Class

[RGacky3]

Class is one of the main concepts in almost all Socialist theories, however the idea of class can be somewhat vague. For example some people consider class to be something your born into, others consider it to be simple your relationship to production, others consider it to be a mindset, many people mix the definitions up, or change their definitions based on what they are talking about. Some people even talk about everything in class context even things non-concrete like ideas and religion. I believe the idea of class was horrifically abused and distorted in the USSR and China, applying it to people who have so called "bourgeois tendancies" almost equating class with political loyalties. The united states and other o****ries have also abused class using buzz works like "the middle class" to apply to almost anything they want.

Both Leftist and Capitalists are guilty of using the idea of class dishonestly and abusing it.

[Maybe-not]

Class

Even if you are right, there are clear definitions of all these things. (Das Kapital definition)

Class is your relations to the means of production. There are only to significant classes, Proletarian and bourgeoisie. Class is not something you are born into, that's a vaguely Maoist conception. A mindset is your class-conscience.

Middle Class, Peasant Class, all those, are sub-classes. Some are definitively proletarian (Peasant) and some can be bourgeoisie and proletariat (Middle Class). On the concepts of class-struggle, only bourgeoisie and proletarian are relevant.

[RGacky3]

Personally I think the terms Worker and Capitalist, or even worker and owner, or worker and boss are a lot better, considering proletariat is a more specifit term pointing to Industrial workers, and bourgeoisie are considered those controling Capital and it excludes land owners and some might argue those controling intelectual Capital.

The reason I bring it up is becaue there is a lot of arguments I've heard before that a person will always work in his classes interest, which mean mean that his class is static and never changes, and would also mean that his class is more than his relationship to his means of production, which is used to justify so-called 'workers dictatorships.'

The idea is also brought up that ideas are of a certain class, for example the idea of free-speach, many Leninists and Maoists will say is a bourgeoisie idea, which to me makes no sense, because that idea is not specificly related to production.

[Bud Struggle]

You know I could care less about class. I grew up in a home with an immigrant Polish father (to America) and we had NO money and I was happy. I did OK in the business world and own a real life factory and I'm happy. I'm no different of a person now than what I was when I was poor. I'm no different from the people that work for me.

We're all human, we're all brother and sisters. We have different jobs, and different wages. We have different colors and languages, but to say we are REALLY different in any way is an insult to me and to them.

All men are brothers. There is no such thing as class.

[Dr Mindbender]

All men are brothers. There is no such thing as class.

there is come pay day! :lol:

[Zurdito]

I'm no different from the people that work for me.


why don't you pay them the same wage as you then? ;)

[Bud Struggle]

why don't you pay them the same wage as you then? ;)

They don't do as much aat this particular point in their lives. It doesn't affect who and what they are as people. We are all the same as human beings, money is what you earn--it's isn't part of you; it isn't who you are. One could make more or less at different times in one's life. It has nothing to do with who you are. It is an incidental.

[RNK]

How, how cute, trying to inject some "unavoidability" into his excuses.. oh, I can't help but pay my workers less than me! We're all the same! Money means nothing! There's nothing I can do! :O :O :O"

Come onnn. Your workers are the ones producing that surplus revenue that you pocket.

[Sankofa]

They don't do as much aat this particular point in their lives. It doesn't affect who and what they are as people. We are all the same as human beings, money is what you earn--it's isn't part of you; it isn't who you are. One could make more or less at different times in one's life. It has nothing to do with who you are. It is an incidental.

lulz

[Bud Struggle]

Come onnn. Your workers are the ones producing that surplus revenue that you pocket.

And I produce the revenue that is in my workers pocket. They produce the work to transform raw materials into a finished product, to be sure, but I produce the factory, the machines, the raw material, the customers that buy the finished goods. I produced the idea that became the factory that gave the workers jobs in the first place. I took the risks that made their jobs exist.

I do more work so I get a larger amount of the income from my endeavor. My workers do less work so they receive a smaller share. That doesn't make them intrinsicly different than me. We are all workers, we just have different jobs and make different amounts of money for those jobs. Not all work is equal, but we are indeed all workers. :star2:

Anyway, the workers all agreed what would be fair compensation for the work they do. No one forces them to work for me. They can always go elsewhere to work--or if they feel that no one offers them fair compensation for the job they do, they can always start their own businesses and do all the really hard work and get the additional revenues for themselves.

The freedom of choice belongs to us all. :hammersickle:

[RNK]

For one, you don't produce any of that. For another, those are technical costs; property mortgage, machinery rental and maintenance, are one thing. But you still haven't answered if, at the end of the day (or week or month), your workers pocket and take home the same amount of money that you do, namely, an equal share of the surplus profit that they helped generate.


I do more work so I get a larger amount of the income from my endeavor.

You do not do more work, you do different work; you've just assumed this gives you the right to withhold from the others their fair share (a crime exacerbated undoubtedly by their own complacency). Without you, they wouldn't have a job (there, atleast), there would be no factory, and no profit. Without them, you wouldn't have products. The only problem is, there is a surplus of labour power, which has put you in the advantageous position of being able to dictate more conservative and unequal terms of employment; you, like all capitalists, are able to flat out refuse workers who demand an equal share, and quite easily replace them with another worker.


Anyway, the workers all agreed what would be fair compensation for the work they do

No. Technically, it was capitalists who agreed what would be fair compensation. Workers largely have no say in it. At the birth of capitalism, workers were paid just barely what they absolutely needed to survive as workers; after 150 years of struggle, the bourgeoisie has found equilibrium in paying just high enough to "buy" complacency -- atleast to the point that most workers come to accept what they've been alloted, rather than continue to struggle for more.


The freedom of choice belongs to us all.

Yes, you all, but not us. I do not have the ability to demand an equal share of the profit I help generate. I like the majority of the world do not have the ability to generate my own profit from my own labour. The only choice I have (and even that choice is debatable; see labour surplus) is which company I allow myself to be exploited by.

[Kropotesta]

For one, you don't produce any of that. For another, those are technical costs; property mortgage, machinery rental and maintenance, are one thing. But you still haven't answered if, at the end of the day (or week or month), your workers pocket and take home the same amount of money that you do, namely, an equal share of the surplus profit that they helped generate.



You do not do more work, you do different work; you've just assumed this gives you the right to withhold from the others their fair share (a crime exacerbated undoubtedly by their own complacency). Without you, they wouldn't have a job (there, atleast), there would be no factory, and no profit. Without them, you wouldn't have products. The only problem is, there is a surplus of labour power, which has put you in the advantageous position of being able to dictate more conservative and unequal terms of employment; you, like all capitalists, are able to flat out refuse workers who demand an equal share, and quite easily replace them with another worker.



No. Technically, it was capitalists who agreed what would be fair compensation. Workers largely have no say in it. At the birth of capitalism, workers were paid just barely what they absolutely needed to survive as workers; after 150 years of struggle, the bourgeoisie has found equilibrium in paying just high enough to "buy" complacency -- atleast to the point that most workers come to accept what they've been alloted, rather than continue to struggle for more.



Yes, you all, but not us. I do not have the ability to demand an equal share of the profit I help generate. I like the majority of the world do not have the ability to generate my own profit from my own labour. The only choice I have (and even that choice is debatable; see labour surplus) is which company I allow myself to be exploited by.
absolutly right.

[Bud Struggle]

For one, you don't produce any of that. For another, those are technical costs; property mortgage, machinery rental and maintenance, are one thing. But you still haven't answered if, at the end of the day (or week or month), your workers pocket and take home the same amount of money that you do, namely, an equal share of the surplus profit that they helped generate.

It depends how you define what is fair share. I think I pay them more than enough for the work they do. But to answer your question directly--I make lots more in terms of real dollars. BUT I did all the work that put the whole business together. Not to put too fine a point on it but EVERYONE's despensable in my business except me. the guy on the loading dock, the guy that does accounting, the guy that runs the fork lift, etc. All wonderful people--but each one could be replaced in a heartbeat. I can't. Each one of those guys earns what he gets. And so do I.




You do not do more work, you do different work; you've just assumed this gives you the right to withhold from the others their fair share (a crime exacerbated undoubtedly by their own complacency). Without you, they wouldn't have a job (there, atleast), there would be no factory, and no profit. Without them, you wouldn't have products. The only problem is, there is a surplus of labour power, which has put you in the advantageous position of being able to dictate more conservative and unequal terms of employment; you, like all capitalists, are able to flat out refuse workers who demand an equal share, and quite easily replace them with another worker.

To an extent I agree with what you say. Without them I couldn't do x job or y job or z job, and your right, but they don't do the jobs as "individuals". Those people could be replaced at a moment's notice. They haven't made their individuality matter in the slightest. I have. and I get paid for my contribution. They get paid for theirs. I contribute more, I get paid more.



No. Technically, it was capitalists who agreed what would be fair compensation. Workers largely have no say in it. At the birth of capitalism, workers were paid just barely what they absolutely needed to survive as workers; after 150 years of struggle, the bourgeoisie has found equilibrium in paying just high enough to "buy" complacency -- atleast to the point that most workers come to accept what they've been alloted, rather than continue to struggle for more.

I agree there a little that that kind of thing happens. BUT I have found that I get better work from my employees if I make them happy. I shot down the plant every now and then and me and my executives bar-b-cue for the workers. My family and I cook and serve Thanksgiving (the day after) dinner for the employees. I'm Santa Claus at the Christmas party. They have a problem and need some help for advice or money or what ever--they come to me and I help them. And it's me being a Christian, but I found that it's also good business. The reason I'm here in revLeft is to find out beter ways to make them happy.

It ain't all about money. Really.



Yes, you all, but not us. I do not have the ability to demand an equal share of the profit I help generate. I like the majority of the world do not have the ability to generate my own profit from my own labour. The only choice I have (and even that choice is debatable; see labour surplus) is which company I allow myself to be exploited by.

But see there you make my point. I have certain abilities--and I am rewarded for them. You have certain abilities you are rewarded for them. God did not make all people equal and thus our rewards are not equal--and that is what this whole problem is about.

[RGacky3]

Damn it Tomk you stole my post, if you don't care about class then don't post, and let people that do, discuss it.

But Tomk, I have to say, your view of Capitalism, is like the King who things everything is fine and nice and his subjects and peasants like being lower than him and doing his work, but after all we are all brothers. I guess you'd have no problem with demanding full market value of whatever they directly produce, and you can do the same, you also better not have a problem if they strike.

[Bud Struggle]

Damn it Tomk you stole my post, if you don't care about class then don't post, and let people that do, discuss it.

But Tomk, I have to say, your view of Capitalism, is like the King who things everything is fine and nice and his subjects and peasants like being lower than him and doing his work, but after all we are all brothers. I guess you'd have no problem with demanding full market value of whatever they directly produce, and you can do the same, you also better not have a problem if they strike.

I'm sorry about stealing your thread. My point was that "class" is just a made up term. It means nothing. So what if some people have more money than other people? People are all just the same. How much money someone has or what they do for a living or what their color is or what their sexual orientation is are really unimportant. What matters is that each person is a human being with certain rights and dignities that are universal to all people.

There is no such thing as class.

[RGacky3]

This question was mainly put to the Leftist on the board, about Class, how you view it, and what it influences and the such.

[Dejavu]

Well I guess I can be considered a proletarian. I work full time as a shipping clerk for OK wages, I mean they get me by. However, I do not plan on remaining at this level forever and am also attending university full time ( Yeah my day is busy.) By going to school I invest into my own human capital to make me more productive in the future so I can have higher pay ( plus I'm going after my interests which provides additional utility) I guess I would then transform out of my current proletarian status but does that make me a traitor some how to my 'class?'

[Dejavu]

why don't you pay them the same wage as you then? ;)

Yeah but I'm sure Tom has a diverse division of labor at his company. Some labor is more productive than others and with Tom being at the top, he runs the whole shebang and actually takes a loss in the present. Tom pays into his production by paying labor ( among other things) in hopes that the future goods will yield a profit. Tom is more concerned about consumption of future goods over present and is willing to 'advance payment' to his workers in exchange the workers seek to consume more in the present granting Tom productivity for the future. Its actually a harmonious structure.

Plus, if everyone was paid the same at Tom's work, how would there be a division of labor? Who would want to take the jobs with more responsibilities and duties if there is no incentive to take that work? This would force Tom out of business and his workers would be out of a job.

[RGacky3]

Who would want to take the jobs with more responsibilities and duties if there is no incentive to take that work? This would force Tom out of business and his workers would be out of a job.

People who enjoyed a challenge, most people enjoy their work more when it gives them somewhat of a challenge.

What about this, why not let the business be run democratically, let the workers choose what their (and toms) compensation be for their work, and let them decide how the company should be run, and yeah tom gets a vote too :).

[Dejavu]

People who enjoyed a challenge, most people enjoy their work more when it gives them somewhat of a challenge.

What about this, why not let the business be run democratically, let the workers choose what their (and toms) compensation be for their work, and let them decide how the company should be run, and yeah tom gets a vote too :).


^^^ You're seriously joking right ? :laugh:

[RGacky3]

In a way ... yes.

well about the first part no, claiming that no one would want any work that was challenging or required more mental strain is wrong, and almost all studies about job satisfaction would show that.

The second part somewhat yeah. My point was Tom has this benevolent dictator view, "we are all brothers, class does'nt count" and so on and so forth, which is rediculous. Can you imagen a southern Slave owner saying "race does'nt matter, I treat my blacks nicely and I don't care that they are slaves, we are all brothers." Its very easy to say class does'nt count when your a Capitalist. If his factory were made up of people who were all brothers, it would be run democratically. But of coarse he's not going to do that :P.

[Green Dragon]

People who enjoyed a challenge, most people enjoy their work more when it gives them somewhat of a challenge.


is this "human nature?"



What about this, why not let the business be run democratically, let the workers choose what their (and toms) compensation be for their work, and let them decide how the company should be run, and yeah tom gets a vote too :).


Why not indeed? Nothing wrong conceptually with this. There is, after all, nothing uncapitalist about a worker owned industry.

The problem, which always seems to trip up the socialists hereabouts, is that the workers, when making their decisions, would hopefully do so in an informed manner. Which means they need a source of knowledge which directs them in their thinking. Now Tom is guided by the rules and knowledge of capitalism, by the need to turn a profit. That is what sets his decisions.

Would the workers in the new structure also make their determinations based upon the knowledge and information capitalism provides? If so, what exactly has been changed? If not, what is the new source of knowledge being used?

"Democratic control" by the workers as a description of socialism barely even scrapes the surface.

[Bud Struggle]

My point was Tom has this benevolent dictator view, "we are all brothers, class does'nt count" and so on and so forth, which is rediculous. Can you imagen a southern Slave owner saying "race does'nt matter, I treat my blacks nicely and I don't care that they are slaves, we are all brothers." Its very easy to say class does'nt count when your a Capitalist. If his factory were made up of people who were all brothers, it would be run democratically. But of coarse he's not going to do that :P.

I'm not a SLAVE OWNER. People work for me of their own accord. I like them and they like me. But most of all, they like their work. Here's my take--if people do what they enjoy, they never work at all--they get free money for doing what they enjoy. Work has to be interesting and challenging. People need to be INVOLVED in the process of creating a really good and really useful product. Every day has to be an adventure.

People don't want a democracy--they want to be happy and challenged. To make a factory a democracy takes away from the thing a workers finds interesting in what he does--AND IT MAKES EVERYONE AN ACCOUNTANT!

A business is a myrad of challenges and each person in the business takes on the challenge that intrests him the most.

For the most part--and I can say this from experience--people don't work just for money. There are a lot of other things that do a lot better job of motivating workers.

It's only Capitalists like me that work for the cash. :(

[FriedFrog]

"All wonderful people--but each one could be replaced in a heartbeat. I can't."

Why can't you be replaced? Why would your factory not work if you weren't there?

[Dystisis]

I'm sorry about stealing your thread. My point was that "class" is just a made up term. It means nothing. So what if some people have more money than other people? People are all just the same. How much money someone has or what they do for a living or what their color is or what their sexual orientation is are really unimportant. What matters is that each person is a human being with certain rights and dignities that are universal to all people.

There is no such thing as class.
Do you accept that people have different working conditions, different wages, etc?

If you do, you know that there is such a thing as classes.

[Bud Struggle]

"All wonderful people--but each one could be replaced in a heartbeat. I can't."

Why can't you be replaced? Why would your factory not work if you weren't there?

I "invented" the business. On the other hand--you do have a point. The invention work is done. I'm not as needed as I once was. But on the third hand: I keep it interesting for the workers. My job now is to keep they happy. So maybe I'm as worthwhile as before.

[Bud Struggle]

Do you accept that people have different working conditions, different wages, etc?

If you do, you know that there is such a thing as classes.

No. They are false distinctions. We each just have different jobs in a business--we are all just different cogs in the same machine. Job title, wages are unimportant. All that matters is job satisfaction.

I don't call myself the "president" of the company. My duty is to be the workers helper. :thumbup1:

And before you ask--I do make most of the money. But then again life really isn't about money, after all--it's about happiness. And I give the workers what they REALLY want, happiness and fufillment.

The problem I see with Marx is that he keeps addressing "work" and the real issue is finding a fufilled "life."

[RGacky3]

I don't call myself the "president" of the company. My duty is to be the workers helper.

But you are, you can call yourself whatever you want, you can fire the worker if you want to, but the workers cannot fire you. You choose how much your workers are paid, they don't choose your salary, you pick their conditions, they have no control, everything they make belongs legally to you, they don't own anything.

So no, they arn't false distinctions, they are very real.


The problem, which always seems to trip up the socialists hereabouts, is that the workers, when making their decisions, would hopefully do so in an informed manner. Which means they need a source of knowledge which directs them in their thinking. Now Tom is guided by the rules and knowledge of capitalism, by the need to turn a profit. That is what sets his decisions.

Would the workers in the new structure also make their determinations based upon the knowledge and information capitalism provides? If so, what exactly has been changed? If not, what is the new source of knowledge being used?

Although worker controlled industry is a huge part of Socialism its not all of it, but when you eliminate class, and you democratize the economy, it becomes about social need, not profit, so yeah a worker controlled industry in a Capitalist Society while much more desirable, does'nt change society, which is what is needed.

[Bud Struggle]

But you are, you can call yourself whatever you want, you can fire the worker if you want to, but the workers cannot fire you. You choose how much your workers are paid, they don't choose your salary, you pick their conditions, they have no control, everything they make belongs legally to you, they don't own anything.

So no, they arn't false distinctions, they are very real.



I don't "fire" my workers, and my workers don't "fire" me. That's 150 year old terminology that just doesn't apply to modern Capitalism. The workers choose their wages by deciding how hard they wish to work and are compensated for the work they do. The workers are free to decide on their conditions to about the same extent I'm able to decide on my conditions. The worker's are very much encouraged to "own" their jobs. They own their decisions and their happiness. The conditions of work have been redefined to include the workers happiness in all business decisions because happy workers are productive workers. What can be wrong with happy workers? Marxism at it best never made people happy--and in the end, that's what life is all about. :marx:

Really and truly--after maybe feudalism there is no more "reactionary" and out of date economic philosophy than Marxism.

[Green Dragon]

Although worker controlled industry is a huge part of Socialism its not all of it, but when you eliminate class, and you democratize the economy, it becomes about social need, not profit,

why? And how? TomK can't direct production in his factory to what he feels like. And this is because of the obvious fact is that nobody is compelled to use his products. Should he produce what he wants, and not what the public wants, the public buys elsewhere, or goes without. And then TomK does not make his profit.

The democratic factory would also have to direct production to what people want, and not what the workers wish to produce. If however, the workers democrtaically chose not to do so, then what? Democracy in action, and the community is worse off as a result of that decision. Although socialists sometime like to say that it is "obvious" that the workers would produce what is "socially neccessary" and therefore the workers would never democratically choose not to produce what is 'socially neccessary" it is by no means "obvious." Because then one has to examone the how and whys something is determined "socially neccessary" over other goods which may not be deemed so.




so yeah a worker controlled industry in a Capitalist Society while much more desirable, does'nt change society, which is what is needed.
[/QUOTE]

Nope, it doesn't. So the next task is to analyse whether the change sought is compatible within the framework of worker controlled industries, whether it can be acheived using certain means, ect ect. In short, what the rest of Revleft is all about.
Unfortunately, it is no longer 1850, and the socialist cannot pretend to be constantly starting from scratch.

[RGacky3]

I don't "fire" my workers, and my workers don't "fire" me. That's 150 year old terminology that just doesn't apply to modern Capitalism. The workers choose their wages by deciding how hard they wish to work and are compensated for the work they do. The workers are free to decide on their conditions to about the same extent I'm able to decide on my conditions. The worker's are very much encouraged to "own" their jobs. They own their decisions and their happiness. The conditions of work have been redefined to include the workers happiness in all business decisions because happy workers are productive workers. What can be wrong with happy workers? Marxism at it best never made people happy--and in the end, that's what life is all about. http://www.revleft.com/vb/class-t72586/revleft/smilies2/marx.gif

Its not 150 year old termanoligy, because in reality, you ahve the ability to fire then and they don't, thats the legal reality, thats Capitalism. You may try and give them some false sense of ownership, but in reality, in concrete terms, its just fluff, and you control and own everything. Your analysis can apply well to slavery as well, happy slaves are productive slaves, it does'nt make it any better or worse. You

Just becuase you invented it does'nt mean a thing, you had the money to invest in it, the workers could have invented it too, but they have nothing to invest but their labor.


why? And how? TomK can't direct production in his factory to what he feels like. And this is because of the obvious fact is that nobody is compelled to use his products. Should he produce what he wants, and not what the public wants, the public buys elsewhere, or goes without. And then TomK does not make his profit.


First of all your talking about what is being produced, not how its produced, Wage Slavery is just as wrong as Slavery.

And your also forgetting that 10% own 90%, which means that they, the 10% choose what is produced, which is why millions starve, while the new iphone is comming out.


The democratic factory would also have to direct production to what people want, and not what the workers wish to produce. If however, the workers democrtaically chose not to do so, then what? Democracy in action, and the community is worse off as a result of that decision. Although socialists sometime like to say that it is "obvious" that the workers would produce what is "socially neccessary" and therefore the workers would never democratically choose not to produce what is 'socially neccessary" it is by no means "obvious." Because then one has to examone the how and whys something is determined "socially neccessary" over other goods which may not be deemed so.

Considering people in a Communist Society would be working volunarily, you ahve to ask WHY, well it would be to be a productive part of society, meaning they would produce what is socially neccessary, democratically.

How would they determain what is socially nessesary? Again, democracy, listening to people, listening to Society.

Also, its easy to try and pick holes in a concept and a principle, saying "oh maybe you socialists hav'nt thought of this detail" But it does'nt defend capitalism at all, and it does'nt show how Capitlaism is any better of morally justifiable.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

It depends how you define what is fair share. I think I pay them more than enough for the work they do. But to answer your question directly--I make lots more in terms of real dollars. BUT I did all the work that put the whole business together. Not to put too fine a point on it but EVERYONE's despensable in my business except me. the guy on the loading dock, the guy that does accounting, the guy that runs the fork lift, etc. All wonderful people--but each one could be replaced in a heartbeat. I can't. Each one of those guys earns what he gets. And so do I.

I could probably take over your job "in a heartbeat." Why don't you fax me your job description, hours, and pay scale?


I don't "fire" my workers, and my workers don't "fire" me.

Acquit? Screw over? Which is it that you prefer?


The workers choose their wages by deciding how hard they wish to work and are compensated for the work they do.

And you decide how hard they work, of course, whereas the workers can't slap your hand away from the piggy bank whenever they think you've been sloppy.


Really and truly--after maybe feudalism there is no more "reactionary" and out of date economic philosophy than Marxism.

:D


Marxism at it best never made people happy--and in the end, that's what life is all about.

Labor rights don't make people happy? That's a new one to me. I guess we should just go about abolishing minimum wage, child labor laws, and see the fruits of capitalism truly at work.


I like them and they like me.

Most chattel slaves liked their owners.


But most of all, they like their work.

Good.


Here's my take--if people do what they enjoy, they never work at all--they get free money for doing what they enjoy.

Until it's time to pay for the mortgage and get bread on the table.


People need to be INVOLVED in the process of creating a really good and really useful product. Every day has to be an adventure.

Perfectly reasonable argument against capitalism. Luckily for your employees, you sound like a decent small business owner - not much separates you from the proletariat other than the means with which you acquire wealth.


People don't want a democracy--they want to be happy and challenged. To make a factory a democracy takes away from the thing a workers finds interesting in what he does--AND IT MAKES EVERYONE AN ACCOUNTANT!

Huh? I do believe you're mistaking democracy with aggressive decision-making. Are you under the presumption we want a vote every time a shipment comes in, whether to store the materials in dock A or B?


For the most part--and I can say this from experience--people don't work just for money. There are a lot of other things that do a lot better job of motivating workers.

A second vindication of socialism.

[Drace]

And before you ask--I do make most of the money. But then again life really isn't about money, after all--it's about happiness. And I give the workers what they REALLY want, happiness and fufillment.Ever wonder how their lives are at home?
You can make them happy at the factory...but at home?

Of course, live isn't about money. Thats why I prefer communism...
Here, you must pay for anything you do. I guess that makes someone else happy though...

The reason why money exists is not to make sure people earn what they worked for. Its rather to give it to a fool and take it back from them. To get a society of fools, you need a society who watches the media, and lives in a capitalist world.

[Bud Struggle]

Funny you resurrected that thread. Just after that I started reading more of RevLeft Theory and put together my plan to "Sovietize" my plant.

[Trystan]

Yes, we're all human. But class does exist. Class antagonisms still exist: we are reminded of this every time news of a strike is shown on TV. And I do believe that someday these antagonisms will reach such a boiling point there will be no turning back.

[Bud Struggle]

Yes, we're all human. But class does exist. Class antagonisms still exist: we are reminded of this every time news of a strike is shown on TV. And I do believe that someday these antagonisms will reach such a boiling point there will be no turning back.

I really don't see that happening. I see the American people (at least) as all one big class, some making more money than others.

There is some unrest, of course, but welfare, drugs and a pretty good lifestyle even for the poor seem (all things considered) to defuse tempers and uphold the status quo.

And to be honest--I can't remember the last time I've seen a strike mentioned on TV.

[RGacky3]

I really don't see that happening. I see the American people (at least) as all one big class, some making more money than others.

Thats rediculous, fanciful thinking. Few people own America, the rest run it, thats the way Class works, most people work to survive, while the few work to expand their power and wealth. This is the real world, Class does exist, and it is brutal, you can say class does'nt exist, but say that to the guy who just got laid off after 20 years of work, can't take care of his family, and has no where to go, you think class exists for him? You betcha, or the guy who had to slave his whole life just to get by and just watched it pass by while Capitalists spend time with their family in a yaht, you think class exists for him?

The American people are not one big class, look around.


And to be honest--I can't remember the last time I've seen a strike mentioned on TV.

They don't show them much, and when they do, pay attention to how they talk about the strike, most of the time they almost talk about it as if the strikers don't have a right to strike, i.e. they should be slaves. Its very interesting to watch the news talk about strikes, because if you sit back and think about what they are saying its very scary.


There is some unrest, of course, but welfare, drugs and a pretty good lifestyle even for the poor seem (all things considered) to defuse tempers and uphold the status quo.


Despiration has upheld the status quo, because of how powerful Capitalism has gotten, many people have just given up. But, things are changing, slowly.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Tom, if money is something you earn, how exactly do you defend capitalism? What created socialism was the rejection of money made outside of labor.

Using the logic of some of our more counter-intuitive members, classes didn't exist under feudalism either. It was a matter of "some strong and some weaker persons" of the same class. Although harder to do, peasants could become merchants, merchants could become nobility, and so on. And by that same token, feudalists defended their rights as property rights.

People work for employer-employee firms because they have no better alternatives. The banks want money; they don't back cooperatives, they back corporations. Incorporation, which is a case of socializing risk for a private firm, benefits (again) corporations. Worst of all are anarcho-capitalists like Friedman (and probably Baconator) who think the incorporation process can be made legitimate.

The government subsidizes corporations. It monopolizes ideas. It makes a tax system that hurts the workers. It deems land (a natural gift to everyone) on par with labor. Capitalism is far from "earning what you deserve."

[Bud Struggle]

Tom, if money is something you earn, how exactly do you defend capitalism? What created socialism was the rejection of money made outside of labor. I understand your point. I'm just saying all of this "class" question, where money or wealth is created--how one defines one source of one's income is an artificial construct placed on society by Marx (and others.) If you want to believe their definitions--that's fine. It's no difference than the Catholic Church placing terms and meanings on their actions--sacraments, lets say. If you BELIEVE that certain action are sacraments, then that's fine. If you don't believe it's anything other and some oil or a piece of bread, than is it?


Using the logic of some of our more counter-intuitive members, classes didn't exist under feudalism either. It was a matter of "some strong and some weaker persons" of the same class. Although harder to do, peasants could become merchants, merchants could become nobility, and so on. And by that same token, feudalists defended their rights as property rights. Maybe. But here in America there is a lot of osmosis from one way of making money to another. Every union worker with a 401K is a Capitalist. If you own some rental property you are a Bourgeois Capitalist. I just don't see those definitions fitting anymore. Who owns Exxon? It's teachers and union menbers and stay at home moms and rich people, too I'm not denying that. But capitalism is spread out a lot further than in Marx's day when the ich owned everything.


People work for employer-employee firms because they have no better alternatives. The banks want money; they don't back cooperatives, they back corporations. Incorporation, which is a case of socializing risk for a private firm, benefits (again) corporations. Incorporation not only socializes risk--it socializes porfits, too. Or rather securitizes risk and profits. I guess here we see thing as different. I can see any person can build a better mousetrap and become rich. And I'm not saying EVERY person, I understand that--but as long as the opportunity is there, I'm game.


Worst of all are anarcho-capitalists like Friedman (and probably Baconator) who think the incorporation process can be made legitimate. Well, I personally think the Chicago School bring out the worst in people in general and the worst in businesses specificly.


The government subsidizes corporations. It monopolizes ideas. It makes a tax system that hurts the workers. It deems land (a natural gift to everyone) on par with labor. Capitalism is far from "earning what you deserve."
[/quote] But corporations are just pass throughs of money. They pay no taxes--the people that buy the corporations products pay those taxes. You really get into a no win situation when you tax companies--it just makes products and services mor expensive for the worker. I'm no fan of the government having too much money--it's squandered on bridges to nowhere and Stars Wars defense systems and all sorts of bureauicratic machinations that produce nothing and make life more complicated for everyone.

The crux of the argument is property rights--I think we should be allowed, no strike that--every person has a RIGHT to property that they earn. If I earn the money to buy a house and want to live in it fine. If I want to rent out that house and make some money on it fine--it's my house. And of course everything flows from there. Society just doesn't have the right to tell me what to do with my property.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Maybe. But here in America there is a lot of osmosis from one way of making money to another. Every union worker with a 401K is a Capitalist. If you own some rental property you are a Bourgeois Capitalist. I just don't see those definitions fitting anymore. Who owns Exxon? It's teachers and union members and stay at home moms and rich people, too I'm not denying that. But capitalism is spread out a lot further than in Marx's day when the rich owned everything.

I don't think you have the slightest clue about relativity whatsoever. Just because employees own stock doesn't mean they're capitalists. Are the Inveval workers (http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2520) bourgeois, too? :rolleyes:

[Bud Struggle]

I don't think you have the slightest clue about relativity whatsoever. Just because employees own stock doesn't mean they're capitalists. Are the Inveval workers (http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2520) bourgeois, too? :rolleyes:

No. I honestly don't go through all of this gobbleygook about who is who and what is what and sort out what Chavez says as opposed to what Castro says.

As Marx made clear: if you own the means of production--you are a Capitalist. He never said anything about what % of the means of production you own makes you a Capitalist, did he?

If you own a piece of Exxon you own a piece of Capital. It's not some mom and pop operation. You get income from your ownership. Is there a fixed limit on how much you can make from a major Capitalist corporation before you stop becomming a proletarian and start becomming a member of the bourgeois? I don't think so.

It's like the old joke about the guy who offers a woman a million dollars to have sex with him--and she says "yes." Then he offers ten dollars to her to have sex. She says, "no, what do you think I am?" and he says, "we have already established what you are--now were just haggling over price."

The world has changed way to much to make anything that Marx said relevent. The Communist Revolutions of the past: Russia, China, etc. have been blueprints for disaster. Nothing really worked, did it?

Time to reinvent a new fairness for the workers and the poor. The past, like Marxism is dead and gone. I have no problem with fairness and equality--my problem is with your antiquated systems that you propose to put into practice--they guarantee for the future what they have delivered in the past--failure.

Is the world any better off today because Marx existed? I don't think so. The real advances of working people came IN SPITE of Marx not because of him.

I'm with you for a better world--but Marx isn't the answer.

[Forward Union]

Its all about how many sugars you put in your tea.

[Holden Caulfield]

Its all about how many sugars you put in your tea.

cumbria was a majorly industrial area back in the day and they call us in the "big city" that is Carlisle (and each other) jam eaters,

seriously this still exsists, they call us it because they think we are richer than they are and all snobs, ive herd ppl say "you have too much jam on your bread" as an insult,

fucking hilarious, almost as funny as what you call folk from Hartlepool

[Bud Struggle]

Oh and the http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2520 Inveval story. Quite nice, but why the government? I live in the US (I guess you do too, Jacob) do you really want the US government running anything?

Beside's it's a shot in the dark. I'd like to see the P+L of the place--that, they don't seem to talk about.

But then again, Inveval is like a dog walking on its hind legs--it's not a question about how well it's done--it's just a wonder that it can be done at all.

:)

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Society just doesn't have the right to tell me what to do with my property.Actually, it does. Property rights, like all rights, are created and defended by force.

I don't care if you rent out your house. It's impossible to prevent that - people would just use back door currency, but you shouldn't be renting out or exclusively owning land with no compensation to others. You didn't create it.


Every union worker with a 401K is a Capitalist.That is utter nonsense.


If you own some rental property you are a Bourgeois Capitalist.As is this. For all the time you've spent on RevLeft, you should know better about class distinctions. It's based on dominance. Peasants may have sold some food on the market, but they weren't considered merchants.


Incorporation not only socializes risk--it socializes porfits, too. Or rather securitizes risk and profits.For the top 10% exclusively (or at least, over 90%). Making large investments is hard to come by for most people.

And this is quite irrelevant. The fact remains the incorporation process requires a large hand by the state. You are living proof that the state and capitalism must coexist, that capitalism is big government - just when convenient.

Lending money to a firm with promise of repayment is fine. Expecting us to uphold a contract that recognizes legal personhood and limited liability is not.


I can see any person can build a better mousetrap and become rich. And I'm not saying EVERY person, I understand that--but as long as the opportunity is there, I'm game.

These billions of dollars aren't natural.


The past, like Marxism is dead and gone.Nice logical fallacy. If Marxism is history what are you doing talking to some old relics? I don't see many defenders of feudalism or slavery coming up (okay, Baconator aside). Socialism is just as relevant today as it was 50 years ago, if not more thinks to the collapse of the backwards Soviet model. Democratic, non-authoritarian socialism has its biggest following in the 21st century.

Marx influenced a lot of different people in America, including Eugene Debs and Martin Luther King. Is King's vision dead too?

[Bud Struggle]

Actually, it does. Property rights, like all rights, are created and defended by force. Property right lile the right of free speech of that of religion are inalienable.


I don't care if you rent out your house. It's impossible to prevent that - people would just use back door currency, but you shouldn't be renting out or exclusively owning land with no compensation to others. You didn't create it. Land in itself is worthless. I create the VALUE in the land. In my own patular case I turn land (at interstate intersections) into warehouses. My invention of a few acres of nondiscript cow pasture.



As is this. For all the time you've spent on RevLeft, you should know better about class distinctions. It's based on dominance. Peasants may have sold some food on the market, but they weren't considered merchants. I do with RevLeft as I do with business--I take what is given and make something that I think is worthwhile out of it. I'm interested in helping the poor, the homeless the disenfranchized, the worker. I don't think Marx has much of a plan. I don't either--but unlike Marx--I'm working on it.


For the top 10% exclusively (or at least, over 90%). Making large investments is hard to come by for most people. I made my chemical business on $200 investment--the rest paid for itself. Granted I'm good at this kind of stuff. But all you have to do is look around and see a NEED and gor for it.

{quote]And this is quite irrelevant. The fact remains the incorporation process requires a large hand by the state. [/quote] My bank does it for free.


You are living proof that the state and capitalism must coexist, that capitalism is big government - just when convenient. Not quite so. Let me explain my philosophy on big governmet--FUCK THEM. I want nothing from them I ask nothing from them, I dislike them. I don't do business with them, I have nothing to do with them. They give me tax breaks I could do without. I have no interest in them.


Lending money to a firm with promise of repayment is fine. Expecting us to uphold a contract that recognizes legal personhood and limited liability is not. The legal personhood of corporations is meaningless--they are a window of pass throughs.



Nice logical fallacy. If Marxism is history what are you doing talking to some old relics?

I was a Classics major in College. I learn and grow from the past. But I don't speak Latin when I order lunch.



I don't see many defenders of feudalism or slavery coming up (okay, Baconator aside). Bada-bing! :lol:


Socialism is just as relevant today as it was 50 years ago, if not more thinks to the collapse of the backwards Soviet model. You lost me here. I honestly think it's a cop out. Maybe I don't understand.


Marx influenced a lot of different people in America, including Eugene Debs and Martin Luther King. Is King's vision dead too? No, no, no! They took what they needed from Marx and threw the rest of the claptrap away. Good for them. Now it's time to move on to a new model.


Listen Gene: I honestly believe we don't have different ends. Just different means.

[Drace]

I see the American people (at least) as all one big class, some making more money than others.The capitalist doesn't give a shit about you!


Land in itself is worthlessEven supply and demand applies here. Land is limited. Its not worthless.


I don't think Marx has much of a plan. I don't either--but unlike Marx--I'm working on it.

What...Marx created an idea to make everyone happy. There is no problem with Marx or Marxism. Our enemies are the capitalists, they are thrones in our way. Our problem is getting there. There are ways to get around it. The Ussr had the chance for it...


As of "society can't tell me what to do with my property" is bull. They have the right as if you cross the line. It affects them, you know.

[Killfacer]

the past doesnt really die anyway does it. The past goes on and on. Much the same as the present and the future.

[RGacky3]

Property right lile the right of free speech of that of religion are inalienable.

The difference is to have property rights you need threat of force, to have free speach or that of religion you don't, to take them away you need force. TO take away property rights you just need a guy picking fruits in a garden that someone else claims.


I do with RevLeft as I do with business--I take what is given and make something that I think is worthwhile out of it. I'm interested in helping the poor, the homeless the disenfranchized, the worker. I don't think Marx has much of a plan. I don't either--but unlike Marx--I'm working on it.

Just because your a nice guy does'nt mean most Capitalists are, most are not, and we should'nt have a system thats betting on Capitalists being nice guys.


Not quite so. Let me explain my philosophy on big governmet--FUCK THEM. I want nothing from them I ask nothing from them, I dislike them. I don't do business with them, I have nothing to do with them.

Until your workers get out of hand, (I don't mean YOURS perse I mean many Capitalists who's workers strike and demand stuff).


No, no, no! They took what they needed from Marx and threw the rest of the claptrap away. Good for them. Now it's time to move on to a new model.

The same could be said about Jesus. Also why is that a bad thing, taking the good stuff from Marx and ignoring other stuff. Marx is'nt a 'Model' he just had some great ideas, and those ideas are still relevent.