Results 41 to 60 of 114
I am only 17. However, when I said I wasn't working class I meant because my dad is considered upper middle class. In fact, the only real job (9 to 5) (or rather 7-4) was one I got through my dad's connections.
I don't have a job now, though I will have to get one when I move out to BC at the end of August.
"Turn Changchun into a city of death" -PLA Field Marshall Lin Biao, May 30, 1948
"When we heard outside the city that so many people had died of hunger, we weren't too shocked. We had been in and out of piles of corpses and our hearts had hardened... But when we entered the city and saw what it was like, we were devastated. Many of us wept. A lot of us said: We're supposed to be fighting for the poor, but of all the dead here, how many are the rich? Which of them are Nationalists? Aren't they all poor people?"
-PLA veteran, at the siege of Changchun, 1948
Ein Volk! Ein Reich! Ein Chairman!
Isn't that opinion, and so by definition, not without queston?
Yep, thats all there is to it, Bill Gates made billions with no work, That how it usually works for successful people, right? It's easy to become a billionaire with no work. Your argument holds no water whatsoever.
Come on, get serious.
First of all, on the specific question of Bill Gates, I think there is evidence that a good portion (if not all) of the Windows idea was his friend's, not his own.
Second, there are individuals that work just as hard as Bill Gates, but never even see any money. My mother, for example, operates a business and her work day is at home, 12 hours on the phone, trying to employ new Russian immigrants for jobs. She works twelve hours a day on this particular job, and sees very little money...she has been working ever since she was very young, and still saw no money. She's single, by the way.
I guess "by accident" she could meet a great "business contact" and make millions off of her business....but nonetheless, these "millions" would have to be attributed to nothing more than a "twist of fate," "luck," "chance," etc. not skill...because if "skill" and "labor" were the "real issues," she would have been a millionare a long, long time ago.
You're not taking into consideration all the folks that have been working just as hard as anyone else but have nothing to show for it. The real path to "making it big" under capitalism is the "genius" involved in operating capital, in handling money and managing finances. But, of course, not "everyone" can "make it big" under capitalism, no matter how hard they work.
So, our society is thus reduced to nothing but a casino, as RedStar put it. And for every "lucky winner" that worked hard, there are millions of losers that worked just as hard, if not harder.
Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain - and since some labor is pain in itself - it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.
When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.
It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect collective ownership and punish plunder. - Brederic Fastiat
So do you consider your father a slave, or is he bourgeois?
Are you going to college? or seeking enslavement fulltime?
free·dom:
Pronunciation: 'frE-dom
1 : the absence of coercion, or constraint in choice or action
Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito
This is nothing but pure defeatist thinking, Brooklyn.
I would say that most people who work hard in America are rewarded. Are we all millionares? No. Do most of us have good shelter, food, and a little extrra for new shoes? Yes, and that is much more than billions of others have in the world.
I, for instance, am by no means rich by the American definition, but I am middle class, and I own a home, a couple of cars, and I don't go hungry. And, contrary to leftists who claim that most of America's wealth is distributed among the few, the vast majority of American wealth is actually distributed throught the middle class, which is by a wide margin the largest economic segment in America. I would say they "have something to show for it".
Again, buy the American definition, not rich, but by world averages, pretty wealthy.
I got it all by working smart and working hard. It's funny, tthe harder I work, the luckier I get.
The notion that "America is a Big Casino" is a purely ignorant, a highly inaccurate analogy and a pure cop-out for those that are unsatisfied with their own success, however they define it. Thus, they make excuses for those that excel beyond them, instead of accepting responsibility for their own failures.
I absolutely refute your idea that financial success is a dervivative of "luck". It is a derivitive of hard work, snatrt thinking, and enterprise.
But if many work very hard, why aren't they millionaires?! Why is that "fair"? My mother probably works harder than many of these billionare CEO's, but why isn't she rich? I ask the same question in the name of everyone else that works dilligently, but makes no where as near to the amount that they deserve.
And this is true because what we have is at the expense of these other "billions." And "we" is not even the proper term...the "minority elite" of the world is more accurate, because "we" do not get our fair share.
Many have "something to show for it," but at the same time, those that work just as hard have nothing at all to show for it. Laborers in factories, single parents, etc. of course can all "get rich" to an extent, but the job for them would be much more difficult because the majority of the people cannot be rich no matter how much work they put in.
Tell me, CI, why is it fair that most of the people in the world can't "all" be rich if many of them put in as much as anyone else? The hardest of those workers may have "something to show for it," but of course, not nearly enough considering the fact that others will always be richer than them. How do you propose to this one individual to "become wealthy"? Through "hard work"? Fine, but then it means that everyone else who follows should, in the name of fairness, also attain the same wealth.
But this won't happen, of course.
