Capitalism is not freedom//compellment of a "free market"

[anarchoveganLAM]

We are always told *by capitalists* that we live in a free market and that is why we are truly free under a capitalist society. We are not free, because we have no choice. We are also told *also by them* that we choose to work or not. This is true we can choose but we are also compelled. We are compelled to work, because if we don't we will be "bums" or we will be homeless. Not everybody wants to live like that, especially if they are married or have children. They are compelled to work.

Capitalism is robbery. The workers are robbed when they get our paychecks, for they get a 1/10 of their work. If a worker makes 1000 dollars worth of shirts, he will get about 100 to 200 dollars for it. It is not the employer that is paying him that amount, but the worker who is paying the employer about 800 dollars. The government permits such robbery, because they profit off of it.

Yes, we consent the robbery of our money when we work-but we are compelled to work. It is in the same way that we consent to hand our money to a person who has a gun to our heads. We are compelled by work in the same way we are compelled by their gun.

[Imperial Power]

I think you would be told to work on under any system except maybe Swedin were you can be unemployed for a year and still receive enough money to go on month long vacations.

"Capitalism is robbery. The workers are robbed when they get our paychecks, for they get a 1/10 of their work "
Were did you come up with that figure. Your example is making the shirts. The workers have not payed for the cotton to make the shirts, nor the sewing machines, nor the building that houses the factory. They don't pay income taxes from the shirts, bottom line they do not own the means of production and therefore do not have to pay all the costs associated with owning the capital. The workers still make a fare wage and as they gain expereince will be paid more.

[peaccenicked]

"I think you would be told to work on under any system except maybe Swedin were you can be unemployed for a year and still receive enough money to go on month long vacations. "
That depends on how much money you have surely. You dont have to work if you are a theif.
"They don't pay income taxes from the shirts, bottom line they do not own the means of production and therefore do not have to pay all the costs associated with owning the capital"
THIS is nonsense the only thing the workers dont have is initial capital but anything the boss buys the worker pays for over time and even recoups initial capital. The boss makes a profit from the sale of goods
the worker has made all of that income, it comes from labour, it is legalised robbery.


(Edited by peaccenicked at 7:55 pm on Feb. 23, 2002)

[Moskitto]

If you have a lot of Money (200,000 or above) you don't need to work because if you invest wisely you earn enough interest anyway. One of my dad's friends did it.

[poncho]

I agree that if you put money into a business you should be able to make a profit and without you the business would not exist. But without workers you cannot build a widget so they also put capital into the business. In the United States and Canada unions have taken this to far and have the "attitude well the owner drives a Mercedes wheres mine".

[Guest]

"We are compelled to work, because if we don't we will be "bums" or we will be homeless."
You are compelled to work because (presumably) you are a human being who lives with other human beings in a society. We all live in society, we all work to advance the society. In a capitalist system, if you don't want to work, you don't get to reap the benefits afforded to those members of society that are being productive. You are homeless, and called a bum. This might seem unjust. However, communist or collectivist programs have no way at all of dealing with those who "don't want to work," so they're usually either shot in the head or mailed to Siberia third-class.

Your analysis of capitalism is pretty sophomoric. The labor-wage exchange has little to do with how much the wage payer profits from the labor. The wage earner is profiting by trading his labor for wage. If his time and energy were worth more to him than the wage, he wouldn't take the job. The wage is worth more to him than his time and energy, so he is profiting from the transaction. He has more after the exchange than he did before it. And clearly the wage payer values the labor more than the money, otherwise he would not offer the job to the wage earner. He has more after the exchange than he did before it. Is the owner of the means of production profiting more than the laborer? In a superficial and monetary sense, probably. But that doesn't mean that the laborer is not profiting as well.

Saying that capitalism is analogous to being robbed at gunpoint reflects a markedly poor understanding of the sociological and economic issues at hand.

[peaccenicked]

ho hum patronising verbosity.
The working class profits can be as much as
$2 a day go and take a holiday in reality. The average wage of a worker.

[Guest]

Perhaps you should try writing in English.

[TheDerminator]

A horrific analysis of the wage and labour relationship.
You know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
There is a huge difference between price and value, the worker sells her/his labour for a price, but the value of cleaning your dog shit off the streets, is not very high.
Quality of life should not be reduced to how much money you have in your fucking bank account and that is the case in this shit society. Poor and happy. Fuck off.
derminated.

[Guest]

"There is a huge difference between price and value"
No, there's really not. Take an economics class.

"Quality of life should not be reduced to how much money you have in your fucking bank account and that is the case in this shit society."
Why shouldn't it?

[TheDerminator]

You cannot measure the quality of life by dollar signs, oops, you can I cannot, value has more to it than economics and it is you who need a lesson in humanity, you were never taught it in what ever shit school you went attended.
The "price of everything, and the value of nothing"
Oscar Wilde, you philistine not Karl Marx.
derminated.

[poncho]

Lets pretend I own a independant grocery store my workers union decides they need a raise. I meet with my employee's all the other stores have given a wage increase with some more benifits. Since I just bought the business I cannot afford what they are asking, "they" will not listen to reason but everyone else got a raise, why I want my increase the store across the street they have that wage so thats what I'm worth. I tell them to buy the store I've morgaged my house and if I give you what the union wants I'll have to get a second one and struggle with the possiable outcome of going bankrupt, if you wait six months things will get better and I'll gladly give you what you want. Still they want it know!!!! Well than get a job across the street than because I cannot afford you besides all you do is push key's on a cash register, I could replace any of you ungratefull S.O.B's with a elementry school kid that will work for a dollar a day. The little pricks go on strike, I have to get a second morgage on my house, customers are being threatened by the picketers, so know I'm loosing money instead of breaking even, bank forecloses on my house sell store to guys across the street, they keep my store closed so all my nice greedy little bastards are out of work.

Greed is the problem with both systems....

[Vladimir Ulianov]

There´s no freedom with a capitalism system...it is like say that there´s freedom in a little jail where you have planty of happy-mouses...
Freedom means the able to think in other situations, and not believe in everyone what it said you....
....I really HATE fascists more and more:
I´m tired about some cool motherfuckers who only think in logos like ‘Rip Kurl’, ‘Nike’, ‘Reebook’, ‘Gap’, ‘Adidas’, ‘Kappa’ and other surfer fashions...they live on a happy-world where there´s no problems either want...what´s most important is not stay out from their fucked cool wave...). The people like those make more difficult The Revolution, ONLY THEY´RE ‘COOL’ CHITS!!!
I dedicate this piece of a Marilyn Manson´s song to them:

“The beautiful people, the beautiful people!!!
Hey, you, what do you see?
Something beautiful, something free?
Hey, you, are you trying to be mean?
If you live with apes-man, it´s hard to be clean!!!
The beautiful people, the beautiful people!!!
It´s all relative to the size of your steeple,
You can´t see the forest for the trees,
You can´t smell your chit on your knees!!!”

Cheers!

[vox]

"The wage earner is profiting by trading his labor for wage. If his time and energy were worth more to him than the wage, he wouldn't take the job. The wage is worth more to him than his time and energy, so he is profiting from the transaction. He has more after the exchange than he did before it. And clearly the wage payer values the labor more than the money, otherwise he would not offer the job to the wage earner. He has more after the exchange than he did before it. Is the owner of the means of production profiting more than the laborer? In a superficial and monetary sense, probably."

But that the rub, isn't it?

You equate money with the "superficial," but money is not superficial to those who do not have it. Indeed, your entire theory is based on a flawed idea: "If his time and energy were worth more to him...." However, one cannot buy groceries with time and energy.

The worker producers more for the capitalist than the worker receives. We know this to be true, for if he received more, then the capitalist would go out of business. Somehow, you equate that with both the worker and the capitalist getting more, but that doesn't equate, for we already know that the capitalist gets more. This is where your "time and energy" statement becomes truly disingenuous.

The worker may very well spend more time and energy working than the capitalist, but does profit in kind. Rather, the capitalist, who has capital to begin with, benefits and also sets the terms for the worker. There is a difference in power that you neatly ignore.

So, when you say that the capitalist benefits "more," it's in the only currency that capitalism understands: capital. And, since this is the medium that is universally understood, it is in no way "superficial," but the very foundation of the transaction taking place between the worker and the capitalist, in which transaction you have already said the capitalist benefits more.

It seems that you wish to equate some form of ethical judgment regarding time and energy with a judgement of price for a commodity, but you haven't done that. Rather, you've tried to subsitute one value for another, and in so doing exposed capitalism as well as any Leftist.

vox

[urib]

Quote: from anarchoveganLAM on 4:43 pm on Feb. 23, 2002
We are always told *by capitalists* that we live in a free market and that is why we are truly free under a capitalist society. We are not free, because we have no choice. We are also told *also by them* that we choose to work or not. This is true we can choose but we are also compelled. We are compelled to work, because if we don't we will be "bums" or we will be homeless. Not everybody wants to live like that, especially if they are married or have children. They are compelled to work.

Capitalism is robbery. The workers are robbed when they get our paychecks, for they get a 1/10 of their work. If a worker makes 1000 dollars worth of shirts, he will get about 100 to 200 dollars for it. It is not the employer that is paying him that amount, but the worker who is paying the employer about 800 dollars. The government permits such robbery, because they profit off of it.

Yes, we consent the robbery of our money when we work-but we are compelled to work. It is in the same way that we consent to hand our money to a person who has a gun to our heads. We are compelled by work in the same way we are compelled by their gun.


Well, if anyone is telling you we live in a free market, they're either lying or sadly mistaken. We live in a hybrid market where gov't distorts many of the components. You are right in that we are not absolutely free. In fact, I would say our freedom is highly curtailed. I'm not sure what you mean by being compelled to work. Who's doing the compelling? If not for property taxes, you would be able to live on your land and provide for yourself without needing anyone else. Or hell, get your family to take care of you. I believe you should be able to do whatever you want, including nothing, as long as you don't infringe on other's rights.

I don't see how capitalism is robbery, either. If the workers think they should get more pay, then they should negotiate more pay. That, of course, is subject to supply and demand. It works both ways, the capitalist who owns the machinery can't produce shirts w/o labor, but the labor can't produce shirts (as efficiently) w/o the factory. The cost of the shirt is not just labor. It's materials, capital, distribution, etc. The capitalist doesn't make all the money that doesn't go to labor. Plus, the factory owner assumes the risk. The laborers are entitled to their pay regardless of what happens. If the shirts don't sell, the owner is stuck with the loss.

Laborers aren't robbed. In a free market, that market would apply to labor, as well. Workers negotiate the best wages they can get for their labor.

[reagan lives]

If you're a poor laborer, a day's wage is probably more valuable to you than the profits precipitated by said labor are to the owner of the means of production, no matter what the monetary discrepancy.

The flaw in this criticism of capitalism is that you equate one person profiting more than another with robbery. This is absurd from both a logical and a moral perspective. For the sake of argument, let's imagine that for a day's work, a laborer is paid $50. Let's further imagine that as a result of that labor, his employer makes $250 (as both parties have costs associated with the deal, let's disregard them in order to keep things simple). By your twisted logic, the laborer has been robbed of $75, since he should have an equal share in the profits. From any reasonable perspective, the laborer has made a profit of $50, and the society has made a profit of $300.

"Indeed, your entire theory is based on a flawed idea: 'If his time and energy were worth more to him....' However, one cannot buy groceries with time and energy."
You're right, this is the basis of the entire theory. And it's not flawed. One cannot buy groceries with time and energy. So if one wants groceries, one must trade one's time and energy. And in so doing, production happens. One trades one's time and energy, which have no "practical" value (if we understand "practical" value to mean that it cannot directly feed the laborer) for something that is the definition of practical value. The laborer profits. His employer profits. Society profits.

"It seems that you wish to equate some form of ethical judgment regarding time and energy with a judgement of price for a commodity, but you haven't done that. Rather, you've tried to subsitute one value for another, and in so doing exposed capitalism as well as any Leftist."
Once again, vox, you're absolutely right, if I understand you correctly, except that your final conclusion is a rather spurious leap to say the least. Labor is a commodity, with value, just like a gallon of milk or a house or a DVD player. And as such, it can be traded for other things of value, like money. To deny this is to deny the fundamental premises that make capitalist societies productive.

The guest did bring up an interesting point that I've been thinking about lately. The inhabitants of this board insist that the persecution and atrocities that have accompanied attempts at instituting communist ideals are not in fact inherent in those ideals. The guest pointed out that when one doesn't "toe the line" in a capitalist society, he becomes poor and homeless. However, there is no such option in a collectivist society. There is no room for non-participation. Anyone who doesn't "want to work" has to be expunged from the society. Is that right?

[vox]

Reagan Lies says:

"If you're a poor laborer, a day's wage is probably more valuable to you than the profits precipitated by said labor are to the owner of the means of production, no matter what the monetary discrepancy."

Here he demands that we focus on the poorest among us in order justify the richest among us! What incredible foolishness!

Reagan Lies tries very hard to marginalize the "poorest" among us, against the "poor" capitalist who does not get as much "value" ("a day's wage is probably more valuable to you than the profits precipitated by said labor are to the owner of the means of production") from the laborer's work, as if the capitalist deserves ANYTHING from the wage-laborer!

Reagan Lies submits that: "The laborer profits. His employer profits. Society profits."

Under capitalism, he sees EVERYONE as profiting, though I clearly showed that it's impossible for all to profit under the capitalist system. This is just another example of the capitalist sympathizers showing their true colors.

Reagan Lies spake:

"Once again, vox, you're absolutely right, if I understand you correctly, except that your final conclusion is a rather spurious leap to say the least. Labor is a commodity, with value, just like a gallon of milk or a house or a DVD player. And as such, it can be traded for other things of value, like money. To deny this is to deny the fundamental premises that make capitalist societies productive."

He, however, is incapable of understanding what I wrote.

We can speak of labor-power as a commodity, but labor-power transcends the individual. It is only the socially necessary labor-power with which we are concerned.

Reagan Lies wishes to reduce the interaction of humanity to one laborer. That is, of course, ridiculous, but what did you expect from a fool like him?

vox

[Guest]

"Here he demands that we focus on the poorest among us...Reagan Lies tries very hard to marginalize the "poorest" among us..."
Make up your mind.
"Under capitalism, he sees EVERYONE as profiting, though I clearly showed that it's impossible for all to profit under the capitalist system."
Refresh my memory. I haven't been here long, so perhaps you're talking about something you've said in another thread, but I don't see it here.
"Reagan Lies wishes to reduce the interaction of humanity to one laborer. That is, of course, ridiculous..."
The way I see it, communist theories are the ones that try to reduce humanity to a single laboring unit. Get your ideologies straight.

[peaccenicked]

Wage slavery has always been our enemy,
unlike capitalist supporters we recognise it as such and wage slavery is also a way of limiting individuals potential creativity as individuals.

[anarchoveganLAM]

In a capitalist society, being a part of the lumpen proletariat, or even lower, means not only are you a part of a low-paid socioeconomic class, but it also a charecter defect.

[anarchoveganLAM]

I Strongly recommend reading the book WHAT IS COMMUNIST ANARCHISM? by Alexander Berkman.

[Jurhael]

Greed may be a problem anywhere, but at least people can try to contain it in a socialism. Capitalism just praises it as a "good thing".

[reagan lives]

No, people can't try to contain greed in socialism. Socialist theory has no answer for how to deal with people who either want more or want to do less. Socialism is based on the presumption that all will be satisfied with their labor and rewards, but it doesn't provide an answer for those who are not. Those people need to be expunged from the socialist society (see the grandfather of socialism, the crackpot Rousseau). Usually this takes the form of a bullet to the skull.

[anarchoveganLAM]

ok i have one thing to say:
FUCK AYN RAND, RONALD REAGAN, AND BOTH BUSHES

thats about it-thought i should get that message out.

[man in the red suit]

i agree with anarchoveganlam. In the capitalist society we are compelled to work in order to support ourselves.
we are also forced to pick certain occupations in which we do not want to succeed in simply because they earn more money than others.For example, not everyone can be farmers because farmers don't earn as much as doctors do.
And don't give me that equal opportunity crap either. Not everyone has an equal opportunity to get certain jobs. Let's face it, not all of us are as intelligent or talented as others. This doesn't mean that thes people should have any less of a chance to succeed in life. And not all education is free. Scholarships don't pay for evrything, and how likely is it to earn a full scholarship? It is through this fact that I have concluded that in today's society, you need money to make money. Bums like myself cannot simply get up and apply for a job at a company, you need money to go to college, clothes, a house, a car, and all of the other things required to get a job. All you capitalists reply to this with "welfare." Welfare is not socialist enough to provide for the needy.
So come on help your fellow man and be socialist.
SOCIALISM IS BETTER THAN CAPITALISM.

P.S GO TO www.geocities.com/socialistliberators

(Edited by man in the red suit at 4:20 am on April 28, 2002)


(Edited by man in the red suit at 4:24 am on April 28, 2002)

[Communist Dominion]

in capitalism it is impossible for it to be democratic, the peoplehave no power. the world is under controel by the rich buerercrats! you have money so you make the rules, not you are the majority and get what is needed! why are capitalists born into beleiving that what they call a democracy is actualy a totalitarien eleitist society.

Why do I have to be rich for my children to meet their potentional at school? if they have the ability shouldnt it be in the best interest of society as a whole to aid it? Capitalism put these exploitationist prices on good things when in reality there is enough food for us all to eat well, enough materials for us all to have a good house and drive a good car, but high prices are put on them to create the economic gap!