How Has Capitalism Screwed With Your Life? [Archive]

Jazzratt

10th July 2006, 14:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 11:39 AM
And what pray tell have your pictures to do with capitalism Mr Si Pinto? I dont see any imperialists raping Africa in those pictures. In fact you wont find any imperialists in Africa these days. At least those kids have some modern clothes. Whats the bet that photo could have been taken before the advent 1000 years ago before the advent of modern capitalism?
You will find imperialists in Africa. They prefer the term entreupeneur. Also, in response to 'Thems kids hay-ave mawdarn clothes, hyuck' I think you're ignoring the main part of the pictures - the starvation, which is a direct result of capitalist fuckers exercising their 'personal property rights' to build factories and mines that exploit these people. I wish I believed in hell so that I could reassure myself that you would be going there, you heartless, brainless, unspeakably vile puddle of rancid goat shit.

In fact, I would say those photos would demonstate the effects of living in a desert more so than some capitalist running a factory 10000 miles away wouldnt you say Mr Si Pinto? I'd say your response was indicitive of somone with no understanding of humanity or compassion. I would also say that your comment there shows no understanding of cause and effect. As I said you are one of the most vile people I have encountered on this board.

spanishinquisition

10th July 2006, 14:54

You will find imperialists in Africa. They prefer the term entreupeneur. Also, in response to \'Thems kids hay-ave mawdarn clothes, hyuck\' I think you\'re ignoring the main part of the pictures - the starvation, which is a direct result of capitalist fuckers exercising their \'personal property rights\' to build factories and mines that exploit these people.
You know, I dont beleive there are many imperialists in Africa these days. And I do mean entrepreneurs. And if those people were really being exploited, working in factories, mines, etc, of which there are very few in Africa I might add, then why pray tell are they lounging around waiting for their crops to grow? Perhaps they\'re not really working in those mines and factories?

I wish I believed in hell so that I could reassure myself that you would be going there, you heartless, brainless, unspeakably vile puddle of rancid goat shit
I must admit I did feel a twinge of compassion looking at those pictures, but really its nothing to do with capitalism or exploitation since there are very few capitalists there. And How dare you call me heartless!

In fact, I would say those photos would demonstate the effects of living in a desert more so than some capitalist running a factory 10000 miles away wouldnt you say Mr Si Pinto?

I\'d say your response was indicitive of somone with no understanding of humanity or compassion. I would also say that your comment there shows no understanding of cause and effect. As I said you are one of the most vile people I have encountered on this board
And this is coming from one who supports Che and Lenin. Real heartsting pullers that pair.

Jazzratt

10th July 2006, 15:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 11:55 AM

You will find imperialists in Africa. They prefer the term entreupeneur. Also, in response to \'Thems kids hay-ave mawdarn clothes, hyuck\' I think you\'re ignoring the main part of the pictures - the starvation, which is a direct result of capitalist fuckers exercising their \'personal property rights\' to build factories and mines that exploit these people.
You know, I dont beleive there are many imperialists in Africa these days. And I do mean entrepreneurs. And if those people were really being exploited, working in factories, mines, etc, of which there are very few in Africa I might add, then why pray tell are they lounging around waiting for their crops to grow? Perhaps they\'re not really working in those mines and factories?
Depends which part of Africa you're talking about, it is a rather large continent after all. Also when you say 'these days' you are acknowledging a historical presence of capitalists, imperialists and entrepeneurs which have left Africa as it is now:- fucked. As for 'lounging around.' I don't know wether to cry of vomit.

I wish I believed in hell so that I could reassure myself that you would be going there, you heartless, brainless, unspeakably vile puddle of rancid goat shit
I must admit I did feel a twinge of compassion looking at those pictures, but really its nothing to do with capitalism or exploitation since there are very few capitalists there. And How dare you call me heartless! You do not understand capitalism, it is the system that allows these conditions to exsist because it is entirely non-alturist and non-egalitarian and you cannot deny that with a straight face. You can also not claim to be compassionate whilst supporting such a system.

In fact, I would say those photos would demonstate the effects of living in a desert more so than some capitalist running a factory 10000 miles away wouldnt you say Mr Si Pinto?

I\'d say your response was indicitive of somone with no understanding of humanity or compassion. I would also say that your comment there shows no understanding of cause and effect. As I said you are one of the most vile people I have encountered on this board
And this is coming from one who supports Che and Lenin. Real heartsting pullers that pair. Sorry I wasn't aware that the emancipation of the workers put somone on the same level as a system which accepts suffering, poverty, starvation and exploitation as nescessary bi-products.

Matty_UK

10th July 2006, 15:02

Many people in my family and my community lost their jobs under Thatcher and ended up doing shit council jobs, people I know have died in Imperialist wars, (Iraq) I have a boring job that has no benefit to society other than producing capital, my boss shits all over me, murder/suicide/drugs rate is one of the highest (if not the highest) in my working class region of England, and again I know people who've died from either drugs or drugs and suicide. Just yesterday someone in my city (who I thankfully don't know) who served in Iraq went crazy and murdered 4 people in his family.

And, cynical adverts and commodity fetishism that comes about under capitalism annoys me no end, and also alienate me from a lot of my friends who buy into it.

The council is unable to develop Gateshead city centre which is quite possibly the ugliest city centre on the planet because the local Tesco's (a big supermarket, don't think you have them in America. Think Wallmart but not as powerful) refuses to accept anything that might create a rival local economy. My job ruins my social life and sleeping pattern, and to add insult to injury a significant portion of my pay goes towards transport, and I need to save the majority of my pay for my education-and even once I get into university I will be bullied and treated with contempt for being working class and having a northern accent by the fucking mindless bourgoise rich kids (my sister who goes to UCL, the third best uni in the country, says she is treated with utmost contempt by the students who got private educations) who are no smarter than the average working class person, but have everything bought for them and are encouraged by their parents; whereas working class people are forced to have low self esteem.

So yeah it's all pretty shit.

Si Pinto

10th July 2006, 15:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 11:39 AM
And what pray tell have your pictures to do with capitalism Mr Si Pinto? I dont see any imperialists raping Africa in those pictures.
Your don't want to know about compassion, because it may cost you some money.

Your here to 'flame' pure and simple, your not interested in discussing, because you know your arguments are wrong.

Even pictures of capitalist & imperialist induced death and devastation have no effect on you (not one you'll admit on here anyway, Mr Tough Guy).

You even try to 'flame some more' using these pictures.

Your just here to 'have your laughs' at the expense of the 'stupid commies'.

So go on...laugh.

Laugh while you can, you comic genius you.

One day we'll laugh at you.

Trust me. ;)

TTFN

Matty_UK

10th July 2006, 15:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 11:23 AM

Why is it always me, me, me, me with you capitalists?
Because the capitalist ideology proclaims every individual to be their own sovereign country.
Whenever a rich kid says that, it makes me want to punch them in the fucking face. You rich dickheads aren't individuals at all, half of you are a bunch of religious or patriotic zealots or blind idealogues. A belief in something higher than yourself, be it country or ideology or God is inherently alienating to the human condition and in my opinion is a mental illness. This is different to a healthy feeling of compassion for those who are suffering-so long as you don't end up worshipping Marx as a God or anything.

But besides that you in no way cope by yourself. Not only do your rich family find connections for you in jobs and give you a cushty private education, but the rich are fucking parasites stealing the people's resources. They depend on society; and by that I mean I mean "entrepreneurs" who drive down the wages of their workers-i.e. steal their money. Bankers who lend money and charge interest, making fuck all contribution to society. Landlords who create artificial scarcity of houses, and make no contribution to society. Investors. All these people take from society, give nothing back, and it can not be said to be an individual effort. In my opinion individualism is freedom from bourgoise authoritarian moralities and to have the freedom to fulfill your needs. Being left powerless and only able to fend for yourself by sacrificing the important things-social life, fun, and independant learning-in order to get an education (like I've done, see above) where even with an education you can only get rich by coming an exploiter yourself, is not individualism. Freedom for the bosses is not freedom at all.

spanishinquisition

10th July 2006, 15:23

To Matt. Dont worry no-one get bullied seriously at uni. They just dont have the time. And if so its really casual and ends in first year. Remember uni is full of shy geeks.

Si Pinto:

Your don\'t want to know about compassion, because it may cost you some money.
And yet its the rich not the poor who give to African charities.

Your here to \'flame\' pure and simple, your not interested in discussing, because you know your arguments are wrong.
I have not flamed anyone since ive been here. I wish I could say the same for you.

And you simply dont respond to my arguments. Why? I think its because you know you are in error. You should be able to respond easily to my arguments if capitalism was really so bad.

Even pictures of capitalist & imperialist induced death and devastation have no effect on you (not one you\'ll admit on here anyway, Mr Tough Guy).

I told you I felt compassion. What more can you expect? And a famine because crops fail is nothing to do whatsoever with capitalism. I bet you anything the people depicted starving are not gainfully employed. In other words, we need to get factories in there - fast.

Your just here to \'have your laughs\' at the expense of the \'stupid commies\'.

So go on...laugh.

Laugh while you can, you comic genius you.

One day we\'ll laugh at you.

Trust me.

You know youre really mad...

Si Pinto

10th July 2006, 15:52

And yet its the rich not the poor who give to African charities.

Makes you sleep well at night I bet, you fucking samaritan you!!

I have not flamed anyone since ive been here.

:lol:

Spoken like a true....true.....erm......true......liar!!!

And you simply dont respond to my arguments. Why? I think its because you know you are in error. You should be able to respond easily to my arguments if capitalism was really so bad.

Wrong again!!!! I do reply to your 'arguments' (for want of a better word), simply!!!

You deserve nothing better!!

Matty-Uk typed up an excellent post and your reply was a one sentence, unfunny remark. ET TU you prick.

Why should I waste my time explaining the finer points of my beliefs to you when your reply will be repetition, flaming and downright bollocks!!

I told you I felt compassion. What more can you expect?

Don't you ACT on your feelings, your girlfriend must have a fucking ball with you!!

And a famine because crops fail is nothing to do whatsoever with capitalism. I bet you anything the people depicted starving are not gainfully employed. In other words, we need to get factories in there - fast.

Sorry...what was that you said about flaming??

You know youre really mad...

You better fucking believe it!!!!

and your really sick,

Get your credit card out and get to hospital.

spanishinquisition

10th July 2006, 16:16

And yet its the rich not the poor who give to African charities.

Makes you sleep well at night I bet, you fucking samaritan you!!

And yet you know its true dont you. Without rich no aid would arrive in Africa. More would die.

QUOTE
I have not flamed anyone since ive been here.

Spoken like a true....true.....erm......true......liar!!!

Well you flame me in every post and I have never flamed you once in many posts so you are the liar.

Wrong again!!!! I do reply to your \'arguments\' (for want of a better word), simply!!!

You deserve nothing better!!

Matty-Uk typed up an excellent post and your reply was a one sentence, unfunny remark. ET TU you prick.

Well I thought Martty-Uk had a legitimate critique of capitalism so I didnt challenge it. And in case you didnt notice, he lambasted me with abuse in his second post imagining me to be the amalgamation of all his lifes woes personified. And you say I made a stupid unfunny remark. It wasnt supposed to be funny. It was I would have hoped reassuring advice.

QUOTE
I told you I felt compassion. What more can you expect?

Don\'t you ACT on your feelings, your girlfriend must have a fucking ball with you!!

Why do you bring my girl into this? Your fight is with me. leave her out you control freak. PS I think we have a ball with each other, but shes too submissive and not princess *****y face enough for my tastes so i dont think well last long.

QUOTE
And a famine because crops fail is nothing to do whatsoever with capitalism. I bet you anything the people depicted starving are not gainfully employed. In other words, we need to get factories in there - fast.

Sorry...what was that you said about flaming??

Jazzratt is beginning to understand but clearly not you. If capitalists invest in those countries they will provide wages for these people to run an economy in the absence of the lack of agriculture....duh not all countries are built upon agriculture you know.

You know youre really mad...

You better fucking believe it!!!!

and your really sick,

Get your credit card out and get to hospital.

Oh, Im sick am I? BEcause I want to end starvation in Africa. Guess what, its socialism that causes starvation!

razboz

10th July 2006, 16:50

And yet its the rich not the poor who give to African charities.

Amusingly enough that's only half true. Proportionally poor people give more of their income than rich people do.

Jazzratt

10th July 2006, 18:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 01:17 PM

QUOTE
And a famine because crops fail is nothing to do whatsoever with capitalism. I bet you anything the people depicted starving are not gainfully employed. In other words, we need to get factories in there - fast.

Sorry...what was that you said about flaming??

Jazzratt is beginning to understand but clearly not you. If capitalists invest in those countries they will provide wages for these people to run an economy in the absence of the lack of agriculture....duh not all countries are built upon agriculture you know.
The fuck are you talking about? Capitalist "investment" is a euphamism for exploiting workers and stealing the fuits of their labour in order to further yourself. "Not all countries are built on agriculture" hey? All countries have agriculture so that they do not need to rely on foriegn imports and goodwill. Also most countries in Africa aside from, maybe, Botswana ARE built on agriculture because they require food to live. Food that is used in abundance but fat american ****s and thrown away by wasteful fucking Europeans (or eaten by fat european ****s and thrown away by wasteful fucking americans if you prefer),

I'd thank you not to drag my good name through the mud of your crackpot ideology.

Si Pinto

10th July 2006, 18:49

And yet you know its true dont you. Without rich no aid would arrive in Africa. More would die.

You know as well as I do that it's imperialist exploitation of Africa which is to blame for them being in that situation.

and the best they can expect as recompense is a few food handouts from 'samaritans' like you?

Some 'compassion' that! :rolleyes:

Well you flame me in every post and I have never flamed you once in many posts so you are the liar.

If you mean when I say things like 'your talking bollocks you prick', then maybe it's because you come up with lines like..

I bet you anything the people depicted starving are not gainfully employed

and

At least those kids have some modern clothes

and

I dont see any imperialists raping Africa in those pictures

Which is sick bullshit, and purely there to flame and provoke a reaction, which I'm stupid enough to respond to.

You see pictures of dying and dead children and the best you can do is make sarcastic shitty remarks about it!!!

and you say I'm flaming :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Come on admit it, your here to flame, nothing more nothing less.

Do you really think your going to turn any commies over to you with the way you talk!!! :lol: :rolleyes:

Why do you bring my girl into this? Your fight is with me.

Oh suddenly the 'heart of stone' cappie's got a soft spot.

What's the matter, did I touch a raw nerve, painful isn't it!!

Not as painful as watching ANY child die of hunger, whether your the mother or not. (which was another of your best inflammortary comments, exactly as you intended it).

If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.

Jazzratt is beginning to understand but clearly not you.

I'm sure Jazzratt would be interested to hear that you think you've educated him.

You really see yourself as somekind of capitalist missionary doing your duty, don't you!!

If capitalists invest in those countries they will provide wages for these people to run an economy in the absence of the lack of agriculture....duh not all countries are built upon agriculture you know.

Either that's another purely inflammatory comment, or if you actually believe what you just said then you are prooving why you a sick capitalist bastard, which is why we use such language against you.

Your advocating creating factories in places that don't have the means to support the people in it, because capitalism has bled it dry.

You want to make a profit just to keep them alive!!!

and you wonder why we 'flame you back' :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Capitalists have exploited Africa for centuries, bled it dry, left the people to starve and suffer.

You of course won't see it that way.

Instead of 'investing to provide wages' why don't you just start with the basics first, food, water, healthcare, education.

