Socialist Revolution - Question of the Day

[Imperial Power]

I'd like to know how you ever hope to succeed. This is not cap vs. soc simply how do you expect a socialist revolution to happen?

[Sasafrás]

Sweetie, you know you're not supposed to be here in this forum.

What were you thinking?

[Imperial Power]

Sorry babe I don't want to burst anyones bubble. I suppose you couldn't think of a response to the question...

[Sasafrás]

I don't expect to see a socialist revolution, especially if you are speaking in terms of the United States of America. Revolutions of any sort, in my opinion, are very difficult to bring about, especially in nations as large as ours. Many people would believe that literal fighting and violence would be the sole means of bringing about revolution, but I'm a bit indifferent to the whole idea of present-day revolution. Plus, I'm not actually a straight 'socialist', so I can't really give an in-depth response to that inquiry.

However, some of my fellow leftist comrades may be able to do so, if they choose.

[Revolution Hero]

Revolution is almost impossibel at the modern period of human history. But if I start the revolution I would start it with the help of the state army. There have to be some people serving in the army , who would share the opinion of starting revolution. Army must be splitted on two parts: revolutionary and anti-revolutionary. This split will bring revolution to it's final stage, to the victory of the PROLETARIAT!

[peaccenicked]

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...um=22&topic=149 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=22&topic=149)

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Imperial Power on 5:10 am on Mar. 1, 2002
I'd like to know how you ever hope to succeed. This is not cap vs. soc simply how do you expect a socialist revolution to happen?


I doubt a revolution will take place in the US which is why I want to bring it abbout through democratic means except for the fact that this country has a two party system

[Imperial Power]

La rainbeaux you agree then that the possiblity of a large scale Revolution is impossible. What is your political stand than if you are not socialist?

[munkey soup]

You do not have to agree or believe in violent revolution to be a socialist. Is the socialist party of america calling for armed revolution? No. You show your ignorance mi amigo. Many of us believe that there is still a possibility to improve and change the US through democratic means, and that is what many socialists and leftists are attempting.
But our lovely democratic country refuses to listen to opinions of those who differ with the "mainstream." Why were Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan(no matter how much I hate him) kept from the political debates? The two-party system, despite being effeicient and simple(for all us simple proles), is wrong. All voices should be heard.

[Lardlad95]

Munkey Soup, every post I read from you you seem to get smarter

[samaniego]

Man you guy's and gal's are right on, on this one. Democracy, through a more educated society can over throw this two party system without blood shed. The revolution is not in the gun but rather in the mind.

[Rosa]

(sociological)definition of "revolution": changed institutions.
The institutions are result if peoples habits (during history). When people are changing their needs so much that institutions become inadequate, the inst. should change. If structures in society are too "bonish", the violent revolution will happen.
it can happen "through democratic means" (as M.S. suggests),but only if it's flexible. but the most important is to change people "in their heads". And then make them aware of fact that the institutions are there FOR them, and not the opposite.

[munkey soup]

Yes, changing peoples attitudes must come first before actual change in society can occur. In the US that will be hard though, many people have had it ingrained into their minds that capitalism is the only right system, and that socialism is doomed to failure. But I think people have an uneasy feeling that something in the world is not right.

(and a thank you to lardlad)

[TheDerminator]

Monkey Soup is right, revolution by conspirators in modern industrialised countries is not a viable option.
We require the majority, to carry out socialist organisation, based upon the the ethical support of that majority. We have to realise that the revolution for Che and Castro was the only option open in the face of the tyranny of the Batista regime.
It is horses for courses, and our only realistic approach is through a democratic process.

May the Force be with U

Resistance is Futile!

Be afraid, be very afraid...
derminated

[Imperial Power]

I didn't say you have to believe in violent revolution to become a socialist. My next question is to want extent do you want to make the world socialist?

[peaccenicked]

Our demands most moderate are –
We only want the earth!

James Connolly

From Songs of Freedom, 1907

Some men, faint-hearted, ever seek
Our programme to retouch,
And will insist, whene'er they speak
That we demand too much.
'Tis passing strange, yet I declare
Such statements give me mirth,
For our demands most moderate are,
We only want the earth.
"Be moderate," the trimmers cry,
Who dread the tyrants' thunder.
"You ask too much and people By
From you aghast in wonder."
'Tis passing strange, for I declare
Such statements give me mirth,
For our demands most moderate are,
We only want the earth.

Our masters all a godly crew,
Whose hearts throb for the poor,
Their sympathies assure us, too,
If our demands were fewer.
Most generous souls! But please observe,
What they enjoy from birth
Is all we ever had the nerve
To ask, that is, the earth.

The "labour fakir" full of guile,
Base doctrine ever preaches,
And whilst he bleeds the rank and file
Tame moderation teaches.
Yet, in despite, we'll see the day
When, with sword in its girth,
Labour shall march in war array
To realize its own, the earth.

For labour long, with sighs and tears,
To its oppressors knelt.
But never yet, to aught save fears,
Did the heart of tyrant melt.
We need not kneel, our cause no dearth
Of loyal soldiers' needs
And our victorious rallying cry
Shall be we want the earth!





(Edited by peaccenicked at 6:11 pm on Mar. 2, 2002)

[Moskitto]

There's Revolutionarries and Parliamentarries.

The problem with violent revolutions is (despite what US second amendment defenders say) it is not very easy to defeat a well trained army whether you've got guns or not, unless you have a lot of popular support or you've got annother well trained and equipped army see Hungary 1956.

Parliamentarry methods are better because you can gradually win over people to your cause. However they can fail and result in violent revolutions such as 17th century England.

[honest intellectual]

My next question is to want extent do you want to make the world socialist?

Wherever there is a suppresed proletariat, there we will go. Wherever the workers suffer under the yoke of exploitation, there we will fight. Wherever there innocent workers crushed beneath the heel of a monied economy, there we will sail.

That sounds like it's a quote, but I just made it up

[Imperial Power]

very deep honest intellectual, sounds like The Three Amigos. What do you do with those who don't want to be socialists?

[Lardlad95]

what does the US do with those who don't want to be part of a capitalist republic?

[reagan lives]

It lets them sit around and ***** about how much the US sucks all day on a ridiculous internet message board.

[Lardlad95]

so we disagree with the US what are you gonna do? Get the CIA to kill me like the did Allende?

[reagan lives]

No, I'm going to let you sit and continue to *****. In fact, I will fight to protect your right to sit here and *****.

[Lardlad95]

good show us leftist have a right to sit and ***** while the right wings and rrepublicans go out there and make everyones lives so much more bad

thanx for protecting my right

[Imperial Power]

Lardlad thats the spirit!

Don't take for granted what you have. You think the United States is bad! ha what would you be doing if hitler had conquered the world?

[Rosa]

exactly the same. Bcs there's no difference in fact. The difference is only in grade of hipocrisy that covers each system. Hitler at least presented his plans openly (so the one can choose to be pro or contra), while you are talking about "freedom to a people", "human rights" etc, seducing people,...so they can't even get an proper attitude about the system. Bcs their knwledge abut it is not based on facts, but on lies.

[AgustoSandino]

clarify this dichotomy that you've set up rosa.

You've posited hitler against the people he oppresses.

are you positing IP and RL against the people they oppress? WTF?

or are you positing some undefined cabal of capitalists against the people they oppress? Cause if you are I think that you will find it damn near impossible to find them. Not because they're that good, but because there is no cabal of capitalist oppressors, there is no capitalist conspiracy to exploit. All the capitalists of the world do not wake up each morning to partake in their concerted and concentrated effort to oppress.

[Rosa]

why should they do that thinking, when everything is functioning perfectly: they opress others to make money.
I AM positing DEFINED cabal of capitalists against the people they oppress.
ever read C.W.Mills?well, try to.

[peaccenicked]

A messageboard is not much more than a past time.
I find it amusing that RL,AS,IP,FC etc all come here to
pass their time. I figure capitalism cant be such a great
system, if you find yourself wanting to spend time with its critics for some satisfaction. You condemn the system by your mere presence here.

[reagan lives]

Actually, Rosa, most "capitalists" work and produce things to make money. In fact, it's quite difficult to oppress people for money...there are an infinite number of more efficient ways to make a living...so, by definition, no reasonable capitalist would ever go into the oppression market.

[El Che]

"Actually, Rosa, most "capitalists" work and produce things to make money."

The worker is the one producing here!!!!!! and dont you EVER forget it sucka. The boss makes the money though, your right there.

[Valkyrie]

Hey, RL, IP-- Have you guys successfully escaped!!!!! Aren't the authorities going to be looking for you?

I think.... socialism is too moderate and reformative to be called a social revolution. Most western countries already have counterproductive socialist safety interventions on the marginalized to further condemn and retreat that sector of society while at the same time giving substantial subsidaries i.e. tax cuts and incentives to transnational corporations ensuring the gap between rich and poor.

The question is when will we have equitable distribution of wealth and the dismantling of corporatism and power?

(Edited by Paris at 8:42 pm on Mar. 4, 2002)

[reagan lives]

Yes, El Che, because it's completely inconcievable that manual laborers in a capitalist system could possibly be satisfied with capitalism. Impossible situation. You live in this fantasy world where the insanely rich kick back and reap the benefits of the underpaid and mistreated laborers, all the while propping up some mythical oppressive system which maintains this status quo. This is, quite simply, a flight of fancy. It has nothing (NOTHING) to do with the tenets of capitalism. Sucka.

[Valkyrie]

Capitalism would not.. could not work if it was not making their profit off cheap labor.

Let's see how the widow Mrs. Walmart would do producing and manufacturing her goods and then standing in the store alone all day trying to hock her shit. Couldn't be done on a large scale capi level like that. And what I mean by large scale is that Walmart Corp. made more profit last year then the sum total of 9 nations economy including Ireland and Israel.

[reagan lives]

Define "cheap" labor.

And my point is that the fantasy world that communists construct for themselves eliminates everyone in the entire WalMart corporation besides for the widow WalMart and the minimum wage cashiers. The store managers, regional managers, accountants, lawyers, market researchers, analysts, and every other middle-level employee in the entire corporation is disregarded because they don't fit the oppressed laborer/oppressive owner dichotomy that your entire warped world view is based one.

[peaccenicked]

Oppression
1. dominate harshly: to subject a person or a people to a harsh or cruel form of domination

2. inflict stress on: to be a source of worry, stress, or trouble to somebody

Living under the right to hire and fire.
It means the boss can control your behaviour in relation to work. If there is no union that is the case.
It means that the boss can often get away with sexual harassment and rape.
He would also like to get away with as much as he can squeeze out of you. If you dont think that is harsh.
It is you RL that is living on planet zog.

