It's a sad fact that for all their apparent antipathy for religion, Objectivists can't seem to realize that what they follow is a religion in almost every sense.
Philosophy is supposed to be dynamic and distinct for each person, you take elements you agree with from some places and disgard what you disagree with.
Objectivists don't operate this way.
Their methodology goes, "Ayn Rand disagreed with it, therefore it's wrong". That's a religion people.
@MsSexySocialist ??? Not everyone that attempts to look at the world necessarily agrees with Ayn Rand, or that everything that came out of her mouth should be taken as "gospel". Are there really people out there who see her as some sort of athiest prophet?
Most of them in fact have never even read any philosophy other than what you find in recommended in her own bibliography. Their basic attitude is "I've already found the pinnacle of understanding and KNOW what's right. I don't need to study anything else."
And thus they only read thinkers that reinforce their own opinions.
Also, she's not so much a profit for *atheism* so much as a view of the world that sees narcissism as the greatest virtue known to man.
@MsSexySocialist Weird. I find some of her writing a bit...well...a bit much. I don't think she really understood 'normal' or 'average' people very much. She was quite sharp, though.
@MsSexySocialist If you think about it, though, much of her philosophy makes more sense to an athiest than christian philosophy does. I mean, an athiest evaluating hinduism and chakras would consider Rand's philosophy quite rational in comparison.
Also, there's something to be said (in my opinion) for eastern religions and philosophies despite their supernatural elements. They're a lot more fluid and less dogmatic that western religions and certain elements of them can indeed be of value provided they're viewed in a metaphysical rather than literal way.
Objectivism however is so rigid and dogmatic in its structure that it puts some religions to shame.
@MsSexySocialist That's what we're doing here, right? I mean, we're comparing philosophies. Ayn Rand's philosophy is "objectivism" which, by definition, literally requires the adherent to reject the metaphysical (supernatural, spiritual, et al.). The biggest gripe most have with Rand is the rejection of altruism, (false) humility, and self deprecation. She had no problem with a person who revelled in accomlishment.
Think of capital like this: it is a treasure chest in which are things that make you "productive", that enable you to produce a product. This chest has in it things like Intellect, physical ability, private property (real estate)(tools)(automobiles)(cell phones, computers etc), money, ideas, and personal drive). From this treasure chest, we work to attain some enterprise in pursuit of profit, which we place back in the treasure chest.
@sniperfolder WRONG!!! Oh...major fail. Did you actually READ Atlas Shrugged? Or did you "read into" it?
A looter is someone who takes the property of another without consent, such as the attempts by "looters" to confiscate the formula and process to make Reardon Steel.
By that definition capitalists are the greatest looters of all in appropriating the means of production from all society through enclousure.
I don't think the indiginous peoples of the world ever consented to have their lands polluted and destroyed by the multinational corporations currently exploiting them for resources.
@MsSexySocialist Still a MAJOR FAIL!! OMG, you don't know when to quit!
You see, the productivity, the profit, from a man's endeavors belong to the man or the man is a slave.
You should rething your paradigm and understand that what "collectivism" truly is, whether in corporate controlled economies, marxism, socialism, monarchism and the rest is the collective providing their productivity to an elite.
We are, literally, quasi slaves to a collectivist elite.
@MsSexySocialist Very, very good. I'm glad you understand the obvious.
When your income is taxed (income tax), the government is confiscating your labor to pay for their...whatever...which may include billions in bailouts to Wall Street Tycoons.
You pay taxes at a number of levels (including ss and medicare); I highly suspect that more than half of your labors go to other people without your consent or control.
@MsSexySocialist Very, very good. I'm glad you understand the obvious.
When your income is taxed (income tax), the government is confiscating your labor to pay for their...whatever...which may include billions in bailouts to Wall Street Tycoons.
You pay taxes at a number of levels (including ss and medicare); I highly suspect that more than half of your labors go to other people without your consent or control.
@MsSexySocialist Oh....major fail. There is always a choice. We have allowed our society to destroy family, community and culture. We can always reverse the trend. We learn to desire the things that are flashed across our vision on mass media outlets; we have to have our ipods, our flashy cars, our hip hop music...only when we can't get them, they teach us to blame "the wealthy"...WTF??? We live too complex of lives.
@MsSexySocialist Very good question. Why should I allow the country which I love fall to collectivism? Why should I allow my family to be ruled by an elitist parasitic government? I choose to fight, to not allow elitists who couch their rhetoric in collectivist demagoguery to enslave future generations.
@MsSexySocialist If you were to invest some "capital" and were to recieve partial ownership in the company in exchange for the labor, to whom are you a slave?
The fruits of your labor is the goods you produce in your own fields. If you hire yourself out to another for a time for a wage, the produce is not yours. Only the wage owed to you for the labor you hired out for.
@MsSexySocialist The "elite owning class" have fixed the system so that we cannot compete against them. The laws which we have allowed them to impose on us and the world prevent us from actually attaining our own personal success.
The idea that for some reason we are "entitled" to something that someone else owns...this is very odd, indeed.
@MsSexySocialist You are going to have to really try hard to understand the difference between "capitalism" and the present mixed economy we find ourselves under, worldwide.
"You are going to have to really try hard to understand the difference between "capitalism" and the present mixed economy we find ourselves under, worldwide"
"Capitalism" is the market economy with private ownership of the means of production. So what we have now is indeed capitalism; and it isn't working.
Don't think you can try to appeal to some mythical fairy tale version of capitalism that has never existed. You're just making a No True Scotsman fallacy.
@MsSexySocialist Oh...you lose! You don't understand the nature of Capital and what Capitalism is or how it works. Stop repeating the pabulum your high school and college professors feed you and use a little reason.
The truth is, many believe they are "owed" something; you are arguing that a man has the right to another man's property merely because he "is", that a man's property is not his own, but belongs to the "state". A more marxist comment could not be made.
@MsSexySocialist Further, we do not live in a capitalist economy but a mixed economy. When the "state" owns the "means of production" (an impossibility, as the means of production lies within the abilities of each and every man), productivity declines to below subsistence levels. There is no incentive for a man to work beyond the minimum he can get by with.
The truth is Statism (in any form) and Anarchism are diametrically opposed. One calls for control of individual production and freedoms while the other calls for zero controls of individual control and total freedom.
The only question with anarchy is: If I plant an acre of corn on land, do I keep the corn...or will it be confiscated by those who did not "invest" in its production?
@plbuster Lol another epic fail. Socialism was created way before Marx, and lots of socialists critizaized Marx for supporting the state as a mean to achieve socialism. You're so fucking ignorant.
@GompCelticPL FAIL You loser...believing that crap they spoon out to you...
What a lazy loser. You haven't even answered my simplest question because you know it is a trap. You have no real answers, no rational philosophy, only the arguments of a looter, thief, and socialist. You want to steal from others what you did not sow, what you did not work for, what you did not earn. That is the nature of a looter.
@plbuster I'm not a loser that's first. Second stop strawmening, Third, you're trap is pathetic based on pre-assumption that socialism is statism. Ofc. the worker ought to have the full product of his labor and be the sole owner of its fruits.
@plbuster No it's not you fucking wikipedia expert. But while you're there do yourself a favor and search libertarian socialism, individualist anarchism or mutualism.
@GompCelticPL OMG....is that all that is left to you? Ad Hominem attacks? What makes you think I even need Wiki to spank a little communist troll like you?
@plbuster Cause you're such a retard that you actually think I'm a communist lololol. And you use bs definitions found on wiki. You can't spank me ya little pervert.
@plbuster State control, or worker control. Historically, the Marxists chose state control. The anarchists chose worker's control. Basic research.
Did you build your own house, make your own shoes and clothes, grow your own food? No? Well then, you're a collectivist as well, because those things were collectively made.
@MsSexySocialist I mean, how far do you take your "anarchistic" philosophies? An Anarchist would be AGAINST ANY government at all...against forced taxation, against forced controls, against private property(?), against any number of laws to prevent this and that....what would you consider reasonable controls?
@MsSexySocialist When you exchange your intellect for a portion of profits (writers, musicians, etc), the capital you invest is intellectual. When you exhange under an employment contract to work for a specific wage, the capital you are investing in the enterprise is time, labor, and expertise.
Employment contracts made in a class-based society are nothing more than voluntary servitude as workers do not control their own workplaces.
The only reason people ever work for others rather than pursuing free independent labor - self-employment or democratic enterprise - is the inequality of bargaining power that exists between labor and capital - due to the minoritarian control of the means of production by an elite of owners.
Well put; and Ayn Rand is indeed worm food now. Some philosopher. She can't even stay alive forever!. But seriously, if ever there was a sycophant to the world's wealthy disguised as an academic - it was Ayn Rand.
p.s you're missing the point, he's not saying they lose motivation to work, he's saying they lose motivation to operate business in a strict high tax area.. are you really that blind?? and employees are capitalists too, they're just short sighted and too fucking dumb to play the game of achieving real wealth - gold, silver, oil, commodities..
you're saying that only employed as in 401k employees are x y z, you totally ignore self employed people, your video also provides no real insight into socialism or more importantly the mixture of corporate and government powers- fascism..
@britishbrainz Why would one even want to get rid of capitalism? How do you think us Americans -even middle class and poor- can be so rich compared others around the world?
@kwaal Note 3 (referencing your note 3): thank you for sharing. Please note, it doesn't really matter if someone says they are X, Y or Z. Every individual is a sovereign citizen with INALIENABLE rights to life, liberty &the pursuit of happiness.U canT neither give it away nor FORCE upon others (inalienable). You must use your mind (liberty) to think and act to pursue (& experience happiness): u r NEVER owed something for nothing. Voluntary contracts (e.g. employment) ar key:FREE CHOICE/DOM/WILL
@1980PintoMan The first tenant of socialism is "He who does not work, neither shall he eat." It's the capitalists who want to profit doing no work, simply profiting off their ownership of means of production. Maybe try listening, or something...
@kwaal "The first tenant of socialism is "He who does not work, neither shall he eat.""
Is that not used by capitalists to drive down pay?
bosses uses competition [rat race with other capitalists] to justify inequality. ie, pay the biggest swindler to be on your side [out of total earnings(wages)].
The socialist principle is "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need"
Stalin (state capitalist), had 'need' changed to 'work' in Marxist texts BTW. ie opposite meaning.
@marsCubed Both are Socialist- By "He who does not work", we don't mean the lazy etc. - Though they should be dealt with (through societal pressures, not the whip or the pressures by which we force wage slavery) - By "he who does not work", we mean the capitalist, bourgeoisie class, who don't work in the factories - but rather, through ownership of capital alone, make money by sitting back and exploiting the labour of the proletariat. And I'm not a Marxist, I'm an Anarcho-Syndicalist
@kwaal You are in error. If YOU own a cow, then it is YOUR right to milk it yourself and sell the milk (example for $40 per day). AFTER a 10 days, you have $400. You can hire a milk maid at $20 per day, so you only make $20. But cut out other costs like feeding the cow, housing it, let's say you make $10 per day per cow. The could could die. You take the risk, you benefit. If you are prudent, you'll get a loan and get many cows, use the profit to pay back the loan; and advance further.
@catbuffalo You have lost me in your argument. Please be specific and elaborate. Above at no point did I neither state nor imply people are cows. I imply people are distinguished from their property but own their own property. A farmer owns the cows and offers to pay people $x (x being the least , if the farmer is wise),&people can take it or take a hike (and starve). I believe in free choice, freedom, always fairness because you are Sovereign. No one can use force again if u farmer nor employee
@britishbrainz If youre the type open minded enough to read something that challenges, rather than validates your own preexisting views, then not only do I still respect you despite your capitalist nature - But I implore you to PLEASE read "Das Kapital" by Karl Marx. I'm not even a Marxist, but I consider it a very important text. I'll gladly take a reading assingment form you in return. some Rand or whatever (only read Atlas Shrugged) I actually love reading opposing view points
@britishbrainz I was civil with you - Suggesting we both offer literature to the other - But you realized you couldn't really keep up in debate & went 'head in sand' mode - Instead of debating me, you incorrectly state that Wage Slavery is a contradiction. It's a real thing, or at least a well established theory. Until 100 yr ago, wage slavery wasnt thought much different to chattel slavery by mainstream america! It was the Republicans stance! see this vid: watch?v=oztdRo9GLLk
@britishbrainz Just because you're not educated on a political concept, does not mean it does not exist or that it is not valid - And saying "Marx lost. You lose. Next." is not a valid argument, in fact, it feels like your way of conceding you bit off more than you can chew. For starters when did Marx lose? I hope you don't mean the USSR. The fall of the USSR was one of the greatest victories for Marxism. Stalinism, a bastardization of Marxism baring little resemblance (cont..)
@kwaal You said "just because you are not educated on a political concept does not mean it does not exist...". The concept Does exist (communism, socialism, Marxism). My point is that the concept is invalid. For example (one of many) you used the words correctly 'Wage Slavery', however I showed you this is a logical error=invalid. A "slave" is always "forced", usually unpaid (though prostitute slave modernly may be paid by Russian gangs that enslave them: there was a big FBI bust recently in NY
@britishbrainz Did you EVEN read a single thing I said? Yes, a slave is forced - And that's the whole point in the socialist theory of wage slavery - That under capitalism, we are forced to work for a person of higher class, using HIS capital, to further his own capital, while we stay stagnant. Under capitalism, one is forced to do this, or starve. Therefore, wage slavery. Did you watch that video? Even fucking *Abe Lincoln* believed wage slavery was the same as chattel!
@kwaal You said "under capitalism, we are forced to work". Incorrect. I don't know even "one" person in neither the UK nor here in the USA that is "forced" to work. If you know such a person or group: I am in touch with friend in the FBI. Please give me their name and we shall share the reward money: and liberate them.
@britishbrainz (Cont...p.2) to true Marxism, is what lost.The Soviet Union was state capitalism, not communism. Here's an easy test: Did the proletariat (The people) own the means of production (if you don't know what this means, you have no business debating socialism, as it's pretty huge) in Soviet Russia? No? Then it's not communism/socialism. Same goes for China, N. Korea etc. - Besides, did you miss where I said (Cont...)
@kwaal Reference to your note 2 (my own note 2): Marx's theory was flawed, and so too in practice was it flawed. The flaw can be seen in the theory itself. Similarly many others have had theories like Hitler (remember convinced millions to join, and won many big wars), but neither National socialism (Nazi), nor socialism nor communisms is correct in "theory" because it implies the use of "force" against inalienable rights that you possess as SOVEREIGN citizen.They force a SOCIAL CONTRACT upon u!
@britishbrainz Noone is forced to do anything under the various sorts of Anarcho-Socialism. Have you looked into the libertarian side of socialism at all? I suggest Proudhon and Bakunin as good starting point. Or google up "The Anarchist FAQ" - Its kinda TL;DR, but informative. You seem to make the (all too common) mistake of conflating all forms of socialism with authoritarian socialism (which I believe to be an oxymoron anyhow, true socialism aims for a stateless society).
@kwaal Socialism="use of force by the State to regulate and/or tax". Any use of force is against YOUR Sovereign rights. You are Sovereign with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You need a government by/of/for the people (democracy) to protect your rights through the arms of gov. like the police the military and the courts. Any and all use of force is rejected save in self defence.
@britishbrainz I really hope you don't think National Socialism was anything related to socialism (or even claimed to be such) - Nazi's picked that name (a combination of two diametrically opposing ideologies) merely as a callous way to appeal to both sides of the political spectrum. In practice, they weren't socialist in the slightest. You offer no evidence Marx's theory was flawed (only the attempts to carry it out have been) - (cont...)
@kwaal All socialism (forms)="use of force by the State to regulate and/or tax". Any use of force is against YOUR Sovereign rights. You are Sovereign with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You need a government by/of/for the people (democracy) to protect your rights through the arms of gov. like the police the military and the courts. Any and all use of force is rejected save in self defence.
@kwaal note, it doesn't really matter if you say u are X, Y or Z. You are a sovereign citizen with INALIENABLE rights to life, liberty &the pursuit of happiness.U can'T neither give it away nor FORCE upon others (inalienable). You must use your mind (liberty) to think and act to pursue (& experience happiness): u r NEVER owed something for nothing. Voluntary contracts (e.g. employment) ar key:FREE CHOICE/DOM/WILL
@britishbrainz (cont.) As for it implying force (which MY beliefs, Anarchism do not by definition - Anarchism is the opposition to all forms of hierarchy and coercion), the socialist would claim capitalism leads to force, as people are then forced to work for masters. But yeah, your points relate mostly to Communism. I'm in the same general ballpark as the Communists, but there's some definite and very important differences. Can we focus on Proudhon & Bakunin etc. instead of Marx?
@kwaal Opposition to hierarchy is only achieved by the use of force. If I hire you to clean in my 400 person corporation: you better clean well buddy and I will almost NEVER give you a PENNY more than you contracted for. Further, I will push you darn hard during salary negotiation to attempt to pay you the least possible. That is "MY RIGHT", it MY money. You do NOT have to work for me. IF you do, you're starting at the BOTTOM. Elsewhere, you can take your chances - like in a voluntary commune.
@kwaal You are in error about the latter point. A capitalist such as myself: I employ 350 people in my shoe factory. We are not that big, but our company makes $8million a year, I try to pay people the least possible, so I can at least take away the most possible. This is fair, it is legal , it is moral - and another way, my employees would be out of work: starving.
@britishbrainz You miss the entire basis of the idea of wage slavery then - It's not moral BECAUSE if they weren't to work for you, they'd starve - They're forced, albeit in a more subtle way than chattel slavery to be your wage slave. You are thus a member of the bourgeoisie and you should be ashamed of yourself. You are no better than a cotton mill owner 200 years ago. Most of your points seem to be based on a woefully inadequate understanding of socialist economics. Read Marx.
@luvcheney1 Your beliefs are wrong on 2 levels. 1 Rich do spend. According to the Federal Reserve, during Clinton Admin the rich saved only 12% of their incomes, and during the Bush Admin they spent 103% ( spent it all, & took on debt. Savings varies, during business cycles. At best, taking a dollar only increases spending 12 cents! 2) To think creating capital, saving is bad is absurd! Saving allows lending, homes, factories, research, etc. Go farm with a shovel or with a tractor?
@vudu8ball With respect you are wrong. All can be wealthy. Wealth is comparative too. For example almost all in the US today are wealthy in contrast to those in poor nations and/or those in the U.S. a long time ago.
All can be wealthy because wealth is dependent upon creating value. All persons can create value for others. In fact every person on earth must gain food, but to so gain they must create and transfer value (get paid in return) in order to buy food (for example).
I agree with most of what you say but using words like "moron" will only further alienate the people you want to bring to reason. People dont like to hear that their stupid.
@DaHonestAbe "Randians" DO NOT AGREE with the government having the POWER to bail out a private company. Every company should be allowed to fail. The purpose of a company is to purchase materials and labor and sell the resulting product for a profit. If it cannot do that, it should not exist. Government has no business interfering with business except in the most MINOR way. Part one of Atlas Shrugged is for rent in RED BOX. Please watch it.
While I entirely agree with what you said, I take issue with your method of attack on Objectivism's modern goals. At several points, you provide cases in which Ayn Rand's philosophy only benefits capitalists, whereas it does not benefit the proletariat. This carries a subtle implication that this is not moral.
Objectivism's entire philosophy relies on Rand's demonstration of an objective account for ethics. To refute this is to refute the entire ideology. This, I believe, is the way to go.
Capital does not exist on it's own. The problem in modern times is that people believe "money" is capital, and therefore it is a subjective and abstract thing that can be regulated, created and distributed.
You seem to endorse the labor theory of value. This is deeply flawed and far outdated. You aren't in bad company, as Marx and Smith both fell for it too. Like Marx, you haven't recognized the critical role of capitalists in wealth creation.
I suspect you also endorse what I call metaphysical slavery, or the idea that if effort is needed to live, you are a slave. In ethics this translates to: enslave or be a slave. A category error.
Nope. You mistakenly equate having to work for a boss with having to work. Chattel slavery apologists did the same thing by saying "well, these slaves have to work anyway to survive". Slave owners also played a critical role in wealth creation. That didn't justify slavery.
@mr1001nights I have severe doubts that slavery was critical at all. I suspect instead that it leads to stagnation and redistribution, not wealth creation. Many civilizations had slaves and most failed, but only insofar as they had trade did they thrive.
Since capitalists are critical to wealth creation, your choice becomes capitalist, wealthy slave, poverty with capitalists around, or poverty without capitalists around. Please read into the marginal theory of value. Things make better sense.
What did they trade? Oh the products that the slaves created. Was the existence of slaves critical? Not at all you say. Your conclusions are contradicting the rest of your comment.
"Please read into the marginal theory of value. Things make better sense."
I'm guessing you're new to economic theory. Try to spend some time reading before making judgements.
@pulsatingremedy Stealing destroys wealth, trade increases it. The fact that thieves can trade loot does not discount the act of destroying wealth to begin with.
I've never studied economics formally, but you failed to demonstrate anything.
Stealing doesn't destroy wealth. It's just a non-consensual means of reallocationg it. The only thing that destroys wealth is the physical destruction or dismantling of commodities that have value.
@00maharum00ma Yes, stealing reallocates things, but wealth is more than a thing. Wealth has a relational quality that has to do with one's knowledge and abilities, preferences and needs. It is very context sensitive.
One of the very early breakthroughs of economics was how mutual trade increases value. To illustrate how stealing destroys wealth, imagine a society where 90% of interactions were theft. Even subsistence level survival would be difficult to maintain. Production would be vein.
@mr1001nights To be more clear: slavery is a form of stealing. Stealing does not produce wealth. It is redistribution at best, but is usually a net loss. By focusing on rich plantation owners or master thieves, people fail to see the innate destructive character of slavery or theft.
Just as willing people can't be raped, it is an abuse of terms to say employees are slaves.
Maybe some day the rich will get their way and own everything then people will get mad enought to simply kill them for being the sociopathic swine they are. There are more of us then there are of them.
@vudu8ball Stealing is criminal activity, and ought to be prosecuted. But, I dont think it is generally possible to become extremely rich in this way, very often. If someone does accumulate wealth, it makes perfect sense they can leave it to whomever they want, after all, it is theirs. Workaholics may make more, but saving or working smart may be better. It certainly is NOT fair I cant leave my money to whom I choose, and it isnt fair my efforts cant result in wealth, if I earn it.
@luvcheney1 We live in the middel of a world wide financial crisis that was produced by fraudlent or criminally negligent activity of government officials, bankers, hedgefund managers and other financial bigwigs. They all got golden parachutes and million dollar bonuses and no one is being prosecuted so what are you talking about?
@luvcheney1 The right justifies wealth as the reward for hard work. That argument goes out the window when that wealth is passed on to someone who has done nothing to earn it. In a real meritocracy everyone should earn thier own wealth. At a minimum inherited wealth should be heavily taxed.
@vudu8ball The wealth has been taxed already as the person created it. It is just simply a question of property rights. Perhaps his kids didnt earn it, but then neither did govt. I can guarantee you that no man who amassed a fortune is going to just accept it being taken away at his death. He will transfer assets while alive, create trusts, charities, etc to PREVENT govt getting the money. Buffet, Gates claim to like taxes, why do they protect assets in charitable foundations??
"parasitic non-labor income that capitalists extract from the workforce" So IF I risk my money to start a business and hire 3 or 4 guys, and I am a parasite? Grow up, kid. Slavery has been illegal in the USA for quite a while. If you are worth a shit, you can quit and get a better paying job. I quit welding jobs a lot. I am good and I have WORKED HARD to make myself more valuable so I can pick and choose my employers. I work 6 months a year and make 60K. I live where living expenses are low.
Slave owners also took business risks, and many slaves could also improve their lot. According to Encyclopedia Britannica the range of occupations and status positions held by chattel slaves has been nearly as broad as that held by wage laborers, from priests and janitors to government administrators or even ministers.
In Colonial Brazil, slaves could buy their own freedom, quit their slavery and become business owners, self-employed or even slave owners themselves.
@mr1001nights Slavery has been illegal for a long time. I have had a paying job since I was 14, I have been fired and I have quit, but NO ONE has ever MADE me work for them. If I hire you to do a job and I make money, I am not a parasite on you, I purchase your labor, I provide expense money to buy materials to produce my widgets, and YOU get paid even if I LOSE MONEY!! My risk is what I am bringing to the table. I can replace you, You can't replace me, I NVR wkd for a poor man,.
Slave owners also took risks, and a slave wouldn't change his low status if he could work for several masters. A choice between masters doesn't equate freedom. The masters enslave you collectively, rather than individually.
Slave owners also calculated 2 for 1+1. Does that make it wrong? How is any business or economy supposed to work without planning and organization. That is what I bring to the table if I found a business: Organization. Someone has to do it.
Slave owners did indeed calculate 2 for 1 + 1 but that has nothing to do with the argument brought forth by defenders of capitalism; rather, they talk about social mobility, job creation, role in organization etc, to which I provide analogies in chattel slavery. As for organization, I favor self-management in a participatory economy
@mr1001nights How many self-managed people would it take to build ONE powerplant to provide people who REFUSE to self-manage themselves... Without the capital put forth by the"bad 'ol capitalist" how many people do you know that would work for a year or more for FREE until the powerplant can get built and start to sell electricity? Lets go green.. How many people will transport raw materials to the solar cell plant and wait until the powerplant can start producing electricity?
Yeah but what I am saying is that the fact that something is done analogously to what slaveowners did does not make it wrong - think of 1+1=2. What was immoral about slaveowners was that slaves had no right to leave and could be beaten or locked up at their master's will. If you are honest you are just trying to put a label on something that sucks to you so that you can make your feelings look more objective.
@mr1001nights I have the right to quit my job and live by my wits. I don't NEED a job. I WANT a job, because I want money, because its easier to buy clothes than to kill an animal, tan the hides, and make my own. I know how to build a shelter in the forest and survive, but I choose the easy way and get a job.
Why are you stuck on this slavery thing? Slaves cannot go start a competing business with their ex employers. Slaves do not get paid for their work or negotiate for pay.
@jeffery19677 "Slaves cannot go start a competing business with their ex employers." In colonial Brazil, slaves could actually buy their own freedom and become self-employed, business owners, or even slave owners themselves. So yes, they could compete with their old master. Did that justify slavery?
@mr1001nights You seem to be stuck on ASSUMING that an employee is a slave. He is NOT. An employee is a captialist. He SELLS his labor. He is not bound to one employer. In most instances, he may have more than one employer if he chooses. He can find another buyer for his labor if he is not satisfied with his wages or conditions. He can also decide to start a business and become a larger capitalist, by purchasing the labor of others.
I dont understand.... How is ANYONE forced to work for a boss under the threat of starvation? Even if you didnt own a gun, you could still trap animals eat wild fruits and legumes and other things that mankind has done for thousands of years.... Where is the force? Slavery in the US ended some years ago. I make plenty of money not working for anyone.... I am also NOT on welfare and NOT a criminal... so seriously, where is the force?
@TinQuasimodo See THAT is a good point. But also entirely different from saying that the business owner forces you to work. Government HAS applied more and more force over time, but alot of that force is the force of the majority. My issue is that anyone who chooses not to participate in society can maintain a self sufficient life "off the radar". I'm from West Virginia, trust me I've seen these people. But I dont think lumping business owner with the Government Fatcat is smart.
I see the state as a tool that one class uses to oppress another. This means that currently, we live in the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The modern state is used to achieve the aims of capital and to keep individual capitalists in check.
In the grand scheme of things, there is no distinction between capital and state.
@TinQuasimodo Again, we need to get GOVERNMENT under control and fair capitalism will thrive! Government is the only modern entity that STEALS from you at the point of a gun. McDonalds corporation doesn't hold a gun to your head to get you to eat a burger. It provides a product that you are willing to buy with your labor. You could just grow a garden and never eat a hamburger. You choose to give them money, which is a representation of your labor.
Most land is privatized. It is not an option for the entire working class to leave their homes and start collecting berries without trespassing. Besides, the working class has already created enough machinery to create vast amounts of wealth, it is unnecessary to play around in the woods if you could also claim the means of production (again, the MoP that the working class has created).
@pulsatingremedy The people who created the means of production have already been paid.... Well either that or they were robbed (african slaves in america, european slaves in the ottoman empire etc.) But to say "claim the means of production", ok purchase if the owner is a WILLING seller, but claiming sounds like stealing in this example. And btw, I didnt do ANY research on that Ottoman/european slave comment. I just want to make clear that slavery wasnt exclusive to my people.
Actually, I just read up on Ottoman slavery. The Ottoman empire did have European slaves, but they did not enslave people directly. They bought European slaves from the Barbary Pirates of North Africa.
@pulsatingremedy And good point about the private land thing. People will always find an efficient means to their own survival. Like every living thing on earth, man is responsible for his own survival.... Noone FORCED him to be hungry, it just happens. Noone FORCED him to eat, he has a responsibility to HIS internal system/survival. If he chooses to work for a capitalist, its because it is better than hunting for insect to eat or stealing. He can always start his own business.
let me get this very straight!!! what he is describing is corporatism or corporatocracy which by no means is true capitalism. corporatism / corporatocracy is fascism / communism by definition. it is another type of centrally planned economy. left vs right is just a smoke screen or false paradigm while the true paradigm is freedom versus enslavement. even the credit system is a monopoly. specifically one that is run by the government (aka the gun in the proverbial room)
Capitalism means a system where the capitalists are in power. In corporatism, the heads of the businesses are in power. The heads of the businesses are capitalists. From this it follows that corporatism is 'pure' capitalism.
I urge you to read up on communism. Judging by this post, you have never read anything written by a communist. That means that you have gotten your information about communism from people who have something to gain by misrepresenting it.
If you think that all owners of capital do is own capital, you are dreadfully mistaken. Lenin made the same assumption, believing that the work of business owners a simple task. Soon after taking power, he realized his mistake. There's a reason why business degrees exist.
Hell, if capitalists themselves worked on the floor, they'd be making more money, and helping to drive out competition. Your argument rests on the assumption that evil capitalists aren't THAT greedy.
What some of you easily-herded mindless sheep may not like is that she reveals that almost everything that we hold closest to our hearts has been a lie the entire time. I do not see how this is a crime when all she did was snap us all back into reality for our own damn good.
They produce but inventors create. We are not all equal, that's reallity, i'm sorry for you. In evolution, must i say, it is about the best people who are adapted to new situations... morons vote socialists. Objectivists are in fact anarquists. Not right-wind shit.
In real capitalism you don't ahve to work for a big enterprise, you can easyly create your own small business. Don't forget that if you have a cancer and want MY MONEY, i may have a cancer too, or my kids, or my friends, or some genius that i want to take CARE ABOUT. You really understood nothing about Capitalism.
The maker of the video seems to equate the worker to a slave. One giant glaring fact is overlooked, all workers have a choice to work for a company or work for themselves and start their own business. Anyone can start their own company and become an employer instead of an employee. The fact that not everyone has the same level of ability is not something that you will ever equalize, no matter how hard you might try. Yes its unfair that some people are smarter than others. but life is unfair
"all workers have a choice to work for a company or work for themselves and start their own business"
A fantasy. Pure and simple.
Do the 14 year old girls working in Nike sweatshops have a "choice" to start their own business?
"and become an employer instead of an employee"
In other words, become a subordinator instead of being subordinated. The central problem of course is that such a heteronomous distinction exists in the first place.
@MsSexySocialist Well, I was referring to the situation here in the United States. There are no sweatshops here. But in general, as long as no on is forcing you to work, you have a choice. How did people live before we had modern conveniences, before large companies? America used to be a place where the majority were entrepreneurs and tradesmen, when people get back to that mentality and stop thinking they have to work for someone else we will be better off as a nation.
You can't have one set of rules for us and another set of rules for everyone else in the world. Either capitalism works for everyone universally or it doesn't.
As for your thoughts about the US past, that's another fantasy and a distortion of history.
The 19th century was a virtual hell-on-earth for the vast majority of working people and thus we've had an even more violent labor history than Europe.
@MsSexySocialist Your claim that its a fantasy is remarkable to me. I know its not a fantasy because I lived through losing my job in 1998 and as a result started my own company and am still self employed to this day. Anyone can start their own business in America, you can deny this all you want but you can't change reality. More and more people are starting their own businesses every day. What I advocate is for a man to reap the reward of his own intelligence.
But you can't do that when you are subordinated to a class of plutocrats who monopolize everything.
I would love to live in an economy where we really were able to work for no-one but ourselves (unless we wanted to cooperate with others) but our current system can't offer that.
Anyone cannot start their own business in America. Because if they could, they would.
@MsSexySocialist Dear Sexy, you really are kinda sexy but unfortunately you have been brainwashed, no doubt by your university, your still too young to realize you've been brainwashed. The truth is that YOU DO live in a country where anyone can start their own business. People come from all over the world and start business here every day. Even the illegals start their own businesses. How can you deny this? Are you really that blind? Anyone CAN start a business but not EVERYONE will.
So I've been "brainwashed" because I disagree witth your opinion?
I may have disagreements with others but I don't insult them by accusing them of not being able to think for themselves. I base every position I hold on careful observation of the facts of history and the reality facing us today.
All you're doing is asserting without evidence - in contradiction of available facts I might add.
Also regarding "illigals"; there is no such thing as an illigal human being. Sorry.
@MsSexySocialist Your not brainwashed because you disagree with me but because you disagree with the reality and facts that are obvious. You claim that not anyone can start a business. If the poorest immigrant can come here (my grandfather for example, who arrived with $1 in his pocket, and spoke no English) and start a business, who among us cannot? Who is stopping any of us from starting a business? If you are intelligent and have a good idea and willing to work for it then you can do it.
@MsSexySocialist Of course there are no "illegal" human beings. But there are people who are in our country illegally. We are a sovereign nation with borders. If someone came into your house without your permission they would be there illegally and you would expect the police to protect you from such illegal entry. The citizens of the US are the owners of the country. As citizens we have rights and we pay for protection from illegal invasion with our taxes (at least the 50% of us who pay).
@MsSexySocialist I am a scientist so I certainly know what evidence is. A single case of someone poor succeeding is evidence that it can be done. Your claim that it cannot be done only requires a single case to the contrary to absolutely prove your statement wrong. Just because something is unlikely doesn't make it impossible. No matter what society you will ever dream up there will always be those who are in the elite, who will have more than most. Describe a possibility to the contrary.
. . . free to simply make up fictional positions them claim I support them.
"A single case of someone poor succeeding is evidence that it can be done"
Clearly you're unaware what "exception to the rule" means. One person in several thousand is born ambidextrous, just because it happens once in a while doesn't make it a likely occurrence.
"Just because something is unlikely doesn't make it impossible."
I never said it was. I said just that; unlikely. We need a system that makes it . .
@MsSexySocialist "Clearly you're unaware what "exception to the rule" means. One person in several thousand is born ambidextrous, just because it happens once in a while doesn't make it a likely occurrence." Of course I understand the exceptional. Its the exceptional that advance technology and civilization in general. There are simply people who are in exceptional in the world, you seem to think this is a bad thing. I think the exceptional should be rewarded for being exceptional.
Typical anti-American brown person who probably lives off of welfare or food stamps.
MIKEPORTNOYING 1 week ago
It's a sad fact that for all their apparent antipathy for religion, Objectivists can't seem to realize that what they follow is a religion in almost every sense.
Philosophy is supposed to be dynamic and distinct for each person, you take elements you agree with from some places and disgard what you disagree with.
Objectivists don't operate this way.
Their methodology goes, "Ayn Rand disagreed with it, therefore it's wrong". That's a religion people.
MsSexySocialist 2 weeks ago 2
@MsSexySocialist ??? Not everyone that attempts to look at the world necessarily agrees with Ayn Rand, or that everything that came out of her mouth should be taken as "gospel". Are there really people out there who see her as some sort of athiest prophet?
plbuster 1 week ago
@plbuster
Yes. Yes there are.
Most of them in fact have never even read any philosophy other than what you find in recommended in her own bibliography. Their basic attitude is "I've already found the pinnacle of understanding and KNOW what's right. I don't need to study anything else."
And thus they only read thinkers that reinforce their own opinions.
Also, she's not so much a profit for *atheism* so much as a view of the world that sees narcissism as the greatest virtue known to man.
MsSexySocialist 1 week ago
@MsSexySocialist Weird. I find some of her writing a bit...well...a bit much. I don't think she really understood 'normal' or 'average' people very much. She was quite sharp, though.
plbuster 1 week ago
@MsSexySocialist If you think about it, though, much of her philosophy makes more sense to an athiest than christian philosophy does. I mean, an athiest evaluating hinduism and chakras would consider Rand's philosophy quite rational in comparison.
plbuster 1 week ago
@plbuster
The key term being "in comparison".
Also, there's something to be said (in my opinion) for eastern religions and philosophies despite their supernatural elements. They're a lot more fluid and less dogmatic that western religions and certain elements of them can indeed be of value provided they're viewed in a metaphysical rather than literal way.
Objectivism however is so rigid and dogmatic in its structure that it puts some religions to shame.
MsSexySocialist 1 week ago
@MsSexySocialist That's what we're doing here, right? I mean, we're comparing philosophies. Ayn Rand's philosophy is "objectivism" which, by definition, literally requires the adherent to reject the metaphysical (supernatural, spiritual, et al.). The biggest gripe most have with Rand is the rejection of altruism, (false) humility, and self deprecation. She had no problem with a person who revelled in accomlishment.
plbuster 1 week ago
Here, I'll ask it as a stand alone thread:
I plant an acre of corn. I am the only one who has invested any time or labor in it's planting. To whom does the corn belong?
plbuster 2 weeks ago
Think of capital like this: it is a treasure chest in which are things that make you "productive", that enable you to produce a product. This chest has in it things like Intellect, physical ability, private property (real estate)(tools)(automobiles)(cell phones, computers etc), money, ideas, and personal drive). From this treasure chest, we work to attain some enterprise in pursuit of profit, which we place back in the treasure chest.
plbuster 2 weeks ago
This guy is an idiot. Obviously a looter.
plbuster 3 weeks ago
Looter is the definition for capitalism @plbuster.
sniperfolder 2 weeks ago
@sniperfolder WRONG!!! Oh...major fail. Did you actually READ Atlas Shrugged? Or did you "read into" it?
A looter is someone who takes the property of another without consent, such as the attempts by "looters" to confiscate the formula and process to make Reardon Steel.
No pie for you.
plbuster 2 weeks ago
@plbuster
By that definition capitalists are the greatest looters of all in appropriating the means of production from all society through enclousure.
I don't think the indiginous peoples of the world ever consented to have their lands polluted and destroyed by the multinational corporations currently exploiting them for resources.
MsSexySocialist 2 weeks ago
@MsSexySocialist Still a MAJOR FAIL!! OMG, you don't know when to quit!
You see, the productivity, the profit, from a man's endeavors belong to the man or the man is a slave.
You should rething your paradigm and understand that what "collectivism" truly is, whether in corporate controlled economies, marxism, socialism, monarchism and the rest is the collective providing their productivity to an elite.
We are, literally, quasi slaves to a collectivist elite.
plbuster 2 weeks ago
@plbuster
"You see, the productivity, the profit, from a man's endeavors belong to the man or the man is a slave"
So by that definition, it would seem that wage-laborers are indeed slaves, as they do not own the fruits of their work, their employers does.
"You should rething your paradigm and understand that what "collectivism" truly is"
It's a nonsense concept peddled by authoritarians to argue against democracy by creating false associations with group-think instead of solidarity.
MsSexySocialist 2 weeks ago
@MsSexySocialist Very, very good. I'm glad you understand the obvious.
When your income is taxed (income tax), the government is confiscating your labor to pay for their...whatever...which may include billions in bailouts to Wall Street Tycoons.
You pay taxes at a number of levels (including ss and medicare); I highly suspect that more than half of your labors go to other people without your consent or control.
plbuster 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MsSexySocialist Very, very good. I'm glad you understand the obvious.
When your income is taxed (income tax), the government is confiscating your labor to pay for their...whatever...which may include billions in bailouts to Wall Street Tycoons.
You pay taxes at a number of levels (including ss and medicare); I highly suspect that more than half of your labors go to other people without your consent or control.
plbuster 2 weeks ago
@MsSexySocialist You engage in an employment contract and are not forced to trade your labor for money, but you do. This is voluntary.
The taxes you pay (in income tax) is a confiscation of your labor. You are, indeed, a slave. But not to your employer.
To the government.
plbuster 2 weeks ago
@plbuster Completely wrong.
People only ever rent themselves to others rather than working for themselves because their exists no other effective choice.
MsSexySocialist 2 weeks ago
@MsSexySocialist Oh....major fail. There is always a choice. We have allowed our society to destroy family, community and culture. We can always reverse the trend. We learn to desire the things that are flashed across our vision on mass media outlets; we have to have our ipods, our flashy cars, our hip hop music...only when we can't get them, they teach us to blame "the wealthy"...WTF??? We live too complex of lives.
plbuster 2 weeks ago
@plbuster
If you don't like paying taxes then just move to Dubai.
What's stopping you?
MsSexySocialist 2 weeks ago
@MsSexySocialist Very good question. Why should I allow the country which I love fall to collectivism? Why should I allow my family to be ruled by an elitist parasitic government? I choose to fight, to not allow elitists who couch their rhetoric in collectivist demagoguery to enslave future generations.
plbuster 2 weeks ago
@MsSexySocialist If you were to invest some "capital" and were to recieve partial ownership in the company in exchange for the labor, to whom are you a slave?
The fruits of your labor is the goods you produce in your own fields. If you hire yourself out to another for a time for a wage, the produce is not yours. Only the wage owed to you for the labor you hired out for.
plbuster 2 weeks ago
@plbuster
And what you just described is the problem of capitalism.
Only the elite owning class are entitled to the fruits of their labor. Not the vast majority.
MsSexySocialist 2 weeks ago
@MsSexySocialist The "elite owning class" have fixed the system so that we cannot compete against them. The laws which we have allowed them to impose on us and the world prevent us from actually attaining our own personal success.
The idea that for some reason we are "entitled" to something that someone else owns...this is very odd, indeed.
plbuster 2 weeks ago
@MsSexySocialist You are going to have to really try hard to understand the difference between "capitalism" and the present mixed economy we find ourselves under, worldwide.
plbuster 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@plbuster
"You are going to have to really try hard to understand the difference between "capitalism" and the present mixed economy we find ourselves under, worldwide"
"Capitalism" is the market economy with private ownership of the means of production. So what we have now is indeed capitalism; and it isn't working.
Don't think you can try to appeal to some mythical fairy tale version of capitalism that has never existed. You're just making a No True Scotsman fallacy.
MsSexySocialist 2 weeks ago
@MsSexySocialist Oh...you lose! You don't understand the nature of Capital and what Capitalism is or how it works. Stop repeating the pabulum your high school and college professors feed you and use a little reason.
The truth is, many believe they are "owed" something; you are arguing that a man has the right to another man's property merely because he "is", that a man's property is not his own, but belongs to the "state". A more marxist comment could not be made.
plbuster 2 weeks ago
@MsSexySocialist Further, we do not live in a capitalist economy but a mixed economy. When the "state" owns the "means of production" (an impossibility, as the means of production lies within the abilities of each and every man), productivity declines to below subsistence levels. There is no incentive for a man to work beyond the minimum he can get by with.
plbuster 2 weeks ago
@plbuster
In the myriad of comments you just made you for some reason attack the state and government. I am an anarchist - I support abolishing both.
Therefore your argument is invalid.
MsSexySocialist 2 weeks ago
@MsSexySocialist Wow...you really are confused.
The truth is Statism (in any form) and Anarchism are diametrically opposed. One calls for control of individual production and freedoms while the other calls for zero controls of individual control and total freedom.
The only question with anarchy is: If I plant an acre of corn on land, do I keep the corn...or will it be confiscated by those who did not "invest" in its production?
plbuster 2 weeks ago
@plbuster Such an epic fail. All anarchists except 'anarcho'capitalists have always been socialists. Socialism isn't statism r-tard :F
GompCelticPL 2 weeks ago
@GompCelticPL Major NO-GO as we say in the Army. Socialism is statism. You don't even know what socialism is...
Anarchy, as a governmental concept, was alive and well long before Marx, the Communists, or your socialist ilk in the "collectivist" slave movements.
plbuster 2 weeks ago
@plbuster Lol another epic fail. Socialism was created way before Marx, and lots of socialists critizaized Marx for supporting the state as a mean to achieve socialism. You're so fucking ignorant.
GompCelticPL 2 weeks ago
@GompCelticPL FAIL You loser...believing that crap they spoon out to you...
What a lazy loser. You haven't even answered my simplest question because you know it is a trap. You have no real answers, no rational philosophy, only the arguments of a looter, thief, and socialist. You want to steal from others what you did not sow, what you did not work for, what you did not earn. That is the nature of a looter.
plbuster 2 weeks ago
@plbuster I'm not a loser that's first. Second stop strawmening, Third, you're trap is pathetic based on pre-assumption that socialism is statism. Ofc. the worker ought to have the full product of his labor and be the sole owner of its fruits.
GompCelticPL 2 weeks ago
@GompCelticPL HA!!! you statist puppet: NO PIE FOR YOU!!!
Socialism is state control over the economy and means of production. Why do you collectivists continue to contradict yourselves?
plbuster 2 weeks ago
@plbuster No it's not you fucking wikipedia expert. But while you're there do yourself a favor and search libertarian socialism, individualist anarchism or mutualism.
GompCelticPL 2 weeks ago
@GompCelticPL OMG....is that all that is left to you? Ad Hominem attacks? What makes you think I even need Wiki to spank a little communist troll like you?
plbuster 2 weeks ago
@plbuster Cause you're such a retard that you actually think I'm a communist lololol. And you use bs definitions found on wiki. You can't spank me ya little pervert.
GompCelticPL 2 weeks ago
@plbuster State control, or worker control. Historically, the Marxists chose state control. The anarchists chose worker's control. Basic research.
Did you build your own house, make your own shoes and clothes, grow your own food? No? Well then, you're a collectivist as well, because those things were collectively made.
blackmichael75 2 weeks ago
@GompCelticPL ANy use of force to confiscate anything from anybody ceases to be anarchy.
You are about as anarchistic a Bolshevik, wanting to steal others wealth for yourself. Same old game.
plbuster 2 weeks ago
@GompCelticPL So....I'll ask again.
I plant an acre of corn. I am the only person who has invested any time or labor. To whom does the corn belong?
plbuster 2 weeks ago
@MsSexySocialist I mean, how far do you take your "anarchistic" philosophies? An Anarchist would be AGAINST ANY government at all...against forced taxation, against forced controls, against private property(?), against any number of laws to prevent this and that....what would you consider reasonable controls?
plbuster 2 weeks ago
@MsSexySocialist When you exchange your intellect for a portion of profits (writers, musicians, etc), the capital you invest is intellectual. When you exhange under an employment contract to work for a specific wage, the capital you are investing in the enterprise is time, labor, and expertise.
plbuster 2 weeks ago
@plbuster
Employment contracts made in a class-based society are nothing more than voluntary servitude as workers do not control their own workplaces.
The only reason people ever work for others rather than pursuing free independent labor - self-employment or democratic enterprise - is the inequality of bargaining power that exists between labor and capital - due to the minoritarian control of the means of production by an elite of owners.
Nice try.
MsSexySocialist 2 weeks ago
@MsSexySocialist WRONG....OMG...another major fail.
Why do you think collective bargaining is a method for labor to negotiate with management?
When the worker or the union AGREE to the terms...it becomes a contract.
It has nothing to do with class, but with capital. The whole "class" thing is highly misunderstood in America.
plbuster 2 weeks ago
Well put; and Ayn Rand is indeed worm food now. Some philosopher. She can't even stay alive forever!. But seriously, if ever there was a sycophant to the world's wealthy disguised as an academic - it was Ayn Rand.
ujean56 3 weeks ago
p.s you're missing the point, he's not saying they lose motivation to work, he's saying they lose motivation to operate business in a strict high tax area.. are you really that blind?? and employees are capitalists too, they're just short sighted and too fucking dumb to play the game of achieving real wealth - gold, silver, oil, commodities..
michael616joaquin 1 month ago
you're saying that only employed as in 401k employees are x y z, you totally ignore self employed people, your video also provides no real insight into socialism or more importantly the mixture of corporate and government powers- fascism..
michael616joaquin 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@britishbrainz Why would one even want to get rid of capitalism? How do you think us Americans -even middle class and poor- can be so rich compared others around the world?
JohananRaatz 1 month ago
Comment removed
JohananRaatz 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kwaal Note 3 (referencing your note 3): thank you for sharing. Please note, it doesn't really matter if someone says they are X, Y or Z. Every individual is a sovereign citizen with INALIENABLE rights to life, liberty &the pursuit of happiness.U canT neither give it away nor FORCE upon others (inalienable). You must use your mind (liberty) to think and act to pursue (& experience happiness): u r NEVER owed something for nothing. Voluntary contracts (e.g. employment) ar key:FREE CHOICE/DOM/WILL
britishbrainz 1 month ago
Comment removed
britishbrainz 1 month ago
@Mr1001nights: What are you worried about? From your attitude, i don't think you'll ever have to worry about working for a boss.
MrCrchandler 1 month ago
The video poster has not succeeded in refuting in Rand at all.
EvrybdyluvsJosh 2 months ago
So you want money for nothing because otherwise you have to work for it. Yeah, what a winning argument.
1980PintoMan 2 months ago
@1980PintoMan The first tenant of socialism is "He who does not work, neither shall he eat." It's the capitalists who want to profit doing no work, simply profiting off their ownership of means of production. Maybe try listening, or something...
kwaal 1 month ago
@kwaal "The first tenant of socialism is "He who does not work, neither shall he eat.""
Is that not used by capitalists to drive down pay?
bosses uses competition [rat race with other capitalists] to justify inequality. ie, pay the biggest swindler to be on your side [out of total earnings(wages)].
The socialist principle is "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need"
Stalin (state capitalist), had 'need' changed to 'work' in Marxist texts BTW. ie opposite meaning.
marsCubed 1 month ago
@marsCubed Both are Socialist- By "He who does not work", we don't mean the lazy etc. - Though they should be dealt with (through societal pressures, not the whip or the pressures by which we force wage slavery) - By "he who does not work", we mean the capitalist, bourgeoisie class, who don't work in the factories - but rather, through ownership of capital alone, make money by sitting back and exploiting the labour of the proletariat. And I'm not a Marxist, I'm an Anarcho-Syndicalist
kwaal 1 month ago
@kwaal You are in error. If YOU own a cow, then it is YOUR right to milk it yourself and sell the milk (example for $40 per day). AFTER a 10 days, you have $400. You can hire a milk maid at $20 per day, so you only make $20. But cut out other costs like feeding the cow, housing it, let's say you make $10 per day per cow. The could could die. You take the risk, you benefit. If you are prudent, you'll get a loan and get many cows, use the profit to pay back the loan; and advance further.
britishbrainz 1 month ago
@britishbrainz
people aren't cows......
catbuffalo 1 month ago
Comment removed
britishbrainz 1 month ago
@catbuffalo You have lost me in your argument. Please be specific and elaborate. Above at no point did I neither state nor imply people are cows. I imply people are distinguished from their property but own their own property. A farmer owns the cows and offers to pay people $x (x being the least , if the farmer is wise),&people can take it or take a hike (and starve). I believe in free choice, freedom, always fairness because you are Sovereign. No one can use force again if u farmer nor employee
britishbrainz 1 month ago
@britishbrainz If youre the type open minded enough to read something that challenges, rather than validates your own preexisting views, then not only do I still respect you despite your capitalist nature - But I implore you to PLEASE read "Das Kapital" by Karl Marx. I'm not even a Marxist, but I consider it a very important text. I'll gladly take a reading assingment form you in return. some Rand or whatever (only read Atlas Shrugged) I actually love reading opposing view points
kwaal 1 month ago
@kwaal "Wage slavery" = logical contradiction. Your argument collapses. Marx lost. You lose. Next.
britishbrainz 1 month ago
Comment removed
kwaal 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@britishbrainz I was civil with you - Suggesting we both offer literature to the other - But you realized you couldn't really keep up in debate & went 'head in sand' mode - Instead of debating me, you incorrectly state that Wage Slavery is a contradiction. It's a real thing, or at least a well established theory. Until 100 yr ago, wage slavery wasnt thought much different to chattel slavery by mainstream america! It was the Republicans stance! see this vid: watch?v=oztdRo9GLLk
kwaal 1 month ago
@britishbrainz Just because you're not educated on a political concept, does not mean it does not exist or that it is not valid - And saying "Marx lost. You lose. Next." is not a valid argument, in fact, it feels like your way of conceding you bit off more than you can chew. For starters when did Marx lose? I hope you don't mean the USSR. The fall of the USSR was one of the greatest victories for Marxism. Stalinism, a bastardization of Marxism baring little resemblance (cont..)
kwaal 1 month ago
@kwaal You said "just because you are not educated on a political concept does not mean it does not exist...". The concept Does exist (communism, socialism, Marxism). My point is that the concept is invalid. For example (one of many) you used the words correctly 'Wage Slavery', however I showed you this is a logical error=invalid. A "slave" is always "forced", usually unpaid (though prostitute slave modernly may be paid by Russian gangs that enslave them: there was a big FBI bust recently in NY
britishbrainz 1 month ago
@britishbrainz Did you EVEN read a single thing I said? Yes, a slave is forced - And that's the whole point in the socialist theory of wage slavery - That under capitalism, we are forced to work for a person of higher class, using HIS capital, to further his own capital, while we stay stagnant. Under capitalism, one is forced to do this, or starve. Therefore, wage slavery. Did you watch that video? Even fucking *Abe Lincoln* believed wage slavery was the same as chattel!
kwaal 1 month ago
@kwaal You said "under capitalism, we are forced to work". Incorrect. I don't know even "one" person in neither the UK nor here in the USA that is "forced" to work. If you know such a person or group: I am in touch with friend in the FBI. Please give me their name and we shall share the reward money: and liberate them.
britishbrainz 1 month ago
@britishbrainz (Cont...p.2) to true Marxism, is what lost.The Soviet Union was state capitalism, not communism. Here's an easy test: Did the proletariat (The people) own the means of production (if you don't know what this means, you have no business debating socialism, as it's pretty huge) in Soviet Russia? No? Then it's not communism/socialism. Same goes for China, N. Korea etc. - Besides, did you miss where I said (Cont...)
kwaal 1 month ago
@kwaal Reference to your note 2 (my own note 2): Marx's theory was flawed, and so too in practice was it flawed. The flaw can be seen in the theory itself. Similarly many others have had theories like Hitler (remember convinced millions to join, and won many big wars), but neither National socialism (Nazi), nor socialism nor communisms is correct in "theory" because it implies the use of "force" against inalienable rights that you possess as SOVEREIGN citizen.They force a SOCIAL CONTRACT upon u!
britishbrainz 1 month ago
@britishbrainz Noone is forced to do anything under the various sorts of Anarcho-Socialism. Have you looked into the libertarian side of socialism at all? I suggest Proudhon and Bakunin as good starting point. Or google up "The Anarchist FAQ" - Its kinda TL;DR, but informative. You seem to make the (all too common) mistake of conflating all forms of socialism with authoritarian socialism (which I believe to be an oxymoron anyhow, true socialism aims for a stateless society).
kwaal 1 month ago
@kwaal Socialism="use of force by the State to regulate and/or tax". Any use of force is against YOUR Sovereign rights. You are Sovereign with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You need a government by/of/for the people (democracy) to protect your rights through the arms of gov. like the police the military and the courts. Any and all use of force is rejected save in self defence.
britishbrainz 1 month ago
@britishbrainz I really hope you don't think National Socialism was anything related to socialism (or even claimed to be such) - Nazi's picked that name (a combination of two diametrically opposing ideologies) merely as a callous way to appeal to both sides of the political spectrum. In practice, they weren't socialist in the slightest. You offer no evidence Marx's theory was flawed (only the attempts to carry it out have been) - (cont...)
kwaal 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kwaal All socialism (forms)="use of force by the State to regulate and/or tax". Any use of force is against YOUR Sovereign rights. You are Sovereign with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You need a government by/of/for the people (democracy) to protect your rights through the arms of gov. like the police the military and the courts. Any and all use of force is rejected save in self defence.
britishbrainz 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kwaal note, it doesn't really matter if you say u are X, Y or Z. You are a sovereign citizen with INALIENABLE rights to life, liberty &the pursuit of happiness.U can'T neither give it away nor FORCE upon others (inalienable). You must use your mind (liberty) to think and act to pursue (& experience happiness): u r NEVER owed something for nothing. Voluntary contracts (e.g. employment) ar key:FREE CHOICE/DOM/WILL
britishbrainz 1 month ago
@britishbrainz (cont.) As for it implying force (which MY beliefs, Anarchism do not by definition - Anarchism is the opposition to all forms of hierarchy and coercion), the socialist would claim capitalism leads to force, as people are then forced to work for masters. But yeah, your points relate mostly to Communism. I'm in the same general ballpark as the Communists, but there's some definite and very important differences. Can we focus on Proudhon & Bakunin etc. instead of Marx?
kwaal 1 month ago
@kwaal Opposition to hierarchy is only achieved by the use of force. If I hire you to clean in my 400 person corporation: you better clean well buddy and I will almost NEVER give you a PENNY more than you contracted for. Further, I will push you darn hard during salary negotiation to attempt to pay you the least possible. That is "MY RIGHT", it MY money. You do NOT have to work for me. IF you do, you're starting at the BOTTOM. Elsewhere, you can take your chances - like in a voluntary commune.
britishbrainz 1 month ago
@kwaal You are in error about the latter point. A capitalist such as myself: I employ 350 people in my shoe factory. We are not that big, but our company makes $8million a year, I try to pay people the least possible, so I can at least take away the most possible. This is fair, it is legal , it is moral - and another way, my employees would be out of work: starving.
britishbrainz 1 month ago
@britishbrainz You miss the entire basis of the idea of wage slavery then - It's not moral BECAUSE if they weren't to work for you, they'd starve - They're forced, albeit in a more subtle way than chattel slavery to be your wage slave. You are thus a member of the bourgeoisie and you should be ashamed of yourself. You are no better than a cotton mill owner 200 years ago. Most of your points seem to be based on a woefully inadequate understanding of socialist economics. Read Marx.
kwaal 1 month ago
Comment removed
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@luvcheney1 OOOOPs, taking a dollar only increases spending by 12 cents.
luvcheney1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@luvcheney1 Your beliefs are wrong on 2 levels. 1 Rich do spend. According to the Federal Reserve, during Clinton Admin the rich saved only 12% of their incomes, and during the Bush Admin they spent 103% ( spent it all, & took on debt. Savings varies, during business cycles. At best, taking a dollar only increases spending 12 cents! 2) To think creating capital, saving is bad is absurd! Saving allows lending, homes, factories, research, etc. Go farm with a shovel or with a tractor?
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@vudu8ball With respect you are wrong. All can be wealthy. Wealth is comparative too. For example almost all in the US today are wealthy in contrast to those in poor nations and/or those in the U.S. a long time ago.
All can be wealthy because wealth is dependent upon creating value. All persons can create value for others. In fact every person on earth must gain food, but to so gain they must create and transfer value (get paid in return) in order to buy food (for example).
britishbrainz 2 months ago 2
It's breathtaking how shamelessly Glenn Beck showcases his ignorance of just about everything.
scientrophic 2 months ago
I agree with most of what you say but using words like "moron" will only further alienate the people you want to bring to reason. People dont like to hear that their stupid.
Dymdez 2 months ago
Yeah, Marxists really love the idea of using public money to bail out failed capitalists. Jeez the Randians can be fucking morons!
DaHonestAbe 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DaHonestAbe "Randians" DO NOT AGREE with the government having the POWER to bail out a private company. Every company should be allowed to fail. The purpose of a company is to purchase materials and labor and sell the resulting product for a profit. If it cannot do that, it should not exist. Government has no business interfering with business except in the most MINOR way. Part one of Atlas Shrugged is for rent in RED BOX. Please watch it.
jeffery19677 2 months ago
While I entirely agree with what you said, I take issue with your method of attack on Objectivism's modern goals. At several points, you provide cases in which Ayn Rand's philosophy only benefits capitalists, whereas it does not benefit the proletariat. This carries a subtle implication that this is not moral.
Objectivism's entire philosophy relies on Rand's demonstration of an objective account for ethics. To refute this is to refute the entire ideology. This, I believe, is the way to go.
xxFortunadoxx 2 months ago
the halfbreed/mongrel "mind" is unable to digest objectivity, or reason
iTROLL9000 2 months ago
Capital does not exist on it's own. The problem in modern times is that people believe "money" is capital, and therefore it is a subjective and abstract thing that can be regulated, created and distributed.
johnnibarger 2 months ago
Is that you interviewing Noam @ 10:28 ?
capt251978 2 months ago
You seem to endorse the labor theory of value. This is deeply flawed and far outdated. You aren't in bad company, as Marx and Smith both fell for it too. Like Marx, you haven't recognized the critical role of capitalists in wealth creation.
I suspect you also endorse what I call metaphysical slavery, or the idea that if effort is needed to live, you are a slave. In ethics this translates to: enslave or be a slave. A category error.
RandolphLevin 2 months ago
@RandolphLevin
Nope. You mistakenly equate having to work for a boss with having to work. Chattel slavery apologists did the same thing by saying "well, these slaves have to work anyway to survive". Slave owners also played a critical role in wealth creation. That didn't justify slavery.
mr1001nights 2 months ago 10
@mr1001nights I have severe doubts that slavery was critical at all. I suspect instead that it leads to stagnation and redistribution, not wealth creation. Many civilizations had slaves and most failed, but only insofar as they had trade did they thrive.
Since capitalists are critical to wealth creation, your choice becomes capitalist, wealthy slave, poverty with capitalists around, or poverty without capitalists around. Please read into the marginal theory of value. Things make better sense.
RandolphLevin 2 months ago
@RandolphLevin
"I have...they thrive."
What did they trade? Oh the products that the slaves created. Was the existence of slaves critical? Not at all you say. Your conclusions are contradicting the rest of your comment.
"Please read into the marginal theory of value. Things make better sense."
I'm guessing you're new to economic theory. Try to spend some time reading before making judgements.
pulsatingremedy 2 months ago
@pulsatingremedy Stealing destroys wealth, trade increases it. The fact that thieves can trade loot does not discount the act of destroying wealth to begin with.
I've never studied economics formally, but you failed to demonstrate anything.
RandolphLevin 2 months ago
@RandolphLevin
Stealing doesn't destroy wealth. It's just a non-consensual means of reallocationg it. The only thing that destroys wealth is the physical destruction or dismantling of commodities that have value.
00maharum00ma 2 months ago
@00maharum00ma Yes, stealing reallocates things, but wealth is more than a thing. Wealth has a relational quality that has to do with one's knowledge and abilities, preferences and needs. It is very context sensitive.
One of the very early breakthroughs of economics was how mutual trade increases value. To illustrate how stealing destroys wealth, imagine a society where 90% of interactions were theft. Even subsistence level survival would be difficult to maintain. Production would be vein.
RandolphLevin 2 months ago
@mr1001nights To be more clear: slavery is a form of stealing. Stealing does not produce wealth. It is redistribution at best, but is usually a net loss. By focusing on rich plantation owners or master thieves, people fail to see the innate destructive character of slavery or theft.
Just as willing people can't be raped, it is an abuse of terms to say employees are slaves.
RandolphLevin 2 months ago
@mr1001nights VERY VERY WELL SAID. VERY VERY GOOD
britishbrainz 1 month ago
Maybe some day the rich will get their way and own everything then people will get mad enought to simply kill them for being the sociopathic swine they are. There are more of us then there are of them.
vudu8ball 2 months ago
@vudu8ball Yes, there are more stupid, lazy people than the creative hard working ones.
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@luvcheney1 So why is the world set up to benefit the workaholics and the people who inherited or stole thier wealth? Doesn't seem fair does it?
vudu8ball 2 months ago
@vudu8ball Stealing is criminal activity, and ought to be prosecuted. But, I dont think it is generally possible to become extremely rich in this way, very often. If someone does accumulate wealth, it makes perfect sense they can leave it to whomever they want, after all, it is theirs. Workaholics may make more, but saving or working smart may be better. It certainly is NOT fair I cant leave my money to whom I choose, and it isnt fair my efforts cant result in wealth, if I earn it.
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@luvcheney1 We live in the middel of a world wide financial crisis that was produced by fraudlent or criminally negligent activity of government officials, bankers, hedgefund managers and other financial bigwigs. They all got golden parachutes and million dollar bonuses and no one is being prosecuted so what are you talking about?
vudu8ball 2 months ago
@luvcheney1 The right justifies wealth as the reward for hard work. That argument goes out the window when that wealth is passed on to someone who has done nothing to earn it. In a real meritocracy everyone should earn thier own wealth. At a minimum inherited wealth should be heavily taxed.
vudu8ball 2 months ago
@vudu8ball The wealth has been taxed already as the person created it. It is just simply a question of property rights. Perhaps his kids didnt earn it, but then neither did govt. I can guarantee you that no man who amassed a fortune is going to just accept it being taken away at his death. He will transfer assets while alive, create trusts, charities, etc to PREVENT govt getting the money. Buffet, Gates claim to like taxes, why do they protect assets in charitable foundations??
luvcheney1 2 months ago
"parasitic non-labor income that capitalists extract from the workforce" So IF I risk my money to start a business and hire 3 or 4 guys, and I am a parasite? Grow up, kid. Slavery has been illegal in the USA for quite a while. If you are worth a shit, you can quit and get a better paying job. I quit welding jobs a lot. I am good and I have WORKED HARD to make myself more valuable so I can pick and choose my employers. I work 6 months a year and make 60K. I live where living expenses are low.
jeffery19677 2 months ago
@jeffery19677
Slave owners also took business risks, and many slaves could also improve their lot. According to Encyclopedia Britannica the range of occupations and status positions held by chattel slaves has been nearly as broad as that held by wage laborers, from priests and janitors to government administrators or even ministers.
In Colonial Brazil, slaves could buy their own freedom, quit their slavery and become business owners, self-employed or even slave owners themselves.
mr1001nights 2 months ago 9
@mr1001nights Slavery has been illegal for a long time. I have had a paying job since I was 14, I have been fired and I have quit, but NO ONE has ever MADE me work for them. If I hire you to do a job and I make money, I am not a parasite on you, I purchase your labor, I provide expense money to buy materials to produce my widgets, and YOU get paid even if I LOSE MONEY!! My risk is what I am bringing to the table. I can replace you, You can't replace me, I NVR wkd for a poor man,.
jeffery19677 2 months ago
@jeffery19677
Slave owners also took risks, and a slave wouldn't change his low status if he could work for several masters. A choice between masters doesn't equate freedom. The masters enslave you collectively, rather than individually.
mr1001nights 2 months ago
@mr1001nights
Slave owners also calculated 2 for 1+1. Does that make it wrong? How is any business or economy supposed to work without planning and organization. That is what I bring to the table if I found a business: Organization. Someone has to do it.
MoralityIsAReligion 2 months ago
@MoralityIsAReligion
Slave owners did indeed calculate 2 for 1 + 1 but that has nothing to do with the argument brought forth by defenders of capitalism; rather, they talk about social mobility, job creation, role in organization etc, to which I provide analogies in chattel slavery. As for organization, I favor self-management in a participatory economy
mr1001nights 2 months ago
@mr1001nights How many self-managed people would it take to build ONE powerplant to provide people who REFUSE to self-manage themselves... Without the capital put forth by the"bad 'ol capitalist" how many people do you know that would work for a year or more for FREE until the powerplant can get built and start to sell electricity? Lets go green.. How many people will transport raw materials to the solar cell plant and wait until the powerplant can start producing electricity?
jeffery19677 2 months ago
@mr1001nights
Yeah but what I am saying is that the fact that something is done analogously to what slaveowners did does not make it wrong - think of 1+1=2. What was immoral about slaveowners was that slaves had no right to leave and could be beaten or locked up at their master's will. If you are honest you are just trying to put a label on something that sucks to you so that you can make your feelings look more objective.
MoralityIsAReligion 2 months ago
@mr1001nights I have the right to quit my job and live by my wits. I don't NEED a job. I WANT a job, because I want money, because its easier to buy clothes than to kill an animal, tan the hides, and make my own. I know how to build a shelter in the forest and survive, but I choose the easy way and get a job.
Why are you stuck on this slavery thing? Slaves cannot go start a competing business with their ex employers. Slaves do not get paid for their work or negotiate for pay.
jeffery19677 2 months ago
@jeffery19677 "Slaves cannot go start a competing business with their ex employers." In colonial Brazil, slaves could actually buy their own freedom and become self-employed, business owners, or even slave owners themselves. So yes, they could compete with their old master. Did that justify slavery?
mr1001nights 2 months ago
@mr1001nights. what u said is just wrong. of course slaves could buy their freedom, but u dont have to pay an employer to leave them.
tonygmilan7 2 months ago
@tonygmilan7 Yeah, but you need the means to afford doing so. Many do not have this.
kwaal 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mr1001nights You seem to be stuck on ASSUMING that an employee is a slave. He is NOT. An employee is a captialist. He SELLS his labor. He is not bound to one employer. In most instances, he may have more than one employer if he chooses. He can find another buyer for his labor if he is not satisfied with his wages or conditions. He can also decide to start a business and become a larger capitalist, by purchasing the labor of others.
jeffery19677 2 months ago
What is the video at 3:39 from?
watermelonygoodness 2 months ago in playlist Autres vidéos de mr1001nights
I dont understand.... How is ANYONE forced to work for a boss under the threat of starvation? Even if you didnt own a gun, you could still trap animals eat wild fruits and legumes and other things that mankind has done for thousands of years.... Where is the force? Slavery in the US ended some years ago. I make plenty of money not working for anyone.... I am also NOT on welfare and NOT a criminal... so seriously, where is the force?
playaplayag7 2 months ago
@playaplayag7 You don't pay taxes?
TinQuasimodo 2 months ago
@TinQuasimodo See THAT is a good point. But also entirely different from saying that the business owner forces you to work. Government HAS applied more and more force over time, but alot of that force is the force of the majority. My issue is that anyone who chooses not to participate in society can maintain a self sufficient life "off the radar". I'm from West Virginia, trust me I've seen these people. But I dont think lumping business owner with the Government Fatcat is smart.
playaplayag7 2 months ago 2
@playaplayag7
I see the state as a tool that one class uses to oppress another. This means that currently, we live in the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The modern state is used to achieve the aims of capital and to keep individual capitalists in check.
In the grand scheme of things, there is no distinction between capital and state.
pulsatingremedy 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TinQuasimodo Again, we need to get GOVERNMENT under control and fair capitalism will thrive! Government is the only modern entity that STEALS from you at the point of a gun. McDonalds corporation doesn't hold a gun to your head to get you to eat a burger. It provides a product that you are willing to buy with your labor. You could just grow a garden and never eat a hamburger. You choose to give them money, which is a representation of your labor.
jeffery19677 2 months ago
@playaplayag7
Most land is privatized. It is not an option for the entire working class to leave their homes and start collecting berries without trespassing. Besides, the working class has already created enough machinery to create vast amounts of wealth, it is unnecessary to play around in the woods if you could also claim the means of production (again, the MoP that the working class has created).
pulsatingremedy 2 months ago
@pulsatingremedy The people who created the means of production have already been paid.... Well either that or they were robbed (african slaves in america, european slaves in the ottoman empire etc.) But to say "claim the means of production", ok purchase if the owner is a WILLING seller, but claiming sounds like stealing in this example. And btw, I didnt do ANY research on that Ottoman/european slave comment. I just want to make clear that slavery wasnt exclusive to my people.
playaplayag7 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@playaplayag7
"And btw, I didnt do ANY research on that Ottoman/european slave comment"
Yes that is obvious, partly because it is simply not true that Ottomans had European slaves (although they did occupy the Balkans).
If you want to know the definition of stealing: travel to East-India and look at what is happening there.
pulsatingremedy 2 months ago
@playaplayag7
Actually, I just read up on Ottoman slavery. The Ottoman empire did have European slaves, but they did not enslave people directly. They bought European slaves from the Barbary Pirates of North Africa.
pulsatingremedy 2 months ago
@pulsatingremedy And good point about the private land thing. People will always find an efficient means to their own survival. Like every living thing on earth, man is responsible for his own survival.... Noone FORCED him to be hungry, it just happens. Noone FORCED him to eat, he has a responsibility to HIS internal system/survival. If he chooses to work for a capitalist, its because it is better than hunting for insect to eat or stealing. He can always start his own business.
playaplayag7 2 months ago
let me get this very straight!!! what he is describing is corporatism or corporatocracy which by no means is true capitalism. corporatism / corporatocracy is fascism / communism by definition. it is another type of centrally planned economy. left vs right is just a smoke screen or false paradigm while the true paradigm is freedom versus enslavement. even the credit system is a monopoly. specifically one that is run by the government (aka the gun in the proverbial room)
uhaegde2wiceover 2 months ago
@uhaegde2wiceover
Capitalism means a system where the capitalists are in power. In corporatism, the heads of the businesses are in power. The heads of the businesses are capitalists. From this it follows that corporatism is 'pure' capitalism.
I urge you to read up on communism. Judging by this post, you have never read anything written by a communist. That means that you have gotten your information about communism from people who have something to gain by misrepresenting it.
pulsatingremedy 2 months ago
TROLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
If you think that all owners of capital do is own capital, you are dreadfully mistaken. Lenin made the same assumption, believing that the work of business owners a simple task. Soon after taking power, he realized his mistake. There's a reason why business degrees exist.
Hell, if capitalists themselves worked on the floor, they'd be making more money, and helping to drive out competition. Your argument rests on the assumption that evil capitalists aren't THAT greedy.
BigWilly360 3 months ago
@BigWilly360 Thanks for labeling your comment as mere trolling. I'll be sure to ignore it.
watermelonygoodness 2 months ago in playlist Autres vidéos de mr1001nights
This has been flagged as spam show
What some of you easily-herded mindless sheep may not like is that she reveals that almost everything that we hold closest to our hearts has been a lie the entire time. I do not see how this is a crime when all she did was snap us all back into reality for our own damn good.
JulesManson 3 months ago
They produce but inventors create. We are not all equal, that's reallity, i'm sorry for you. In evolution, must i say, it is about the best people who are adapted to new situations... morons vote socialists. Objectivists are in fact anarquists. Not right-wind shit.
notengonickcojones 3 months ago
In real capitalism you don't ahve to work for a big enterprise, you can easyly create your own small business. Don't forget that if you have a cancer and want MY MONEY, i may have a cancer too, or my kids, or my friends, or some genius that i want to take CARE ABOUT. You really understood nothing about Capitalism.
notengonickcojones 3 months ago
I'm not right-wind, and i prefer Ayn Rand view of the world, just because it is REAL. Try to read her essays.
notengonickcojones 3 months ago
sorry, guys ayn rand is for utter morons, go back to those binges of ron paul sound bites and the horrid,comical literature of ayn rand
carlo88moe 3 months ago
The maker of the video seems to equate the worker to a slave. One giant glaring fact is overlooked, all workers have a choice to work for a company or work for themselves and start their own business. Anyone can start their own company and become an employer instead of an employee. The fact that not everyone has the same level of ability is not something that you will ever equalize, no matter how hard you might try. Yes its unfair that some people are smarter than others. but life is unfair
eodoc 3 months ago
@eodoc
"all workers have a choice to work for a company or work for themselves and start their own business"
A fantasy. Pure and simple.
Do the 14 year old girls working in Nike sweatshops have a "choice" to start their own business?
"and become an employer instead of an employee"
In other words, become a subordinator instead of being subordinated. The central problem of course is that such a heteronomous distinction exists in the first place.
What you advocate here is anti-individualism.
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago in playlist More videos from mr1001nights
@MsSexySocialist Well, I was referring to the situation here in the United States. There are no sweatshops here. But in general, as long as no on is forcing you to work, you have a choice. How did people live before we had modern conveniences, before large companies? America used to be a place where the majority were entrepreneurs and tradesmen, when people get back to that mentality and stop thinking they have to work for someone else we will be better off as a nation.
eodoc 3 months ago
@eodoc
You can't have one set of rules for us and another set of rules for everyone else in the world. Either capitalism works for everyone universally or it doesn't.
As for your thoughts about the US past, that's another fantasy and a distortion of history.
The 19th century was a virtual hell-on-earth for the vast majority of working people and thus we've had an even more violent labor history than Europe.
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist Your claim that its a fantasy is remarkable to me. I know its not a fantasy because I lived through losing my job in 1998 and as a result started my own company and am still self employed to this day. Anyone can start their own business in America, you can deny this all you want but you can't change reality. More and more people are starting their own businesses every day. What I advocate is for a man to reap the reward of his own intelligence.
eodoc 3 months ago
@eodoc
But you can't do that when you are subordinated to a class of plutocrats who monopolize everything.
I would love to live in an economy where we really were able to work for no-one but ourselves (unless we wanted to cooperate with others) but our current system can't offer that.
Anyone cannot start their own business in America. Because if they could, they would.
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist Dear Sexy, you really are kinda sexy but unfortunately you have been brainwashed, no doubt by your university, your still too young to realize you've been brainwashed. The truth is that YOU DO live in a country where anyone can start their own business. People come from all over the world and start business here every day. Even the illegals start their own businesses. How can you deny this? Are you really that blind? Anyone CAN start a business but not EVERYONE will.
eodoc 3 months ago
@eodoc
So I've been "brainwashed" because I disagree witth your opinion?
I may have disagreements with others but I don't insult them by accusing them of not being able to think for themselves. I base every position I hold on careful observation of the facts of history and the reality facing us today.
All you're doing is asserting without evidence - in contradiction of available facts I might add.
Also regarding "illigals"; there is no such thing as an illigal human being. Sorry.
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist Your not brainwashed because you disagree with me but because you disagree with the reality and facts that are obvious. You claim that not anyone can start a business. If the poorest immigrant can come here (my grandfather for example, who arrived with $1 in his pocket, and spoke no English) and start a business, who among us cannot? Who is stopping any of us from starting a business? If you are intelligent and have a good idea and willing to work for it then you can do it.
eodoc 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist Of course there are no "illegal" human beings. But there are people who are in our country illegally. We are a sovereign nation with borders. If someone came into your house without your permission they would be there illegally and you would expect the police to protect you from such illegal entry. The citizens of the US are the owners of the country. As citizens we have rights and we pay for protection from illegal invasion with our taxes (at least the 50% of us who pay).
eodoc 3 months ago
@eodoc
. . . in their imaginations. Sorry but it's actually existing capitalism that has to justify itself; not some fairy tale version.
"If the poorest immigrant can come here and start a business, who among us cannot?"
Personal testimony is not evidence. Such examples are by far the exception, not the rule.
"Your [sic] not brainwashed because you disagree with me but because you disagree with the reality and facts that are obvious."
The facts are on my side I'm afraid. The statistics . . .
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist I am a scientist so I certainly know what evidence is. A single case of someone poor succeeding is evidence that it can be done. Your claim that it cannot be done only requires a single case to the contrary to absolutely prove your statement wrong. Just because something is unlikely doesn't make it impossible. No matter what society you will ever dream up there will always be those who are in the elite, who will have more than most. Describe a possibility to the contrary.
eodoc 3 months ago
@eodoc (2)
. . . free to simply make up fictional positions them claim I support them.
"A single case of someone poor succeeding is evidence that it can be done"
Clearly you're unaware what "exception to the rule" means. One person in several thousand is born ambidextrous, just because it happens once in a while doesn't make it a likely occurrence.
"Just because something is unlikely doesn't make it impossible."
I never said it was. I said just that; unlikely. We need a system that makes it . .
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist "Clearly you're unaware what "exception to the rule" means. One person in several thousand is born ambidextrous, just because it happens once in a while doesn't make it a likely occurrence." Of course I understand the exceptional. Its the exceptional that advance technology and civilization in general. There are simply people who are in exceptional in the world, you seem to think this is a bad thing. I think the exceptional should be rewarded for being exceptional.