Workers are enslaved, exploited and under attack
- Thread starter 22LR
- Start date
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Maybe! We'll see!
22LR,
Enjoyed reading your posts (not that I agree or disagree) and as I read through much of what you said, I heard points that would suggest you hold to the Labor Theory of Value. If wrong then I stand corrected but if I'm correct in my assumptions would you be willing to discuss from your POV the connections of LTV not only with Marx but with it's origins in Ben Franklin in 1729' and then further still it's roots in John Locke in 1689' and his Second Treatise of Government? Even Adam Smith espoused it in his Wealth of Nations, Book 1 Chapter 5.
Much of 19th century individualist anarchism which also effected Marx (his ultimate goal was to abolish gov't as mutualism took over naturally) strongly held to LTV ideals. This also affected the 19th century comtempory likes of Frederic Bastiat, Lysander Spooner and then later persons in Randolph Borne and Emma Goldman and root themselves back to 18th century classcial liberal ideals and thinking.
I'd agree in what you said about feudalism and into capitalism or what some might call neo-fuedalism. I pretty much see it as just plain old mercantilism (neo-fuedalism) which is what Locke, Franklin, Jefferson and even Marx shared in opposing. IMO, these men all shared similar and yet different ideas and I find it amusing that people will condemn Marx and associate LTV with him when it's origins are with Sir William Petty, Locke and the expressed in Franklin's 1729' "A Modest Enquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency" all before Adam Smith did likewise in Wealth of Nations. These same men being pillars in the foundation of our country and the ideals of Laissez-Faire, Free Market economics which also held opposition to not only mercantilism but also wage slavery.
As to the earlier comments of North Korea. IMO our western society, mostly because of State propaganda fail to see that Marx's ideas were used to achieve a "rightist type political" tyranny (not what he intended)and not one of the left using the 18th century classical liberal "french" origins of where we get the concepts of political right and left. Many of our founding fathers held to these "classical left" ideals verses the conservative "right" of maintaining monarchy/central state and to the classical left idea of natural rights (inalienable) in the 18th century tradition.
The person who uttered that comment about North Korea should go back to the early BC thread that contained the political quiz and look at all the political leaders both democrat and republican along with most of the folks here on this site and explain if the other guy is such a socialist or fascist (this thing goes both ways), how come so many here are all together in the upper "RIGHT" hand of the quadrant? As was said in the movie Contact, "seems like an aweful waste of space!"
IMO, the reason there is no real difference when Washington experiences a politcal party change is because both parties are of the "right" (statism, authorterian, despotic) and thus the reason they tend to build upon what the previous party did contary to numerous campaign promises to do otherwise. They are elities and they are out to protect their mopopolies/cartels and the last thing they want is freedom, liberty and free markets. Gov't is their mechanism of force to maintain societal compliance and what would happen to their workforces if there was a true free market where we entered and exited at will and to our own choices? If you start to look at it from that standpoint, the wage slavery picture IMO becomes very clear. Did you ever ask why we have legal tender laws that prohibit you or I from making anything else other than gov't declared money as the medium of exchange? Did you ever ask how would gov't tax the population being their tax laws are only expressed in the taxation of offical legal tender and if we chose to using something else as a medium of exchange?
Where we may or may not part company (I don't know so I won't assume here) is that I want to DE-volve the State/Corp. apparatus and I'm uncertain as of yet if you want to de-volve or evolve the State thinking that taking the elites out will make the difference? As soon as Lenin and Company gained power, their cause of the left took a hard right turn and in came oppression and tyranny unequaled even under the Czar as horrible as that was. Stalin then took what was suppose to be a nation opposed to empirism in the Marx tradition and in fact made it into an empire equal to western mercantilist traditions. Then it became nothing more than a Corporate global turf war which in the early 1990's, the NATO Corporation announced to the world it had won and the CEO/Chariman announced with it's new name other wise known as New World Order. Remember that Bush 1 speech?
I said what I said to Tourist above in that I'm not sure you want to follow the Lenin/Trotsky model (if you want Trotsky, just become a neo-conservative and that's taken care of
) or not at this time . If this is the case, we agree much in cause and effect but respectfully part company when it come to the means forward. Again, if this be true, I don't stand here to oppose you but rather support you if you volutarily choose to take this path leaving me free to choose another route. Nothing wrong with what some call Mutualism as I happen to believe market anarchism leds to that very thing. That is freedom and liberty and IMO meets the ideals of the non-agression principle which I hold too. Force of any type for any means or purpose violates that principle and therefore I would oppose such force, even if the goal was something I believe in and benefits me. If I force someone else to choose or act against their will (in other words slavery) in order to benefit me, how am I any different than a slave master even if I do so under so-called means of democracy?You might also check out Agorism that was espoused by Samuel Konklin along with such persons as Brad Spangler, Kevin Carson and Murray Rothbard. I'd also like to say that I know above what I said in this day and age is completely radical, no arguement but I have no illusion that anything is gonna change overnight. I expect it to get worse and maybe much worse. We took a long time to get here and therefore a long slow process getting out. I accept that.
You mentioned being a package handler and asking what other choice you have. I think (hope) I understand that question more in the context it was asked but let me just say this to you even though the bottomline we might differ but see the job for what it is and that is a means to an end and nothing more.
Good luck to you!
BTW: Even unions can be a part of the free market
See here
And in a free market, less centralization and more employee owned companies.
How many here will join me in raising our hands up to the question, how many wish UPS was still an employee owned company in the sense that it was? That's the beginning of the general idea IMO.
Do you identify with this remark??
Just pointing out a little hypocrisy....!
Thank you.
I think to a large extent that workers are trained to follow the appeals and rhetoric of our "leaders and representatives" (along with being trained to take orders, follow schedules set by other people, "know our place" in the social order, and accept our positions because since "anyone can get rich if they work hard enough" we must deserve our conditions) in capitalist society. It starts from an early age.
With that understanding, I don't "point the spear down" toward members of my own class. I do my best to struggle along side them while convincing them of the need to "point the spear up" towards our exploiters. Though of course it's next to impossible to debate with people who rely on raw emotion and rhetoric while completely ignoring concrete facts.
It all depends on where you are too. I grew up in the coalfields. There was never any question of an ongoing struggle between the bosses and the workers in my house, neighborhood, etc.
Since you agree with what I've posted, I'd encourage you to check our PoWR and get involved.
Solidarity
P
pickup
Guest
Sounds like dialectics
Now don't start turning Hegel right side up, he is already in the correct position
You have the choice of whether you want to sell your labor to a capitalist or starve to death.
You have the choice to follow all the laws, written by other people in the interests of capitalists, or be put in prison (along with 1% of the US population - the largest number and percentage of people in prison of any country, ever, in history).
You have the choice to vote for one of two presidential candidates, both of whom belong to parties that represent the capitalist class and get nearly identical funding from corporations like Walmart and Pfizer.
In the end, in capitalism, you only really have the right to choose from 32 flavors of ice cream at Baskin Robins.
The difference is a bear hunts to feed itself.
You work to feed yourself, but in the process end up handing over the largest share of the fruits of your labor to your boss. Your work is also aimed at society at large. Your work helps supply everybody with the things they need and want. But they are limited by the same restraints you are, because all the tools and means of distribution are controlled by a handful of capitalists.
He/she eats $100 steaks cooked by a domestic servant. He/she doesn't do any work. He/she and you have nothing in common.
Labor is the source of all weath. Workers turn raw materials into usable goods, then package, deliver and sell them. They create more than they are paid. That's called profit. Capitalists take the profit, without participating in the process of its creation. They can do so because they own the tools we use.
I was trying to make the LTV as simple as possible. If you want, I can make a long detailed post explaining how it works.
If you didn't show up for your job that day, instead of $1000 of candy bars being made $0 worth of candy bars would have been made. Workers are the source of wealth. We are the cog in the machine on which all else relies.
Which was built by workers who were paid less than the value of the wealth they created.
Which were built by workers who were paid less than the value of the wealth they created.
Which were gathered by workers who were paid less than the value of the wealth they created.
All of which are paid less than the value of the wealth they created.
Which is paid for with the profits that come from the labor of you and your fellow workers.
Which is paid for with the profits that come from the labor of you and your fellow workers.
Right. That's what it's all about under capitalism. Not meeting human need (which we're able to do on a world scale 2 times over with modern technology), but making the rich richer.
Capitalists themselves openly explain the irrationality of such a system (though they have no answer for it - since the answer is eliminating their privileged positions).
"There is more money put into baldness drugs than into malaria. Now, baldness is a terrible thing and rich men are afflicted. That is why that priority has been set." - Bill Gates
brett636
Well-Known Member
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.
P
pickup
Guest
are you by any chance a trust fund hipster working as a loader/unloader in order to be "a champion of the working man?" Do you sit inside a starbucks sipping you cafe latte as you type your manifesto on a white mac lap top note book while you mutter as the yuppies and "suits" walk by?
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.
If you bothered to read my posts before responding you'd know that I grew up in the coal fields. My dad and all of his brothers were miners as was my grandfather before him. No trust funds here.
The only time I've ever been anywhere near a Starbucks (other than in passing) was to support the Starbucks Workers Union during a picket.
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?
Nope. Instead, a motorcycle should be produced for everyone that wants one.
But it's hardly the "natural state of things." Inequality is caused by the private ownership of the means of production and distribution.
For the largest part of human history people worked cooperated so that everyone would have food and shelter. That's a fact.
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.
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.
I'm not sure this makes any sense.
The population as a whole should participate in production and decide what is 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.
Production should be organized to meet society's needs, not to make people rich. No one should starve in a world where there is more than enough food for everyone to eat. No one should go homeless in a world where houses can be constructed for all. 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.
The people who actually produce things should have full access to the products of their labor!
diesel96
Well-Known Member
How bout we take the old values and mix it up with the new values and create a better and or more equal balance of a mixed economy that incorporates a mixture of private and government ownership or control, and or a mixture of capitalism and socialism.....Sounds like a plan to me.....
Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
The problem with that is none of those mix well together. In a more perfect world communism is actually the best way to go but in reality it doesn't work and doesn't work well with others. That is exactly why Obama socialistic ideas won't work. They just don't mix well with the the ideas this country was founded on.
"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.
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.
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).
Even as capitalist politicians go he's to the right of "centrists" (speaking internationally here, not in the narrow realm of US politics).
