Analysis of a RL argument. - Taking the apology of rape seri

[El Che]

On The Lawfulness of Employment

(is it our business?)

Today I`m going to take a closer look at one of RL`s arguments. This argument explains to us how alienation of the product of labor from labor its self is not theft. It is my firm belief that this argument is wrong. It is this I will try to show. I dont give two shits about the forum member by the name of reagan lives, this post is not directed at him, its directed at each and everyone of you. I intend to destroy his argument to the best of my ability so that it will not stand, so that no doubt remains.

If we look at the inner workings of capitalism we see that the working class produces all wealth on the face of the planet, but this wealth is taken from them. It is taken from them because they sell it, they sell it to there employers. This is what we call a social contract. And it is this, that is at the heart of the injustice of the capitalist system. Because what results of this, is that those who produces all wealth on the face of the planet are in turn those who have less of it. Because the wealth they produce is never theirs, it is taken from them from the day it is made. Hence they, the working class, the creators of wealth, get only a little part of the wealth they create, this in the form of wage payment.

Now it would seem self apparent why this is wrong, and yet it is not so self apparent. Why? Because it is masked by those that benefit from this status quo, from the existence of this mod of production, in which those that produce, produce for others and in return get only a small percentage of the wealth they have created. It is accepted that it has always been so and that it should be so. That there is nothing wrong with it, with the alienation of the product of labor from labor its self. If something is socialy accepted, it ceases to be true. This is means that to some extent, human beings are not always capable of distinguishing right from wrong, because they are not neutral in there outlook. There outlook is influenced by what surrounds them, and if in society a bad thing is accepted as good, if they are told it is good by everyone around them, they might not find in there own hearts the wisdom to identify that it is bad. That it is not “ok”, that there is something terribly wrong with the world around them that they where told about. It requires some abstraction you see, it requires you to take a step back and look at whats going on from an independent point of view. This means abstracting your self from the social conditionament you have been in way or another subjected to.

I believe it is wrong, and I want to show you my point of view. I don’t want you to take my word for it that it is wrong, I want to explain my self as to why I consider it wrong.

Nothing is easier then in the process addressing the lies and filth some have put forward to defend this status quo.

To put it very clearly, it is by belief as a socialist, that the contract between labor and capital is unethical, it is theft, it is rape of the worker, it goes against the rights of the worker as a human being. Therefore it should not be permited, it should be illegal. This, in short and clear terms is my position, in the following I will not only defend its validity, its necessity and its unshakeable fundaments, but in the process, show why the defenses of capitalist practice are wrong from an ethical and human rights point of view. I can not do one thing without doing the other. Comrades the reivindications we make have feet of steel! Our cause is just, it is the cause of all human beings, because all of them could have been working men. And now AVANTE! Let us consider the facts without further adue.

Why then, should the contract capitalists call “employment” and we socialists call “wage-slavery” be abolished?

As capitalists tell us again and again the worker is “free” to choose weather or not he wants to sell his labor, he is not forced, physically, by the employer to work. “So” they say “its none of your socialist business what they do with the labor, if the want to sell it to us then that’s up to them.

But it is our business, it is society`s business. In society there is law, this law, exists to protect the rights of people. And when everything that goes on in society must be regulated by law, it must in other words be considered wrong or right, lawful or unlawful. That the worker agrees to sell his labor does not therefore end the discussion on weather or type of thing should be allowed to continue. Society must pronounce its self on weather or not, it is lawful for me to take part of your labor away from you, and give you a small part of the wealth you have created in return. It is for society to decide, if the alienation of labor the product of labor from labor is or not a violation of the rights of labor. Society has pronounced its self, their answer is one of joy! They give a resounding YES! Oh YES! Comrades, they bath in the wealth others have created, of course its lawful, its more then that, its wonderful! Oh joy! What brave new world we shall create they say. However not all of society shares their enthusiastic opinion, some think its wrong that this should be allowed, they say that those who produce have full rights to the wealth they have produced. The problem is, the capitalists control the means of production. That means they control the things the producers need to produce. That’s what puts them in a position of power, that’s why they can strip the worker of his work, because they have the capital to buy what is needed, in modern world, to produce. This is a problem that we wish to solve in order to end the organised theft of capitalist society. How will we end it? Very simple, we take the means of production away from them, and make they the property of all and of none. In such a system, we have no need for capitalists and for there theft, those that produce wealth are given the wealth they produce in full, not in percentage. The capitalists are leeches, parasites on the back of every working man or woman on the face of the planet. They serve no purpose but there own. And there own purpose is getting rich, and richer. So that they can employ more and more workers and own more and more wealth they have created. It’s a vicious circle, but we can brake it.

When feudalism was the law of the land, there was a similar contract to the one in question here. It too was a unlawful contract that was lawful at the time. It was vassalisation, men commended them selves to each other, they offered them selves as slaves to those that controlled the means of production and could protect them from a cruel world. They too chose to be slaves, it wasn’t forced apon them by the Lord, they chose to give up their freedom because they could do nothing else in order to survive. As all of you know this “contract” was deemed illegal by society because it was considered that it violated the fundamental rights of the slave as a human being. But it was only a question of personal freedom, insofar as the worker had personal freedom, society maintained and maintains to this day, that there is nothing wrong with taking the product of their labor away from them. We must look again the contracts that exist in society and continue the job of giving humanity its rights back. This is the fundamental point of my argumentation. It is a violation of human rights to have some one work for you and to give him only a percentage of what he produces. Its rape.

Our battle, is therefore a battle against the status quo. It’s a battle to make organised theft illegal, to make a new system a new mod of production that allows us to do without exploitation. What is the capitalist argument against this new mod of production? They present some feeble arguments in defense of capitalism, but when it comes to presenting objection against a more just system, a system in which they don’t figure, they present no arguments! They have none comrades! What they do instead is make fun or ideals, they make a joke of it, call us utopians, say its impossible, that they are needed, that the workers can not organise them selves and socialism shall never be. This is the only thing they can say, rubbish all of it. The working class and society in general needs them as much as they need cancer. They have no arguments against a socialist society comrades all they have is insults. The future is ours. There theft shall not last, for as history shows us, good prevails against evil in the long run.


(Edited by El Che at 7:39 pm on Mar. 18, 2002)


(Edited by El Che at 7:44 pm on Mar. 18, 2002)

[I Will Deny You]

Good post.

I remember Capitalist saying that he does not like to read long posts however. It wouldn't be surprising if all of the right-wingers were like that . . . so they might not respond. But I still think you're a smartie.

1 point for El Che, 0 points for Reagan lives

[reagan lives]

I'm literally replying to this as I read it.

"If we look at the inner workings of capitalism we see that the working class produces all wealth on the face of the planet"
Is this sort of hyperbole going to persist through the whole post? I hope not, it makes you hard to take seriously.

"It is taken from them because they sell it, they sell it to there employers."
Okay, you're wrong already. The workers sell labor to the employers, not products. Labor is a nearly inexhaustible source of wealth that nearly every person has at their disposal. This labor is sold to the employer at a price determined by the employer, the worker, and the market. The worker does NOT sell the employer a product.

"This is what we call a social contract."
No, what we call a "social contract" is a covenant made between members of a society, or between citizens and a sovereign, that renounces certain "natural" rights in favor of greater protection. The worker-employer contract is purely economic.

"Because the wealth they produce is never theirs, it is taken from them from the day it is made"
If it's never theirs (which I agree with), how can it be taken from them?

"Hence they, the working class, the creators of wealth, get only a little part of the wealth they create, this in the form of wage payment."
I see the problem. You imagine wages as being the worker's "cut" of the product. You see it as worker->product->employer->profit->wage. However, anyone who sees things as they are rather than as Marx described them know that almost any real world employment goes employer->wage->worker->product->profit.

"Now it would seem self apparent why this is wrong,"
...if we start from the assumption that it is wrong. Indeed.

"It is accepted that it has always been so and that it should be so."
It has always been so? Do you know anything?

"That there is nothing wrong with it, with the alienation of the product of labor from labor its self."
No, there's not.

"If something is socialy accepted, it ceases to be true."
"And truth is true only as it brings down more disgrace and dreariness upon human beings, so that if it shows anything except evil it is an illusion, and not truth." -Saul Bellow (quite sarcastically, I might add).

"This is means that to some extent, human beings are not always capable of distinguishing right from wrong, because they are not neutral in there outlook. There outlook is influenced by what surrounds them"
You mean, if they're surrounded by wealth and wonders produced by a fair and efficient economic system, if they see everyday the sons and grandsons of penniless immigrants ascending to the upper echelons of society, if they're able to make whatever they want out of their lives because they're allowed to own and use their property, including their God-given ability to work, in order to give themselves and their children a better future, they become biased in favor of the system. How tragic. Ask yourself, El Che, do you really believe that the working class is stupid? I don't. Do you believe that they're so moronic that you could indeed piss on their face and tell them it's raining, and they'd blindly accept it? How, then, do you explain the fact that all these workers in America are behind "us," and not you, even though "we" "steal" from them every day?

"and if in society a bad thing is accepted as good, if they are told it is good by everyone around them, they might not find in there own hearts the wisdom to identify that it is bad."
Here we have it, folks, the final codification of the "I know better than the masses" argument of the Left. Softening the terms doesn't change the point, El Che.

"It requires some abstraction you see, it requires you to take a step back and look at whats going on from an independent point of view."
Your argument seems to be that one needs to "abstract" oneself to know when one is being robbed blind. Indeed. It couldn't be that the workers in question understand and accept the nature of the contract they make with their employer. Of course not. Impossible situation.

"I believe it is wrong, and I want to show you my point of view. I don’t want you to take my word for it that it is wrong, I want to explain my self as to why I consider it wrong."
Followed by:
"To put it very clearly, it is by belief as a socialist, that the contract between labor and capital is unethical, it is theft, it is rape of the worker, it goes against the rights of the worker as a human being. Therefore it should not be permited, it should be illegal. This, in short and clear terms is my position"

In other words, "It's wrong. Don't take my word for it, listen to my logically reasoned arguments: It's wrong. Ta-da!"

"In society there is law, this law, exists to protect the rights of people. And when everything that goes on in society must be regulated by law, it must in other words be considered wrong or right, lawful or unlawful. That the worker agrees to sell his labor does not therefore end the discussion on weather or type of thing should be allowed to continue."
Oh my Lord. You don't realize that the law includes protection of property rights and contracts. You see the law as dealing only with such grisly glamors as murder and theft. No, comrade, the law here has a very fundamental role in advancing the private and social accumulation of wealth by protecting private property rights and enforcing legal contracts. Of course, your labor is your property and your contract with your employer is a contract.

"It is for society to decide, if the alienation of labor the product of labor from labor is or not a violation of the rights of labor. Society has pronounced its self, their answer is one of joy! They give a resounding YES! Oh YES! Comrades, they bath in the wealth others have created, of course its lawful, its more then that, its wonderful! Oh joy!"
Now you're making sense.

"However not all of society shares their enthusiastic opinion, some think its wrong that this should be allowed, they say that those who produce have full rights to the wealth they have produced."
And those people are known as "silly teenagers," and they spend most of their time writing senseless diatribes on the Che Lives message board. The other 99% of society, from the CEO to the chimney sweep, thinks the system is pretty swell even if their lot in life isn't, and most of them use all that the system offers them to give their children a better life than they had.

"How will we end it? Very simple, we take the means of production away from them, and make they the property of all and of none."
It's funny that a paragraph that begins by extolling the virtues of the law resolves itself to outright theft.

"It’s a battle to make organised theft illegal"
...THROUGH MASSIVE ORGANIZED THEFT!!! HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE!!!

"What they do instead is make fun or ideals, they make a joke of it,"
No, you do a pretty good job of that on your own.

"that the workers can not organise them selves"
Hey, man, you're the one who just said that the workers don't even know when they're being robbed. You're the one that claims to know better than the vast, vast, vast majority of the people you purport to represent, because they are deluded and hypnotized by the flashing lights and twirly things that the evil capitalists use to dupe them, but you, in your glorious wisdom, have climbed out of Plato's cave and now are going to go back and enlighten them all. Good luck, but don't be surprised if you get stoned. Because I have news for you, my friend. The average janitor or chimney sweep or factory worker out there is working hard so someday their kids and their kids' kids might be a factory owner or a superintendant or a person with a chimney. And they mean to do so, and I wouldn't want to be the El Che that tries to stand in their way and slinging this line of crap about how they're being robbed.

"for as history shows us, good prevails against evil in the long run."
I agree. If there's anything that the 20th century taught us, this was it.

I also like how you edited that post not once, but twice, and still ended up with a true plethora of spelling and grammatical mistakes. Kudos to you.

(Edited by reagan lives at 10:32 pm on Mar. 18, 2002)

[El Che]

Reagan lives your bullshit is really anoying. You brain dead idiot. Instead of misrepresenting and outright insulting me from left and right why dont you address my points with honesty and truthfulness? Your sick and you make me sick. Read your posts makes my stomack turn.

I expected nothing else though. you might think that u can through me off my balance if you your revolting acusations, sofistry and insults but you gravly underestimate me.

In my defense I want to start by saying english is not my native language and I have a hard time with it. Dont think this is much of a problem, most of you dont have much of a problem understanding me. Reagan however wants to degrad my image to the best of his ability, so I guess its a relevant issue in that context. On more insult to add to the mix.


"If we look at the inner workings of capitalism we see that the working class produces all wealth on the face of the planet"
"Is this sort of hyperbole going to persist through the whole post? I hope not, it makes you hard to take seriously.
."

Show me one thing, that has value and is not the result of human work.

"It is taken from them because they sell it, they sell it to there employers."
Okay, you're wrong already. The workers sell labor to the employers, not products. Labor is a nearly inexhaustible source of wealth that nearly every person has at their disposal. This labor is sold to the employer at a price determined by the employer, the worker, and the market. The worker does NOT sell the employer a product.

The worker does not sell the employer a product? what is this shit? The worker creates the products, the wealth, all that is wealth. What he "sells" the employer is his work, he is alienated from his creation that is objectivly wealth in general. This is nothing but pathertic misrepresentation, its playing with words.

"This is what we call a social contract."
No, what we call a "social contract" is a covenant made between members of a society, or between citizens and a sovereign, that renounces certain "natural" rights in favor of greater protection. The worker-employer contract is purely economic.

Social contract in the sense of contract between social groups i.e classes.

"Because the wealth they produce is never theirs, it is taken from them from the day it is made"
If it's never theirs (which I agree with), how can it be taken from them?

Your idiocy is astounishing. My point is, it should be theirs.

"Hence they, the working class, the creators of wealth, get only a little part of the wealth they create, this in the form of wage payment."
I see the problem. You imagine wages as being the worker's "cut" of the product.

Wealth is produced by the workers for others, these others, the employers take the majority of the wealth due to a parasitic relationship with the producers of said wealth. Workers get a small amount in the from of wage, wage slavery, rape. Whats your question somack turner? whats you feeble objection?


"It is accepted that it has always been so and that it should be so."
It has always been so? Do you know anything?

You insulting bastard! I sware I want to meet you in person so you can try and insult me!

"That there is nothing wrong with it, with the alienation of the product of labor from labor its self."
No, there's not.

no comment

"This is means that to some extent, human beings are not always capable of distinguishing right from wrong, because they are not neutral in there outlook. There outlook is influenced by what surrounds them"
You mean, if they're surrounded by wealth and wonders produced by a fair and efficient economic system, if they see everyday the sons and grandsons of penniless immigrants ascending to the upper echelons of society, if they're able to make whatever they want out of their lives because they're allowed to own and use their property, including their God-given ability to work, in order to give themselves and their children a better future, they become biased in favor of the system. How tragic. Ask yourself, El Che, do you really believe that the working class is stupid? I don't. Do you believe that they're so moronic that you could indeed piss on their face and tell them it's raining, and they'd blindly accept it? How, then, do you explain the fact that all these workers in America are behind "us," and not you, even though "we" "steal" from them every day?

Dont tell me what I mean. Where did I refer to the working class? Your the one that pisses in their faces and tells them its raining. Your the bastard. What surrounds them is society, and everybody in society is influenced by the dominante views of society its self. I dont single out the working class, you do it so you can atack me.

"and if in society a bad thing is accepted as good, if they are told it is good by everyone around them, they might not find in there own hearts the wisdom to identify that it is bad."
Here we have it, folks, the final codification of the "I know better than the masses" argument of the Left. Softening the terms doesn't change the point, El Che.

I am a radical, it is true. My views are the minority, yet I would not impose my views on others. This is yet another personal atack fundamented apon nothing.


"It requires some abstraction you see, it requires you to take a step back and look at whats going on from an independent point of view."
Your argument seems to be that one needs to "abstract" oneself to know when one is being robbed blind. Indeed. It couldn't be that the workers in question understand and accept the nature of the contract they make with their employer. Of course not. Impossible situation.

That the wokers acept the nature of the contract? Your a cruel man[?]. Disgusting. As I have said, weather or not the acept the contract does not end the discussion. I HAVE SOMTHING TO SAY ABOUT IT! If a prostitute acepts the nature of the contracts she makes that doesnt end the discussion on prostitution.

"I believe it is wrong, and I want to show you my point of view. I don’t want you to take my word for it that it is wrong, I want to explain my self as to why I consider it wrong."
Followed by:
"To put it very clearly, it is by belief as a socialist, that the contract between labor and capital is unethical, it is theft, it is rape of the worker, it goes against the rights of the worker as a human being. Therefore it should not be permited, it should be illegal. This, in short and clear terms is my position"

In other words, "It's wrong. Don't take my word for it, listen to my logically reasoned arguments: It's wrong. Ta-da!"

Fucker. I wasnt yet explain my position, I was simply laying it out. The explaination comes later.



"In society there is law, this law, exists to protect the rights of people. And when everything that goes on in society must be regulated by law, it must in other words be considered wrong or right, lawful or unlawful. That the worker agrees to sell his labor does not therefore end the discussion on weather or type of thing should be allowed to continue."
Oh my Lord. You don't realize that the law includes protection of property rights and contracts. You see the law as dealing only with such grisly glamors as murder and theft. No, comrade, the law here has a very fundamental role in advancing the private and social accumulation of wealth by protecting private property rights and enforcing legal contracts. Of course, your labor is your property and your contract with your employer is a contract.

Yes thank you for telling that law protects private property social acumulation of wealth. Well done.

"How will we end it? Very simple, we take the means of production away from them, and make they the property of all and of none."
It's funny that a paragraph that begins by extolling the virtues of the law resolves itself to outright theft.

"It’s a battle to make organised theft illegal"
...THROUGH MASSIVE ORGANIZED THEFT!!! HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE!!!


Rather then theft, this would in fact be the devolution of stolen property. It would, in short be justice.


"that the workers can not organise them selves"
Hey, man, you're the one who just said that the workers don't even know when they're being robbed. You're the one that claims to know better than the vast, vast, vast majority of the people you purport to represent, because they are deluded and hypnotized by the flashing lights and twirly things that the evil capitalists use to dupe them, but you, in your glorious wisdom, have climbed out of Plato's cave and now are going to go back and enlighten them all. Good luck, but don't be surprised if you get stoned. Because I have news for you, my friend. The average janitor or chimney sweep or factory worker out there is working hard so someday their kids and their kids' kids might be a factory owner or a superintendant or a person with a chimney. And they mean to do so, and I wouldn't want to be the El Che that tries to stand in their way and slinging this line of crap about how they're being robbed.

If the workers can organise them selves then what do they need employers for? they dont. Employers need them however. Try addressing the points bastard.

[MJM]

El che, why bother with this guy. If he can't see wealth is a product of our labour he's blind.

(Edited by MJM at 1:58 pm on Mar. 19, 2002)

[reagan lives]

It's funny that you would start this topic, specifically calling me out, and then assert that I'm insulting your point of view. This is the sort of self-serving bias that I've come to expect from vox's disciples.

"you might think that u can through me off my balance if you your revolting acusations...you gravly underestimate me."
I don't know, you seem pretty flustered here.

"Show me one thing, that has value and is not the result of human work."
You didn't say "human." You said "working class." You said that the working class produces everything of value on the entire planet Earth. That's called hyperbole. It's a perfectly valid literary device, but it also happens to soften arguments. This is why you should learn words like "almost," "nearly," and "practically." Friendly advice.

"What he 'sells' the employer is his work"
Thank you, we finally agree. But let's look at the whole phrase:
"The worker creates the products, the wealth, all that is wealth. What he "sells" the employer is his work, he is alienated from his creation that is objectivly wealth in general. This is nothing but pathertic misrepresentation, its playing with words."
Are you referring to my original quote, or this bit of sophistry where you try to equate product with labor? Who's playing with words here? Who's "pathertic?"

"Social contract in the sense of contract between social groups i.e classes."
Redefining philosophical terms doesn't help your argument. And since when are employment contracts made between entire economic classes? Here I always thought that they were made between people and companies. It seems that I have a whole lot of bosses and a few employees that I didn't know about.

"My point is, it [the product of a worker's labor] should be theirs."
And I should be spending the night with Ashley Judd.

"Wealth is produced by the workers for others, these others, the employers take the majority of the wealth due to a parasitic relationship with the producers of said wealth. Workers get a small amount in the from of wage, wage slavery, rape."
I will reiterate what you failed to copy from my original post. The wages paid to the worker constitute a completely separate transaction from the sale of the product produced by the worker during the time of his employment. Let me put it to you this way: let's say I work on a car assembly line (so I'm a union member, of course). I get $20 per hour, and I make cars that generally sell for $20,000. I make the cars, and then sometime later down the line after I've recieved my paycheck the car is sold. But imagine that during the time of my employment the market price of cars bottoms out for some reason (rising gas prices, developments in mass transit, more manufacturers in the market) and the cars start selling for $10,000. Should my employer then start paying me $10 per hour? It only seems fair, if I have the sort of stake in the product that you assert.

"I sware I want to meet you in person so you can try and insult me!"
From the Che Lives Terms and Conditions of Service:
"You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is...hateful, threatening...or otherwise violative of any law."

"Where did I refer to the working class?"
No comment.

"That the wokers acept the nature of the contract? Your a cruel man[?]. Disgusting. As I have said, weather or not the acept the contract does not end the discussion."
Because you know better than them, right?

"I HAVE SOMTHING TO SAY ABOUT IT!"
Clearly. And I, too, have something to say about it. So cut the theatrics.

"My views are the minority, yet I would not impose my views on others."
Where did I say you would? Quote me. I said you think you know better, not that you would "impose your view on others." Paranoid about this subject?

"Yes thank you for telling that law protects private property social acumulation of wealth. Well done."
No offense, but you sounded like you needed it. I'm glad we cleared it up, though.

"Rather then theft, this would in fact be the devolution of stolen property. It would, in short be justice."
Never mind, you clearly still don't understand.

"If the workers can organise them selves then what do they need employers for? they dont."
And yet, here we are.

"Try addressing the points bastard."
Ah, here it is, hidden in every one of El Che's posts. The calling card of the voxite. I go through and quote and respond to every substantive point he makes, and he denies that I ever addressed them. Some people are just impossible to please.

[El Che]

MJM: this post wasnt really intended to start a discussion with reagan. What I wanted was to say what I said the left wing members of the forum. However it[my post] was about an argument of reagan lives so I should post it where he can post... As much as i will have to suffer his idiocy for it. Nor can i leave his insults and misrepresenting objections unanswered as you will understand. But whatever, as long as my message is read and considered by you I am happy and all my typing is worth while.

IWDY: I forgot to say thanks for the nice words :)

It's funny that you would start this topic, specifically calling me out, and then assert that I'm insulting your point of view.

Firstly you are insulting me as a person, not my "point of view". How can you insult a point of view?

secondly,
quote from elche:
this post is not directed at him, its directed at each and everyone of you.

If I wanted to continue to discuss with you, if I saw any point in it, I would have replied in the socialist revolution thread. There is no point, I know exactly who you are and what you are doing here. No point in talking to you, all the point in the world in not leting your rethoric stand. Many here are capable of doing so, they just dont have the patience... I dont have much of it either.

"Show me one thing, that has value and is not the result of human work."
You didn't say "human." You said "working class." You said that the working class produces everything of value on the entire planet Earth. That's called hyperbole. It's a perfectly valid literary device, but it also happens to soften arguments. This is why you should learn words like "almost," "nearly," and "practically." Friendly advice.

Work produces wealth, who does the most work? the working class.

""What he 'sells' the employer is his work"
Thank you, we finally agree. But let's look at the whole phrase:
"The worker creates the products, the wealth, all that is wealth. What he "sells" the employer is his work, he is alienated from his creation that is objectivly wealth in general. This is nothing but pathertic misrepresentation, its playing with words."
Are you referring to my original quote, or this bit of sophistry where you try to equate product with labor? Who's playing with words here? Who's "pathertic?"

Labor is what produces the product, two different things, never said anything else in my entire life. What I do say is that selling of labor is expropriation of labor, or at least a part of it. This is an imoral practice. Stop playing with words and address the point.

"Social contract in the sense of contract between social groups i.e classes."
Redefining philosophical terms doesn't help your argument. And since when are employment contracts made between entire economic classes? Here I always thought that they were made between people and companies. It seems that I have a whole lot of bosses and a few employees that I didn't know about.

Contracts between social groups, hence in general social contracts. And in particular, contracts that take the from of actual legal contracts (not economic u dumb ass). The latter is merely a formalisation of the former. Again nothing of relevance nothing of substance, just chasing RL around debating the "sex of angles".


"My point is, it [the product of a worker's labor] should be theirs."
And I should be spending the night with Ashley Judd.

we are all laughing im sure.

"Wealth is produced by the workers for others, these others, the employers take the majority of the wealth due to a parasitic relationship with the producers of said wealth. Workers get a small amount in the from of wage, wage slavery, rape."
I will reiterate what you failed to copy from my original post. The wages paid to the worker constitute a completely separate transaction from the sale of the product produced by the worker during the time of his employment. Let me put it to you this way: let's say I work on a car assembly line (so I'm a union member, of course). I get $20 per hour, and I make cars that generally sell for $20,000. I make the cars, and then sometime later down the line after I've recieved my paycheck the car is sold. But imagine that during the time of my employment the market price of cars bottoms out for some reason (rising gas prices, developments in mass transit, more manufacturers in the market) and the cars start selling for $10,000. Should my employer then start paying me $10 per hour? It only seems fair, if I have the sort of stake in the product that you assert.

I dont know, I just dont understand it. You think the above is an argument against my case? how does does the above show my logic is in error? I really dont get it. Your just wasting my time. To answer your irrelevant point, the payment of wage, is a separete transaction, within the capitalist system, from the selling of the car. This is of course correct, where do i state otherwise? If the market price for a commdity goes down it has less value of trade, therefore the worker will either get fired or recieve less wage..... So what?


"Where did I refer to the working class?"
No comment

quote from elches :
"This is means that to some extent, human beings are not always capable of distinguishing right from wrong, because they are not neutral in there outlook. There outlook is influenced by what surrounds them, and if in society a bad thing is accepted as good, if they are told it is good by everyone around them, they might not find in there own hearts the wisdom to identify that it is bad."

Im not talking about the working class, im talking about everyone! Not just the working class but all classes accept something that is wrong as right. Infact the working class is the class where less people suffer from this ilusion. Now go back to your first reply and see what you wrote about this point.
Take nazi germany for example, there too society in general accepted wrong beliefs as right because of propaganda and social conditionament. This is not class restricted. Althrough out history you have examples of what I am talking about. My god.



"That the wokers acept the nature of the contract? Your a cruel man[?]. Disgusting. As I have said, weather or not the acept the contract does not end the discussion."
Because you know better than them, right?

Wrong. Becuase it is for society to judge is any given practice is lawful or unlawful. It is my belief that the one in question is unlawful, hence the expression of my views through political activism and personal and impersonal discussion.

"I HAVE SOMTHING TO SAY ABOUT IT!"
Clearly. And I, too, have something to say about it. So cut the theatrics.

On the contrary, you can fill and entire page with writtings and not say anything. You in your replies have said nothing.
"My views are the minority, yet I would not impose my views on others."
Where did I say you would? Quote me. I said you think you know better, not that you would "impose your view on others." Paranoid about this subject?[/i]

You said I think im not more then others, your implying that I think im superior to others. I dont, I have my convictions, just because I am the miniority and I think im right doesnt mean I think I am superior, nor does it mean I would impose my convictions on others. If I didnt think I was right, then I would have some other view regarding this hole mess dont you think?




"Yes thank you for telling that law protects private property social acumulation of wealth. Well done."
No offense, but you sounded like you needed it. I'm glad we cleared it up, though.

lol

"Rather then theft, this would in fact be the devolution of stolen property. It would, in short be justice."
Never mind, you clearly still don't understand.

No you dont understand. I we were to take away the means of production from the "capitalist class" in society as it is now, with the laws that exist now, as you point above, that would be theft. Becuase their legal right to the ownership of the property in question (means of production) is protected by current law. Do you perhaps think I am unware of this? What I say is that we must reform law, so that what becomes illegal is their ownership of the means of production. In other words the law should cease to protect the ownership rights over the means of production and should commence deeming such an ownership unlawful. If this where to happen, this revision of the law, this REVOLUTION, then the act would no longer be theft.

Now either you dont understand what I say, in which case your a dummy, or you understand but are playing games will some motive.


"If the workers can organise them selves then what do they need employers for? they dont."
And yet, here we are.

yes there you are, enjoy it while it lasts.

"Try addressing the points bastard."
Ah, here it is, hidden in every one of El Che's posts. The calling card of the voxite. I go through and quote and respond to every substantive point he makes, and he denies that I ever addressed them. Some people are just impossible to please.


You address the points you bring up, but those are either misrepresentations, confusions or insults. You dont address my points in any serious manner.

And comparing me to vox is a compliment so please, be my guest.

[reagan lives]

"Firstly you are insulting me as a person, not my 'point of view'. How can you insult a point of view?...If I wanted to continue to discuss with you, if I saw any point in it, I would have replied in the socialist revolution thread."
Oh please. Do you think anybody here buys this? You call me (myself, I, reagan lives, "RL") an "apologist for rape" in the title of the goddamn thread, and then act like you weren't trying to provoke me. Get serious.

"Work produces wealth, who does the most work? the working class."
There's that word..."most." Was that so hard? And "work" (manual labor) is not the only thing that can produce wealth. Just ask anyone who makes money on the Internet.

"No point in talking to you, all the point in the world in not leting your rethoric stand. Many here are capable of doing so, they just dont have the patience... I dont have much of it either."
So when I get tired of you (see "Socialist Revolution" thread), it's because I'm weak, when you get tired of me, it's because your nearly-infinite patience has worn itself out. Makes sense to me...that's not self-serving at all.

"What I do say is that selling of labor is expropriation of labor, or at least a part of it."
Interesting choice of words, since "expropriation" usually refers to the revocation of property rights by the state or sovereign. And since "selling" and "expropriation" are two words that mean precisely opposite things. But look...the foundation of your entire argument is that the worker's pay should be based on the sale of the product he produces. You're saying that he has some moral, if not legal, right to the product...it's his. Because he labors on it, it is his, regardless of whether or not he has sold that labor. You are fundamentally equating labor with property. Why do you try to deny this?

"Contracts between social groups, hence in general social contracts."
Look, pal, you used a term incorrectly. Accept it and move on.

"I dont know, I just dont understand it. You think the above is an argument against my case? how does does the above show my logic is in error? I really dont get it. Your just wasting my time."
My analogy demonstrated why it's fair to pay the worker the wages agreed upon by the worker and employer, not some "cut" of the sale of a product that he doesn't own.

"Im not talking about the working class, im talking about everyone! Not just the working class but all classes accept something that is wrong as right."
To deny that you aim your message at the working class is as disingenuous as denying that you incited me personally in the opening of this thread, or denying that you equate labor with product. Seriously, El Che, why don't you start owning (ha ha) some of your beliefs and actions? I think you'll be much less sensitive if you do.

"Becuase it is for society to judge is any given practice is lawful or unlawful. It is my belief that the one in question is unlawful, hence the expression of my views through political activism and personal and impersonal discussion."
And my point is that the vast majority of the people who you believe are being hoodwinked disagree with you. So I'm saying that I tend to take their word for it, and not yours. If your position is that a whole class of people is being robbed blind right under their noses, and the vast, vast majority of the people in question disagree with you, I think it's time to either 1) start rethinking your position; or 2) accept that you think you know better than they do.

"On the contrary, you can fill and entire page with writtings and not say anything. You in your replies have said nothing."
Ah, once again denying that I'm even saying anything. Typical voxite.

"You said I think im not more then others, your implying that I think im superior to others."
Yes I am, but how does this imply the "imposition" of your ideas on others? Please answer the question, especially if you're going to accuse me of dodging them.

"No you dont understand. I we were to take away the means of production from the "capitalist class" in society as it is now, with the laws that exist now, as you point above, that would be theft. Becuase their legal right to the ownership of the property in question (means of production) is protected by current law. Do you perhaps think I am unware of this? What I say is that we must reform law, so that what becomes illegal is their ownership of the means of production. In other words the law should cease to protect the ownership rights over the means of production and should commence deeming such an ownership unlawful. If this where to happen, this revision of the law, this REVOLUTION, then the act would no longer be theft."
So theft is merely a legal construction? There is not moral sentiment against theft? There is not absolute definition of theft, only a legal one? Is this seriously the position you want to adopt? People own things now, and you want to take them away from them, by force if necessary. This is THEFT in the absolute sense, no matter how you try to rewrite the law.

"yes there you are, enjoy it while it lasts."
Thanks, I will.

"You address the points you bring up, but those are either misrepresentations, confusions or insults. You dont address my points in any serious manner."
Of course I don't. As long as you convince yourself that I am not to be taken seriously, your precious ethos won't be threatened by my arguments. Handy indeed.

"And comparing me to vox is a compliment so please, be my guest."
I'm sure you think that's true. But keep in mind that I'm not "comparing" you to vox...that would be an insult to him. You're obviously trying to emulate him, but he's still far slicker than you are. You have a ways to go before you stop coming off like a confused brat when you try to obfuscate or deny my points...vox does it with a certain elan that you just can't match. Keep working, though, and perhaps you can be a full intellectual failure someday too.

[El Che]

"What I do say is that selling of labor is expropriation of labor, or at least a part of it."
Interesting choice of words, since "expropriation" usually refers to the revocation of property rights by the state or sovereign. And since "selling" and "expropriation" are two words that mean precisely opposite things. But look...the foundation of your entire argument is that the worker's pay should be based on the sale of the product he produces. You're saying that he has some moral, if not legal, right to the product...it's his. Because he labors on it, it is his, regardless of whether or not he has sold that labor. You are fundamentally equating labor with property. Why do you try to deny this?

The worker does have a moral and legal(well not yet legal) right to the product of his labor. Whats your question?

"I dont know, I just dont understand it. You think the above is an argument against my case? how does does the above show my logic is in error? I really dont get it. Your just wasting my time."
My analogy demonstrated why it's fair to pay the worker the wages agreed upon by the worker and employer, not some "cut" of the sale of a product that he doesn't own.

Isn`t this rich, I`ll tell you what you analogy demonstrated, stupidity thats what. Futhermore what the worker recieves of the final product in capitalist society(mod of production) is exactly a "cut", a percentage of the final products market value. Why? because he is robbed by a parasite that lives off his work. What I say, is that he, the worker, should recieve not a cut of his work but his work in full. Or in other words reagan, if you prefer, the product of his labor in full.

To deny that you aim your message at the working class is as disingenuous as denying that you incited me personally in the opening of this thread, or denying that you equate labor with product. Seriously, El Che, why don't you start owning (ha ha) some of your beliefs and actions? I think you'll be much less sensitive if you do.[/i]

I do deny it, what on earth gives you the right to put words in my mouth you insolent prick? I am a democratic socialist, hence I need the help off all, all people that vote from all classes, those are the ones we want on our side. Be they upper middle or lower class, if they are with us they are wellcome, my message is to all. Its not a message to the working class its a message for the working class and its rights.

"Becuase it is for society to judge is any given practice is lawful or unlawful. It is my belief that the one in question is unlawful, hence the expression of my views through political activism and personal and impersonal discussion."
And my point is that the vast majority of the people who you believe are being hoodwinked disagree with you. So I'm saying that I tend to take their word for it, and not yours. If your position is that a whole class of people is being robbed blind right under their noses, and the vast, vast majority of the people in question disagree with you, I think it's time to either 1) start rethinking your position; or 2) accept that you think you know better than they do.

Oh i see... You take their word for it huh? yes of course. Your a good sheep and you follow the heard yes? yes. In nazi germany before the war reagan would just take their word for, yup coz they are the majority, yup, makes sense to me.

"No you dont understand. I we were to take away the means of production from the "capitalist class" in society as it is now, with the laws that exist now, as you point above, that would be theft. Becuase their legal right to the ownership of the property in question (means of production) is protected by current law. Do you perhaps think I am unware of this? What I say is that we must reform law, so that what becomes illegal is their ownership of the means of production. In other words the law should cease to protect the ownership rights over the means of production and should commence deeming such an ownership unlawful. If this where to happen, this revision of the law, this REVOLUTION, then the act would no longer be theft."
So theft is merely a legal construction? There is not moral sentiment against theft? There is not absolute definition of theft, only a legal one? Is this seriously the position you want to adopt? People own things now, and you want to take them away from them, by force if necessary. This is THEFT in the absolute sense, no matter how you try to rewrite the law.

Reagan is advocating that to take away a slave runners whipe is theft. It is the ownership of the means of production that puts certain individuals in a position to live off the worker of others. Hence we shall end this by ending their ownership of that which allows them to oppress. I`m sure they wont like it, but, if that day comes, they`ll have to start working for a living.

"You address the points you bring up, but those are either misrepresentations, confusions or insults. You dont address my points in any serious manner."
Of course I don't. As long as you convince yourself that I am not to be taken seriously, your precious ethos won't be threatened by my arguments. Handy indeed.

Yup thats what they are reagan. Confusions, misrepresentations and insults. The first two I`ll address and keep clearing up untill all your feebile objections are no more, that latter I need not address for it stands for what it is, it caractarizes you in full.


(Edited by El Che at 5:07 pm on Mar. 19, 2002)

[reagan lives]

Can you see how circular this is getting?

"The worker does have a moral and legal(well not yet legal) right to the product of his labor."
I disagree. And you have yet to give any argument supporting this claim except that you believe it to be a self-evident truth. Well, sorry, but a whole lot of people disagree with you, so perhaps its not quite as self-evident as you seem to think.

"Futhermore what the worker recieves of the final product in capitalist society(mod of production) is exactly a "cut", a percentage of the final products market value."
No, he recieves a wage before the product ever enters the market.

"I do deny it, what on earth gives you the right to put words in my mouth you insolent prick? I am a democratic socialist, hence I need the help off all, all people that vote from all classes, those are the ones we want on our side."
Inspiring. You've successfully driven us off of the original point...you are saying that the WORKING CLASS is being robbed. The WORKING CLASS disagrees with you. Deal with it.

"Oh i see... You take their word for it huh? yes of course. Your a good sheep and you follow the heard yes? yes. In nazi germany before the war reagan would just take their word for, yup coz they are the majority, yup, makes sense to me."
See above. I think you understand the difference between listening to people when they tell you they're not being robbed and listening to people when they tell you to turn over the Jews. You're not that stupid. This is a transparent attempt to slip the word "Nazi" in wherever you can. You're bordering on the utterly ridiculous here, El Che.

"Reagan is advocating that to take away a slave runners whipe is theft."
Of course its theft. It may be morally justifiable theft, but it's still theft. Let's call a spade a spade. The point that I made (which you failed to respond to, like most of my points) was that theft is an absolute concept that, although it is defined by the law, still exists prepolitically. You advocate stealing the "means of production" from the people that own them. Just admit it.

[peaccenicked]

''You advocate stealing the "means of production" from the people that own them. Just admit it.''RL
The ownership is legally held by the capitalists but socialists do not recognise unjust laws, like apartheid.
Those who make everything deserve everything including ownership.
As the capitalists when following the logic of capitalism
cuts out the middle man as much as possible through rationalisation.
It is in the workers intrests to cut out the capitalist,
He is superflous to our needs. socialist realise that workers can do everything he does and more, socialists with majority working class support can end poverty. The capitalist cant and wont.It was the capitalist's ancestors the stole the land from the majority, the same way the US government stole the land from the Red Indians.
socialists are reclaiming heritige of all toilers past, The vast majority own the world by right. The tiny minority who own and control the mode of production are usurpers and tyrants.



(Edited by peaccenicked at 2:27 am on Mar. 20, 2002)

[reagan lives]

I'm sorry, who's "we?"

[El Che]

"The worker does have a moral and legal(well not yet legal) right to the product of his labor."
I disagree. And you have yet to give any argument supporting this claim except that you believe it to be a self-evident truth. Well, sorry, but a whole lot of people disagree with you, so perhaps its not quite as self-evident as you seem to think.

Its a moral consideration, in such matters there can be no proof. There is no proof that slavery is wrong, its a matter of sensibility. The above is my position, I stand by it for the reasons. You too must stand by your position, you must stand as person, before all others, before history and humanity, as one that defends there is nothing wrong with making a profit off someone elses work. Every time you look it the mirror reagan remember who you are and what you stand for. When you are an old man, remember what you did in life, what you changed or what you tried to change, and what things you defended during the course of life. Not only with others judge you, you will judge your self. And if you believe in God and "good", then He and It, will judge you too.

Open your eyes man, another world is possible.


"Futhermore what the worker recieves of the final product in capitalist society(mod of production) is exactly a "cut", a percentage of the final products market value."
No, he recieves a wage before the product ever enters the market.

I dont want to discuss trivialities with you man. The worker is payed in advance for the wealth he created. Wealth in abstract, products in the contrete realisation of the wealth in question. What he is recieving is effectivly a percentage of the wealth he created. I will dont repeat this, if you dont want to understand, or admit you understood, dont.



I do deny it, what on earth gives you the right to put words in my mouth you insolent prick? I am a democratic socialist, hence I need the help off all, all people that vote from all classes, those are the ones we want on our side."
Inspiring. You've successfully driven us off of the original point...you are saying that the WORKING CLASS is being robbed. The WORKING CLASS disagrees with you. Deal with it.

My message was not esclusivly directed to the working class. Now go back and see what you wrote in the back.


"Oh i see... You take their word for it huh? yes of course. Your a good sheep and you follow the heard yes? yes. In nazi germany before the war reagan would just take their word for, yup coz they are the majority, yup, makes sense to me."
See above. I think you understand the difference between listening to people when they tell you they're not being robbed and listening to people when they tell you to turn over the Jews. You're not that stupid. This is a transparent attempt to slip the word "Nazi" in wherever you can. You're bordering on the utterly ridiculous here, El Che.

Nop, not being ridiculous at all. Its an analogy, and a legitimate one too. If you are incapable of a critical review of society for the sake of conservativisms, then you incoure in the danger of suporting atrocities. One capable of critical visions of society, one that will think for him self and is not afraid of his conclusions will always see the bullshit behind the propaganda. Furthermore it is these men that make society move foward. I`ll give you another analogy, Dr. Martin Luther King, and his life`s work is such an analogy. He too didnt take the majority`s word for it, he too didnt care for the status quo, and it is because of this that he rose above the bullshit of a racist society. He was not a sheep, he had critical view of society and he had his heart in the right place(relating to the question of ethics within the creation of social law).

"Reagan is advocating that to take away a slave runners whipe is theft."
Of course its theft. It may be morally justifiable theft, but it's still theft. Let's call a spade a spade. The point that I made (which you failed to respond to, like most of my points) was that theft is an absolute concept that, although it is defined by the law, still exists prepolitically. You advocate stealing the "means of production" from the people that own them. Just admit it.

You say its moraly justifiable theft? hmm. This directly contradicts your position. But anyway, to answer your objection, it is taking away the means of production of the economicaly dominant class yes, but within a legal context. In other words, it is a reformation of society and also by consequence a revogation of the rights of these individuals possess. Hmm, an example: say you own a piece of land, and the goverment wants to build a road or something, if you dont want to sell you piece of land and the goverment considers that the interest of society is at harm, then you will be expropriated. This is not theft in the legal sense, the moral one may be argued to exaustion. In any case what I am arguing is such an expropriation, exactly because it is a reformation of society.

[peaccenicked]

RL we are the socialists, the minority out to encourage and pursue and gain majority support for class justice.
And when we attain it , nothing will stop us.
I take it this is what you want to distort.
Distortion, intellectual gynamastics, and underhand chicanery are the only tools available to a defender of the indefensible., ie the methods of a capitalist apologist
I will do an edit, to make it clearer,
I am sorry that my delivery was not so clear, I forgot that your frame of reference is not the same as mine.



(Edited by peaccenicked at 2:33 am on Mar. 20, 2002)


(Edited by peaccenicked at 2:58 am on Mar. 20, 2002)

[Son of Scargill]

This labor is sold to the employer at a price determined by the employer, the worker, and the market. [quote,RL]

Hmmm?Don't know many workers who've had much of a say in how much they get from the deal,other than--
employer"That's the wage,do you want the job,or would you rather live on the dole?"
worker"Err!I think I'd like my family to be able to eat tomorrow,so I'll take it."
Do you actually live in the world of the working class.Because I do,and people are not happy with the system.Most just can't take the risk of speaking out because their families need their minimal wage to survive.Those that do are,quite often,persecuted or arbitrarily sacked.Many industries are grossly mis-managed,and living financially on the edge.The only reason things seem to work is because us "good little proletarian robots"are running around,sorting out the mess .We can't afford to lose our work.Whereas if the shit hits the fan,the major shareholders rarely end up in poverty.Quite often they end up in Antigua.