[reagan lives]

Where did you get those definitions from, peaccenicked?

So, by your standards, one is oppressed if one can be fired? That's a pretty wide interpretation of the word, wouldn't you say? And by that standard, most CEO's are among the most oppressed people in America, since they can be terminated at any time by their shareholders, who often are also their employees.

"It means the boss can control your behaviour in relation to work."
That's why they call her the boss.

"It means that the boss can often get away with sexual harassment and rape."
Shit, man, do you have any idea how much stress supervisors are under NOT to do ANYTHING that gives even the appearance of an opportunity for sexual harassment? By your own definition (#2) of the word "oppressed," supervisors are also among the most oppressed people in America, as every time they interact with an underling they are under "worry, stress, or trouble" not to do anything that might get them fired.

I don't know about Earth, peaccenicked, but here on zog we have a massively empowered middle class and workers who have the right to organize and bargain collectively. And it's a pretty goddamn nice place.

[peaccenicked]

"Union Busting At Non Profit




by Tamara Rettino
Fraud For Public Interest
January 28, 2002




Union Busting. It's the kind of thing we've come to expect from big business, but what if it's happening in one of the largest progressive non profit groups in the country?

The Fund for Public Interest (the parent organization for the state PIRG's) claims to be an environmental and consumer watchdog organization. The Fund runs a fundraising canvass for groups such as Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and Human Rights Campaign. But the rights of their own workers are being held in total disregard.

Canvassers work long hours; some put in a 12 hour day with little pay. Many (all staff in the L.A. Greenpeace office were promised health coverage) are being denied the benefits packages they are promised in their hiring contracts. In the Fund run Greenpeace office reimbursements for work related expenses, such as office supplies, often go unpaid. New employees nation wide are being paid approximately half of what original staff is (or was) making for performing the same job.

On Wednesday, January 23rd employees and directors of the L.A. Greenpeace Project office arrived to find the locks changed, the office cleaned out, and a sign on the door proclaiming the office closed. Office director Dan Binaei was fired without warning the evening prior, and assistant director Brande Jackson was terminated over her voice mail on the morning of the 23rd. All Greenpeace Project employees were informed that they would be receiving a two-week severance pay, or have the option to do a different job, with different hours, in a different city, with different pay, for a different organization. The Los Angeles Greenpeace Fundraising office was among the highest grossing, and most efficient PIRG offices in the country. Both Binaei and Jackson had received high-ranking reviews and praise by both superiors and staff. There can only be one reason assumed for the overnight disappearance of the Los Angeles Greenpeace office.a union was being formed.

As conscientious directors, Dan Binaei and Brande Jackson spent months using established channels to obtain reimbursements, health coverage, and equal pay for their staff. All attempts ended in bureaucratic runaround. After much deliberation, the L.A. Greenpeace directing team filed a complaint with the labor board. The Regional and National Canvass Director's were informed by email that a complaint had been filed and a union was being organized. One week later the office was closed. On the 23rd 13 employees of the LA Greenpeace Project entered the still operating Fund for Public Interest/CALPIRG office on Wilshire Blvd. demanding to know why their exemplary office had disappeared, and why their directors had been terminated. Regional Director Ben Flamm stated that he could not release that information because of a confidentiality policy. Dan Binaei and Brande Jackson were both present, and adamantly waived their rights to confidentiality. When pressed Mr. Flamm's only explanation was, "Because you have no trust in the Fund, you can no longer be trusted."

This behavior is frightening. By completely eliminating the office, the Fund appears to be attempting to smash all organizing attempts and attitudes of dissent. Not only is union busting illegal, it is morally reprehensible coming from an organization that claims to be working for human rights. There should be no division between environmental, labor, and human rights movements. If we are to be effective in our fight against injustice, non-profits must not adopt the oppressive tactics of the very corporations we are struggling against. Please voice your solidarity with the workers of the Los Angeles Greenpeace/CALPIRG Fundraising project. Call the PIRG administration offices at 617-292-4805 and complain"



Everybody sitting pretty
or do you want more evidence you are living
only in your imagination.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 11:11 pm on Mar. 4, 2002)


(Edited by peaccenicked at 11:14 pm on Mar. 4, 2002)

[reagan lives]

"Not only is union busting illegal..."

[Supermodel]

Holy smokes!!! All along I was just managing my employees and now I find out i've been waking up each morning with a wake up each morning with a concerted and concentrated effort to oppress.

I am a *****!! What do ya know!!!

Hey, this is a lively debate, I'd better get outta the way.....

[Rosa]

yes, they "work" to "produce" the money to keep others under control, to work for much less money than they deserve , so to be quiet and buy things higher class invented and introduced (process that flows constantly, from early ages of child) as necessary.
F T A, I don't need bloody barbie, don't need your fucking money, and certainly am not concidering you a deacent man.

[reagan lives]

Oh, please be my friend.

You persist in the stereotyping of anyone who supports capitalism as being some sort of commercial exploiter. Supermodel put it far better than I could...she goes to work and does her job every day, being productive and helping others to be productive, without exploiting anybody. As long as you insist on your foolish dichotomy (Agusto would call it "Manichean"), you will always be shortsighted and unable to see the whole picture.

[El Che]

Just because the condictions of some workers are more tolerable, like a the examples your presented, doesnt mean part of their labor isnt being stolen. If it wasnt PROFITABLE they would be imploid. I never spoke of such a dictomy because I think its always wrong. Its wrong capiche. Its the system of organised theift u *****. Dont ever put words in my mouth, and dont jump to conclusions and make petulant generalisations either. Have an open mind. There is a problem with this system. The first set is to realise that, the second is to ask your self the question "what then must we do?" and then find the answer. I have my answer to that question, others have theirs. You may find yours. No system is perfect, granted. But I wont let you pull that card on me becauase it is the card of a lazy bum. You must assume positions in life, in favor or against that which arounds you, everything from ethical positions to society. If it is wrong, you must assume the correct position and do what can be done. If revolution should not be done, then dont favor it, but surly there are other ways to change society.


Shit i dont know why i waste my time. Must remember my self to stop doing this!! arrrg. And supermodel go see if im around the corner.

[reagan lives]

"If it wasnt PROFITABLE they would be imploid. I never spoke of such a dictomy because I think its always wrong. Its wrong capiche. Its the system of organised theift u *****."
A worker's employer is always making more money as a result of that worker's employment than he or she is paying the worker. True. However, this is NOT theft. It's silly to assert that it is. Why can't anyone here understand these principles?

[El Che]

If you abstract your self from those principles, if you stop taking them for granted you will see that its is theft. It is a social construction. Something that has been organised a certain way, developed through time. It is non the less ficticious. We made it that way, we can change it. So that person A benifits only from his/her work, and never from the theft of some of person B`s work. This is the principal of Socialism.

[reagan lives]

But when A and B work together, they can produce more overall. And they can both profit. And they can each profit more than they would if they worked separately, even if A profits more than B. What is so hard to understand about this?

[El Che]

i dont mean they should work separated, i mean they should organise as they do now, with the exception that one doesnt gain from the work of the others. This is known as colectivism.

(Edited by El Che at 3:22 am on Mar. 5, 2002)

[reagan lives]

"one doesnt gain from the work of the others."

???

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from reagan lives on 10:40 pm on Mar. 4, 2002
Most CEO's are among the most oppressed people in America, since they can be terminated at any time by their shareholders, who often are also their employees.



Jeez...what a hard life they have!!! It is a generally accepted fact that the world's biggest corporations (McD's, Starbucks, Nike, Gap, Shell etc) have a lot more power than most democratically-elected state leaders (with the exception of Bush of course), since their power is worldwide and they ultimately have the power to determine the lives of millions of people internationally. The problem is, CEOs are ONLY answerable to their shareholders, who only become shareholders by buying a huge chunk of the company's shares. And what do you need to do that?? Money. Lots of it. So I guess it's just proof that the world's power is in the hands of the rich, however cliched it may sound.

Also, the shareholders with the biggest stake in the corporation are very rarely its employees, as they need a huge amount of money to get that far. Mostly, they are people with the same status and interests as the CEO him/herself ie money and profit. It may be cliched, but it doesn't make it any less true.

You may have a point about Revolution though. It will never happen...

[reagan lives]

The standard for "oppression" was defined as the ability to be fired. I was proving a point about the definition, not the plight of CEO's.

[Supermodel]

Guerrillaradio, when you state that the employees are not the largest number of shareholders, this is true of many corporations. However, for many corporations, ALL employees are shareholders (even if they are not the majority) ....and the most important factor of all is that the largest shareholders in the USA are pension plans, paricularly the California State workers plan (CALPERS) and another combined multi-state plan I can't remember the name of. SO, the workers are the shareholders. In fact, the state employees are the largest group of "capitalists".

[guerrillaradio]

Yeah, so maybe each employee holds one share, but what does that amount to?? To have any real authority in a corporation, you need to have at least 20-30% of the shares. To buy that amount you have to be very rich (or maybe very lucky to have invested when the corporation was small, but that represents such a small minority it's barely worth mentioning). And besides, in many corporations, the employees are bullied by their employers and to go against your CEO, even as a shareholder, could well put your job at risk.

[El Che]

"one doesnt gain from the work of the others."

???

RL now where exactly did I lose you? I must say this doesnt say much for your mental capacities. I explained to you that the boss, the employer, makes a profit of those who work for him. Hence his profit. I explained this is a social construction, in regrad to which you must assume an ethical position. It is obvious to me what that position should be, but to each his own ethos or lack of it as it where. I proceded to informe you that all which is of social construction is therefor of social undoing. I also told you in my last post, that when the workers control the means of production, they work for them selves, and not for the boss, the employer, the capitalist. Take a firm of lawyers that are all partners, they work for them selves, they form a colective, hence the name colectivisation is given to means of production when the same are controled by the workers instead of a parasitic class of theives. I am writting in English as far as I know, and although its not that good an English, you should be able to understand, hmm I wonder.

[reagan lives]

I'm sorry, I tried to be a little too subtle there. I'll continue to spell my position out for you.

You concede that people are more productive when they are working together, we agree here. However, then you say that they should only work together if "one doesn't gain from the work of others." But by definition, each will be gaining from the work of the others. For instance, if you and I decide that for whatever reason (let's spare ourselves stupid hypotheticals) we can be more productive if we work together, then I will be gaining from your work and you will be gaining from mine (in the sense that we will each be producing more than we would seperately). Now, you try and assert that if, in this arrangement, my marginal benefit was greater than yours, then I would be "stealing" from you. Any sensible person would see that you are profiting from the arrangement, even if I am profiting *more*, and therefore it can't possibly be correctly called "theft" except by those who either 1) are extremely deluded; or 2) are attempting some sort of demagoguery to advance alterior motives.

