Workers are enslaved, exploited and under attack

[Jones]

Obama has nothing to do with the working class. He is a capitalist politician from a capitalist party that presides over a capitalist state.

Even as capitalist politicians go he's to the right of "centrists" (speaking internationally here, not in the narrow realm of US politics).

Bingo
Actual socialists (who you never really hear from in US politics) don't much care for Obama, and find it laughable that his opponents label him as one of them.

 

[tourists24]

So at the end of the day this entire rant has everything todo with you hating profit. What is wrong of somebody eating a $100 steak if they can afford it? Should everyone be told they can eat no better meat than a McDonald's hamburger? I own a motorcycle, and I know people who would love to have a motorcycle themselves. Should I get rid of my motorcycle because someone else wants one but cannot afford it? At the end of the day somebody is going to have less than somebody else, its the reality of living in an unequal world. You cannot logically make the world perfectly equal because someone will desire something better and will work for it. Are you saying we should punish those who desire more than the status quo? Who should set the status quo in your world where nobody can have more than someone else?

You seem to be too wrapped up in money and things to realize that no matter how much money someone has, no matter how many cars they have in their garage or square feet their homes are they are still human beings. To me that is all that matters. I could care less how much money someone has in their pocket just so long as they pay their way and I pay mine.

Not to mention that no matter which kind of society you wish to follow, there are always going to be those who have the wealth and make the rules. Just depends on who you want running it

 

[tourists24]

Bingo
Actual socialists (who you never really hear from in US politics) don't much care for Obama, and find it laughable that his opponents label him as one of them.

Just thought of something Jones and would like your input.... What do most "actual socialists" you mentioned in the US political realm feel about communism? Not trying to flame here, just wondering about your opinion on it. I have my own opinions in general associated with capitalism, socialism, communism; but hadnt really thought about this much til your post

 

[Jones]

My opinion (and I'm sure that someone will argue with it) is that communism refers to a particular form of government, while socialism refers to economic and social policies that can be adopted by any form of government, communist, democratic, or otherwise. Universal healthcare, just as an example, is a socialist policy that can be adopted by a communist government, a democratic government, or a totalitarian state. The police dept, fire dept, the armed forces, and the Teamsters Union are all examples of socialism.

Many committed socialists, like George Orwell for instance, were and are virulently anti communist.

 

[Babagounj]

WOW, we have more inmates now than Stalin did.
But you must also note that most of our prisoners are not even citizens of the USA.

 

[bbsam]

"Mixed economies" are simply reformist attempts to prolong the existence of capitalism by giving it a "human face" and bring revolutionary-minded workers back in line.

It's the kind of thing the "New Deal" was all about.

But the reality is that as long as the means of production are owned privately we will have classes, exploitation, oppression, starvation and suffering.

22LR
Of everything you have written, I think this comes closest to reality. But I think at the lowest common denominator you and I will always disagree. As ugly as it may seem, capitalism is the "human face".

Capitalism does not create greed. It may be a venue by which greed flourishes, but to suggest that there exists an economic system that would not be corrupted by that same greed does not make sense.

I want more of whatever I want. Same as workers everywhere. Same as company owners, stockholders, Wall Street tycoons, drunks in the local tavern. And I am not even offended when others have more than I even if they get "it" illegally or immorally. I may be motivated to follow their example or decide it's not worth the sacrifice. I look at it as living life balancing between the "deadly sins" of Greed and Sloth.

All in all, people are bastards; "Natural Born Killers"; selfish and self-centered to the extreme with an almost limitless but rarely exercised quality to do wonderfully altruistic feats for the advancement of mankind. I agree with you in the potential, but no organizing or political/economic system can harness that to any real end.

So yes, we will have "classes, exploitation, oppression, starvation, and suffering", not because of an evil system or government, but because we want it that way. But that is not to suggest all gloom and doom. Could you imagine the ridiculously boring history of the world without such tension and conflict? No Revolutionary War, Civil War, no Montagues and Capulets. No Hamlet or Shakespeare for that matter. No Bill Wilson and Dr. Bob, no MLK. no Malcolm X no Ghandi. So again I say no, Rodney King, we can't all just get along. Mainly because we just don't want to.

 

[JimJimmyJames]

Everyone cannot start their own business. You need capital, etc. Under capitalism, a majority of the population will always belong to the working class. Other than nature itself, there is no other source of wealth.

Depends on the business. My father started his own electrical contractor business and was on his way to being a millionaire if he did not die young in a car accident.

And no, he did not come from money, just a very normal working class backround.

But he was almost a slave to the business. He quite often worked from sun up to sun down, sometimes 6 to 7 days a week. We would have to take the phone off the hook so we could eat a peaceful dinner.

It was growing up this way which inspired me after college to stay with UPS and work for a corporation that would allow me to make a decent living but still have a family life.

Ironic, huh? Most UPSERs might feel that UPS robs them of a family life.

Anyways...

22LR, I have sympathy for your passion for the plight of the working man. But bbsam is right when he laid bare the fatal flaw of mankind: Selfishness. And that will exist no matter what system we live under.

Funny, but trying to seperate us from our selfish nature is what religion is primarily about. But a large portion of society, in it's infinite wisdom, decided modern man could do without such teachings.

In fact, didn't Mr. Marx say religion was the "opiate of the masses". Too bad the substitutions for that opiate has not given us anything but materialism and nihilism.

 

[tieguy]

You have the choice of whether you want to sell your labor to a capitalist or starve to death.

wouldn't selling your labor make you capitalist.

I'm curious what someone like youself with such a superior insight has chosen to do in life to sustain your basic needs.

 

[tieguy]

As usual Brett, You didnt understand his point. What you wrote is in NO WAY what he wrote.

I would suggest you abandon the attempt at retort.

There are probably many of us who share bretts level of understanding . Perhaps you two with your vision can share with us how you exist in our capitalistic society without being exploited by the man.

Don't need the endless pages of leftist propaganda. Just some nuts and bolts on how you folks live day to day without buying in.

 

[brett636]

You completely misread my position or purposely distort it... I'll give you the benefit of the date and say it was the former.

Nothing is wrong with luxuries. The problem is that only a handful of people enjoy them on a regular basis. The people that actually produce the luxuries aren't able to enjoy them.

We have the tools and resources to produce enough to meet the needs of everyone on earth. Why should only the idle rich have access to all the good things in life while the workers have to struggle just to get by?

You really need to go take a basic economics class. Scarcity of resources means there are only so many resources available to make the goods and services that are available today. The more rare a resource the more expensive that resource is. There are not enough resources to give everyone the luxuries of the rich. That $100 steak would not cost $100 if it were not the one of the rarest pieces of beef on the market. There are certain breeds of cows whose meet pulls that kind of value.

Lets not forget that the luxuries of today eventually become common for everyone to have. 100 years ago it was a luxury to have running water ane electricity in your house. Today most houses have both running water and electricity. 20 years ago only the most expensive luxury cars came with features that are now common on even the most inexpensive of cars like anti-lock brakes and airbags. It is the wealthy which demand these "luxuries", and they have the money to pay for them which trickle down to everyone else over time.

Nope. Instead, a motorcycle should be produced for everyone that wants one.

A motorcycle should be produced for everyone who can afford to purchase one. That is the only way to be sure that the resources needed to make those motorcycles are used efficiently. If a motorcycle were produced for everyone who wanted one then people who otherwise would have no interest in motorcycling would take a motorcycle just to try it out. They would probably crash it or decide its too dangerous and not ride it soon after receiving it. If its given to them it has no value to them therefore they will not take care of it or maybe not even use it. Lets not forget that not everyone wants the same style of motorcycle. If the resources to produce them are being used to produce the motorcycles for everyone then someone who wants a sportbike will be stuck with a cruiser, or vice versa. Uniqueness is a quality every human desires, and riders show that in their motorcycles. There would not be as many producers of motorcycles if they had to produce them for everyone who wanted one. Not to mention quality of these motorcycles would suffer as well since the remaining producers have no incentive to improve their designs or manufacturing processes or even differentiate the style of motorcycles they produce.

But it's hardly the "natural state of things." Inequality is caused by the private ownership of the means of production and distribution.

Its exactly the natural state of things. Its unequal when someone is born with a mental or physical handicap keeping them from performing the same tasks you and I do. Peyton Manning has the athletic abilities which make him the star he is today; athletic abilities you and I do not possess. The world is naturally unequal.

For the largest part of human history people worked cooperated so that everyone would have food and shelter. That's a fact.

So all those wars, and failed attempts at conquests which litter history books is humanity working to provide each other with food and shelter?

And no one is talking about formal equality. I never said everyone should have 1.1 pounds of meat per day or anything like that.

That is exactly what you are alluring too. One should only have 1.1 pounds of meat if they have the means to afford it. If they work, they earn money. That money is the fruit of their labor. They use that as a means to purchase however much meat they need or desire. That is how the most successful economies work. If they worked how you describe them the Soviet Union, North Korea, and Cuba should all be world superpowers today. They are not because their system of government is inherently flawed.

When workers control production we can insure that everyone has everything they need. We live in a world of material abundance. No one needs to go without.

Why should workers get to control production when they did not bring the means of production together? They didn't come up with something to produce, they didn't purchase the machinery to produce the goods in question, they did not hire the individuals to work that machinery to produce goods. They did nothing to earn the power to control the production because they just showed up and were given a set of tasks to complete at an already functioning business.

The population as a whole should participate in production and decide what is produced.

This is impossible. There are too many goods and services being produced for the society as a whole to be able to decide what should be produced and what should not. If there is a demand for a product or service it will ultimatly be produced, and without someone willing to find out if the demand exists, or willing to take the risk of producing said good for a possible future reward(wealth) nothing will get produced.

Someone may have more of something than someone else. Perhaps you are interested in fishing, so you will have a collection of fishing equipment while I have none. But at the same time I can be interested in tennis, which would mean that I would have tennis equipment while you have none. The point is that everyone should have equal opportunity and access to the things they want and need.

The problem is selfishness. If a store is giving away free tennis rackets to everyone who comes in they will run out very fast. While if they charge for them a market price then everyone who both wants and can afford one will purchase those tennis rackets giving the store owner time to manage their inventories, and order more when necessary. Its impossible to determine how many people want tennis rackets as people who would normally not want one would take one anyway because it costs them nothing to have.

Production should be organized to meet society's needs, not to make people rich.

So what is rich? I remember reading that if you have some money in the bank and a few coins in your pocket you are among the richest people in the world. Even the poorest of our nation don't have to endure the conditions the poor in other countries do. If someone has a house in a nice neighborhood should they be considered rich? How about someone who has more than one car? I have 4 vehicles in my name, am I rich?

No one should starve in a world where there is more than enough food for everyone to eat.

Apparently you are not familiar with all the scandals involved in U.N. food programs such as food for oil.

No one should go homeless in a world where houses can be constructed for all.

Actually they cannot. In some places Land is the restricting factor. For example, in Japan they do not have enough open land to build houses for everyone. Some goes for states like Hawaii, or large cities like New York or Chicago. In most of those places only the most wealthy can afford to purchase a house in those places because land is such a premium. Hell, it costs more per year for a parking space in New York City then I earn in a year. Without market controls to efficiently distribute homes and land who determines who gets to live in the nice neighborhoods versus the bad ones? In your perfect world who gets to live close to the city and who has to drive 100 miles to get to the city?

No one should be restricted from human development because they don't have the means to access the education, tools or whatever they need to pursue it.

Thats the beauty of the freedom we have in this nation. Nobody has a good excuse why they cannot make it. Every person born here has access to education, and the opportunity to pursure their dreams no matter what they are. Other nations, especially those in Africa, don't have the political stability or societal fabric we have here in order to produce those same opportunities. Perhaps one day they will, but that takes time and you cannot force them to be any different.

The people who actually produce things should have full access to the products of their labor!

I recently watched a show on National Geographic called "Ultimate Factories: Ferrari" which of course was all about how Ferrari sports cars are produced. The car highlighted was the new Ferrari 599 which was only supposed to have a production run of 250. The factory had over 3000 workers there to produce those cars. If they had to produce one for everyone in the factory they would need more workers, and a larger factory. By the time they were able to produce one for everyone in the factory they wouldn't have any left over for those who actually can afford them outside the factory. And if they had to produce them for everyone who wanted one everybody would be clamoring for a ferrari and production would never be able to keep pace with demand. A capitalist society is necessary to efficiently distribute goods to those who can afford to purchase them. Otherwise you completely destroy the desire to produce those goods and the desire to work to own those goods making the world very dull compared to how it is today.

 

[22LR]

wouldn't selling your labor make you capitalist.

No, it would make you a wage slave. The reason you have to sell your labor is because it's the only thing you have to sell. Since you don't have any control of the tools and technology used to create the things people want and need you have no other choice but to sell your labor to those who have that control.

I'm curious what someone like youself with such a superior insight has chosen to do in life to sustain your basic needs.

I already stated I'm a package handler. I'm not any better or smarter than any other worker. I've simply come to understand historical processes and the way things work. I still live under capitalism. I'm still a worker. I still have no way to survive other than to sell my labor to a capitalist.

 

[22LR]

You really need to go take a basic economics class.

Is that where I can learn "common sense" economic rules like the "trickle down theory"?

I'll agree to take that class at the same time you read up on the Labor Theory of Value.

Scarcity of resources means there are only so many resources available to make the goods and services that are available today.

But there are enough resources today, right now, to meet the needs of every human being on earth. That is a fact.

The more rare a resource the more expensive that resource is. There are not enough resources to give everyone the luxuries of the rich. That $100 steak would not cost $100 if it were not the one of the rarest pieces of beef on the market.

A common misnomer pushed by capitalist ideologues.

Things are kept intentionally "rare" in order to raise prices. Diamonds are kept in the ground and out of the market to keep up prices. Huge amounts of grains are left to rot or are dumped to keep the prices up. Gasoline production is slowed down every summer (when demand is highest) to bring up prices. Airlines run 1 overbooked flight where they could run 2 half-full flights, in order to maximize profit and raise prices on "rare" seats.

In countries where large numbers of people starve to death grains and other foodstuffs are actually exported. Profit is the motive. Then they claim there was a famine.

When workers control production, we'll do so in the interest of meeting our own needs, not making the most profit. We'll unleash the full potential of nature and technology. We won't slow down production, resource gathering, etc., to raise prices.

There are certain breeds of cows whose meet [sic] pulls that kind of value.

If everyone wants a prime steak, and there aren't enough to go around (due to the legacy of capitalist profit seeking), we'll simply farm more of the cows that they come from.

Lets not forget that the luxuries of today eventually become common for everyone to have. 100 years ago it was a luxury to have running water ane electricity in your house. Today most houses have both running water and electricity. 20 years ago only the most expensive luxury cars came with features that are now common on even the most inexpensive of cars like anti-lock brakes and airbags. It is the wealthy which demand these "luxuries", and they have the money to pay for them which trickle down to everyone else over time.

I'll be sure to mention that trickle down next time I talk to my dad who lives in a one bedroom house in West Virginia, with water that comes from a cistern, with a 1985 Buick in the driveway.

 

[22LR]

Perhaps you two with your vision can share with us how you exist in our capitalistic society without being exploited by the man.

You can't. Hence the reason for our organization to overthrow capitalism and bring production under worker control.

 

[22LR]

22LR
Of everything you have written, I think this comes closest to reality. But I think at the lowest common denominator you and I will always disagree. As ugly as it may seem, capitalism is the "human face".

Capitalism does not create greed. It may be a venue by which greed flourishes, but to suggest that there exists an economic system that would not be corrupted by that same greed does not make sense.

I want more of whatever I want. Same as workers everywhere. Same as company owners, stockholders, Wall Street tycoons, drunks in the local tavern. And I am not even offended when others have more than I even if they get "it" illegally or immorally. I may be motivated to follow their example or decide it's not worth the sacrifice. I look at it as living life balancing between the "deadly sins" of Greed and Sloth.

All in all, people are bastards; "Natural Born Killers"; selfish and self-centered to the extreme with an almost limitless but rarely exercised quality to do wonderfully altruistic feats for the advancement of mankind. I agree with you in the potential, but no organizing or political/economic system can harness that to any real end.

So yes, we will have "classes, exploitation, oppression, starvation, and suffering", not because of an evil system or government, but because we want it that way. But that is not to suggest all gloom and doom. Could you imagine the ridiculously boring history of the world without such tension and conflict? No Revolutionary War, Civil War, no Montagues and Capulets. No Hamlet or Shakespeare for that matter. No Bill Wilson and Dr. Bob, no MLK. no Malcolm X no Ghandi. So again I say no, Rodney King, we can't all just get along. Mainly because we just don't want to.

This is the old "human nature" argument. Of course it's completely bologna.

No anthropologist would go along with you. Nor would anyone with an understanding of human history.

People aren't "naturally greedy." For the largest part of our history we lived together, communally, and shared the products of our labor.
"The earliest human societies were egalitarian in nature. With no reserves of food or other resources, all able-bodied members of society had to participate in their collection. The fruits of their labor were then divided up and quickly consumed."

It wasn't until we discovered agriculture and started to build up surpluses that one group came to rule over and control others.

Historically speaking, classes and private ownership are relatively recent developments.

People are shaped by their surroundings. When you grow up in a "dog eat dog" world, you have no choice but to adapt. If you grew up in a primitive tribe in the Amazon your "human nature" would be cooperation and sharing.

Nowadays there is no need for competition. We have the potential to give everyone what they need and want. The capitalists use it to divide us. They pit black workers against white workers, immigrants against citizens, workers in the US against workers in Mexico and China, all in the interest of driving down our wages and living conditions in order to maximize their profits.

 

[22LR]

Funny, but trying to seperate us from our selfish nature is what religion is primarily about.

Actually organized religion with its accompanying hierarchy arose around the same as agriculture and surpluses.

Humans originally came up with superstitious beliefs to explain natural occurrences they couldn't understand. After the rise of surpluses, the new rulers used them to justify their positions of privilege (by claiming it was gods' will, that they were incarnations of / speakers for / gateways to god or gods, or something similar).

 

[22LR]

My opinion (and I'm sure that someone will argue with it) is that communism refers to a particular form of government, while socialism refers to economic and social policies that can be adopted by any form of government, communist, democratic, or otherwise. Universal healthcare, just as an example, is a socialist policy that can be adopted by a communist government, a democratic government, or a totalitarian state. The police dept, fire dept, the armed forces, and the Teamsters Union are all examples of socialism.

True to an extent. Hoffa sharpened his organizing teeth in the IWW - which fights for the same things as me. Social security, public education, overtime, vacations, retirement, work saftey, etc., were all demands raised by and fought for by revolutionaries. Proletarian revolutionaries have no interests separate from those of our class.

But "socialism" and "communism" have become meaningless in the US. The words are used and abused to the point of no return. Part of that is because the words were used by some of the great criminals of history. But that's not totally it. A lot of it has to do with great propaganda work on the part of the capitalists in the US. After all, the biggest crimes in history were carried out under the rubric of "freedom and democracy."

"We often react to party labels rather than to the actual proposals which are put before us. This was demonstrated very clearly in a study in which farmers and workers in the United States were interviewed with respect to their voting intentions, their party preferences, and their approval or disapproval of various lines of action. They were found to disapprove of Socialist and Communist parties and candidates, and yet approve of the measures proposed by these parties rather more than those proposed by their more conservative opponents. When it is a question of election, therefore, these people would have voted against the measures which they actually favoured because of their stereotyped view of Socialism." -H.J. Eysenck, Uses and Abuses of Psychology, page 249

Many committed socialists, like George Orwell for instance, were and are virulently anti communist.

Not that it matters much but George Orwell was against the "Communist" Parties that existed in places like the USSR, not the idea of communism.

 

[brett636]

Is that where I can learn "common sense" economic rules like the "trickle down theory"?

You have already been given examples of how this actually works. You can either let wealth trickle down from the top, or you can let poverty trickle up to everyone from the bottom. You obviously support the latter.

But there are enough resources today, right now, to meet the needs of every human being on earth. That is a fact.

Not without severely cutting down on the quality of the goods produced from those resources.

Things are kept intentionally "rare" in order to raise prices. Diamonds are kept in the ground and out of the market to keep up prices. Huge amounts of grains are left to rot or are dumped to keep the prices up. Gasoline production is slowed down every summer (when demand is highest) to bring up prices. Airlines run 1 overbooked flight where they could run 2 half-full flights, in order to maximize profit and raise prices on "rare" seats.

Diamonds are a good example of a market distortion as there is only one company that actually mines diamonds so prices do stay artificially high, but in a down economy like today diamond prices are at an all time low because fewer people can afford to purchase them. Even a monopoly has to bow down before the all powerful free market.

I can not be for sure about the grain being dumped and allowed to rot, but in this country our government pays farmers not to produce keeping prices higher than they should be. I say let them all produce, and when the price drops farmers will leave farming to do something else with their lives, learning new skills which will allow the price of grain to level out to a level people can afford to purchase and the remaining farmers can still earn a profit.

I don't know if you've noticed, but most airlines today are losing money. They have no choice but to overbook and charge extra for the more rare seats. Even then there are only so many window and 1st class seats to go around therefore it only makes sense to charge more for them.

In countries where large numbers of people starve to death grains and other foodstuffs are actually exported. Profit is the motive. Then they claim there was a famine.

The governments and the people allow this to happen. Nobody is forcing them to sell their grain to outside interests. They can keep the grain to feed their own people, but they make the choice not too.

When workers control production, we'll do so in the interest of meeting our own needs, not making the most profit. We'll unleash the full potential of nature and technology. We won't slow down production, resource gathering, etc., to raise prices.

When workers control production as you continually state quality of goods will drop, and some will dissappear altogether. Sorry, but the workers did not come up with the idea to build the factory, purchase the machines, and produce products efficiently. It was the businessman who did, and it is the businessman who has every right to the profit of production.

If everyone wants a prime steak, and there aren't enough to go around (due to the legacy of capitalist profit seeking), we'll simply farm more of the cows that they come from.

It sounds so simple doesn't it? Just farm more cows. Wow, why don't all farmers think of that? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the cows cost more to have because they come from certain genetic lineages which can only produce so many new cows a year. Why do race horses pull in values ranging from hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions? Depending on the parents of that horse determines its future value because its genes give it the qualities of a fine race horse. Those two parents can only produce so many horses in their lifetime, making the value of their newborns much higher than that of a standard horse.

I'll be sure to mention that trickle down next time I talk to my dad who lives in a one bedroom house in West Virginia, with water that comes from a cistern, with a 1985 Buick in the driveway.

Your father has obviously made the choice to live that way. If he wanted better he could have done so by saving money, going into a different field of work, getting a better education, learning new and different skills. Nobody but your father has anyone to blame but himself for where and how he lives today. Of course I could be completely wrong and he could be living like that because he would rather save money then spend, but you seem to be blaming it on people beyond his front porch.

 

[22LR]

A motorcycle should be produced for everyone who can afford to purchase one. That is the only way to be sure that the resources needed to make those motorcycles are used efficiently. If a motorcycle were produced for everyone who wanted one then people who otherwise would have no interest in motorcycling would take a motorcycle just to try it out.

Or they could just try it out without asking that one be made for them to decide whether or not they want one. Just like people test drive cars now before buying one.

People tend to hoard things now because the concept of private property is so ingrained into our minds by society. We automatically think that if we don't have it, someone else will. We think in terms of a zero sum economy.

They would probably crash it or decide its too dangerous and not ride it soon after receiving it. If its given to them it has no value to them therefore they will not take care of it or maybe not even use it.

Lets not forget that not everyone wants the same style of motorcycle. If the resources to produce them are being used to produce the motorcycles for everyone then someone who wants a sportbike will be stuck with a cruiser, or vice versa.

That's why we will work out a plan of production, taking into account demand, available resources, priority and necessary labor.

Uniqueness is a quality every human desires, and riders show that in their motorcycles.

It's funny. There's a lot of talk about individuality in capitalism. You can paint your motorcycle whatever color you want. Is that really individuality? Does it really say anything about you as a person? You didn't build the bike, design it, paint it, etc.

Only when everyone has equal access to the social product and free room to develop and pursue their interests fully will people actually be able to become real individuals.

There would not be as many producers of motorcycles if they had to produce them for everyone who wanted one.

We will organize production to meet human need. Not to make profit. You can't seem to grasp this.

We'll maintain and develop the means to create the things people want and need.

We'll also develop technology to minimize the need for labor. We'll have more output for less input.

Not to mention quality of these motorcycles would suffer as well since the remaining producers have no incentive to improve their designs or manufacturing processes or even differentiate the style of motorcycles they produce.

False.

Mikhail Kalashnikov created one of the best (and definitely the most known and widespread) firearms in the history of the word. His incentive was to contribute to the development of society.

Many people pursue their interests because they enjoy them. Talk to people who make violins, cooks, architects, etc., and ask them if they're in it for the money. Some are, but many aren't. And that's in this society, when money is the most important thing!

Few who pursue careers solely for the money are doing what they want or are happy in the end.

Its exactly the natural state of things. Its unequal when someone is born with a mental or physical handicap keeping them from performing the same tasks you and I do.

No everyone has the same skills. But every human being has equal worth.

Peyton Manning has the athletic abilities which make him the star he is today; athletic abilities you and I do not possess.

And countless people with the potential to be better than Peyton Manning never got the chance because they were born into situations which got them locked up, killed, or forced into a ****ty job at an early age.

The world is naturally unequal.

We're not wild animals. We're humans. We have the means to overcome natural deficiencies.

If you're so committed to the natural ways of the world why don't you try logging off of your computer, taking off your clothes and moving out into the woods.

 

[22LR]

So all those wars, and failed attempts at conquests which litter history books is humanity working to provide each other with food and shelter?

Maybe you should take another look at those books. Those things all happened in recent history.

Human beings (in their current form) have been around for 500,000 years.

The neolithic revolution (which brought agriculture, and subsequently private ownership, classes, wars. etc.) began about 12,000 years ago.

Do the math.

That is exactly what you are alluring too.

So what I'm saying isn't actually what I mean? And only you know the real meaning of what I'm saying?

Sure thing.

One should only have 1.1 pounds of meat if they have the means to afford it. If they work, they earn money. That money is the fruit of their labor. They use that as a means to purchase however much meat they need or desire. That is how the most successful economies work.

Do you believe in the right to the right to vote? The right to free speech?

So how about the right to live? Do you believe in that? Can you live without food, water, shelter and medicine?

If they worked how you describe them the Soviet Union, North Korea, and Cuba should all be world superpowers today. They are not because their system of government is inherently flawed.

Apples and oranges. None of those countries were "superpowers" prerevolution. They were all backward countries. Funnily enough though, after they had revolutions conditions (life expectancy, employment, education, caloric intake, etc.) in all of those countries improved (documented fact, I have hundreds of sources - hostile and friendly - if you're interested). In places where the systems born out of those revolutions were destroyed like the USSR conditions have worsened (another documented fact, again I have plenty of sources). What do you have to say about that?

"They talk about the failure of socialism but where is the success of capitalism in Africa, Asia and Latin America?" - Fidel Castro

And besides all that, I didn't mention any of those countries as an example. You did.

I'm talking about workers taking control of production and society. I'm talking about a truly democratic system in which the population as a whole rules, directly. I'm talking about a world of abundance, free from exploitation. I'm talking about utilizing the productive capacities of the world and humanity in their totalities to meet the needs of the human species.

Why should workers get to control production when they did not bring the means of production together?

Who built them? Donal Trump? Michael Bloomberg? Maybe Warren Buffet?

Nope, it was workers.

We build everything in existence everywhere.

They didn't come up with something to produce,

Ideas are products of humanity, not individuals. Bill Gates couldn't "come up" with a computer if someone else didn't "come up" with electricity, glass, plastic, wiring, processors, etc., etc., etc.

they didn't purchase the machinery to produce the goods in question,

Because they don't have capital. That's why they're workers, not capitalists.

they did not hire the individuals to work that machinery to produce goods.

They don't own the means of production.

They did nothing to earn the power to control the production because they just showed up and were given a set of tasks to complete at an already functioning business.

They did nothing but:

Build the means of production and distribution. Do the producing and distributing. Build power plants and lay electric wires. Build roads. Build trucks. Etc., etc., etc.

You didn't invent or build your oven at home did you? Do you think the guy that invented the oven should be able to show up everytime you cook and take 75% of whatever you made?

Workers make the world go round. We know how to do our work and run our workplaces better than our bosses do.

Workers don't need bosses. Bosses need workers.

This is impossible.

That is democracy.

There are too many goods and services being produced for the society as a whole to be able to decide what should be produced and what should not.

False.

Corporations have immense computer programs that evaluate sales, "public sentament," etc., to try and figure out demand.

When we rule ourselves, we can use (and vastly expand) such technology to process and analyze all production and distribution. Instead of countless corporations competing with each other and hiding information and resources everything will be compiled together. We'll be able to know what people want and what they don't. And we can adjust production accordingly.

The problem is selfishness. If a store is giving away free tennis rackets to everyone who comes in they will run out very fast.

See above.

That would be the case now, in a society of artificial scarcity and production for profit.

If we lived in a society where enough things existed to meet everyone's needs and desires there'd be no need to hoard anything.

So what is rich? I remember reading that if you have some money in the bank and a few coins in your pocket you are among the richest people in the world. Even the poorest of our nation don't have to endure the conditions the poor in other countries do. If someone has a house in a nice neighborhood should they be considered rich? How about someone who has more than one car? I have 4 vehicles in my name, am I rich?

Not sure what you're on about here. I was saying production should be organized to meet human need not to increase the bank accounts of capitalists.

Apparently you are not familiar with all the scandals involved in U.N. food programs such as food for oil.

Again not sure what you're on about here. I said no one should starve in a world where there is enough food to feed everyone.

If anything you're simply helping me in the inditement of capitalism.

Thanks.

Actually they cannot. In some places Land is the restricting factor. For example, in Japan they do not have enough open land to build houses for everyone. Some goes for states like Hawaii, or large cities like New York or Chicago. In most of those places only the most wealthy can afford to purchase a house in those places because land is such a premium. Hell, it costs more per year for a parking space in New York City then I earn in a year. Without market controls to efficiently distribute homes and land who determines who gets to live in the nice neighborhoods versus the bad ones? In your perfect world who gets to live close to the city and who has to drive 100 miles to get to the city?

Actually, they can. There is more than enough land and resources to build houses for everyone on earth.

If you simply turned over the idle and vacant houses to homeless people you'd lessen the problem by a huge percentage.

People concentrate around cities because that's where the money is concentrated. It's uneven development and its inheirent to capitalism (ghettos/rich neighborhoods, cities/countryside, rich countries/poor countries).

When production is planned the world will be much more even. Development and resources will be spread out.

Thats the beauty of the freedom we have in this nation. Nobody has a good excuse why they cannot make it.

How about a kid born to a homeless woman with a mental problem that lives in a car?

I recently watched a show on National Geographic called "Ultimate Factories: Ferrari" which of course was all about how Ferrari sports cars are produced. The car highlighted was the new Ferrari 599 which was only supposed to have a production run of 250. The factory had over 3000 workers there to produce those cars. If they had to produce one for everyone in the factory they would need more workers, and a larger factory. By the time they were able to produce one for everyone in the factory they wouldn't have any left over for those who actually can afford them outside the factory. And if they had to produce them for everyone who wanted one everybody would be clamoring for a ferrari and production would never be able to keep pace with demand. A capitalist society is necessary to efficiently distribute goods to those who can afford to purchase them. Otherwise you completely destroy the desire to produce those goods and the desire to work to own those goods making the world very dull compared to how it is today.

Definitely. Almost 1 out of 5 workers in the US is now unemployed or underemployed. How exciting!

 

[22LR]

You have already been given examples of how this actually works. You can either let wealth trickle down from the top, or you can let poverty trickle up to everyone from the bottom. You obviously support the latter.

Inequality is at an all time high. The richest 500 people on earth now have more than poorest 50 percent of the world population combined.

Despite the fact that the world can produce enough to meet the needs of all, billions suffer from hunger, homelessness, and lack of medical treatment, simply because they cannot afford to buy what they need.

Everyday some 30,000 children die from starvation or curable disease. The number of children under five years old that dies each year is equal to the combined number of children living in France, Germany, Greece and Italy.

Half of the world’s population lives on less than 2 U.S. dollars a day. One of every five people on earth has no access to clean water, while three times that number has no access to sanitation. At the same time, 1 trillion dollars – more than double the amount needed to provide everyone on earth with clean water, sanitation, healthcare and education – is spent on advertising.

Of course major problems do not just affect the poorest countries.

Inequality is especially rife in the United States, the richest country in the history of the world … and it’s only growing.

While worker productivity in the U.S. has increased 30 percent per hour over the last ten years, wages have not even kept up with the rate of inflation. At the same time, the rich continue to get a lot richer. The share of total income going to the richest 1 percent of the U.S. population has grown from 8 percent in 1980 to 16 percent in 2004. And while ten years ago CEOs earned 30 times as much as the average worker, today they earn around 300 times as much.

In the “land of opportunity,” 36 million people are poor by official standards, 43 million have no access to healthcare, and one of every five children lives in poverty.

When it trickles it pours!

Not without severely cutting down on the quality of the goods produced from those resources.

Source for this claim?

Diamonds are a good example of a market distortion as there is only one company that actually mines diamonds so prices do stay artificially high, but in a down economy like today diamond prices are at an all time low because fewer people can afford to purchase them. Even a monopoly has to bow down before the all powerful free market.

Your point is that capitalism is plagued with cyclical crises?

I can not be for sure about the grain being dumped and allowed to rot, but in this country our government pays farmers not to produce keeping prices higher than they should be. I say let them all produce, and when the price drops farmers will leave farming to do something else with their lives, learning new skills which will allow the price of grain to level out to a level people can afford to purchase and the remaining farmers can still earn a profit.

Except that doesn't happen because the "Free market" is a myth. It leads to disasters like the Great Depression.

I don't know if you've noticed, but most airlines today are losing money. They have no choice but to overbook and charge extra for the more rare seats. Even then there are only so many window and 1st class seats to go around therefore it only makes sense to charge more for them.

I don't know if you've noticed by capitalism is spiraling into disaster.

The governments and the people allow this to happen. Nobody is forcing them to sell their grain to outside interests. They can keep the grain to feed their own people, but they make the choice not too.

Because under capitalism profit is the sole motivation. Human needs are disregarded.

Thanks for proving my point.

When workers control production as you continually state quality of goods will drop, and some will dissappear altogether.

So when a professional cook goes home and cooks for his family and himself the quality of the food goes down? Doesn't sound right to me. And that's essentially what we're talking about.. producing for ourselves instead of producing to make others rich.

Sorry, but the workers did not come up with the idea to build the factory, purchase the machines, and produce products efficiently. It was the businessman who did, and it is the businessman who has every right to the profit of production.

Already addressed this crap above.

It sounds so simple doesn't it? Just farm more cows. Wow, why don't all farmers think of that?

Because the price will go down and capitalists are motivated by profit not meeting human need.

It is simple. It's rational. But the capitalist economy is not rational.

Your father has obviously made the choice to live that way. If he wanted better he could have done so by saving money, going into a different field of work, getting a better education, learning new and different skills.

HAHAHA. Yeah, there were a lot of options for kids born in coal camps in West Virginia in the 40's. The schools were top notch, universities were nearby and affordable for workers, there were means of transporation to get you wherever you needed to go, parents needed no help from their kids to survive and there were thousands of fields to work in and the jobs paid more than enough to live and store a nice nest egg! He simply chose to work in a coal mine his hole life and retire a few years from death only to live in squalid conditions with posioned lungs.

It would be funny if it wasn't so disgusting.