Ownership of the means of production [Archive]

t_wolves_fan

27th November 2006, 18:50

The trouble with using that argument is that it has already mean addressed by Marx himself. Central to his understanding of "wage slavery" was precisely what you are inferring, that any worker is free to leave their present job. The fact is that most will end up in a job in principle the same as or worse than the previous one.

I don't accept that it is "fact" that most wage workers will end up in a job worse or the same than their current one. Even if that were true, it ignores the fact that each worker will have during their lifetime several opportunities to make decisions that could lead to an improvement or decline in their socioeconomic position. In other words, that theory leaves out the responsibility of the individual to take advantage of opportunities.

Defenders of Capitalism always want to narrow the field of argument to attempt to keep the main criticisms of capitalism out of the conversation, that is intellectually dishonest. The fact is wage slavery isn;t simply an individual ailment, it is a class ailment, but by attempting to ignore class and play around with semantics you are ignoring the real argument in favour of straw men.

But a strict focus on class is also intellectually dishonest. A blanket statement that says "There will always be poor people." sounds a lot different when you follow it with a factual statement like, "But individual poor people can take advantage of opportunities to better themselves". Then you realize that some poor move up, some wealthy move down, and some stay where they are and you understand that blanket applications to literally endless individual circumstances are inherently faulty.

t_wolves_fan

27th November 2006, 18:52

I wasnt going to play into your game and answer "yes" or "no" but fuck it.

"Yes" from a legal point,workers may choose to leave a job at any point even under a contract(I assume its like this in the U.S)

Correct, which leads to the next question: what responsibility, if any, do individual workers have for improving their lot in life?

Would you respect a worker who stays in the same job forever, complaining about his lot in life but never doing anything about it?

I would not.

And to be exploited for your wage labour is shit,thanks for noticing.

My labor is exploited for a wage, I don't think it sucks.

Explain why you get to speak for me.

thanks.

1000

27th November 2006, 19:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 06:52 pm
Correct, which leads to the next question: what responsibility, if any, do individual workers have for improving their lot in life?

Would you respect a worker who stays in the same job forever, complaining about his lot in life but never doing anything about it?

I would not.

My labor is exploited for a wage, I don't think it sucks.

Explain why you get to speak for me.

thanks.
Sorry for speaking on your behalf!

You assume here that life(currently) is full of unrealised opportunities which are just waiting to be grasped by the next person,and create another 'rags-to-riches" story.Though in reality and contrary to the "American Dream",this happens to seldom few!

Personal background and circumstances apply for all, and depending on your socio-economic class, you might never be able to grasp an 'unrealised oppurtunity'.

t_wolves_fan

27th November 2006, 19:08

Sorry for speaking on your behalf!

You should be. Question is, have you learned anything from it?

You assume here that life(currently) is full of unrealised opportunities which are just waiting to be grasped by the next person,and create another 'rags-to-riches" story.Though in reality and contrary to the "American Dream",this happens to seldom few!

Personal background and circumstances apply for all, and depending on your socio-economic class, you might never be able to grasp an 'unrealised oppurtunity'.

Uh, it doesn't mean everyone will become rich, but it does mean the ticket to middle class really is not that difficult to punch.

Your statement that it's possible only for a few is nothing but your opinion. Frankly it's available to everyone almost all of the time, it's just that few people take advantage of the opportunities presented to them. A lot of them would rather keep making the same mistakes and ***** about how nothing ever changes.

R_P_A_S

27th November 2006, 19:12

how can i come back to this topic? once it passes the "new post" list?

Demogorgon

27th November 2006, 19:15

I don't accept that it is "fact" that most wage workers will end up in a job worse or the same than their current one. Even if that were true, it ignores the fact that each worker will have during their lifetime several opportunities to make decisions that could lead to an improvement or decline in their socioeconomic position. In other words, that theory leaves out the responsibility of the individual to take advantage of opportunities.No, it doesn't, it specifically addresses this. Marx specifically stated that his analysis was not an analysis of the fortunes of any individual worker but of the working class. To use a rather cliched analogy, in ancient Rome a slave could earn his or her freedom. This was the right of any slave. A defender of slavery may dance about the issue and refer in great detail to all the slaves who bought or were given their freedom (and there were plenty, let's not be in any doubt). Hpwever that would be to ignore the fact that slavery as an institution was still unjust. Going back to modern times, discussing the good fortunes of any individual worker doesn't alter the fact that the working class asa whole still exist and are exploited.
But a strict focus on class is also intellectually dishonest. A blanket statement that says "There will always be poor people." sounds a lot different when you follow it with a factual statement like, "But individual poor people can take advantage of opportunities to better themselves". Then you realize that some poor move up, some wealthy move down, and some stay where they are and you understand that blanket applications to literally endless individual circumstances are inherently faulty.Let's do a thought experiment. Suppose every single person on the planet works to the absolute best of their ability and every member of the planet is a highly productive individual who doesn't make any mistakes at all in deciding the course of action they will take at any point in their life. What will then happen. Perhaps that could put the system under so much strain that some unexpected change in society happens, but not withstanding that, nothing in the basic structure of society will change. There will still be rich and there will still be poor. Or to put it another way there will still be exploiters and exploited.

I think here we may have a problem in what we are meaning by the word poor. When you think of poor you no doubt simply think of those who are less well off than others, or perhaps those who fall into a certain definition of poverty (correct me if I am wrong). To you therefore as long as they have an opportunity to improve themselves this is not a problem. A Marxian analysis of the economy won't see it that way though. What I see when I look at the world is a large group of people who's compensation for working is less than the value of the work they do. In my mind this can not be explained away by placing the blame on these people, obviously it is down to people being underpaid. You like to justify poverty by saying it will come down to a person not having done any work. Well if that is the reason for their poverty perhaps that is not a problem, but the fact is in many more cases the reason for their poverty is a large amount of the wealth they generate by working will be leached off of them in the form of value added.

You can't solve that problem by telling them they should simply work harder.

1000

27th November 2006, 19:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 07:08 pm

You should be. Question is, have you learned anything from it?

Uh, it doesn't mean everyone will become rich, but it does mean the ticket to middle class really is not that difficult to punch.

Your statement that it's possible only for a few is nothing but your opinion. Frankly it's available to everyone almost all of the time, it's just that few people take advantage of the opportunities presented to them. A lot of them would rather keep making the same mistakes and ***** about how nothing ever changes.
I enjoy your patronising manner :)
Má raibh tú ós mo chóir,chuireadh mé piléar tríd do cheann! :)

Actually i said "this happens to seldom few" but you took the words out of my mouth!

Well actually its an beleif of quite a few people and il give you an example if i might.

The areas in which mines were closed during the Golden ages of Thatcherism suffer extreme deprivation and poverty.Surely the hard working miners would have been able to grasp the "unrealised opportunites" in the same way the did an extremely tough job?

t_wolves_fan

27th November 2006, 19:36

No, it doesn't, it specifically addresses this. Marx specifically stated that his analysis was not an analysis of the fortunes of any individual worker but of the working class. To use a rather cliched analogy, in ancient Rome a slave could earn his or her freedom. This was the right of any slave. A defender of slavery may dance about the issue and refer in great detail to all the slaves who bought or were given their freedom (and there were plenty, let's not be in any doubt). Hpwever that would be to ignore the fact that slavery as an institution was still unjust. Going back to modern times, discussing the good fortunes of any individual worker doesn't alter the fact that the working class asa whole still exist and are exploited.

Ah, fair enough.

Now I guess you have to convince me that working for a wage is unjust.

Let's do a thought experiment. Suppose every single person on the planet works to the absolute best of their ability...

Your experiment cannot possibly come to fruition and is therefore pointless.

I think here we may have a problem in what we are meaning by the word poor. When you think of poor you no doubt simply think of those who are less well off than others, or perhaps those who fall into a certain definition of poverty (correct me if I am wrong). To you therefore as long as they have an opportunity to improve themselves this is not a problem.

Correct.

A Marxian analysis of the economy won't see it that way though. What I see when I look at the world is a large group of people who's compensation for working is less than the value of the work they do.

On what do you base your opinion of the value of their work?

In my mind this can not be explained away by placing the blame on these people, obviously it is down to people being underpaid. You like to justify poverty by saying it will come down to a person not having done any work.

That is not remotely close to what I said.

Well if that is the reason for their poverty perhaps that is not a problem, but the fact is in many more cases the reason for their poverty is a large amount of the wealth they generate by working will be leached off of them in the form of value added.

Value added is not "leached" off of them because they're selling their labor voluntarily. You're going to respond that they have to earn a wage or they'll be homeless or starve to death. But that statement ignores two facts: in the industrialized world they are still individually capable at any time of improving their lot in life; and in the third world their reliance on a wage is likely replacing their reliance on the weather since they moved from the subsistence farm on which they previously lived, and a wage is actually more reliable than the weather.

You analysis looks at a member of the underclass, determines their socioeconomic status is not equal to that of someone in the middle or upper class. It sets "immediate equality" as the determining factor.

My analysis looks at aggregate performance over time. Are people better off with this system? Well, on the whole, that is unquestionably a yes. Remember that the United States was originally a sweatshop for Europe, Japan and South Korea were originally sweatshops for us, and so on. On a much smaller level, it is apparent that even those workers who work in sweatshops may be better off if they're now able to afford a place to live and 3 squares a day instead of starving en masse because drought or flood ruined their subsistence farm.

I may not want their lifestyle, but maybe they are grateful for it. In that case, I'm not arrogant enough to assume the role of their protector.

Now the system is not perfect. Political decisions come into play. Certainly repressive regimes take advantage of this arrangement for their own aggrandizement, as do unethical corporations. These actions I do not support, but I'm not willing to make perfect the enemy of good.

I compare this with the system you advocate. On paper, it sounds good. Some of it anyway, I'm still convinced a lot of people are communists for the sole purpose of pissing off their parents or the preppies at school. But whatever, in theory it sounds great. All our needs taken care of, 4 hour workdays, and robots to do most of the work, depending on which communist's post I'm reading.

But then I look at the fine print. How realistic is it? If it starts with a planned economy, forget it. Planned economies don't work. They don't react fast enough to changing trends in demand and supply. They place people's basic economic choices at the mercy of the political process. I work for government and I can tell you, government can't do the job and it should not be entrusted with the job.

Then there's personal, non-economic freedom. Find me a "communist" or socialist system that's actually had it. No, I didn't think you could and no, I do not accept your defense that it hasn't "really been tried yet", because I read the posts of self-appointed revolutionary leaders on this site and a day doesn't go by when I don't read about how the religious will be persecuted or the mob will deport someone for counter-revolutionary activities.

You can't solve that problem by telling them they should simply work harder.

Actually you have to tell them to work smarter not harder; and you certainly cannot solve the problem by telling them that nothing they do is their fault and that your theory will solve all their problems for them.

Aeturnal Narcosis

27th November 2006, 19:45

t_wolves_fan

27th November 2006, 19:51

I enjoy your patronising manner :)

Thanks, I've been working on it.

Má raibh tú ós mo chóir,chuireadh mé piléar tríd do cheann! :)

Sorry, don't speak whatever language that is.

The areas in which mines were closed during the Golden ages of Thatcherism suffer extreme deprivation and poverty.Surely the hard working miners would have been able to grasp the "unrealised opportunites" in the same way the did an extremely tough job?

Well it begs the question, should the government have subsidized coal mining for the sake of keeping people at work? Is that economically efficient, to keep mining something you may not necessarily need or that you can purchase elsewhere for less?

Your question is a good one and it shows where I would depart from a laissze-faire approach. I would not support wasteful subsidies of an industry that was not needed. But I would have used government resources to ensure that the effect was not as severe - including temporary welfare, job training, and other economic development practices. I would not have just closed the mine and told people to fend for themselves.

t_wolves_fan

27th November 2006, 19:52

Originally posted by Aeturnal [email protected] 27, 2006 07:45 pm
this is why i have advanced a theory that communism/socialism CAN support a free market economy. the means of production no longer applies to land / factories / etc. - it now means companies. in the modern economy, a company is the means of production. communism would put the workers in control of the means of production: this means the workers will be in control of the companies.

but... my socialist ideas have gotten me put on restriction.
There are plenty of employee-owned firms that I am aware of, and workers are free at any time in capitalism to start their own such firms.

Aeturnal Narcosis

27th November 2006, 20:01

Má raibh tú ós mo chóir,chuireadh mé piléar tríd do cheann! :)

Sorry, don't speak whatever language that is.

it's irish gaelic.

