Happy Birthday Fidel

[motivez]

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.

Your one sided analysis neglects to to include costs the business owner takes upon himself.. The cost of the materials are only one small aspect, the original design, the tools, the facility in which to assemble them, advertising, shipping, insurance, fuel to ship, and so forth..

Do you really think every business makes a 400% profit on every item they sell?

If the worker wants to provide all of that for himself and sell those tables independently, nothing is preventing him from doing so in a capitalist system except his ability to manage the other aspects of owning his own business.

And you can't blame that on the owner of the business, that rests solely with the individual's capability.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

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.

There's nothing preventing a worker from starting his own business to compete with the owner of the business in this fictitious scenario.

That last sentences proves that you're full of shit, because now you'r saying that he's gone from an "exploited" worker for being "forced" to work for someone else, to calling him an "exploiter" for deciding he doesn't want to work for someone else, but rather himself.

I mean, really. There's a massive problem with the logic you've employed here.

[7960]

Originally Posted by motivez

Your one sided analysis neglects to to include costs the business owner takes upon himself.. The cost of the materials are only one small aspect, the original design, the tools, the facility in which to assemble them, advertising, shipping, insurance, fuel to ship, and so forth..

Do you really think every business makes a 400% profit on every item they sell?

If the worker wants to provide all of that for himself and sell those tables independently, nothing is preventing him from doing so in a capitalist system except his ability to manage the other aspects of owning his own business.

And you can't blame that on the owner of the business, that rests solely with the individual's capability.

this is what he's ignoring. the capitalist assumes the RISK.

the capitalist imperial pig builder was at my house this morning. he owns the means of production that created my addition. he's got a crew of 6 downtrodden laboring slaves.............. all of those downtrodden laboring slaves have all been getting paid for the last 18 months while the capitalist imperial pig builder hasn't sold a house. the capitalist imperial pig builder has got all the risk. he provides the materials, tools, insurance, transportation, advertising, etc, while the downtrodden slave laborers just pull $20/hr for their work.

the capitalist imperial pig builder has also sold his boat, one truck, his motorcycle, and an RV *and* now has his wife working for the company for FREE to keep the business going, but the downtrodden slave laborers continue to get a check every friday while he's scraping by to afford food.



cliffs: it's easy to shit on the small business owner when times are good and he's making money. but nobody remembers they suffer, often times worse than others, when times aren't.

[motivez]

Yeah, I forgot to include risk in there. There's substantial risk in investing in all of those things I listed.. maybe people don't like the design of the table, maybe there's a better table out there, or whatever..

The workers assume none of that risk personally, they are providing a service (their labor) for an agreed price (their wages) with no force involved. If the business falters, the business owner suffers the most, because they lose the large investment in the business, while the workers are free to simply seek another agreement with someone else looking for their services.

[7960]

Originally Posted by motivez

If the business falters, the business owner suffers the most, because they lose the large investment in the business, while the workers are free to simply seek another agreement with someone else looking for their services.

or, like we've been saying all along, buy some wood and start building their own tables.


the ignorance he's displaying is immense.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by 7960

I'm amazed that he's serious.

He says "There are the capitalists and then there are the workers who own nothing but their labor" and for some reason that's bad, but in his system there are *only* "workers who own nothing but their labor" and that's good.

I'm confused.

He's not serious. I think it's Thor fucking with us.

[Angus_Aboot]

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.

Wow.
The employer takes the risk of buying the material and paying the worker in advance to the tables completion and marketing (with the assumption that the tables will sale). With the risk comes the greater reward (profit). Even with such a ridiculous profit, the laborer hasn't been exploited, he has $100 dollars he didn't have to before. Both parties benefit from the exchange, with laborer in the short-term, employer in the long-term.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by 7960

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?

This really is an excellent point. Instead of working for an individual by choice, they are compelled by force to work for the state.

Instead of it being a mutually beneficial relationship, with the worker helping the business succeed and being paid for his efforts, and the ability to make the decision to keep helping that business, start his own, or move to another one which offers better benefits (wages, etc).. the worker is instead forced to help create wealth for the ruling elite class of the country (ie: Fidel Castro), ensuring that elite class will live a better life than they're ever able to.. (See: Pictures of how the elite live vs ordinary Cubans)

If you want to talk about exploitation, surely it's this system, and not capitalism.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

He's not serious. I think it's Thor fucking with us.

No, he's a friend of Dylith's. I can vouch that he's not an AE.

[lew]

I've never seen so many liberals and 'centrists' come to the defense of capitalism before

[7960]

Originally Posted by lew

I've never seen so many liberals and 'centrists' come to the defense of capitalism before

Dog people will argue to the death that their favorite dog is the best, but if someone comes along and says "hEy GuIz CaTz Ur BeTtEr!" they'll all agree that person is full of shit.



liberals, centrists, realists, libertarians, lefts, rights, greens, conservatives, anarchists mostly agree, capitalism has its faults but it's way better than fidel's alternative.

[jimeigh]

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

the greatest man to ever walk our planet

Fidel

yeesh. beware of heroes, man.

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

He's not serious. I think it's Thor fucking with us.

You may be right in one of his post he was talking about our country when he is suppose to be from scotland.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

You may be right in one of his post he was talking about our country when he is suppose to be from scotland.

It's not Thor. I can vouch that he's not an AE.

[JaJae]

Joe Castro, I'm really having trouble rationalizing your arguments in this thread. I'm seriously trying to follow your logic, but it just keeps coming off as flawed. I've read a lot of opinions from communists and anarchists and other extreme political ideologies, and I have to say I've been having trouble finding your logic.

One of your points you keep bringing up is life expectancy. What you're failing to see is that in a free society you would have the right to live your life as you wanted, eat the foods you wanted, live the lifestyle you wanted, etc. This in turn has a much greater effect on life expectancy. You compare it to America, but what you're not thinking about is that in America people have the right to obtain basically any foods they want and they have the ability to eat as much of them as they desire. Many Americans choose to eat until obesity, smoke, etc. which has a great impact on their health. But the end result is that ultimately it is their choice to live their lives the way they want. The reality is that citizens of a capitalist society such as America have the ability to be far healthier than a Cuban can ever be based on the quality of food and lifestyle options available to them.

And your next points have been convoluted attacks on capitalism which doesn't seem as if you have a basic understanding of capitalist principles or how it the system works. You're focusing purely on your ideological moral evaluation of the system and completely ignoring the economics of the system and the effects on those who live under it. That doesn't seem to be a very accurate or productive way to debate an economic system.

[Joe Castro]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

You may be right in one of his post he was talking about our country when he is suppose to be from scotland.

Why cant someone from the UK talk about the US ? I find that baffling. Here are all of you talking about Cuba but no one is going to claim that makes you Cuban.

Motivez is right. I was asked here by Dylith as i knew him on another forum, i believe in an attempt to give this place some extra balance by having a leftist voice. I have no idea who this other guy you think i am is.

I will get back to the other posts tomorrow, as i am way oo busy today.

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

Why cant someone from the UK talk about the US ? I find that baffling. Here are all of you talking about Cuba but no one is going to claim that makes you Cuban.

Motivez is right. I was asked here by Dylith as i knew him on another forum, i believe in an attempt to give this place some extra balance by having a leftist voice. I have no idea who this other guy you think i am is.

I will get back to the other posts tomorrow, as i am way oo busy today.

You can talk about the US all you want and I hope you do. You get things stirred up just like Thor used to do so keep it up. It was just my understanding that in a few of your post you were saying our country like the US was your country. If you feel that way okay but it got me to thinking you were not from Scotland but the US. No disrespect because I don't know you.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

These are two touching letters to the greatest man to ever walk our planet, that sum up the love for the man and the indefatigability of the revolution. Fidel has made the world a better place and when the inevitability of history unfolds he will be remembered. I cannot help but think of the famous words, "condemn me, it does not matter, history will absolve me".

Viva Fidel


[/font]
granma.cu - Letter to Fidel from Cuba’s workers

Hopefully this asshole doesn't live to see another year.

[Angus_Aboot]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Hopefully this asshole doesn't live to see another year.

Hopefully most politicians don't live to see another year.