23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism

Post Reply
Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism

Post by Coito ergo sum » Fri Feb 11, 2011 7:22 pm

Seraph wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:Seth? A libertarian? Not likely. He is pro-life...
Have you ever considered the possibility that there may be more than flavour of libertarianism? It's not as far fetched as you think. There are thousands of varieties of christianity. Many adherents of each consider its own sect as The True Church, and yet, while there are irreconcilable differences between them, I regard them all as christians. Same goes for communists, by the way, and they are merely a portion of a spectrum we call socialists. Oh, and have I mentioned social democrats? ...
Sure, of course there are. But, prochoice is pretty standard in terms of libertarianism. Hard to be in favor of individual liberty when one of your main planks is depriving women of dominion over their own bodies.

And, sure, there are different kinds of communists - Leninists - Stalinists - Trotskyists, etc. - but, if you reject one of the main pillars of communism, then you ought not call yourself a communist. Like with Christians - there are many kinds of Christians, but if you reject that Christ ever existed, could you really call yourself a Christian?

At some point words have to have meaning - if I said I was Pro-Life, believed the US was a Christian nation and wanted prayers in schools, and I was against marijuana legalization, and I was in favor of progressive taxation....am I just a "different kind of libertarian?"

In order to hold conversations at some point we have to agree on what words mean, or communication is impossible. But, that's why I phrased my comment as I did. I didn't say he he wasn't a libertarian. I said it didn't seem likely based on his posts in the abortion thread. He's free to clear that up, and he kinda did. He seemed to say, obliquely, that he wasn't really arguing his true view in that thread.

User avatar
sandinista
Posts: 2546
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media?
Contact:

Re: 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism

Post by sandinista » Fri Feb 11, 2011 7:29 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
sandinista wrote:
That's about it. It would take a book. I tend to read the first few lines of his posts and then go "fuck it" and move on. A lot of aspects of Marxism and political science/philosophy in general, is far to complex to explain in a forum post. It also takes a lot of time and energy which, as I am guessing, is time and energy which would be wasted explaining anything to a librarian. Pretty much the only one that doesn't think his posts are ignorant is you, CES and that's because you're posts generally have the same content. Your posts are just less entertaining.
Actually, I can't recall a single thing we've agreed on other than that the OP is bollocks. But, we don't hold the same political or economic views, as far as I can tell.

But, again - I disagree with much of what he wrote - but, that doesn't make him "ignorant." If someone is posting "ignorant" posts - those are easier to rebut than well-reasoned but contrary posts. It makes no sense to say "oh, jeez, it's too tough to rebut your post - it's just too ignorant to deal with - I'd have to write a book." Bullshit. Stupid and ignorant posts are the easiest ones to dispatch. So, dispatch him

What sort of nonsense is this? We'll just call people names and call them "ignorant" and say their views are reprehensible - but we won't address their content cuz it's just too hard? And, you think that portrays him (or me) in a bad light? Well, if that works for you, buddy - go with it. Go find people you agree with to have debates with. Much easier to debate with them, and that's probably why you feel you know what you're talking about - too busy playing kissy face with people you agree with - when confronted with someone who actually disagrees with you, just call them ignorant and say "fuck it" and move on. Much better argument, that. :read:
:hehe: His posts read the same as yours coito...same fervent anti communist BS laced with doses of pretend "freedom" and "liberty". I stay at this forum largely because I get some people who disagree with me on some issues. Most other forums I have been a member of consist of nothing but agreement and, yes, it gets boring...but...there are some world views which really don't need a rebuttal, their content does the rebuttal itself.
Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism

Post by Hermit » Fri Feb 11, 2011 7:41 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:if you reject one of the main pillars of communism, then you ought not call yourself a communist. Like with Christians - there are many kinds of Christians, but if you reject that Christ ever existed, could you really call yourself a Christian?
I had these kind of contradictory beliefs in mind: Christian sects that regard homosexuality as a sin and christian sects that appoint openly homosexual priests to bishoprics. Communists who insist that communism can only be attained through a violent revolution (Bolsheviks) and those who are convinced that the aim can be reached through social reform (Mensheviks). They can all be regarded as christians and communists respectively, even though opposing factions would disagree. Those words (communism, christianity, libertarianism, etc) have meaning, even if differences within each grouping is acknowledged and analysed. It might even be that the meanings of those words are enhanced through such treatment.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism

Post by Seth » Fri Feb 11, 2011 8:17 pm

Animavore wrote:
Seth wrote:American labor regulations have made unions entirely unnecessary insofar as the legitimate complaints about working conditions, hours of labor and suchlike police-power regulation are concerned. Unions remain only as an artifact of history, and their only purpose at the moment is to coerce business into providing wages and benefits that are favorable to labor. What's fucking evil about this is not the unions themselves, I have no problem with workers getting together to negotiate, it's the government's intervention and support of labor unions to the detriment of the interests of the companies. Government no longer simply prevents violence, which is a legitimate police-power function, now it intervenes on behalf of the workers and uses government force to coerce business into knuckling under to union demands for higher and higher wages and more and more perks and benefits. And THAT practice is bankrupting our economy and needs to be ended.

Government's only role in union/company negotiations must be to prevent violence, nothing else. Labor should be allowed to peacefully strike, and business should be allowed to fire every union striker and hire anyone they choose. The dynamic between the two is between the two, and government should not favor either side. If the strikers become unemployed, that's the consequences of their actions for demanding more than the company is willing to give. If the company goes under because it cannot find or keep a stable, skilled workforce because it refuses to offer adequate wages and benefits, that's the consequences of the company's actions. In the end, it all works out and a happy medium is reached where the workers get enough, and the company can still make an adequate profit to satisfy its owners and investors.
This is complete bullshit. There was already a time when this was the case, around 100 years ago, and look how companies treated people.
Companies need to have regulations enforced because they sure as shit ain't going to do it themselves. The evidence is in history itself.
If we could trust people to do the right thing such government intervention would never have happened in the first place.
What sort of regulation is the actual question? Regulations to protect workers from illness and injury, or regulations to favor their economic interests over that of the company?

You have to be specific if you expect your arguments to be valid.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism

Post by Seth » Fri Feb 11, 2011 8:25 pm

Psychoserenity wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote: Then the odds are his statements were not "ignorant." Otherwise, they'd be quite simple to dispose of by identifying the information he lacked.
It would never be simple Coito, Seth's world-view is so far away from mine on this issue, I don't think I could ever have have a meaningful conversation with him. Morticia's right, it would take more than a book. There is no crossover, no middle ground. Obviously my opinion is that I'm right and he's wrong, otherwise I wouldn't hold the views I do. And he'll have the opposite opinion. But I wouldn't know where to start showing him why I think he's wrong. The world as he sees it, is a very different world to the one I see.
Actually, all it requires is scholarship and erudition. I'm always happy to explore a subject, including Marxism, in painful detail so long as my fellow participants are willing to put forth the same level of effort. But when faced with illiterate one-liners and hyperbolic platitudes, there's little reason to put more effort into educating the uneducatable than superficial debunking and scorn.

If you think you can successfully defend Marxism, have at it. The fact that I hold a diametrically opposed opinion doesn't make debate impossible, it makes it vibrant and exciting. But I do expect you to know your own position, and I'm not going to do your homework for you.

It might take books, but that's how we learn new things, isn't it? Isn't that part of being "rational?" Of course if you expect to spout platitudes and propaganda and get me to admit defeat, you're in for a shock. If you don't have the knowledge or understanding of Marxism from which to argue persuasively, then try taking the opposite position. State some principles or arguments of Marxism as a question and ask "what's wrong with that," and you'll find that I'll be happy to tell you exactly what's wrong with it, in excruciating detail. But don't expect bald assertions of Marxist propaganda to carry any weight with me. I've literally heard them all, and they are all specious, ignorant nonsense.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 39276
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism

Post by Animavore » Fri Feb 11, 2011 8:26 pm

Seth wrote:
Animavore wrote:
Seth wrote:American labor regulations have made unions entirely unnecessary insofar as the legitimate complaints about working conditions, hours of labor and suchlike police-power regulation are concerned. Unions remain only as an artifact of history, and their only purpose at the moment is to coerce business into providing wages and benefits that are favorable to labor. What's fucking evil about this is not the unions themselves, I have no problem with workers getting together to negotiate, it's the government's intervention and support of labor unions to the detriment of the interests of the companies. Government no longer simply prevents violence, which is a legitimate police-power function, now it intervenes on behalf of the workers and uses government force to coerce business into knuckling under to union demands for higher and higher wages and more and more perks and benefits. And THAT practice is bankrupting our economy and needs to be ended.

Government's only role in union/company negotiations must be to prevent violence, nothing else. Labor should be allowed to peacefully strike, and business should be allowed to fire every union striker and hire anyone they choose. The dynamic between the two is between the two, and government should not favor either side. If the strikers become unemployed, that's the consequences of their actions for demanding more than the company is willing to give. If the company goes under because it cannot find or keep a stable, skilled workforce because it refuses to offer adequate wages and benefits, that's the consequences of the company's actions. In the end, it all works out and a happy medium is reached where the workers get enough, and the company can still make an adequate profit to satisfy its owners and investors.
This is complete bullshit. There was already a time when this was the case, around 100 years ago, and look how companies treated people.
Companies need to have regulations enforced because they sure as shit ain't going to do it themselves. The evidence is in history itself.
If we could trust people to do the right thing such government intervention would never have happened in the first place.
What sort of regulation is the actual question? Regulations to protect workers from illness and injury, or regulations to favor their economic interests over that of the company?

You have to be specific if you expect your arguments to be valid.
When do workers ever expect regulations in favour of their economic interests over that of the company?
The interests should be in line with the company that they benefit from a company they help make.
If the company is allowed to just sack people and pay what they like companies almost always opt to pay workers as little as possible whilst hoarding as much for those at the top as possible. History shows this. It still happens. If we had things your way we'd still be working in sweatshops.
And if we had illness or injury it would be, "Tough shit. You can't work. Bye bye". So your two examples of regulations above go hand in hand, they are not mutually exclusive.
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism

Post by Seth » Fri Feb 11, 2011 8:28 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
Seth wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
Seth? A libertarian? Not likely. He is pro-life, according to the thread and would have the government make laws preventing women from getting abortions, or making their uteruses subject to male control in the event of pregnancy where a woman wants to abort but the father of the child does not. Massively non-libertarian in that respect. I'll let him answer that, if it's an issue, but he sure doesn't seem libertarian.
Oh, I'm absolutely a Libertarian. No doubt about it. That I may be ARGUING a different position than Libertarianism for the purposes of debate is, well, an "I told you so" moment.

Must I quote Aristotle yet again?
Well, whatever. Unless you state it explicitly to the contrary, I have to assume the positions you take are your actual positions and not just for the sake of argument.

From your argument on the abortion thread, that at least is not a libertarian position. Perhaps most of your other views are libertarian. That I don't know. And, perhaps you don't hold the view you advanced in the abortion thread. That you'll have to clarify explicitly, and not obliquely.
I'll say it again: I present a persona here, and I reserve the right to argue from diametrically opposed positions and from positions that do not necessarily reflect my true beliefs. You may assume whatever you like, but you make an ass of yourself if you assign personal characteristics, particularly negative ones, based on the content of ANY online debate by ANYONE.

So, take it or leave it. I really don't care one way or another. It's your character that is impugned by imputing characteristics to debate partners online, not mine.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism

Post by Seth » Fri Feb 11, 2011 8:36 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
sandinista wrote:
That's about it. It would take a book. I tend to read the first few lines of his posts and then go "fuck it" and move on. A lot of aspects of Marxism and political science/philosophy in general, is far to complex to explain in a forum post. It also takes a lot of time and energy which, as I am guessing, is time and energy which would be wasted explaining anything to a librarian. Pretty much the only one that doesn't think his posts are ignorant is you, CES and that's because you're posts generally have the same content. Your posts are just less entertaining.
Actually, I can't recall a single thing we've agreed on other than that the OP is bollocks. But, we don't hold the same political or economic views, as far as I can tell.

But, again - I disagree with much of what he wrote - but, that doesn't make him "ignorant." If someone is posting "ignorant" posts - those are easier to rebut than well-reasoned but contrary posts. It makes no sense to say "oh, jeez, it's too tough to rebut your post - it's just too ignorant to deal with - I'd have to write a book." Bullshit. Stupid and ignorant posts are the easiest ones to dispatch. So, dispatch him

What sort of nonsense is this? We'll just call people names and call them "ignorant" and say their views are reprehensible - but we won't address their content cuz it's just too hard? And, you think that portrays him (or me) in a bad light? Well, if that works for you, buddy - go with it. Go find people you agree with to have debates with. Much easier to debate with them, and that's probably why you feel you know what you're talking about - too busy playing kissy face with people you agree with - when confronted with someone who actually disagrees with you, just call them ignorant and say "fuck it" and move on. Much better argument, that. :read:
I can even recommend a specific venue where his intellect will not be strained by actual thought: It's the mutual intellectual masturbatory circle-jerk club called "Rational Skepticism," which is anything but. It's stuffed to the gills with small-minded, petty, ignorant, cretinous, intolerant, lazy, intellectually challenged pinheads who like nothing more than to congratulate themselves on how smart they think they are, all without actually engaging in any perceptible degree of intellectual activity, much less critically-robust rhetorical erudition and dedication to reason and logic.

I must hasten to add that it's not COMPLETELY filled with anacephalic morons, and there are some truly advanced intellects over there. Why they stay there is beyond me, but there are pearls among the swine and I don't want to lump them in with the low-lives who infest that forum.

(Sorry, I'm still just a little upset... I'll get over it eventually... :irate: )
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism

Post by Seth » Fri Feb 11, 2011 8:42 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
Seraph wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:Seth? A libertarian? Not likely. He is pro-life...
Have you ever considered the possibility that there may be more than flavour of libertarianism? It's not as far fetched as you think. There are thousands of varieties of christianity. Many adherents of each consider its own sect as The True Church, and yet, while there are irreconcilable differences between them, I regard them all as christians. Same goes for communists, by the way, and they are merely a portion of a spectrum we call socialists. Oh, and have I mentioned social democrats? ...
Sure, of course there are. But, prochoice is pretty standard in terms of libertarianism. Hard to be in favor of individual liberty when one of your main planks is depriving women of dominion over their own bodies.
This is the precise point at which your understanding of Libertarianism fails. Liberarianism is all about personal responsibility, accountability, acceptance of the consequences of personal action, and adherence contractual obligations.

I won't rehash the contract argument right now, in this thread, except to say that it's fully consistent with Libertarianism, in which any person may voluntarily choose to obligate themselves to any contractual terms whatsoever, including terms of indentured servitude, that a woman is perfectly capable of binding herself to nine months of gestational servitude by contract.

We can dispute whether such a contract comes into existence and under what conditions, but NOTHING in Libertarianism prevents someone from obligating them to abide by the terms of a contract they have voluntarily entered with another, even if it includes servitude or physical risk of harm or death.

That is all perfectly acceptable and consistent with Libertarian principles.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism

Post by Seth » Fri Feb 11, 2011 8:47 pm

sandinista wrote:...but...there are some world views which really don't need a rebuttal, their content does the rebuttal itself.
Pure intellectual masturbation devoid of any reason or logic. Its undiluted mental sloth and nothing more. You don't get to declare yourself victor by evading the debate. Evading the debate means you lose. It's also a strong indicator that you do not have a robust and well-reasoned rebuttal, and you know it, and you are evading the debate to avoid being embarrassed by your ignorance of your own ideology and your intellectual and rhetorical shortcomings.

I could be mistaken, of course, and I look forward to you proving me wrong.

So, have at it, if you have it in you to do so....
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
.Morticia.
Comrade Morticia
Posts: 1715
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 2:14 am
About me: Card Carrying Groucho Marxist
Location: Bars and Communist Dens of Iniquity

Re: 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism

Post by .Morticia. » Fri Feb 11, 2011 9:06 pm

Seth's view is not based on a provable reality and it's not my job to support or debunk his views.

But suffice to say, the marxist view, ie capitalism as the driving force of economics and social structure, is the accepted academic view.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies. ~ Marx

Do you really think it is weakness that yields to temptation? I tell you that there are terrible temptations which it requires strength, strength and courage to yield to. ~ Oscar Wilde

Love Me I'm A Liberal

The Communist Menace

Running The World

User avatar
sandinista
Posts: 2546
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media?
Contact:

Re: 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism

Post by sandinista » Fri Feb 11, 2011 9:07 pm

Seth wrote:
sandinista wrote:...but...there are some world views which really don't need a rebuttal, their content does the rebuttal itself.
Pure intellectual masturbation devoid of any reason or logic. Its undiluted mental sloth and nothing more. You don't get to declare yourself victor by evading the debate. Evading the debate means you lose. It's also a strong indicator that you do not have a robust and well-reasoned rebuttal, and you know it, and you are evading the debate to avoid being embarrassed by your ignorance of your own ideology and your intellectual and rhetorical shortcomings.

I could be mistaken, of course, and I look forward to you proving me wrong.

So, have at it, if you have it in you to do so....
win? lose? Am I in a competition here? What do I win?
Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.

User avatar
.Morticia.
Comrade Morticia
Posts: 1715
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 2:14 am
About me: Card Carrying Groucho Marxist
Location: Bars and Communist Dens of Iniquity

Re: 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism

Post by .Morticia. » Fri Feb 11, 2011 9:11 pm

Seraph wrote:
.Morticia. wrote:Read about the current trouble in Egypt. You'll find the government is using the military to "protect" the instruments of power,they have surrounded the key buildings with tanks, ie all the government departments.

You won't find a better current example of the use of force to keep an exploited and abused population down.
I don't see why I should limit examples to current events. So, what about Tiananmen Square? East Germany, 1953? Hungary 1956? Czechoslovakia 1968? ...

You are conflating totalitarianism , a political system, with communism, an economic system. ( though they weren't communist, they were statist)
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies. ~ Marx

Do you really think it is weakness that yields to temptation? I tell you that there are terrible temptations which it requires strength, strength and courage to yield to. ~ Oscar Wilde

Love Me I'm A Liberal

The Communist Menace

Running The World

User avatar
.Morticia.
Comrade Morticia
Posts: 1715
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 2:14 am
About me: Card Carrying Groucho Marxist
Location: Bars and Communist Dens of Iniquity

Re: 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism

Post by .Morticia. » Fri Feb 11, 2011 9:12 pm

sandinista wrote:
Seth wrote:
sandinista wrote:...but...there are some world views which really don't need a rebuttal, their content does the rebuttal itself.
Pure intellectual masturbation devoid of any reason or logic. Its undiluted mental sloth and nothing more. You don't get to declare yourself victor by evading the debate. Evading the debate means you lose. It's also a strong indicator that you do not have a robust and well-reasoned rebuttal, and you know it, and you are evading the debate to avoid being embarrassed by your ignorance of your own ideology and your intellectual and rhetorical shortcomings.

I could be mistaken, of course, and I look forward to you proving me wrong.

So, have at it, if you have it in you to do so....
win? lose? Am I in a competition here? What do I win?

you win the privilege to stand next to me against the wall
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies. ~ Marx

Do you really think it is weakness that yields to temptation? I tell you that there are terrible temptations which it requires strength, strength and courage to yield to. ~ Oscar Wilde

Love Me I'm A Liberal

The Communist Menace

Running The World

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism

Post by Seth » Fri Feb 11, 2011 9:27 pm

Animavore wrote:
Seth wrote:
Animavore wrote:
Seth wrote:American labor regulations have made unions entirely unnecessary insofar as the legitimate complaints about working conditions, hours of labor and suchlike police-power regulation are concerned. Unions remain only as an artifact of history, and their only purpose at the moment is to coerce business into providing wages and benefits that are favorable to labor. What's fucking evil about this is not the unions themselves, I have no problem with workers getting together to negotiate, it's the government's intervention and support of labor unions to the detriment of the interests of the companies. Government no longer simply prevents violence, which is a legitimate police-power function, now it intervenes on behalf of the workers and uses government force to coerce business into knuckling under to union demands for higher and higher wages and more and more perks and benefits. And THAT practice is bankrupting our economy and needs to be ended.

Government's only role in union/company negotiations must be to prevent violence, nothing else. Labor should be allowed to peacefully strike, and business should be allowed to fire every union striker and hire anyone they choose. The dynamic between the two is between the two, and government should not favor either side. If the strikers become unemployed, that's the consequences of their actions for demanding more than the company is willing to give. If the company goes under because it cannot find or keep a stable, skilled workforce because it refuses to offer adequate wages and benefits, that's the consequences of the company's actions. In the end, it all works out and a happy medium is reached where the workers get enough, and the company can still make an adequate profit to satisfy its owners and investors.
This is complete bullshit. There was already a time when this was the case, around 100 years ago, and look how companies treated people.
Companies need to have regulations enforced because they sure as shit ain't going to do it themselves. The evidence is in history itself.
If we could trust people to do the right thing such government intervention would never have happened in the first place.
What sort of regulation is the actual question? Regulations to protect workers from illness and injury, or regulations to favor their economic interests over that of the company?

You have to be specific if you expect your arguments to be valid.
When do workers ever expect regulations in favour of their economic interests over that of the company?
Every single fucking day of the week around here.

The interests should be in line with the company that they benefit from a company they help make.
You would think. But nooooooo. Their corrupt union bosses divert their dues to leftist, Marxist, Communist and Progressive political causes while coercing companies to give workers more money for less work. Many "retirees" at GM have been on union-coerced pensions that pay them more than they made while working for longer than they actually worked for GM. Then they worked with that fucking Marxist Progressive swine inhabiting the White House to seize GM and literally turn it over to the unions, after completely defrauding the SECURED BOND HOLDERS who, by LAW and long standing precedent were due first crack at GM's assets when it was dissolved.

Fucking asswipes at the AFL-CIO and automotive union HQ need to be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.

If the company is allowed to just sack people and pay what they like companies almost always opt to pay workers as little as possible whilst hoarding as much for those at the top as possible. History shows this. It still happens. If we had things your way we'd still be working in sweatshops.
No, we wouldn't, because unlike the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, where children were put to work in textile factories because the jobs they had to do only required the intelligence and training of a child, today's industry is much more sophisticated, and there are laws which prevent "sweatshop" working conditions and child labor.

Businesses operate on free market principles, and they don't "hoard" moneyar "at the top" because capital is required to keep businesses running and expanding. Sure, they don't want to pay any more for labor than they absolutely have to, but by the same token, labor has power when the skills required are more than minimal because the rarer the skill set required the higher the wage to find and keep skilled workers.

Is unskilled labor paid little? Yes, of course it is because it's unskilled. The best way to escape that condition is to become skilled at something and move up in the hierarchy. It's stupid to expect that unskilled labor will be paid the same as skilled labor. Even Marx didn't go that far with his idiocy. Ben Franklin said that the best way to raise people out of poverty is to make them "uncomfortable in their poverty." Minimum wage burger-flipping jobs are not intended to be career choices for anyone. They are rightfully entry-level jobs that unskilled, inexperienced people, mostly youth, can work at and get paid as they build their work history and skills and fund advancements in their education. Every time the minimum wage is increased, entry-level kids lose their jobs, which are given to more experienced workers who are more reliable and can take on greater responsibility with less supervision.

The march of technology has made Industrial Revolution sweatshops a thing of the past in the US. Unskilled assembly labor positions have been globalized and exported, and that's a GOOD thing, because even the people laboring in a Nike "sweatshop" south of the border are doing much better than they WERE doing before the plant opened up and offered jobs that, in their community, are both high-paying and relatively stable. In other words, for the residents of some village in Costa Rica or Mexico, a Nike factory is a Godsend, and it beats the ever-living crap out of poking holes in the ground to plant subsistence-level crops and taking in each other's washing, when there's anything to wash.

That they don't get paid the same wage as a high-tech computer-chip technician in the US is utterly irrelevant. They get paid what their labor is worth, which is more than they were getting paid before, which was nothing.

And if we had illness or injury it would be, "Tough shit. You can't work. Bye bye". So your two examples of regulations above go hand in hand, they are not mutually exclusive.
Why is an employer obliged to hold open someone's job if they cannot perform the work required? If the employer is responsible for the injury, the employee can sue to recover damages. Furthermore, worker's compensation plans are paid into by the employer by state mandated to cover just such situations. But if the worker is permanently disabled, why is the employer obligated to keep them on the payroll forever?
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests