CEOs are invaluable and deserve their pay [Archive]

red team

7th May 2006, 04:12

One CEO plagiarised a book, therefore all CEOs must be plagiarists. Bravo.

Not the point. It's an assumed fact among workers because of all the propaganda drilled into them when we were still school children that personal worth and therefore rewards corresponds to merit. Having this fraud exposed just makes our job easier to expose the lie of meritocracy.

Furthermore, did he retain his post as CEO along with the grossly disproportional rewards despite his exposure as a mediocrity who can't even come up with his own original thoughts, but needs to steal it from others for something as simple as a "business tips" book? We're also propagandized since childhood that "cheating" is a shameful activity to be looked down upon and is a serious enough infraction to be punishable if discovered. There's goes another social pillar.

It's just one more pillar supporting and justifying this social/economic system which a Capitalist knocked down himself. :lol:

You're right. We'd might as well give up now. How can we possibly complete with with thinking skills of that level?

The fact that so many intelligent, educated people are driven into low wage work and/or couldn't find work related to their high-skills training finds itself expressed in this forum. The fact that I am able to debate with you and handily defeat you in most arguments just demonstrates this fact. With the educated middle class joining and finding common cause with the working class because of the inevitable competition to drive down wages and reduce staffing levels of all wage earners, history is not on your side. Rome also fell when its middle class of free citizens was driven down and found common cause with the slaves against the rich land owners. Without the educated middle class specialists for designing and maintaining the infrastructure of a modern industrial society and the workers to perform the direct labour the Capitalists have only their fictional paper wealth. It's only a matter of time...

Oh-Dae-Su

7th May 2006, 08:19

The fact that so many intelligent, educated people are driven into low wage work and/or couldn't find work related to their high-skills training finds itself expressed in this forum. The fact that I am able to debate with you and handily defeat you in most arguments just demonstrates this fact.

bull bull bull and more bull.... do you know what percent of people unemployed for more than 1 year have an IQ higher or equal to 125? 2! what percent lives in poverty with an IQ higher or equal to 125? 2! High school dropout? 0.4 percent!!! if you are intelligent my friend, you will succeed in life somehow....of course there are exceptions, but what percent of people with an IQ of less than 75 live in poverty? 30! ;) these statistics ought to tell you something...

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iq

you have a flawed way of looking at the world, even though i actually believe that intelligence doesn't really have nothing to do with how you succeed in life, but it does play an important role. But more than anything it's work ethic, if your lazy, it doesnt matter if you are Albert Einstein smart, you won't get anywhere in life, because nothing falls out of the sky, seems like thats what you want....you seem to believe that because you can "handily defeat" someone in any argument and that your intelligent you deserve something? :lol: did you graduate from high school? did you got to college and at least graduate with a minor or something? than how the hell are you expecting to get even equal privileges than a guy who graduated with a PHD, sorry even if you have an IQ 100 times higher than his, if your just sitting in your house thinking you deserve it , you wont achieve anything ....thats not how the world works...

for example, when i got to this country, i didn't even know what an IQ test was, i took it in my own native language at the age of 10 which is the only one iv ever gotten, i got 130, all through high school i never did shit, i always got D's and C's in my classes, while i saw other kids who i was pretty sure were lower IQ than me, yet they got A's and B's because they devoured those uninteresting books and did all their little pretty neat projects and homework etc. while i always was more interested in going home and watching foreign films and reading Papillon...and so they got scholarships to Harvard and i didn't get none....so that's how life works, get over it, can't expect to get something you didn't work for, you can't harvest without plowing.....

ÑóẊîöŉ

7th May 2006, 10:56

bull bull bull and more bull.... do you know what percent of people unemployed for more than 1 year have an IQ higher or equal to 125? 2! what percent lives in poverty with an IQ higher or equal to 125? 2! High school dropout? 0.4 percent!!! if you are intelligent my friend, you will succeed in life somehow....of course there are exceptions, but what percent of people with an IQ of less than 75 live in poverty? 30! wink.gif these statistics ought to tell you something...

First, Wikipedia is not a source, since any idiot can edit it's pages. Secondly, IQ tests only measure one's ability to do IQ tests, not intelligence. An idiot savant may a complete whizz at maths but they would totally flunk an IQ test.

you have a flawed way of looking at the world, even though i actually believe that intelligence doesn't really have nothing to do with how you succeed in life, but it does play an important role. But more than anything it's work ethic, if your lazy, it doesnt matter if you are Albert Einstein smart, you won't get anywhere in life, because nothing falls out of the sky, seems like thats what you want...

Then please explain why most people who work their fingers to the bone aren't super-rich, and also explain how your little work ethic theory deals with why the progeny of billionaires are entitled to millions without lifting a finger.

you seem to believe that because you can "handily defeat" someone in any argument and that your intelligent you deserve something?

Apparently the concept of meritocracy escapes you.

did you graduate from high school? did you got to college and at least graduate with a minor or something? than how the hell are you expecting to get even equal privileges than a guy who graduated with a PHD, sorry even if you have an IQ 100 times higher than his, if your just sitting in your house thinking you deserve it , you wont achieve anything ....thats not how the world works...

No, it isn't. Most PhDs aren't millionaires. Most millionaires are so because their daddy is rich or they found some new way to screw the proles out of their money.

for example, when i got to this country, i didn't even know what an IQ test was, i took it in my own native language at the age of 10 which is the only one iv ever gotten, i got 130, all through high school i never did shit, i always got D's and C's in my classes, while i saw other kids who i was pretty sure were lower IQ than me, yet they got A's and B's because they devoured those uninteresting books and did all their little pretty neat projects and homework etc. while i always was more interested in going home and watching foreign films and reading Papillon...and so they got scholarships to Harvard and i didn't get none....so that's how life works, get over it, can't expect to get something you didn't work for, you can't harvest without plowing.....

Obviously you simply weren't rewarded for things you were good at. Education in this current society has little to do with skill/intelligence and more to do with rote learning and passing exams so the school can keep it's position on the league tables.

Edit: To prove my point about Wikipedia:

http://img351.imageshack.us/img351/2957/untitled3nm.th.jpg (http://img351.imageshack.us/my.php?image=untitled3nm.jpg)

somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback

7th May 2006, 13:15

Originally posted by Oh-Dae-[email protected] 7 2006, 08:40 AM

The fact that so many intelligent, educated people are driven into low wage work and/or couldn't find work related to their high-skills training finds itself expressed in this forum. The fact that I am able to debate with you and handily defeat you in most arguments just demonstrates this fact.

bull bull bull and more bull.... do you know what percent of people unemployed for more than 1 year have an IQ higher or equal to 125? 2! what percent lives in poverty with an IQ higher or equal to 125? 2! High school dropout? 0.4 percent!!! if you are intelligent my friend, you will succeed in life somehow....of course there are exceptions, but what percent of people with an IQ of less than 75 live in poverty? 30! ;) these statistics ought to tell you something...

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iq

you have a flawed way of looking at the world, even though i actually believe that intelligence doesn't really have nothing to do with how you succeed in life, but it does play an important role. But more than anything it's work ethic, if your lazy, it doesnt matter if you are Albert Einstein smart, you won't get anywhere in life, because nothing falls out of the sky, seems like thats what you want....you seem to believe that because you can "handily defeat" someone in any argument and that your intelligent you deserve something? :lol: did you graduate from high school? did you got to college and at least graduate with a minor or something? than how the hell are you expecting to get even equal privileges than a guy who graduated with a PHD, sorry even if you have an IQ 100 times higher than his, if your just sitting in your house thinking you deserve it , you wont achieve anything ....thats not how the world works...

for example, when i got to this country, i didn't even know what an IQ test was, i took it in my own native language at the age of 10 which is the only one iv ever gotten, i got 130, all through high school i never did shit, i always got D's and C's in my classes, while i saw other kids who i was pretty sure were lower IQ than me, yet they got A's and B's because they devoured those uninteresting books and did all their little pretty neat projects and homework etc. while i always was more interested in going home and watching foreign films and reading Papillon...and so they got scholarships to Harvard and i didn't get none....so that's how life works, get over it, can't expect to get something you didn't work for, you can't harvest without plowing.....
Completely invalid point. My IQ is 146, still I do not want to become rich and I'm a commie :lol:
IQ doesn't prove shit, but of course you cannot come up with any argument, as usual, so you are hereby forgiven ;)

Tungsten

7th May 2006, 13:25

red team

Not the point. It's an assumed fact among workers because of all the propaganda drilled into them when we were still school children that personal worth and therefore rewards corresponds to merit. Having this fraud exposed just makes our job easier to expose the lie of meritocracy.
Of course it's the point. You're trying to make a generalisation out of an exceptional circumstance. It doesn't take a genius to work out why.

