Happy Birthday Fidel

[Joe Castro]

Originally Posted by 7960

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

Yes there is. The capitalist owns the means of production. Not the worker.

Originally Posted by 7960

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?

In capitalism things can also get worse for people. I hear a lot about capitalism providing opportunities for people to "better themselves", but it ignored is the possibility of things deteriorating. A communist society provides stability and an end to boom and bust economics.

[Joe Castro]

Originally Posted by motivez

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.

All they are free to decide is to be wage slaves or die. That is not a choice the is indirect coercion and manipulation. It is exploitation.

Originally Posted by motivez

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 business owner does not create wealth for the worker. The workers labor and that alone creates the wealth

Originally Posted by motivez

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.

I have already shown this to be false. The excess value of their labor is stolen.

Sure they can look for another job, but that doesnt change the nature of the exploitative relationship between capitalist and worker. That can only change when the means of production are in the hands of the worker.

Originally Posted by motivez

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

exploit VERB
1 to take advantage of a person or situation for one's own ends


Online Dictionary- Free Collins Dictionaries Online - Collins Language

[Joe Castro]

Originally Posted by 7960

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
-

I listen and refute points. It's just a shame some capitalists are incapable of similar.

You seem to be failing to recognise that sacrifices sometimes need to be made today as a means to future benefit. Have you ever heard of defered gratification?

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?

Yopu have shown a typical failure to understand any type of socialist or communist system and the relationship between worker and state. The state is a temporary transitional stage between capitalism and socialism and then socialism and communism. It is a means to an end, not an end in itself. In the socialist stage of production the people own the means of production and hire the state as managers. During the process of communism the state will disappear and the workers take direct control of production.

[Joe Castro]

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..

I never denied any of these things. I hope i said running costs, i may not have in which case i apologise. But it dectracts nothing from my position.

Originally Posted by motivez

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

I am pretty sure you are quite aware that was a hypothetical example.

Originally Posted by motivez

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.

Plenty is preventing him. There are barriers to entry. The capitalist can control measures the worker cannot.

Even of the worker is successful, then he will probably become a capitalist by employing someone else. Even if he does not the capitalist he just left will pluck someone else out from the Reserve Army of Labor. If he does this, chances are he will employ him at an even lower price, this being another measure of control in the capitalists arsenal.

[Joe Castro]

Originally Posted by 7960

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

I dont care if the capitalist assumes risk. It means nothing.

Running an economy should not be a game of risk. What economics should be about is the best way to neutralise the scarcity of resources and infinite desires.

Originally Posted by 7960

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.

You are descrining what is. Is does not make right.

I must keep repeating myself. Workers do not own the means of production, only their labor. If they did own the means of production they could assume the capitalist role in what "is" with the detraction of "risk" from the scenario".

Originally Posted by 7960

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.

This scenario only exists if the capitalist goes on the hunt for profits at the price of people. If my definition of the moral economc system was followed no one has to suffer, not even the wannabe capitalist. The continued pursuit of profits is unsustainable. The neutralisation of want and availability is sustainable.

[Joe Castro]

Originally Posted by motivez

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.

That is because you do not understand either socialism or communism. I gave a brief description of the relationship between worker and state in an early post that shuld be useful to you.

[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.

Can you show me where i refferred to the US as "our country".

[7960]

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

I dont care if the capitalist assumes risk. It means nothing.

Running an economy should not be a game of risk. What economics should be about is the best way to neutralise the scarcity of resources and infinite desires.

resource scarcity is handled by pricing and supply/demand.

You are descrining what is. Is does not make right.

I must keep repeating myself. Workers do not own the means of production, only their labor. If they did own the means of production they could assume the capitalist role in what "is" with the detraction of "risk" from the scenario".

right, workers don't own the means of production. and right, if they did then they'd be capitalists, and they'd make money off the labor of others because they assumed the risk.

This scenario only exists if the capitalist goes on the hunt for profits at the price of people.

No it doesn't. He can't make any money if someone doesn't voluntarily hire him to do work for them. But in bad times he can't fire all his guys because if work comes in and he's got no guys and won't get the job. So he's assuming risk.......he's paying guys out of pocket so when work comes around he'll have the resources to do it.

If my definition of the moral economc system was followed no one has to suffer, not even the wannabe capitalist. The continued pursuit of profits is unsustainable.

This is wrong.

The neutralisation of want and availability is sustainable.

No, it's unrealistic.

[Joe Castro]

Originally Posted by 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.

I suspect the reason no one understands my logix here is that none of you have ever studied logic. That seems to be blatantly obvious to me. I would never claim to be an expert in the field, but i do perform consistently well in the subject.

Originally Posted by JaJae

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 are not as free as you believe. You are free to live within your individual means. That is a crucial difference.

If the so called "freedom" to choose played such a big role then by your account Indonesians would be doing better than Cubans.

Originally Posted by JaJae

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.

You are glamourising the scenario. You should substitute "they desire" with financially attainable. The poor and homeless cannot do nearly anything they "desire".

Originally Posted by JaJae

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.

Americans (in general) perhaps can. Indonesians cant. The dominant in the capitalist relationship has more "options" than the subordinate..

Originally Posted by JaJae

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.

If you want to talk about the economics please do. The economics are unsustainable. Economic growth and profit cant go on indefinately. That is the most basic failure of the system. But there are many many more. In Britain we privatised the train network. Now the government = the people, spend more on the industry than they ever did when in public ownership, both in terms of taxation for subsidees and price increases.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

I suspect the reason no one understands my logix here is that none of you have ever studied logic.

oh fuck

no, a degree in math doesn't prepare one for logic at all!

You are not as free as you believe. You are free to live within your individual means.

And we are free to do our best to change our individual means.

If the so called "freedom" to choose played such a big role then by your account Indonesians would be doing better than Cubans.

Many are.

[nbiggershaft]

Well I've read 8 pages here. And while posting is pissing in the wind because it appears to be 20v1 on this I'll chime in. What I have noticed that shocks me the most is the ability to define freedoms in different ways.

To me freedoms are self determined, someone can take away your freedoms by preventing you from acting on your own behalf. How can you have the freedom to something someone else must provide for you. You may be able to claim housing or food, ect as a right, but it can't possibly fall under the blanket of a freedom, because it is not self-sustained. There is no freedom 'not to be an empire', there is certainly a freedom to be a communist, or a capitalist, but you can't possibly argue that being forced to be communist is the freedom to not be something else, you may as well say being forced to be a soccer player is the freedom not to be carpenter. It may suite you, but what you agree with isn't the establishment of a right. Rights have to include the ability to participation of things you may not agree with, otherwise what's the difference between a right and a mandate?


As for the whole exploiter thing. My friends parents make wooden house numbers in their basement. They bought the equipment with money they made, they sell the goods to willing customers, they make around 75-100k a year. Who are they exploiting or who are they exploited by?

[7960]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

Who are they exploiting ..?

obviously, the people who need wooden numbers

[Angus_Aboot]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

...who are they exploited by?

Themselves, of course. Because of their individualistic greed, they produce more than necessary and take-in more than their fair share of income, capitalist pigs!

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by Angus_Aboot

Themselves, of course. Because of their individualistic greed, they produce more than necessary and take-in more than their fair share of income, capitalist pigs!

We are competitive just like all animals. We are turned on by competition if we don't have competition like in capitalism we are like a lazy old dog content to lay on the front room rug.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Angus_Aboot

Themselves, of course. Because of their individualistic greed, they produce more than necessary and take-in more than their fair share of income, capitalist pigs!

More than their fair share in income? You don't share income. You earn it. There is no finite amount of income available in the world. There is as much income as you can make.

[Angus_Aboot]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

More than their fair share in income? You don't share income. You earn it. There is no finite amount of income available in the world. There is as much income as you can make.

[Angus_Aboot]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

We are competitive just like all animals. We are turned on by competition if we don't have competition like in capitalism we are like a lazy old dog content to lay on the front room rug.

Is that a gun in your pocket or are you just happy to compete with me?

Seriously, see post above.

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by Angus_Aboot

Is that a gun in your pocket or are you just happy to compete with me?

Seriously, see post above.

What ever you want to call it we are competitive animals just like all animals. Our basic instinct is to compete and that is capitalism not socialism. You socialist have a unrealistic view of people. You may for awhile get people to work for the common good but eventually the competitive urges will win out. Capitalism is more realistic when it comes to human nature. Of course there must be limits. The competition must be as fair as possible and we are working on getting that right here in the US, and our unions have been very good at helping with that in the past and will in the future.