An employer profits from employment. He makes more money as a result of the employment than he pays to the worker. You, apparently, see something wrong here. The contention, I suppose, is that the labor of the worker is worth more than the wage. The trick is that it's worth more than the wage TO THE EMPLOYER...it's worth less than the wage TO THE WORKER...and therefore the exchange is made. Again, I don't know what's so hard about this.

[peaccenicked]

What is so hard about is that it is not true.
Let us go into business here. I have X bucks.
I buy a factory, its machinery, and have a regular
source of materials, This is
my investment. It is now my task to recpurerate X bucks
so I employ Z workers at Y bucks .
The X bucks are useless without Z workers.
After a time X bucks is recuperated the factory is paid for
machinery and all. Who responsible for the recupriation
Z workers. After X bucks is made the capitalist goes on to realise greater profits. Who is responsible for these profits Z workers. X bucks in the time it is made divided by Z multiplyed by Y for the same time is the RATE OF
EXPLOITATION. This is roughly 1:1 For every dollar made the capitalist gains 1 in the advanced countries.
In the third world it is more 1:10 .
In Brazil out of a British £1 for a coffee jar the worker only recieves a penny.
There is no fair exchange between worker and capitalist.
What is more we do not need the capitalist for investment purposes, it is workers who make the factories, the machinery and the tools.
They are actually superfluous to the actual needs of production. The capitalists and their supporters insist that we are too stupid or not talented enough to take democratic control of the means of production ourselves.
The good news RL is we dont need capitalists.
only initial capital that we propose that the majority confiscates from the capitalist rip off merchants.

[The Rapparee]

By braking you down bit by bit. Esposing your weaknesses and your flaws. Then the people will see you are evil and will flock to us. If not we will strike you in your heart and we will tak control by controlling countries who have suffered and then we will be more than you. The poor flock to us and there are more of them than you because we promise and do you promise and lie. they will follow us more than you.

[reagan lives]

"For every dollar made the capitalist gains 1 in the advanced countries."
What on Earth is wrong with this?

"In the third world it is more 1:10."
Capitalism has not been realized in the Third World.

As for your little XYZ crap, I suggest that you actually step into an economics classroom and learn how fixed cost, marginal cost, and revenue relate to each other. Then get back to me when you're ready to discuss these things seriously. I don't have the time or energy to teach first year econ to you, peaccenicked.

"The capitalists and their supporters insist that we are too stupid or not talented enough to take democratic control of the means of production ourselves."
American capitalism is based on the assumption that workers are talented enough to take control of the means of production. The whole system is designed to allow them to do that. Ask millions of owners of the means of production whose parents or grandparents were penniless immigrants. You blatantly ignore the massive social mobility in the US, because it shatters your precious good-evil rich-poor dichotomy.

[peaccenicked]

I dont have the time to listen either.
http://members.aol.com/dxgude/capital.htm

(Edited by peaccenicked at 8:23 pm on Mar. 6, 2002)

[reagan lives]

Who on Earth wrote that little op-ed piece of shit?

[peaccenicked]

I take it you agree with the author and find the truth too repugnant to bear.

[El Che]

Your in denile reagan, how sad.

[reagan lives]

Yeah, that's it. Right on. Deep down, I know that the entire field of economics is wrong, and peaccenicked and El Che from the "Che Lives" message board are right. Anybody can see that your anonymous author has more credibility in his pinky finger than all the economics professors in the world. Indeed.

[El Che]

Alas it is the system of organised theft, and that is what you are dening. To your own self let it be corectly understood. Theories on how the market works best, and how to achive sucess within capitalist economics matter not. Only a confused mind would fail to see the difference. Capitalism at its fundamental level, that is the subject matter, and not questions of detail and market evolution.


I understand you will not review your position, if not for anything else for the sake of not losing face. I understand this, what i am doing here, is a futile exercise.

[AgustoSandino]

You know I thought the stupidity of peacenicked's economics lesson would be self apparent, and not require anything further than reagan pointing this out, but i guess we'll have to explain to all the other fools.

First off if you "buy a factory for x bucks" the aim of running it is hardly to recuperate "x bucks." If you only want to get x bucks back, why not just keep the x bucks?
The aim is to get back x bucks, plus at least, what x bucks would have made if you've put them into a bank account or a mutual fund, etc. So get back x bucks and the opportunity cost of investing x bucks. Right off the bat the owner has to get more than he put in.

Secondly even if you have a "regular source of materials" you have to pay for those materials so that, along with power costs and employment costs are added in to what you have to recuperate.
Employment costs Y is less than X by nature, but Y/timeperiod should always be less than revenue divided by the timeperiod. Do you disagree? If so then stop reading.
This is where despite your persistent use of confusing variables, by which one can only assume you are trying to infuse a mathematical authority to your statement, you stop trying to teach economics and start spouting rhetoric.
You say that after recouping X dollars, the cost of the factory, the revenue no longer belongs to the capitalist but rather to the worker. First off we pointed out that in buying a factory the owner gives up more than x dollars, but also incurs the opportunity cost of x dollars, and so must recuperate more than x dollars. Now the revenue remains mainly the owners for two reasons, first off he retains legal title to the factory and second of all he must continue to recuperate the opportunity cost of x dollars. If the owner could've put x dollars into a bank account that returns at 3 percent per month or something, then he must try to recuperate at least that.
In your view, the title to the factory would move to the workers because they "produce" the goods of the factory. But fail to realize that the workers would not have produced anything if the owner hadn't purchased the factory and employed them. They have no legal, economic, and furthermore, no moral claim onto the factory.

Then you say that there is no fair exchange between owners and workers, and again you're wrong. The worker is not forced, save in socialistic govt. controlled economies, to work for the owner, he/she chooses to do so at a rate negotiated upon by the owner and the worker. The worker, as reagan explained in another thread, does not make as much as the owner but makes more than he would've before.

OR in relation to your bogus "exploitation index" if the factory produces 1 dollar worth of product, and the workers share was 20 cents and the owners 80 cents, you say this is unfair and is theft. But you fail to realize that the worker and owner were making ZERO cents prior to the workercontracting his/her labor to the owner. So they both benefited.
Who should benefit more, it depends on what they bring to the relationship. A skilled worker who brings a skill that is rare should receive more than an unskilled worker that requires no education, etc, to perform his task. This is precisely what the owner, who in reality can be many people or owners, does.
Furthermore you say that the owner(s) are not necessary in this equation at all, and that is why the workers have a moral claim, if not practical claim, on this capital or factory and the workers should take "democratic control" of the means of production.
Certain problems arise, first you outright promote theft, of owners by workers, which despite hiding it in nice slogans like liberation, ect, is theft nonetheless. Second you fail to realize that capitalism provides for democratic control over the means of production, its called a corporation and shareholders, workers have every right to control the means of production. Not as workers, but as individuals.

[El Che]

Complete and utter garbage nonsense rusbish and bs. The boom line, is that within this system lies the freedom for groups of individuals/individuals that acumulate large somes of capital, thereby controling the means of production, to "employ" others with no such posessions and robe them colectivly for the duration of there lives. The worker is not forced. That is no the point, firstly the fact that he isnt physicaly doesnt mean he isnt forced by circumstances of life, secondly the fact that he "agrees" to be robbed doesnt make it right, it does not change the situation in any way shape or from. This is total bullshit. We need to end this from of social production/distribution of wealth, that is in fact nothing more then a from of social discrimination and priviledge.


What ARE you disgusting unethical people against? slavery???? is that it???? is that the only thing that gets a big fat NO out of you??


But if the factory worker in indonesia makes 3 US dollars a month making nike shoes which in turn are sold for what? i dont know how much they cost but factor that out. Factor out the surplus value that the worker is willfully giving, as part of a negociated agreement, to the owner of the means of production. You sick demented people. And reagan dont start your dictomy bs with me again either, im only presenting an exterme case to see if i can get it through your diseased brains. This system is wrong, this must stop, its time to evolve. Socialism is the future. End priviledge, end right to exploit, end organised theft.

[reagan lives]

Oh, that's convincing.

[El Che]

I think you should at least have the decency to take the time to reply to my posts reagan. Its bad enough that im wasting my time on you, on top of that all I get from you are laconic moronic 3 words sentences, or better yet 3 question marks. This is total lack of consideration for those who are taking the time to, clearly and repeatedly, lay out their views for you. Even the idiotic propaganda and demagogy of augostos or IP is more considerate than this.

But i wont let you off the hook. You cant run and you cant hide. You must answer for your views and stand by your positions. I demand it.

[reagan lives]

What are you talking about, you goon? You write some post that amounts to "You're a meany," and then you get on my case for not having the "decency" to reply? You write "that economics stuff is bullshit, you guys are assholes," and then you wonder why you don't get a substantive response? Give me a break.

The only serious claim you make in your entire post is the spurious one that workers have no choice in their employment. This was, perhaps, true enough in 1848. Not so much now...there may not be full employment, but there is a plurality of industries and opportunities. Except maybe, as you point out, in Third World nations. And there, as we said, the proper capitalist institutions are not in place. I have news for you, my friend. In the 154 years since the Communist Manifesto, the problems with capitalism that Marx saw have been solved WITHIN the framework of capitalism, and WITHOUT socialist revolution. Sorry, pal.

[peaccenicked]

Reagan lives.
Have you ever been unemployed searching for a job.
It is difficult if all the jobs are taken and there are millions on the dole. The "choice'' becomes the low paid
ununionised . You are so removed from reality that basically that your own answer is bourgeois economics
is superior to marxist economics, every bourgeois economist knows this.
A claims A is better than B so A is right.
Yeah. Very convincing.

[reagan lives]

I wasn't aware that what Marx employed could properly be called "economics." He did have a Ph.D in philosophy, and he would have spent his life sitting around and ponitificating about Hegel if poor disgruntled Engels hadn't shown up. You could write everything the two of them knew about economics on the back of a postage stamp.

Look, Marx's gripes about the workers being beholden to the factory owners were accurate in 1848. But I have news for you. Capitalism has solved its own problems. Yes, there is a competitive labor market. But today in the US worker's do not "race to the bottom," undercutting each other's prices in order to obtain or retain employment. Today in America people get or stay employed by working harder and better than the next guy, not by dropping their price. If you don't believe me, go spend some time with the working class, in a factory or with a janitorial staff or whatever. Minimum wage and the emergence of labor unions have transformed the competitive labor market from being based on cheapness to being based on quality.

And the division between the employed and unemployed is hardly static...it changes every single day. Workers are fired and new ones hired all the time. Many companies outsource a lot of their labor to temporary employment agencies. Who's removed from reality here, peaccenicked? The one basing his stance on the irrelevant "economics" of a philosophy Ph.D, or the one basing his stance on the realities of today's capitalism...a capitalism that, believe it or not, has evolved significantly in the last 154 years.

[peaccenicked]

Marx’s Critique of Classical Economics
Chapter 2 of “Marx’s Capital — Philosophy and Political Economy” by Geoff Pilling


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Formal logic and the ‘exceptions’ to the law of value

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Now with all respect to Hodgson, there is no doubt whatsoever that Ricardo’s confinement to a formal logic — that as its basic principle denied contradiction — led to the conclusion that there was, in fact, a series of exceptions to the law of value. Under pressure from Malthus and others, Ricardo accepted that changes in the rate of profit (rate of interest) as well as labour-time could affect relative commodity values. This would occur, Ricardo conceded, when the organic composition of capital (this was of course Marx’s category, in Ricardo it is the relationship of fixed and circulating capital) was not identical in every industry. For the rate of profit to remain uniform the rise or fall in wages — to which corresponds an inverse movement in profits — must have unequal effects on capital of different organic composition. If wages rise, then profits fall and so does the price of commodities in whose production a relatively large amount of fixed capital is used. Where the opposite is the case, the results will likewise be opposite. That is, the establishment of an equal rate of profit yielded by capital of different organic composition contradicts the law of value. And similarly, Ricardo admitted, with capitals having different rates of turnover and different degrees of durability. Summing up his discussion on the matter of fixed and circulating capital Ricardo says:

It appears that the division of capital into different proportions of fixed and circulating capital, employed in different trades, introduces a considerable modification into the rule, which is of universal application when labour is almost exclusively employed in production; namely, that commodities never vag in value unless a greater quantity of labour be bestowed on their production, it being shown in this section that without any variation in the quantity of labour, the rise of its value merely will occasion a fall in the exchange of goods, in the production of which fixed capital is employed; the larger the amount of fixed capital, the greater will be its fall. (Ricardo)

In short, the exchange of commodities could not be considered as ultimately independent of wages, that is of distribution. After setting out to show that Smith was mistaken on this matter, Ricardo actually yields the case to him.

On the problem of the durability of capital and its impact on the law of value, Ricardo, in a letter of 1818 to James Mill, stated:

I maintain that it is not because of this division into wages and profit- it is not because capital accumulates that exchangeable value varies, but it is in all stages of society due to only two causes: one the more or less quantity of labour required, the other the greater or lesser durability of capital: that the former is never superseded by the latter, but is only modified. (Ricardo, author’s italics)

Ricardo, as Sraffa (Introduction to Ricardo, 1951) has persuasively argued, was here trying to dispose of one of Adam Smith’s objections to the law of value. More germane to the argument here, however, is that Ricardo accedes to the proposition that value has two causes: labour-time (a social phenomenon) and the durability of capital (a natural-technical phenomenon). We shall return to this matter of the relationship of the ‘natural’ and the ‘social’ but this passage from Ricardo seems once more to underscore the fact that he had failed, in the last resort, in his major aim — to establish the entire science of political economy on the foundation of the law of value. As Marx comments:

Because Ricardo, instead of deriving the difference between cost price and value from the determination of value itself, admits that ‘values’ themselves . . . are determined by influences that are independent of labour-time and that the law of value is sporadically invalidated by these influences; this was used by his opponents, such as Malthus, in order to attack his whole theory of value. (Marx, Theories of Surplus Value, author’s italics)

This last reference to Malthus reminds us that there was one way out of the Ricardian antinomies. This lay in separating entirely the law determining value from that determining the rate of profit. Cost price and value could be identified completely: what in Ricardo was a sporadically occurring exception (which he could not in the first instance adequately explain) could now be elevated to the status of a law. Economics, in the period following Ricardo’s death, took precisely this turn. It came to the conclusion that profit originated not only in labour, but in a diversity of what were essentially discrete ‘factors’. It was necessary, so the argument now ran, to take into account the role of land, of machines, of supply and demand, etc. Thus was born the Trinity Formula: ‘capital-interest; land-rent, labour-wages’. All the contradictions left unresolved by Ricardo could now be disposed of. Rent, profit and wages no longer confronted each other as alienated forms having a common source, an inner unity, but now became in the conception of the ‘vulgar’ school, heterogeneous and independent of each other. Now they were considered merely different from one another, but in no sense fundamentally antagonistic. The problems which Ricardo’s genius had brought to the forefront of science disappeared; but so too had disappeared any theoretical approach to economic phenomena, in favour of the most shallow eclecticism. The notion that the durability of capital might play a role in the determination of value (for Ricardo an exceptional case) was now extended to the point where it was eventually alleged by the vulgar school that all social phenomena could be explained entirely in terms of a ‘given technology’.

As distinct from Ricardo’s opponents, Marx resolved the problems of classical political economy theoretically. To do this involved him, above all, in a rejection of the empiricism of political economy, along with its concomitant adherence to formal logic. Marx’s dialectical method allowed him to trace the entire chain of connecting links between the law of value and the determination of the rate of profit. This he did in his prices of production theory in which the contradictions of the lower economic forms (the analysis of value) are overcome not in a formal manner (through the redefinition of terms, etc.) but are sublated in a richer, more diverse and concrete theoretical conception.

Dialectics and formal logic
We have stressed that for Marx one of the limits of political economy lay in its implicit confinement to a purely formal logic, a logic which prevented it from grasping the laws of capitalist development. Now this should in no way be taken to mean, as Hodgson implies, that Marxism rejects formal logic completely. In point of fact it draws a sharp distinction between Aristotelean logic and its later degeneration at the hands of the scholastics (‘Clericalism killed what was living in Aristotle and perpetuated what was dead’, LCW, vol. 38). Aristotle’s logic, by virtue of its close connection with the scientific developments of his age, and the entire process of knowledge, cannot strictly speaking be called ‘formal’ logic in the sense in which this word is used in the logic of modern times. Aristotle did not place the logical forms of investigation in any rigid opposition to their concrete content. He tried to elicit the logical forms and connections from the basic characteristics of existence. It is this which explains the depth and richness of his thought. In the hands of the scholastics, logic degenerated into a mere proof-producing instrument, having no connection with the real content of the world, whereas in fact ‘even formal logic is primarily a method of arriving at new results, of advancing from the known to the unknown — and dialectics is the same, only much more eminently so’ (Engels).

Engels is here in effect drawing attention to the fact that materialist dialectics does not reject formal logic but rather determines its limits. The three principles of formal logic (non-contradiction; excluded middle; identity) are not false. They are however limited and all they can do is to prevent fallacies, without, however, rendering or reproducing the movement of ideas which reflect the movement of the material world.

Let us take these three principles of formal logic:

1 The principle of contradiction. Here the principle of a purely formal contradiction is formulated as follows: a proposition cannot be true and false at the same time. In other words, the opposition between two contradictory statements is placed on the same level. For dialectical materialism, contradiction reflects the development of reality (‘Nature is not, but it becomes’, Engels, Dialectics of Nature). That is why concepts, if they are to grasp adequately the movement of the material and social world, must be fluid. This was Lenin’s point, when, drawing attention to the limits of a purely formal logic, he wrote (LCW, vol. 38), ‘Ordinary imagination grasps difference and contradiction, but not the transition from one to the other, this however is the most important.’

2 The principle of excluded middle. This states that something is either A or not A. For materialist dialectics, the principle of the excluded middle is considered to be valid only on the purely formal level of abstract determinations. In concrete reality — which is intrinsically contradictory because of the interpenetration of opposites in all phenomena — it is impossible to situate anything in the rigid ‘either A or non-A’ dichotomy. This was Lenin’s point when, commenting with approval on Hegel, he says (LCW, vol. 38), ‘Every concrete thing, every concrete something, stands in multifarious and often contradictory relations to everything else, ergo it is itself and some other.’

3 The principle of identity. This states that A=A (and negatively, A cannot be simultaneously equal and unequal to A). What is missed here by a purely formal logic is the fact that everything is in continual change and therefore at every moment is both identical with itself and becoming distinct from itself. Of course, within limits this principle is perfectly acceptable, ‘like all metaphysical categories it suffices for everyday use, where small dimensions or brief periods of time are in question; the limits within which it is usable differ in almost every case and are determined by the nature of the object’ (Engels, Dialectics of Nature). Trotsky, in attacking those who thought that the nature of the USSR could be determined with a series of fixed abstractions, makes essentially the same point about the objective limits of the principle of identity when he writes:

Our scientific thinking is only part of our general practice including techniques. For concepts there also exists ‘tolerance’ which is established not by formal logic issuing from the axiom ‘A’ is equal to ‘A’, but by the dialectical logic issuing from the axiom that everything is always changing. ‘Common sense’ is characterised by the fact that it systematically exceeds dialectical ‘tolerance’.

The real objection to formal logic which Engels, Lenin and Trotsky here express is that format logic, being concerned with the classification of thought-forms and with their description as forms independent of any content, remains essentially subjective; this in opposition to dialectical logic which studies these forms in their connection as thought-forms having a definite content. The unity between the laws of thinking and the laws of being postulated by Marxism implies a close connection among the logical forms, forms which in their unity and interconnection reflect the entire concrete content of the world in its self-movement. (We shall return to the nature of concepts and their place in Capital in the next chapter.)

[El Che]

Reagan I want you to admit that Capitalism is the system of organised theft. If you dont admit this I demand you prove me wrong. Do you wish us to take you seriously? then you must take a discussion to its last consequenses and reply to the objections brought up against you. As I have told you before reagan, capitalism ata a fundamental level, that which is of interest and effectivly the subject matter of socialist study and thought, has not changed.

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from El Che on 7:16 pm on Mar. 7, 2002
But if the factory worker in indonesia makes 3 US dollars a month making nike shoes which in turn are sold for what? i dont know how much they cost but factor that out.

Too fucking right. America's exploitation of the Third World is something that cannot be denied, even by the most heartless capitalists. Or maybe Reagan Lives (does he realise the callousness of his name??) would like to attempt to prove me wrong on this one...

[Guest]

"and the most important factor of all is that the largest shareholders in the USA are pension plans, paricularly the California State workers plan (CALPERS) and another combined multi-state plan I can't remember the name of."

Too fucking right.
http://money.cnn.com/2002/03/08/deals/wire.../calpers_hp_re/ (http://money.cnn.com/2002/03/08/deals/wires/calpers_hp_re/)

[reagan lives]

Underpaid and abused workers in the Third World are exploited by their own corrupt governments, who keep labor standards down in order to attract independent factory contractors (not Nike or any other MNC) into their country. To attribute this fact to some sort of American capitalist conspiracy is nothing more than a flight of self-indulgent fantasy.

[Rosa]

AND WHO DO YOU THINK IS CORRUPTING THAT "CORRUPTED GOVERNMENTS"?

[peaccenicked]

Coprporate Predators Mokihber and Weissman
"The incisive and sharply focused snapshots presented here give a telling portrait of some of the most dangerous forces undermining what is decent and hopeful in American and global society. A warning that should be taken very seriously."
--Noam Chomsky

How are corporations tightening their grip on the global political economy? How does this affect you? Read Mokhiber and Weissman's Corporate Predators and find out:
Microsoft Chairman and CEO Bill Gates' net wealth -- $51 billion -- is greater than the combined net worth of the poorest 40 percent of Americans (106 million people).
Hundreds of hospitals are "dumping" patients who can't afford to pay.
The feds are criminally prosecuting big tobacco companies for smuggling cigarettes into Canada. (Never mind addicting young kids to smoke and thus condemning them to a certain, albeit, slow, death -- can't criminally prosecute them for that.)
Prescription drugs may cause 100,000 deaths a year.
Two Fox-TV reporters in Florida are fired for trying to report on adverse health effects associated with genetically engineered foods.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture proposes that genetically engineered foods be labelled "organic."
Coal companies continue to cheat on air quality tests as hundreds of coal miners continue to die each year from black lung disease.
The North American Securities Administrators Association estimates that Americans lose about $1 million a hour to securities fraud.
Robert Reich says that megamergers threaten democracy. Corporate crime explodes, but the academic study of corporate crime vanishes.
Three hundred trade unionists around the world were killed in 1997 for defending their rights.
Corporate firms lobbying to cripple the Superfund law outnumber environmental groups seeking to defend it by 30 to one.
Down on Nike? Chinese political prisoners allegedly make Adidas products.
Blue Cross Blue Shield Illinois is a corporate criminal. Chemical companies are testing pesticides on human beings.
Senator Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, questions whether the Pentagon's financial controls have suffered a "complete and utter breakdown."
Environmental crimes prosecution are down sharply under Clinton/Gore. Bush/Quayle had a better record.
Bell Atlantic buys Maurice Sendak's Where the Wild Things Are illustrations to sell telephone products.
Companies that have workers die on the job continue to be met with fines. Criminal prosecutions still rare.
This is the price paid for living in corporate-dominated society. Wealth disparity, megamergers and the resulting consolidation of corporate power, commercialism run amok, rampant corporate crime, death without justice, pollution, cancer and an unrelenting attack on democracy.
From union-busting to food irradiation, from faulty air bags that kill but are kept on the market anyway to judges who take bribes, from the IMF to oil companies -- wherever the corporate predators strike, Mokhiber and Weissman are there, reporting from a relentlessly human perspective, sounding the alarm and calling people to action.

[TITOMAn]

AND WHO DO YOU THINK IS CORRUPTING THAT "CORRUPTED GOVERNMENTS"?

-----
"I'M NOT ASKING FOR A MERCY, NEITHER I WOULD GIVE IT TO YOU!", Rade Konchar, the yugoslav communist, before executed


Rosa, Where are you from? Maybe from former SFRJ?
I am from Slovenia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

And about Third world governments, I can only tell you that South African Republic, has the biggest natural gold resoursces and it is very very poor, because all gold mines are in possesion of other governments (England, America,...). And their government (African) is there, just to hold away people from truth, but we must not forget that this governmet also gets money, from (England, America,...), for holding down people. The only solution is to educate these people (In Africa).

[Sasafrás]

Quote: from Imperial Power on 12:58 am on Mar. 2, 2002
La rainbeaux you agree then that the possiblity of a large scale Revolution is impossible. What is your political stand than if you are not socialist?
Damn honey, I'm sorry I didn't answer before. I haven't looked at this thread in a long time. My political beliefs/ideas are a big mélange of anarchist, socialist, communist, and democratic ideas. I'm the type of girl who is not nameable, but I think I can still definitely be called 'leftist.'

Oh, and, I don't think that revolution is impossible; just extremely difficult..

(Edited by La Rainbeaux at 11:40 pm on Mar. 10, 2002)

[poncho]

"To attribute this fact to some sort of American capitalist conspiracy is nothing more than a flight of self-indulgent fantasy"--Reagan Lives

Argentina recently planned on tighting its banking laws to restrict foreign capital from leaving the country. The United States said if they passed this law they would not give a promised foreign aid package.

Try taking out more than 10,000 out of the United States!!!!!!!!

[guerrilla radio]

Reagan Lives - oh please...you're using the corporation's excuse. Originally, they owned all the factories themselves, but then the workers started demanding better rights and pay, so they sold them to contractors. The ultimate case of passing the buck. It's perfectly within their power to demand and even provide better rights for the workers, but it's in their interests to keep the pay low (lower pay = less money injected, same brought in = bigger profit = more $$$$$s). Also, they have made the evironment for governments to keep the minimum wage low and virtually no workers' rights because the country needs the industry, and they know that if they have proper workers' rights, the corporation will go elsewhere, so they have to keep them low. In fact, third world countries are constantly lowering their minimum wages and workers' rights to bring in more Western factories. Fair?? I don't think so...

[reagan lives]

"In fact, third world countries are constantly lowering their minimum wages and workers' rights to bring in more Western factories. Fair?? I don't think so... "

That's what I said. For some reason you want to excuse these governments and blame the private corporations of America unilateraly. This is what you call fair? Corporations are for-profit organizations, my friend, and I don't think that "fighting for human rights around the globe" is on too many prospecti. Who has more responsibility for the worker in the Third World- the corporation which contracts with the company that owns the factory that employs him, or his own government?

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from reagan lives on 4:03 pm on Mar. 11, 2002
Corporations are for-profit organizations, my friend, and I don't think that "fighting for human rights around the globe" is on too many prospecti.

You see, that's precisely the problem (well one of the many actually) I'm targetting. The corporation values profit (the good ol' $$) above people and their rights. Surely something must be wrong here??

And of course the governments are to blame as well, but they cannot be expected to better their rights and wages as if they do so, the corporation will go elsewhere and they'll lose the urgently needed revenue the factories would bring them. If there was to be an agreement among all the Third World countries to keep the minimum wage above a set price and have certain rights impelemented then I would back it, but can you see that happening?? It's more likely that the corporations set some groundrules themselves. But even that doesn't seem very likely. Like I said, it is perfectly within the power of the MNCs to demand better rights for the workers, but they don't want to, because of the very easy equation:


Quote: from guerrilla radio on 3:38 pm on Mar. 11, 2002
lower pay = less money injected, same brought in = bigger profit = more $$$$$s...

[reagan lives]

So your position is that corporations should worry about human rights (instead of money) and governments should worry about money (instead of rights). Wonderful.

[peaccenicked]

what a shabby morality ReaganLives holds.
What is the matter with government and corporates making their priority human rights.
Surely money should be secondary, to the violation of human rights.

[El Che]

Capitalism is a violation of human rights because it is the system of organised theft. Point which reagan seems to want to desperatly avoid challenging.

[guerrillaradio]

Regan Lives - you may not be very good at many things, but you have a certain knack for (deliberately) twisting people's words and extracting an irrelevant blanket statement from them. It seems perfectly obvious to me (and must surely be to you too) that both governments and MNCs should worry about both human rights and money. Unfortunately, many Third World countries are not in a position to discriminate against corporations because of their poor human rights. I assume you and I are in agreement that the Third World economies need boosting by industry (if you aren't, then I won't bother debating with you as you are just irreparably far-right). The governments realise this, and are therefore desperate to attain any industry they can. I, and the other members of what has come to be called the No Logo movement, am not against MNCs at all. Neither am I against them opening factories in the Third World. However, they must give the workers the rights and pay they deserve. It is perfectly within their power to do so, but you and I (though you are probably loath to admit it) know they probably won't.

[reagan lives]

"Capitalism is a violation of human rights because it is the system of organised theft. Point which reagan seems to want to desperatly avoid challenging."
I suggest you reread the first six pages of this thread.

"Unfortunately, many Third World countries are not in a position to discriminate against corporations because of their poor human rights."
You lost me. Oh, I got it. Watch your sentence structure. If I get your right here, you're saying "Third World countires are not in a position to discriminate against corporations on the basis of those corporations' poor human rights." Why not? I mean, you seem to just take this as some incontravertible fact.

"I assume you and I are in agreement that the Third World economies need boosting by industry (if you aren't, then I won't bother debating with you as you are just irreparably far-right)."
Actually, I don't think we are in total agreement here. You seem to think that the way for the Third World to solve its problems is to import industry and cross their fingers and hope that they're treated fairly. I am of the opinion that the first step is to establish fair political and legal systems. These systems will allow workers to accumulate wealth fairly. Then they (the workers) will be able to get a fair shake from any factories that open in their nation. You might say that doing so would cause MNC's to go elsewhere, and you might be right...in the short term. That is, until all Third World nations can establish these institutions. In the meantime, the nations that do take the proper steps won't fall too far behind at all, since fair market systems will allow them to increase domestic production at a rate that's at least equivalent to the nations that are exporting their labor. If you and your friends at No Logo would stop putting the cart before the horse, perhaps you might get some good things done.

[poncho]

"I assume you and I are in agreement that the Third World economies need boosting by industry (if you aren't, then I won't bother debating with you as you are just irreparably far-right)."
Actually, I don't think we are in total agreement here. You seem to think that the way for the Third World to solve its problems is to import industry and cross their fingers and hope that they're treated fairly. I am of the opinion that the first step is to establish fair political and legal systems. These systems will allow workers to accumulate wealth fairly. Then they (the workers) will be able to get a fair shake from any factories that open in their nation. You might say that doing so would cause MNC's to go elsewhere, and you might be right...in the short term. That is, until all Third World nations can establish these institutions. In the meantime, the nations that do take the proper steps won't fall too far behind at all, since fair market systems will allow them to increase domestic production at a rate that's at least equivalent to the nations that are exporting their labor. If you and your friends at No Logo would stop putting the cart before the horse, perhaps you might get some good things done." --Reagan Lives

In a nutshell that is what the Cuban Revolution and Fidel Castro is all about.... Hence why America hates him and his government!!!!!