The fact that so many intelligent, educated people are driven into low wage work and/or couldn't find work related to their high-skills training finds itself expressed in this forum.
Presumably, you see yourself as one of these people and see socialism as a means of forcing people to provide you with the respect you feel you're "entitled" to.

The fact that I am able to debate with you and handily defeat you in most arguments just demonstrates this fact.
Where are these arguments you've defeated me in? In most of them, you literally don't know what you're talking about and your lack of understanding of the subjects being discussed isn't difficult to spot. Hyperbole and demogoguery does little to disguise it.

With the educated middle class joining and finding common cause with the working class because of the inevitable competition to drive down wages and reduce staffing levels of all wage earners, history is not on your side.
Don't make me laugh. Even if such a common cause was found, it would only last until the revolution and then class antagonisms will quickly re-emerge afterwards.
NoXion

Then please explain why most people who work their fingers to the bone aren't super-rich
It's not written in stone that working hard is going to get you rich. Sometimes it will, but there's no guarantee. To get rich, you have to provide something people are willing to give you money for. The only other option, other than stealing, is to force them, which in itself is another form of stealing.

Most millionaires are so because their daddy is rich or they found some new way to screw the proles out of their money.
So to you, selling goods to people or hiring them to do a job for you is screwing them out of their money. I'll bet seeing your economic theories put into practice will be a real hoot.

ÑóẊîöŉ

7th May 2006, 15:54

It's not written in stone that working hard is going to get you rich. Sometimes it will, but there's no guarantee.

Makes it a bit of a crap shoot then, doesn't it? And thus you admit that capitalism inherently causes inequality.

To get rich, you have to provide something people are willing to give you money for.

Or that you can dupe them into them giving you money for :rolleyes: "necessities" have already been cornered; the only thing left is to try and convince people to buy crap they don't need.

So to you, selling goods to people or hiring them to do a job for you is screwing them out of their money. I'll bet seeing your economic theories put into practice will be a real hoot.

And as we all know, unfettered capitalism produces nothing but a paradise! Just look at the 18th and 19th centuries! A gift economy has not yet been put into practice, but it has a basic principle that's a damn sight better than "convince Joe McCitizen to buy overpriced shit he doesn't need".

Eleutherios

7th May 2006, 16:09

Originally posted by Oh-Dae-[email protected] 7 2006, 07:40 AM

The fact that so many intelligent, educated people are driven into low wage work and/or couldn't find work related to their high-skills training finds itself expressed in this forum. The fact that I am able to debate with you and handily defeat you in most arguments just demonstrates this fact.

bull bull bull and more bull.... do you know what percent of people unemployed for more than 1 year have an IQ higher or equal to 125? 2! what percent lives in poverty with an IQ higher or equal to 125? 2! High school dropout? 0.4 percent!!! if you are intelligent my friend, you will succeed in life somehow....of course there are exceptions, but what percent of people with an IQ of less than 75 live in poverty? 30! ;) these statistics ought to tell you something...
So you're basically saying you're okay with a system which forces people into poverty just because they happen to have a lower than average IQ? It's not something you can consciously control, you know. I don't see why they have any less of a right to the fruits of industrial society. In fact, the mentally handicapped need our society's support MORE than the average person. So what sense does it make to ensure that the retards end up with the least potential to get that support?

Tungsten

7th May 2006, 18:36

NoXion

Makes it a bit of a crap shoot then, doesn't it?
Not really. Results are more important than effort.

And thus you admit that capitalism inherently causes inequality.
In case it wasn't already mentioned, I don't care about economic inequality.

the only thing left is to try and convince people to buy crap they don't need.
Thank heavens we've got people like you to step in and tell us all what we do or don't need.

And as we all know, unfettered capitalism produces nothing but a paradise! Just look at the 18th and 19th centuries!
Compared to what?

A gift economy has not yet been put into practice, but it has a basic principle that's a damn sight better than "convince Joe McCitizen to buy overpriced shit he doesn't need".
Let's hear it.

Oh-Dae-Su

7th May 2006, 20:02

First, Wikipedia is not a source, since any idiot can edit it's pages. Secondly, IQ tests only measure one's ability to do IQ tests, not intelligence. An idiot savant may a complete whizz at maths but they would totally flunk an IQ test.

fair enough, wikipedia is not a good source, but FUCK!!! next time i see one of you with a wikipedia source im gonna give the same lame excuse :D

and umm NO! IQ tests actually measure something called "COMMON SENSE", and a whizz at math i highly doubt he will FLUNK an IQ test....

Then please explain why most people who work their fingers to the bone aren't super-rich, and also explain how your little work ethic theory deals with why the progeny of billionaires are entitled to millions without lifting a finger.

why most people who brake heir asses yet they are not millionares? simple, they are doing things that require no skills at all, how humanly stupid do you have to be to not know how to pick up a box or a bag of patatoes? :lol: compare that to the skills necessary for running an accounting business....yeah i know your thinking about it HAAHAHHA how my little work ethic deals with people who inherit millions? ummm it obviously doesnt deal at all with it, if i inherited millions i didn't work for it, but i was lucky, thats all there is to it, is that something wrong in your eyes? how is that wrong? is it because maybe your jelous? why would it be something wrong or of debate that such and such person inherited millions without doing jack shit? THEIR LUCKY! its a fact of life SO DEAL WITH!! GROW UP MAN!!

Apparently the concept of meritocracy escapes you.

intelligence is nothing in the concept of meritocracy if you don't know how to use it, so what if you are a genius, in this world, what counts are your achievements..

No, it isn't. Most PhDs aren't millionaires. Most millionaires are so because their daddy is rich or they found some new way to screw the proles out of their money.

yeah but if you have a PHD, you have more chances of being rich and defenitaly upper middle class than others who don't have a PHD, and if you are a millionare because your daddy gave all his money to you what's the deal? is that supposed to be something bad now? or are you just hating yourself because you didn't inherit anything? to this day i don't comprehend whats the leftist argument of this? it's as if your all jelous or something? and your probably going to come back and say YEAH BUT IT'S RELATIVELY SMALL % OF THOSE WHO INHERIT MILLIONS! EXACTLY the point, most millionares don't inherit it, they earn it...and yes with some new way to screw with the proles out of their money, but of course! THEIR USING THEIR INTELLIGENCE!! to do so, if not everyone would be screwing the proles..

Obviously you simply weren't rewarded for things you were good at. Education in this current society has little to do with skill/intelligence and more to do with rote learning and passing exams so the school can keep it's position on the league tables.

well, what way do you suppose students should be graded or taught or whatever? there is nothing to be good at in high school except the things i wasn't good at LMAO, which i never even bothered to try, which were studying and doing homework, sure if the school rewarded me with grades for watching foreign movies and books that were about prision escapes than i would have defenitaly gotten A's, but is this how you believe it should be? lol sweet hahahha :rolleyes:

Completely invalid point. My IQ is 146, still I do not want to become rich and I'm a commie
IQ doesn't prove shit, but of course you cannot come up with any argument, as usual, so you are hereby forgiven

you have it all wrong idiot, since when does preference have something to do with intelligence? :lol: :rolleyes: in fact my point was not invalid at all, because it was not about preference, it was about a statistic which shows that obviously more intelligent people tend to not be poor, in contrast to those who are not so smart and they are obviously poorer. This shouldn't be a surprise at all, your saying that because you have a genius IQ you don't want to be rich (which by the way who are you kidding man, yeah and you are an angel too right? :rolleyes: :lol: ) but intelligence has nothing to do with your own personal preference, so yeah you are hereby forgiven ;)

And thus you admit that capitalism inherently causes inequality

no shit sherlock we all know that, but wow since the beginning of human kind since when has there been EQUALITY!!! get real man , that is just an utopian belief, that is why communism is flawed, at least during capitalism, more and more people have become richer....

So you're basically saying you're okay with a system which forces people into poverty just because they happen to have a lower than average IQ? It's not something you can consciously control, you know. I don't see why they have any less of a right to the fruits of industrial society. In fact, the mentally handicapped need our society's support MORE than the average person. So what sense does it make to ensure that the retards end up with the least potential to get that support?

dude, my point was that this other guy was saying that he was intelligent and that there were other intelligent folks out there who were poor bla bla bla, but there is no system which forces anyone into poverty because they aren't intelligent, it's society and the way humans work, it's like survival of the fittest, if you and i were stranded in a deserted island, and you were way smarter than me, and i couldn't find the needs to survive because i was stupid, than sorry for me i was to stupid.....but anywas my example of other kids who were not as smart as me but they had better work and study ethics than me shows that that is what it's all about , work ethics and your will.....ever heard of " WHERE THERE IS A WILL, THERE IS A WAY"...

RevMARKSman

7th May 2006, 20:49

more and more people have become richer....

While the poor still struggle to LIVE...

why most people who brake heir asses yet they are not millionares? simple, they are doing things that require no skills at all, how humanly stupid do you have to be to not know how to pick up a box or a bag of patatoes?

They are still working harder than the so-called "skill workers" aka CEOs, word processers and such. Manual labor involves much more effort, much more determination than trading money.

WHERE THERE IS A WILL, THERE IS A WAY

Then how come those people breaking their asses and doing their part of the deal never get to see that "way"? You contradict yourself:

compare that to the skills necessary for running an accounting business

that is what it's all about , work ethics and your will.....

black magick hustla

8th May 2006, 00:13

if you are a millionare because your daddy gave all his money to you what's the deal? is that supposed to be something bad now? or are you just hating yourself because you didn't inherit anything? to this day i don't comprehend whats the leftist argument of this? it's as if your all jelous or something? and your probably going to come back and say YEAH BUT IT'S RELATIVELY SMALL % OF THOSE WHO INHERIT MILLIONS! EXACTLY the point, most millionares don't inherit it, they earn it...and yes with some new way to screw with the proles out of their money, but of course! THEIR USING THEIR INTELLIGENCE!! to do so, if not everyone would be screwing the proles..

you see, this is why i hate this subforum.

it is filled with rude jackasses who pretend to know it all and come with quasi-religious esoteric arguments hoping to trample us poor delusional commies!

you see mr.ohdaesue the metaphisical concept of inheritance through the family stands from the same idealistic grounds as the old divine right of the kings. monarchs argued that it was perfectly fine that they would inherit the throne, for it was god's will to do so.

now the concept of property inheritance through the family sustains itself from a relatively similar argument. the representatives of the capitalist spectacle argue that because parents worked so hard to accumulate a certain amount of capital, they should have the right to choose who will inherit that accumulation, for it was made through good old fashioned hard work.

However, this value that asserts to be self evident is never questioned!

on what argument does "inheritance through family" stands? the only argument i have ever heard about is how it is a "moral law" and it is blasphemous to question it.

why wouldn't the people working at a certain enterprise wouldn't be able to inherit even a bit of it, while the son who didnt help in any way to construct such enterprise would be able to get most out of it?

you see, even your bourgeois nonsense work ethic is incompatible to the metaphysical shit of this type of inheritance!

also i know this probably my effort to prove you wrong is futile because you are from the same group of geniuses that have stayed here a relatively long amount of time and yet are not able to understand why the fuck wasnt the USSR communist.

Eleutherios

8th May 2006, 12:14

Originally posted by Oh-Dae-[email protected] 7 2006, 07:23 PM
dude, my point was that this other guy was saying that he was intelligent and that there were other intelligent folks out there who were poor bla bla bla, but there is no system which forces anyone into poverty because they aren't intelligent, it's society and the way humans work, it's like survival of the fittest, if you and i were stranded in a deserted island, and you were way smarter than me, and i couldn't find the needs to survive because i was stupid, than sorry for me i was to stupid.....but anywas my example of other kids who were not as smart as me but they had better work and study ethics than me shows that that is what it's all about , work ethics and your will.....ever heard of " WHERE THERE IS A WILL, THERE IS A WAY"...
So I guess we better just forget about the retards and let them just die, huh? No use in helping them since they're just inferior subhumans who can't do things as well as the rest of us...

Get back to me once you master the English language and get over this social Darwinism crap.

overlord

8th May 2006, 12:54

you see mr.ohdaesue the metaphisical concept of inheritance through the family stands from the same idealistic grounds as the old divine right of the kings. monarchs argued that it was perfectly fine that they would inherit the throne, for it was god's will to do so.

This is a crock of shit. The purpose of inheritance lies in that olden tradition of 'giving', something the commies have to learn after they finish 'taking'. To illustrate my point:

why wouldn't the people working at a certain enterprise wouldn't be able to inherit even a bit of it, while the son who didnt help in any way to construct such enterprise would be able to get most out of it?

The reason is to keep the workers in their place. Assumedly the fact many of them don't have any money is they've already spent it all. So why should we pay them twice? But if a worker is willing work, to acutally save some money, elevate their position in life, why to they have to 'loot'?

you see, even your bourgeois nonsense work ethic is incompatible to the metaphysical shit of this type of inheritance!

Flush your metaphysical shit down the toilet it belongs and get a proper job you hippie.

also i know this probably my effort to prove you wrong is futile because you are from the same group of geniuses that have stayed here a relatively long amount of time and yet are not able to understand why the fuck wasnt the USSR communist.

Yeah, like all that 'communist party' stuff was actually double-speak for 'liberty party'. You freaks make me sick.

Tungsten

8th May 2006, 13:50

Marmot

on what argument does "inheritance through family" stands? the only argument i have ever heard about is how it is a "moral law" and it is blasphemous to question it.
On the argument that you, and not someone else is the possessor of your property and labour. It stems from the idea of freedom and self ownership.

why wouldn't the people working at a certain enterprise wouldn't be able to inherit even a bit of it, while the son who didnt help in any way to construct such enterprise would be able to get most out of it?
Why would they?

also i know this probably my effort to prove you wrong is futile because you are from the same group of geniuses that have stayed here a relatively long amount of time and yet are not able to understand why the fuck wasnt the USSR communist.
I haven't heard any attempt to justify it that other than the usual "oh, it wasn't communist because they weren't all living in a worker's paradise". If you think paradise is an essential aspect of communism, then what does that make you other than a utopian?

RevMARKSman

8th May 2006, 20:37

I haven't heard any attempt to justify it that other than the usual "oh, it wasn't communist because they weren't all living in a worker's paradise".1. THE USSR HAD A GOVERNMENT INCLUDING POLICE, ARMY ETC.
2. SEE #1.

Doesn't sound like a stateless society to me.

Do you understand now?

And get ready for a serious asswhuppin', I've found it's very satisfactory at school to stump my more right-wing and/or authoritarian classmates.

Why would they?

Because they did more than be born. They actually worked.
Plus in a true communist society, there would be no "money". So this would be a non-issue.

Tungsten

8th May 2006, 20:47

MonicaTTmed

1. THE USSR HAD A GOVERNMENT INCLUDING POLICE, ARMY ETC.
2. SEE #1.
I would have thought that necessary in any society, especially a communist one. Who else is going to prevent society travelling the 'wrong' direction?

Doesn't sound like a stateless society to me.
You're not likely to get one either, no matter what happens. A stateless society is anarchism, in which either there is no law or the law is otherwise unenforceable. To call this workable strikes me as being utopian.

And get ready for a serious asswhuppin', I've found it's very satisfactory at school to stump my more right-wing and/or authoritarian classmates.
Fat chance.

Because they did more than be born. They actually worked.
What difference does that make? Should we deny our children presents unless they work for them?

Plus in a true communist society, there would be no "money". So this would be a non-issue.
Utopians of the world unite. <_<

RevMARKSman

8th May 2006, 20:51

Marx's definition of communism: A stateless, classless society.
Nuff said.

We're not going to mess things up like Stalin and Mao did. This is a permanent revolution.

Utopians of the world unite.

And...? I don't see the need for little pieces of paper being traded and going through the wash, over and over again.

black magick hustla

8th May 2006, 21:52

This is a crock of shit. The purpose of inheritance lies in that olden tradition of 'giving', something the commies have to learn after they finish 'taking'. To illustrate my point:

i didnt say that inheritance IS ROOTED in the concept of the divine right of the kings, i argued that it stands from the same idealistic ground.

it is not backed up by any rational argument whatsoever, it comes from the same type of moral hunch as the divine right of the kings. it implies that just by sharing the same blood a rich CEO has you automatically win the lottery!

but perhaps you are too clouded by moral institutions to perceive how horribly ridiculous such a concept is

The reason is to keep the workers in their place. Assumedly the fact many of them don't have any money is they've already spent it all. So why should we pay them twice? But if a wor?ker is willing work, to acutally save some money, elevate their position in life, why to they have to 'loot'?

this is horribly retarded

what if a certain worker has to mantain a pretty numerous family and cant afford hoarding?

what if a worker doesnt lives in the first world and cant afford saving?

besides you are not even supposed to "pay them", because such an argument implies that you are justly entitled to something that doesnt belongs to you.

and besides, you havent replied my question. why should someone that didnt lift a finger for a certain enterprise get most out of it?

