4 edits
@averagejoe1 saidBuy a dictionary. Here's an online one:
The fact that eah serves a purpose for the other, thus being ‘equal’ , has absolutely nothing to do with how much money each makes. This is where our discussions go awry🤔🤔🤔
1a(1)": of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another
(2): identical in mathematical value or logical denotation : EQUIVALENT
b: like in quality, nature, or status
c: like for each member of a group, class, or society
provide equal employment opportunities
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equal
No, they are not "equal". Since the worker doesn't need the capitalist but the capitalist needs the worker and benefits overwhelmingly more would make it a "parasitic" relationship:
Parasite - A plant or an animal organism that lives in or on another and takes its nourishment from that other organism.
https://www.medicinenet.com/parasite/definition.htm
@no1marauder saidI'm assuming that the parasite is the capitalist? Then, You should round out your post by showing the def of the host!...that which the capitalist takes its nourishment from.
Buy a dictionary. Here's an online one:
1a(1)": of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another
(2): identical in mathematical value or logical denotation : EQUIVALENT
b: like in quality, nature, or status
c: like for each member of a group, class, or society
provide equal employment opportunities
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equal
...[text shortened]... kes its nourishment from that other organism.
https://www.medicinenet.com/parasite/definition.htm
Then, your readers will see that the host has no 'say' as to whether to allow the parasite to attach. These are definitions of each, to which we all agree.
But, BUT, in our case at hand, the worker DOES INDEED have a choice as to whether to work for ( to allow the capitalist to get the nourishment,,,their labor) the capitalist, or choose to NOT work for the capitalist. So the worker sets up his position as a host, or not. Again, libs fail at making the job-creating corps out to be the villain!
Your post thus does not apply. We are simply not talking about a parasitic relationship, given these definitions. BTW, your saying that the worker doesn't need a capitalist, about 50,000 employees at Amazon may disagree with you.
Hey, did you see that video of the pitiful president? Even while he was running, I faulted his wife for pushing him along, purely cruel.
@AverageJoe1
Lord, MGHM is over on the Rushmore thread asking if we should feel guilty for buying Manhattan from the Indians for $28. Check it out. Y'all are amazing. Dont worry, I gave a clear answer.
@averagejoe1 said"Of course it is claimed that entering wage labour is a "voluntary" undertaking, from which both sides allegedly benefit. However, due to past initiations of force (e.g. the seizure of land by conquest) plus the tendency for capital to concentrate, a relative handful of people now control vast wealth, depriving all others access to the means of life. As Immanuel Wallerstein points out in The Capitalist World System (vol. 1), capitalism evolved from feudalism, with the first capitalists using inherited family wealth derived from large land holdings to start factories. That "inherited family wealth" can be traced back originally to conquest and forcible seizure. Thus denial of free access to the means of life is based ultimately on the principle of "might makes right." And as Murray Bookchin so rightly points out, "the means of life must be taken for what they literally are: the means without which life is impossible. To deny them to people is more than 'theft'... it is outright homicide." [Murray Bookchin, Remaking Society, p. 187]"
I'm assuming that the parasite is the capitalist? Then, You should round out your post by showing the def of the host!...that which the capitalist takes its nourishment from.
Then, your readers will see that the host has no 'say' as to whether to allow the parasite to attach. These are definitions of each, to which we all agree.
But, BUT, in our case at hand, ...[text shortened]... tiful president? Even while he was running, I faulted his wife for pushing him along, purely cruel.
"However, due to the existence of private property and the states needed to protect it, this equality is de facto impossible, regardless of the theory. This is because. in general, capitalists have three advantages on the "free" labour market-- the law and state placing the rights of property above those of labour, the existence of unemployment over most of the business cycle and capitalists having more resources to fall back on. We will discuss each in turn.
The first advantage, namely property owners having the backing of the law and state, ensures that when workers go on strike or use other forms of direct action (or even when they try to form a union) the capitalist has the full backing of the state to employ scabs, break picket lines or fire "the ring-leaders." This obviously gives employers greater power in their bargaining position, placing workers in a weak position (a position that may make them, the workers, think twice before standing up for their rights).
The existence of unemployment over most of the business cycle ensures that "employers have a structural advantage in the labour market, because there are typically more candidates. . . than jobs for them to fill." This means that "[c]ompetition in labour markets us typically skewed in favour of employers: it is a buyers market. And in a buyer's market, it is the sellers who compromise. Competition for labour is not strong enough to ensure that workers' desires are always satisified." [Juliet B. Schor, The Overworked American, p. 71, p. 129] If the labour market generally favours the employer, then this obviously places working people at a disadvantage as the threat of unemployment and the hardships associated with encourages workers to take any job and submit to their bosses demands and power while employed. Unemployment, in other words, serves to discipline labour. The higher the prevailing unemployment rate, the harder it is to find a new job, which raises the cost of job loss and makes it less likely for workers to strike, join unions, or to resist employer demands, and so on.
As Bakunin argued, "the property owners... are likewise forced to seek out and purchase labour... but not in the same measure . . . [there is no] equality between those who offer their labour and those who purchase it." [Op. Cit., p. 183] This ensures that any "free agreements" made benefit the capitalists more than the workers (see the next section on periods of full employment, when conditions tilt in favour of working people).
Lastly, there is the issue of inequalities in wealth and so resources. The capitalist generally has more resources to fall back on during strikes and while waiting to find employees (for example, large companies with many factories can swap production to their other factories if one goes on strike). And by having more resources to fall back on, the capitalist can hold out longer than the worker, so placing the employer in a stronger bargaining position and so ensuring labour contracts favour them. This was recognised by Adam Smith:
"It is not difficult to foresee which of the two parties [workers and capitalists] must, upon all ordinary occasions... force the other into a compliance with their terms... In all such disputes the masters can hold out much longer... though they did not employ a single workman [the masters] could generally live a year or two upon the stocks which they already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scare any a year without employment. In the long-run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate. . . [I]n disputes with their workmen, masters must generally have the advantage." [Wealth of Nations, pp. 59-60]
How little things have changed.
So, while it is definitely the case that no one forces you to work for them, the capitalist system is such that you have little choice but to sell your liberty and labour on the "free market." Not only this, but the labour market (which is what makes capitalism capitalism) is (usually) skewed in favour of the employer, so ensuring that any "free agreements" made on it favour the boss and result in the workers submitting to domination and exploitation."
http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/faq/sp001547/secB4.html#secb43
It might shock you, but before there was Amazon, people worked. And long after Amazon is gone, people will work.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidMany times in small businesses, which are predominant, the owner is also a worker. So who really needs who?
So one makes 20 times what the other does but they are "equal" because "each needs the other"?
The owner can do work to a point, but if he wishes to expand, he needs help and so hires the help.
The owner therefor, does not need the worker as badly as the worker needs the owner. If you think that
punishing the owner by making him pay a worker as much as he gets paid, all you will end up doing is
making small businessmen never expand, never hire help. How cool is that?
Also, if the business goes belly up, does the worker share the financial burden "just to be fair"??
Please. your head is where it usually is,,, in a dark place. Can you see why you progressives can
easily shut the economy down with your ideas?
@earl-of-trumps saidThe type of small, one owner businesses you describe are a tiny part of the economy.
Many times in small businesses, which are predominant, the owner is also a worker. So who really needs who?
The owner get do work to a point, but if he wishes to expand he needs help and so hires the help.
The owner therefor, does not need the worker as badly as the worker needs the owner. If you think that
punishing the owner by making him pay a worker as much as ...[text shortened]... n a dark place. Can you see why you progressives can
easily shut the economy down with your ideas?
You guys pine for an economy that no longer exists, if it ever did.
@no1marauder - said
Parasite - A plant or an animal organism that lives in or on another and takes its nourishment from that other organism.
Are you describing the worker that only does work to take the "rich" man's money?
Thank you
Some stats:
"Since 1979, pay and productivity have diverged.
From 1979 to 2019, net productivity rose 72.2 percent, while the hourly pay of typical workers essentially stagnated—increasing only 17.2 percent over 40 years (after adjusting for inflation). This means that although Americans are working more productively than ever, the fruits of their labors have primarily accrued to those at the top and to corporate profits, especially in recent years."
https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/
"CEO compensation has grown 940% since 1978
Typical worker compensation has risen only 12% during that time."
https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/
"The decline in labor share of income in the United States since the turn of the millennium has been particularly marked and is the focus of our analysis. Official data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) suggest that, while the labor share had already started to decrease in the 1960s, three-fourths of the entire post-1947 decline occurred between 2000 and 2016 (Exhibit 1). The steepest part of the decline—from 63.3 percent in 2000 to 56.7 percent in 2016—followed a moderate downward drift in the 1980s and early 1990s, and a slight recovery in the late 1990s."
https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/employment-and-growth/a-new-look-at-the-declining-labor-share-of-income-in-the-united-states
Yet despite this, right wingers continue to oppose any measures which might help to restore some balance between workers and employers and raise the average standard of living.
@earl-of-trumps saidI'm sure that's how you and bootlickers like AJ see the average working man.
@no1marauder - said
Parasite - A plant or an animal organism that lives in or on another and takes its nourishment from that other organism.
Are you describing the worker that only does work to take the "rich" man's money?
Thank you
@earl-of-trumps saiddoing work for work's sake is a rich person's luxury.
@no1marauder - said
Parasite - A plant or an animal organism that lives in or on another and takes its nourishment from that other organism.
Are you describing the worker that only does work to take the "rich" man's money?
Thank you
nobody feels fulfilled working at walmart stocking shelves. Or mess up their health and peeing in bottles working for Bezos. They ONLY do it because the system says they would starve otherwise, even though we have enough production to provide every human on the face of the planet with a decent basic income enough for basic needs. They only do it because billionaires have managed to convince the vast majority that it is only right they hold 99% of the wealth, that people need to work 8-10 hours a day (and that's the good scenario) otherwise anarchy would reign.
@no1marauder saidBut you will never admit it's a two way street, will you. Mutual respect, mutually agreed to "exploitation".
I'm sure that's how you and bootlickers like AJ see the average working man.
I'm a realist, you're an emotional hater of anyone that is successful.
@zahlanzi saidThe Walmarts of the world make an offerance to labor, to which they can choose to accept it or NOT.
doing work for work's sake is a rich person's luxury.
nobody feels fulfilled working at walmart stocking shelves. Or mess up their health and peeing in bottles working for Bezos. They ONLY do it because the system says they would starve otherwise, even though we have enough production to provide every human on the face of the planet with a decent basic income enough for b ...[text shortened]... t people need to work 8-10 hours a day (and that's the good scenario) otherwise anarchy would reign.
But when these poor workers do work, the government attacks their paycheck in various ways.
Let me guess... the government is their friend, your friend. you phony, hypocrite.
@no1marauder saidI looked up the author of the first para. Above. You want AJoe to read further in your post after you dare suggest I read an anarchist? I have enough to just read all the socialists on these threads, thank you. I have to sign some paychecks right now, will comment later
"Of course it is claimed that entering wage labour is a "voluntary" undertaking, from which both sides allegedly benefit. However, due to past initiations of force (e.g. the seizure of land by conquest) plus the tendency for capital to concentrate, a relative handful of people now control vast wealth, depriving all others access to the means of life. As Immanuel Wallerste ...[text shortened]... ck you, but before there was Amazon, people worked. And long after Amazon is gone, people will work.
@averagejoe1 saidTell you what, skip everything in it but the paragraph by Adam Smith, the so-called "Father of Capitalism".
I looked up the author of the first para. Above. You want AJoe to read further in your post after you dare suggest I read an anarchist? I have enough to just read all the socialists on these threads, thank you. I have to sign some paychecks right now, will comment later