Well it begs the question, should the government have subsidized coal mining for the sake of keeping people at work? Is that economically efficient, to keep mining something you may not necessarily need or that you can purchase elsewhere for less?

this is one of the ways that capitalism fucks the working class.

mining should have been nationalised: this would eliminate the greed (yes, our old friend, once again) created by mining corporations - the same greed that puts the workers out of work when foreign nations can offer the same product for cheaper. without the greedy corporations, the coal (or whatever other ores) would have remained at a relatively low price, and we would actually be able to compete with low-cost imported products.

Aeturnal Narcosis

27th November 2006, 20:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 07:52 pm
There are plenty of employee-owned firms that I am aware of, and workers are free at any time in capitalism to start their own such firms.
when that happens... that worker becomes the bourgeois, and with time, will become another fuel-line into the machinery of exploitation.

t_wolves_fan

27th November 2006, 20:04

Originally posted by Aeturnal [email protected] 27, 2006 08:01 pm
mining should have been nationalised: this would eliminate the greed (yes, our old friend, once again) created by mining corporations - the same greed that puts the workers out of work when foreign nations can offer the same product for cheaper. without the greedy corporations, the coal (or whatever other ores) would have remained at a relatively low price, and we would actually be able to compete with low-cost imported products.
What if it's less environmentally damanging to mine elsewhere, or you don't need as much coal as you're producing?

Do you continue to produce it locally anyway to keep the jobs, or do you shut the mines down?

Demogorgon

27th November 2006, 20:15

This post went rather fast from a discussion of my views to a rant against views that don't sound very much like mine at all.
For what it's worth though...

Your experiment cannot possibly come to fruition and is therefore pointless.It cannot come to fruition because it is an extreme. It most certainly is not pointless. In economic analysis it is important to understand what happens at the extreme ends of any situation. I don't know if you have studied economics or not, but if you have you will know that a great deal of time analysing market situations examine markets which arre completely perfect competition or complete monopolies. In practice neither exists but you will get nowehere unless you understand the theoretical extremes. it is the same principle here.

On what do you base your opinion of the value of their work?I am afraid I am going to have to dissapoint you here. I am not going to use the Labour Theory of Value. So you will ave to save that theory of objections for the next poster that argues this with you. As for how we work out the value of somene's work? I suppose the best way to define it would be the amount of wealth generated by their work.

Value added is not "leached" off of them because they're selling their labor voluntarilyStatements like this always sound a bit like "he chose to dies because he freely took lethal injection over electrocution" to me. First of all it has to be understood that earning a living isn't simply something you freely choose to do. Everyone has to do it. One way or another everyone is going to have to come by a living. Now do people freely choose to come by this living through selling their labour? Well let's presume that self interest does exist and people want to maximise the return they get for whatever work they do. I don't think people given a choice between compensation equal to the amount of work they do and compensation less than equal to the amount of work they do are going to choose the latter. Therefore it isn't a free choice. It's simply taking the only option that is there.
I'm still convinced a lot of people are communists for the sole purpose of pissing off their parents or the preppies at school. Without a shadow of a doubt. My arguments with people in other sections of this board have left me in no doubt as to that. On the other hand a lot of people support capitalism because they haven't given the remotest thought as to how the world around them actually works. You don't fall into that category and I won't associate you with them, so let's not associate me with the idiots you don't like.

There is little point in me going into a point by point analysis of what you say after this because you would be asking me to defend something I know is impossible. Of course i went through the phase of believing utopia was possible and anyone opposing it must be evil that a lot of people on this board are going through. Unlike most people however I came out the other end with my leftist beliefs intact. I don't believe you can have a perfect world, but that doesn't mean you can't have a better one. Anybody who thinks a centrally planned command economy with a strong authoritarian government masquerading as "The Dictatorship of the Proletariate" will achieve socialism is conveniently ignoring the twentieth century. By the same token though anybody who think capitalism works is ignoring even more than that.

So what are my views you ask? Well I've written enough so i won't bother laying them out now, but i'll link you to an article that shows broadly similair views to what i advocate. http://homepages.luc.edu/~dschwei/democracy.htm

t_wolves_fan

27th November 2006, 20:50

This post went rather fast from a discussion of my views to a rant against views that don't sound very much like mine at all.

Well it's pretty slow around the holidays, so my apologies.

It cannot come to fruition because it is an extreme. It most certainly is not pointless. In economic analysis it is important to understand what happens at the extreme ends of any situation. I don't know if you have studied economics or not, but if you have you will know that a great deal of time analysing market situations examine markets which arre completely perfect competition or complete monopolies.

Economic theory, which is taugh in school, does spend a great deal of time looking at extremes.

The problem is, what you learn in school has little or no bearing on what happens in reality. It is the analysis of econometric data that is the real key, because you're dealing with what's really happening out in the world.

Oy vey I remember arguing over the value of economic theory with a bunch of angry young laissez-faire types on another board. Someone gets an "A" in freshman Macroeconomics and they think they're freaking Friedman. When I pointed out that raising the minimum wage in the 1990s did not actually destroy the American economy, I had one moron tell me that fact was irrelevant and that what was most important was what would happen theoretically.

I am afraid I am going to have to dissapoint you here. I am not going to use the Labour Theory of Value. So you will ave to save that theory of objections for the next poster that argues this with you. As for how we work out the value of somene's work? I suppose the best way to define it would be the amount of wealth generated by their work.

Ah yes, the LTV is a big topic of discussion here. Pointing out reasons it's wrong are like a badge of honor.

Tell me then how you would define the amount of wealth generated by their work.

Statements like this always sound a bit like "he chose to dies because he freely took lethal injection over electrocution" to me.

That's ridiculous.

First of all it has to be understood that earning a living isn't simply something you freely choose to do. Everyone has to do it. One way or another everyone is going to have to come by a living.

Correct, so...

Now do people freely choose to come by this living through selling their labour? Well let's presume that self interest does exist and people want to maximise the return they get for whatever work they do. I don't think people given a choice between compensation equal to the amount of work they do and compensation less than equal to the amount of work they do are going to choose the latter. Therefore it isn't a free choice. It's simply taking the only option that is there.

Here again you are arguing the extremes of theory as if they resemble real life in any way. That pretends that only one job choice is available at any given time and that the other option is death or starvation, neither of which is generally true immediately.

Many jobs may be available, even to someone with no skills. In the short term there may be only one choice but in the long term other opportunities and choices will present themselves. Your theory-based proclamations ignore those facts.

Without a shadow of a doubt. My arguments with people in other sections of this board have left me in no doubt as to that. On the other hand a lot of people support capitalism because they haven't given the remotest thought as to how the world around them actually works. You don't fall into that category and I won't associate you with them, so let's not associate me with the idiots you don't like.

Fair enough but please understand that it's my opinion that at age 20 you don't know a whole lot about how the world actually works. You've clearly thought a lot about it, but you don't know a lot about it.

There is little point in me going into a point by point analysis of what you say after this because you would be asking me to defend something I know is impossible. Of course i went through the phase of believing utopia was possible and anyone opposing it must be evil that a lot of people on this board are going through. Unlike most people however I came out the other end with my leftist beliefs intact.

You're only 20, give it time.

And even if you do keep your opinions, good for you. As long as you see both sides of an argument - that is what is key.

I don't believe you can have a perfect world, but that doesn't mean you can't have a better one.

Agreed.

So what are my views you ask? Well I've written enough so i won't bother laying them out now, but i'll link you to an article that shows broadly similair views to what i advocate. http://homepages.luc.edu/~dschwei/democracy.htm

I'll have a look, FIB. :P

Demogorgon

27th November 2006, 21:17

Economic theory, which is taugh in school, does spend a great deal of time looking at extremes.

The problem is, what you learn in school has little or no bearing on what happens in reality. It is the analysis of econometric data that is the real key, because you're dealing with what's really happening out in the world.
People like to confuse what happens with why something happens. The reason what happens at extremes is studied first because you can't understand what happens in between auntil you understand that. Back to the point. Imagine a situation where everyone does work to their fullest. Will there still be an underclass then? if not, why not and if so why so?

Here again you are arguing the extremes of theory as if they resemble real life in any way. That pretends that only one job choice is available at any given time and that the other option is death or starvation, neither of which is generally true immediately.

Many jobs may be available, even to someone with no skills. In the short term there may be only one choice but in the long term other opportunities and choices will present themselves. Your theory-based proclamations ignore those facts.Again it is another strawman. If you can prove my explanation requires there to be only one job choice available I promise I will never post on this site again.

There are lots of jobs abvailable of course. But nearly all of them are exploitative and as fr those that aren't (shock hooror I acknowledge there are some) there are not enough to go round so in general the fact is for most people selling Labour is not a choice because that's simply what you have to do to get by in life.

Fair enough but please understand that it's my opinion that at age 20 you don't know a whole lot about how the world actually works. You've clearly thought a lot about it, but you don't know a lot about it.Well personally I would say an eight year old in the Sudan knows more about what life really is for a lot of people than either of us, but that aside, when it comes to anonymous posting on a bulletin board let's not try and presume to much about what another person may or may not know. After all I could be a ten year old trying to sound more grown up than i am or a sixty year old pretending to be youthful...

You're only 20, give it time.

And even if you do keep your opinions, good for you. As long as you see both sides of an argument - that is what is key.I am afraid I lack a crystal ball and therefore don't know what my opinions will be in the future. That being said, i think they are a lot more likely to survive than many other people's here simply because I am not an off the wall utopian. If you think I am, I can't help that of course, but let's wait and see.

t_wolves_fan

27th November 2006, 21:37

People like to confuse what happens with why something happens.

The real problem is that people like to assume there is one major cause for why something happens and that anyone who doesn't accept the primacy of that cause is evil.

Imagine a situation where everyone does work to their fullest. Will there still be an underclass then? if not, why not and if so why so?

I would say yes, because there will still be jobs that anyone can do, and therefore the value of the labor will be low.

(skipping a pointless fight over logical fallacies) There are lots of jobs abvailable of course. But nearly all of them are exploitative...

In your opinion. What you view as exploitation of an employee may not be exploitation in that employee's eyes.

and as fr those that aren't (shock hooror I acknowledge there are some) there are not enough to go round so in general the fact is for most people selling Labour is not a choice because that's simply what you have to do to get by in life.

In a value-free sense all labor is exploited. My employer exploits my labor to ensure it is running efficiently and effectively. At the same time, I exploit my employer's need for someone to my job to own my home and spend my money as I want. I'm also exploiting a department store's need for extra help during the holidays to save up for when my baby arrives.

In the normative sense, whether an employee is being "exploited" or not is entirely subjective.

Is an unskilled laborer who just fell of the turnip truck being exploited at the sweatshop? It depends. Is he there voluntarily? Did he get tired of toiling in the fields 20 hours a day only to see his crops destroyed by drought every 4 years, at which point he decided to go work at the Nike factory for a salary that neither you nor I could live on but which he does fine with being exploited? I don't think he is, you probably do.

but that aside, when it comes to anonymous posting on a bulletin board let's not try and presume to much about what another person may or may not know. After all I could be a ten year old trying to sound more grown up than i am or a sixty year old pretending to be youthful...

Indeed you could be.

That being said, i think they are a lot more likely to survive than many other people's here simply because I am not an off the wall utopian. If you think I am, I can't help that of course, but let's wait and see.

No, you're definitely not as whacked out as most folks here.

I read the first article on democracy. It is interesting and certainly more workable - in theory - but frought with problems, the first being that the author obviously doesn't understand how property taxes work nor the political difficulties in redistributing contributions to the federal government to other regions. Take a look at the debate over the last version of the federal highway bill for more on that.

ZX3

27th November 2006, 22:08

Originally posted by Aeturnal [email protected] 27, 2006 08:01 pm

Má raibh tú ós mo chóir,chuireadh mé piléar tríd do cheann! :)

Sorry, don't speak whatever language that is.

it's irish gaelic.

Well it begs the question, should the government have subsidized coal mining for the sake of keeping people at work? Is that economically efficient, to keep mining something you may not necessarily need or that you can purchase elsewhere for less?

this is one of the ways that capitalism fucks the working class.

mining should have been nationalised: this would eliminate the greed (yes, our old friend, once again) created by mining corporations - the same greed that puts the workers out of work when foreign nations can offer the same product for cheaper. without the greedy corporations, the coal (or whatever other ores) would have remained at a relatively low price, and we would actually be able to compete with low-cost imported products.
Is the UK better or worse shape due to the closing of the coal mines?

if the coal mines were nationalised, how would that have solved the problem which what the capitalists faced? Is coal the optimum for fuel use? there are socialists on this board who will say socialism will be environmentally friendly and will push for renewable resources? Do you think maybe that after a quarter of a century socialists would have have agitated for the closing of the mines for environmental reasons, never mind economic ones?

Tungsten

27th November 2006, 22:41

1000

Your understanding of society to me seems very warped.

