Capitalism Exploits Us

Try exemplifying and demonstrating that by referring to actual cases like Mondragon, Arizmendi Bakery, Artisan Beverage Coop, Circle of Life Caregiver Cooperative, Opportunity Threads, LLC, Just Coffee Cooperative, Green Mountain Spinnery, Union Cab of Madison Cooperative, South Mountain Co., Inc., Small World Food, and/or Red Sun Press. That's just a few of over 1,000. In the US, although I included Mondragon which is in Spain and 3 other countries.

 

Define and describe what a "credible socialist" would be. You mean one that is accepted by right wing pro-capitalist sources? LOL!!!!

 

IOW, as I knew, you have nothing. Try sticking to real facts.

 

Venezuela, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

they went too far and lost their dream of a communist utopia because it doesn't work on such a large scale

 

I'm 53 years old. I'm well informed about how bad Marxism and Socialism is.

 

The opposite of you.

 

RIGHT! But they protect the "right" to own a business that hires workers for the owner's profit. That is specifically capitalism, which is what I said we have in our legislation.

YES! And socialism is a different non-capitalist situation requiring different laws. Just think: you are apparently arguing that there are no laws in play favoring capitalism and discouraging socialist organization of business. But look into laws governing bank loans for businesses and the financing needs of worker-owned co-ops. There's one example for you.

You see, you're not going to beat me on this subject because I am informed on it and you aren't.

 

I'm 17 years your senior if that matters. And what you have that you are drawing on is very clearly merely the propaganda we've all been subjected to for about 80 years. You can't tell me how and why the division between socialists and communists came about, or how socialist strategy has been affected by the experience of the USSR and China, and these are vary, very basic things.

 

That is little more than a personal attack. I guess you're out of substantive arguments.

 

So the right to hire another person doesn't exist in socialist economies? I'm starting to realize you don't know what these words mean.

A worker owned co-op which favors socialism goes to a bank for a loan which impart "capitalist ownership".

You're informed, but you don't appear to know what anything means. You've lost multiple arguments in this thread son.

 

Marxism wipes out incentive to work and improve oneself. Why work hard if all of your income goes to the government, to be given to others who sit on their asses?

It's insanity.

 

You,too, show that you don't know what socialism is. I'll bet you can't tell me how and why the division between socialists and communists came about, or how socialist strategy has been affected by the experience of the USSR and China, and these are vary, very basic things.

In saying "all of your income goes to the government" you claim something that has never happened anywhere, ever. Not even the failed attempts in the USSR and/or China fit that description.

You're quite consistent in displaying that you really know nothing valid about this subject. Why don't you bone up on it all?

 

More personal attacks. And no facts. You didn't even clearly express precisely what you are trying to say. I guess vagueness and personal attacks go hand-in-hand for a weak, uninformed partisan with no actual arguments.

 

Does the janitor own the auto manufacturer's product, or doesn't he?

No. My question is presented in the context of your definition of exploitation. You said that profit from the sale of a product is objective evidence of exploitation of the labor used to create that product. This entire discussion has been directed at making it obvious to you, and anyone reading that you haven't thought your position through. As we will see in what follows, multiple times now you have refuted your own premise.

Does the janitor own the auto that is produced in the factory, or doesn't he?

Yeah, I see the problem with that. That's why I'm trying to explain it to you. It's the bases for your definition of exploitation. The mining company is in no way exploited by the profitable use of the ore that the mining company produces. Nor are they on the hook for any losses that might take place due to misuse. They don't own the ore after they sell it, even though it took their labor to produce it. It's the same for the mining company. It's the same for the painter. And it's the same for the janitor. They sell the product they produce (labor) and what's done with that product afterwards is no longer theirs.

So if the guy with the shovel and the aching back doesn't own the pool that only exists as a result of his hole digging labor, why des the janitor own the car that is produced as a result of his maintenance? You don't see the problem with your argument here?

Right. The problem is that I don't understand socialism. Communists don't understand socialism. Who else doesn't understand socialism? I suggest the answer to that question will hit a little close to home. Should we recap and see if we can count how many times you've contradicted yourself up to this point?

Here's the root of your problem. You can't force people to value the way you value. The idea that you can is the foundational premise of socialism. You can't force people to feel exploited. You can't force them to make economic choices that you would make. You can't force them to be happy with the value they extract from their labor. You can't force them to produce at a certain level of value.

Most of all: you can't determine individual needs better than the individuals that have those needs.

 

Even a system that takes most of what people earn is morally wrong and inherently inefficient.

 

Should the government own the painter's paintbrush, the pool digger's shovel, & the janitor's mop?

 

Ok, I'll play your childish game. NO, he doesn't own it. The janitor doesn't even have a say in his work. Your turn.

Go for it. Make my day.

No. Under capitalism or under socialism? In either case, no. Go for it.

I never said they were. I said the steel company workers are exploited by their boss/owner; the auto company workers are exploited by their business owner. Nobody ever suggested that the miner is exploited by the auto company. Why are you being so dense about this? The miner is exploited by the owner of the business in which he works like all the other workers. See if you can spin that.

And your point?

NO, I DON'T!! I see the problem with your comprehension though. In the first place, originally you referred to "a janitor" and you didn't connect that janitor with a car manufacturer. You may have intended such a connection but you didn't state it so I answered the question I READ. Now you are referring to a janitor who works for an auto manufacturer. OK. I can deal with that. The idea that "the janitor owns the car" apparently springs from my statement that a worker has an incidence of ownership in the product he produces. So in the first place, the janitor doesn't engage in manufacturing activity of building a car. He cleans the shop. He does maintenance work. But under a socialist business structure he would have a say in much of the issues of running the business if he had a useful and helpful opinion to offer.

Oh! Please do!! I'll enjoy making a fool of you at this point.

So? You seem to have a childish idea of "everyone must do and want the same thing for things to work".

Irrelevant. But you can't see it.

 

Agreed!!! And your point?

 

For someone who's complained multiple times regarding the personal attacks of others this post seems to lose a bit of the high ground in that regard.

I suggest you read back the janitor scenario.

What you failed to read was clearly stated.

 

I'll even quote it for you

 

Now your job is to show how the surplus labor of the first janitor was stolen from him, without the surplus labor of the third janitor becoming a negative amount. After all, if his surplus labor is negative, he would owe the company the value equal to that amout for his share in the loss of value. If the first janitor is owed the profit made from his labor, the third owes the loss as a result of it.

Surplus labor. That's the phrase you mean to use, right? I assume you just neglected to use it since you know so much about socialist theory.

Next you can explain how a socialist can accurately measure exactly what that surplus value actually is. Just how much does the janitor contribute? It has to be a non zero amount or there would be no reason to use his labor in the first place.

 

Once you figure that out, then you can explain how the surplus labor of the pool digger and & painter do not contribute to the profit made on the sale of a home.

 

You mean under socialism? No!

 

Sometimes I dish out what I was served.

Nah! If you can't clearly state your case to avoid confusion, it's not my job to work to untangle it. Apparently you've conceded.

 

As I said, there are jobs that are supportive of the manufacturing process, like accountants, personnel managers, communications directors, and janitors to name a few. They don't participate in the manufacturing process. So they produce no "surplus labor" since there is no profit realized from what they do. But under socialism, they would have a say in company affairs like any other worker. Currently their "exploitation" takes the form of having no say in the business.

I try to not use terminology that other may not understand with clarity.

I just explained that and you just read it.

But tell me why, under socialism, anyone would need to "accurately measure exactly what that surplus value actually is".