Page 1 of 5 [ 74 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

phil777
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 May 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,825
Location: Montreal, Québec

24 Oct 2011, 9:53 am

Well, I still need to think about that bit then, I guess. Maybe I'm just not explaining myself clearly. =.=



peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

24 Oct 2011, 12:09 pm

phil777 wrote:
Well, I still need to think about that bit then, I guess. Maybe I'm just not explaining myself clearly. =.=



i feel it may actually be that your argument that is rather flaky. think about it more and post any conclusions you arrive at.


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


Hikikamori
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 1 Aug 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 88

25 Oct 2011, 5:46 pm

Black people were not slaves. They were working for something to eat and a place to stay which their owners thankfully provided. This saved them time in the morning.

We are not slaves now. People get 7.25 american dollars here an hour. Some even more Do you know what that can buy?

Yeah seems like i can barely pay rent with that. So something to eat or someplace to stay?
I guess i should get a higher paying job.
Oh but i gotta go to college? Sounds good, i love learning.
Well how much is it? Oh a couple grand? ...But i dont have money in the first placs.
Oh a federal student loan?
Yes, Just sign here.

Or i can go pitch a tent and hunt and grow my own food. Oh i can't do that either? I need a permit? I can't live in this area? And so on and so on.



peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

26 Oct 2011, 1:45 am

Hikikamori wrote:
Black people were not slaves. They were working for something to eat and a place to stay which their owners thankfully provided. This saved them time in the morning.

We are not slaves now. People get 7.25 american dollars here an hour. Some even more Do you know what that can buy?

Yeah seems like i can barely pay rent with that. So something to eat or someplace to stay?
I guess i should get a higher paying job.
Oh but i gotta go to college? Sounds good, i love learning.
Well how much is it? Oh a couple grand? ...But i dont have money in the first placs.
Oh a federal student loan?
Yes, Just sign here.

Or i can go pitch a tent and hunt and grow my own food. Oh i can't do that either? I need a permit? I can't live in this area? And so on and so on.




i'm not sure if you are making an attempt at irony, but i will reply nonetheless.


the points that you make all add credence to my argument. the simple fact is that the means of self sufficient subsistence are denied most people and that money is a prerequisite for existence in the capitalist world. given that the means of production are monopolised by the ruling classes, this can effectively be equated to forced labour, and especially given that in most cases the full value of production of said labour is denied the worker.


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

26 Oct 2011, 5:49 am

peebo wrote:
the most broad and general definition of slavery, a word which has various definitions, is simply forced labour. the proletariat are effectively coerced into working. you talk of the welfare state. have you ever used it? if you have, you will be aware that in actual fact it is no longer a welfare state, and might effectively be better referred to as a penal state.

Right, penal state. Whatever are we just using propaganda terms now? This is shameless. It's like reverse fox-news. Anyways, slavery in its broadest sense is unpaid forced labour. Well, guess what? People can chose their job and they can chose to leave and they can decide to find another one. Everyone has to find a job unless they are ultra rich. So it seems your proleteriat distinction is up its arse.

peebo wrote:
the point you make does not detract from the fact that, due simply to the unequal bargaining power between labour and capital and lack of self-management, the ruling classes do exert coercive force over the proles.

Unequal bargaining power? That isn't it at all. The point is that having to get a job at some stage isn't slavery, it's called having a responsibility. This is inane.

peebo wrote:
Quote:
I already said that just because certain people don't own the means of production doesn't mean they are slaves. You didn't listen to me.


i did listen. i disagreed. they are effectively slaves. they are coerced into working for a wage that is less than the sum total of their production.

If they did then no one would make any profit and so enterprises wouldn't exist, economies wouldn't grow because there is no saving going on and everyone would be stuck in a near subsistence level of production. It's also a farce because managers have a bigger role to play, thus are to be paid more, in organising production. Stop ignoring fact.

peebo wrote:
Quote:
You're trying to change the argument to fit your own ends. Trying to judge the value of what someone gives to the company is not only impossible, but illogical too. One cannot organise production according to the value they give because otherwise the company wouldn't exist because it wouldn't earn a profit. Labour theory of value has the inherent flaw of thinking that prices have a real value that can be set by human beings. That ignores the theory of supply and demand.


i am not. the problem you are experiencing in understanding what i am saying is the result of your considering it only within the paradigm of capitalism.

