Happy Birthday Fidel

[Angus_Aboot]

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

There are the capitalists and then there are the workers who own nothing but their labor. Workers are coerced into exploitation and wage slavery. Either create wealth for a capitalist or die. The only freedom that exists is for the capitalists extract the value of their labor.

Again, how did Japan manage to become the exploiters?

[Joe Castro]

Originally Posted by 7960

and in a capitalist system I get to choose if i want to be a worker or if I want to be a capitalist. in your communist system they don't get that choice.

funny that you'd say capitalism is bad because some end up as laborers (and some end up as capitalists) when in the system you revere EVERYONE is a laborer for the state.

if "laborer" is bad shouldn't the system that creates more of them be more bad?

I'm not saying it is bad because you end up as a worker. I am saying it is bad because you lose the value of your labor to a capitalist. They skim from the value of each worker to add to their profit. In a socialist system that does not happen. The only wealth taken is given back to the people in the form of services they as indiviuals cannot supply.

[Joe Castro]

Originally Posted by Angus_Aboot

Again, how did Japan manage to become the exploiters?

History and inheritance. Japan was an empire. Empire = exploitation. The benefits of which were inherited.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

I'm not saying it is bad because you end up as a worker. I am saying it is bad because you lose the value of your labor to a capitalist. They skim from the value of each worker to add to their profit. In a socialist system that does not happen. The only wealth taken is given back to the people in the form of services they as indiviuals cannot supply.

You don't understand the finance aspect of this sort of system. What do you think happens to profits? Sometimes they are invested back into the business so that the business grows. That is good for workers, consumers, owners, investors, and the government. Sometimes the profits are paid out in the form of dividends to people who have invested in the business. ANYONE, even a worker, can invest in a publicly traded company.
Sometimes those profits are invested which gives capital to other businesses to use. it also gives that company a cushion against economic downturns, allowing them to continue to employ and pay thier workers when times are bad. The profits aren't simply taken and used by the owner to buy a caddilac. They CAN be, but that is a bad business decision and other businesses who make better decisions will ultimately out compete the poorly run business. Workers can then leave the failing business and work for the successful one. Many businesses offer profit sharing plans where the workers share in the profits of the company. Many businesses offer stock options to thier workers which makes them all part owners. They are not being exploited. Workers are given money, health benefits, security.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

History and inheritance. Japan was an empire. Empire = exploitation. The benefits of which were inherited.

They didn't inerhit anything. They became a democratic/capitalistic society and turned into the world leader in technology. They sold goods and services to people around the world and become successful.

[Angus_Aboot]

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

I'm not saying it is bad because you end up as a worker. I am saying it is bad because you lose the value of your labor to a capitalist. They skim from the value of each worker to add to their profit. In a socialist system that does not happen. The only wealth taken is given back to the people in the form of services they as indiviuals cannot supply.

They don't lose the value of their labor, they receive it in their wages. And the "profit" is in fact interest arising from the employers' (exploiter) advancing wages to workers before the final product is even marketed.

[Angus_Aboot]

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

History and inheritance. Japan was an empire. Empire = exploitation. The benefits of which were inherited.

The U.K. was a larger empire, why aren't they doing better than the Japanese, they should be inheriting much more? Mongolia had an even larger empire and they're doing...eh?

[Joe Castro]

Originally Posted by Angus_Aboot

The U.K. was a larger empire, why aren't they doing better than the Japanese, they should be inheriting much more? Mongolia had an even larger empire and they're doing...eh?

Being an empire doesn't entitle you to continued domination and exploitation, but it helps.

And the UK is doing better by GDP per capita, although only just.

[Joe Castro]

Originally Posted by Angus_Aboot

They don't lose the value of their labor, they receive it in their wages. And the "profit" is in fact interest arising from the employers' (exploiter) advancing wages to workers before the final product is even marketed.

Yes they do.

Lets say a worker makes 20 tables. The materials and running costs are $100 and the worker recieves $100's wages. The tables are then sold for $20 each, generating $400. Basically this means $200 has been extracted from the value of the workers labor and put into the pocket of the capitalist.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

The famous pie analogy. If one person gets more pie, another person gets less. That's the beauty of a democratic capitalistic system, the pie can get bigger. It's not a zero sum game.

I never fully agreed with that pie analogy - in the whole you are correct but as you close the sphere to the individual the pie gets more fixed and less flexible, it can become a zero sum game. But the great thing about this country is the OPPORTUNITY to change the size of it yourself: education, starting a business, investing etc, just takes a bit of nerve and taking the first step.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

I'm not saying it is bad because you end up as a worker. I am saying it is bad because you lose the value of your labor to a capitalist.

but you do that in a communist system too

They skim from the value of each worker to add to their profit. In a socialist system that does not happen. The only wealth taken is given back to the people in the form of services they as indiviuals cannot supply.

and in a capitalist system it's given back in the form of money.

what's your point?

[Joe Castro]

Originally Posted by 7960

but you do that in a communist system too

and in a capitalist system it's given back in the form of money.

So capitalists give back all the wealth you have created ?
what's your point? [/quote]

One which is apparently lost on you.

Please re-read.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

Yes they do.

Lets say a worker makes 20 tables. The materials and running costs are $100 and the worker recieves $100's wages. The tables are then sold for $20 each, generating $400. Basically this means $200 has been extracted from the value of the workers labor and put into the pocket of the capitalist.

but the worker, in a capitalist system, doesn't buy the wood or tools or building or pay the insurance or fuel costs..................... unless he wants to, then he has every right to dump the capitalist become his own boss.

you're not comparing like things

[7960]

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

So capitalists give back all the wealth you have created ?

nope, they keep some becuase they provided the building and supplies and fuel and insurance and advertising and distribution and .............................

One which is apparently lost on you.

Please re-read.

which is apparently lost on you.

[Joe Castro]

Originally Posted by 7960

but the worker, in a capitalist system, doesn't buy the wood or tools or building or pay the insurance or fuel costs..................... unless he wants to, then he has every right to dump the capitalist become his own boss.

you're not comparing like things

The capitalist owns the means of production which presents a considerable barrier to the worker. Just because someone has a "right" does not make it in effect possible - the capitalist will also utilise the Reserve Army of Labor. Even if by some means the worker can achieve making his "right" a reallity, all he does is pass on the exploitation to another worker.

[Joe Castro]

Originally Posted by 7960

nope, they keep some becuase they provided the building and supplies and fuel and insurance and advertising and distribution and .............................

which is apparently lost on you.

You haven't refuted anything i said in anyway. All you have done is describe the scenario i had criticised. That is not how debate works.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

The capitalist owns the means of production.....

but there is nothing keeping anyone from buying his own wood and making tables for himself.

which presents a considerable barrier to the worker. Just because someone has a "right" does not make it in effect possible - the capitalist will also utilise the Reserve Army of Labor. Even if by some means the worker can achieve making his "right" a reallity, all he does is pass on the exploitation to another worker.

as opposed to a socialist/communist system where nobody has that opportunity.

so, one system people have the opportunity to advance and the other system they know they will never advance. which system is better?

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

There are the capitalists and then there are the workers who own nothing but their labor. Workers are coerced into exploitation and wage slavery. Either create wealth for a capitalist or die. The only freedom that exists is for the capitalists extract the value of their labor.

The workers are free to make the decision to become a business owner if they'd like to be, many do not because they don't possess the capability (intellectual or otherwise) to succeed at a business venture.

That's the nature of life, not everyone can be

Workers aren't coerced into anything, they make the decision for themselves to work for a company in order to make money to better their lives, and the lives of their families.

Of course they are creating wealth for the people they work for, but in turn, the business owner is also creating wealth for the workers.

The workers are paid according to what their labor is worth. Sometimes less, sometimes more. But, they can always look for other jobs if they aren't satisfied with their current compensation.

Again, exploitation not found. You're using hyperbole.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

You haven't refuted anything i said in anyway. All you have done is describe the scenario i had criticised. That is not how debate works.

you're right. in a debate each side listens but you're not doing that. you have it set that your system is better and are ignoring examples of why it's not and just repeating "mine's better" over and over. so this is nowhere near a debate, it's us saying

-<bad> because of this
-<bad> because of that
-<bad> because of those
-<bad> because of the other thing

and you replying with

-they're repressed to keep them free
-they can't leave so they can't come back and be terrorists
-




so, the crux of all this. your belief is that capitalism is bad because someone owns the shop and people work for him, where as in your system the state owns the shop and people work for the state. what if someone doesn't want to work for the state? in a capitalist system that person can open his own shop. what does he do in yours?

[motivez]

Or