@no1marauder saidFirst, you will be happy to know that I think the rich people like Bezos and Buffett should pay equivalent taxes of everyone else. I’m not one to study up on stuff like this, I just play golf etc. but people I elect are supposed to take care of these matters, not me. They should fix it.
No, I don't have to rethink it.
Man has existed on Earth for something like 100,000 years and for the vast majority of that time there were no rich men. Yet, People had "jobs" mostly voluntarily working together in a cooperative manner.
That the system that has been imposed on us forces most of us to work for rich men (I see some of them are pretty upset their tax r ...[text shortened]... ly stumble into abject poverty and slothfulness just shows your ignorance and bootlicking mentality.
Re your para about yhe rich, i dont get ‘being forced’ etc. Suzanne likes to say “ the backs of others”, which implies slaves. In fact people who work in factories are paid wages, so she is wrong.
That out of the way, your ‘cooperative manner’ sounds boring and somewhat stagnant, so someone like Bezos or Jobs or Henry Ford or David Lay (Lays Potato Chips), or Henry Hershey (candy bar) or Carnegie or the oil and railroad barons made us RISE UP and become the USA, leaving the squalor and boredom and dead end lives. The ones who ‘went for it’ bought 2 cars and a lake house!!!
That is where the phrase Land of Opportunity came from. I have a feeling that the border crashers are coming here BECAUSE they know about our rich people. Sounds like you want to LEAVE because of our rich people??? Why would you want to do that?
No one takes the fruit of anyone’s labor....they pay a laborer for providing the fruit. Sounds like a better way to say it, don’t you think.
What year was the ‘system imposed on us’? My thinking is that over the centuries that people got bored of just mixing their stuff in the collective community way, decided to improve their lot, so set off to make their own way. To become independent and self reliant It became Known as the American way.
@no1marauder saidI know that. They are lucky for sure. Why all this affinity? Next you’ll say give them free tuition .
The People in Puerto Rico are citizens of the US and have been for over a 100 years. Google "the Jones-Shafroth Act".
Gave em an inch they want a mile? Tell them to settle down. Do you have any idea what kind of trouble Biden is about to lead us into. The squad member name Ilhan, , I think the one with the funny hat , said today that the USA commits atrocious acts on people. She is part of the Biden team. Lets put PR on the back burner, nothing has changed there for a century, while a lot of things are changing here this week and next week in the next week. You Fellers do not let up.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidNot being disrespectful, but I know enough about Socialism to know it is SHYPE for the usa. I like capitalism and free enterprise. You can defend your dream society till you’re blue in the face. It is nuthin.
I know you are too uneducated to know what "socialism" actually is, so I'll help you:
"SOCIALISM: a social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods."
http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/faq/sp001547/secA1.html#seca13
Yes, that's what I am for, not for a system where a tiny minority exercise both political and economic dominance over the People.
Henry Ford and David Lay liked free enterprise. Have you driven to get a bsg of chips this year? This week? Confusing, i know......
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidI'll let Michael Bakunin explain it to you:
First, you will be happy to know that I think the rich people like Bezos and Buffett should pay equivalent taxes of everyone else. I’m not one to study up on stuff like this, I just play golf etc. but people I elect are supposed to take care of these matters, not me. They should fix it.
Re your para about yhe rich, i dont get ‘being forced’ etc. Suzanne likes to say “ ...[text shortened]... o make their own way. To become independent and self reliant It became Known as the American way.
""Juridically they are both equal; but economically the worker is the serf of the capitalist . . . thereby the worker sells his person and his liberty for a given time. The worker is in the position of a serf because this terrible threat of starvation which daily hangs over his head and over his family, will force him to accept any conditions imposed by the gainful calculations of the capitalist, the industrialist, the employer. . . .The worker always has the right to leave his employer, but has he the means to do so? No, he does it in order to sell himself to another employer. He is driven to it by the same hunger which forces him to sell himself to the first employer. Thus the worker's liberty . . . is only a theoretical freedom, lacking any means for its possible realisation, and consequently it is only a fictitious liberty, an utter falsehood. The truth is that the whole life of the worker is simply a continuous and dismaying succession of terms of serfdom -- voluntary from the juridical point of view but compulsory from an economic sense -- broken up by momentarily brief interludes of freedom accompanied by starvation; in other words, it is real slavery."
http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/faq/sp001547/secB4.html#secb43
The article explains further:
"Obviously, a company cannot force you to work for them but, in general, you have to work for someone. This is because of past "initiation of force" by the capitalist class and the state which have created the objective conditions within which we make our employment decisions. Before any specific labour market contract occurs, the separation of workers from the means of production is an established fact (and the resulting "labour" market usually gives the advantage to the capitalists as a class). So while we can usually pick which capitalist to work for, we, in general, cannot choose to work for ourselves (the self-employed sector of the economy is tiny, which indicates well how spurious capitalist liberty actually is). "
So in a pure capitalist system, you have virtually no choice but to work for someone else at whatever wage he decides to pay you. Of course, progressive reforms in the US have somewhat mitigated the harshness of the system, but since you and the other rabid right wingers opposed them and wish to be rid of things like unemployment insurance, minimum wage, etc. etc. you shouldn't get any credit for the system having them.
The truth is the average producer has to work for a capitalist and that capitalist benefits from his production. In a free society, the means of production would be available to all and there would be no need for a capitalist; you'd work for yourself and/or your cooperative. Obviously such a structure would be more in tune with Man's emphatic and equalitarian nature and would greatly increase liberty and freedom. Hierarchical structures are incompatible with Human Nature.
The rich are a luxury, not a necessity for us having "jobs".
@no1marauder saidCongrats on an understandable post, no links!!👏 (well, there Was one, but a footnote)
I'll let Michael Bakunin explain it to you:
""Juridically they are both equal; but economically the worker is the serf of the capitalist . . . thereby the worker sells his person and his liberty for a given time. The worker is in the position of a serf because this terrible threat of starvation which daily hangs over his head and over his family, will force him to acce ...[text shortened]... are incompatible with Human Nature.
The rich are a luxury, not a necessity for us having "jobs".
Without going into great detail about serfs, I will have to discount your comments about serfs, I looked it up, and this is the USA, ....you would have to give me an example of a literal serf, and name of the corporation and the employers, please. I quite disagree that you can compare today’s factory workers as serfs. That truly makes no sense.
You are hard to follow, saying in this land of 7 million available jobs that starvation hangs over a persons head and family. BTW This begs the question, why would a man have a family if he cannot afford a family? Is that my problem, or your problem, I think not.
You say that the workers liberty is a theoretical freedom. Sorry, as a conservative I just see the “liberty” to live and work like he wants to. Did I mention 7 million jobs? Then you end that para with ‘ ‘it is real slavery“. So, to be fair, I looked up the definition of slavery. Again you are way off base. Hard to follow indeed. Can you maybe point out specific circumstances?
Then you say, you have to work for someone. OK, but doesn’t he have the liberty to find a job that he would be comfortable in, and be happy to have? Or is this ungrateful person going to mumble and mutter at coffee-break with his coworkers about how they hate the boss and all the money that is up top. Actually, my brother saw this with his law firm, not long after he joined. He thought I can do better, and quit, to start his own successful law firm. I myself had a secretary who, seeing what money lawyers make, went to law school at night and now she is a lawyer.
Or she could have remained in that misery of a job which you suggest that workers are tied to forever. I say, they are not. This Mr. Bakunin has poisoned your mind in his hate for capitalism and free enterprise, which is obvious. He must have had a bad experience. I simply suggest that he go to law school and make a lot of money and catch up with the real world.
Please tell us what do you mean by ‘the separation of workers from the means of production.’ If Mr. Moneypenny put his entire savings into a little ice cream factory, and hires 12 guys to work there, are you saying that our harsh system keeps workers from sharing in profits? Maybe you do not mean something that critical, but what DO you mean? And if ask you ...Is it his factory?...what would be your answer? Keep in mind, it is his capital, his decision-making, and his RISK which makes up this opportunity for workers.
Enough, but I would love for you to tell us what you mean in the last paragraph about “a free society, where there would be no need for a capitalist”. I cannot even fathom the concept of that. Skip all of my questions above and answer that one question.?
@AverageJoe1
An underlying problem that I see in your fantasy concepts is that the result would be to make everyone equal in the society. That is, everything being watered down. Do you truly want that? Who will invent Amazon?!?!?!?
@AverageJoe1
Do you seriously think that would EVER happen no matter WHAT kind of government we have?
@sonhouse saidHow about a substantive post, Sonhouse. Answer my questions that I put to Marauder, and we will see how close you come to his answers.
@AverageJoe1
Do you seriously think that would EVER happen no matter WHAT kind of government we have?
1 edit
@no1marauder saidwhere would the jobs come from?
I'll let Michael Bakunin explain it to you:
""Juridically they are both equal; but economically the worker is the serf of the capitalist . . . thereby the worker sells his person and his liberty for a given time. The worker is in the position of a serf because this terrible threat of starvation which daily hangs over his head and over his family, will force him to acce ...[text shortened]... are incompatible with Human Nature.
The rich are a luxury, not a necessity for us having "jobs".
what you are describing here is ending the American dream. The article omits that the worker has the chance to become the employer himself.
Be careful what you wish for, many already have it, they are flooding our borders now.
@mott-the-hoople saidHe also needs to tell us, in his respective 'factories' (Marx also thought in terms of factories, basic labor), he needs to tell us how the workers who manage other workers, if that is allowed in his model, get paid. Since the manager has more responsibility, more to answer for if there is a screw-up on an assembly line, being the manager's fault, is he not paid MORE than the people under him? If he is, then we will have INEQUALITY!!!!!!! Oh Lord, Marauder. Think a bit more ahead before you lay down your ideal society.
where would the jobs come from?
what you are describing here is ending the American dream. The article omits that the worker has the chance to become the employer himself.
Be careful what you wish for, many already have it, they are flooding our borders now.