You know....the 'compassionate' thing, rather than the capitalist thing.

Guess what, its socialism that causes starvation!

I think you'll find it's lack of food and water!!!

Both of which would be in plentiful supply under a communist system!!!!! (I know your response before you've typed it, so don't bother. We've never had a communist system on this planet yet.)

As opposed to the food and drink sitting in storage warehouses and vats because sick capitalists like you can't get a big enough profit for it.

Was it socialism that chained all those Africans up, and took them to America to work.

Don't talk bullshit!

You see!!! This is why your not worth actually discussing theory with, because you simply turn every truth on it's head so you can get a capitalist soundbite out of it. I get the feeling I'm talking to someone about to run for public office or would like to do that in the future and is getting some practice in.

Oh, Im sick am I? BEcause I want to end starvation in Africa

No!!! your sick because your idea of ending starvation would be to let all the starving ones die.

Except the ones you want to work in your 'factories' of course.

Your no better than a slave trader.

'Flaming' doesn't do you justice believe me.

theraven

10th July 2006, 18:53

The fuck are you talking about? Capitalist "investment" is a euphamism for exploiting workers and stealing the fuits of their labour in order to further yourself. "Not all countries are built on agriculture" hey? All countries have agriculture so that they do not need to rely on foriegn imports and goodwill. Also most countries in Africa aside from, maybe, Botswana ARE built on agriculture because they require food to live. Food that is used in abundance but fat american ****s and thrown away by wasteful fucking Europeans (or eaten by fat european ****s and thrown away by wasteful fucking americans if you prefer).

no, you generally use agricutlure as a part of your economy, but in order to move beyond the 11th century your counrty shuld have a greater focus on trade and manufacturing then on growing crops. this means you should be extracting minerals in yoru ground and buidling factories to turn those materials into finished product to sell either abroad or to your own people. Now ther are differnet methods you can do this, the centrelized methdo (favored in the USSR for example) or the decentrelized method favored in more capitlsit countires like the USA. the decentralized method, with government support (ie builidng road ways, ensuring a stable governemt and just courts) is far more succesful providing a good economy then anything else. And how do you get th mining equitment, the factorie tools, and the skills to do these things? from other countries and through their investment in your own. if you want to look at a good example of a coutnry going from occupied colony to succesful country with homegrown buissness look at india which has everything from steal to software companies in its midst.

will post rest later

I'd thank you not to drag my good name through the mud of your crackpot ideology.

Forward Union

10th July 2006, 19:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 11:23 AM
Because the capitalist ideology proclaims every individual to be their own sovereign country.

Bullshit myth. Libertarianism or 'Anarchism' promotes this, yes. But Capitalism forces 95% of the population into submissive positions or platforms for the ruling class to earn their riches off.

Give me a reason to have a guilt conscience. I want personal experiences. Whatching babies die is not as bad as if you were their mother.

Personal Experiences?

WHAT IS PRECARITY?
Precarity stretches beyond work.
It includes housing, debt, general instability, the inability to make plans.
We can talk about the subjugation of life under capital, not just the subjugation of labour under capital.
Precarity is an instrument of control; it is enforced by those with power upon the powerless. We can't choose how we want to live.
It engenders competition in social life.
It forces us into a Darwinian "struggle for existence" on a social level.
Precarity is the basic condition of individuals in capitalist society.
It divides us, and limits opportunities to get together.
People are disempowered and social relations break down.

what is precarity? (http://www.ourmayday.org.uk/)

Matty_UK

10th July 2006, 19:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 12:24 PM
To Matt. Dont worry no-one get bullied seriously at uni. They just dont have the time. And if so its really casual and ends in first year. Remember uni is full of shy geeks.
Not bullying per se, but at least in my experience rich kids are complete arseholes, at least to me. I used to, briefly, have a female friend from a private school who would constantly criticise my cheap clothes and general untidiness. I also met one of my ex-girlfriends new boyfriends who was from a rich family, and at first he would always try to exclude me from conversations by talking about classical music, and it was obvious he was doing it to assert his superiority over me-although I was actually far smarter and better read than him so he stopped doing that. And he'd always make snide comments about my supposed lack of manners-really petty things like my pronunciation of certain words or not using a plate to butter bread.

It's unfair to generalise and it isn't really their fault, but a lot of these kids have been brought up to believe they're superior to the uncivilised criminal mass swarming about moronically outside their cushy housing estates-and if you challenge their preconceptions by proving that, y'know, working class people CAN read and articulate their views the more conservative ones seem to get resentful and put you down at every opportunity.

Although I'm sure there are some nice rich kids, there aren't many truly intelligent ones, probably because independant thinking is discouraged by their parents who are so obsessed with them having to become rich and successful too, so they're taught to give authority credence and respect, and get horribly angry if someone were to suggest than bankers are theives. My sister-who is liberal but hardly a commie-has told me about the unbearable snobbery of sons of bankers and businessmen at her university, some of whom think that comprehensive schools should be abolished because when the riff raff get together they turn the schoolhouse into a den of drugs and vice. <_< We aren't the ones spending daddys money on coke and parties, twat, and we actually have jobs. And also how pathetic the high-maintenance bourgoise girls on her French course and in her dorms are, who seem to think they're constantly on a Parisian catwalk and when going to a novelty party where you had to dress in binbags would fuss over making the binbags look nice; and again are incredibly patronising to my sister.

Of course it's not really bullying but it's not pleasant either and, well, I suppose it's an example of how capitalism affects our every day life and why we might lean towards socialism. As for why I'm a communist, I've been one since I knew what the word was and long before I understood exactly what it was; I think the reason for people being commies or being sympathetic to it comes simply down to a general desire to stand up for freedom and the oppressed. I think you'd find in many countries the working class all harbour a secret fascination with the ideals of socialism and a revulsion for capitalism, even if not many of them read about it or talk about it. They would all be socialist if the USSR didn't discredit socialism, but trust me that no-one is happy with capitalism which is associated with elitism, exploitation and greed; nobody is EVER going to fall for that bullshit that capitalism is about freedom, because if you aren't wealthy it's clear at a glance that the state defends the rich's luxury while it merely keeps the workforce alive if you're lucky enough to have a welfare state.
Either people haven't considered that there could be something better, or think that there's nothing we can do about such an intolerable state of affairs.

Someone said that it's a question of class interests, and I'm assuming if you're rich enough to own a piano as well as being supportive of capitalism then you're pretty bourgoise. So I don't expect you to sympathise with the working class especially with the values your family seem to have taught you, but I will still pose a more apt question to you-why on earth should anyone but the wealthy admire capitalism? Why would I like being run down with paying rent to someone who does no work and receiving low pay while the executives of the company who don't do the real work live in huge villas? Why would I be joyous to see in my short life local economies destroyed by supermarkets forcing more and more people to have less and less control over their work?

Matty_UK

10th July 2006, 19:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 01:17 PM
Well I thought Martty-Uk had a legitimate critique of capitalism so I didnt challenge it. And in case you didnt notice, he lambasted me with abuse in his second post imagining me to be the amalgamation of all his lifes woes personified. And you say I made a stupid unfunny remark. It wasnt supposed to be funny. It was I would have hoped reassuring advice.
The abuse is nothing personal but you have to understand it is entirely ignorant and selfish to believe capitalism to be about the glory of the individual, for it denies power to so many people. The means of production must be owned by neither a state nor a wealthy capitalist elite, and then there is true individual autonomy and freedom.

And you'd be pleased to know I didn't take your remark as sarcastic.

Janus

10th July 2006, 20:07

And yet its the rich not the poor who give to African charities.
Because the poor have nothing to give. They are already oppressed under shitty working conditions trying to make a living and don't have the money to ease the negative consequences of capitalism elsewhere.

The rich do it to satisfy their consciences because they can do without the money and it would give them some media coverage.

If the rich had never intervened in Africa in the first place, the situation wouldn't be nearly this bad.

Tungsten

10th July 2006, 20:32

Jazzratt

"it has kept my family down while raising people whod absolutley bugger all to the level of Idol so much so that they rarely have to worry about money?"
How have they kept your family down?

You will find imperialists in Africa. They prefer the term entreupeneur. Also, in response to 'Thems kids hay-ave mawdarn clothes, hyuck' I think you're ignoring the main part of the pictures - the starvation, which is a direct result of capitalist fuckers exercising their 'personal property rights' to build factories and mines that exploit these people.
They were starving long before the "capitalist fuckers" did anything and what about the personal property rights of the Africans? Wouldn't violating those be a contradiction to capitalism?

I wish I believed in hell so that I could reassure myself that you would be going there, you heartless, brainless, unspeakably vile puddle of rancid goat shit.
Socialism wouldn't be the first religious doctrine to condemn people to hell for questioning it's dogma. Although I do think you'd be more willing to use more reliably injurious means of "punishment".

You do not understand capitalism, it is the system that allows these conditions to exsist because it is entirely non-alturist and non-egalitarian
Got it in one. We don't think enslaving the first world to the third is a good idea, or giving the third world the money rightfully owned by workers in the first. If that makes me uncompassionate, then so be it.

Food that is used in abundance but fat american ****s and thrown away by wasteful fucking Europeans (or eaten by fat european ****s and thrown away by wasteful fucking americans if you prefer),
This is new. Africans are starving because someone in America throws away half a packet of french fries?
Si Pinto

Does it have to be my own sufferings.

Compassion is a really dirty word for you isn't it.
I don't like what you try to pass off as compassion.

Try working in Africa for a couple of months.

Try watching babies and toddlers dying in their mothers arms (yes I've been there).

Might change your outlook, but then again maybe not
Pity you didn't spend a few months studying why people are dying over there and not over here. You might have learned something.

Your the one who should have a 'guilty conscience'.
What has he done?

Here are some details for you!!!!!

You sick capitalist bastard.

Enjoy your breakfast.
So we've established that there's poverty. Now how do these pictures prove it was caused by capitalism? Or am I not supposed to ask?

You know as well as I do that it's imperialist exploitation of Africa which is to blame for them being in that situation.
No, you don't know- it's something you accepted without question and hoped that showing pictures (that explain nothing) would make everyone feel guilty and agree with you. I'm neither convinced nor fooled.

Both of which would be in plentiful supply under a communist system!!!!!
How do you know?

As opposed to the food and drink sitting in storage warehouses and vats because sick capitalists like you can't get a big enough profit for it.
What about the workers who made this food? How are they going to be paid if it's given away for nothing?
Matty_UK

Whenever a rich kid says that, it makes me want to punch them in the fucking face.
You oppose the idea that each individual is sovereign?

You rich dickheads aren't individuals at all, half of you are a bunch of religious or patriotic zealots or blind idealogues.
Everyone is an individual and should be judged individually.

A belief in something higher than yourself, be it country or ideology or God is inherently alienating to the human condition and in my opinion is a mental illness.
Does belief in your ideology count as a mental illness?

but the rich are fucking parasites stealing the people's resources.
Do you recognise the right to private property? I should hope so, considering that you condemn the stealing of resources.

Bankers who lend money and charge interest, making fuck all contribution to society.
It must be difficult for people who know fuck all about economics to see the utility of banks, but lending money is a contribution. Money or goods in your hand now is more valuable than money or goods you have to wait for. This is the reason the stuff in a vending machine at work is cheaper than the same stuff at a supermarket- you pay for the convenience of having it there when you need it.

In my opinion individualism is freedom from bourgoise authoritarian moralities and to have the freedom to fulfill your needs.
Individualism goes with lessaiz faire, which is freedom to do as you please providing you don't use force against other people.

Si Pinto

10th July 2006, 22:00

I don't like what you try to pass off as compassion.

No, I didn't think you would.

You don't 'pass off' compassion, you either have it or you don't, and their is a third option, those who have it but deny it for various reasons.

Pity you didn't spend a few months studying why people are dying over there and not over here. You might have learned something

a) I wasn't studying over there believe me.

b) I learned far more in those months than you could ever imagine.

c) Your proving what I learned.

So we've established that there's poverty. Now how do these pictures prove it was caused by capitalism? Or am I not supposed to ask?

a) Are you stating it wasn't?

b) Of course you can ask, and of course I can answer, and of course you will deny it.

c) Bit pointless really isn't it?

No, you don't know- it's something you accepted without question and hoped that showing pictures (that explain nothing) would make everyone feel guilty and agree with you. I'm neither convinced nor fooled.

a) I never accept anything without question.

b) Those pictures together with the responses from your cappie friend and yourself explain two important things.

i - The continued suffering of millions of people like this around the globe.

ii - Your indifference to their plight.

c) Why would I bother trying to convince you, you are clearly long past the point of redemption and as for fooling you, better leave that to the experts, you know the cappies?

How do you know?

a) There is enough food and resources on this planet to feed us all easily already, do you deny this?

b) Redistribution of this food and resources is at the very heart of the communist ideal.

c) I'll let you work out the maths as it isn't too difficult.

What about the workers who made this food? How are they going to be paid if it's given away for nothing?

a) They've already been paid, the food is there for ages and is often left to rot because your beloved cappies can't make enough 'profit' on it. The milk is poured away.

b) Even if you hadn't been paid, wouldn't you consider someone elses life more important than a days wages for yourself?

c) Thought not.

Like I said, you've either got compassion or you haven't or you deny it.

theraven

10th July 2006, 22:54

Not bullying per se, but at least in my experience rich kids are complete arseholes, at least to me. I used to, briefly, have a female friend from a private school who would constantly criticise my cheap clothes and general untidiness. I also met one of my ex-girlfriends new boyfriends who was from a rich family, and at first he would always try to exclude me from conversations by talking about classical music, and it was obvious he was doing it to assert his superiority over me-although I was actually far smarter and better read than him so he stopped doing that. And he'd always make snide comments about my supposed lack of manners-really petty things like my pronunciation of certain words or not using a plate to butter bread.

so hes a snob-this is not unusual, but it is far from a disaster. there are idiots in every class, he is just a personofacaiotnof a rich idiot.

It's unfair to generalise and it isn't really their fault, but a lot of these kids have been brought up to believe they're superior to the uncivilised criminal mass swarming about moronically outside their cushy housing estates-and if you challenge their preconceptions by proving that, y'know, working class people CAN read and articulate their views the more conservative ones seem to get resentful and put you down at every opportunity.

talking about braod generizaison...

Although I'm sure there are some nice rich kids, there aren't many truly intelligent ones, probably because independant thinking is discouraged by their parents who are so obsessed with them having to become rich and successful too,

what do you define as truely intellegetn?

so they're taught to give authority credence and respect, and get horribly angry if someone were to suggest than bankers are theives.

because your a) not being truthful and b) insluting their parents

the rest o fyour post was bullox to so thats that.

Tungsten

10th July 2006, 23:26

Si Pinto

a) Are you stating it wasn't?
Yes.

b) Those pictures together with the responses from your cappie friend and yourself explain two important things.
1- That you favour emotion over logic and cheap shock-value over reason.
2- I do the opposite.

i - The continued suffering of millions of people like this around the globe.

ii - Your indifference to their plight.
None of that is relevent for two reasons:
1- We didn't cause their plight.
2- We have the right to be indifferent, as they have the right to be indifferent about any problems we have.

a) There is enough food and resources on this planet to feed us all easily already, do you deny this?
Thanks to capitalism.

b) Redistribution of this food and resources is at the very heart of the communist ideal.
Which will remove the incentive to produce food and resources. Well done.

c) I'll let you work out the maths as it isn't too difficult.
It's not maths you need to study. It's praxeology.

a) They've already been paid, the food is there for ages and is often left to rot because your beloved cappies can't make enough 'profit' on it. The milk is poured away.
Why don't you look beyond the next five minutes for a change and ask where the next lot of food will be coming from? Who's going to work for the sake of working? No one.

b) Even if you hadn't been paid, wouldn't you consider someone elses life more important than a days wages for yourself?
A day? No, comrade, we're talking about an entire lifetime without pay merely working (out of duty?) to keep anonymous "others" alive. No thanks.

JazzRemington

11th July 2006, 00:16

I think everyone seems to be missing something in this discussion. Namely, the only way I can be against something is if it affects ME. That is, the ONLY legitimate way I can be anti-capitalist is if capitalism affects ME negatively.

Why is that?

Sabocat

11th July 2006, 00:38

Originally posted by spanishinquisition+Jul 10 2006, 07:01 AM--> (spanishinquisition @ Jul 10 2006, 07:01 AM)
[email protected] 10 2006, 10:46 AM
Proletarian student here. How do you mean screwed with my life? WOuld you accept the answer as something along the lines of \"it has kept my family down while raising people whod absolutley bugger all to the level of Idol so much so that they rarely have to worry about money?\"
I want the details. How has your family been screwed. And if this is indeed true, why must you take it out on capitalism? Come on details. [/b]
How has my family been screwed?

For starters, my dad was a union Steelworker for 45 years. The plant that he worked in allowed the workers to work around Beryllium, Asbestos, radioactive material and a host of other hazardous materials without supplying protective gear (often times not telling the workers the material they were working with).

The result of which, soon after retirement, he has been diagnosed with Chronic Beryllium Disease, and Multiple Myoloma. So a guy that was never really sick his whole life, in outstanding physical shape, finally gets to retire and now spends a good portion of his time at Cancer Hospitals. In fact, statistics have shown for that company, on average the retired worker collects/collected 18 monthly pension checks and then dies.

No worries though, the company made huge profits making parts for the military. What's a few workers lives? As a side bonus, the town where this plant is, has a lot of toxic waste in it's drinking water and high incidence of cancer because the plant used to bury some of this hazardous material in the ground at night.

This is a common story in capitalist society. Profits before people.

Abolish Communism

11th July 2006, 01:31

Capitalism has been very good to us. My father is a retire broadcaster and put four kids through school. I'm the last one, and will get all the schooling I can get in to.

theraven

11th July 2006, 01:56

Originally posted by Disgustapated+Jul 10 2006, 09:39 PM--> (Disgustapated @ Jul 10 2006, 09:39 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 07:01 AM

[email protected] 10 2006, 10:46 AM
Proletarian student here. How do you mean screwed with my life? WOuld you accept the answer as something along the lines of \"it has kept my family down while raising people whod absolutley bugger all to the level of Idol so much so that they rarely have to worry about money?\"
I want the details. How has your family been screwed. And if this is indeed true, why must you take it out on capitalism? Come on details.
How has my family been screwed?

For starters, my dad was a union Steelworker for 45 years. The plant that he worked in allowed the workers to work around Beryllium, Asbestos, radioactive material and a host of other hazardous materials without supplying protective gear (often times not telling the workers the material they were working with).

The result of which, soon after retirement, he has been diagnosed with Chronic Beryllium Disease, and Multiple Myoloma. So a guy that was never really sick his whole life, in outstanding physical shape, finally gets to retire and now spends a good portion of his time at Cancer Hospitals. In fact, statistics have shown for that company, on average the retired worker collects/collected 18 monthly pension checks and then dies.

No worries though, the company made huge profits making parts for the military. What's a few workers lives? As a side bonus, the town where this plant is, has a lot of toxic waste in it's drinking water and high incidence of cancer because the plant used to bury some of this hazardous material in the ground at night.

This is a common story in capitalist society. Profits before people. [/b]
thats very sad about your father however let me put it to youth is way

if his company hadn't been doing those things it might have gone out of buisnes,,and then your dad would have been unemployed and then he and yoru family wouldn't have been poor economci straits.

RevMARKSman

11th July 2006, 02:11

Originally posted by theraven+Jul 10 2006, 05:57 PM--> (theraven @ Jul 10 2006, 05:57 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 07:01 AM

[email protected] 10 2006, 10:46 AM
Proletarian student here. How do you mean screwed with my life? WOuld you accept the answer as something along the lines of \"it has kept my family down while raising people whod absolutley bugger all to the level of Idol so much so that they rarely have to worry about money?\"
I want the details. How has your family been screwed. And if this is indeed true, why must you take it out on capitalism? Come on details.
How has my family been screwed?

For starters, my dad was a union Steelworker for 45 years. The plant that he worked in allowed the workers to work around Beryllium, Asbestos, radioactive material and a host of other hazardous materials without supplying protective gear (often times not telling the workers the material they were working with).

The result of which, soon after retirement, he has been diagnosed with Chronic Beryllium Disease, and Multiple Myoloma. So a guy that was never really sick his whole life, in outstanding physical shape, finally gets to retire and now spends a good portion of his time at Cancer Hospitals. In fact, statistics have shown for that company, on average the retired worker collects/collected 18 monthly pension checks and then dies.

No worries though, the company made huge profits making parts for the military. What's a few workers lives? As a side bonus, the town where this plant is, has a lot of toxic waste in it's drinking water and high incidence of cancer because the plant used to bury some of this hazardous material in the ground at night.

This is a common story in capitalist society. Profits before people.
thats very sad about your father however let me put it to youth is way

if his company hadn't been doing those things it might have gone out of buisnes,,and then your dad would have been unemployed and then he and yoru family wouldn't have been poor economci straits. [/b]
Woohoo, capitalism! Between a rock and a hard place! :rolleyes:

Mujer Libre

11th July 2006, 02:24

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 09:17 PM
I think everyone seems to be missing something in this discussion. Namely, the only way I can be against something is if it affects ME. That is, the ONLY legitimate way I can be anti-capitalist is if capitalism affects ME negatively.

Why is that?
Because the people who started this thread are all into 'liberal-individualist' values. I mean... they're cappies. They probably don't get that the injustices of the system are all around, and when you can see them you can't ignore them. And they affect us all in some way (mainly negatively, unless you're a bourgy)- whether it's directly against us or otherwise.

I mean, I've worked shitty jobs when I was young and been paid fuckall when you can SEE that you're bringing in thousands of dollars for a boss who doesn't even turn up to work. All he did was provide the money to start the business... Pretty fucked, no? I know people who've been "made redundant" so that companies making millions of dollars a year can increase their profits further. I'm from South Africa, and the racial hierarchy has been replaced by a capitalist one- although it doesn't look much different.

theraven

11th July 2006, 02:24

Originally posted by MonicaTTmed+Jul 10 2006, 11:12 PM--> (MonicaTTmed @ Jul 10 2006, 11:12 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 07:01 AM

[email protected] 10 2006, 10:46 AM
Proletarian student here. How do you mean screwed with my life? WOuld you accept the answer as something along the lines of \"it has kept my family down while raising people whod absolutley bugger all to the level of Idol so much so that they rarely have to worry about money?\"
I want the details. How has your family been screwed. And if this is indeed true, why must you take it out on capitalism? Come on details.
How has my family been screwed?

For starters, my dad was a union Steelworker for 45 years. The plant that he worked in allowed the workers to work around Beryllium, Asbestos, radioactive material and a host of other hazardous materials without supplying protective gear (often times not telling the workers the material they were working with).

The result of which, soon after retirement, he has been diagnosed with Chronic Beryllium Disease, and Multiple Myoloma. So a guy that was never really sick his whole life, in outstanding physical shape, finally gets to retire and now spends a good portion of his time at Cancer Hospitals. In fact, statistics have shown for that company, on average the retired worker collects/collected 18 monthly pension checks and then dies.

No worries though, the company made huge profits making parts for the military. What's a few workers lives? As a side bonus, the town where this plant is, has a lot of toxic waste in it's drinking water and high incidence of cancer because the plant used to bury some of this hazardous material in the ground at night.

This is a common story in capitalist society. Profits before people.
thats very sad about your father however let me put it to youth is way

if his company hadn't been doing those things it might have gone out of buisnes,,and then your dad would have been unemployed and then he and yoru family wouldn't have been poor economci straits.
Woohoo, capitalism! Between a rock and a hard place! :rolleyes: [/b]
Actually thats more like life. yuo generally ahve two lesser evils.

elmo sez

11th July 2006, 03:02

Ok first of all - Im sorry to say but the capitalists here have no idea hwat theyre talkin about, Im sorry but you really have no clue about economics, Capitalist or communist .

Here watch this video , this video will explain to you in very simple terms why capitalism is bad.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=30...276&q=Socialism (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3072291302771620276&q=Socialism)

Please for the love of mankind please watch this video and really think about what you are talking about. We are talking about the death , the needless death of millions of people . I dont even know where to begin in explaining to you why capitalism is bad , i hope that this video is a start .

You may have done well out of capitalism, but think of the countless others who didnt.

Now back to the main question how has capitalism screwed with my life .
Well lets see Im in a single parent family, in which my mother works her backside off to provide for the family, see works a 7 day week , for wages that arent exactly wonderful, she works harder than any CEO or what ever and sees little of the profit , that her hard work has helped to make . Do you see something wrong here . The people that do the least amount of work are getting the most money . Why you ask well because daddy could afford to put the through college . were as the hardest working people get the least because they could afford to go to college in the first place .

My mother came form a working class family , because of this she will be unable to ever rise above her social class and become rich despite the fact that she works very hard. I know that you say it is possible, there are cases of rags to riches but these are few and far between. For the majority it is impossible . is this right ?

And to my fellow Comrades , shout and curse at them all you want , it wont change their opion , i know its hard i used to do it myself , but remaining cool calm and collected is usually best - although sometimes a head kickin deserved - stay strong and defeat them with logic, we know that we are right , so educate do not fight , unless its necessary.

Matty_UK

11th July 2006, 03:20

You oppose the idea that each individual is sovereign?

No, I strongly believe in individualism-but it is bullshit to suggest that capitalism is about individualism. If each individual was sovereign, I would not be compulsed to work for anyone but myself yet under capitalism most of the money I make goes to my boss.

Everyone is an individual and should be judged individually.

Agreed, but that is no way refutes me stating that a belief in a higher power suffocates the individual.

Does belief in your ideology count as a mental illness?

I don't have an ideology, I want to destroy capitalism and hierarchy because, frankly, I don't like them-and that's the most sincere reason for revolt one could possibly have. Having practical ideas of how a non-hierarchal system could work does not count as an ideology, as I am flexible accepting both individualist anarchism (NOT anarcho-capitalism, which is an oxymoron) and communist anarchism, purely depending on how people choose to organise themselves.

But yes, I consider the blind faith communists who support North Korea and even defend Saddam Hussein to be a tad on the nutter side.

Do you recognise the right to private property? I should hope so, considering that you condemn the stealing of resources.

There is private property, and there is private property. Private property which denies the right of another individual to private property is theft, but otherwise private property is a freedom. For example, someone has the right to own his own home, but I do NOT recognise the right of a landlord to create an artificial scarcity of homes and overcharging people when they could quite simply just take the house.

It must be difficult for people who know fuck all about economics to see the utility of banks, but lending money is a contribution. Money or goods in your hand now is more valuable than money or goods you have to wait for. This is the reason the stuff in a vending machine at work is cheaper than the same stuff at a supermarket- you pay for the convenience of having it there when you need it.

Under capitalism banks have a utility because I need to take a student loan or a loan to get a house. Not under anarcho-communism, I'm afraid, as money does not exist then or things would have an objective value based on the energy consumed to create them. Explaining how that pseudo-science known as economics works today is not going to convince me to change my mind, as I want to destroy the economics of trade and subjective values yadda yadda yadda. I have not studied capitalist economics because I would die of boredom, but it's quite clear to me that use of modern technology to increase production can only take place by destroying capitalism, and in a post-scarcity society goods can be distributed with no capitalist economics as we would be wealthy enough not to worry about trade; and it would not be long before the revolution would spread.

Individualism goes with lessaiz faire, which is freedom to do as you please providing you don't use force against other people.

Yet capitalism is inherently violent. If I refuse to pay my rent, the police violently drag me off. Furthermore I cannot get an education or a house without relying on a bank, and if I don't pay my debt back my property is taken away. I am denied the full fruits of my labour, and the state has a record of working with the bourgoisie to violently repress attempts to change this. I can be sued for downloading music and have to pay to view academic texts on the internet, both of which could be free outside capitalism.

The individual is, perhaps deliberately, alienated from government by the use of a nationwide centralised police force which removes any reason for the working class organising in their communities; something genuinely based on free assocation. Laisez faire economics it seems to be quickly sees economic power being centralised to a mere handful of businesses, with local economies crippled and a ruthless ruling economic elite who can destroy local autonomy and hugly minimise an individuals influence on their own local area.

People who claim that capitalism is individualistic know fuck all about individualism; no offense. Have you ever heard of egoism? I would recommend you read Max Stirner. Stirner is the litmus (sp?) test to discover is a capitalist is a misguided individualist or just a sycophant easily won over by the Machiavellian mystique of power.

Matty_UK

11th July 2006, 03:37

so hes a snob-this is not unusual, but it is far from a disaster. there are idiots in every class, he is just a personofacaiotnof a rich idiot.
...
talking about braod generizaison...

Oh, for sure, but you have to understand that I was defending my point that middle class kids DO bully working class kids in a generally non-violent way, and that at uni I will probably have to deal with prejudice.

what do you define as truely intellegetn?

A capacity for rational thought where literally nothing is sacred, is what I would consider intelligent. Being able to raise your perspective outside of subjective values and neuroses instilled in you and see things for how they really are.

Of course, cognitive ability is intelligence too but I can only respect someone's intelligence when they have the strength as an individual to be who they are and reject external influences on their psyche. But my own views make me biased, I admit.

because your a) not being truthful and b) insluting their parents

But what if they don't know any bankers? And I'm not talking specifically about bankers here, nor is it just the rich-it's a phenomena found in religious families also. I think a lot of it is to do with sexual repression because these people also tend to be prudish, but I'm not sure if sexual repression is caused by strict parenting or if strict parenting causes sexual repression.

Religion is the best example of what I'm talking about. It's been proven that when driven to a crisis of faith religious people actually get, y'know, a bit turned on. If you're religious you know exactly what I'm talking about even if you deny it. And the aggression, I do not understand-I do not get angry at all if someone disses anarchism, although I might get frustrated if they fail to understand it when I explain, yet my highly catholic Grandmother gets furious at even making a joke about God, even if it's in favour of him! It's not rational. Also the whole anti-smoking thing is further evidence the middle class are not rational, if I'm with a conservative well behaved middle class person at a party and I start smoking it is not rare for them to attempt to put the cigarette out, and they act genuinely horrified in a way that is so disproportionate to the danger of smoking. One person I know who does this also drives around in a car at 100mph, yet criticises me for potentially endangering other people with cigarette smoke, despite very flimsy evidence for passive smoking posing any real danger. This is what I mean when I say they are taught to revere authority, something they look down upon as scummy like smoking sends them to an unnatural and irrational rage. And if you diss the cops often they might just stop talking to you out of fear. To me, it appears to be insanity.

Orange Juche

11th July 2006, 05:29

It stole my virginity!

Anti-Red

11th July 2006, 06:03

Originally posted by Mujer [email protected] 10 2006, 11:25 PM
I'm from South Africa, and the racial hierarchy has been replaced by a capitalist one- although it doesn't look much different.
I'm sorry, but the whole situation in SA, as in the American South, did not happen because of capitalism. Capitalism and racism are not the same thing, which is something you people need to get through your heads. If anything the reason that black people are poor today in SA and America is that for years GOVERNMENT pushed them down and STOPPED them from getting up on their own. Every time they tried to partake in CAPITALISM, their businesses were burned, they were pushed off, and shrugged off, by GOVERNMENT. Capitalism is an ECONOMIC SYSTEM, GOVERNMENT is GOVERNMENT! Doi!

theraven

11th July 2006, 06:44

Oh, for sure, but you have to understand that I was defending my point that middle class kids DO bully working class kids in a generally non-violent way, and that at uni I will probably have to deal with prejudice.

um so will everyone. everyone has a clique in college and they generally compete. for example my college (in the US uni is called college) most of the poulation comes from one of two areas. the two areas constaly are making commetns back and forth to each other, and each is reviled. not that they don't ever get a long or their are pitched battels or anytihng..its just a soical thing. those exist everywhere and its not just some rich kids are out to get you thing.

A capacity for rational thought where literally nothing is sacred, is what I would consider intelligent. Being able to raise your perspective outside of subjective values and neuroses instilled in you and see things for how they really are.

Of course, cognitive ability is intelligence too but I can only respect someone's intelligence when they have the strength as an individual to be who they are and reject external influences on their psyche. But my own views make me biased, I admit.

not holding anything sacred is not a sign of intellgence, its a sign of amorality. i suppose if your a scietisnt its a good quality.

and the rest-some people take their belifs seriosly. how do you feel when someone tells you your basic belifs re wrong and your an idiot for beliving in them?

No, I strongly believe in individualism-but it is bullshit to suggest that capitalism is about individualism. If each individual was sovereign, I would not be compulsed to work for anyone but myself yet under capitalism most of the money I make goes to my boss.

the money you make goes to you (and the govenrment in the form of taxes). you make money not off the buisse you transact (unless you work on commison) but off your labor itself. you are but one component of the buiisness, other aspcts including the idea behind it, the mateirals and the overall running of it are all other expesnes. the owner (the person who takes the initail risk, had the idea and desigend the buisseness, possibly even running it) gets the profit after the fact. plenty of owners are lucky to break even.

I don't have an ideology, I want to destroy capitalism and hierarchy because, frankly, I don't like them-and that's the most sincere reason for revolt one could possibly have. Having practical ideas of how a non-hierarchal system could work does not count as an ideology, as I am flexible accepting both individualist anarchism (NOT anarcho-capitalism, which is an oxymoron) and communist anarchism, purely depending on how people choose to organise themselves.

But yes, I consider the blind faith communists who support North Korea and even defend Saddam Hussein to be a tad on the nutter side.

so you want to knock down the house because theres a little leak in the rough, but you don't realy want to buiild a new one? brilliant...

There is private property, and there is private property. Private property which denies the right of another individual to private property is theft, but otherwise private property is a freedom. For example, someone has the right to own his own home, but I do NOT recognise the right of a landlord to create an artificial scarcity of homes and overcharging people when they could quite simply just take the house.

i am sorry but i fail to see the disticiotn

Under capitalism banks have a utility because I need to take a student loan or a loan to get a house. Not under anarcho-communism, I'm afraid, as money does not exist then or things would have an objective value based on the energy consumed to create them.
and how would you pay this objective value? and what about other factores intot i like the materials and the transpot of goods.

Explaining how that pseudo-science known as economics works today is not going to convince me to change my mind, as I want to destroy the economics of trade and subjective values yadda yadda yadda. I have not studied capitalist economics because I would die of boredom, but it's quite clear to me that use of modern technology to increase production can only take place by destroying capitalism, and in a post-scarcity society goods can be distributed with no capitalist economics as we would be wealthy enough not to worry about trade; and it would not be long before the revolution would spread.

so you admit to not undertandin basic economics, but you figure your technocrativ heaven will take care of everythng. wow brillaint.

Yet capitalism is inherently violent. If I refuse to pay my rent, the police violently drag me off. Furthermore I cannot get an education or a house without relying on a bank, and if I don't pay my debt back my property is taken away. I am denied the full fruits of my labour, and the state has a record of working with the bourgoisie to violently repress attempts to change this. I can be sued for downloading music and have to pay to view academic texts on the internet, both of which could be free outside capitalism.

1) yes if you violate another perosn private properlty (ie by staying in their house without permision)t hen you will be forcibly removed. this is a last resort but it does occur .

2) yes but again this is an oversimplficaiotn. gone are the days where men are sent to debtors prison

3) yes the govenrmet si generaly opposed to mass rebelion.

The individual is, perhaps deliberately, alienated from government by the use of a nationwide centralised police force which removes any reason for the working class organising in their communities; something genuinely based on free assocation. Laisez faire economics it seems to be quickly sees economic power being centralised to a mere handful of businesses, with local economies crippled and a ruthless ruling economic elite who can destroy local autonomy and hugly minimise an individuals influence on their own local area.

what are you talking about? I dunno bout england but in the US police forces are locally funded and run. the FBI exists, but it deals with only certain crimes.

i will agree that lazze faire econocms allowed to prgoress leads to a monoply system, which is why the governmetn must owon over by the Machiavellian mystique of power.

encephalon

11th July 2006, 08:36

CAPITALISM ATE MY SANDWICH.

spanishinquisition

11th July 2006, 10:13

Right, firstly, Disgustapated I am sorry for your loss. I lost my aunt to Multiple Myeloma after Chernobyl, no capitalism there huh?

Elmorez

Ok first of all - Im sorry to say but the capitalists here have no idea hwat theyre talkin about, Im sorry but you really have no clue about economics, Capitalist or communist .

Here watch this video , this video will explain to you in very simple terms why capitalism is bad.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=30...276&q=Socialism

Please for the love of mankind please watch this video and really think about what you are talking about. We are talking about the death , the needless death of millions of people . I dont even know where to begin in explaining to you why capitalism is bad , i hope that this video is a start .

You may have done well out of capitalism, but think of the countless others who didnt.

Elmorez, that video did not prove a link between capitalism and hunger in Africa. It was emotional banter attempting to link unseen starvation in Africa with politics in Western countries. I mean what does someone trying to make a living in a rich country have to do with suffering in a poor one?

MattyUK:

Not bullying per se, but at least in my experience rich kids are complete arseholes, at least to me. I used to, briefly, have a female friend from a private school who would constantly criticise my cheap clothes and general untidiness. I also met one of my ex-girlfriends new boyfriends who was from a rich family, and at first he would always try to exclude me from conversations by talking about classical music, and it was obvious he was doing it to assert his superiority over me-although I was actually far smarter and better read than him so he stopped doing that. And he\\\\\\\'d always make snide comments about my supposed lack of manners-really petty things like my pronunciation of certain words or not using a plate to butter bread.
Then dont talk to idiots. Youre perfectly free not to. They have freedom from you and you from them under capitalism. Not so under socialism! Andbelive me therea are plenty of poor snobs. One of the first chicks I got real close too was one of these and she could be a real you-know wont say it here but once she got violent and smacked me in the face during one of her little tantrums. Yeah, there are poor snobs and rich nice people.

Although I\\\\\\\'m sure there are some nice rich kids, there aren\\\\\\\'t many truly intelligent ones, probably because independant thinking is discouraged by their parents who are so obsessed with them having to become rich and successful too, so they\\\\\\\'re taught to give authority credence and respect, and get horribly angry if someone were to suggest than bankers are theives.
These would be merchant bankers kids rather than the run of the mill savings bank manager right? Yeah, youre right, they are theives they overcharge companies like you wouldnt beleive. Their high fees prevent many companies from floating.

The abuse is nothing personal but you have to understand it is entirely ignorant and selfish to believe capitalism to be about the glory of the individual, for it denies power to so many people. The means of production must be owned by neither a state nor a wealthy capitalist elite, and then there is true individual autonomy and freedom.

And you\\\\\\\'d be pleased to know I didn\\\\\\\'t take your remark as sarcastic.
GOOD!

spanishinquisition

11th July 2006, 10:16

SI PINTO

And yet you know its true dont you. Without rich no aid would arrive in Africa. More would die.

You know as well as I do that its imperialist exploitation of Africa which is to blame for them being in that situation.

and the best they can expect as recompense is a few food handouts from samaritans like you?

Some compassion that!

Listen too me now please! Africa is in the predicament its in because there is not enough capitalism, not too much.

If you mean when I say things like your talking bollocks you prick, then maybe its because you come up with lines like..

QUOTE
I bet you anything the people depicted starving are not gainfully employed

and

QUOTE
At least those kids have some modern clothes

and

QUOTE
I dont see any imperialists raping Africa in those pictures

Which is sick bullshit, and purely there to flame and provoke a reaction, which Im stupid enough to respond to.

Rubbish - Its the truth. The Africans are not gainfully employed outside of carrying water 20 miles. They have nothing else to do but sit around as their crops simply do not grow. They are largely self-employed farmers. Having been there you should know that! And yes they do have some clothes from the west and there are no imperialists raping Africa! Jesus! I mean how many factories did you see in the place where you saw a baby die? None Im betting.

QUOTE
Why do you bring my girl into this? Your fight is with me.

Oh suddenly the heart of stone cappies got a soft spot.

Whats the matter, did I touch a raw nerve, painful isnt it!!

Not as painful as watching ANY child die of hunger, whether your the mother or not. (which was another of your best inflammortary comments, exactly as you intended it).

If you cant stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.
Again you bring my girl into this! And you say im the inflamtory one! She is nothign to do with this you communist control freak and Ill thank you to leave her out of this. And so what if youve seen someone die of hunger, Im supposed to get down on my knees and denounce the system that could ahve prevented it? And you call me having a heart of stone? I told you I fellt compassion, what more do you want, me to start crying my eyes out or what?

Either thats another purely inflammatory comment, or if you actually believe what you just said then you are prooving why you a sick capitalist bastard, which is why we use such language against you.

Your advocating creating factories in places that dont have the means to support the people in it, because capitalism has bled it dry.

You want to make a profit just to keep them alive!!!
How else will we have a permanent solution? The factory owner will pay them wages and they will buy food from enterprising businessmen who import it from overseas in return for some of those wages, and voila, an economy is established.

Capitalists have exploited Africa for centuries, bled it dry, left the people to starve and suffer.
Africa has not been bled dry. It is no poorer than before the imperialists.

You of course wont see it that way.

Instead of investing to provide wages why dont you just start with the basics first, food, water, healthcare, education.

You know....the compassionate thing, rather than the capitalist thing.
No, factories and ports first and then infrastructure will follow based upon how much is required. Otherwise there is no permanent solution. And if youre doing business with someone on an individual basis you are forced to be benevolent with them. Millions of business interactions creates a benevolent society of the West.

QUOTE
Guess what, its socialism that causes starvation!

I think youll find its lack of food and water!!!
So how can you blame capitlaism? Socialist governments refuse to take these Africans into the richer countries. Thats why socialism is to blame. Ethiopia doesnt have that good a government themselves theyre actually fighting a civil war with Eritrea by the way which is another reason they are starving.

Both of which would be in plentiful supply under a communist system!!!!!

Water might be, but in Cuba you have to stand in line with a food coupon and still might not get what you want.

As opposed to the food and drink sitting in storage warehouses and vats because sick capitalists like you cant get a big enough profit for it.
It wouldnt exist in those wherehouses without capitalism.

Was it socialism that chained all those Africans up, and took them to America to work.
No that was criminals.

QUOTE
Oh, Im sick am I? BEcause I want to end starvation in Africa

No!!! your sick because your idea of ending starvation would be to let all the starving ones die.

Except the ones you want to work in your factories of course.

Your no better than a slave trader.

Flaming doesnt do you justice believe me.
I am not suggesting we let the starving people die. I say we get some capitalists in there to help them. Why are you putting words in my mouth? Why do you threaten me? WTF have I done to you?

PLPTX

11th July 2006, 10:31

I have a minimum wage job (5.15$ per hour). Enough said.

EneME

11th July 2006, 12:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 10:37 PM
CAPITALISM ATE MY SANDWICH.
:lol: i love you man...

damn, if we got a dime for everytime some cappie has asked us this question in one form or another.....(maybe doing a search would better answer that question?)

the product of CAPITALISM besides profit is POVERTY, therefore, it has created inevitable situations for myself and my family. death, suffering, pain, lack of care, discrimination, classism, lack of education, medical ailments, psychological/mood disorders, etc. the reverberation of capitalism is so great, that everyone here could go on forever....

Shadowlegion

11th July 2006, 12:17

I'm not sure I can agree with the idea that capitalism is the root of many of these problems. It's definately facilitated them, but the corruption is hardly something that's been unique to capitalist societies. It's rather easy to say capitalism is the evil of the world and that communism is the silver bullet, the magical cure which will solve everyone's problems, in fact it's pretty much said about whatever idea before a revolution. I personally like sweden and norway's systems, of socialism and capitalism, in a realistic mindset. I'd love to see a successful communist country that doesnt have to sacrifice liberties, but I think it's decades off. You have to have a society that works in the world, whether or not you agree with the policies of the world community, you have to either change them or become self sufficient. Otherwise you risk a system which is pretty pessimistic, equally distributed poverty instead of distributed wealth is the best way I can put it.

Mujer Libre

11th July 2006, 13:25

Originally posted by Anti-Red+Jul 11 2006, 03:04 AM--> (Anti-Red @ Jul 11 2006, 03:04 AM)
Mujer [email protected] 10 2006, 11:25 PM
I'm from South Africa, and the racial hierarchy has been replaced by a capitalist one- although it doesn't look much different.
I'm sorry, but the whole situation in SA, as in the American South, did not happen because of capitalism. Capitalism and racism are not the same thing, which is something you people need to get through your heads. If anything the reason that black people are poor today in SA and America is that for years GOVERNMENT pushed them down and STOPPED them from getting up on their own. Every time they tried to partake in CAPITALISM, their businesses were burned, they were pushed off, and shrugged off, by GOVERNMENT. Capitalism is an ECONOMIC SYSTEM, GOVERNMENT is GOVERNMENT! Doi! [/b]
I am aware that racism and capitalism are not the same thing BUT in South Africa they were so closely linked as to be interchangable. In many ways the policy of apartheid was developed as a justification for the fact that the ruling class in South Africa was exclusively white, as a way to maintain white power over the Black majority.

And South Africa has essentially become a neoliberal country, with relatively LESS regulation of the economy. And guess what? Inequalities persist and are becoming moreso. Sure, there are a few rich Black people, but not many. Do you really think unregulated capitalism could help the situation where white people own so much more capital than Black people? Not bloody likely.

theraven

11th July 2006, 18:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 07:32 AM
I have a minimum wage job (5.15$ per hour). Enough said.
well whats your educatin? what are your skills? where (generally) do you live?

I am aware that racism and capitalism are not the same thing BUT in South Africa they were so closely linked as to be interchangable. In many ways the policy of apartheid was developed as a justification for the fact that the ruling class in South Africa was exclusively white, as a way to maintain white power over the Black majority.

And South Africa has essentially become a neoliberal country, with relatively LESS regulation of the economy. And guess what? Inequalities persist and are becoming moreso. Sure, there are a few rich Black people, but not many. Do you really think unregulated capitalism could help the situation where white people own so much more capital than Black people? Not bloody likely.

generally everyone benfitis from industrializan. factory jobs are better thne no jobs aren't they?