No, you are ignoring what I said above now and just accusing me of thinking all capitalist, when actually I am being all logical. Fool.


peebo wrote:
Quote:
Furthermore it suggests that workers should be given a higher wage because they change the product. This ignores the fact that managers are more important because they organise production, and thus allow it to occur in the first place.


but i advocate self-management.

Guess what? It doesn't work. Only some humans want to be entrepreneurial and all humans are untrusting also they always put people in charge at some point. Why? Because they need a person to not only serve their interests from above but also to stop demagouges from imposing their twisted law on a society that tries to be all equal.

peebo wrote:
Quote:
Nothing is perfect in any system. Welcome to reality. It is not sensible to think that because not everyone rises the system is unfair. This is fact. People can advance up the scale still. Thus they aren't slaves fixed to certain jobs. Thus not slaves.


the majority of them are fixed to menial work and low wages. otherwise the system wouldn't work. therefore, they are effectively slaves. a small minority of them might become upwardly mobile, but not the majority.

But they can? And they aren't menial in wages in the UK. A poor man in the UK has probably as much money as a middle class man in nigeria. Society has pulled itself up.


peebo wrote:
Quote:
Furthermore you're wrong. Society has advanced up a scale if you look from the outside. Britain and so forth have seen great leaps in the wealth of the poor since the 19th century. They may still be humble but they are far from as mean as they used to be.


in actual fact there are several recent studies that suggest real spending power among the lowest paid demographic in the uk has actually decreased steadily since the sixties.

They're lying. In the sixties poor people lived in houses smaller than today and they didn't have various gadgets such as TVs and X-Boxes that they commonly do today.



peebo wrote:
Quote:
No, in practice they often do have equal rights. The fact is that slavery inherently means less rights than a normal person, because otherwise they can't be slaves. The reason why a poor man may have less rights is incidental, but it has nothing to do with the inherent wrongness of the system. it has to do with Humans being jerks. Stop trying to constrain me without your marxist dielectic. I live in the real world.


not at all. in fact, the broad definition of slavery simply means forced labour. the poor do, in practical terms, have less rights than the rich. this is a fact. however it is in actuality irrelevant to the discussion.

No, you are wrong. Slaves are considered for the most part property. THus they have less rights. Don't try and slide around that fact. Slaves don't have equal rights.



peebo wrote:
Quote:
You dispute this validity and...

Absolutely pointless arguments.

You say theorietically to say I am wrong but then don't back this up with any real evidence. You regurgitate marxist theory but then don't back this up with any hard fact. You point to utopia as the way to solve things, utopia because they can't actually be practiced in reality.



but this is a theoretical discussion. whether work = slavery does not affect the reality of work in the real world, although it may affect the outlook of the worker in the event he begins to look at it this way.

this doesn't mean it isn't an interesting point to discuss. and i have backed my points up.

Good that you have. And your theory is wrong. Yes, capitalism is unfair. But so far you rely on utopia and mischaracterization. That sort of thing is what causes widespread abuse in capitalism today. We already know that anti-capitalism has caused much abuse in practice.



Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

26 Oct 2011, 5:51 am

Hikikamori wrote:
Black people were not slaves. They were working for something to eat and a place to stay which their owners thankfully provided. This saved them time in the morning.

We are not slaves now. People get 7.25 american dollars here an hour. Some even more Do you know what that can buy?

Yeah seems like i can barely pay rent with that. So something to eat or someplace to stay?
I guess i should get a higher paying job.
Oh but i gotta go to college? Sounds good, i love learning.
Well how much is it? Oh a couple grand? ...But i dont have money in the first placs.
Oh a federal student loan?
Yes, Just sign here.

Or i can go pitch a tent and hunt and grow my own food. Oh i can't do that either? I need a permit? I can't live in this area? And so on and so on.


I know it isn't perfect. In fact I think it isn't good enough in the USA. It's like they are pulling up the ladder.



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

26 Oct 2011, 8:49 am

Work isn't slavery and anyone who says so is just being overly dramatic.



Hikikamori
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 1 Aug 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 88

27 Oct 2011, 3:22 am

"Everyone has to find a job unless they are ultra rich."
I love that you said that because you are totally right,

and someone is right we aren't "property", We are "investments" now.

Is a porn star not just a prostitute that's being videotaped?



blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

27 Oct 2011, 11:38 am

I have worked for people who were pretty sure i was their slave as long as i was on the clock. The kind of people who send out memos about how much money is stolen from them every year by guys who shake more than once at the urinal.

Mostly i try not to work for those people anymore, but when i did, i made it clear to them that i did not see it that way. That, the way i figured it, we had entered into a contract where i create value for them and they give me money in return.

As for whether we are all wage slaves, well, not directly, no. Unfortunately it's not like you can legally just go live under the bridge either.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,149
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

27 Oct 2011, 12:23 pm

Mmm...no, because drawing breath is the most primary form of slavery.


_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

27 Oct 2011, 12:47 pm

Short answer: "No."

The longer answer is a little more nuanced, because it takes in the larger scheme of the transition from work to retirement. Every single person who lives in a nation with a contributory public pension scheme is buying their way, paycheque by paycheque, into the capitalist class. Those who have pension programs through their employment, all the moreso.

Pension funds are the single largest sector in global capital markets, followed by mutual funds--together they form well over half of the ownership of publicly traded securities worldwide. And when retirement age arrives and we begin to reap the benefit of our pension investments, then we begin to live off the proceeds of our accumulated wealth.

Now some of you may have the misfortune to live in countries in which the public pension program is being mismanaged--but that does not invalidate the principal that we contribute to these programs and that the programs will provide us with an income from those contributions. And how does this accumulation happen? It happens through the investment in productive activities. Through the Canada Pension Plan, the Public Service Superannuation Plan and my own mutual fund holdings and private retirement savings, I am the beneficial owner of working capital--the very pith and substance of capitalism.

So while capital extracts value from the surplus of a worker's production over a worker's cost, one must look to the next step and see where that capital flows. A century ago, it flowed to landowners and holders of private wealth. But in today's world, the majority of that surplus flows back into the beneficial interest of workers.

Where I see exploitation is in the mismanagement of pubicly held retirement savings programs. My country's public pension plan is fully funded on a "going forward" basis--in other words there are sufficient reserves to pay all outstanding benefits without increasing premium levels on future contributors. But this is not the case in many other countries, and the risk falls disproportionately on low-paid workers who have little or no opportunity to supplement their mandatory public pension savings with private savings of their own.


_________________
--James


peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

27 Oct 2011, 2:23 pm

Gedrene wrote:
Right, penal state. Whatever are we just using propaganda terms now? This is shameless. It's like reverse fox-news. Anyways, slavery in its broadest sense is unpaid forced labour. Well, guess what? People can chose their job and they can chose to leave and they can decide to find another one. Everyone has to find a job unless they are ultra rich. So it seems your proleteriat distinction is up its arse.


it is a penal state. by denying this, i take it that you must be completely unaware of the current policy of bringing all recipients of disability benefits into tribunals, stripping them of their benefits and forcing them into looking for work? have a search on google. a lot of people are talking about it. the majority of those whose benefits are stripped, with the assistance of welfare rights, have them re-instated on appeal. you don't think this is penal?

what about those being forced to work for nothing, for no other reason than being unable to find work? you don't consider this penal?

and what proletariat distinction are you talking about?



[quote
Unequal bargaining power? That isn't it at all. The point is that having to get a job at some stage isn't slavery, it's called having a responsibility. This is inane.[/quote]

are you completely unaware, or in denial of the clear fact that there is unequal bargaining power between workers and owners? being forced to work as a means of survival with no alternative in the capitalist manner, is a form of slavery.


Quote:
If they did then no one would make any profit and so enterprises wouldn't exist, economies wouldn't grow because there is no saving going on and everyone would be stuck in a near subsistence level of production. It's also a farce because managers have a bigger role to play, thus are to be paid more, in organising production. Stop ignoring fact.


i'm not ignoring fact. i'm stating fact. the point about managers is irrelevant.






Quote:
No, you are ignoring what I said above now and just accusing me of thinking all capitalist, when actually I am being all logical. Fool.


you're not being logical. every point you are making is skewed by being viewed solely from the perspective of capitalism.


Quote:
Guess what? It doesn't work. Only some humans want to be entrepreneurial and all humans are untrusting also they always put people in charge at some point. Why? Because they need a person to not only serve their interests from above but also to stop demagouges from imposing their twisted law on a society that tries to be all equal.


i can't even understand what you're trying to say here, and it doesn't relate in any way to the point you replied to.


Quote:
But they can? And they aren't menial in wages in the UK. A poor man in the UK has probably as much money as a middle class man in nigeria. Society has pulled itself up.


the cost of living in the uk is higher than in nigeria. you clearly don't get out much if you really believe what you are typing here. people living on minimum wage struggle to survive. i know many of them and can observe this fact. poverty and socio-economic deprivation are huge problems in the uk.


Quote:
Quote:
in actual fact there are several recent studies that suggest real spending power among the lowest paid demographic in the uk has actually decreased steadily since the sixties.

They're lying. In the sixties poor people lived in houses smaller than today and they didn't have various gadgets such as TVs and X-Boxes that they commonly do today.
[/quote]

are you really being serious? well researched, serious studies by law centres and social justice groups up and down the country are lying? poor people live in bigger houses? perhaps in your suburban dream-world they do. for a start, half of the social housing stock today was built before the sixties. so a lot of them live in the same houses. new build social housing don't consist of spacious villas, you know. clearly you are making this nonsense up, and you have little or no experience of working/lower class life in the uk.

owning a tv isn't an indicator of socio-economic status. and x-boxes didn't exist in the sixties.



Quote:
No, you are wrong. Slaves are considered for the most part property. THus they have less rights. Don't try and slide around that fact. Slaves don't have equal rights.


neither do the majority of minimum wage earning and unemployed people.



Quote:
Good that you have. And your theory is wrong. Yes, capitalism is unfair. But so far you rely on utopia and mischaracterization. That sort of thing is what causes widespread abuse in capitalism today. We already know that anti-capitalism has caused much abuse in practice.


good that i have? but you just said that i hadn't. make your mind up. mischaracterisation of what? and what abuse has anti-capitalism caused, that could even come close to the abuses capitalism inflicts on the poor of the world every day? your arguments are nonsense.


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

27 Oct 2011, 2:32 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Short answer: "No."

The longer answer is a little more nuanced, because it takes in the larger scheme of the transition from work to retirement. Every single person who lives in a nation with a contributory public pension scheme is buying their way, paycheque by paycheque, into the capitalist class. Those who have pension programs through their employment, all the moreso.

Pension funds are the single largest sector in global capital markets, followed by mutual funds--together they form well over half of the ownership of publicly traded securities worldwide. And when retirement age arrives and we begin to reap the benefit of our pension investments, then we begin to live off the proceeds of our accumulated wealth.


a considered argument at least, but no. the existence of public pension schemes does not detract from the fact that employers effectively live off of their employees in a parasitic way. nor does it take away from the fact that the majority of poor working people have no other choice in terms of sustaining their existence than to accept employment. lack of choice implies coercion.

Quote:
Now some of you may have the misfortune to live in countries in which the public pension program is being mismanaged--but that does not invalidate the principal that we contribute to these programs and that the programs will provide us with an income from those contributions. And how does this accumulation happen? It happens through the investment in productive activities. Through the Canada Pension Plan, the Public Service Superannuation Plan and my own mutual fund holdings and private retirement savings, I am the beneficial owner of working capital--the very pith and substance of capitalism.


this is fair enough but it doesn't really tie in to the discussion at hand. i see you have attempted to link it in the point below...

Quote:
So while capital extracts value from the surplus of a worker's production over a worker's cost, one must look to the next step and see where that capital flows. A century ago, it flowed to landowners and holders of private wealth. But in today's world, the majority of that surplus flows back into the beneficial interest of workers.


this is incorrect. yes, pensions do provide an element of growth in capital earned and extracted by workers, however generally this is capital that is remove from their pay packet every week. it does not consist of surplus value, or the redistribution thereof.


Quote:
Where I see exploitation is in the mismanagement of pubicly held retirement savings programs. My country's public pension plan is fully funded on a "going forward" basis--in other words there are sufficient reserves to pay all outstanding benefits without increasing premium levels on future contributors. But this is not the case in many other countries, and the risk falls disproportionately on low-paid workers who have little or no opportunity to supplement their mandatory public pension savings with private savings of their own.


indeed this is exploitation of a sort. but not really connected to the discussion at hand, i am afraid.


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

27 Oct 2011, 2:46 pm

peebo wrote:

being forced to work as a means of survival with no alternative in the capitalist manner, is a form of slavery.


.


Slavery is when one person owns another. It isn't defined by work, although nearly all slaveowners have made their slaves work. (I am a guessing at a rare fraction of physically attractive slaves kept for decorative purposes, although I could be wrong and they may have had to work too.) Since part of being human is working, this is an important distinction. There are few humans who can go their lives without having to work to survive. Even royalty had to spend endless hours in court functions and political deliberations. If you have to do it, it's work.

I think you have taken the slang "wage slave" too literally.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

27 Oct 2011, 4:04 pm

peebo wrote:
a considered argument at least, but no. the existence of public pension schemes does not detract from the fact that employers effectively live off of their employees in a parasitic way. nor does it take away from the fact that the majority of poor working people have no other choice in terms of sustaining their existence than to accept employment. lack of choice implies coercion.


I think you need to qualify "parasitic." In its biological sense, the word implies a relationship in which one organism derives benefit from another while providing nothing in return. That is not the case with employer-employee relationship because there is an exchange of value--money for labour.

Now you may argue that the exchange is unfair or unbalanced, because the labour is worth more than the money that is paid for it. But I would only accept that argument when you have first taken into account the value of the capital spent by the employer to establish the business, and the risk of loss that is assumed by the employer. Once you have discounted the surplus by examining cost and risk, then we can look at the scope of exploitation.

As for choice--no human being has ever had choice. One must eat. One must protect onself from the elements. One must participate in the welfare of one's family, clan and tribe. Thus it has ever been. Whether it is hunting, child rearing, agriculture, or any of a myriad of human activities we are all compelled to contribute or starve.

Quote:
this is fair enough but it doesn't really tie in to the discussion at hand. i see you have attempted to link it in the point below...

this is incorrect. yes, pensions do provide an element of growth in capital earned and extracted by workers, however generally this is capital that is remove from their pay packet every week. it does not consist of surplus value, or the redistribution thereof.


On the contrary, it most assuredly does.

First, my pension contributions are matched by my employer, so the contribution value of my pension, of which I am the beneficial owner, is only 50% of the contributions (to both the public and my employer schemes) is money that was mine to begin with.

Second, all of the growth in my pension is due entirely to investment activity. Even if my pension fund were to do nothing more than put the accumulated contributions into an interest bearing account, the interest earned by those funds would still be derived from investment activity (just one further step removed from my direct action). As it is, though, the accumulated value of my pension is significantly larger than my my contributions alone, or even the aggregate of my and my employers contributions.

Quote:
indeed this is exploitation of a sort. but not really connected to the discussion at hand, i am afraid.


The fact that it does not tie in to your particular Marxist notion of exploitation does not mean that it is not connected. It strikes me as utterly pointless to muse on idealistic notions of exploitation, coercion and slavery.

A person who actually cares about accomplishing something worthwhile will exit his ivory tower and work to effect change in the real world.


_________________
--James


peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

28 Oct 2011, 1:24 am

simon linguet, in 1763, wrote:
The slave was precious to his master because of the money he had cost him… They were worth at least as much as they could be sold for in the market… It is the impossibility of living by any other means that compels our farm labourers to till the soil whose fruits they will not eat and our masons to construct buildings in which they will not live… It is want that compels them to go down on their knees to the rich man in order to get from him permission to enrich him… what effective gain [has] the suppression of slavery brought [him ?] He is free, you say. Ah! That is his misfortune… These men… [have] the most terrible, the most imperious of masters, that is, need. … They must therefore find someone to hire them, or die of hunger. Is that to be free?


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith