What Stops The Poor From Getting Rich?

[ebeneezer]

I was just thinking that Marx assumes as an axiom that the poor are unable to become rich through their own ingenuity and device and must resort to murder in an attempt to gain back some of their 'rightful' earnings from the bourgeoise class.

The unchallengable axiom of communism is thus that the workers are not intelligent enough to set up their own factories and must therefore steal from others.

I despise this thinking because it places the workers on a par with unintelligent savages and not members of a civilised society who are in fact able to participate in capitalism to make their fortunes, despite the evidence which suggests bosses are not necessarily cleverer than their workers.

I do notice that Marx makes no analysis of the saving/spending habits of workers as may be related to the real reason for the existence of poverty. Common sence after all dictates that one who saves their money and invests will have a larger chance of becomming rich than who squanders it. Why has Marx assumed a lowered intellect for the working class, allowing him to absolve the workers of self-responsibility for their own financial well-being?

[PRC-UTE]

Your subject is the poor getting rich ... if we're talking about the poor, then no spending habits aren't the big issue.

If you have x amount of money but your total needs cost more than x, it doesn't matter how clever your spending habits are, you're not going to get ahead financially. That's the situation the majority on this planet face.

The bottom line is that if you're poor, you must sell your labour to survive. And if you're working for someone else, you can't get rich, with the exception of a statistical fluke. Most people move down in the class system, not up!

Ingenuity just doesn't factor in. Most of the smartest people I've ever known never became rich.

[Sabocat]

Lets say a worker is making 6 bucks an hour working somewhere in the service industry. That's 240 dollars per week. Before taxes. After taxes, let's say optimistically he has 180 dollars.

That works out to be 720 bucks a month.

Figure the cost of an apartment in most cities at around $600 if they live in a real shithole. That leaves 120 bucks a month.

Now figure in food, insurance, transportation. What would that leave to "invest"? 5 bucks a month? This is a person that is selling his labor for sustenance living only. There's only one way for this person to go and it ain't up.


The unchallengable axiom of communism is thus that the workers are not intelligent enough to set up their own factories and must therefore steal from others.

The only stealing going on is the theft of labor by the factory owners.

Your understanding of Marx and the "axioms" of Communism are sadly lacking.

[ebeneezer]

Ok Disgustipated, lets work with this to see if I cant churn out a few extra dollars:


Lets say a worker is making 6 bucks an hour working somewhere in the service industry. That's 240 dollars per week. Before taxes. After taxes, let's say optimistically he has 180 dollars.
Fine, go for almost the lowest common demominator. Still there will be room for profit as you shall see.


That works out to be 720 bucks a month.

Figure the cost of an apartment in most cities at around $600 if they live in a real shithole. That leaves 120 bucks a month.
Very well, why waste good money living all alone in an empty appartment? Why not live communally? Why not just rent a room with meals for perhaps $300 or $400? There you have an extra $200 per month which will accumulate.


Now figure in food, insurance, transportation.
Why must one buy food in a rich country? There are plenty of dumpsters to dive. Working in a hospitality job, one could always have a little nibble here and there and the boss would not mind overtly.

Insurance? What insurance? Payroll workers do not need insurance for their job. They do not need to run a car with the ample public transport. They do not need even public transport if they have the sence to find a job close to their home - not hard for only $6 per hour.

House insurance? Not if theyre renting...


What would that leave to "invest"? 5 bucks a month? This is a person that is selling his labor for sustenance living only. There's only one way for this person to go and it ain't up.

I think I have squeezed an extra $250 per month at least which you Disgustapated thinks does not exist. But it does! That sum will accumulate with dilligence, interest and investment to pay the deposit on a small studio/1br appartment, which can be rented out. Inflation plus rent helps to pay the loan, and Voila! After a few years of accumulation, you own some capital. Or of course then there is the sharemarket.

You communists should put yourselves in the shoes of third worlders, Africans for example who can only dream of the luxuries you possess. Only then you will see your own potential for greatness.

[Connolly]

I was just thinking that Marx assumes as an axiom that the poor are unable to become rich through their own ingenuity and device and must resort to murder in an attempt to gain back some of their 'rightful' earnings from the bourgeoise class.

The proletarian class is not fighting for their rightful earnings as such, i wouldnt really put it that way. They are fighting for full societal, political and economic representation for which the bourgeois system of production will not allow without some sort of revolutionary overthrow.

Its not that they are poor, I mean, the emerging feudal bourgeois were not poor - but they needed revolution to install their, more advanced, mode of production as the feudal state protects the reactionary class and its interests.

It might possibly be that the proletariat are poor when they finally get up off their arses - but its not exclusive. Class consciousness means a class not just being aware of its self within an economic mode - but they must also see the direction and steps to require what they have in sight. That dosnt necessarily mean they must be poor. But the proletariat being poor - as far as what we can make out now - seems to be the case since we can come to a rather blunt theory based on the direction of production - its path being automation.

And, when I say rightful political, societal and economic representation - I mean that the bourgeois system represents the interest of a minority (obviously).


The unchallengable axiom of communism is thus that the workers are not intelligent enough to set up their own factories and must therefore steal from others.

The spanish civil war and the paris communse says otherwise - where workers actually organised production.

The workers must steal from others because of the inerent flaw of bourgeois production which not only limits the amount of people who can actually have a factory, but also limiting how much of anything is produced.

Under present relations - it is impossible for everyone to have or control a factory - even if they did have "the intelligence" to do so.

So it not democratic - (full stop)


I despise this thinking because it places the workers on a par with unintelligent savages and not members of a civilised society who are in fact able to participate in capitalism to make their fortunes, despite the evidence which suggests bosses are not necessarily cleverer than their workers.

As you seem to say yourself - intelligence has nothing to do with it - if it had - it must run in the family then :lol:


I do notice that Marx makes no analysis of the saving/spending habits of workers as may be related to the real reason for the existence of poverty.

The real reason of poverty - as I have already said - is an inherent flaw within capitalist production.

I mean - why should a person have to take a loan out to buy a new car?
Why should a person have to take a loan out to buy a house for themselves?
Why should a person have to spend nearly the totality of their working wages on messages? (grocery)

We have the ability to produce enough cars (the hoarding of them in the USA by itself show this - nearly 2000000 cars in lock up to maintain present market prices) for everyone.

We have the ability to construct homes very rapidly and for everyone - resources just arnt a problem.

We produce food on a massive scale - a good proportion of which is overproduced is then destroyed each year to maintain market prices.


People need to spend such wages on a mortgage and car because the actual value has been inflated to create yet more profit.

The reason for poverty is that things are produced based on what can be bought by the consumer - not by actual human demand.

I demand a car
I demand a house

I dont have one due to the price and limited construction - flood the market with houses and cars and I could probably get one for fucking free with Tesco coupons.

Thats not in the interest of bourgeois production - no matter how capable it is.


Common sence after all dictates that one who saves their money and invests will have a larger chance of becomming rich than who squanders it.

How is the simple desire to have something we want squandering? - especially when its not very difficult to actually produce?

Music Cds here in Ireland can be up to 30 Euro (or more) - yet it costs just 3 cent to make and manufacture it.

People want things because we now have the ability to produce them - how the fuck is that "wrong"?

Whats wrong is something that stops everyone from having them - everyone could have a Ferarri - Why dont they? We have the ability to do it? why not?


Why has Marx assumed a lowered intellect for the working class, allowing him to absolve the workers of self-responsibility for their own financial well-being?

Marx didnt say the workers had a "lowered intellect" - he just didnt think things would turn out the way they have now - proletariat having property and getting a "trickle" down of wealth from production.

He was wrong - that dosnt make capitalism any more justified - nor everlasting.

[Commie Rat]

Very well, why waste good money living all alone in an empty appartment? Why not live communally? Why not just rent a room with meals for perhaps $300 or $400? There you have an extra $200 per month which will accumulate.


QUOTE
Now figure in food, insurance, transportation.


Why must one buy food in a rich country? There are plenty of dumpsters to dive. Working in a hospitality job, one could always have a little nibble here and there and the boss would not mind overtly.

Insurance? What insurance? Payroll workers do not need insurance for their job. They do not need to run a car with the ample public transport. They do not need even public transport if they have the sence to find a job close to their home - not hard for only $6 per hour.


Living in communes, diving in dumpsters. Sounds like the things Communists encourage and the Capitalists label as crazy and socially unnaceptable. Capitalists are the ones that discourage this behaoiur then how is it the communists who are permissive to the working class as you suggest?

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 07:46 AM
I was just thinking that Marx assumes as an axiom that the poor are unable to become rich through their own ingenuity and device and must resort to murder in an attempt to gain back some of their 'rightful' earnings from the bourgeoise class.
It has nothing to do with a persons ability to earn a better wage or not.

Capitalist economics is all about keeping (or increasing) the gap beween the capitalist and the working class.

Even if every worker WAS capable of working his/her way up the social scale, this wouldn't be allowed to happen.

Lets say that an average wage was £15000 a year, if 'everyone' bettered themselves so that this average rose to £20000 a year, the capitalist economic system would simply raise prices to account for this. There-by maintaining the class/wage structure.

In other words the capitalists won't allow the working class to close the earnings gap, they need them to remain 'working' class so that the capitalists can continue to exploit them for their 'higher' earnings.


The unchallengable axiom of communism is thus that the workers are not intelligent enough to set up their own factories and must therefore steal from others.


That's unchallengably 'full of shit'.

Not everyone can run a factory, capitalists require workers to do the work, and then they pay them much less than their efforts make for the capitalist.

That's the UNCHALLENGABLE rule of capitalism.


I despise this thinking because it places the workers on a par with unintelligent savages and not members of a civilised society who are in fact able to participate in capitalism to make their fortunes, despite the evidence which suggests bosses are not necessarily cleverer than their workers.


You just keep making the same bull shit point here.

The working class cannot 'participate in capitalism to make their fortunes'.

If the working class wages rise then the prices of goods rises (normally by far more than the workers wage rise), thus the gap between the classes remains, because capitalists have to have it that way.


I do notice that Marx makes no analysis of the saving/spending habits of workers as may be related to the real reason for the existence of poverty. Common sence after all dictates that one who saves their money and invests will have a larger chance of becomming rich than who squanders it. Why has Marx assumed a lowered intellect for the working class, allowing him to absolve the workers of self-responsibility for their own financial well-being?

What a crock of capitalist excrement.

So now your saying that people are poor because they spend too much?

Who invented credit cards? Was it the working class? No, it was the capitalists.

The capitalists dangle cars, holidays, technological advances in the faces of people, fully knowing that they can't actually afford them (because of the class wage gap), so the capitalists allow the working class to borrow their money to buy these items, thereby INCREASING the workers dependency on his capitalist oppressor, to pay back what they have borrowed.

It's all part of the capitalist agenda, which is to keep the working class down so that they can exploit them and continue to make their money.

[bcbm]

Clearly the poor are not stopping themselves from getting rich, it is systematic. Capitalism requires an under (working) class, therefore the poor cannot become rich (on a whole).

[Janus]

To somehow think that the majority of the poor can transcend the material barriers in their way is totally idealistic. Yet I don't find your views all that surprising due to your username, ebeneezer. :lol:

[JKP]

And remember kids, if you work hard enough, you too can become a millionare(or not)!

[Janus]

And remember kids, if you work hard enough, you too can become a millionare(or not)!
That's right, follow the American Dream (or fool's gold as I like to call it). :lol:

[Epoche]

...by not having the balls to steal, or destroy the property of the rich.

Most likely because they fear God, who would of course punish them for doing such things, or so the ruling class has them believe.

Now, if you really want to confuse God (if he exists), steal from the rich and give to the poor. That gets him everytime. See, essentially you aren't really stealing anything because you do not take it as your property...you give it to somebody else. The ascetic thief is a hero that even the Gods can't touch.

Dudes, I could teach you all kinds of tricks to piss God off (but also grant you immunity) and pester the shit out of capitalistic effects.

[theraven]

a few points

1) I odn't knwo where you live but 600 dollars a month is A LOT for an apartmnet. I'm sure it vaires from city to city, but a freind of mine moved into a rented house with 4 freinds, they are each paying about 150 a month (its a large house-each has their own room and so foth). i have freinds hwo livei n studios for similair amounts. to think someone working 6 dollars an house is
a) the sole wage earner
b) livin in a "nice aprament"
c) not living with others
just shows how little you knwo about poele outside your high school

2) who has a ful time job for 6 dollars an hour that only they live on? hell the supermarket near my houses pays 6.50, the burgerking is liek 6.25. and thats almost unvierally run by high school/college kids/the elderly. they are all working for extra money and are not primary wage earners.

3)



Lets say that an average wage was £15000 a year, if 'everyone' bettered themselves so that this average rose to £20000 a year, the capitalist economic system would simply raise prices to account for this. There-by maintaining the class/wage structure.


no, they don't reaise prices to "maintian the class/wage structure" they do it because of
a) an obvious rise in the costs of labor
b) an increase in demand that is more then the supply



It's all part of the capitalist agenda, which is to keep the working class down so that they can exploit them and continue to make their money.

what you think its some conspiarcy to keep you down :lol:

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 06:53 PM
what you think its some conspiarcy to keep you down :lol:
Who said conspiracy? Only you.

The capitalist agenda is about making capitalists more money and and the working class is kept down in the process.

It's not rocket science, just basic capitalist economics.

Sorry if you struggle with it.

So laugh that one up fuzzball

[Epoche]

"NO! Please don't kill me! I'm worth more alive to you than dead!" -Che

Let me guess, raven, you quote Che trying to identify him as a hipocrit, right? Want to flesh that out a bit for me, so I'll understand, or do you honestly suppose Che shouldn't have tried to persuade, by any means necessary, his captors to not execute him?

[theraven]

Who said conspiracy? Only you.

The capitalist agenda is about making capitalists more money and and the working class is kept down in the process.

It's not rocket science, just basic capitalist economics.

Sorry if you struggle with it.

So laugh that one up fuzzball

an agenda implies a conspiracy....



Let me guess, raven, you quote Che trying to identify him as a hipocrit, right? Want to flesh that out a bit for me, so I'll understand, or do you honestly suppose Che shouldn't have tried to persuade, by any means necessary, his captors to not execute him?
No, i just found it a good quote.

[Sabocat]

Insurance? What insurance? Payroll workers do not need insurance for their job. They do not need to run a car with the ample public transport. They do not need even public transport if they have the sence to find a job close to their home - not hard for only $6 per hour.

Medical insurance you half-wit. Not car insurance. The cost to insure yourself outside of group coverage can be as much as 500 per month. 1000+ if you have a dependant.


just shows how little you knwo about poele outside your high school

Hey fuckface, I've been out of highschool for almost 30 years, and on my own for almost the same.


I odn't knwo where you live but 600 dollars a month is A LOT for an apartmnet.

For your information numb-nuts most major metropolitan areas rents are very high if you can even find an apartment to rent. For example in Boston, (my area) rents are averaging about 1200-1500 per month. I understand you wouldn't know this. Living with mommy and daddy shelters you from the reality of the world. Car insurance in this area is roughly 1500-2000 per year if you're lucky. Realistically, you have to make a minimum of 50,000 per year just to survive.


who has a ful time job for 6 dollars an hour that only they live on? hell the supermarket near my houses pays 6.50, the burgerking is liek 6.25. and thats almost unvierally run by high school/college kids/the elderly. they are all working for extra money and are not primary wage earners.

Again, your ignorance shows itself to the light of day. Most cities are filled with people barely surviving on minimum wage.

[theraven]

Hey fuckface, I've been out of highschool for almost 30 years, and on my own for almost the same.

wow-and your still a commie?



For your information numb-nuts most major metropolitan areas rents are very high if you can even find an apartment to rent. For example in Boston, (my area) rents are averaging about 1200-1500 per month. I understand you wouldn't know this. Living with mommy and daddy shelters you from the reality of the world. Car insurance in this area is roughly 1500-2000 per year if you're lucky. Realistically, you have to make a minimum of 50,000 per year just to survive.

rent avereges* thats the key. an "average" is by its nature the mean. that means about half of the rent is lower, and half is higher. the place i was using as an example is a farily large metropltiaion area. and if you live in boston (or nyc or dc) there is no reason to have a car. i vistied boston for a weekend and went all over the city on the metro very cheaply.



Again, your ignorance shows itself to the light of day. Most cities are filled with people barely surviving on minimum wage.

proof?

[Comrade-Z]

an agenda implies a conspiracy....

A conspiracy implies an agenda that is being hidden from view. But anyone with half a brain should be able to discern the capitalist agenda.


no, they don't reaise prices to "maintian the class/wage structure" they do it because of
a) an obvious rise in the costs of labor
b) an increase in demand that is more then the supply

It produces the same outcome, regardless of whatever economic mechanisms you attribute it to. The working class is no better off after the wage increases than it was before. The entire system must be changed.

Think about it this way: the working class has a small pie, and the capitalist class has a large pie. Does it make sense for individual members of the working class to fight against each other for slightly bigger pieces of their small pie (which would necessitate that another worker's piece is diminished, making those workers desperate and the winnings of the lucky even more vulnerable and transient), or does it make more sense to work together as a class and have everyone gain an even larger piece by claiming the capitalist class's pie?

[Connolly]

wow-and your still a commie?

I suppose having a logical set of beliefs requires being a "spotty teenager"? :rolleyes:

Poor owl Noam must have the mind of a ten year old.

[theraven]

A conspiracy implies an agenda that is being hidden from view. But anyone with half a brain should be able to discern the capitalist agenda.


a consipriacy requires a group of people working together to acheive a goal. an "agenda" such as this would require some sort of conspriacy





It produces the same outcome, regardless of whatever economic mechanisms you attribute it to. The working class is no better off after the wage increases than it was before. The entire system must be changed.

oh you mean an artificail wage change? well of course. no one (at least none of us cappitalists) are suggseting that. we are suggesting they work to get higher in the system.


Think about it this way: the working class has a small pie, and the capitalist class has a large pie. Does it make sense for individual members of the working class to fight against each other for slightly bigger pieces of their small pie (which would necessitate that another worker's piece is diminished, making those workers desperate and the winnings of the lucky even more vulnerable and transient), or does it make more sense to work together as a class and have everyone gain an even larger piece by claiming the capitalist class's pie?

the pie is one shared by all. there aren't two worlds one for the capitlsits one for "the workers".

[theraven]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 21 2006, 11:21 PM

wow-and your still a commie?

I suppose having a logical set of beliefs requires being a "spotty teenager"? :rolleyes:

Poor owl Noam must have the mind of a ten year old.
noam is a brilliant lingusitics, but his books on politics are mostly a waste of time.

[red team]

noam is a brilliant lingusitics, but his books on politics are mostly a waste of time.

His exposition of how the last remaining empire in the world really works is a waste of time? I'm not an anarcho-syndicalist myself, but what is it about state sponsored coups and death squads (excuse me "freedom fighters") that you find not factual? Even liberals, let alone revolutionary radicals working within the confines of Capitalism who advocated social welfare reforms were physically eliminated by these para-military groups. You may or may not agree with such a strategy for the physical elimination of perceived enemies depending on your class perspective, but such a brutal strategy for maintaining the political integrity of the empire was in fact enacted.

[Comrade-Z]

the pie is one shared by all. there aren't two worlds one for the capitlsits one for "the workers".

How can that be the case if it is possible for every single worker to get a pay raise but then land right back where they started (due to price increases and such)? Obviously there is some fundamental economic division preventing them from all partaking in the wealth of the capitalist class. (That economic division happens to be ownership of the means of production, by the way.)


we are suggesting they work to get higher in the system.

But in terms of probability, for every 1 worker who makes it out of poverty and into the ruling class, there have to be something like 100 workers to work for that new member of the ruling class. Those aren't good odds. And working your way up the system means still being subject to that system and all of its threats, vagaries, insecurities, etc. No thanks, I think my efforts will be much better spent trying to overthrow that system. And I do intend to work at it for as long as it takes. How's that for a perservering entrepreneurial spirit?

[ebeneezer]

I beleive we all have to realise that poverty is largely an artificial construct.

It is largely artificially created by those unwilling to work, or to save their resources to rescue themelves from their self-inflicted misery. As such, it constitutes, I believe a form of mental illness.

Comrad Z:

Think about it this way: the working class has a small pie, and the capitalist class has a large pie. Does it make sense for individual members of the working class to fight against each other for slightly bigger pieces of their small pie (which would necessitate that another worker's piece is diminished, making those workers desperate and the winnings of the lucky even more vulnerable and transient), or does it make more sense to work together as a class and have everyone gain an even larger piece by claiming the capitalist class's pie?
But if the capitalist class is indeed one in one hundred, there isnt much to go around is there? Add to this the inefficiencies not present under capitalism and the poor under socialism become poorer than they would have been under a free capitalist environment.

Si Pinto:

So now your saying that people are poor because they spend too much?

Yes.

Who invented credit cards? Was it the working class? No, it was the capitalists.
Yes, and only some of the working class are sucker enough to use them to excess thinking they are just like the rich. Its their own fault. You cannot blame capitalism.


The capitalists dangle cars, holidays, technological advances in the faces of people, fully knowing that they can't actually afford them (because of the class wage gap), so the capitalists allow the working class to borrow their money to buy these items, thereby INCREASING the workers dependency on his capitalist oppressor, to pay back what they have borrowed.
Yes but the workers buy these things freely, thus holding themselves down. Nobody is compused to engage in conspicuous consumption. Look, im a capitalist. Even though I can afford it, I dont own an ipod even though everyone seems to have one. I dont have a new mobile phone with videoconferencing or anything like that. I have an early 90s walkman I got second hand in high school and a 97 ericsson. I drive a 1986 toyota. (Ah 80s car designs are the most futuristic, not like the new crap which goes back to the 1940s.) Yet I am rich. Why? Why am I not a victim of the 'conspiracy'? Surely the evil capitalists should have 'got me'!


It's all part of the capitalist agenda, which is to keep the working class down so that they can exploit them and continue to make their money.
I belvie the capitalist perogative is to make money. There is no agenda to keep people poor. Trust me, there are no smokey rooms of fat cats saying how we need to build all these things to keep the people poor and stupid. The agenda is to make money. Poverty is just what happens if people have the freedom to go insane. People are thus poor because they are free to do so, or be rich, unlike a soicalism where everyone MUST be poor.

[KC]

Yes, and only some of the working class are sucker enough to use them to excess thinking they are just like the rich. Its their own fault. You cannot blame capitalism.

It's those damn negros' fault that they're enslaved! Never mind the social conditions which gave rise to the position they're in; it's their own damned fault!

:rolleyes:



I belvie the capitalist perogative is to make money. There is no agenda to keep people poor.

The "capitalist perogative" to make money inherently keeps people poor. Wealth is limited, and the more you take for yourself, the more you take from others.

Also, capitalists need poor people to do all the shit jobs and get paid shittily so they can make a larger profit.


Trust me, there are no smokey rooms of fat cats saying how we need to build all these things to keep the people poor and stupid.

FBI/DHS are pretty good at that one.


Poverty is just what happens if people have the freedom to go insane.

Yeah, all poor people are insane, right? Give me a fucking break. :angry:


People are thus poor because they are free to do so, or be rich, unlike a soicalism where everyone MUST be poor.

So those people born into poor families have just as much chance at becoming rich as someone born into a rich family? Everybody's equal, right? :lol:

[encephalon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 06:53 PM
a few points

1) I odn't knwo where you live but 600 dollars a month is A LOT for an apartmnet. I'm sure it vaires from city to city, but a freind of mine moved into a rented house with 4 freinds, they are each paying about 150 a month (its a large house-each has their own room and so foth). i have freinds hwo livei n studios for similair amounts. to think someone working 6 dollars an house is
a) the sole wage earner
b) livin in a "nice aprament"
c) not living with others
just shows how little you knwo about poele outside your high school

2) who has a ful time job for 6 dollars an hour that only they live on? hell the supermarket near my houses pays 6.50, the burgerking is liek 6.25. and thats almost unvierally run by high school/college kids/the elderly. they are all working for extra money and are not primary wage earners.

3)



Lets say that an average wage was £15000 a year, if 'everyone' bettered themselves so that this average rose to £20000 a year, the capitalist economic system would simply raise prices to account for this. There-by maintaining the class/wage structure.


no, they don't reaise prices to "maintian the class/wage structure" they do it because of
a) an obvious rise in the costs of labor
b) an increase in demand that is more then the supply



It's all part of the capitalist agenda, which is to keep the working class down so that they can exploit them and continue to make their money.

what you think its some conspiarcy to keep you down :lol:
As an intelligent capitalist, in comparison to all of us dummy wage-earners, you'd think that at least you would be able to spell worth a damn 50% of the time. Jesus fucking Christ, are you are drunkard?

Take your $3000 shoes off and put your feet in the $12 shoes of the working class. Then, maybe, I'll take your spoiled bourgeoisie ass seriously. Until then, tell daddy and mommy that I want a raise.

[Connolly]

Thats very selective ebeneezer.

Arnt you going to resond to my post? :mellow:

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 06:53 PM
no, they don't reaise prices to "maintian the class/wage structure" they do it because of
a) an obvious rise in the costs of labor
b) an increase in demand that is more then the supply
Trust a capitalist to not see the woods for the trees. That must be why your so intent on chopping them all down.


oh you mean an artificail wage change? well of course. no one (at least none of us cappitalists) are suggseting that. we are suggesting they work to get higher in the system.

I'm pretty damn sure CZ isn't referring to an artificial wage change, the change will come in the destruction of the capitalist/working class wage structure.

That's the only way that EVERYONE will have an EQUAL opportunity.

Capitalist economics ensure that the few people who do MAKE IT (if that's what you want to call it) are more than compensated by the thousands more born every day into poverty and the working class treadmill.

[ebeneezer]

Well of course ill respond to your lengthy post Mr Redbanner! Not that i have much to say on your communism.


The proletarian class is not fighting for their rightful earnings as such, i wouldnt really put it that way. They are fighting for full societal, political and economic representation for which the bourgeois system of production will not allow without some sort of revolutionary overthrow.
The capitalist system can give them that representation and ownership of production if they work hard enough. I would add that socialism can only take away that ownership. Socialism robs everyone and gives back 50%. The remainer is lost in the works.


Its not that they are poor, I mean, the emerging feudal bourgeois were not poor - but they needed revolution to install their, more advanced, mode of production as the feudal state protects the reactionary class and its interests.

yes they had a sort of revolution in several places. But you see the nobles were 3%. Bourgeoise is anyone who owns a business or has a share. Quite a few people thanks to the stockmarket! Probably half of you in one way or another!


It might possibly be that the proletariat are poor when they finally get up off their arses - but its not exclusive. Class consciousness means a class not just being aware of its self within an economic mode - but they must also see the direction and steps to require what they have in sight. That dosnt necessarily mean they must be poor. But the proletariat being poor - as far as what we can make out now - seems to be the case since we can come to a rather blunt theory based on the direction of production - its path being automation.

And, when I say rightful political, societal and economic representation - I mean that the bourgeois system represents the interest of a minority (obviously).
mkay.


The spanish civil war and the paris communse says otherwise - where workers actually organised production.
Yes, there were a few fleeting moments of truth. It wouldnt last though. And it didn't.


The workers must steal from others because of the inerent flaw of bourgeois production which not only limits the amount of people who can actually have a factory, but also limiting how much of anything is produced.
Well, the market limits how much is produced. But you see, goods production tends towards unprofitability over time meaning the consumer is the eventual winner. And well, you say limited people can have a factory, but so what? Why should everyone have an interest in a factory if they dont necessarily like that line of work? Shoulnd workers have some sort of freedom from questions of management?


Under present relations - it is impossible for everyone to have or control a factory - even if they did have "the intelligence" to do so.

So it not democratic - (full stop)
Well so what? Democracy is hardly the ideal system. It has winners and losers too. And it allows this evil thing called utilitarianism which means anything can be justified so long as its in the interests of the greater good, rather than the individual, as under a more just system. Democracy in its pure form is an enemy of liberty.


As you seem to say yourself - intelligence has nothing to do with it - if it had - it must run in the family then
So capital owerns can trace their regal ancestry back to the stone-age? Thats a laugh.


The real reason of poverty - as I have already said - is an inherent flaw within capitalist production.

I mean - why should a person have to take a loan out to buy a new car?
Why should a person have to take a loan out to buy a house for themselves?
Why should a person have to spend nearly the totality of their working wages on messages? (grocery)

We have the ability to produce enough cars (the hoarding of them in the USA by itself show this - nearly 2000000 cars in lock up to maintain present market prices) for everyone.
New car? What are you a king? Workers should not drive new cars! Anyway, only a braindead moron would take out a loan to buy a NEW car. And why should you take out a loan to buy a house? So the greedy bankers do you a service, see? And sure you can have socialised car production! They do it in India and the cars design has not changed in over 50 years!!!! Check it out! Its what happens when you remove market forces.


We have the ability to construct homes very rapidly and for everyone - resources just arnt a problem.

We produce food on a massive scale - a good proportion of which is overproduced is then destroyed each year to maintain market prices.


People need to spend such wages on a mortgage and car because the actual value has been inflated to create yet more profit.
Make houses rapidly for each citizen you get Stalinist architecture.


People need to spend such wages on a mortgage and car because the actual value has been inflated to create yet more profit.
Then dont buy it. Simple.


The reason for poverty is that things are produced based on what can be bought by the consumer - not by actual human demand.

I demand a car
I demand a house

I dont have one due to the price and limited construction - flood the market with houses and cars and I could probably get one for fucking free with Tesco coupons.

Thats not in the interest of bourgeois production - no matter how capable it is.

You want a car or house you are going to have to do something ingenious for everybody! You think a minimum wage gives you a right to act the rich man?


How is the simple desire to have something we want squandering? - especially when its not very difficult to actually produce?
Because the companies make mega profits remember! Those mega profits are your dollars are they not?


Music Cds here in Ireland can be up to 30 Euro (or more) - yet it costs just 3 cent to make and manufacture it.
Then dont buy em. Watch clips on youtube. I never buy any music. Only a desperado would. Music not possible without capitlaism anyway.


People want things because we now have the ability to produce them - how the fuck is that "wrong"?
b/c you have to earn it first!


Whats wrong is something that stops everyone from having them - everyone could have a Ferarri - Why dont they? We have the ability to do it? why not?
Go on make one! No one is stopping you but yourself!


Marx didnt say the workers had a "lowered intellect" - he just didnt think things would turn out the way they have now - proletariat having property and getting a "trickle" down of wealth from production.

He was wrong - that dosnt make capitalism any more justified - nor everlasting.

It will last for as long as the human race will. Wait and see!

[theraven]

Trust a capitalist to not see the woods for the trees. That must be why your so intent on chopping them all down.


oh clever!



I'm pretty damn sure CZ isn't referring to an artificial wage change, the change will come in the destruction of the capitalist/working class wage structure.

That's the only way that EVERYONE will have an EQUAL opportunity.

Capitalist economics ensure that the few people who do MAKE IT (if that's what you want to call it) are more than compensated by the thousands more born every day into poverty and the working class treadmill.

i am aware thats what you think will happen with communsim but i was refering to under captilistm.


How can that be the case if it is possible for every single worker to get a pay raise but then land right back where they started (due to price increases and such)? Obviously there is some fundamental economic division preventing them from all partaking in the wealth of the capitalist class. (That economic division happens to be ownership of the means of production, by the way.)


no the only difference is in amount of money (real)they earn. wage earners can own the means of produciton to, or at least portison of it in the form of stocks. the reason an artifical increase in wages wouldn't hlep them is it would subsquently incrase costs and thus prices.



But in terms of probability, for every 1 worker who makes it out of poverty and into the ruling class, there have to be something like 100 workers to work for that new member of the ruling class. Those aren't good odds.

where do you get that statistic? that sounds..made up


And working your way up the system means still being subject to that system and all of its threats, vagaries, insecurities, etc. No thanks, I think my efforts will be much better spent trying to overthrow that system. And I do intend to work at it for as long as it takes. How's that for a perservering entrepreneurial spirit?

entrepeneurs create something producite. you want to destory all that is productive. I don't see many similiarites.



His exposition of how the last remaining empire in the world really works is a waste of time? I'm not an anarcho-syndicalist myself, but what is it about state sponsored coups and death squads (excuse me "freedom fighters") that you find not factual? Even liberals, let alone revolutionary radicals working within the confines of Capitalism who advocated social welfare reforms were physically eliminated by these para-military groups. You may or may not agree with such a strategy for the physical elimination of perceived enemies depending on your class perspective, but such a brutal strategy for maintaining the political integrity of the empire was in fact enacted.

see this is why chomsky shoudl stick to lingusitsics.

[Connolly]

The capitalist system can give them that representation and ownership of production if they work hard enough.

So what you are saying is that just because a person "works" to gain a position - they deserve representation and to "call the shots"?

Does that mean you support Adolf Hitler too?........ since he also "worked" his way to power?

Go on, say it......................Admins - get the BAN gun ready.

You clearly are not pro-democracy with such fucked up logic.


I would add that socialism can only take away that ownership. Socialism robs everyone and gives back 50%. The remainer is lost in the works.


Is that so? As I said in another thread - it can actually help to know what socialism is first. That would be a start.


yes they had a sort of revolution in several places. But you see the nobles were 3%. Bourgeoise is anyone who owns a business or has a share. Quite a few people thanks to the stockmarket! Probably half of you in one way or another!

Sort of a revolution?

The rest I couldnt translate it was such goboldygook.


mkay.

Great. :lol:


Yes, there were a few fleeting moments of truth. It wouldnt last though. And it didn't

:lol: again - another great argument.


Well, the market limits how much is produced. But you see, goods production tends towards unprofitability over time meaning the consumer is the eventual winner.

Well..uh....no!

The consumer - by it you mean the majority - the working class - eventually win?

How so? when the worker actually never wins - since he never gains the full value of his labour?

So even when something is produced at a lower cost - by workers - the consumers actually dont win - since they are workers themselves - and they are also not gaining from their labour.

The only persons, or class, which gains from bourgeois production are the bourgeois themselves - yet they dont contribute to the creation of value.

Not to mention the other side effects of something not becoming profitable -such as workers losing their jobs, or the product itself being discontinued. Either way - the workers lose.

(even though that product might actually be perfectly alright and functional)


And well, you say limited people can have a factory, but so what? Why should everyone have an interest in a factory if they dont necessarily like that line of work? Shoulnd workers have some sort of freedom from questions of management?

You simply have no idea what you are talking about. I couldnt be arsed responding to those stupid questions.


Well so what? Democracy is hardly the ideal system. It has winners and losers too. And it allows this evil thing called utilitarianism which means anything can be justified so long as its in the interests of the greater good, rather than the individual, as under a more just system. Democracy in its pure form is an enemy of liberty.

And you are one to talk of liberty :lol:


So capital owerns can trace their regal ancestry back to the stone-age? Thats a laugh.

Yeah, it is isnt it.


New car? What are you a king? Workers should not drive new cars! Anyway, only a braindead moron would take out a loan to buy a NEW car. And why should you take out a loan to buy a house? So the greedy bankers do you a service, see? And sure you can have socialised car production! They do it in India and the cars design has not changed in over 50 years!!!! Check it out! Its what happens when you remove market forces.

I actually wanted you to respond as I thought you would be even a half baked challenge - I guess not - your not even flour.


Make houses rapidly for each citizen you get Stalinist architecture.

Yeah....thats what I meant - big fucking tower blocks to cram everyone in.


Then dont buy it. Simple.

I suppose your right, telephone boxes are much more comfortable.


You want a car or house you are going to have to do something ingenious for everybody! You think a minimum wage gives you a right to act the rich man?

Act rich? how do you do that?......................im sure your learning that one in preperation :lol:


Because the companies make mega profits remember! Those mega profits are your dollars are they not?

Thats a pointless point.


Then dont buy em. Watch clips on youtube. I never buy any music. Only a desperado would. Music not possible without capitlaism anyway.

Saving up for your own means to produce eh?...........arnt you intelligent and clever - well done - no really - well done.




I actually cant believe I bothered to respond to that :blink:

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 22 2006, 05:58 PM

And well, you say limited people can have a factory, but so what? Why should everyone have an interest in a factory if they dont necessarily like that line of work? Shoulnd workers have some sort of freedom from questions of management?

You simply have no idea what you are talking about. I couldnt be arsed responding to those stupid questions.
Red Banner - I wouldn't worry about trying to answer it friend.

I'm trying not to piss myself laughing at it, never mind answering it. :lol:


The unchallengable axiom of communism is thus that the workers are not intelligent enough to set up their own factories and must therefore steal from others.

Anyone who reads these two quotes, from the same person, on the same thread, which they started, will have a clear insight into the mind of a 100% fucking loon, confirming what everyone not restricted to OI feels about the mentality and sound thinking :lol: of those who post here on behalf of capitalism.

Shit that's priceless (as MonicaTTmed would say).

[Connolly]

Red Banner - I wouldn't worry about trying to answer it friend.

I'm trying not to piss myself laughing at it, never mind answering it.

Dont laugh at it - laugh at me.

Im the fucking joke for answering it. :lol:

Give me the comedy credit :angry:

[ebeneezer]

Anyone who reads these two quotes, from the same person, on the same thread, which they started, will have a clear insight into the mind of a 100% fucking loon, confirming what everyone not restricted to OI feels about the mentality and sound thinking of those who post here on behalf of capitalism.

You calling me a loon? And your ideology is what, 0.1% of the population compared to how many tens of millions of capitalists? Who did you say the loon was?

Oh yes, and Redbanner yes I couldnt have been bothered responding to your infantile post either. I only did it out of courtesy and I note your arguments were oh so persuasive, it looked more like you have succumbed to my barrage of truth than anything else. The fact you are not receiving free ferraris has something to do with the fact you are not making them for others - human nature.

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 11:20 PM

Anyone who reads these two quotes, from the same person, on the same thread, which they started, will have a clear insight into the mind of a 100% fucking loon, confirming what everyone not restricted to OI feels about the mentality and sound thinking of those who post here on behalf of capitalism.

You calling me a loon? And your ideology is what, 0.1% of the population compared to how many tens of millions of capitalists? Who did you say the loon was?

Who else other than a LOON starts a thread and then contradicts himself a few posts later.

Except maybe a cappie out on a flame hunt?

[ebeneezer]

Originally posted by Si Pinto+Jul 22 2006, 11:42 PM--> (Si Pinto @ Jul 22 2006, 11:42 PM)
[email protected] 22 2006, 11:20 PM

Anyone who reads these two quotes, from the same person, on the same thread, which they started, will have a clear insight into the mind of a 100% fucking loon, confirming what everyone not restricted to OI feels about the mentality and sound thinking of those who post here on behalf of capitalism.

You calling me a loon? And your ideology is what, 0.1% of the population compared to how many tens of millions of capitalists? Who did you say the loon was?

Who else other than a LOON starts a thread and then contradicts himself a few posts later.

Except maybe a cappie out on a flame hunt? [/b]
Right, where have I contradicted myself?

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 11:45 PM
Right, where have I contradicted myself?
"There are none so blind as those who will not see"

Goodnight Mr Spani....

Ebeneezer

[red team]

entrepeneurs create something producite. you want to destory all that is productive. I don't see many similiarites.

One single probing question and I can destroy the entire rationale for Capitalism.

Define productive?

[ebeneezer]

Originally posted by Si Pinto+Jul 23 2006, 12:18 AM--> (Si Pinto @ Jul 23 2006, 12:18 AM)
[email protected] 22 2006, 11:45 PM
Right, where have I contradicted myself?
"There are none so blind as those who will not see"

Goodnight Mr Spani....

Ebeneezer [/b]
uh? Where have I contradicted myself?

[Connolly]

And your ideology is what, 0.1% of the population compared to how many tens of millions of capitalists?

The common sense of a turd. :rolleyes:

Does that make Christianity more valid than Islam then?

Does it make Coronation Street more valid than Eastenders? ( :lol: Im not a fan of either)

Does it make the Lada Riva (4th best selling car of all time) better than a Mercedes Benz CLK ?

Does that make the proletariat better than the bourgeois? (please say yes)

Numbers mean nothing. There was only one Newton, Einstein and Darwin at any one given moment - is that to say they were wrong? simply because nonone else at that time shared their understanding and views?


I only did it out of courtesy

Thank you for that. (that was genuine)


it looked more like you have succumbed to my barrage of truth than anything else.

Luckily I was wearing my trusty 'thinking cap' to deflect that barrage of 'truth' from sinking in.

It nearly blew off during the barrage though. I tied a string around it to keep it on my head. Lucky that.

:lol: Yes - I am loony. A big fucking loony.

[red team]

b/c you have to earn it first!

Nah! I rather earn interest on it by owning a bank and lending out what have to paid out in greater amounts.

Without doing a single day of work I've just "earned" more money than I've lent out. Isn't that a great "job".

[encephalon]

HAHAHAHAHAHA.

Seriously. You cappies make me feel regret for being subjugated to your whims.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Seriously.

[B.E. Jones]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 12:28 PM
Well of course ill respond to your lengthy post Mr Redbanner! Not that i have much to say on your communism.


The proletarian class is not fighting for their rightful earnings as such, i wouldnt really put it that way. They are fighting for full societal, political and economic representation for which the bourgeois system of production will not allow without some sort of revolutionary overthrow.
The capitalist system can give them that representation and ownership of production if they work hard enough. I would add that socialism can only take away that ownership. Socialism robs everyone and gives back 50%. The remainer is lost in the works.


Its not that they are poor, I mean, the emerging feudal bourgeois were not poor - but they needed revolution to install their, more advanced, mode of production as the feudal state protects the reactionary class and its interests.

yes they had a sort of revolution in several places. But you see the nobles were 3%. Bourgeoise is anyone who owns a business or has a share. Quite a few people thanks to the stockmarket! Probably half of you in one way or another!


It might possibly be that the proletariat are poor when they finally get up off their arses - but its not exclusive. Class consciousness means a class not just being aware of its self within an economic mode - but they must also see the direction and steps to require what they have in sight. That dosnt necessarily mean they must be poor. But the proletariat being poor - as far as what we can make out now - seems to be the case since we can come to a rather blunt theory based on the direction of production - its path being automation.

And, when I say rightful political, societal and economic representation - I mean that the bourgeois system represents the interest of a minority (obviously).
mkay.


The spanish civil war and the paris communse says otherwise - where workers actually organised production.
Yes, there were a few fleeting moments of truth. It wouldnt last though. And it didn't.


The workers must steal from others because of the inerent flaw of bourgeois production which not only limits the amount of people who can actually have a factory, but also limiting how much of anything is produced.
Well, the market limits how much is produced. But you see, goods production tends towards unprofitability over time meaning the consumer is the eventual winner. And well, you say limited people can have a factory, but so what? Why should everyone have an interest in a factory if they dont necessarily like that line of work? Shoulnd workers have some sort of freedom from questions of management?


Under present relations - it is impossible for everyone to have or control a factory - even if they did have "the intelligence" to do so.

So it not democratic - (full stop)
Well so what? Democracy is hardly the ideal system. It has winners and losers too. And it allows this evil thing called utilitarianism which means anything can be justified so long as its in the interests of the greater good, rather than the individual, as under a more just system. Democracy in its pure form is an enemy of liberty.


As you seem to say yourself - intelligence has nothing to do with it - if it had - it must run in the family then
So capital owerns can trace their regal ancestry back to the stone-age? Thats a laugh.


The real reason of poverty - as I have already said - is an inherent flaw within capitalist production.

I mean - why should a person have to take a loan out to buy a new car?
Why should a person have to take a loan out to buy a house for themselves?
Why should a person have to spend nearly the totality of their working wages on messages? (grocery)

We have the ability to produce enough cars (the hoarding of them in the USA by itself show this - nearly 2000000 cars in lock up to maintain present market prices) for everyone.
New car? What are you a king? Workers should not drive new cars! Anyway, only a braindead moron would take out a loan to buy a NEW car. And why should you take out a loan to buy a house? So the greedy bankers do you a service, see? And sure you can have socialised car production! They do it in India and the cars design has not changed in over 50 years!!!! Check it out! Its what happens when you remove market forces.


We have the ability to construct homes very rapidly and for everyone - resources just arnt a problem.

We produce food on a massive scale - a good proportion of which is overproduced is then destroyed each year to maintain market prices.


People need to spend such wages on a mortgage and car because the actual value has been inflated to create yet more profit.
Make houses rapidly for each citizen you get Stalinist architecture.


People need to spend such wages on a mortgage and car because the actual value has been inflated to create yet more profit.
Then dont buy it. Simple.


The reason for poverty is that things are produced based on what can be bought by the consumer - not by actual human demand.

I demand a car
I demand a house

I dont have one due to the price and limited construction - flood the market with houses and cars and I could probably get one for fucking free with Tesco coupons.

Thats not in the interest of bourgeois production - no matter how capable it is.

You want a car or house you are going to have to do something ingenious for everybody! You think a minimum wage gives you a right to act the rich man?


How is the simple desire to have something we want squandering? - especially when its not very difficult to actually produce?
Because the companies make mega profits remember! Those mega profits are your dollars are they not?


Music Cds here in Ireland can be up to 30 Euro (or more) - yet it costs just 3 cent to make and manufacture it.
Then dont buy em. Watch clips on youtube. I never buy any music. Only a desperado would. Music not possible without capitlaism anyway.


People want things because we now have the ability to produce them - how the fuck is that "wrong"?
b/c you have to earn it first!


Whats wrong is something that stops everyone from having them - everyone could have a Ferarri - Why dont they? We have the ability to do it? why not?
Go on make one! No one is stopping you but yourself!


Marx didnt say the workers had a "lowered intellect" - he just didnt think things would turn out the way they have now - proletariat having property and getting a "trickle" down of wealth from production.

He was wrong - that dosnt make capitalism any more justified - nor everlasting.

It will last for as long as the human race will. Wait and see!
"Quite a few people thanks to the stockmarket!"


I own .0000001 percent of google...wheres my top hat and monocle that I was promised?

[theraven]

Nah! I rather earn interest on it by owning a bank and lending out what have to paid out in greater amounts.

Without doing a single day of work I've just "earned" more money than I've lent out. Isn't that a great "job".

except you have to choose who to lend it to, keep books of how muhc you lent out and are owed..plus you have to get the capital form somewhere.

its not as easy as you think.

[ebeneezer]

Originally posted by B.E. Jones+Jul 23 2006, 08:57 PM--> (B.E. Jones @ Jul 23 2006, 08:57 PM)
[email protected] 22 2006, 12:28 PM
Well of course ill respond to your lengthy post Mr Redbanner! Not that i have much to say on your communism.


The proletarian class is not fighting for their rightful earnings as such, i wouldnt really put it that way. They are fighting for full societal, political and economic representation for which the bourgeois system of production will not allow without some sort of revolutionary overthrow.
The capitalist system can give them that representation and ownership of production if they work hard enough. I would add that socialism can only take away that ownership. Socialism robs everyone and gives back 50%. The remainer is lost in the works.


Its not that they are poor, I mean, the emerging feudal bourgeois were not poor - but they needed revolution to install their, more advanced, mode of production as the feudal state protects the reactionary class and its interests.

yes they had a sort of revolution in several places. But you see the nobles were 3%. Bourgeoise is anyone who owns a business or has a share. Quite a few people thanks to the stockmarket! Probably half of you in one way or another!


It might possibly be that the proletariat are poor when they finally get up off their arses - but its not exclusive. Class consciousness means a class not just being aware of its self within an economic mode - but they must also see the direction and steps to require what they have in sight. That dosnt necessarily mean they must be poor. But the proletariat being poor - as far as what we can make out now - seems to be the case since we can come to a rather blunt theory based on the direction of production - its path being automation.

And, when I say rightful political, societal and economic representation - I mean that the bourgeois system represents the interest of a minority (obviously).
mkay.


The spanish civil war and the paris communse says otherwise - where workers actually organised production.
Yes, there were a few fleeting moments of truth. It wouldnt last though. And it didn't.


The workers must steal from others because of the inerent flaw of bourgeois production which not only limits the amount of people who can actually have a factory, but also limiting how much of anything is produced.
Well, the market limits how much is produced. But you see, goods production tends towards unprofitability over time meaning the consumer is the eventual winner. And well, you say limited people can have a factory, but so what? Why should everyone have an interest in a factory if they dont necessarily like that line of work? Shoulnd workers have some sort of freedom from questions of management?


Under present relations - it is impossible for everyone to have or control a factory - even if they did have "the intelligence" to do so.

So it not democratic - (full stop)
Well so what? Democracy is hardly the ideal system. It has winners and losers too. And it allows this evil thing called utilitarianism which means anything can be justified so long as its in the interests of the greater good, rather than the individual, as under a more just system. Democracy in its pure form is an enemy of liberty.


As you seem to say yourself - intelligence has nothing to do with it - if it had - it must run in the family then
So capital owerns can trace their regal ancestry back to the stone-age? Thats a laugh.


The real reason of poverty - as I have already said - is an inherent flaw within capitalist production.

I mean - why should a person have to take a loan out to buy a new car?
Why should a person have to take a loan out to buy a house for themselves?
Why should a person have to spend nearly the totality of their working wages on messages? (grocery)

We have the ability to produce enough cars (the hoarding of them in the USA by itself show this - nearly 2000000 cars in lock up to maintain present market prices) for everyone.
New car? What are you a king? Workers should not drive new cars! Anyway, only a braindead moron would take out a loan to buy a NEW car. And why should you take out a loan to buy a house? So the greedy bankers do you a service, see? And sure you can have socialised car production! They do it in India and the cars design has not changed in over 50 years!!!! Check it out! Its what happens when you remove market forces.


We have the ability to construct homes very rapidly and for everyone - resources just arnt a problem.

We produce food on a massive scale - a good proportion of which is overproduced is then destroyed each year to maintain market prices.


People need to spend such wages on a mortgage and car because the actual value has been inflated to create yet more profit.
Make houses rapidly for each citizen you get Stalinist architecture.


People need to spend such wages on a mortgage and car because the actual value has been inflated to create yet more profit.
Then dont buy it. Simple.


The reason for poverty is that things are produced based on what can be bought by the consumer - not by actual human demand.

I demand a car
I demand a house

I dont have one due to the price and limited construction - flood the market with houses and cars and I could probably get one for fucking free with Tesco coupons.

Thats not in the interest of bourgeois production - no matter how capable it is.

You want a car or house you are going to have to do something ingenious for everybody! You think a minimum wage gives you a right to act the rich man?


How is the simple desire to have something we want squandering? - especially when its not very difficult to actually produce?
Because the companies make mega profits remember! Those mega profits are your dollars are they not?


Music Cds here in Ireland can be up to 30 Euro (or more) - yet it costs just 3 cent to make and manufacture it.
Then dont buy em. Watch clips on youtube. I never buy any music. Only a desperado would. Music not possible without capitlaism anyway.


People want things because we now have the ability to produce them - how the fuck is that "wrong"?
b/c you have to earn it first!


Whats wrong is something that stops everyone from having them - everyone could have a Ferarri - Why dont they? We have the ability to do it? why not?
Go on make one! No one is stopping you but yourself!


Marx didnt say the workers had a "lowered intellect" - he just didnt think things would turn out the way they have now - proletariat having property and getting a "trickle" down of wealth from production.

He was wrong - that dosnt make capitalism any more justified - nor everlasting.

It will last for as long as the human race will. Wait and see!
"Quite a few people thanks to the stockmarket!"


I own .0000001 percent of google...wheres my top hat and monocle that I was promised? [/b]
I own 0.1% of an air conditioning/insulation installation company!
And I dont got no monacle and top hat either! :angry: Capitalism really does suck!

Anyway B.E. Jones, at least your company is making money :( Feel free to feel sorry for us cappies whose companies suffer earnings declines - thus slashing stock prices. But I scalped a $950 buck increase on only a small trade I though nothing would come of the other day, so SUFFER little people! I mean why work when you can do this?


Nah! I rather earn interest on it by owning a bank and lending out what have to paid out in greater amounts.

Without doing a single day of work I've just "earned" more money than I've lent out. Isn't that a great "job".
Well, you know Red team, I think everyone should be able to experience the magic of capitalism, and if the poor spend their savings they can't can they?

Anyway, to all the rest of you communists, I hope you too can become prosperous, I really do. :)

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 07:49 AM
Anyway B.E. Jones, at least your company is making money :( Feel free to feel sorry for us cappies whose companies suffer earnings declines - thus slashing stock prices. But I scalped a $950 buck increase on only a small trade I though nothing would come of the other day, so SUFFER little people! I mean why work when you can do this?
Jesus...now he thinks he's Gordon Gekko. :rolleyes:

Watch out Bill Gates, this nutter's after your job.


Well, you know Red team, I think everyone should be able to experience the magic of capitalism, and if the poor spend their savings they can't can they?

