Making money off of the labor of another person is not some great evil. I'm not really sure whether I should laugh or scream when I read these righteous rants about how bad and evil it is that people make money off of the labor of another person.

Let's face it, folks, there are some people who have little or no motivation to come up with ways to make money for themselves. Back to the example of the guy who mows lawns. There are people that I know personally who don't even have the basic idea to buy a lawnmower--much less to go out and solicit work from homeowners. I know this will not sit well with the "we are all intrepid, hard-working, honest people when given the opportunity" types, but it's a fact.

Some people rely upon others to provide them with a means of making a living. They would rather not have to go to the trouble to find work or deal with all of the hassles of making the arrangements for the actual work to be done and the collecting of the money, etc. etc. There's nothing wrong with taking that approach to life. It's just a fact that some of us like to go to a job, do the work, get paid, go home; whereas, others of us like to initiate things, come up with ideas to make deals, put up with the paperwork and hassles of owning a company and hiring people to work for us. This is not even debatable. It's been going on for centuries, if not millenia.

So why would anyone be upset that the person who relies upon another person to procure work for him/her might be used for the purpose of making money for his/her employer? I don't get that argument.

As long as the employer is not treating the worker unfairly or putting him/her into unsafe conditions, or is abusing the worker, or is holding the worker against his/her will, what's the problem? If you take a job, accepting the pay that was offered (including or excluding benefits, as the case may be), why would you begrudge the person who hired you of making a profit off your labor? If you don't like that arrangement, go to work somewhere else. Or work for yourself.

I've worked for many different employers over my lifetime. Some offered me a decent wage for the work that I did, plus a good work environment, plus steady work, plus an opportunity to advance. I rarely felt any resentment because that person had the skill or business acumen or wherewithal to establish a business that provided me with a good living. My attitude was that he/she deserved to make a profit for their efforts. On the other hand, a couple of times I worked for some real assholes who tried to take advantage of their workers. When I made my displeasure known and they told me to get back to work and shut up, I said bye bye and went and found a new employer. In some cases, there were other workers on those jobs who stayed on and worked for the asshole. That was their decision. They were not being held prisoner. They just felt comfortable in that work environment and didn't care if the boss was an asshole. So, should I feel bad about that? Not in my opinion. I didn't even begrudge the asshole that he was making money off me or the others--only that he was an asshole.



http://www.oldelmtree.com/discussion/index.php?topic=7379.135

I think he changed that post after I responded, but before the grace period was over.

I would swear that the post originally read -

"Running a business is not some great evil. I'm not really sure whether I should laugh or scream when I read these righteous rants about how bad and evil it is that people run a business."

And now reads -

"Making money off of the labor of another person is not some great evil. I'm not really sure whether I should laugh or scream when I read these righteous rants about how bad and evil it is that people make money off of the labor of another person."

Otherwise I wouldn't have responded the way I did.

It may not have even said "running a business" - but more like "people in business" - can't remember exactly. But is doesn't say now what it originally said.

How is this any different?

driving to DC I saw a billboard that said John Galt Lives no shit. The other guys all thought Ayn Rand was great btw, but none of them recongized John Galt when I pointed out the sign.

So go figure

I wouldn't be surprised at all.

So Kid, what exactly were these other guys going to DC for? Were they looking for John Dillinger's dick at the Smithsonian?

Man, I can sympathize, once went on a herp trip with an obnoxious cop in the mix, shit all over a otherwise pretty good trip.

I was semi-mislead into thinking they were going for the March for America too (immigrant rally) but two of them were more like interested people who wanted to get a firsthand look for themselves. I would say they were pretty liberal in their orientation but not too self-righteous or preachy about it.

The other guy was a Reverend/"activist" and, well, I will tell the story sometime. Don't have time to write it up right now.

He could substitute "slavery" in this drivel and it would mean the same thing. He cannot get it through his bonehead miasma that it isn't about what "he likes" or "dislikes", it isn't about how "he feels" about this issue or any other issue. Just because he is incapable of grasping the nature of class antagonism and the subjugation and exploitation of one class over another does not invalidate the assessment. You can't base the understanding of the development and evolution of class society on what some individual, dim-bulb's intellectual capacities are or are not...

these people cling to it all too intensely. It is perceived self interest. They are winners, they have mastered the capitalist environment, they think. Which explains their doggedness, it is about self-justification, intensely personal. Nothing but a change in their personal situation will ever cause them to reconsider.

If not that, then re-education.

First, there are plenty of people not in business carrying water for the owners.

Secondly, a person "being" evil means some assumption about an internal state that can't be observed or measured.

"Making money of of the labor of others" is something objective that we can observe, and that people profit from without being in business.

Your correspondent is an indication of why. That this type of commentary ("How it seems to me") is considered acceptable is a flaw which is nearly impossible to overcome in a political context. In fact, this line of reasoning is so bad that even your correspondent trips over his own feet. Yet, he plows on without any indication of self-awareness. And, he is tolerated because there is no criteria extant on how one engages in political debate which is meant to have an actual outcome.

Why are we hearing this story about people your correspondent knows, or about personal traits at all, for that matter? There can only be one reason. They are meant to be analogous to a discussion of capitalism in a much larger sense. But, if we are to draw such a conclusion, we must first establish the basis for these personal stories and then prove that there is some correlation between them and Capitalism as a whole. Instead, your correspondent is content to do the opposite. He is willing to simply draw on the apologetics of capitalism to explain both his personal example and the wider system: There are people he knows "personally" who "don't even have the basic idea to buy a lawnmower", owners of capital "deserved to make a profit for their efforts", when he is badly treated, he just goes and finds another job... and so on.

The material here dates to at least the 1830s. By the time of Alger, these fairy tales were intended only for children. But, your correspondent is content merely to repeat the tautology that according to some of the earliest known propaganda for Capitalism, capitalists are not evil. Really? Thank you for clearing that up.

Why don't people simply quit their jobs in order to find another? What does he have to say about capitalists who make a profit through no effort of their own (the vast majority)?

What is the equivalent of buying a lawn mower to become a capitalist in the larger context of capitalism? By the 1900s, it is probably by buying a steel mill. How is that done? Do people really just lack the "idea" of buying a steel mill? Today, the equivalent is to buy a private-equity fund with interests in a hundred steel mills. Is it really just personal initiative which prevents that... or allows it? The actual process is nowhere approached by your correspondent.

Still, he plows on. What he thinks he is describing is a darn-near natural process: "It's been going on for centuries, if not millenia." Which is it? Centuries or millenia? The difference is significant. Can we get a little more precise about what we are talking about?

Instead, your correspondent is now Miss Teen South Carolina, asked to explain why there is such a general lack of geographic knowledge. Perhaps it is a shortage of maps, he keeps repeating.

In all of this silliness, there is only one thing that unforgivable. It is a crime in the American context not to know about property. Your correspondent plants his flag on "free labor" but nowhere begins to think about how it became free. Here, we are talking about "free of productive property" because no one goes to work for someone else if they have the ability to produce for themselves. How did labor become free? In the Americas, the story is nearly impossible not to know.

Perhaps your correspondent believes that none had any productive property until those with initiative got some. That is entirely unhistorical. Productive property was common... the norm, in fact.

Certainly, the aboriginal people of the Americas had property although it was held in common. What happened to it?

The slaves of the capitalist slave trade (quite different from ancient slavery) most often held common property as well. What happened to that property?

The immigration which fueled the new nations of the New World was largely based on Europe. But, the prevailing form of property in Europe had until very recently been in the form of small holdings. What happened to that property? Did people simply abandon that property to come to the Americas?

Despite all this, over 70% of the population of the United States was based on small individual property just a century ago. Today it is less than 5%. What happened to the rest?

And, as if that was not enough, there is the current crisis. By now, there is no productive property left to expropriate from the vast majority, but the same process has extended to the only major element of personal property left. Today, fully 25% of mortgages are underwater and the majority of them will be lost. Perhaps the losers didn't have the initiative to not substitute 10% sub-prime teaser mortgages for consumer debt approaching a generic 20% interest rate, or they are at fault for not flipping their house before the rates crushed them, or in not continuing to buy in order to prop up the real estate market... or maybe it is all about not buying lawnmowers... to make more money... to keep paying the mortgage... after the market collapsed... and thus, it is all about lawnmowers, after all?

Not a single thing your correspondent says has anything to do with Capitalism. Perhaps it is all about something else... such as maps.

I didn't think even the "pretty liberal" liked Rand...

...let us consider the context that always accompanies such musings. Inevitably, the discussion in defense of capitalism devolves into a dichotomy which distinguishes the benefits of small capitalism from the horrors of big capital. It is only in the domain of small capital that initiative is rewarded, merit recognized, and profit realized from individual excellence. It is now possible to talk of small capital as the only "real" capitalism, while the larger version violates "the free market", unduly uses its advantages, or evolves into the corporatist monster... presumably by accident.

From here, it is only a hop, skip, and a jump to proposals to prohibit, regulate or dismantle big capital. Often such proposals are worked out into complete systems. The irony in such proposals is that this promotion of a utopian capitalism, which has never really existed, is typically the product of a political schizophrenia: one moment it is presumptuous enough to assume the wherewithal to design a preferred form of society without regard to its political implementation... while, in the next moment, this hubris disintegrates into a despair of having any impact on the political power of big capital whatsoever.

Of course, this entire conversation is also anti-historical. When has the political state ever supported the interests of small capital over the interests of large capital? ...in any country?

In the United States, for example, the only time that the state represented small capital was when that small capital was the prevailing form of property. As capitalism evolved from small to intermediate to large, so too did the state. For American history, this evolution has been much more granular then even that which is indicated above. The political history of the U.S. has been nearly synonymous with its economic history. As colonial interest was superseded by Southern slaveholding interest, as that interest came into conflict with Northern mercantile interest - eventually resulting in armed conflict - and, as after the war, mercantile interests were replaced by first industrial and then financial interests... so the government evolved in nearly perfect harmony.

What is to be the political basis for reversing such a natural and organic evolution? Who is to fight for this New Jerusalem of small property?

A more profitable undertaking might be to consider where such ideas as the above could possibly come from. Ideas do not fall from sky. They are rooted in real society. Whose ideas are being described?

Let us review them: alternately praising small capital for its meritocracy while despising large capital for inevitably dissolving the same, assuming personal advantage as a product of personal attributes while disputing the possibility that society might be organized in any other way, chronically afraid of the social pressure from "below" and "above", simultaneously assuming pre-eminence and impotence in their desire to preserve their unstable status quo, and the fount of every utopian scheme for recovering or creating what is not anywhere supported by anyone but themselves...

Which stratum, class, or section of the population are we describing?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c0/Ozzie1.jpg

Teabaggery is so un-hip, yet it is essentially the same program sans the culture war bells & whistles. Of course they want to be rich but they will be 'better'.

That describes the situation to a tee.

Here's the latest:



10 point program of Communism

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

According to the Communist Manifestohttp://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

these steps are almost identical to the points raised in other posts on this forum. points that were supposed to be socialism. but seeing how they are in the Communist Manifesto i seriously suspect deception.
if Corporate 'the few' powers are the result of Capitalism. then Communism is the result of socialism. i believe both results are from the same source corruption.


Socialism:

Merriam-Webster:
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

i find the third definition interesting calling socialism a 'stage'. i find it relevant considering the large use of karl marx theory when debating socialism.

from http://socialistparty-usa.org/sdvrds.html
This could be accomplished by advocating a third anti-capitalist party to put big business under public ownership, with workers’ and consumers’ control. Socialists would urge the labor movement, movements of people of color and women, the peace and environmentalist movements and others to take steps towards the formation of such an anti-capitalist third party, while continuing struggles outside the electoral arena. This is a strategic approach towards developing a socialist consciousness, as well as one which could help people move towards independent political action at the local, state and/or national levels.


A third movement-based left party is expected, as a minimum requirement for support, to be anti-racist, feminist, pro-labor and anti-war. While socialists can avoid making a specifically socialist platform a pre-condition for participation, they should continue to advocate the public ownership of big business under democratic control.

Such an advocacy of a third left party is based largely on the view that it is unlikely that the American people will come directly to revolutionary democratic socialism — that some intermediate phase of breaking with the Democratic and Republican parties, and of radicalizing experiences, will be necessary.

Even a movement-based left party would probably degenerate eventually into a social democratic prop for the capitalist system, if it achieved substantial electoral success and became institutionalized. It would have to be superseded on the road to socialism. But only actual experiences with the limitations of trying to administer the capitalist system, rather than abstract analysis alone, can be the basis for most people moving beyond social democracy (barring some acute social crisis).

The opportunities and social democratic pitfalls of such a left third-party development would occur together. Avoiding the pitfalls would require political sensitivity and good judgment as well as general analysis. This is inherent in politics. During this process, revolutionary socialist objectives and critiques of social democracy would become even more relevant. They must not be watered down. The objective is to make revolutionary democratic socialism a major pole of attraction, on the way to a democratic revolution from below.2


http://socialistparty-usa.org/principles.html
Socialist Society

Freedom & Equality

Democratic socialism is a political and economic system with freedom and equality for all, so that people may develop to their fullest potential in harmony with others. The Socialist Party is committed to full freedom of speech, assembly, press, and religion, and to a multi-party system. We are dedicated to the abolition of male supremacy and class society, and to the elimination of all forms of oppression, including those based on race, national origin, age, sexual preferences, and disabling conditions.

Production For Use, Not For Profit

In a socialist system the people own and control the means of production and distribution through democratically controlled public agencies, cooperatives, or other collective groups. The primary goal of economic activity is to provide the necessities of life, including food, shelter, health care, education, child care, cultural opportunities, and social services.
These social services include care for the chronically ill, persons with mental disabilities, the infirm and the aging. Planning takes place at the community, regional, and national levels, and is determined democratically with the input of workers, consumers, and the public to be served.

Full Employment

Under welfare capitalism, a reserve pool of people is kept undereducated, under-skilled and unemployed, largely along racial and gender lines, to exert pressure on those who are employed and on organized labor. The employed pay for this knife that capitalism holds to their throats by being taxed to fund welfare programs to maintain the unemployed and their children. In this way the working class is divided against itself; those with jobs and those without are separated by resentment and fear. In socialism, full employment is realized for everyone who wants to work.

Worker & Community Control

Democracy in daily life is the core of our socialism. Public ownership becomes a fraud if decisions are made by distant bureaucrats or authoritarian managers. In socialist society power resides in worker-managed and cooperative enterprises. Community-based cooperatives help provide the flexibility and innovation required in a dynamic socialist economy. Workers have the right to form unions freely, and to strike and engage in other forms of job actions. Worker and community control make it possible to combine life at work, home and in the community into a meaningful whole for adults and children. Girls and boys are encouraged to grow up able to choose freely the shape of their lives and work without gender and racial stereotyping. Children are provided with the care, goods and services, and support that they need, and are protected from abuse.

Ecological Harmony

A socialist society carefully plans its way of life and technology to be a harmonious part of our natural environment. This planning takes place on regional, national, and international levels and covers the production of energy, the use of scarce resources, land-use planning, the prevention of pollution and the preservation of wildlife. The cleanup of the contaminated environment and the creation of a nuclear-free world are among the first tasks of a socialist society.

Socialist Strategy

Socialist Feminism and Women's Liberation

Socialist feminism confronts the common root of sexism, racism and classism: the determination of a life of oppression or privilege based on accidents of birth or circumstances. Socialist feminism is an inclusive way of creating social change. We value synthesis and cooperation rather than conflict and competition.
We work against the exploitation and oppression of women who live with lower wages, inferior working conditions and subordination in the home, in society and in politics. Socialists struggle for the full freedom of women and men to control their own bodies and reproductive systems and to determine their own sexual orientation. We stand for the right of women to choose to have a safe and legal abortion, at no cost, regardless of age, race, or circumstance.
Women’s independent organizations and caucuses are essential to full liberation, both before and after the transformation to socialism. Women will define their own liberation.

Liberation of Oppressed People

Bigotry and discrimination help the ruling class divide, exploit, and abuse workers here and in the Third World. The Socialist Party works to eliminate prejudice and discrimination in all its forms. We recognize the right of self-defense in the face of attacks; we also support non-violent direct action in combating oppression. We fully support strong and expanded affirmative action programs to help combat the entrenched inertia of a racist and sexist system which profits from discrimination and social division.
People of color, lesbians and gays, and other oppressed groups need independent organization to fight oppression. Racism will not be eliminated merely by eliminating capitalism.

International Solidarity & Peace

People around the world have more in common with each other than with their rulers. We condemn war, preparation for war, and the militaristic culture because they play havoc with people's lives and divert resources from constructive social projects. Militarism also concentrates even greater power in the hands of the few, the powerful and the violent. We align with no nation, but only with working people throughout the world.

Internal Democracy

Socialism and democracy are one and indivisible. The Socialist Party is democratic, with its structure and practices visible and accessible to all members. We reject dogma and promote internal debate. The Socialist Party is a "multi-tendency" organization. We orient ourselves around our principles and develop a common program, but our members have various underlying philosophies and views of the world. Solidarity within the party comes from the ability of those with divergent views on some issues to engage in a collective struggle towards social revolution. We strive to develop feminist practice within the party.

Cultural Freedom

Art is an integral part of daily life. It should not be treated as just a commodity. Socialists work to create opportunities for participation in art and cultural activities. We work for the restoration and preservation of the history and culture of working people, women, and oppressed minorities.

The Personal as Political

Living under domination and struggling against it exact a personal toll. Socialists regard the distortion of personal life and interpersonal relations under capitalism as a political matter. Socialism must ultimately improve life; this cannot be accomplished by demanding that personal lives be sacrificed for the movement. We cherish the right of personal privacy and the enrichment of culture through diversity.

Electoral Action

Socialists participate in the electoral process to present socialist alternatives. The Socialist Party does not divorce electoral politics from other strategies for basic change. While a minority, we fight for progressive changes compatible with a socialist future. When a majority we will rapidly introduce those changes, which constitute socialism, with priority to the elimination of the power of big business through public ownership and workers' control.
By participating in local government, socialists can support movements of working people and make improvements that illustrate the potential of public ownership. We advocate electoral action independent of the capitalist-controlled two-party system.

Democratic Revolution From Below

No oppressed group has ever been liberated except by its own organized efforts to overthrow its oppressors. A society based on radical democracy, with power exercised through people's organizations, requires a socialist transformation from below. People's organizations cannot be created by legislation, nor can they spring into being only on the eve of a revolution.
They can grow only in the course of popular struggles, especially those of women, labor, and minority groups. The Socialist Party works to build these organizations democratically.
The process of struggle profoundly shapes the ends achieved. Our tactics in the struggle for radical democratic change reflect our ultimate goal of a society founded on principles of egalitarian, non-exploitative and non-violent relations among all people and between all peoples.
To be free we must create new patterns for our lives and live in new ways in the midst of a society that does not understand and is often hostile to new, better modes of life. Our aim is the creation of a new social order, a society in which the commanding value is the infinite preciousness of every woman, man and child.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

if socialism is so good why all the deception? the Socialist Party USA website is full of classic brainwashing techniques.

1. Assault on identity
2. Guilt
3. Self-betrayal
4. Breaking point
5. Leniency
6. Compulsion to confess
7. Channeling of guilt
8. Releasing of guilt
9. Progress and harmony
10. Final confession and rebirth

http://health.howstuffworks.com/brainwashing1.htm

these techniques are the backbone of most debates that favor socialism. they are much worse then fallacies. it is one of the large reasons i cant believe socialism can produce a free society. socialists like to throw slogans around saying 'Capitalism is inhuman' or 'Capitalism is anti-democratic' or ' Capitalism is unsustainable' or , 'Capitalism is bad for the environment' i see several of the above mentioned brainwashing techniques used in those slogans. not to mention in the above quote from the socialist party USA. in other words its transparent.

i realize this isnt what some will want to hear. please remember that everyone including me gets to have their say. so please no name calling.


http://www.oldelmtree.com/discussion/index.php?topic=7555.0

fuck this...

http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2008/9/20/633575285515607655-brainwashing.jpg

as Small Capitalism is to Corporatism. Those damned commies are just as bad as the Big Corporations! See? They are just the same! It's just like the Libertarians say, it is the corruption of individual evil-doers in otherwise cool systems that is the problem...

:roflmao:

Man after reading at OET, I need a good brainwash. Yuck!

At least he is honest. Socialism leads to Communism. Yeah, well... a lot of times it doesn't lead to anything at all - just more dickwad "socialists".

The junior J. Edgar thing is also to be expected - whatever I can't argue with is brainwashing. That there is an American tradition.

What he doesn't understand is the process. It is the magic incantation: "Marxist, Socialist, Communist". They say it about Obama but we pop up... "Nah, it's not him... it's us." Fuckers brought it on themselves. We were peacefully slumbering behind the gates of hell and they went and woke us up (Beetlejuice?).

Of course, war, depression, genocide, lies, corruption, deceit, feather-bedding and nazi-mongering might have had something to do with it... expropriation, immiseration, exploitation?

Nah...

It's just spite. We're just dyin' to brainwash them people at the tree. And then we'll have... what exactly?