Utter Refutation

[Awful Reality]

The following is an excerpt of an email I sent to a capitalist friend.



"I don't view the world as absolute- if anything, you do. You see the world as the rich and the workers. The rich are always unethical and always willing to exploit the workers. The workers are always oppressed, and always subjected to the whim of the rich overlords. What you fail to see is your system is nothing more then a false promise. It is a promise to the poor who want to be rich, who hate the rich because they are better off then the workers. And so, they villify the rich. They say that they are controlled by the rich, and oppressed, when they refuse to see that all they are oppressed by is their steadfast belief in their own oppression. You aren't the subject of the rich, you are not a slave to their whim. Certainly, they are better off then you. But if that means oppression, there's something very wrong with your view."

There are multiple inherent flaws in your argument, the first being that you are contradicting yourself. You make the claim that Marxism would not work because it contradicts basic "human nature," which you equate with greed. Yet at the same time, you make the argument that the majority of the employers, or at least the petit-bourgeoise, are in fact fair employers, unaffected by greed or capital in their treatment of workers.

The second fallacy in your reasoning is that you contradict history. Throughout History, the workers have always rebelled, have always been unhappy with their treatment, have never subjected themselves to oppression, regardless of any social programs or change. You make the underlying assertion that because in your existing system, in the status quo, there has not yet been a rebellion, that the workers have not yet fought back, they never will, and there never will be. You see your system as instead of being a specific phase in history, an eternal one, which is a ludicrous assertion.

The third fallacy is that you make the claim that instead of the workers rebelling to establish a classless society, they seek only to subvert the class system, to establish themselves as the ruling class. While this is a brilliant logic in rhetoric, it holds no grounds whatsoever...

Any revolution that seeks to do so is definitively not a communist rebellion. It works within the state, and is not founded on the ideological principles of socialism. You cannot make the claim from an educated, logical standpoint that any workers' or peasants' revolution is inherently socialist: it must form under Marx's (or any other socialist thinker you follow or are arguing against) prescribed conditions, with many specific necessities, certainly not the least of which is an actual belief in a specific Marxian system.

Another untruth you propagate is the claim that oppression is utterly political, as opposed to monetary, as based on your previous arguments in regards to the Soviet Union. Oppression is certainly monetary for multiple reasons- one of those being that politics is only a manifestation of commodities or goods, and the distribution thereof. Another reason your claim is untrue is in fact a simple truth, one that has arisen in your very nation, in your very system.

Sam Walton was the founder of the Wal-Mart corporation, which has become one of the largest conglomerate corporations in the United States; in the world. Now that he has died, his three children are each worth over 12 billion dollars, putting them far ahead of generations of workers in terms of collective capital. Now, when examining this from a Marxian standpoint, there are two facets to said situation, one being the vast exploitation and mistreatment of workers that Wal-Mart has committed to gain this capital and the second being the fact that the Walton children will benefit society in no way, having done no work whatsoever for the industry, and yet they will be far more "well-set," as the entire family will be, no Walton needing to work for hundreds of years, than those who truly change the world.

This, I would say, must be oppression. When the bourgeoise unethically gain capital and hoard that capital, having refused to pay workers any semblance of a working wage, that must be oppression. When generations of a family does no work so that generations of hundreds of families will toil away, furthering that one employer's capital, that must be oppression. When capital, hoarded to the point at which it is not logically needed, is restricted from those who have created it, through their own manual labor, that, I must say, is oppression. When the bourgeoisie must resort to claiming that their greed is justified because of the greed it inflicts upon others, that is imperialism, and imperialsim is oppression.

As of yet, he hasn't responded. But his claims are ridiculous, enough so that I felt I should post them here. He is a former fascist, and is now just a typical conservative.

[Bud Struggle]

Mind if I make a couple of points here?


There are multiple inherent flaws in your argument, the first being that you are contradicting yourself. You make the claim that Marxism would not work because it contradicts basic "human nature," which you equate with greed. Yet at the same time, you make the argument that the majority of the employers, or at least the petit-bourgeoise, are in fact fair employers, unaffected by greed or capital in their treatment of workers.

Well first of all, people are kind of greedy. That's not to say that they can't be generous when the right opportunity permits. But for the most part people have a tendency to look after themselves and their loved ones. As far as employers are concerned good ones, successful ones, have an enlightened self interest in their employees being happy and being successful. If employees are happy and eager to work they not only benefit themselves, they also benefit the employer with better, more accurate work. It's a win-win situation all around.


The second fallacy in your reasoning is that you contradict history. Throughout History, the workers have always rebelled, have always been unhappy with their treatment, have never subjected themselves to oppression, regardless of any social programs or change. You make the underlying assertion that because in your existing system, in the status quo, there has not yet been a rebellion, that the workers have not yet fought back, they never will, and there never will be. You see your system as instead of being a specific phase in history, an eternal one, which is a ludicrous assertion.

I don't agree with statement at all. I hardly EVER see employees rebelling. The American slaves didn't rebel and free themselves. The vast majority of those that fought in the Civil war fought on the Confederate side. The serfs in Europe never rose up in rebellion, they were freed by the ideas of the Enlightenment. The British factory workers of the 19th century never rose up. I could go on and on. There was the Russian revolution, but from what I see the Soviets reinstated serfdom in the for of collective farming.


The third fallacy is that you make the claim that instead of the workers rebelling to establish a classless society, they seek only to subvert the class system, to establish themselves as the ruling class. While this is a brilliant logic in rhetoric, it holds no grounds whatsoever...

What I see the majority of my workers wanting is the same thing I see workers wanting world wide--and that's a cheap thrill. They want a wide screen TV, they want a new car, they want a house a little bigger than their neighbors. They don't care about class, they KNOW everybody's equal. They want their stuff: big, shiney and NOW.


Any revolution that seeks to do so is definitively not a communist rebellion. It works within the state, and is not founded on the ideological principles of socialism. You cannot make the claim from an educated, logical standpoint that any workers' or peasants' revolution is inherently socialist: it must form under Marx's (or any other socialist thinker you follow or are arguing against) prescribed conditions, with many specific necessities, certainly not the least of which is an actual belief in a specific Marxian system.

I have no dog in the fight here. :lol:


Another untruth you propagate is the claim that oppression is utterly political, as opposed to monetary, as based on your previous arguments in regards to the Soviet Union. Oppression is certainly monetary for multiple reasons- one of those being that politics is only a manifestation of commodities or goods, and the distribution thereof. Another reason your claim is untrue is in fact a simple truth, one that has arisen in your very nation, in your very system..

People oppress THEMSELVES monetarily. and the name of that oppression is called debt. In the United States having enough to eat isn't much of an issue of a worker, neither is a clean place to live. The issues that people live by is having a new Lexus or BMW or gold chain or new house when they can't afford it. This whole sub prime mortgage situation that's going on in the US is caused by banks lending money to people who couldn't really afford the McMansions they were buying. If you want to call that greed, I wouldn't argue, but it's not the greed of the capitalists--it's the greed of the workers who want to live like capitalists.


Sam Walton was the founder of the Wal-Mart corporation, which has become one of the largest conglomerate corporations in the United States; in the world. Now that he has died, his three children are each worth over 12 billion dollars, putting them far ahead of generations of workers in terms of collective capital. Now, when examining this from a Marxian standpoint, there are two facets to said situation, one being the vast exploitation and mistreatment of workers that Wal-Mart has committed to gain this capital and the second being the fact that the Walton children will benefit society in no way, having done no work whatsoever for the industry, and yet they will be far more "well-set," as the entire family will be, no Walton needing to work for hundreds of years, than those who truly change the world.

I personally don't care what Sam Walton and/or Sam Walton's kids do with his money. He earned it, he could do whatever he wants with it.


This, I would say, must be oppression. When the bourgeoise unethically gain capital and hoard that capital, having refused to pay workers any semblance of a working wage, that must be oppression. When generations of a family does no work so that generations of hundreds of families will toil away, furthering that one employer's capital, that must be oppression. When capital, hoarded to the point at which it is not logically needed, is restricted from those who have created it, through their own manual labor, that, I must say, is oppression. When the bourgeoisie must resort to claiming that their greed is justified because of the greed it inflicts upon others, that is imperialism, and imperialsim is oppression.

I disagree. There's plenty more money where that came from, all one has to do is build a better mousetrap. Walton's kids could have a million times more billions that what they have--and you or I could make a pile of money, too. There is no limit on the amount of wealth that can be created. Walton's billions didn't stop Bill Gates or Warren Buffet from making their billions--and it shouldn't stop you or me from making our billions (if we so choose) either.;):D

[Joby]

Yeah, I was wondering whether he wanted to debate or show his argument off like a trophy. But yeah, it's all yours.

[mikelepore]

I see these major problems I see with way the "human nature" debate usually proceeds.

First, people speak as though it's only a species characteristic: tigers do this, humans do that. No, our intrinsic nature is different for each individual. It is in the structure of Charles Manson's brain that he murders people, but that characteristic is not in the structure of my brain.

Secondly, forming a civilization, forming social institutions, makes it irrrelevant whether or not the adopted goals are consistent with the intrinsic nature of some fraction of the population. In any case, we can mandate the goals that we want. No one suggests that we might consider legalizing murder if there are enough of the Manson types; we say instead that we will prevent their ability to act on their impulses, no matter how many of them there are. The same applies to the capitalism versus socialism debate. It doesn't matter how many people suffer from the compulsion to be horde money and seek power over other people. Society can simply choose to adopt no institutional framework that will enable them to apply that compulsion. If there were no toolless workers who are compelled to sell themselves on a labor market, no privately owned mines to supply individuals with elements out of which to fashion privately owned facilities, etc., then greedy and power-crazed individuals, regardless of how numerous they are, could find no fruition for their plans.

We socialists have traditionally given a poor answer to the capitalist "human nature" argument. The socialist response shouldn't be to pretend to have evidence that the species behavior is infinitely malleable and perfectible, which is only a guess, and for which there is no evidence. The socialist response should be to show that our ability to select the political and economic instititions in which people can act is able to make our animal nature irrelevant anyway.

[Green Dragon]

I see these major problems I see with way the "human nature" debate usually proceeds.

First, people speak as though it's only a species characteristic: tigers do this, humans do that. No, our intrinsic nature is different for each individual. It is in the structure of Charles Manson's brain that he murders people, but that characteristic is not in the structure of my brain.

Secondly, forming a civilization, forming social institutions, makes it irrrelevant whether or not the adopted goals are consistent with the intrinsic nature of some fraction of the population. In any case, we can mandate the goals that we want. No one suggests that we might consider legalizing murder if there are enough of the Manson types; we say instead that we will prevent their ability to act on their impulses, no matter how many of them there are. The same applies to the capitalism versus socialism debate. It doesn't matter how many people suffer from the compulsion to be horde money and seek power over other people. Society can simply choose to adopt no institutional framework that will enable them to apply that compulsion. If there were no toolless workers who are compelled to sell themselves on a labor market, no privately owned mines to supply individuals with elements out of which to fashion privately owned facilities, etc., then greedy and power-crazed individuals, regardless of how numerous they are, could find no fruition for their plans.

We socialists have traditionally given a poor answer to the capitalist "human nature" argument. The socialist response shouldn't be to pretend to have evidence that the species behavior is infinitely malleable and perfectible, which is only a guess, and for which there is no evidence. The socialist response should be to show that our ability to select the political and economic instititions in which people can act is able to make our animal nature irrelevant anyway.


Okay. But then what you have to do is this:

Explain why its wrong for say, an electrician, to seek out and accept or reject employment based upon whatever knowledge the electrician possesses as to the terms being presented, and why it is wrong for a person seeking the work of an electrician to accept or reject the terms set by the electrician.

You then need to explain the alternate way such work might be allocated, and to explain/describe the "political and economic institutions" which would support such an alternate way. Suggesting, as is often the case in these situations, that "nobody knows" or that "people will figure it out" cannot be a credible answer. Simply critiquing capitalism and then walking away as if issues of socialism on its own terms is beneath the dignity of the socialist, explains the problems of the socialist in advancing socialism far more so than the "capitalist media" or "capitalist education system" or some such conspiracy theory one sees from time to time hereabouts.

[mikelepore]

Explain why its wrong for say, an electrician, to seek out and accept or reject employment based upon whatever knowledge the electrician possesses as to the terms being presented, and why it is wrong for a person seeking the work of an electrician to accept or reject the terms set by the electrician.

Do you mean the occasional hiring of an electrician by a homeowner, or do you mean an electrician taking a full time job with a company? They are entirely different things. The first one is an incidental event, without one social class being dependent on another for survival -- socialists can have little or no concern with it. The second is a highly regular relationship, someone profiting year after year by expropriating wealth from the labor expended by someone else.


You then need to explain the alternate way such work might be allocated, and to explain/describe the "political and economic institutions" which would support such an alternate way. Suggesting, as is often the case in these situations, that "nobody knows" or that "people will figure it out" cannot be a credible answer. Simply critiquing capitalism and then walking away as if issues of socialism on its own terms is beneath the dignity of the socialist, explains the problems of the socialist in advancing socialism far more so than the "capitalist media" or "capitalist education system" or some such conspiracy theory one sees from time to time hereabouts.

What do you want to know, how I think a socialist society should dispatch electricians to make installations or repairs for homeowners? I think the homeowner should call a dispatch office where the work should be scheduled, just as it is usually done under capitalism. The difference there between capitalism and socialism is that socialism, in my opinion, wouldn't have a discrete business called the electrician service company with its own expenses and earnings, but it would be one of the many departments of all socially-owned industries and services.

I believe that socialism should have a hands-off policy toward anyone who, instead of calling the socially operated industry, makes private arrangements, such as bartering with "I will fix your electrical circuits if you will give me some of your garden vegetables." I believe that private exchange in a socialist system would not go beyond such simple bartering.

Your question seems vague. You asked a question about the simple act of hiring an electrician, but then you requested that my answer cover the whole political and economic structure of civilization. If you can fine-tune your question, I will be pleased to give you a better answer.

The problem isn't that socialist say "nobody knows." The problem is that various socialists have various opinions about how things should be done, and when socialism arrives the writer who is addressing you will only get the same one vote that everyone else has. When socialists say that we support industrial democracy, we don't foresee what precise policies the democracy will enact, and then, liking those particular policies, support the democratic methods just to acquire those policies. It's the democratic production system itself that is the goal, which has to be endorsed without any knowledge of what details of form it will one day take.

[Ele'ill]

When the bourgeoise unethically gain capital and hoard that capital, having refused to pay workers any semblance of a working wage, that must be oppression.
I would question your reference to unethically gaining capital. Yes some do this but not all. Neither do all horde the same amount.



When generations of a family does no work so that generations of hundreds of families will toil away, furthering that one employer's capital, that must be oppression.
How exactly are they going to toil away?
I would argue that they came up with an idea for a business. It was lucrative, yes, but it worked. They essentially played against a system of checks and balances and won in the same way that one would avoid paying taxes, dodge the draft, squat abandoned buildings and turn them into secret art studios (or live in them), etc..


When capital, hoarded to the point at which it is not logically needed, is restricted from those who have created it, through their own manual labor, that, I must say, is oppression. When the bourgeoisie must resort to claiming that their greed is justified because of the greed it inflicts upon others, that is imperialism, and imperialsim is oppression.

Maybe the reason these people are oppressed isn't because they constantly lack money but because they are trying to gain happiness from the money itself. They are trying to gain a power from the money but will never do so because they lack it. They are trying to gain power in a system where their skills are not welcome. Artists, hard laborers, Writers, close knit families and on and on.

Maybe stop railing at a system you despise because you can't play their atrocious games and instead refuse to take part in it. Understand that the cool thing right now is football but you'll never succeed so instead get a scholarship for ice hockey. Realize your talents and use them while ignoring the system the best that you can and you'll find the system will either collapse or shift to fit your needs.

[Awful Reality]

Yeah, I was wondering whether he wanted to debate or show his argument off like a trophy. But yeah, it's all yours.

Debate. OI is fun.

[Awful Reality]

Maybe the reason these people are oppressed isn't because they constantly lack money but because they are trying to gain happiness from the money itself. They are trying to gain a power from the money but will never do so because they lack it. They are trying to gain power in a system where their skills are not welcome. Artists, hard laborers, Writers, close knit families and on and on.

So, you're saying that
A) Power is money, so
B) Workers have no power

And without power, you're oppressed. Because we, as 21st century people, must assume and argue on the basis that we believe people are equal.

They are trying to gain power in a system where their skills are not welcome.

In fact, the ones who are most oppressed generally have the most vital and important skills to society. Those who are paid the least, like truck drivers, make just about every commercial aspect of your daily life possible.