i hate capitalism, but its amazing.

[Ken]

its amazing that such a simple, yet extremely sophisticated money system can get billions of people out of bed every day and into work.

im a welfare leech, and i lol everyday at this.

[Incendiarism]

I dunno, the precariousness of the entire class who live off their labor just turns me off from it especially since I belong to said class

[ships-cat]

If you think living off your labour is precarious, try being a small businessman !
Umm... by which I mean the owner of a small business, not someone who is small, and also owns a business. Not that size matters. Apparantly. Oh you know what I mean).

Or even worse, a sole trader. (or any other type of fishmonger).

Meow Purr :)

[Jazzratt]

Or even worse, a sole trader. (or any other type of fishmonger).

Meow Purr :)

I wish we could ban people for terrible puns.

[Dr Mindbender]

its amazing that such a simple, yet extremely sophisticated money system can get billions of people out of bed every day and into work.

im a welfare leech, and i lol everyday at this.

capitalism gets labour out of the workers in much the same way a gun toting pyschopath gets your wallet off you.

Co-ersion.

Dont give it the credit of thinking its an elaborate system, its really quite simple. The smoke and mirrors of the free market is the illusion they like to portray to the prole in their arrogant thinking that they can persuade us not to try and understand it.

[LSD]

OK, two quick points.

One, it's not particularly impressive that capitalism gets people to work every day. That's the whole fucking reason it exists. If it didn't induce production, it wouldn't be an economic paradigm. Fucking slavery got people to work every day, millions of them too. All it took was a big whip.

It's really not that hard to make someone work.

And two, "coersion" is such a retarded argument against capitalism that I'm sick and fucking tired of hearing it. Of course capitalism is coercive, that's the point. If it wasn't coercive, everyone would do what they actually wanted to do, which generally doesn't involve stuff like mining coal or building cars or answering telephone calls from morons who don't know how to turn on their DVD player.

You want a society without coercion? Easy, it's called hermetism. Just you, alone, on an island somewhere, with like trees and shit to eat and fuck when you get particularly horny. ...'cause you know you'll get horny, right? And hungry, and bored, and lonely as hell all alone without anyone else to influence your life, to coerce you into doing things you might not otherwise do.

Human society is mutual coersion. We all can't do what we want 'cause we all want different things, and a great deal many of the things we want mutually conflict.

Like old Ken might see that island of yours with its sexy sexy trees, but he can't get his freaky on with you all watching and shit, so he'd prefer if you'd go away ...permanently. Which kinda conflicts with your not wanting to die and shit.

So what do you do? Do you coerce him into not killing you? :ohmy:

"gun toting pyschopath"! :lol:

[Dean]

Human society is mutual coersion. We all can't do what we want 'cause we all want different things, and a great deal many of the things we want mutually conflict.

You've had such a great epiphany, you can reject all the hard work involved in striving for a better world; after all, you have contemporary society as a standard and an ideal.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The original post is so ambiguous that I have a hard time formulating a response. What are you talking about? A lecturer getting paid to teach someone the basics of math isn't coercion, and it isn't capitalism. It's just a mutual agreement that doesn't inhibit anyone else.

Taking land and claiming I can't use it is coercion. And I don't really see what's so "amazing." As LSD pointed out, slavery worked splendidly with just a whip (okay, a little more than that, but you get what he means).

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

im a welfare leech, and i lol everyday at this.

Yes, people who work for a living are funny.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Methinks you need to do some more studying, Ken.

[JimmyJazz]

One, it's not particularly impressive that capitalism gets people to work every day. That's the whole fucking reason it exists. If it didn't induce production, it wouldn't be an economic paradigm. Fucking slavery got people to work every day, millions of them too. All it took was a big whip.

This is what I wanted to say, better than I could have said it.

Basically, the economic benefit of living in society is participation in the benefits of a vast division of labor. Under capitalism, you cannot enjoy these benefits in an egalitarian, cooperative setting. You have to either give them up (live in the woods wearing whatever fig leaves you can sew together) or accept this unequal, unjust, competitive, destructive, supremely wasteful system.

[Bud Struggle]

It's all just because people have this fetish about eating every day.

And
im a welfare leech, and i lol everyday at this.

Is there really any difference between the OP and a Capitalist?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

It's all just because people have this fetish about eating every day.

And

Is there really any difference between the OP and a Capitalist?
Society would suffer, however slightly, if you died Tom. That's the difference between you and him.

[Dean]

Society would suffer, however slightly, if you died Tom. That's the difference between you and him.

Excuse me? Who are you to say that society woudln't suffer if "welfare leeches" died?

In fact, what is a welfare leech to you? If it is someone who does produce something, then I challenge you to define "productivity" and leave out all the social interactions that make up a large portion of art, for instance. I have a very close family member who is on welfare and creates no distinct product or service, and yet I know a great many people who would be very upset if he were to die. Society suffers when its constituents suffer, and we usually care a lot more for people than for produce.

As for whether or not it is capitalist, this is obvious: its not. Capitalists take existing capital or goods and reinvest them in order to create capital.

[Bud Struggle]

Excuse me? Who are you to say that society woudln't suffer if "welfare leeches" died?

In fact, what is a welfare leech to you? If it is someone who does produce something, then I challenge you to define "productivity" and leave out all the social interactions that make up a large portion of art, for instance. I have a very close family member who is on welfare and creates no distinct product or service, and yet I know a great many people who would be very upset if he were to die. Society suffers when its constituents suffer, and we usually care a lot more for people than for produce.

As for whether or not it is capitalist, this is obvious: its not. Capitalists take existing capital or goods and reinvest them in order to create capital.

:rolleyes:

ECU told a joke. He was paying me a half assed complement. Nothing more.

As far as the people on welfare being a blight on humanity--it depends. Some people honestly need the money--and I have no problem. But did you read the OP's post?

Laughing at people that work for their daily bread.

He's scum.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Exactly. I have no problem with welfare, but this smug superiority annoys me (as it would coming from anyone).

