Originally posted by ripcontrol
Thank you sir. I had to relearn a lesson on definitions the other day, So I have decided the establishment of definitions is important for decent
people to get along...
Yes I agree. Especially when it comes to politics and economics, because the terms have been so propagandised..
You have stated that the means of production should be worker owned, or are you referring to worker controlled. Which workers should own and
which workers should control production? Which workers have the experience and wisdom to own or manage?
Yes worker owned and controlled. They are called worker cooperatives, or collectives. All workers have a say in the running of the business. A lot
of coops the workers will rotate through all the jobs, they will all learn to do the production, and management, of the business. You are not stuck
doing one dead end job, you become a full part of the running of the business just like you own it, because you do. But it's up to the workers
themselves, how they want to run and control their business.
I want to make sure I understand how the definition of worker applies... So I am feeding back what you have said... if the feedback does not
match please inform me...
A worker is a person who produces a product or a service...
Again a worker is ANYONE who does not make their living from their capital, and only have their labour as their capital. If you are an engineer and
work for a private company you are a worker.
The next issue is who qualifies as a service and who doesnt...
Providing capital is not a service, by your definition and/or comments? Is management a worker?
A set of individualized skills requiring training and education to operate and perform the work...
Is a banker a worker?
Again if they don't own the means of production involved in what they are working on they are workers.
So yes management are workers, bank tellers are workers.
I understand what you are saying on your definitions. The definition of non-sense we have to disagree on... I have found its applied use to be
one of insulting and a magic wave of the hand by those in power (or attempting to gain power)in a meta-gaming attempt to dismiss those that disagree
with them...
Well sorry, but that is not what I meant when I used the term nonsense. I didn't mean it as an insult.
I simply meant your idea that socialism means standing in lines is nonsense, not true.
I am English I may use terms differently to you.
After I read your post in response to mine I realized I had to recalibrate a little more so I could communicate better with you and the other
socialist here...
Definitions we forgot to agree on that are part of this --
Exploitation
Hypocrisy
Service
Intellectual Property
Training
Experience
Qualifications
Again thank you for your patience in answering a few of these questions....
I don't have time to define all those terms but I will explain why capitalism is exploitation again. Workers are required to produce more than they
are paid for in order for the capitalist to make profit. Socialists believe that profit should belong to the worker, the producer, and capitalists
use their privilege of ownership of capital to control and manipulate society and politics to their advantage using their exploited financial
gains.
It is only luck that some own capital and others don't, its not that they worked any harder than anyone else. That is a capitalist myth. The
majority of capital is passed down from generation to generation. That is why we still have the same ultra rich families for centuries. The royal
family of England for example, the Rockefellers.
If working hard was the only way to 'success', then slaves would be the capitalists. Capitalists simply take advantage of others weakness. The only
reason America, and the UK etc., is so wealthy now is the exploitation of third world countries for the last 300 years.
edit on 3/26/2012 by ANOK because: it's a commie takeover Harry