The Resistor

11th July 2006, 18:26

REMOVED

Tungsten

11th July 2006, 20:35

Disgustapated

The result of which, soon after retirement, he has been diagnosed with Chronic Beryllium Disease, and Multiple Myoloma. So a guy that was never really sick his whole life, in outstanding physical shape, finally gets to retire and now spends a good portion of his time at Cancer Hospitals. In fact, statistics have shown for that company, on average the retired worker collects/collected 18 monthly pension checks and then dies.
How's this capitalism's fault?

No worries though, the company made huge profits making parts for the military. What's a few workers lives? As a side bonus, the town where this plant is, has a lot of toxic waste in it's drinking water and high incidence of cancer because the plant used to bury some of this hazardous material in the ground at night.

This is a common story in capitalist society. Profits before people.

What, legally dumping toxic waste on other people's property without their consent is capitalism? How about a coherent argument for a change?
el.mozez

Ok first of all - Im sorry to say but the capitalists here have no idea hwat theyre talkin about, Im sorry but you really have no clue about economics, Capitalist or communist .
Well that's set the record straight. Let's see some evidence.

Here watch this video , this video will explain to you in very simple terms why capitalism is bad.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=30...276&q=Socialism

Please for the love of mankind please watch this video and really think about what you are talking about. We are talking about the death , the needless death of millions of people.
Perhaps you didn't bother to read my previous posts. "People are dying" is not an argument to start raiding people's bank accounts and putting them under the whip of involuntary servitude. Their deaths, contrary to popular belief, are not our fault. We'd like to have lives too, you know- free from interference.

You may have done well out of capitalism, but think of the countless others who didnt.
Most of them have yet to discover it.

Matty_UK

No, I strongly believe in individualism-but it is bullshit to suggest that capitalism is about individualism. If each individual was sovereign, I would not be compulsed to work for anyone but myself yet under capitalism most of the money I make goes to my boss.
You're not compulsed to work. Don't believe me? Don't show up to work- No one will come to drag you there.

There is private property, and there is private property. Private property which denies the right of another individual to private property is theft,
Erm...all private property by definition denies others the right to it, otherwise it wouldn't be private. It couldn't be theft either, for the same reason.

but otherwise private property is a freedom. For example, someone has the right to own his own home,
How come? If you own your own home, you're denying others access to it.

Not under anarcho-communism, I'm afraid, as money does not exist then or things would have an objective value based on the energy consumed to create them.
People's values are subjective. Trying to put an objective value (what you should have said was intrinsic value, if it's value is inherently based on the amount of energy consumed) on something is not going to work. People don't value things on the amount of energy used to make them- the value is dependent on whether the product is important to them personally.

Explaining how that pseudo-science known as economics works today is not going to convince me to change my mind, as I want to destroy the economics of trade and subjective values yadda yadda yadda.
It sounds like you want to replace consumer choice and value with a system based on commands from a centralised authority. Do you believe in polylogism? Do you believe that economics is a product of "bourgeios logic" and therefore is a subject unworty of study and that your logic is somehow free from ideological bias?

I have not studied capitalist economics because I would die of boredom,
You won't study it because it's contrary to your worldview.

but it's quite clear to me that use of modern technology to increase production can only take place by destroying capitalism,
Reason?

and in a post-scarcity society goods can be distributed with no capitalist economics as we would be wealthy enough not to worry about trade; and it would not be long before the revolution would spread.
A post-scarcity society would be a society with infinite goods and infinite resources. It only exists inside your imagination.

Yet capitalism is inherently violent. If I refuse to pay my rent, the police violently drag me off.
That's because you're indirectly using violence by staying there without paying; living at someone's expense without their consent.

Furthermore I cannot get an education or a house without relying on a bank, and if I don't pay my debt back my property is taken away.
You see this an injustice, do you? Not being able to get something for nothing?

I am denied the full fruits of my labour,
You might be to the extent that the government has to fund pork barrel schemes and forces you to pay taxes to keep them going, but most of these schemes I doubt you'd object to somehow, being a socialist.

and the state has a record of working with the bourgoisie to violently repress attempts to change this.
You mean if I break into your house and the state thows me in jail for it, I'm supposed to see that as an injustice?

I can be sued for downloading music and have to pay to view academic texts on the internet, both of which could be free outside capitalism.
Even if the owners object?

The individual is, perhaps deliberately, alienated from government by the use of a nationwide centralised police force which removes any reason for the working class organising in their communities; something genuinely based on free assocation.
Organising to do what?

Laisez faire economics it seems to be quickly sees economic power being centralised to a mere handful of businesses,
It's not possible to centralise economic power unless it's enforced politically and even then it's almost impossible. Black markets would spring up everywhere. Look at the Soviets attempt to control the economy.
Perhaps you ought to actually learn about economics before criticising it.

with local economies crippled and a ruthless ruling economic elite
They don't, and won't "rule".

People who claim that capitalism is individualistic know fuck all about individualism; no offense.
You haven't explained how they contradict.
EneME

the product of CAPITALISM besides profit is POVERTY, therefore, it has created inevitable situations for myself and my family. death, suffering, pain, lack of care, discrimination, classism, lack of education, medical ailments, psychological/mood disorders, etc. the reverberation of capitalism is so great, that everyone here could go on forever....
I doubt we'll be seeing any explanation of how all this is the fault of capitalism, though.

Capitalist Lawyer

11th July 2006, 20:54

have to pay to view academic texts on the internet, both of which could be free outside capitalism.

Why are you even in college? I thought it was just another "bourgeoise/capitalist indoctrination center"? Or are you just trying to escape the wretched world of manual labor? It's funny how you advocate manual laborers to "destroy their chains" but yet you condemn their work as "boring" and "unworthy"?

Where exactly is your working-class solidarity? Or are you just some rich kid who feels guilty about his privileged upbringing?

Janus

11th July 2006, 21:19

generally everyone benfitis from industrializan. factory jobs are better thne no jobs aren't they?
Sure, it's like rooting for the lesser of two evils. Yet, in this case, there is another alternative.

Janus

11th July 2006, 21:25

Why are you even in college?
To learn, perhaps? It's not exclusively for job seeking purposes.

As long as he does not go on to become a member of the bourgeois, there isn't anything wrong with that. What's wrong with trying to better your life especially when we are living under capitalism. Being a communists does not require one to take vows of poverty.

Anti-Red

11th July 2006, 21:38

You imbeciles. You do not realize that the ONLY way to get ahead is through capitalism.

Janus

11th July 2006, 21:41

You do not realize that the ONLY way to get ahead is through capitalism.
Well, since we live in a capitalist system then that is just obviously common sense. But who says we want to get ahead and become part of the ruling class?

theraven

11th July 2006, 22:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 06:20 PM

generally everyone benfitis from industrializan. factory jobs are better thne no jobs aren't they?
Sure, it's like rooting for the lesser of two evils. Yet, in this case, there is another alternative.
what altervaive is that?

Janus

11th July 2006, 22:05

what altervaive is that?
:lol: What do you think? Overthrowing capitalism, of course.

theraven

11th July 2006, 22:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 07:06 PM

what altervaive is that?
:lol: What do you think? Overthrowing capitalism, of course.
and after that?

Janus

11th July 2006, 22:27

and after that?
Establishing a system free from this exploitation and oppression.

Zingu

11th July 2006, 23:08

So, is the point of the thread? Proclaim how this system has cheated, raped and made life difficult for us for some petty-burgeois users can chide, mock and belittle us, and make excuses for theirselves? :o

Capitalist Lawyer

11th July 2006, 23:12

To learn, perhaps? It's not exclusively for job seeking purposes.

You can learn all you want by obtaining a free library card, scrolling online for class syllabuses to see what books are required and ordering them on Amazon.com or surfing the web in general. It's about 1/16th of the price of a college tuition and without all of the hassle of dealing with the annoying bureaucrats, administrators, and the over-paid and underworked professors.

And if it's not for job seeking purposes, then are you going to list in your resume that you have obtained a degree?

What's wrong with trying to better your life especially when we are living under capitalism.

See? Capitalism isn't so bad; particuarly welfare-state capitalism.

Being a communists does not require one to take vows of poverty.

I never implied that you should take a vow of poverty. What I suggested is that you should be true to your word and take up some sort of skilled trade or manual labor. I hear they pay pretty well too, probably better than some white-collar jobs.

R_P_A_S

11th July 2006, 23:14

free library card... it will only cost you your FREEDOM! thanks Patriot Act

Janus

11th July 2006, 23:17

You can learn all you want by obtaining a free library card, scrolling online for class syllabuses to see what books are required and ordering them on Amazon.com or surfing the web in general. It's about 1/16th of the price of a college tuition and without all of the hassle of dealing with the annoying bureaucrats, administrators, and the over-paid and underworked professors.
A lot of people do that as well.

See? Capitalism isn't so bad; particuarly welfare-state capitalism.
That doesn't make it good. All I'm saying is that is a basic instinct.

What I suggested is that you should be true to your word and take up some sort of skilled trade or manual labor. I hear they pay pretty well too, probably better than some white-collar jobs.
Many of us generally do. Going to college in order to learn a little can be helpful later on whether it's in work or organizing.

theraven

11th July 2006, 23:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 07:28 PM

and after that?
Establishing a system free from this exploitation and oppression.
ok-do you have any detials? honestly whenever i bring this up you uys always say "well figyure it out then"

Janus

11th July 2006, 23:30

We can predict the general layout but not all the nitty-gritty details if that's what you're asking. Those details are for the people to deal with at that time. Communists are not prophets. Do you think that the original capitalists could fully envision every aspect of their future system?

Capitalist Lawyer

11th July 2006, 23:32

A lot of people do that as well.

Why don't you do it then? It will save you a ton of money and you will be free of any unnecessary hassle from the thousands upon thousands of idiots that plague our campuses across the country. From spoiled brat, hedonistic, moronic students to the uppity bureaucrats in the admissions offices.

Trust me, I know what I'm talking about...I work on a college campus.

That doesn't make it good. All I'm saying is that is a basic instinct.

And capitalism is an accurate reflection of our basic instincts as human beings.

Capitalism has given us super abundance of almost everything.

Many of us generally do. Going to college in order to learn a little can be helpful later on whether it's in work or organizing.

But I thought college was a "bourgeoise/capitalist indoctrination center"? You don't really learn anything but rather subject yourself to a workplace simulation.

free library card... it will only cost you your FREEDOM! thanks Patriot Act

But I thought you have already lost your freedom under capitalism? When you were brought into this world.

Janus

11th July 2006, 23:36

Why don't you do it then? It will save you a ton of money and you will be free of any unnecessary hassle from the thousands upon thousands of idiots that plague our campuses across the country. From spoiled brat, hedonistic, moronic students to the uppity bureaucrats in the admissions offices.

Trust me, I know what I'm talking about...I work on a college campus.
When did I even say that I was going to college?

And capitalism is an accurate reflection of our basic instincts as human beings.
Yes, all humans are born to be greedy and selfish. :rolleyes:

Capitalism has given us super abundance of almost everything.
If by us, you mean a small elite then yes.

But I thought college was a "bourgeoise/capitalist indoctrination center"? You don't really learn anything but rather subject yourself to a workplace simulation.
There are different types of colleges such as technical colleges that can give workers technical skills in certain specialties.

theraven

11th July 2006, 23:37

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 08:15 PM
free library card... it will only cost you your FREEDOM! thanks Patriot Act
you mean beause the governmetn can look at what books you took out?

Capitalist Lawyer

12th July 2006, 00:01

When did I even say that I was going to college?

You were complaining about having to pay for academic texts on-line. So, I figured that you were going to college.

Yes, all humans are born to be greedy and selfish.

No, we want to improve ourselves...meaning our standard of living.

Capitalism allows us to do that. But we are selfish and greedy to an extent. I certainly don't see myself buying a new car for my neighbor or sharing my dinner with him.

If by us, you mean a small elite then yes.

(in the context of CAPITALIST countries, USA, UK, Germany etc...)

Most people have a roof over their heads, otherwise there would be a mess of homeless people on the streets in every major city.

Most people have a car, otherwise there wouldn't be any traffic jams or stop lights.

Most people have access to quality food, otherwise there would be a mass pile of bodies in every region of the country. Ever been to a grocery store? What more do you want?

Most people have health-care, otherwise there would a pile of bodies rotting in homes across the country.

Most people have access to education, otherwise we'd be a country of illiterates.

etc........

Si Pinto

12th July 2006, 00:04

And capitalism is an accurate reflection of our basic instincts as human beings.

Capitalism does indeed cater for humanity's 'basic instincts'.

In a modern society, don't you think we should be trying to improve on our 'basic instincts'.

Sex with anything that takes the fancy is also a basic human instinct, as a lawyer I assume you wouldn't advocate this? Society has moved on from this basic instinct.

Capitalism has given us super abundance of almost everything.

Yes...money, wealth, death, destruction, poverty.

The trouble is these abundances are not distributed equally.

We're going to change that.

But I thought college was a "bourgeoise/capitalist indoctrination center"? You don't really learn anything but rather subject yourself to a workplace simulation.

Of course, but this is a capitalist world, and we have to learn capitalist ways to live (at the moment).

We have done that and been there, and we are still here advocating it's destruction.

Worrying isn't it.

Of course it all depends what college you go to Mr Lawyer, and what your learning.

Is life itself not a 'college'?

I would expect a lawyer of all people to understand the difference between 'learning' and 'knowledge'.

But I thought you have already lost your freedom under capitalism? When you were brought into this world.

Freedom of action....yes.

Freedom of thought..... thankfully no.

You also have lost your freedom, your just too well off to notice or care.

Capitalist Lawyer

12th July 2006, 00:12

he trouble is these abundances are not distributed equally.

Material rewards aren't distributed....they are EARNED.

Freedom of action....yes.

Your freedom to actively coerce somebody else into doing something is what we lost and for good reasons. The only force that coerces us into doing things is nature itself.

If you have a problem with that, then take it up with nature.

You also have lost your freedom, your just too well off to notice or care.

Yeah, my freedom to physically hurt or kill people or to steal from others and vice versa. I am happy with that arrangement.

Janus

12th July 2006, 00:23

You were complaining about having to pay for academic texts on-line. So, I figured that you were going to college.
:lol: That wasn't me, you quoted someone else.

No, we want to improve ourselves...meaning our standard of living.
Yes.

Capitalism allows us to do that
In certain instances, yes. But the whole American Dream is mainly just an illusion.

I certainly don't see myself buying a new car for my neighbor or sharing my dinner with him.
No one expects you to because you live in a capitalist system which fuels competition.

Most people have access to quality food, otherwise there would be a mass pile of bodies in every region of the country. Ever been to a grocery store? What more do you want?
Yet malnnutrition still seems to be a problem...

Most people have health-care, otherwise there would a pile of bodies rotting in homes across the country.
Not really. It's too expensive for some particularly the US.

Most people have access to education, otherwise we'd be a country of illiterates.

Yeah.

How is this super-abundancy?

Capitalist Lawyer

12th July 2006, 00:54

No one expects you to because you live in a capitalist system which fuels competition.

And it is this competitive nature of capitalism that serves the common good.

If I'm a baker and I bake bread, I am not doing it out of good will but rather for my own desire to provide for myself and to move up in the world. It may sound selfish and it is, but I am improving society as whole.

Individual gain serves the common good.

And when it doesn't, those people are properly dealt with by the rule of law.

In certain instances, yes. But the whole American Dream is mainly just an illusion.

Thank you illustrating that capitalism isn't keeping people down.

The United States allows people to pursue happiness and there are a variety of ways to do this. Do we not have public schools in this country?

Students (along with parents) have the choice as to whether or not to take advantage of this privalege. You can study or play video games all day. If your parent and you choose the latter...then don't have kids.

Yet malnnutrition still seems to be a problem...

And whose fault is that? And if so, then where is this malnutrition epidemic? Where are the bodies at?

(perhaps buried in the Siberian tundra in the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?)

Not really. It's too expensive for some particularly the US.

Never heard of Medicaid have you?

But it is true that there are 40 million w/o health insurance but that leaves just 240 million people (in this country) with health insurance. So the majority have health insurance.

But what about access to healthCARE? Everybody has that.

How is this super-abundancy?

Go to your local grocery store, shopping mall or just take a typical sunday drive through any city or town.

You won't see many homeless starving people in the streets will you? In fact, you'll see the opposite. Fat people sitting in their air-conditioned homes or apartments or walking around!

Sabocat

12th July 2006, 01:05

How's this capitalism's fault?

Wow you're dense. The company regularly put it's operation and profits (function of capitalism) above the health of it's workers. Do I have to draw a fucking map?

What, legally dumping toxic waste on other people's property without their consent is capitalism? How about a coherent argument for a change?

They dumped/buried the waste and machinery on company property. It leached into the groundwater after that. They buried it because it was cheaper than having it hauled away and disposed of properly.

theraven

if his company hadn't been doing those things it might have gone out of buisnes,,and then your dad would have been unemployed and then he and yoru family wouldn't have been poor economci straits.

I would gladly have traded growing up in abject poverty for my dad's health later on.

theraven

12th July 2006, 01:33

I would gladly have traded growing up in abject poverty for my dad's health later on.

leaving out of course that simliar health issues could have happened anyway....

elmo sez

12th July 2006, 02:13

theres a documentary out called the corporation . i suggest you look it up . Corporations are required by law to make a profit for their shareholders .

theraven

12th July 2006, 02:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 11:14 PM
theres a documentary out called the corporation . i suggest you look it up . Corporations are required by law to make a profit for their shareholders .
well no, its not liek they are going ot take the CEO away in chains if he doesn't produce a first quarter profit. but they are requried to not be negglieget and not produce a profit if they can.

Janus

12th July 2006, 03:19

And it is this competitive nature of capitalism that serves the common good.
That's what we disagree with because it has been shown to be quite detrimental.

Thank you illustrating that capitalism isn't keeping people down.
I never said that it didn't. Capitalism keeps people going by dangling these dreams in front of them.

Do we not have public schools in this country?
I don't think that many school kids are happy. But if you're talking about the education they get. Then it may help them to find a better job and make them a little happier but that ain't much.

And if so, then where is this malnutrition epidemic? Where are the bodies at?
Just because they're malnourished doesn't mean that they're dead.

Never heard of Medicaid have you?

But it is true that there are 40 million w/o health insurance but that leaves just 240 million people (in this country) with health insurance. So the majority have health insurance.

But what about access to healthCARE? Everybody has that.
Not everyone has access to it. That's my point.

Go to your local grocery store, shopping mall or just take a typical sunday drive through any city or town.
Ok, there are a lot of products out for sale due to capitalism but that doesn't mean everyone has abundant supplies of everything and is totally satisfied. That only happens with the rich.

Anti-Red

12th July 2006, 04:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 12:20 AM
Ok, there are a lot of products out for sale due to capitalism but that doesn't mean everyone has abundant supplies of everything and is totally satisfied. That only happens with the rich.
I am not rich, but thankful for what I have. I am middle class. Even if you're poor in this country you probably have a color TV and most likely a car, at least all the poor people in my town do. Besides, most of the poorest of the poor have been held down not be capitalism, but from regulations implimented by quasi-socialist governments of Franklin Roosevelt and his New Deal and Lyndon Johnson and his Great Society. Well I tell you that besides some of the most rudimentary things like Social Security, the New Deal was more New than Deal, and the Great Society was not Great in the least. Either that or the fascist governments of Ronnie Raygun or Dubya which deliberately help big businesses make bigger profit. I believe businesses should not be helped or hindered by government.

Janus

12th July 2006, 09:18

I believe businesses should not be helped or hindered by government.
That's exactly what people thought before the Great Depression as well. :rolleyes:

Si Pinto

12th July 2006, 13:34

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 11 2006, 09:13 PM
Material rewards aren't distributed....they are EARNED.

So you think people have to earn the right to live?

Who is the judge of such a decision, you and your beloved capitalists.

Capitalism keeps hold of these 'materials' and charges people to have use of them.

Those who can't afford to pay you starve.

Those who disagree with you get a higher price to pay or simply don't get any.

Were capitalists 'given' the right to hoard these materials for their own ends, no.

They took them from their rightful owners, either by invading their country under the pretext of 'installing' democracy and technology, or by controlling the purse strings of countries, because the capitalist institutions control the prices that those countries 'materials' can be sold at.

I think you'll find a word for that in your dictionary..... stealing.

and guess were the biggest 'fence' is???

I'll give you a clue.... you live there.

You only have to look at the middle east to see the proof. Where the US sits on top of it all, like a 'capitalist pressure cooker', occasionally letting off steam, and occasionally letting things boil over....all for the sake of oil prices and arms sales.

Of course, your administration would deny this, they'd state they were 'installing democracy' and 'keeping the peace' in the middle east.

Pretty sick really don't you agree?

Tungsten

12th July 2006, 17:35

Disgustapated

The company regularly put it's operation and profits (function of capitalism) above the health of it's workers.
"Profits before people" is a socialist cliche, not a function of capitalism.

They dumped/buried the waste and machinery on company property. It leached into the groundwater after that.
Did they own the groundwater and everyone else's groundwater too?
Janus

That's exactly what people thought before the Great Depression as well.
I don't blame them. It was the government's fault.

Si Pinto

So you think people have to earn the right to live?
Who's going to provide it for them if they don't?

Who is the judge of such a decision, you and your beloved capitalists.
No one. Get a clue: People aren't starving because someone somewhere has declaring them "unworthy of eating" and taken their food away.

Capitalism keeps hold of these 'materials' and charges people to have use of them.
Erm...that's because these materials cost money to maintain and workers need to be paid. Should they work for nothing?

Were capitalists 'given' the right to hoard these materials for their own ends, no.
Given it off who?

They took them from their rightful owners, either by invading their country under the pretext of 'installing' democracy and technology,
You mean the people you posted pictures of are starving because you think we stole their food?

red team

13th July 2006, 05:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 02:36 PM
Disgustapated

The company regularly put it's operation and profits (function of capitalism) above the health of it's workers.
"Profits before people" is a socialist cliche, not a function of capitalism.

They dumped/buried the waste and machinery on company property. It leached into the groundwater after that.
Did they own the groundwater and everyone else's groundwater too?
Janus

That's exactly what people thought before the Great Depression as well.
I don't blame them. It was the government's fault.

Si Pinto

So you think people have to earn the right to live?
Who's going to provide it for them if they don't?

Who is the judge of such a decision, you and your beloved capitalists.
No one. Get a clue: People aren't starving because someone somewhere has declaring them "unworthy of eating" and taken their food away.

Capitalism keeps hold of these 'materials' and charges people to have use of them.
Erm...that's because these materials cost money to maintain and workers need to be paid. Should they work for nothing?

Were capitalists 'given' the right to hoard these materials for their own ends, no.
Given it off who?

They took them from their rightful owners, either by invading their country under the pretext of 'installing' democracy and technology,
You mean the people you posted pictures of are starving because you think we stole their food?

"Profits before people" is a socialist cliche, not a function of capitalism.

profits is a Capitalist fetish for the accumulation of subjective debt tokens, not a function of genuine physical demand.

Did they own the groundwater and everyone else's groundwater too?

Public ownership does not mean no ownership therefore you are responsible for public damages.
Damages to public property is within the jurisdiction of the public institution.

I don't blame them. It was the government's fault.

I don't blame them. It was the private investor's "irrational exhuberance".

Who's going to provide it for them if they don't?

The human community.

No one. Get a clue: People aren't starving because someone somewhere has declaring them "unworthy of eating" and taken their food away.

The wealthy owners. Get a clue: people are starving because someone somewhere decided it was in their interest to own more than can be possibly consumed personally even to the point of pathology in which productive factors that are of absolutely no use personally are denied and left idle under threat of death or imprisonment for otherwise using.

Erm...that's because these materials cost money to maintain and workers need to be paid. Should they work for nothing?

Erm...that's because cost of these materials are also owned by other Capitalists trying to gain a profit over everybody else including your business which you need to take off of the worker's wages in the form of profit to pay for another company's profit. How does profit materialise? Out of nothing?

Given it off who?

Inherited it off who?

You mean the people you posted pictures of are starving because you think we stole their food?

You mean the people we've posted pictures of are starving because they own land and farm implements, but would rather work for a meagre wage planting coffee beans instead? Either that or starve, but not use their farming skills, land and tools to plant crops?

red team

13th July 2006, 07:49

Replying to How Has Capitalism Screwed With Your Life?

Money for war, but no money to feed the poor.

Overeducated, underemployed.

Comrade Phil

13th July 2006, 09:45

And it is this competitive nature of capitalism that serves the common good.

Yea, modern capitalism is really a fair competition thanks to corporate globalization. International corporations have become so powerful that it is virtually impossible for small business owners to compete with them. When big business moves into town, the "little guy" is either bought out or unable to remain profitable due to the corporate alternative providing lower prices, better quality goods, etc.

I assume you would say that this is a prime example of the normal competitive nature of capitalism, but it has extremely adverse effects on the so-called free market and more importantly the relationship between government and the people. If domestic bussiness cannot exist, then the global capitalist economy will be centered around unopposed corporations and the the gap between rich and poor will continue to grow. Yea that's really competitive. <_< Also, since corporations compose the vast majority of their economies, governments become relucutant to create any policies with oppose corporate interests. On the contrary, they work diligently to reinforce corporate interests (the Truman Doctrine, and the Monroe Doctrine come to mind). So essentially the state and corporations are working in unison. Sounds a little like fascism, doesn't it? :o No, that's madness right?

Our so-called democracies are completely useless to counter this degradation of our society as well. Liberals, Conservatives, even Social Democrats are never going to step out of league with the corporate agenda in favor of major reforms for the people. Corporatate control over the free market is making them rich, so it's never going to happen. Why do you think the United States has not made any meaningful efforts towards a free universal health care system? There is money to be made. :angry: Up here in Canada we have the luxury of such a system because of the unrelenting efforts of the Socialist, Tommy Douglas. Hmm, Socialism providing something which is beneficial to the people of a nation. Nothing but more madness right?

Should an elected politician ever actually make any major reforms which benefit the people but harm corporate interests, they are in for a shitstorm of opposition. It's funny how the supposedly civilized upper class can so easily turn to violence when they realize they're losing out. The 2002 coup in Venezuela against Hugo Chavez or the 1973 coup in Chile against the Salvador Allende are prime example when the rich have taken up arms to guard their own greed, err I mean "civil liberties". And you capitalists have the arrogance to call us leftists "militant"? The corporate media likes to take a simialar route when their interests are threatened. Ideals like unbiased objectivity goes straight out the window. Take a look at "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" and you will know what I mean. Here is a link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=58...0545689805144&q (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144&q). It is an excellent non-propaganda documentary about the 2002 coup in Venezuela.

Anyways, I think my rant may have gotten a little off topic but it does show why Capitalism is screwing us all (in supplement to the issue of proletariat exploitation by the bourgeoisie).

rioters bloc

13th July 2006, 12:19

aside from the obvious, me specifically:

both my parents recently lost their jobs. my dad because they decided to outsource his job to China because labour was cheaper (this from a company that makes an annual profit of >$AU6 billion <_<

my mum because they were changing management who decided that it would be cheaper to outsource to some asian country (i forget which now)

at my last job they used to force us to do unpaid stocktake every coupla months. yeah, unpaid. not only were we not paid overtime rates (even though we stayed back after work til 10, 11pm for 3 nights) we didn't get paid AT ALL for those hours. and if we didn't show up they threatened to fire us. and we didn't know what to do so we didn't even argue <_<.

all to make profit of course, for the fat cats :)

spanishinquisition

13th July 2006, 16:44

both my parents recently lost their jobs. my dad because they decided to outsource his job to China because labour was cheaper (this from a company that makes an annual profit of >$AU6 billion
But without that profit there would have been no incentive to set up that establishment?

at my last job they used to force us to do unpaid stocktake every coupla months. yeah, unpaid. not only were we not paid overtime rates (even though we stayed back after work til 10, 11pm for 3 nights) we didn\'t get paid AT ALL for those hours. and if we didn\'t show up they threatened to fire us. and we didn\'t know what to do so we didn\'t even argue .
I would love to know which company had the audacity? Its amazing the company could get away with that. It is even more amazing that you didnt resign instantly. I might have started an insurrection with the other workers. But I mean why pay the workers if theyll do it for free right? I suppose its a good lesson for the future not to be naive and to be as ruthless as the capitilaists yourself. Exploiting the naive is truly on the table in capitalism and you cant blame them for trying. This is why we need unions, but not communists.

Tungsten

13th July 2006, 17:29

red team

profits is a Capitalist fetish for the accumulation of subjective debt tokens, not a function of genuine physical demand.
Genuine physical demand is taken into account when accumulating subjective cash tokens. Nobody other than the mentally ill buys a new TV and lets themself starve in the process.

I don't blame them. It was the private investor's "irrational exhuberance".
You've already demonstrated that you know fuck all about economics. There's no need for further examples.

The human community.
Whether they want to or not, no doubt.

The wealthy owners. Get a clue: people are starving because someone somewhere decided it was in their interest to own more than can be possibly consumed personally even to the point of pathology
Rhetoric aside, you realise you're talking about 90% of the western population, don't you? It's not in any worker's interest to act as a slave to the needy.

in which productive factors that are of absolutely no use personally are denied and left idle under threat of death or imprisonment for otherwise using.
People are starving because other people won't feed them (they would rather buy TVs instead)? Why should we? We're not their slaves.

Erm...that's because cost of these materials are also owned by other Capitalists
We're talking about labour, not the cost of materials. If you're thick enough to think that workers in the first world are going to drop everything and help those in the third and do it for nothing or at personal expense at anything other than gunpoint, then you're going to be in for a rude awakening.

Inherited it off who?
That's right. All factories are inherited from father to son. I think whatever medication you're on is wearing off.

You mean the people we've posted pictures of are starving because they own land and farm implements, but would rather work for a meagre wage planting coffee beans instead? Either that or starve, but not use their farming skills, land and tools to plant crops?
Yep, it's worn off alright.

spanishinquisition

But without that profit there would have been no incentive to set up that establishment?
It's a safe bet the "incentive" will probably involve a gun.

elmo sez

13th July 2006, 19:49

No one. Get a clue: People aren't starving because someone somewhere has declaring them "unworthy of eating" and taken their food away.

That actually pretty much happens , for example during famines companys still export vast amounts of food , even thought the people starve.

But without that profit there would have been no incentive to set up that establishment?

It's a safe bet the "incentive" will probably involve a gun.

Do you actually think that people are just going to sit around doing nothing wait for civilisation to collapse .

Uh oh theres no more capitalists to steal from us ... lets just sit around doing fuck all till we die of starvation .....sounds like a plan to me ...

Fucking moron

Capitalist Lawyer

13th July 2006, 21:01

Uh oh theres no more capitalists to steal from us ... lets just sit around doing fuck all till we die of starvation .....sounds like a plan to me ...

We have had that throughout the history of this country and look at how well it has done for us.