[Pirate Utopian]

its amazing that such a simple, yet extremely sophisticated money system can get billions of people out of bed every day and into work.

im a welfare leech, and i lol everyday at this.
lawl I cant wait to grow up and rofl at the workers!:rolleyes:

[Connolly]

LSD:



If it wasn't coercive, everyone would do what they actually wanted to do, which generally doesn't involve stuff like mining coal or building cars or answering telephone calls from morons who don't know how to turn on their DVD player.



But it could involve 'doing stuff like mining'. If there is sufficient 'social recognition' attached to this particular occupation, of course people would actually want to be a miner, or any other job considered undesirable today. Social recognition is what I describe broadly as positive 'feedback' through an individuals human interaction with society and other individuals.

As social animals, I think above all else, we seek social recognition. Under capitalism, I would put it, social recognition is the prime motivation after mere survival. The accumilation of wealth is but a means to achieve it under capitalism, while in socialism, it is through labour itself. Though even within capitalism, we do things for social recognition directly, through labour and actions, without the medium of wealth to achieve it.

This alone is a sufficient reason to believe humans can undertake tasks without the motivation to accumilate wealth, and it is besides the additional argument that people undertake tasks and like it, if there is no alienation from the task, or labour.

Social recognition is positive feedback from others in the form of social acceptance, respect, acknowledgment, praise, general social interaction and all other positive feedback we seek, and which without, we would be miserable.

[Frost]

As social animals, I think above all else, we seek social recognition.

Of course. However, where should the line be drawn between tangible and intangible recognition? A pat on the back may not be as good as a buck in the hand.


Under capitalism, I would put it, social recognition is the prime motivation after mere survival.

Under any system social recognition is the prime motivation after mere survival. It's only natural under a hierarchy of needs.


The accumilation of wealth is but a means to achieve it under capitalism, while in socialism, it is through labour itself. Though even within capitalism, we do things for social recognition directly, through labour and actions, without the medium of wealth to achieve it.

In capitalism at least the concept of social recognition could be measured. Fairly? Not at all. Socialists correctly point out the value of need but is it possible to meet all needs of social recognition through labour? What makes labour more successful than wealth as a means to achieve sufficient social recognition?

[Connolly]

Of course. However, where should the line be drawn between tangible and intangible recognition? A pat on the back may not be as good as a buck in the hand.



Please, spell out what you mean instead of asking vague open questions.

A 'buck in the hand' translates into something, it is but a means of achieving something else - otherwise its just a piece of paper.

That something else, for the most part, and beyond mere survival, is either 1) used for the purposes of social recognition or 2) used for the purposes of self expression.



Socialists correctly point out the value of need but is it possible to meet all needs of social recognition through labour? What makes labour more successful than wealth as a means to achieve sufficient social recognition?


Within the narrow constraints of what we are talking about, neither is superior, nor could it be measured for comparative purposes. The variables are too many.

All the needs of social recognition cannot be met through labour. Friendships, intimite relationships and family relationships are not necessarilly built upon labour, but other activities. Nor can wealth necessarilly achieve these. Infact the family is the perfect example, like a small version of socialism, where wealth is not the motivation for undertaking tasks - but rather, to please another individual, to be accepted by another individual, to make the 'system run smoothely', and to recieve positive feedback in general.

[Ken]

Society would suffer, however slightly, if you died Tom. That's the difference between you and him.

would society suffer more if i died, or if an industrial timber lobbyist died? a better question is, would society benefit more if i was killed, or if the lobbyist was killed? also, would society benefit in my becoming an industrial timber lobbyist?

i am a communist, by the way, and im in uni. but im not one of those ostentatious self-declared 'activists', im more of an inactive activist, an armchair anarchist, if you will.

i started this thread in OI because i was making a point about how such a disgusting, inhumane and lol system can get so many miserable people up and into work every day. one undenyable benefit of capitalism is that it has created an endless influx of goods-but most of questionable value.

dare i say, if so many silly people are willing to be miserable for nine hours a day, and have their labor reward me, why shouldnt i let them carry on this loliful charade?

i bet the lobbyist, sitting in his golden chair, lols at his workers everyday.

[Frost]

Please, spell out what you mean instead of asking vague open questions.

A 'buck in the hand' translates into something, it is but a means of achieving something else - otherwise its just a piece of paper.

My point was that money, yes almost worthless in the sense that it is merely a piece of paper, can translate into something tangible through the means of purchase. My question is, how could one achieve anything tangible (perhaps more specifically, goods that are not necessary for survival) strictly through labour?


That something else, for the most part, and beyond mere survival, is either 1) used for the purposes of social recognition or 2) used for the purposes of self expression.

I'm not sure if I quite follow. I would need a rephrasing to respond.


Within the narrow constraints of what we are talking about, neither is superior, nor could it be measured for comparative purposes. The variables are too many. All the needs of social recognition cannot be met through labour. Friendships, intimite relationships and family relationships are not necessarilly built upon labour, but other activities. Nor can wealth necessarilly achieve these.

Fair enough, and agreed. Perhaps I will get to the point and ask if neither can fully achieve needs, what makes satisfaction through labour preferable than through wealth outside of the constraints of my initial reponse?


Infact the family is the perfect example, like a small version of socialism, where wealth is not the motivation for undertaking tasks - but rather, to please another individual, to be accepted by another individual, to make the 'system run smoothely', and to recieve positive feedback in general.

I totally agree. I'm not sure where you stand on this issue, but maybe another could answer the following. A family is a tight-knit unit has a deeper connection than that of a state (in transition to communism) would with its citizens. With a greater sense of impersonality between individuals, could people actually produce any significant amount of social recognition to keep socialism afloat? Is it possible for an individual to feel a sense of duty to a large society as they could a family? Even with the destruction of the family as described in the Communist Manifesto, could the state (or pusuit in dissolving it) replace the connection that an individual would feel with the traditional family?

[Decolonize The Left]

OK, two quick points.

