit extreme to look at things man, who in their right mind is going to go and live in the jungle lol, but yes if your not happy with something you can just quit, but also this is in Mexico , MEXICO!!! where you can exploit workers like damn ants, and where if you protest you might get killed, this is not the cause of capitalism, this is the cause of their corrupt infrastructured, you think that's going to happen in USA? get real :rolleyes: i mean it sure is ridiculous for these people to get killed, unless they were doing some sort of violent demonstration which sparked a retaliation, but anyways it's true, you can't change what's not yours, if i have a company i make my own rules, it's like if i let my friends stay over my house but they don't want to sleep in the floor so they want to change my rules in my own house and throw me out or w/e ...c'mon!! get real...

[Hegemonicretribution]

If the workers have a family to support, and little or no choice in what jobs they can realistically acquire in order to support their families after leaving their current one then they are left with the choice of work or perish.

The economic compulsion faced by workers means that this argument falls on its face. There are enough unemployed workers out there desperate to support themselves and their families, that work is in demand, not surplus suply.

The workers would also have a problem building "their own" factory as it requires wealth to do so, this would be even scarcer if the workers in question have quit their job.

[overlord]

The economic compulsion faced by workers means that this argument falls on its face. There are enough unemployed workers out there desperate to support themselves and their families, that work is in demand, not surplus suply.


So you're telling me the workers can't start their own factories because they will go bankrupt. But isn't this how socialism will work?

Those workers should pool their resources and built their own factory. How many of them are there for christsakes. Then they can hire someone to be a manager, hire product developers, etc, etc... and in the end they will be making far less money than if they had just let the entrepreneur run things.

In short, if one left the workers to run things as the socialists suggest, they would be completely bankrupt within six months unless they adopted a capitalitstic mantra - which is illegal under socialism, hence they are pretty much done for under your morally and economically bankrupt 'system'.
Hope this makes you feel better.

[cyu]

In short, if one left the workers to run things as the socialists suggest, they would be completely bankrupt within six months

On the contrary, if you look at Argentina's example (see http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1482898), capitalist companies have gone backrupt, were taken over by their employees, and turned around. They have been operating for years now, even without the capital available to the wealthy - much longer than your six month prediction. They would be even more successful if they had more access to capital.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 08:15 AM
So you're telling me the workers can't start their own factories because they will go bankrupt. But isn't this how socialism will work?
In socialism they will not be competing with capitalist companies, in fact they won't be competeing in the way that you imply. So no.


Those workers should pool their resources and built their own factory. How many of them are there for christsakes. Then they can hire someone to be a manager, hire product developers, etc, etc... and in the end they will be making far less money than if they had just let the entrepreneur run things.
In terms of competition this would not be equal. A born capitalist could start with wealth in excess of the worker's pooled wealth, and without sharing profits. This leaves the workers at a marked disadvantage.

Why the fuck would the workers hire a manager? I am sorry but this completely contradicts any version of what is being proposed. The workers would be as productive without all the managers etc as the percentage of profit to be shared out would be far greater per person. There would be an increased wage all around, and prices could still be lower, but of course the idea is not to have prices at all.


which is illegal under socialism, hence they are pretty much done for under your morally and economically bankrupt 'system'.
Hope this makes you feel better.
Illegal? That implies a soveriegn rule outside of the will of the workers, something that is inaccurate. Not illegal, perhaps unwanted? Again I fail to see how you apply bankruptcy here?

I suggest this is a misunderstanding on your part.

There are fair and decent criticisms of communism, and the theory perhaps is not 100% complete, but I suggest you try and understand a little better what is meant by it here, because you are talking a different language.

[overlord]

QUOTE (overlord @ May 2 2006, 08:15 AM)
So you're telling me the workers can't start their own factories because they will go bankrupt. But isn't this how socialism will work?


In socialism they will not be competing with capitalist companies, in fact they won't be competeing in the way that you imply. So no.

So capitalist companies are more effecient!! AH HAA!!! Finally one of you comrades recognises the SECOND RATE nature of socialism! You should consider that less efficiency=less money=more poverty, especially considering the trickle down effect is absent hence no mega-rich to tax+invest in infrastructure/more factories.


In terms of competition this would not be equal. A born capitalist could start with wealth in excess of the worker's pooled wealth, and without sharing profits. This leaves the workers at a marked disadvantage.

Oh, cry me a river! The poor people! Don't you consider that workers 'hire' their employers to do the thinking for them?


Why the fuck would the workers hire a manager? I am sorry but this completely contradicts any version of what is being proposed. The workers would be as productive without all the managers etc as the percentage of profit to be shared out would be far greater per person. There would be an increased wage all around, and prices could still be lower, but of course the idea is not to have prices at all.

No, reduced efficiency means that there will be no extra profits to share around, and in the long run nothing at all due to zero innovation.


QUOTE
which is illegal under socialism, hence they are pretty much done for under your morally and economically bankrupt 'system'.
Hope this makes you feel better.


Illegal? That implies a soveriegn rule outside of the will of the workers, something that is inaccurate. Not illegal, perhaps unwanted? Again I fail to see how you apply bankruptcy here?

I suggest this is a misunderstanding on your part.

There are fair and decent criticisms of communism, and the theory perhaps is not 100% complete, but I suggest you try and understand a little better what is meant by it here, because you are talking a different language.

If those workers are successful, that makes them goat sacrificing capitalists does it not? God forbid what if some of them should take over the factory as will inevitably occur due to the natural inequality described by Rousseau and the third law of thermodynamics? God fobid nature will be allowed to take its course! Yours is the most unstable ridiculous system there is. Just see how long those crazy argentinian factories last in 'communial ownership'. They will be gone as soon as Argentina regains its prosperity.

[cyu]

Just see how long those crazy argentinian factories last in 'communial ownership'. They will be gone as soon as Argentina regains its prosperity.

The only reason they're there is because capitalism failed them in the first place. Employees took over bankrupt companies the capitalist couldn't run anymore.

[overlord]

QUOTE
Just see how long those crazy argentinian factories last in 'communial ownership'. They will be gone as soon as Argentina regains its prosperity.



The only reason they're there is because capitalism failed them in the first place. Employees took over bankrupt companies the capitalist couldn't run anymore.

Oh really, so it was capitalism that caused Argentina's enormous foreign debt and the hyperinflation required to pay it. How interesting, I thought big socialist governemnt was responsible for those sorts of things. Thank you for enlightening me.

[YSR]

Reformist socialism isn't the kind of socialism anyone here promotes. Reformist socialism, like in Argentina, is just capitalism with a pretty face.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 11:41 AM
So capitalist companies are more effecient!! AH HAA!!! Finally one of you comrades recognises the SECOND RATE nature of socialism! You should consider that less efficiency=less money=more poverty, especially considering the trickle down effect is absent hence no mega-rich to tax+invest in infrastructure/more factories.


No, you surmised from what I said that they would be less efficient. It is understandable, as you see effieciency only in terms of output and input, and also see competition as the sole driving force behind it.

I can appreciate that view, although I don't agree with it, but it totally misses the point of mine. Efficiency is required under socialism only to the extent that there is enough supply to meet demand, perhaps a little surplus. Anything over and above that is wasteful, and quality of life of the workers should be more important.

Also, with capitalism companies benifit from economies of scale, and integration makes financial sense. Because of its nature it leads to oligarchies and monopolies in certain areas, perhaps not all but some. This is rather shit for efficiency is it not?

Communism has the idea of maintaing the benifits of economies of scale on a massive extent, whilst allowing for variation in production.

As for your ideas concerning wealth, tax implies both a government and money, neither are a component of communism.


Oh, cry me a river! The poor people! Don't you consider that workers 'hire' their employers to do the thinking for them?
In a truly meritocratic society this may be more the case, but as things stand this is a load of bollocks and in bad taste. I wouldn't support a truly meritocratic capitalist system, but I would support it far more than the mess we have now.


No, reduced efficiency means that there will be no extra profits to share around, and in the long run nothing at all due to zero innovation.
Reduced efficiency? Have you ever spent any time as part of a team, or lived at all communally? The managers are more of a drain than you think. You may suggest that they are needed to increase efficiency, but this is when there is already a hierarchy in place; that is the workers and the factory owners who cannot realistically manage everything themselves. By making the workers the owners also you elliminate this problem.

As for innovation, why do you imagine it will disapear? I have a few responses depending upon your answer.


If those workers are successful, that makes them goat sacrificing capitalists does it not?
No it means they are part of a successful co-op. Being a capitalist would involve them exploiting workers by making them produce wealth that is alien to them save a small amount.


God forbid what if some of them should take over the factory as will inevitably occur due to the natural inequality described by Rousseau
Rousseau was poetic, but second rate by modern standards, and ultimately dated. (although obscure) Rousseau also advocated a form of direct democracy, do you agree with this?


and the third law of thermodynamics? God fobid nature will be allowed to take its course!
Sounds very nice and impressive, but what does it have to do with this? You think that without capitalists, production would fall steadily until it reached a constant when it ceased, or at what is barely a subsistance level? Stop trying to show off, or hide behind obscurities, and try and argue this in real terms.


Yours is the most unstable ridiculous system there is. Just see how long those crazy argentinian factories last in 'communial ownership'. They will be gone as soon as Argentina regains its prosperity.
Well they aren't exactly implementing it fully, but OK.

I don't think the sytem is really that unstable, whereas your's requires instability for changes in the market.

[overlord]

Communism has the idea of maintaing the benifits of economies of scale on a massive extent, whilst allowing for variation in production.

This will only happen in a dictatorship and you know it but don't want to say in order to protect your sanity.


I wouldn't support a truly meritocratic capitalist system, but I would support it far more than the mess we have now.


What mess? :huh: Modern technology?


Reduced efficiency? Have you ever spent any time as part of a team, or lived at all communally? The managers are more of a drain than you think. You may suggest that they are needed to increase efficiency, but this is when there is already a hierarchy in place; that is the workers and the factory owners who cannot realistically manage everything themselves. By making the workers the owners also you elliminate this problem.

As for innovation, why do you imagine it will disapear? I have a few responses depending upon your answer.


There are stacks of companies today which require ownership of company stock among their employees. They still have someone to lead things. As for innovation, generally people innovate with some kind of expectation of reward. The fact communist naitons are backwards as anything proves it.


Stop trying to show off, or hide behind obscurities, and try and argue this in real terms.


This real enough for you:

Lenin = mass murderer
Trotsky = mass murderer
Che Gueverra= mass murderer
Stalin = mass murderer
Pol Pot = mass murderer
Castro = mass murderer
Mao = mass murderer

Well is'nt that a surprise, your heroes are all phychotic!! I am SHOCKED to discover this. SHOCKED! I tell you. :o

[Invader Zim]

This is a fine example of how capitalists don't understand their own ideology. Striking is a perfectly legitimate course of action under a libertarian society. The right to withdraw ones labous to force an employers hand is perfectly legitimate. real libertarians whould tell you to play the game or not be an employer.

Sorry my restricted friends, try again.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 11:09 AM
This will only happen in a dictatorship and you know it but don't want to say in order to protect your sanity.




:rolleyes: Yes, because I love self-deception, and live in my perfect little proletarian bubble :rolleyes:

The nature of communist economics mean that such benifits occur naturally. Everyone takes and everyone gives...imagine the entire proletariat as one large company, only there are no wages or anything to worry about. The dictatorship you speak of may be the dictatorship of the proletariat initially, but whilst direct control is with the workers then it is far more representative than any of your "democracies."


What mess? :huh: Modern technology?
You totally avoided my point there. Modern technology would not disappear along with capitalism, and I think you would find it hard to show it did. Even the "cmmunist" (your sense of the word, not mine) countries were generally pretty shit hot on this. They achieved industrialisation, for the most part, faster than it occurred in the west. Even undeveloped nations such as Cuba made leaps in health care and education, and the soviets were first in space....of course I don't support any of these places so this is neither here nor there.

I was criticising capitalism for not being meritocratic. It doesn't "sound" that bad assuming that it was meritocratic, but it isn't. Just like I suppose many capitalists think communism would be a "nice theory" if people weren't so "greedy."


There are stacks of companies today which require ownership of company stock among their employees. They still have someone to lead things. As for innovation, generally people innovate with some kind of expectation of reward. The fact communist naitons are backwards as anything proves it.
Stacks of companies? Wow they may be slightly left leaning, or perhaps not, but they are not relevant here. The reward is let me guess? Material? Well you take out the necessity by supplying needs, and you educate about fetishism, and then I suppose I wouldn't really mind if great innovators were given a shiny car or something as a reward, and as the public benifit I don't think there would be an outcry. Howeevr would the the pioneer really want some daft little reward, or would they not be happy with what they have done? In vrious disiplines the drive is not simply material, there is prestige and will to help that drive people beyond this.

If you can't get over communist coutries as valid examples of what I am talking about here then it is quite sad that your use of language is so restricted so as to not allow debate outside of your little bubble. Stop being so fucking petty and talk read from the same page, I make an effort to understand what you mean when you say something, I would appreciate it if you would not completely invert anything I suggest so that it suits your needs. Normally I would avoid talk of "communism" because of intellectually stunted individuals who can not get past the negative connotations attributed to state capitalists, but this being revolutionary left, I thought it might be possible to use standard terms. If you can't get your head around this idea then debate with me not as an economist, but with someone with ideas that are unrelated to anything tried before, and that has no real name.


This real enough for you:

Lenin = not communist
Trotsky = not communist
Che Gueverra= not communist
Stalin = not communist
Pol Pot = you're not even trying now :rolleyes:
Castro = hehe...wouldn't Cuba have to be communist for this to be true?
Mao = yes...another reactionary who has dirtied the term "communism"

You knew what my response would be, so I suppose that resorting to petty tactics such as this is what you do when your attempts to hide behind thermodynamics and contract theory didn't work. Learn some more clever sounding ideas to hide behind next time, maybe these will help stall the time it takes for you to sidetrack the topic, which is what you are doing.


Well is'nt that a surprise, your heroes are all phychotic!! I am SHOCKED to discover this. SHOCKED! I tell you. :o
:lol: Heroes? You really do live in your own little world, I don't have any heroes, but if I did I can assure you it would not be any of those that you posted.

[Tungsten]

Enigma

Striking is a perfectly legitimate course of action under a libertarian society.
As I explained in my post (that didn't appear for some reason):
Striking= ok
"Sit-down" striking/taking over factories= Not ok
Hegemonicretribution

Modern technology would not disappear along with capitalism,
Perhaps you ought to explain that to the people who think that a return to a 19th century-style liberal system will result in 19th century living conditions and methods of production. There seem to be an awful lot of them on this board.

[overlord]

HHAHAHHAH!

You don't think it is thermodynamically unstable to maintain everyone in the same level of wealth and equality? It is INFINITELY unstable

I'll allow you the pleasure of disproving me! You have 6000 years of human history. Give me a communist society which existed longer than, lets say a decade, without capitalism.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 03:49 AM
HHAHAHHAH!

You don't think it is thermodynamically unstable to maintain everyone in the same level of wealth and equality? It is INFINITELY unstable

I'll allow you the pleasure of disproving me! You have 6000 years of human history. Give me a communist society which existed longer than, lets say a decade, without capitalism.
Depends what you mean by "equality," but I think that is stable.

As for the wealth, it doesn't mean everyone gets paid the same, rather that there is free access to goods.

Show communism that has went before? You really don't understand the first thing do you?

If your argument is "It has never existed, and therefore can't" then there are countless examples that disprove this. It was said people would never fly, but then came the plane...it was said there would be no 4 minute mile and then there was, it was said there would be no space travel until there was. My point is that just because something hasn't happened already does not mean that it can, or will not happen.

Communist society with capitalism? This is supposed to be OI, not learning. Please make your objectionsd to what is actually being proposed.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 03:49 AM
You have 6000 years of human history. Give me a communist society which existed longer than, lets say a decade, without capitalism.
Give me an example of a capitalist society that lasted for any period in time between the years 200 ad and 700 ad.

You can't, because capitalism didn't exist then; just as nobody can give an example of socialist society in all hitherto society because it hasn't happened yet.

Have you even read Marx? That much would be clear by reading the first 5 paragraphs of the manifesto.

[overlord]

Give me an example of a capitalist society that lasted for any period in time between the years 200 ad and 700 ad.


Try, EVERY single one!


You can't, because capitalism didn't exist then; just as nobody can give an example of socialist society in all hitherto society because it hasn't happened yet.


What, do we need another 6000 years? If it hasn't happened, it because it aint gunna.


If your argument is "It has never existed, and therefore can't" then there are countless examples that disprove this. It was said people would never fly, but then came the plane...it was said there would be no 4 minute mile and then there was, it was said there would be no space travel until there was. My point is that just because something hasn't happened already does not mean that it can, or will not happen.


I didn't say communism never happened and never will happen. I said that if it does it will not last a decade before reverting to a capitalist state. You have the entire history of humanity behind you and have failed to come up with a single example to back up your claims.

OWNED.

[RevMARKSman]

Nice touch at the end there, but I can give you a few quotes from people just like you:




Everything that can be invented has been invented.
Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899



640K ought to be enough for anybody.
Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates, 1981



Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.
Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895



The Macintosh uses an experimental pointing device called a 'mouse.' There is no evidence that people want to use these things. What businessman knows about point sizes on typefaces or the value of variable point sizes ? Who out there in the general marketplace even knows what a 'font' is ? The whole concept and attitude towards icons and hieroglyphs is actually counterrevolutionary — it's a language that is hardly 'user friendly'. This type of machine was developed by hardware hackers

working out of Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center. It has yet to find popular success. There seems to be some mysterious user resistance to this type of machine.
John C. Dvorak on why the Macintosh would fail, San Francisco Examiner, 1984/02/19



I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.
IBM Chairman Thomas Watson, 1943



Get your feet off my desk, get out of here, you stink, and we're not going to buy your product.
Joe Keenan, President of Atari, in 1976 responding to Steve Jobs' offer to sell him rights to the new personal computer he and Steve Wozniak developed



Computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and perhaps only weigh 1 1/2 tons.
Popular Mechanics, 1949



There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in their home.
Ken Olson (President of Digital Equipment Corporation) at the Convention of the World Future Society in Boston in 1977



The modern computer hovers between the obsolescent and the nonexistent.
Sydney Brenner in 1927



I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.
Jack Valenti, MPAA president, testimony to the House of Representatives, 1982



I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won't last out the year.
The editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall, 1957



But what... is it good for?
An engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, commenting on the microchip in 1968.



New things do happen. And they stay.