Comrade Phil

13th July 2006, 23:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 02:30 PM
red team

profits is a Capitalist fetish for the accumulation of subjective debt tokens, not a function of genuine physical demand.
Genuine physical demand is taken into account when accumulating subjective cash tokens. Nobody other than the mentally ill buys a new TV and lets themself starve in the process.

I don't blame them. It was the private investor's "irrational exhuberance".
You've already demonstrated that you know fuck all about economics. There's no need for further examples.

The human community.
Whether they want to or not, no doubt.

The wealthy owners. Get a clue: people are starving because someone somewhere decided it was in their interest to own more than can be possibly consumed personally even to the point of pathology
Rhetoric aside, you realise you're talking about 90% of the western population, don't you? It's not in any worker's interest to act as a slave to the needy.

in which productive factors that are of absolutely no use personally are denied and left idle under threat of death or imprisonment for otherwise using.
People are starving because other people won't feed them (they would rather buy TVs instead)? Why should we? We're not their slaves.

Erm...that's because cost of these materials are also owned by other Capitalists
We're talking about labour, not the cost of materials. If you're thick enough to think that workers in the first world are going to drop everything and help those in the third and do it for nothing or at personal expense at anything other than gunpoint, then you're going to be in for a rude awakening.

Inherited it off who?
That's right. All factories are inherited from father to son. I think whatever medication you're on is wearing off.

You mean the people we've posted pictures of are starving because they own land and farm implements, but would rather work for a meagre wage planting coffee beans instead? Either that or starve, but not use their farming skills, land and tools to plant crops?
Yep, it's worn off alright.

spanishinquisition

But without that profit there would have been no incentive to set up that establishment?
It's a safe bet the "incentive" will probably involve a gun.

People are starving because other people won't feed them (they would rather buy TVs instead)? Why should we? We're not their slaves.

Yea, in reality it is more like they are our slaves. Starvation is rampant in the third world because the West has not permitted places like Africa and Latin America to develop. If they were to ever develop, they would become competitors in the global economy, which would mean less profit for the West. At the moment, the people of the third world are a source of cheap labour, which our Western corporations see as expendible. Slavery by capitalism is a reality. This is so because Western corporations vigorously fight to prevent third world workers from creating labour unions. This is so because Western owned sweat shops are rampant throughout the third world. However, traditional slave masters usually try to keep their slaves alive so they will continue working for them; Western corporations don't seem to care if millions are dying of starvation due to the unforgivably low wages they pay. 10-50 cents for a whole day of work, yea people can live off of that. Fuckers. You'll get yours one day.

Rhetoric aside, you realise you're talking about 90% of the western population, don't you? It's not in any worker's interest to act as a slave to the needy.

The Western population is generally more apt to "over-consume" because globalization is structured so that the West profits while the third world loses. We over-consume because everything is plentiful in the West. It is a tactic used by corporations to appease the oppressed Western worker. Keep them fed, entertained and happy and they will forget about the fact that they are being exploited, and therfore will not rebel.

In contrast, the tactic which they use in the third world to prevent rebellion is despair. They keep them hungry, repressed and make them believe that working in their sweat shops is the only way to survive. By doing this, the third world worker may realize that he/she is being exploited but in order to survive they must assimilate to this exploitation.

Never believe that the West is better off than the rest of the world because we are harder workers or that we are more ingenious (It is hard to be ingenious when you are living off only a few hundred calories a day). The West has simply formulated a global class system, where they are the bourgeoisie and everyone else are proletariats.

We're talking about labour, not the cost of materials. If you're thick enough to think that workers in the first world are going to drop everything and help those in the third and do it for nothing or at personal expense at anything other than gunpoint, then you're going to be in for a rude awakening.

The working class of the first world shouldn't have help those in need in the third world. It is not their fault, the blame should be laid with Western capitalists not Western workers. It is the capitalitst parasites who are taking advantage of hard working people who should pay the price. The day that global capitalism falls will be one of humanity's greatest achievements.

That's right. All factories are inherited from father to son. I think whatever medication you're on is wearing off.

That medication insult towards red team was not not needed. You are correct that big bussinesses are not always inherited based on bloodline relations (it does still occur though). Capitalists don't really need to use bloodlines to determine inheritance, for the most part proletariat workers will give birth to children who become proletariat workers and bourgeoisie parasites give birth to children who will become bourgeoisie parasites. There are obviously exceptions to this rule but generally "equality of opportunity" is total bullshit. While the efforts of socialists have made equality of opportunity vaguely tangible in the West, it is non-existant in the rest of the world. Talk to people living in a lower-class urban area about their prospects regarding college or university. The majority will say that going to college or university is an impossible dream for their family and always has been. Even with social assistance, it is a extremely dauting if not impossible task for lower-class familes to save enough money for higher education. Capitalism is a diluted caste-system.

red team

14th July 2006, 05:36

Genuine physical demand is taken into account when accumulating subjective cash tokens. Nobody other than the mentally ill buys a new TV and lets themself starve in the process.

Would you rather sell to the poor or sell to the rich? The rich has more money, so you would sell to them. Simple price system market logic.

Selling to the rich will net you more profit which you can invest to enlarge your operations to have a bigger market share which would attract investors to your company who would expect a bigger return for their investment, therefore you sell to the rich to have more profit...

It's the reason why cheap generic drug factories are sued or bombed and the primary market for agribusiness aren't the "illegal" migrants doing the real work of harvesting. "Genuine need? Bah! How's that going to generate a return for my investments?"

Whether they want to or not, no doubt.

The general public didn't contribute donations to Katrina hurricane or Asian tsunami victims?
Even with the limited wealth at their possessions ordinary people contributed enormously, while people who owned businesses price gouged for their own benefit.

People are social animals so they are willing to help people in need, but there's always the anti-social kleptomaniacs who are now in control of the economy. :angry:

Rhetoric aside, you realise you're talking about 90% of the western population, don't you? It's not in any worker's interest to act as a slave to the needy.

90% of the western population? I didn't realize that I have things like factories, farm land, forests and mines that I can shutdown and purposely leave idle if it becomes too expensive (unprofitable) to operate? I don't own anything more than I could immediately use for personal utilitarian purposes and so do most workers.

Nice try, but you sure got that one wrong and by a long shot.

People are starving because other people won't feed them (they would rather buy TVs instead)? Why should we? We're not their slaves.

Where did you get that idea? Even now we've gone past the point that we need to be a slave to anybody. We have artificial machine "slaves" that does most of our work for us. I drive a 1 ton oil-powered metal "slave" to get me around the city.

But instead of using all this wonderful technology for it's intended purpose of decreasing labour while increasing output and convenience we're still subjected to the daily grind of doing meaningless "service" jobs in exchange for the necessities of life that could be physically produced without all this "work".

Metaphorically it's like handing out a computer to an idiot and asking him to use it properly to design a hammer. Instead he uses the computer as the hammer! I'm not kidding, there are telemarketing companies (a multi-billion dollar business) that uses computers to automate their call outs to annoy the hell out of people with their sales pitch.

We're talking about labour, not the cost of materials. If you're thick enough to think that workers in the first world are going to drop everything and help those in the third and do it for nothing or at personal expense at anything other than gunpoint, then you're going to be in for a rude awakening.

Why do we even need violence? Revolutions don't even need to be violent. It may all just involve the majority of the population refusing to to do their master's bidding like a society-wide general strike. How long you think the rich would last with everybody simply refusing to go to work?

Simple persuasion can do the trick too like: "sorry to inconvenience you from making you quit your oh so important job of being an annoying little prick pushing products and services over the phone or in stores, but would you rather work pushing a few buttons on a computer instead to operate factory machinery to actually make useful things people need? Look, you don't even have to break a sweat manhandling heavy factory machinery when computer controlled robotics moves the factory tools for you!"

That's right. All factories are inherited from father to son. I think whatever medication you're on is wearing off.

Oh, is that so! Please name a factory worker that became a factory owner. Can't think of one? I thought so...

It's a safe bet the "incentive" will probably involve a gun.

Not, necessarily. Propaganda and persuasion can also do the trick. Besides, is telecommuting to work that much of a sacrifice. :lol: Oh look, you can "show up" to work anytime you like and in your pajamas at home once you log into to the internet to operate and monitor a computer controlled robot in a entirely workerless factory! You don't need to face the daily stress of waking up in the early morning hours and rush hours and traffic jams and managers and performance reviews and office politics and asshole bosses and... (some other useless, pointless Capitalist society job traditions).

Tungsten

14th July 2006, 18:58

el.mozez

Uh oh theres no more capitalists to steal from us
I thought you were going to steal from them?

... lets just sit around doing fuck all till we die of starvation .....Yes. You'll sit around hoping that someone will do something, but no one will because there's no point. That's when the brutality will begin.

sounds like a plan to me ...

Fucking moron
It's no worse a plan than any other in the socialist canon.

Yea, in reality it is more like they are our slaves. Starvation is rampant in the third world because the West has not permitted places like Africa and Latin America to develop.
How has it prevented development? By installing one set of dictators to prevent another set taking over? Like that's made a difference.

If they were to ever develop, they would become competitors in the global economy, which would mean less profit for the West.
Do I hear another conspiracy theory?

At the moment, the people of the third world are a source of cheap labour, which our Western corporations see as expendible. Slavery by capitalism is a reality.
Except what you're referring to isn't slavery.

However, traditional slave masters usually try to keep their slaves alive so they will continue working for them; Western corporations don't seem to care if millions are dying of starvation due to the unforgivably low wages they pay.
The minimum wage offered has to be at least subsistence level, otherwise no one will work at these places.

10-50 cents for a whole day of work, yea people can live off of that.
How far will 50 cents get you in the third world? Probably about ten times further than it'll get you in the first.

The Western population is generally more apt to "over-consume"
because globalization is structured so that the West profits while the third world loses.
Real (non-marxian) economics doesn't work like that.

We over-consume because everything is plentiful in the West. It is a tactic used by corporations to appease the oppressed Western worker. Keep them fed, entertained and happy and they will forget about the fact that they are being exploited, and therfore will not rebel.
It's not a tactic to make them forget anything. I know your type and I know you like to think you can conveniently explain every single frigging social or economic event as if it was some "necessary" action taken by capitalism to protect itself from revolution, but the truth is, there is no conspiracy and no plan.

In contrast, the tactic which they use in the third world to prevent rebellion is despair. They keep them hungry, repressed and make them believe that working in their sweat shops is the only way to survive.
For them it is, or they could do whatever they were doing before the sweatshops showed up (I'll bet it wasn't very pleasant).

Never believe that the West is better off than the rest of the world because we are harder workers or that we are more ingenious (It is hard to be ingenious when you are living off only a few hundred calories a day).
Yes, it's because we're more ingenious. There was once a time we were only existing on a few hundred calories a day.

The working class of the first world shouldn't have help those in need in the third world. It is not their fault, the blame should be laid with Western capitalists not Western workers. It is the capitalitst parasites who are taking advantage of hard working people who should pay the price.
Don't be foolish enough to think that it's just going to be the rich who would suffer if there was ever a global leveling of wealth. It would be the average western worker too.

The day that global capitalism falls will be one of humanity's greatest achievements.
I can guess what you intend to replace it with.

There are obviously exceptions to this rule but generally "equality of opportunity" is total bullshit.
I don't claim to support it.

Capitalism is a diluted caste-system.
An unenforced caste system is no caste system.

red team

Selling to the rich will net you more profit which you can invest to enlarge your operations to have a bigger market share which would attract investors to your company who would expect a bigger return for their investment, therefore you sell to the rich to have more profit...
And when you run out of rich to sell it to? :rolleyes: The rich would still be the only ones with cars and televisions if your argument held any water.

The general public didn't contribute donations to Katrina hurricane or Asian tsunami victims?
Even with the limited wealth at their possessions ordinary people contributed enormously, while people who owned businesses price gouged for their own benefit.
You're ignoring the core of the argument. People will willingly give to those in need, but I know for a fact many of you advocate the involuntary redustribution of wealth.

People are social animals so they are willing to help people in need, but there's always the anti-social kleptomaniacs who are now in control of the economy.
There are kleptomaniacs (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=391078&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&ct=5&expand=true) in control of the economy alright. Ours and theirs. This has absolutely nothing to do with helping people in need. The people in control of our economy don't have any control (yet) of where you send your money and you've glossed over the fact that not everone is willing to pour money down that bottomless pit know as the third world.

90% of the western population? I didn't realize that I have things like factories, farm land, forests and mines that I can shutdown and purposely leave idle if it becomes too expensive (unprofitable) to operate? I don't own anything more than I could immediately use for personal utilitarian purposes and so do most workers.

Nice try, but you sure got that one wrong and by a long shot.
We're talking about a drop in living standards as money from workers in the first world is diverted to those in the third.

Where did you get that idea? Even now we've gone past the point that we need to be a slave to anybody.
I agree.

But instead of using all this wonderful technology for it's intended purpose of decreasing labour while increasing output and convenience
It is. There wouldn't be any point in developing it otherwise.

I'm not kidding, there are telemarketing companies (a multi-billion dollar business) that uses computers to automate their call outs to annoy the hell out of people with their sales pitch.
And you want more of it?

red team

15th July 2006, 12:43

And when you run out of rich to sell it to? :rolleyes: The rich would still be the only ones with cars and televisions if your argument held any water.

Rich relative to which part of the global population? Comparing a worker here to a worker in the third world actually making the product the worker over here is relatively rich. Furthermore, how do you explain moving production offshore if business operations here are profitable? It used to be that America was the most industrialized country in the world. That position is rapidly slipping as the industrial base of the country is hollowed out leaving virtual slums and ghost towns.

If it's true that Capitalism is a sustainable system of production then what was profitable to operate in the 60's and 70's with domestic workers enjoying fat paychecks for unskilled factory work and bringing home wages that could support an entire family of four without the wife working then it should also be profitable to operate now with the same wages, benefits and workers.

It's only when the U.S. was in it's economic golden age from around the 1945 to 1973 when it was powerful enough to be the world's banker that economic activity lifed all boats. Why only then and why not now? If Capitalism pays out wages relative to work as you claim to be true then even if other countries caught up and rebuilt from the destruction of the war it should not matter to the relative purchasing power of the wages paid out, but try doing that now with today's factory wages. Clearly then what affects the operation of Capitalism is not industrial capacity, but the subjective value in profit, otherwise why shutdown perfectly usable industrial assets and move offshore?

Again, selling to the rich makes sense relative to the poverty of everybody else. It was just that "rich" relative to everybody else 30, 40 years ago was concentrated in the western world particularly North America. Not so anymore. With globalizatoin the relative measure of value and therefore the relation of rich to poor is also global. This just goes to show again that the measure of wealth is relative to a scarce, subjective medium of exchange having nothing to do with real physical productive assets.

You're ignoring the core of the argument. People will willingly give to those in need, but I know for a fact many of you advocate the involuntary redistribution of wealth.

Not necessarily.

I support the position that you can keep anything you can immediately use for personal utilitarian purposes. Furthermore, in Technocracy "owning" a factory would do you little good since money as a medium of exchange is no longer used as a measurement of production because it was never a measurement of production to begin with. So, let say a factory produces a few thousand products, since most machinery will be automatated the only things that are measured in the process is the amount of energy that went into powering the machines and the amount of output it generated less wastes. The only "payment" to workers monitoring the factory equipment would be a bonus for taking the time to show up for work when they could be doing something else like buying things as consumers. The size of the bonus being the average personal consumption amount in energy units for the time period spent playing (consuming) rather than at work. All other surplus energy credits represented by the output of products from the factory would be evenly distributed publicly to everybody in the technate after a small proportion is distributed for public infrastructure maintenance.

Another distinction you should know about energy credits vs. money. Energy credits are spent not circulated. Once they're used up in production and claiming a purchase. That's it. They're used up. They can't be saved, negotiated, gambled or stolen. The only way to make more is to burn more fuel.

By the way. For the people in the news. Could their property in question be immediately used for personal utilitarian purposes or are they left idle for many months at a time? Without even advocating a drastic measure like seizure of property what could this be other than an example of a waste of resources that otherwise could be put to use? Did they compensate for this inefficient wasting of resources so that people that could have made use of these accomodation could find alternative means of accomodations? If not then what's a valid justification for wasting resources that would leave other people in misery like the homeless for instance?

There are kleptomaniacs in control of the economy alright. Ours and theirs. This has absolutely nothing to do with helping people in need. The people in control of our economy don't have any control (yet) of where you send your money and you've glossed over the fact that not everone is willing to pour money down that bottomless pit know as the third world.

A function of an economy based on exchange of debt not measurement of energy costs and production output.
For example, the wage in money I get from working is a debt paid me against what I would eventually purchase with it. But, what if I save it rather than purchasing anything with it? Some producer would lose out by not being able to sell his products with the limited amount of debts paid out to consumers to be cirulated back. Merging and consolidation with larger businesses occurs in the hopes of selling at a lower price with the cost of throwing more potential consumers out of work from redundancy (problem of circulation is made worse). What if the set price for the return of paid out debt is larger than what was paid out in circulation being that every business wants to make a profit? Consumers would have to circulate back the debt paid to them with further debt to the producer through the use of credit cards and loans (problem of circulation is made worse).

Now how would any sane company set up production in a poor country knowing that debts would likely not be repaid unless they set up a low cost operation (imperialism) to make products to sell to the consumers in the home countries where debt notes would likely be repaid? But now since you've offshored your production wouldn't your home country workers have less money to circulate back to you since they're now without a job?

We're talking about a drop in living standards as money from workers in the first world is diverted to those in the third.

Don't advocate use of debt tokens (money) to manage a high-tech industrial society where labour is increasingly being replaced with energy runned automated machines.

afrikaNOW

15th July 2006, 22:20

Not siding with the cappies. It is commendable that you can be against captitalism for moral reasons or because you see how it is an exploitave system.

But why does it seem so hard to tell us how capitalism has screwed you over? I refuse to believe that the proleteriat or the lumpen proleteriat, peaseants or whatever poor and oppressed class doesn't have at least one story to show how the system is fucking them over !
I think the lack of stories here, isn't proof that capitalism doesn't screw over people's lives, but that alot of revleft are not the proletariat.

I think the people of revleft are more well off than who we may really consider the lumpen prolertiat or the working class. There's no shame in that, but thats my observation

THERE IT HAD TO BE SAID!

with that being said
UHURU(FREEDOM)
FORWARD!

Ragnar

19th July 2006, 02:02

Originally posted by Si Pinto+Jul 10 2006, 11:21 AM--> (Si Pinto @ Jul 10 2006, 11:21 AM)
[email protected] 10 2006, 11:01 AM
I want the details. How has your family been screwed. And if this is indeed true, why must you take it out on capitalism? Come on details.
Here are some details for you!!!!!

You sick capitalist bastard.

Enjoy your breakfast. [/b]
I will enjoy my breakfast. If there parents worked hard enough, theos kids wouldn't be in this situations. Screw'em.

Ragnar

19th July 2006, 02:10

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Jul 10 2006, 11:46 AM--> (Jazzratt @ Jul 10 2006, 11:46 AM)
[email protected] 10 2006, 11:39 AM
And what pray tell have your pictures to do with capitalism Mr Si Pinto? I dont see any imperialists raping Africa in those pictures. In fact you wont find any imperialists in Africa these days. At least those kids have some modern clothes. Whats the bet that photo could have been taken before the advent 1000 years ago before the advent of modern capitalism?
You will find imperialists in Africa. They prefer the term entreupeneur. Also, in response to 'Thems kids hay-ave mawdarn clothes, hyuck' I think you're ignoring the main part of the pictures - the starvation, which is a direct result of capitalist fuckers exercising their 'personal property rights' to build factories and mines that exploit these people. I wish I believed in hell so that I could reassure myself that you would be going there, you heartless, brainless, unspeakably vile puddle of rancid goat shit.
[/b]
How are capitalist exploiting them? they choose to work in any factories the capitalist build in Africa. They are capable of rising above poverty, if they had the will to live. They choose not to, and so they die while waiting for contraband to be delivered to the from the 'Capitalist pigs' who pay so much in taxes that it would be more correct to call them the exploited, and that those thieves the exploiters.

In fact, I would say those photos would demonstate the effects of living in a desert more so than some capitalist running a factory 10000 miles away wouldnt you say Mr Si Pinto? I'd say your response was indicitive of somone with no understanding of humanity or compassion. I would also say that your comment there shows no understanding of cause and effect. As I said you are one of the most vile people I have encountered on this board.

Compassin = Mercy, mercy is the opposite of justice, Justice is the Holyist of good.

Si Pinto

19th July 2006, 02:29

Jazzratt

19th July 2006, 14:56

Originally posted by Ragnar+Jul 18 2006, 11:11 PM--> (Ragnar @ Jul 18 2006, 11:11 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 11:46 AM

[email protected] 10 2006, 11:39 AM
And what pray tell have your pictures to do with capitalism Mr Si Pinto? I dont see any imperialists raping Africa in those pictures. In fact you wont find any imperialists in Africa these days. At least those kids have some modern clothes. Whats the bet that photo could have been taken before the advent 1000 years ago before the advent of modern capitalism?
You will find imperialists in Africa. They prefer the term entreupeneur. Also, in response to 'Thems kids hay-ave mawdarn clothes, hyuck' I think you're ignoring the main part of the pictures - the starvation, which is a direct result of capitalist fuckers exercising their 'personal property rights' to build factories and mines that exploit these people. I wish I believed in hell so that I could reassure myself that you would be going there, you heartless, brainless, unspeakably vile puddle of rancid goat shit.

How are capitalist exploiting them? they choose to work in any factories the capitalist build in Africa. They are capable of rising above poverty, if they had the will to live. [/b]
Same old tired capitalist dogma hey? What's their alternative - starving. Doesn't take a genius to realise that "Work in this factory or die of starvation" is a fucking threat.

They choose not to, and so they die while waiting for contraband to be delivered to the from the 'Capitalist pigs' who pay so much in taxes that it would be more correct to call them the exploited, and that those thieves the exploiters. Contraband? The fuck are you talking about? Sorry, being unable to live without the support of your fellow human beings makes you theif? While the factory boss who does, incedentally, close to FUCK ALL, is not the theif? You can fuck right off. Everyone knows it's the leeching classes that are the real theives.

In fact, I would say those photos would demonstate the effects of living in a desert more so than some capitalist running a factory 10000 miles away wouldnt you say Mr Si Pinto? I'd say your response was indicitive of somone with no understanding of humanity or compassion. I would also say that your comment there shows no understanding of cause and effect. As I said you are one of the most vile people I have encountered on this board.

Compassin = Mercy, mercy is the opposite of justice, Justice is the Holyist of good. :lol: of course 'superman'. You'll most likley be singing a different tune come the revolution where justice would mean nailing you to a fucking wall and pounding you with a sledgehammer until you are just a fine red mist. You'll be thankful we commies advocate more mercy than that.

Incedentally I think 'inquistion' needn't have been banned until he put a fucking apostrophe in that quote of mine - I was perfectly grammatically correct when I typed that so he can fuck off. [/rant]

theraven

19th July 2006, 15:01

Same old tired capitalist dogma hey? What's their alternative - starving. Doesn't take a genius to realise that "Work in this factory or die of starvation" is a fucking threat.

there are other places to work then a factory.

Contraband? The fuck are you talking about? Sorry, being unable to live without the support of your fellow human beings makes you theif? While the factory boss who does, incedentally, close to FUCK ALL, is not the theif? You can fuck right off. Everyone knows it's the leeching classes that are the real theives.

1) I think he meant welfare

2) factory bosses do a lotof (generally non-physical) labor

Jazzratt

19th July 2006, 15:14

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 12:02 PM

Same old tired capitalist dogma hey? What's their alternative - starving. Doesn't take a genius to realise that "Work in this factory or die of starvation" is a fucking threat.

there are other places to work then a factory.
Oh joy. Any of these autonomous and African? The farms you say? The ones with the failing crops? It does appear that you Amercans can fuck up near enough every part of Africa and then claim the workers as your 'right'. You bastards even did that in Botswana - the most free of the African nations (and incedentally where I was born.). Anyway the threat is much the same "Do our work or I will starve you".

Contraband? The fuck are you talking about? Sorry, being unable to live without the support of your fellow human beings makes you theif? While the factory boss who does, incedentally, close to FUCK ALL, is not the theif? You can fuck right off. Everyone knows it's the leeching classes that are the real theives.

1) I think he meant welfare

2) factory bosses do a lotof (generally non-physical) labor

1) OH NOES NOT WELFARE! You mean people actually want to live rather than starve? Fuck me! Those bastards stealing our money that we "worked" so "hard" to greedily hoard. Anyone who whines about welfare being stealing is a spoilt fuckwit and should take a long walk off a short pier.

2) Do you know what non-physical labour is? It's Teaching a classroom full of kids for years of your life while getting near enough fuck all gratitude and pay, it's entering data that has little relevence to your life into a computer, it's working with dangerous chemicals to help advance our technology, it is treating sick patients. It is not buying and selling intangibles for ludicrous amounts of money, it is not hiring and firing workers and telling them what to do. Bosses' claims to be working hard fall on deaf, cynical ears for a reason.

Si Pinto

19th July 2006, 15:21

there are other places to work then a factory.

What does it matter where somebody works? There are people starving now.

Their is more than enough food in the world now to feed everyone, but people are still starving because capitalists hoard the food trying to get the biggest profit out of it.

How is this ethical?

It's capitalist economics that are the problem here...not a persons ability to work.

Janus

19th July 2006, 19:23

factory bosses do a lotof (generally non-physical) labor
:lol: A lot? Ordering people to do stuff is really hard.

19th July 2006, 19:54

2) factory bosses do a lotof (generally non-physical) labor

A lot of unproductive labour.

RaiseYourVoice

19th July 2006, 19:58

2) factory bosses do a lotof (generally non-physical) labor
i have to give him that point, leading a capitalist factory isnt easy, the thing is most of the work can either be divided among the worker of completely fades away with the revolution

razboz

19th July 2006, 22:13

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 04:59 PM

2) factory bosses do a lotof (generally non-physical) labor
i have to give him that point, leading a capitalist factory isnt easy, the thing is most of the work can either be divided among the worker of completely fades away with the revolution
I was thinking about that but there are some cases were that cannot happen. Say you need to prepare a report on all the factories in an area so as to evaluate productivity and determine if say the area needs more workers or if the output of toothbrishes is too high. You cannot subdivide that work. at one point somone is going to have to do it themselves and will have to be int he position where they wont actually be making something or doing somehting immediately productive. or say a factory is working much bellow optimum efficiency and no one can figure out why. somone will have to survey the entire facility and determine that say the plastic part output is too low. thus subdivision of labour cannot occur. keep in mind these are examples. however many of the problems that factory managers or restaurant manga¡ers deal with can only be dealt with by that single person and do not fade away with the revolution. the real problem only arises when these managers beleive that they somehow form a superior class to their workers.

Loknar

20th July 2006, 00:13

I usually get up at 730 AM for school. I go from about 930 to 130 or 150 (depending on the day). Then i make time for study and finally I get my ass on the bus and go to work. I usually get home between 11PM and midnight and repeat the process throughout the week. I suppose capitalism can be blamed for this but considering I get FAFSA aid I don’t see what else I can demand from the government.

Now then, as to capitalism running my life personally....i don’t think it has. I grew up in the 90s when Clinton was president and the money value and wages were actually on par. My mom was a single mom making about 25K per year at Safeway however she was able to affords for me the things I wanted such as Sega and Super Nintendo cloths ect but even then things were tight. She didn’t have a car until I was 12 but all the essentials of life were provided to me under the capitalist system even though my mom was a single mother and got nothing from my deadbeat father.

If it wasnt for the Union, she wouldnt have had insurance...a important reason why I am very pro union.

red team

20th July 2006, 00:43

i have to give him that point, leading a capitalist factory isnt easy, the thing is most of the work can either be divided among the worker of completely fades away with the revolution

Middle level managers do most of the housekeeping tasks not top level executives. When you're in the executive class you're interested in dumbed down summary reports and you delegate your work to middle level managers who delegate it to everybody else. :lol:

Sugar Hill Kevis

20th July 2006, 00:45

my dad was in the USAF, he was forced to retire at whatever age that is (like 44 I think?), he taught people how to bomb [civilians]...

when it came to his retirement he requested a 6 month extension so he could pay off his mortgage... he was denied, he now lives with his ex wife (not my mum), he has no phone, internet, electricity etc...

he still thinks america is the greatest country ever...

I know that isn't like the worst example ever, but it's not exactly pleasant...

Feels like a good time to play Johnny 99...

red team

20th July 2006, 01:04

If it wasnt for the Union, she wouldnt have had insurance...a important reason why I am very pro union.

Unions are always a temporary solution to a much bigger problem: profitability.

With every business run on profit and with a limited amount of money out in circulation there's always going to be not enough money to support every business and that means the boss is going to get competitive with other businesses with the workers being the cannon fodder in this battle.

With the business with the most money to invest in it's operations being able to lower the cost of goods and thus survive this battle for profits, smaller businesses or businesses with unions will not be able to compete with businesses that are more ruthless in exploiting it's workforce. Already there are supermarkets that are much bigger than Safeway and have cheaper prices, but treat their workers like shit. It makes sense as the difference they save in paying the workers goes to making their business operations more competitive with others.

It's only a matter of time before either the Safeway union surrenders to management or Safeway gets bought up by some bigger business which will proceed to smash the union. This is not an entirely bad thing, since it will serve to radicalise you some more as to the true nature of this system of exploitation we currently living in.

Loknar

21st July 2006, 11:14

It's only a matter of time before either the Safeway union surrenders to management or Safeway gets bought up by some bigger business which will proceed to smash the union. This is not an entirely bad thing, since it will serve to radicalise you some more as to the true nature of this system of exploitation we currently living in.

youre 100% correct. Safeway is actually the leader of a group of grocery stores. I work at a Dominicks which is owned by safeway (as are many other grocery chains).

Before I was hired workers used to get Time and a half on sundays and overtime. But, the new employees get only $1 extra every hour on sundays. This is a good example of the union caving in to management. But it is a game of ball. SOmetimes you get a bad hit unfortunately.

Safeway actually has a history of this hardball crap. When Dominicks contract first expired under Safeway...when the negoitaions began the safeway crew proposed their contract and simply walked out of their meeting with the Union. With help from the teamsters (who would not truck the goods to dominicks stores) and the Union a fairer agreement was reached. But yes it is only a matter of time before they suck the life out of us. But I think it will take years and years.

The Unions arent as big as they were but they remain powerful. The teamsters for example....if you work for 30 years and retire (no matter your age) you get a $3000 a month pension. Id like to see a resurgence in the Unions for the long term sake of America and its people. because, the power in the corporations hands is not good for anybody and then the government becomes owned by them. Now though, our represntitives are owned...