Flush your metaphysical shit down the toilet it belongs and get a proper job you hippie.

i am flattened

thank you dear

Yeah, like all that 'communist party' stuff was actually double-speak for 'liberty party'. You freaks make me sick.

obviously parties that establish ultra bureacratic states in backward feudal societies are communist. i mean after all, marx argued communism would evolve from advanced capitalism societies, and that it will be stateless.

i repeat

COMMUNISM IS STATELESS AND EVOLVES FROM ADVANCED CAPITALISM

COMMUNISM IS STATELESS AND EVOLVES FROM ADVANCED CAPITALISM

COMMUNISM IS STATELESS AND EVOLVES FROM ADVANCED CAPITALISM

COMMUNISM IS STATELESS AND EVOLVES FROM ADVANCED CAPITALISM

COMMUNISM IS STATELESS AND EVOLVES FROM ADVANCED CAPITALISM

COMMUNISM IS STATELESS AND EVOLVES FROM ADVANCED CAPITALISM

am i lucid enough?

black magick hustla

8th May 2006, 22:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 01:11 PM
does that make you other than a utopian?

On the argument that you, and not someone else is the possessor of your property and labour. It stems from the idea of freedom and self ownership.

sadly most people are not owners of their labour. :(

Why would they?

because you said it yourself, people should own their labor!

you see, i can even turn that lockean bullshit against you.

I haven't heard any attempt to justify it that other than the usual "oh, it wasn't communist because they weren't all living in a worker's paradise". If you think paradise is an essential aspect of communism, then what does that make you other than a utopian?

read a bit about the paris commune in wikipedia, and then compare it to the USSR.

then ponder a bit about it, just a bit

how different both of them are?

i hope your thinking skills are not that bad to not be able to differentiate something engels himself considered "the dictatorship of the proletariat' from the USSR.

red team

8th May 2006, 22:54

This is a crock of shit. The purpose of inheritance lies in that olden tradition of 'giving', something the commies have to learn after they finish 'taking'. To illustrate my point:

And the reason why you have so much to give is that you've taken the surplus value from labour working for you. As an example, if you take a 20 percent profit margin it doesn't take more than the labour of 5 workers for you to gain the equivalent purchasing power of the total wages of 5 workers while you may not need to do anything at all for it other than sit around the mansion and wait for the money to roll in. Imagine what you can do with 10,000 people working for you! It's robbery of wages because you've done nothing for that money. That is why company owners are almost always the children of company founders. Again, as implied in the thread's topic, talent is irrelevant when matched up against wealth supported nepotism.

red team

8th May 2006, 23:31

Where are these arguments you've defeated me in? In most of them, you literally don't know what you're talking about and your lack of understanding of the subjects being discussed isn't difficult to spot. Hyperbole and demogoguery does little to disguise it.

1. Justify the taking of profits from wokers and not workers taking of revenue from Capitalists.

2. If you answer with ownership then define ownership and the original source of that purchasing power in order to claim ownership.

From the last time you've answered there are only two options for the Capitalist to gain so massive amount of wealth as to be able to purchase means of production like factories, farms, mines, and shops.

2a. Previous accumulation of profit so go back to problem #1

2b. Conquest including violent coercion and theft on a massive scale like institutionalized slavery and colonialism. In which case the source and all subsequent accumulation of wealth is invalid. Workers are entirely justified in employing the same brutal methods to reconquer back the wealth.

Check Mate Cappie! :P

Tungsten

9th May 2006, 21:05

red team

1. Justify the taking of profits from wokers
They're not. We've been over this before. Your employer buys your labour. Whether he then makes a profit or a loss out of the labour you sell to him isn't any of your business because it's no longer yours.
MonicaTTmed

We're not going to mess things up like Stalin and Mao did. This is a permanent revolution.
You mean you'll be permenently killing people and taking their stuff? Isn't that what Stain and Mao did?
Marmot

because you said it yourself, people should own their labor!
And their own property.

you see, i can even turn that lockean bullshit against you.
You don't know you're talking about, as usual.

i hope your thinking skills are not that bad to not be able to differentiate something engels himself considered "the dictatorship of the proletariat' from the USSR.
The difference is one of consensus. It's safe to say that most of you aren't interested in consensus.

red team

9th May 2006, 21:49

1. Justify the taking of profits from wokers

They're not. We've been over this before. Your employer buys your labour. Whether he then makes a profit or a loss out of the labour you sell to him isn't any of your business because it's no longer yours.

In other words the proceeds of labour is no longer controlled by the labourer himself once he begins working for someone else.

Thanks for explaining the Marxist concept of exploitation. We know the feeling...

Tungsten

9th May 2006, 22:03

red team

In other words the proceeds of labour is no longer controlled by the labourer himself once he begins working for someone else.
If you sell a car to me and I then sell to someone else for a higher price, you're not entitled to come to me demanding your "share"; the car was no longer yours at the time I sold it. You have not been exploited.

black magick hustla

10th May 2006, 03:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 08:26 PM

You don't know you're talking about, as usual.
the modern libertarian concept of freedom and property is deeply rooted in lockean philosophy.

learn your history chap.

And their own property.

of course, the worker should be entitled to the fruits of his labor!

sadly to you "fair property" equates to lazy capitalist swines owning everything.

sorry dude, that is not a fair deal.

The difference is one of consensus. It's safe to say that most of you aren't interested in consensus.

i am talking here about marxian socialism, thus it concerns me more what marx and engels said than what propaganda from both the soviet and the american side nailed into the mayority of the population.

marx and engels considered the paris commune a dictatorship of the proletariat, and it didnt resemble the ussr in any way.

but you seem to not understand that!

if you really want to argue with social quasifascists go to marxismonline.com.

black magick hustla

10th May 2006, 03:36

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 09:24 PM
red team

In other words the proceeds of labour is no longer controlled by the labourer himself once he begins working for someone else.
If you sell a car to me and I then sell to someone else for a higher price, you're not entitled to come to me demanding your "share"; the car was no longer yours at the time I sold it. You have not been exploited.
but what if i have to forcefully buy your car if not, i wouldnt survive?

what if the deal is obviously unfair because you have much more economical leverage, thus you can exploit me because i obviously need to buy that car?

well change the word "car" with "basic needs" and you will sure understand me.

this is how the system you worship works

overlord

10th May 2006, 06:13

obviously parties that establish ultra bureacratic states in backward feudal societies are communist. i mean after all, marx argued communism would evolve from advanced capitalism societies, and that it will be stateless.

Marx was a fool's fool. The sooner you crusaders realise this the better it will be for your sanity. Name one advanced capitalist society which has turned, or has any desire to turn communist. In the real world, which is presumably the world you are living in, (I hope) communism is what comes between feudalism and advanced capitalism.

This is a crock of shit. The purpose of inheritance lies in that olden tradition of 'giving', something the commies have to learn after they finish 'taking'. To illustrate my point:

And the reason why you have so much to give is that you've taken the surplus value from labour working for you. As an example, if you take a 20 percent profit margin it doesn't take more than the labour of 5 workers for you to gain the equivalent purchasing power of the total wages of 5 workers while you may not need to do anything at all for it other than sit around the mansion and wait for the money to roll in. Imagine what you can do with 10,000 people working for you! It's robbery of wages because you've done nothing for that money. That is why company owners are almost always the children of company founders. Again, as implied in the thread's topic, talent is irrelevant when matched up against wealth supported nepotism.

It's in one eye and out the other with you people :o Those factories wouldn't exist in the first place if the owners weren't getting anything. But if you disagree, feel free to set up a factory and run it for free. What's the bet you don't you hypocrite.