Anyway, to all the rest of you communists, I hope you too can become prosperous, I really do. :)

:) :) Why thanks!!! :) :)

Actually I think I'll join the IRS and do you for tax evasion :P

[ebeneezer]

Jesus...now he thinks he's Gordon Gekko.

Watch out Bill Gates, this nutter's after your job.

I LOVED THAT FILM!!!! Gecko is one of my idols if he wasn't such a loser in the end. Actually I would prefer to emulate Max Zorin from 'A view to a kill'. I watch that over and over and love the Duran Duran intro. Yeah, but you're just jealous you don't have my trading skills. Admittedly though, if you aim for anymore than 15% per year you are playing a loosers' game and leaving you open to huge risk. All traders eventually go broke. See some of my stocks are down 60% and I cant get rid of them.


Why thanks!!!

Actually I think I'll join the IRS and do you for tax evasion
That's not very nice actually. I just wished all you guys the best of success and you come back at me like that?

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 01:18 PM
That's not very nice actually. I just wished all you guys the best of success and you come back at me like that?
Bullshit, you were being patronising and conceited and you know it.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Si Pinto+Jul 24 2006, 02:44 PM--> (Si Pinto @ Jul 24 2006, 02:44 PM)
[email protected] 24 2006, 01:18 PM
That's not very nice actually. I just wished all you guys the best of success and you come back at me like that?
Bullshit, you were being patronising and conceited and you know it. [/b]
No, Im sure he woud love for you to be a rich and succesful banker.

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 02:58 PM
No, Im sure he woud love for you to be a rich and succesful banker.
Really?

:rolleyes:

Anyone who can come up with quotes like....


I WANT others in poverty. I WANT a Dickensian world to re-emerge.

Clearly doesn't give a damn about anyone else, and if you don't see that then your just as bad.

Just because he's a cappie like you doesn't mean you HAVE to stand up for him you know?

[theraven]

Originally posted by Si Pinto+Jul 24 2006, 03:27 PM--> (Si Pinto @ Jul 24 2006, 03:27 PM)
[email protected] 24 2006, 02:58 PM
No, Im sure he woud love for you to be a rich and succesful banker.
Really?

:rolleyes:

Anyone who can come up with quotes like....


I WANT others in poverty. I WANT a Dickensian world to re-emerge.

Clearly doesn't give a damn about anyone else, and if you don't see that then your just as bad.

Just because he's a cappie like you doesn't mean you HAVE to stand up for him you know? [/b]
just because he wants someone to be in poverty (because it is a nesscity afterall) doesnt' mean he wants YOU in poverty.

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 07:46 AM
I do notice that Marx makes no analysis of the saving/spending habits of workers as may be related to the real reason for the existence of poverty.
shall the ugandan children stop running from the LRA, and try their hands at business (assuming their hands weren't cut off already) ?

but, you're quite right.. anyone can become rich. absolutely anyone. they could design torture devices, manufacture poison, win the lottery, play at the casino, start a business.. and, if they're lucky, they'll have a good life.

if not, they'll continue to have their arms cut off by the LRA.

what a 'harmless' risk!

[theraven]

Originally posted by Brooklyn-Mecca+Jul 24 2006, 04:33 PM--> (Brooklyn-Mecca @ Jul 24 2006, 04:33 PM)
[email protected] 21 2006, 07:46 AM
I do notice that Marx makes no analysis of the saving/spending habits of workers as may be related to the real reason for the existence of poverty.
shall the ugandan children stop running from the LRA, and try their hands at business (assuming their hands weren't cut off already) ?

but, you're quite right.. anyone can become rich. absolutely anyone. they could design torture devices, manufacture poison, win the lottery, play at the casino, start a business.. and, if they're lucky, they'll have a good life.

if not, they'll continue to have their arms cut off by the LRA.

what a 'harmless' risk! [/b]
this doesnt' apply when the basic conditoisn (like a stable governemtan dthe rule of law) don't exist.

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 04:08 PM
just because he wants someone to be in poverty (because it is a nesscity afterall) doesnt' mean he wants YOU in poverty.
So what am I supposed to do?

Thank him for his benevolence?

Praise his magnanimous gesture?

I don't want to live like a Prince whilst millions around the world don't have a pot to piss in!

I happen to believe in equality.

Not having to rely on a 'cappies benevolence'.

So, he can stick it, as can you if your agreeing with him.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Si Pinto+Jul 24 2006, 06:21 PM--> (Si Pinto @ Jul 24 2006, 06:21 PM)
[email protected] 24 2006, 04:08 PM
just because he wants someone to be in poverty (because it is a nesscity afterall) doesnt' mean he wants YOU in poverty.
So what am I supposed to do?

Thank him for his benevolence?

Praise his magnanimous gesture?

I don't want want to live like a Prince whilst millions around the world don't have a pot to piss in!

I happen to believe in equality.

Not having to rely on a 'cappies benevolence'.

So, he can stick it, as can you if your agreeing with him. [/b]
I don't want people to be poor, it would be a nicer world if everyone was rich.

but thats not the real world.

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by theraven+Jul 24 2006, 09:20 PM--> (theraven @ Jul 24 2006, 09:20 PM)
Originally posted by Si [email protected] 24 2006, 06:21 PM

[email protected] 24 2006, 04:08 PM
just because he wants someone to be in poverty (because it is a nesscity afterall) doesnt' mean he wants YOU in poverty.
So what am I supposed to do?

Thank him for his benevolence?

Praise his magnanimous gesture?

I don't want want to live like a Prince whilst millions around the world don't have a pot to piss in!

I happen to believe in equality.

Not having to rely on a 'cappies benevolence'.

So, he can stick it, as can you if your agreeing with him.
I don't want people to be poor, it would be a nicer world if everyone was rich.

but thats not the real world. [/b]
No, it's not today's reality.

But that's not what we're here for is it?

and he actually said......


I WANT others in poverty.

So WHY are you supporting him?

[theraven]

Originally posted by Si Pinto+Jul 24 2006, 11:17 PM--> (Si Pinto @ Jul 24 2006, 11:17 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by Si [email protected] 24 2006, 06:21 PM

[email protected] 24 2006, 04:08 PM
just because he wants someone to be in poverty (because it is a nesscity afterall) doesnt' mean he wants YOU in poverty.
So what am I supposed to do?

Thank him for his benevolence?

Praise his magnanimous gesture?

I don't want want to live like a Prince whilst millions around the world don't have a pot to piss in!

I happen to believe in equality.

Not having to rely on a 'cappies benevolence'.

So, he can stick it, as can you if your agreeing with him.
I don't want people to be poor, it would be a nicer world if everyone was rich.

but thats not the real world.
No, it's not today's reality.

But that's what not we're here for is it?

and he actually said......


I WANT others in poverty.

So WHY are you supporting him? [/b]
I am sure he was being hyperbolic

[General Patton]

Well said Ebeneezer. I like the way you think.

[ebeneezer]

Originally posted by General [email protected] 25 2006, 06:00 AM
Well said Ebeneezer. I like the way you think.
Why thank you General Patton! I like the way you think too. and I'm also a Patton admirer. Too bad it never got to Patton/Mcarthur vs. USSR.

And thank you for defending me theraven because yes, Si Pinto, I was being serious. I do wish you all success and prosperity. :)

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 05:17 PM
this doesnt' apply when the basic conditoisn (like a stable governemtan dthe rule of law) don't exist.
of course it applies.. you simply want to ignore what's inconvenient to your ideology, which, in this case, amounts to ignoring half the world.

but, as i said.. anyone can become rich. problem is, some people have to work ten times harder than others. and that's assuming, of course, that you're not one of those ugandan children.

or the rest of the world, for that matter.