[reagan lives]

That's funny.

[Michael De Panama]

If I knew how to bring down capitalism, it would have been brought down long ago.

[El Che]

"I suggest you reread the first six pages of this thread."

I suggest you prove me wrong. If you can. If you dont, then it is assumed by default that you can not, and by consequence it is also assumed that you are a suporter of human rights violating system. Ignorance can give you quarter no longer, for I have told you the truth, truth you can not challenge. From this point on you are a crime supporter by choice. Last I heard theft was still a crime.

[reagan lives]

El Che, I'm not going to post the same arguments in the same thread twice just because you call me names. You called capitalism "theft" earlier in this thread, and I debunked that lie pretty effectively. If you are in denial about that, it's not my problem.

[El Che]

quote your self then.

[reagan lives]

"A worker's employer is always making more money as a result of that worker's employment than he or she is paying the worker. True. However, this is NOT theft."

"But when A and B work together, they can produce more overall. And they can both profit. And they can each profit more than they would if they worked separately, even if A profits more than B."

"You concede that people are more productive when they are working together, we agree here. However, then you say that they should only work together if "one doesn't gain from the work of others." But by definition, each will be gaining from the work of the others. For instance, if you and I decide that for whatever reason (let's spare ourselves stupid hypotheticals) we can be more productive if we work together, then I will be gaining from your work and you will be gaining from mine (in the sense that we will each be producing more than we would seperately). Now, you try and assert that if, in this arrangement, my marginal benefit was greater than yours, then I would be "stealing" from you. Any sensible person would see that you are profiting from the arrangement, even if I am profiting *more*, and therefore it can't possibly be correctly called "theft" except by those who either 1) are extremely deluded; or 2) are attempting some sort of demagoguery to advance alterior motives.

An employer profits from employment. He makes more money as a result of the employment than he pays to the worker. You, apparently, see something wrong here. The contention, I suppose, is that the labor of the worker is worth more than the wage. The trick is that it's worth more than the wage TO THE EMPLOYER...it's worth less than the wage TO THE WORKER...and therefore the exchange is made."

To which you replied:
"Alas it is the system of organised theft, and that is what you are dening. To your own self let it be corectly understood. Theories on how the market works best, and how to achive sucess within capitalist economics matter not. Only a confused mind would fail to see the difference. Capitalism at its fundamental level, that is the subject matter, and not questions of detail and market evolution."

Basically you said "Phooey, you're just wrong, I'm going home."

Are you happy now, you annoying little cretin?

[guerrillaradio]

How I Wish Regan Was Still Alive Inside - Firstly, it's interesting how you only contest approximately one of every five points I make every post?? Am I to believe that you have no answer to the rest but you're too proud to admit it?? I think this little cappie needs a lesson in humility...

Onto the point, your idea of bringing "fair political and legal systems" to the countries is irrelevant. That's a bit like a doctor saying, "yeah I could save this cancer sufferer from certain death, but first I'll make a pizza cos I'm hungry" (OK, a bit crude, but you get my point). As I have been saying in about my last four posts, the MNCs are perfectly capable of demanding human rights for the workers themselves. They just don't wanna cos that would mean a (nominally) reduced profit. Of course, the countries need a fair system, but I fail to see how that will help the sweatshop workers. And one country will not make a stand because they urgently need the money to make the fair systems you talk of. I myself do not think that if one country were to make a stand, the rest would eventually follow. 100 years ago, there were hundreds sweatshops in the US and UK (there still are a few illegal ones I think). They gradually moved elsewhere because more laws were passed improving workers' conditions. With every country that improves its rights, the MNCs will move elsewhere, and again and again. I think it is very unlikely that every single country in the world will ever instate humane workers' rights. Even if we do ever reach that point, all that needs to happen is for a revolution to happen in one unstable country, and for the new oppressive leadership to take away workers' rights, and the MNCs would be back in there in a flash. All the countries which have made significant improvements to their rights will instantly follow suit, as they need the financial injection, and we will be back to square one.

[reagan lives]

I wasn't aware that you were making more than one point. Perhaps I should reread your old posts. On second thought, I've wasted too much time on them already.

Let's make sure that we get everything here.
"Onto the point, your idea of bringing "fair political and legal systems" to the countries is irrelevant."
OK, I'm dealing with a moron. Check.

"That's a bit like a doctor saying, "yeah I could save this cancer sufferer from certain death, but first I'll make a pizza cos I'm hungry" (OK, a bit crude, but you get my point)."
Not a bit crude. A bit stupid. No, really stupid. What do pizzas have to do with medicine? It's clear that you're laboring (ha ha) under the false belief that political and legal systems have nothing to do with economics. That's too bad, because if you don't understand this very simple concept, I don't know if I'll be able to make you understand the more complicated things.

"As I have been saying in about my last four posts, the MNCs are perfectly capable of demanding human rights for the workers themselves. They just don't wanna cos that would mean a (nominally) reduced profit."
As I have been saying in my last four posts, it would be grand if MNC's demanded human rights for the workers themselves. But the primary responsibility for these people lies with their governments, not with the corporations across the globe that contract with the companies that employ the people.

"Of course, the countries need a fair system, but I fail to see how that will help the sweatshop workers."
You really don't? Wow.

"And one country will not make a stand because they urgently need the money to make the fair systems you talk of."
No, they don't. Even if they needed a bunch of money, they couldn't get that money from MNC factories in a quadrillion years. They're essentially exporting all their labor, you simpleton, usually in exchange for payoffs to corrupt government officials (which probably won't go towards reform).

"I myself do not think that if one country were to make a stand, the rest would eventually follow."
Doesn't matter. At least not for the one country...who would steadily outpace all the nations that didn't reform.

"100 years ago, there were hundreds sweatshops in the US and UK (there still are a few illegal ones I think). They gradually moved elsewhere because more laws were passed improving workers' conditions."
Oh, so now laws are important.

"With every country that improves its rights, the MNCs will move elsewhere, and again and again. I think it is very unlikely that every single country in the world will ever instate humane workers' rights."
Then what are you doing?

"Even if we do ever reach that point, all that needs to happen is for a revolution to happen in one unstable country, and for the new oppressive leadership to take away workers' rights, and the MNCs would be back in there in a flash."
Yeah, there's nothing American corporations like better than investing in unstable countries.

"All the countries which have made significant improvements to their rights will instantly follow suit, as they need the financial injection, and we will be back to square one."
This is some conjecture. Even if it were true (and that's a big if), does that mean that we shouldn't try to get these very important reforms made? Because MNC factories are the symptom, my friend, not the problem. Even if you pestered the corporations until they gave in and improved the conditions in the factories of the contractors that they work with, there would still be millions of people in all these nations who are living and working in shit conditions. Establishing good legal institutions may not be as glamorous or romantic as boycotting Nike, but it's what needs to be done if you're serious about solving these problems in the long term.

[HardcoreCommie]

Establishing good legal institutions may not be as glamorous or romantic as boycotting Nike, but it's what needs to be done if you're serious about solving these problems in the long term. -reagan lives


Quality...Just thought this needed to be emphasized.

[TITOMAn]

Reagan, your capitalism lives only from exploiting Third world counries. Like countries in Africa, South America, Asia.

I would not like to point out bigger problems for now. Because I want to hear what you have to say about this, first.

I would just like to say, that I know guy that made a research about that (for Master´s degree in politics). And he wrote about 500 pages about it. Well I would just like to hear you before I start to proove you wrong. ;)

[guerrillaradio]

Good point actually, you are wasting your time. But still...

Calling me a moron and simpleton is pointless and immature. I can think of few things less sickening than an arrogant and condescending capitalist. "Check" indeed...

Ok, so the pizza analogy was a bit stupid. The reason for that was I was missing my lunch to write that post (yeah, I know, priorities eh???) and I was really hungry. Fortunately I found some old pizza to munch on while I put the world to rights...

It now appears to me that we in effect want the same thing: better rights for workers in sweatshops. In reality, where the blame lies for their poor rights in the first place is irrelevant. What we are debating is the best way in which achieve these rights. I do think that the corporations are better placed to improve the rights than the governments are, as the government of countries as unstable as those in the Third World have other priorities (such as embezzling their funds, I guess, or other more legitimate ways of creating an infrastructure) and the fact does remain that if one country was to put in humane workers' rights, the MNC would just move on (like I said in the last post). If you cannot see the exploitation of the Third World by MNCs then there must be something wrong with you. Ok, so maybe the governments of the countries were originally partly to blame, but it is hardly the most honorable thing for the MNCs to take advantage of cheap human labour and lack of infrastructure. Oh, I forgot, by definition all MNCs are heartless and money-driven.

EXAMPLE: A Nike factory opens in Country A, which has a minimum wage of 50 cents an hour. Countries B and C see what good it is doing (apart from the revenue, it also provides jobs) and lowered their minimum wage down to 50c/hr as well. They promptly get a Nike factory and a Gap factory. However, Country D has an idea: why not lower the wage down to 45c/hr?? We might be able to steal the Nike and Gap factories off Countries A, B and C?? Nike and Gap of course take the offer, as they could do with less input themselves. So Countries A and B lower their minimum wages down to 40c/hr. However, Country C decides to retain its workers' rights and keeps its wages at 50c/hr. Nike and Gap go to A, B and D, but not C. And so on and so on. It all makes sense...

And I fail to see what you are claiming about my attitude toward laws. Of course, they are important.

Finally, if MNC factories are the sympton and not the problem, would you like to divulge what the problem is matey??

[reagan lives]

"Reagan, your capitalism lives only from exploiting Third world counries. Like countries in Africa, South America, Asia."
No, we'd be just fine if those nations industrialized. If standards rose in the Third World, it stands to reason that a lot of the labor that we outsource there would come back to the US. So the corporations would have to pay more in wages, so perhaps the price of commodities would go up (if we imagine that this is the only variable, let's do that to keep it simple). But our workers would be making more money. And the newly industrialized nations would be buying our shit.

But more likely, rising wages would cause American corporations to streamline elsewhere. They're pretty good at that.

I'm glad that you have a friend that wrote about this.

[Moskitto]

Wouldn't rising living standards in the third world cause unrest because...

Companies would have to pay more wages so either.

1. Prices Rise

2. Companies become more labour efficient

If Prices rise people won't be too happy and interest rates might go up to control inflation. Which would make young house buyers homeless if they can't afford loans.