Tungsten

10th May 2006, 17:38

Marmot

the modern libertarian concept of freedom and property is deeply rooted in lockean philosophy.
My concept of freedom could come from any number of sources.

of course, the worker should be entitled to the fruits of his labor!
Not the fruits of some other worker's labour.

sadly to you "fair property" equates to lazy capitalist swines owning everything.
It doesn't, no.

i am talking here about marxian socialism, thus it concerns me more what marx and engels said than what propaganda from both the soviet and the american side nailed into the mayority of the population.
This doesn't have any relation to what I said to you.

marx and engels considered the paris commune a dictatorship of the proletariat, and it didnt resemble the ussr in any way.
The Paris commune was presumably a voluntary communist society, whereas the USSR wasn't. That's the difference.

but what if i have to forcefully buy your car if not, i wouldnt survive?
You've encountered an unfortunate shortcoming of the English language. Do you mean:
1)I'm pointing a gun at you and forcing you to buy my car and your survival rests on complying with my wishes. Or:
2)You somehow need a car to make a living, so you're forced to purchase one or fail to make a living.

It's absurd to refer to number 2) as being unfair in some way because it's the position pretty much everyone is in. 1) is most definitely unfair, but is largely absent from contemporary capitalist system. It's sounds like you're trying to imply that the two are somehow the same.

what if the deal is obviously unfair because you have much more economical leverage,
Who decides what's fair and what isn't? It's subjective.

thus you can exploit me because i obviously need to buy that car?
Read it again. You're not being exploited.

well change the word "car" with "basic needs" and you will sure understand me.
No, I don't. Changing the product being traded into something you need for survival doesn't magically turn the situation into exploitation. If you're somehow dependent on someone else for survival then that's tough shit for you; I doubt they never put you into that position. If your position is that terrible that you can't standing working for the person you're dependent on, then you're free to seek your own fortune and no one has the right to stop you. Of course, the majority of you are too lazy (or thick) to see that you have that choice.

this is how the system you worship works
Cry me a river.

redstar2000

11th May 2006, 21:40

Originally posted by Tungsten
If you're somehow dependent on someone else for survival then that's tough shit for you.

The voice of "compassionate conservatism". :lol:

Wouldn't it be great if the really big-time capitalists talked as honestly as the ones who come to this board?

Imagine Dick Cheney saying: We have the oil and you need it so you'll pay whatever we charge or you can just go freeze in the dark!

George W. Bush: God made me the greatest American warrior in history and my praises will be sung for a thousand years!

Bill Gates: I'm the richest man in the world and if you sorry bastards don't like it, go eat a shit sandwich and die in a fire!

Senator Bill Frist: If you don't make me the next President, you'll BURN IN HELL!

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

Dyst

11th May 2006, 21:49

In the real world, which is presumably the world you are living in, (I hope) communism is what comes between feudalism and advanced capitalism.
Huh?

How exactly?

What about the material conditions made you think that was ever communism?

Perhaps the fact that the means of production were not even owned by workers should give you a clue? Or that the state existed? Or even, that there was classes?

Oh-Dae-Su

11th May 2006, 23:41

so, the main argument by all of these numbnuts is that the USSR, Cuba, North Korea etc.. have never been "communist" because they were and are not "stateless" "classless" societies........well than if your going to use such strict rules of difining a communist society, than we might as well label the US and Europe etc.. NON CAPITALIST because not every business is privately owned, and there is no true liassez faire, SO BUYA! we are not capitalists :rolleyes: lol

listen, just because these countries SUCKED!! and the dream didn't work (that is your utopian idea) doesn't mean they weren't communist.. these countries followed and still follow strictly PLANNED economies, in which it is supposedly runned by the people etc..they are worker societies, etc...and to tell you the truth the leaders started out with the same ideas you wackos have, but as it turns out in the real world your pal Marx's ideas don't WORK!! and so, it leads to 1- Dactatorship, Totalitarianism, and yes, EQUALITY!! VOILA!! EVERYONE IS POOR!!! i guess that is the goal of communism, since they hate the rich so much, they want everyone to be poor, so guess what? communism has worked :lol: ;) if you don't believe me, go to North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, or just take a look at how many died of starvation in the ex-USSR and China, shit even after the collapse of the USSR with the shithole period they went through with Yeltsin not even 1% of the more than 60 million who died under Stalin died...which makes you think about who's side you want to be in...the left? with the communist ideals? and i don't care if you guys come here and say "UHH IM NOT A STALINIST , IM NOT MAOIST", yeah whatever, and im not BUSHSIST or whatever, which pretty much means you guys have the same ideals so don't give me that bullcrap...Stalin shared about 90% of your ideals, i mean whats the difference between you guys and him? that he didn't like Trotsky and you guys did? and whats the difference between Trotsky and Stalin that is so revolutionary and so different almost like a 360 degree shift from one another? give me a break :rolleyes:

Janus

12th May 2006, 01:08

Of course, the CEO under pressure came up with an excuse. Basically he stated that he ordered his subordinated to comb through certain files in order to find those quotes. They must've had the entire book in there in order to plagiarize all those passages.

This still simply pales in comparison to other CEO's who hoard and steal money from their corporations.

red team

12th May 2006, 02:29

If you sell a car to me and I then sell to someone else for a higher price, you're not entitled to come to me demanding your "share"; the car was no longer yours at the time I sold it. You have not been exploited.

You're going to compare human labour to an inanimate object like a car now? Without even going into the irrationality of commodity speculation in which products of human labour are listed at a different price at different times, how is human labour in which all consumer value stems from comparable to an inanimate object like a car? The car self-assembled itself without workers building it? :lol: The only way you can disregard the liberty of workers in receiving their full value of the labour is if you treat human labour as an inanimate object like the car in you example, so thanks for destroying your own basic premise of Libertarianism -- liberty for everyone. Well, not really, workers are inanimate objects like cars that can be speculated (swindled) for personal financial gain, so no liberty for them.

Incidentally, you've also confirmed the Marxist concept of the commodity fetishism and alienation existing in Capitalism in which everything has a tendency to be treated as a price negotiable commodity including human beings and in which the products of human labour is irrationally separated from the human labour which produced it in the first place.

Also, by using your obviously flawed reasoning robbery isn't robbery if it is agreed upon regardless of the circumstances in which a person is compelled into the agreement, so torture isn't torture if agreed upon, but self-discipline. Alright then, perhaps after the revolution we should inflict some self-discipline in exchange for food and shelter for members of the formerly rich.

Don't Change Your Name

12th May 2006, 03:51

Originally posted by Oh-Dae-[email protected] 11 2006, 07:41 PM
so, the main argument by all of these numbnuts is that the USSR, Cuba, North Korea etc.. have never been "communist" because they were and are not "stateless" "classless" societies........well than if your going to use such strict rules of difining a communist society, than we might as well label the US and Europe etc.. NON CAPITALIST because not every business is privately owned, and there is no true liassez faire, SO BUYA! we are not capitalists :rolleyes: lol
Your "argument" would have some validity if, for example, most "businesses" in the USSR were controlled by those who worked on them. Since I doubt that was the case, your "omg lol i can claim economic system A is like economic system B just because what we call economic system C is not 100% C in spite of the huge differences between A and B lol" claim is nonsense.

listen, just because these countries SUCKED!!

Lots of "capitalist" countries also suck(ed).

and the dream didn't work (that is your utopian idea) doesn't mean they weren't communist..

They were not "communist" because their economic system was not "communist" at all. Period.

these countries followed and still follow strictly PLANNED economies, in which it is supposedly runned by the people etc..they are worker societies, etc...

Wait...if they are "supposed" to be "runned [sic] by the people" and weren't, then why claim they were something they were not by definition?

and to tell you the truth the leaders started out with the same ideas you wackos have, but as it turns out in the real world your pal Marx's ideas don't WORK!!

Not as if Marx woke up one day and told Engels "dude, I had a cool idea when I was high...let's abolish private property and live in a proto-hippie utopia!".

Your ignorance is sad.

and so, it leads to 1- Dactatorship, Totalitarianism, and yes, EQUALITY!! VOILA!! EVERYONE IS POOR!!!

An extremely big part of the population is poor on "capitalist" countries, and some of them have a nice historical record of "dactatorship" [sic] and even "totalitarianism".

i guess that is the goal of communism, since they hate the rich so much, they want everyone to be poor, so guess what?

If you're talking about communists, you're wrong. Communists don't "hate" "the rich" and "want everyone to be poor" simply because 1) they don't necessarilly "hate" people 2) even if they did "hate" people it wouldn't be based on whether they are "rich" or "poor" but in whether they uphold reactionary ideas or not. Some of them might "hate" based on "class" but I doubt they will hate a "rich comrade".

communism has worked :lol: ;)

Your premise is false and your conclusion about it's "failure" is questionable.

and i don't care if you guys come here and say "UHH IM NOT A STALINIST , IM NOT MAOIST", yeah whatever, and im not BUSHSIST or whatever, which pretty much means you guys have the same ideals so don't give me that bullcrap...Stalin shared about 90% of your ideals, i mean whats the difference between you guys and him? that he didn't like Trotsky and you guys did? and whats the difference between Trotsky and Stalin that is so revolutionary and so different almost like a 360 degree shift from one another? give me a break :rolleyes:

Sorry, but I'm not a maoist and I can tell you that the nonsense some of them think (ie the MIM) is pathetic and they should be ashamed of being such a bunch of hypocrites. If they are "the left" then I don't want to be related with "the left".

Seriously, do some research. The differences between, say, anarchists and leninists or stalinists and trotskyists or maoists and atheists (!) are amazing once you pay attention to them.

Tungsten

13th May 2006, 00:08

redstar2000

The voice of "compassionate conservatism". :lol:
Drop dead. I don't believe in any of that bollocks. I'm an libertarian minarchist, not a "conservative".

If you have an alterantive that isn't some variant of slavery, I'm all ears.
Oh-Dae-Su

have never been "communist" because they were and are not "stateless" "classless" societies
Political ideologies have two dimentions. The first is the system is advocates, in this case, stateless, classless communism. The second is the methodology, i.e. is it utilitarian, rights-based, deontological etc. The second point is where it all goes wrong for them. They think that a stateless, classless society can be forced on people by dictatorship (or other means), that social justice can be achieved without property rights, that everyone will work for work's sake (and enjoy it) and that the amount of labour put into something is the only way of calculating how valuable it is. Which would explain why the "North Koreas" outnumber the "Paris communes".

red team

You're going to compare human labour to an inanimate object like a car now?
Despite denying that there was something special or holy about labour-as-a-commodity, you don't seem to be following it through very convincingly.

Without even going into the irrationality of commodity speculation in which products of human labour are listed at a different price at different times,
Supply and demand? You consider that irrational?

how is human labour in which all consumer value stems from comparable to an inanimate object like a car?
Only a believer of the labour theory of value believes that value stems from labour. Your labour is worth to me whatever price I decide to purchase it at and you have no right to dictate to me what I should or shouldn't value or how much. What I think is valuable will be decided by me.

The car self-assembled itself without workers building it?
None of that matters to the consumer. If it's no different it could have been put together by machines or trained monkeys for all the consumer cares.

The only way you can disregard the liberty of workers in receiving their full value of the labour
Value is subjective, so how can you claim this? What is the full value of their labour?

is if you treat human labour as an inanimate object like the car
Labour is just a commodity.

in you example, so thanks for destroying your own basic premise of Libertarianism -- liberty for everyone.
What? How is it destroying liberty?

Well, not really, workers are inanimate objects like cars that can be speculated (swindled) for personal financial gain, so no liberty for them.
There's a difference between labour as a commodity and the person providing it. Value is subjective, and in this case, decided upon by mutual aggrement, so how can you say anyone is being swindled?

Incidentally, you've also confirmed the Marxist concept of the commodity fetishism and alienation existing in Capitalism in which everything has a tendency to be treated as a price negotiable commodity including human beings
Human beings aren't something to be traded and pretty much everything else, including time, is a commodity. It's not going to change either, no matter what happens. We all have to choose how to spend our time, money and labour and what to pursue (is this the "tyrrany" you want to liberate us all from?) and we all weigh up the pros and cons of an action and compare them to the alteratives. In effect, we're evaluating our commodities and choosing how to use them. It's how anyone who isn't completely brain damaged survives and pursues their goals. Denouncing this as "commodity fetishism" is downright stupid.

and in which the products of human labour is irrationally separated from the human labour which produced it in the first place.
The two are separate, as I demonstrated in the car example. If you build a car and then sell it, you don't have the right to demand it back afterwards. The labour that went into it is no longer yours.

Also, by using your obviously flawed reasoning robbery isn't robbery if it is agreed upon regardless of the circumstances in which a person is compelled into the agreement, so torture isn't torture if agreed upon, but self-discipline.
Not this again. You never proved me wrong the last time.

Alright then, perhaps after the revolution
If they agree to it, then it's okay. If they don't, then it isn't. They're not likely to, so it probably won't be.

red team

13th May 2006, 03:58

Also, by using your obviously flawed reasoning robbery isn't robbery if it is agreed upon regardless of the circumstances in which a person is compelled into the agreement, so torture isn't torture if agreed upon, but self-discipline.

Not this again. You never proved me wrong the last time.

Alright then, perhaps after the revolution

If they agree to it, then it's okay. If they don't, then it isn't. They're not likely to, so it probably won't be.

Sure you hypocrite. You think any rational minded person would accept your flawed reasoning? Anything that takes away a person's liberty whether be it the person's life or proceeds of labour is unenforceable even if a contract "agreement" is made beforehand.

You think it would be likely that a judge would agree to your line of reasoning if you've killed someone that you didn't commit murder from the fact that the victim "agreed" to it beforehand?

According to your "reasoning" the answer is yes. Robbery is fair exchange and murder is suicide if only "agreed" upon beforehand.

Well then, how about voluntary cannibalism?

Voluntary Cannibalism (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/09/world/main1603510.shtml)

Obviously, all reasonable people, including the judge in this case didn't agree with you.

The judge and all reasonable people are following the same line of reasoning which makes a slave contract invalid. A free person cannot agree to be a slave. While fully conscious of your actions, you cannot agree to being murdered. So profit being an agreement in the expropriation of the full proceeds of labour is invalid and unenforceable. You can't "agree" to having an unequal exchange.

Oh, and the torture for food proposal? I'm sure we can arrange for some burly, disgruntled steel worker to rearrange some Billionaire's face with his fists after a successful revolution. Of course, this isn't exploitation. The former cappie agreed to it in exchange for being fed and it's got great entertainment value. I'm expecting the event to be sold out to capacity every night. We'll call "Beat Up The Former Boss Night" :lol:

Fistful of Steel

13th May 2006, 04:41

Originally posted by Oh-Dae-[email protected] 11 2006, 10:41 PM
so, the main argument by all of these numbnuts is that the USSR, Cuba, North Korea etc.. have never been "communist" because they were and are not "stateless" "classless" societies........well than if your going to use such strict rules of difining a communist society, than we might as well label the US and Europe etc.. NON CAPITALIST because not every business is privately owned, and there is no true liassez faire, SO BUYA! we are not capitalists :rolleyes: lol

listen, just because these countries SUCKED!! and the dream didn't work (that is your utopian idea) doesn't mean they weren't communist.. these countries followed and still follow strictly PLANNED economies, in which it is supposedly runned by the people etc..they are worker societies, etc...and to tell you the truth the leaders started out with the same ideas you wackos have, but as it turns out in the real world your pal Marx's ideas don't WORK!! and so, it leads to 1- Dactatorship, Totalitarianism, and yes, EQUALITY!! VOILA!! EVERYONE IS POOR!!! i guess that is the goal of communism, since they hate the rich so much, they want everyone to be poor, so guess what? communism has worked :lol: ;) if you don't believe me, go to North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, or just take a look at how many died of starvation in the ex-USSR and China, shit even after the collapse of the USSR with the shithole period they went through with Yeltsin not even 1% of the more than 60 million who died under Stalin died...which makes you think about who's side you want to be in...the left? with the communist ideals? and i don't care if you guys come here and say "UHH IM NOT A STALINIST , IM NOT MAOIST", yeah whatever, and im not BUSHSIST or whatever, which pretty much means you guys have the same ideals so don't give me that bullcrap...Stalin shared about 90% of your ideals, i mean whats the difference between you guys and him? that he didn't like Trotsky and you guys did? and whats the difference between Trotsky and Stalin that is so revolutionary and so different almost like a 360 degree shift from one another? give me a break :rolleyes:
Most of the "capitalist" countries are not completely that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy

The dream didn't work? They dreamed the same dream surely (...supposedly) but they went about achieving it in a completely different way then what most on the left-wing accept. Just because their economies are planned doesn't mean that the country is controlled by the workers, or even beneficial to the workers. And no, there was no equality if it was a dictatorship and totalitarianism. The ideas are very contradictory. It doesn't take a genius to see the application of anarchist thought has been rare in most cases, and not at all in the supposed communist countries which strive for equality and a stateless society. I can honestly say Stalin has more income with say Hitler than me. Most of the ideological differences are really just semantics and rhetoric where they're concerned.

RevMARKSman

13th May 2006, 11:02

Off-topic but isn't that case of voluntary cannibalism the basis for the Rammstein song "Reise, Reise"?

Tungsten

13th May 2006, 13:07

red team

Sure you hypocrite. You think any rational minded person would accept your flawed reasoning?
You still haven't explained or proven how it's flawed.

Anything that takes away a person's liberty whether be it the person's life or proceeds of labour is unenforceable even if a contract "agreement" is made beforehand.
Are laws against slavery or murder are taking away my liberty to kill and enslave and therefore unenforceable? What absurd nonsense.

You think it would be likely that a judge would agree to your line of reasoning if you've killed someone that you didn't commit murder from the fact that the victim "agreed" to it beforehand?
Why don't you ask these people: http://www.euthanasia.com/

Robbery is fair exchange and murder is suicide if only "agreed" upon beforehand.
If they were agreed upon beforehand, they would no longer be robbery or murder.

Well then, how about voluntary cannibalism?

Voluntary Cannibalism

Obviously, all reasonable people, including the judge in this case didn't agree with you.
What lousy reasoning skills you have. "All right thinking people believe X" is an appeal to crowd psychology- another classic example of the demagoguery you commies are so reknown for.

The judge and all reasonable people are following the same line of reasoning which makes a slave contract invalid.
There's no such thing as a "slave contract", because slavery is involuntary and contracts aren't.

A free person cannot agree to be a slave. While fully conscious of your actions, you cannot agree to being murdered. So profit being an agreement in the expropriation of the full proceeds of labour is invalid and unenforceable. You can't "agree" to having an unequal exchange.
Of course you can, fool. Ever heard of charity? That's where you give something for nothing- voluntarily.

Oh, and the torture for food proposal? I'm sure we can arrange for some burly, disgruntled steel worker to rearrange some Billionaire's face with his fists after a successful revolution. Of course, this isn't exploitation. The former cappie agreed to it in exchange for being fed and it's got great entertainment value.
We have that now. It's a sport called boxing (and it's voluntary).

I'm expecting the event to be sold out to capacity every night. We'll call "Beat Up The Former Boss Night"
When you're in a hole, stop digging.

And where's the response to the rest of my post?

red team

13th May 2006, 19:38

Without even going into the irrationality of commodity speculation in which products of human labour are listed at a different price at different times,

Supply and demand? You consider that irrational?

Supply: The company buids more if it has the resources and labour power
Demand: Consumers buy more if the like what was built.

Where does prices going up and down periodically fit in with building more and buying more?

The only way you can disregard the liberty of workers in receiving their full value of the labour

Value is subjective, so how can you claim this? What is the full value of their labour?

What's the full length of a ruler? The ruler could be a foot or a mile which is irrelevant.

What's the full value of labour? The price per unit could be $20 or $10,000 which is irrelevant.

Only a believer of the labour theory of value believes that value stems from labour. Your labour is worth to me whatever price I decide to purchase it at and you have no right to dictate to me what I should or shouldn't value or how much. What I think is valuable will be decided by me.

Your percentage of profit is worth to me whatever price I decide to purchase it at and you have no right to dictate to me what I should or shouldn't value or how much. What I think is valuable will be decided by me.

Well then, how about 0 percent profit? :lol:

A free person cannot agree to be a slave. While fully conscious of your actions, you cannot agree to being murdered. So profit being an agreement in the expropriation of the full proceeds of labour is invalid and unenforceable. You can't "agree" to having an unequal exchange.

Of course you can, fool. Ever heard of charity? That's where you give something for nothing- voluntarily.

1) The assets of the company having a claim of ownership from previously accumulated enforced charity isn't enforceable because enforced charity is a contradiction in itself.

2) The power of decision making to set the amount and rate of "charity" isn't in the workers hands because it was made under life threatening duress (of being homeless or without food), so it isn't charity.

3) Conclusion, profit is not charity because there is no such thing as enforced charity made under life threatening duress.

Now if the company terminates employment the worker has every right to seize assets of the company because:

the charity (profit) agreement was made under life threatening duress for the worker #2, which contributed to the profits made by the company which cannot be charity because of #2 therefore #3, so therefore #1.

Thanks! I have my eye on that fancy computer system at work. :)

And where's the response to the rest of my post?

The rest of your responses are so nonsensical that it deserves no response. I'll just leave it as it is as a testament to other readers of your illogical idiocy.

Tungsten

13th May 2006, 22:52

red team

Supply: The company buids more if it has the resources and labour power
Demand: Consumers buy more if the like what was built.

Where does prices going up and down periodically fit in with building more and buying more?
If there's less of something it's harded to get hold of and therefore people are usually bidding against others to get it. In order to keep that something affordable for everyone and to disuade them from purchasing alteratives, extra capacity is needed. What's difficult to understand about that?

What's the full length of a ruler? The ruler could be a foot or a mile which is irrelevant.

What's the full value of labour? The price per unit could be $20 or $10,000 which is irrelevant.
Does that make the value any less subjective?

Your percentage of profit is worth to me whatever price I decide to purchase it at
As a consumer, yes. You can boycot whatever I was selling.

1) The assets of the company having a claim of ownership from previously accumulated enforced charity isn't enforceable because enforced charity is a contradiction in itself.
Well, enforced charity is a contradiction, but what that's got to do with the assets of a company isn't clear because companies aren't usually charities.

3) Conclusion, profit is not charity because there is no such thing as enforced charity made under life threatening duress.
I never said that profit was a form of charity, you fool.

Now if the company terminates employment the worker has every right to seize assets of the company because: the charity (profit) agreement was made under life threatening duress for the worker #2,
It wasn't, no. Pointing a gun at you and forcing you to work is duress. You sitting around all day and starving to death instead as a result of not wanting to work isn't. No one is forcing you to do that.

which contributed to the profits made by the company
If you didn't work for me, or have any money to buy anything from me, then how did you contribute to my profits?

The worker has every right to seize assets of the company because you said so. That's about as deep as the argument genuinely goes.

The rest of your responses are so nonsensical that it deserves no response. I'll just leave it as it is as a testament to other readers of your illogical idiocy.
Or a testament of your inability to answer the points I've made. It wouldn't be the first time.

red team

14th May 2006, 23:56

If there's less of something it's harded to get hold of

So build more of what people want to buy.

extra capacity is needed.

So build more machines that are then used to build more of what people want to buy.

"What's difficult to understand about that?"

What's the full length of a ruler? The ruler could be a foot or a mile which is irrelevant.

What's the full value of labour? The price per unit could be $20 or $10,000 which is irrelevant.

Does that make the value any less subjective?

Does that make less than full value as in less than full amount of revenue returned in wages any less arbitrary?

1) The assets of the company having a claim of ownership from previously accumulated enforced charity isn't enforceable because enforced charity is a contradiction in itself.

Well, enforced charity is a contradiction, but what that's got to do with the assets of a company isn't clear because companies aren't usually charities.

I'm really tired of repeating myself to amnesiacs, but for the purpose of comic relief, I'll make an exception for a feeble-minded fool like yourself.

A free person cannot agree to be a slave. While fully conscious of your actions, you cannot agree to being murdered. So profit being an agreement in the expropriation of the full proceeds of labour is invalid and unenforceable. You can't "agree" to having an unequal exchange.

In response you said this:
"Of course you can, fool. Ever heard of charity? That's where you give something for nothing- voluntarily."

Profit is something for nothing given "voluntarily" by the worker to the boss, but since the worker is compelled to "agree" because everything in Capitlalist society is owned by the already wealthy, it is not charity.

Conclusion: ownership claims on the assets of the company because it was bought from the proceeds of exploited labour (profits) cannot be valid and cannot be enforced.

which contributed to the profits made by the company

If you didn't work for me, or have any money to buy anything from me, then how did you contribute to my profits?

The worker has every right to seize assets of the company because you said so. That's about as deep as the argument genuinely goes.

It's called previous accumulated gain from labour exploitation. Even someone like you should be familiar with the term "Capital Gains" which is taxed in more social democratic countries.

The rest of your responses are so nonsensical that it deserves no response. I'll just leave it as it is as a testament to other readers of your illogical idiocy.

Or a testament of your inability to answer the points I've made. It wouldn't be the first time.

For the purpose of comic relief:

You think it would be likely that a judge would agree to your line of reasoning if you've killed someone that you didn't commit murder from the fact that the victim "agreed" to it beforehand?

Why don't you ask these people: http://www.euthanasia.com/

Well then, how about voluntary cannibalism?
Voluntary Cannibalism
Obviously, all reasonable people, including the judge in this case didn't agree with you.

What lousy reasoning skills you have. "All right thinking people believe X" is an appeal to crowd psychology- another classic example of the demagoguery you commies are so reknown for.

You're going to compare cannibalism in which a mentally sick person kills someone else and then eat their remains for simple personal satisfaction with the compassionate ending of life for terminally ill people living in pain?

Now even a five year old would know what's wrong with this comparison from the perspective of motive for action, which makes you what? Probably a lot stupider than a five year old.

is if you treat human labour as an inanimate object like the car

Labour is just a commodity.

Well, not really, workers are inanimate objects like cars that can be speculated (swindled) for personal financial gain, so no liberty for them.

There's a difference between labour as a commodity and the person providing it. Value is subjective, and in this case, decided upon by mutual aggrement, so how can you say anyone is being swindled?

And how about this little gem: "There's a difference between labour as a commodity and the person providing it"

First, you tried to compare human labour to an inanimate object like a car and in failing to respond rationally to the idiocy of this after I've pointed this out, you're going to separate human "labour as a commodity" from "the person providing it".

What kind of muddle-headed bullshit is this? Probably the same kind of bullshit which allows for rich investors to get even richer from company stocks going up in price while the company reduces labour costs from laying off workers. Rents, mortgages and bills don't get paid and thousands of lives are faced with financial ruin, but that's irrelevant because as you moronically stated: There's a difference between labour as a commodity and the person providing it.

Alright then, I'll just think about working without bothering to physically show up for work. I'm sure things will magically get done without me physically being there, while I'll spend the day liberating the property from your house. You see, I'm separating my "labour as a commodity" from me "providing it", while I separate your property as a commodity from the profits that actually provided it.

Again, thanks for making a fool out of yourself and providing comic relief. :lol:
There's always a need for humour before the inevitable rebellion.

Tungsten

15th May 2006, 23:14

red team

Does that make less than full value as in less than full amount of revenue returned in wages any less arbitrary?
Arbitary as in subjective? Of course it is, value is subjective.

There's no point arguing for a zero-profit business in the first place- no one would bother. What would be the point?

I'm really tired of repeating myself to amnesiacs,
I'm tired of replying to idiots with nothing to say and who are only posting in order to save face and who were snookered from the very beginning. Your ignorance of the subject matter is obvious.

In response you said this:
"Of course you can, fool. Ever heard of charity? That's where you give something for nothing- voluntarily."

Profit is something for nothing
If it involves an exchance of good or commodites, then how can it be giving something for nothing?

You're going to compare cannibalism in which a mentally sick person kills someone else and then eat their remains for simple personal satisfaction
Does the victim usually agree to be killed? No.

with the compassionate ending of life for terminally ill people living in pain?
Does the victim aggree to have his life ended? Usually yes.

Now even a five year old would know what's wrong with this comparison
A five year old wouldn't be stupid enough to think I was trying to say the two were the same. A person trying to caricature another's position might, though.

And how about this little gem: "There's a difference between labour as a commodity and the person providing it"

First, you tried to compare human labour to an inanimate object like a car and in failing to respond rationally to the idiocy of this after I've pointed this out, you're going to separate human "labour as a commodity" from "the person providing it".

What kind of muddle-headed bullshit is this? Probably the same kind of bullshit which allows for rich investors to get even richer from company stocks going up in price while the company reduces labour costs from laying off workers. Rents, mortgages and bills don't get paid and thousands of lives are faced with financial ruin, but that's irrelevant because as you moronically stated: There's a difference between labour as a commodity and the person providing it.
I've noticed that there's no explanation of why this supposedly hillarious statement was wrong, just a list of insults and an half-assed attempt to chastise me in the name of some hackneyed socialist moral code.

Alright then, I'll just think about working without bothering to physically show up for work. I'm sure things will magically get done without me physically being there, while I'll spend the day liberating the property from your house. You see, I'm separating my "labour as a commodity" from me "providing it", while I separate your property as a commodity from the profits that actually provided it.
If I (the person providing the labour) build a car and then sell it, is it still mine because my labour (as a commodity) went into it? Even after I've sold it? Then I guess it must be impossible to sell anything. All trade must be exploitation. Is this what you believe?

Then again, this is coming the person who think that slavery is impossible unless it's done by a minority, so I guess anything's possible.

There's always a need for humour before the inevitable rebellion.
Rebellion against what? If it's logic you're rebelling against then you're well underway. Then again, it was inevitable.

red team

16th May 2006, 01:41

Alright then, I'll just think about working without bothering to physically show up for work. I'm sure things will magically get done without me physically being there, while I'll spend the day liberating the property from your house. You see, I'm separating my "labour as a commodity" from me "providing it", while I separate your property as a commodity from the profits that actually provided it.

If I (the person providing the labour) build a car and then sell it, is it still mine because my labour (as a commodity) went into it? Even after I've sold it? Then I guess it must be impossible to sell anything. All trade must be exploitation. Is this what you believe?

Car companies wouldn't have cars without workers providing the labour would they? So we're not talking about cars sold as commodities, but human beings treated as inanimate objects to be bartered, sold and traded for their labour for the advantage of somebody else. And because those with wealth can always negotiate for a more financially advantageous deal, we have exploitation of people for profit. Hence, no liberty for workers because once you introduce profit for anybody else other than for the direct producers themselves like parasitical investors for instance, liberty for the workers goes out the window. Saying that, "There's a difference between labour as a commodity and the person providing it.", is simply trickery (which becomes hilariously irrational if taken literally :lol: ) on your part in refusing to admit guilt for labour exploitation.

According to "Libertarianism" every human being has dignity and value no matter what their economic standing is in society. Yet, clearly some have less dignity and value than others. We're talking about Capitalism so don't tell me the worker can go elsewhere to get a better deal because the economy is dominated by the idle rich who always get a percentage without doing any work.

We do draw the line at haggling over the price of human beings. But, we all know that Capitalists can buy, sell and trade "human resources" like any cheap trinklet. The cheaper the better. Please do admit that you're just an apologist for slave traders since in any case we all know that you are.

Tungsten

16th May 2006, 15:01

red team

Car companies wouldn't have cars without workers providing the labour would they?
That doesn't make any difference.

So we're not talking about cars sold as commodities, but human beings treated as inanimate objects to be bartered, sold and traded for their labour for the advantage of somebody else.
We're talking about people selling their labour, not people being treated as inanimate objects. An inanimate object doesn't sell it's labour.

And because those with wealth can always negotiate for a more financially advantageous deal,
How?

"Car companies wouldn't have cars without workers providing the labour would they?"

Those with wealth have a choice- pay what the workforce demands or go bankrupt.

we have exploitation of people for profit. Hence, no liberty for workers because once you introduce profit for anybody else other than for the direct producers themselves like parasitical investors for instance, liberty for the workers goes out the window.
Ignoring the rhetoric, what liberties are these people supposedly infringing?

Saying that, "There's a difference between labour as a commodity and the person providing it.", is simply trickery
I have no need to trick anyone.

on your part in refusing to admit guilt for labour exploitation.
I don't share your worldview that trade is exploitation, so there's little point in trying to con me into thinking it is.

According to "Libertarianism" every human being has dignity and value no matter what their economic standing is in society.
Dignity? You have rights, if that's what you mean and you have the same rights as everyone else, regardless of your economic standing. Value is subjective, so libertarian would guarantee that.

We're talking about Capitalism so don't tell me the worker can go elsewhere to get a better deal because the economy is dominated by the idle rich who always get a percentage without doing any work.
They won't be getting anything unless they have a workforce.

We do draw the line at haggling over the price of human beings.
We're not talking about the price of human beings. We're talking about the price of their labour.

But, we all know that Capitalists can buy, sell and trade "human resources" like any cheap trinklet. The cheaper the better.
Go and cry to your fellow evangelists.

Please do admit that you're just an apologist for slave traders since in any case we all know that you are.
A slave doesn't sell his labour, it's forced off him. Just like your labour will be forced off you after the revolution. Probably to benefit those percieved as being less well off than yourself.