Why my mind is closing towards Capitalism

Originally posted by daskakik

Your not making sense. If the worker is the creator of the means of production then he is the owner, so how is he being the owner lead to theft?

The creator of the means of production should be the owner of the means, whoever that may be.

reply to post by ANOK


You ignored the question directed at you and instead went into an ad-hominem attack. So lets ask the question again:

How are collectively owned means of production possible without Government?

Originally posted by ANOK
capitalism enslaved people into factories and mills, taking away their autonomy, the ability to fend for themselves without reliance on the state, whether that be for a 'job' or for a handout.

Capitalism is theft and exploitation because workers are required to produce more than they are paid for, so the private owner makes profit, and then you are required to pay to purchase the products of your labour.

So this is where the marxist demagogue comes out.

Did you know that workers voluntarily agree to take on certain jobs? That they are not victims of exploitation because they take on jobs of their own free will?

You realize that you are saying that humans are not responsible for their own decisions, right?

reply to post by Skyfloating

Did you know that workers voluntarily agree to take on certain jobs? That they are not victims of exploitation because they take on jobs of their own free will?

Most people take on jobs because if they dont they can not feed or clothe themselves or their families. So you need to work to buy the necessities of life. It does not mean that their labour is not exploited when they take the job.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by ANOK
capitalism enslaved people into factories and mills, taking away their autonomy, the ability to fend for themselves without reliance on the state, whether that be for a 'job' or for a handout.

Capitalism is theft and exploitation because workers are required to produce more than they are paid for, so the private owner makes profit, and then you are required to pay to purchase the products of your labour.

So this is where the marxist demagogue comes out.

Did you know that workers voluntarily agree to take on certain jobs? That they are not victims of exploitation because they take on jobs of their own free will?

You realize that you are saying that humans are not responsible for their own decisions, right?

Not exactly. People take jobs under threat of starvation, because they have to.

The exact same modality, the exploitative capitalist system functions everywhere using the same modus operandi. You are only deluded into believing that there is significant freedom of choice.

The only way "workers own the means of production" leads to a post-wage society is if resources are pooled and redistributed by need. ANOK wants free markets to exist and the workers own the means of production. So the "company" the workers form sells the "product" for profit and splits the profit evenly. The workers then use the money to buy the items they need and desire that other "companies" have produced. Sounds more like Capitalism so I guess I got it wrong.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
The creator of the means of production should be the owner of the means, whoever that may be.

But you said:

"Workers ownership of the means of production" regardless of whether he originated it or not leads to theft and imposing on others.

which is another blanket statement of yours that just isn't true. There are instances where the worker is the owner in both capitalist and socialist systems so it can't always lead to theft and imposing.

Here's a whole website devoted to the evils of capitalism.....

armageddonconspiracy.co.uk...

Originally posted by ProgressiveSlayer
Sounds more like Capitalism so I guess I got it wrong.

No, you got it right. The difference is the "spliting of the profit evenly". Other than that, to me, it is seems pretty much the same. That is why people saying it means foreign aid, welfare and police states are wrong.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
Most people take on jobs because if they dont they can not feed or clothe themselves or their families.

A worker chooses to take on a job. A worker chooses where to apply. A worker chooses what to put up with and what not to put up with. A worker chooses whether to speak up or not about bad treatment. A worker chooses how to deal with and respond to challenges. A worker chooses how long to stay in a job. A worker chooses whether to get additional education or not.

Originally posted by dadgad

Not exactly. People take jobs under threat of starvation, because they have to.

If someone is under threat of starvation it is not the employers fault. If anything, the employer has the means to help by giving him a job.

reply to post by daskakik


It is claimed that in socialism "the collective own the means of production". Others say "workers own the means of production". Is that to say that they own the means of production whether they created them or not?

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by ANOK

 

You ignored the question directed at you and instead went into an ad-hominem attack. So lets ask the question again:

How are collectively owned means of production possible without Government?

Ever seen a hippy commune? Maybe a Kibbutz? en.wikipedia.org...

Ever seen the Co-op? Worker owned business?

I think this is pointless though. You can't even concede the definition of socialism so it's a pointless debate. It's you coming in here telling the socialists how evil and deluded they are....boring.

Originally posted by antonia

Ever seen a hippy commune?

Hippy communes have gone out of fashion a few decades ago. History has taught us that where competition and ambition is removed, there is no progress.

reply to post by Skyfloating


You asked a question and I answered it. It doesn't matter if you like hippy communes or not. They are collective means of ownership without the assistance of government. It is therefore the answer to your question.

As to "progress" if their lives are happy and they like what they are doing, well I'd say that's progress for them. I'm sure they don't care about your judgement of their progress. They aren't here to impress you.

Originally posted by antonia
You asked a question and I answered it. It doesn't matter if you like hippy communes or not. They are collective means of ownership without the assistance of government. It is therefore the answer to your question.

There is no such thing as a commune without some sort of governing or organization going on. Have you ever witnessed or participated in such communes? Eventually they try to make their lives easier by voting committees to take care of certain stuff. Anywhere there is a group of people, there is also some organizing principle. Thats why the idea of a collective without Government is nonsense, especially when we are talking about entire countries. Governing means to organize on behalf of a larger group.

Originally posted by antonia
As to "progress" if their lives are happy and they like what they are doing, well I'd say that's progress for them. I'm sure they don't care about your judgement of their progress. They aren't here to impress you.

If they were so happy, why have most hippie communes of the 60s died out?

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by daskakik

 

It is claimed that in socialism "the collective own the means of production". Others say "workers own the means of production". Is that to say that they own the means of production whether they created them or not?

I have always understood workers to be the employees in a particular company and not just every able body in a society. This means that every employee in a company is a co-owner or shareholder of that company. It doesn't mean that he can walk into any other business and take things like they were his.

Just like in capitalism you use tools/products created by others because you pay for them.

Originally posted by daskakik
I have always understood workers to be the employees in a particular company and not just every able body in a society. This means that every employee in a company is a co-owner or shareholder of that company. It doesn't mean that he can walk into any other business and take things like they were his.

I agree. Lets see if ANOK, who the question was originally directed at, agrees with this.

Originally posted by Skyfloating


There is no such thing as a commune without some sort of governing or organization going on. Have you ever witnessed or participated in such communes? Eventually they try to make their lives easier by voting committees to take care of certain stuff. Anywhere there is a group of people, there is also some organizing principle. Thats why the idea of a collective without Government is nonsense, especially when we are talking about entire countries. Governing means to organize on behalf of a larger group.

Yes, but from my understanding of the thread what was being discussed in terms of Government was "Large Centralized Government"-I.E. The U.S. Federal Government.

As for the communes dying out-There are still plenty of communes to be found in the world. There were other examples mentioned as well.