What is capitalism ?

[newfangle]

God I can't stand cultural bromides crammed down our throats like that one.

I work for the betterment of ME and no amount of stalinist re-education camps can change that. Anyone that wants a piece can go to hell.

 

[Communisto]

God I can't stand cultural bromides crammed down our throats like that one.

I work for the betterment of ME and no amount of stalinist re-education camps can change that. Anyone that wants a piece can go to hell.

i love how everyone jumps to "stalinist pigs!" if someone so much as brings the thought of actually caring for humanity instead of selling eachother around to the table of discussion

 

[newfangle]

You erroneously assume that self-interest and 'caring' (funny when people use that word) for humanity are mutually exclusive.

Why do communists...oops!...I mean anarchists always make such an assumption?

 

[Akka]

Choosing to work for a guy is freedom. It's not slavery; the guy pays you for your work. And if you choose, after working for the guy for a while, that you don't want to do it anymore, you resign. Nothing slavery-ish about it.

"work or die" isn't freedom, and I bet you can perfectly see what's slavery-ish about it.
The nice capitalist dream is only true IF you have doable alternatives. Which is FAR for being the case.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Nothing a priori. Why this question ?

Then what is it about labour that it cannot be a good (in the economic sense)?

 

[luiz]

Working for a guy is certainly not freedom.
Working for a guy is slavery.
Freedom is working for yourself or for a democratically ruled collectivity.
That is not prohibited under socialism, if you want to know.

If you want to work for a guy because he offers better conditions then you or the democratic collectivity could offer, then how is that not freedom?

If you prohibit people from doing that, then you have slaves.

 

[Irish Caesar]

"work or die" isn't freedom, and I bet you can perfectly see what's slavery-ish about it.

Is working for yourself slavery?

It's still presented as "work-or-die," just not for someone else.

Just curious, but I stick to my original assertion.

 

[Akka]

Is working for yourself slavery?

It's still presented as "work-or-die," just not for someone else.

What I meant was "do this particular work or die". Thought the context made it obvious.

When you've the choice of doing a particular work or dieing, it's pretty much equal to slavery to me.

 

[amadeus]

Care to tell me what would happen if nobody worked then, Akka? We'd all be dead.

 

[newfangle]

It seems a little childish to yearn for a world where everyone does what they love with no questions asked.

Some people are better at some things than other people. Supply and demand are finite. Therefore the proposition that one day we could all do what we want is false.

 

[carniflex]

If you want to work for a guy because he offers better conditions then you or the democratic collectivity could offer, then how is that not freedom?

If you want to form fascism because it offers better conditions then democracy could offer, would you say it is freedom ?

Selling your freedom is certainly not freedom.

By the way, subordination doesnt give you better conditions, it gives you exploitation.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

@carniflex
If people can't sell their labour this would mean they don't own it themselves. Is that where you are getting at? Who does own it then?

 

[Akka]

Care to tell me what would happen if nobody worked then, Akka? We'd all be dead.

Completely stupid answer showing how hard you tried to twist its meaning.
Good, exactly what can be expected from you

 

[amadeus]

What else was there to take out of your statement, Akka? Would you care to enlighten me? I, a stupid American, am too slow to comprehend your complex and theories regarding economics.

 

[WillJ]

Capitalism, as I see it, is option #1. I think that's a decent definition (it'd be perfect if it further said that what you buy is forever and completely "yours"); anything else that may result from it doesn't define the word.

Carniflex, so you're saying everyone should be completely self-sufficient? No one should do any work for anyone else, because then we're all slaves? I should have to mow the grass myself, farm for my food myself, do my taxes for myself, give myself an education, and do everything else myself?

What the ****?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

 

[Gangor]

Working for a guy is certainly not freedom.
Working for a guy is slavery.

Rubbish. You are not compelled to work for any particular guy. You are perfectly free to set up your own business, should you so choose. Slavery is when you do not have this choice.

Freedom is working for yourself or for a democratically ruled collectivity.

That is no less "slavery" than working for a private company if you're not in the majority, and if you lack the choice to leave the collective then that is slavery.

That is not prohibited under socialism, if you want to know.

Well, that depends on what form of socialism, doesn't it? Just like different capitalist systems have different rules, different socialist systems have different rules. Take National Socialism, for example...

 

[Gangor]

The shareholder is exploiting the worker.
Havnt i said it earlier ?

My point was that by owning shares in the company you work for (as many people do), by your definition you are "exploiting" yourself.

Possibly the most stupid suggestion I have ever heard.

 

[Dominus Romae]

Take National Socialism, for example...

Everyone that took the "Socialist" part of "National-Socialism" seriously was brutally executed.

 

[luiz]

If you want to form fascism because it offers better conditions then democracy could offer, would you say it is freedom ?

Selling your freedom is certainly not freedom.

By the way, subordination doesnt give you better conditions, it gives you exploitation.

If you aren't free to sell your labour you aren't free at all. Working for someone is exchange for mutually agreed payment certainly isn't slavery. In fact many people have excellent lifes while working for someone else. You can even be rich that way.

 

[Gangor]

Everyone that took the "Socialist" part of "National-Socialism" seriously was brutally executed.

How do you explain Hitler's election, then? Quite a lot of people had to take the "Socialist" part of "National Socialism" seriously. And comparitively few of them were executed.