Why my mind is closing towards Capitalism

Originally posted by Skyfloating

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.

edit on 19-2-2012 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)

Yes the actual work dynamic is a much different scenario.

The boss gets to tell the workers; when to wake in the morning
when they can eat, what cloths they can wear, when they can be
with their family, when they can be sick, how they can speak...

Originally posted by Skyfloating

How are collectively owned means of production possible without Government?

I didn't ignore anything.

Did you watch the video?

How does no government keep workers, people, from working together?

reply to post by ANOK


Skyfloating considers people working together in that fashion to be government.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
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?

Again you are confusing terms. Socialism is the workers 'collective', cooperative ownership. The opposite would be private, individual ownership, capitalism. There is more than one way impliment that, as has been explain, but you just keep dismissing everything.

A collective is simply a group of people working together on a shared common goal. It is simply a different way of organizing labour, without top down hierarchical authority, all workers have an equal say.

You say 'The collective' as if it's some kind of cult, but it's simply a word to describe a group of people with a common goal. You are not joining a cult, it is a place of work like in any system. You are irrationally afraid of a word. Corporations do the same thing, except instead if individual workers it's privately owned companies joining together for their own mutual benefit.

Again did you watch the video I presented? It explains what it's like to work in a collective, they are not brain washed, they do not lose their individuality, in fact they have more rights and freedoms that working for a capitalist company.

Your arguments are getting old and I'm losing my patience with this. You're not interested in learning you just want to find ways to dismiss it. Unless you understand the basics you won't understand any of it, and we keep having to explain the basics to you.

Originally posted by ANOK
A collective is simply a group of people working together on a shared common goal. It is simply a different way of organizing labour, without top down hierarchical authority, all workers have an equal say.

"Having equal say" without top-down authority means:

Worker 1: "We need more coffee"

Worker 2: "No we dont"

Worker 3: "Lets get more water instead of coffee"

Worker 4: "Lets not get anything".

No?

You're not interested in learning you just want to find ways to dismiss it.

Im asking questions and requesting examples, but you do not provide them. Im like a curious child bugging a teacher.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

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.

Yes I agree with that.

This is why the true definition of socialism is the workers ownership, not public ownership. It simply means work places are collectives/cooperatives, and the workers equally run, control, and benefit from their labour.

Socialism was a system created by industrial workers as an alternative to the private ownership of the means of production that exploits them.

Sad thing is this has been explained over and over, read what we're saying intsead of trying to find ways to dismiss it, and you might learn something.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by ANOK
A collective is simply a group of people working together on a shared common goal. It is simply a different way of organizing labour, without top down hierarchical authority, all workers have an equal say.

"Having equal say" without top-down authority means:

Worker 1: "We need more coffee"

Worker 2: "No we dont"

Worker 3: "Lets get more water instead of coffee"

Worker 4: "Lets not get anything".

No?

No it doesn't work that way. Watch this video!!

Google Video Link

If it worked like that, how do you think worker collectives are so successful? People are not idiots, we don't need a 'private owner' holding our hands.

Originally posted by ANOK

Sad thing is this has been explained over and over, read what we're saying intsead of trying to find ways to dismiss it, and you might learn something.

If you were to give ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of a country or at least a city running on your proposed system successfully over a longer period of time, I would not be dismissive.

But seeing what various socialist models have done to countries (Greece being the latest example), it is my duty as a human being to question and counter it, even if that might frustrate you.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
If you were to give ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of a country or at least a city running on your proposed system successfully over a longer period of time, I would not be dismissive.

There isn't one. But that does not mean it wouldn't work.

But there are successful worker owned companies, that in itself should tell you something. If they are successful why are they not more common, and why are our schools not teaching there is this alternative to the capitalist model?

Because capitalists don't want that system, they want to continue exploiting labour rather than empowering it.
So obvioulsy capitalists are controlling and manipulating the state/government.

But seeing what various socialist models have done to countries (Greece being the latest example), it is my duty as a human being to question and counter it, even if that might frustrate you.

Again how many times does it have to be explained that they are NOT socialist countries. They are not an example of what socialists want. They are capitalists, just more liberal than the US. Liberalism and socialism are not the same thing. Having free-health care is not socialism.

That is why this is frustrating, you keep ignoring what has been explained, and we keep going around in circles. You keep using terms incorrectly and out of context, and ignoring what has been explained to move on to something else with addressing the last point. This is worst than the 911 forum.

And you didn't watch the video did you? Don't be afraid to learn and change your thinking.

Originally posted by ANOK

If it worked like that, how do you think worker collectives are so successful? People are not idiots, we don't need a 'private owner' holding our hands.

Luckily, you are free to run as many business like that as you want. These models can exist side by side with capitalist business models. There is no need to get rid of other models.

But keep in mind that almost every company nowadays involves their employees in various decisions and votes of the company.

Someday however, you might realize that more experienced workers might no better whats good for the company and that "total equality" in workers say undermines such merits.

reply to post by eboyd


Good vid he makes a lot of good points, I don't completely agree with the idea of outlawing human rental though, I mean while government is under the influence of capitalism that will never happen. They would be shooting their own foot.

He says it's not anti-capitalism but it would cause it to fail, a good thing, and it would be socialism if it worked and the workers owned and controlled their own labour.

Americans have been so conditioned to fear the word socialism. If you explain socialism without using that term most people agree with the idea of worker ownership.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by eboyd

 

Good vid he makes a lot of good points, I don't completely agree with the idea of outlawing human rental though, I mean while government is under the influence of capitalism that will never happen. They would be shooting their own foot.

He says it's not anti-capitalism but it would cause it to fail, a good thing, and it would be socialism if it worked and the workers owned and controlled their own labour.

Americans have been so conditioned to fear the word socialism. If you explain socialism without using that term most people agree with the idea of worker ownership.

yeah, i agree 100% with every aspect of this comment. what i like about that interview is that he is not a socialist, anarchist, or any other -ist, he just knows how to use logic and realize that the current system is a form of slavery that is only a few degrees different from the slavery that was the backbone of early American labor, and that he realizes that the only just workplace is one which is owned and controlled directly by its workers. he seems to advocate some ideas i am not particularly fond of, such as certain forms of taxation and actually outlawing human rentals, but his critique, i feel, is 100% on point.

Originally posted by eboyd
yeah, i agree 100% with every aspect of this comment. what i like about that interview is that he is not a socialist, anarchist, or any other -ist, he just knows how to use logic and realize that the current system is a form of slavery that is only a few degrees different from the slavery that was the backbone of early American labor, and that he realizes that the only just workplace is one which is owned and controlled directly by its workers. he seems to advocate some ideas i am not particularly fond of, such as certain forms of taxation and actually outlawing human rentals, but his critique, i feel, is 100% on point.

Have you noticed that anyone who really researches working class history, and know the correct definition of the terms, all come to the same conclusion?

Yeah his critique was right on they money, haha, no arguments there at all, and the idea of outlawing human rental is an interesting one. Human rental is a good way of putting it. But as I said I can't see it being that simple though, no one in government would take it seriously. Government is completely capitalist in nature, and will not do anything that will change the established order of things. It would be shooting it's own foot.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
If you were to give ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of a country or at least a city running on your proposed system successfully over a longer period of time, I would not be dismissive.

i already have, and will again:



though it is a small scale example (about 850 residents) i think it should very well still qualify, especially since many socialists/anarchists propose some form or another of Libertarian Municipalism in which small communities like Christiania would constitute their own societies in which they would collectively decide on methods of operating society, mostly through consensus, and federate with other societies based on similar principles outside of their region through Mutual Aid.

and btw, many socialists are just fine with people owning their own means of production as long as they do not employ, and therefore exploit, workers for a wage. i am personally just fine, for example, with Homesteading and artisans creating their own products and selling them on a market, but as soon as they ask someone to help them, while i wouldn't want to enforce a law telling them that it is not ok to employ them, i would be opposed to that new worker being employed for a wage rather than having equal and direct control over the business.

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Boy, I got a bug to launch photoshop and make some nice infographics for all of you who loooove socialism.

These graphics are simplified of course - easy to understand. Wealth in these graphics I have represented by how full your beer glass is. Beer = Wealth. Okay?


Here is capitalism in its ideal form (it is not in its ideal form in this country right now. We have crony capitalism/fascism at the moment, and that needs to be changed, quickly. I did not make a graphic for fascism.

Anyway: In this graphic, you have a government that is small, performing the functions spelled out int he constitution, using as little money as practical do do it. Citizens are as well-off as their ambition allows.

Capitalism:

Citizen A paid attention in school, went to college and got a degree and is making a decent living as an Engineer, maybe - like most folks.

Citizen B decided it would be more fun to smoke weed behind the school rather than go to class, so his grades weren't good enough to get into college. He's finally cleaned up his act but he's still only driving a garbage truck because it's been long enough since his last DUI.

Citizen C worked his way through business school and earned an MBA. As an entrepreneur, he started a garbage collection business. Citizen B works for him - unless he falls off the wagon again.

Citizen D went to Art School and is working as a painter. He doesn't make a killing at it, but he loves what he does. This was his choice and he's content with his life. Plus he has a hot artsy-fartsy girlfriend - that always helps a little.

So you see, everyone has the same opportunity (more or less) to make something of themselves. Some are more fortunate, some less in the beginning, but with hard work and ambition, anyone can achieve their goals in life.

------

Socialism (as promised by politicians):

All of you do-gooders who love love love the idea of making the playing field even, this is what you THINK socialism is. The government is big enough to administer the national wealth, and doles it out evenly to everyone. The citizens do the same jobs as in the graphic above. but the garbage man makes as much as the garbage company CEO, theoretically. I mean, why should he make more, he only spent 6 years in college and has an IQ twice that of his employee. Why should the engineer work hard? He's not going to benefit any more than the artist. Maybe he'll just cut some corners in that new building he's designing.

Socialism kills ambition, even in it's ideal form.

------

Socialism (The reality)

Oh, no, this won't happen here, this is America! Puhlease. Do you think power hungry elites are any different than they've ever been throughout history? Answer: NO.

This is the reality of socialism: The government takes it ALL, and doles out as little as it needs to to keep people quiet, no more. everyone lives in poverty, except the ruling elites and their comrades.

Until the inevitable revolution, of course.

_____


So there you go, I hope this little lesson with pictures helped all you ignorant socialists understand what you are finding yourself enamored with. It is dangerous. It is destructive. So knock it off.

The problem with capitalism in your example is that you hold kids responsible as if they are adults, furthermore -- you pretend as if everyone of those kids had known what they were going to do when they graduate college.

In reality, most of these kids don't know a thing about what they'd be good at/what they want to do with their life/how life actually works.


B is not always an addict to drugs that fell off the wagon.

B could be a kid who had a medical condition during high school.

B could be a kid who lost his parents to a horrific accident as a pre-teen.

B could literally be anything, including a high school graduate that graduated at 15 and had an issue with family in which he had to act as an adult as a child, and couldn't afford to go to school because he had to help supplement income, which forced him to work that lowbie job instead of going to school.


The assumption that B. is always a derelict loser is an assumption that you are making up in your head.

Statistically most artists are drug users, and as such, art is their only chance to make a living, because really D is B....


Do you see what I'm saying? There are a whole lot more people in B and D position than there is in A and C position, and I'd say ~80% of them are not druggies/junkies/alcoholics.

Meaning they are average people who had extenuating circumstances, maybe because their parents are the junkie that fell off the wagon, maybe because of a critical accident in their teenage years, etc....

This doesn't translate to an equal chance of success in reality, on paper -- anything can look right. In reality and practice, you see the errors you made on paper.


You also presume that nobody who has graduated from college and has an MBA doesn't have a successful job.

This is pure fallacy, as most college grads hold jobs that aren't related to their degree.

I.E.

Going to school and getting a paper that says you passed "X" doesn't translate to using that paper to do a job relating to X.

I know college grads with no drug or alcohol addiction working at gas stations right now.


This is how capitalism works in practice.


Crooks and thieves of the white color brand are the ones with full cups. Hard workers are left with the sip.


Also, your analogy of ambition is one of fallacy too, what you propose engineers don't cut corners NOW to maximize profits?

Explain why my house has Chinese drywall and isn't built to code then....


Right, because ambition has nothing to do with getting MORE than somebody else. It has everything to do with having enough to be comfortable.

It that was a guarantee, one could assume that the engineer chose to be an engineer because it's his passion and as a result will do the best he can, since he can do no worse and no better.

Then there is always laws and the risk of going to jail for cutting corners and not meeting city codes, etc.

Criminalizing cutting corners, and making it so a person cannot achieve more for doing better = a base line production.

I.E.

There is now no benefit for breaking said laws, and no benefit for over achieving, so therefor; no incentive to do either, hence -- the inverse of what you said is also as easily plausible. Which would be having a normal expected production cycle for the person in question.

No benefit for cutting corners, with huge risks of heavy jail time for doing it, no benefit for working your life away and trying to be an over achiever.

So what happens?

The person in this scenario does what he's expected to do, at expected levels, does no worse, and no better and lives a happy comfortable life building homes for people.

Originally posted by eboyd
and btw, many socialists are just fine with people owning their own means of production as long as they do not employ, and therefore exploit, workers for a wage. i am personally just fine, for example, with Homesteading and artisans creating their own products and selling them on a market, but as soon as they ask someone to help them, while i wouldn't want to enforce a law telling them that it is not ok to employ them, i would be opposed to that new worker being employed for a wage rather than having equal and direct control over the business.

edit on 2/19/2012 by eboyd because: (no reason given)

I didn't know about that place, interesting.

I agree there is nothing essentially wrong with private ownership, what socialists disagree with is using that private property to exploit labour, because capitalism itself created the situation that forces people to go to a private owner for a 'job' in the first place. As apposed to feudalism, where people lived and worked autonomously on the land, homesteading, where people were craftsmen and artisans. Capitalism forced people into cities, and factories, and 'jobs' in order to survive, we became dependent on the capitalist state system, instead of being autonomous individuals.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

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.

edit on 19-2-2012 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)

Employers don't help, employers are interested in profit only. It is fundamentally flawed to suggest employing someone is an act of solidarity.
Resources are scarce, and the means for production are in private hands, just as the resources actually. The worker has no choice but to abide to the modality, this is to seek a job and be a wage-slave. He must or else he is lost. He must succumb to the system and be exploited for profit.

Originally posted by dadgad
Employers don't help, employers are interested in profit only.

Tell that to a few Trillion people in world history who employers have provided with jobs.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by dadgad
Employers don't help, employers are interested in profit only.

Tell that to a few Trillion people in world history who employers have provided with jobs.

? You do realize the employer-worker dynamic is only relevant for perhaps the last 200 to 300 years. Beforehand most people worked the land for their own survival.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Tell that to a few Trillion people in world history who employers have provided with jobs.

Why do you make outlandish claims with nothing to back them up? The total number of humans to have lived on earth is estimated at 106 billion. Not even one trillion let alone a few.

It is further estimated that between 1800 and today, post industrial revolution, there have been 12 billion humans born. That means that most humans lived before the industrial revolution and were probably self employed/self sufficient. A whole bunch had been enslaved before then but I hope you are not calling that employment.