Greedy Capitalist Bastard

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

First, I realize there are a lot of people who are relatively rich by trading women for pieces of stone. This doesn't apply, but as far as Super-Rich billionares go, this dude's a bastard:



Lawrence Joseph "Larry" Ellison (born August 17, 1944) is an American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) entrepreneur and the co-founder and CEO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CEO) of Oracle Corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_Corporation), a major enterprise software (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_software) company. He is currently listed on Forbes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes) list of billionaires (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billionaire) as the #14 richest person in the world as of August 29, 2008.

Lifestyle

Being one of the world's wealthiest persons, Ellison is known for his extravagant lifestyle.

Boats

Ellison is the second largest financier of BMW Oracle Racing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_Oracle_Racing), which unsuccessfully competed to be selected as the challenger for the 2007 America's Cup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_America%27s_Cup) on behalf of the Golden Gate Yacht Club (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Gate_Yacht_Club) of San Francisco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco). BMW Oracle Racing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_Oracle_Racing) was the Challenger of Record for the 2007 America's Cup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_America%27s_Cup) in Valencia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valencia_(city_in_Spain)), Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain) until eliminated from the 2007 Louis Vuitton Cup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Louis_Vuitton_Cup) challenger selection series in the semi-finals. Oracle Corporation does not provide any financial support to BMW Oracle Racing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_Oracle_Racing) but grants permission for use of its logo and branding.
Oracle Racing also participated in the challenger selection series for the 2003 America's Cup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Cup) but was defeated in the final of the 2003 Louis Vuitton Cup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Vuitton_Cup).
Ellison won the 1998 Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_to_Hobart_Yacht_Race) in his yacht "Sayonara". A storm that broke out during the race cost 6 sailors (none from the Sayonara) their lives, an experience that led Ellison to swear off personal participation in ocean racing.
Ellison co-owns with music and film mogul David Geffen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Geffen) the sixth largest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_yachts_by_length) yacht (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yacht) in the world named "Rising Sun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rising_Sun_(yacht))" which reportedly cost over US$200 million to build. Rising Sun is 452.75ft (138 m) long.

Cars

Ellison owns many exotic cars including an Audi R8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_R8) and a McLaren F1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLaren_F1) among others. His favorite is the Acura NSX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acura_NSX), which he was known to give as gifts each year during its production.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Ellison#cite_note-6)

Private jet

Ellison is a certified pilot and has owned several unusual aircraft, including fighter jets. Ellison has been cited several times by the City of San Jose, California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Jose,_California) for violating its limits on late night takeoffs and landings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_mitigation#Aircraft_noise_abatement) from San Jose Mineta International Airport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Jose_International_Airport) by planes weighing more than 75 000 pounds (34 019 kg).[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] San Jose granted him a personal waiver from these regulations in 2001.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]

Home

Ellison styled his estimated $200 million Woodside, California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodside,_California) estate after feudal Japanese architecture, complete with a man-made 2.3-acre (9,300 m2) lake and the most extensive seismic retrofit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismic_retrofit) available with current technology (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Erioll_world.svg/18px-Erioll_world.svg.png37°24′44.34″N 122°14′51.40″W / 37.4123167, -122.2476111 (http://stable.toolserver.org/geohack/geohack.php?pagename=Larry_Ellison&params=37_24_44.34_N_122_14_51.40_W_)). In 2004 and 2005, Ellison purchased more than 12 properties in Malibu, California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malibu,_California) worth more than $180 million. The $65 million Ellison spent on five contiguous lots on Malibu's Carbon Beach was the most costly residential transaction in United States history until Ron Perelman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Perelman) sold his Palm Beach, Florida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_Beach,_Florida), compound for $70 million later that same year, according to industry writer Jeffrey Bellamar.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] His entertainment system cost $1 million, and included a rock concert-sized video projector at one end of a drained swimming pool and turned the gaping hole into a giant subwoofer.

Now, I'm not a communist. But I can't stand this liestyle, Donald Trump being another example. For his credit, Ellison did donate 1% of his personal wealth to charity. And that's quite a bit of money, still. But the largest donations he's made has been because he was using it to get out of an insider-trading charge.

The simple fact people hoard enormous amounts of wealth and sit atop it like a king is inconceivable to me. By far the best part of being a billionare, to me, would be giving it away. The only alternative is putting it in a massive safe and swimming in it every day, like Scrooge McDuck.

25,000 children will die today. Millions will walk miles to get water they can drink. Diseases we consider to be eradicated here are causing epidemics and rampant devastation elsewhere. Fossil fuels are destroying our planet and new technology is waiting to be unlocked. Genetic sciences are just begining to be explored. Private space-travel is becoming a reality. But no, he "cant find a charity worth donating to."

[Rascolnikova]

First, I realize there are a lot of people who are relatively rich by trading women for pieces of stone.

?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I'm always amused that multi-millionaires and billionaires give less percentage-wise than your run of the mill guy: http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/638_charity_contributions_average_dollar_amount_an d.html

I NEVER donate to these philanthropist charities. A lot of it is business wrapped up in a shield against taxation. It's better to get your hands dirty or donate to reputubable charities like the Red Cross. (Close to 4% of all charity donations go towards the salary of the top charity executive - http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=studies.ceo)

What's sad is that medicare and medicaid are more efficient than private alternatives. Up to 25% of all money that goes to charities is spent on advertisements.

[Bud Struggle]

Old joke:

What's the difference between Larry Ellison and God?

God doesn't think he's Larry Ellison. :lol:

[RGacky3]

I don't understand why your angry about that, according to you (or other pro-capitalists) he earned it and should be able to do wahtever he wants with it. Its his, people that starve its their own fault because they did'nt work as hard as him, as far as we should be concerned he could stuff all the money up his ass and fart it into a hookers mouth on the moon and it would'nt matter.

First of all to get that rich you kind of have to have the "screw everyone else" attitude, generally, so once you get to the top, you think thats gonna change?

Hey if he's super rich, let him buy golden toilets, and make giant statues of himself, who cares.

Now then if you do care, they maybe you should be against a system that relies on people to do nice things, people that generally got where they are by being cut throat.

[Bud Struggle]

I'll give his this: the man made his own money.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Yeah, thanks to the state.

[Dean]

Buying and selling is a career for many young people to consider.

[Dr Mindbender]

I'm always amused that multi-millionaires and billionaires give less percentage-wise than your run of the mill guy: http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/638_charity_contributions_average_dollar_amount_an d.html



Ah, but their argument is that for the most part multi millionaires and billionaires can afford not to depend on public services therefore its not their burden to pay a lot of tax.

Of course you and i know that is bullshit, if they want to use the fire brigade or police they have to call the same phone number as joe average.

[Bud Struggle]

Ah, but their argument is that for the most part multi millionaires and billionaires can afford not to depend on public services therefore its not their burden to pay a lot of tax.

Of course you and i know that is bullshit, if they want to use the fire brigade or police they have to call the same phone number as joe average.

Millionaires dial 912 to bet emergency service not 911 like poor people. The fire trucks, etc., arrive much faster and give better service. ;)

[Dr Mindbender]

Millionaires dial 912 to bet emergency service not 911 like poor people. The fire trucks, etc., arrive much faster and give better service. ;)

:lol:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=sdaRuTwWl9I

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I NEVER donate to these philanthropist charities. A lot of it is business wrapped up in a shield against taxation. It's better to get your hands dirty or donate to reputubable charities like the Red Cross. (Close to 4% of all charity donations go towards the salary of the top charity executive -


When you're the 14th richest man you can do more than put some change in the tub and hope most of it goes to the cause.



I don't understand why your angry about that, according to you (or other pro-capitalists) he earned it and should be able to do wahtever he wants with it. Its his, people that starve its their own fault because they did'nt work as hard as him, as far as we should be concerned he could stuff all the money up his ass and fart it into a hookers mouth on the moon and it would'nt matter.



You're free to go impregnate a woman, then eat her aborted fetus for dinner.

Doesn't mean it isn't disgusting.


First of all to get that rich you kind of have to have the "screw everyone else" attitude, generally, so once you get to the top, you think thats gonna change?

I would certainly hope so. It did for Carnegie, Morgan, Rockefeller, and Gates, just to name a few.


Hey if he's super rich, let him buy golden toilets, and make giant statues of himself, who cares.

Now then if you do care, they maybe you should be against a system that relies on people to do nice things, people that generally got where they are by being cut throat.

He didn't get were he is simply by being a mean bastard. He started a company that obviously filled a need society had.

I have no problem with him making that kind of money, I do have a problem with him being an arrogant little punk, along with Trump as I mentioned before.

[RebelDog]

I'll give his this: the man made his own money.

Could you explain how it is possible for one person to produce all that wealth unilaterally? Wiki says he has a personal fortune of $25.0 billion. I make that about 50billion tins of baked beans. How could he produce all that or any commodity equivalent by himself?

[RGacky3]

I would certainly hope so. It did for Carnegie, Morgan, Rockefeller, and Gates, just to name a few.


It did'nt change for them either, they got tax breaks and good PR.


He didn't get were he is simply by being a mean bastard. He started a company that obviously filled a need society had.


Are you suggesting that people start businesses with societies needs in mind? That they are being altruistic? If so thats the silliest thing I've heard.


I have no problem with him making that kind of money, I do have a problem with him being an arrogant little punk, along with Trump as I mentioned before.