If companies become more labour efficient then unemployment would go up which would cause either.

1. Lower wages because people would be competing for jobs.

2. More unemployment because their would be less jobs than before (Like the SU where they got rid of the Beaurocracy in the late 80s.)

Eitherway, wouldn't their be problems caused if the third would develops in the current situation?

[Imperial Power]

Regan Lives is correct I have discussed before the importence of the strong judicial system to mainting a fare capitalist society. Moskitto your worries would be taken care of. If companies become more labor efficient it releases more specialized labor into the workforce. THese people go to work with different corporations creating more competition keeping prices low and benefiting the consumer.

[El Che]

haha, This is indeed amusing. I invite all of you that are reading this thread, to consider my charges against the capitalist system, and then consider the replies to same. Isn`t it funny !? I think Reagan is blind, only I blind man would fail to see the charges stand unanswered.

Reagan I know you are anoyed, I know exaclty why you are anoyed. I will not however respond to your insults, this would be to easy, its would be letting you off the hock, no. That u may present the el che resolution, u may, by i will not give you an excuse to do so. So that if you do it, it will be for all to see that the cause of the same is your lack of response to the questions I insist you answer.


Now then:

"A worker's employer is always making more money as a result of that worker's employment than he or she is paying the worker. True. However, this is NOT theft."

I am correct and yet I am not correct? The employer "takes" part of worker`s labor due to social agreeement that is know as the wage system. Call it what you will, I call it theft, because that is what it is. That is why the worker is poor and the capitalist is rich. Because he profits from the labor of those whom he employs. Reagan says this is not theft, what he is infact disputing is not the fact, its the name one gives to the fact. You see capitalists must find within there own morality suport for there activities, they must twist and turn it, untill they can justify to them selves the theft they pratice apon society. It is theft, I stand by what I say, and I leave each to judge acording to his own ethos. However to one thing I shall call your atention! the fact, the fact its self, whatever you wish to call it, can not be disputed. It follows that the reivindication of soceity in which the means are organised in a way that does not allow some to profit from the work of the masses has ample ground on which to stand on.

Beware though, not by apealing to their morality will one ever be able to make them see reason.


"But when A and B work together, they can produce more overall. And they can both profit. And they can each profit more than they would if they worked separately, even if A profits more than B."

Do you remember how earlier I told you reagan was blind? Here he presents the evidence to back up by statement. He confuses human cooperation, social division of work, with the problematic of capitalist control of the means of production. Men work together, together they can better face up to the challenges of life, it has always been so, since the beining of time. There is nothing obejctable therein. However the issue is not cooperation but domination. Take a factory for example, all the men that work wherein coperate amongest them selves, with the help of machines, to produce all which is produced in that factory. Yes? you follow reagan?. Now then, here we have coperation on equal basis, each of the workers does there job and each helps the others produce more net commodities per head then any of them would be able to produce alone. This is coperation. Now if we look at the so called coperation between the worker and the factory owener what do we see that differes from the above mentioned case ? We see fundamental differences both in the aid each gives the others and in the relation of power within the relation, these are critical differences. The of coperation is different because while workers coperate by working, by providing each other with their own work, the capitalist coperates with money. He provids not work but the machines and all the other things necessary to produce the goods that come out of the factory. We see that the factory owners position in this relation is one granted to him by the amount of capital he has. We can conclude from this that those who have alot of money, do not need to work because they can simply by the means with which things are produced and rent them to the producers. Furthermore, what results from this, the things that are produced from this arangement belong not to the producers but to the one that detains the means of production. Therefor the part of the capitalist in "coperation" is simply to live of the work of those that work for him, he is parisite. Yes? I would like reagan to point out where my logic went wrong. But as you will see, he will not be able to do this. What he will do, is to give the conclusion another name, just like we saw him do in the quote above. He can not dispute my logic or my conclusions but he can give them another name and by rethoric and twisted morality forget that they are wrong. This is what he will do as you will see, because it is the only thing he can do. Either that or he will not respond.
Now consider the power equilibrium within the capital-labor relation. You can easly see that capital is dominante. As we have seen, one man alone can not produce enough to suport him self, he therefor a slave to capital. Because in our soceity capital is the means of production. It is the machinary and the factories, without capital you are slave to capital and with capital you are master of the salves of the same. If you have been born into wealth then those that want to produce must come to you! they need you, alone they can not stand, therefor its is this control over the means of production that is granted by capital that is what makes the capitalist allpowerfull within this relation. The only force that can stand up to capital is a unified labor, but its is still not strong enough. They both need each other, yes, this is true, but non the less capital dominates this relation even though it also needs labor. Why? well because such is life... If some will not work if they have to give part of there work to the capitalist, others will... If someone will not work in subhuman conditions another will. They will push you as low as you are willing to go. And a completly unified labor is simply not possible. It is not realistic to try and unify all the working men and women of any given contry. The capitalist dominates the relation, and therein lies his strenght, and therein lies his power to exploit. therein lies the inequality of this "coperation", and therein lies his theft. Again reagan can not dispute my logic, but may give the conclusion a different name. As he surly will do, just you wait and see.



"You concede that people are more productive when they are working together, we agree here. However, then you say that they should only work together if "one doesn't gain from the work of others." But by definition, each will be gaining from the work of the others. For instance, if you and I decide that for whatever reason (let's spare ourselves stupid hypotheticals) we can be more productive if we work together, then I will be gaining from your work and you will be gaining from mine (in the sense that we will each be producing more than we would seperately). Now, you try and assert that if, in this arrangement, my marginal benefit was greater than yours, then I would be "stealing" from you. Any sensible person would see that you are profiting from the arrangement, even if I am profiting *more*, and therefore it can't possibly be correctly called "theft" except by those who either 1) are extremely deluded; or 2) are attempting some sort of demagoguery to advance alterior motives."

In short what reagan is saying is that with the first type of coperation, the coperation on equal basis, the coperation that exists within labor its self, there is also unequal profit of some at the expenses of the others. And example to make it more clear: In a factory the workers coperate to produce, now let us supose this factory is owned by the workers colectivly, then they will all gain equaly from the income that the selling of there producition provids. But do they all work exactly the same? exactly the same? what if one of them lags and trys to work as little as possible without being noticed etc? then he will also profit from the work of the others yes? Yup. Reagan is right here. See Reagan, when you are right I acept that you are right, i dont tiwst facts or hide from logic like you do. I embrace the truth. Your problem however is that you are not dealing with an utopian. Nothing is perfect, and yes within labor coperation there are sometimes some who benifit. One thing i learned when i worked for some time in civil construction was to work as little as possible and look like I was the hardest worker in the building site. Such is life, such are we humans. However you must separate the waters. In fact if you consider the problem academicaly you will find that if you where to find a a way to measure labor force dispended, you would see that no two people can ever dispend exactly the same mount of labor doing the same job. This is in no way a inpediment to human coperation and it is in no way an arguement that justifies the social controlation of the means of producition by a parasitic class of theives. As we can all see Reagan continualy confuses his ass with his pants, one things has nothing to do with the other.


"An employer profits from employment. He makes more money as a result of the employment than he pays to the worker. You, apparently, see something wrong here. The contention, I suppose, is that the labor of the worker is worth more than the wage. The trick is that it's worth more than the wage TO THE EMPLOYER...it's worth less than the wage TO THE WORKER...and therefore the exchange is made."

Again here we see that reagan can not dispute my claims. He is powerless. The only thing he can do, and is doing in this quote is give the facts other names and tiwist them so they can sound good, sound ok, and in this way ease his morality. He doesnt defend any evil. Nothing is wrong. Its not theft! its just what the labor is worth more than the wage TO THE WORKER and its worth less than the wage TO THE EMPLOYER. Nop no theft. No obejctive value. Nop. Drup! No recognition of what is going on, of the fact of the matter of it all, nop! All is well, its not theft, its just how much each of us values out work and the work of others, totaly subjective.

Utter rubbish.


I challenge you reagan not to give me this rubbish! this is a waste of my time! Dont waste my time. I challenge you do prove my claims wrong, and I say to thee if you can not then stop refusing the truth and embrace it.

Come reagan try again. Non of you claims stand. Admit defeat or continue to renounce logic.

[peaccenicked]

"Subject: Aristotle's account of True Friendship



This paper will deal with the Aristotelean notion of friendship, with special focus on Friendships of Virtue. The paper will answer questions like what Aristotle meant by friendship, what kind of friendships exist, and how we go about acquiring the highest type of friendship. ..........Throughout our life we get into different kinds of relationships. Some relationships are forced upon us, like family ties. These are relationships we are born in, and we cannot break them anymore than we can stop breathing. Even denying their existence does not change the fact that your mother and aunts are who they are. Other relationships are not forced upon us but we do not have complete control over them, like love interests. We do not choose who we want to fall in love with even though we do choose the situations that makes it possible for the feelings to appear. The third kind of relationships are friendships. Friendships are, in the old Greeks' view, the most important kind of relationships you can be involved in. One of the reasons is that you can choose your friend, unlike family. But what kind of friend you are, depends solely on your character. To the old Greeks, friendships brought out the best in us, and a man without friends would be poorer without it.

Aristotle distinguished between three kinds of friendships: friendships of utility, friendships of pleasure and friendships of virtue.

Friendships of utility is a friendship based on usefulness. The friends are friends only insofar as they are useful to each other. An example of this might be car salesman and the car buyer. Assuming they know each other, both wants something the other can provide. They are useful to each other insofar they can provide the goods the other person need. This kind of friendships do not last long because they are contingent on the goods that are provided."
The relation between the capitalist and the worker is not one of friendship. There needs be nothing but the hardness of cash and thats all there usually is.
In corporate state there is some coporation between
employers and workers, this is to some extent there is government regulation of employer abuse, a check on their power.
The economic relationship is exploitative because it is only the workers that actually work the resources of the world and shape them. The capitalist need do nothing but watch his investment grow. What his investment,
the money for factories and tools and resources. All of which have been shaped by workers.
The question becomes for workers, why do we need the capitalist? We as socialists say we dont need the capitalist. He is a parasitic cog in the system we can do without. What we gain from him we can gain for ourselves, we can employ the managers , we can find the resources.we can do this.
RL says we sould be happy from what we gain from legalised robbery. How can we call him a friend, he certainly not pleasant, and has all the virtues of an apologist for theft. He and his ilk gate crashed our
forum on the web. You have been told you are not welcome. This is not a friend but an enemy rationalising
this callous hard cash capitalist system which is dripping in blood from head to foot. RL go and find your soul and get it back from the devil

[El Che]

well said comrade

[reagan lives]

Let's get one thing straight. I don't apologize for capitalism. I don't apologize for the economic system that has allowed those societies that adopt its tenets to be more productive and create better lives for ALL their citizens. I'm not "apologizing for a system of theft." I'm trying to show you why it's not theft at all. To wit:
1) The theoretical employer-employee relationship is mutually beneficial (both parties benefit absolutely, if not relatively)
2) Employer-employee relationships are essentially contracts that are entered upon voluntarily by both parties, presumably in the interest of profit on the part of both parties.
3) Nobody who was interested in an objective representation of the situation (as opposed to being interested in demagoguery and propoganda) could conclude that a mutually beneficial relationship that is entered upon voluntarily by both parties amounts to "theft."

The worker sells his labor. He has no claim whatsoever to the product he produces, as per the employment agreement. The employer buys the worker's labor, and therefore owns the product of the labor. Said product is his to do what he will with...upon payment of wages the employer's contract with the worker is no longer part of the equation.

You assert, like Marx, that workers are forced into employment. I'd point out that people are forced into labor by virtue of our need to propogate existence, but this is a little too abstract. I would also point out that people are forced to work even under Marx's ideal system, but you wouldn't care anyway. Your assertion seems to be that since the exchange is not voluntary, the relationship is inherently unjust. I would counter this with two arguments, one theoretical and one factual, respectively:
1) When you pay the grocer for your groceries, is he stealing from you? You are forced to enter into the contract, otherwise you will surely starve. You can't bargain or barter with the grocer...he sets the prices based on the market value, which is determined by his costs and your willingness to pay. You have to buy the groceries at those prices, unless you have some sort of subsistence farm. So is this theft?

2) In the Engelian world that Marx wrote about, people had little choice about the nature of their employment. This is simply not true in capitalist systems today. The days of everyone in town working in the same factory are over everywhere except for some anachronistic parts of Tennessee, and those places are home to some of the most powerful labor unions in the world. There is a plurality of employment opportunities. Citing unemployment does not disprove this in any sort of logical matter. I pointed out why this is the case earlier in this thread.

I love you too.

[Moskitto]

Is wealth infinite?

I'd say no because wealth generally comes from selling raw materials, turning them into goods, then selling them. Raw Materials are not infinite so if you were to run out of the raw material you needed you would no longer have any wealth.

Such a problem would be removed if there was replication technology, however, this would effectively end buying and selling in the primary and secondary industry sectors due to the fact that you don't need to buy something if you can just make it, tertiary sectors would remain in some areas though.

[peaccenicked]

I do try to follow the christian ethos of loving thy enemies, it is noble to at least try, but what is ignoble
is to gatecrash a forum, in which you have been made unwelcome, and here in the outhouse we have created for you, to ask you to leave, you continue to apoligize for legalised theft. If you rob someone and deny the robbery,that is partly an apology. It says, I am sorry but the robbery does not simply exist.
Then you go on to say an agreed contract, is no robbery.
The logic of capitalism is to make people to part with as much money as possible. To do so it takes advantage of the vast majority without capital. Being without capital is not a voluntary situation. Hence it is not abstract at all
that the worker needs to propagate his survival needs.
It is a living necessity. A mutually benefitial relationship
is when a burglar robs your house and leave his tools
behind.
To be compelled by basic necessities by the system of capitalism or any system leaves you at the mercy of the emloyer . This employer can be the capitalist or the
democratic State of socialism.
The capitalists benefits by billions the worker over the years in thousands . The capitalist does not need to anything but investment cash. Thus has a parasitical relationship with the workers. You wish to deny this through a false potrayal of the relations and you hide the intentions of the logic of capitalism. You hide the relationship between capitalism and war which is a result of the 'logic' of capitalism. This covers you in the blood of millions, and gives you a status in history as an apologist for the ongoing dailly slaughter caused by that logic. Love, dear enemy is a word you should choke on.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 10:17 pm on Mar. 17, 2002)

[reagan lives]

Moskitto:
For all practical purposes, wealth on this planet is infinite. This is mostly because much of "wealth" has to do with how we personally value things. Money, for these purposes, is nothing more than a medium for trade and a standard to aggregate market value. An easy hypothetical: let's say that you have a watch that I particularly like. In fact, I like it more than you do. Put in monetary terms, let's say I like that watch more than I like $100. Therefore, I would be willing to trade my $100 for your watch (let's forget about opportunity cost for this simple example). Let's say that you like your watch less than you like $100. So you agree to trading your watch for my $100. Now we both have things that we like better. We have both increased in wealth without using any more resources.

This, of course, is a silly example that is supposed to illustrate the larger market principles at work. I've brought it up a number of times on this thread alone, in fact. A worker sells his time for more than it's worth to him, primarily in opportunity cost. An employer buys the time for less than it's worth to him. Both worker and employer profit.

peacenick:
"If you rob someone and deny the robbery,that is partly an apology. It says, I am sorry but the robbery does not simply exist."
This is not an accurate metaphor, because you characterize the action as a robbery in the first place. I'm trying to show you how the action is not a robbery, I'm not denying the existence of the action.

"The logic of capitalism is to make people to part with as much money as possible."
Yes, which is why workers make employers part with as much money as possible. The system works.

"A mutually benefitial relationship
is when a burglar robs your house and leave his tools
behind."
You lost me.
EDIT: Oh, I get it. You profit because now you have the burglar's tools. Good example, it proves my point well. If the burglar leaves his tools behind, you do not profit...you've traded things that you value highly (your property) for things that you don't value (unless you, too, happen to be a theif). This is indeed robbery, but since the worker trades something he doesn't value highly (his time) for something that he does (money), it doesn't really apply here.

"The capitalists benefits by billions the worker over the years in thousands . The capitalist does not need to anything but investment cash."
I think the problem here might be that you have a seriously warped view of the American economy. The "capitalists" that you imagine (billionaires who are born into phenomenal wealth and do nothing for their entire lives except exploit workers) are few and far between. Most companies are either a) publicly owned; or B) started by entrepeneurs who do an incredible amount of work to get the project off the ground.

"You wish to deny this through a false potrayal of the relations and you hide the intentions of the logic of capitalism."
So your argument, after all, is that you're right and I'm wrong. My portrayal (based on ECONOMICS) is "false," and yours (based on the failed theories of a Hegelian philosopher) is not. That's compelling.


(Edited by reagan lives at 10:37 pm on Mar. 17, 2002)

[jimr]

I agree with The maoist view that socialism will come via popular uprising. I believe that when the time is right, and when enough evidence is gathered to show the true colours of capitalism, when the time is right that a event in the world triggers popular disent, when this time comes i think groups all over the world, during a time of unstability will rise up and revolt.

This is the only way in which pure views can come to power inmy opinion. All other views are merely incorperated into the mainstream and lose their value.

To state one example: for the first 300 years of Christianity, christians were pasicfist, as Christ himself was. They were persecuted for this. Yet they continued to grow. The roman emperor foresaw the conclusion as a christian state of pacifists. The only way to control them is to absorb them. By adopting christianity into the roman empire, and an end to the persecution of christians. Yet the very minute that this happened, christianity ceased to exist. They were able to be turned from their pacifist ways into your average fighting roman via the bogus just war criteria.

A second example is seen in early 20th century Britain during teh Libral reforms 1905-1914. The librals foresaw a eventual socialist uprising and as they were powerless to stop this, they introduced compromise. Seeing the reforms as more than they had ever got, and grateful for the scraps, the socials of Britian were tricked out of what would have been a socialist government.

No compromise, and
Hasta la victoria siempre

Socialism in my opinion, or atleast tue socialism, can only be achived in this way.

[peaccenicked]

RL.
The apology you make for robbery is a mere self deceit
Stalinist apologists deny mass murder.
Hitler apologists deny the holocaust.
You deny the daylight living robbery of the world's working class.
Your sophistry consists of taking a one sided truth -
about mutual benifit, ie worker gets wage. The capitalist
gains profit.- you attempt to turn this one sided half truth into the whole truth.
If you leave things at this most shallow level, at class peace and pretence of friendship, you are merely guilty of trying to dupe the working class. You really must think we are stupid.
The whole truth about the relationship is that it is hugely disproportionate. Billions and thousands over a year is hugely uneven. The privatisation policy of neo liberalism has left very little in public ownership.
The major corporations who employ the most make superprofits. The majority shareholders are rolling in it.
Work starting up a project hardly proves the minimalistic nature of the capitalists work, it stops at the start.
Most capital is passed on anyway, and the inheritance laws continue the legalised theft.
I am not saying you are wrong and I am right, I am saying more than that you are unjustly defending rank
injustice, It is so outrageous, I find it hard to believe
that you seriously believe what you are saying.
This is a bluff, you are calling in order to wind up people on this site. You may as well be denying the holocaust,
as you do deny the connection between war, imperialism and capitalism. This sick deliberate ignorance is all you promote on this site. I believe you are here just to make our stomachs turn.

[reagan lives]

"and the inheritance laws continue the legalised theft."
Indeed. The government takes about 50% of any estate over a certain amount. Theft indeed.

Once again, peacenick, your analogy about the holocaust is as misplaced as your analogy about robbery. It's the same analogy, of course, but you're using more loaded terms now to try and make me appear even more evil than before. We're describing two different perceptions of the same action, nobody is denying that the action takes place. You are describing it in terms of some sort of imaginary right that workers have to own what they produce. I'm describing it in terms of the employer-worker contract that is made in the real world.

"I am not saying you are wrong and I am right, I am saying more than that you are unjustly defending rank
injustice"
Justice is exactly what I'm defending. I think that the workers should have the right to own and keep what they make, and use it to accumulate more wealth. And I think that the rich should have the same rights, even if they are wealthier. You're saying that once a person accumulates a certain undefined amount of wealth, they should no longer have the right to their private property. Who's being unjust here?

[peaccenicked]

"and the inheritance laws continue the legalised theft."
Indeed. The government takes about 50% of any estate over a certain amount. Theft indeed.''
You are against taxing the rich.50% of 2 billion is 1 billion
how much is enough. You seem to forget that all of this money comes from the work of workers. Why do you choose to ignore this? If the worker did not produce the capitalist would have nothing to sell. He would have nothing. The workers make everything he uses.
There is no real need at all for the capitalist. He is as useless as your argument that private property is justice.
It is now not a debate it is a matter of insistence.
You ignore my arguments or dismiss them you do not answer them. Why? Reagan lives defends the indefensible.

[Goldfinger]

Just digging up the dead