stupid americans

jeffbr

Shapur wrote:

Free from coercion from the perspective of the capitalist, not the worker. If the worker doesn't work, he starves.

I would think so. Why wouldn't he work? Unemployment in this country is very low, so no excuse there. And let's not talk about the outliers, let's talk about the general case. If work is available and you chose not to work what should be the consequence?

Shapur

jeffbr wrote:

I would think so. Why wouldn't he work? Unemployment in this country is very low, so no excuse there. And let's not talk about the outliers, let's talk about the general case. If work is available and you chose not to work what should be the consequence?

Let me ask you this, if you work, why should the capitalist, who doesn't work, get a share of your labor-value for profit?

That's exploitation, the essence of capitalism, and that coupled with the workers being coerced into working through the risk of starvation, is why we call it wage-slavery.

jeffbr

Shapur wrote:

Let me ask you this, if you work, why should the capitalist, who doesn't work, get a share of your labor-value for profit?

I'm a capitalist and I can tell you that I work my ass off, take risks, create jobs, and have received reward for that. Why should one carrying very little risk receive an non-commensurate reward? I'm sure there are some capitalists who are as you describe and it is an artifact of the system. But most of them are likely where they are through past sucesses. There isn't some magic pill a captialist takes that allows him to sit back and exploit workers.

And in your system, what if one chooses not to work? Is he still given a share of my labor-value through redistribution? Why is theft condoned under your system?

Shapur wrote:

That's exploitation, the essence of capitalism, and that coupled with the workers being coerced into working through the risk of starvation, is why we call it wage-slavery.

This is just one of many places we'll part ways. I see contracts, and market values, and you see slavery. With your system you see equity, and I see force, coersion and theft.

sponger

Shapur wrote:

Let me ask you this, if you work, why should the capitalist, who doesn't work, get a share of your labor-value for profit?

That's exploitation, the essence of capitalism, and that coupled with the workers being coerced into working through the risk of starvation, is why we call it wage-slavery.

...because that capitalist is the person who put up the initial investment to get that wage-paying business off the ground. The "labor-value for profit" that you speak of is called a return on investment.

Without private investment and the incentives that go along with it, the capitalist economy would, well, be a lot like Cuba's. There's a reason why Cuban cigars aren't what they used to be.

But I have to agree with you on the concept of wage-slavery. And that's where I have to disagree with jeffbr on the relevance of the low US unemployment rates.

To be considered "employed" in the US of A, one need only have a full-time job. As of this point, many of those full-time jobs are paying minimum wage and slightly above, which are wage points that don't even come close to meeting the cost of living.

So, in effect, employment is, as you said, slavery.

And, of course, this has a lot to do with non-unionized labor. And a big source of non-unionized labor is illegal immigration.

Collin

CorporateWhore, you are a fascist.

Freedom can only be for the ones with the same political views as yours? You fear communism because it will supposedly take away your liberties but you say you want to kill or jail communists just because they don't share the same political views? Can't you see how ironic not to mention, hypocritical that is?
Don't think you are defending a nation that fights for its freedoms or liberties, the nation you are defending is a white supremacist fascist nation, one that resembles the nation Hitler tried to create and the US was so strongly against.

Shapur

jeffbr wrote:

I'm a capitalist and I can tell you that I work my ass off, take risks, create jobs, and have received reward for that.

Do you own any means of production? If so, then you are a capitalist, then you are part of the bourgeoisie ruling class. If you are just a manager, you are a petty-bourgeoisie in service of the capitalists.

Actually, the term "capitalist" doesn't really suffice, because ideologically there are workers who are capitalists as well, so let's keep this in class terms for clarity.

In class terms, if you don't own any means of production, but do have the power to hire and fire people, you are petty-bourgeois manager of the bourgeoisie class.

And in your system, what if one chooses not to work? Is he still given a share of my labor-value through redistribution? Why is theft condoned under your system?

The difference between capitalism and socialism is that in socialism workers are given their full value of labor (minus some which is needed to pay for healthcare/investments etc.). So no money goes towards profits.

The profit motive will cease to exist, so no more rich people, no more social classes, and no more slavery, and every bad thing that goes along with it.

You say that you deserve to be rewarded for your hard work. So you must agree that the harder a person works the more he deserved to be rewarded, right?

In a socialist economic system, the amount of labor a worker performs is given back to him, so if a workers works more he gets more.

But I'm willing to bet that there are millions of people in the US that not only work harder than you, but longer than you, and are rewarded less than you.

Explain how that is fair.

Shapur

sponger wrote:

...because that capitalist is the person who put up the initial investment to get that wage-paying business off the ground. The "labor-value for profit" that you speak of is called a return on investment.

You do know that without the workers there would be no profit, right?

Explain to me logically why workers, who are the majority and have the power to take-over a factory, should not do it, and instead keep working for wages that are lower then what their labor-power is worth?

Logically it doesn't make sense. And your argument doesn't make sense either. Was it a return on investment to buy slaves 200 years ago and have them work on your land for nothing? Do you condone that?

It's the same thing. Just because they had the idea to start it and enough money to start it (I wonder where they got that money from?), doesn't mean that they have the right to exploit and enslave others.

Without private investment and the incentives that go along with it, the capitalist economy would, well, be a lot like Cuba's. There's a reason why Cuban cigars aren't what they used to be.

Look at the internet. People are independently making new software that are as good, if not better, than the ones made by corporations, and they put them out for free.

Look at the USSR. Did science and technology stay behind or advance there? It arguably advanced further than ever before in any nation in the history of mankind.

Now look at Africa, South-America, or [insert third world capitalist country]. Are any of those more advanced than Cuba? No, then why are you using Cuba as a comparison with the US economy when it is obvious that Cuba doesn't have the same amount of capital to invest?

It's really intellectually dishonest when people do that. If you want to compare Cuba to another country then compare it to other third world countries like it, and you'll see that people there have it much in Cuba, and that Cuba is just as, if not more, advanced.

Byrnzie

CorporateWhore wrote:

People who are opposed to shipping jobs overseas must also be necessarily supportive of tarrifs on imported goods. That way, our market can compete because the wages that Americans get are so much higher than foreign wages.

The illegal immigrants that come into our country work for less, necessarily. Therefore, our working class does not want them. Additionally, the working class has values: they believe in God, are opposed to gay-marriage, are patriotic, support individual liberty and gun rights, and like the free market.

Foreigners have a difficult time understanding our working class because in Europe, the lower classes are so leftist. Our working class might vote democratic more frequently, but they could just as easily vote for a Pat Buchanan as a John Kerry.

The fat cats that you refer to are the same people that I disagree with. Bush's free trade policies with Mexico and China are not good for Americans. We need to look out for Americans - not foreigners.

You managed to completely evade the subject. You were talking about American jobs being shipped abroad. Who is it that's selling the working classes down the crapper by shipping American jobs to Mexico? What Americans are you referring to that will be benefiting from this increase in profit from higher tarriffs? Not those who are unemployed because their jobs have been shipped abroad? You must be talking about the rich.

As for the working classes not wanting immigrants. Who do you think would fill the jobs that these people do?

You also say that "the working class has values: they believe in God, are opposed to gay-marriage, are patriotic, support individual liberty and gun rights, and like the free market."


That sentence is utterly ridiculous. You talk about people as though they're one transparent, uniform entity. You live in a very unrealistic world. Something resembling the world of the Smurfs.

Byrnzie

CorporateWhore wrote:

People who are opposed to shipping jobs overseas must also be necessarily supportive of tarrifs on imported goods. That way, our market can compete because the wages that Americans get are so much higher than foreign wages.

The illegal immigrants that come into our country work for less, necessarily. Therefore, our working class does not want them. Additionally, the working class has values: they believe in God, are opposed to gay-marriage, are patriotic, support individual liberty and gun rights, and like the free market.

Foreigners have a difficult time understanding our working class because in Europe, the lower classes are so leftist. Our working class might vote democratic more frequently, but they could just as easily vote for a Pat Buchanan as a John Kerry.

The fat cats that you refer to are the same people that I disagree with. Bush's free trade policies with Mexico and China are not good for Americans. We need to look out for Americans - not foreigners.

You managed to completely evade the subject. You were talking about American jobs being shipped abroad. Who is it that's selling the working classes down the crapper by shipping American jobs to Mexico? What Americans are you referring to that will be benefiting from this increase in profit from higher tarriffs? Not those who are unemployed because their jobs have been shipped abroad? You must be talking about the rich.

As for the working classes not wanting immigrants. Who do you think would fill the jobs that these people do?

You also say that "the working class has values: they believe in God, are opposed to gay-marriage, are patriotic, support individual liberty and gun rights, and like the free market."


That sentence is utterly ridiculous. You talk about people as though they're one transparent, uniform entity. You live in a very unrealistic world. Something resembling the world of the Smurfs.

CorporateWhore

Collin wrote:

CorporateWhore, you are a fascist.

You fear communism because it will supposedly take away your liberties but you say you want to kill or jail communists just because they don't share the same political views?

Not because they don't have the same political views as me. Only if they tried to enforce those views. There's a big difference between believing in Santa Claus and forcing others to believe in him as well.

Collin, you're a communist. Now that we're done name-calling, have we gotten anywhere?

CorporateWhore

Byrnzie wrote:

You managed to completely evade the subject. You were talking about American jobs being shipped abroad. Who is it that's selling the working classes down the crapper by shipping American jobs to Mexico? What Americans are you referring to that will be benefiting from this increase in profit from higher tarriffs? Not those who are unemployed because their jobs have been shipped abroad? You must be talking about the rich.

As for the working classes not wanting immigrants. Who do you think would fill the jobs that these people do?

You also say that "the working class has values: they believe in God, are opposed to gay-marriage, are patriotic, support individual liberty and gun rights, and like the free market."


That sentence is utterly ridiculous. You talk about people as though they're one transparent, uniform entity. You live in a very unrealistic world. Something resembling the world of the Smurfs.

The working class is not completely described by my comments; they are general comments. You really don't know much about working class Americans.

angelica

CorporateWhore wrote:

The working class is not completely described by my comments; they are general comments. You really don't know much about working class Americans.

If you believe you can ascribe such general comments to the working class, I would say you may not know as much about them as you might think.

CorporateWhore

angelica wrote:

If you believe you can ascribe such general comments to the working class, I would say you may not know as much about them as you might think.

Key phrase: "may not know." That means I still might know something about them!

angelica

CorporateWhore wrote:

Key phrase: "may not know." That means I still might know something about them!

Or maybe not! (nananana!)

Collin

CorporateWhore wrote:

Not because they don't have the same political views as me. Only if they tried to enforce those views. There's a big difference between believing in Santa Claus and forcing others to believe in him as well.

Collin, you're a communist. Now that we're done name-calling, have we gotten anywhere?

Well, if the majority of the US people wanted communism it wouldn't be 'forcing'.

I believe you have some very fascist views.

jeffbr

Collin wrote:

Well, if the majority of the US people wanted communism it wouldn't be 'forcing'.

I believe you have some very fascist views.

It would if there were theft involved, unless you have a different understanding of force than I do.

Collin

jeffbr wrote:

It would if there were theft involved, unless you have a different understanding of force than I do.

Why would there be theft invovled?

jeffbr

Collin wrote:

Why would there be theft invovled?

So you are suggesting the owners of businesses would simply volunarily turn them over to the State because the majority of workers want them to?

I know I wouldn't. So in order for workers or the State to own my business, theft would need to be involved.

Collin

jeffbr wrote:

So you are suggesting the owners of businesses would simply volunarily turn them over to the State because the majority of workers want them to?

I know I wouldn't. So in order for workers or the State to own my business, theft would need to be involved.

I don't know. I'm not a communist. But it wouldn't be theft, imo, I thought communism was about common ownership of the means of production. And I'm pretty sure communism promotes a stateless society, so you wouldn't be handing anything over to the State.

And isn't that how it is now anyway? I mean half of the United States was against Bush and a lot of his policies and politics but they still get funded by their tax money. Isn't that theft as well? Now, there's a very large group of Americans, maybe even the majority, who doesn't want the US to be in Iraq but the troops are still there and Bush will probably send more troops with the tax payer's money.

trappedinmyradio

Collin wrote:

I don't know. I'm not a communist. But it wouldn't be theft, imo, I thought communism was about common ownership of the means of production. And I'm pretty sure communism promotes a stateless society, so you wouldn't be handing anything over to the State.

And isn't that how it is now anyway? I mean half of the United States was against Bush and a lot of his policies and politics but they still get funded by their tax money. Isn't that theft as well? Now, there's a very large group of Americans, maybe even the majority, who doesn't want the US to be in Iraq but the troops are still there and Bush will probably send more troops with the tax payer's money.

it would be thievery in that, right now, american business is private...if a communist system were to takeover, those business would no longer be private, and a person would not be personally benefiting from their brainchild.