90% of the people with that money, especially the type that believe they "earned it" are arrogant punks, it comes with the territory.

[pusher robot]

Could you explain how it is possible for one person to produce all that wealth unilaterally? Wiki says he has a personal fortune of $25.0 billion. I make that about 50billion tins of baked beans. How could he produce all that or any commodity equivalent by himself?

Suppose that the Oracle database program increased commercial and industrial efficiency by a mere .01% At today's global gross product, that's over six billion dollars of wealth creation - annually. Do it for a few years and it really adds up.

[pusher robot]

Are you suggesting that people start businesses with societies needs in mind? That they are being altruistic? If so thats the silliest thing I've heard.

Are you suggesting that businessmen decide to offer goods and services with no regard whatsoever to what society needs or wants? Now that's silly.

They try to fill societies needs and wants because doing so is profitable.

[RebelDog]

You're free to go impregnate a woman, then eat her aborted fetus for dinner.

Doesn't mean it isn't disgusting.

A ridiculous and repellent analogy. But what you are basically saying is that simply because capital has the power and freedom to exploit labour, destroy the environment and put profit before all other social considerations it is thus justified?


He didn't get were he is simply by being a mean bastard. He started a company that obviously filled a need society had.

He started a private tyranny that exploited its labour and externalised its costs to a degree that he became the 14th richest person in the world. There is scope to suggest that makes him the 14th most anti-social person in the world. If we were to start thinking about the needs of society we certainly wouldn't have private corporate tyrannies that put profit before everything else. We could fill a need society has by taking Ellison and the rest of Forbes Rich List membership and putting them up against a wall. Given the misery such a parcel of rogues are responsible for inflicting on the world, it would be a thoroughly justified action.

[RebelDog]

Suppose that the Oracle database program increased commercial and industrial efficiency by a mere .01% At today's global gross product, that's over six billion dollars of wealth creation - annually. Do it for a few years and it really adds up.

How can a computer programme produce any tangible goods? That is just a weapon for class war.

[RGacky3]

They try to fill societies needs and wants because doing so is profitable.

Thats not altruism.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

A ridiculous and repellent analogy. But what you are basically saying is that simply because capital has the power and freedom to exploit labour, destroy the environment and put profit before all other social considerations it is thus justified?

I don't see your point, or your connection. At all.

Many things are allowed under the law which are disgusting, but shouldn't be made illegal.


He started a private tyranny that exploited its labour and externalised its costs to a degree that he became the 14th richest person in the world. There is scope to suggest that makes him the 14th most anti-social person in the world.

No, he started a corporation which filled a need society had by employing people who were 100% no-doubt-about-it willing to work for the pay they were given.

We outlawed slavery some time ago.


If we were to start thinking about the needs of society we certainly wouldn't have private corporate tyrannies that put profit before everything else. We could fill a need society has by taking Ellison and the rest of Forbes Rich List membership and putting them up against a wall. Given the misery such a parcel of rogues are responsible for inflicting on the world, it would be a thoroughly justified action.

so much for progress...

[RGacky3]

No, he started a corporation which filled a need society had by employing people who were 100% no-doubt-about-it willing to work for the pay they were given.


Maybe it filled a need, maybe it did'nt, filling a need is'nt what Capitalism is about, to point that out look how much money is being spent to design new cell phones, when there are still people starving IN the US. Profit comes from selling things, and selling things does not nessesarily fullfill needs, one reason for that is the HUGE wealth gap.

Also, those workers were willing to work, because they don't have another choice, its either work for him or someone else.

We replaced slavery with wage-slavery.


Many things are allowed under the law which are disgusting, but shouldn't be made illegal.

I don't understand how you have a moral objection to a guy not giving money to the poor, if, under your analysis, Capitalism is a just system, the poor deserve to be poor, and the rich deserve to be rich, why should he give his money to the poor? Its their own damn fault. (acording to you)

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Maybe it filled a need, maybe it did'nt, filling a need is'nt what Capitalism is about, to point that out look how much money is being spent to design new cell phones, when there are still people starving IN the US. Profit comes from selling things, and selling things does not nessesarily fullfill needs, one reason for that is the HUGE wealth gap.

People decide what need to fill based on whether or not it can deliver back to them.

Many people who start businesses do so at enormous risk; why should they provide to people if in return they'll have to cared for soon enough?


Also, those workers were willing to work, because they don't have another choice, its either work for him or someone else.

Or they could, you know, start their own company. It's not against the law, there's nothing stopping them.


We replaced slavery with wage-slavery.

We replaced the shitiness known as the civilization until capitalism with an imperfect, but certainly better system we have today.


I don't understand how you have a moral objection to a guy not giving money to the poor, if, under your analysis, Capitalism is a just system, the poor deserve to be poor, and the rich deserve to be rich, why should he give his money to the poor? Its their own damn fault. (acording to you)

I have a moral objection with somebody who can sponser breakthru after breakthru in any technology they wished sitting on their money like they're fighting for survival. It's not against the law, but it is disgusting.

Secondly, when have I ever said that the poor deserve to be poor? Most of them are so because they live in societies run feudally, which refuse to allow capitalism to trump the warrior-king-despot who has power over them. I might have been taken out of context, but I defend a system which has proven itself to be the biggest source of innovation in every field known to man. And I honestly can't feel that bad for someone who goes hungry in the US, children and the mentally unstable aside. I've worked at soup-kitchens, I've delievered food to poor families. If you can't find one of these places, or are unwilling to join the government, I can't feel that bad.

We were all walking before there was capitalism. Now, thanks to research and funding from a billionare, you'll be able to fly in outer-space.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Suppose that the Oracle database program increased commercial and industrial efficiency by a mere .01% At today's global gross product, that's over six billion dollars of wealth creation - annually. Do it for a few years and it really adds up.

Yet for this product to reach the market he needs people who will distribute the product, patch up the errors, and resolve customer concerns. Otherwise efficiency doesn't increase by .01%. He's got a really good program that might go out to a few hundred people. You're still insinuating that his labor amounted to $20 billion.

That's silly.

With this one example, you would have to create a patent and/or copyright system to accumulate such wealth, otherwise competitors could freely distribute the product and have a price war. The all benevolent capitalist government has to step in.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Or they could, you know, start their own company. It's not against the law, there's nothing stopping them.Capitalists don't just start a company. They utilize the state's functions and legal system to acquire wealth. Corporate charters. Absentee landlordism. Patents. Copyrights. On a large level when the public needs something done and the private sector doesn't have the resources or will, we subsidize the big companies. (And then when we don't need something, they still subsidize). People make money off of owning the Earth - something they contributed nothing to. When a company becomes too big to fail, we bail it out. Ford, McDonald's, Burger King, Wal-Mart - they're all subsidized.

It's not a matter of disrupting the American Dream. The American Dream is perverted with capitalism. Think about what you do when you make yourself a subordinate to an employer. You accept that the person on the other side of the table needs help turning a profit out of his property (I would say this equates to having too much property, but that's subjective), so you accept that you will contribute your labor to improving the organization without claiming to be a co-owner to the products of your labor. This is just ridiculously stupid. Now think about why people accept this instead of collectively demanding, either through the state or market, co-ownership.

I have no qualms with some website owner making big bucks off of his anime porn collection. :laugh:

[Octobox]

GeneCosta: What do you mean medicare and medicaid are better altnernatives - alternatives to medical care or better alternative charity sources.

Because if it's the "former" I disagree -- we moved our father off of public health and put him on our private insurance (which means I absorb the costs rather than you) and his care is exponentially better (multiples of pi better -- haha). When my father was on public health care twice after invasive surgery they put him in a room with someone with bronchitis and pnumonia -- my father has an auto-imune disease (Rhumatoid Arthritis) and has had "RA Lung" twice. He could have died. The nurse told us this happens all the time and that the hospital staff had a choice of either "free" Public Health or really great Private Health Care and they are all PHC, hahaha.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

GeneCosta: What do you mean medicare and medicaid are better altnernatives - alternatives to medical care or better alternative charity sources.

They're more financially efficient than private coverage. Medicare and Medicaid are able to override private expenses like advertising and (theoretically) executive pay.


Because if it's the "former" I disagree -- we moved our father off of public health and put him on our private insurance (which means I absorb the costs rather than you) and his care is exponentially better (multiples of pi better -- haha). When my father was on public health care twice after invasive surgery they put him in a room with someone with bronchitis and pnumonia -- my father has an auto-imune disease (Rhumatoid Arthritis) and has had "RA Lung" twice. He could have died. The nurse told us this happens all the time and that the hospital staff had a choice of either "free" Public Health or really great Private Health Care and they are all PHC, hahaha.

I'm sorry to hear that.

I wasn't insinuating that our current public services are better per se - they're run like corporations (which is disasterous) - but rather there are added benefits to not operating in the market.

[Octobox]

Capitalists don't just start a company. They utilize the state's functions and legal system to acquire wealth. Corporate charters. Absentee landlordism. Patents. Copyrights. On a large level when the public needs something done and the private sector doesn't have the resources or will, we subsidize the big companies. (And then when we don't need something, they still subsidize). People make money off of owning the Earth - something they contributed nothing to. When a company becomes too big to fail, we bail it out. Ford, McDonald's, Burger King, Wal-Mart - they're all subsidized.

