I busy at work but you have misunderstanding of the "free market" 1
1. Risk is not rewarded, results are rewarded. You also confuse personal risk "walking down the street" with capital risk. #16 All people benefit from the discipline of saving not just the rich. The alternative would be 100% consumption and the death of our society. Without savings of capital, there is no improvement in productivity, without productivity, stagnation and collapse (Greece, USSR)
Free Market Capitalism (Austrian School) logically works quite well. Supply and Demand, the only workable Pricing System, etc..
That said; It's a terrible system if you are just an Average Joe and the economy is in downturn. It is a ruthlessly cruel system if you are on the receiving end of the "exploitation" that makes Production profitable enough to build Capital. Survival of the fittest? What about those that are NOT the "fittest"?? 40% of the population MUST suffer for it to work.
If slavery were legal today very few Capitalists would bother. It's much cheaper to hire a Worker for $7 an hour than to "own" the person. Owning a person means you must feed, clothe, house and supply medical care. If a slave is sick you must still take care of him. When a slave gets old or unproductive you are stuck with him. For $7 and hour you can hire only the young and strong and NOT pay him when not in use. Modern slavery would be insanely more expensive than keeping "Wage Slaves"...
Free Market Capitalism (Austrian School) logically works quite well. Supply and Demand, the only workable Pricing System, etc..
That said; It's a terrible system if you are just an Average Joe and the economy is in downturn. It is a ruthlessly cruel system if you are on the receiving end of the "exploitation" that makes Production profitable enough to build Capital. Survival of the fittest? What about those that are NOT the "fittest"?? 40% of the population MUST suffer for it to work.
@randy95023 Creative Destruction is the process where the economy changes, keeping up with innovation, shifts in demand, etc. It is painful for those involved, no doubt. Yet without this, Govt would need to promote destructive conditions, like to preserve land- line phone services, horse drawn buggy production, vinyl music record production. Its silly, of course. As far as "suffering" goes, the capitalistic nations enjoy better living conditions than centrally planned economies do.
In response to this question, anarchism (or libertarian socialism) involves looking at currently-existing institutions that involve kyriarchy, control, and subordination (whether statist or privatist) and replacing them with institutions of direct participatory democracy and self-management.
Such as community assemblies in politics and cooperatives in economics - all linked over a wide area through confederation
The best modern forms include *Parecon* and *Inclusive Democracy*
I don't know how the communist/socialist types manage to twist capitalism into some kind of forceful slavery system. If anything is similar to slavery, it's communism. Capitalism is the freedom to CHOOSE. You can choose where you want to work, live, and what you spend your money on. Business owners have to pander to their customers wants or they will go broke and treat their workers well or they will leave to work elsewhere. No one is putting a gun to anyone's head like they would in communism.
1. Communism WAS indeed similar to slavery. It subordinated the entire populace to the state. No one is disputing that, least of all left-libertarians/anarchists. The obvious monstrosities of totalitarian statism do not discount the still-existing problems of capitalism; whether statist, minarchist, or "anarcho"-capitalist.
2. "Free to choose" in capitalism, means "free to choose" a master. Not freedom FROM masters (unless you are one yourself)Only self-management offers this freedom
@MsSexySocialist Is it just the idea of working for someone else who makes more money that ruffles the feathers? That isn't going away ever under any system. Managers are necessary in any organization. This "master" will always be there. It's a fact of life, get used to it. At least capitalism gives you the opportunity to make more money for being more productive and gives you the opportunity to be the "master" if you earn it. Self-management for everyone is not realistic under any system
Self-management was implemented on a wide scale encompassing over 7 million people during the Spanish revolution of 1937 (during the war) and can be seen on a wide scale today in examples such as the EZLN Good Government Councils, and the reclaimed factories movement in Argentina.
Also, self-management in economics and politics does not preclude dividing production from management, merely making both rotating positions as part of a balanced job complex
@MsSexySocialist When you are a capitalist, and own your own business, you are slave to your customers, and to the State that regulates, licenses, and taxes you.
Your critique does not apply to left-libertarianism
And regarding one's customers as individuals to whom you are "enslaved" to is pointless semantics. Customers exert no direct control whatsoever over the owner of an enterprise and the owner is at all times in control of their enterprise and what it does in the economy.
The same is not true of the individuals in an enterprise who do NOT own it and are subordinated to the owner's control
@MsSexySocialist I run my own business, and ran businesses for Franchisees, and corporations for 30 yrs before. You may be a sexy socialist, but your are full of it. Your comment has ZERO to do with reality. Sure, I controlled many enterprises, BUT my boss was the cutomers, because if they werent satisfied, they go ELSEWHERE. The only thing you obviously ever ran was a hair dryer.
@MsSexySocialist You have a You Tube name of "sexy socialist", a picture, and then accuse ME of sexism? Using the word SEXY on yourself already added the element, what a hypocrite you are. Business owners and mangers focus is on making customers happy. They fail if they do NOT. Workers ought to do the same, to customers, and MGT, or they should fail as well. I have been the best employee at times, in 2 trades, and MGT kissed my ass. WHY? I was productive.
Uh . . . I always thought that making disparaging comments based on gender counted as sexism (such as your remark about blow drying my hair), not using a tongue-in-cheek nickname as a username.
In any case, what you're describing is basically a case of "be happy being a servant and making your master happy, then your master will treat you nicely".
That's not an ideal we should have if we want actual progress both in society and with regard to a future economy.
@MsSexySocialist The discussion going on here hasnt a damn thing to do with sexy, and that`s your creation. Back to the subject, why would anyone pay someone to help him make customers happy, if the worker had no interest in doing what is necessary to that end? Without the customer, there is NO profit. Without profit, there is no need for the worker.
Workers should always try to make consumers happy. That's a symbiotic relationship which benefits both.
What I argue against is the relationship between employERS and employEES; or on the macro level between capital and labor.
My argument being that such a distinction should not exist as it a commensalistic rather than mutualistic relationship which is unnecessary giving that economic democracy and self-management exist as superior alternatives.
@MsSexySocialist If jobs are commensualistic in nature, why do so many WANT one? If it is just neutral, shit, just stay home. NO voluntary economic transaction EVER occurs that doesnt benefit BOTH parties. (as in "I want a job", or "I am here, ready to work".) BTW, if you feel exploited, start your own business, or study to become a CEO, or MGR, then instead of 40hrs a week, you can work 70, and not be "exploited" so much.
And you're missing the point I was making. Wage-labor (working for others and not yourself) only exists at all because of the disparity of bargaining power that exists between labor and capital - who own and control all the means of production.
The option of "start your own business, or study to become a CEO, or MGR" doesn't exist for those without wealth or access to capital.
@MsSexySocialist Labor has far less value when NOT combined with capital. Farmers with hand hoes cant produce what farmers with a massive combines can. Without an automated factory, workers couldnt build by hand enough vehicles to be affordable, so few could earn money. This is obvious. Google "S&P 500 PE Ratio" (index of 500 large corps), see what diviidend % return to Owners is, Today, 21.98. A $1 dividend divided by $21.98= 4.5%. Exploited? Dont make me LAUGH!
I never said workers WERE exploited in the institution of wage-labor; though that is certainly the case in some instances, developing countries come to mind.
My argument (which again, you missed the point of) is that a division between capital and labor should not exist.
All workers should own and control their own workplaces through self-management and without having to be subjected to outside orders.
@MsSexySocialist You didnt need to say it, you are transparent (exploitation). I have no problem with workers owning workplaces in co- ops, as long as they are on equal footing tax- wise, they have used, or pay for their own capital. I went on a site that said $1 Trillion world wide revenue for co-ops. World GDP is $62 Trill, co-ops are 1.6% of that. If they were best option, they would be bigger, they are NOT. I suspect they burn up capital overpaying labor.
@MsSexySocialist CEO of Exxon Mobil Corp, largest nasty Oil corp, made salary, bonus of $5.6 million, Exxon`s Revenue $383.2 billion. It has 103,700 employees. If we fored the CEO, and let the janitor run Exxon for free, in his spare time, we could pay each employee another $1.04 a week. After taxes, maybe 75 cents?
Apparently you've never heard that the CEO of a company isn't the ONLY one with a grossly disproportionate level of pay in the enterprises of our modern economy.
And the level of pay isn't even the main issue, it's CONTROL.
Every corporation is a microcosm of the worst kind of statism; with top-down governance, centralization of all decision-making, and yes, central planning. All with zero accountability to the public. Yet you'd you'd cry foul if a state worked this way.
@MsSexySocialist Corps have greedy owners. Greedy owners want all the money. Large Corps have owners known as "stockholders", who expect profits, in the form of dividends, and/ or rising share prices. Its ABSURD to think they just give away money, more than required to obtain the talent they need. Corporations are TOTALLY accountable to the public. If the public feels better served by other corps, they lose market share, and profits, and MGRS DONT get bonuses and/or get FIRED.
Monopoly power alone prevents cunsumers from collectively turning away en masse from buying a mega-corp's products or from taking a job with them if no other job's provider is available.
I'll believe your absurd opinion that corps are "TOTALLY accountable to the public" when people can vote not to have their lands polluted by the likes of Shell and Chevron, and when I can work in one and elect who the board of directors are.
@MsSexySocialist Monopolies supposedly charge over market prices, restrict production, and are the only supplier. These items, all together are ridiculous. When prices are too high, another greedy capitalist will enter into competition, take back market share, and profit. Now, NAME just one example, that is not actually regulated into BEING a monopoly by govt, that is BAD for consumers. Workers are free to work, or not, as they see fit. Getting a job doesnt mean you can be CEO.
Once again, you completely miss the point I was making.
My point is that the entire structure of enterprises needs to fundamentally change going forward from the authoritarian model of private business to the democratic model of the self-managed cooperative.
By defending the status quo, you're effectively defending the economic equivalent of feudalism. Nuff said.
@MsSexySocialist You say, "Monopoly power alone prevents cunsumers from collectively turning away en masse from buying a mega-corp's products or from taking a job with them", but you can NOT actually think of an example! You can call me absurd, "nuff said"? Remember, YOU defend worker run co-ops, & they are not, generally, competing with corporations on price. So, "get rid of Corps, let prices for ALL rise, so a FEW can make more money"? Hey, if they sell CHEAPER, they GROW!
I would also think it rather difficult for consumers to stage any kind of boycott against Exxon despite all their environmental abuses.
Also, with regard to what you seem to think I want for the future of our economy, please do some actual research; displaying your own intellectual ignorance will get you nowhere.
@MsSexySocialist WalMart is NOT a monopoly. We can buy food, and the rest of those things in other places. Exxon as well. But, I have to say, WalMart is a great place to shop. I can get a banana, a hammer, underwear, and gold earrings for my wife, all in one place, and pick up a senior coffee for 75 cents at the McDonalds inside too, AND rent a fucking movie at the "Red Box" for $1 on my way out the door. The only thing I hate is all the Fat women working, and shopping there.
@MsSexySocialist Post 2) Sorry, I got excited, thinking about WalMart in my 1st post. BTW, every single person working in a WalMart is doing so at this moment, because it is the best job available to them. WalMart earned less than 4% after tax profit, on revenue, in 2010. IF they were to pay more to employees, a few people would benefit, but then me, and half the frigging country would get fucked, paying $20HR to a high school fat girl dropout to ring up my banana.
"BTW, every single person working in a WalMart is doing so at this moment, because it is the best job available to them"
And that's the problem. And you never responded to the fact that your opinion that people can stop a company they don't want buy refusing to buy their products doesn't work due to corps like wal-mart's enourmous size and power.
