If I remember my history, many original European anarchist leaders and funders/supporters were members of aristocracies. And this might go back further to the French revolution. I'm thinking of the Marquis de Lafayette and Marquis de Sade. Meritocracy of the wealthy and charity were strongly supported by the englishman Herbert Spencer and his american follower Andrew Carnegie, which history has shown was a failure. 18th century New England townships always taxed themselves to care for the poor.
Aren't the state handouts you favor technically the same as charity, since they essentially function in the exact same way? I find that both (private charity and state charity) create something very similar to the boss-wage slave relationship since all of them create relationships of dependency where one side (the "donator") has far more power.
Which is why it's the objective of anarchism/libertarian socialism to eliminate all such relationships where a weaker party is dependent on a stronger party.
Michael Moore is the same guy who says businesses that give charitably are only looking out for their own interest because charity benefits their bottom line. I don't think I would be out of line to extrapolate from this to conclude that Michael Moore doesn't believe in altruism or selflessness, which makes him on-par with Ayn Rand as among the least moral proponents of their respective philosophies.
How did you come to that conclusion? He hasn't rejected charity, and he gives to charity himself. So you're wrong to say he doesn't believe in altruism. He doesn't believe in the altruism of corporations though, and I think correctly so, given that it is constantly manifested that corporations benefit from charity( tax cuts, money laundry etc)
you can point to anyone who gives charitably and show that it benefits them in some way to do so, and i've seen the idea that to give charitably makes a person feel good about himself used as evidence that nobody does anything without expecting something in return, even though people do give things away anonymously. the problem is that corporations' charity is basically done in public (esp. in order to receive such tax cuts), and charity should be done in private
the rich need to give away their property. giving away money is only temporary since money is spent. since ownership of property is what allows capitalists to become rich, the equal distribution of property would lead to the equal distribution of wealth.
Even more control comes from what I call a Time Monopoly. Most corporate jobs require 8 to 5 workdays. It is hard for people to find other jobs when every office has the same required work schedule. For instance, if I get an interview at another company, it is hard to leave early for 3 interviews somewhere else. Also, if every company is 8 to 5, but I only want to work 5 hours because I enjoy my time, how do I do this and continue to receive health benefits.
I am not happy with the way things are now either, laws reforming health care and job programs to improve a persons condition may be the best thing right now, but if we were to overthrow the government with its giant corparations and allowed people to freely interact in a free market where collectivests and capitalists did what they thought best...... this is pretty much what I would like to happen, individuals doing what they want or feel they should do.
If you are poor with a college degree, then you can complain about the system. Michael Moore is hypocritical not because he is rich and criticizing the system, but because he turns criticizing the system into an industry.
and by the way, why are you responding to FOX news interview of michael moore? lol you should make criticsms of capitalism based on the root of its ideologies. Adam Smith, ricardo, milton friedman, von Hayek. Make a critique on those economic theories and ideologies. This is garbage.
I meet a lot of anarchists who feel ashamed for being privileged and white Americans while others live in ruthless poverty. This puts some good perspective on that.
Interestingly, some of the Founding Fathers believed in a resource economy based on an agrarian model where people could have the freedom to grow their own food, make their own clothes and obtain their own local fuel supply without dependency on others.
However, with the advent of industrialisation and increases in corporate industry and urbanisation - the people lost their individual liberty and became wage-slaves.
Of course, you would insult the concept of charitable giving, I'm sure you'd much rather have a Communistic system of forced wealth redistribution by the government.
btw, you and your ilk are not trying to "Improve the system"; You're trying to tear it down entirely, regardless of the consequences.
No, your charity represents pity by those who stole our wealth. That you don't see mutual aid as an alternative (only "forced wealth redistribution") shows the astounding extent of capitalist indoctrination
"No, your charity represents pity by those who stole our wealth."
Wrong. News flash: Not everyone involved in charitable giving is one of those evil corporate boogeymen who give you and your fanboys nightmares. Many are just regular people who do it just because it's the right thing to do. I myself do it in various ways, and I'm hardly part of "The rich," at least by American standards.
2. What exactly would you define as "Mutual aid"?
Ah, nice job completely avoiding my responses (The very thing you ragged on heroe2006 for supposedly doing, hypocrite), and my honest question on what you feel constitutes "Mutual aid," and instead once again parroting your usual tired litany of "Wage slavery." You are so predictable it's not even funny.
In the future, someone will look back at your dismissal of wage slavery as a "tired litany" in the same way we now look at similar apologists of chattel slavery. And your willful ignorance of mutual aid will fall under the same category
LOL, you just keep telling yourself that. I'm starting to remember now why I don't really come often to your videos to debate anymore: Because you truly have nothing new, innovative, interesting, or inspiring to say. Just chanting the same old class warfare crap about "Wage slavery" (Your insulting euphemism for simply working under someone, which is something that most people don't really have much of a problem with, as long as it's someone competent) over and over and over again.
Ok how much more control over the economy can people have, the producers (for the majority, or at least used to be) are consumers, consumers control the economy.
As for as control of the work place are you suggesting that they take buisnesses away from owners?
If they want they should band together, quit, and form their own buisness.
The advertiser& PR-dominated 1-dollar-1-vote consumer system does not even approach to controlling the means of production. Wage labor i.e. an undemocratic/exploitative workplace, is the defining feature of capitalism. In colonial Brazil, slaves could buy their own freedom&become business owners, self-employed, or business owners themselves. If that social mobility didnt justify the "work for a boss or else" of chattel slavery, why should it justify the "work for a boss or else" of wage slavery?
$100000-1 vote, not only in elections but for policies to.
The minimum wage for example was created only for votes, no laws against companies going overseas and finding cheaper jobs.
Companies go overseas and millions lose their jobs, yet I cant buy health insurance outside my state.
Government makes it hard for new buisnesses, the fact that american buisnesses have to pay their employees a minimum wage already puts them at a disadvantage.
As for an undemocratic workplace, Workers have no right to the buisness they work at.
When a person hires someone he does not give them a right to his buisness. The only rights a worker has are to his salery, fair treatment, and personal safety. Any other rights concerning the buisness are up to the employer to give.
To force any new rights or laws for workers is an infringement on an employers rights to run his buisness.
I am not for the exploitation of employees or employers.
As for a democratically run workplace run by employees, I am all for it but it is just as likely to be exploitative and even with this in place, wage slavery would still exist.
If a company offers a decent salery, fair treatment, and protects your safety how is this exploitation?
The defining feature of capitalism is the freedom it gives individuals.
The fact that slaves had thier rights violated makes that example invalid, as long as the rights of the workers are met their is no exploitation taking place.
Yes, people have to work for a boss to make money and improve their condition of life, they would have to do this even if there was no boss. would you rather everyone who wanted to stop working get paid by the government, or everyone who wanted jobs be given them?
We have to make it easier for people to start a buisness.
I read the gist of the article, I would call it exploitation not wage slavery.
I get the whole idea that we are slaves to our jobs but in a true capitalist system there would be to many different buisnesses competeing each other for this to happen.
We are all capitalists at heart and want to produce and come up with new things.
There is a shortage of jobs because there are only a few thousand big name companies to work for.
The reason they have no compition is because the government makes it hard for people to start a buisness.
Government protects the intrests of big buisness. If I had to choose between a perfect state of communism, capitalism, or socialism I would choose capitalism because it offers the most freedom. The system in place now is not capitalism but some messed up monster.
I said capitalists come up with and produce new things, to compete against other people (capitalists) this would be the case. I guess I was not clear sorry
The end result of "Free Markets" is monopoly. No where do Free Markets exist. What you consider Free markets are actually highly regulated industries.
NAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH WRONG!: According to nationmaster, Haiti is ranked as #128 on the index of economic freedom, just right below china, while the United states is ranked #6 on the index of economic freedom . Either you are totally ignorant about economics my friend or you are intenally spreading misinformation to further promote your agenda;
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Okay , we can talk about the facts: FACT: The wealthiest countries on the planet are capitalist nations: FACT: The countries with the highest standards of living are capitalist nations; FACT: The top 50 countries with the highest deathrate are NOT capitalist countries: FACT: Poor people are likely to become wealthy in countries with capitalistic economies than countries with non-capitalistic economies: FACT : Capitalism has truly helped people formerly in dire situations than it has harmed
"Capitalism has truly helped people formerly in dire situations than it has harmed."
Serfs were often better off under feudalism than thralls were under slavery. This doesn't mean feudalism is the perfect system, nor that it is better than any possible alternative.
Your argument is a straw-man, as no one is arguing in favor of the authoritarian regimes you use for comparison (i.e. the presidential republic of war-torn haiti, or the liberalized -capitalist- markets of an authoritarian china).
When did I ever say that either of you and the poster of this video was arguing for an authoritarian regime; Haiti and India have democracies, but they have the largest impoverished populations in the world . Having Democracies wont assist people out of poverty, capitalism will. I don't know why people refuse to acknowledge this fact; Countries that acquired capitalism that formerly had high impoverished populations became rich countries; Just look at Hong Kong and Japan;
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Hear, hear.
It is completely unsurprising to see mr1001nights and his fanboys leaping to the defense of a pompous, lying, backstabbing, manipulative, self- centered, and immensely hypocritical Socialist swine like Michael Moore. They'd cheer on Satan himself if he emerged and started badmouthing capitalism, a system whose benefits they all take for granted every single day.
I am interested in hearing the wildly imaginative standard you have formed in order to refer to Haiti as a "democracy".
Then perhaps we can get beyond your eerily simplistic understanding of international economics to the titanic influx of foreign state capital that allowed Japan to retool its industries. Or the role of imperialism in making Hong Kong a unique trading port and financial center. A role it would not have filled if China had not maintained a comparatively restricted economy.
Haiti is a constitutitional republic; its does not have a tolitarian system of govt. The executive branch of its system of government has more power than are branch of executive government is supposed to have ; Are you kidding mean; Hong kong was in shambles when the British empire have more power over Hong Kong; When Britain lessened it hold on Hong Kong and many of the leaders of hong kong implemented a non-interventionist policy ; Its economic policy was influenced by many economists ;
It isn't a functioning republic right now, but even if it was, it still wouldn't be a democracy.
"Are you kidding [mean]; Hong kong was in shambles when the British empire [have] more power over Hong Kong;"
Nor did I claim otherwise. I simply pointed out that imperialism was responsible for Hong Kong being what it is today, that and its unique position in relation to China. These are casual factors, "capitalism" as you are using it, is merely a label.
What is call a "mixed economy" is capitalism with a few leftist amendments... amendments which we fought very hard for, by the way. The system we have not IS shit, and ALWAYS was shit, because capitalism, even in it's regulated, watered-down form is EVIL, always was, and always will be.
"True compassion is more than flipping a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring."
The US is THE most protectionist nation in history? Seems counter-intuitive, so please excuse the probing...
Firstly, more so than somewhere like Nazi Germany? (I know that foreign investment and imports existed, but still more than the US?)
Also, can a majority state-capitalist economy which permits some market competition still count as 'protectionist', or is this unique to market economies? I have places like Cuba in mind, or early Deng Xiaoping period China. Do they count as protectionist?
Fair enough that Michael Moore giving to charity wouldnt solve the systemic problem. However it could ease the suffering if only momentarily for at least one person(especially in a third world destitute situation). All this is assuming he lives a life of a least moderate luxury...dont really know just making the point.
I doubt people living in imperialist nations benefit from these wars. I mean the money being spent on the military is money that will never be spent on healthcare, education, cleaning up the environment and all that good stuff. Like I seriously doubt that the British working class benefited from the British empire looting India.
You could be wrong here. I'm not sure what you make of Lenin's credibility, but he made a point that predatory nations are able to 'throw crumbs' to the working class in order to placate them, making them less likely to rebel against their capitalist masters.
I think in many respects, we can see that even today. Compare the standard of living of the imperialist nation's working class to that of the exploited nation. Not many Indonesians have microwave ovens, Ipods, plasma TVs etc.
Well yes, the same corporations that have gained from looting Iraq also pay taxes to the government which may allocate fragments of that money in a medicaid fund or something. However the point Lenin is making is that these gains for the workers are residual. I tend to agree with mr1001nights that the reason workers in predatory nations have better standards of living is due to years of class struggle.
I agree with that - class struggle is the reason for our raised standards of living, but the fact that our ruling class is richer provides us with an opportunity 'to' gain more. They can spend more on buying workers consent (via bread and circuses), whilst the circulation of their plundered money in our economy ultimately benefits workers financially and we benefit from the cheap goods produced by foreign labour. I won't dispute that we have to fight for these gains, but we still find advantage
from being part of an imperialist nation. We just have to look at the HDI for that. Workers in exploited countries have less opportunities.
By no means do I think that the workers in imperialist nations are to blame or should feel guilt (which was the point of the initial comment, obviously). We should still criticise our governments, just like Moore, even if we benefit financially (not morally).
It's a false dichotomy. Class struggle puts lets of a burden on the capitalists in imperialist countries because of the wealth they accumulate via imperialism. Lenin's point was within the context of the class struggle. Imperialism or no, capitalists don't give out concessions for no reason. And if you have no imperialism then then the class struggle waged by capitalists to hang onto their profits must be even more bitter.
"Compare the standard of living of the imperialist nation's working class to that of the exploited nation."
1st-worlders constitute a labor aristocracy. Global product: ~$70 trillion. What's my share? Do the math. How do I make more? Short answer: my labor is valued higher. Why? Am I more valuable than an Asian rice farmer, or is it something else? Even without state interference, market values would be unjust. In a communist gift economy, the standard of living would avg out @ ~$10k (PPP).
Just checking I'm not misunderstanding you. Are you in agreement with me on this? (that first world labour 'does' benefit from imperialism financially)
To clarify my own position in case I'm being misunderstood, I'm approaching this from a communist perspective. I'm not justifying the imperialism, just noting that we can benefit from things whilst still considering them morally bankrupt (like Moore and capitalism)
I've found Maoist-Internationalists/Thirdworldists particularly cogent on this issue. I don't agree with them on much else, but I believe in taking wisdom where I find it, & they've got some powerful anti-imperialist arguments & damning criticisms of the 1st-world labor aristocracy.
That said, I'm still for 1st-world class struggle because profit = theft. But I turn against 1st-world workers when them become xenophobic nationalists to protect their relative privilege.
Hmmm, interesting. Do the Maoists critcise the labour aristrocracy individually?
What's their argument if so? That workers in the first world should 'not' struggle for a share in the super-profts? It's a fairly harsh criticism if that's the case.
I think I may be arguing with one of those "xenophobic nationalists"/protectionists you mentioned on the comments to this very video right now....
They don't argue against 1st-world class struggle; they'd just like to see more struggle by the relatively privileged 1st-world workers on behalf of those of the 3rd-world (as would I). The problem is (& here's where Maoists suffer from the same blind spot as other Marxists, well-meaning though they are), the state allows the labor aristocracy to attack 3rd-world comrades; & without proper class consciousness they're too often inclined to do so. But Maoist wisdom folds neatly into anarchism.
Sorry to put this so bluntly, John (it's really the only way), but I fear you may be living in Rainbowland.
I think you should investigate the wages and conditions these workers face. Their exploitation is maximised by the desperate penuary they face. Hence, they are able to work for slave wages and many work far more than 12 hours, sleeping just a few hours in their respective factories.
Whilst it is true that they benefit financially (and minimally) from outsourced jobs, the very reason that
the jobs are outsourced in the first place is that the workers are desperate enough to accept anything they can get, no matter how exploitative, meaning they'll work for less and accept poor conditions.
Usually, you'll find that if these workers are raised out of 'abject' poverty and begin to unionise (demanding better wages), the corporations employing them will ship out to another desperate area which will accept harsh conditions, leaving them unemployed again.
You're being inconsistent in bemoaning that their government doesn't look after the workers' rights, but still claiming that the lack of government interference (minimum wage for example) is beneficial. You can't have it both ways. On the contrary, if they 'did' have a minimum wage, perhaps they would face less indigence.
However, this cuts to the heart of the matter. It is the very fact that the government does 'not' protect the workers' rights which makes these countries attractive to
Due to the competitive nature of capitalism, these nations are forced to compete to attract business once debt and the IMF forces them to open to the 'free' market. Their economies are therefore at the mercy of international capital.
If the government steps in to ensure that workers rights are respected and a 'fair' pay is earned, then corporations will take their business to another area where the government is unwilling to protect workers.
I forgot that you misunderstand the nature of the government/state. Keep watching mr1001nights' videos, including the documentary on The Investment Theory Of Politics for more details on this.
In brief, the state doesn't exist to protect workers' rights, as I think you're postulating. On the contrary, the government/state is usually dominated by the economically dominant class. Officials are corrupted and the system is itself designed in third world countries to ensure that progressives fail.
You're in danger of under evaluating the circumstances. Having rights is quite literally nothing at all to do with being American. American is just a word. Nothing can be understood in the isolation of "because it's America." - there are causes.
The rights American workers have are the result of class struggle. America has a bloody union history and rights were 'won' through this struggle.
You don't need to look far to see this. When did being 'American' help blacks in apartheid? It was the
civil rights movement, not the American government which made the society that little bit more equal. It was the unions who fought for health and safety regulations to stop workers falling into blast furnaces, or being forced to work without adequate protective equipment.
Countries on the wrong end of imperialism (as we were discussing further up this thread, so give it a read) have less bargaining power than workers in imperialist nations and have an even harder time winning these rights.
The problem of unemployment isn't the fault of a minimum wage, for goodness sake. The minimum wage ensures that workers aren't being as heavily exploited as they would be without it. Unions won that to help protect workers.
The problem of unemployment is one of capitalism, not the labour movement. A better solution is global socialism, rather than protectionism.
The American government is pathetic when it comes to protecting our rights.
I agree that they may have less bargaining power, but do you think that they are so totally dependent that they wont be able to create their own buisnesses.
Since we are talking about the exploited workers, we should realize why they are there in the first place. Wages being the main cause.
You're partially correct in saying that wages are the main cause, but that's only as a by-product of the intial cause - competition and the drive for profit. Not just amongst capitalists, but even between workers who are forced to compete to work for less (in order to gain a job).
The solution then is to remove the capitalist system, not to reform it, implement protectionist policies or whatever else. Remove the system of wage labour in favour of worker control of the means of production.
But 'do' you understand what these rights are? This is what I'm trying to get at, because I think you've got it the wrong way around.
Class struggle 'has' given you rights. I'm not an American and don't know your constitution inside out, but I don't think that the 8 hour day is indeed constitutional. In fact, I know with some confidence that the right to free expression wasn't in the constitution until the 60s.
For a start, you might note that America was built on the slave trade. Evidentally,
these slaves did not have freedom. It had to be one, and it had to be won through struggle.
The governments role (and this according to James Maddison, founding father) is to protect the minority of the oppulent against the majority. To protect property rights and maintain class dominance (the very nature of the formation of states).
Even the rights that the initial constitution afforded you would have been those taken from European societies which had already struggled and taken them across
The state exists not as your friend, to protect your rights. It exists to maintain the status quo in the face of irreconcilable class contraditions (there is little need for it without them, hence the Marxian "withering away of the state").
This can be seen best when the conflict between classes is so intense that the state resorts to excessive authoritarianism - by that, I refer to fascism - as a means to quash revolutionary tendencies.
The freedom of speech wasn't in the constitution until a wave of 'democratisation' in the 60s. I only found this out recently from listening to Chomsky, so give it some research, but this is only one example. Whilst you personally may not have had to have had rights won for you in your lifetime, people fought and died for them before you were born. Freedoms are never gifts from above. So whilst 'you' may have had your rights from birth, it's only because of the struggle of others before you were
born. I mentioned the black civil rights movement. Black people born today have their rights and no longer live in apartheid (although racial inequalities still exist) - this is because of that movement to win rights which saw people die.
You mentioned letting corporations fail, and this is a perfect example of what I was saying about the state and big business being in bed together (the economically dominant class controls the state, as I put it). The state takes your tax money (it happened
here in the UK, too) and pumps it into corporations to ensure their survival. The state also pumps your tax money into private weapons manufacturers, into private business grants etc.
Anyway, global socialism. In a socialist system, the workers control the means of production collectively. This means that they produce according to their needs and wants, rather than profits and competition You can probably see why this eradicates many of the problems like unemployment, poor conditions and pay.
Workers aren't going to exploit themselves. They aren't at the mercy of companies setting up in their area, whilst the problem of unequal bargaining power is also diminished (there's no one they have to bargain with). It's that need for profit which leads to corporations looking for workers living in squalor and prepared to work for a pittance with poor health and safety conditions.
By the way, the constitution bit was a shock to me too, but it's just another example of misinformation.
I respect what people during the civil rights period did, They won recognition from the government that their rights were being violated and disrespected.
I have bennifettied you are right I was just on a rant about individual rights.
Just because some of my individual rights are not in the constitution does not mean I dont have them or that they should not be protected. Everyone has the right to be treated fairly (8 hour work day)
As for freedom of expression do you think no one could express themselves before 1960? The fact that this had to be put down on paper shows how stupid politicians are.
If a company makes giant profits without exploiting people, I support this. Profits should go back into workers salry, improving manufactoring, or advertisement of the good produced.
Calling profit theft that is not derived from explotation is crazy. A workers salery is his profit.
What happens when one worker does less than others. who decides who does what. what if others want or need more. what if there are not enough jobs to go around. what if you are given or are in a job you dont want, the one you want is full.( this can be cosidered a form a wage slave)
I am not against socialism, it is okay but I am against global anything. Imposing the world to follow a certain system is wrong .
John think about it, if you are a Capitalist, the worst thing is equality. Imagine if the government provided everyone a house, health care, and food. This hurts the capitalist because if my manager decides to say a racist comment or is power-oriented, I can say, "I'm taking 2 weeks off" or "I quit."
The capitalist would lose control. People wouldn't work for their bare necessities. Workers would be in control and the capitalist would be forced to work which they should.
Okay, lets pretend that we live in a collective society and everyone no longer has to work for the bare neccessities. What if some individuals saved thier earnings or got others to back him up in some buisness venture. The guy had an idea and followed through but needs employees, as long as the workers choose of their own free will to work for him for some reason instead of the collective buisnesses I see no problem with this. The reason anarchy is appealing to me is the idea of personal freedom
We'd have to stop calling them workers, because these people would be closer to independent contractors. They provide a service for this guy's business, and the businessman provides money. But no longer does the businessman dictate the contractor's work schedule. The contractor's basic necessities would no longer be in jeopardy. There's no problem with people working for someone, the problem is when "workers" cannot dictate . Labor and property ownership are equally powerful.
Well John, a collectivist factory - assuming everyone's basic needs are met (healthcare, food, living) - is much different than a capitalist factory. When everyone's needs are met, they do not work to pay bills, to eat, or to have healthcare. In this type of system, the capitalist loses power because he now becomes the worker. Instead of dictating, he must now work to keep the collective "workers" happy or wanting to work for him. He must now think about everyone instead of himself.
People already do just work for the fun of it - rich people. Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie are prime examples. It could be argued that people with wealthy parents work for fun because they don't need the job for basic necessities. They have more power than people who need their jobs to eat and have basic necessities.
Paris hilton and the other do not work and the way you describe how a collectivist factory employee is given all of their basic necessities it sounds like they are paid that way.
@john38235133 Paris doesn't work but on her previous reality show (be it fake or real) she appeared to work. Even if she wasn't really working, the show represents rich people if they chose to work. They are not tied to the job, they merely work for the fun of it or for other reasons, not because they need healthcare or food.
In this scenario, collectivist contractors would be given food, housing, and helathcare by the government. If they lose their job, they'd get unemployment benefits.
But if a collectivest factory was able to provide all those things to its workers I think it would be pretty hard for any capitalist to compete, but he should still be able to try.
In a collectivist factory, the "workers" are the boss not the other way around. There are no "workers", everyone is treated fairly. In order to have people doing things like mopping floors and scrubbing toilets, these People would have to be paid extremely well. If scrubbing floors is something no one wants to do, then it is a highly valuable position and should be compensated as such.
Sorry Luke, the way I see it there will always be some form of hierarical structure when it comes to large #'s of people working at a job, wether it be in the form of an elected workers council or a boss and some managers, it takes very little skills to be a janitor and if any janitorial job opened up where you got paid alot everyone would want it.
@john38235133 I agree with you, there will always be some form of hierarchy structure, but it doesn't have to be controlled by the few. The many can flex their power as well. Without labor there is no capitalist. See, I believe in Capitalism, but I just believe that those who labor control the wealthy because right now the wealthy are out of control.
Everyone wanting a janitor job is unlikely because everyone doesn't want an executive position. Some people do but not everyone.
Yes, I do not want the few in control but I do not see it that way I see it as indivuduals managing a buisness not controlling the lives of thier workers.
@john38235133 That's because managing a business sounds more politically correct than managing slaves. If you can't leave your job to see your child until 5pm, you are not your own person, you belong to someone else. The executives have the freedom to make their own schedules.
Any capitalist should be able to start a business but there is no business (one which requires people) without employees or what I like to call independent contractors (right now these are people who rent themselves to eat and have healthcare).
In a collectivist society wouldnt people still need to work for the collective for basic goods or is everything given to whoever wants it wether they work or not? The ansewer is they would HAVE to work or starve.
@john38235133 Of course people would need to work for the collective for basic goods etc. But if people had all of their basic needs, one wealthy person (or a small group of them) couldn't control a mass amount of people because people's jobs couldn't be dangled in front of them.
Okay, when I think of a colective society I think of collectivized medicine, food, goods, collectivized everything. People would still be paid from thier collectivized jobs but the individuals would have to buy thier own basic goods right?
Most of these people can get a whole lot more with the money they get with renting themselves out ya know. You make it sound as if it is a god given right for everyone to get food and a house and health care and all the other necessities one could want without working for them. If we lived in a world where all of these things just poped up by thinking them I would agree but it is impossible to me no matter how hard I try to imagine the world you are talking about and how it would even work.
"the minimum wage only hurts people and screws up prices which hurts poor people."
Capitalist tripe. The minimum wage is always too low, by definition: the wage system is where capitalists pay laborers less than the value of what is produced. If the wage is $1 googol per hour, you can be sure that the capitalist is still making a profit (a.k.a. stealing).
According to conservative logic, it was hypocritical for the feudal merchants to criticize the aristocracy and instigate the bourgeois revolutions that gave rise to capitalist dominance. Oops!
Shit, it was hypocritical for nomadic foragers to suggest putting down roots and farming, even as they sat around the campfire gorging on the bounty of the hunt.
According to this logic we should never have left the savanna.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Welll, feudal merchants weren't actually benefiting from aristocracy or feudalism, it was a detriment to their existence. Most people perished, Most people starved and Most people died prematurely, well at least by today's standards. What disavantages is Michael moore receiving from capitalism? He is RICH , he does not have to work anymore; Michael moore complaining about capitalism is like a kid complaining about being the winner of a lifetime supply of toys and candy .
The argument is essentially a non-racist version of "then go back to Africa, ungrateful nig" or "don't complain about slavery since your food, house and bed comes from your master."
Do you think that hierarchies are justified in some labor processes? For example I wouldn't like to see a collective commune, even if they're all very smart people, in charge of a nuclear power plant. I think sometimes top-down control is necessary. Whaddayathink?
This depends on your use of the term 'hierarchical'.
I would agree that there are examples where 'leadership' are legitimate. When your ship is headed for a rock, I'd prefer a captain to steer it away rather than sitting around having a meeting before taking a democratic vote on which way to steer.
This doesn't necessarily indicate 'hierarchy', however. To elect a delegate who is accountable and immediately recallable seems sufficient. The difference between that and a 'boss' is obvious.
Not quite. That was just my response for the nuclear power plant example in particular, which is quite an extreme one, and so there has to be some flexibility for different circumstances, rather than paint-by-numbers method of organisation. Most industries can be run by concensus or democratically. Take something less complex, like...let's say a bakers. It's very different from a nuclear power plant and doesn't necessarily require that recognised 'leadership'.
course. There may be libertarian socialists somewhere in the world I haven't met who would be confident in the ability of workers to organise a nuclear power plant according to consensus rule....but I think they'd be few and far between if they exist at all.
I think most would agree that where leadership is 'deemed' necessary by workers, and provided their decision isn't coerced and they give their recallable mandate, it's excusable and not 'hierarchy'. That's the main point for me, at least.
The people who call him a "hypocrite" need to realise that if Moore simply advertised his new film by releasing it free on his own website - he would reach much less people than by advertising it in cinemas and the media. So, he has to use the existing marketing and PR architecture to reach the audience. All this costs money, of course.
I really can't stand arguments like the one Hannity made at the beginning of this video. They basically boil down to, "You shouldn't say what you're saying because you're allowed to say it."
I heard that.
D3R3K1600 5 days ago
If I remember my history, many original European anarchist leaders and funders/supporters were members of aristocracies. And this might go back further to the French revolution. I'm thinking of the Marquis de Lafayette and Marquis de Sade. Meritocracy of the wealthy and charity were strongly supported by the englishman Herbert Spencer and his american follower Andrew Carnegie, which history has shown was a failure. 18th century New England townships always taxed themselves to care for the poor.
TheForwardGaze 3 weeks ago
Aren't the state handouts you favor technically the same as charity, since they essentially function in the exact same way? I find that both (private charity and state charity) create something very similar to the boss-wage slave relationship since all of them create relationships of dependency where one side (the "donator") has far more power.
juliaisafilmbuff123 1 month ago
@juliaisafilmbuff123
Which is why it's the objective of anarchism/libertarian socialism to eliminate all such relationships where a weaker party is dependent on a stronger party.
MsSexySocialist 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from mr1001nights
Michael Moore is the same guy who says businesses that give charitably are only looking out for their own interest because charity benefits their bottom line. I don't think I would be out of line to extrapolate from this to conclude that Michael Moore doesn't believe in altruism or selflessness, which makes him on-par with Ayn Rand as among the least moral proponents of their respective philosophies.
JoeKopsick4Congress 9 months ago
@JoeKopsick4Congress
How did you come to that conclusion? He hasn't rejected charity, and he gives to charity himself. So you're wrong to say he doesn't believe in altruism. He doesn't believe in the altruism of corporations though, and I think correctly so, given that it is constantly manifested that corporations benefit from charity( tax cuts, money laundry etc)
drizztf88 5 months ago
@drizztf88
you can point to anyone who gives charitably and show that it benefits them in some way to do so, and i've seen the idea that to give charitably makes a person feel good about himself used as evidence that nobody does anything without expecting something in return, even though people do give things away anonymously. the problem is that corporations' charity is basically done in public (esp. in order to receive such tax cuts), and charity should be done in private
JoeKopsick4Congress 5 months ago
Comment removed
drizztf88 5 months ago
the rich need to give away their property. giving away money is only temporary since money is spent. since ownership of property is what allows capitalists to become rich, the equal distribution of property would lead to the equal distribution of wealth.
mrtyles 1 year ago
Even more control comes from what I call a Time Monopoly. Most corporate jobs require 8 to 5 workdays. It is hard for people to find other jobs when every office has the same required work schedule. For instance, if I get an interview at another company, it is hard to leave early for 3 interviews somewhere else. Also, if every company is 8 to 5, but I only want to work 5 hours because I enjoy my time, how do I do this and continue to receive health benefits.
lukebutton 2 years ago
I am not happy with the way things are now either, laws reforming health care and job programs to improve a persons condition may be the best thing right now, but if we were to overthrow the government with its giant corparations and allowed people to freely interact in a free market where collectivests and capitalists did what they thought best...... this is pretty much what I would like to happen, individuals doing what they want or feel they should do.
john38235133 2 years ago
@john38235133 Exactly. There is too much control in the hands of very few.
lukebutton 2 years ago
@lukebutton We can definantly agree on that, its been fun, take care.
john38235133 2 years ago
@john38235133 John, it's good that we can agree on here. i see so many people arguing and it's nice to have a good debate. Thanks, take care
lukebutton 2 years ago
you should make videos responding to stuff like this more often
DeflocculatedDentist 2 years ago
If you are poor with a college degree, then you can complain about the system. Michael Moore is hypocritical not because he is rich and criticizing the system, but because he turns criticizing the system into an industry.
parquar 2 years ago
Does Michael Moore count as a hierarch?
IIKruZerII 2 years ago
and by the way, why are you responding to FOX news interview of michael moore? lol you should make criticsms of capitalism based on the root of its ideologies. Adam Smith, ricardo, milton friedman, von Hayek. Make a critique on those economic theories and ideologies. This is garbage.
heroe2006 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
by the way, why everyone so against greed, why is mr1001nights against greed? why is greed bad. there is a virtue to greed.
heroe2006 2 years ago
i don't really care about how much money i get .. i care about people,and equality we can't have equality if everyone care about themselves
we should share our wealth to everyone
this is not Communism nor capitalism this is khaldism
look it up
alkolaqi83 2 years ago
1001..
In my opinion, those who bash people who speak out against government or systems do so for no other reason than their own lack of courage.
They know deep inside they are sheep who lack courage to stand up against authority, so they compensate by critisizing those who have the courage.
They're the same people who want to tell others what to do with their sex life.
They're severely lacking one, so they compensate by trying to control others'.
Peace.
Mechelle68 2 years ago
Wow, this is a really great post...
I meet a lot of anarchists who feel ashamed for being privileged and white Americans while others live in ruthless poverty. This puts some good perspective on that.
bjarczyk 2 years ago
Michael Moore also supports more union activity and only employing union labour forces, but his film crew was completely non union. He's a fat liar!
VariedInterest 2 years ago
where are you getting your info. about his film crew being non-unionized? i'm honestly curious
TheTollundWoman 2 years ago
The focus on him constitutes an attempt to avoid institutional analysis.
mr1001nights 2 years ago
Interestingly, some of the Founding Fathers believed in a resource economy based on an agrarian model where people could have the freedom to grow their own food, make their own clothes and obtain their own local fuel supply without dependency on others.
However, with the advent of industrialisation and increases in corporate industry and urbanisation - the people lost their individual liberty and became wage-slaves.
PersianPaladin 2 years ago
Of course, you would insult the concept of charitable giving, I'm sure you'd much rather have a Communistic system of forced wealth redistribution by the government.
btw, you and your ilk are not trying to "Improve the system"; You're trying to tear it down entirely, regardless of the consequences.
Adamguy2003 2 years ago
No, your charity represents pity by those who stole our wealth. That you don't see mutual aid as an alternative (only "forced wealth redistribution") shows the astounding extent of capitalist indoctrination
mr1001nights 2 years ago
"No, your charity represents pity by those who stole our wealth."
Wrong. News flash: Not everyone involved in charitable giving is one of those evil corporate boogeymen who give you and your fanboys nightmares. Many are just regular people who do it just because it's the right thing to do. I myself do it in various ways, and I'm hardly part of "The rich," at least by American standards.
2. What exactly would you define as "Mutual aid"?
Adamguy2003 2 years ago
You don't get it. You want charity in a system of wage slavery and greed. i want to get rid of that system
mr1001nights 2 years ago
Ah, nice job completely avoiding my responses (The very thing you ragged on heroe2006 for supposedly doing, hypocrite), and my honest question on what you feel constitutes "Mutual aid," and instead once again parroting your usual tired litany of "Wage slavery." You are so predictable it's not even funny.
Adamguy2003 2 years ago
In the future, someone will look back at your dismissal of wage slavery as a "tired litany" in the same way we now look at similar apologists of chattel slavery. And your willful ignorance of mutual aid will fall under the same category
mr1001nights 2 years ago
LOL, you just keep telling yourself that. I'm starting to remember now why I don't really come often to your videos to debate anymore: Because you truly have nothing new, innovative, interesting, or inspiring to say. Just chanting the same old class warfare crap about "Wage slavery" (Your insulting euphemism for simply working under someone, which is something that most people don't really have much of a problem with, as long as it's someone competent) over and over and over again.
Later!
Adamguy2003 2 years ago
What is wage slavery to you?
How much can I make an hour before I am no longer a slave?
What is the point of a higher wage if everything I buy is now more expensive?
john38235133 2 years ago
read the wikipedia article on wage slavery. Wage slavery refers to a lack of control over your workplace and economy; not necessarily money.
mr1001nights 2 years ago
Ok how much more control over the economy can people have, the producers (for the majority, or at least used to be) are consumers, consumers control the economy.
As for as control of the work place are you suggesting that they take buisnesses away from owners?
If they want they should band together, quit, and form their own buisness.
Capitalism at work.
john38235133 2 years ago
The advertiser& PR-dominated 1-dollar-1-vote consumer system does not even approach to controlling the means of production. Wage labor i.e. an undemocratic/exploitative workplace, is the defining feature of capitalism. In colonial Brazil, slaves could buy their own freedom&become business owners, self-employed, or business owners themselves. If that social mobility didnt justify the "work for a boss or else" of chattel slavery, why should it justify the "work for a boss or else" of wage slavery?
mr1001nights 2 years ago
$100000-1 vote, not only in elections but for policies to.
The minimum wage for example was created only for votes, no laws against companies going overseas and finding cheaper jobs.
Companies go overseas and millions lose their jobs, yet I cant buy health insurance outside my state.
Government makes it hard for new buisnesses, the fact that american buisnesses have to pay their employees a minimum wage already puts them at a disadvantage.
john38235133 2 years ago
As for an undemocratic workplace, Workers have no right to the buisness they work at.
When a person hires someone he does not give them a right to his buisness. The only rights a worker has are to his salery, fair treatment, and personal safety. Any other rights concerning the buisness are up to the employer to give.
To force any new rights or laws for workers is an infringement on an employers rights to run his buisness.
I am not for the exploitation of employees or employers.
john38235133 2 years ago
As for a democratically run workplace run by employees, I am all for it but it is just as likely to be exploitative and even with this in place, wage slavery would still exist.
If a company offers a decent salery, fair treatment, and protects your safety how is this exploitation?
The defining feature of capitalism is the freedom it gives individuals.
john38235133 2 years ago
The fact that slaves had thier rights violated makes that example invalid, as long as the rights of the workers are met their is no exploitation taking place.
Yes, people have to work for a boss to make money and improve their condition of life, they would have to do this even if there was no boss. would you rather everyone who wanted to stop working get paid by the government, or everyone who wanted jobs be given them?
We have to make it easier for people to start a buisness.
john38235133 2 years ago
I read the gist of the article, I would call it exploitation not wage slavery.
I get the whole idea that we are slaves to our jobs but in a true capitalist system there would be to many different buisnesses competeing each other for this to happen.
We are all capitalists at heart and want to produce and come up with new things.
There is a shortage of jobs because there are only a few thousand big name companies to work for.
They have basically no compitition.
john38235133 2 years ago
The reason they have no compition is because the government makes it hard for people to start a buisness.
Government protects the intrests of big buisness. If I had to choose between a perfect state of communism, capitalism, or socialism I would choose capitalism because it offers the most freedom. The system in place now is not capitalism but some messed up monster.
john38235133 2 years ago
Your naive definition of capitalism:
"produce and come up with new things."
does not have any relation to the meaning of the term; either practically or historically
mr1001nights 2 years ago
I said capitalists come up with and produce new things, to compete against other people (capitalists) this would be the case. I guess I was not clear sorry
john38235133 2 years ago
I am curious as to what your definition of capialism is.
john38235133 2 years ago
I would define capitalism as the pervasiveness of wage labor as a social relation, in the context of property not intended for active use.
mr1001nights 2 years ago
Are you comparing wage laborers to property and calling it capitalism?
john38235133 2 years ago
You mean consequences like the US having the worst child poverty in the OECD. Where real wages for the majority have stagnated for 30 years.
Having the most expensive healthcare (despite being ranked 34 in the world) - 2x more expensive that France (rated No1) .
I don't see a need to tear down the US system - it is destroying itself...
ginganz13 2 years ago
seriously mr1001nights, is this your best for arguing against capitalism? lol
heroe2006 2 years ago
It must be pretty damn good, since you haven't been able to respond
mr1001nights 2 years ago
my apologies, i haven't went back to view your video comments lfor about 3 days lol. But seriously, in the end, MARKETS work, governments don't.
heroe2006 2 years ago
The end result of "Free Markets" is monopoly. No where do Free Markets exist. What you consider Free markets are actually highly regulated industries.
enkelin32 2 years ago
Humm interesting to note that we rarely see Moore dressed up in a suit and tie outfit. I wonder what made him decide to wear such an attire!
josealonsoleon 2 years ago
Wouldn't it have been quicker and to the point saying that Hannity is an ignorant fool rather then using up 6:31mn of your precious time?
josealonsoleon 2 years ago
Great!
mickmadd55 2 years ago
NAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH WRONG!: According to nationmaster, Haiti is ranked as #128 on the index of economic freedom, just right below china, while the United states is ranked #6 on the index of economic freedom . Either you are totally ignorant about economics my friend or you are intenally spreading misinformation to further promote your agenda;
Pentazoid111 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Okay , we can talk about the facts: FACT: The wealthiest countries on the planet are capitalist nations: FACT: The countries with the highest standards of living are capitalist nations; FACT: The top 50 countries with the highest deathrate are NOT capitalist countries: FACT: Poor people are likely to become wealthy in countries with capitalistic economies than countries with non-capitalistic economies: FACT : Capitalism has truly helped people formerly in dire situations than it has harmed
Pentazoid111 2 years ago
"Capitalism has truly helped people formerly in dire situations than it has harmed."
Serfs were often better off under feudalism than thralls were under slavery. This doesn't mean feudalism is the perfect system, nor that it is better than any possible alternative.
Your argument is a straw-man, as no one is arguing in favor of the authoritarian regimes you use for comparison (i.e. the presidential republic of war-torn haiti, or the liberalized -capitalist- markets of an authoritarian china).
VoltairineCleyre 2 years ago 4
When did I ever say that either of you and the poster of this video was arguing for an authoritarian regime; Haiti and India have democracies, but they have the largest impoverished populations in the world . Having Democracies wont assist people out of poverty, capitalism will. I don't know why people refuse to acknowledge this fact; Countries that acquired capitalism that formerly had high impoverished populations became rich countries; Just look at Hong Kong and Japan;
Pentazoid111 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hear, hear.
It is completely unsurprising to see mr1001nights and his fanboys leaping to the defense of a pompous, lying, backstabbing, manipulative, self- centered, and immensely hypocritical Socialist swine like Michael Moore. They'd cheer on Satan himself if he emerged and started badmouthing capitalism, a system whose benefits they all take for granted every single day.
Adamguy2003 2 years ago
I am interested in hearing the wildly imaginative standard you have formed in order to refer to Haiti as a "democracy".
Then perhaps we can get beyond your eerily simplistic understanding of international economics to the titanic influx of foreign state capital that allowed Japan to retool its industries. Or the role of imperialism in making Hong Kong a unique trading port and financial center. A role it would not have filled if China had not maintained a comparatively restricted economy.
VoltairineCleyre 2 years ago 3
Haiti is a constitutitional republic; its does not have a tolitarian system of govt. The executive branch of its system of government has more power than are branch of executive government is supposed to have ; Are you kidding mean; Hong kong was in shambles when the British empire have more power over Hong Kong; When Britain lessened it hold on Hong Kong and many of the leaders of hong kong implemented a non-interventionist policy ; Its economic policy was influenced by many economists ;
Pentazoid111 2 years ago
"Haiti is a constitutitional republic"
It isn't a functioning republic right now, but even if it was, it still wouldn't be a democracy.
"Are you kidding [mean]; Hong kong was in shambles when the British empire [have] more power over Hong Kong;"
Nor did I claim otherwise. I simply pointed out that imperialism was responsible for Hong Kong being what it is today, that and its unique position in relation to China. These are casual factors, "capitalism" as you are using it, is merely a label.
VoltairineCleyre 2 years ago
Transport the Hannitys, Becks and Limbaughs back in time to 1850 and they'd be plantation owners apologizing for slavery.
Send them back to 1350 and they'd be feudal lords apologizing for serfdom.
It takes far more integrity for the Moores to criticize the system than for these clowns to defend it.
NamelessCommenter 2 years ago 3
The problem with Moores film is the fact that we dont even have a true capitalist economy.
He does not even mention the fact that Freddie May and Mac were government sponsored enterprises and the whole reason for this bubble to begin with.
The system we have now is shit, and all the polliticians are to blame. Along with the giant monopolies that fund their campaigns.
john38235133 2 years ago
What is call a "mixed economy" is capitalism with a few leftist amendments... amendments which we fought very hard for, by the way. The system we have not IS shit, and ALWAYS was shit, because capitalism, even in it's regulated, watered-down form is EVIL, always was, and always will be.
PolemicalCommentary 2 years ago
Government interference always causes more problems than it solves.
Capitalism is a system of the trading of goods and services, what is evil about it.
What we have is big corporations that are helped and protected by the government.
This is not capitolism it is corpatism.
john38235133 2 years ago
"True compassion is more than flipping a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring."
-Martin Luther King Jr.
JonathanM00r3 2 years ago 7
LOL @ capitalist apologists marking this MLK quote as spam.
/unmarked & thumbed-up
NamelessCommenter 2 years ago
Comment removed
JonathanM00r3 2 years ago
The US is THE most protectionist nation in history? Seems counter-intuitive, so please excuse the probing...
Firstly, more so than somewhere like Nazi Germany? (I know that foreign investment and imports existed, but still more than the US?)
Also, can a majority state-capitalist economy which permits some market competition still count as 'protectionist', or is this unique to market economies? I have places like Cuba in mind, or early Deng Xiaoping period China. Do they count as protectionist?
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
Read Ha-Joon Chang's Bad Samaritans. It's his statement, not mine. He presents evidence, from US inception, of mass unparalleled protectionism.
mr1001nights 2 years ago
Fair enough that Michael Moore giving to charity wouldnt solve the systemic problem. However it could ease the suffering if only momentarily for at least one person(especially in a third world destitute situation). All this is assuming he lives a life of a least moderate luxury...dont really know just making the point.
nijaexhile3 2 years ago
We shouldn't criticise imperialistic wars. We've benefitted from them financially... o_0
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago 2
I doubt people living in imperialist nations benefit from these wars. I mean the money being spent on the military is money that will never be spent on healthcare, education, cleaning up the environment and all that good stuff. Like I seriously doubt that the British working class benefited from the British empire looting India.
jumpnjza2 2 years ago 3
You could be wrong here. I'm not sure what you make of Lenin's credibility, but he made a point that predatory nations are able to 'throw crumbs' to the working class in order to placate them, making them less likely to rebel against their capitalist masters.
I think in many respects, we can see that even today. Compare the standard of living of the imperialist nation's working class to that of the exploited nation. Not many Indonesians have microwave ovens, Ipods, plasma TVs etc.
Our ruling
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago 2
Well yes, the same corporations that have gained from looting Iraq also pay taxes to the government which may allocate fragments of that money in a medicaid fund or something. However the point Lenin is making is that these gains for the workers are residual. I tend to agree with mr1001nights that the reason workers in predatory nations have better standards of living is due to years of class struggle.
jumpnjza2 2 years ago
I agree with that - class struggle is the reason for our raised standards of living, but the fact that our ruling class is richer provides us with an opportunity 'to' gain more. They can spend more on buying workers consent (via bread and circuses), whilst the circulation of their plundered money in our economy ultimately benefits workers financially and we benefit from the cheap goods produced by foreign labour. I won't dispute that we have to fight for these gains, but we still find advantage
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
from being part of an imperialist nation. We just have to look at the HDI for that. Workers in exploited countries have less opportunities.
By no means do I think that the workers in imperialist nations are to blame or should feel guilt (which was the point of the initial comment, obviously). We should still criticise our governments, just like Moore, even if we benefit financially (not morally).
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
Our raised standards of living are because of technological advancement more than anything else.
Unions had some role in shorter work days and definantly had an impact on working conditions.
I think the minimum wage is pretty much worthless, you get a higher paycheck but you have to pay more for everything else.
I think the biggest reason that things were as bad for the worker as they were was because of the fact that big buisness had government in its pocket.
Just like today.
john38235133 2 years ago
It's a false dichotomy. Class struggle puts lets of a burden on the capitalists in imperialist countries because of the wealth they accumulate via imperialism. Lenin's point was within the context of the class struggle. Imperialism or no, capitalists don't give out concessions for no reason. And if you have no imperialism then then the class struggle waged by capitalists to hang onto their profits must be even more bitter.
RevolutionarySpectre 2 years ago
"Compare the standard of living of the imperialist nation's working class to that of the exploited nation."
1st-worlders constitute a labor aristocracy. Global product: ~$70 trillion. What's my share? Do the math. How do I make more? Short answer: my labor is valued higher. Why? Am I more valuable than an Asian rice farmer, or is it something else? Even without state interference, market values would be unjust. In a communist gift economy, the standard of living would avg out @ ~$10k (PPP).
NamelessCommenter 2 years ago
Just checking I'm not misunderstanding you. Are you in agreement with me on this? (that first world labour 'does' benefit from imperialism financially)
To clarify my own position in case I'm being misunderstood, I'm approaching this from a communist perspective. I'm not justifying the imperialism, just noting that we can benefit from things whilst still considering them morally bankrupt (like Moore and capitalism)
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
We're in agreement, yes.
I've found Maoist-Internationalists/Thirdworldists particularly cogent on this issue. I don't agree with them on much else, but I believe in taking wisdom where I find it, & they've got some powerful anti-imperialist arguments & damning criticisms of the 1st-world labor aristocracy.
That said, I'm still for 1st-world class struggle because profit = theft. But I turn against 1st-world workers when them become xenophobic nationalists to protect their relative privilege.
NamelessCommenter 2 years ago
Hmmm, interesting. Do the Maoists critcise the labour aristrocracy individually?
What's their argument if so? That workers in the first world should 'not' struggle for a share in the super-profts? It's a fairly harsh criticism if that's the case.
I think I may be arguing with one of those "xenophobic nationalists"/protectionists you mentioned on the comments to this very video right now....
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
They don't argue against 1st-world class struggle; they'd just like to see more struggle by the relatively privileged 1st-world workers on behalf of those of the 3rd-world (as would I). The problem is (& here's where Maoists suffer from the same blind spot as other Marxists, well-meaning though they are), the state allows the labor aristocracy to attack 3rd-world comrades; & without proper class consciousness they're too often inclined to do so. But Maoist wisdom folds neatly into anarchism.
NamelessCommenter 2 years ago
You say that many Indonesians do not have these things, I am assuming your right. That does not mean they dont have better lives because of the jobs.
I do know that India and many of its people have bennifited from outsourced jobs.
I dont support sweat shops or making these people work 12 hours, but the wage they get is perfectly fine.
These countries do not have a minimum wage that distorts the value of goods like in America.
john38235133 2 years ago
Sorry to put this so bluntly, John (it's really the only way), but I fear you may be living in Rainbowland.
I think you should investigate the wages and conditions these workers face. Their exploitation is maximised by the desperate penuary they face. Hence, they are able to work for slave wages and many work far more than 12 hours, sleeping just a few hours in their respective factories.
Whilst it is true that they benefit financially (and minimally) from outsourced jobs, the very reason that
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
the jobs are outsourced in the first place is that the workers are desperate enough to accept anything they can get, no matter how exploitative, meaning they'll work for less and accept poor conditions.
Usually, you'll find that if these workers are raised out of 'abject' poverty and begin to unionise (demanding better wages), the corporations employing them will ship out to another desperate area which will accept harsh conditions, leaving them unemployed again.
Your initial premise is false.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
The economy left behind by the company is still there.
The government is stronger and can protect its peoples rights better when other companies come in to exploit them.
All countries have to go through this before they can become a consumer society.
The fact that companies can go around the world looking for workers is bullshit and a violation of other peoples rights.
Jobs are outsourced because of the minimum wage and our sad system of government.
john38235133 2 years ago
I do not believe that the workers are working in great conditions, I am sure they are not.
Their government has failed to protect thier rights and as far as wages, things there are cheaper because they have low wages.
They can live a better life with the amount they earn, that is the main point.
I am not defending outsourcing I hate it, the minimum wage only hurts people and screws up prices which hurts poor people.
john38235133 2 years ago
You're being inconsistent in bemoaning that their government doesn't look after the workers' rights, but still claiming that the lack of government interference (minimum wage for example) is beneficial. You can't have it both ways. On the contrary, if they 'did' have a minimum wage, perhaps they would face less indigence.
However, this cuts to the heart of the matter. It is the very fact that the government does 'not' protect the workers' rights which makes these countries attractive to
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
multinationals.
Due to the competitive nature of capitalism, these nations are forced to compete to attract business once debt and the IMF forces them to open to the 'free' market. Their economies are therefore at the mercy of international capital.
If the government steps in to ensure that workers rights are respected and a 'fair' pay is earned, then corporations will take their business to another area where the government is unwilling to protect workers.
The cards are in corporate hands.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
I forgot that you misunderstand the nature of the government/state. Keep watching mr1001nights' videos, including the documentary on The Investment Theory Of Politics for more details on this.
In brief, the state doesn't exist to protect workers' rights, as I think you're postulating. On the contrary, the government/state is usually dominated by the economically dominant class. Officials are corrupted and the system is itself designed in third world countries to ensure that progressives fail.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
Eventually all countries will demand and expect explotative companies to provide safer work places, hours and a wage that is justified.
It is only a matter of time, I think you give to little credit to the capitalists in other nations.
All it takes is a little bit of advancement before exploitated countries become the next big consumer.
john38235133 2 years ago
American workers are still Americans.
They are promised the protection of their rights.
Workers are entitled to the rights they have because they are american, being a worker does not give you extra rights.
If you think that the minimum wage is benificial to the millions of people who have lost their jobs to foreigners you are mistaken.
john38235133 2 years ago
You're in danger of under evaluating the circumstances. Having rights is quite literally nothing at all to do with being American. American is just a word. Nothing can be understood in the isolation of "because it's America." - there are causes.
The rights American workers have are the result of class struggle. America has a bloody union history and rights were 'won' through this struggle.
You don't need to look far to see this. When did being 'American' help blacks in apartheid? It was the
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
civil rights movement, not the American government which made the society that little bit more equal. It was the unions who fought for health and safety regulations to stop workers falling into blast furnaces, or being forced to work without adequate protective equipment.
Countries on the wrong end of imperialism (as we were discussing further up this thread, so give it a read) have less bargaining power than workers in imperialist nations and have an even harder time winning these rights.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
The problem of unemployment isn't the fault of a minimum wage, for goodness sake. The minimum wage ensures that workers aren't being as heavily exploited as they would be without it. Unions won that to help protect workers.
The problem of unemployment is one of capitalism, not the labour movement. A better solution is global socialism, rather than protectionism.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
The American government is pathetic when it comes to protecting our rights.
I agree that they may have less bargaining power, but do you think that they are so totally dependent that they wont be able to create their own buisnesses.
Since we are talking about the exploited workers, we should realize why they are there in the first place. Wages being the main cause.
john38235133 2 years ago
You're partially correct in saying that wages are the main cause, but that's only as a by-product of the intial cause - competition and the drive for profit. Not just amongst capitalists, but even between workers who are forced to compete to work for less (in order to gain a job).
The solution then is to remove the capitalist system, not to reform it, implement protectionist policies or whatever else. Remove the system of wage labour in favour of worker control of the means of production.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
Profit is not bad, especially the drive for it.
I think that it should be easier for people to make their own buisness.
There is nothing to reform about capitalism only to let big buisness fail and for the government to get out of the economy.
john38235133 2 years ago
I understand what having rights are, I am saying that America is supposed to protect the rights of Americans.
Class struggle has not given me any rights, the civil rights movement just brought to light the uglieness of government and society.
They have a right to their salary, fair treatment, and the safety of their life.
These are basic rights.
The right to unionise, 8 hour day? Basic rights already garenteed by the constitution.
They fought for protection thats all.
john38235133 2 years ago
But 'do' you understand what these rights are? This is what I'm trying to get at, because I think you've got it the wrong way around.
Class struggle 'has' given you rights. I'm not an American and don't know your constitution inside out, but I don't think that the 8 hour day is indeed constitutional. In fact, I know with some confidence that the right to free expression wasn't in the constitution until the 60s.
For a start, you might note that America was built on the slave trade. Evidentally,
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
these slaves did not have freedom. It had to be one, and it had to be won through struggle.
The governments role (and this according to James Maddison, founding father) is to protect the minority of the oppulent against the majority. To protect property rights and maintain class dominance (the very nature of the formation of states).
Even the rights that the initial constitution afforded you would have been those taken from European societies which had already struggled and taken them across
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
the Atlantic.
The state exists not as your friend, to protect your rights. It exists to maintain the status quo in the face of irreconcilable class contraditions (there is little need for it without them, hence the Marxian "withering away of the state").
This can be seen best when the conflict between classes is so intense that the state resorts to excessive authoritarianism - by that, I refer to fascism - as a means to quash revolutionary tendencies.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
I actually want to hear your idea about a global socialist world.
I agree with everything you have said about rights, except that I believe I have always had my rights.
No one has won my rights for me, they won recognition from the government that they should protect their rights.
We have the first amendment which is the freedom of speech, that was before the 60's.
I am American and dont know all my "constituional" rights but I know when I feel like my rights are being violated.
john38235133 2 years ago
The freedom of speech wasn't in the constitution until a wave of 'democratisation' in the 60s. I only found this out recently from listening to Chomsky, so give it some research, but this is only one example. Whilst you personally may not have had to have had rights won for you in your lifetime, people fought and died for them before you were born. Freedoms are never gifts from above. So whilst 'you' may have had your rights from birth, it's only because of the struggle of others before you were
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
born. I mentioned the black civil rights movement. Black people born today have their rights and no longer live in apartheid (although racial inequalities still exist) - this is because of that movement to win rights which saw people die.
You mentioned letting corporations fail, and this is a perfect example of what I was saying about the state and big business being in bed together (the economically dominant class controls the state, as I put it). The state takes your tax money (it happened
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
here in the UK, too) and pumps it into corporations to ensure their survival. The state also pumps your tax money into private weapons manufacturers, into private business grants etc.
Anyway, global socialism. In a socialist system, the workers control the means of production collectively. This means that they produce according to their needs and wants, rather than profits and competition You can probably see why this eradicates many of the problems like unemployment, poor conditions and pay.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
Workers aren't going to exploit themselves. They aren't at the mercy of companies setting up in their area, whilst the problem of unequal bargaining power is also diminished (there's no one they have to bargain with). It's that need for profit which leads to corporations looking for workers living in squalor and prepared to work for a pittance with poor health and safety conditions.
By the way, the constitution bit was a shock to me too, but it's just another example of misinformation.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
I respect what people during the civil rights period did, They won recognition from the government that their rights were being violated and disrespected.
I have bennifettied you are right I was just on a rant about individual rights.
john38235133 2 years ago
I do not believe rights are given from above or that the government is my friend.
When you say rights are won that means they can be lost and taken away, they can only be violated by government that is all.
john38235133 2 years ago
The government (ironic as it is) is only created to protect our rights.
You said we cannot have a revolution, all we have to do is to quit paying taxes.
The hard part is comming together and deciding what to revolutionise about and solutions.
john38235133 2 years ago
Just because some of my individual rights are not in the constitution does not mean I dont have them or that they should not be protected. Everyone has the right to be treated fairly (8 hour work day)
john38235133 2 years ago
As for freedom of expression do you think no one could express themselves before 1960? The fact that this had to be put down on paper shows how stupid politicians are.
john38235133 2 years ago
If a company makes giant profits without exploiting people, I support this. Profits should go back into workers salry, improving manufactoring, or advertisement of the good produced.
Calling profit theft that is not derived from explotation is crazy. A workers salery is his profit.
john38235133 2 years ago
Wages should be determined by the value of the work they do along with production costs.
If more buisnesses were around the demand for workers would create higher wages.
Are you agreeing with me that government should get out of the economy?
john38235133 2 years ago
When you say global is there one state, many, or none? I would assume one big one. I am not sure I have a lot of questions about this.
john38235133 2 years ago
What happens when one worker does less than others. who decides who does what. what if others want or need more. what if there are not enough jobs to go around. what if you are given or are in a job you dont want, the one you want is full.( this can be cosidered a form a wage slave)
I am not against socialism, it is okay but I am against global anything. Imposing the world to follow a certain system is wrong .
john38235133 2 years ago
I do not support global capitalism either although what we have is not capitalism.
john38235133 2 years ago
John think about it, if you are a Capitalist, the worst thing is equality. Imagine if the government provided everyone a house, health care, and food. This hurts the capitalist because if my manager decides to say a racist comment or is power-oriented, I can say, "I'm taking 2 weeks off" or "I quit."
The capitalist would lose control. People wouldn't work for their bare necessities. Workers would be in control and the capitalist would be forced to work which they should.
lukebutton 2 years ago
Okay, lets pretend that we live in a collective society and everyone no longer has to work for the bare neccessities. What if some individuals saved thier earnings or got others to back him up in some buisness venture. The guy had an idea and followed through but needs employees, as long as the workers choose of their own free will to work for him for some reason instead of the collective buisnesses I see no problem with this. The reason anarchy is appealing to me is the idea of personal freedom
john38235133 2 years ago
We'd have to stop calling them workers, because these people would be closer to independent contractors. They provide a service for this guy's business, and the businessman provides money. But no longer does the businessman dictate the contractor's work schedule. The contractor's basic necessities would no longer be in jeopardy. There's no problem with people working for someone, the problem is when "workers" cannot dictate . Labor and property ownership are equally powerful.
lukebutton 2 years ago
I am having a hard time imagining a collective factory where everyone can dictate their own schedule.
I imagine a capitalist factory would be pretty much the same as any collectivist factory except workers get to vote for their bosses.
john38235133 2 years ago
Well John, a collectivist factory - assuming everyone's basic needs are met (healthcare, food, living) - is much different than a capitalist factory. When everyone's needs are met, they do not work to pay bills, to eat, or to have healthcare. In this type of system, the capitalist loses power because he now becomes the worker. Instead of dictating, he must now work to keep the collective "workers" happy or wanting to work for him. He must now think about everyone instead of himself.
lukebutton 2 years ago
It sounds very nice, apparently people would just work for the fun of it.
john38235133 2 years ago
People already do just work for the fun of it - rich people. Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie are prime examples. It could be argued that people with wealthy parents work for fun because they don't need the job for basic necessities. They have more power than people who need their jobs to eat and have basic necessities.
lukebutton 2 years ago
Paris hilton and the other do not work and the way you describe how a collectivist factory employee is given all of their basic necessities it sounds like they are paid that way.
john38235133 2 years ago
@john38235133 Paris doesn't work but on her previous reality show (be it fake or real) she appeared to work. Even if she wasn't really working, the show represents rich people if they chose to work. They are not tied to the job, they merely work for the fun of it or for other reasons, not because they need healthcare or food.
In this scenario, collectivist contractors would be given food, housing, and helathcare by the government. If they lose their job, they'd get unemployment benefits.
lukebutton 2 years ago
I would not mind living in that system. It sounds great.
john38235133 2 years ago
My argument for capitalism is that if you work to gain capital and you decide to start a buisness you should be able to.
john38235133 2 years ago
But if a collectivest factory was able to provide all those things to its workers I think it would be pretty hard for any capitalist to compete, but he should still be able to try.
john38235133 2 years ago
In a collectivist factory, the "workers" are the boss not the other way around. There are no "workers", everyone is treated fairly. In order to have people doing things like mopping floors and scrubbing toilets, these People would have to be paid extremely well. If scrubbing floors is something no one wants to do, then it is a highly valuable position and should be compensated as such.
lukebutton 2 years ago
Sorry Luke, the way I see it there will always be some form of hierarical structure when it comes to large #'s of people working at a job, wether it be in the form of an elected workers council or a boss and some managers, it takes very little skills to be a janitor and if any janitorial job opened up where you got paid alot everyone would want it.
john38235133 2 years ago
@john38235133 I agree with you, there will always be some form of hierarchy structure, but it doesn't have to be controlled by the few. The many can flex their power as well. Without labor there is no capitalist. See, I believe in Capitalism, but I just believe that those who labor control the wealthy because right now the wealthy are out of control.
Everyone wanting a janitor job is unlikely because everyone doesn't want an executive position. Some people do but not everyone.
lukebutton 2 years ago
Yes, I do not want the few in control but I do not see it that way I see it as indivuduals managing a buisness not controlling the lives of thier workers.
john38235133 2 years ago
@john38235133 That's because managing a business sounds more politically correct than managing slaves. If you can't leave your job to see your child until 5pm, you are not your own person, you belong to someone else. The executives have the freedom to make their own schedules.
lukebutton 2 years ago
Any capitalist should be able to start a business but there is no business (one which requires people) without employees or what I like to call independent contractors (right now these are people who rent themselves to eat and have healthcare).
lukebutton 2 years ago
In a collectivist society wouldnt people still need to work for the collective for basic goods or is everything given to whoever wants it wether they work or not? The ansewer is they would HAVE to work or starve.
john38235133 2 years ago
@john38235133 Of course people would need to work for the collective for basic goods etc. But if people had all of their basic needs, one wealthy person (or a small group of them) couldn't control a mass amount of people because people's jobs couldn't be dangled in front of them.
lukebutton 2 years ago
Okay, when I think of a colective society I think of collectivized medicine, food, goods, collectivized everything. People would still be paid from thier collectivized jobs but the individuals would have to buy thier own basic goods right?
john38235133 2 years ago
Most of these people can get a whole lot more with the money they get with renting themselves out ya know. You make it sound as if it is a god given right for everyone to get food and a house and health care and all the other necessities one could want without working for them. If we lived in a world where all of these things just poped up by thinking them I would agree but it is impossible to me no matter how hard I try to imagine the world you are talking about and how it would even work.
john38235133 2 years ago
"the minimum wage only hurts people and screws up prices which hurts poor people."
Capitalist tripe. The minimum wage is always too low, by definition: the wage system is where capitalists pay laborers less than the value of what is produced. If the wage is $1 googol per hour, you can be sure that the capitalist is still making a profit (a.k.a. stealing).
NamelessCommenter 2 years ago
"We shouldn't criticise imperialistic wars."
I know, right?
According to conservative logic, it was hypocritical for the feudal merchants to criticize the aristocracy and instigate the bourgeois revolutions that gave rise to capitalist dominance. Oops!
Shit, it was hypocritical for nomadic foragers to suggest putting down roots and farming, even as they sat around the campfire gorging on the bounty of the hunt.
According to this logic we should never have left the savanna.
Fucking idiots.
NamelessCommenter 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Welll, feudal merchants weren't actually benefiting from aristocracy or feudalism, it was a detriment to their existence. Most people perished, Most people starved and Most people died prematurely, well at least by today's standards. What disavantages is Michael moore receiving from capitalism? He is RICH , he does not have to work anymore; Michael moore complaining about capitalism is like a kid complaining about being the winner of a lifetime supply of toys and candy .
Pentazoid111 2 years ago
The argument is essentially a non-racist version of "then go back to Africa, ungrateful nig" or "don't complain about slavery since your food, house and bed comes from your master."
Essentially, what Pyncho
byemef 2 years ago 5
Do you think that hierarchies are justified in some labor processes? For example I wouldn't like to see a collective commune, even if they're all very smart people, in charge of a nuclear power plant. I think sometimes top-down control is necessary. Whaddayathink?
jumpnjza2 2 years ago 2
This depends on your use of the term 'hierarchical'.
I would agree that there are examples where 'leadership' are legitimate. When your ship is headed for a rock, I'd prefer a captain to steer it away rather than sitting around having a meeting before taking a democratic vote on which way to steer.
This doesn't necessarily indicate 'hierarchy', however. To elect a delegate who is accountable and immediately recallable seems sufficient. The difference between that and a 'boss' is obvious.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago 4
Youre right Samson, it is obvious now that you put it that way. Good comment.
So is this the idea behind Libertarian socialism? Things as they exist now but with people with democratic control over their "bosses"?
nijaexhile3 2 years ago 2
Not quite. That was just my response for the nuclear power plant example in particular, which is quite an extreme one, and so there has to be some flexibility for different circumstances, rather than paint-by-numbers method of organisation. Most industries can be run by concensus or democratically. Take something less complex, like...let's say a bakers. It's very different from a nuclear power plant and doesn't necessarily require that recognised 'leadership'.
I'm speaking for myself here, of
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
course. There may be libertarian socialists somewhere in the world I haven't met who would be confident in the ability of workers to organise a nuclear power plant according to consensus rule....but I think they'd be few and far between if they exist at all.
I think most would agree that where leadership is 'deemed' necessary by workers, and provided their decision isn't coerced and they give their recallable mandate, it's excusable and not 'hierarchy'. That's the main point for me, at least.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
Ok cool thanks Samson. Im a noob on this topic(obviously).
nijaexhile3 2 years ago
Yeah you're right.
jumpnjza2 2 years ago
"Whaddayathink?"
I think you should read "The Conquest of Bread" by Peter Kropotkin.
NamelessCommenter 2 years ago
I will.
jumpnjza2 2 years ago 2
crony capitalism
KhmerD0g 2 years ago
The people who call him a "hypocrite" need to realise that if Moore simply advertised his new film by releasing it free on his own website - he would reach much less people than by advertising it in cinemas and the media. So, he has to use the existing marketing and PR architecture to reach the audience. All this costs money, of course.
PersianPaladin 2 years ago 3
I don't think Michael Moore is hypocritical for criticizing the system. I do think Moore is hypocritical for not being more charitable than he is.
ithinkronpaulissmart 2 years ago
Im not sure about his situation...does he live in big old mansions etc?
nijaexhile3 2 years ago
I really can't stand arguments like the one Hannity made at the beginning of this video. They basically boil down to, "You shouldn't say what you're saying because you're allowed to say it."
ZortMuckerman 2 years ago 6