GeneCosta -- I agree with the above you are right here. Just as it would be un-fair to point out Russia, China, Cuba, N. Korea, or Vietnam as "representive communist governments" we can never move our debates forward if we keep calling American Coporatist Gov't a "free-market" or a "representation of capitalism."

I believe the best form of governance will come out of the "purity" of both philosophies -- a Minarchism will be needed to transition in such a gov't. Every "evil" you mentioned (which was all true) in American Corporatism is a result of corrupt politicians whose vote can be bought; but prior to that perversion is the fact that politicians have regulatory functions - when those should rest solely with the consumer (the worker or individual). The question is how do we get the power in the hands of the individual so he does not have to abdicate power to "labor union leaders" or "corporatists," in both of the latter "regulatory" power over the "proletariat" is possible -- we need a form of governence where people are in charge of their own lives and can form their own voluntary regimes without coercion.

[pusher robot]

Yet for this product to reach the market he needs people who will distribute the product, patch up the errors, and resolve customer concerns. Otherwise efficiency doesn't increase by .01%.Yes, and they all got a slice in proportion to how necessary they are.
He's got a really good program that might go out to a few hundred people. You're still insinuating that his labor amounted to $20 billion.Yes, well? Some peoples' labor is more indispensable than others. This doesn't strike me as controversial.


With this one example, you would have to create a patent and/or copyright system to accumulate such wealth, otherwise competitors could freely distribute the product and have a price war. The all benevolent capitalist government has to step in.

Or - he might not have bothered working on it in the first place. Anyways, that's tangential to my point. I never argued that some government isn't better than none.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Yes, and they all got a slice in proportion to how necessary they are.He's not necessary after initial production either. You have to get the capitalist state to throw up intellectual property 'rights.'


Yes, well? Some peoples' labor is more indispensable than others. This doesn't strike me as controversial.We're talking about a 500,000x difference from one man's chest o' gold to the average American family's annual earnings. This discrepancy in wealth is from absentee landlordism and the state, not one's labor contributions. If he had made this software and did not have the means to replicate or provide service, it would be severely stunted and we would be arguing over his labor's true worth.


I never argued that some government isn't better than none.It has to be convenient for capitalism to exist. If the state needs to keep the capitalist engine running, the ethical defense of allocating his "true reward" is marginal, and we should be looking at how to utilize property for economic success, not ethical obligations.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Old joke:

What's the difference between Larry Ellison and God?

God doesn't think he's Larry Ellison. :lol:

New joke:

What's the difference between a pigeon and a hedge-fund manager?

The pigeon can still put a down payment on a new Ferari. :lol:

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Capitalists don't just start a company. They utilize the state's functions and legal system to acquire wealth. Corporate charters. Absentee landlordism. Patents. Copyrights. On a large level when the public needs something done and the private sector doesn't have the resources or will, we subsidize the big companies. (And then when we don't need something, they still subsidize). People make money off of owning the Earth - something they contributed nothing to. When a company becomes too big to fail, we bail it out. Ford, McDonald's, Burger King, Wal-Mart - they're all subsidized.

No disagreement here.



It's not a matter of disrupting the American Dream. The American Dream is perverted with capitalism. Think about what you do when you make yourself a subordinate to an employer. You accept that the person on the other side of the table needs help turning a profit out of his property (I would say this equates to having too much property, but that's subjective), so you accept that you will contribute your labor to improving the organization without claiming to be a co-owner to the products of your labor. This is just ridiculously stupid. Now think about why people accept this instead of collectively demanding, either through the state or market, co-ownership.


No, I say that I'll do their work if they pay me an amount I agree to. I am going to get that amount and will take them to court over it if they fail to pay me. Even if their business fails and they go hungry, I am going to get paid. Even if I water their plants and all die before harvest I am going to get paid the same amount as if it were a record crop.

I do not wish for that millstone called co-ownership around my neck. If I did, I'd start a business.

As for the "American Dream," it's lucid; you have to be asleep to see it.

[RebelDog]

I don't see your point, or your connection. At all.

Many things are allowed under the law which are disgusting, but shouldn't be made illegal. Wage slavery, environmental destruction, tyranny, starvation, poverty are immoral and unjustifiable in themselves. Set against such grotesque wealth you and your cronies still argue that such a ridiculous catastrophe should be allowed to exist when it clearly deserves nothing but total removal from history. So laws exist that are shaped by oligarchs like Ellison to protect them and their property from the majority, so what, what does that prove?


No, he started a corporation which filled a need society had by employing people who were 100% no-doubt-about-it willing to work for the pay they were given.Did you conduct a survey when the factory doors opened? Workers have no choice but to sell their labour power and submit to the private tyrannies of capitalists in order to survive. It is fantasy to suggest that they enter that arena enthusiastically or as equals with the capitalist in a mutually fair contract. You simply cannot talk seriously about 'filling needs for society' and defend the right of wealth accumulation and all the anti-social destructive fall-out the private corporate tyrannies dump on society. It is a non sequitur. The human needs in this world are no where near being fulfilled by capitalism, and anyone who argues that a system with mega-wealth alongside wretched suffering and poverty has anything to do with addressing such needs is worthy only of contempt.


so much for progress...Progress??

[Octobox]

The human needs in this world are no where near being fulfilled by capitalism, and anyone who argues that a system with mega-wealth alongside wretched suffering and poverty has anything to do with addressing such needs is worthy only of contempt.

RebelDog:

Wouldn't you agree that no where in the world is the "pure" theory of any political philosophy being rightly applied. Capitalism would work just fine if it were not for Cronism, Corporatism, Regulatory Power, and Lobbying. Communism would work just fine if it were not for the corruptibility of leadership who need "capital equipment" from "freer" nations to build their own countries and Black & Red Markets.

When you say "mega weath alongside wretched suffering" do you mean within in the United States? People who leave economically depressed areas usually do fine -- enviroment is often times more powerful than will. Most immigrants who come here to the U.S do really well for themselves; the number one entrepreneurial group is immigrants and Americans by race the best is African Americans -- both of these groups have lead for the last 5 years.

Welfarism and Reservationism has a very devastating effect; accept when it happens by private organization, charity, or church -- not owing to the religious element but because of what I call the "law of reciprocity;" its important to be in contact with those you and help and those who help you (thankyous and praise).

I see the evil as "Corporatism-Lobbyism-Regulationism-Coercive Welfarism" -- I see no evil in consumption, in capital ownership, or in property ownership. If I use my capital, consumption, or property ownership to inflict "evil" or un-fair advantage over you then that is evil. This can only happen with Lobbying and Regulatory Power -- who receives Lobbyist Dollars and who has Regulatory Power? Regulatory Rents creates a ceiling underwhich the fungi of despotism grows. Only perfected beings with the purest intentions could handle such power and not be corrupted by it.

[Plagueround]

RebelDog:
I see the evil as "Corporatism-Lobbyism-Regulationism-Coercive Welfarism" -- I see no evil in consumption, in capital ownership, or in property ownership. If I use my capital, consumption, or property ownership to inflict "evil" or un-fair advantage over you then that is evil. This can only happen with Lobbying and Regulatory Power -- who receives Lobbyist Dollars and who has Regulatory Power?

I'm curious as to why you think removing lobbying and regulation would make capitalism benevolent. When profiteering is the motive and not mutual aid, what is to keep people from going to all extremes to maintain profits? I think we can agree that any "perfect future system" we look towards will require a change in the mindset of many (revolution is mental as well as physical), but what will keep this in balance when profit and ownership possesses such potential to run contrary to ensuring everyone is provided for?

[RebelDog]

Wouldn't you agree that no where in the world is the "pure" theory of any political philosophy being rightly applied. Capitalism would work just fine if it were not for Cronism, Corporatism, Regulatory Power, and Lobbying. Communism would work just fine if it were not for the corruptibility of leadership who need "capital equipment" from "freer" nations to build their own countries and Black & Red Markets.Whether or not 'pure theory' is being applied is immaterial here. Total free-market capitalism is unachievable. You argue that capitalism can work. If the desirable outcome is the dominance of a minority in power, property and wealth then capitalism is just fine. If one is at the receiving end of this 'social contract' and so rejects such socially undesirable outcomes then capitalism neither 'works' or is justified. Think about what you are saying here. You are basically saying it is OK for mega-powerful gangsters to turn the globe in to a profit machine for their personal gratification. You mention cronyism. If it is not OK to reward friends why is it OK to take from the social product simply because you have a deed in your pocket or can bring bargaining power to bear on markets?


When you say "mega weath alongside wretched suffering" do you mean within in the United States?I mean anywhere.


People who leave economically depressed areas usually do fine -- enviroment is often times more powerful than will. Most immigrants who come here to the U.S do really well for themselves; the number one entrepreneurial group is immigrants and Americans by race the best is African Americans -- both of these groups have lead for the last 5 years.Your deluded. How can people in "economically depressed areas' do fine? Why are these areas economically depressed if the people are doing fine? Why should we tolerate the existence of such areas? Immigrants get treated like crap in the US as they do in most countries who are seeking to exploit their labour. The fatuous idea that a few people are lifted out of poverty and sit round the masters table is no excuse to tolerate poverty and deprivation.