One, it's not particularly impressive that capitalism gets people to work every day. That's the whole fucking reason it exists. If it didn't induce production, it wouldn't be an economic paradigm. Fucking slavery got people to work every day, millions of them too. All it took was a big whip.

It's really not that hard to make someone work.

Well put - excellent rebuttal.


And two, "coersion" is such a retarded argument against capitalism that I'm sick and fucking tired of hearing it. Of course capitalism is coercive, that's the point. If it wasn't coercive, everyone would do what they actually wanted to do, which generally doesn't involve stuff like mining coal or building cars or answering telephone calls from morons who don't know how to turn on their DVD player.

Not true. If this was a free society and the society/community needed coal, I'd go in the mine and get the coal. If a car was needed to be built and I knew how, I'd do it. And if someone needed to learn how to turn on their DVD player, I'd tell them how.


You want a society without coercion? Easy, it's called hermetism. Just you, alone, on an island somewhere, with like trees and shit to eat and fuck when you get particularly horny. ...'cause you know you'll get horny, right? And hungry, and bored, and lonely as hell all alone without anyone else to influence your life, to coerce you into doing things you might not otherwise do.

Wrong. It's called cooperation - and it doesn't involve being alone and horny.

- August

[Connolly]

Frost:



My point was that money, yes almost worthless in the sense that it is merely a piece of paper, can translate into something tangible through the means of purchase. My question is, how could one achieve anything tangible (perhaps more specifically, goods that are not necessary for survival) strictly through labour?



Yes, you are right. Money can translate into something tangible.
But I dont think its possible to quantify in such a definite way what I would call social recognition. For example, if you purchase a birhday present for someone - its not possible to really measure in some 'tangible' way 1) How much that means to the person and 2) the feedback from the reciever to you and 3) How you translate that feedback into self gratification.

The entire thing is subjective and depends on each individual, what mood they are in, the culture existent (if you buy a dildo for your wife it might not be 'culturally acceptable' and thus the feedback might be negative), whether she is being overwhelmed with presents from others and neglects to give much notice to your contribution, whether you had an argument with her the previous day, whether her father died the previous day thus changing her bahaviour and the feedback she may give- and really, the variables are endless. Its just not possible to quantify what a "buck" translates into in the sphere of human interaction.

Thats not to say social recognition is not real, it is. Just that it is not a commodity with which we can put value to. For example, you can not put a value on love.

Im not entirely sure of the question, though. How do you mean tangible in your question - as in, something physically real? Well labour produces that which is physically real. But in a socialist system, labour, which now has a value attached, becomes an activity without any quantifiable value - just like painting, watching TV, socialising or all other activities which, if I understand your question correctly, dont produce anything tangible - nor do they have to.



I'm not sure if I quite follow. I would need a rephrasing to respond.



Ok, my apologies. I divided 'what you could do with the buck' into two main catagories, or I could in include three aswell, though they can overlap.

Suppose you had 20' bucks'. You could spend it for the purposes of self expression - buy artist equipment to paint, improve the colour scheme of your bedroom, use it for an activity which you can control, such as buying a computer game to play, buy ingredients to cook a fancy meal etc. Something for which you will gain a level of self expression and control, along with self gratification and individuality, over your doings, or 'labour' in the case of a socialist society.


The second possibility is you could spend it for the purposes of social recognition - indeed, you could kill two birds with the one stone were possible (someone may like, give praise and admire your painting or cooking. Or you may achieve a 'top score' in a game by which you use this to achieve a measure of achievment over another individual, and whereby they give positive feedback in return, maybe respect or whatnot.) But in general, you could use the 20 bucks to socialise, take your friends out for a drink, buy a gift for your girlfriend etc - which are not necessarilly a means for you to achieve 'self expression', but rather using the money to achieve positive feedback from other individuals and society.

The third option, which I didnt include intially is to improve say, your own comfort. A mattress on your bed for example. Though I would put this third option in a catagory of physical needs and necessities, such as food, since beyond certain limits, purchasing things for personal comfort are nothing of the sort.

So I would make those three main divisions, Self Expression, Social Recognition and Needs/Comfort. They may even overlap.

Another three factors which determines all three of these possibilities, is the ideology of any given society, and the social and economic conditions with which we live. An example is that purchasing a dildo may be culturally unacceptable and may have negative effects and connotations which may not exist if it were culturally acceptable. Or another is that the level of comfort we are satisfied with is dependent on both societies economic conditions and our own.



Fair enough, and agreed. Perhaps I will get to the point and ask if neither can fully achieve needs, what makes satisfaction through labour preferable than through wealth outside of the constraints of my initial reponse?



Outside the constraints we are talking about a question of 'what makes socialism superior to capitalism'. For one, labour in a socialist society would be more meritorious in how one achieves social recognition. Under capitalism, a person can achieve social recognition by inheriting money, having never worked a day in their life. Under capitalism, the working class are not given social recognition for the very important labour with which they do. Cleaners for example achieve low levels of social recognition, primarily I would argue, because their wages are low. If they were high, "people would want to do it, or aspire to doing it" - as they do with other jobs which i would believe to be undesirable and monotonous such as accountancy. The army is another example of an undesirable job, but through social conditioning, it becomes something to aspire to.

In effect, 'social recognition', for the most part, under capitalism is achieved through a measure of how much a person has, or makes - not through how hard they work or the nature of the occupation itself etc.

From the top of my head, I cannot think of any regular occupation (not related to charity, religion or the military for which case other explanations could be given) that recieves low wages yet high social recognition - despite these occupations being vital for society, despite those in them working very hard, despite the conditions they work under (miner for example).

For these reasons, I think the achievment of social recognition in a socialist society to be more meritorious, and direct, not needing the medium of wealth - which is not a measure of anything really in relation to an individual.



I totally agree. I'm not sure where you stand on this issue, but maybe another could answer the following. A family is a tight-knit unit has a deeper connection than that of a state (in transition to communism) would with its citizens. With a greater sense of impersonality between individuals, could people actually produce any significant amount of social recognition to keep socialism afloat? Is it possible for an individual to feel a sense of duty to a large society as they could a family? Even with the destruction of the family as described in the Communist Manifesto, could the state (or pusuit in dissolving it) replace the connection that an individual would feel with the traditional family?


See the thing is regarding whether a socialist society could achieve sufficient 'social recognition' through labour, is that 'seeking' and behaving in a manner to achieve social recognition (the prime motivation of our existence appart from mere survival) is that its already "built in". Its in our nature to act in a way within any given society to achieve it.

We simply adapt to the constructs of a given society in order to achieve it. The construct in a capitalist society is 'wealth creation', that is the medium. While at a smaller level, such as the family, wealth creation is not the medium.

If the construct of society is that social recognition is achieved through labour, we will adapt - instantly! When there is no medium, such as wealth creation or money, its more direct, a more tight nit, "natural" and effective way - otherwise the family and social friendships would be based upon wealth as the medium - which they are not.

Achieving social recognition through the medium of wealth is so very superficial, and says nothing about the individual. Nothing about his talents, his personality his social 'usefulness'. All it says is his privileged up bringing etc., or his inheritance.

It is superficial, it results in rampant consumerism, unhappiness. Families and friendships would become a shell of nothingness if they were to become based upon wealth as the medium to achieve social recognition - "buying friendship", "buying family".

The goal of socialists is to get rid of wealth as the medium to achive individual expression, as a 'motivating factor' behind a persons activities and labour, and to create a society based upon true and real meritocracy.

Marx put is something like "in a socialist system, the biggest want in life becomes labour itself" along those lines anyway.

[Killfacer]

your not a leech then, you are at uni?

[Connolly]

Im not sure what you mean. Or what relevence it has.

[Killfacer]

sorry i should have quoted the person i was talking to. I was talking to the author of the thread, my bad.

[Tungsten]

You want a society without coercion? Easy, it's called hermetism.

This is easliy the best post ever.

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


As social animals, I think above all else, we seek social recognition.

Ha ha. No. Social recognition on my "checklist of life" doesn't come in my top ten things to pursue. Hell, it probably doesn't even come in my top twenty.

[Connolly]

Ha ha. No. Social recognition on my "checklist of life" doesn't come in my top ten things to pursue. Hell, it probably doesn't even come in my top twenty.


Thats why your posting here then is it.

[RGacky3]

Is there really any difference between the OP and a Capitalist?

Not much at all morally, and I can't judge either of them for what they choose to do. Difference may be that a Capitalist has a bunch of Capital and has power and is a boss, and gains more power and more profit on other peoplse work. the OP does'nt have much power or Capital and does'nt really get anything more, he's more like a begger with a fixed income really.

Its not amazing really, its sad, but not amazing. You work 5 days to enjoy 2, if your lucky that is. I'm even luckier, I can get away with working 4 days to enjoy 3, so good for me.

[danyboy27]

welfare leech suck ass, for real. has far has i am concerned, all they do is stealing my money. i am 100% for a welfare system that help people to get back on their feet to work, all that, but there is so much people here that cheat the system, and no real sign from the governement to actually do something.

i live in a poor neighborhood, and i see everyday some punkass assole that think its cool to go against the system and not working, and there is also some fucker that work without declaring anything while they receive big juicy welfare money from the governerment.

there is also the ones that self victimize themselve, whinning about how the system is unjust and unfair, and that this is why they dosnt work, but at the end they never do anything to help themselves, they just complain all day and search for every way to cheat the system instead of trying to regain their dignity and work.

sure the system is to blame for not doing anything to prevents those exploits, but some individual have nobody but themselves to blame.

i remember those cheater every 2 week, when i receive my money and see 33% of it going away for services i will never benefit or for services that are badly managed by some punkass bureaucrat that dosnt do their job properly.

i seriously hate my governement for not doing anything, but i seriously hate my peoples has well for leading us to self destruction.

[Bud Struggle]

welfare leech suck ass, for real. has far has i am concerned, all they do is stealing my money. i am 100% for a welfare system that help people to get back on their feet to work, all that, but there is so much people here that cheat the system, and no real sign from the governement to actually do something.


You see how a guy like this --while disliked by Capitalism punches a pretty big creditability hole in Communism--this kind of guy is Communism's worst enemy.

Everything free--but some people working their ass off for the betterment of society and some sitting on their ass for their own betterment and F everyone else.

[Plagueround]

You see how a guy like this --while disliked by Capitalism punches a pretty big creditability hole in Communism--this kind of guy is Communism's worst enemy.

Everything free--but some people working their ass off for the betterment of society and some sitting on their ass for their own betterment and F everyone else.

Since people's mindset and belief are often dictated by the times they live in, I would argue that capitalism is widely responsible for people from all classes developing such attitudes (The "Get rich or die trying" mentality). Revolution is mindset as well.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Communism =/= lack of incentives. Outside of not being able to enjoy the full products and services available - you would practically be limited to bartering through a back door (but perfectly legal) economy - a person who just goofs around at work would likely never acquire a position that they look forward to. Over time there wouldn't necessarily be "bad jobs," but except for a few people, working as a janitor, or fast food chef isn't really what someone would want to do for the rest of their lives. If you don't acquire any vocational or mental skills from higher education, people aren't going to accommodate you into a teaching job.

[RGacky3]

Of coarse in a system where you control nothing and you have no power over your own life, other than be a slave or cheat, sitting on walfare might be a good option (maybe dishonorable in some peoples eyes, but still an option), in a society where you do have control and you do have a say, and you benefit yourself from your labor, attitudes will inveribaly change. If your part of the system, not just serving it, the insentives to cheat it are lessened significantly. Communism is about everyone being a part of the 'system'.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

What I find interesting is the idea that people will expend the bare minimum even with the said improvements - as if they don't do that now. Millions of people waste their day on the computer when they "should be" working, and millions more take easy resolutions whenever their boss isn't looking. Dramatically reducing work hours tends to bring more productivity per individual; at the tail end of your "shift" you tend to pay less attention to detail. We see this in comparing the US to Germany or France. The problem with social liberalism is that - outside of small reductions - the profit motivation makes it an inhibitor to productivity. You're having to now hire more employees, or reducing your own total productivity.

For gawd's sake, since when has "competitive pay" meant anything outside of commission? :laugh:

[danyboy27]

seriously, i would not mind spending 33% of my paycheck very two week if the system would be actually efficient and working.
i am not for the get rich die trying mentality, but i believe that a governemenr that only throw money to his people do nothing but to feed them like their are feeding a pet. governements worldwide lack of initiative, that mainly why a lot of left governement failed, beccause for a governement to be leftist and efficient, it need to have constant change reforms and al that.

has i said earlier, i got no problem with the state helping his poor people to get better in a way or another, i am even 100% for the governement pension to single parents families, but the governement need to do something to stop that leech mentality that is contaminating the whole system here. the leech mentality is the principal cause of governement spending here.if there was no leech the system would work, and we would not need to put program to make the people working, they would wake up and doing it themselve! but here its not the case and it seem my only hope for change of the system is the governement to actually do something bold and agressive to put those people back to work in order to give them their dignity back. Some peoples here think it would be good to cut the whole program, but i think its wrong, i think we should make this program more people friendly and less institutional.

i am a manual worker, i work hard everyday, i am proud of it, now if you excuse me, i have to take the city bus, got a big day today!
seeya!

[Bilan]

i am a communist, by the way, and im in uni. but im not one of those ostentatious self-declared 'activists', im more of an inactive activist, an armchair anarchist, if you will.

You are not an anarchist. You know nothing of anarchism, and have nothing to do with anarchists, anywhere. And no anarchist would organize with an obnoxious, self-righteous, arrogant, middle class schmuck like you.



dare i say, if so many silly people are willing to be miserable for nine hours a day, and have their labor reward me, why shouldnt i let them carry on this loliful charade?

That's not a choice. You don't have the choice of being rich or poor, a worker or a boss. Those "silly people" don't have the same freedom to be a pompous arsehole eating out of a dumpster and going to uni that you do. But when push comes to shove, you'll probably be one of these "silly people" who are struggling to make ends meet, or you'll be one of the assholes who are perpetuating that struggle.




i started this thread in OI because i was making a point about how such a disgusting, inhumane and lol system can get so many miserable people up and into work every day. one undenyable benefit of capitalism is that it has created an endless influx of goods-but most of questionable value.


1. There's nothing funny about it.
2. They can get it because people are forced too; it is necessary for us to work so that we can eat - it's insecurity at best, and homelessness at worst.
3. How is an "endless influx of goods of questionable value" an undenyable benefit?



i bet the lobbyist, sitting in his golden chair, lols at his workers everyday.

And I hope he chokes.

[Ken]

You are not an anarchist. You know nothing of anarchism, and have nothing to do with anarchists, anywhere.

lets get this straight. the fact that i have one less ruler than you makes me not an anarchist, someone who knows nothing about anarchism, and(again, based on the fact that i have one less ruler than you) someone who has nothing to do with anarchists anywhere.

cool.


And no anarchist would organize with an obnoxious, self-righteous, arrogant, middle class schmuck like you.

what are you so angry about? did you have a bad day? please, sort out your personal problems before deciding to post.


That's not a choice. You don't have the choice of being rich or poor, a worker or a boss. Those "silly people" don't have the same freedom to be a pompous arsehole eating out of a dumpster and going to uni that you do. But when push comes to shove, you'll probably be one of these "silly people" who are struggling to make ends meet, or you'll be one of the assholes who are perpetuating that struggle.

not a choice? so i dont have the choice to be a welfare leech, im just one without any say? damn!

no, really. i was once a silly person who worked nine hours a day. and i have made my choice.


1. There's nothing funny about it.
2. They can get it because people are forced too; it is necessary for us to work so that we can eat - it's insecurity at best, and homelessness at worst.
3. How is an "endless influx of goods of questionable value" an undenyable benefit?

1. clearly not
2. i dont work, i eat very well. i hold gormet dinner parties, they are yumm.
3. an endless influx of goods is a benefit because of the delicious selection of chocolates i have to choose from. hmm... lindt swiss chocolate... belgian fruit and nut... i cant decide!


And I hope he chokes.

but you wont stop working for him!



i better not go to jura books again, i might run into the anarchist police :D

[Bilan]

lets get this straight. the fact that i have one less ruler than you makes me not an anarchist, someone who knows nothing about anarchism, and(again, based on the fact that i have one less ruler than you) someone who has nothing to do with anarchists anywhere.

cool.

Oh really, who's my other ruler that you're free from? Reality?
You aren't an anarchist. I'd be surprised if you even understood the basics of anarchism!




what are you so angry about? did you have a bad day? please, sort out your personal problems before deciding to post.

Because I don't like you. You're a rude twat and make me disgusted with the crap that passes for anarchists.




not a choice? so i dont have the choice to be a welfare leech, im just one without any say? damn!

Dost thou not have the knowledge to realize that that is not possible for all; that an economy would stagnate and collapse if all decided to be a leech?
Dost thou not realize that being a pathetic brat, who is able to work, and chooses not too, and decides to leech off welfare, gives ammunition to the far right who try and break down the welfare system, whilst also disadvantaging those who actually need the welfare system?

Are you not conscious of how self-centred you are, or something?




no, really. i was once a silly person who worked nine hours a day. and i have made my choice.

I hope it has the logical repercussions. Maybe then you will realize that the world doesn't revolve around you; and perhaps then you might just realize why capitalism is so bad.




1. clearly not

Only for a parasite.



2. i dont work, i eat very well. i hold gormet dinner parties, they are yumm.


Would you like a meddle?



3. an endless influx of goods is a benefit because of the delicious selection of chocolates i have to choose from. hmm... lindt swiss chocolate... belgian fruit and nut... i cant decide!

...Chocolate is of questionable value?




but you wont stop working for him!

Because I have too.




i better not go to jura books again, i might run into the anarchist police :D

By all means go, and pick up a book while you're there; the next step is to read it; the following is to pull your head out of your ass.
Next thing you know, you'll be walking.

[danyboy27]

seriously i fucking hate those people who are exploiting the welfare system and think its cool to fight the system and think they are communists beccause of that.

[Lynx]

Hating them won't help. Besides, welfare cheats have an excuse: the idle rich. So long as there is no expectation for the idle rich to work and be productive, why should they? Until everyone is treated equally, and have the same expectations made of them, what do you expect?

[danyboy27]

Hating them won't help. Besides, welfare cheats have an excuse: the idle rich. So long as there is no expectation for the idle rich to work and be productive, why should they? Until everyone is treated equally, and have the same expectations made of them, what do you expect?

welfare cheat, the one that can actually work, not the one that are disabled or elderly are stealing money to the working class.

I decided that i will not wait for the governement to change to make my life better, i decided to have a 2 year formation in computer, i got a worker job, i work hard for every penny.

If you live in an area that have no job possibilities, move out!

and for those that are whining that there is only low paid boring job avaliable, you may think about getting 6 month contract jobs, this way you never get bored of your job, since you will often change.

You cant really be in touch with society if you dont go tru what they are going tru, you cant understand them really unless you actually did what they did, or live what they live.

seriously lynx, move to Quebec city, i know you are in nova scotia, but here there is a awful lot of job avaliable, some of them really interesting, some are less interesting but they still pay, they are looking for standardist, 13 bucks an hour, they are looking for people to clean sinistred places, no experience, 15 buck an hour.

Having a job is not only having a salary, its having an experiance in a domain, having a background. think about that: they are paying you to make you gain experience, sound creazy eh?

[Lynx]

I'm in Nova Scotia because the cost of living is lower. In Quebec, the price of a house is ridiculous - so I sold high and bought low. There is work here, salaries are not as high as in Alberta, and Alberta is what many folks around here talk about. It is self-deprecating.
I'm doing what I believe is best for me, Ken is doing what Ken thinks is best for Ken, and you're doing what you believe is best for you. I hope we're each making the right choices for our own lives. If you have a family, then life is not just about you anymore.

[danyboy27]

I'm in Nova Scotia because the cost of living is lower. In Quebec, the price of a house is ridiculous - so I sold high and bought low. There is work here, salaries are not as high as in Alberta, and Alberta is what many folks around here talk about. It is self-deprecating.
I'm doing what I believe is best for me, Ken is doing what Ken thinks is best for Ken, and you're doing what you believe is best for you. I hope we're each making the right choices for our own lives. If you have a family, then life is not just about you anymore.


that another problem then! if you teach to your children values that arent respected anymores, like moral and ethics, respect, that you raise your kid well, then i would counsider that my money have been well spent on that system, and that you are not a welfare leech, you are contributing to society in a verry important way, creating a valuable generation, that unfortunatly something the system fail to reconize.

[Lynx]

that another problem then! if you teach to your children values that arent respected anymores, like moral and ethics, respect, that you raise your kid well, then i would counsider that my money have been well spent on that system, and that you are not a welfare leech, you are contributing to society in a verry important way, creating a valuable generation, that unfortunatly something the system fail to reconize.
I wonder what the system recognizes. It encourages hard work yet rewards risk-taking. It prefers supporting people in jail than through welfare. It talks about family values, yet expects working families to place their employers needs first.

[danyboy27]

I wonder what the system recognizes. It encourages hard work yet rewards risk-taking. It prefers supporting people in jail than through welfare. It talks about family values, yet expects working families to place their employers needs first.


maybe at the end the system have nothing to do with that, maybe itds the values of the whole society that became so fucked up?

[Lynx]

Its only fucked up for those who perceive it to be. Not that being aware of the 'matrix' doesn't change the need to act somewhat rationally. You are part of a socio-economic system, and you make your life within it. You assume that other people are doing the same. Nevertheless, what happens to society as a whole (when measured statistically) may not happen to you personally. Hence the saying "I'm all right, Jack"

[Bud Struggle]

I wonder what the system recognizes. It encourages hard work yet rewards risk-taking. Both are equally important in making a viable system.


It prefers supporting people in jail than through welfare. No, both are interchangably odious to the system. The important point is that they are interchangable.


It talks about family values, yet expects working families to place their employers needs first.It makes a separation between the public life of a person and the private life. Not a bad thing if taken in perspective--it insures the private life is personal and separate.

All in all one hell of a good system!

[Tungsten]

Thats why your posting here then is it.

What, you think I'm posting here to gain the admiration of people who openly want to steal from/kill me?

[Bilan]

Who wants to steal from you?

[danyboy27]

Who wants to steal from you?

people that are on welfare when they could work are stealing our money.
plain and simple.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Hating them won't help. Besides, welfare cheats have an excuse: the idle rich. So long as there is no expectation for the idle rich to work and be productive, why should they? Until everyone is treated equally, and have the same expectations made of them, what do you expect?
Surely then it must work the other way round; the idle rich may be excused because of welfare cheats.

Or do two wrongs not make a right?

[Psy]

people that are on welfare when they could work are stealing our money.
plain and simple.
The capitalist class is stealing much more value from the proletariat then "welfare cheats".

This does remind me of Bank Robber by The Clash

My Daddy was a bankrobber
But he never hurt nobody
He just loved to live that way
And he loved to steal your money

Some is richand some is poor
And thats the way the world is
And I don't believe in lying back
And saying how bad your life is

So we came to jaz it up
Never loved a shovel
Break your back earn your pay
And don't forget to grovel

Daddy was a bankrobber
But he never hurt nobody
He just loved to live that way
And he loved to take your money

The old man spoke up in a bar
Said I never been in prison
A lifetime serving one machine
Is ten times worse than prison

Imagine if all the boys in jail
Could get out now together
What do you think they want to say to us
While we were being clever

Someday you'll meet your rockin chair
Cause that's where we're spinnin
There's no point to want to comb your hair
When its grey and thinin

Hey
Daddy was a bankrobber
But he never hurt nobody
He just loved to live that way
And he loved to steal your money

So we came to jaz it up
We never loved a shovel
Break your back earn your pay
And don't forget to grovel

Get away, get away
Get away, get away
Get away, get away
Get away

Daddy was a bankrobber
But he never hurt nobody
He just loved to live that way
And he loved to steal your money

Run, Laddy, run

Strike out boy
For the hills
I can't find that hole in the wall
I know that they never will

My Daddy was a bankrobber
But he never hurt nobody
He just loved to live that way
And he loved to steal your money

[Lynx]

Surely then it must work the other way round; the idle rich may be excused because of welfare cheats.

Or do two wrongs not make a right?
First things first: remove the double standard

[Qwerty Dvorak]

First things first: remove the double standard
It is your position that is the double standard. The existence of welfare leeches doesn't justify the idle rich, but the existence of the idle rich justifies welfare leeches?

The fact is that if you don't think something should exist, it is hypocritical for you to use its existence as an excuse for doing it yourself (eg, stealing from the working class). Similarly, I know that burglaries are common in working class areas, and I think they are wrong. But I don't consider the fact that burglaries happen to be justification for my breaking into a working class home and stealing everything in it.

Welfare scammers are scum. I'm glad that our government is preparing a major crack-down on this kind of thing.

[Lynx]

It is your position that is the double standard. The existence of welfare leeches doesn't justify the idle rich, but the existence of the idle rich justifies welfare leeches?
I am saying that if there were no double standard, there would be no need to ask that question.


The fact is that if you don't think something should exist, it is hypocritical for you to use its existence as an excuse for doing it yourself (eg, stealing from the working class). Similarly, I know that burglaries are common in working class areas, and I think they are wrong. But I don't consider the fact that burglaries happen to be justification for my breaking into a working class home and stealing everything in it.
Such attitudes are rationales. They exist, sometimes because of double standards. Their justifiability is a matter for debate, yes.


Welfare scammers are scum. I'm glad that our government is preparing a major crack-down on this kind of thing.
This is like paying a free lunch for Paris Hilton, and being glad that Ken has gone away.

[Connolly]

Tungsten:



What, you think I'm posting here to gain the admiration of people who openly want to steal from/kill me?


No. I never said Admiration. Admiration is but a narrow aspect of 'social recognition', which covers all forms of social interaction.

You are posting here because you get a response from other individuals. How that then translates depends on you. Maybe you do it to make yourself feel superior in argument or intellect to others. Maybe you do it for fun.

Whatever your reason, you cant do it without interacting with other individuals.

You seek it out. Quite clearly. And to suggest that that which comes in the form of social interaction and social recognition is not on your wishlist. Well, how very sad for you. But i believe you posting here is contrary to your claim. You seek interaction and feedback from other individuals.

[Ken]

people that are on welfare when they could work are stealing our money.
plain and simple.

people that work when they could live on welfare are stealing from not just me, but everyone. why support capitalism?

agreed, bourgeoisie paradigms and government stereotyping are plain and simple.

nobody has answered by lobbyist/welfarist question yet.



Welfare scammers are scum. I'm glad that our government is preparing a major crack-down on this kind of thing.

its in the government's interest to provide welfare. its part of protecting and reinforcing the status quo. it gives workers an imaginary stereotype to be angry about.

(a major crack-down? the insecurity is a part of the welfare system, but dont expect it to be abolished completely anytime soon:))

[Ken]

people that are on welfare when they could work are stealing our money.
plain and simple.

i forgot to mention, i am not stealing money from anyone(1). i have been meaning to get around to write an article about this...

the money i get from the government has absolutely no effect on worker wages(2). none. it doesnt matter how much im being paid to be unemployed or how much you are being paid to be employed, there is no interaction(3) between worker wages and welfare institutions.

1. for convenience this means specifically "i am not stealing money from anyone via welfare"

2. i am unsure how this could be disproved, if you have empirical evidence to the contrary, show it!

3. there is a better word to use than "interaction" but i cant think of one!

[danyboy27]

i forgot to mention, i am not stealing money from anyone(1). i have been meaning to get around to write an article about this...

the money i get from the government has absolutely no effect on worker wages(2). none. it doesnt matter how much im being paid to be unemployed or how much you are being paid to be employed, there is no interaction(3) between worker wages and welfare institutions.

1. for convenience this means specifically "i am not stealing money from anyone via welfare"

2. i am unsure how this could be disproved, if you have empirical evidence to the contrary, show it!

3. there is a better word to use than "interaction" but i cant think of one!


actually if there was not that muhc people on welfare that could work they could lower deductions from my pay

[Ken]

what do you mean by deductions? tax?

i am being paid something between a quarter and half of what i was paid working a day job. so i live off less than any worker.

and because im not working, that means there are less workers available for any given job. supply and demand means that the less workers an employer has to choose from, the better conditions and wage etc the worker has to benefit from. so in a way, my unemployment is of benefit to society at large. well, the workers i mean.

[danyboy27]

what do you mean by deductions? tax?

i am being paid something between a quarter and half of what i was paid working a day job. so i live off less than any worker.

and because im not working, that means there are less workers available for any given job. supply and demand means that the less workers an employer has to choose from, the better conditions and wage etc the worker has to benefit from. so in a way, my unemployment is of benefit to society at large. well, the workers i mean.

taxes, deduction the governement do on my paycheck to give money to institutions and social services.

yes, at the end, salary are better, but economy become stagnant, and at the end the whole society suffer from that.

dont get me wrong some peoples that are on welfare actually have no choice for a moment or a disabled, and i dont have problem paying for them.

i would be supposed to earn like 967 dollars for 2 week and for now 300$ are going right into the institutions, i know what i am talking about i am the only province in canada that have almost no restriction on welfare, we are the most taxed province in NORTH AMRERICA, we pay 15% instead of 6%(rest of canada) taxes on good, plus creazy shit deduction mentionned above. if we could put back to work half of the people that are on the welfare right now in quebec it would generate a fucking load of surplus, surplus that could be put in better place like health, road or economy stimulus.

[Bud Struggle]

what do you mean by deductions? tax?

i am being paid something between a quarter and half of what i was paid working a day job. so i live off less than any worker.

and because im not working, that means there are less workers available for any given job. supply and demand means that the less workers an employer has to choose from, the better conditions and wage etc the worker has to benefit from. so in a way, my unemployment is of benefit to society at large. well, the workers i mean.

Actually you are living off of the worker's taxes--which is all right. There is nothing wrong with workers supporting one another. (Solidarity as they say! :thumbup1:) As long as the Capital Gains tax remains low--and the people that earn their money off of their inverstments don't have to pay for idle workers it's all fine with me. :)

There is a beautiful internal logic to Capitalism.

[Plagueround]

taxes, deduction the governement do on my paycheck to give money to institutions and social services.

yes, at the end, salary are better, but economy become stagnant, and at the end the whole society suffer from that.

dont get me wrong some peoples that are on welfare actually have no choice for a moment or a disabled, and i dont have problem paying for them.

i would be supposed to earn like 967 dollars for 2 week and for now 300$ are going right into the institutions, i know what i am talking about i am the only province in canada that have almost no restriction on welfare, we are the most taxed province in NORTH AMRERICA, we pay 15% instead of 6%(rest of canada) taxes on good, plus creazy shit deduction mentionned above. if we could put back to work half of the people that are on the welfare right now in quebec it would generate a fucking load of surplus, surplus that could be put in better place like health, road or economy stimulus.

Do you happen to have any data on how much of those tax dollars are going toward social programs? I'm not familiar with Canadian spending.

[Ken]

taxes, deduction the governement do on my paycheck to give money to institutions and social services.

yes, at the end, salary are better, but economy become stagnant, and at the end the whole society suffer from that.

dont get me wrong some peoples that are on welfare actually have no choice for a moment or a disabled, and i dont have problem paying for them.

i would be supposed to earn like 967 dollars for 2 week and for now 300$ are going right into the institutions, i know what i am talking about i am the only province in canada that have almost no restriction on welfare, we are the most taxed province in NORTH AMRERICA, we pay 15% instead of 6%(rest of canada) taxes on good, plus creazy shit deduction mentionned above. if we could put back to work half of the people that are on the welfare right now in quebec it would generate a fucking load of surplus, surplus that could be put in better place like health, road or economy stimulus.

i am skeptical of your claiming an amount of workers wages goes directly into [welfare] institutions.

trying not to digress from this topic, i believe the amount of money i get from the government is abysmal when you look at it in the big picture. look up military expenditure for example. understand i earn $11,000 a year. multiply that by however many welfare leeches there are if you like, and then compare it to military expenditure. or so-and-so government leader's visit to *insert country*. its just a myth that people on welfare are stealing from workers.

[danyboy27]

Do you happen to have any data on how much of those tax dollars are going toward social programs? I'm not familiar with Canadian spending.

well,50% to the federal governement and 50% to the provincial governement, one of my friend used to live in ontario, and he used to pay half less deductions, and he had to pay a 7% taxes on domestic product. i even think has a matter of fact less than 30% goes to the federal governement. the rest go to my province, that use that money to support crumbling social structure, structure that are crumbling beccause the governement can make any change to improve it beccause the whole public system is riddled with unions, and those union always fight the governement each time he try to make the system better (decreaze bureaucrat pay, fusion and demantle useless structures), i have been a functionary for a while at the governement, and beccaue of the union you could not work faster than the other otherwise you make them look bad.

and after they are asking why quebec is the poorest province in canada after newfoundland, at least newfoundland have the excuse to do not have any sources of revenues at all, we could be the king of canada, but we are lagging backward beccause of some old guard punkass leftist that dont want to evolve at all, tanks to the party quebecois and tanks to the bloc quebecois for destroying any credibility the left could ever had in quebec.

i am voting layton, fuck you gille duceppe.

[danyboy27]

i am skeptical of your claiming an amount of workers wages goes directly into [welfare] institutions.

trying not to digress from this topic, i believe the amount of money i get from the government is abysmal when you look at it in the big picture. look up military expenditure for example. understand i earn $11,000 a year. multiply that by however many welfare leeches there are if you like, and then compare it to military expenditure. or so-and-so government leader's visit to *insert country*. its just a myth that people on welfare are stealing from workers.

you dont take in consideration the immense bureaucracy structure you cost, bureaucrats paid 60 000 a year just to put a stapm on your check, the more the leech exsit the more bureaucrat are needed, if you where less, it would require a lighter structure, and at the end would cost less.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

OK, two quick points.

One, it's not particularly impressive that capitalism gets people to work every day. That's the whole fucking reason it exists. If it didn't induce production, it wouldn't be an economic paradigm. Fucking slavery got people to work every day, millions of them too. All it took was a big whip.

It's really not that hard to make someone work.



LSD a recovering communist? Hahaha...I knew the day would come.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Congratulations. Do you want a dollar? It's backed by - well, still trying to figure that out. :laugh:

[IcarusAngel]

Yah, I don't interpret that statement as pro-capitalist anyway so I don't see why he said that.

If anything, it says that humans will endure many kinds of tyranny, including capitalism.

...


Then again, I guess it is an argument for capitalist slavery. :laugh:

[danyboy27]

LSD a recovering communist? Hahaha...I knew the day would come.


yea, kinda happen here, people that used to have a spine and idea on their own sometime end up fallowinfg the party line of revleft.