There is no need for labor movements. People form unions to exploit other workers, they are monopolies. Thats why the unionized store down the street gets less productivity from its workers, and GM went bankrupt, the unions formed a monopoly (with government support) so they could raise prices while doing a shitty job.
What evidence do you base this off of? And in this case the worker is both a worker and a capitalist. The capitalist hasnt gone away, his role is merely absorbed by the worker (and there are costs and benefits that go with that)
a religion is based on bullshit stories not evidence. Example would be crap like “Honor thy father and thy mother”, “Money is the root of all evil”, “Profits are exploitation” etc
There is no such thing as classes or a class struggle. My wage is going up but the company still makes a profit because it serves consumer demands. Markets arent about “exploitation” they are about servicing customers.
Yet, labor without coordination and cooperation cannot yield anything close to the civilization that we both exist in. The PC you type on wasn’t created by some raw grunt work, but by a complex series of exchanges, discoveries, and gambles. Whether it’s one mining company selling raw silica to a refining company, or whether it’s an engineer or physicist that figures out how to compact circuitry into an ever smaller space with lower power requirements, or even if it’s some wise cracking entrepreneur that figures out that a given smaller, more compact circuitry design could yield amazing parallel processors for .h 264 decoding on your LCD TV. These have to happen both in parallel and in interdependent manners. Parallel in the sense that the same circuitry design can be used to make better ignition computers. Interdependent in that labor cannot yield the final product without the entrepreneur to gamble on the idea of the use of the circuitry in LCD TVs (and to convince investors that it’s a good idea too).
It’s a manner that the market is a living system or ecology, full of many different creatures (firms, consumers, entrepreneurs, inventors, and etc) which fulfill different ends or act as different means. But no where along the way can one prove that it is exploitation as that implies a single absolute moral standard for all social situations (this is clearly only a fool’s conception as context always counts in all situations, social or otherwise). Thus to assert labor is ever exploited is to assume that all participants are not free to seek alternatives in their functions, ends, and intents (this applies to all social situations, outside of economies).
As if there is a difference between a capitalist and a worker.
Peter Schiff posted this on Tuesday. I found it a nice illustration of the fallacies aired in this thread.
Ummm yer real mature there…#### firstly the idea of “agreeing” with the terms and conditions in a capitalist society basicaly meens that you are agreeing with the false class conshiousness they have provided you… the false class conshiousness (sorry dislexic) creates the idea in your mind that you are not being exploited when in reality you just dont realise it…
in the long run this creates a loyal labour force desighned to serve the needs of the ruling class… hense the reason you are being expolited, you just choose not to care, out of intrest what do you do for a living?
**
Of course, the polar opposite was true under communism. Tell me, why was it that only politburo members had houses on the black sea?
You are agreeing to to the terms and condition of a communist class system society, with the false class conscience the communists have provided you. This false class conscience creates in your mind that you are not being exploited when the reality is you are, you just don’t realize it.
In the long run in a capitalist society you create in your head who has a higher value than you and call them your ruler, hence you allow them to exploit you. In communism you choose not to create a hierarchy and choose not to care about the relative definition of exploitation.
i wouldnt know enough to tell you however i do know that communism is the only peaceful way forward in the world we live in today and capitalism had destroyed and trashed the planet we live in, look around, capitalism has broken so many countrys in Africa, South America, China, Cuba, Russia and more…
exploitation is the name of the game for capitalism and even if one person rules and keeps watch over an equal soiety below such as a communist one this is better than a huge divide in wealth due to exploitation is it not?
OK, so capitalism = whatever you personally find distasteful. Let’s call it statism and move on, k?
These are all examples of state sponsored exploitation. Remove the state, remove the ability of capitalists to amass enough power/resources to exploit much of anything. Statist collectivism has failed, statist semi-collectivism is on it’s way to failing, the common thread is the state. Remove that, everyone becomes much more able to excel based on individual merit. The playing field is leveled with anarchy, which is the best one can hope for, rather than holding the illusion that every individual is (or should be) equal.
wo wo wo, several things, firstly are you saying that equality is a bad thing? and secondly i would like to point out that those listed countrys have been expolited by our capitalist world, example being china, the country is way over populated and communism was ment to give them and equal playing field but the only way they could do this was excepting the world around them outside of china (capitalism). Because of this capitalist companys such as nike decide to go to these countrys and exploit the workers by making them work for bairley enough to live in just to make a profit… seems fair doesn’t it…
Russia is also a good example, would anyone care to point out the main reason for russia failing ecenomicly and the event that caused this (technically there is 2 reasons though).
Equality is neither inherently ‘good’ nor ‘bad’. Enslaving people in its name… well, you figure that one out. For the rest of the drivel, do tell where you’re sourcing this (dis)information from?
It’s neither bad nor good. People are not born the same, they are not created equal. Egalitarianism undermines the fruits of the division of labor.
No, I’m saying that treating individuals in a “one size fits all” way is a nonsensical thing.
And my contention is that the exploitation would not have occurred without state intervention.
What does “over-populated” mean? Ever heard of Malthus?
Have you ever heard of the Great Leap Forward? Central planning in China completely failed, that’s why markets were introduced.
They are only able to carry out these exploitative business practices due to state intervention.
Do you mean the USSR, or the Russian Republic?
i agree, people are not born equal, never have been and never can be in a capitalist society. Sorry btw i could not think of the exact word so “over-populated” is the only word i could think of, but i ment that the country has massive population that is ever growing and cannot afford to control or help.
Oww and i ment USSR sorry, i believe the date was 1948 three years after the war. any guess?
Btw my information comes from university and college teachers that have taught me politics, History and sociology so its fair to say that i have a large amount of information for my age thankyou.
But they can become equal in a collectivist society?
Control or help what?
The USSR didn’t collapse until 1991.
LOL How old are you, twelve?
lol no i am not twelve thankyou verry much, however i do respect you intrest and knowledge in this field.. i wasn’t talking about the colapse of the soviet union my friend i was talking about how and why it went so down hill and why so many lives were lost…
control or help the fact that massive amounts of the polulation are marginalised
Out of intrest where do you stand on the political spectrum?
Gregoravich, if I didn’t want to be part of your commune what would you do to me?
depends what situation im in, are we talking committee in a communist country or what?