Getting rid of something bad doesn’t mean that something better will replace it.
Fri. 10/04/23 18:54 EDT
.post #64
You’re either mistaking retaliatory violence for initiatory violence, or conflating the two; in either case, it’s a failure to discriminate.
Those things he listed are BS. There’s no such thing as 16 hour work shift. Factories work 24 hours in 8 hour shifts. Water comes from the government. You don’t need bathroom breaks when you sweat every drop of water. The wages are better than an other unskilled work. All environments with offgassing machinery are “poor”. No factory with machinery is “safe”.
Marxists only have one argument: look at this example! See how bad it is!
Not only do they fail to identify the root of the problem, but they don’t even bother to show that their “solutions” will make anything better, logically or empirically.
I’m on a grand assumption that Drace has never heard of the subjective theory of value, marginal utility, private ownership - as well as property rights, or that people generally partake in contracts or agreements on how payment will be offered that is voluntary between the individuals involved beforehand.
With Drace’s logic if I help build 1/20th of a house I’m entitled to 1/20th the profit and/or ownership. If I draw up blueprints for a widget (regardless if I’m being paid to or I plan to sell the blueprints) I’m magically entitled to some portion of the widget being made. (Let’s not forget I might be working for a company and the blueprints are made for them.)
If I’m selling drinks at a movie theater I should be entitled to at least half the profit made from that drink! Who else is filling up those cups? Surely not the managers.
They don’t have solutions. It’s:
-
Abolish property
-
?
-
Utopia
All of the profit, not half.
Haha, exactly.
Drace, at least they aren’t starving like they were under Mao.
Btw, the people in these Chinese factories are wearing safety gloves:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsiXi96oENg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_YnaHNcISw
Your not even addressing anything I said. The closest thing that comes close is this
"With Drace’s logic if I help build 1/20th of a house I’m entitled to 1/20th the profit and/or ownership.’
No bro, if you build 1/20th of a house, you should only get 1/100 of it, but if your the one who invested in the house, but put 0 of the labor, your entitled to all of it minus the wages.
Not that I look up at Mao as a hero, but he made great improvements. Life expectancy almost doubled by the 70s.
As if China, a purely agricultural and backward country, never faced famines before Mao? About 4 famines occured in China in the 18th century alone, killing 45 million. During the Taiping Rebellion, another 65 million. Another famine in 1876-1879 killed 13 million.
China hs a long list of famines in its history…
Not even relevent…
Btw in one of those videos, I love how you didn’t see this in the description 
Saftey gloves. cool.
Coercion is a species of persuasion. Physically manipulating people is - physically manipulating people. You’re taking their intentionality out of the picture. It’s a problem for mechanics.
Few replies:
-
What about the wives that fed the workers breakfast, the cooks that fed them lunch, the janitors that cleaned up after them in the bathrooms, or the bus drivers that drove them to/from work? What share of the profit are they entitled to?
-
Are each of the 5 workers also responsible for 1/5 of a potential loss, in case no one wants to buy the train when it’s finally made?
-
Would the 5 workers be entitled to anything if they only did push-ups (hard labor) in their living rooms for five years?
Z.
so you think that physically manipulating people is not persuasion and is coercion?
No, I think that coercion is tortious persuasion. Physically manipulating people (i.e., dragging them in chains) may be a tort but it is not persuasion, nor is it coercion. It’s just physical manipulation. There is no third element to it.
I could decide which of the following to put, so I’ll out both:
- For who, the party leaders? 2) Not for those who starved to death.
Was it anarcho-capitalist before Mao?
I did read it. Besides, it’s obvious from the video.
Yup. It defeated your claim.
That’s not relevent. The whole point of exchange is to produce certain goods and trade with others to recieve commodities which you otherwise do not have access to. Thus, the labor involved in sustaining the worker’s life is not relevant to the worker’s labor himself. The busdriver, the wife, the janitors have a completely different economical/social relation with the worker that is tied with exchange.
They have not at all contributed to the production of the train, why would they be entitled to anything of it?
If they each produced 1/5 of it, they each own 1/5. I don’t see why they wouldn’t be obliged to responsible for the losses. What else?
? What does this have to do with production?
I really don’t even think this hypothetical situation is useful at all for whatever purpose..
Average life expectancy. The Chinese population has rather increased rapidly under Mao.
And I already showed that famines were consistant within China’s history.
The point was that thse huge famines were not suprising and were due to “communism”.
There is much more to saftey than safey gloves…
Drace,
I have a question that might steer this conversation into a more productive arena. What would it take for you to change your mind? What aspect of Marxism do we have to refute for you to reject it? What aspect of anarcho-capitalism do we have to convince you of for you to accept it?
Your not even addressing anything I said.
Yet, are you not refuting that you do not know about what I listed?
No bro, if you build 1/20th of a house, you should only get 1/100 of it, but if your the one who invested in the house, but put 0 of the labor, your entitled to all of it minus the wages.
Not sure how you come up with 1/100, I would actually like to know how you came up with that number. If I invested in the house, I’m entitled to the house itself, minus wages. If I’m a company that invested in the building of a house, the house is mine after construction, minus wages. That seems obvious seeing I don’t know why I would be entitled to the wages of other workers.
The whole point of exchange is to produce certain goods and trade with others to recieve commodities which you otherwise do not have access to. Thus, the labor involved in sustaining the worker’s life is not relevant to the worker’s labor himself. The busdriver, the wife, the janitors have a completely different economical/social relation with the worker that is tied with exchange.
The division of labor, eh?