There is a thread in Chit Chat that I started regarding the members' jobs. Almost every single person on this site, it seems, works at a low-pay, menial job. I've met rappers on the street, talented, that ended up talking to me about politics for hours, but some of them either have no money or are homeless.
Now, I would consider myself a fairly intelligent person. And I would consider most of the members of this forum to be not "fairly intelligent" but "exceptionally intelligent." Even if you have disagreements with us about our ideological stances, I'm sure you won't deny that we're mostly "very smart" and probably "hard-working" in real life.
Why, then, do these individuals work at low-paying menial jobs?
You must understand that no matter how smart you are, or how skilled, there isn't a slot open to everyone...and, usually, someone with better qualifications does not find a job before the "other" person. It actually is all a game of chance...your anecdote is just that, an anecdote.
Why are 50 Cent, Ja Rule, Chingy, Nelly, Britney Spears, etc. rich, famous, and glorified? They are fucking shit when it comes to "talent." They may "work hard" to promote their fucking shit "talent," and they may dance in some videos to further spread the image of their bullshit "talent," but at the end of the day, 50 Cent is an ignorant gangster and Chingy is just a piece of shit.
By the way, I don't know how much of hip-hop you follow, but the names I just listed are of dumb pieces of shit "performers"...you don't need to research it for yourself, trust me.
Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain - and since some labor is pain in itself - it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.
When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.
It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect collective ownership and punish plunder. - Brederic Fastiat
YEP!
he did shit all for work in comparrison to a homeless man who works 18 hour days for about 12 bucks a day.
As an Anarchist, I strangely find myself getting along better with Maoists than Platformists!
You automatically relate phsical labor to the only definition of hard work.
That's a poor assessment.
No, no, no....
You automatically relate marketable skills to hard work. Those without marketteable skills deserve to whither and die.
As an Anarchist, I strangely find myself getting along better with Maoists than Platformists!
What then makes work harder or easier? Is sitting in an office all day working easier or harder to do than being say, a garbageman or janitor?
That really is true. In fact, I can remember CI dispensing advice like 'go get some marketable skills and then people will hire you.' Why is that?
He is petty bourgeois. That is to say, he doesn't own the means of production, but as a privileged (and rich) member of society he has by definition more freedom than the average worker.
[QUOTE]Are you going to college? or seeking enslavement fulltime?[QUOTE]
University, most like. Though enslavement awaits everyone (except the really rich) sooner or later.
"Turn Changchun into a city of death" -PLA Field Marshall Lin Biao, May 30, 1948
"When we heard outside the city that so many people had died of hunger, we weren't too shocked. We had been in and out of piles of corpses and our hearts had hardened... But when we entered the city and saw what it was like, we were devastated. Many of us wept. A lot of us said: We're supposed to be fighting for the poor, but of all the dead here, how many are the rich? Which of them are Nationalists? Aren't they all poor people?"
-PLA veteran, at the siege of Changchun, 1948
Ein Volk! Ein Reich! Ein Chairman!
But he is not “really rich” right, so you still would consider him a slave right?
Why are you going to University if slavery awaits you either way? What do you want to study?
free·dom:
Pronunciation: 'frE-dom
1 : the absence of coercion, or constraint in choice or action
Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito
Originally posted by Brooklyn-Mecca@Jul 30 2004, 06:57 PM
But if many work very hard, why aren't they millionaires?! Why is that "fair"? My mother probably works harder than many of these billionare CEO's, but why isn't she rich? I ask the same question in the name of everyone else that works dilligently, but makes no where as near to the amount that they deserve.
And this is true because what we have is at the expense of these other "billions." And "we" is not even the proper term...the "minority elite" of the world is more accurate, because "we" do not get our fair share.
Many have "something to show for it," but at the same time, those that work just as hard have nothing at all to show for it. Laborers in factories, single parents, etc. of course can all "get rich" to an extent, but the job for them would be much more difficult because the majority of the people cannot be rich no matter how much work they put in.
Tell me, CI, why is it fair that most of the people in the world can't "all" be rich if many of them put in as much as anyone else? The hardest of those workers may have "something to show for it," but of course, not nearly enough considering the fact that others will always be richer than them. How do you propose to this one individual to "become wealthy"? Through "hard work"? Fine, but then it means that everyone else who follows should, in the name of fairness, also attain the same wealth.
But this won't happen, of course.
There is a thread in Chit Chat that I started regarding the members' jobs. Almost every single person on this site, it seems, works at a low-pay, menial job. I've met rappers on the street, talented, that ended up talking to me about politics for hours, but some of them either have no money or are homeless.
Now, I would consider myself a fairly intelligent person. And I would consider most of the members of this forum to be not "fairly intelligent" but "exceptionally intelligent." Even if you have disagreements with us about our ideological stances, I'm sure you won't deny that we're mostly "very smart" and probably "hard-working" in real life.
Why, then, do these individuals work at low-paying menial jobs?
You must understand that no matter how smart you are, or how skilled, there isn't a slot open to everyone...and, usually, someone with better qualifications does not find a job before the "other" person. It actually is all a game of chance...your anecdote is just that, an anecdote.
Why are 50 Cent, Ja Rule, Chingy, Nelly, Britney Spears, etc. rich, famous, and glorified? They are fucking shit when it comes to "talent." They may "work hard" to promote their fucking shit "talent," and they may dance in some videos to further spread the image of their bullshit "talent," but at the end of the day, 50 Cent is an ignorant gangster and Chingy is just a piece of shit.
By the way, I don't know how much of hip-hop you follow, but the names I just listed are of dumb pieces of shit "performers"...you don't need to research it for yourself, trust me.Well, who is to say what the metric for hard work is? I wouls say that while blue-collar work is in fact physically hard, it pays the way it does because that is what the market has deemed it is worth, based on the fact that aalmost any able-bodied person can do it. I'm sure your mom works very hard, and her rewards go beyond money, but that is what the market pays for her service. She is free to try something ese if she desires more monetary compensation. I heard a statistic once that says over 50% of self-made milionaires have filed for bankruptcy. Its a hard road to the top.
The billionaire CEO, on the other hand, has skills that not everone posseses, as a matter of fact few people do. Mental cpability and leadership characteristics are much harder to come by than the ability to dig a ditch or attach bolts to widgets, thus the market will pay more for that. It is a self-proving concept. Often times people assume that CEO's don't work hard. Nothing could be fatrther from the truth. They often work 18 hour days under a lot of stress and a lot of responisbility, which, believe me, can be just as tiring and exhausting as a man swinging a hammer. White collar workers work just as hard as blue collar, it is just that the effort is coming from a different place.
Well, we all know that life isn't really fair no matter where you live, but at least here you do have some autonomy over your own destiny. As far as your "fair share", fair share of what? No ideology comes with pre-rationed "shares: of anything.
Thats true, there is not pure parity in the dstribution of wealth or even opportunity, but there is a lot, and it is the best system in the world with regards to what you can do with individual determination, unequivocally, bar none. And those factory workers and laborers can still make enough of a living to put them in the top 5% of world citizens.
again, what is to say that thy do?
We really have to distinguish between pure hard labor, and working smart, and taking risks, which are also large components of reward. The ditch-digger is guaranteed a wage if he works, the investor can actually go to work and lose money, so can the business owner. If they lose money in their construction business, the ditch digger working for them still gets paid, regardless.
risk/reward, get it?
There seems to be somewhat of a correlation between lack of financial success and leftism on this board. Lets not kid ourselves, not every talented rapper is going to get a $5 million contract. if that was the case, we'd all be in hip-hop.
I'm not sure, maybe because they didn't shave their goatees? They weren't ambitious enough? I honestly think that they are probably over-intellectualized liberals who don't actually apply themselves to the extent that they should. Maybe the "refuse to be slaves to the corporate machine".
I just don't agree.. I think that anyone with cpacity, desire, and a little effort can find a decent job. I've seen it happen too many times to deny it.
Of course I know who they are, they're all mainstream. Maybe their music isn't politically relevant, but some of them have some cool joints for party purposes. I think 50 is actually a pretty good lyricist. At the end of the day, pro musicians actually work very hard between touring, recording, and endless promotion. Have you ever seen brittany spears perform? I don't like her music, but she does a 2-3 hour show that requires near-olympic fitness. Not only that, but she rehearses for hours every day!!Why are 50 Cent, Ja Rule, Chingy, Nelly, Britney Spears, etc. rich, famous, and glorified? They are fucking shit when it comes to "talent." They may "work hard" to promote their fucking shit "talent," and they may dance in some videos to further spread the image of their bullshit "talent," but at the end of the day, 50 Cent is an ignorant gangster and Chingy is just a piece of shit.
By the way, I don't know how much of hip-hop you follow, but the names I just listed are of dumb pieces of shit "performers"...you don't need to research it for yourself, trust me.
They really do earn it.
[quote]Originally posted by Osman Ghazi@Jul 30 2004, 07:47 PM
What then makes work harder or easier? Is sitting in an office all day working easier or harder to do than being say, a garbageman or janitor?
That really is true. In fact, I can remember CI dispensing advice like 'go get some marketable skills and then people will hire you.' Why is that?
He is petty bourgeois. That is to say, he doesn't own the means of production, but as a privileged (and rich) member of society he has by definition more freedom than the average worker.
[QUOTE]Are you going to college? or seeking enslavement fulltime?They are both hard and challenging in their own ways.
Whats wrong with that? Do you think that a canoe factory should make you CEO for nothing? What do you know about canoes? The canoe market? Canoe contruction?
Do you see what I'm saying? The more rare a skill or experience is, the more others are willing to pay for it.
Or, you can dig dittches like everyone else who doesn't want to invest in their own value. The univesity is your best option
Utter B.S. don't assign your inaccurate definitions to me, please.
Wrong. His government was entirely regulated by trade.
That is what fascism is. The distilled essence of capitalism. Freedom, right, and all the other unquantifiable ideals go out the window when they no longer succeed as tools of class opression. Force must be used instead. The illusion of democracy must be replaced by naked force of bourgeois over proletariat.
Wrong. Capitalism has separated the creation of wealth from the ownership right to wealth. It is by this that in capitalism everyone starts out at an unequal state of poverty, for one man only has his labor to sell but another man has capital. A capitalist would have you believe that every man is a capitalist, for they try to define capitalist as one who trades. But in reality, there are two distinct "business cycles" for the two distinct classes. The proletariat sells its labor for money and spends his money for the benefit of his life. C-M-C. The bourgeoisie spends his money on labor power and then trades the product of the labor power for more money. M-C-M. Opposite systems with opposite interests.
New wealth can only be created by labor. New gold only enters the market as currency once it is mined and smelted. Would a commodity drop from the sky when one willed it to, that commodity would be so bountiful as to have no price. But in capitalism, wealth itself is created and the right to that wealth is bought. It is by this quirk that one man invests his entire wealth of $100 and is returned $1 while another man invests his entire wealth of $1,000 and is returned $10. But once the means of subsistence are subtracted, the richer man can only get richer. For a day's food and shelter is the same price regardless of your wealth. The one man must sacrifice 50% to meet his means of subsistence, but the other man must invest only 5% of his profit for the same means of subsistence. This mechanism means that the rate of profit increases with wealth. As peoples are born with different quantities of wealth, the gap cannot be closed but only grow. This does not mean that it is impossible for one to "get rich quick" but for every man that gets rich quick from a random fluctuation in the market, another man gets poor quick. These fluctuations are like the waves of the ocean. Once we count out the equal lows and highs, we are still left with sea level; the rich get richer.
Basic 'freedoms' exist totally outside of the state, as a state can only take away freedoms to a greater or lesser degree. A 'free' state may impinge on fewer freedoms, but still take some away. Where is my freedom of murder?
Law is a mutual agreement between people. If I don't kill you, you won't kill me. If I do kill you, someone will kill me back. But this agreement has become alienated from the people. Now it is not my law, it is someone else's; now it is not in my hands, but in those of a uniformed man on 5th avenue with a pistol and a painted car; now it is an instrument of class oppression. If the law will not protect me, the law must be done away with. If it is not in my interest to obey the law, then I will not obey the law. And the "right to labor" in reality a right of the capitalist to exploit the workers' labor power is not in the interest of the vast majority of the population; 20% of the people own 80% of the wealth. This sick version of "free trade" is no better than the freedom to murder. All because right to wealth is separate from the creation of the wealth. You do not get from society what you put into it. You put your labor into society, but the spoils go to the highest bidder.
This system must be smashed. Ownership of all means of production will be shared. The government of peoples will be replaced with the administration of things. Education will be provided at dead cost to provide lubrication to the job market as it replaces the stock market as a tool for ambitious peoples. The demand for a new commodity is a demand for a new type of labor to create that commodity. And as the bourgeois invester sits in his armchair and exploits the fluctuations in supply and demand, the ambitious laborer sends his body and mind where society wants it. The profit motive will become obsolete; the production of commodities will be organized in cooperation according to the want of the commodities. And finally, you do not buy the rights to more wealth. You put your labor into society, and after a few small deductions are made for education and other "lubrication," you are given a certificate for your labor. You take from society exactly what you put into it. The means of production are no longer privately owned, and workers--now everyone--employ those means of production, instead of being employed by them.
The time for heirarchy and exploitation has come and gone. If you idolize the 'alpha male,' we will throw you to the wolves.
I only have to interject on the point where it was said that Capitalism is the truest expression of freedom. Is that why in Chile under Pinochet many Marxist works were illegal and you could "disappear" if you had them? Is that why over 130,000 people disappeared in the first 3 years of his rule and why doctors were told to lie about diseases and cover them up if they would cost any money to cure?
"When we hang the capitalists, they will sell us the rope we use."
- Josef Stalin
There are more than a few parallels there.
-One person efforlessly builds a house using a machine he invented.
-Another man sweats all day and night to build one by hand.
The second man "worked hard", the first didn't, yet they both achieved the same end. Do you see the flaw in your argument ?
I'll give someone else the pleasure of that.
Pinochet wasn't a capitalist.
