A question to Communists:

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

Well, the odds are stacked against you, insanely, insanely stacked against you.

Perhaps, but that will not stop me from trying.

The current example of Communism is not a very desiable one, true. But I believe in the good it can do and even if I never clear the name 'Communism' then I will at least feel happy that I did not fail while sitting on my ass doing nothing.

You may not really consider me a 'good guy' probably quite the opposite but I feel that my intentions are good and that I am a 'good' communist.

 

[Wob Shop]

Time to omnislash:

Centralization? I think history shows that there will be people that will get hold of the centralized power and take advantage of it.

Obviously- which is why for communism to work there cannot be a state or any other means of societal control that puts some people above others.

Human beings are not honey bees or ants.

Bzzz

There has to be some government but not much or you will get tyranny.

Let's not have any, or at least any in the contemporary sense. Let's organise ourselves, obviously, but organise ourselves such that everyone is free to develop without being hurt.

Oh this is not even mentioning that free market is much more effective, where is the incentive in the market place in a state economy?

What's the incentive for a minimum-wage worker under capitlaism, other than sheer survival? You neglect the fact that most people are just workers and not actually people with any control over industry and so have only one incentive to work- it's work or go without.

Anyways communism, as I say, cannot come about via a state, only through free associations. The incentive will be to fulfill needs. If I fulfill your needs you are in a better position to fulfill my needs or my neighbour's needs and so it goes.

 

[Amin001]

""Let's not have any, or at least any in the contemporary sense. Let's organise ourselves, obviously, but organise ourselves such that everyone is free to develop without being hurt.""

I wish there were no government but the point is we humans are not perfect and government is a necessary evil.

I wish we could all hold hands and share everything but that isnt going to happen, we evolved from apes right? We still have some violent tendencies that remain.

At the same time we can not have too much government because humans again are not perfect and some humans will take advantage of that.

 

[BasketCase]

Wow, this thread went from zombie to pro-wrestling violent in like one day.

I love it.

I'm not a communist, I'm an anarchist, but I'll answer your question all the same. When you talk about individual property rights you are talking about the rights of some individuals at the expense of others. The French anarchist Pierre Joseph Proudhon said, in 1840, "Property is theft!" and what he meant by that was if, for example, I need a place to live and have little money, I will have to rent a house- and this means that someone is exploiting my basic need, shelter, by forcing me to pay him for it. That's downright authoritarian.

So, you expect somebody to set aside some land for you and build you a house for free???

Then it's YOU exploiting the workers, Sherlock.

If I work for someone I will have to submit to their commands because they "own" the business.

Then don't work for them. Start your own business.

The thing you're forgetting (or, perhaps, intentionally leaving out!) about anarchism is that it works both ways. In an anarchy, nobody is required to pay you a damn thing. You say it's a crime for the system to force you to sell your body to an employer? Then you have no right to demand that a farmer provide food for you. Go dig up your own. You have no right to demand that the fire department put out the fire burning in your kitchen. Go find a hose and douse it yourself. Oh, wait--now you want somebody to make a garden hose for you??? Sheesh.

And that's why anarchy cannot work. People must be given incentive to do work, and at the same time people must be given incentive to compensate other people fairly for theirs. Since everybody has a different idea of what is "fair" (overestimating their own importance and underestimating everybody else's, with clockwork predictability), the only solution is a system that allows people to hash out some kind of agreement in the middle.

The only true anarchy is Mother Nature, where you're completely on your own, free of everybody else's rules, and----



......errrrr.....hold the phone a minute. Out in Mother Nature, the only way to get food is to kill other living things. The only way to decide who gets to mate with that attractive girl is to beat up all the other guys who want to mate with her. Gotta throw a monkey wrench in the dating scene there. And if a mountain lion comes across you and decides you look like a tasty snack, the only way to preserve your life is to injure or kill the mountain lion when it pounces on you. And make no mistake--mountain lions do kill humans. Even today, in 2007.

Err, 2008. Sorry. Old habit.

Guess what? Take away all the rules of society, and all you're really doing is putting a whole other set of rules in their place.

You see? You can't win. Anarchy just does not work. On those rare occasions when you have a group of people working together, what's really going on is that group has imposed its own set of rules--which go unnoticed because all the participants agree to them. But really it's just a tiny dictatorship that everyone in it is happy with.


Capitalism is the best way to distribute stuff fairly. The core of the problem is that people disagree on what's fair, and the only equitable solution is to let the buyer and seller hash out an agreement themselves.

 

[Wob Shop]

So, you expect somebody to set aside some land for you and build you a house for free???

Then it's YOU exploiting the workers, Sherlock.

I don't know what you mean by saying that I advocate exploiting workers. I ask that you explain that in more depth. Needless to say
I think you have it all upside down but unless you expound upon your assumption I can't really challenge it.

Then don't work for them. Start your own business.

That's exactly what the slick weasels at the Conservative Party info table told me. I don't think that it is as simple as you say to "start your own business-" you need capital and things that people born into the richer strata of society have more readily than those born into the working class.

And even if I had my own business I would still be exploiting someone else's labour- and that "eat-or-get-eaten" mentality is used to justify the worst sorts of barbarism.

The thing you're forgetting (or, perhaps, intentionally leaving out!) about anarchism is that it works both ways. In an anarchy, nobody is required to pay you a damn thing. You say it's a crime for the system to force you to sell your body to an employer? Then you have no right to demand that a farmer provide food for you. Go dig up your own. You have no right to demand that the fire department put out the fire burning in your kitchen. Go find a hose and douse it yourself. Oh, wait--now you want somebody to make a garden hose for you??? Sheesh.

You have some misplaced and truly wrong conceptions of what anarchism is. It is understandable, that's how the bourgeoisie media functions, by spreading falsehoods. Anarchism is not the absence of rules, it is the opposition to all forms of hierarchy and coercion.

Here:
For example, anarchists do not support the "freedom" to rape, to exploit, or to coerce others. Neither do we tolerate authority. On the contrary, since authority is a threat to liberty, equality, and solidarity (not to mention human dignity), anarchists recognise the need to resist and overthrow it.

The exercise of authority is not freedom. No one has a "right" to rule others. As Malatesta points out, anarchism supports "freedom for everybody . . . with the only limit of the equal freedom for others; which does not mean . . . that we recognise, and wish to respect, the 'freedom' to exploit, to oppress, to command, which is oppression and certainly not freedom." [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 53]

So we would have a handful of basic, common-sense ideas like not killing one another.

If we all refused to help one another we, as a species, would die a miserable death. In theory I could refuse to help people but the question is- why? What savage would do that if the society would not consider it a virtue or a profitable excercise?(like neglect for others is under capitalism)

And that's why anarchy cannot work. People must be given incentive to do work, and at the same time people must be given incentive to compensate other people fairly for theirs. Since everybody has a different idea of what is "fair" (overestimating their own importance and underestimating everybody else's, with clockwork predictability), the only solution is a system that allows people to hash out some kind of agreement in the middle.

It is foolish to try to decide which worker has produced the most or worked the hardest because work in general is a social product, depending on the contributions of many. The contributions of factory workers would be pointless without those who drive the goods to and fro, or those who made the roads, or those who made the trucks. If production is a common endeavour it stands to reason that the produce should be held in common by all.

So what's the incentive to work? It fulfills needs- maybe you aren't fulfilling your own needs directly by building an apartment across town, but when the inhabitants have a safe and secure place to live they will themselves be able to work and fulfill needs for themselves and those around them. It will be a more liberatory activity than the work of today as well- nobody will be ordering anyone else around.

The only true anarchy is Mother Nature, where you're completely on your own, free of everybody else's rules, and----

You have no idea what anarchism is. Anarchism does not mean the abandonment of rules, it means the abandonment of rulers.

Anarchism means the equal right of all individuals to develop without anyone infringeing upon that desire by exploiting, ruling, or harming them. So your tirade about Mother Nature is false- we do believe in rules, only rules that are made by all people on an equal footing in the interests of all and not just some.

Guess what? Take away all the rules of society, and all you're really doing is putting a whole other set of rules in their place.

Yes, but we shall make ones that respect liberty and equality.

You see? You can't win. Anarchy just does not work. On those rare occasions when you have a group of people working together, what's really going on is that group has imposed its own set of rules--which go unnoticed because all the participants agree to them. But really it's just a tiny dictatorship that everyone in it is happy with.

Wait- the rare occaisions when people work together in groups? People must work together all the time. And a "tiny dictatorship" is a flawed anology if the rules agreed to by all are ones that respect the freedom of all.

If you're still confused check this out:
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secAcon.html

 

[LightFang]

Capitalism is unequal sizes of a growing pie, communism is equal sizes of a shrinking pie.

Take your pick!

But the communist bashing is getting pretty old. Oh look at me, I'm a bona fide capitalizt, muahahahahahahahaha.

 

[GenMarshall]

When Communists look around and see the great that Capitalism has done, how can't they support it?

I am at the mercy of my employer. Permtemps dont get any benifits where as part timers and full timers do. I cant transfer to a better paying and full time job for a year.

 

[amadeus]

I am at the mercy of my employer.

You are not at the mercy of your employer. You're being paid to provide a service, and if you cannot provide that service, you should be terminated from that position. Your workplace isn't giving you a job just to make itself feel better, or to go on some power trip where they think they can control you, they're only interested in the bottom line. If you fail and get fired, that's life.

 

[Wob Shop]

You're being paid to provide a service, and if you cannot provide that service, you should be terminated from that position. Your workplace isn't giving you a job just to make itself feel better, or to go on some power trip where they think they can control you, they're only interested in the bottom line. If you fail and get fired, that's life.

That sounds like the worker is at the mercy of his or her employer, the way you put it.

 

[GenMarshall]

You are not at the mercy of your employer. You're being paid to provide a service, and if you cannot provide that service, you should be terminated from that position.

If I cannot provide that service, I should not be terminated from the position. Workers should be protected from unjust terminations.

Your workplace isn't giving you a job just to make itself feel better.

I tend to disagree. The moment I got the job, after months of searching for one after graduation, I was happy. There are people out there who are glad to have jobs after having low self-esteem and in depression while being unemployed.

That sounds like the worker is at the mercy of his or her employer, the way you put it.

Agreed

 

[amadeus]

That's exactly what the slick weasels at the Conservative Party info table told me. I don't think that it is as simple as you say to "start your own business-" you need capital and things that people born into the richer strata of society have more readily than those born into the working class.

Capital should be a rather minor concern if you have a service or product that is in demand and a good business plan, although these cannot guarantee success. If you want the stability of a low-wage, no-skill job, that's your alternative, assuming that you would have no other marketable skill.

And even if I had my own business I would still be exploiting someone else's labour- and that "eat-or-get-eaten" mentality is used to justify the worst sorts of barbarism.

I don't feel exploited in my position because I'm aware of the fact that the institution that I am employed by allows me to maintain my livelihood. While I'm not particularly crazy about the number of hours I'm allowed to work (such is life when one is a student) I'm forced to live rather modestly.

You have some misplaced and truly wrong conceptions of what anarchism is. It is understandable, that's how the bourgeoisie media functions, by spreading falsehoods. Anarchism is not the absence of rules, it is the opposition to all forms of hierarchy and coercion.

While you are technically correct, this in no way means that anarchism (or any variation thereof) is somehow a viable solution to any perceived problem.

Here:
For example, anarchists do not support the "freedom" to rape, to exploit, or to coerce others. Neither do we tolerate authority. On the contrary, since authority is a threat to liberty, equality, and solidarity (not to mention human dignity), anarchists recognise the need to resist and overthrow it.

The exercise of authority is not freedom. No one has a "right" to rule others. As Malatesta points out, anarchism supports "freedom for everybody . . . with the only limit of the equal freedom for others; which does not mean . . . that we recognise, and wish to respect, the 'freedom' to exploit, to oppress, to command, which is oppression and certainly not freedom." [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 53]

So we would have a handful of basic, common-sense ideas like not killing one another.

Common sense cannot be quantified; what makes sense to you may be illogical to others.

If we all refused to help one another we, as a species, would die a miserable death. In theory I could refuse to help people but the question is- why? What savage would do that if the society would not consider it a virtue or a profitable excercise?(like neglect for others is under capitalism)

I do help others, and it is always to my own benefit. Consider the purchase of an ordinary household item; who benefits from my purchase? Typically, everyone at all levels of the production and the delivery of that item. While my contribution may be small, there are an infinite amount of transactions like this occurring every day.

It is foolish to try to decide which worker has produced the most or worked the hardest because work in general is a social product, depending on the contributions of many.

The productivity of an individual can be quantified in any number of ways, though. If the work in question occurs at a automobile dealership, a good measure of a productive employee may be their sales record. There is no incentive to keep employees that have a dismal sales record.

The contributions of factory workers would be pointless without those who drive the goods to and fro, or those who made the roads, or those who made the trucks. If production is a common endeavour it stands to reason that the produce should be held in common by all.

We do not collectively produce these goods, though. Those that build the roads have no say in what the factory produces goods, how it produces it, and so forth.

So what's the incentive to work? It fulfills needs- maybe you aren't fulfilling your own needs directly by building an apartment across town, but when the inhabitants have a safe and secure place to live they will themselves be able to work and fulfill needs for themselves and those around them. It will be a more liberatory activity than the work of today as well- nobody will be ordering anyone else around.

"Ordering" people around is not a bad thing when it is voluntary, and in industrial societies, employment is voluntary. Only the state retains a monopoly on force.

You have no idea what anarchism is. Anarchism does not mean the abandonment of rules, it means the abandonment of rulers.

Anarchism means the equal right of all individuals to develop without anyone infringeing upon that desire by exploiting, ruling, or harming them. So your tirade about Mother Nature is false- we do believe in rules, only rules that are made by all people on an equal footing in the interests of all and not just some.

Employing an individual to shovel the sidewalks in front of my apartment is in no way infringing on anyone's rights; that person volunteered to do that job in exchange for a negotiated compensation depending upon the value of the service provided.

 

[amadeus]

If I cannot provide that service, I should not be terminated from the position. Workers should be protected from unjust terminations.

Are you seriously going to suggest that unqualified (or lazy, whichever the case may be) employees should be paid?

They are violating their portion of the agreement where they agreed to contribute their labor in exchange for compensation. There is absolutely nothing unjust about terminating an employee that cannot handle his or her workload.

I tend to disagree. The moment I got the job, after months of searching for one after graduation, I was happy. There are people out there who are glad to have jobs after having low self-esteem and in depression while being unemployed.

I believe you misinterpreted what I wrote, or perhaps I used a poor choice of words. Whatever the case, I'm saying that your employer did not hire you to make him or her, your employer feel better. You were hired because you demonstrate a skill that your employer seeks.

This has nothing to do with your own personal thoughts and feelings.

 

[amadeus]

That sounds like the worker is at the mercy of his or her employer, the way you put it.

It isn't about mercy, though -- it's about self-preservation.

 

[Newbunkle]

I'm not a communist, I'm an anarchist, but I'll answer your question all the same. When you talk about individual property rights you are talking about the rights of some individuals at the expense of others.

I disagree. If I get paid and then spend my money on something, I've earned it, and it belongs to me - its not stolen from anyone else. I've converted my labour into cash, and then into property. Nobody has the right to take that property from me any more than they can force me to labour for them for free. If owning something is a crime, then eating and drinking must be crimes too, because putting anything in your mouth means you've taken it for yourself.

The French anarchist Pierre Joseph Proudhon said, in 1840, "Property is theft!" and what he meant by that was if, for example, I need a place to live and have little money, I will have to rent a house- and this means that someone is exploiting my basic need, shelter, by forcing me to pay him for it. That's downright authoritarian.

I disagree with this also. I don't know anybody who advocates true capitalism. Of course there should be alternatives for people who have nowhere else to turn, but it would be wrong to stop someone offering to loan someone their property in return for money.

If I work for someone I will have to submit to their commands because they "own" the business.

Yes, this is fair, because you're working for someone. They offer you money for your labour, because they need a task performed. Nobody is going to pay you to come in and do what you like. It's a place of work, not a holiday park.

I will have to accept the wages they give me

Only if you accept the job.

even though wages do not represent how much work you do- they represent how much money the employer has to pay you in order for you to keep working there.

Your labour might not be worth as much to them as it is to you. If that's the case, you could try something else. They shouldn't be forced to pay you more than you're skills are worth.

If they could they would pay you nothing.

Of course, if free labour was available they'd make use of it. If someone offered you a free car, would you turn it down?

It's a one-sided, parasitic relationship.

I disagree. You work and you get paid. If you don't like it you can try something else.

But because one of my most basic human needs, the ability to feed and clothe myself, is only attainable through working for someone else under capitalism, I have no choice. That sounds pretty dictatorial as well.

In a commune you don't work for yourself either, you work for everybody else. What would happen in your commune if you decided not to work? I would rather have a choice of employers than have that decision forced on me.

Under capitalism, if I do not own anything I can sell I will have to sell myself, my body, to someone who does own property.

Again, I don't know anyone advocating total capitalism.

It is another form of slavery,

Nobody is forcing you to work for a specific employer.

and actually a more efficient form for the bosses because they no longer have to cook for you, clothe you, or house you.

They do indirectly, because they pay you, which you can then then spend on food, shelter, clothes, etc. If they did provide those things for you, you would have no choice. They would pick what you wear, or what you eat, or where you live. That sounds far worse to me. My wages give me the choice to convert my labour into specific things that I want, not what I get as handouts.

I think you believe in liberty- that's good, so do I. If you do believe in liberty why do you support this new form of slavery where some people must work for others?

I don't support slavery, I support capitalism.

If I moved to a communist country and decided not to work, hoping for a free ride, I would hope the result would be the same. Though, I wonder how their government would solve that - maybe, put them in prison where they get food and shelter anyway?

As far as your original question- if by individual property rights you mean a family with a farm, a craftsman working out of his own house, a self-employed computer programmer doing his thing- that's fine. We would let them be and even help them if they needed it. The anarcho-syndicalists of Catalonia respected the right of individual farmers to be left alone.

I meant anyone with any kind of private property, including "stuff".

All anarchist communes and cooperatives would be voluntary efforts that would encourage by example- these cooperatives would have no bosses and would decide what to do on a democratic and participatory basis- we would hope that people would like the idea and try it themselves.

I admire that, because too many people want to force change on others. Just for the record I would have nothing against voluntary communist communes either, as long as nobody forced me to live in one.

However, if you talk of a larger business enterprise where people worked not for themselves but for other people, the tyrannical slavery I talked of earlier, we would assume that no worker, given the choice between working for a boss and being hungry all the time or working without a boss with others on an equal footing (or alone) would choose the boss.

I would choose the boss, because I like being given money in return for my labour. My own personal money gives me a certain amount of power, which allows me to get what I want. I'm not just talking about property though, it could allow me to travel (for example).

I don't know what you would use for currency (if any). How do convert the work you do into the things you want? Do you have to put requests in to the community at large for the specific rewards you want? If I wanted my own PC for reasons of privacy (if I wanted to chat to friends on the net, and send/receive photo's) would the community get me one? Or, would I be restricted to a communal PC, where everyone might have access to my messages and pictures?

What if a member has family or friends abroad and wants to visit them? If they can't save up their own money for a plane ticket, how will the community help them get there, and what will they do for food and shelter when they arrive? Rely on the charity of their relatives? What if they want to visit a place where they don't know anybody?

Also, work without a boss doing what exactly? What kind of lifestyle are you talking about? Is there no kind of authority of any kind? No experts giving the orders? Who decides who does what, or is it a free-for-all? What if vital tasks aren't being performed? Do you bring in workers from outside, or force community members to do it? If you bring the labour in, what is their incentive?

Fast forward a generation or two...What if your young people want to leave because they don't like it? How can they move into another society with no way of supporting themselves? What would your old people do with nobody to do the chores?

People would simply refuse to work for the capitalists. We wouldn't need to opress them or anything, just refuse to be their slaves.

And there will be rainbows, and rivers of chocolate... I would feel more like a slave in a commune to be honest.

 

[GenMarshall]

The productivity of an individual can be quantified in any number of ways, though. If the work in question occurs at a automobile dealership, a good measure of a productive employee may be their sales record.
There is no incentive to keep employees that have a dismal sales record.

So you have no qualms on terminating an salesperson for having a bad week?

Are you seriously going to suggest that unqualified (or lazy, whichever the case may be) employees should be paid?

Yes. Unemployment is not a good thing for anyone.

They are violating their portion of the agreement where they agreed to contribute their labor in exchange for compensation. There is absolutely nothing unjust about terminating an employee that cannot handle his or her workload.

So you have no qualms terminating a worker if they just have one bad day or discipline them if they have to leave work early to go to a test? I dont see it as violation of any agreement. I just see the worker at the mercy of the employer with no concerns for the well being of their workers, especially in a non-unionized setting.

You were hired because you demonstrate a skill that your employer seeks.

I was hired because none of the other cold hearted businesses wanted me.

This has nothing to do with your own personal thoughts and feelings.

Only proves to me that captialism is just a cold hearted big bureaucracy machine.

It isn't about mercy, though -- it's about self-preservation.

Self-preservation of what? The interest of the business or the worker?

 

[Wob Shop]

Capital should be a rather minor concern if you have a service or product that is in demand and a good business plan, although these cannot guarantee success. If you want the stability of a low-wage, no-skill job, that's your alternative, assuming that you would have no other marketable skill.

If social mobility is that easy then why are there 37 million people in America below the poverty line and only 3 million millionaires?

I don't feel exploited in my position because I'm aware of the fact that the institution that I am employed by allows me to maintain my livelihood. While I'm not particularly crazy about the number of hours I'm allowed to work (such is life when one is a student) I'm forced to live rather modestly.

But don't you see- in order to maintain your livelihood you have to do what your employers ask of you and accept the wages they give you. Doesn't that bother you?

While you are technically correct, this in no way means that anarchism (or any variation thereof) is somehow a viable solution to any perceived problem.

Think about hierarchy though- throughout history has it provided mutal satisfaction for all, or has it bred inequality, injustice, and resentment?

Common sense cannot be quantified; what makes sense to you may be illogical to others.

But none of us want to be hurt.

I do help others, and it is always to my own benefit. Consider the purchase of an ordinary household item; who benefits from my purchase? Typically, everyone at all levels of the production and the delivery of that item. While my contribution may be small, there are an infinite amount of transactions like this occurring every day.

Petr Kropotkin, the Russian anarchist-communist, always said that the groundwork for a new and better society based on mutual aid and reciprocal altruism was sleeping just below the surface of everybody's consciousness. We do many things unconsciously that would form the basis of an anarchist society.

The productivity of an individual can be quantified in any number of ways, though. If the work in question occurs at a automobile dealership, a good measure of a productive employee may be their sales record. There is no incentive to keep employees that have a dismal sales record.

Even a good salesman depends upon the people that built the car in the first place.

We do not collectively produce these goods, though. Those that build the roads have no say in what the factory produces goods, how it produces it, and so forth.

The road-builders do not produce their goods but they facilitate their transport. What use are goods that can't go from point A to point B?

"Ordering" people around is not a bad thing when it is voluntary, and in industrial societies, employment is voluntary. Only the state retains a monopoly on force.

It is not truly voluntary. The choice is to work and maybe get a better life, or to not work and stagnate on whatever social security they have. That is forceful and coercive. When people speak of removing welfare entirely they are ensuring that people will really have to work for a boss.

The state has a monopoly of force but they use it to help the capitalists. Every time riot cops are called in to break a strike you see this.

Employing an individual to shovel the sidewalks in front of my apartment is in no way infringing on anyone's rights; that person volunteered to do that job in exchange for a negotiated compensation depending upon the value of the service provided.

Some people in India sell their kidneys to pay crushing debts. They "chose" to sell their kidneys. Does that make it right?

Or what if I was so destitute that I sold myself to be a personal sex slave for someone? Is that right?

It isn't about mercy, though -- it's about self-preservation.

For all, or for some? Because if it's the self-presevation of some while others die it's not right.

 

[GenMarshall]

Your labour might not be worth as much to them as it is to you. If that's the case, you could try something else. They shouldn't be forced to pay you more than you're skills are worth.

So you have no qualms of underpaying someone who hold a Bachelor's Degree?

I disagree. You work and you get paid. If you don't like it you can try something else.

However, I expect more than just getting paid. I expect health benifits, retirement plan, job security, and oppertunities for advancement. I dont see any opportunities for advancement after being disciplined (have to wait one year to have that discipline cleared) thus cant transfer from a Permtemp possition to a Full Time.

In a commune you don't work for yourself either, you work for everybody else. What would happen in your commune if you decided not to work? I would rather have a choice of employers than have that decision forced on me.

I would rather have a choice of working than to be unemployed.

If they did provide those things for you, you would have no choice. They would pick what you wear, or what you eat, or where you live. That sounds far worse to me.

I don't see how that is far worse for you. Being given food, cloating, and shelter should be a blessing. Less impact on your income and debts.

My wages give me the choice to convert my labour into specific things that I want, not what I get as handouts.

Provided you have enough money .

I don't support slavery, I support capitalism.

Neather do I, but I dont see the good in the cold hearted Beaurocratic beast of Captialism.

I would choose the boss, because I like being given money in return for my labour.

However, you are still at the mercy of your employer. He or she can fire you (or in soft terms, lay you off).

My own personal money gives me a certain amount of power, which allows me to get what I want. I'm not just talking about property though, it could allow me to travel (for example).

Provided you have enough .

 

[amadeus]

So you have no qualms on terminating an salesperson for having a bad week?

That's patently absurd and I said no such thing.

Yes. Unemployment is not a good thing for anyone.

Neither is having private enterprise become a welfare agency.

So you have no qualms terminating a worker if they just have one bad day or discipline them if they have to leave work early to go to a test? I dont see it as violation of any agreement.

If you agreed to be there at a certain time and perform a task, then you are violating that agreement. Any rational employer wouldn't fire someone because they had a test, but if they had become a chronic problem and a liability for the organization, then they should by all means be removed from their position.

I just see the worker at the mercy of the employer with no concerns for the well being of their workers, especially in a non-unionized setting.

If you think a union will cause your employer to "care" about you, then you are sadly mistaken.

I was hired because none of the other cold hearted businesses wanted me.

That was an economic and not a personal decision; it was not "cold hearted." Those potential employers are not obliged to hire you in any way whatsoever.

Only proves to me that captialism is just a cold hearted big bureaucracy machine.

It is not Microsoft's responsibility to nurture you if you have some sort of mental issues. Nor is it the responsibility of Wal-Mart, 3M, McDonald's, Exxon, or any other corporation regardless of their size and profitability.

Self-preservation of what? The interest of the business or the worker?

The interest of the business is paramount, because the business provides employment and salaries to those that are a part of that organization. A business is not a living, conscious being; it is a collection of people motivated towards accomplishing a goal -- the creation of revenue and generation of a profit.

 

[GenMarshall]

That's patently absurd and I said no such thing.

You said that you'd terminate a salesperson if he is making bad sales.

Neither is having private enterprise become a welfare agency.

I disagree, the business should provide health insurance benefits and retirement plans, to all of their employees, not just the full time elite (or in some companies, the part time and full time elite).

If you agreed to be there at a certain time and perform a task, then you are violating that agreement. Any rational employer wouldn't fire someone because they had a test, but if they had become a chronic problem and a liability for the organization, then they should by all means be removed from their position.

So you have no quarlms tossing that employer into the streets without any means to pay off his or her debits? Regardless if it's a chromic problem and liability, the individual shall remain in their position.

If you think a union will cause your employer to "care" about you, then you are sadly mistaken.

Oh they will, all they have to do is go on strike.

That was an economic and not a personal decision; it was not "cold hearted." Those potential employers are not obliged to hire you in any way whatsoever.

In a planned economy in Communism, the potental employers are obliged to hire me in anyway.

It is not Microsoft's responsibility to nurture you if you have some sort of mental issues. Nor is it the responsibility of Wal-Mart, 3M, McDonald's, Exxon, or any other corporation regardless of their size and profitability.

Proofs that Capitalism is just a cold hearted being. However, it should be the responsibility for them to give the worker benifits. How do you expect an employer to pay off medical bills and other medical related costs without any help from medical insurance? How do you expect an employer to buy medical insurance if he or she has low pay?

The interest of the business is paramount, because the business provides employment and salaries to those that are a part of that organization. A business is not a living, conscious being; it is a collection of people motivated towards accomplishing a goal -- the creation of revenue and generation of a profit.

The interest of the business is to provide for the social good, not ignoring them and treating their employees as just space heaters that can be replaced at whim.

 

[amadeus]

If social mobility is that easy then why are there 37 million people in America below the poverty line and only 3 million millionaires?

It is far easier to accumulate $10,000 than it is $1 million. Also, according to CNN, there are about 9 million households that have a total net worth exceeding $1 million.

But don't you see- in order to maintain your livelihood you have to do what your employers ask of you and accept the wages they give you. Doesn't that bother you?

Why would it? I voluntarily entered the contract and I'm free to withdraw at any time. I'm not bothered in the slightest that I have a job. In fact, I'm quite pleased that I was fortunate enough to get one that is as good as it is for someone with my skill level and experience.

Think about hierarchy though- throughout history has it provided mutal satisfaction for all, or has it bred inequality, injustice, and resentment?

I don't think I understand what you are trying to say here. All I can say is that I don't see it in my benefit to tear down those that have more than I do.

But none of us want to be hurt.

What about self-injurious behavior among teenagers? That's harmful behavior that isn't rational, yet it still occurs. You can't expect everyone to have the same level of understanding.

Petr Kropotkin, the Russian anarchist-communist, always said that the groundwork for a new and better society based on mutual aid and reciprocal altruism was sleeping just below the surface of everybody's consciousness. We do many things unconsciously that would form the basis of an anarchist society.

No sensible person would dedicate their live to altruism, and those that have have been terrible failures -- individual incentive is the fuel that powers humanity.

Even a good salesman depends upon the people that built the car in the first place.

Of course, but the car company has no moral obligation to stay in business in order to support a dealership, just as the dealership has no obligation to stay in business to support the auto manufacturer.

The road-builders do not produce their goods but they facilitate their transport. What use are goods that can't go from point A to point B?

See above.

It is not truly voluntary. The choice is to work and maybe get a better life, or to not work and stagnate on whatever social security they have. That is forceful and coercive. When people speak of removing welfare entirely they are ensuring that people will really have to work for a boss.

No, it is voluntary, even if it seems as though it isn't. You can choose to not work at all, work for yourself, or find some other way of gaining enough resources to support your lifestyle. Naturally, if you don't do anything, you certainly can't be expected to meet even the basic necessities of life. You work, you eat -- it's a fairly simple concept.

The state has a monopoly of force but they use it to help the capitalists. Every time riot cops are called in to break a strike you see this.

How often does this happen in the United States? There are strikes all the time, yet no arm of the state has mandated that these people return to work. (PATCO is an exception, since they broke U.S. law.)

Some people in India sell their kidneys to pay crushing debts. They "chose" to sell their kidneys. Does that make it right?

Or what if I was so destitute that I sold myself to be a personal sex slave for someone? Is that right?

If you want to argue about organ harvesting or prostitution, I'd ask that you please open a separate thread about it.

For all, or for some? Because if it's the self-presevation of some while others die it's not right.

Nobody is dying because there is a supermarket down the street.