Im sure a miner would like to "to take his labor away from the boss at

any moment and do with it as he pleases" but the nature of the society in which

they live prevents them from doing so.The nature of reality prevents them from doing do. What they want is at odds with both reality and society.

To thumb your nose at reality is to sow the seeds of utopianism.

Demogorgon

Defenders of Capitalism always want to narrow the field of argument to attempt to keep the main criticisms of capitalism out of the conversation, that is intellectually dishonest.
You call "I can't just do whatever job I want" a criticism? There's nothing to stop you providing there's people willing to pay you for doing whatever you do. My bet is you were beguilled by the promises that everyone will be living a life of effortless luxury without ever asking who's going to be relieving you of this effort. So how do you intend to correct this so called problem?

The fact is wage slavery isn;t simply an individual ailment, it is a class ailment, but by attempting to ignore class and play around with semantics you are ignoring the real argument in favour of straw men.
Class is irrelevent to the discussion of whether wage slavery is slavery or not.

Marx specifically stated that his analysis was not an analysis of the fortunes of any individual worker but of the working class. To use a rather cliched analogy, in ancient Rome a slave could earn his or her freedom. This was the right of any slave. A defender of slavery may dance about the issue and refer in great detail to all the slaves who bought or were given their freedom (and there were plenty, let's not be in any doubt).
What a wank anology. A worker is given freedom by virtue of being human. A slave is not free. Enlighten me as to what exactly you're not free to do. The answer you give will reveal the mistakes you're making.

Let's do a thought experiment. Suppose every single person on the planet works to the absolute best of their ability and every member of the planet is a highly productive individual who doesn't make any mistakes at all in deciding the course of action they will take at any point in their life. What will then happen.
Never, so long as there's free will. And we do have free will to some extent, so the point is moot.

I think here we may have a problem in what we are meaning by the word poor. When you think of poor you no doubt simply think of those who are less well off than others, or perhaps those who fall into a certain definition of poverty (correct me if I am wrong). To you therefore as long as they have an opportunity to improve themselves this is not a problem.
Given the free will premise, that's perfectly reasonable.

A Marxian analysis of the economy won't see it that way though.
The marxian analysis is wrong.

What I see when I look at the world is a large group of people who's compensation for working is less than the value of the work they do.
You're entitled to your opinion, but you're wrong.

In my mind this can not be explained away by placing the blame on these people, obviously it is down to people being underpaid.
Perhaps the error is with you for believing them to be underpaid?

Statements like this always sound a bit like "he chose to dies because he freely took lethal injection over electrocution" to me.
That's because you're dishonest or not very perceptive. Giving up ones job and leading a destructive lifestyle is more akin to suicide, not execution (which is done by someone else).

First of all it has to be understood that earning a living isn't simply something you freely choose to do. Everyone has to do it. One way or another everyone is going to have to come by a living. Now do people freely choose to come by this living through selling their labour?
Work is necessary for anyone to survive, even those on benefits (where the work is done by someone else). If you think this fact of life is something you can overthrow in a revolution, you're going to be dissapointed.
t_wolves_fan

Economic theory, which is taugh in school, does spend a great deal of time looking at extremes.
Extremism=good.

It's only by taking things to extremes that we can effectively test works and what doesn't. If an idea collapses into absurdity, it's bad.

Demogorgon

27th November 2006, 23:04

The real problem is that people like to assume there is one major cause for why something happens and that anyone who doesn't accept the primacy of that cause is evil.Well obviously in any situation so much will be at play that trying to work out precise cause and effecvt will take forever. But it is very much worthwhile trying to ddetermine general causes of things. You can't understand something until you know what causes it IMO. Obviously those who disagree with me are not evil, in some cases they are mistaken, in other cases I am. Being wrong doesn't make someone evil.

In your opinion. What you view as exploitation of an employee may not be exploitation in that employee's eyes.Well this could go on forever. I accept that somebody might not view it as exploitation but that won't mean that it isn't (and so on).

In a value-free sense all labor is exploited. My employer exploits my labor to ensure it is running efficiently and effectively. At the same time, I exploit my employer's need for someone to my job to own my home and spend my money as I want. I'm also exploiting a department store's need for extra help during the holidays to save up for when my baby arrives.

In the normative sense, whether an employee is being "exploited" or not is entirely subjective. Yeah, well we can play the definition game all day long and with enough practice everybody can claim to be exploited in every possible way. But as I alluded to earlier, I define exploitation in a particular way. That where somebody get's under compensated for their work. Or in other words where their pay can buy less goods and services than they themselves made.

I read the first article on democracy. It is interesting and certainly more workable - in theory - but frought with problems, the first being that the author obviously doesn't understand how property taxes work nor the political difficulties in redistributing contributions to the federal government to other regions. Take a look at the debate over the last version of the federal highway bill for more on that.Well as to that I cannot comment. The problems yu point out there are based on America and in a more General sense large countries. Living as I do in a small country that isn't America I won't pretend to understand the difficulties there.

Oh and Tungsten, if you interperate my views the way i did, you are either an idiot or a troll. Did you read a word i wrote?

RNK

28th November 2006, 01:23

Most slaves resolved themselves to being slaves, and made no effort to try and emancipate themselves. It wasn't until a select group of them developed enough of a slave consciousness that they were able to realize that they were infact slaves, that they were infact chained, and most importantly, that those chains could be broken.

JazzRemington

28th November 2006, 01:35

Originally posted by T_Wolves_Fan
Question:

Is Marx's definition of the "Means of Production" getting a little outdated? When he wrote his tripe, the means of production were pretty much limited to factories and maybe land.

The means of production is defined as the tools and raw materials used in production. It's not that it's outdated, it's more like there are newer and more means of production available.

Is it time to update this definition or even drop this term considering people can now start their own business with nothing but their own brain and a laptop computer?

Hence the above, that there are new means of production.

Anton

28th November 2006, 02:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 07:12 pm
how can i come back to this topic? once it passes the "new post" list?
Just click on the category it is in.
In this case it would be "opposing ideologies" and you will see all the topics in the category.

red team

28th November 2006, 07:25

To thumb your nose at reality is to sow the seeds of utopianism.

Reality? "utopian"? when? 1000 years ago, 100 years ago, 100 years from now, 1000 years from now?

You call "I can't just do whatever job I want" a criticism? There's nothing to stop you providing there's people willing to pay you for doing whatever you do. My bet is you were beguilled by the promises that everyone will be living a life of effortless luxury without ever asking who's going to be relieving you of this effort. So how do you intend to correct this so called problem?

Define: luxury. A shiny transparent stone of no apparent utility is luxury? Not to me it isn't. A impractical, gas guzzling motor car that reaches dangerous speeds I would never drive up to is luxury? Not to me it isn't. A big house that's far bigger than what I need to live in is luxury? Not to me it isn't ....

Define: effortless. relative to? which time period? which social class? which job?

who's going to be relieving you of this effort. So how do you intend to correct this so called problem?

Sorry, I have this miracle box that I can feed instructions that have been written in the past 5, 10, 20... (who cares) years ago and it still does it's instructed to do. And (wow, amzaing) I don't have to do any extra work that wasn't done already in the past 5, 10, 20... (who cares) years ago.

So wrong question you senile lame-brain. It's not "who's going to be relieving you". It's what and that's already been invented.

Nusocialist

28th November 2006, 11:07

An employee is free to take his labor away from the boss at any moment and do with it as he pleases. Therefore he never loses ownership of it, rather he rents it for wages.
He is free to work for a wage or try and start his own business,which will most likely fail,or to starve.
Capitalism creates these conditions(with the help of it's partner the state of course.) by having the means of production in the hands of a minority and opening up society to market imperatives,this forces workers to either work for a wage or start their own business which will be at a great disadvantage as market imperatives are harder on small business or of course they can starve/go on welfare.

The Feral Underclass

28th November 2006, 13:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 05:20 pm
Is Marx's definition of the "Means of Production" getting a little outdated? When he wrote his tripe, the means of production were pretty much limited to factories and maybe land.

Is it time to update this definition or even drop this term considering people can now start their own business with nothing but their own brain and a laptop computer?
The term "means of production" refers to the material processess in which we create our society and means of existance.

If the means of production don't exist anymore, how do produce what we need for society to function or for us to exist?

t_wolves_fan

28th November 2006, 14:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 10:41 pm

Economic theory, which is taugh in school, does spend a great deal of time looking at extremes.
Extremism=good.

It's only by taking things to extremes that we can effectively test works and what doesn't. If an idea collapses into absurdity, it's bad.
I strongly disagree. The fact is we can take any policy choice to an extreme and use that unlikely or impossible extreme as a false reason to not make the proper choice.

It makes perfection the enemy of practicality. The slippery slope is a logical fallacy for a reason.

t_wolves_fan

28th November 2006, 14:24

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2006 01:23 am
Most slaves resolved themselves to being slaves, and made no effort to try and emancipate themselves. It wasn't until a select group of them developed enough of a slave consciousness that they were able to realize that they were infact slaves, that they were infact chained, and most importantly, that those chains could be broken.
Your problem is that they're only slaves in your mind, whereas slaves in the early 19th century were actually slaves.

The fact is, people would have to work in some capacity to stay alive in any system, wouldn't they?

t_wolves_fan

28th November 2006, 14:29

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

An employee is free to take his labor away from the boss at any moment and do with it as he pleases. Therefore he never loses ownership of it, rather he rents it for wages.
He is free to work for a wage or try and start his own business,which will most likely fail,or to starve.
Capitalism creates these conditions(with the help of it's partner the state of course.) by having the means of production in the hands of a minority and opening up society to market imperatives,this forces workers to either work for a wage or start their own business which will be at a great disadvantage as market imperatives are harder on small business or of course they can starve/go on welfare.
See my response to Ernest.

Does any system exist where people would not have to work to stay alive?

If the answer is "no", which I presume it will be, the next question is what makes the worker a "slave" in capitalism?

Is it the fact that supposedly a tiny minority owns the "means of production"?

Well, now add in the fact that any worker over time will have opportunities to change jobs freely or become an owner or part owner of the "means of production" should he or she choose to do so.

Is he still a slave? It does not seem so, since I don't recall slaves having the opportunity at any time to seek alternative employment if they're not happy.

My next follow up question would be this: presumably, in communism, a worker may be part owner of the "means of production" yet this by no means guarantees he will get his way when it comes to how much he'll have to work, how work will be done, how much or what will be produced since he is but one vote in the collective. Has his power increased very much? It doesn't seem so.

Are you going to respond that he can go start his own collective or seek another one to join? If so, how is that any different from having the same opportunities in capitalism?

Unless, of course, the answer to the first question is "yes" and that worker need not work at all in order to survive because he can expect some kind of minimum income or (worse) an equal share of the societal rewards regardless of whether he works or not.

t_wolves_fan

28th November 2006, 14:34

Originally posted by red [email protected] 28, 2006 07:25 am
Sorry, I have this miracle box that I can feed instructions that have been written in the past 5, 10, 20... (who cares) years ago and it still does it's instructed to do. And (wow, amzaing) I don't have to do any extra work that wasn't done already in the past 5, 10, 20... (who cares) years ago.

So wrong question you senile lame-brain. It's not "who's going to be relieving you". It's what and that's already been invented.
Are you actually suggesting that the invention of the computer has led to less work? Because the fact is, the amount of work done has not changed (if anything it's increased), it's merely the kind of work that has changed.

Computers simply allow for greater productivity, which merely leads to an increase in demand, which keeps the amount of work constant.

Unless, of course, you plan to tell people that they can't consume more than they are now. Good luck with that.

t_wolves_fan

28th November 2006, 14:36

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+November 28, 2006 01:39 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ November 28, 2006 01:39 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 05:20 pm
Is Marx's definition of the "Means of Production" getting a little outdated? When he wrote his tripe, the means of production were pretty much limited to factories and maybe land.

Is it time to update this definition or even drop this term considering people can now start their own business with nothing but their own brain and a laptop computer?
The term "means of production" refers to the material processess in which we create our society and means of existance.

If the means of production don't exist anymore, how do produce what we need for society to function or for us to exist? [/b]

Jazz Remington
The means of production is defined as the tools and raw materials used in production. It's not that it's outdated, it's more like there are newer and more means of production available.

The point of the question is that the "means of production" may now well within the price range of even the lower class.

The Feral Underclass

28th November 2006, 15:00

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2006 03:36 pm
The point of the question is that the "means of production" may now well within the price range of even the lower class.
How is that true?

t_wolves_fan

28th November 2006, 15:16

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+November 28, 2006 03:00 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ November 28, 2006 03:00 pm)
[email protected] 28, 2006 03:36 pm
The point of the question is that the "means of production" may now well within the price range of even the lower class.
How is that true? [/b]
Get a job, work a few years and learn the business (whichever field), and then go into business for yourself or with others as a consultant.

You're now part owner of the means of production and in the bourgeoise.

Or, as many immigrants do, take out a small business loan, buy a franchise or start a business, and you're now bourgeoise.

Done and done.

*wipes hands*

Aeturnal Narcosis

28th November 2006, 15:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 08:04 pm
What if it's less environmentally damanging to mine elsewhere, or you don't need as much coal as you're producing?

Do you continue to produce it locally anyway to keep the jobs, or do you shut the mines down?
GOOD question, my friend.

me personally, i am somewhat caught inbetween when it comes to jobs vs. environment.

if it is more environmentally sound to mine elsewhere, and no jobs would be lost, then move the operation.

but as far as demand goes... if there is less demand for the ore in question, then i think that the company should reduce its work force, but ONLY if those laid-off employees are given compensation from the company, unemployment benefits until they find another job, and aid in finding a new job.

but i also believe that a company should be controlled internally by its workers, and the profits created should be distributed equally among all the workers. with loss in profits, each worker will recieve less benefit from the operation; downsizing will ensure that each of the workers are still recieving the same benefit of the profits. but being laid off is generally unfair: i think that if a worker-controlled company decides to lay off some of its employees, it should be required to take the worker-distributed-profits for one year and divide them among the laid-off - to show appreciation for their dedication, and compensation - no person should lose their job if they are good at their job and don't fuck up.

t_wolves_fan

28th November 2006, 16:52

GOOD question, my friend.

Thank you.

me personally, i am somewhat caught inbetween when it comes to jobs vs. environment.

It's a huge issue for communism/technocracy that would put technocrats at odds with workers. If the technocrats say this is obsolete or damages the environment and needs to go, and the workers say we want to keep our jobs, who wins?

if it is more environmentally sound to mine elsewhere, and no jobs would be lost, then move the operation.

What if the workers don't want to move?

but as far as demand goes... if there is less demand for the ore in question, then i think that the company should reduce its work force, but ONLY if those laid-off employees are given compensation from the company, unemployment benefits until they find another job, and aid in finding a new job.

I agree, the state has an interest in providing help to displaced workers.

but i also believe that a company should be controlled internally by its workers, and the profits created should be distributed equally among all the workers. with loss in profits, each worker will recieve less benefit from the operation; downsizing will ensure that each of the workers are still recieving the same benefit of the profits. but being laid off is generally unfair: i think that if a worker-controlled company decides to lay off some of its employees, it should be required to take the worker-distributed-profits for one year and divide them among the laid-off - to show appreciation for their dedication, and compensation - no person should lose their job if they are good at their job and don't fuck up.

2 questions:

If the profits from 1 year are divided up and given to the displaced workers, what do the remaining workers live on? If that profit previously went towards investment in the plant, how is that investment replaced? See, there is a tradeoff.

Second question, what if the workers don't want to lay anyone off and a subsidy system is created where the workers are still churning out an obsolete product? Is that an efficient allocation of resources?

JazzRemington

28th November 2006, 18:34

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+November 28, 2006 09:36 am--> (t_wolves_fan @ November 28, 2006 09:36 am)
Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+November 28, 2006 01:39 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ November 28, 2006 01:39 pm)
[email protected] 27, 2006 05:20 pm
Is Marx's definition of the "Means of Production" getting a little outdated? When he wrote his tripe, the means of production were pretty much limited to factories and maybe land.

Is it time to update this definition or even drop this term considering people can now start their own business with nothing but their own brain and a laptop computer?
The term "means of production" refers to the material processess in which we create our society and means of existance.

If the means of production don't exist anymore, how do produce what we need for society to function or for us to exist? [/b]

Jazz Remington
The means of production is defined as the tools and raw materials used in production. It's not that it's outdated, it's more like there are newer and more means of production available.

The point of the question is that the "means of production" may now well within the price range of even the lower class. [/b]
And? If a worker owns and uses the means of production, that would make him not a member of the bourgeoisie, but the petty-bourgeoisie, the self-employed individual.

But you're still forgetting the competition factor: the larger firms can afford to take substantial risks that a incoming firm cannot. Only a few firms out of the hundreds that spring up daily survive market competition, either from internal or external factors.

Tungsten

28th November 2006, 18:49

red team

Define: luxury. A shiny transparent stone of no apparent utility is luxury? Not to me it isn't.
Not to you? Why anyone would have thought values were subjective or something... :rolleyes:
The point was that someone is living at someone elses expense without their permission is what is relevent here, not the definition of luxury.

Define: effortless.
Not providing any effort. Not working. Making use of someone else's labour or property without their permission.

Sorry, I have this miracle box that I can feed instructions that have been written in the past 5, 10, 20... (who cares) years ago and it still does it's instructed to do.
Robots will do everything blah blah blah...etc.
Nusocialist

Capitalism creates these conditions(with the help of it's partner the state of course.)Neithere capitalism nor the state created the contition that you have to work or stave any more than they created gravity. It's a fact of life (which many of you seem oblivious to)

t_wolves_fan

28th November 2006, 19:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2006 06:34 pm
And? If a worker owns and uses the means of production, that would make him not a member of the bourgeoisie, but the petty-bourgeoisie, the self-employed individual.

But you're still forgetting the competition factor: the larger firms can afford to take substantial risks that a incoming firm cannot. Only a few firms out of the hundreds that spring up daily survive market competition, either from internal or external factors.
My response to both your complaints is, so what?

red team

28th November 2006, 21:33

Here's your original quote.

The significant parts are bolded for emphasis:

You call "I can't just do whatever job I want" a criticism? There's nothing to stop you providing there's people willing to pay you for doing whatever you do. My bet is you were beguilled by the promises that everyone will be living a life of effortless luxury without ever asking who's going to be relieving you of this effort. So how do you intend to correct this so called problem?

Again: Answer the damn question and stop evading like the dishonest con-artist that you are!!!

Define: luxury.

As relative to? What? a medieval peasant? A sweatshop kid working in some third world hell hole? A rich investor who lost a few million in a bad month, but still has his mansion and servants?

If you fail to answer then that just proves my point that you don't know what you are talking about. Thanks, for proving you don't know your mouth from your asshole.

Not providing any effort. Not working. Making use of someone else's labour or property without their permission.

Wouldn't that be the perfect example of the investor class? But, of course you could always get's somebody else's "permission" to provide the effort and perform work if the alternative means homelessness and starvation for them. So, what's in it for you? A bigger return on your investment in debt tokens? What's in it for them? To provide a life of effortless luxury for you with the alternative being their physical extinction? That "permission" you've gained is made under duress in an environment of deprivation which makes any "permission" gained coerced.

Robots will do everything blah blah blah...etc.

Capitalism will do everything blah blah blah...etc.

Libertarian praxeology is the ultimate scientific economic theory which explains everything blah blah blah...etc.

Wow you can really lay the babble can you? Anything to back up your babble? Oh sorry, we already know. Being the fathead that you are you only have fat inside your skull.

JazzRemington

29th November 2006, 03:06

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+November 28, 2006 02:04 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ November 28, 2006 02:04 pm)
[email protected] 28, 2006 06:34 pm
And? If a worker owns and uses the means of production, that would make him not a member of the bourgeoisie, but the petty-bourgeoisie, the self-employed individual.

But you're still forgetting the competition factor: the larger firms can afford to take substantial risks that a incoming firm cannot. Only a few firms out of the hundreds that spring up daily survive market competition, either from internal or external factors.
My response to both your complaints is, so what? [/b]
Sure, technology has gotten generally cheaper so as to allow anyone who can afford them to go into business for themselves and either become a member of the bourgoeisie or self-employed. But what's the point in this if there's a chance you will get run out of the market? If an individual perceives the risk to be too great, he or she will probably choose to be or remain employed.

And how come whenever a capitalist gets informed of reality, it is perceived as a complaint?

Demogorgon

29th November 2006, 03:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2006 06:49 pm
Neithere capitalism nor the state created the contition that you have to work or stave any more than they created gravity. It's a fact of life (which many of you seem oblivious to)
If that is the basis of your argument, you don't have a leg to stand on this conversation. Under any economic or social system there is a need to work. The amount of work needing done will vary of course, but regardless there is a need to work. If you think people disagree with that you need to get your head out of your ass and examine our arguments as opposed to what you would like them to be.

The problem is the nature of the work done. Under capitalism the majority )not all) of people are forced to sell their labour which by defninition means a return on their investment in labour which is less than the amount they invested. No rational person would freely choose that (we naturally want to maximise the return we get), therefore it can hardly be seen as voluntary for people to sell their labour, just something capitalism makes them do.

red team

29th November 2006, 05:17

Neithere capitalism nor the state created the contition that you have to work or stave any more than they created gravity. It's a fact of life (which many of you seem oblivious to)

How much work? How is it measured? How intense is the work? And all of these properties of work in relation to what?

Don't have an answer? That's because you don't have scientific theories you have glib slogans.

Oh and gravity can often do work for free if scientifically manipulated in the right way. :o How is that possible? It must be that your glib slogans are wrong.

colonelguppy

29th November 2006, 06:07

Oh and gravity can often do work for free if scientifically manipulated in the right way. ohmy.gif How is that possible? It must be that your glib slogans are wrong.

not that this really has anything to do with the point anyone is trying to make, but it seems that "manipulation" is work from a scientific standpoint.

as for what you said before that, i don't see how his generalization is any less correct just because it isn't based on concrete physical science.

red team

29th November 2006, 07:03

not that this really has anything to do with the point anyone is trying to make, but it seems that "manipulation" is work from a scientific standpoint.

as for what you said before that, i don't see how his generalization is any less correct just because it isn't based on concrete physical science.

First of all in this historical stage of human social development there are still people engaged in work that is neither stimulating nor desirable. Whether or not that kind of work can be eliminated at this point through the proper use of technology is a matter of debate. I'm merely demonstrating the absurdity of the idea that undesirable manual toil is some sort of universal constant like gravity when it is clearly not. But since societal development evolved from the stupid, barbaric days of conquest and slavery it's quite natural for people who don't see past the next months pay check or next quarter's profits to subscribe to the same "philosophy" as our club swinging ancestors. Progress in the form of technology gradually made the necessity of undesirable toil in order to fullfil the material requirements of life a non-necessity or greatly diminished the necessary amount of work per unit of output. Therefore technology taken to it's logical conclusion means the obsolescence of undesirable toil. The pace of development where undesirable work can be greatly reduced or eliminated altogether is a matter of debate, but not it's conclusion. But, under this system of debt for work any type of redundant, unnecessary make-work is preferable to being unemployed even though the job itself is of no useful purpose. Take for example paid newspaper hawkers in the streets right next to a newspaper box full of newspapers or when I can get news electronically online without needing to read information off pressed sheets of dead trees. Or some "bum" attempting to wash your windshield for spare change when you have a built-in windshield wiper. Both are examples or stupid redundancies that you get for a debt for work system like Capitalism even though some people consider the newspaper hawker to be more "respectable".

But let's take up this position of work (as in undesirable toil) as a universal physical constant like gravity in order to demolish this position by taking it to the most absurd logical conclusion. Alright, if work should be an unchanging universal constant then any kind of work done in the past that was made obsolete through the development of technology means that the same amount of work needs to be done today in order to fulfill the same desirable results. This means that this posting does not exist. It is not sent electronically and what I type needs to be typed again repetitively on a manual mechanical typewriter. Your eyes are in fact fooling you and you are reading letters from a piece of paper. Further, scientific knowledge needs to be duplicated every time you turn on your computer. Your operating system in fact does not exist as a stored set of pre-written instructions, but is rewritten by a super dedicated team of programmers who like repeating the same work to write computer instructions every time someone turns on their computer at which time they upload what they've completed in order to make your computer work. We all know this is not how things work in the real world, but to take this absurd idea that undesirable toil is an unchanging universal constant then this is the only ludicrous conclusion that this "philosophy" of work results in. Now open up your computer and please thank the little computer programmers hiding inside who make your computer runs so well. :lol:

The Feral Underclass

29th November 2006, 13:46

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+November 28, 2006 04:16 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ November 28, 2006 04:16 pm)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 28, 2006 03:00 pm

[email protected] 28, 2006 03:36 pm
The point of the question is that the "means of production" may now well within the price range of even the lower class.
How is that true?
Get a job, work a few years and learn the business (whichever field), and then go into business for yourself or with others as a consultant.

You're now part owner of the means of production and in the bourgeoise.

Or, as many immigrants do, take out a small business loan, buy a franchise or start a business, and you're now bourgeoise.

Done and done.

*wipes hands* [/b]
Capitalism can't survive in that way. Capitalism has evolved whereby multi-national corporations dominate global markets leaving smaller businesses with very little hope of sharing in it.

There are of course examples where that is not the case, but to suggest that every working class person can develop a business whereby they share in the profits of the varying different markets is absolutely absurd.

Furthermore, capitalism as it stands right now needs workers to make the means of production function in order for them to generate profit - Who will make the goods to be sold if there are no workers?

Not to mention the fact that most working class people aren't educated to be business mnded. In fact, the standard of education for working class people is usually so bad they end up without the confidence and ability to do anything except work within the system of exploitation. All in order to pay for the goods they need to survive - Goods they produced in the first and which are sold back to them

In any case, if all the workers who worked in the transport industry for example decided to quit their jobs and take out loans, capitalism would cease to function and in turn the state would be forced to regulate workers taking out loans, essentially forcing them to be workers.

red team

29th November 2006, 20:49

Not to mention the fact that most working class people aren't educated to be business mnded. In fact, the standard of education for working class people is usually so bad...

Not to mention the fact that a "good" education nowadays means rote memorization and attention to detail both of which are of lesser importance when you don't heavily rely on either when you have a computer or reference books. However, testing on rote memorization of facts and attention to negligible details is a good way to weed out students who aren't good short-term fact crammers which is really what you need when you work on the job. :lol:

Sir_No_Sir

29th November 2006, 21:27

Uh, it doesn't mean everyone will become rich, but it does mean the ticket to middle class really is not that difficult to punch.

:lol:
Are you on crack? I know people, who have 2 parents who each work 2 jobs each just to stay in the lower middleclass.

Someone needed to inform you on reality,buddy.

Moving from Cabrini-Green to a rich white suburb in the SW burbs of chicago is the hardest thing possible. I have never heard of ayone doing it. I have heard of people moving from the city into the ultra-low middle class..like the bottom 10% of the middle class, and i have talked to people who's families do it, because they end up in my school. Trust me, it is not easy. Any kid who is old enough to fake a legal working age works. And almost 90% have to move back to a less violent part of the city then Cabrini-Green, but certainly lower class, where they either get killed by the pigs or by gang leaders, or else they just....stay there. And live the rest of there life like that, usually slipping back into the ghettos.

t_wolves_fan

29th November 2006, 21:40

Capitalism can't survive in that way. Capitalism has evolved whereby multi-national corporations dominate global markets leaving smaller businesses with very little hope of sharing in it.

Unsubstantiated opinion, and nothing more.

The fact is small businesses exist and do quite well. Look into computer consulting some time - there are plenty of sole propritorships and small companies making a killing in niche markets. In fact I work with a guy who made a boatload of quan from his own business consulting for even very large companies. The reason he made money was because the large consulting firms did crap work and he cleaned up by cleaning up their mess.

Remember, reality is often different from what's printed on your protest signs.

There are of course examples where that is not the case, but to suggest that every working class person can develop a business whereby they share in the profits of the varying different markets is absolutely absurd.

Every working class person neither can nor will, but it doesn't matter. Their children might, their spouse might, their family might and they could take advantage of that success.

The problem with your argument is that you demand perfection in the form of everyone being able to get rich right now, which is of course impossible. It's like complaining that the sun doesn't come up in the west.

Furthermore, capitalism as it stands right now needs workers to make the means of production function in order for them to generate profit - Who will make the goods to be sold if there are no workers?

Again it needs workers, it does not need any particular workers. It only needs those workers who are willing to work; and they are willing to work. This is why your class analysis is faulty.

Not to mention the fact that most working class people aren't educated to be business mnded.

A business-minded education comes more from life than it does from receiving an MBA. People do not suddenly decide to be entrepreneurial in an introductory MBA class - they learn it from experience. There are multitudes of examples of uneducated working class slobs who saw demand for a product and who had the ingenuity and the work ethic to put it to use without ever even setting foot in an intro MBA class. Again, your unsubstantiated opinion is incorrect and has no basis in fact. Like, at all.

In fact, the standard of education for working class people is usually so bad they end up without the confidence and ability to do anything except work within the system of exploitation. All in order to pay for the goods they need to survive - Goods they produced in the first and which are sold back to them

It really is all the system's fault to you isn't it.

In any case, if all the workers who worked in the transport industry for example decided to quit their jobs and take out loans, capitalism would cease to function and in turn the state would be forced to regulate workers taking out loans, essentially forcing them to be workers.

Fortunately like your little communist candyland, that's never going to happen.

Why do you base arguments on things that are never going to happen? May as well go back to the sandbox and play with your action figures, ace.

t_wolves_fan

29th November 2006, 21:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2006 09:27 pm

Uh, it doesn't mean everyone will become rich, but it does mean the ticket to middle class really is not that difficult to punch.

:lol:
Are you on crack? I know people, who have 2 parents who each work 2 jobs each just to stay in the lower middleclass.

Someone needed to inform you on reality,buddy.

Unfortunately for you my family lived essentially this very reality, going from bankruptcy and living in their car for a short time to the upper middle class.

Therefore, since you are of the opinion that it cannot be done, it would seem to be you who needs an education in reality.

Best of all? It really wasn't that difficult.

Probably the biggest hurdle to overcome is an attitude like yours. Of course something is hard when you're convinced you can't do it.

The Feral Underclass

29th November 2006, 21:44

You listen to me fucker! You will either respect this forum and the people who post on it, or you won't post on it at all.

Now I will respond to your belligerence at some point, but until then you better recognise that I'm more than happy to suspend your account at any given moment so don't fuck with me if you want to carry on posting here.

You are a guest on this forum and an unwanted one at that. You are given the right to post here out of courtesy and nothing more. You are not in a position to act like a prick!

Be warned!

t_wolves_fan

29th November 2006, 21:46

Originally posted by red [email protected] 29, 2006 08:49 pm
However, testing on rote memorization of facts and attention to negligible details is a good way to weed out students who aren't good short-term fact crammers which is really what you need when you work on the job. :lol:
What's your job?

t_wolves_fan

29th November 2006, 21:49

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 29, 2006 09:44 pm
You listen to me fucker! You will either respect this forum and the people who post on it, or you won't post on it at all.

Now I will respond to your belligerence at some point, but until then you better recognise that I'm more than happy to suspend your account at any given moment so don't fuck with me if you want to carry on posting here.

You are a guest on this forum and an unwanted one at that. You are given the right to post here out of courtesy and nothing more. You are not in a position to act like a prick!

Be warned!
:huh:

Well OK. I'm not sure what I've said to give offense. I've simply disagreed with you and suggested, albeit bluntly, that you look beyond your preconceived notions about how our economic system works.

manic expression

29th November 2006, 22:06

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+November 29, 2006 09:43 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ November 29, 2006 09:43 pm)
[email protected] 29, 2006 09:27 pm

Uh, it doesn't mean everyone will become rich, but it does mean the ticket to middle class really is not that difficult to punch.

:lol:
Are you on crack? I know people, who have 2 parents who each work 2 jobs each just to stay in the lower middleclass.

Someone needed to inform you on reality,buddy.

Unfortunately for you my family lived essentially this very reality, going from bankruptcy and living in their car for a short time to the upper middle class.

Therefore, since you are of the opinion that it cannot be done, it would seem to be you who needs an education in reality.

Best of all? It really wasn't that difficult.

Probably the biggest hurdle to overcome is an attitude like yours. Of course something is hard when you're convinced you can't do it.[/b]
Before you go any further, please fill me in on this story, with more details. Saying "my family did it" is as cheap as it is meaningless and irrelevant. There are a wide number of factors which contributed to such an experience.

More importantly, your family's past situation has little to nothing to do with others who find themselves faced with poverty. Go tell people who are being forced to endure poverty that it "isn't that difficult", because they'll know what anyone with a brain and/or heart knows: your Horatio Alger-esque story is a petty and pathetic excuse for an argument, and has nothing to do with what people actually face. Such an "argument" ignores reality and the facts surrounding the given circumstances. Simply put, it is clearly pompous and ridiculous to make such an assertion.

And this is all before we know the true specifics of what happened.

Sir_No_Sir

29th November 2006, 22:15

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+November 29, 2006 09:43 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ November 29, 2006 09:43 pm)
[email protected] 29, 2006 09:27 pm

Uh, it doesn't mean everyone will become rich, but it does mean the ticket to middle class really is not that difficult to punch.

:lol:
Are you on crack? I know people, who have 2 parents who each work 2 jobs each just to stay in the lower middleclass.

Someone needed to inform you on reality,buddy.

Unfortunately for you my family lived essentially this very reality, going from bankruptcy and living in their car for a short time to the upper middle class.

Therefore, since you are of the opinion that it cannot be done, it would seem to be you who needs an education in reality.

Best of all? It really wasn't that difficult.

Probably the biggest hurdle to overcome is an attitude like yours. Of course something is hard when you're convinced you can't do it. [/b]
I never said it was impossible. You said it was not that tough. I said it was pretty tough to jump classes. Read. Its a great thing:].

But, sriously, what were the exact circumstances? Was there a large jump in the economy? Did your dad get a raise? Any outside sources of income. You cant just say "we did it", then expect other people in totally different situations to be able to do it easily.

manic expression

29th November 2006, 22:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2006 09:40 pm
Unsubstantiated opinion, and nothing more.

The fact is small businesses exist and do quite well. Look into computer consulting some time - there are plenty of sole propritorships and small companies making a killing in niche markets. In fact I work with a guy who made a boatload of quan from his own business consulting for even very large companies. The reason he made money was because the large consulting firms did crap work and he cleaned up by cleaning up their mess.

Remember, reality is often different from what's printed on your protest signs.

Delusional and insipid fallacy, and nothing more.

Can you even take a peek at the present situation in the US? Starbucks. Wal-Mart. These corporations and others like them are running small businesses out of town at an alarming rate. Computer consulting? That may be a relatively safe job right now (which basically means it won't be in the future, see other jobs which were once "safe" but are now the complete opposite), but what you failed to mention (I expected as much) is the situation with computer programmers. Those jobs are being outsourced to other countries because companies can make more money that way. The worker doesn't matter, profit does. That is capitalism, not your fantastical dreams of some American pie in the sky. Try reality.

Every working class person neither can nor will, but it doesn't matter. Their children might, their spouse might, their family might and they could take advantage of that success.

The problem with your argument is that you demand perfection in the form of everyone being able to get rich right now, which is of course impossible. It's like complaining that the sun doesn't come up in the west.

You said it yourself, it is impossible for every working class person to do so. That's all it boils down to. Your laughable comments of the "potential" only underlines this further: this is a facade of possibility and not a reality of possibility. The FACT is that people are not given any real opportunities; and further any "success" must be had through exploitation.

Sure, anyone CAN make it rich in capitalism, just like anyone COULD be knighted in medieval Europe. :rolleyes:

Again it needs workers, it does not need any particular workers. It only needs those workers who are willing to work; and they are willing to work. This is why your class analysis is faulty.

No, those workers MUST work because that is the only opportunity for money they have access to. In capitalism, workers work because they are forced to. The "willingness" you insipidly cite comes directly from coersion, and translates directly into exploitation. The fruits of THEIR WORK is reaped by those who do not work. Their sweat (and blood and tears) is shed for the profits of the few.

A business-minded education comes more from life than it does from receiving an MBA. People do not suddenly decide to be entrepreneurial in an introductory MBA class - they learn it from experience. There are multitudes of examples of uneducated working class slobs who saw demand for a product and who had the ingenuity and the work ethic to put it to use without ever even setting foot in an intro MBA class. Again, your unsubstantiated opinion is incorrect and has no basis in fact. Like, at all.

There is an inherent advantage, almost an insurmountable one, in education. The rich can afford a better education, and so they have access to more wealth. The poor do not have this. Ignoring it does not make it any different, and I'm afraid that ignorance is your only defense here.

Furthermore, to "succeed" in a capitalist society, one must exploit others in many ways. First, an entrepreneur must use the labour of others; an entrepreneur who doesn't want to go out of business must try to get the maximum profits from this labour, and will therefore find the lowest wages possible, the least amount of workers' benefits possible, the most amount of exploitation possible. Once again, "competition" translates into a race to the bottom, a race to injustice.

It really is all the system's fault to you isn't it.

Is that supposed to be an argument?

Fortunately like your little communist candyland, that's never going to happen.

Why do you base arguments on things that are never going to happen? May as well go back to the sandbox and play with your action figures, ace.

Why do you base your arguments on ignorance? How's that sandbox feel, with your head buried so firmly in it?

t_wolves_fan

30th November 2006, 14:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2006 03:06 am
Sure, technology has gotten generally cheaper so as to allow anyone who can afford them to go into business for themselves and either become a member of the bourgoeisie or self-employed. But what's the point in this if there's a chance you will get run out of the market?

With all due respect, this attitude is precisely why a lot of people are stuck in the position they are in.

I generally hate answering questions with questions but I will in this case:

I don't know, what's the point of seeking a cure for cancer if your experiment might fail? What's the point of inventing a new technology if it might not work or nobody might want it? What's the point of leaving the house if you might get hit by a car?

If an individual perceives the risk to be too great, he or she will probably choose to be or remain employed.

I bolded the key word in your statement.

And how come whenever a capitalist gets informed of reality, it is perceived as a complaint?

I already know this reality, my response to your defeatist portrayal of reality is, so what?

JazzRemington

30th November 2006, 16:15

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+November 30, 2006 09:57 am--> (t_wolves_fan @ November 30, 2006 09:57 am)
[email protected] 29, 2006 03:06 am
Sure, technology has gotten generally cheaper so as to allow anyone who can afford them to go into business for themselves and either become a member of the bourgoeisie or self-employed. But what's the point in this if there's a chance you will get run out of the market?

With all due respect, this attitude is precisely why a lot of people are stuck in the position they are in.

I generally hate answering questions with questions but I will in this case:

I don't know, what's the point of seeking a cure for cancer if your experiment might fail? What's the point of inventing a new technology if it might not work or nobody might want it? What's the point of leaving the house if you might get hit by a car?

If an individual perceives the risk to be too great, he or she will probably choose to be or remain employed.

I bolded the key word in your statement.

And how come whenever a capitalist gets informed of reality, it is perceived as a complaint?

I already know this reality, my response to your defeatist portrayal of reality is, so what? [/b]
There is a big difference here with the risks we are talking about. An individual who is considering conducting an experiment but chooses not to is risking nothing personal (no money, property, employment, etc.) unless, of course, he is required by some agreement to do so. Plus, this ignores outcome. If there is a great chance that, if the experiment will succeed, it will benefit many people, it is likely that it would go through. Also, this ignores personal attitudes. Many scientists will still conduct an experiment, even if they believe it will fail because even then you will learn something from the failure.

But how does this relate to self-employment? It is true that some people will strike off on their own even when faced with great risk of personal loss. But the point I was trying to make is that a lot of businesses don't usually last. They may succeed in the beginning, but they might go under at some future point. THis is not defeatist because I am not saying that every business will go under. Like I said, if the risk is perceived to be too great then he or she will probably choose to remain employed.

As for choice, I found that it isn't usually a good way of justifying behavior because the focus on individual choice ignores the nature of the choice. Hell, I could argue that slavery is justifable because the slave has the option of running away. I mean, it is true that some people may choose to remain employed for the sake of income security but what about the people who cannot risk the loss of such income due to various external factors such as ill relatives, poor health, etc.? You can't have a theory that only focuses on the individual as if he or she lived and operated in a void.

manic expression

30th November 2006, 16:21

JazzRemington, I just found this.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/smallbusiness/a/whybusfail.htm

From the article:

"The U.S. Small Business Administration has seen lots of small businesses come and, unfortunately, go. According to the SBA, over 50% of small businesses fail in the first year and 95% fail within the first five years."

t_wolves_fan

30th November 2006, 16:55

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 04:15 pm

There is a big difference here with the risks we are talking about. An individual who is considering conducting an experiment but chooses not to is risking nothing personal (no money, property, employment, etc.) unless, of course, he is required by some agreement to do so. Plus, this ignores outcome. If there is a great chance that, if the experiment will succeed, it will benefit many people, it is likely that it would go through. Also, this ignores personal attitudes. Many scientists will still conduct an experiment, even if they believe it will fail because even then you will learn something from the failure.

This is a fair criticism...

But how does this relate to self-employment? It is true that some people will strike off on their own even when faced with great risk of personal loss. But the point I was trying to make is that a lot of businesses don't usually last. They may succeed in the beginning, but they might go under at some future point. THis is not defeatist because I am not saying that every business will go under. Like I said, if the risk is perceived to be too great then he or she will probably choose to remain employed.

This is true, however it is still a choice and therefore it is not accurate to state that this person is confined to a state of slavery.

It seems you seek a society where risk is effectively eliminated. This is not practical for a variety of reasons. The biggest is that I don't see how it can be implemented. Without risk of failure in your system, what prevents someone from doing something that has no benefit whatsoever to society? Should I be allowed to produce a product nobody wants or needs or ever consumes and still receive equal societal rewards? That would be incredibly wasteful economically. Now you could answer that if I did that, the commune would refuse to give me the resources I need to produce my useless product which begs the question, then what is the difference? If my product fails and I have to go back to the bootmaking commune I just left, how is that much different?

Do you know what "moral hazzard" means?

As for choice, I found that it isn't usually a good way of justifying behavior because the focus on individual choice ignores the nature of the choice. Hell, I could argue that slavery is justifable because the slave has the option of running away. I mean, it is true that some people may choose to remain employed for the sake of income security but what about the people who cannot risk the loss of such income due to various external factors such as ill relatives, poor health, etc.? You can't have a theory that only focuses on the individual as if he or she lived and operated in a void.

One, a slave running away is not the same thing because he can be punished whereas a worker cannot. They're not equivalent in any reasonable way.

Two, your attitude expressed in the first sentence is incredibly patronizing. You're basically saying people's choices don't matter because they might choose "wrong" (in your eyes) and they need your help to not make wrong chioces.

It isn't up to you to prevent people from choosing poorly.

t_wolves_fan

30th November 2006, 18:10

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 29, 2006 10:06 pm

Before you go any further, please fill me in on this story, with more details. Saying "my family did it" is as cheap as it is meaningless and irrelevant. There are a wide number of factors which contributed to such an experience.

It's only irrelevant because it refutes your claims. You'd gladly trot out an example of a family that didn't make it and claim it's bonafide evidence.

My parents were farmers who went bankrupt shortly after I was born. My father worked odd jobs (as a wage slave!) and my mother became a nurse. When that didn't foot the bills and they were evicted from their home, my father joined the U.S. Air Force, an option that is open to any healthy adult who finds themselves in a bad economic situation.

In the air force he learned a skill he hoped he could transfer to the private sector when he was done, but there was a nice recession going on and he could not find a job. We again lived a life of poverty while my dad worked part time as a WAGE SLAVE and my mother was a WAGE SLAVE as a nurse at the hospital. But, my dad attended a technical college (which are cheap) and they didn't have any more children - a decision they intelligently made because they understood they could not afford another child nor were they entitled to have as many children as they wanted on the public dime. When my father finished his technical school education he got a modest job and it was onward and upward from there.

It's a path anyone is capable of following, but fortunately or unfortunately few follow due to their defeatist attitude.

More importantly, your family's past situation has little to nothing to do with others who find themselves faced with poverty. Go tell people who are being forced to endure poverty that it "isn't that difficult", because they'll know what anyone with a brain and/or heart knows: your Horatio Alger-esque story is a petty and pathetic excuse for an argument, and has nothing to do with what people actually face. Such an "argument" ignores reality and the facts surrounding the given circumstances. Simply put, it is clearly pompous and ridiculous to make such an assertion.

You're right, they'd be better off if, like you, I reinforced in their heads the idea that they have no chance regardless of anything they do or try.

:rolleyes:

And this is all before we know the true specifics of what happened.

Didn't make a damn bit of difference did it. They weren't smart, they were lucky. Nobody is ever capable of actually improving their own lives, it's all luck. We should just give up.

Tungsten

30th November 2006, 20:40

red team

The significant parts are bolded for emphasis:
But that's the problem, they're not significant. What's relevent is that you'll be living off someone else - at whatever level. The definition of luxury is an irrelevent red herring.

Wouldn't that be the perfect example of the investor class?
They can't make use of someone else's labour without their permission and what they do is still technically work.

But, of course you could always get's somebody else's "permission" to provide the effort and perform work if the alternative means homelessness and starvation for them.
Unless you want to skip the permission part and just revert to bashing people over the head and taking their stuff if someone "offends" them by not rushing to provide them with a means of survival and whatever other unearned goodies they demand.

So, what's in it for you? A bigger return on your investment in debt tokens? What's in it for them? To provide a life of effortless luxury for you with the alternative being their physical extinction?
Would they prefer physical extinction?

That "permission" you've gained is made under duress
Duress is coercion; the need to work to survive is not. Coercion requires positive action. People don't die of starvation because someone shoots them in the head for not eating - they die because not eating results in death. Two completely different phenomenon. Black and white.

which makes any "permission" gained coerced.
I'm clearly arguing with someone who can't tell the different between political action and nature.

Capitalism will do everything blah blah blah...etc.
No, it probably won't. Unlike you, I'm not promising utopia-on-a-stick. It doesn't exist and anyone who claims to sell it is a conman.

How much work? How is it measured? How intense is the work? And all of these properties of work in relation to what?

Don't have an answer? That's because you don't have scientific theories you have glib slogans.Or that the questions are irrelevent, as is usually the case in your posts. What's this got to do with whether one has to work or starve?

Oh and gravity can often do work for free if scientifically manipulated in the right way. How is that possible? It must be that your glib slogans are wrong.Or taking the arguments out of context, which is nothing new.

Whether or not that kind of work can be eliminated at this point through the proper use of technology is a matter of debate.

I'm merely demonstrating the absurdity of the idea that undesirable manual toil is some sort of universal constant like gravity when it is clearly not.
This is yet more evasive nonsense. Either the work needs to be done or it doesn't and technology makes little difference to that. Work done by machines is still work.
Demogorgon

If that is the basis of your argument, you don't have a leg to stand on this conversation. Under any economic or social system there is a need to work.
That's correct. And you won't be working any less.

The problem is the nature of the work done. Under capitalism the majority )not all) of people are forced to sell their labour
Forced by who? Are you dragged of the street and chained to a work bench? Or do they come to your house instead? Under any economic or social system there is a need to work.- your own words. Will people not therefore be "forced" to work under communism too?

which by defninition means a return on their investment in labour which is less than the amount they invested.
How do you work out investment and how big the return is/ought to be? And if being force to work results in an uneven return, then how is communism going to be any different, given that there will be a need to work?

No rational person would freely choose that (we naturally want to maximise the return we get), therefore it can hardly be seen as voluntary for people to sell their labour, just something capitalism makes them do.
I want to work for a £1 million an hour. No rational person would choose to work for less, yet I have to. Ergo, I'm being coerced by capitalism. Ridiculous.

manic expression

30th November 2006, 21:11

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+November 30, 2006 06:10 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ November 30, 2006 06:10 pm)
manic [email protected] 29, 2006 10:06 pm

Before you go any further, please fill me in on this story, with more details. Saying "my family did it" is as cheap as it is meaningless and irrelevant. There are a wide number of factors which contributed to such an experience.

It's only irrelevant because it refutes your claims. You'd gladly trot out an example of a family that didn't make it and claim it's bonafide evidence.

My parents were farmers who went bankrupt shortly after I was born. My father worked odd jobs (as a wage slave!) and my mother became a nurse. When that didn't foot the bills and they were evicted from their home, my father joined the U.S. Air Force, an option that is open to any healthy adult who finds themselves in a bad economic situation.

In the air force he learned a skill he hoped he could transfer to the private sector when he was done, but there was a nice recession going on and he could not find a job. We again lived a life of poverty while my dad worked part time as a WAGE SLAVE and my mother was a WAGE SLAVE as a nurse at the hospital. But, my dad attended a technical college (which are cheap) and they didn't have any more children - a decision they intelligently made because they understood they could not afford another child nor were they entitled to have as many children as they wanted on the public dime. When my father finished his technical school education he got a modest job and it was onward and upward from there.

It's a path anyone is capable of following, but fortunately or unfortunately few follow due to their defeatist attitude.

More importantly, your family's past situation has little to nothing to do with others who find themselves faced with poverty. Go tell people who are being forced to endure poverty that it "isn't that difficult", because they'll know what anyone with a brain and/or heart knows: your Horatio Alger-esque story is a petty and pathetic excuse for an argument, and has nothing to do with what people actually face. Such an "argument" ignores reality and the facts surrounding the given circumstances. Simply put, it is clearly pompous and ridiculous to make such an assertion.

You're right, they'd be better off if, like you, I reinforced in their heads the idea that they have no chance regardless of anything they do or try.

:rolleyes:

And this is all before we know the true specifics of what happened.

Didn't make a damn bit of difference did it. They weren't smart, they were lucky. Nobody is ever capable of actually improving their own lives, it's all luck. We should just give up.[/b]
You went half-way on your description. At what time was this? What area were you in? These variables are extremely important.

Your father got a "menial job", but this is quite general. What "menial job" did he get? What happened after this? Would you agree that some people who got that sort of "menial job" did not become as successful? Would you agree that many today who have such a "menial job" are not successful?

Next, you do know that many, even impoverished single mothers, DO get additional education, right? You do know that this often leads to other problems, since government aid starts to phase out when they get higher-paying jobs, and since they are now over-qualified for positions they once could easily get, right? You do know this, correct?

On the military, would you agree that the conditions surrounding the military today may make people hesitant to join? Would you agree that it is somewhat curious that one of the only ways people can even hope to improve their position is by effectively becoming a tool of the very government which refuses to significantly aid those who need assistance? Would you agree that there are many veterans who do not find many opportunities?

So, the context of your story negates most of it, as the economy that the poor face today is radically different than the one which existed decades ago. Further, the part about getting a "menial job", and then simply "going up from there", is suspect and irrelevant, at best; people work their asses off in "menial jobs" all the time, and guess where they find themselves? In the exact same spot, if they're lucky. The military part ignores what the military is actually doing right now, if not all the veterans who didn't find opportunities upon their return to civilian life (as your father did). The additional education is something that impoverished people do quite a bit (community college most of the time), except they encounter many obstacles and barriers through this route.

Your story is, in fact, irrelevant.

Instead of citing mere ancedotal evidence, I'll cite something else:

"America's rags-to-riches dream an illusion: study"

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12863.htm

(note that it's from Reuters)

What is also interesting that SirNoSir's ancedotal evidence is of the present, while yours is of the past. SirNoSir was addressing "middle-class" families trying extremely hard to simply stay "middle-class" and not become impoverished. Your (irrelevant) example is of a family ascending to the "middle-class" years ago, not of the situation of the "middle-class" today. I'd also like to observe that technical jobs are not nearly as safe as they once were. This is something you, of course, ignored.

The fact is that your story proves absolutely nothing. You, in your unending ignorance, believe the unbelievable. You think that "hard work" makes you successful, when the reality is that endless people work harder than we can imagine, and yet they go nowhere (what is most disgusting is that you inexplicably claim they are somehow at fault for this). The reality is that their work is for the profit of the rich and the deprivation of themselves. The middle class is feeling a squeeze, people are struggling to make ends meet, and the rich get richer. The poor have very few opportunities and are stuck in extreme poverty, and the rich get richer. This, not your Horatio Alger novels, is capitalism. Try recognizing reality.

t_wolves_fan

30th November 2006, 21:25

You went half-way on your description. At what time was this? What area were you in? These variables are extremely important.

The mid-late 1970s into the mid 1980s will suffice.

Your father got a "menial job", but this is quite general. What "menial job" did he get? What happened after this? Would you agree that some people who got that sort of "menial job" did not become as successful? Would you agree that many today who have such a "menial job" are not successful?

Gas station attendant, apartment complex maintenance man, part-time mechanic, and exterminator.

Yes, I would agree that many who did those jobs did not and will not become as successful. But I would not agree that they have no shot at becoming as successful.

Next, you do know that many, even impoverished single mothers, DO get additional education, right? You do know that this often leads to other problems, since government aid starts to phase out when they get higher-paying jobs, and since they are now over-qualified for positions they once could easily get, right? You do know this, correct?

Yes and guess what? You're describing a political problem which I'd be happy to fix to eliminate the very problems you discuss.

On the military, would you agree that the conditions surrounding the military today may make people hesitant to join?

Sure but it doesn't matter. My father could have been sent to nuke Russia at the drop of a hat.

Would you agree that it is somewhat curious that one of the only ways people can even hope to improve their position is by effectively becoming a tool of the very government which refuses to significantly aid those who need assistance?

No.

Would you agree that there are many veterans who do not find many opportunities?

Yes.

So, the context of your story negates most of it,

Nope, not a bit in fact.

as the economy that the poor face today is radically different than the one which existed decades ago.

Not different enough to matter all that much.

Further, the part about getting a "menial job", and then simply "going up from there", is suspect and irrelevant,

Again only because it puts a dent in your theory that nobody has a chance.

at best; people work their asses off in "menial jobs" all the time, and guess where they find themselves? In the exact same spot, if they're lucky.

Doesn't matter.

The military part ignores what the military is actually doing right now, if not all the veterans who didn't find opportunities upon their return to civilian life (as your father did).

I'm quite certain that any returning vet could find the same gas station attendant job my father did.

The additional education is something that impoverished people do quite a bit (community college most of the time), except they encounter many obstacles and barriers through this route.

Yeah, the same barriers we faced.

Your story is, in fact, irrelevant.

Because you need it to be. If people had a chance, your political beliefs wouldn't make much sense.

The fact is that your story proves absolutely nothing. You, in your unending ignorance, believe the unbelievable. You think that "hard work" makes you successful, when the reality is that endless people work harder than we can imagine, and yet they go nowhere (what is most disgusting is that you inexplicably claim they are somehow at fault for this).

Right.

Your point: the poor have no chance at all. Whatsoever.

I point out that my family was poor and did quite well.

But that's meaningless.

It's not that you have to work "hard", it's that you have to work "smart".

*YAWN*

Go on believing you have no chance. When you're in the same spot in 10 years, I won't apologize for not being surprised, ok?

red team

30th November 2006, 22:05

But that's the problem, they're not significant. What's relevent is that you'll be living off someone else - at whatever level. The definition of luxury is an irrelevent red herring.

But, it is actually very relevant depending on what is defined as luxury. Me making use of a mechanical washing machine powered from the electricity generated from a hydro-electric dam is non-exploitative at the immediate point of action. A rich person making use of poorly paid servants who have to work for them because of the financial leash called money that the rich control is exploitative. Much as it is difficult for an anti-social prick like you to understand, there is a difference between undesirable work performed by human beings forced by deprivation to depend on somebody else with more ownership of resources than them and work done by machines that are non-sentient and cannot be coerced and exploited. Further, a "luxury" made valuable simply because of it's scarcity, but is in no way valuable utility wise is really a part of the money game where scarcity in itself is valuable because of its usefulness in maintaing a system of control with the rulers of the system having majority control over the scarce commodity. Judged from a mechanical, materialistic perspective, what is "luxurious" about "gems" like diamonds? From the given perspective, nothing, but from a scarcity based economy like Capitalism it means accumulation of scarcity based value. So now you can be the "elite" and have people do your bidding in exchange for being able to participate in the economy that was rigged for scarcity based value in the first place. Clever, clever setup. For a con-artist.

Unless you want to skip the permission part and just revert to bashing people over the head and taking their stuff if someone "offends" them by not rushing to provide them with a means of survival and whatever other unearned goodies they demand.

Since Technocracy is planned as a absolutely quantifiable material wealth based economy and not value relative one the above response is irrelevant. Anybody or anygroup producing wealth is quantified. It can be their to take and use proportional to what labour they used to make it or simply shared out if the output is far larger than what can be proportionately matched to input as is often the case of mechanized production. Are you really going to tell me that a handful of people "owns" a few thousand tons of food because they made it from mechanically driven farm equipment and electrically powered irrigation systems? On what grounds?

Coercion requires positive action. People don't die of starvation because someone shoots them in the head for not eating - they die because not eating results in death. Two completely different phenomenon.

Irrelevant in an economy where labour is traded for advantage in ownership and where scarcity is proportional to value.

How much work? How is it measured? How intense is the work? And all of these properties of work in relation to what?

Don't have an answer? That's because you don't have scientific theories you have glib slogans.

Or that the questions are irrelevent, as is usually the case in your posts. What's this got to do with whether one has to work or starve?

Try farming without a tractor. Use your bare hands instead.

No, it probably won't. Unlike you, I'm not promising utopia-on-a-stick.

Utopia-on-a-stick? Was I promising that? All progress of a materially productive nature in the past hundred years must be utopia-on-a-stick then. You must be brain-damaged.

Either the work needs to be done or it doesn't and technology makes little difference to that. Work done by machines is still work.

Judged by scarcity based value or judged on absolute quantity of output because it makes a lot of difference. I can also say that given how Capitalism operate that work needs to be done, but it's not affordable to hire enough idle people to accomplish it with minimal effort because affordability means the potential to secure a hoarded scarcity which is what profit really is. And work done by machines is sometimes still very much reduced "work" or zero "work", but still produces a useful material output. :o Amazing isn't it? Don't let that paradox of automated work still producing a useful output mess up your brain-damaged, cherished Libertarian theories now.

JazzRemington

30th November 2006, 22:48

It seems you seek a society where risk is effectively eliminated.

Not necessarily.

Two, your attitude expressed in the first sentence is incredibly patronizing. You're basically saying people's choices don't matter because they might choose "wrong" (in your eyes) and they need your help to not make wrong chioces.

I didn't say that. I just said saying something is someone's choice does not explain why but only what. This would be like you asking me how a clock works and me telling you by telling time. But you're right, it is not up to me to make someone choose; however, that does not mean I could not figure out why and in what circumstances the choice was made.

Axel1917

1st December 2006, 16:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 04:20 pm
Question:

Is Marx's definition of the "Means of Production" getting a little outdated? When he wrote his tripe, the means of production were pretty much limited to factories and maybe land.

Is it time to update this definition or even drop this term considering people can now start their own business with nothing but their own brain and a laptop computer?
And how does this online business person get the materials, commodities, how to produce them, etc.? Program them? A computer would only largely serve as a communication device for an owner of means of production, essentially a client acessing a server that serves as an "e-catelogue." Before computers and such, a consumer had to mail order stuff through catalogues and the like. The computer merely makes the process easier. What you state is kind of like saying that paper and pens for writing were means of production in Marx's day.

The chances of keeping a business working are slim to none. One would get crushed by larger ones. If it were as easy as the businessmen and commercials say, everyone would pretty much be self-sufficient or something like that.

The fact is, people would have to work in some capacity to stay alive in any system, wouldn't they?

Yes (raw materials don't just make themselves into products), but the elimination of capitalism, the contradiction between social production and individual appropriaiton, would make that working not just barely getting by as tends to happen to most people.

t_wolves_fan

1st December 2006, 16:33

Not necessarily.

What are your thoughts on risk then?

It seems in your society, foolish risk-taking would explode because there would be no consequences. You'd get paid either way.

I didn't say that. I just said saying something is someone's choice does not explain why but only what.

The "why" is the same "why" as in capitalism: work or go without.

The skilless, less-than-intelligent prole isn't going to start his own business (or be successful if he tries) in communism, so he'll go work at the commune because he has to anyway, no different from capitalism. And in communism, he'll either conform to what other workers want, he'll have a different opinion but have to abide by it anway, or maybe even worse he'll actually have a voice in which case low-skill, low-intelligence people are running the show.

What happens when low-skill, low-intelligence people run the show, out of curiosity?

Tungsten

1st December 2006, 16:57

red team

Since Technocracy is planned as a absolutely quantifiable material wealth based economy and not value relative one the above response is irrelevant.
It's relevent because that's how values are defined. Subjectively. How are you going to tally up what "quantifiable material weath" someone has? Using what standard? Energy? We've been throught all that before. On who's authority?

Anybody or anygroup producing wealth is quantified.
How?

Are you really going to tell me that a handful of people "owns" a few thousand tons of food because they made it from mechanically driven farm equipment and electrically powered irrigation systems? On what grounds?
On the grounds that they own it or traded something for it. Voluntairly.

Irrelevant in an economy where labour is traded for advantage in ownership and where scarcity is proportional to value.
Why? Because you say so?

What's not being said is more important that what is.

Given your wilingness to resort to violence whenever something as trifling as a different opinion shows up, or the unwillingness of some people to live according to your grand designs, I can see why you think consent is irrelevent.

Try farming without a tractor. Use your bare hands instead.
Is someone digging with they bare hands with a gun against their head any more oppressed than someone driving a tractor with a gun against their head? Does it make any difference? Does it hell.

Utopia-on-a-stick? Was I promising that?
You, Mr Robots-will-do-everything.

All progress of a materially productive nature in the past hundred years must be utopia-on-a-stick then.
We've been living in technocracy and ruled by scientists for the past hundred years? I'd get your eyes tested if I were you. Material productive progress doesn't need technocracy or technocrats.

Judged by scarcity based value or judged on absolute quantity of output because it makes a lot of difference.
Explain why it makes a lot of difference if the economic glass is considered half empty or half full and why one is a valid standard but not the other. This is a false dichotomy anyway. Does anyone ever ask "How much money haven't you got?"

How does this standard of yours actually work?

I can also say that given how Capitalism operate that work needs to be done, but it's not affordable to hire enough idle people to accomplish it with minimal effort because affordability means the potential to secure a hoarded scarcity which is what profit really is. And work done by machines is sometimes still very much reduced "work" or zero "work", but still produces a useful material output. Amazing isn't it?
Stupid word games aren't amazing. Work is still work (work by machines isn't reduced work, or zero work, just more convenient/quicker work.) Material output is still material output whether it gets produced by paid labour or by a machine you don't have to pay, whether you call profit for what it is or "hoarded scarcity" (how do you "hoard scarcity", exactly?) If full automation is to happen, it'll happen (which it probably won't). We don't need technocracy or it's slogans to make it happen, nor is it good enough be a political position on it's own.

Don't let that paradox of automated work still producing a useful output
There's no paradox.

JazzRemington

1st December 2006, 17:17

What are your thoughts on risk then?

It seems in your society, foolish risk-taking would explode because there would be no consequences. You'd get paid either way.

So, someone who begins tamporing with eletronics in an unsafe manner magically won't get electrocuted or worse? Economic risks aren't the only form of risk taking there is. The point is to minimize economic-based risks to those that are necessary. When it's necessary at some point to risk experimenting with different technologies so as to allow an increase in production, it probably would happen.

The skilless, less-than-intelligent prole isn't going to start his own business (or be successful if he tries) in communism, so he'll go work at the commune because he has to anyway, no different from capitalism.

The point isn't that it wold be the same under both systems. People have to work, but does that mean automatically give others the legal right to live off the surplus produced while contributing little to nothing him or her self? Granted, this would happen to some extent in a communist society but it would probably be something that isn't rewarded too much like it is currently.

And in communism, he'll either conform to what other workers want, he'll have a different opinion but have to abide by it anway, or maybe even worse he'll actually have a voice in which case low-skill, low-intelligence people are running the show.

How is having a voice in a process that affects you worse than conforming? Seems like conforming would be; however, just because a "low-skill, low-intelligent" individual has a voice in something does not mean he or she will be running the show. Plus, it's kind of elitist to call him or her "low skill, low-intelligent." Working at any occupation allows one to develop skills. And I would also like to see an objective way of determining intelligence that covers all spheres of knowledge.

What happens when low-skill, low-intelligence people run the show, out of curiosity?

In capitalism, if they're the 50% that succeed in the first year or the 5% that do in the first five-years, then apparently they'll be rather successful since they're lucky.

But in general, that depends on how to you define skill and intelligence.

t_wolves_fan

1st December 2006, 17:38

So, someone who begins tamporing with eletronics in an unsafe manner magically won't get electrocuted or worse? Economic risks aren't the only form of risk taking there is. The point is to minimize economic-based risks to those that are necessary. When it's necessary at some point to risk experimenting with different technologies so as to allow an increase in production, it probably would happen.

I'm not talking about physical risks. Morons are going to die in accidents regardless of our efforts to stop them.

I'm talking economic risks. Eliminating the moral hazard inherent in capitalism makes foolish risks more likely because the risk-taker will bear little consequence. For instance I'm thinking of a "firm" deciding to start producing something there is no indication that people want or need for whatever reason. If their product fails, it seems they would bare no consequence?

The skilless, less-than-intelligent prole isn't going to start his own business (or be successful if he tries) in communism, so he'll go work at the commune because he has to anyway, no different from capitalism.

The point isn't that it wold be the same under both systems. People have to work, but does that mean automatically give others the legal right to live off the surplus produced while contributing little to nothing him or her self? Granted, this would happen to some extent in a communist society but it would probably be something that isn't rewarded too much like it is currently.

Frankly I see it being worse under communism. You may not advocate this but it's highly likely there might be some minimum income or standard of living, in which case people are living off the surplus of others with no contribution on their part. Does society (government) prevent them from doing so? Worse there could be a lot of fraud - people falsely claiming they can't work because their back hurts or they have to care for a relative. Why wouldn't they do so? If societal rewards are equalized, they have no incentive not to. I don't think you can seriously rely on people suddenly becoming less selfish than they are currently.

Which is more "moral": a person who refuses to work receiving a minimum income, or a person who takes a risk and hires workers receiving the surplus of their labor?

In my mind the answer is unquestionably the latter.

How is having a voice in a process that affects you worse than conforming? Seems like conforming would be; however, just because a "low-skill, low-intelligent" individual has a voice in something does not mean he or she will be running the show.

Where is the line drawn between having a voice and running the show? If workplace decisions are made by consensus or require unanimous support, then he's partially running the show.

Plus, it's kind of elitist to call him or her "low skill, low-intelligent."

Awe c'mon, even an egalitarian like you knows there are some people out there who might be fine people but just are not the sharpest knives in the drawer.

Working at any occupation allows one to develop skills. And I would also like to see an objective way of determining intelligence that covers all spheres of knowledge.

Ain't gonna happen because what would result is subjectively throwing in all sorts of criteria so that nobody is judged to be just plain stupid.

What happens when the less-inteligent and less-skilled run the show?In capitalism, if they're the 50% that succeed in the first year or the 5% that do in the first five-years, then apparently they'll be rather successful since they're lucky.

Some will be lucky but in reality it will the inteligent who succeed. You can't say everyone who succeeds was lucky because it's just not true.

But in general, that depends on how to you define skill and intelligence.

Right. I fear in your society we'd cook up some bogus test that judges everyone to be "smart" so we don't hurt anyone's feelings.

Aeturnal Narcosis

1st December 2006, 19:47

It's a huge issue for communism/technocracy that would put technocrats at odds with workers. If the technocrats say this is obsolete or damages the environment and needs to go, and the workers say we want to keep our jobs, who wins?

as well, it depends on the situation (to me).

generally speaking, though... the workers' situation is more important to me than the environment: if labour is lost, production is lost. if production is lost, the economy slows. if the economy slows, technology slows. if technology slows, the environmentally damaging manufacturing industries that are present today won't be replaced by more efficient, more environmentally friendly industries any time soon.

What if the workers don't want to move?

that's among the reasons i think that corporations who move their operations give some sort of substantial incentive to the workers who will be relocated, things like a huge relocation bonus, new car, housing, etc.

but if the worker still doesn't want to move... then i suppose it's his loss (he's dumb), and another worker's gain.

I agree, the state has an interest in providing help to displaced workers.

the state, i believe, should have a role in aiding the laid-off workers, but i think the corporation should as well, especially because, if that corporation were run properly, there's essentially no chance that large numbers of workers would lose their jobs.

If the profits from 1 year are divided up and given to the displaced workers, what do the remaining workers live on? If that profit previously went towards investment in the plant, how is that investment replaced? See, there is a tradeoff.

remember (from our discussion in the free trade thresd), profits are income left over AFTER liabilities, which include regular wages.

also, i don't remember if i mentioned it or not, but i think that corporate profits should be split down the middle: half being reinvested into the business, and the other half divided up among the workers in monthly dividends.

Second question, what if the workers don't want to lay anyone off and a subsidy system is created where the workers are still churning out an obsolete product? Is that an efficient allocation of resources?

the old trade off.

this is why i believe that, for the most part, free trade can continue in a communist society (if you have the time, read this (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59280)).

the worker-owned corporation, if it decided not to reduce its work force (most likely just because it would result in the remaining workers losing out on their monthly dividends), would become inefficient, and thus lose out on profit (which, since it is still being divided up among all the workers - profit dividends per worker would decrease dramatically), or would wind up going out of business, and every worker losing their job.

so it comes down to option: a) do we forfeit our dividends and downsize, or b) do we wind up either taking a huge dividend loss per worker OR losing our business altogether.

i think in the end, because each worker has his own best interest in mind (human nature), they will decide in a manner than ultimately benefits the mass of the workers.

manic expression

1st December 2006, 21:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 09:25 pm

You went half-way on your description. At what time was this? What area were you in? These variables are extremely important.

The mid-late 1970s into the mid 1980s will suffice.

Your father got a "menial job", but this is quite general. What "menial job" did he get? What happened after this? Would you agree that some people who got that sort of "menial job" did not become as successful? Would you agree that many today who have such a "menial job" are not successful?

Gas station attendant, apartment complex maintenance man, part-time mechanic, and exterminator.

Yes, I would agree that many who did those jobs did not and will not become as successful. But I would not agree that they have no shot at becoming as successful.

Next, you do know that many, even impoverished single mothers, DO get additional education, right? You do know that this often leads to other problems, since government aid starts to phase out when they get higher-paying jobs, and since they are now over-qualified for positions they once could easily get, right? You do know this, correct?

Yes and guess what? You're describing a political problem which I'd be happy to fix to eliminate the very problems you discuss.

On the military, would you agree that the conditions surrounding the military today may make people hesitant to join?

Sure but it doesn't matter. My father could have been sent to nuke Russia at the drop of a hat.

Would you agree that it is somewhat curious that one of the only ways people can even hope to improve their position is by effectively becoming a tool of the very government which refuses to significantly aid those who need assistance?

No.

Would you agree that there are many veterans who do not find many opportunities?

Yes.

So, the context of your story negates most of it,

Nope, not a bit in fact.

as the economy that the poor face today is radically different than the one which existed decades ago.

Not different enough to matter all that much.

Further, the part about getting a "menial job", and then simply "going up from there", is suspect and irrelevant,

Again only because it puts a dent in your theory that nobody has a chance.

at best; people work their asses off in "menial jobs" all the time, and guess where they find themselves? In the exact same spot, if they're lucky.

Doesn't matter.

The military part ignores what the military is actually doing right now, if not all the veterans who didn't find opportunities upon their return to civilian life (as your father did).

I'm quite certain that any returning vet could find the same gas station attendant job my father did.

The additional education is something that impoverished people do quite a bit (community college most of the time), except they encounter many obstacles and barriers through this route.

Yeah, the same barriers we faced.

Your story is, in fact, irrelevant.

Because you need it to be. If people had a chance, your political beliefs wouldn't make much sense.

The fact is that your story proves absolutely nothing. You, in your unending ignorance, believe the unbelievable. You think that "hard work" makes you successful, when the reality is that endless people work harder than we can imagine, and yet they go nowhere (what is most disgusting is that you inexplicably claim they are somehow at fault for this).

Right.

Your point: the poor have no chance at all. Whatsoever.

I point out that my family was poor and did quite well.

But that's meaningless.

It's not that you have to work "hard", it's that you have to work "smart".

*YAWN*

Go on believing you have no chance. When you're in the same spot in 10 years, I won't apologize for not being surprised, ok?
First, that time period saw a different economy for different people even then. There are many variables which are not covered by your description.

So gas station attendents can make it rich? That's ridiculous and a blind man can see that from a galloping horse. The people who work these jobs work very hard and are intelligent people, and yet what opportunities do they have? And yet what do they get for their work? Nothing. Like I said, it's like saying any commoner in medieval Europe can get knighted. Face it: the work he did for those jobs got him nowhere and then some. We still haven't found this "ticket to the middle class" that's so "easy to get punched", probably because it doesn't exist (I thought you were reading too much Horatio Alger, now I think you need to put the Willy Wonka book down).

No, I'm describing problems inherent in capitalism. Capitalism puts people in poverty and uses their labour as a matter of necessity. You insipidly think that you can just go about "fixing" them, when the system itself is the problem and needs to be done away with.

Which country were we occupying at that point?

No? Either you are thick or you are cruel. People should not have to be Uncle Sam's pawn to have a remote chance of not living in poverty. Well, that's capitalism for you.

Yes? And so would you say that it is their fault they can't find a way to get out of their situation?

Actually it does, I've provided many reasons why it does negate it. Address those reasons. Ignorance seems to be your best defense, but it really doesn't help you.

You don't take into account changing economic circumstances? An influx of jobs a decade ago doesn't mean they're still around. This isn't hard to understand.

No, because the story you gave is suspect, and largely irrelevant. The story simply doesn't take into account exactly what it should be taking into account.

Yes, it does matter, because those people have been exploited and have very few opportunities, if any, to improve their position. Check the statistics if you don't believe me.

You're actually expecting us to believe a gas station attendant job gets you out of poverty? If so, that's quite possibly the most pathetic argument I've heard in awhile.

So you're just better than they are, right? It is patently ignorant to think that you faced or overcame obstacles approaching what they face. The only thing you're proving is you complete obliviousness to the reality of poverty.

My point: the poor have very, very few opportunities. They are exploited and kept from any real chance of improvement.

It's not meaningless, because that's reality. You have disproven nothing of what I have said, you have only cited a suspect story and used that as "evidence", while I have cited credible research and a refutation of the validity of your story.

Don't worry. I have a chance, because I'm priveleged in a society which is inequitable and unjust. When you're just as wrong in 10 years as you are now, I won't be surprised one bit.