Originally posted by DINSTAAR
Labor is a commodity.
It is my time, my effort. I am selling it voluntarily.
Under capitalism you are exploited, not paid the full value of your labour, and no it is not voluntary because you have no choice but to work for a
Under socialism you wouldn't have to rely on a private owner to give you a job, and them not pay you the full worth of what you produce.
Religion has skewed the way we view society for the entire history of humanity. Ever since prehistoric man started explaining things he didn't
understand and using those explanations to reap benefits has this been a problem. Capitalism hasn't even been around more than 1000 years in its
current form. We are violent, we have violent god's. We punish pleasure, we start wars over who's invisible sky daddy has a bigger member.
I agree that religion has screwed our way of thinking but it is not the only thing that has done that. It is just one part of the system. When
feudalism changed to capitalism the power of the capitalists took over from the power of the church.
Religion and our belief systems about how we raise our children have greatly skewed and corrupted our worldview.
Yes it has but that does not mean capitalism hasn't.
Economies are not zero sum games. They can grow and shrink.
They grow and shrink because of the need for capitalism to make profit, at the expense of workers and society as a whole.
The past two hundred years have merely coincided with a longer running trend. Humanity, with its new found freedoms created a new world in a
short span of time, inversely, with its old-world religious beliefs and system of child abuse we have indeed created the most horrific methods of
killing each other ever.
How is it we can launch a rocket into space with a handheld phone but still believe that we need to permanently maim and neurologically damage infant
boys because some ancient account of god said we need to cut their penis? Something is lagging in our ethics system. We are holding on to too much
baggage. And a new development is that we are turning the state itself into a religious dogma.
Yes the running trend has been capitalism that replaced feudalism in the late 1700's, which lead to the industrial revolution that forced people into
factories and mills to produce good for capitalists to sell to other capitalists (Workers couldn't afford them).
How does a worker owned company operate? If by democracy, then it will operate like any violent monopoly would.
If you don't already know this then how can you argue against it? How would the worker owning the means to produce be a monopoly? A monopoly is when
a minority controls a resource. When we all own the places we work at there would be no monopoly on production. In a need based system we over
produce to meet needs, not under produce to make profit.
True, which I think is good.... because we shouldn't be taught anything in state schools
Well I never said we had to be taught in state schools, but as long as we have them then yes kids should be taught there is an alternative to
capitalism instead of being conditioned to accept it without question.
I would say its biased towards obedience and taking on tremendous debt.
That also. The capitalist system wants you in tremendous debt, and it wants obedience.
Worker ownership does not precipitate some 'needs' based system. It may be intended so, but it won't be the reality. Just look at any socialist
system set up in the world today. They manage to be more totalitarian, more poor, and more economically unfair then even the corrupt form of
state-corporatism we have in the West. It seems when you get rid of Capitalism, you just replace it with a clunky, tyrannical state.
Workers interests lie in producing what they need. Give people the machinery, and they will produce what they need. Profit based systems come from
people who already own what they need.
Without a system of violence like the state or any ruling party mafia faction, violence, coercion, or fraud could not be used to promote
oneself with impunity.
I agree that is why we need socialism. Or better yet libertarian socialism. You seem to fail to see that it is capitalism that is the root of the
state system we have. Capitalism requires the violent state system in order to keep workers from revolting. This they learned well before WWII,
when the workers were extremely organized and opposed to capitalism.
Been to a couple myself.... its a function of state power, used by fascists to actually exploit people as well as kill people.
War is used by capitalists to control resources. Why do you think we are in the ME?
The mafia has bats and guns. The mafia has force. The state has force. If a person had a factory and entered contracts with three people for their
labor to gain a profit, where are the guns? If there are any, the state still has them.
State force keeps workers from revolting against capitalism. The state maintains the exploitation of labour. Capitalists use the state to condition
and control the population.
You don't need guns to force people to do what they wouldn't choose to do, if they don't have another choice.
Capitalists want profits, so they create resources.
Profits is the problem, artificial scarcity of resources is due to making profit. In a needs based system we could produce all we need, no scarcity,
No. I am saying that capitalism is not ethically wrong because it is a voluntary contract between willing parties. It is a free interaction if
not supported by a state like in its current form. As well, socialism is not ethically wrong if it is not supported by a state. I support free market
anarchy because it allows for these ideas to compete without violence.
But it isn't voluntary. Workers have to, mostly, work for a private owner.
But all anarchism is free-market, socialism is free-market, capitalism is not free-market, and can not be anarchist. The fact that when someone
privately owns, and controls, the means to produce what we need makes them an authority, as they control the production and distribution of resources,
and will control them in order to make profit instead of meet peoples needs.
In a true free-market labour would have to be treated like any resource, and the supplier of that labour should receive the full worth of their
labour. The only way that can happen is if the worker owns the means to produce, and to do with what they produce as they wish, not a third party
private owner. The private owner is unnecessary.
edit on 4/22/2012 by ANOK because: it's a commie take-over Harry