@MsSexySocialist You ask, "you never responded...that people can stop a company they don't want buy refusing to buy... like wal-mart's enourmous size". I did reply, I said in several ways, last post, "Hey, if they sell CHEAPER, they GROW!" I agree that WM is big, but they are big for a reason. Folks LIKE them. You hate them, because you WANT higher prices paid by the nation, so a few WM workers paid over-market wages and benefits. WM earns 6% profit, govt gets 2%, only 4% left
In many of the small towns I've passed through Wal-Mart is literally the only place to shop. There's no other choice. I would have assumed that, as a capitalist, you'd support freedom of choice.
"You hate them, because you WANT higher prices paid by the nation"
Quote me advocating this. Because if you can't, then that statement is utterly unsubstantiated BS and putting words in my mouth. Typical forte of the right.
@MsSexySocialist Freedom of choice does NOT mean many competitors. Competition will result in fewer choices, as better corps that folks LIKE take business from those that suck. The RESULT of competition is the favorite competitor getting bigger. If WalMart is NOT competitive in any market, Greedy Capitalists will steal back market share, in food, clothes, etc. You DONT support higher wages, benefits for WM workers? Which of course CUSTOMERS would have to pay? OK, good, we agree
Uh, actually yes it does mean many competitors - or rather choices. And the size of corps has little or nothing to do with people liking them. The reason certain companies grow into oligopolies and monopolies is through favors from the state; protectionism, subsidies, corporate welfare, the existence of corporate personhood, and of course bailouts.
And even if they really did get bigger solely through competition, the amount of power concentrated in their hands . . .
. . . would still be utterly unjustifiable as, again, they have zero accountability to the public; despite some being literally more powerful than small countries.
And higher wages and benefits for workers would come exclusively from the fact that those at the top would not be making on average 350 times what ordinary employees make.
Why is it you hate ordinary working people so much? And don't try to claim you don't. Everything you say and advocate reinforces this idea.
@MsSexySocialist You failed to give one example of a monopoly. WalMart is NOT. Exxon is NOT. Exxon isnt even biggest, compared to the many Govts who control oil production in various nations. Its not big, by those standards. WalMart has competition from Target, K-Mart, Sears, JC Penny, Best Buy, small local supermarket chains, national food chains. WM CEO`s wages, if given to 2.1million workers is less than 5 cents a week. That REALLY makes a difference. Glad you pointed it OUT
Completely ignoring the fact that CEOs aren't the only one's grossly overpaid again I see.
AND the fact that I stated clearly that it was more an issue of individual autonomy and control than an issue of money. Getting paid LESS would be worth dismantling authoritarianism.
And the fact that in common econ-speak "monopoly" is used to refer to both actual monopolies and oligopolies (which I flat out mentioned in my last comment).
@MsSexySocialist Again, why would owners of a corporation pay ANYONE more than they are WORTH? They are GREEDY, arent they? It DEFIES logic, that corps overpay Mgt. A WalMart store costs millions to build. Decisions belong to those who built it. You already admitted that employee run co-ops can NOT compete with real corporations. Real Corporations, ran by real mgrs, not a bunch of self serving, business hating malcontents. I hate stupidity. I like workers, who LIKE working.
@luvcheney1 Post 2). OK, since YOU KNOW that it is the entire mgt team that is screwing up things, please give me an example. You know, a "reference". We can break it down, by revenue, or employee or whatever, so it makes sense. Really, Libs just enjoy making claims, without a fact. You would THINK a CEO is the highest paid, but no, thats not good enough. Even if the mgt team made 10 times that, its $1 week! Who are YOU to KNOW what proper pay is? Owners decide.
@MsSexySocialist Glad you like your job, & when co-ops work, we will soon see lower prices, the end of private corps. Fine! I dont think I will live to see that. Or you. Or your Kids. I asked you for a reference, to the fact you KNOW that the entire MGT team, being overpaid is an issue. You refuse, as usual. Employees dont bring the capital. Their work, PLUS the capital invested makes business work. If capital is NOT required, anyone could go in business. some do! (my wife & I)i
"when co-ops work, we will soon see lower prices, the end of private corps"
The dominance of private corps in the market ensures a systemic bias against democratic alternatives. It has nothing to do with whether they "work". The fact that they offer a better deal for ordinary working people is axiomatic.
"Employees dont bring the capital"
Because they don't OWN any - an elite of plutocrats do. Which is why, again, a division between capital and labor should not exist.
@MsSexySocialist Problem co-op & corps find in "competing" is that the corps are able to sell for less, they control costs better. Making profit requires market share, which co-ops dont, cant get. because they arent focused on low prices, which is the way to get market share. IF CUSTOMERS preferred co-ops, co-ops would WIN. Would you LIKE to discuss the many Federal Govt policies that discourage savings, and encourage debt? Fact SS&Med taxes would make a family millionaires?
@MsSexySocialist I have values, including free markets, and Liberty. Slavery obviously is NOT consistent with either, because in a free market, individuals ought to be able to make their own decisions. Slaves have no Liberty. So, there is no argument for slavery, to a believer in free markets. I see you show NO interest in Federal Policies discouraging accumulation of capital, by the masses? Gee, I see low-mid class workers being millionaires, with ease.
@luvcheney1 Post 2). Oh shit, I forgot. I`m supposed to be the bad guy, hating workers. I really shouldnt have a list, and plan to create wealth for workers, should I?
"I have values, including free markets and Liberty"
A "free market" has never existed. Every market economy has also been a statist economy so any pretentions to the alleged virtues of a market economy completely free of government interference is based on a floating abstraction at best and an outright fantasy at worst.
As for your apparent value of "liberty", that's also based on a floating abstraction as in any society that declares itself "free" must . . .
@MsSexySocialist Gee, a "Statist" economy never existed either. ALL economies an underground, black market economy develops, far more so in the economies that are closer to what are more or less Statist. So, since we cant find 100% pure Statism, nor 100% pure Capitalism, I guess we cant discuss markets? This ridiculous denigration of free markets, because it "never exists" is simply a tactic to avoid the reality of markets. They exist, like them, or not.
But not in the sense you mean when you use the term "free market". Not that I would oppose one if it did exist, but I would oppose any economy where power is concentrated at the institutional level - which you fallaciously believe is a good thing.
"many people DREAM of the FREEDOM of a normal, 9-5 job"
If that's the case then why don't they get one? ^^
Oh yeah, because more money and more power is worth the extra stress.
@MsSexySocialist Success usually does come at a cost, Many refuse to pay. The "market" wont let co-ops overtake most big corps, unless they compete in price and quality. TO compete, co-ops MUST grow large, to gain economies of scale, they must pay market wages, not over market, they must KEEP profits to accumulate capital to expand OR pay OUT profits as dividends to investors, to ATTRACT capital. The issue is, if they do all this, they would be acting JUST LIKE corps!
"The issue is, if they do all this, they would be acting JUST LIKE corps!"
Uh, no they wouldn't.
The Mondragon Corporation in the Basque country is an economy of scale that operates on the principles of cooperatives and self-management; and they're a model for equitable and sustainable business.
Admit it; you're a supporter of a dying and authoritarian economic model that can offer people neither freedom, fulfillment, equity or even efficiency.
@MsSexySocialist I dont know how many business owners you know, but my wife and I have our own business. We work 70 hrs a week, each, and this isnt at all uncommon. Mgrs do too, and big time CEO`s work very long hrs as well. The only people with real freedom? BS, many people DREAM of the FREEDOM of a normal, 9-5 job. Freedom from stress, long hours, inability to take time off, freedom from worry about customers suing you, liabilities, etc, NO vacation 7 yrs. CANT call out sick!
. . . be able to offer liberty in both the negative sense (freedom FROM external authority) and the positive sense (freedom TO actualize individual potential).
Right-wing libertarianism offers the former but not the latter; effectively making its concept of "liberty" an illusury and fake liberty.
The only people with real freedom are the elite class of owners - everyone else is subordinated to their whims.
In other words, "all are free but some are more free than others".
@MsSexySocialist 1) There IS an objective criterion for labor. It is the wage that creates a balance between workers seeking, and positions available. "Market price". Currently, we have "unemployment", a surplus of labor. Tale ONE guess as to IF price is too high, or too low. 2) People get paid not by how hard they work, but by the wage necessary to obtain the sufficient amount of people necessary to properly fill positions.
1. And it's this very crude economism that reduces human beings to mere commodities that must go.
2. You just proved my point. People don't get paid by how hard they work.
If we're going to have some kind of criterion for labor and remuneration it needs to be based upon the amount of personal sacrifice the individual expends in relation to his/her work efforts.
Reward in capitalism is skewered by a person's wealth and property, and thus con never remunerate fairly.
@MsSexySocialist 2nd post) Easy to make false statements, takes longer to refute. Why would owners of corps overpay CEO`s? Its silly, they want MONEY, thats why they invest. Business pays what it needs to, in order to hire qualified person. Same for janitor, same for CEO. Whatever it takes. Large corps are efficient, sell cheap, to keep market share, ineficient corps ( co-op, or corp) that cant charge cheap are shut OUT. Thats GOOD. Screw the ineficient who charge more.
@MsSexySocialist 2nd post) Easy to make false statements, takes longer to refute. Why would owners of corps overpay CEO`s? Its silly, they want MONEY, thats why they invest. Business pays what it needs to, in order to hire qualified person. Same for janitor, same for CEO. Whatever it takes. Large corps are efficient, sell cheap, to keep market share, ineficient corps ( co-op, or corp) that cant charge cheap are shut OUT. Thats GOOD. Screw the ineficient who charge more.
This guy is so full of shit just like every other pro-communist who likes to twist their view of capitalism into some easy to whip straw man that has no bearing on reality or logic.
Also, for your own credibilities sake if nothing else....STOP EQUATING CHATTEL SLAVERY WITH EMPLOYMENT!!! Utter silliness and garbage! As I commented on part 1, you offend all truly enslaved persons when you make this outrageous argument. They also aren't "bosses"...that's what you might call an upline manager. The correct word is Employer...but that isn't a word that's quite as easy to demonize, is it?
Postpone his 10th Rolls Royce???? You seem to forget that MANY businessmen operate small companies, and the outlay of capital to expand can represent a REAL risk to people trying their best to offer a product, service or even employment. These small businessmen will likely work a lifetime of many many more hours per week than they expect from their employees and may never own a SINGLE Rolls. You are pretty out of touch with economic reality.
Check learnliberty,org's "Top Three Common Myths of Capitalism" on youtube; it's relevant to this video and addresses some of your concerns with capitalism. There are quite a few videos which discuss classical liberal philosophies on youtube which may clear up some of your understandings of how free trade works. You discuss corporate cronyism, which isn't capitalism at all. I think that just about any classical liberal would denounce governments which legally favor certain individuals or groups.
@mojosideburns When capitalism invests it invests with brains, when government does it it does it randomly. When you say "a system where all were protected from abject poverty" I don't critic the all were protected from abject poverty, I critic the system part. If people are assholes then adding some institution is useless and makes maters worse. If they're saint we don't need a system to let people do good things.
@Svetlozarov What? If you mean with an eye on the bottom line with no thought given towards the continued existence of our species, then yes I agree-it most certainly does that. My primary objection to the state is that it will always serve the interests of the elite-be they the bougeousie of capitalism or the bureaucrats of the socialist state. And the biggest assholes right now are the bankers, CEOs, and Wall St scumbags that run the world under our current system.
@mojosideburns First of all yes they're assholes, and they can do asshole-things because they're in bed with the state. The primary goal of capitalism is separating economy from the state or in the anarcho version just getting rid of it. And yes if people want to survive capitalism isn't a problem, now masses and masses of trees are chopped down in the Amazon, because of state collective property. Just give private property to the rightful owners (the natives) and not even a twig will be cut.
@mojosideburns At least capitalism gives a peacefuller way for assholes to get on top, better an ad on the wall then a bullet in the brain. If people are caring enough about the pour to sustain communism why would there be any pour left? In capitalism you only have to care for a group of unlucky in communism everybody depends on everybody. Also what specie has been design to manage 10 or a 100 or let alone 6 000 000 000 times more then it produces.
20# It isn't hypocritcal because you don't have an alternative. But computers are just a way of showing the productivity of capitalism. A singing cart has higher power al of the Allied computers in WWII. The first cel phone has more power then the computers NASA used to get a man on the moon.
@Svetlozarov You have not made a good case for capitalism. It was NASA and the Defense Department, both governmental agencies, who made those advances-with taxpayer money.
@mojosideburns Yes the government was the pioneer, and things where going snail-like. But just look around you know, technology flies. That was the point of my comment, the government also makes progress but at enormous expense and at a ridiculous speed. The Abrams Tank in Iraq part of the strongest government of the planet is here since 1980. Even then this video is of an anarcho-communist, the anarcho part hates government wright?
@Svetlozarov The preliminary stages of the development of technology are always the most expensive the riskiest, and the slowest, which is why in a for-profit system governments will always be responsible for them. It is, I was merely attacking the profit system. In a system where all were protected fromabject poverty by a society based on humanistic principles, the risk would be less substantial and thus would less hindered by that threat.
@mojosideburns There is one thing that drove those first unprofitable developments, war or potential war. Government has tried all types of crazy shit just to get ahead, especially when they,re desperate. For example the Germans hired a guy called von Braun that developed the V1 and V2. They got lucky with him. They tried to shoot a cannon from France to Britain. They failed. They tried to build a gigantic tank. They failed....
I'm 16 I don't know the hand of communism, but I know the scars it leaves behind. The starving mothers are found in (ex)-communist coutries not in Belgium. Yes, it was statist-communism, if you want to experement with communism do it, but dont force me into it. Then you went back to the argument of the Asian countries who are getting better and better.19# The indigenos people can't do annithyng to destroy there envirement. Just have a scandal: "Company-X is polucios" and company-X is out.
@brownie1982ad Okay, give me a concrete example, bring it on, make me an anarcho-communist. (Today's systhem is corporatism, no capilatalism, you have gouverment enterferance, just to prevent misunderstanding.)
15# in you just repiated 12#. 16# The intrest rates where pressed down by the indet state. If saving isn't a good idea then they go and lend, maybe for starting bussyness maby not. And I'm sorry to wip out that argument that you heared countless times: 9 years ago I moved from Bulgaria to Belgium. Before the communist took over Belgium and Bulgaria where at the same level, Bulgaria was bearly involved in the war. Yet we still can't catsh up with Belgium.
20. bullshit. the computer may have been developed under state funding, but that shitty piece of ass thing wasnt even personalized for homes, and had minimal functions. The computer your using now is from private companies investing on improvents. MAc/ Pc windows 7 ipad I phone Droid. All this technology, privately funded.
19. The environment is fucked, and its EVERYONES fault. And collective control of the environment CAN be done in a capitalist system, people are just choosing not too. Give freedom to men and youll see both good and evil. You cant advocate freedom without conceding not everythign is going to be handy dandy.
18. You can regulate the fuck out of the press, and there will STILL be propaganda. I am beginning to think you just find problems in america and blame capitalism.
17. Why should winning the genetic lottery entitle them to profit? You make it sound like these people were born with the idea implanted in their head. It takes work believe it or not to innovate, just like it takes work to farm.
So basically, if we leave people free to decide how to spend their money, they will chose brittany spears over the sweat shop laborer. You realize that capitalism aloud for this freedom, but dont realize being against it means your against freedom.
17. Why should winning the genetic lottery entitle them to profit? You make it sound like these people were born with the idea implanted in their head. It takes work believe it or not to innovate, just like it takes work to farm.
16. Property rights entitle you to no labour income. Have you ever sold anything in a garage sale? thats non labor income. Seriously wth are you going on about? Profit is the reward for innovation and marketing. Labor, like anything else, is subject to supply and demand, and the wage is agreed up by both parties. Again, unless you can prove the capitalist put the mother in her situation, the your arguments invalid. You do realize you just said your needs are greater then my wants, right?
15. I'm a capitalist, and I didn't put anywork into it. You know why? Because all i have to do is say i am. Just like a marxist or anarchist merely needs to say they are (and of course mean they are). If your talking about Buisness owners, again you make a false comparison between slave owners and buisness owners. Slave owners owned people, Buisnessmen/women own capital. Get it through your head
When it comes to indigenous people and ecological disasters,I don't think the comparation is good because those people didn't have the industry necessary for ecological disasters,it doesn't have to do whit the political system but whit the development of industry.
I think anarchism is slavery. It is a conclusion I have arrived at sternly, so there is no reason to argue with me about it, as I will simply respond with ideological psychobabble.
Since anarchists are slaves, I must stop them from being anarchists, if necessary by force. Perhaps they should be imprisoned, or forced to work in re-education camps, or perhaps simply executed. I will do this in the name of human freedom.
All communists ever wanted is to destroy the middle class of professionals by unsincerely associating them with with the big money. So for example if you worked all your life and buld a house and then rent it you're in the same pot with the Duke of ST Albans or whomever who owns like half of the Commonwealth. Let me tell you how they enforce this insanity: black vans coming at night. People disappear; torture. That's how it happened in Romania.
You I get it: protperty is evil therefore you cannot construe one has acieve it through moral ways like... working their ass out. Buying materials, hiring constructors, getting the permits (the bureaucracy in my country- you couldn't believe it). And then building the house. Yeah, it's a big house so what. It's our house. There's nothing immoral about it. Immoral are the ones who want to take it away for whatever reason. And if you dare say we opressed anyone for it, shame on you! Shame!
You can rant on about worker's control of their lives and it makes sense to a point. But then you get into deciding what kind of labour benefits society and what kind of labout doesn't. And it's always the intellectual that gets fried first for "not working", because simply manual workers cannot understand his work. I'm from Eastern Europe and we still remember the black vans and how we hid frightened in our basements. All because someone decided this one doesn't really work. Is that morality?
And who gets to decide what part of my property for which my ancestors have worked, is used for exploitation and which is for personal use. What kind of thugs would you have come into my home and take things. Antother problem I have is that basically I research classical languages. In the current system I get paid for this job. I know what would happen to me and to historians and to writers and painters and professors of literature in a worker's paradise: we're leeches aren't we?
Ok I have 2 problems with this: first, I have seen my parents build our house. It's a big house but my parents are not capitalists. They've worked hard and got the money together to build it (by selling their work for wage basically). Now by your logic, if we rent part of this house, we are explotiers. And you would take away from us the property that we use for "exploiation" or at least bar me from inheriting it. Now how does that make sense. Is my house the result of conquest or feudalism???
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
still talking slavery about decades and decades after the combination of capitalism, free markets and Western logic and science made it obsolete. The Left wants to bring it back, only this time they want us all slave to the state. hilariously, people like the creator of this moronic vid envision themselves as members of the class that will control a centralized economy, in this dude's case from the back room of the methadone clinic somewhere on the Left Coast - I'm guessing San Francisco.
@mr1001nights As an anarchist you would be conquered by the first group of men with a centralized leader... Idiot. There is a simple reason for a government.. protection, not from one's self, but from those that would conquer.
You're not an anarchist, you just think you are. Big difference. You're an anarchist like I'm an electrical engineer - just have the degree from university saying I graduated but never really worked in the field.
The way you present things suggests you've never really launched a business nor hired 10s of people to work in a project that you started from scratch with an idea that you had. You're like kids whining about their parents not knowing anything about what it is to be a kid.
@pulsatingremedy I am expatriate of over two decades. I doubt you even know what 'redneck' means, but you imagine it will offend Americans who make fun of your utopian fantasies and you hope using such words - or insisting I get all my news and political analysis from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh - will end debate and allow you to save face.
I have met literally hundreds of you silly Euro Leftards. There is nothing I enjoy more than rattling your cage. Try harder, little Chomsky wannabe...
@alphecca2539 Sorry where are your arguments? What is an Utopia? What does Chomsky has to do with Europe? How come you think that you not only not rattle our cage but just make everyone laugh, not just an Europeans hatever you mean by Europe. Do you mean an Italy which is more media controled even then an USA? There is no such a thing as Europe Dream, but sadly there is an American Dream.
You bring up slavery time and time again. Does it really bother you? Why don't you try and stop slavery currently taking place? You don't even mention it. I don't think you really care about it that much. The problem for you is America it self. The USA is the only reason the world is as good as it is.
@MELLSBAD "You bring up slavery time and time again. Does it really bother you?"
And dont you? You are an authocratic personality then. The second question that follows. Why do you bother watching the movie at the first place?
I can answer that for you. The ones that are the most zealous are the ones that have the most doubt, and they try to hide sitting behind some crazy error in thinking emboding USA with capitalism.
@WujekNiemaBycCCPRady Thought 1001knights might have something good to say. I have no doubt that capitalism is not perfect but neither are humans. Within the constructs of capitalism the individual has the best chance to move from one caste to another. In any other construct there are fewer in the ruling class and the masses in essence become serfs or slaves. If you meant autocrat, no not really.
@WujekNiemaBycCCPRady This guy speaks of slavery as if it defines the USA experience. If he feels that way why not speak to what is actually taking place right now, today? I could get on board with fighting that.
@MELLSBAD Yes... this guy a little bit undervalue the USA model of capitalism with almost unlimited resources and spirit of community i agree with that. The capitalism that he represents starts with what Locke describe as a state when every resources started to be privatized. Privatization come fom a latin word prevare which means taking away. Capitalism when everyone can privare for his own needs is ok... the problem starts when privare justify the private resources that you cant use.
@MELLSBAD Continuing my thoughts ofcourse the private use isnt bad as such as its not undermining anyone from the profits of it. If privatization take away the other people from any free action, that they could do if they would have the resources, is a kind of slavery. If you intend that the people would have no other option then to work on your property that you had taken away from them=privare then what is it? Its somekind of an abuse depending on their lack of freedom hence its a slavery.
Indiginous people suffered from greed and all the other conditions of mankind that your capitalist suffer from today. Animals and plants dominate each other as well. Your entire argument is stupid. Capitalism allows people to be lazy or achieve.
@alphecca2539 You say: "First comparison - between 'capitalists' and slave owners is so fatuous and stupid it nullifies the entire 'argument' this goof tries to make."
It makes the same sense as a knight having a village he owns. As he states capitalists owns societies not some individuals. A knight wouldnt care if villager do whatever he wants as long as he wouldnt leave a village. Capitalists dont care as long as you dont change the society, or try to use different logic then capital.
@mr1001nights No, they get rewarded whatever is that people are willing to give them, which could definitely be a simple "thank you", but most capitalists prefer money since "thank you"'s can't put food on the table.
@MisesianThinker you say: "Every action is purposeful, every action is aimed at removing felt uneasiness, every action entails psychic cost and psychic satisfaction."
Ofcourse not every action is purposeful, actually every are not if those arent some creative ones. Every action that is not a creative one is an action based on culture which helps us to not understand what we are doing, if we believe its ok.
mrtyles, anarchism is all about from the ground up, its collectivism.
A mass chain of individual cooperation.
In the Spanish anarchist revolutions state system, it was acceptable for someone to be an "individualist" aka stay self reliant and trade goods and services for unionized services for example mail, or cable nowadays and phone.
Watch the posts about the spanish revolution by 1001night, its truly inspiring.
i guess it's not considered very many to be an environmentalist. I guess that's the link to patriarchy. Most of the environmentalists I know are women. There's a sketch in which Jim Carrey is playing an extremely effeminate environmentalist from in Living Color which demonstrates this link. Also hunting, fishing, treecutting, and technology, are all things which are associated with being macho, and coincidentally are also things which wreck the environment.
Also, as I point out in part 1, in Colonial Brazil, slaves could buy their own freedom and become business owners, self-employed, or even slave owners themselves. Did that social mobility justify slavery? Could someone say "hey, look at me, i worked really hard when i was a slave, I was poor, saw lots of rats and went into debt-- now I'm a successful business owner, and that justifies slavery"
Now my Mom no longer owns a business and she is quite happy working for a boss. I'm just telling you what she tells me. You even admit yourself that most small businesses fail, which means that the risk is far greater than the hypothetical and unlikely risk associated with crossing the street.
the risk to life&limb workers endure is greater than the risk of a capitalist, and furthermore, risk by itself doesn't entitle you to profit. Slave owners took risks (buying expensive slaves that could've gotten sick and died; using them to make products that didn't sell well etc). Does that mean they deserve a profit? Capitalists collectively impose a "work for a boss or else" status quo that shares similarities with slavery. This interferes with choice of self-management--the choice of freedom
The petit-bourgeois person is very different from the 1% of society that own the majority of the means of production. Think Wal-Mart vs. a small general store. The petit-bourgeois individual is usually working along side her or his employees. Surely any anti-capitalist will see the difference in this. Speaking for myself: yeah, I don't think anyone should have to rent themselves out to anyone else. But if I were hard-pressed, if you created a dichotomy, I'd take the small shop.
@comradshaw Indeed. In all essence if ownership of the production and sale of goods was limited to one entity in one place the competition and diversity derived from these many small shops and factories would perhaps even add up to a semi-just private-ownership society in which any enormous profits (in comparison to costs of production) would have been impossible.
@mrtyles: But what's the main difference between the petit-bourgeois shop-owner and the bourgeoisie, or the capitalist class? Well, the bourgeoisie can't "use" all of the private property they use to exploit wage-laborers, whereas most small shop-owners are at least using their means of production. The small shop-owner is just that: small. They, too, do not have much of a choice under capitalism: work or starve. Technically, to the consistent anti-capitalist, though, they exploit workers 2.
Plus she went into thousands of dollars in debt from running a restaurant. If my Mom didn't get out of the restaurant business and she didn't pay her minimum payment, the bank and the landlord could have taken everything we had. None of her employees took those risks.
true, small capitalists have a harder time than big business. But generally, the capitalist invests money PRECISELY because he doesn't need it, and he knows that if he just keeps it in his closet it won't generate a penny. The profit from that money that would have otherwise stayed sterile in the closet, comes from labor--which is overwhelmingly not the labor of capitalists--especially the bigger they are. As for risks, read what I said in the last post, or what I say in #15
you could say the same thing about small business owners like my mother. My mom has chronic lung disease from the decades she worked in restaurants as a cook, and yes as a "capitalist." She almost died from mixing cleaning agents while I was still in the womb. She strained her ankles by standing all day, and has burned herself many times, all during her time as a "capitalist."
Your mom--if she employed a staff people was part capitalist part worker. I define the capitalist as the person who profits from hiring wage labor or from other forms of non-labor like investing or renting out a hotel.
Well meaning? but this from an old man.. One thing I observered is that Anarchists and Communists among us were always the most violent. They murder and plot death even on their own. The idealists are always slaughtered when they are no longer needed. Yes, the Corporations must be dealt with. Men need to learn to be their own masters but free markets are what feed the most people. ideas have some merit but the devil is in the implemention and the misunderstood nature of Man.
Jonathans analyst of human nature is wrong. I have much experience in stressful conflict from union VP, shooting war, leading rebellion and protest. In my groups and outside all evil by nature. Man works hard only for self interest. His $ His beliefs. What J preachs has always failed and when it fails the leadership enslaves the workers, forces them into the fields, tortures, executes. Look at Che and Castro. Started good, turned evil. J's home, Spain? is Zoo of conflicted people.
The myth that ancient peoples lived in harmony with the world is entirely false. With the spread of man came the great extinction of the world's mega-fauna. Sure we didn't turn jungles into deserts but we did the best we could with our limited numbers.
When trade formed between tribes the invention of capital is natural. They will produce more animal hides or gather more nuts than they will consume themselves in order to exchange. The work would definitely be democratic and not wage.
i only disagree with your response to the last one. It is slightly hypocritical, by using a computer and the internet you are paying into the pockets of the capitalists.
People are free to either donate money to the Sweatshop worker, or buy a Britney Spears album. No one is forcing them to do either. If people choose to buy a Britney Spears album it is their business. The only way to stop people from buying the BS album would be to use Violent Coercion.
-_- Govt redistribution is the only thing that keeps the 1st world afloat, and its gradual deterioration is showing its fruits: middle class is drowning, consumption falling and the economy collapsing.
As is the case with most liberals, your starting premise is wrong: #15, work for a boss or else is not a tenet of capitalism. It would be more accurately described as "work or else". Work for yourself if you like, but if you decide not to work, you will reap the rewards of your laziness, and I won't be there to save you.
how are you suppose to work for yourself with no capital?all you have is is your capital as a worker, and thats not yours, cuz you working for someone who has the capital to work for himself and have you as a "wageslave".
I busy at work but you have misunderstanding of the "free market" 1
1. Risk is not rewarded, results are rewarded. You also confuse personal risk "walking down the street" with capital risk. #16 All people benefit from the discipline of saving not just the rich. The alternative would be 100% consumption and the death of our society. Without savings of capital, there is no improvement in productivity, without productivity, stagnation and collapse (Greece, USSR)
garybsg 1 week ago
Fantastic video. I've talked to so many "anarcho-capitalists" that this video is quite refreshing.
Magicwillnz 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free Market Capitalism (Austrian School) logically works quite well. Supply and Demand, the only workable Pricing System, etc..
That said; It's a terrible system if you are just an Average Joe and the economy is in downturn. It is a ruthlessly cruel system if you are on the receiving end of the "exploitation" that makes Production profitable enough to build Capital. Survival of the fittest? What about those that are NOT the "fittest"?? 40% of the population MUST suffer for it to work.
randy95023 1 month ago
If slavery were legal today very few Capitalists would bother. It's much cheaper to hire a Worker for $7 an hour than to "own" the person. Owning a person means you must feed, clothe, house and supply medical care. If a slave is sick you must still take care of him. When a slave gets old or unproductive you are stuck with him. For $7 and hour you can hire only the young and strong and NOT pay him when not in use. Modern slavery would be insanely more expensive than keeping "Wage Slaves"...
randy95023 1 month ago 4
Free Market Capitalism (Austrian School) logically works quite well. Supply and Demand, the only workable Pricing System, etc..
That said; It's a terrible system if you are just an Average Joe and the economy is in downturn. It is a ruthlessly cruel system if you are on the receiving end of the "exploitation" that makes Production profitable enough to build Capital. Survival of the fittest? What about those that are NOT the "fittest"?? 40% of the population MUST suffer for it to work.
randy95023 1 month ago 6
@randy95023 Creative Destruction is the process where the economy changes, keeping up with innovation, shifts in demand, etc. It is painful for those involved, no doubt. Yet without this, Govt would need to promote destructive conditions, like to preserve land- line phone services, horse drawn buggy production, vinyl music record production. Its silly, of course. As far as "suffering" goes, the capitalistic nations enjoy better living conditions than centrally planned economies do.
luvcheney1 1 week ago in playlist More videos from mr1001nights
Can someone explain to me the benefits of anarchy and how it would work? Would it involve life reverting to cave-man living? I'm actually curious
stebecool 2 months ago 2
@stebecool(Part 2)
In response to this question, anarchism (or libertarian socialism) involves looking at currently-existing institutions that involve kyriarchy, control, and subordination (whether statist or privatist) and replacing them with institutions of direct participatory democracy and self-management.
Such as community assemblies in politics and cooperatives in economics - all linked over a wide area through confederation
The best modern forms include *Parecon* and *Inclusive Democracy*
MsSexySocialist 2 months ago
I don't know how the communist/socialist types manage to twist capitalism into some kind of forceful slavery system. If anything is similar to slavery, it's communism. Capitalism is the freedom to CHOOSE. You can choose where you want to work, live, and what you spend your money on. Business owners have to pander to their customers wants or they will go broke and treat their workers well or they will leave to work elsewhere. No one is putting a gun to anyone's head like they would in communism.
stebecool 2 months ago
@stebecool
1. Communism WAS indeed similar to slavery. It subordinated the entire populace to the state. No one is disputing that, least of all left-libertarians/anarchists. The obvious monstrosities of totalitarian statism do not discount the still-existing problems of capitalism; whether statist, minarchist, or "anarcho"-capitalist.
2. "Free to choose" in capitalism, means "free to choose" a master. Not freedom FROM masters (unless you are one yourself)Only self-management offers this freedom
MsSexySocialist 2 months ago
@MsSexySocialist Is it just the idea of working for someone else who makes more money that ruffles the feathers? That isn't going away ever under any system. Managers are necessary in any organization. This "master" will always be there. It's a fact of life, get used to it. At least capitalism gives you the opportunity to make more money for being more productive and gives you the opportunity to be the "master" if you earn it. Self-management for everyone is not realistic under any system
stebecool 2 months ago
@stebecool
The facts disagree with you.
Self-management was implemented on a wide scale encompassing over 7 million people during the Spanish revolution of 1937 (during the war) and can be seen on a wide scale today in examples such as the EZLN Good Government Councils, and the reclaimed factories movement in Argentina.
Also, self-management in economics and politics does not preclude dividing production from management, merely making both rotating positions as part of a balanced job complex
MsSexySocialist 2 months ago
@MsSexySocialist When you are a capitalist, and own your own business, you are slave to your customers, and to the State that regulates, licenses, and taxes you.
luvcheney1 1 week ago in playlist More videos from mr1001nights
@luvcheney1
I oppose the existence of the state
Your critique does not apply to left-libertarianism
And regarding one's customers as individuals to whom you are "enslaved" to is pointless semantics. Customers exert no direct control whatsoever over the owner of an enterprise and the owner is at all times in control of their enterprise and what it does in the economy.
The same is not true of the individuals in an enterprise who do NOT own it and are subordinated to the owner's control
MsSexySocialist 1 week ago
@MsSexySocialist I run my own business, and ran businesses for Franchisees, and corporations for 30 yrs before. You may be a sexy socialist, but your are full of it. Your comment has ZERO to do with reality. Sure, I controlled many enterprises, BUT my boss was the cutomers, because if they werent satisfied, they go ELSEWHERE. The only thing you obviously ever ran was a hair dryer.
luvcheney1 1 week ago
@luvcheney1
The silly sexism of your comment aside, the actual point you're trying to make makes zero sense and - I repeat - is just semantics.
Consumers possess freedom of choice. Business owners possess the economic freedom to do whatever they want with their enterprise.
Both consumers and business-owners benefit greatest when their desires intersect. But one does not have any kind of direct control over the other.
Wage-labor on the other hand, involves direct subordination.
MsSexySocialist 1 week ago
@MsSexySocialist You have a You Tube name of "sexy socialist", a picture, and then accuse ME of sexism? Using the word SEXY on yourself already added the element, what a hypocrite you are. Business owners and mangers focus is on making customers happy. They fail if they do NOT. Workers ought to do the same, to customers, and MGT, or they should fail as well. I have been the best employee at times, in 2 trades, and MGT kissed my ass. WHY? I was productive.
luvcheney1 1 week ago
@luvcheney1
Uh . . . I always thought that making disparaging comments based on gender counted as sexism (such as your remark about blow drying my hair), not using a tongue-in-cheek nickname as a username.
In any case, what you're describing is basically a case of "be happy being a servant and making your master happy, then your master will treat you nicely".
That's not an ideal we should have if we want actual progress both in society and with regard to a future economy.
MsSexySocialist 1 week ago
@MsSexySocialist The discussion going on here hasnt a damn thing to do with sexy, and that`s your creation. Back to the subject, why would anyone pay someone to help him make customers happy, if the worker had no interest in doing what is necessary to that end? Without the customer, there is NO profit. Without profit, there is no need for the worker.
luvcheney1 1 week ago
@luvcheney1
Workers should always try to make consumers happy. That's a symbiotic relationship which benefits both.
What I argue against is the relationship between employERS and employEES; or on the macro level between capital and labor.
My argument being that such a distinction should not exist as it a commensalistic rather than mutualistic relationship which is unnecessary giving that economic democracy and self-management exist as superior alternatives.
MsSexySocialist 1 week ago
@MsSexySocialist If jobs are commensualistic in nature, why do so many WANT one? If it is just neutral, shit, just stay home. NO voluntary economic transaction EVER occurs that doesnt benefit BOTH parties. (as in "I want a job", or "I am here, ready to work".) BTW, if you feel exploited, start your own business, or study to become a CEO, or MGR, then instead of 40hrs a week, you can work 70, and not be "exploited" so much.
luvcheney1 1 week ago
@luvcheney1
I don't feel "exploited". I work in a co-op.
And you're missing the point I was making. Wage-labor (working for others and not yourself) only exists at all because of the disparity of bargaining power that exists between labor and capital - who own and control all the means of production.
The option of "start your own business, or study to become a CEO, or MGR" doesn't exist for those without wealth or access to capital.
Capitalism can't offer that choice in reality.
MsSexySocialist 1 week ago
@MsSexySocialist Labor has far less value when NOT combined with capital. Farmers with hand hoes cant produce what farmers with a massive combines can. Without an automated factory, workers couldnt build by hand enough vehicles to be affordable, so few could earn money. This is obvious. Google "S&P 500 PE Ratio" (index of 500 large corps), see what diviidend % return to Owners is, Today, 21.98. A $1 dividend divided by $21.98= 4.5%. Exploited? Dont make me LAUGH!
luvcheney1 1 week ago
@luvcheney1
I never said workers WERE exploited in the institution of wage-labor; though that is certainly the case in some instances, developing countries come to mind.
My argument (which again, you missed the point of) is that a division between capital and labor should not exist.
All workers should own and control their own workplaces through self-management and without having to be subjected to outside orders.
Anything less is servitude and authoritarianism.
MsSexySocialist 1 week ago
@MsSexySocialist You didnt need to say it, you are transparent (exploitation). I have no problem with workers owning workplaces in co- ops, as long as they are on equal footing tax- wise, they have used, or pay for their own capital. I went on a site that said $1 Trillion world wide revenue for co-ops. World GDP is $62 Trill, co-ops are 1.6% of that. If they were best option, they would be bigger, they are NOT. I suspect they burn up capital overpaying labor.
luvcheney1 6 days ago
@luvcheney1
"If they were best option, they would be bigger, they are NOT".
They aren't bigger because corporations and other large-scale private businesses make it near impossible to compete due to their monopoly power.
Their full-spectrum domination of the market ensures a systemic bias against any alternatives.
Also, "overpaying labor"? Seriously?
CEOs make on average 350 times as much as their employees and you think dividing profits equitably is "overpaying"? Talk about crazy.
MsSexySocialist 6 days ago
@MsSexySocialist CEO of Exxon Mobil Corp, largest nasty Oil corp, made salary, bonus of $5.6 million, Exxon`s Revenue $383.2 billion. It has 103,700 employees. If we fored the CEO, and let the janitor run Exxon for free, in his spare time, we could pay each employee another $1.04 a week. After taxes, maybe 75 cents?
luvcheney1 6 days ago
@luvcheney1
Apparently you've never heard that the CEO of a company isn't the ONLY one with a grossly disproportionate level of pay in the enterprises of our modern economy.
And the level of pay isn't even the main issue, it's CONTROL.
Every corporation is a microcosm of the worst kind of statism; with top-down governance, centralization of all decision-making, and yes, central planning. All with zero accountability to the public. Yet you'd you'd cry foul if a state worked this way.
MsSexySocialist 6 days ago
@MsSexySocialist Corps have greedy owners. Greedy owners want all the money. Large Corps have owners known as "stockholders", who expect profits, in the form of dividends, and/ or rising share prices. Its ABSURD to think they just give away money, more than required to obtain the talent they need. Corporations are TOTALLY accountable to the public. If the public feels better served by other corps, they lose market share, and profits, and MGRS DONT get bonuses and/or get FIRED.
luvcheney1 6 days ago
@luvcheney1
Your living in la-la land.
Monopoly power alone prevents cunsumers from collectively turning away en masse from buying a mega-corp's products or from taking a job with them if no other job's provider is available.
I'll believe your absurd opinion that corps are "TOTALLY accountable to the public" when people can vote not to have their lands polluted by the likes of Shell and Chevron, and when I can work in one and elect who the board of directors are.
MsSexySocialist 5 days ago
@MsSexySocialist Monopolies supposedly charge over market prices, restrict production, and are the only supplier. These items, all together are ridiculous. When prices are too high, another greedy capitalist will enter into competition, take back market share, and profit. Now, NAME just one example, that is not actually regulated into BEING a monopoly by govt, that is BAD for consumers. Workers are free to work, or not, as they see fit. Getting a job doesnt mean you can be CEO.
luvcheney1 5 days ago
@luvcheney1
Once again, you completely miss the point I was making.
My point is that the entire structure of enterprises needs to fundamentally change going forward from the authoritarian model of private business to the democratic model of the self-managed cooperative.
By defending the status quo, you're effectively defending the economic equivalent of feudalism. Nuff said.
MsSexySocialist 5 days ago
@MsSexySocialist You say, "Monopoly power alone prevents cunsumers from collectively turning away en masse from buying a mega-corp's products or from taking a job with them", but you can NOT actually think of an example! You can call me absurd, "nuff said"? Remember, YOU defend worker run co-ops, & they are not, generally, competing with corporations on price. So, "get rid of Corps, let prices for ALL rise, so a FEW can make more money"? Hey, if they sell CHEAPER, they GROW!
luvcheney1 5 days ago
@luvcheney1
"but you can NOT actually think of an example!"
Wal-Mart.
I would also think it rather difficult for consumers to stage any kind of boycott against Exxon despite all their environmental abuses.
Also, with regard to what you seem to think I want for the future of our economy, please do some actual research; displaying your own intellectual ignorance will get you nowhere.
MsSexySocialist 5 days ago
@MsSexySocialist WalMart is NOT a monopoly. We can buy food, and the rest of those things in other places. Exxon as well. But, I have to say, WalMart is a great place to shop. I can get a banana, a hammer, underwear, and gold earrings for my wife, all in one place, and pick up a senior coffee for 75 cents at the McDonalds inside too, AND rent a fucking movie at the "Red Box" for $1 on my way out the door. The only thing I hate is all the Fat women working, and shopping there.
luvcheney1 5 days ago
@MsSexySocialist Post 2) Sorry, I got excited, thinking about WalMart in my 1st post. BTW, every single person working in a WalMart is doing so at this moment, because it is the best job available to them. WalMart earned less than 4% after tax profit, on revenue, in 2010. IF they were to pay more to employees, a few people would benefit, but then me, and half the frigging country would get fucked, paying $20HR to a high school fat girl dropout to ring up my banana.
luvcheney1 5 days ago
@luvcheney1
"BTW, every single person working in a WalMart is doing so at this moment, because it is the best job available to them"
And that's the problem. And you never responded to the fact that your opinion that people can stop a company they don't want buy refusing to buy their products doesn't work due to corps like wal-mart's enourmous size and power.
Same with Exxon, same with GM, same with Shell.
MsSexySocialist 4 days ago
@MsSexySocialist You ask, "you never responded...that people can stop a company they don't want buy refusing to buy... like wal-mart's enourmous size". I did reply, I said in several ways, last post, "Hey, if they sell CHEAPER, they GROW!" I agree that WM is big, but they are big for a reason. Folks LIKE them. You hate them, because you WANT higher prices paid by the nation, so a few WM workers paid over-market wages and benefits. WM earns 6% profit, govt gets 2%, only 4% left
luvcheney1 4 days ago
@luvcheney1
"but they are big for a reason. Folks LIKE them"
In many of the small towns I've passed through Wal-Mart is literally the only place to shop. There's no other choice. I would have assumed that, as a capitalist, you'd support freedom of choice.
"You hate them, because you WANT higher prices paid by the nation"
Quote me advocating this. Because if you can't, then that statement is utterly unsubstantiated BS and putting words in my mouth. Typical forte of the right.
MsSexySocialist 4 days ago
@MsSexySocialist Freedom of choice does NOT mean many competitors. Competition will result in fewer choices, as better corps that folks LIKE take business from those that suck. The RESULT of competition is the favorite competitor getting bigger. If WalMart is NOT competitive in any market, Greedy Capitalists will steal back market share, in food, clothes, etc. You DONT support higher wages, benefits for WM workers? Which of course CUSTOMERS would have to pay? OK, good, we agree
luvcheney1 4 days ago
@luvcheney1
Uh, actually yes it does mean many competitors - or rather choices. And the size of corps has little or nothing to do with people liking them. The reason certain companies grow into oligopolies and monopolies is through favors from the state; protectionism, subsidies, corporate welfare, the existence of corporate personhood, and of course bailouts.
And even if they really did get bigger solely through competition, the amount of power concentrated in their hands . . .
MsSexySocialist 4 days ago
@luvcheney1
. . . would still be utterly unjustifiable as, again, they have zero accountability to the public; despite some being literally more powerful than small countries.
And higher wages and benefits for workers would come exclusively from the fact that those at the top would not be making on average 350 times what ordinary employees make.
Why is it you hate ordinary working people so much? And don't try to claim you don't. Everything you say and advocate reinforces this idea.
MsSexySocialist 4 days ago
@MsSexySocialist You failed to give one example of a monopoly. WalMart is NOT. Exxon is NOT. Exxon isnt even biggest, compared to the many Govts who control oil production in various nations. Its not big, by those standards. WalMart has competition from Target, K-Mart, Sears, JC Penny, Best Buy, small local supermarket chains, national food chains. WM CEO`s wages, if given to 2.1million workers is less than 5 cents a week. That REALLY makes a difference. Glad you pointed it OUT
luvcheney1 4 days ago
@luvcheney1
Completely ignoring the fact that CEOs aren't the only one's grossly overpaid again I see.
AND the fact that I stated clearly that it was more an issue of individual autonomy and control than an issue of money. Getting paid LESS would be worth dismantling authoritarianism.
And the fact that in common econ-speak "monopoly" is used to refer to both actual monopolies and oligopolies (which I flat out mentioned in my last comment).
Once again, why do you hate working people?
MsSexySocialist 4 days ago
@MsSexySocialist Again, why would owners of a corporation pay ANYONE more than they are WORTH? They are GREEDY, arent they? It DEFIES logic, that corps overpay Mgt. A WalMart store costs millions to build. Decisions belong to those who built it. You already admitted that employee run co-ops can NOT compete with real corporations. Real Corporations, ran by real mgrs, not a bunch of self serving, business hating malcontents. I hate stupidity. I like workers, who LIKE working.
luvcheney1 4 days ago
@luvcheney1 Post 2). OK, since YOU KNOW that it is the entire mgt team that is screwing up things, please give me an example. You know, a "reference". We can break it down, by revenue, or employee or whatever, so it makes sense. Really, Libs just enjoy making claims, without a fact. You would THINK a CEO is the highest paid, but no, thats not good enough. Even if the mgt team made 10 times that, its $1 week! Who are YOU to KNOW what proper pay is? Owners decide.
luvcheney1 4 days ago
@luvcheney1
. . . workplace and am not answerable to anyone but myself.
"Libs just enjoy making claims, without a fact"
No that's the right; assertion without evidence. And I'm not a liberal.
"Who are YOU to KNOW what proper pay is? Owners decide"
And that's precisely the problem. Owners control everything and employees have no control at all despite doing all the actual work.
Executives can determine their own pay. Employees cannot - except in democratic enterprises.
MsSexySocialist 4 days ago
@MsSexySocialist Glad you like your job, & when co-ops work, we will soon see lower prices, the end of private corps. Fine! I dont think I will live to see that. Or you. Or your Kids. I asked you for a reference, to the fact you KNOW that the entire MGT team, being overpaid is an issue. You refuse, as usual. Employees dont bring the capital. Their work, PLUS the capital invested makes business work. If capital is NOT required, anyone could go in business. some do! (my wife & I)i
luvcheney1 4 days ago
@luvcheney1
"when co-ops work, we will soon see lower prices, the end of private corps"
The dominance of private corps in the market ensures a systemic bias against democratic alternatives. It has nothing to do with whether they "work". The fact that they offer a better deal for ordinary working people is axiomatic.
"Employees dont bring the capital"
Because they don't OWN any - an elite of plutocrats do. Which is why, again, a division between capital and labor should not exist.
MsSexySocialist 4 days ago
@MsSexySocialist Problem co-op & corps find in "competing" is that the corps are able to sell for less, they control costs better. Making profit requires market share, which co-ops dont, cant get. because they arent focused on low prices, which is the way to get market share. IF CUSTOMERS preferred co-ops, co-ops would WIN. Would you LIKE to discuss the many Federal Govt policies that discourage savings, and encourage debt? Fact SS&Med taxes would make a family millionaires?
luvcheney1 4 days ago
@luvcheney1
"the corps are able to sell for less, they control costs better"
Chattel slavery was cheaper and guaranteed lower prices than hiring people for wages.
Is that an argument for slavery?
MsSexySocialist 4 days ago
@MsSexySocialist I have values, including free markets, and Liberty. Slavery obviously is NOT consistent with either, because in a free market, individuals ought to be able to make their own decisions. Slaves have no Liberty. So, there is no argument for slavery, to a believer in free markets. I see you show NO interest in Federal Policies discouraging accumulation of capital, by the masses? Gee, I see low-mid class workers being millionaires, with ease.
luvcheney1 4 days ago
@luvcheney1 Post 2). Oh shit, I forgot. I`m supposed to be the bad guy, hating workers. I really shouldnt have a list, and plan to create wealth for workers, should I?
luvcheney1 4 days ago
@luvcheney1
"I have values, including free markets and Liberty"
A "free market" has never existed. Every market economy has also been a statist economy so any pretentions to the alleged virtues of a market economy completely free of government interference is based on a floating abstraction at best and an outright fantasy at worst.
As for your apparent value of "liberty", that's also based on a floating abstraction as in any society that declares itself "free" must . . .
MsSexySocialist 3 days ago
@MsSexySocialist Gee, a "Statist" economy never existed either. ALL economies an underground, black market economy develops, far more so in the economies that are closer to what are more or less Statist. So, since we cant find 100% pure Statism, nor 100% pure Capitalism, I guess we cant discuss markets? This ridiculous denigration of free markets, because it "never exists" is simply a tactic to avoid the reality of markets. They exist, like them, or not.
luvcheney1 3 days ago
@luvcheney1
"They exist, like them, or not"
But not in the sense you mean when you use the term "free market". Not that I would oppose one if it did exist, but I would oppose any economy where power is concentrated at the institutional level - which you fallaciously believe is a good thing.
"many people DREAM of the FREEDOM of a normal, 9-5 job"
If that's the case then why don't they get one? ^^
Oh yeah, because more money and more power is worth the extra stress.
MsSexySocialist 2 days ago
@MsSexySocialist Success usually does come at a cost, Many refuse to pay. The "market" wont let co-ops overtake most big corps, unless they compete in price and quality. TO compete, co-ops MUST grow large, to gain economies of scale, they must pay market wages, not over market, they must KEEP profits to accumulate capital to expand OR pay OUT profits as dividends to investors, to ATTRACT capital. The issue is, if they do all this, they would be acting JUST LIKE corps!
luvcheney1 6 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@luvcheney1
"The issue is, if they do all this, they would be acting JUST LIKE corps!"
Uh, no they wouldn't.
The Mondragon Corporation in the Basque country is an economy of scale that operates on the principles of cooperatives and self-management; and they're a model for equitable and sustainable business.
Admit it; you're a supporter of a dying and authoritarian economic model that can offer people neither freedom, fulfillment, equity or even efficiency.
MsSexySocialist 4 hours ago
@MsSexySocialist I dont know how many business owners you know, but my wife and I have our own business. We work 70 hrs a week, each, and this isnt at all uncommon. Mgrs do too, and big time CEO`s work very long hrs as well. The only people with real freedom? BS, many people DREAM of the FREEDOM of a normal, 9-5 job. Freedom from stress, long hours, inability to take time off, freedom from worry about customers suing you, liabilities, etc, NO vacation 7 yrs. CANT call out sick!
luvcheney1 3 days ago
@luvcheney1
. . . be able to offer liberty in both the negative sense (freedom FROM external authority) and the positive sense (freedom TO actualize individual potential).
Right-wing libertarianism offers the former but not the latter; effectively making its concept of "liberty" an illusury and fake liberty.
The only people with real freedom are the elite class of owners - everyone else is subordinated to their whims.
In other words, "all are free but some are more free than others".
MsSexySocialist 3 days ago
@luvcheney1
"Again, why would owners of a corporation pay ANYONE more than they are WORTH?"
This question is premised on two fallacies:
1. There is no objective criterion for determining the true WORTH of human labor.
2. Two, even if there was, CEOs and such would have to work 350 times as hard as the people who work under them in order to get their fair share.
"I like workers, who LIKE working"
I like working and LOVE my current job; because I'm actually in control of my own . . .
MsSexySocialist 4 days ago
@MsSexySocialist 1) There IS an objective criterion for labor. It is the wage that creates a balance between workers seeking, and positions available. "Market price". Currently, we have "unemployment", a surplus of labor. Tale ONE guess as to IF price is too high, or too low. 2) People get paid not by how hard they work, but by the wage necessary to obtain the sufficient amount of people necessary to properly fill positions.
luvcheney1 4 days ago
@luvcheney1
1. And it's this very crude economism that reduces human beings to mere commodities that must go.
2. You just proved my point. People don't get paid by how hard they work.
If we're going to have some kind of criterion for labor and remuneration it needs to be based upon the amount of personal sacrifice the individual expends in relation to his/her work efforts.
Reward in capitalism is skewered by a person's wealth and property, and thus con never remunerate fairly.
MsSexySocialist 4 days ago
@MsSexySocialist 2nd post) Easy to make false statements, takes longer to refute. Why would owners of corps overpay CEO`s? Its silly, they want MONEY, thats why they invest. Business pays what it needs to, in order to hire qualified person. Same for janitor, same for CEO. Whatever it takes. Large corps are efficient, sell cheap, to keep market share, ineficient corps ( co-op, or corp) that cant charge cheap are shut OUT. Thats GOOD. Screw the ineficient who charge more.
luvcheney1 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MsSexySocialist 2nd post) Easy to make false statements, takes longer to refute. Why would owners of corps overpay CEO`s? Its silly, they want MONEY, thats why they invest. Business pays what it needs to, in order to hire qualified person. Same for janitor, same for CEO. Whatever it takes. Large corps are efficient, sell cheap, to keep market share, ineficient corps ( co-op, or corp) that cant charge cheap are shut OUT. Thats GOOD. Screw the ineficient who charge more.
luvcheney1 6 days ago
This guy is so full of shit just like every other pro-communist who likes to twist their view of capitalism into some easy to whip straw man that has no bearing on reality or logic.
stebecool 2 months ago
who is this idiot? guess another smug left-wing know-it-all
TheMarksmenCat 2 months ago
quit with the "slave talk." It is rhetoric and irrelevant.
dedbusted 3 months ago
Also, for your own credibilities sake if nothing else....STOP EQUATING CHATTEL SLAVERY WITH EMPLOYMENT!!! Utter silliness and garbage! As I commented on part 1, you offend all truly enslaved persons when you make this outrageous argument. They also aren't "bosses"...that's what you might call an upline manager. The correct word is Employer...but that isn't a word that's quite as easy to demonize, is it?
getsupercharged 3 months ago
Postpone his 10th Rolls Royce???? You seem to forget that MANY businessmen operate small companies, and the outlay of capital to expand can represent a REAL risk to people trying their best to offer a product, service or even employment. These small businessmen will likely work a lifetime of many many more hours per week than they expect from their employees and may never own a SINGLE Rolls. You are pretty out of touch with economic reality.
getsupercharged 3 months ago
ancaps get pwned! lol
brownie1982ad 3 months ago
Check learnliberty,org's "Top Three Common Myths of Capitalism" on youtube; it's relevant to this video and addresses some of your concerns with capitalism. There are quite a few videos which discuss classical liberal philosophies on youtube which may clear up some of your understandings of how free trade works. You discuss corporate cronyism, which isn't capitalism at all. I think that just about any classical liberal would denounce governments which legally favor certain individuals or groups.
flash3780 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mojosideburns When capitalism invests it invests with brains, when government does it it does it randomly. When you say "a system where all were protected from abject poverty" I don't critic the all were protected from abject poverty, I critic the system part. If people are assholes then adding some institution is useless and makes maters worse. If they're saint we don't need a system to let people do good things.
Svetlozarov 5 months ago
@Svetlozarov What? If you mean with an eye on the bottom line with no thought given towards the continued existence of our species, then yes I agree-it most certainly does that. My primary objection to the state is that it will always serve the interests of the elite-be they the bougeousie of capitalism or the bureaucrats of the socialist state. And the biggest assholes right now are the bankers, CEOs, and Wall St scumbags that run the world under our current system.
mojosideburns 5 months ago
@mojosideburns First of all yes they're assholes, and they can do asshole-things because they're in bed with the state. The primary goal of capitalism is separating economy from the state or in the anarcho version just getting rid of it. And yes if people want to survive capitalism isn't a problem, now masses and masses of trees are chopped down in the Amazon, because of state collective property. Just give private property to the rightful owners (the natives) and not even a twig will be cut.
Svetlozarov 5 months ago
@mojosideburns At least capitalism gives a peacefuller way for assholes to get on top, better an ad on the wall then a bullet in the brain. If people are caring enough about the pour to sustain communism why would there be any pour left? In capitalism you only have to care for a group of unlucky in communism everybody depends on everybody. Also what specie has been design to manage 10 or a 100 or let alone 6 000 000 000 times more then it produces.
Svetlozarov 5 months ago
20# It isn't hypocritcal because you don't have an alternative. But computers are just a way of showing the productivity of capitalism. A singing cart has higher power al of the Allied computers in WWII. The first cel phone has more power then the computers NASA used to get a man on the moon.
Svetlozarov 7 months ago
@Svetlozarov You have not made a good case for capitalism. It was NASA and the Defense Department, both governmental agencies, who made those advances-with taxpayer money.
mojosideburns 6 months ago
@mojosideburns Yes the government was the pioneer, and things where going snail-like. But just look around you know, technology flies. That was the point of my comment, the government also makes progress but at enormous expense and at a ridiculous speed. The Abrams Tank in Iraq part of the strongest government of the planet is here since 1980. Even then this video is of an anarcho-communist, the anarcho part hates government wright?
Svetlozarov 5 months ago
@Svetlozarov The preliminary stages of the development of technology are always the most expensive the riskiest, and the slowest, which is why in a for-profit system governments will always be responsible for them. It is, I was merely attacking the profit system. In a system where all were protected fromabject poverty by a society based on humanistic principles, the risk would be less substantial and thus would less hindered by that threat.
mojosideburns 5 months ago
@mojosideburns There is one thing that drove those first unprofitable developments, war or potential war. Government has tried all types of crazy shit just to get ahead, especially when they,re desperate. For example the Germans hired a guy called von Braun that developed the V1 and V2. They got lucky with him. They tried to shoot a cannon from France to Britain. They failed. They tried to build a gigantic tank. They failed....
Svetlozarov 5 months ago
Comment removed
Svetlozarov 5 months ago
I'm 16 I don't know the hand of communism, but I know the scars it leaves behind. The starving mothers are found in (ex)-communist coutries not in Belgium. Yes, it was statist-communism, if you want to experement with communism do it, but dont force me into it. Then you went back to the argument of the Asian countries who are getting better and better.19# The indigenos people can't do annithyng to destroy there envirement. Just have a scandal: "Company-X is polucios" and company-X is out.
Svetlozarov 7 months ago
@Svetlozarov What about the people starving due to capitalism?
brownie1982ad 3 months ago
Comment removed
Svetlozarov 3 months ago
@brownie1982ad Okay, give me a concrete example, bring it on, make me an anarcho-communist. (Today's systhem is corporatism, no capilatalism, you have gouverment enterferance, just to prevent misunderstanding.)
Svetlozarov 3 months ago
15# in you just repiated 12#. 16# The intrest rates where pressed down by the indet state. If saving isn't a good idea then they go and lend, maybe for starting bussyness maby not. And I'm sorry to wip out that argument that you heared countless times: 9 years ago I moved from Bulgaria to Belgium. Before the communist took over Belgium and Bulgaria where at the same level, Bulgaria was bearly involved in the war. Yet we still can't catsh up with Belgium.
Svetlozarov 7 months ago
20. bullshit. the computer may have been developed under state funding, but that shitty piece of ass thing wasnt even personalized for homes, and had minimal functions. The computer your using now is from private companies investing on improvents. MAc/ Pc windows 7 ipad I phone Droid. All this technology, privately funded.
achilles6822 1 year ago
@achilles6822
Argue moot points much?
davage0 1 year ago
@davage0 yup
achilles6822 1 year ago
19. The environment is fucked, and its EVERYONES fault. And collective control of the environment CAN be done in a capitalist system, people are just choosing not too. Give freedom to men and youll see both good and evil. You cant advocate freedom without conceding not everythign is going to be handy dandy.
achilles6822 1 year ago
18. You can regulate the fuck out of the press, and there will STILL be propaganda. I am beginning to think you just find problems in america and blame capitalism.
achilles6822 1 year ago
17. Why should winning the genetic lottery entitle them to profit? You make it sound like these people were born with the idea implanted in their head. It takes work believe it or not to innovate, just like it takes work to farm.
So basically, if we leave people free to decide how to spend their money, they will chose brittany spears over the sweat shop laborer. You realize that capitalism aloud for this freedom, but dont realize being against it means your against freedom.
achilles6822 1 year ago
17. Why should winning the genetic lottery entitle them to profit? You make it sound like these people were born with the idea implanted in their head. It takes work believe it or not to innovate, just like it takes work to farm.
achilles6822 1 year ago
16. Property rights entitle you to no labour income. Have you ever sold anything in a garage sale? thats non labor income. Seriously wth are you going on about? Profit is the reward for innovation and marketing. Labor, like anything else, is subject to supply and demand, and the wage is agreed up by both parties. Again, unless you can prove the capitalist put the mother in her situation, the your arguments invalid. You do realize you just said your needs are greater then my wants, right?
achilles6822 1 year ago
15. I'm a capitalist, and I didn't put anywork into it. You know why? Because all i have to do is say i am. Just like a marxist or anarchist merely needs to say they are (and of course mean they are). If your talking about Buisness owners, again you make a false comparison between slave owners and buisness owners. Slave owners owned people, Buisnessmen/women own capital. Get it through your head
achilles6822 1 year ago
When it comes to indigenous people and ecological disasters,I don't think the comparation is good because those people didn't have the industry necessary for ecological disasters,it doesn't have to do whit the political system but whit the development of industry.
evanescent25 1 year ago
Interesting argument. Let's modify it slightly:
I think anarchism is slavery. It is a conclusion I have arrived at sternly, so there is no reason to argue with me about it, as I will simply respond with ideological psychobabble.
Since anarchists are slaves, I must stop them from being anarchists, if necessary by force. Perhaps they should be imprisoned, or forced to work in re-education camps, or perhaps simply executed. I will do this in the name of human freedom.
This work for you?
DrCruel 1 year ago
All communists ever wanted is to destroy the middle class of professionals by unsincerely associating them with with the big money. So for example if you worked all your life and buld a house and then rent it you're in the same pot with the Duke of ST Albans or whomever who owns like half of the Commonwealth. Let me tell you how they enforce this insanity: black vans coming at night. People disappear; torture. That's how it happened in Romania.
maegov 1 year ago
You I get it: protperty is evil therefore you cannot construe one has acieve it through moral ways like... working their ass out. Buying materials, hiring constructors, getting the permits (the bureaucracy in my country- you couldn't believe it). And then building the house. Yeah, it's a big house so what. It's our house. There's nothing immoral about it. Immoral are the ones who want to take it away for whatever reason. And if you dare say we opressed anyone for it, shame on you! Shame!
maegov 1 year ago
You can rant on about worker's control of their lives and it makes sense to a point. But then you get into deciding what kind of labour benefits society and what kind of labout doesn't. And it's always the intellectual that gets fried first for "not working", because simply manual workers cannot understand his work. I'm from Eastern Europe and we still remember the black vans and how we hid frightened in our basements. All because someone decided this one doesn't really work. Is that morality?
maegov 1 year ago
And who gets to decide what part of my property for which my ancestors have worked, is used for exploitation and which is for personal use. What kind of thugs would you have come into my home and take things. Antother problem I have is that basically I research classical languages. In the current system I get paid for this job. I know what would happen to me and to historians and to writers and painters and professors of literature in a worker's paradise: we're leeches aren't we?
maegov 1 year ago
Ok I have 2 problems with this: first, I have seen my parents build our house. It's a big house but my parents are not capitalists. They've worked hard and got the money together to build it (by selling their work for wage basically). Now by your logic, if we rent part of this house, we are explotiers. And you would take away from us the property that we use for "exploiation" or at least bar me from inheriting it. Now how does that make sense. Is my house the result of conquest or feudalism???
maegov 1 year ago
Mr1001 speaks wisdom. I have been sharing your videos.
Anarcho-Capitalists are an obnoxious but vocal minority. They seem highly motivated to spread their pro-capitalist propaganda.
Djinn227 1 year ago 11
idiot
marksalot2001 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
still talking slavery about decades and decades after the combination of capitalism, free markets and Western logic and science made it obsolete. The Left wants to bring it back, only this time they want us all slave to the state. hilariously, people like the creator of this moronic vid envision themselves as members of the class that will control a centralized economy, in this dude's case from the back room of the methadone clinic somewhere on the Left Coast - I'm guessing San Francisco.
alphecca2539 1 year ago
@alphecca2539
As an anarchist, I oppose centralization and the state
mr1001nights 1 year ago 13
@mr1001nights As an anarchist you would be conquered by the first group of men with a centralized leader... Idiot. There is a simple reason for a government.. protection, not from one's self, but from those that would conquer.
daPlumber702 1 year ago
@mr1001nights
You're not an anarchist, you just think you are. Big difference. You're an anarchist like I'm an electrical engineer - just have the degree from university saying I graduated but never really worked in the field.
The way you present things suggests you've never really launched a business nor hired 10s of people to work in a project that you started from scratch with an idea that you had. You're like kids whining about their parents not knowing anything about what it is to be a kid.
marcabela 1 year ago
@mr1001nights
Don't tell him that you might blow his mind. He's only programmed to poo poo the "Commies".
thenoorys 1 year ago
@mr1001nights Do you as an anarchist, see the Zapatists in Mexico as a anarchist society?
BlueFrog83 11 months ago
@alphecca2539
Haha, you are funny because you are stupid.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
@pulsatingremedy Why does eurotrash like you hang out sites about American politics and economics? Is it because democracy is dead in Zeropa?
alphecca2539 1 year ago
@alphecca2539
About American politics? You must be a redneck.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
@pulsatingremedy I am expatriate of over two decades. I doubt you even know what 'redneck' means, but you imagine it will offend Americans who make fun of your utopian fantasies and you hope using such words - or insisting I get all my news and political analysis from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh - will end debate and allow you to save face.
I have met literally hundreds of you silly Euro Leftards. There is nothing I enjoy more than rattling your cage. Try harder, little Chomsky wannabe...
alphecca2539 1 year ago
@alphecca2539
It doesn't matter, you'll always be a little redneck to me.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
@pulsatingremedy Whatever. I'll be a free American redneck. You'll be a subject of Eurabia. Enjoy the twilight.
alphecca2539 1 year ago
@alphecca2539 Sorry where are your arguments? What is an Utopia? What does Chomsky has to do with Europe? How come you think that you not only not rattle our cage but just make everyone laugh, not just an Europeans hatever you mean by Europe. Do you mean an Italy which is more media controled even then an USA? There is no such a thing as Europe Dream, but sadly there is an American Dream.
WujekNiemaBycCCPRady 1 year ago
@alphecca2539 Congratulations, you are straight retarded
ErrolSaid 1 year ago
@ErrolSaid "straight retarted" started working at ten, was partners in a business by 23 and got through university on his own. What about you, punk?
alphecca2539 1 year ago
You bring up slavery time and time again. Does it really bother you? Why don't you try and stop slavery currently taking place? You don't even mention it. I don't think you really care about it that much. The problem for you is America it self. The USA is the only reason the world is as good as it is.
MELLSBAD 1 year ago
@MELLSBAD "You bring up slavery time and time again. Does it really bother you?"
And dont you? You are an authocratic personality then. The second question that follows. Why do you bother watching the movie at the first place?
I can answer that for you. The ones that are the most zealous are the ones that have the most doubt, and they try to hide sitting behind some crazy error in thinking emboding USA with capitalism.
WujekNiemaBycCCPRady 1 year ago
@WujekNiemaBycCCPRady Thought 1001knights might have something good to say. I have no doubt that capitalism is not perfect but neither are humans. Within the constructs of capitalism the individual has the best chance to move from one caste to another. In any other construct there are fewer in the ruling class and the masses in essence become serfs or slaves. If you meant autocrat, no not really.
MELLSBAD 1 year ago
@WujekNiemaBycCCPRady This guy speaks of slavery as if it defines the USA experience. If he feels that way why not speak to what is actually taking place right now, today? I could get on board with fighting that.
MELLSBAD 1 year ago
@MELLSBAD Yes... this guy a little bit undervalue the USA model of capitalism with almost unlimited resources and spirit of community i agree with that. The capitalism that he represents starts with what Locke describe as a state when every resources started to be privatized. Privatization come fom a latin word prevare which means taking away. Capitalism when everyone can privare for his own needs is ok... the problem starts when privare justify the private resources that you cant use.
WujekNiemaBycCCPRady 1 year ago
@MELLSBAD Continuing my thoughts ofcourse the private use isnt bad as such as its not undermining anyone from the profits of it. If privatization take away the other people from any free action, that they could do if they would have the resources, is a kind of slavery. If you intend that the people would have no other option then to work on your property that you had taken away from them=privare then what is it? Its somekind of an abuse depending on their lack of freedom hence its a slavery.
WujekNiemaBycCCPRady 1 year ago
Indiginous people suffered from greed and all the other conditions of mankind that your capitalist suffer from today. Animals and plants dominate each other as well. Your entire argument is stupid. Capitalism allows people to be lazy or achieve.
MELLSBAD 1 year ago
First comparison - between 'capitalists' and slave owners is so fatuous and stupid it nullifies the entire 'argument' this goof tries to make.
alphecca2539 1 year ago
@alphecca2539 You say: "First comparison - between 'capitalists' and slave owners is so fatuous and stupid it nullifies the entire 'argument' this goof tries to make."
It makes the same sense as a knight having a village he owns. As he states capitalists owns societies not some individuals. A knight wouldnt care if villager do whatever he wants as long as he wouldnt leave a village. Capitalists dont care as long as you dont change the society, or try to use different logic then capital.
WujekNiemaBycCCPRady 1 year ago
You refute nothing. Why are you even on the internet?
alphecca2539 1 year ago
@alphecca2539 That's a good question. You make no argument, and provide no evidence of his failure of refutation. Why are you even on the internet?
landfillpoet 1 year ago
You do get rewarded for walking down the street. You wouldn't have walked down the street if you didn't gain some satisfaction from it.
Every action is purposeful, every action is aimed at removing felt uneasiness, every action entails psychic cost and psychic satisfaction.
MisesianThinker 1 year ago
@MisesianThinker
OK, are you saying that the capitalist should also just get rewarded non-monetary satisfaction?
mr1001nights 1 year ago
@mr1001nights No I'm saying that he should be able to keep whatever he earns from voluntary interaction with others.
You seem to think that as a 3rd person not involved in a transaction you are able to declare said transaction involuntary.
I guess I just think that the people involved in said transaction can decide for themselves if a given transaction is voluntary.
MisesianThinker 1 year ago
@mr1001nights No, they get rewarded whatever is that people are willing to give them, which could definitely be a simple "thank you", but most capitalists prefer money since "thank you"'s can't put food on the table.
Psychosmurf547 1 year ago
@MisesianThinker you say: "Every action is purposeful, every action is aimed at removing felt uneasiness, every action entails psychic cost and psychic satisfaction."
Ofcourse not every action is purposeful, actually every are not if those arent some creative ones. Every action that is not a creative one is an action based on culture which helps us to not understand what we are doing, if we believe its ok.
WujekNiemaBycCCPRady 1 year ago
mrtyles, anarchism is all about from the ground up, its collectivism.
A mass chain of individual cooperation.
In the Spanish anarchist revolutions state system, it was acceptable for someone to be an "individualist" aka stay self reliant and trade goods and services for unionized services for example mail, or cable nowadays and phone.
Watch the posts about the spanish revolution by 1001night, its truly inspiring.
demammoet 1 year ago
i guess it's not considered very many to be an environmentalist. I guess that's the link to patriarchy. Most of the environmentalists I know are women. There's a sketch in which Jim Carrey is playing an extremely effeminate environmentalist from in Living Color which demonstrates this link. Also hunting, fishing, treecutting, and technology, are all things which are associated with being macho, and coincidentally are also things which wreck the environment.
mrtyles 2 years ago
what is the connection between patriarchy and the environment? and what about ethnic discrimination?
mrtyles 2 years ago
Sorry to sound overly pedantic. Maybe you should do a video about small businesses and how anarchists should treat those.
mrtyles 2 years ago
@mrtyles
Watch the section on small business from my documentary Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Politics
mr1001nights 2 years ago
Also, as I point out in part 1, in Colonial Brazil, slaves could buy their own freedom and become business owners, self-employed, or even slave owners themselves. Did that social mobility justify slavery? Could someone say "hey, look at me, i worked really hard when i was a slave, I was poor, saw lots of rats and went into debt-- now I'm a successful business owner, and that justifies slavery"
mr1001nights 2 years ago 6
@mr1001nights Of course it does not justify slavery. And how is capitalism slavery anyway?
Psychosmurf547 1 year ago
@mr1001nights: Social Mobility pre-supposes social inequality. In a classless society, it will be no longer necessary.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
Now my Mom no longer owns a business and she is quite happy working for a boss. I'm just telling you what she tells me. You even admit yourself that most small businesses fail, which means that the risk is far greater than the hypothetical and unlikely risk associated with crossing the street.
mrtyles 2 years ago
the risk to life&limb workers endure is greater than the risk of a capitalist, and furthermore, risk by itself doesn't entitle you to profit. Slave owners took risks (buying expensive slaves that could've gotten sick and died; using them to make products that didn't sell well etc). Does that mean they deserve a profit? Capitalists collectively impose a "work for a boss or else" status quo that shares similarities with slavery. This interferes with choice of self-management--the choice of freedom
mr1001nights 2 years ago
@mrtyles:
The petit-bourgeois person is very different from the 1% of society that own the majority of the means of production. Think Wal-Mart vs. a small general store. The petit-bourgeois individual is usually working along side her or his employees. Surely any anti-capitalist will see the difference in this. Speaking for myself: yeah, I don't think anyone should have to rent themselves out to anyone else. But if I were hard-pressed, if you created a dichotomy, I'd take the small shop.
comradshaw 2 years ago
@comradshaw Indeed. In all essence if ownership of the production and sale of goods was limited to one entity in one place the competition and diversity derived from these many small shops and factories would perhaps even add up to a semi-just private-ownership society in which any enormous profits (in comparison to costs of production) would have been impossible.
omfg4000 1 year ago
@mrtyles: But what's the main difference between the petit-bourgeois shop-owner and the bourgeoisie, or the capitalist class? Well, the bourgeoisie can't "use" all of the private property they use to exploit wage-laborers, whereas most small shop-owners are at least using their means of production. The small shop-owner is just that: small. They, too, do not have much of a choice under capitalism: work or starve. Technically, to the consistent anti-capitalist, though, they exploit workers 2.
comradshaw 2 years ago
Plus she went into thousands of dollars in debt from running a restaurant. If my Mom didn't get out of the restaurant business and she didn't pay her minimum payment, the bank and the landlord could have taken everything we had. None of her employees took those risks.
mrtyles 2 years ago
true, small capitalists have a harder time than big business. But generally, the capitalist invests money PRECISELY because he doesn't need it, and he knows that if he just keeps it in his closet it won't generate a penny. The profit from that money that would have otherwise stayed sterile in the closet, comes from labor--which is overwhelmingly not the labor of capitalists--especially the bigger they are. As for risks, read what I said in the last post, or what I say in #15
mr1001nights 2 years ago
but jonathan,
you could say the same thing about small business owners like my mother. My mom has chronic lung disease from the decades she worked in restaurants as a cook, and yes as a "capitalist." She almost died from mixing cleaning agents while I was still in the womb. She strained her ankles by standing all day, and has burned herself many times, all during her time as a "capitalist."
mrtyles 2 years ago
Your mom--if she employed a staff people was part capitalist part worker. I define the capitalist as the person who profits from hiring wage labor or from other forms of non-labor like investing or renting out a hotel.
mr1001nights 2 years ago
Well meaning? but this from an old man.. One thing I observered is that Anarchists and Communists among us were always the most violent. They murder and plot death even on their own. The idealists are always slaughtered when they are no longer needed. Yes, the Corporations must be dealt with. Men need to learn to be their own masters but free markets are what feed the most people. ideas have some merit but the devil is in the implemention and the misunderstood nature of Man.
itisaduck 2 years ago
Jonathans analyst of human nature is wrong. I have much experience in stressful conflict from union VP, shooting war, leading rebellion and protest. In my groups and outside all evil by nature. Man works hard only for self interest. His $ His beliefs. What J preachs has always failed and when it fails the leadership enslaves the workers, forces them into the fields, tortures, executes. Look at Che and Castro. Started good, turned evil. J's home, Spain? is Zoo of conflicted people.
itisaduck 2 years ago
The myth that ancient peoples lived in harmony with the world is entirely false. With the spread of man came the great extinction of the world's mega-fauna. Sure we didn't turn jungles into deserts but we did the best we could with our limited numbers.
When trade formed between tribes the invention of capital is natural. They will produce more animal hides or gather more nuts than they will consume themselves in order to exchange. The work would definitely be democratic and not wage.
metalorg 2 years ago
i only disagree with your response to the last one. It is slightly hypocritical, by using a computer and the internet you are paying into the pockets of the capitalists.
IIIIFile13IIII 2 years ago
Google "gift economy"
ZYKLONBKILLSHITLER 2 years ago
No. The capitalist doesn't deserve anything for his hard work. Straw man.
danberkeley 2 years ago
People are free to either donate money to the Sweatshop worker, or buy a Britney Spears album. No one is forcing them to do either. If people choose to buy a Britney Spears album it is their business. The only way to stop people from buying the BS album would be to use Violent Coercion.
RadioFreeWisconsin 2 years ago
Capital IS labor income. Capital must be earned in a capitalist society. Money and capital doesn't appear out of thin air.
Furthermore it is government redistribution and NOT the free market that tend to exploit the poor.
Also, read Murray Rothbard's Air Pollution and Property Rights on a RATIONAL view of property rights and environmental protection.
You set up a lot of straw men against statist capitalism and attribute it to free markets. Critique Rothbard....
georgeme89 2 years ago
-_- Govt redistribution is the only thing that keeps the 1st world afloat, and its gradual deterioration is showing its fruits: middle class is drowning, consumption falling and the economy collapsing.
DonVoghano 2 years ago
hey nice vids man!
djboony 2 years ago
As is the case with most liberals, your starting premise is wrong: #15, work for a boss or else is not a tenet of capitalism. It would be more accurately described as "work or else". Work for yourself if you like, but if you decide not to work, you will reap the rewards of your laziness, and I won't be there to save you.
default013 2 years ago
how are you suppose to work for yourself with no capital?all you have is is your capital as a worker, and thats not yours, cuz you working for someone who has the capital to work for himself and have you as a "wageslave".
TheRedneckJunkie 2 years ago