Originally posted by WajomaThe methods of oppression are irrelevant. Limiting the workers' options on behalf of your own wallet
And you've skipped right over the brutal dictators use of force and threats of force versus companies do not.
Unions don't provide all those great conditions, they come from prosperity, they come from the productive, unions come along after the fact and make some grand claims about what they created, they're all secondhanders. Some companies prefer to deal ...[text shortened]... to suck on, others prefer to stand on their own abilities, that's exactly as it should be.
is exploitation is oppression is bad. Bad boy! Bad boy!
Originally posted by JigtieThe use of force and threats of force is very relevant. If an employer says here are the conditions: x dollars per hour, x holidays, x coffee breaks etc. Take it or leave it, that is not oppression. The employer has not threatened you, they have offered you a choice, a choice that you did not have previously.
The methods of oppression are irrelevant. Limiting the workers' options on behalf of your own wallet
is exploitation is oppression is bad. Bad boy! Bad boy!
Brutal dictators take choices away through the threat of physical force.
Besides in a free society if you cannot find an employer to your liking you could show some gumption and start your own business, become an employer yourself and show us all how it's done.
Originally posted by WajomaA brutal dictator also offers a choice. You can either comply with the harsh rules I put up for you, or
The use of force and threats of force is very relevant. If an employer says here are the conditions: x dollars per hour, x holidays, x coffee breaks etc. Take it or leave it, that is not oppression. The employer has not threatened you, they have offered you a choice, a choice that you did not have previously.
Brutal dictators take choices away through t ...[text shortened]... umption and start your own business, become an employer yourself and show us all how it's done.
you can be beaten half to death in a prison. Again, the methods are irrelevant when the results are
the same: the poor bugger is either out of a job and ability to support him/herself, or (s)he works
under as lousy conditions as the dict... employer can create. To get good working conditions and
reasonable pay a worker must unite with all the other workers and refuse to be 'used', a.k.a unionise.
The very fact that unions are required speaks volume about the nature of capitalism.
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaI actually am part owner of a small semi-successful software company. Not because I'm thrilled
Besides in a free society if you cannot find an employer to your liking you could show some gumption and start your own business, become an employer yourself and show us all how it's done.
about capitalism, but because I have to. I have no employees though. I wouldn't have anyone else
do my job and then take the money for myself. It's just not right. When the day comes that I need
more help, I will give an equal share of the company to whomever I "hire". That's the only way it can
be done. Equal amount of job, equal share of the profits. Doesn't matter who gets ideas. The work
done to realise those ideas is what matters.
Some here, falsely taking self-sufficient attitudes whilst ignoring (a) the fact that we are social animals, and (b) the basic mechanics of the social contract, should be better joining some Christian "patriotic" milita... including no tax paying, living in a cabin in the middle of Nowhere, Montana, accumulating guns and "going back to the roots" which would mean no electricity and no internet.
... and the rest of us would also be better off without them.
Originally posted by JigtieHa ha! A closet capitalist!
I actually am part owner of a small semi-successful software company. Not because I'm thrilled
about capitalism, but because I have to. I have no employees though. I wouldn't have anyone else
do my job and then take the money for myself. It's just not right. When the day comes that I need
more help, I will give an equal share of the company to whomever ...[text shortened]... s. Doesn't matter who gets ideas. The work
done to realise those ideas is what matters.
Originally posted by TeinosukeReciprocality is the problem: deadbeats game the system. The other thing is, if the animals finding the food never get more than a tiny taste, they tend to slack off -- and so now food is a problem.
On the contrary, socialism merely demands that we act according to reciprocal altruism, a recognised natural phenomenon. The natural principle involved works along these lines: one animal in the group finds some food; rather than eating it all himself, he shares it with the rest of the pack, so that next time, when another animal in the group finds some fo ...[text shortened]... eties seem to treat each other better generally - less crime, more trust, more social capital.
Still, altruism to our relatives is in-bred. We will do it without reward. Altruism to strangers, though, is not so obvious.