Four more years!

[Jason]

Capitalism is a system based on voluntary association in which everyone has an equal chance of success. Socialism is a system based on involuntary association in which everyone is equally miserable.

The states need to check the federal government. BIG TIME.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Capitalism is a system based on voluntary association in which everyone has an equal chance of success. Socialism is a system based on involuntary association in which everyone is equally miserable.

That's completely false. I wrote this on another thread but it bears repeating here:

Recall that the industrial revolution and the rise of capitalism in England and throughout the general region was part of a long process that essentially began with actions carried out first by landowners than by landowners with the backing authority of British Parliament to dispossess people of commonly shared land, often by force, seizing their land and placing under private ownership. Thus private property as we understand it comes into being specifically with an act of violent force that actively works to undermine and delegitimize the common rights of the population. Thus private property simply doesn’t exist without force. And, of course, this whole system which is now considered mostly by the fringe Libertarian movement as being “natural” and some sort of metaphor for a real and genuine human experience was resisted by large movements that simply had to be put down by the ownership class. Thus, you have movements such as Kett’s Rebellion of 1549, the Midland Revolt and Newton Rebellion of 1607 which was mostly peasant-based activist movements to try to reclaim the commonly shared land from which they were forcefully uprooted and dispossessed. The very beginnings of the industrial revolution are typically credited to this shift away from an agrarian-based economy which was operated commonly under an open field system to a machine-based manufacturing system. This could only, happen, though, once the common system had been destroyed and following that, once the active resistance to this destruction by those who were dispossessed, had been put down.

The inevitable consequence of the land being conquered by the wealthy elite and the creation of private property was, of course, the criminalization of the peasant class (since vagrancy was considered criminal) and therefore the rise of crime and pauperism as villagers lost their means of subsistence. But furthermore, it also provided a necessary labour class for the manufacturing industry to exploit in their need for profit. This is why the age-old argument by the right that “no one is forcing you, you can always find another job” is always painfully hollow and remarkably ignorant since this version of “freedom” is only a freedom that has been created for us on behalf of the ownership class, once they actually historically eliminated the kind of society that allowed people to have real genuine control over what they do and how they live their lives. Historically, then, capitalism (or, a system based on the private ownership of the means of production) simply could not have existed or lasted without the elite class forcefully and violently seizing land of the peasantry, actively suppressing resistance to this movement by force, turning their common productive space into privately owned land in order to make profit, and sending the peasant society into the city because they had no other option for their survival as legitimate citizens. So, there’s nothing voluntary about it. The capitalist society was created by force and the owners of this society created the limited options that people choose from, with the basic option being either creating profit for the ownership class or being a criminal, or society’s detritus.

The notion that everyone has an equal chance of success in a capitalist society is ludicrous. The capitalist system works to create wealth through the exploitation of surplus value.  A worker creates more goods than he could possibly need, and the excess is sold on the market.  In this sense, the working class will continue to be at a disadvantage because the value of their labor will go straight to the top. That is an inequality that is built into the capitalist model and it is the reason why in capitalist countries with less government protection, you find a much larger gap between the wealthy and the poor because the system is built to create that gap.

Meanwhile, the very notion of "involuntary association" is in contradiction with socialism which is a society that is run with no political power, so the kind of force you are talking about when you evoke a phrase like "involuntary association" is really ultimately impossible.

[Bean Bag]

Cool-Air and Slurpees have that effect I guess 

You think I make this stuff up, Pinder, I know you do... 

AIDE SAYS EX-DETROIT MAYOR TOOK BRIBE IN BATHROOM
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DETROIT_EX_MAYOR?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-01-10-20-01-31

[GreatUrduPoet]

Go on, pretend you aren't glad Romney lost. I dare ya. 

I'm kinda glad Romney lost. It will make the 2016 Marco Rubio Presidential victory all the sweeter after four more years of Obamanomics.

[Jason]

Marco Rubio presidential victory...we don't need another Republican liberal. They're just as bad as Obama.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Go on, pretend you aren't glad Romney lost. I dare ya. 

I'm kinda glad Romney lost. It will make the 2016 Marco Rubio Presidential victory all the sweeter after four more years of Obamanomics.

That doesn't make any sense at all. You're glad the Republicans lost so that they will win later? If the goal is that the Republicans win, why would you be glad the Republicans lost?

[GreatUrduPoet]

Go on, pretend you aren't glad Romney lost. I dare ya. 

I'm kinda glad Romney lost. It will make the 2016 Marco Rubio Presidential victory all the sweeter after four more years of Obamanomics.

That doesn't make any sense at all. You're glad the Republicans lost so that they will win later? If the goal is that the Republicans win, why would you be glad the Republicans lost?

Mitt Romney was the wrong kind of "Republican". That political party is moribund at this point. The Bush family killed it off decisively.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Go on, pretend you aren't glad Romney lost. I dare ya. 

I'm kinda glad Romney lost. It will make the 2016 Marco Rubio Presidential victory all the sweeter after four more years of Obamanomics.

That doesn't make any sense at all. You're glad the Republicans lost so that they will win later? If the goal is that the Republicans win, why would you be glad the Republicans lost?

Mitt Romney was the wrong kind of "Republican". That political party is moribund at this point. The Bush family killed it off decisively.

I agree with that.

[Jason]

I would argue that it was effectively killed off long before the Bush family. Considering how folks like Robert Taft were considered extreme in the 1940s and early 1950s when they were basically following the original principles of the party...yeah, the party was dead long before the Bush regimes.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I would argue that it was effectively killed off long before the Bush family. Considering how folks like Robert Taft were considered extreme in the 1940s and early 1950s when they were basically following the original principles of the party...yeah, the party was dead long before the Bush regimes.

Had it been dead, there would not have been 20 years of Republican rule in a 28 year period. What Poet means when he says that the party was dead, I think, is that after Bush, the party had disenfranchised itself from political legitimacy.

The original principles of the party included an opposition to capitalism since they were organized by conservatives. Obviously that wasn't going to last long in the US.

[Jason]

I don't know what Republican Party you're talking about, but I've never read that anywhere.

[SMiLE Brian]

Beside watergate, Richard Nixon was a great president for the GOP with foreigh policy and domestic policy.

[Jason]

Beside watergate, Richard Nixon was a great president for the GOP with foreigh policy and domestic policy.

You're joking, right?

[GreatUrduPoet]

Beside watergate, Richard Nixon was a great president for the GOP with foreigh policy and domestic policy.

Yeah? Which of the Nixon-founded Agencies do you work for? The EPA or the DEA? Real domestic policy savants.

[Jason]

Hey, I've always told the gun control freaks who hate Ronald Reagan that they actually agree with him on gun control.

[SMiLE Brian]

Beside watergate, Richard Nixon was a great president for the GOP with foreigh policy and domestic policy.

You're joking, right?

No, his foreign policy had a nuclear treaty with Russia, got us out of Vietnam, and he went to China. The domestic policy with the EPA was needed in the USA to clean up those older industrial areas that were making people sick. The paranoia part of his presidency ruined all that though.

[SMiLE Brian]

Beside watergate, Richard Nixon was a great president for the GOP with foreigh policy and domestic policy.

Yeah? Which of the Nixon-founded Agencies do you work for? The EPA or the DEA? Real domestic policy savants.

Those agencies are needed to combat pollution and drug/gun crimes.

[Dunderhead]

The notion that everyone has an equal chance of success in a capitalist society is ludicrous. The capitalist system works to create wealth through the exploitation of surplus value.  A worker creates more goods than he could possibly need, and the excess is sold on the market.  In this sense, the working class will continue to be at a disadvantage because the value of their labor will go straight to the top. That is an inequality that is built into the capitalist model and it is the reason why in capitalist countries with less government protection, you find a much larger gap between the wealthy and the poor because the system is built to create that gap.

Doesn't the value of a workers labor go directly to him in the form of a paycheck by which he is compensated exactly the amount his labor his worth?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I don't know what Republican Party you're talking about, but I've never read that anywhere.

Then you should look up what Lincoln and his associates had to say about wage slavery.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

The notion that everyone has an equal chance of success in a capitalist society is ludicrous. The capitalist system works to create wealth through the exploitation of surplus value.  A worker creates more goods than he could possibly need, and the excess is sold on the market.  In this sense, the working class will continue to be at a disadvantage because the value of their labor will go straight to the top. That is an inequality that is built into the capitalist model and it is the reason why in capitalist countries with less government protection, you find a much larger gap between the wealthy and the poor because the system is built to create that gap.

Doesn't the value of a workers labor go directly to him in the form of a paycheck by which he is compensated exactly the amount his labor his worth?

Had to respond quickly so some of this is a repeat:

Labourers don’t get paid for their work. They are paid for their labour time. In a capitalist system, a worker sells their labor to an owner who buys their labor from them at the lowest possible price so that they can make the highest amount of profit (I suppose this how "the amount his labor is worth" is determined) and the only people who are in a legitimate position to decide the terms of this relationship are the owners/shareholders, while the laborer gets absolutely no say, despite the fact that the owner is appropriating the product of their labor and selling it on the market for their own personal profit. This is textbook exploitation. There are ways to make this less exploitative - so, for instance, there might be mechanisms put in place where labor has some kind of bargaining power (i.e. unions). This allows labor to play some role in deciding the terms of the relationship but whatever they get (pensions, vacations, etc.) the relationship will always be a shameful, exploitative, and altogether barbaric one, as long as labor does not get to profit off their own work.

[Dunderhead]

The notion that everyone has an equal chance of success in a capitalist society is ludicrous. The capitalist system works to create wealth through the exploitation of surplus value.  A worker creates more goods than he could possibly need, and the excess is sold on the market.  In this sense, the working class will continue to be at a disadvantage because the value of their labor will go straight to the top. That is an inequality that is built into the capitalist model and it is the reason why in capitalist countries with less government protection, you find a much larger gap between the wealthy and the poor because the system is built to create that gap.

Doesn't the value of a workers labor go directly to him in the form of a paycheck by which he is compensated exactly the amount his labor his worth?

Had to respond quickly so some of this is a repeat:

Labourers don’t get paid for their work. They are paid for their labour time. In a capitalist system, a worker sells their labor to an owner who buys their labor from them at the lowest possible price so that they can make the highest amount of profit (I suppose this how "the amount his labor is worth" is determined) and the only people who are in a legitimate position to decide the terms of this relationship are the owners/shareholders, while the laborer gets absolutely no say, despite the fact that the owner is appropriating the product of their labor and selling it on the market for their own personal profit. This is textbook exploitation. There are ways to make this less exploitative - so, for instance, there might be mechanisms put in place where labor has some kind of bargaining power (i.e. unions). This allows labor to play some role in deciding the terms of the relationship but whatever they get (pensions, vacations, etc.) the relationship will always be a shameful, exploitative, and altogether barbaric one, as long as labor does not get to profit off their own work.

Why don't the owners/shareholders just pay laborers nothing and make that much more profit? Seems like an easy decision.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

The notion that everyone has an equal chance of success in a capitalist society is ludicrous. The capitalist system works to create wealth through the exploitation of surplus value.  A worker creates more goods than he could possibly need, and the excess is sold on the market.  In this sense, the working class will continue to be at a disadvantage because the value of their labor will go straight to the top. That is an inequality that is built into the capitalist model and it is the reason why in capitalist countries with less government protection, you find a much larger gap between the wealthy and the poor because the system is built to create that gap.

Doesn't the value of a workers labor go directly to him in the form of a paycheck by which he is compensated exactly the amount his labor his worth?

Had to respond quickly so some of this is a repeat:

Labourers don’t get paid for their work. They are paid for their labour time. In a capitalist system, a worker sells their labor to an owner who buys their labor from them at the lowest possible price so that they can make the highest amount of profit (I suppose this how "the amount his labor is worth" is determined) and the only people who are in a legitimate position to decide the terms of this relationship are the owners/shareholders, while the laborer gets absolutely no say, despite the fact that the owner is appropriating the product of their labor and selling it on the market for their own personal profit. This is textbook exploitation. There are ways to make this less exploitative - so, for instance, there might be mechanisms put in place where labor has some kind of bargaining power (i.e. unions). This allows labor to play some role in deciding the terms of the relationship but whatever they get (pensions, vacations, etc.) the relationship will always be a shameful, exploitative, and altogether barbaric one, as long as labor does not get to profit off their own work.

Why don't the owners/shareholders just pay laborers nothing and make that much more profit? Seems like an easy decision.

Yeah, it has happened many many times - it's called chattel slavery and I'm sure if owners and shareholders could still get away with it they would. In fact, even after the abolition of slavery in the US, businessmen were still finding ways to hold onto the old system and to a much smaller degree it does happen in the US where possible. But as it turns out, we are now living in a modern industrial age where people need to be reasonably educated to do the work that the owner requires (plus the system is not structured in a way that allows the owner to devote the time to ensuring that their labour doesn't go malnourished) which means that, one, they need at least some money if they are going to fulfill the ultimate needs of the owners and two, their education does not make them as easily exploitable in the same way. Yes, this was an easier decision in a different time when labour meant something different, which is why there was so much slavery then. But it simply doesn't work in a high-tech industrial first world nation anymore - the owners wouldn't stand a chance.

[Dunderhead]

In what way are people less "exploitable" though? If a major chain retailer simply said they would pay everyone $0/hour starting tomorrow, hypothetically, how would the people working there keep from being "exploited"? People who work in the service industry do not need to be "reasonably" educated, and for that matter, didn't slaves also preform many duties throughout history that required far more specialized skills than service industry labor does today?

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

In what way are people less "exploitable" though? If a major chain retailer simply said they would pay everyone $0/hour starting tomorrow, hypothetically, how would the people working there keep from being "exploited"? People who work in the service industry do not need to be "reasonably" educated, and for that matter, didn't slaves also preform many duties throughout history that required far more specialized skills than service industry labor does today?

"Starting tomorrow" no one would show up to work and the only ones who would lose would be the employers (well, the employees suddenly having to find work as of tomorrow wouldn't be too happy either: so, everyone loses it would be stupidity itself that was exploited)

[Chocolate Shake Man]

In what way are people less "exploitable" though?

Because they are more educated - or, let's just flat out say, they are educated.

If a major chain retailer simply said they would pay everyone $0/hour starting tomorrow, hypothetically, how would the people working there keep from being "exploited"?

Well, as you know, the people wouldn't have to "keep from being 'exploited'" in the way that we're using the term (they are always exploited in a basic owner/labour relationship) - because the law prevents that.

People who work in the service industry do not need to be "reasonably" educated,

How many illiterates and people who can't do basic math do you believe work "in the service industry"?

and for that matter, didn't slaves also preform many duties throughout history that required far more specialized skills than service industry labor does today?

Being trained for a particular job is not the same as being reasonably educated. Despite all these "specialized skills", by 1860, about 5% of black slaves in the United States were literate. Is that same number true of those who work in the service industry?

To be honest, I don't see the relevance of these questions.