Welfarism and Reservationism has a very devastating effect; accept when it happens by private organization, charity, or church -- not owing to the religious element but because of what I call the "law of reciprocity;" its important to be in contact with those you and help and those who help you (thankyous and praise).This is such utter nonsense that it is hard to believe people still have such a poor grasp of the facts. Public money is poured in to corporations all the time in 'welfare for the rich' but when it comes to helping people who are at the rough end of class society and need help most of all, it becomes 'handouts' and is argued against by the same people who believe public money should be used to line the pockets of the rich. If it is important to be in contact with those that help you will the CEO of Citigroup be visiting the US families who paid to bail him out? Its OK to fleece people if you are rich and powerful eh? Pathetic.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Wage slavery, environmental destruction, tyranny, starvation, poverty are immoral and unjustifiable in themselves. Set against such grotesque wealth you and your cronies still argue that such a ridiculous catastrophe should be allowed to exist when it clearly deserves nothing but total removal from history. So laws exist that are shaped by oligarchs like Ellison to protect them and their property from the majority, so what, what does that prove?

First, I don't have any cronies. If you mean by that to include everyone who agrees with me that outright Communism should replace the current status-quo than you and your cronies are irrelevant.

Second, it proves that we should reform the system to tax people like this higher (and give them tax-breaks for charitable donations) while spending more on government programs.



Did you conduct a survey when the factory doors opened? Workers have no choice but to sell their labour power and submit to the private tyrannies of capitalists in order to survive. It is fantasy to suggest that they enter that arena enthusiastically or as equals with the capitalist in a mutually fair contract. You simply cannot talk seriously about 'filling needs for society' and defend the right of wealth accumulation and all the anti-social destructive fall-out the private corporate tyrannies dump on society. It is a non sequitur. The human needs in this world are no where near being fulfilled by capitalism, and anyone who argues that a system with mega-wealth alongside wretched suffering and poverty has anything to do with addressing such needs is worthy only of contempt.


No. I didn't conduct a survey. I think the fact that these people got up in the morning and came to work is proof enough, especially in a society were we don't use the police to do so.

Second, the people who worked for Oracle are not forced to do so. Since the company is based in the Bay Area, I know for a fact that people who live there aren't facing starvation if they decide to quit. They are facing a situation were the lifestyle they choose to live may be compromised. Many people aren't punching in for food, that assumption is ridiculous. There working for the bigger house, extra car, ability to eat at restaurants, and puppy chow.

If they honestly feel that they hate working for the company, they can quit. We're not communist, after all.

And finally, stop accusing the worlds problems on a system most of the world doesn't employ. Why should people invest in the Congo, for instance, when Tutsi rebels have just launched an offensive and thousands are fleeing the capital? Why should we build a raliroad, electrical power grid, or water main in this place were, despite the new cease-fire, it'd simply be used as a target by the next power-hungry feudalists? Why should I literally waste my money on aid if it's going to be used by warlords to control the populace?

When they adopt a Capitalist system, which, we must remember, was only established when the state was able to provide security for trade and commerce, call me back.



Progress??


Before Capitalism (and in places were Capitalism hasn't been established), the debate was not about gay marriage. It was about the best method to exterminate them.

Is that progressive? Has there ever been a society that has offered more progress in political and social freedoms, as well as technology, than those seen in the Capitalist west?

No, of course not.

[Plagueround]

No. I didn't conduct a survey. I think the fact that these people got up in the morning and came to work is proof enough, especially in a society were we don't use the police to do so.


We have many a time.

[Octobox]

I'm curious as to why you think removing lobbying and regulation would make capitalism benevolent. When profiteering is the motive and not mutual aid, what is to keep people from going to all extremes to maintain profits? I think we can agree that any "perfect future system" we look towards will require a change in the mindset of many (revolution is mental as well as physical), but what will keep this in balance when profit and ownership possesses such potential to run contrary to ensuring everyone is provided for?


Plagueround:

This is an excellent question - thank you.

Currently in American Corporatist Style Capitalism a Corporation earns it's revenues from three sources: 1) Consumer's who Purchase, 2) Consumer's who Invest, and 3) Gov't Subsidization (Bailouts - Regulatory Advantages - Welfare).

In a Minarchist Free-Market (where politicians do not have Regulatory Power over the Markets) the Corporation has only two sources of revenue: 1) Consumers who Purchase and 2) Consumer's who Invest (these are the board of directors - they are also part of the "Consumer's who Purchase" group).

In the latter form of society when the consumers are un-happy and "unionise" their daily dollar vote -- the consumer investors will bail or force the corporation to adjust. The corporation will not gouge its customers because there are zero regulatory barriers to enter the market, also price fixing causes inflation (if it were wide spread enough) and this reduces consumption. Without bailout there's just no way to coerce the consumer -- not especially if they are investors as well.

If you meditate on this you'll see it clearly.

This gives consumers power over the corporation - period! That is the goal, in an odd way of both Anarchism and Communism; just replace "consumer" with "worker" (as the worker or proletariate is the consumer).

Also, if you meditate further you'll see that this model of gov't brings income re-distribution without war or coercion, but for that you must be able to connect the gibble with the gabble, if you dig my meaning?

[Octobox]

Rebeldog:

I think you've been railing against the machine for so long that you are "triggered" by words rather than "reading" fully what others are saying.

You have so thouroughly misinterpreted what I was saying I would have to counter everything you said - to set it straight.

I'll show one example and if you want you can go back and re-read what I wrote or we can start over as you and I have never had a "spat" and I thought what you wrote in other areas to be intelligent and thought we might have a nice "discussion."



Your deluded. How can people in "economically depressed areas' do fine? Why are these areas economically depressed if the people are doing fine? Why should we tolerate the existence of such areas? Immigrants get treated like crap in the US as they do in most countries who are seeking to exploit their labour. The fatuous idea that a few people are lifted out of poverty and sit round the masters table is no excuse to tolerate poverty and deprivation.


The whole above quote is irrelevant and overbearing had you noticed that I wrote "People who leave economically depressed areas usually do fine."

Now you and I are in 100% agreement regarding corporate bailouts and the "cronism" I was speaking of in American Gangster Corporatist Society (is that a harsh enough invective for you) is between politician-lobbyist-capitalist. Now the capitalist spends 100's of billions per year buying (throug the lobbyist) politician votes (regulatory cronism - bailouts and subsidization or welfare). If the capitalist were not doing this and America were a "true" Free-Market Constitutional Minarchy (small state anarchy) then he would be investing in intrapreneurialism and entrepreneurialism. Now the innovators come principly by race (African Americans), by class (immigrants), and by college degree (egineers) -- these are "working class people." So, more money gets "redistributed" into the "lower classes.

In my idea of a Minarchist Society the central gov't has two infinitely smaller roles (compared to now) and that is: Oversight of the Navy and Printing Money (with a "real" asset backing it) without charging "interest." It would be a "meritocracy" and have fierce term limits. They would have no regulatory power and thus all lobbyist would leave Washington and go get Ad or Marketing jobs for corporations.

Without bailout potential the corporatist cannot afford several things: 1) to piss off his customers, 2) his work-force (if they strike or quit there is no "bailout" money), and 3) to allow R&D (intrapreneurialism) to fall (without bailout competition is "pure").

I like what you've written in regard to the evil of present day Corporatism - I'm just saying the "capitalist" becomes evil in the enviroment not out of genetics -- same is true for the "bad representations" of communism or trade-unionism and the corruption that has taken place there.

Peace ~ Octobox

[Plagueround]

Octo: Interesting stuff, I'll come up with a response tomorrow as I am heading off to bed.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

We have many a time.

True. I'm not saying we're perfect, just the best alternative in the contemporary world.

[Plagueround]

In a Minarchist Free-Market (where politicians do not have Regulatory Power over the Markets) the Corporation has only two sources of revenue: 1) Consumers who Purchase and 2) Consumer's who Invest (these are the board of directors - they are also part of the "Consumer's who Purchase" group).

You've accounted for the consumer who is able to come up with money, but what does this system do for those that are, through accident, disability, or other circumstance, unable to generate income for themselves or their families? Are you of the mind that those that are poor are a product of their own failings and would not be poor if they "tried harder"?


In the latter form of society when the consumers are un-happy and "unionise" their daily dollar vote -- the consumer investors will bail or force the corporation to adjust.

What is to prevent corporations in a minarchist system from holding massive amounts of power, as there will be no regulatory system to prevent them from accumulating mass sums of money and then using it to buyout competition? Corporatism and the like aside, in our current society, the consumer is not able to unionize their dollar...they have to get their goods somewhere. What would change that in your model? If it's the next sentence:


The corporation will not gouge its customers because there are zero regulatory barriers to enter the market, also price fixing causes inflation (if it were wide spread enough) and this reduces consumption.

I would see super corporations, like a Walmart and it's ilk, taking advantage of their massive amounts of capital and using low prices to force others out of the market. Once they have enough control, they can charge whatever they like.


Without bailout there's just no way to coerce the consumer -- not especially if they are investors as well.

I don't know that the investment idea necessarily holds any weight. If I invest in a company, the return on my investment can be used to increase the amount of money I myself have. If I am merely a consumer who lacks sufficient funds to do anything other than get by because I am unable to find an employer who wants to pay me a reasonable amount of money to do so, I don't make any returns off of purchasing a product.


This gives consumers power over the corporation - period! That is the goal, in an odd way of both Anarchism and Communism; just replace "consumer" with "worker" (as the worker or proletariate is the consumer).

What prevents the corporations from ripping each other apart and monopolizing? Again, it hinges a lot on playing nice, something I don't know everyone will be willing to do so long as the production and aquiring of goods involves the pursuit of a dollar amount and not ensuring the mutual wellbeing of all citizens.


Also, if you meditate further you'll see that this model of gov't brings income re-distribution without war or coercion, but for that you must be able to connect the gibble with the gabble, if you dig my meaning?

Say that I make enough money to survive, but then my mother slips and falls and is paralyzed. Now, with no money to pay for her care, I take her in. I struggle to make the money to provide for her. What is the answer to this situation? I know the answer in an anarchist-communist model, but not a minarchist one.

[RebelDog]

TheCultofAbeLincoln:


First, I don't have any cronies. If you mean by that to include everyone who agrees with me that outright Communism should replace the current status-quo than you and your cronies are irrelevant.So one is irrelevant if one seeks to dismantle a mega-destructive, tyrannical, inhuman system and replace it with social institutions built around solidarity, cooperation and equality. Better to be irrelevant.


Second, it proves that we should reform the system to tax people like this higher (and give them tax-breaks for charitable donations) while spending more on government programs.It proves nothing of the kind. You just want to give the gangster godfathers of capital a slap on the wrist. We want them and their tyrannical system torn asunder. If you argue that people should take enormous amounts of the social product for little or no contribution you argue for tyranny, poverty and massive social problems.


No. I didn't conduct a survey. I think the fact that these people got up in the morning and came to work is proof enough, especially in a society were we don't use the police to do so.People who work for 5p an hour in Bangladesh for western corporations get up in the morning and go to work. But this is not an anecdotal argument. The working class only have their labour power to sell to capitalists for a wage. That is what workers have done since the dawn of capitalism. You may see it in its illusory disguise as 'free-will' but it is clear that anyone who gets up in the morning and submits themselves to labour at the hands of a capitalist to be exploited, frozen out of control over their lives/work, risk their lives and health in many cases, endure the stress of insecurity and generally be at the whim of what is good for profit, is about as much a voluntary contract as giving the school bully your dinner money so he wont kick your face in.


Second, the people who worked for Oracle are not forced to do so. Since the company is based in the Bay Area, I know for a fact that people who live there aren't facing starvation if they decide to quit. They are facing a situation were the lifestyle they choose to live may be compromised. Many people aren't punching in for food, that assumption is ridiculous. There working for the bigger house, extra car, ability to eat at restaurants, and puppy chow.The corporation I work for didn't come to my house to force me to work for them. I went to them for a job because I am working class and I am compelled by the system to seek employment with a capitalist whom will treat me as a commodity. It is the same for workers at Oracle. If I quit or am fired for organising or go on strike I am not assured welfare payments in the UK and I will indeed face the prospect at least of complete economic disaster. If I do get welfare payments then it is because the working class of previous generations fought to get the welfare state and some protection for workers. The elite are attacking the concept and reality of the welfare state all the time whilst gorging at the trough of public subsidy with hypocracy that would make a priest embarassed.

Of course people are working for food. In brutal market terms food is a raw commodity ingredient in the commodity of labour power. The worker must be refreshed to be able to work for the capitalist. Most of the world is not getting enough and decent food. Billions of workers spend the majority of their income on food. Food is a requirement, alongside housing, transport, clothes, heating, all things needed for general salubriousness and existence. The working class must submit to capitalists to secure these essentials, that is how capitalism works. The most oppressed wretched life still gets up in the morning because they must to survive and capitalism grinds to a halt if they dont.
Your assumptions are ridiculous.


If they honestly feel that they hate working for the company, they can quit. We're not communist, after all. Let freedom ring!


And finally, stop accusing the worlds problems on a system most of the world doesn't employ. Why should people invest in the Congo, for instance, when Tutsi rebels have just launched an offensive and thousands are fleeing the capital? Why should we build a raliroad, electrical power grid, or water main in this place were, despite the new cease-fire, it'd simply be used as a target by the next power-hungry feudalists? Why should I literally waste my money on aid if it's going to be used by warlords to control the populace?Why should I stop accusing a system when it gives little or no scope for mass participation, proper worthwhile democracy and community and producer control? Most of the world has capitalist/mixed economies or is emerging capitalist. What you are saying is that international capital should have hegemony and control the conditions within a country for its need alone and not the needs of the population for things like a decent standard of living, a clean environment, healthcare, democracy etc. In other words the vast human population of this world should be effectively dominated, oppressed, immiserated and brutalised by the needs of capital. In the future, history will not be kind to this view.


When they adopt a Capitalist system, which, we must remember, was only established when the state was able to provide security for trade and commerce, call me back.In translation: when their government bend to the will of the IMF/World Bank et al and adopt policies that suit foreign capital but simultaneously work against the generally wellbeing of the population and democracy I will come back to reap the rewards of tyranny.


Is that progressive? Has there ever been a society that has offered more progress in political and social freedoms, as well as technology, than those seen in the Capitalist west?

No, of course not. Political and social freedom to an extent, yes, but again not given but fought for desperately by the working class. Capitalism would be totalatarian if it could get away with it and its clear in the west that governments are trying harder than usual to reverse any freedom won hitherto. But political and social freedom is mostly worthless without economic equality. Also, technology can be developed outside of capitalism you know.

[RebelDog]

Octobox:



I think you've been railing against the machine for so long that you are "triggered" by words rather than "reading" fully what others are saying.

You have so thouroughly misinterpreted what I was saying I would have to counter everything you said - to set it straight.

I'll show one example and if you want you can go back and re-read what I wrote or we can start over as you and I have never had a "spat" and I thought what you wrote in other areas to be intelligent and thought we might have a nice "discussion."By bad, sorry. I read 'leave' as 'live'. It happens when you work 12 hour nights.
What you said:


People who leave economically depressed areas usually do fine -- enviroment is often times more powerful than will. Most immigrants who come here to the U.S do really well for themselves; the number one entrepreneurial group is immigrants and Americans by race the best is African Americans -- both of these groups have lead for the last 5 years.If they leave 'economically depressed' areas because they have been lucky enough to escape poverty then yes one could describe such people as doing alright, economically. However it is hardly a redeeming feature of capitalism that some lucky few do well while most flounder or drown.


Now you and I are in 100% agreement regarding corporate bailouts and the "cronism" I was speaking of in American Gangster Corporatist Society (is that a harsh enough invective for you) is between politician-lobbyist-capitalist. Now the capitalist spends 100's of billions per year buying (throug the lobbyist) politician votes (regulatory cronism - bailouts and subsidization or welfare). If the capitalist were not doing this and America were a "true" Free-Market Constitutional Minarchy (small state anarchy) then he would be investing in intrapreneurialism and entrepreneurialism. Now the innovators come principly by race (African Americans), by class (immigrants), and by college degree (egineers) -- these are "working class people." So, more money gets "redistributed" into the "lower classes.Its silly to concentrate on the removal of lobbying as some sort of panacea. It is another symptom of the reality that 'political equality' is farcical without economic equality. I know from here we will disagree on what 'economic equality' would constitute. The powerful will always bring their power to bear on the political and economic institutions of society. In class society one class rules and exploits through those institutions such as the state, government, markets, bourgeois democracy and so on. Class is determined by economic reality and power within society. I don't understand fully what you are trying to say about race but I suspect it could be rather odious viewpoint. Could you elaborate your meaning?

It looks awful like you are a market anarchist with a few strange ideas. I would say that you differ from other market anarchists who post here in that you openly talk of class and indeed a 'lower class' within your assumptions of a market anarchist 'society' or 'state'!!
'Redistribution' is a very reformist word in this context. Economic equality and the end of class in society are far more desirable and practical even, within the framework of anarchism.


I like what you've written in regard to the evil of present day Corporatism - I'm just saying the "capitalist" becomes evil in the enviroment not out of geneticsI'm arguing that the system of capitalism and its institutions give rise to thoroughly unacceptable outcomes and so it should be replaced by positive institutions that give desired outcomes like solidarity, participation, economic equality, democracy etc.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

TheCultofAbeLincoln:
So one is irrelevant if one seeks to dismantle a mega-destructive, tyrannical, inhuman system and replace it with social institutions built around solidarity, cooperation and equality. Better to be irrelevant.

You'e ideology is irrelevant in the sense that it does little to change the system we currently have, unlike social-democrats who can provide real progress in the real world for real people.

Let me ask, do you advocate revolution? Revolution may come, and that's fine I suppose. But it's not as if being an internet revolutionary today is going to benefit you then. The only things that will do that'll be food, water, shelter, and lots of ammo to fight off everyone who wants socialize your scant resources which remain.

Who knows, I'll probably be a revolutionary when the revolution comes.



It proves nothing of the kind. You just want to give the gangster godfathers of capital a slap on the wrist. We want them and their tyrannical system torn asunder. If you argue that people should take enormous amounts of the social product for little or no contribution you argue for tyranny, poverty and massive social problems.


People pay them for the products he created and has rights over. And he should have those rights, at least to an extent. He developed a system which obviously became popular among consumers who were willing to pay the amount to receive it. Nobody was forced to use his product, they gavehim the money.

I believe that if someone makes huge sums of money they should pay in a highly progressive ta structure.


People who work for 5p an hour in Bangladesh for western corporations get up in the morning and go to work

And I speculate that, with a poor shopping season ahead, many of those people are going to be laid off. Or they will agree to work for less, and become able to take even more jobs from American, Mexican, and other first-world workers.

And this, of course, begs the question has to who would fill the gap to feed these people if the big bad American corporation wasn't there to pay them.



But this is not an anecdotal argument. The working class only have their labour power to sell to capitalists for a wage. That is what workers have done since the dawn of capitalism. You may see it in its illusory disguise as 'free-will' but it is clear that anyone who gets up in the morning and submits themselves to labour at the hands of a capitalist to be exploited, frozen out of control over their lives/work, risk their lives and health in many cases, endure the stress of insecurity and generally be at the whim of what is good for profit, is about as much a voluntary contract as giving the school bully your dinner money so he wont kick your face in.


People have had to work to get goods needed to survive since way before capitalism. A difference is capitalism has allowed the best growth and most progressive societies ever.



The corporation I work for didn't come to my house to force me to work for them. I went to them for a job because I am working class and I am compelled by the system to seek employment with a capitalist whom will treat me as a commodity. It is the same for workers at Oracle. If I quit or am fired for organising or go on strike I am not assured welfare payments in the UK and I will indeed face the prospect at least of complete economic disaster. If I do get welfare payments then it is because the working class of previous generations fought to get the welfare state and some protection for workers. The elite are attacking the concept and reality of the welfare state all the time whilst gorging at the trough of public subsidy with hypocracy that would make a priest embarassed.


First, you should vote for people who support unemployment insurance over there. I don't know how your system works, so I can't agree or disagree with it at this time.

Anyway, you go to work for someone who is willing to give you some of his capital in order to fulfill a need he, or his/her company, has. What would you like that system to be replaced by? A system in which all needs, tasks and goods are created by the government and you have to wake up in the morning for them? A system were you could decide not to go to work anymore, contribute nothing to society but potsmoke, and maintain a cozy lifestyle?

Or a government which takes an active role in helping people find employment, and create it when needed?

And no, I don't agree with the current system of taxation and subsidation.



Of course people are working for food. In brutal market terms food is a raw commodity ingredient in the commodity of labour power. The worker must be refreshed to be able to work for the capitalist. Most of the world is not getting enough and decent food. Billions of workers spend the majority of their income on food. Food is a requirement, alongside housing, transport, clothes, heating, all things needed for general salubriousness and existence. The working class must submit to capitalists to secure these essentials, that is how capitalism works. The most oppressed wretched life still gets up in the morning because they must to survive and capitalism grinds to a halt if they dont.
Your assumptions are ridiculous.


We're talking about the people at Oracle, which is headquartered in the San Francisco Bay Area. None of the people at this place are working for necessary shelter, food, water, or heat. All of the things can be provided to them by churches, charities, other NGO's, and the government if they choose.

None of them are going to work for those things, as you claim they are under the whip to do. They are working for better shelter, better food, and a better lifestyle. That's why they work. They're not slaves, they could sleep-in every morning and still survive if they wanted to.


Let freedom ring!

Yes, thank God Almighty we don't work in that system.



Why should I stop accusing a system when it gives little or no scope for mass participation, proper worthwhile democracy and community and producer control? Most of the world has capitalist/mixed economies or is emerging capitalist. What you are saying is that international capital should have hegemony and control the conditions within a country for its need alone and not the needs of the population for things like a decent standard of living, a clean environment, healthcare, democracy etc. In other words the vast human population of this world should be effectively dominated, oppressed, immiserated and brutalised by the needs of capital. In the future, history will not be kind to this view.


When did I say that?

I said that countries which can't develop basic security can't be expected to have succesful economies, first of all. And that's not our fault, if they can't create a system which works well to capitalism (as in allowing free markets which are open to all in a community and not just the extreme elite and members of a certain tribe, which is rare in much of the third world, and, once again, stopping civil wars and civil unrest) they shouldn't expect our Capital. They don't have to take it, it's just that most of the third world's population is growing at such a rate that their governments and economics can't handle the expansion. And they should start birth control.


In translation: when their government bend to the will of the IMF/World Bank et al and adopt policies that suit foreign capital but simultaneously work against the generally wellbeing of the population and democracy I will come back to reap the rewards of tyranny.

Ummm, no. Stop making these interpretations of what I said.

If a nation's government such as that in Somalia, Nigeria, Colombia, or Sri Lanka can't provide a guarantee that my project won't be blown up, or the people I employ won't be able to travel from one site to the next because of social unrest....why the hell should I put my capital there? Their governments don't have to bend to the IMF (unless they want really big loans), but they do have to create order.

Now, I wish all could develop a model based on Locke, but some Hobbes is often required at time to stop further violence.


Political and social freedom to an extent, yes, but again not given but fought for desperately by the working class. Capitalism would be totalatarian if it could get away with it and its clear in the west that governments are trying harder than usual to reverse any freedom won hitherto. But political and social freedom is mostly worthless without economic equality. Also, technology can be developed outside of capitalism you know.

Fuck no capitalism doesn't always, or even mainly, enourage totalitarianism. Capitalism allows for many of the freedoms we enjoy, for the first time. Let's remeber, it can be argued that before capitalism you'd have to go back to the Roman republic to find any type of political freedom in western society (and there wasn't much).

If money, as you claim, is all-important in our current society, then, as a Capitalist, it's retarded to deny equality.

Take TomK for example. When he's selling a piece of real estate, is he going to care if his buyer is a minority race, gay, a woman, and a member of a Brazilian cult? Hell no, he's simply concerned about the capitalist transaction.

Shit, I'd even go so far as to say Capitalism is slowly eroding away religion.

[RebelDog]

TheCultofAbeLincoln:


You'e ideology is irrelevant in the sense that it does little to change the system we currently have, unlike social-democrats who can provide real progress in the real world for real people.
Anyone who has any idea about the last 100 years of human history will be laughing right now.


Let me ask, do you advocate revolution? Revolution may come, and that's fine I suppose. But it's not as if being an internet revolutionary today is going to benefit you then. The only things that will do that'll be food, water, shelter, and lots of ammo to fight off everyone who wants socialize your scant resources which remain.First you claim that my ideology is irrelevant and then in complete ignorance of what ideology I hold you ask if I "advocate revolution." I'm a libertarian communist, if I did not advocate revolution I would be mixed up like you are. The last part of your post is vacuous in the extreme.


Who knows, I'll probably be a revolutionary when the revolution comes.Well, we all face lifestyle choices now and again.


People pay them for the products he created and has rights over. And he should have those rights, at least to an extent. He developed a system which obviously became popular among consumers who were willing to pay the amount to receive it. Nobody was forced to use his product, they gavehim the money.

I believe that if someone makes huge sums of money they should pay in a highly progressive ta structure.
The capitalists own the means of producing what humans need and use, therefore humans are forced to source their goods and services from them. Your idea that this relationship is one of simple choice displays that you are completely clueless as to what capitalism and markets are. It also shows contempt for those who go to bed tonight hungry, cold and scared for lack of the basics of life. Did they choose that? So is Obama going to introduce a 'highly progressive tax structure' in the US? There should be no structure for the operation of private systems of power.


And I speculate that, with a poor shopping season ahead, many of those people are going to be laid off. Or they will agree to work for less, and become able to take even more jobs from American, Mexican, and other first-world workers.

And this, of course, begs the question has to who would fill the gap to feed these people if the big bad American corporation wasn't there to pay them.How can ultra-poor people in Bangladesh possibly take jobs from American or Mexican workers? They have no control over the situation whatsoever. Those who do have control and benefit from this misery are the private corporations, they have virtual immunity and the freedom to operate for selfish anti-social interests. But you allude that people with no power, property or hope are to blame.

Who is filling the gap in the US or Mexico? You can be sure where western corporations are 'investing' around the globe that the economic and social conditions in these areas are tailored to suit they needs, not the needs of the domestic population. You might like to think there is some sort of charitable relationship in operation here but rational persons who are interested in the facts are aware that it is a purely a brutal exploitative relationship. Any alternatives to the brutal exploitation and subjugation of the third world for the western private tyranny corporations or social reform are being utterly hindered by the freedom of global capital to do what it wants. So don't insult peoples intelligence by alluding that the corporations are part of some solution.


People have had to work to get goods needed to survive since way before capitalism. A difference is capitalism has allowed the best growth and most progressive societies ever.Better growth was achieved in many of the state-capitalist models. Anything progressive in capitalism has been won from below. Capitalism inadvertently brings together huge progressive social movements that oppose it and these movements have been responsible for winning reforms that were bitterly opposed by the ruling class.

More later.

[Algernon]

TheCultofAbeLincoln:

Anyone who has any idea about the last 100 years of human history will be laughing right now.


I'm not so sure about this. Sure, maybe when communism was a new ideology and communist movements were vibrant in Europe around the early 20th century... but now? Really?

Social democrats, although often scorned on here, are popular for the reasons CultOfAbeLincoln was alluding to - they have actually achieved real results accredited to them. Work hour regulation, unions, etc. have for the most part come from social democratic parties. These parties may have had their roots in revolutionary marxism but they no longer have those ties.

I have a feeling that your average worker will be happier with an organization that is able to get them real results today than with one that shoves a pamphlet and/or some dusty theoretical work from some obscure leftist in your face.
Interestingly, when LSD became an OI-er on here he described exactly this. I think Abe's point is that communists have become irrelevant to the extent that you haven't done anything substantial recently.

Just some thoughts.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

TheCultofAbeLincoln:

Anyone who has any idea about the last 100 years of human history will be laughing right now.

Algernon covered most of it.

I would add that Marxist ideology may become relevant at some point in the future, but none of this is going to matter then.


First you claim that my ideology is irrelevant and then in complete ignorance of what ideology I hold you ask if I "advocate revolution." I'm a libertarian communist, if I did not advocate revolution I would be mixed up like you are. The last part of your post is vacuous in the extreme.

Every revolutionary who's not bombing something or buying ammo and merely advocating those actions is, you have to admit, somewhat irrelevant. By itself, it does nothing to actually change the system, it merely argues for a masive change thereof. Until the rubber meets the road it's not accomplishing anything.

Secondly, you have no respect for the nuances of my political and economic stances. About 3 posts ago you accused me of enjoying watching children die while rich men swim in money. This takes nothing into account by the fact that first, I started this thread to highlight how disgusting this is, as well as advocate a more progressive tax system which accomplishes things.


Well, we all face lifestyle choices now and again.

Absolutely. Who knows were the chips will fall when the sky falls down.


The capitalists own the means of producing what humans need and use, therefore humans are forced to source their goods and services from them. Your idea that this relationship is one of simple choice displays that you are completely clueless as to what capitalism and markets are. It also shows contempt for those who go to bed tonight hungry, cold and scared for lack of the basics of life. Did they choose that? So is Obama going to introduce a 'highly progressive tax structure' in the US? There should be no structure for the operation of private systems of power.

Good god what is it with "the capitalists." I'm going to start substituting that with shareholders or entrepreuners.

Anway, Ellison did what is it, design a database system? OK, what's stopping you from improving on his products? If you have the ability to do such a thing you'll be rewarded for it. If you make a tastier sandwhich, better porn, a product which fills a necessity, you'll be rewarded for it.

And what are you saying about the market? Obviously Oracle provided a product which filled a need in the marketplace, or it wouldn't have been adopted and paid for. Obviously, it was such a great need that people were willing to pay, collectively, huge sums of money. This allows Oracle to expand and become more efficient. Can you please state you argument more clearly; I'm not catching you.

Next, stop accusing me of agreeing with children dying. If I haven't noticed, you're on this site debating with me while people are starving at the moment. The holier-than-thou attitude is quite aggravating. If you volunteer for a charity or at a soup kitchen, I congratulate and thank you. Otherwise, let's cut the bullshit. If I had control of the system, nobody would starve, I assure you.

Many of us who support real-world progress in our own communities are hoping Obama will tax the extremely wealthy quite high, though I doubt he will. He might be a step in teh right direction.

I'd rather have too many private systems of power than one. That would suck.



How can ultra-poor people in Bangladesh possibly take jobs from American or Mexican workers? They have no control over the situation whatsoever. Those who do have control and benefit from this misery are the private corporations, they have virtual immunity and the freedom to operate for selfish anti-social interests. But you allude that people with no power, property or hope are to blame.

Of course the corporations benefit from a world in which people agree to work for less than others.

They should start unionizing over yonder. If the cappies leave you'll still have the hard assets.



Who is filling the gap in the US or Mexico? You can be sure where western corporations are 'investing' around the globe that the economic and social conditions in these areas are tailored to suit they needs, not the needs of the domestic population. You might like to think there is some sort of charitable relationship in operation here but rational persons who are interested in the facts are aware that it is a purely a brutal exploitative relationship. Any alternatives to the brutal exploitation and subjugation of the third world for the western private tyranny corporations or social reform are being utterly hindered by the freedom of global capital to do what it wants. So don't insult peoples intelligence by alluding that the corporations are part of some solution.


Hopefully, other types of industry and hi-tech can become the mainstay in the US, at least for now.

And we can ask, how can the investor know that a worker is unhappy if he agrees to work for 5p?



Better growth was achieved in many of the state-capitalist models. Anything progressive in capitalism has been won from below. Capitalism inadvertently brings together huge progressive social movements that oppose it and these movements have been responsible for winning reforms that were bitterly opposed by the ruling class.


Of course it does. Unlike feudalism and everything before, along with many communist experiments, real power in State-Capitalism comes from the comsumers and not the few rulers. Change naturally comes from the bottom up, it's not dictated from above.


More later.

Fo Sho

[Robert]

Many of us who support real-world progress in our own communities are hoping Obama will tax the extremely wealthy quite high, though I doubt he will.

Abe, what is "quite high"? 92% as in 1952? Second, who are the "extremely wealthy"?

Also, do you think this increase would be justified in moral terms alone? Because increasing (like decreasing) marginal tax rates is tricky business if your only goal is to increase revenues or balance a budget. A drastic step in either direction can backfire badly in $ terms.

[Labor Shall Rule]

You guys are lost.


Anyway, Ellison did what is it, design a database system? OK, what's stopping you from improving on his products? If you have the ability to do such a thing you'll be rewarded for it. If you make a tastier sandwhich, better porn, a product which fills a necessity, you'll be rewarded for it.
A entreprenuer's product would be a pipe-dream if the variable capital he/she acquired did not go into purchasing labor-power.

The determinant of the nominal wages he grants his worker is the profit he'll receive in proportion to the amount of commodities that are being exchanged on the market. As so, the money payment he grants his employees does not coincide with the actual or real wages that they deserve from producing the products that he makes a disproportionate income off of.

You can say "communism is irrelevent zomg" - but this basic contradiction has always existed. The owners of capital (i.e. 'capitalists') strive to have greater access to profitability (to have social pleasure), while the employees (i.e. 'workers') strive to have the means of subsistence (to have social needs). This class distinction is blurred (or at least well hidden) in the States, but talk of 'revolution' and 'socialism' is not uncommon, and certainly not irrelevent, in places such as Mexico, China, India, Nepal, Turkey, Iraq, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Brazil, and every other 'underdeveloped' country that makes up 90% of this human planet.

Disney was wrong, it's not a "small world after all" - to you it maybe is, but Marxism is well alive in every other dark corner of the world that surrounds you, and I promise you, it'll coming to a theater near you soon enough. If Marx indeed, did die, he's coming back alive for a surprise Halloween thriller that will haunt the ruling class for months to come.

[Bud Struggle]

Just to point out this is Larry Ellison's background (from Wiki):

Larry Ellison was born in The Bronx, New York City, in New York State to Florence Spellman, a 19-year-old unwed Jewish mother. At his mother's request, he was given to his mother's aunt and uncle in Chicago to raise. Lillian Spellman Ellison and Louis Ellison adopted him when he was nine months old. Ellison did not learn the name of his mother or meet her until he was 48; the identity of his father is unknown.
The home was a two-bedroom apartment in Chicago's South Shore neighborhood, populated mostly with lower middle class Jews. Ellison remembers his adoptive mother as warm and loving, in contrast to his austere, unsupportive, and often distant adoptive father, a Russian Jew from the Crimea who adopted the name Ellison to honor his point of entry into the USA, Ellis Island, as well as to conceal his Jewish ancestry.

Living the America Dream.

[Edit] Ellison like all good entrepreneurs is a true Communist. He always works in unison with his Soviet--the two guys that live in back of his penis.

[Algernon]

This class distinction is blurred (or at least well hidden) in the States, but talk of 'revolution' and 'socialism' is not uncommon, and certainly not irrelevent, in places such as Mexico, China, India, Nepal, Turkey, Iraq, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Brazil, and every other 'underdeveloped' country that makes up 90% of this human planet.

That's exactly the point - there's always been "talk" but not much else. There has been "talk" for over a hundred years... with what results? This is why I predict that ultimately social democratic parties will be successful, because they actually get results that people care about today.



Disney was wrong, it's not a "small world after all" - to you it maybe is, but Marxism is well alive in every other dark corner of the world that surrounds you, and I promise you, it'll coming to a theater near you soon enough. If Marx indeed, did die, he's coming back alive for a surprise Halloween thriller that will haunt the ruling class for months to come.

Communists have been saying that since the manifesto was written. What's different this time?

[RebelDog]

I'm not so sure about this. Sure, maybe when communism was a new ideology and communist movements were vibrant in Europe around the early 20th century... but now? Really?

Social democrats, although often scorned on here, are popular for the reasons CultOfAbeLincoln was alluding to - they have actually achieved real results accredited to them. Work hour regulation, unions, etc. have for the most part come from social democratic parties. These parties may have had their roots in revolutionary marxism but they no longer have those ties.

I have a feeling that your average worker will be happier with an organization that is able to get them real results today than with one that shoves a pamphlet and/or some dusty theoretical work from some obscure leftist in your face.
Interestingly, when LSD became an OI-er on here he described exactly this. I think Abe's point is that communists have become irrelevant to the extent that you haven't done anything substantial recently.

Just some thoughts.

You really answer this yourself when you say these parties had their roots in revolutionary Marxism. They have indulged the bourgeois democratic process and taken the energy out of the labour movement, diluted its demands and led to compromise where greater gains would have been possible outside the parliamentary system. Social democracy and so called labour parties have been a bourgeois triumph in this respect. If the working class had not been fooled and led up the garden path of parliamentary democracy their movements would have been more powerful and directed towards greater change instead of compromise.

[Labor Shall Rule]

If you can't explain why - in the milieu of those internal contradictions - why there was a resolution to the circumstances that went in either a revolutionary favor, or was diverted into reformism, then you do not have a right to annoy us with your bullshit.

Those social relations that exist in production necessitate class struggle - just recently in Nepal, the food crisis and the aggregate drop of wages lead to intense strikes (!) in the cities that lead to a collapse in a millennium-old monarchy, and to the victory of the guerrilla Communists in the Constituent Assembly elections.

To me, being a 'reformist' (or blatantly endorsing them, which is what you are doing) submits to the view that there are no contradictions (even if there clearly is), so it's easy to be passive and blur the fact that the idea of revolution is both preferable and necessary. There are workers that are poorer than you - they get more social security and paid-for health insurance benefits from this or that blue-donkeyed Democrat, but then their jobs are exported to China (from those same policies supported by congressional Democrats), they lose their pensions, are unable to pay for their modest middle class house, and end up in low-income housing, all because of the mechanisms that are inherent to the global capitalist system.

If they knew how they were laid-off was apart of how capitalism operates, and had access to organizations that conducted struggles that simultaneously explained the implications of such struggle, then there'd be working class organizations that would be capable of resisting the financial discipline of corporations, and in times of crisis (such as this one) it'd be easier to question the social parameters of a world where property and the means of production are outside of democratic control.

But if you are behind organizing around such a revolutionary platform, then recognizing the shallowness and weakness of 'reformist' politics is necessary.

[Patchd]

I'll give his this: the man made his own money.
No he most certainly didn't, his workers made him his money.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Abe, what is "quite high"? 92% as in 1952?

That sounds more like it.


Second, who are the "extremely wealthy"?

In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth

From wiki. If that's incorrect, forgive me. The top 10% and 1% especially should pay a higher percentage.


Also, do you think this increase would be justified in moral terms alone?

Partially, yes.


Because increasing (like decreasing) marginal tax rates is tricky business if your only goal is to increase revenues or balance a budget. A drastic step in either direction can backfire badly in $ terms.

Very true. I'm pulling for a major economic downturn of several years, so we'll have to re-assess our values. I'm tired of $60,000,000 palaces being built without the standards of living, in several respects, which Europeans enjoy. Not to mention a government which fails to understand that it needs to be looking 10 years down the road, instead of working for whoever's rich at the moment. The goals of big business should not dictate how the government operates, or what the purpose of the government is.

Labor Shall Rule:



A entreprenuer's product would be a pipe-dream if the variable capital he/she acquired did not go into purchasing labor-power.

Yeah. It'd be great.

Hmmm...a post-work world...


The determinant of the nominal wages he grants his worker is the profit he'll receive in proportion to the amount of commodities that are being exchanged on the market. As so, the money payment he grants his employees does not coincide with the actual or real wages that they deserve from producing the products that he makes a disproportionate income off of.


First, there are many profit-sharing, employee-owned, even cooperative which adopt the model you seem to be advocating.

Secondly, I don't believe that someone who puts the last lugnut on a car deserves an equal share of the profits as the innovators, engineers, and other people who spent years designing the lugnut he works with. Lugnut screwing in nowhere near the benefit to society as the innovators, and don't deserve the same share of societies spoils. The work is so basic that, in fact, the need for it has been eliminated and it's now done by robot.

Should we have a society were the worker is not choosing between a horrible job and starvation? Absolutely. Should it still have an incentive to use your brain and contribute something cutting adge? Again, absolutely.


You can say "communism is irrelevent zomg" - but this basic contradiction has always existed. The owners of capital (i.e. 'capitalists') strive to have greater access to profitability (to have social pleasure), while the employees (i.e. 'workers') strive to have the means of subsistence (to have social needs). This class distinction is blurred (or at least well hidden) in the States, but talk of 'revolution' and 'socialism' is not uncommon, and certainly not irrelevent, in places such as Mexico,

It won't work this time either.


China,

It won't work this time either.


India,

Nationalize Bollywood!


Nepal,

I thought the maoists just gained power? :confused:


Turkey,

Yes, Turkey is way to secular for Muslims. (this a joke, and not a racist comment...if their is a revolution in turkey, it'll be to free Islamic "thought" from western progress).


Iraq,

Ain't gonna happen (and nothing progressive would come out of it).


Dominican Republic, Haiti,

And then they'll guilt us into sending aid...:rolleyes:


Brazil

Give Lula a chance.


and every other 'underdeveloped' country that makes up 90% of this human planet.


No, most of them are racing to develop.


Disney was wrong, it's not a "small world after all" - to you it maybe is, but Marxism is well alive in every other dark corner of the world that surrounds you, and I promise you, it'll coming to a theater near you soon enough. If Marx indeed, did die, he's coming back alive for a surprise Halloween thriller that will haunt the ruling class for months to come.


It is a "small world after all," thanks to Capitalism. You know, jet engines, automobiles, me having a debate with you...

Marx sucked. I simply don't understand why people act as though this dead refugee (did he ever personally wage revolution? Or was he just another irrelevant revlefter?) is Jesus. Put him on the wall if you so choose, read his little bible. Send out your agents among the poor to have them change their faith to a godless system and tell 'em everythings gonna change baby!

Go start a revolution. Until then, irrelevancy to the both of us!

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

To me, being a 'reformist' (or blatantly endorsing them, which is what you are doing) submits to the view that there are no contradictions (even if there clearly is), so it's easy to be passive and blur the fact that the idea of revolution is both preferable and necessary.

Good god you are a romantic.

Let me ask, when in the course of human history did bloody revolution pay off? Deliver any type of better society without massive numbers of death or an eventual compromise on revolutionary ideals for totalitarian dictatorship?

America? France? Mexico? Russia? China? North Korea? Vietnam? Cambodia?

I can think of one, but that's nowhere near perfect.

[RGacky3]

Good god you are a romantic.

Let me ask, when in the course of human history did bloody revolution pay off? Deliver any type of better society without massive numbers of death or an eventual compromise on revolutionary ideals for totalitarian dictatorship?

America? France? Mexico? Russia? China? North Korea? Vietnam? Cambodia?

I can think of one, but that's nowhere near perfect.

United States, (at least for white landowners), Mexico (twice), vietnam, Iran, India, Venezuela (a couple times), South Africa.

Now then, about these, many of these revolutions did not succede in being permanent and over throwing the government, many did, but all led to a better society, or led to improvements, less tyranny. There are many more examples. For example the revolution in Oaxaca ultimately failed, but its gonna be a lot harder for the Mexican government to screw with its people from now on. The same with Tienniman square in China, ultimately the protests were stopped and cracked down on, but that forced the government to make some changes.

[Labor Shall Rule]

TheCultofAbeLincoln,

If you were more active and informed, you could of possibly read what I was saying and understand that I was giving your raisin-dry brain a small (yet tedious due to your low level of cognitive comprehension) lesson in Marxist political economy. The response that you just typed does not critique what I went into great, laborious length to produce for you. You (and TomK) exemplify the extraordinary low intelligence of Opposing Ideologies.

I was stating here that the ultimate source of all profit, interest, dividends, and rent is centrally the labor process. If you do not have a definite quantity of labor, you can't build a house. The actual 'design' is entirely non-material - it is "unproductive" labor, which if left to it's own devices, can not make the house alone. As so, the immediate labor (relative from the application of machinery and the capital required for expansion) is bonded to a 'actual' wage that is deductible from profits. As so, a 'lugnut' worker still did more in the his direct labor time to produce a commodity than the renter or industrial capitalist actually did. There is no need, in terms of supply and demand, to 'care' (allow a corporate and capital gains tax for education or retraining) if people have a "horrible job and starvation" - capital left over from initial investments can go into advertising, reinvesting in production, and the whatnot, but it doesn't need to go into making sure that there is full employment. There is already an excess supply in the labor market, after all, so they don't need to make sure they are 'nice' people and pay them higher wages.

As so, the 'class struggle' will be reproduced and posited into political life in response to capital's inherent tendency to depreciate ('the fall in the rate of profit'), creating crisis over it's failure to convert revenue into capital to "support the average level of needs for the mass of producers". So you can be a politically passive commentator (like a lot of OI'ers do when they get overwhelmed), or a partisan that understands how capitalism works, and that will arrive at the forefront of the worker's struggle after crisis erupts.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Good god you are a romantic.

Let me ask, when in the course of human history did bloody revolution pay off? Deliver any type of better society without massive numbers of death or an eventual compromise on revolutionary ideals for totalitarian dictatorship?

America? France? Mexico? Russia? China? North Korea? Vietnam? Cambodia?

I can think of one, but that's nowhere near perfect.

Where do I start! Jesus, there's just so many of them!

The English and Dutch revolts, the American and French Revolution(s), Russian, Vietnamese, Chinese Revolutions, and I could go on and on.

[Bud Struggle]

You (and TomK) exemplify the extraordinary low intelligence of Opposing Ideologies.

This is what I really love about RevLeft--whenever anyone decides to insult anyone else here on RevLeft even if I'm not involved in the conversation at all, for some reason I'm always included in on the insult.

I guess I should appreciate that at least people are thinking of me.

:lol::lol::lol: