PDA

View Full Version : Wage Slavery



Caledonian
Saturday, November 27th, 2010, 02:06 AM
-DjBas4KPGY

Xoz3C_Fj0yw

zzLiW4FNxYk

SpearBrave
Saturday, November 27th, 2010, 02:56 AM
Not saying everything is these videos is wrong, but I have not seen this much straight out leftist bolshevik propaganda since the late 1980's or early 1990's.:thumbdown

Notice through out the videos the symbolism of the lone star. Sure the star is not always the color red, but it has the same semi-hidden meaning. I should not have to say that marxism of any form is anti-Nationalist. We all know that anti-Nationalism promotes race mixing as they want to destroy any way people would identify with themselves.

Also the fact that they use the word Capitalism as way to describe a political theory. Carl Marx used that ploy and it stuck. Not that true Capitalism should ever be confused with commercialism as they are different things. In a true Capitalism society the 'down trodden worker' has the ability to start his own business and create his own wealth. Really those who fall victim to the whole
line about the 'down trodden worker' bit usually end up joining a trade union. I don't know about the rest of the world but here in America the trade unions were started by jews and cultural marxist. Unions exploit workers more than most companies do. They(unions) extort the worker by dangling the carrot of higher wages and job security in front of the workers face, when in fact during most economic down turns more union workers lose their jobs than anybody else.

Caledonian
Saturday, November 27th, 2010, 07:29 AM
Not saying everything is these videos is wrong, but I have not seen this much straight out leftist bolshevik propaganda since the late 1980's or early 1990's.:thumbdown

Notice through out the videos the symbolism of the lone star. Sure the star is not always the color red, but it has the same semi-hidden meaning. I should not have to say that marxism of any form is anti-Nationalist. We all know that anti-Nationalism promotes race mixing as they want to destroy any way people would identify with themselves.

Also the fact that they use the word Capitalism as way to describe a political theory. Carl Marx used that ploy and it stuck. Not that true Capitalism should ever be confused with commercialism as they are different things. In a true Capitalism society the 'down trodden worker' has the ability to start his own business and create his own wealth. Really those who fall victim to the whole
line about the 'down trodden worker' bit usually end up joining a trade union. I don't know about the rest of the world but here in America the trade unions were started by jews and cultural marxist. Unions exploit workers more than most companies do. They(unions) extort the worker by dangling the carrot of higher wages and job security in front of the workers face, when in fact during most economic down turns more union workers lose their jobs than anybody else.



Not saying everything is these videos is wrong,

Well let's focus on that........


but I have not seen this much straight out leftist bolshevik propaganda since the late 1980's or early 1990's.:thumbdown

Not every leftist political position is bolshevik or communist. :thumbdown


Notice through out the videos the symbolism of the lone star.

At any rate alot of anarchist symbols were later adopted [hijacked] by communists and Marxists.


I should not have to say that marxism of any form is anti-Nationalist. We all know that anti-Nationalism promotes race mixing as they want to destroy any way people would identify with themselves.
I screened these videos myself by going through them.

There is no mention of Marxism or communism in these videos.

There is only the discussion of wage slavery and how it is used in modern industrial societies.

That is the reason why I created this thread in order to have a discussion on it. [On the subject of wage slavery.]


Also the fact that they use the word Capitalism as way to describe a political theory. Carl Marx used that ploy and it stuck.

Karl Marx was not the only person that criticized capitalism.

There are tons of writers that have criticized capitalism before Marx was even alive if you trace it's critics historically.


Not that true Capitalism should ever be confused with commercialism as they are different things.

How are you getting to commercialism in the context of this conversation?


In a true Capitalism society the 'down trodden worker' has the ability to start his own business and create his own wealth.

It takes money to make money and if workers are not being payed that much money to begin with that typically means that they are not going to be able to save enough money to be able to bring themselves out of their present situation.


Really those who fall victim to the whole
line about the 'down trodden worker' bit usually end up joining a trade union. I don't know about the rest of the world but here in America the trade unions were started by jews and cultural marxist.
Incorrect. Unionism predates Marxism and communism as a concept historically.

There is nothing bad about unionism.


They(unions) extort the worker by dangling the carrot of higher wages and job security in front of the workers face, when in fact during most economic down turns more union workers lose their jobs than anybody else.
Do you have any stats to back that up?

Paradigm
Saturday, November 27th, 2010, 07:50 AM
Anytime I see the usage of the word "wage slavery" I know it's some leftist propaganda. I don't even have to watch the videos. Wage slavery does not exist, mainly as what we perceive as wages is subjective. It's just a cloud of smoke that doesn't mean anything.


They(unions) extort the worker by dangling the carrot of higher wages and job security in front of the workers face, when in fact during most economic down turns more union workers lose their jobs than anybody else.

Take a look at Detroit for a union utopia. Unions are generally skilled labor only, they don't care about anyone else. Unions push for higher minimum wages because this pushes up the ladder for employment. Skilled workers obviously don't make minimum wage, they are making at least $20 to $30, so they could careless if someone went from $6 to $7 an hour. They push up minimum wage not for the little man, but to block out the little man. They can't stand cheap competition. That's why unions are generally skilled labor only, and push for such things.

Besides the policies they push (such as outlawing child labor, again cheap competition, even though as the average income went up during the beginning of 1900 to where children didn't have to work to solely support the family, unions pushed for it anyway to knock out competition), unions use coercive measures to get a grip on an industry and it's employees. Forcing someone to pay dues to some collective that doesn't do what you couldn't is needless to say bullshit.

SpearBrave
Saturday, November 27th, 2010, 08:55 AM
Well let's focus on that........


Well sure even if you take it out of context. ;)

The third video is what I was referring to, Although you can tell it is only a small part of a bigger lecture.


Not every leftist political position is bolshevik or communist. :thumbdown

Can you prove that? In referring to these videos they surly are.



At any rate alot of anarchist symbols were later adopted [hijacked] by communists and Marxists.


Still that does not change the fact that these videos are leftist propaganda.



I screened these videos myself by going through them.

There is no mention of Marxism or communism in these videos.

There is only the discussion of wage slavery and how it is used in modern industrial societies.

That is the reason why I created this thread in order to have a discussion on it. [On the subject of wage slavery.]


The whole false idea of wage slavery is a marxist propaganda ploy. In propaganda they usually never mention their true intent. Again there is no such a thing as wage slavery in America. It is a false statement to get people to join unions. Yes there is mention of collectivism in the third video where it talks about the workers forming their own factory.


Karl Marx was not the only person that criticized capitalism.

There are tons of writers that have criticized capitalism before Marx was even alive if you trace it's critics historically.



Do you have proof of that? Capitalism really is only a description of a natural law of supply and demand it is not a political theory. Never has been and never will be anything else. Marx used it as political theory and he was the first one to do so in a negative manner to instill his own sick ideas.


How are you getting to commercialism in the context of this conversation?


Most people confuse commercialism with Capitalism, I was just stating so separate the the two for further debate purposes.;)


It takes money to make money and if workers are not being payed that much money to begin with that typically means that they are not going to be able to save enough money to be able to bring themselves out of their present situation.


It takes more than just money to make money, it takes innovation and determination on the part of person wanting to make money. Read up on the laws of supply and demand. Also here in America no one is forced to stay working at any job, they can always look for a new job paying more money. Nothing falls out of the sky. There are people who have been successful and started with nothing it happens all the time, they work for it plain and simple.


Incorrect. Unionism predates Marxism and communism as a concept historically.


Not here in America it does not, again you must provide proof. The trade guilds of middle ages Europe are not the precursors of unions as the unions lay claim to.


There is nothing bad about unionism.

Really take a look at any union website, they are filled with multicultural propaganda, also note which political ideas that unions support. Sure they say we don't tell our members how to vote, we just use their money to support leftist candidates.



Do you have any stats to back that up?

Don't need to, take a look at the state of Michigan and other states that are union heavy and then tell me union areas of the country are doing well as compared to right to work states such as Indiana.

@ Paradigm- most unions are unskilled labor. While it is true unions such as the building trades and machinist unions are skilled, most factory unions are not such as the UAW or UNITE or even the Teamsters. Since when is working on a assembly line a skilled trade.;)

Don't even get me started on the government workers unions such as AFSCME or the SEIU.:/

Jäger
Saturday, November 27th, 2010, 02:26 PM
Capitalism really is only a description of a natural law of supply and demand it is not a political theory.
Etymology proves you wrong, the -ism is clearly an indication of ideology, not scientific observation.
The price building mechanism behind supply and demand is still an economic theory (market theory), certainly no natural law, which is because decisions of humans are not always as rational and egoistic as they needed to be to elevate it to natural law.
That said, the market economy (not Capitalism) is still the most practical theory we know of, yet certainly no natural law.
The idiotic invention of "free market economy" is a Jewish brain child.

Paradigm
Saturday, November 27th, 2010, 02:41 PM
A History of Labor Unions (http://mises.org/daily/3553)

Trade Unions: Private Use of Coercive Power (http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE3_1_7.pdfhttp://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE3_1_7.pdf) (PDF)

The Myth of Voluntary Unions (http://mises.org/daily/1604)

Markets, Not Unions, Gave us Leisure (http://mises.org/daily/1590)

Paradigm
Saturday, November 27th, 2010, 02:54 PM
Etymology proves you wrong, the -ism is clearly an indication of ideology, not scientific observation.
The price building mechanism behind supply and demand is still an economic theory (market theory), certainly no natural law, which is because decisions of humans are not always as rational and egoistic as they needed to be to elevate it to natural law.
That said, the market economy (not Capitalism) is still the most practical theory we know of, yet certainly no natural law.
The idiotic invention of "free market economy" is a Jewish brain child.

This is just another battle of semantics (and it gets old).

Whether or not it has an -ism doesn't mean anything. Capitalism, market economy, profit & loss system or whatever you want to call it it's the same thing. I don't need a debate over what capitalism means today compared to what it meant 100 years ago.

The free market is natural order. It's survival of the fittest in economics (metaphorically). Markets clear out waste and reallocate resources to their most desired and useful industries and businesses. There are constantly new businesses sprouting competing with one another that each try to provide goods/services more efficiently than the other, and those who can't die out, and their resources are reallocated.

The price building mechanism in economics is a theory, but it's a theory that's been proven and tested to work. There are many theories out there, just because it's a theory does not mean it's null and void. Decisions we make are not always rational because hindsight is not 20/20. This falls into subjectivity. All humans act purposefully, and we make decisions to reach certain ends that we feel removes uneasiness or benefits us in some way (whether or not they are good or bad, or right or wrong).

Jews do a lot of things. Is every thing someone dislikes going to be smeared as Jewish?

SpearBrave
Saturday, November 27th, 2010, 03:12 PM
Etymology proves you wrong, the -ism is clearly an indication of ideology, not scientific observation.
The price building mechanism behind supply and demand is still an economic theory (market theory), certainly no natural law, which is because decisions of humans are not always as rational and egoistic as they needed to be to elevate it to natural law.
That said, the market economy (not Capitalism) is still the most practical theory we know of, yet certainly no natural law.
The idiotic invention of "free market economy" is a Jewish brain child.


Very easy to prove otherwise, take simple trading of primitive people for example. If hides are abundant and tools are not then you don't get as many tools for the same amount of hides.


Laws of supply and demand to apply in nature as well- prey to predator population numbers. Also in the plant kingdom with aggressive plants taking over a area then dying out for lack of nutrients and less aggressive plants taking their place. For every action there is a opposite reaction this holds true for nature.

Capitalism really was not invented is was just termed by Adam Smith and he applied a name to it. Very hard to prove otherwise, can you name the person who invented this system of supply and demand? I am yet to come across one single name or anyone taking credit for the invention of it.

http://adamsmithslostlegacy.blogspot.com/2009/04/adam-smith-and-capitalism.html

Whether or not the "ism" is applied does not mean that it was created in this sense of the word. As the term was invented not the natural law of it, hence the" ism " at the end. Otherwise you would not get the same meaning as just saying a "capital" system as that could mean several things in itself.

Still this does not change the point that these videos about " Anarchy " are nothing more than leftist propaganda views at instilling in belief of redistributing wealth to the " poor down trodden worker ". As I stated before I don't know much about trade unions in Europe, but here in America they were started by leftist jews, that can easily be proven by simple history.;)

kuehnelt
Saturday, November 27th, 2010, 03:21 PM
Etymology proves you wrong, the -ism is clearly an indication of ideology

If a famous and influential person calls frogs 'farkisms', and gets people to use this word (say, through in turns hilariously and pathetically wrong anti-farkist screeds, and through the reactions to these by people who call themselves pro-farkists simply because they're attacking arguments presented as 'anti-farkist', and through the reactions to these, and so on), etymology will still not prove that frogs are a kind of ideology. It does suggest some error on the part of the originator of the word.


Anytime I see the usage of the word "wage slavery" I know it's some leftist propaganda. I don't even have to watch the videos. Wage slavery does not exist

Quoted for truth. My irritation for people who insist on this has long curdled into contempt and disgust.

Wage-work is slavery because the alternative is starvation? No, 'work or die' is reality's challenge to all life everywhere.

Wage-work is slavery because some factory workers had bad conditions? When the assertion is that even a network administrator is a slave, I won't bother to break out the anti-anti-Industrial Revolution arguments: you must demonstrate the slavishness of the network administrator's situation.

Wage-work is slavery because the capitalist extracts an unearned excess from production, that a car is sold for more than the workers are paid to make it, excluding material costs? First of all, management does not sit on feather pillows all day but actually do work that the workers would otherwise have to also do, but more importantly the capitalists' role in production is to provide money needed right now to pay the workers, to build and furnish the factory, to replace machines, to buy the materials, for a return in the future from the sale of the good. The time difference permits the 'excess'. Boehm-Bawerk only made this reply to Marx over a hundred years ago...

In addition, the capitalist is not merely some guy with a black hat and a monocle that you can just hang; the role of the capitalist must be fulfilled, and distributing that role across the the workers, as in syndicalism, is not a free act without any undesirable implications. "If the business fails, I won't be loaded down with its debt." / "To get the job, I don't need to put ten thousand dollars in the pot." are both reasons a man might choose wage-work.

Jäger
Saturday, November 27th, 2010, 04:36 PM
Whether or not it has an -ism doesn't mean anything.
So lets call it Capital.


Very easy to prove otherwise, take simple trading of primitive people for example. If hides are abundant and tools are not then you don't get as many tools for the same amount of hides.
No, this is not always the case, it might be someone is willing to pay the same amount of tools for hides, just because he wants to support the tanner. It is surely a theory which mostly works, but it doesn't follow the definition of "natural law".

I do however understand that not all Germanics share the German love for precise expressions, whatever works for you.

SpearBrave
Saturday, November 27th, 2010, 04:47 PM
No, this is not always the case, it might be someone is willing to pay the same amount of tools for hides, just because he wants to support the tanner. It is surely a theory which mostly works, but it doesn't follow the definition of "natural law".


Why sure it follows natural law, eventually the tool maker will realize he is not making enough off of his tools and a medium of exchange is created. You have to ask what the tool maker is going to do with all the extra hides he has collected from supporting the tanner. It is a reaction for a action.

Paradigm
Saturday, November 27th, 2010, 04:51 PM
Quoted for truth. My irritation for people who insist on this has long curdled into contempt and disgust.

Wage-work is slavery because the alternative is starvation? No, 'work or die' is reality's challenge to all life everywhere.

Wage-work is slavery because some factory workers had bad conditions? When the assertion is that even a network administrator is a slave, I won't bother to break out the anti-anti-Industrial Revolution arguments: you must demonstrate the slavishness of the network administrator's situation.

Wage-work is slavery because the capitalist extracts an unearned excess from production, that a car is sold for more than the workers are paid to make it, excluding material costs? First of all, management does not sit on feather pillows all day but actually do work that the workers would otherwise have to also do, but more importantly the capitalists' role in production is to provide money needed right now to pay the workers, to build and furnish the factory, to replace machines, to buy the materials, for a return in the future from the sale of the good. The time difference permits the 'excess'. Boehm-Bawerk only made this reply to Marx over a hundred years ago...

In addition, the capitalist is not merely some guy with a black hat and a monocle that you can just hang; the role of the capitalist must be fulfilled, and distributing that role across the the workers, as in syndicalism, is not a free act without any undesirable implications. "If the business fails, I won't be loaded down with its debt." / "To get the job, I don't need to put ten thousand dollars in the pot." are both reasons a man might choose wage-work.

I appreciate the usage of Bohm-Bawerk. I thought I've never see that name mentioned here.

Æmeric
Saturday, November 27th, 2010, 05:00 PM
We are actually serfs. US citizens owe the US government a portion of our earnings & wealth no matter where we live or where we earn our income. 15.3% tax on wages up to $106,800. The employer contribution is factored into compensation so it is not the 7.65% most people assume it is. Income taxes, going up to a top rte of 39.6% January 1. And estate taxes at your death, upward of 55% of whatever you managed to save during you lifetime.

SpearBrave
Saturday, November 27th, 2010, 05:11 PM
^ yet despite all this people still prosper and move ahead. ;)

It is not the fault of the factory owner that taxes are through the roof it is fault of people's voting records. We as Americans voted ourselves into these high tax rates by being gullible to politicians that support the 'working man' when in fact it is these very politicians that raise the taxes.

Never should it ever be assumed that a government is there to guarantee that you prosper and own your own business. It should only be there to protect your right to have the ability to do so if you so choose.

Paradigm
Saturday, November 27th, 2010, 05:21 PM
Essentially the state is the enemy of capitalism.

Jäger
Saturday, November 27th, 2010, 07:40 PM
^ yet despite all this people still prosper and move ahead. ;)
Is the definition of a serf someone who can't "prosper" in English?

Horagalles
Saturday, November 27th, 2010, 07:49 PM
Essentially the state is the enemy of capitalism.
That depends on how you define "Capitalism". Some will argue that the state is essential for what is generally called "Capitalism" today.

SpearBrave
Saturday, November 27th, 2010, 07:59 PM
Is the definition of a serf someone who can't "prosper" in English?
Serf
noun
1. a person in a condition of servitude, required to render services to a lord, commonly attached to the lord's land and transferred with it from one owner to another.
2. a slave.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/serf


Since there is really no such thing as wage slavery in the U.S. and it is only myth created by the leftist to give people a sense of hopelessness, people who work for low wages are there by choice not by force. They can always seek employment elsewhere, use their spare time to better themselves(education) or be creative and become self employed. Therefor there are no real serfs or slaves to a employer.

genius
Saturday, November 27th, 2010, 08:19 PM
I watched the first video.

Here's the problem: the entire premise is incorrect. The video's thesis is essentially: taxation and government control drags down wages and purchasing power of wage earners, thus preventing them from starting their own business.

The thing is the government has a progressive tax system, and also provides high wage jobs. Thus the opposite is actually true. By taxing richer people in society and producing good jobs with it they provide opportunity for people. By not taxing low income people and levying high taxes on high income people it creates a system where people have more opportunity to break out of any slavery cycle.

Horagalles
Saturday, November 27th, 2010, 09:26 PM
I watched the first video.

Here's the problem: the entire premise is incorrect. The video's thesis is essentially: taxation and government control drags down wages and purchasing power of wage earners, thus preventing them from starting their own business.....That's the problem with many leftwing especially Marxist thesises.

Take for instance the exploitation thesis of Marx. According to him profits are exploited or illegitimately taken away from the laborers. The premise is that the product is EQUAL to the labor content and that the price one get's for it on the market again equals that labor content. So if the sum of wages is less then the price, the "capitalist" is holding this away from the wage earners. The problem is in the value theory. Price doesn't equal value and sum of labor doesnt equal sales price of company. The wages are prefered by the workers over NOT working for the "capitalist". And the price the "capitalist" gets for the goods is an amount buyers are willing to let go for the pleasure of gaining what is offered. A good question would be whether the "capitalists" are actually exploiting the workers or the consumer. Needless to say that the workers won't settle for the company output, they want money not the goods produced. They actually prefer the money over the goods produced.

Ward
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 12:10 AM
Also the fact that they use the word Capitalism as way to describe a political theory.

As an economic system, capitalism carries with it certain political implications.


Carl Marx used that ploy and it stuck. Not that true Capitalism should ever be confused with commercialism as they are different things.

Oh yeah? Can you explain the differences?


In a true Capitalism society the 'down trodden worker' has the ability to start his own business and create his own wealth.

Nonsense. Under the kind of unregulated capitalism that you apparently favor, only in theory would a lowly worker have the opportunity to start his own business. In reality he'd probably live his entire life without a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of (so to speak).


Really those who fall victim to the whole line about the 'down trodden worker' bit usually end up joining a trade union.

I understand that unions are often corrupt and overly greedy, but they did play a critical role in helping working stiffs gain access to the resources that would make it possible for them to start their own businesses. Small businesses wouldn't even be able to survive in a free market if not for government intervention.


I don't know about the rest of the world but here in America the trade unions were started by jews and cultural marxist. Unions exploit workers more than most companies do. They(unions) extort the worker by dangling the carrot of higher wages and job security in front of the workers face, when in fact during most economic down turns more union workers lose their jobs than anybody else.

Jews exploit unions in the same way they exploit followers of Ron Paul. They exploit everything, although they must be especially giddy at the rise of pro-capitalist plebeian movements like the TEA Party.


Why sure it follows natural law, eventually the tool maker will realize he is not making enough off of his tools and a medium of exchange is created. You have to ask what the tool maker is going to do with all the extra hides he has collected from supporting the tanner. It is a reaction for a action.

Economics is a "soft science" like psychology and sociology; the "laws" in these fields aren't the same as, say, electromagnetic laws.


Never should it ever be assumed that a government is there to guarantee that you prosper and own your own business. It should only be there to protect your right to have the ability to do so if you so choose.

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about SBA loans?

SpearBrave
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 01:17 AM
As an economic system, capitalism carries with it certain political implications.


No it does not have to and I already explained the natural order of dealing with plants and animals both.


Oh yeah? Can you explain the differences?


Sure, under commercialism things that are promoted are wants yet you are told they are needs. Really it is very simple. Also the over sensation of any product through the media.


Nonsense. Under the kind of unregulated capitalism that you apparently favor, only in theory would a lowly worker have the opportunity to start his own business. In reality he'd probably live his entire life without a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of (so to speak).


First off I never said what system I favor or don't favor. ;)

Secondly I was that lowly worker once, now I own my own business, farm/abandoned town and two houses( one is for sale, are you interested? ) and am part owner of two other businesses. No I did not get a bank loan or was born into it. To do that and I did not have the attitude of poor old me either. I am not alone in this country or world when it comes to creating personal security, people work for it everyday. I would like to see more Germanic people work towards that as well. While I know we need some large manufacturing we don't need it as much as we are led to believe.



I understand that unions are often corrupt and overly greedy, but they did play a critical role in helping working stiffs gain access to the resources that would make it possible for them to start their own businesses. Small businesses wouldn't even be able to survive in a free market if not for government intervention.


What help has the union provided the 'working stiff' take a look at the union dominated areas of the county and then compare them to right to work states. Union are rackets and I don't blame the general union member for this either. In a competitive society the better company gets the better worker and produces the better product, unions protect lazy people and poor workers under we are all brothers clause. Also unions offer a 'protection' of false job security in exchange for dues, then they turn around and extort money from businesses by filing grievances in behalf of the workers the workers never see that money though. Unions can only make promises they cannot guarantee anything.

Actually I think governments hinder small businesses more than the help them by creating taxes to support people who refuse to work or help themselves or their folk.



Jews exploit unions in the same way they exploit followers of Ron Paul. They exploit everything, although they must be especially giddy at the rise of pro-capitalist plebeian movements like the TEA Party.

Jews created most current unions in America, take a look at who the national union bosses are. Currently unions exploit the workers more than the factories do, and even now they exploiting the tax payer(auto bailouts).

As far as the TEA party being plebeian you could have fooled me by 2 million people marching on Washington and the results of the last election.;)

I am worried about the TEA party movement becoming exploited and turned in another direction, but that is another topic.;)



Economics is a "soft science" like psychology and sociology; the "laws" in these fields aren't the same as, say, electromagnetic laws.


I do believe people tend to over complicate economics in attempts to try and explain them. However I already stated how natural law applies to economics. You do believe in natural laws don't you, you things that happen naturally.;)



Out of curiosity, how do you feel about SBA loans?

I despise them for several reasons. First it is not our governments job to give you a leg up, but only to protect our rights that we can give ourselves a leg up through our own hard work and innovation. Secondly the SBA favors business endeavors of minorities that should have no special treatment because they are a minority.

That is not saying that you should not go to private bank and get a private loan to start a business( if you are sure that it will work). As that is contract between you and the bank not you and the government loan agency. Yes there are still some private banks out there, but they are getting fewer.


Then again there is this quote from Ted Night from the movie Caddy Shack


The world needs ditch diggers to,you know
:P

Caledonian
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 05:09 AM
Before somebody keeps on spurting out the wonders of free market capitalism I thought we might like to take a look at some of the people that lead it in influence and those who are representatives of it.

Like these gentlemen here:



Alan Greenspan

http://dealbreaker.com/_old/images/thumbs/alan-greenspan.jpg

Milton Friedman

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_131dsm4xhS8/S-tTb_qJnCI/AAAAAAAAC4E/OR2jL5cB7Yo/s1600/milton-friedman.jpg


Everybody here wants to talk about the Jewish influence of leftist politics without realizing that the free market capitalism that they embrace so much here is practically lead and operated my many numbers of Jews.

After seeing these images I'm betting alot of you are not feeling so pro free market capitalist anymore in that the social and economical politics you support are not exactly without it's Jewish influence either.

Therefore when you criticize my leftist politics I want you to have these images of these guys burned in your memory for all your talk of free market capitalism in contrast.

Also when it concerns this thread for the last damn time let me make it abundantly clear that a great deal of anarchist and socialist philosophy or economical definitions has nothing to do with Marxist communism seperate from what Marxists borrowed in ideology at a later date from them.

[Read a book of economical and political history if you need reference.]

I'm tired of people trying to find a communist connection to this thread where there is none in that the focus of this thread was to specifically focus with the concept of wage slavery alone as a common practice and modern economical theme.

Æmeric
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 05:25 AM
Serf
noun
1. a person in a condition of servitude, required to render services to a lord, commonly attached to the lord's land and transferred with it from one owner to another.
2. a slave.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/serf


Since there is really no such thing as wage slavery in the U.S. and it is only myth created by the leftist to give people a sense of hopelessness, people who work for low wages are there by choice not by force. They can always seek employment elsewhere, use their spare time to better themselves(education) or be creative and become self employed. Therefor there are no real serfs or slaves to a employer.
There is such a thing as serfdom in the US. In neofeudalism instead of rendering part of your services to the Lord of the Manor (Uncle Sam) you must part with part of your earnings. Fica is a flat tax on everyones wages, no matter how poor. And American citizens (serfs) must pay Uncle Sam no matter were in the world they live. Most nations only tax persons legally domicile within their borders.

Conscription is also a form of serfdom. The government says you must serve in its armed forces for a set period of time, on terms of employment that the government dictates. We do not currently have a draft but the US government reserves the right to do so, even requiring all males between 18-26 to register with selective service.

I watched the first video.

Here's the problem: the entire premise is incorrect. The video's thesis is essentially: taxation and government control drags down wages and purchasing power of wage earners, thus preventing them from starting their own business.

The thing is the government has a progressive tax system, and also provides high wage jobs. Thus the opposite is actually true. By taxing richer people in society and producing good jobs with it they provide opportunity for people. By not taxing low income people and levying high taxes on high income people it creates a system where people have more opportunity to break out of any slavery cycle.Why doesn't everyone just get one of those government jobs with high pay, early retirement & health insurance!:blueroll:

Before somebody keeps on spurting out the wonders of free market capitalism I thought we might like to take a look at some of the people that lead it influence and those who are representatives of it.

Like these gentlemen here:



Alan Greenspan

http://dealbreaker.com/_old/images/thumbs/alan-greenspan.jpg

Milton Friedman

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_131dsm4xhS8/S-tTb_qJnCI/AAAAAAAAC4E/OR2jL5cB7Yo/s1600/milton-friedman.jpg


Everybody here wants to talk about the Jewish influence of leftist politics without realizing that the free market capitalism that they embrace so much is practically lead and operated my many numbers of Jews.

After seeing these images I'm betting alot of you are not feeling so pro free market capitalist anymore in that the social and economical politics you support are not exactly without it's Jewish influence either.What the central bankers practice is not laissez faire capitalism but a form of Marxism. Central banking & progressive income & estate taxes are key planks in the Marxist system.

Caledonian
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 05:29 AM
To Aemeric:


In the early 1950s, Greenspan began an association with famed novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand that would last until her death in 1982.[25] Rand stood beside him at his 1974 swearing-in as Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers.[25]

Greenspan was introduced to Ayn Rand by his first wife, Joan Mitchell. Although Greenspan was initially a logical positivist,[33] he was converted to Rand's philosophy of Objectivism by her associate Nathaniel Branden. During the 1950s and 1960s Greenspan was a proponent of Objectivism, writing articles for Objectivist newsletters and contributing several essays for Rand's 1966 book Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal including an essay supporting the gold standard.[34][35]

During the 1950s, Greenspan was one of the members of Ayn Rand's inner circle, the Ayn Rand Collective, who read Atlas Shrugged while it was being written. Rand nicknamed Greenspan "the undertaker" because of his penchant for dark clothing and reserved demeanor. Although Greenspan was once recognized as a proponent of laissez-faire capitalism, some Objectivists find his support for a gold standard somewhat incongruous or dubious,[citation needed] given the Federal Reserve's role in America's fiat money system and endogenous inflation. He has come under criticism from Harry Binswanger,[36] who believes his actions while at work for the Federal Reserve and his publicly expressed opinions on other issues show abandonment of Objectivist and free market principles. However, when questioned in relation to this, he has said that in a democratic society individuals have to make compromises with each other over conflicting ideas of how money should be handled. He said he himself had to make such compromises, because he believes that "we did extremely well" without a central bank and with a gold standard.[37] Greenspan and Rand maintained a close relationship until her death in 1982.[25]

In a congressional hearing on October 23, 2008 Greenspan admitted that his free-market ideology shunning certain regulations was flawed.[38] However, when asked about free markets and the ideas of Ayn Rand in an interview on April 4, 2010, Greenspan clarified his stance on laissez faire capitalism and asserted that in a democratic society there could be no better alternative. He stated that the errors that were made stemmed not from the principle, but the application of competitive markets in "assuming what the nature of risks would be."[39]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Greenspan#Objectivism



Milton Friedman (July 31, 1912 – November 16, 2006) was an American economist, statistician, a professor at the University of Chicago, and the recipient of the Nobel Prize in Economics. Among scholars, he is best known for his theoretical and empirical research, especially consumption analysis, monetary history and theory, and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy.[1] He was an economic advisor to U.S. President Ronald Reagan. Over time, many governments practiced his restatement of a political philosophy that extolled the virtues of a free market economic system with little intervention by government. As a professor of the Chicago School of Economics, based at the University of Chicago, he had great influence in determining the research agenda of the entire profession. Milton Friedman's works, which include many monographs, books, scholarly articles, papers, magazine columns, television programs, videos, and lectures, cover a broad range of topics of microeconomics, macroeconomics, economic history, and public policy issues. The Economist described him as "the most influential economist of the second half of the 20th century…possibly of all of it".[2]


Influenced by his close friend George Stigler, Friedman opposed government regulation of many types. He once stated that his role in eliminating U.S. conscription was his proudest accomplishment, and his support for school choice led him to found The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice. Friedman's political philosophy, which he considered classically liberal and libertarian, emphasized the advantages of free market economics and the disadvantages of government intervention and regulation, strongly influencing the opinions of American conservatives and libertarians. In his 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom, Friedman advocated policies such as a volunteer military, freely floating exchange rates, abolition of medical licenses, a negative income tax, and education vouchers.[6] His books and essays were well read and were even circulated illegally in Communist countries.[7][8]


Most economists during the 1960s rejected Friedman's methodology, but since then they have had an increasing international influence (especially in the USA and Britain). Some of his laissez-faire ideas concerning monetary policy, taxation, privatization and deregulation were used by governments,[9] especially during the 1980s. His monetary theory has had a large influence on economists such as Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve's response to the financial crisis of 2007-2010.[10][11]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman


Now if anybody still doubts the roles of Jews in free market capitalism we have a lovely assortment of books revolving around the subject such as:

The Jews And Modern Capitalism By Werner Sombart

Capitalism And The Jews By Jerry Z. Muller


Capitalism And The Jews By Jerry Z. Muller

The unique historical relationship between capitalism and the Jews is crucial to understanding modern European and Jewish history. But the subject has been addressed less often by mainstream historians than by anti-Semites or apologists. In this book Jerry Muller, a leading historian of capitalism, separates myth from reality to explain why the Jewish experience with capitalism has been so important and complex--and so ambivalent.

Drawing on economic, social, political, and intellectual history from medieval Europe through contemporary America and Israel, Capitalism and the Jews examines the ways in which thinking about capitalism and thinking about the Jews have gone hand in hand in European thought, and why anticapitalism and anti-Semitism have frequently been linked. The book explains why Jews have tended to be disproportionately successful in capitalist societies, but also why Jews have numbered among the fiercest anticapitalists and Communists. The book shows how the ancient idea that money was unproductive led from the stigmatization of usury and the Jews to the stigmatization of finance and, ultimately, in Marxism, the stigmatization of capitalism itself. Finally, the book traces how the traditional status of the Jews as a diasporic merchant minority both encouraged their economic success and made them particularly vulnerable to the ethnic nationalism of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

Providing a fresh look at an important but frequently misunderstood subject, Capitalism and the Jews will interest anyone who wants to understand the Jewish role in the development of capitalism, the role of capitalism in the modern fate of the Jews, or the ways in which the story of capitalism and the Jews has affected the history of Europe and beyond, from the medieval period to our own.

Jerry Z. Muller is professor of history at the Catholic University of America in Washington, DC. His previous books include The Mind and the Market: Capitalism in Modern European Thought (Knopf) and Adam Smith in His Time and Ours (Princeton). His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the New Republic, and the Times Literary Supplement, among other publications.

Reviews:

"In his slim essay collection Capitalism and the Jews, Jerry Z. Muller presents a provocative and accessible survey of how Jewish culture and historical accident ripened Jews for commercial success and why that success has earned them so much misfortune. . . . While this book is ostensibly about 'the Jews,' Muller's most chilling insights are about their enemies, and the creative, almost supernatural, malleability of anti-Semitism itself. For centuries, poverty, paranoia and financial illiteracy have combined into a dangerous brew--one that has made economic virtuosity look suspiciously like social vice."--Catherine Rampell, New York Times Book Review

"In four fascinating essays, Muller sensitively examines how centuries of nomadism and diaspora have shaped Jewish financial life. . . . Muller backs up his bold assertion--that capitalism has been the most important force in shaping the fate of the Jews in the modern world--with elegance and care."--Publishers Weekly

"It's a subject rarely given its due in respectable circles. Yet an appreciation for market economics does run deep in Judaic tradition and helps explain the prominence of Jewish bankers, from Mayer Amschel Rothschild to Lloyd Blankfein. In concise prose free of academic jargon, Muller ticks off factors that gave Jews what he calls 'behavioral traits conducive to success in capitalist society.'"--Calev Ben-David, Bloomberg

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9126.html

SpearBrave
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 06:39 AM
There is such a thing as serfdom in the US. In neofeudalism instead of rendering part of your services to the Lord of the Manor (Uncle Sam) you must part with part of your earnings. Fica is a flat tax on everyones wages, no matter how poor. And American citizens (serfs) must pay Uncle Sam no matter were in the world they live. Most nations only tax persons legally domicile within their borders.

Conscription is also a form of serfdom. The government says you must serve in its armed forces for a set period of time, on terms of employment that the government dictates. We do not currently have a draft but the US government reserves the right to do so, even requiring all males between 18-26 to register with selective service.


Neither of these things fit the definition of serf or serfdom as in the U.S. you the choice to opt. out of all the things you mentioned you may lose your citizenship but that is your choice. We do not belong to the land in the sense of a serf nor are we U.S. government property unless we swear a oath stating that for a said amount of time.

You always have the choice to not pay taxes of course you have to live with those choices, but nobody is holding a gun to your head.


About the bankers from the fed. they are totally not into free markets or Capitalism they are into control of any markets and all monies.

Back to the idea about wage slavery it simply does not exist in America. If you want to rise above your current financial level you have the ability to do, but it is not going to be handed to you. You must work for it and make your own sacrifices.

Paradigm
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 06:50 AM
I got a chuckle out of citing Alan Greenspan. Yeah, central banking is totally a free-market invention *cough cough*.

Paradigm
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 07:00 AM
You always have the choice to not pay taxes of course you have to live with those choices, but nobody is holding a gun to your head.


This is one of those things where it's more complicated, but simple. Yes, you have a choice to pay or not to pay, and yes there is not a gun to your head, but the government does impose a threat by not paying taxes. They will put you in jail, put on heavy fines and debts, or just completely ruin your life financially. The difference is they don't actually have our written consent, per se. I'd much rather not pay taxes, but I don't have much of a choice if I don't want to go to their prisons.

When I get paid the government takes a percentage out before I even know how much I make. When I make a purchase or sell something a tax is imposed regardless if I want it (depending on whether the transaction is held in an "official" place of business). At the end of the year I fill out forms and figure out whether or not I'll pay in, or get back what they've taken away.

Ward
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 07:36 AM
No it does not have to and I already explained the natural order of dealing with plants and animals both.

I think you're conflating the study of economics (like the basic laws of supply and demand) with capitalism, the latter of which is indeed an ideology.


Sure, under commercialism things that are promoted are wants yet you are told they are needs. Really it is very simple. Also the over sensation of any product through the media.

Commercialism and capitalism go hand-in-hand. Aggressive marketing is a feature of capitalism.


First off I never said what system I favor or don't favor. ;)

Well, you’re generally pro-capitalism and anti-state, right?


Secondly I was that lowly worker once, now I own my own business, farm/abandoned town and two houses( one is for sale, are you interested? ) and am part owner of two other businesses. No I did not get a bank loan or was born into it. To do that and I did not have the attitude of poor old me either. I am not alone in this country or world when it comes to creating personal security, people work for it everyday.

Yeah, you’ll be okay until a Walmart-like international blacksmithing corporation moves into your town and drives you out of business. And make no mistake, eventually this will happen without state regulations to prevent it.


As far as the TEA party being plebeian you could have fooled me by 2 million people marching on Washington and the results of the last election.;)

I guess two million plebs can’t be wrong. :thumbup


The world needs ditch diggers to,you know

Indeed, but I want to make sure that the ones digging the ditches are the ones who truly deserve to be digging ditches, and that those who are wealthy truly deserve to be wealthy.

Caledonian
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 07:42 AM
I got a chuckle out of citing Alan Greenspan. Yeah, central banking is totally a free-market invention *cough cough*.

And yet it was free marketing capitalists that eventually went to create it where a whole line of other countries have followed similar suit afterwards by creating their own central variations.

kuehnelt
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 08:12 AM
To Aemeric:

It's not hard to cite authoritative sources who say startlingly wrong things about the nature of the market, and it's easy to see why: the market has a good name, so bad people will use its name. If you can get banks to accept your bad checks because you wear a suit and present yourself well, then thieves will appear who wear suits and present themselves well. Wherever people are very credulous when it comes to statements from doctors, political charlatans will announce their schemes with a doctor at each shoulder. The wicked mock the good.

So I'm afraid you'll have to work a lot harder to say anything meaningful about this. If you were to say that NAFTA is a free trade agreement because, look, those words are right in the name, then you may as well say that all Germans are wicked evil racists and that Mohammed is a good English name and that if only aliens were the majority in every one of our countries then we could enjoy a post-racial utopia, etc. You'll find good quotes for all these, and saying them requires exactly as much investment into their spheres as you've put into economics, when you say what you like about wage relations and the nature of the central bank.


Now if anybody still doubts the roles of Jews in free market capitalism we have a lovely assortment of books revolving around the subject such as:

In the US, 87 percent of Jews vote Democrat. Anti-capitalism is far from sparse with Jews. Marxism especially isn't.

If a Jew says that rain comes from clouds, you still need to have at least a layman's grasp of meteorology to say that he's correct or not. You can wonder why he thinks it would benefit Jews to say this, you can identify some pernicious effects of a popular acceptance of this cloud theory, you can look through his book on clouds and say that there's so much garbage in here that we should reject the whole thing and start over from scratch to get an untainted assessment. You can do a lot of things which, however good or useful, can neither affirm nor reject the assertion made because they just don't produce meteorological assertions.

Moreover, if you could peer into my past and say, wait a minute, that guy right there who told me that central banks weren't a market instution, that's a Jew! - it wouldn't accomplish anything, because I didn't simply accept that as gospel. When I tell you that central banks aren't a market institution, that isn't received wisdom, and I'm not appealing to an authority to say it any more than you're appealing to your teachers when you do arithmetic.

Just as the wicked mock the good, the unlearned mock the learned, and they make their pronouncements with as much gravity. But on physics, computers, biology, chemistry, linguistics, small towns in Arkansas, shoes, prime numbers, etc., the unlearned can be answered by the learned and then just back down on a point. "Oh. OK. I guess I don't know much about this." But economic hippies never do this, never even acknowledge that there's such a thing as knowing much about it, that there's even a legitimate 'it' worthy of study - except and no longer than when they're appealing to some ludicrous thing some fake economist has said.

Economics is a subject where the unlearned have mocked the learned for so long that they've forgotten that there are any 'learned' out there. If I say that there's such a thing as market money, and that Federal Reserve Notes aren't it - to the unlearned this can only mean that my ventriloquist differs from theirs. This is what aggravates me so much. Why don't you take this more seriously? It's only a matter of life and death.

SpearBrave
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 11:05 AM
I think you're conflating the study of economics (like the basic laws of supply and demand) with capitalism, the latter of which is indeed an ideology.


If Adam Smith only named what what it is , then who invented it. Ideologies have thought originator's. Can you give the names of these originators? The burden of proof is on you. I already cited one source stating Adam Smith did not invent Capitalism can you cite who did?


Commercialism and capitalism go hand-in-hand. Aggressive marketing is a feature of capitalism.


Again I think your are placing capitalism as ideology and that is where you making mistakes.



Well, you’re generally pro-capitalism and anti-state, right?


I'm pro freedom and pro government, I think I have made enough post here that states I'm a Constitutionalist in the most primitive sense. Yes a Constitutionalist can also be a Nationalist in every sense of the word.

I neither pro or anti capitalist as I don't view capitalism as a political ideology.

However I notice you state you are anti-Hippie yet you seem to follow some of the same views hippies do. Like blaming "capitalism" as a failure.


Yeah, you’ll be okay until a Wal-Mart-like international blacksmithing corporation moves into your town and drives you out of business. And make no mistake, eventually this will happen without state regulations to prevent it.


Highly unlikely that the type of work could be replaced by Wal-Mart or any other low dollar chain store. If it could and it would have been done by now, Also there is already blacksmith type goods made overseas at discount rates. That does not bother me either as it is just competition sorta. I don't think you grasp the idea of handmade goods and why people desire them because you would have never made the Wal-Mart comment in the first place.


I guess two million plebs can’t be wrong. :thumbup


Well I guess that can proven wrong be by the last election, however you have to respect them as they got off their asses and did something instead of complaining about it. They are trying to fix it and are succeeding. What have you done other than cry like a pleb?



Indeed, but I want to make sure that the ones digging the ditches are the ones who truly deserve to be digging ditches, and that those who are wealthy truly deserve to be wealthy.

How by force of socialism or marxism you should know by now that no one has a birth right in this country and that our country was not set up on that basis. People who were meant to dig ditches usually end up digging ditches and people who were meant to succeed usually do. Sure it would be a big bonus if only Germanics were on the top rung of the ladder and that may yet happen again if we drop all these marxist ideas of equality of races.


This is one of those things where it's more complicated, but simple. Yes, you have a choice to pay or not to pay, and yes there is not a gun to your head, but the government does impose a threat by not paying taxes. They will put you in jail, put on heavy fines and debts, or just completely ruin your life financially. The difference is they don't actually have our written consent, per se. I'd much rather not pay taxes, but I don't have much of a choice if I don't want to go to their prisons.

There has been some sucess of tax protestors recently and they are not in jail yet. I am not one of those that writes exempt on my returns and shakes my fist. I just file and pay by the quarter and bitch about it the whole time, I realize it as cost of doing business/life. That does not make me or anyone else a serf.

However like I said you still have the choice of not paying taxes, just be prepared to fight or flee. Or be prepared to keep your income low enough that you don't pay taxes it really is a matter of choice.

Do I think taxes are through the roof, yes of course I do and I sometimes like the idea of flat or fair taxes.

Balders gate
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 11:09 AM
I will always defend capitalism but I will say this. I have heard reports that in the 1960's the average ceo made 40 times the average worker. Today the average ceo now makes 400 times the average worker. That is wrong in my opinion. It seems the people at the top are taking all the profits at the expense of entire company or corporation. I would say we need not to share in the wealth but need to share in capitalism. Bring ceo pay down and bring workers pay up more. Enough of the greed on all side and that includes unions that do not look out for the worker even though they say they do. Enough of the union dues so union bosses can go to Las vegas to discuss "union matters". Get rid of greed on all sides and maybe things will improve for people. There is greed on the left and well as the right.:|

Jäger
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 01:52 PM
Therefor there are no real serfs or slaves to a employer.
Of course there are, those who "choose" to be slaves, quite a few ... makes me wonder.

Jäger
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 02:02 PM
Sure, under commercialism things that are promoted are wants yet you are told they are needs. Really it is very simple. Also the over sensation of any product through the media.
You are saying that under Capitalism, no one would advertise "wants" as "needs"?
You are not even funny anymore.


If Adam Smith only named what what it is , then who invented it.
:D Almost there.
Ideologies always claim to be based on truth, so someone just writes them down, what needs to be "invented"? What did Hitler invent? That race is important for a state?
Good ideologies are a result of good analytical abilities, indeed (not that Adam Smith had any).

SpearBrave
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 02:31 PM
You are saying that under Capitalism, no one would advertise "wants" as "needs"?
You are not even funny anymore.

:D Almost there.
Ideologies always claim to be based on truth, so someone just writes them down, what needs to be "invented"? What did Hitler invent? That race is important for a state?
Good ideologies are a result of good analytical abilities, indeed (not that Adam Smith had any).

No, not at all I was making my statements as is usual people confuse the two. Just as they confuse capitalism for a political ideology yet they are unable to prove it is a political ideology. Commericalism is the over indulgance of profit that is proped up by a false sense of need.

They rant about the evils of capitlaism as though jews invented it when in fact it is natural occuring action as old as man and nature. I am still waiting for the names of these people that alledgelly invented capitalism, because Adam Smith does not claim to in any of his writings.

Who ever said Hitler invented anything? While he was a leader and wrote Mien Kampf I was never aware he invented National Socialism. Although that is another discussion for another thread.

Did Darwin invent evolution or Newton invent his physic laws?

I think Adam Smith was very analytical in descibing laws of supply and demand. He just kept things simple as they really are when you look at is as a whole.

Jäger
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 02:40 PM
No, not at all I was making my statements as is usual people confuse the two.
You are funny. You just admitted that the "difference" between the two you stated is actually no difference at all, and then you wonder why people might confuse these two.
Do you work at the circus?


Just as they confuse capitalism for a political ideology yet they are unable to prove it is a political ideology.
You prove this well enough.

Caledonian
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 02:46 PM
Anytime I see the usage of the word "wage slavery" I know it's some leftist propaganda. I don't even have to watch the videos. Wage slavery does not exist, mainly as what we perceive as wages is subjective. It's just a cloud of smoke that doesn't mean anything.



Take a look at Detroit for a union utopia. Unions are generally skilled labor only, they don't care about anyone else. Unions push for higher minimum wages because this pushes up the ladder for employment. Skilled workers obviously don't make minimum wage, they are making at least $20 to $30, so they could careless if someone went from $6 to $7 an hour. They push up minimum wage not for the little man, but to block out the little man. They can't stand cheap competition. That's why unions are generally skilled labor only, and push for such things.

Besides the policies they push (such as outlawing child labor, again cheap competition, even though as the average income went up during the beginning of 1900 to where children didn't have to work to solely support the family, unions pushed for it anyway to knock out competition), unions use coercive measures to get a grip on an industry and it's employees. Forcing someone to pay dues to some collective that doesn't do what you couldn't is needless to say bullshit.



Anytime I see the usage of the word "wage slavery" I know it's some leftist propaganda. I don't even have to watch the videos. Wage slavery does not exist, mainly as what we perceive as wages is subjective. It's just a cloud of smoke that doesn't mean anything.

Actually it does exist because it means that somebody is forced to work for a low set of wages because they don't have any other alternative of surviving in that they are forced to subsist on such extremely low wages or be kicked out onto the streets in homeless destitution by starvation.

Thereby not having a choice or any independence in the means that they survive they are thus enslaved by a wage. [Wage Slavery.]

I find it interesting that you refuse to acknowledge such instances of this happening when infact there are plenty of examples and references of this happening everyday.



A trade union (British English) or labor union (American English) is an organization of workers that have banded together to achieve common goals such as better working conditions. The trade union, through its leadership, bargains with the employer on behalf of union members (rank and file[1] members) and negotiates labour contracts (collective bargaining) with employers. This may include the negotiation of wages, work rules, complaint procedures, rules governing hiring, firing and promotion of workers, benefits, workplace safety and policies. The agreements negotiated by the union leaders are binding on the rank and file members and the employer and in some cases on other non-member workers.

Originating in Europe, trade unions became popular in many countries during the Industrial Revolution, when the lack of skill necessary to perform most jobs shifted employment bargaining power almost completely to the employers' side, causing many workers to be mistreated and underpaid. Trade union organizations may be composed of individual workers, professionals, past workers, or the unemployed. The most common, but by no means only, purpose of these organizations is "maintaining or improving the conditions of their employment".[2]

Over the last three hundred years, many trade unions have developed into a number of forms, influenced by differing political objectives. Activities of trade unions vary, but may include:

Provision of benefits to members: Early trade unions, like Friendly Societies, often provided a range of benefits to insure members against unemployment, ill health, old age and funeral expenses. In many developed countries, these functions have been assumed by the state; however, the provision of professional training, legal advice and representation for members is still an important benefit of trade union membership.
Collective bargaining: Where trade unions are able to operate openly and are recognized by employers, they may negotiate with employers over wages and working conditions.
Industrial action: Trade unions may enforce strikes or resistance to lockouts in furtherance of particular goals.
Political activity: Trade unions may promote legislation favorable to the interests of their members or workers as a whole. To this end they may pursue campaigns, undertake lobbying, or financially support individual candidates or parties (such as the Labour Party in Britain) for public office.

Your definition of unionism doesn't match mine.


They push up minimum wage not for the little man, but to block out the little man. They can't stand cheap competition.

I don't understand how anybody at this website can support cheap labor because cheap labor in free market capitalism is always accompanied with the increase flux of global immigration into our lands by bringing in more foreigners who will work for much less.

Free market capitalism and global immigration go hand in hand.

Cheap labor also has a way of downsizing anybody's wages too by decreasing them where people find themselves making less and less not to mention decreasing wages are symbol of job outsourcing another prime example of free market capitalism in that in order get cheap labor even more a company will just move out of country altogether to another place where it can pay it's workers much less leaving the worker at home unemployed or forced to take another job that pays very little by taking a huge pay cut.

So if that is the symptom of your much embraced cheap labor along with your free market capitalism all I can say is that I don't see how those positions benefit anybody in the long run beyond corporation owners.

RoyBatty
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 03:00 PM
Neither of these things fit the definition of serf or serfdom as in the U.S. you the choice to opt. out of all the things you mentioned you may lose your citizenship but that is your choice.


What kind of "choice" is that? What happens when you lose your citizenship?


You always have the choice to not pay taxes of course you have to live with those choices, but nobody is holding a gun to your head.


This sounds eerily like the kind of "choices" the Bolsheviks give citizens.

"Yes Comrade Pavel of course you have the choice to *refuse to join our glorious revolution but if you don't you'll have to live with the consequences of that choice" .......

*sound in the background of revolver being cocked

SpearBrave
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 03:00 PM
You are funny. You just admitted that the "difference" between the two you stated is actually no difference at all, and then you wonder why people might confuse these two.
Do you work at the circus?


You don't know the difference between No, I think there is a difference between the two, you somehow fail to see the two.



You prove this well enough.

I never once said or led that capitalism is a political ideology, I rest that on you.
Are you still unable to come up with proof of the inventors of capitalism? So you try say I believe capitalism is political ideology ....weak real weak.:reyesw

SpearBrave
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 03:18 PM
What kind of "choice" is that? What happens when you lose your citizenship?

This sounds eerily like the kind of "choices" the Bolsheviks give citizens.


Well actually there is fair amount of people here in the U.S. that call themselves tax protesters, few have went to jail and none has lost their citizenship.

I personally don't do that, but I used to follow their activities and keep current with their cases as I know a few of them.

Surprisingly some have won in federal court, mainly because the feds don't want to hear their cases, as they might set precedent.

All in all though it is choice, and nobody is threatening anybody with bodily harm.

The point is you can still pay taxes and prosper at the same time. The myth of wage slavery does not exist. Here in America you can work yourself to personal prosperity people do it all the time and pay taxes along the way.

Caledonian
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 03:18 PM
Well sure even if you take it out of context. ;)

The third video is what I was referring to, Although you can tell it is only a small part of a bigger lecture.

Can you prove that? In referring to these videos they surly are.



Still that does not change the fact that these videos are leftist propaganda.



The whole false idea of wage slavery is a marxist propaganda ploy. In propaganda they usually never mention their true intent. Again there is no such a thing as wage slavery in America. It is a false statement to get people to join unions. Yes there is mention of collectivism in the third video where it talks about the workers forming their own factory.


Do you have proof of that? Capitalism really is only a description of a natural law of supply and demand it is not a political theory. Never has been and never will be anything else. Marx used it as political theory and he was the first one to do so in a negative manner to instill his own sick ideas.


Most people confuse commercialism with Capitalism, I was just stating so separate the the two for further debate purposes.;)


It takes more than just money to make money, it takes innovation and determination on the part of person wanting to make money. Read up on the laws of supply and demand. Also here in America no one is forced to stay working at any job, they can always look for a new job paying more money. Nothing falls out of the sky. There are people who have been successful and started with nothing it happens all the time, they work for it plain and simple.


Not here in America it does not, again you must provide proof. The trade guilds of middle ages Europe are not the precursors of unions as the unions lay claim to.

Really take a look at any union website, they are filled with multicultural propaganda, also note which political ideas that unions support. Sure they say we don't tell our members how to vote, we just use their money to support leftist candidates.



Don't need to, take a look at the state of Michigan and other states that are union heavy and then tell me union areas of the country are doing well as compared to right to work states such as Indiana.

@ Paradigm- most unions are unskilled labor. While it is true unions such as the building trades and machinist unions are skilled, most factory unions are not such as the UAW or UNITE or even the Teamsters. Since when is working on a assembly line a skilled trade.;)

Don't even get me started on the government workers unions such as AFSCME or the SEIU.:/



Well sure even if you take it out of context.

What is taken out of context?



The third video is what I was referring to, Although you can tell it is only a small part of a bigger lecture.

I posted the videos as a means of simplifying my point where I wouldn't have to post all that much in the means of making my point across on the subject on this thread.

[I don't really have the time always to go into lengthy elaborations or expressions when it concerns posting especially given my own personal thoughts on a issue.]

I see this was a fruitless gesture on my part given everybody's reaction to the videos.

Instead I will just go through the very long process of typing my own thoughts on the issues thereby not giving anybody any more excuses to dance away from the genuine topic of this thread not to mention go around calling everything that they don't understand Marxist or communist like what has become the mantra of modern political conservatives.


Can you prove that?

As usual in repeating myself I will once again state that historically political leftism when it concerns anarchism, socialism, and even liberalism came before the advent of Marxism or communism a great deal of many years.

Not every form of political leftism is Marxist or communist inspired despite some people's insistence here that it is.



In referring to these videos they surly are.

I doubt all those people who created those videos are Marxist or communist.

At any rate I'm choosing to ignore those videos now and more focusing on the subject of wage slavery itself in that I'm tired of people here conveniently ignoring the subject on the basis of yelling Marxism or communism in loud processions in order to detract from the original intent of this thread.


Still that does not change the fact that these videos are leftist propaganda.

You call in propaganda whereas I call it points of view.

I'm sure I could say the same of a video expousing the good intentions and natures of free market capitalism.


The whole false idea of wage slavery is a marxist propaganda ploy. In propaganda they usually never mention their true intent. Again there is no such a thing as wage slavery in America. It is a false statement to get people to join unions. Yes there is mention of collectivism in the third video where it talks about the workers forming their own factory.

A. Wage slavery was discussed in detail long before Karl Marx or communism took hold of it.

B. You say there is no such thing as wage slavery in America therefore I would like you to back up those assertions.

C. Quit trying to say that every form of leftist political assertions is Marxist or communist because really it's embarrasing especially when it goes against political history.

I admit may leftist political positions were adopted or assimilated by Marxism and communism but that doesn't mean anything other than that such ideas were hijacked.


Do you have proof of that?

If you read some political history you would know that there were anarchists, socialists, and various other positions arguing against the existence of capitalism long before Karl Marx even came onto the scene historically.

Such political groups of people were all European too.



Capitalism really is only a description of a natural law of supply and demand it is not a political theory.

Capitalism is a ideology in the interpretation of supply and demand.

There is a difference.


it is not a political theory.

Yes it is. To assert otherwise is foolish.


Never has been and never will be anything else.

Incorrect.


Marx used it as political theory and he was the first one to do so in a negative manner to instill his own sick ideas.

Incorrect. Capitalism was criticized by a great deal of others long before Karl Marx was even known.

You get a giant F in understanding political history.


Most people confuse commercialism with Capitalism, I was just stating so separate the the two for further debate purposes.

I think what you are doing there is that you are trying to say that the free market capitalism that we have today isn't free market capitalism at all [ which it is.] by insisting that we have somthing else [which we don't.] that is a impurity of free market capitalism.

[Which is just hilarious and totally untrue.]


It takes more than just money to make money, it takes innovation and determination on the part of person wanting to make money.

Right.



Read up on the laws of supply and demand.

I'm familiar with the concept.



Also here in America no one is forced to stay working at any job,

Yes they are especially when not other option or alternative is presented to them in order to make any kind of living for themselves at all beyond the one they are forced to take to survive.


they can always look for a new job paying more money.

Well what happens when you can't find such a job?

What happens when such another job doesn't exist locally or if your own qualifications won't allow you as such?




Nothing falls out of the sky. There are people who have been successful and started with nothing it happens all the time, they work for it plain and simple.

Well that's the romantic ideal but in reality beyond this fanciful ideology you are expousing things work quite differently.



Not here in America it does not, again you must provide proof. The trade guilds of middle ages Europe are not the precursors of unions as the unions lay claim to.

Why aren't they?


Really take a look at any union website, they are filled with multicultural propaganda, also note which political ideas that unions support. Sure they say we don't tell our members how to vote, we just use their money to support leftist candidates.

Everything is filled with multicultural propaganda anymore.

That doesn't really shed any negative light on unionism.

If you don't like multiculturalism it would be smart to be against free market capitalism since it's the very economical model that only supports global immigration and the very ideal of international globalization.

For me nationalism and free market capitalism is incompatible as I said in another thread.


Don't need to, take a look at the state of Michigan and other states that are union heavy and then tell me union areas of the country are doing well as compared to right to work states such as Indiana.
The only reason why right to work states have higher profit and income revenues is because they pay their workers much less where the owners of corporations or businesses rake in most of the profit for themselves.

So of course they are going to be doing much better especially when it's at the expense of the worker.

Meanwhile union states like Michigan that actually tries to pay it's workers a higher salary and income have a hard time economically with the rest of the country because there is so much pressure on them to follow everybody elses lead by getting rid of unions altogether by cutting the incomes of such workers in half.


@ Paradigm- most unions are unskilled labor. While it is true unions such as the building trades and machinist unions are skilled, most factory unions are not such as the UAW or UNITE or even the Teamsters. Since when is working on a assembly line a skilled trade.

Why should unskilled laborers be refused to unionize?


Don't even get me started on the government workers unions such as AFSCME or the SEIU.:/

Well I admit government workers are usually the most pandered [Spoiled to the core.] I don't think having a union on their part is a negative thing in that if the government for any reason was to pay them less or cut their benefits in half they would need representation like anybody else.

Sissi
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 03:27 PM
I don't believe in wage slavery. These kind of words are encountered in the socialists' and communists' vocabulary in Austria. There is so much obsession with protecting the workers' rights that employers can't even set their own standards anymore. For example, working during weekends is illegal in many areas of service because the socialists fear exploitation.

I don't think there is such thing as slavery when you have a choice over your job. Nobody forces you to fulfill the employers requirements. You can just move on to another job or become self-employed.

SpearBrave
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 03:36 PM
What is taken out of context?


When you use only part of a sentence from part of paragraph you are taking the meaning out of context. In that case you are only reading what you want and changing the meaning of the original statement. It is trick the the media uses on a hourly basis.;)



I posted the videos as a means of simplifying my point where I wouldn't have to post all that much in the means of making my point across on the subject on this thread.

[I don't really have the time always to go into lengthy elaborations or expressions when it concerns posting especially given my own personal thoughts on a issue.]

I see this was a fruitless gesture on my part given every body's reaction to the videos.

Instead I will just go through the very long process of typing my own thoughts on the issues thereby not giving anybody any more excuses to dance away from the genuine topic of this thread not to mention go around calling everything that they don't understand Marxist or communist like what has become the mantra of modern political conservatives.


When you posted the videos they became the focus of the topic. Most people here view these videos as coming from a leftist stance( which they are).


As usual in repeating myself I will once again state that historically political leftism when it concerns anarchism, socialism, and even liberalism came before the advent of Marxism or communism a great many years.


Fine that is how you should titled the thread then. Be advised though you must provide the proof with statements, not just some propaganda videos.;)



I doubt all those people who created those videos are Marxist or communist.

They are without a doubt left leaning. I think we already discussed that.


At any rate I'm choosing to ignore those videos now and more focusing on the subject of wage slavery itself in that I'm tired of people here conveniently ignoring the subject on the basis of yelling Marxism or communism in loud processions in order to detract from the original intent of this thread.

I think if you want to focus on idea that wage slavery exist (which is does not) then be prepared to have proof that it does other than leftist propaganda. There is no proof that wage slaverly exist, the whole term is a propaganda tool.

Paradigm
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 03:38 PM
And yet it was free marketing capitalists that eventually went to create it where a whole line of other countries have followed similar suit afterwards by creating their own central variations.

Like who? You won't find one free-market capitalist who supports central banking (not in my eyes anyway). Go tell everyone at the Mises Institute that free-market supporters encourage central banking and see what kind of response you get.

Central banking is a statist creation, mainly because that bank will have a monopoly over the production of the money, if there really was a free-market in banking then they would have competition. The government grants that one bank (Federal Reserve) special privileges. It wasn't free-market capitalist who did this, because in a free-market there would be competition, it was the state and politicians who did this.

John Maynard Keynes was more of a bureaucrat than he was an economist. For him it was policy first, theory second.

Again, your response is just a strawman. You know you have no evidence whatsoever to back yourself up, and your knowledge of economic theory and history is very limited.

Read The Case Against the Fed by Murray Rothbard, or as an introductory End the Fed by Ron Paul.


Not every form of political leftism is Marxist or communist inspired despite some people's insistence here that it is.

Both influence leftism.


A. Wage slavery was discussed in detail long before Karl Marx or communism took hold of it.

B. You say there is no such thing as wage slavery in America therefore I would like you to back up those assertions.

C. Quit trying to say that every form of leftist political assertions is Marxist or communist because really it's embarrasing especially when it goes against political history.

A. Sources?

B. Value is subjective. "Wage slavery" or someone who's a slave to one wage is a subjective statement, wages themselves are subjective and not one person is stuck to one specific price range of a wage for eternity.

C. Do you know political history?


Incorrect. Capitalism was criticized by a great deal of others long before Karl Marx was even known.

In your other thread you said Adam Smith created capitalism, and now you say it was criticized long before Karl Marx, there's a very little gap in history there to it's criticism. Do you have facts of this?




I think what you are doing there is that you are trying to say that the free market capitalism that we have today isn't free market capitalism at all [ which it is.] by insisting that we have something else [which we don't.] that is a impurity of free market capitalism.

[Which is just hilarious and totally untrue.]

LOL. It's getting real hard to take you seriously. I think you are just spouting whatever you know is wrong or far-fetched and ridiculous to get a response from someone. What we have is corporatism and a market economy with heavy government intervention. It's far from a free-market in the sense I'm using it (no government intervention, no central banking, no fiat currency).

kuehnelt
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 04:09 PM
Actually it does exist because it means that somebody is forced to work for a low set of wages because they don't have any other alternative of surviving in that they are forced to subsist on such extremely low wages or be kicked out onto the streets in homeless destitution by starvation.

I already answered this. Reality is what presents them with the "work or die" choice, which is faced even by a man stranded alone on an island - a slave without a master, him. To say that wage workers are enslaved by this particular means of working-rather-than-dying is to say that I'm enslaved by the spoon that I use to bring soup to my mouth. Wage-work is a technology. It answers a problem. It is not itself the problem that it answers.


Cheap labor also has a way of downsizing anybody's wages too by decreasing them where people find themselves making less and less not to mention decreasing wages are symbol of job outsourcing another prime example of free market capitalism in that in order get cheap labor even more a company will just move out of country altogether to another place where it can pay it's workers much less leaving the worker at home unemployed or forced to take another job that pays very little by taking a huge pay cut.

This is mostly true. Anything that expands the number of potential hires to a job, acts also to suppress the wages of that job. Workers bid wages down, to get a job. It's also true that anything that expands the number of potential jobs, acts also to boost the wages of that class of job. Employers bid wages up, to get employees. Today we see some people whose multiculturalism leads them to embrace what lowers wages while their socialism leads them to throw bricks at what raises wages.

Immigration just has nothing at all to do with the capitalism, so I won't say more about it. The decisions of businessmen to move factories to foreign countries is a social concern like porn or animal cruelty or littering: here are some people who think your countrymen would rather have cheaper foreign goods than more expensive domestic goods. If they're wrong then their decision will punish itself. If they're right then your problem was there all along with your countrymen, who any day could have abandoned local business for an upstart foreign competitor. That local businesses do not even need to leave for you to see the exact same problem with cheaper foreign goods shows you that the concern isn't with businesses leaving, but with free trade: if you raised tariffs against imported cars then your domestic car producers will prosper even if foreigners produce cheaper cars, and these producers again would only become tariffed foreigners if they tried to leave the country.

I'm sympathetic to some arguments for tariffs, but the classical objection to tariffs was not that your countrymen have some mystical right to cheap foreign goods, or that "trade should be free, man, you know?", or that you're oppressing the poor honorable Haitians when you put a tariff on... whatever Haitians produce. Maybe voodoo dolls. The classical objection is that tariffs create winners and losers domestically, that they create enemies within a country, that they give one region the sense that their pockets are being picked by another region. The US had a pretty nasty war over this... that's the one you may have heard was about slavery.

Caledonian
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 04:26 PM
A History of Labor Unions (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmises.or g%2Fdaily%2F3553)

Trade Unions: Private Use of Coercive Power (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmises.or g%2Fjournals%2Frae%2Fpdf%2FRAE3_1_7.pdfh ttp%3A%2F%2Fmises.org%2Fjournals%2Frae%2 Fpdf%2FRAE3_1_7.pdf) (PDF)

The Myth of Voluntary Unions (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmises.or g%2Fdaily%2F1604)

Markets, Not Unions, Gave us Leisure (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmises.or g%2Fdaily%2F1590)

There certainly is some corruptability when it concerns unions in that trade unions themselves are not without their corruption.

[To solve that there needs to be reforms not it's obliteration.]

However to say that all trade unions are corrupt I feel is a bit of a over generalization.

At any rate without trade unions one can only think of all the coercive power of big companies that workers would be subjected to.


I already answered this. Reality is what presents them with the "work or die" choice, which is faced even by a man stranded alone on an island - a slave without a master, him. To say that wage workers are enslaved by this particular means of working-rather-than-dying is to say that I'm enslaved by the spoon that I use to bring soup to my mouth. Wage-work is a technology. It answers a problem. It is not itself the problem that it answers.



This is mostly true. Anything that expands the number of potential hires to a job, acts also to suppress the wages of that job. Workers bid wages down, to get a job. It's also true that anything that expands the number of potential jobs, acts also to boost the wages of that class of job. Employers bid wages up, to get employees. Today we see some people whose multiculturalism leads them to embrace what lowers wages while their socialism leads them to throw bricks at what raises wages.

Immigration just has nothing at all to do with the capitalism, so I won't say more about it. The decisions of businessmen to move factories to foreign countries is a social concern like porn or animal cruelty or littering: here are some people who think your countrymen would rather have cheaper foreign goods than more expensive domestic goods. If they're wrong then their decision will punish itself. If they're right then your problem was there all along with your countrymen, who any day could have abandoned local business for an upstart foreign competitor. That local businesses do not even need to leave for you to see the exact same problem with cheaper foreign goods shows you that the concern isn't with businesses leaving, but with free trade: if you raised tariffs against imported cars then your domestic car producers will prosper even if foreigners produce cheaper cars, and these producers again would only become tariffed foreigners if they tried to leave the country.

I'm sympathetic to some arguments for tariffs, but the classical objection to tariffs was not that your countrymen have some mystical right to cheap foreign goods, or that "trade should be free, man, you know?", or that you're oppressing the poor honorable Haitians when you put a tariff on... whatever Haitians produce. Maybe voodoo dolls. The classical objection is that tariffs create winners and losers domestically, that they create enemies within a country, that they give one region the sense that their pockets are being picked by another region. The US had a pretty nasty war over this... that's the one you may have heard was about slavery.



I already answered this. Reality is what presents them with the "work or die" choice, which is faced even by a man stranded alone on an island - a slave without a master, him. To say that wage workers are enslaved by this particular means of working-rather-than-dying is to say that I'm enslaved by the spoon that I use to bring soup to my mouth. Wage-work is a technology. It answers a problem. It is not itself the problem that it answers.I have no problem with working but when it concerns with working for much less in contrast to increased standards of living or being forced to take job that one does not want yet are compelled to by others in order to merely survive I do have a big problem with.



This is mostly true. Anything that expands the number of potential hires to a job, acts also to suppress the wages of that job. Workers bid wages down, to get a job. It's also true that anything that expands the number of potential jobs, acts also to boost the wages of that class of job. Employers bid wages up, to get employees. Today we see some people whose multiculturalism leads them to embrace what lowers wages while their socialism leads them to throw bricks at what raises wages.

Immigration just has nothing at all to do with the capitalism, so I won't say more about it. The decisions of businessmen to move factories to foreign countries is a social concern like porn or animal cruelty or littering: here are some people who think your countrymen would rather have cheaper foreign goods than more expensive domestic goods. If they're wrong then their decision will punish itself. If they're right then your problem was there all along with your countrymen, who any day could have abandoned local business for an upstart foreign competitor. That local businesses do not even need to leave for you to see the exact same problem with cheaper foreign goods shows you that the concern isn't with businesses leaving, but with free trade: if you raised tariffs against imported cars then your domestic car producers will prosper even if foreigners produce cheaper cars, and these producers again would only become tariffed foreigners if they tried to leave the country.

I'm sympathetic to some arguments for tariffs, but the classical objection to tariffs was not that your countrymen have some mystical right to cheap foreign goods, or that "trade should be free, man, you know?", or that you're oppressing the poor honorable Haitians when you put a tariff on... whatever Haitians produce. Maybe voodoo dolls. The classical objection is that tariffs create winners and losers domestically, that they create enemies within a country, that they give one region the sense that their pockets are being picked by another region. The US had a pretty nasty war over this... that's the one you may have heard was about slavery.
Immigration just has nothing at all to do with the capitalism, so I won't say more about it. How is it that world capitalism a direct product of free market capitalism is not the initiator of globalization?

It is free market capitalism in it's current state that has formed a sort of world commerce over the years which has lead to internationalism in the forming of globalism or globalization which later has brought about such issues like that of global immigration along with global outsourcing of a great deal of corporate industries that depress wages of the local worker.

[It is also free market capitalism in it's seeking out of lucrative cheap affordable labor in which corporations pressure governments into turning on the pressure valves of global immigration in which foreigners than immigrate to western nations to fulfill a need of cheap labor in the workforce.]

kuehnelt
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 05:57 PM
How is it that world capitalism a direct product of free market capitalism is not the initiator of globalization?

If you pointed at any particular country and said "this is an example of a capitalist country", I would object: "that may be more capitalist than others, but it's still a bad example." When you point at the whole world and say this... well, I think I know what you mean anyway. If a bunch of generally capitalistic countries today all reduced their tariffs against each other, as the EU says it's done, you should pretty quickly see some economic optimization occurring across borders, and should be able to trace a particular business's failure to the collapse of the tariff. If this is all you mean by globalization, then yes: capitalism and free trade will lead to it. But I'm not sure what you're replying to, out of what I said.

You may manage to make a really poignant case for preserving some tariffs - especially for national defense, where 'optimizing' ammo production to a hostile neighbor could strike some as unwise - but you won't make a case for socialism, the elimination of the price system, the elimination of money, the elimination of wage-work, etc., when you do this. Tariffs really are a separate subject, if a near one.

Immigration is not even a near subject. Look: I play Eve Online, a pretty fun MMO by an Icelandic company which has its servers in London. I don't have to go to Iceland to play this game. Wal-Mart does not exclusively employ Chinese immigrants. I bought a car from Detroit and I would not step foot in that city if I found a credible treasure map that led there. Singapore trades extensively with its neighbors while maintaining not only a racial cap on Malays but a system that thins the Malay population so that they can't form a local majority. Immigration has nothing to do with trade.

People who desire immigration may try to hang it on global trade. Cultural exports may lead to international sympathies. But it was the Labour government that decided to "rub the Right's nose in diversity".

RoyBatty
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 06:14 PM
Well actually there is fair amount of people here in the U.S. that call themselves tax protesters, few have went to jail and none has lost their citizenship.

I personally don't do that, but I used to follow their activities and keep current with their cases as I know a few of them.

Surprisingly some have won in federal court, mainly because the feds don't want to hear their cases, as they might set precedent.


There's an interesting film by Aaron Russo which deals with this topic called "From Freedom To Fascism".



All in all though it is choice, and nobody is threatening anybody with bodily harm.

Bodily harm isn't the only way to harm a person. The State uses more subtle methods. They persecute and hound those who exercise their choices, threaten them, incarcerate them, prosecute them and so forth. It becomes a bit of a lottery because one cannot predict the outcome once one exercises that choice.

A "choice" which carries with it the threat of persecution by The State, The Mafia etc is not much of a choice.



The point is you can still pay taxes and prosper at the same time.

It's possible but why should one be forced to pay Jew tax to the Parasites? That Federal Income Tax goes to The Federal Reserve which is a privately held bank. It's not a "Federal" Bank.


The myth of wage slavery does not exist. Here in America you can work yourself to personal prosperity people do it all the time and pay taxes along the way.

A system which through threat of persecution extorts money from the local population and then uses that money for purposes which have very little if anything to do with providing infrastructure, social services, educational grants etc. is a system which (quite legally) robs the population.

Wage Slavery / No Wage Slavery in the US is a question of semantics.

Do they shoot you for not paying? - No

Will they try to imprison you for not paying? - Yes

Will they threaten what remains of your liberty for not paying? - Yes

Will they deprive your family from their breadwinner if you don't pay? - Yes they'll do their best to do this.

SpearBrave
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 06:41 PM
There's an interesting film by Aaron Russo which deals with this topic called "From Freedom To Fascism".


Yes, I have heard of that film but have not seen it yet. I do mean to though.:)


Bodily harm isn't the only way to harm a person. The State uses more subtle methods. They persecute and hound those who exercise their choices, threaten them, incarcerate them, prosecute them and so forth. It becomes a bit of a lottery because one cannot predict the outcome once one exercises that choice.

A "choice" which carries with it the threat of persecution by The State, The Mafia etc is not much of a choice.


We don't have the old system of the U.S.S.R. where you become a disadent and can no longer function in society and eventually end up in gulag system.;)



It's possible but why should one be forced to pay Jew tax to the Parasites? That Federal Income Tax goes to The Federal Reserve which is a privately held bank. It's not a "Federal" Bank.


A system which through threat of persecution extorts money from the local population and then uses that money for purposes which have very little if anything to do with providing infrastructure, social services, educational grants etc. is a system which (quite legally) robs the population.


Well the illegal taxation of citizens is a separate subject then this thread. I don't agree with the amount of taxes we pay and why and to whom we pay them.

It still has little bearing that we have wage slavery or not. In America people can either work a second job, get a education, find a higher paying job, be creative and develop a new idea in their spare time to improve their living conditions. People do this all the time. There is no one going to just hand you a great career or life most of the time you have to work for it. Our Constitution only guarantees the pursuit of happiness not happiness. Whether you achieve that is up to you.



Wage Slavery / No Wage Slavery in the US is a question of semantics.


In the context of these videos wage slavery does not exist in the U.S..



Do they shoot you for not paying? - No

Will they try to imprison you for not paying? - Yes

Will they threaten what remains of your liberty for not paying? - Yes

Will they deprive your family from their breadwinner if you don't pay? - Yes they'll do their best to do this.

Really they can only threaten to do these things, if you are determaned and willing to fight for your legal rights they can't do any of these things at all.

Some just find it easy to take the lumps and move on, if they don't pay their taxes.

RoyBatty
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 06:48 PM
Yeah watch the film, it's interesting. I'm not claiming the director has "all the facts" completely accurate. There's a lot to the topic that I don't understand enough about. Still, it seemed like a fairly genuine effort at explaining the system and questioning it.

genius
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 07:36 PM
Frankly if a person can't find a good paying job for themselves it doesn't always mean the system is broken. Maybe they aren't adapted to the changing world?

We don't have a free market, we have a regulated free market with minimal wage laws, labor protection laws, etc.

What is the alternative anyway? Anarchy and no government? I don't think that would work out any better. I can say that we need limited government a la' Ron Paul or other Libertarian style governing. But if you want to live in anarchy go to Africa or something there the government is basically powerless so you can live in total "freedom" though it will involve being under threat of crime and poverty constantly.

There are problems with the system today. No doubt. Workers are not treated as good as they should be, but that's why people should stop thinking they need to work for a paycheck and start looking to own their own business, or be highly educated etc.

The other problem its nearly impossible for people to do these things when they have limited resources. That's why families need to work together and people need to be a part of a local church like organization.

Yes again white males are discriminated against and must usually work twice as hard for the same things. I agree, but the answer isn't anarchy or marxism.

The answer lies a lot in ourselves, in our own culture, how we organize ourselves etc.

The system is not perfect. But the smarter you are and the more you understand it the more you benefit from it. Most people in the united states are pretty wealthy- the majority actually. Yes a lot, and I mean a lot are really hurting especially now in the economic down turn, but still the system could be a lot worse. It's hard to tell someone that when they lost their job and are doing badly themselves. Its hard to see the good in the system or the light at the end of the tunnel, but I assure you its there.

And really so long as so many people are doing well, not enough will be interested in change. So rather than spending so much time on how to change the system, spend time on how to change your own situation, make yourself better off tommorow than today. And then take baby steps in changing the system. No revolution comes over night.

But your voice will be heard by having power and authority, not by arguing with people so much. Again success is the key to everything. Focus on thriving within the system and being competitive in any environment.

Æmeric
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 09:38 PM
I will always defend capitalism but I will say this. I have heard reports that in the 1960's the average ceo made 40 times the average worker. Today the average ceo now makes 400 times the average worker. That is wrong in my opinion. It seems the people at the top are taking all the profits at the expense of entire company or corporation. I would say we need not to share in the wealth but need to share in capitalism. Bring ceo pay down and bring workers pay up more. Enough of the greed on all side and that includes unions that do not look out for the worker even though they say they do. Enough of the union dues so union bosses can go to Las vegas to discuss "union matters". Get rid of greed on all sides and maybe things will improve for people. There is greed on the left and well as the right.:|

The reason for this is two-fold: Globalization & free trade, or at least one-way free trade into the US from cheap labor markets around the world. China is the latest. The second in the opening of the immigration floodgates because of the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 & illegal immigration. Labor (in America) is now cheaper because of the influx of 10s of millions of Hispanics & the fact that the US labor pool has effectively been merged with Asia's.

Ward
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 11:33 PM
If Adam Smith only named what what it is , then who invented it. Ideologies have thought originator's. Can you give the names of these originators? The burden of proof is on you. I already cited one source stating Adam Smith did not invent Capitalism can you cite who did?

Again I think your are placing capitalism as ideology and that is where you making mistakes.

No, it is you who fails to make the distinction between general economic principles and the ideology of capitalism. Capitalism is an ideology that holds private ownership of the means of production as the most effective means for distributing goods and services throughout society.

A capitalist/free-market economy does indeed have a number of advantages over a planned economy; it generally responds better to changes in supply and demand, and it tends to produce better quality products with greater efficiency as a result of competitive pressures. The glaring differences between the former East and West German economies is a case in point. From an ethnic and cultural preservation standpoint, however, West Germany was a colossal disaster. Multiculturalism as we know it is more a product of free-market greed than it is Marxist philosophy.


I neither pro or anti capitalist as I don't view capitalism as a political ideology.

Well, you are mistaken.


However I notice you state you are anti-Hippie yet you seem to follow some of the same views hippies do. Like blaming "capitalism" as a failure.

Nope, I firmly embrace nature's aristocracy, and there is a third position (like NS) that fights both capitalist and hippie idiocies.


Highly unlikely that the type of work could be replaced by Wal-Mart or any other low dollar chain store. If it could and it would have been done by now, Also there is already blacksmith type goods made overseas at discount rates. That does not bother me either as it is just competition sorta. I don't think you grasp the idea of handmade goods and why people desire them because you would have never made the Wal-Mart comment in the first place.

What I said will eventually happen in one way or another without state regulations, and self-employed blacksmiths will go the way of the shoe cobbler.


Well I guess that can proven wrong be by the last election, however you have to respect them as they got off their asses and did something instead of complaining about it. They are trying to fix it and are succeeding. What have you done other than cry like a pleb?

The average TEA Party supporter is about as politically astute as a negro who supports the Ku Klux Klan.

SpearBrave
Monday, November 29th, 2010, 01:22 AM
No, it is you who fails to make the distinction between general economic principles and the ideology of capitalism. Capitalism is an ideology that holds private ownership of the means of production as the most effective means for distributing goods and services throughout society.


Still waiting for proof that capitalism is political ideology, I think it is you who failed. How does your above statement make capitalism a political ideology?



A capitalist/free-market economy does indeed have a number of advantages over a planned economy; it generally responds better to changes in supply and demand, and it tends to produce better quality products with greater efficiency as a result of competitive pressures. The glaring differences between the former East and West German economies is a case in point. From an ethnic and cultural preservation standpoint, however, West Germany was a colossal disaster. Multiculturalism as we know it is more a product of free-market greed than it is Marxist philosophy.


Multiculturalism is not a product of a free market. From a ethnic and cultural standpoint capitalism has no bearing. We here in America had separation of race with free market trade it was not until marxist philosophy was introduced did we start to have problems with multiculturalism. Ever hear of the frankfurt school of thought and it's ideas on multiculturalism? They were most definitely a marxist thought school.

How good is a closed/controlled market society if the people are not allowed to flourish and better maintain a way of life.

I think of North Korea when I think of a closed market society, they really seem to be treating their people well[sic].


Well, you are mistaken.


Still waiting for you to prove me wrong. I mean real proof names, footnotes, sources and not from some leftist web page either.;)


Nope, I firmly embrace nature's aristocracy, and there is a third position (like NS) that fights both capitalist and hippie idiocies.


Yet you are a anti-capitalist just as much as a hippie. One of the main hippie idiocies is anti-capitalism.;)




What I said will eventually happen in one way or another without state regulations, and self-employed blacksmiths will go the way of the shoe cobbler.


Funny how I stated I was doing good and yes I do know cobblers that are still in business.;) There were already cheaply made blacksmith items on the market before I started my business. Competition is really not a bad thing and I think I said you would not understand that people have a desire for handmade goods.:P



The average TEA Party supporter is about as politically astute as a negro who supports the Ku Klux Klan.

The average TEA party member is really just a average American that supports a smaller and fiscal government. They never claim to be politically astute, in fact most of them don't like intellectual elitist and people that claim to be politically astute they have been the ones creating the problems. It is a grass roots movement for smaller and more fiscally responsible government. Beside we already have threads about the TEA party and what it is.;)

On a final note you have yet to prove that there is wage slavery in the U.S.. Most every thing else you have stated is off topic to the subject matter.

Jäger
Monday, November 29th, 2010, 09:53 AM
Still waiting for proof that capitalism is political ideology, ...
You fail to understand how communication works, you hang yourself up on the use of a word, even though it doesn't matter what we call it, as long as people understand what is meant, the thread starter has told you what he means, namely an ideologically motivated political doctrine, and you redefining the word (even if it would be historically correct) doesn't help the discussion, it is just you sabotaging it.

SpearBrave
Monday, November 29th, 2010, 10:29 AM
You fail to understand how communication works, you hang yourself up on the use of a word, even though it doesn't matter what we call it, as long as people understand what is meant, the thread starter has told you what he means, namely an ideologically motivated political doctrine, and you redefining the word (even if it would be historically correct) doesn't help the discussion, it is just you sabotaging it.

Trust me I am not just hung up on a word in this matter. Since I know what capitalism is and I can prove it. I also know that in it's real meaning it is not a bad thing. I would like some of the people who constantly blame capitalism for the troubles of the world to tell me why capitalism is such a bad and evil thing. Sorry I am not redefining any word I am merely asking for proof that basic capitalism is bad and proof that it is a political ideology. None yet have provided that proof. I do have strong suspect to where the idea of saying capitalism is a bad thing originated.

Still all in all you have yet to provide me with proof that capitalism is a bad thing or a political ideology. Can you name one country that is capitalist if it is a political ideology?

kuehnelt
Monday, November 29th, 2010, 12:16 PM
the thread starter has told you what he means, namely an ideologically motivated political doctrine, and you redefining the word (even if it would be historically correct) doesn't help the discussion, it is just you sabotaging it.

If I say that a 'Jäger' is a kind of person who beheads innocents, and then rail about such people in your presence, ask you if you've finally stopped beheading innocents all the time, wonder at the percentage of 'Jäger's in the population, express a dark hope that future societies can eliminate people like you, and so on, you would not be sabotaging the discussion to object to this definition. The terms of an argument are part of the argument. I would also not just be defining an abstract word, with that: the word is presented as referring to something real, so each part of my definition is also an assertion about the referent. Assertions can be wrong.

Moreover, although a neat definition like this can simply be side-stepped ("If that's what you mean by the word, he just isn't it."), neither the thread-starter nor you just now have supplied such a neat definition, or any definition. When it's claimed that 'capitalism', left undefined, is also an ideologically motivated political doctrine, vagueness is being heaped on vagueness. If there is a doctrine - never mind the 'ideologically motivated' - then what are its tenets? Potential alleged tenets like "profit should always rise no matter what!" "wages should always fall no matter what!" "yoke the masses for the pleasure of the elites!" are just in-group talk (I could use a cruder term) that only socialists will nod along with; as soon as you pin such on 'capitalism', the term will just be side-stepped.

Finally, it's not as if the people who've replied to the original poster have ignored his claims to pick at this term: his claims about wage slavery were immediately answered and now much later the thread is getting to this. Nobody is talking about capitalism in order to avoid talking about wage slavery.

Horagalles
Monday, November 29th, 2010, 02:49 PM
...Still all in all you have yet to provide me with proof that capitalism is a bad thing or a political ideology. Can you name one country that is capitalist if it is a political ideology?Well, if capitalism as a system is the private ownership of means of production + contractual freedom within loose boundaries, then Capitalism as an ideology would be the believe in those principles.

"Capitalism" is guilty by association naming it in the same context together with exploitation, child labor, "alienation" and the like. That makes it basically an emotionally loaded term and its usage is an example of loading the language (http://www.rickross.com/reference/brainwashing/brainwashing19.html#Loading the Language).

SpearBrave
Monday, November 29th, 2010, 03:26 PM
Well, if capitalism as a system is the private ownership of means of production + contractual freedom within loose boundaries, then Capitalism as an ideology would be the believe in those principles.

"Capitalism" is guilty by association naming it in the same context together with exploitation, child labor, "alienation" and the like. That makes it basically an emotionally loaded term and its usage is an example of loading the language (http://www.rickross.com/reference/brainwashing/brainwashing19.html#Loading the Language).

Yes, but who started using it to name all these bad things. Since it is used in that sense incorrectly and it is just used as a propaganda buzz word and not in its true intent.

When you take away the use of the word in a propaganda sense. The people who say capitilism is bad really have no merit. That has been my point all along. People like to place blame and often use capitalism to blame why things have gone wrong, really can we blame capitalism or is it just a distraction for what is really wrong. Many times I view people are just using capitalism a scapegoat and false understanding of the real problems at hand.

Just as the word wage slavery is used in the videos in this thread when there is no such thing as wage slavery in the U.S.. I'm not saying that there is no such thing as wage slavery and I am not saying there is no such thing as capitalism.

As far as it being a bad thing by guilt through association who first was to started associating it with these bad things?

Horagalles
Monday, November 29th, 2010, 04:23 PM
Yes, but who started using it to name all these bad things. Since it is used in that sense incorrectly and it is just used as a propaganda buzz word and not in its true intent....As far as it being a bad thing by guilt through association who first was to started associating it with these bad things?
As I recall this may have started as early as during the enlightenment, when there was a faction of people that made money during industrialization (and hence free wage labor), while there was also "old money" that made use of serfs in Europe and slaves in the Colonies. The "new money" was outrageous about slavery and servitude, while the "old money" pointed out child labor and exploitative practices. They did not necessary use the term "Capitalism", which I think was started or rather popularized by Marx, but the idea of bad-mouthing the underlying institutions is already present.

I just recall this from a history lecture and what I said is based on memory. It was an audio lecture and I can try to find it.

SpearBrave
Monday, November 29th, 2010, 04:41 PM
They did not necessary use the term "Capitalism", which I think was started or rather popularized by Marx, but the idea of bad-mouthing the underlying institutions is already present.


Now we are getting somewhere.:thumbup

Hence why I stated these videos and the term wage slavery come from a leftist camp. As do most ideas that bash capitalism.;)

Horagalles
Monday, November 29th, 2010, 06:58 PM
Now we are getting somewhere.:thumbup

Hence why I stated these videos and the term wage slavery come from a leftist camp. As do most ideas that bash capitalism.;)
Funny enough it wasn't the Left that didn't start ideas bashing capitalism. Those landholders favoring mercantilism and patriarchy mainly came from the aristocracy and had a more conservative outlook then those favoring more free markets and emancipating serfs. While it is not in dispute that the paternalistic feudal system had advantages for serfs and lower ranking members as well, it is reasonable to assume that many of them did prefer loosening the bonds enabling to go and work for a wage (higher as what he got from the landholder) in the factory of a capitalist and to have a prospect of a higher standard of living.

Ward
Tuesday, November 30th, 2010, 09:20 AM
"Capitalism" is guilty by association naming it in the same context together with exploitation, child labor, "alienation" and the like. That makes it basically an emotionally loaded term....

You forgot to mention "Jewish." Capitalism has traditionally been associated with international Jewry—with good reason I might add.


Still waiting for proof that capitalism is political ideology, I think it is you who failed. How does your above statement make capitalism a political ideology?

Capitalism is a socioeconomic ideology that is inextricably tied to politics, just like Marxism is a socioeconomic ideology that is inextricably tied to politics. How can you not understand this?

Is there such a thing as a political ideology that does not have an economic platform accompanying it? Do you think that socialist economies have no such thing as "supply and demand"? I mean, c'mon!!


Multiculturalism is not a product of a free market.

Bullshit. Multiculturalism is a result of globalization, which is driven by international capitalism. Naturally, this makes cultural Marxists happy, but capitalists made it happen (at least in America). Why the hell do you think the U.S. is starting to look like goddamn Mexico? Is it the Marxist fags in university sociology departments that are giving them jobs?


From a ethnic and cultural standpoint capitalism has no bearing. We here in America had separation of race with free market trade it was not until marxist philosophy was introduced did we start to have problems with multiculturalism. Ever hear of the frankfurt school of thought and it's ideas on multiculturalism? They were most definitely a marxist thought school.

To paraphrase what Ron Paul said in a recent interview, was it the free market that kept the races separate? No, it was state laws. Of course, race laws are anathema to Jewish Austrian School Libertarians because they smack of socialism, and the only color they care about is green.


I think of North Korea when I think of a closed market society, they really seem to be treating their people well[sic].

Wow, you really torched that straw man! :blueroll:


The average TEA party member is really just a average American that supports a smaller and fiscal government.

That's not saying much. The average American is a fat, monosyllabic idiot.


They never claim to be politically astute, in fact most of them don't like intellectual elitist and people that claim to be politically astute they have been the ones creating the problems.

So the way to combat the liberal elite is through ignorance and stupidity? Only in America I guess.

SpearBrave
Tuesday, November 30th, 2010, 10:10 AM
You forgot to mention "Jewish." Capitalism has traditionally been associated with international Jewry—with good reason I might add.

Capitalism is a socioeconomic ideology that is inextricably tied to politics, just like Marxism is a socioeconomic ideology that is inextricably tied to politics. How can you not understand this?

Is there such a thing as a political ideology that does not have an economic platform accompanying it? Do you think that socialist economies have no such thing as "supply and demand"? I mean, c'mon!!

Bullshit. Multiculturalism is a result of globalization, which is driven by international capitalism. Naturally, this makes cultural Marxists happy, but capitalists made it happen (at least in America). Why the hell do you think the U.S. is starting to look like goddamn Mexico? Is it the Marxist fags in university sociology departments that are giving them jobs?

To paraphrase what Ron Paul said in a recent interview, was it the free market that kept the races separate? No, it was state laws. Of course, race laws are anathema to Jewish Austrian School Libertarians because they smack of socialism, and the only color they care about is green.

Wow, you really torched that straw man! :blueroll:

That's not saying much. The average American is a fat, monosyllabic idiot.



Until you can provide proof to either disprove me or prove your own none of the above makes sense and is just retorical BS, have you not learned that. Still no proof ?



So the way to combat the liberal elite is through ignorance and stupidity? Only in America I guess.


Ever hear of common sense. You insist coomon people are ignorant and stupid that is it self something liberal elitist do.

kuehnelt
Tuesday, November 30th, 2010, 11:26 AM
You forgot to mention "Jewish." Capitalism has traditionally been associated with international Jewry—with good reason I might add.

You keep talking about Jews like "Jews!" is a complete thought, when this from an anti-capitalist is like a man in a window factory who sets down the window he's working on, steps around stacks of windows, angrily slams his Windows, Inc hat on his head, opens one of the hundred windows the building has for display, and then shouts curses at the stained glass being installed across the street. How dare they have a window! A window, in this town! That's just like those Jewish Austrian School Libertarians! Don't they know anything about that guy who fought to stop Austria from printing itself entirely into hyperinflation, or that other guy who opposed fractional banking as fraudulent, or all of these non-Jews!? They're exactly like the Jews at the Fed!


Multiculturalism is a result of globalization, which is driven by international capitalism.

No, the multicult has nothing to do with trade. I've already talked about trade not implying immigration; trade also does not lead to the worship of aliens, rabid anti-racism, racial quotas, etc. They're simply and obviously separate, and that you connect them just reveals you as so unserious about the multicult that it really sucks the enthusiasm out of any further reply to you.


Why the hell do you think the U.S. is starting to look like goddamn Mexico? Is it the Marxist fags in university sociology departments that are giving them jobs?

Yep, that's it right there, the single cause of the reconquista: some business somewhere hires first-generation illegals. If second- and future-generation illegals are American citizens by birth, if the border isn't maintained, if deportation is just unthinkable, if DC has inflicted prior amnesties on the nation and keeps trying for another, if the Democratic party have like the UK's Labour party figured out that reelecting the people is the thing to do when it comes to staying in power and giving people some socialism good and hard, if there is this huge preexisting racial spoils system that embraces Mexicans as 'people of color', if any opposition to any part of this is wicked and evil and most importantly racist, if -- oh, why go on, none of this is anti-capitalistic, so it won't interest you. Let's just wait for the next businessman to say that America needs cheap labor, and get back on script. You only need one such businessman, the media will make sure that even squirrels in Yellowstone hear about it, and you'll know that immigration is simply a demand of capitalism because the media will get people to say so. And who runs the media, again? Nevermind! Let's only be skeptical about assertions that don't feed into our pet resentment for evil rich people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_family) - this is all we really care about.


That's not saying much. The average American is a fat, monosyllabic idiot.

This is responsible for some of the enthusiasm I regained, but I will still leave this thread.

Ward
Tuesday, November 30th, 2010, 11:55 PM
You keep talking about Jews like "Jews!" is a complete thought....

Capitalism elevates crass materialism (Mammon worship) and hucksterism above national interests, and Jews have had a disproportionate influence in promoting it. Marxism elevates class struggle and social equality above national interests, and Jews have had a disproportionate influence in promoting it as well. Both capitalism and Marxism essentially obliterate nations by corrupting the traditional transcendent tribal/national/religious spirits of people with vulgar economic preoccupations.

I'm pro-free enterprise provided that it effectively serves (or at the very least does not harm) national interests. This means that I want the state to intervene to prevent things like businesses dumping their toxic waste into rivers, record labels promoting gangsta rap, the production and distribution of "animal crush videos" (which involve filming the torture and killing of animals for human sexual gratification—Ron Paul voted against legislation to ban it), and other such degeneracies that have been delivered to us by free-marketeers who sacrifice public interest for private gain.


when this from an anti-capitalist is like a man in a window factory who sets down the window he's working on, steps around stacks of windows, angrily slams his Windows, Inc hat on his head, opens one of the hundred windows the building has for display, and then shouts curses at the stained glass being installed across the street. How dare they have a window! A window, in this town! That's just like those Jewish Austrian School Libertarians! Don't they know anything about that guy who fought to stop Austria from printing itself entirely into hyperinflation, or that other guy who opposed fractional banking as fraudulent, or all of these non-Jews!? They're exactly like the Jews at the Fed!

In the future, get to the point of what you want to say. This is pure rubbish.


No, the multicult has nothing to do with trade. I've already talked about trade not implying immigration; trade also does not lead to the worship of aliens, rabid anti-racism, racial quotas, etc. They're simply and obviously separate, and that you connect them just reveals you as so unserious about the multicult that it really sucks the enthusiasm out of any further reply to you.

I don't mean to downplay the pernicious influence of cultural Marxism, but it is capitalist dirtbags who have commodified it and saturated our communities with it through free markets (think about MTV for instance). Capitalism and cultural Marxism have what basically amounts to a symbiotic relationship: they work together in advancing us towards a one-world future.


Yep, that's it right there, the single cause of the reconquista: some business somewhere hires first-generation illegals. If second- and future-generation illegals are American citizens by birth, if the border isn't maintained, if deportation is just unthinkable, if DC has inflicted prior amnesties on the nation and keeps trying for another,

Our politicians are in the pockets of big business, and big business likes to exploit the cheap labor of Mexican immigrants. The Bush administration was unabashedly pro-big business, which is why it did absolutely jack squat to curb immigration and constantly pandered to the Hispanic community.

Caledonian
Friday, December 3rd, 2010, 07:51 AM
Let's look at a publicly accepted definition of wage slavery. :)


Wage slavery refers to a situation where a person's livelihood depends on wages, especially when the dependence is total and immediate.[1][2] The term draws an analogy between slavery and wage labor, and may refer to an "[un]equal bargaining situation between labor and capital", particularly where workers are paid comparatively low wages (e.g. sweatshops),[3] or it may draw similarities between owning and employing a person, which equates the term with a lack of workers' self-management.[4][5][6] The latter covers a wider range of employment choices bound by the pressures of a hierarchical social environment e.g. working for a wage not only under threat of starvation or poverty, but also of social stigma or status diminution.[7][8][9]

Similarities between wage labor and slavery were noted at least as early as Cicero [10] and Aristotle.[11]


Simon Linguet in 1763:[24]‎

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… 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?


Proponents of the viewpoint that the condition of wage workers has substantial similarities (as well as some advantages and disadvantages) vis a vis chattel slavery, argued that:

1. Since the chattel slave is property, his value to an owner is in some ways higher than that of a worker who may quit, be fired or replaced. The chattel slave's owner has made a greater investment in terms of the money he paid for the slave. For this reason, in times of recession, chattel slaves could not be fired like wage laborers. A "wage slave" could also be harmed at no (or less) cost. American chattel slaves in the 19th century had improved their standard of living from the 18th century[26] and, according to historians Fogel and Engerman plantation records show that slaves worked less, were better fed and whipped only occasionally—their material conditions in the 19th century being "better than what was typically available to free urban laborers at the time".[27] This was partially due to slave psychological strategies under an economic system different from capitalist wage slavery. According to Mark Michael Smith of the Economic History Society:[35]

Although intrusive and oppressive, paternalism, the way masters employed it, and the methods slaves used to manipulate it, rendered slaveholders' attempts to institute capitalistic work regimens on their plantation ineffective and so allowed slaves to carve out a degree of autonomy.
Similarly, various strategies and struggles adopted by wage laborers contributed to the creation of labor unions and welfare institutions, etc. that helped improve standards of living since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Nevertheless, worldwide, work-related injuries and illnesses still kill at least 2.2 million workers per year with "between 184 and 208 million workers suffer[ing] from work-related diseases" and about "270 million" non-lethal injuries of varying severity "caused by preventable factors at the workplace".[36]--a number that may or may not compare favorably with chattel slavery's.

2. Unlike a chattel slave, a wage laborer can choose an employer, but he cannot choose not to have one, while attempts to implement workers' control on employers' businesses may be met with violence or other unpleasant consequences. The wage laborer's starkest choice is to work for an employer or face poverty or starvation. If a chattel slave refuses to work, a number of punishments are also available; from beatings to food deprivation—although economically rational slave owners practiced positive reinforcement to achieve best results and before losing their investment (or even friendship) by killing an expensive slave.[37][38][39]

3. Historically, the range of occupations and status positions held by chattel slaves has been nearly as broad as that held by free persons, indicating some similarities between chattel slavery and wage slavery as well.[40]

4. Arguably, wage slavery, like chattel slavery, does not stem from some immutable "human nature," but represents a "specific response to material and historical conditions" that "reproduce[s] the inhabitants, the social relations… the ideas… [and] the social form of daily life."[41]

5. Similarities were blurred by the fact that proponents of wage labor won the American Civil War, in which they competed for legitimacy with defenders of chattel slavery. Both presented an over-positive assessment of their system, while denigrating the opponent.[29][30][42]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery


I define a wage slave as somebody that is forced to work a low income wage job that they don't want or want to do because if they don't they will have no other means to survive which their only alternative is being homeless faced with starvation in withering away to death.

Thus selling their labor somthing of which is all that they own to sell is the only means to their survival of which they are forced to carry out.

A slave is somebody that is forced to do things that they don't want to by another who is usually in more control than they are and more powerful in influence or income.

The type of jobs that the modern wage slave does are usually the most menial of positions within a society added with the most lowest of incomes leaving the wage slave to barely survive beyond expenses and taxation where they can hardly afford the most basic of pleasures when it concerns living at all.

Caledonian
Friday, December 3rd, 2010, 08:15 AM
Serf
noun
1. a person in a condition of servitude, required to render services to a lord, commonly attached to the lord's land and transferred with it from one owner to another.
2. a slave.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/serf


Since there is really no such thing as wage slavery in the U.S. and it is only myth created by the leftist to give people a sense of hopelessness, people who work for low wages are there by choice not by force. They can always seek employment elsewhere, use their spare time to better themselves(education) or be creative and become self employed. Therefor there are no real serfs or slaves to a employer.


People who work for low wages are there by choice not by force.

Nobody works for low wages out of choice.

People work for low wages when they are presented with no other choice or option in order to make a living for themselves.


They can always seek employment elsewhere,

Yeah from one wage slavery position to another where the employer is different but where the same conditions still apply and sometimes where the conditions are much more worse than the prior one.


use their spare time to better themselves(education)

And many do considering that has become the only outlet anymore in elevating oneself although schools are costly and timely in procession where it still doesn't change the position of the wage slave all the same.

[To even get into school anymore one has to sell themselves into debt in that government financial aid is becoming much less than what it was.]

Still not everybody is able to achieve extra schooling or education in the pursuit of elevating themselves in society because not everybody has the same measure of intelligence within themselves which is why there is a significant percent of the population that remain uneducated and noncollege oriented.

Some if not many simply lack the mental skills altogether in pursuing higher education.


or be creative and become self employed.

Becoming self employed requires saved money to invest in somthing at a later point in the future.

Low income jobs don't specifically allow for much money to be saved considering expenses and taxation of low income jobs doesn't allow much money to be left for a low income worker to spend let alone save beyond achieving the bare essentials in surviving when it concerns the money that one has.

If you earn $990.00 or less per month I would like you tell me how your going to be able to save any money out of that after monthly expenses.

The little amount of money out of that which you may save will never in the long run amount to any large sum to invest into anything that is significant in investing.


in the U.S. you the choice to opt. out of all the things you mentioned you may lose your citizenship but that is your choice.

So if you don't want to lose your citizenship you better pay those taxes or else.



We do not belong to the land in the sense of a serf nor are we U.S. government property unless we swear a oath stating that for a said amount of time.


You always have the choice to not pay taxes of course you have to live with those choices, but nobody is holding a gun to your head.

Well they won't hold a gun to your head until after they arrest you first for tax evasion.

kuehnelt
Friday, December 3rd, 2010, 08:49 AM
I define a wage slave as somebody that is forced to work a low income wage job that they don't want or want to do because if they don't they will have no other means to survive which their only alternative is being homeless faced with starvation in withering away to death.

If low-income workers are slaves, so are high-income workers. If workers in bad work environments are slaves, so are workers in great environments. If workers who push rocks around are slaves, so are workers to compose music. If workers are slaves when they want some other employment, they are slaves also when they're pleased with their job. That you keep slipping in extra qualifiers suggests that you don't really believe, or aren't really following, the arguments you present for 'wage slavery'. Also, are there any 'wage slaves' in the US, where every single worker has an amazingly high income, an amazingly good environment, amazingly light work? Compared of course to all of history's laborers, however they were compensated.

In any case you're repeating yourself, and I've already on the first page given the naive argument for 'wage slavery' all the reply it needs:


Wage-work is slavery because the alternative is starvation? No, 'work or die' is reality's challenge to all life everywhere.

People also die, get sick, and suffer activity-related injuries because of cruel reality. I now expect to one day read that death itself is caused by wage-work: the SEIU and other unions have gotten better at rigging elections in favor of the anti-white party, but in spite of this 100% of all historical 'wage slaves' have died, and every one of today's 'wage slaves' is expected to also die.

Now, let me tell you a story about how earlier generations can 'enslave' later generations: once upon a time, a pregnant woman washed up on an island which had nothing edible beyond berries and fish. By the time her son was born and nine years old, two misfortunes met him: his mother drowned, but not before her actions had depleted the island both of berries and the ability to grow berries. So the son got to fishing. But he hated fishing! The end.

SpearBrave
Friday, December 3rd, 2010, 09:09 AM
Nobody works for low wages out of choice.

People work for low wages when they are presented with no other choice or option in order to make a living for themselves.

Yeah from one wage slavery position to another where the employer is different but where the same conditions still apply and sometimes where the conditions are much more worse than the prior one.

And many do considering that has become the only outlet anymore in elevating oneself although schools are costly and timely in procession where it still doesn't change the position of the wage slave all the same.

[To even get into school anymore one has to sell themselves into debt in that government financial aid is becoming much less than what it was.]

Still not everybody is able to achieve extra schooling or education in the pursuit of elevating themselves in society because not everybody has the same measure of intelligence within themselves which is why there is a significant percent of the population that remain uneducated and noncollege oriented.

Some if not many simply lack the mental skills altogether in pursuing higher education.

Becoming self employed requires saved money to invest in somthing at a later point in the future.

Low income jobs don't specifically allow for much money to be saved considering expenses and taxation of low income jobs doesn't allow much money to be left for a low income worker to spend let alone save beyond achieving the bare essentials in surviving when it concerns the money that one has.

If you earn $990.00 or less per month I would like you tell me how your going to be able to save any money out of that after monthly expenses.

The little amount of money out of that which you may save will never in the long run amount to any large sum to invest into anything that is significant in investing.

So if you don't want to lose your citizenship you better pay those taxes or else.

Well they won't hold a gun to your head until after they arrest you first for tax evasion.

Um, didn't we go over all this several pages back, most people agreed that there is no such thing as wage slavery, why do you feel the need to bring up points that were already discussed. It becomes a bit rhetorical and useless.

Besides you are taking my words out of context from the responses I made to other people and twisting the meanings of them to try and prove your own points.

I made my points already with basic common knowledge there is no need to go over things again and again.

Caledonian
Friday, December 3rd, 2010, 09:21 AM
If low-income workers are slaves, so are high-income workers. If workers in bad work environments are slaves, so are workers in great environments. If workers who push rocks around are slaves, so are workers to compose music. If workers are slaves when they want some other employment, they are slaves also when they're pleased with their job. That you keep slipping in extra qualifiers suggests that you don't really believe, or aren't really following, the arguments you present for 'wage slavery'. Also, are there any 'wage slaves' in the US, where every single worker has an amazingly high income, an amazingly good environment, amazingly light work? Compared of course to all of history's laborers, however they were compensated.

In any case you're repeating yourself, and I've already on the first page given the naive argument for 'wage slavery' all the reply it needs:



People also die, get sick, and suffer activity-related injuries because of cruel reality. I now expect to one day read that death itself is caused by wage-work: the SEIU and other unions have gotten better at rigging elections in favor of the anti-white party, but in spite of this 100% of all historical 'wage slaves' have died, and every one of today's 'wage slaves' is expected to also die.

Now, let me tell you a story about how earlier generations can 'enslave' later generations: once upon a time, a pregnant woman washed up on an island which had nothing edible beyond berries and fish. By the time her son was born and nine years old, two misfortunes met him: his mother drowned, but not before her actions had depleted the island both of berries and the ability to grow berries. So the son got to fishing. But he hated fishing! The end.


If low-income workers are slaves, so are high-income workers.

Which is bullshit because high income workers are able to afford a lavish lifestyle existence not to mention are able to save considerable amounts of money being that they are highly payed to invest into other things from which they can launch themselves into other things.

[ A low income worker aka wage slave lacks all of that.]

A wage slave is typically defined as a worker who makes the lowest amount of income or wages.

[Which usually revolves around menial jobs and occupations.]


If workers in bad work environments are slaves, so are workers in great environments.
I don't see how you are making a comparison.

I'm looking at wage slavery as a absence based upon happiness, independence, financial income accessibility and societal mobility.

The usual thumb is that the higher the income is the less of a issue there is at all with those subjects.

Infact the entire issue revolves around incomes [Wages] if we wish to get very complicated about it.

Horagalles
Friday, December 3rd, 2010, 10:01 AM
Which is bullshit because high income workers are able to afford a lavish lifestyle existence not to mention are able to save considerable amounts of money being that they are highly payed to invest into other things from which they can launch themselves into other things.
...Being a slave isn't about income or living conditions. It is about freedom. Well off and bad off slaves always have been part of the system of slavery. Wage earners aren't owned by anyone and hence aren't slaves. All what is left to argue is that those earning less do have less options in their lifes.

Caledonian
Friday, December 3rd, 2010, 10:11 AM
Being a slave isn't about income or living conditions. It is about freedom. Well off and bad off slaves always have been part of the system of slavery. Wage earners aren't owned by anyone and hence aren't slaves. All what is left to argue is that those earning less do have less options in their lifes.

In a world where your so called 'freedom' depends upon your monetary income or ability to spend in acquiring self independence I would say that directly correlates with distributive income and living conditions, wouldn't you agree?


All what is left to argue is that those earning less do have less options in their lifes.

Less options and choices in one's life when it affects their ability to be independent or enjoy living is a common trait of slaves especially when forced to have to do things against one's own prefered will.


Wage earners aren't owned by anyone and hence aren't slaves.

Technically everybody is owned by society in their ability to assimilate and exist within it.

So wage earners are very much owned by somebody much like anybody else is.

[Or if you wish everybody is owned by the state who then regulates the behaviors and existence of all those that live within it.]

kuehnelt
Friday, December 3rd, 2010, 10:11 AM
I'm looking at slavery based upon happiness, independence, financial income accessibility and societal mobility.

...

There is only injustice where there are unjust acts. Slavery is not merely a sad conditions or a tragedy, but one inflicted by men on other men. Bad weather, stupidity, salty oceans, are great challenges to overcome even if every single person alive were to agree that they should be overcome - but such agreement would be all you need to eliminate an injustice, because the people committing the unjust acts can always cease to commit them. If fate brings plague and pandemic, there's nobody to throw in jail over it - but in injustice you have the thief, the murderer, the wrecker, the slaver. Where there is an injustice, you can always point to someone and say that they ought not commit the unjust act.

So if you're looking at 'happiness' and 'independence' to find some slavery, you're looking at the southern pole of Neptune to find the Atlantic. If an employer is 'wage-enslaving' some thousands of employees, even if you have some ideas about what he could otherwise do, it should be preferable for him to simply stop wage-enslaving anyone - that is, to fire them all. It may be better for the world if a would-be torturer raised a little girl as his own, but it is unarguably better that he not torture her, rather than begin or continue to do so.

At the beginning of this comment I remembered that socialists of course don't have a praxeological viewpoint, and it's at the end that I remember that 'wage slavery' is not just a moral or philosophical or otherwise intellectual concern for its proponents, but is a vehicle for their aspiration to get greater riches other than through, say, doing work that pays better.

Jäger
Friday, December 3rd, 2010, 01:31 PM
If I say that a 'Jäger' is a ....
There is no problem with objecting terms/expressions, just that this is never part of the original discussion, it is one of its own.


Moreover, although a neat definition like this can simply be side-stepped ("If that's what you mean by the word, he just isn't it."), neither the thread-starter nor you just now have supplied such a neat definition, or any definition.
The videos do.
There are people who can't do anything else other than making themselves dependent on others, simply because they lack the abilities to be on their own. Slaves.
Then there are people who take advantage of those people, and worse, don't even care who these people are, as long as they are plenty. :thumbdown

Vindefense
Friday, December 3rd, 2010, 02:43 PM
The usual thumb is that the higher the income is the less of a issue there is at all with those subjects.

You my friend have a lot to learn about life. My advice to you is put down the philosophy books and steer clear of ideologies and the opinions of other men, they can not lead you out of the darkness, only you can do that.



There are people who can't do anything else other than making themselves dependent on others, simply because they lack the abilities to be on their own. Slaves.

True but more often than naught they lack the ability because they have come up in a system that robs them from developing the faculties that affirm those abilities. They are raised dependent on others and taught obedience,
the ability to think for themselves is non-existent.

Jäger
Friday, December 3rd, 2010, 03:05 PM
True but more often than naught they lack the ability because they have come up in a system that robs them from developing the faculties that affirm those abilities.
This is at least partly true, and the reason why such a system exists is exactly because of people who want those slaves to exist to maximize their exploitive opportunities. And, which is paramount to our discussion, those traitors operate fully within the ("legal") limits of a "free" market economy.

Vindefense
Friday, December 3rd, 2010, 09:05 PM
This is at least partly true, and the reason why such a system exists is exactly because of people who want those slaves to exist to maximize their exploitive opportunities. And, which is paramount to our discussion, those traitors operate fully within the ("legal") limits of a "free" market economy.

Another perspective is that this is only utilizing what would otherwise be inert potential. When then does the use of this potential become exploitive? And if there is no given Natural right to take raw material and transfer it into a state of higher use or purpose, then how can we justify cutting marble from the earth to be worked by a Michelangelo or a wood from a tree turned to the use of a Albrecht Dürer or even something as innocent as taking honey from bees or milk from a cow? Not the state or even the living man escapes criticism then, as they both make greater the sum of their parts only at the expense of those parts.

Jäger
Saturday, December 4th, 2010, 06:01 AM
When then does the use of this potential become exploitive?
As I said, when you support their state of being for your personal (short term) gain.

Vindefense
Sunday, December 5th, 2010, 02:07 AM
As I said, when you support their state of being for your personal (short term) gain.

Then it is alright to separate the subject from the object in this case? Can't it be said that a company, worker, employee, corporation, citizen, Nation, are one and the same? Made up of a composite of constituent parts that are put to use in the interest of the whole? Can't we also form then a law- that any incorporated body that exists consists of parts which can not be exploited without inflicting direct harm to itself. Isn't this the whole basis of the State and ultimately the real limit to it's power far greater than any constitution or any man made law?

The ideal of any type of personal gain is entirely a subjective distortion of truth where the objective shows that any gain of the individual has to be at the same time a gain of the greater whole and only when we make the mistake of separating the subject from the object do we see the illusion of exploitation.

Jäger
Wednesday, December 8th, 2010, 02:53 PM
Can't it be said that a company, worker, employee, corporation, citizen, Nation, are one and the same?
This is a question of what we are talking about, how it should be, or how it is?


Can't we also form then a law- that any incorporated body that exists consists of parts which can not be exploited without inflicting direct harm to itself. Isn't this the whole basis of the State and ultimately the real limit to it's power far greater than any constitution or any man made law?
Of course. I think we are cross talking here. "Wage" slavery is a "Global Market" spawn.

Caledonian
Thursday, December 9th, 2010, 03:26 AM
...

There is only injustice where there are unjust acts. Slavery is not merely a sad conditions or a tragedy, but one inflicted by men on other men. Bad weather, stupidity, salty oceans, are great challenges to overcome even if every single person alive were to agree that they should be overcome - but such agreement would be all you need to eliminate an injustice, because the people committing the unjust acts can always cease to commit them. If fate brings plague and pandemic, there's nobody to throw in jail over it - but in injustice you have the thief, the murderer, the wrecker, the slaver. Where there is an injustice, you can always point to someone and say that they ought not commit the unjust act.

So if you're looking at 'happiness' and 'independence' to find some slavery, you're looking at the southern pole of Neptune to find the Atlantic. If an employer is 'wage-enslaving' some thousands of employees, even if you have some ideas about what he could otherwise do, it should be preferable for him to simply stop wage-enslaving anyone - that is, to fire them all. It may be better for the world if a would-be torturer raised a little girl as his own, but it is unarguably better that he not torture her, rather than begin or continue to do so.

At the beginning of this comment I remembered that socialists of course don't have a praxeological viewpoint, and it's at the end that I remember that 'wage slavery' is not just a moral or philosophical or otherwise intellectual concern for its proponents, but is a vehicle for their aspiration to get greater riches other than through, say, doing work that pays better.

Where would any society be without it's working slaves? ;)

Could it be argued that that no society could function at all without it's slaves through very violent means of obtaining their mental and physical submission?

I think such a arguement could indeed be made in that all of human interaction very much indeed revolves around a master slave relationship in the civilized sense which the master garnishes their power by the utilization of how many slaves are at their disposal.

[In the modern sense what distinguishes a slave from a master is a matter of money or income when it concerns social mobility and independence along with the lack of.]

[In modern mass society since there is so many people in deeply dense populations human lives have become very much disposable in that there is so many people lying around that it becomes so easy to sacrifice a few here and there to maintain general social order in that human life nowadays is bought off so very cheaply.]

In all actuality society condones the type of slavery I speak of in that it cannot exist without it where instead of there being protests of it's very existence in the streets in massive rioting there instead is only it's legalization and acceptance where instead of actually blaming those who do the enslaving there is only the blaming of the slaves themselves in which the typical greater public narrative usually goes on the lines that the slaves brought it on upon themselves where they also have nobody else to blame but themselves for their miserable conditions.

[Which is also competely nonsensical because nobody brings upon themselves to be slaves in that they usually are made out to be as such by others for their failure of meeting the expectations of some uncompromising standard or grand ritualized ideal which sets out in making them be as such.]

What you say here doesn't even make the slightest of sense to me.

And in case anybody wants to bring up morals or ethics in the subject for the bonus round of this conversation let us all acknowledge such fictions as being in the very least clever deceptions that really beyond a manipulation of a few words here or there don't really convey anything at all in a world that really is quite absent of them.

[In that particular conversation nihilism is quite handy which I'm sure everybody here can fully appreciate.]


At the beginning of this comment I remembered that socialists of course don't have a praxeological viewpoint, and it's at the end that I remember that 'wage slavery' is not just a moral or philosophical or otherwise intellectual concern for its proponents, but is a vehicle for their aspiration to get greater riches other than through, say, doing work that pays better.I don't bother with morals or ethics for I'm completely absent of both of which I question their entire existence altogether as a skeptic in which I deny both.

My entire point of this thread quite the contrary was to merely point out that wage slavery merely exists despite those that deny as such.

[Not that it is good or bad somthing of which I don't even bother thinking about for the obvious reasons I listed above.]

As a matter of getting rid of wage slavery I look at it as a matter of seeking independence in which I find that if the slave is unhappy I see nothing incorrect in their desire of revenge in wanting to kill off their oppressors viciously in order safe guard their self autonomy. :)

[No morality or ethics involved and no absurd dilemmas to figure out despite that of the will to power in desiring to live a life of independence.]


but is a vehicle for their aspiration to get greater riches other than through, say, doing work that pays better.I have nothing against work.

However working should always be that which is beneficial for oneself where unbeneficial work should be disregarded altogether in the enhancing of the self by whatever means possible.

Noone ought to be enslaved to another in their service to work a living for themselves.


You my friend have a lot to learn about life. My advice to you is put down the philosophy books and steer clear of ideologies and the opinions of other men, they can not lead you out of the darkness, only you can do that.



True but more often than naught they lack the ability because they have come up in a system that robs them from developing the faculties that affirm those abilities. They are raised dependent on others and taught obedience,
the ability to think for themselves is non-existent.


You my friend have a lot to learn about life.Not really. I've learned about as much as there is in my short period of existence in that I have expirienced double even triple as much compared to most other individuals.


My advice to you is put down the philosophy books and steer clear of ideologies and the opinions of other men, they can not lead you out of the darkness, only you can do that. Quite the contrary. Philosophy is quite useful in understanding the world around oneself in which philosophy itself added with a bit of expirience and deep seated observation has given me practically everything I've always wanted to know about this chaotic rock floating in space that we call earth.

It's rather useful in building oneself up to a higher realization and consciousness more so than anything else that humanity has to offer.


they can not lead you out of the darkness, only you can do that. True but the collective wisdom of long passed souls sitting amongst the book shelves has done nothing but add to my own intellect in understanding the world around me.

I'm not so much worried about myself..... I'm a survivor.....

It's the rest of the world that should worry. :P

I have nothing but complete confidence in myself for it's the rest of the world that I lack confidence and faith in.


True but more often than naught they lack the ability because they have come up in a system that robs them from developing the faculties that affirm those abilities. Perhaps so. A system that intentionally and purposefully robs them.


They are raised dependent on others and taught obedience,
the ability to think for themselves is non-existent. Sure but more often enough the slaves that society creates end up coming around in full circle in revolt or rebellion where also the violent monsters that this world fashions end up violently lashing out as well where rather dumbfoundedly people ask themselve how such occurences come to be when the answer itself should only be so obvious.


Another perspective is that this is only utilizing what would otherwise be inert potential. When then does the use of this potential become exploitive? And if there is no given Natural right to take raw material and transfer it into a state of higher use or purpose, then how can we justify cutting marble from the earth to be worked by a Michelangelo or a wood from a tree turned to the use of a Albrecht Dürer or even something as innocent as taking honey from bees or milk from a cow? Not the state or even the living man escapes criticism then, as they both make greater the sum of their parts only at the expense of those parts.

I see............. :)

So in other words the slaves bring about their own misfortune where the lamentations of the slaves be damned when it concerns the masters that exploit them in that a well ordered society has every right to utilize their mind, body, and labor as it sees fit exploitatively for those who control it by utilizing their slavery for higher manifestations of civic culture when it concerns a society where we consider greater civilization as a whole.

Well that sounds pretty efficient theoretically and very cold not to mention callous as well but you know what they say about the master having to keep watch at night even when they are sleeping otherwise a disobedient rebel slave might end up killing them in their sleep for you see the slave can be just as cunning and cold especially if they are not closely monitored enough to where they can develop a completely conscious mind of their own overtime seperate from those that exploit them.

[I'm sure this is why ancient Romans would lock up their slaves while they were sleeping just to be on the safe side of course today there is no need to with cameras everywhere and high tech forensics utilized by local law enforcement to track down the disobedient where slaves can now walk freely anymore even fooling themselves into believing that they are free which many do just as long as they don't publically loiter around in being a general nuisance and that they keep on selling their labor for a minimal subsistence to which they debase themselves as expected.]

Paradigm
Thursday, December 9th, 2010, 03:33 AM
This thread is nothing but Marxist dribble.

Caledonian
Thursday, December 9th, 2010, 03:36 AM
This thread is nothing but Marxist dribble.

You wouldn't know what Marxism is if it sat on you.

I'm so sick and tired of you neo conservative types crying out Marxism and communism with everything you dislike that offends you especially when most of the time you can't or are unable to differentiate what is and what isn't where you act like the little boy that cried wolf at everything that they perceived to be threatening even of which when there is no wolf at all.

It's rather hilarious.

Paradigm
Thursday, December 9th, 2010, 03:49 AM
You wouldn't know what Marxism is if it sat on you.

I'm so sick and tired of you neo conservative types crying out Marxism and communism with everything you dislike that offends you especially when most of the time you can't or are unable to differentiate what is and what isn't where you act like the little boy that cried wolf at everything that they perceived to be threatening even of which when there is no wolf at all.

It's rather hilarious.

Unlike yourself (and most socialist/communist/Marxist), I've actually read Marx, and I have his e-books on my computer. I've also read scholarly critiques on Marx and Marxism, which are on my bookshelf. I'm also not a neo-conservative (it's pretty obvious). Hell, even Stephen Flowers who has contribued a lot to runes and Asatru has written on Karl Marx in Lords of The Left-Hand Path, and nailed his philosophy dead on! (I'll have to post the excerpt of that on here.)

Don't get upset over some pixels and text when someone calls you out for what you are. Like Loki, you're deceptive and quick to turn argument on someone, when you yourself are the one who's wrong.

Vindefense
Thursday, December 9th, 2010, 03:52 AM
This is a question of what we are talking about, how it should be, or how it is?

How it is, that the same principles that draw a Nation together function also on any organization of a higher purpose, such as the corporate or Global. Since these principles themselves are immutable they can not be good in one case and bad in another.


Of course. I think we are cross talking here. "Wage" slavery is a "Global Market" spawn.

Beyond that the invention of machines, which in more ways have become the masters of men more than any tyrant or employer could ever be.

Caledonian
Thursday, December 9th, 2010, 03:53 AM
Unlike yourself (and most socialist/communist/Marxist), I've actually read Marx, and I have his e-books on my computer. I've also read scholarly critiques on Marx and Marxism, which are on my bookshelf. I'm also not a neo-conservative (it's pretty obvious). Hell, even Stephen Flowers who has contribued a lot to runes and Asatru has written on Karl Marx in Lords of The Left-Hand Path, and nailed his philosophy dead on! (I'll have to post the excerpt of that on here.)

Don't get upset over some pixels and text when someone calls you out for what you are. Like Loki, you're deceptive and quick to turn argument on someone, when you yourself are the one who's wrong.

I've read all those books too guy.

Don't act like your the only one that reads this material in that your not special in those regards. [ I've probally read world history and philosophy much more longer than you have.]

Also despite my embracing of socialism you will find I'm paying attention to the direct subject only now where I haven't gone upon any other contingent where what your accusing me of is without basis where the Tom foolery is all on you.




I'm also not a neo-conservative (it's pretty obvious).

You sure sound like one of whom calls everything that they disagree with as being Marxist or communist even upon instances where they are specifically not at all.

It's kinda like a christian who cries out devil everytime they see or perceive somthing as threatening where there is no devil at all beyond their own incompetence in understanding what is presented in front of them.

I'm pretty amused honestly.


Like Loki, you're deceptive and quick to turn argument on someone, when you yourself are the one who's wrong.

Your having fun rubbing that in, aren't you?

[That's a nice defamative narrative you got going on there.]

Well by all means keep continuing with that little charade in that your proving a great deal of things where really I can just keep silent in watching without having to say anything at all in that your making my case against your arguements for me.

Please by all means keep indulging in personal attacks or mockery aimed at me by detracting from a actual debate. I welcome it.

Is there anything else that you have to say in the grace of your presence?

Paradigm
Thursday, December 9th, 2010, 04:05 AM
You've read an 800+ page magnum opus of dialectical materialism by Karl Marx? I doubt that a lot.

Caledonian
Thursday, December 9th, 2010, 04:10 AM
Then it is alright to separate the subject from the object in this case? Can't it be said that a company, worker, employee, corporation, citizen, Nation, are one and the same? Made up of a composite of constituent parts that are put to use in the interest of the whole? Can't we also form then a law- that any incorporated body that exists consists of parts which can not be exploited without inflicting direct harm to itself. Isn't this the whole basis of the State and ultimately the real limit to it's power far greater than any constitution or any man made law?

The ideal of any type of personal gain is entirely a subjective distortion of truth where the objective shows that any gain of the individual has to be at the same time a gain of the greater whole and only when we make the mistake of separating the subject from the object do we see the illusion of exploitation.


Can't it be said that a company, worker, employee, corporation, citizen, Nation, are one and the same? Made up of a composite of constituent parts that are put to use in the interest of the whole? No we can't because all individuals are not the same and despite my obvious support of collectivism there is limits within it where generalizations cannot be made for the whole.


Can't we also form then a law- that any incorporated body that exists consists of parts which can not be exploited without inflicting direct harm to itself.There are many forms of direct harm all of which are not immediately physical but translate in other ways that are just as damaging and harmful.


Isn't this the whole basis of the State and ultimately the real limit to it's power far greater than any constitution or any man made law? Don't understand the question.


The ideal of any type of personal gain is entirely a subjective distortion of truth where the objective shows that any gain of the individual has to be at the same time a gain of the greater whole and only when we make the mistake of separating the subject from the object do we see the illusion of exploitation. What do you exactly mean by that?


Since these principles themselves are immutable they can not be good in one case and bad in another. In which way are they immutable?


You've read an 800+ page magnum opus of dialectical materialism by Karl Marx? I doubt that a lot.

I've studied philosophy, psychology, sociology, and world history going on about eight years so you can doubt all you wish where I of course don't give a damn what you think.

[I've studied a great deal of other things as well in that same time period.]

Paradigm
Thursday, December 9th, 2010, 04:12 AM
Wikipedia doesn't count, sir.

Caledonian
Thursday, December 9th, 2010, 04:15 AM
Wikipedia doesn't count, sir.

Oh that's rich and cute.....

You think because I reference alot of stuff from wikipedia you assume that's all I read............Antagonism at it's finest.

I would present you with my vast collection of books but somehow I think I would find it kinda hard to show you here in cyber space.

[Which is probally why I referenece wikipedia alot on the internet, huh?]

I guess you didn't think that part through.........I hope I'm some help there now that you know better.......

Paradigm
Thursday, December 9th, 2010, 04:24 AM
I reference a lot too, and it's not Wikipedia, either.

If you're so proud of your books show me some pictures, I'll even one up you and show you a picture of my Nietzsche books in German from 100 years back!

Caledonian
Thursday, December 9th, 2010, 04:50 AM
I reference a lot too, and it's not Wikipedia, either.

If you're so proud of your books show me some pictures, I'll even one up you and show you a picture of my Nietzsche books in German from 100 years back!

My book collection comes through barnes and noble or border books stores. [ My books are mostly new issues out of plastic covering fold nothing worth while to the supposed hundred year old books that you claim to posses.]

At any rate I feel like I have entertained you enough for one evening where I do not feel like detracting from the original subject of the thread anymore.

Paradigm
Thursday, December 9th, 2010, 05:03 AM
[ My books are mostly new issues out of plastic covering fold nothing worth while to the supposed hundred year old books that you claim to posses.]


http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=106929&stc=1&d=1291870927

Nachgelassene Werk, Aus den Jahren 1869-1872 (Diminished Works from the years 1869-1872, 1903), and Jenseits von Gut und Böse & Zur Genealogie der Moral (Beyond Good and Evil & The Genaology of Morals; 1918) by Friedrich Nietzsche. They are listed as Nietzsches Werke Band IX and Band VII, respectively.

Hamar Fox
Thursday, December 9th, 2010, 06:50 AM
The way the system is set up, 90% of jobs are absolutely worthless and could be performed by machines (my last job could have been performed by an ATM). They have zero meaning, zero relevance to the survival of people you care about. If you quit or died, your role would be taken up by some other drone. And even if it wasn't, nothing would happen, no one would die, no one's life would be ruined. Why? Because your job was superfluous. It only existed to increase company profits by 0.00001%. It's impossible to take pride in such lines of work, which, as I said, constitute the vast majority of what's available in modern society. They're not inherently enjoyable, aren't remotely important to the survival of society (unless you mean its current economic instantiation), have no effect on anyone's welfare or quality of life, and are underpaid.

People who like to perform menial labour simply for the sake of it, whether it means your tribe will survive (which it hasn't meant for a few thousand years) or not, are simply of peasant stock. They've been bred to serve without question. They're stimulated by performing the same mind-numbing tasks day after day after day for peanuts. Or more accurately: They're not stimulated at all, but they require no stimulation to be satisfied. That's why Poles are known for being much, much harder (menial) workers than English, and I've even heard this used as an insult against the English! The fact we're not a peasant race is actually an insult in modern capitalist society.

Unless I can find a job that's either inherently enjoyable (i.e. in line with a personal passion, or is varied and challenging) or actually benefical to society (e.g. a doctor, an inventor etc.) then I have little motivation to get up at 4.30 on a winter's morning to take flak from pleb customers and colleagues I would NEVER choose to be around if I had a say in it, all for minimum wage.

Magni
Thursday, December 9th, 2010, 06:57 AM
Marx also wasn't a Marxist...

genius
Thursday, December 9th, 2010, 06:16 PM
Here's the paradigm shift in thought from my view and the "normal" progressive view:

When someone is weak and they fail I see that as justice. The liberal Marxist sees it as injustice.

When someone is stupid, weak, doesn't fight for his life, doesn't try to better himself, doesn't take any opportunity to do better and so on and he thus sinks to the bottom of society where he is payed low wages, passed over for opportunity, and enriches others I see that as justice.

I have been exploited a lot. I think its wrong. A lot of rich people who own businesses would have people work for free if they could. Hell yeah they exploit people. But why? I noticed my co-workers were weak and stupid. My problem was I was in the same group as them, associated with them.

I told the people we could put our money together and buy the busienss and make more money. They weren't interested. They were all too stupid to do anything on their own, unmotivated, need to be told what to do. So I see the problem is inside them.

There are enough opportunities for people who really want to better themselves. You just have to move up in "rank" in society, get in a group of winners. Usually this is done through education.

If you go to college or something about 90% of it is bullshit irrelevant to any job. It's just a test. People who are able to do long term planning, be self motivated (not need to constantly be told what to do), who have some measure of intelligence etc. tend to make it in college and those who lack such tend to fail.

This is why most good jobs ask for a college degree. It's not because the school is training people for anything really. Or if they do train its just a small part of the course at the end.

Paradigm
Thursday, December 9th, 2010, 07:40 PM
People can't stand discrimination based on reality, they have to enforce egalitarianism. Even with people here talking about nationalism and folk, there's still going to be people who fall behind, I don't know why others have to pick up the slack. When you have people who are essentially bums who get upset that others are better than them, they want to push forth an agenda to keep others from succeeding. I feel that most anti-capitalist want to punish success, because someone has earned more or is more productive. Then they throw out some emotionally driven rant about this and that. Each man is entitled to the fruits of his labor, he's not entitled to others that he did not work for.

Jäger
Thursday, December 9th, 2010, 07:48 PM
How it is
So the Mexican employees are one and the same as the American Nation?

Hamar Fox
Thursday, December 9th, 2010, 08:12 PM
People can't stand discrimination based on reality, they have to enforce egalitarianism. Even with people here talking about nationalism and folk, there's still going to be people who fall behind, I don't know why others have to pick up the slack. When you have people who are essentially bums who get upset that others are better than them, they want to push forth an agenda to keep others from succeeding. I feel that most anti-capitalist want to punish success, because someone has earned more or is more productive. Then they throw out some emotionally driven rant about this and that. Each man is entitled to the fruits of his labor, he's not entitled to others that he did not work for.

Not so. Nobles are entitled to the riches of their family, which are derived from the labour of lessers, so they needn't do a day's work in their life.

Besides, your argument is something like: People who say they don't want to stick needles in their eyes only pretend they don't want to because they don't have the skill to do it.

I easily outclass the majority of people at pretty much everything. I was one of those who never studied for his exams, never even went to class, but always passed with straight A's. I could excel at any line of work I put my mind to, if I had even the slightest motivation to. I just don't.

genius
Thursday, December 9th, 2010, 08:44 PM
Yeah. I met people who were not real smart, never put in a real day's work in their life, and make lots of money. At the same time they call themselves geniuses and detest taxing the rich. In reality they only make money because they take advantage of people by giving them rock bottom wages.

So I understand why someone working and contributing a lot but getting nothing would feel "socialist". I worked at a BP gas station and did $10,000 a day in sales about $6,000 or $7,000 was profit. When others worked they did about $6k in sales I just worked faster, moved the lines, customers bought stuff.

I got paid $6 an hour and lived in poverty. I had to walk 5 miles to work because I couldn't afford a car. So BP comes in and remodels the places twice a year at $55k a pop even though it doesn't need remodeled because they have "so much money", but they wont give us a 25 cent raise.

And trust me as I said many of these people are idiots. They just come from good families, were sent to a good college, had connections in life and now are sitting on the board of directors etc.

But that was just me. I saw a lot of people being taken advantage of but also a lot of people working for BP were unproductive morons who were costing the company money. So one reason I was getting cheated was Marxist egalitarianism. they treated all people the same rather than rewarding those who did better.

And rather than expect all workers to get paid $3,000 a day which is unreasonable we need to rely on the personal decisions of people rather than regulate everybody. Did BP take advantage of me? Yes. Are they morons? Yes. Is the solution bigger government, more regulation and redistribution of wealth? No. The solution is I get up and go to college. I find a way out in this competitive world.

If we were living in medieval Europe where there is no social mobility- born a peasant mostly gonna stay a peasant- ok I could argue for some form of "socialism" and make things "fair" but in our society today there are many opportunities for people. Most people are just too stupid to take them.

I'd say education is the big equalizer. But also if enough people pooled their money they could buy a business of their own, buy in bulk etc. It's just the problem is like in my situation I couldn't find any competent people. All the poor people are losers. that's telling you something. anybody with any quality in them already moved up the ladder for the most part!! So there's a lot of mobility.

Is it totally "fair" no. Like if you go to a community college you have to go longer than if you got money to pay for a good private school. I mean that's life. Some people's parents, ancestors etc. put them in a better position. But still even in the worst position in the bottom of society there is opportunity.

Less and less of it every year I'm afraid and I think that is what is getting people upset. People need to adapt though. Life was extremely easy in the 1950s and 70s and such so people just got used to the gravy train and now that the world is getting a little competitive they are getting upset.

Caledonian
Friday, December 10th, 2010, 12:20 AM
http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=106929&stc=1&d=1291870927

Nachgelassene Werk, Aus den Jahren 1869-1872 (Diminished Works from the years 1869-1872, 1903), and Jenseits von Gut und Böse & Zur Genealogie der Moral (Beyond Good and Evil & The Genaology of Morals; 1918) by Friedrich Nietzsche. They are listed as Nietzsches Werke Band IX and Band VII, respectively.

Well that's all very neat being that I'm somewhat of a fan of Nietzsche myself as well in contrast.

[I've read all his books and writings.]

I've noticed the title of the books in the photo is explicitly in German.

You must be able to speak fluent German I presume in order to read German text.

[ Or you googled some really old Nietzsche book collectables as a way of cheap flattery on your part claiming them to be your own as a way of illustrating the intellectual superiority that you claim to posses by such means of symbolic illustrations within your posts.........]

[Or maybe your a collector of antique collectables..Who knows? I'm just guessing...]


At any rate I don't see what that has to do with the subject of this thread in that at the very least it's a distraction.


Marx also wasn't a Marxist...

Curious statement.

I suppose you are trying to say that Marx was a kind of socialist with a sort of (Ah hah!) type moment in trying to criticize my beliefs.

The only problem with that is traditional moderate socialists like myself look at Karl Marx as the radical bastardization of socialism where your statement means nothing at all as a defamation stand point.

Unlike Marx who's sole vision was to create eventually a perfect working utopic collective organization structure by revolutionary means moderate socialists like myself deny such absurdity by instead vouching for the most effective social harmonius structure that is remotely possible but without ignoring specific unalterable distinctions given within human nature in self deluding ourselves that a utopia is even remotely possible let alone desirable.

[There are definate differences between moderate socialism versus what later became Marx's communism via the interpretation of his writings.]

At any rate I don't understand what your comment specifically has to do with the nature of the subject that is predominantly being discussed in this thread.

Just another distraction it seems from the current subject.


Here's the paradigm shift in thought from my view and the "normal" progressive view:

When someone is weak and they fail I see that as justice. The liberal Marxist sees it as injustice.

When someone is stupid, weak, doesn't fight for his life, doesn't try to better himself, doesn't take any opportunity to do better and so on and he thus sinks to the bottom of society where he is payed low wages, passed over for opportunity, and enriches others I see that as justice.

I have been exploited a lot. I think its wrong. A lot of rich people who own businesses would have people work for free if they could. Hell yeah they exploit people. But why? I noticed my co-workers were weak and stupid. My problem was I was in the same group as them, associated with them.

I told the people we could put our money together and buy the busienss and make more money. They weren't interested. They were all too stupid to do anything on their own, unmotivated, need to be told what to do. So I see the problem is inside them.

There are enough opportunities for people who really want to better themselves. You just have to move up in "rank" in society, get in a group of winners. Usually this is done through education.

If you go to college or something about 90% of it is bullshit irrelevant to any job. It's just a test. People who are able to do long term planning, be self motivated (not need to constantly be told what to do), who have some measure of intelligence etc. tend to make it in college and those who lack such tend to fail.

This is why most good jobs ask for a college degree. It's not because the school is training people for anything really. Or if they do train its just a small part of the course at the end.

That is just silly.

You people here act like social injustice is a Marxist concept where prior to the birth and existence of Karl Marx social injustice hadn't existed at all where it wasn't very much talked about.

[Of course rather trivially when it concerns linguistics as a matter of wording and speaking I prefer the terminology social oppression in that justice itself as a word is a exhausting loaded term.]

Can we have some serious discussion around here besides playing games?

Also yet again, what does this have to do with the subject of this thread?

For anybody that is clueless as to what the nature of the subject that this thread is illustrating upon the subject is on wage slavery.

I don't know exactly how I can make that anymore clearer.

I did not know that the subject of this thread revolves around questioning people's professed social political orientation.

I thought the title of this thread made very much clear as to what the subject is all about. Some people here have already got that yet many here seem to still be clueless where they are inserting other things into the conversation in which the subject itself has nothing to do with.


People can't stand discrimination based on reality, they have to enforce egalitarianism. Even with people here talking about nationalism and folk, there's still going to be people who fall behind, I don't know why others have to pick up the slack. When you have people who are essentially bums who get upset that others are better than them, they want to push forth an agenda to keep others from succeeding. I feel that most anti-capitalist want to punish success, because someone has earned more or is more productive. Then they throw out some emotionally driven rant about this and that. Each man is entitled to the fruits of his labor, he's not entitled to others that he did not work for.

Where have I spoke about egalitarianism here?

The subject again here is on wage slavery.

Now if you like competition so much as a capitalist which I'm sure you do in that you capitalists are never not so quick to defend it in position then I suppose you have no problem with a lawless no bars existence of chaos where there aren't any general rules in place for actual genuine competition to take place that isn't specifically limited or restrained in any fashionable manner however if you are against that position than it would seem that you would support some general concepts of social egalitarianism afterall despite being against it.

There is a difference between lawless or ruleless competition versus fair competition, is there not?

Can you not make a distinguishment?

In this world there is only one or the other where one will replace the other rather quickly if one of them should fail.


Even with people here talking about nationalism and folk, there's still going to be people who fall behind, I don't know why others have to pick up the slack.If leaders cannot pick up the slack or if those in power cannot help their common folk it's better to usurp and dethrone them altogether in that their positions of power become meaningless to respect anymore.

Apart of any given collective society is the relevance of helping out all members collectively.

If society was only a vehicle in which only a few specific individuals benefit where others are largely sacrificed there would be no reason for collective society to exist at all. [There would be no reason as to why the majority would have to submit themselves in submission to that small minority of benefiting individuals where infact it would be far better to rebel.]


When you have people who are essentially bums who get upset that others are better than them, they want to push forth an agenda to keep others from succeeding. Your narrative not mine. While infact there are a great number of lazy bums who wish to do nothing at all in improving themselves or existing in general not everybody who questions the system of things are bums where infact social oppression is somthing very real when it concerns existence along with wage slavery which somebody like you can't deny no matter how hard they try to.


I feel that most anti-capitalist want to punish success, because someone has earned more or is more productive. I feel like your dancing around the issue with popular rhetoric.

It's not about punishing success as it is about evening the scales to which people can live successful lives.

If you want to bask in inequality by looking down upon others saying they deserve what they get by telling them that they can eat cake in your apathy towards them then that symbolizes lawless and ruleless competition in which you can be consumed by the inevitable chaos that will undoubtedly follow afterwards overtime.

If on the otherhand you wish to preserve society and civilization fair competition within specific collective social regulations would be your best bet of assurance.


Each man is entitled to the fruits of his labor, he's not entitled to others that he did not work for. I agree. The problem is that others take away the fruits of other people's labors irresponsibly leaving little or nothing to the one that is working in inequal distribution.

Paradigm
Friday, December 10th, 2010, 06:38 AM
The egalitarianism is implied, you don't have to say it, and there's no such thing as "fair" competition.

Horagalles
Friday, December 10th, 2010, 09:54 AM
The egalitarianism is implied, you don't have to say it, and there's no such thing as "fair" competition.
He is talking about practices in competion that are within certain social norms:

If on the otherhand you wish to preserve society and civilization fair competition within specific collective social regulations would be your best bet of assurance.
You get different competitive behavior some is considered acceptable as within certain norms (advertizing) some other isn't (fraud). Be advised that suppressing the later with the usual judicial systems method isn't sufficient.
That's a reason why one needs to consider barriers to entry for certain people.

Hamar Fox
Friday, December 10th, 2010, 11:36 AM
Capitalism views work and profit both, not as means to an end, but ends in themselves. As I mentioned two posts ago, most lines of work are becoming increasingly superfluous. This is clear in the ever growing ratio of service sector employment to that in the production sector or even the specialised sector. 90% of jobs in the service sector don't need to exist. Society doesn't need people working at McDonald's, and it's impossible to argue anyone who works at McD's is giving anything to society but dissatisfied tastebuds and coronary disease. There's no need for any fast food chains, considering their food is revolting and not nutritious in the least, but there's even less need (less than nothing-- we're going into the negatives here) for more than one low quality fast food chain in the market. There's no need for McDonald's and Burger King and Wendy's. Still less is there any need for 5 McDonald's, 5 Burger King's, 5 Wendy's etc. in every town. Approximately 1 in 15 people in this example need to be employed (and that's assuming fast food is needed at all, which it isn't, because it's crap).

The same applies to everything else. Does there need to be 20 different department stores in the same town centre? Most actually sell the exact same products, so it's not even a question of variety -- but rather pure superfluity. 90% of people in the service sector are working needlessly. The only reason they work (or are forced to work to get by) is that we live in a society that sees work, as I said, as an end in itself.

And as I also said above, the mechanisation of the production sector didn't correspond with a decline in required employment (and by this, I don't mean unemployment -- I mean people being made redundant and being rewarded generously by their former employees whose decision to mechanise the workforce created an increased profit margin), reduced working hours etc.; but rather corresponded with an increase in the secondary/service sector.

Through mechanisation, streamlining and basically trimming the fat of excess variety in unnecessary products, either half of the population or more wouldn't need to work, or everyone could enjoy much shorter hours in addition to superior pay. This would be unequivocally desirable if the ideology of capitalism didn't dictate that work is a great thing in and of itself.

genius
Friday, December 10th, 2010, 04:55 PM
Hamar Fox I bestow upon you the title of genius.

Anyway this brings up a good point. Most of the people who own these businesses are trying to find ways to squeeze out more personal profits by creating redundant and useless products. Then they advertise to convince people they need them. I suppose a more "socialist" system would be set up differently. Mainly if people were more socially minded they could plan out towns, cities etc. in a more productive way.

My point is: wage slavery does exist but its volunatary slavery. So its not really slavery. There are plenty of ways out of it in our current society. Social oppression mainly occurs against those who work hard, are competent etc. rather than the under classes.

Caledonian
Friday, December 10th, 2010, 07:17 PM
Hamar Fox I bestow upon you the title of genius.

Anyway this brings up a good point. Most of the people who own these businesses are trying to find ways to squeeze out more personal profits by creating redundant and useless products. Then they advertise to convince people they need them. I suppose a more "socialist" system would be set up differently. Mainly if people were more socially minded they could plan out towns, cities etc. in a more productive way.

My point is: wage slavery does exist but its volunatary slavery. So its not really slavery. There are plenty of ways out of it in our current society. Social oppression mainly occurs against those who work hard, are competent etc. rather than the under classes.

There is no such thing as voluntary slavery in that nobody volunteers on their own to be ensalved or exploited like one in which it is the other way around from where a person is coerced into being one.


There are plenty of ways out of it in our current society. Social oppression mainly occurs against those who work hard, are competent etc. rather than the under classes.

Oh, so now the haves are socially oppressed compared to the have nots? That just doesn't make any sense.

Vindefense
Friday, December 10th, 2010, 08:11 PM
There is no such thing as voluntary slavery

There is and it stems from our tendency to fulfill our wants with the least amount of effort. There is freedom in this "voluntary slavery" in the sense the employee need not struggle for work like a self employed man does, instead the work is brought right to him and placed in his lap. In a planned economy the government provides the work and the servitude eventually shifts from voluntary to forced as the government is not some third entity, big brother but the all and to take from the all to give to the all what they are already capable of defies reason.

Paradigm
Friday, December 10th, 2010, 08:46 PM
Did anyone ever define "wage slavery" to begin with?

genius
Saturday, December 11th, 2010, 06:15 PM
There is no such thing as voluntary slavery in that nobody volunteers on their own to be ensalved or exploited like one in which it is the other way around from where a person is coerced into being one.

Okay maybe I can make it clear this way: I have met people who cry about how they don't want to drink and how it ruins their lives. Then 15 minutes later are drinking again. Same with people who use drugs or beat their wives or whatever. Some people are just defective. It is their own defective nature which enslaves them, not other human beings.

Some people can be "saved" from this defectiveness by changing their ideas, others are just genetically inclined to always be defective no matter what. Arguing with them is like arguing with an ox. An ox is utterly useless other than to pull a plow. For him pulling a plow is actually a gift that society gives him. Though he may look at the humans who are doing better than him with envy he can never be human himself because he wasn't born human.

In the same way people want all the advantages of being smart, of being socially responsible etc. but aren't smart themselves, can't be socially responsible etc. Most poor people are not reliable, treat their own friends and family like crap. they can't function in a civilized group.

I have seen the government give people in the ghetto expensive homes, more expensive than most people live in. A few years later the home is totally destroyed and the people outside are crying "why is our home run down while other people live better than us" umm its run down because you wont mow the grass or clean up after yourself and you busted out all the windows.

Caledonian
Thursday, December 16th, 2010, 12:59 AM
There is and it stems from our tendency to fulfill our wants with the least amount of effort. There is freedom in this "voluntary slavery" in the sense the employee need not struggle for work like a self employed man does, instead the work is brought right to him and placed in his lap. In a planned economy the government provides the work and the servitude eventually shifts from voluntary to forced as the government is not some third entity, big brother but the all and to take from the all to give to the all what they are already capable of defies reason.

Some choose their slavery whereas others do not.

It's naive to say that in this world people are not forced into all sorts of things at all or forced to become somthing that which they don't wish for freely.

It's also naive to say that others don't survive by stripping away the indendepence of others.

You seem to think freedom is amongst everywhere in this world that is all for the taking where there is no disruption in between.

I disagree.


Did anyone ever define "wage slavery" to begin with?

People forced into low income occupations against their will in which they are forced to sell their labor for a minimum income doing menial jobs because they have no other choice when it concerns their survival.

How do you like that definition?


Okay maybe I can make it clear this way: I have met people who cry about how they don't want to drink and how it ruins their lives. Then 15 minutes later are drinking again. Same with people who use drugs or beat their wives or whatever. Some people are just defective. It is their own defective nature which enslaves them, not other human beings.

Some people can be "saved" from this defectiveness by changing their ideas, others are just genetically inclined to always be defective no matter what. Arguing with them is like arguing with an ox. An ox is utterly useless other than to pull a plow. For him pulling a plow is actually a gift that society gives him. Though he may look at the humans who are doing better than him with envy he can never be human himself because he wasn't born human.

In the same way people want all the advantages of being smart, of being socially responsible etc. but aren't smart themselves, can't be socially responsible etc. Most poor people are not reliable, treat their own friends and family like crap. they can't function in a civilized group.

I have seen the government give people in the ghetto expensive homes, more expensive than most people live in. A few years later the home is totally destroyed and the people outside are crying "why is our home run down while other people live better than us" umm its run down because you wont mow the grass or clean up after yourself and you busted out all the windows.

Your generalizing again.

Why do articulate that most poor people are scum socially?

A great deal of poor people are unlucky and unfortunate not being how you define them at all. I'm sure that is the general consensus conferred to them by the upper classes as a means of their oppression.

Vindefense
Thursday, December 16th, 2010, 01:45 AM
Some choose their slavery whereas others do not.

It is the same relationship a dog has to an owner when the dog stays with the master because the master provides for him. To me this is wage slavery, which is a volunteered condition here since you reserve the right at any time to spit out the masters food and find food yourself. Whether you can do this or not is test of character nothing more.


It's naive to say that in this world people are not forced into all sorts of things at all or forced to become somthing that which they don't wish for freely.

The key to life is to do what you love to do and have the talent to do, then everything follows. Those who find their work to be wage slavery obviously are not following this rule. Also before anyone accuses me of selfish individualism, what I describe above is not self pursuit for self gain, no it is the utilization of your natural potential in the benefit of the group. See, I am a collectivist.




You seem to think freedom is amongst everywhere in this world that is all for the taking where there is no disruption in between.

Nope. I think all life is bound by duty and debt and nothing exists that is entirely free, not even breathing.

Paradigm
Thursday, December 16th, 2010, 02:34 AM
People forced into low income occupations against their will in which they are forced to sell their labor for a minimum income doing menial jobs because they have no other choice when it concerns their survival.

How do you like that definition?

Define "forced" and "against their will".

They are not working for nothing, they obviously have something they want or need, and to make that gain they have to work for it. It's not if you have 12 year old children working in coal mines, you have people my age and older working to pay off things they have in regular jobs. Everyone's born with the same faculties, if they waste them don't expect anyone to replace them.

When it comes to the life of the individual and the countless choices, no one forces them into the job they hold, and no one forces them to buy the things they do, and if they have no other choice it must be a very sad hypothetical example.

Caledonian
Saturday, December 18th, 2010, 09:47 PM
It is the same relationship a dog has to an owner when the dog stays with the master because the master provides for him. To me this is wage slavery, which is a volunteered condition here since you reserve the right at any time to spit out the masters food and find food yourself. Whether you can do this or not is test of character nothing more.



The key to life is to do what you love to do and have the talent to do, then everything follows. Those who find their work to be wage slavery obviously are not following this rule. Also before anyone accuses me of selfish individualism, what I describe above is not self pursuit for self gain, no it is the utilization of your natural potential in the benefit of the group. See, I am a collectivist.





Nope. I think all life is bound by duty and debt and nothing exists that is entirely free, not even breathing.



It is the same relationship a dog has to an owner when the dog stays with the master because the master provides for him. To me this is wage slavery, which is a volunteered condition here since you reserve the right at any time to spit out the masters food and find food yourself. Whether you can do this or not is test of character nothing more.
It's interesting that you would use a dog and a master as a analogy considering that in ancient history cur was a proper terminology for slave which roughly translates into dog as it was a used insultingly.

At any rate the dog has no choice but to stay with the master because it's been domesticated all it's life to know no other existence especially when it concerns surviving on it's own where should it turn on the master it is usually euthanized immediately.

Of course one could argue that the slave cannot find no other course to exist especially in procuring food for themselves when considering how the master controls the food supply.

Moreover the slave could rebel and try to create their own existence elsewhere but if the master controls all of the territory of the world divided amongst other masters the slave couldn't go anywhere without being confronted by somebody wishing to impose their complete utter subjugation on them.

Just out of curiosity using the dog analogy, are we to say that low minimum workers are somebody elses pet?


To me this is wage slavery, which is a volunteered condition here since you reserve the right at any time to spit out the masters food and find food yourself. Whether you can do this or not is test of character nothing more. A slave could but then when confronted by the many police officers, soldiers, and prisons of the masters they might reflect upon themselves not to.

You still haven't explained how any of this voluntary.



The key to life is to do what you love to do and have the talent to do, then everything follows. I'm sure that's the ideal but the reality of it all is much different.

Nietzsche said it best that life revolves around power.

The key to life is to acquire power so that one can do what they love to do where everything follows of course the general consequence of that is that when people have no power of their own they can do none of the above.

[Which is why I made this thread to reflect upon all of that.]



Those who find their work to be wage slavery obviously are not following this rule.Explain.



Also before anyone accuses me of selfish individualism, what I describe above is not self pursuit for self gain, no it is the utilization of your natural potential in the benefit of the group. See, I am a collectivist. Sure........I guess I can understand that but the extremes of collectivism can also be tyranny of the majority against the minority in which the minority becomes enslaved.

I support collectivism too however I only support it to certain level as long as it does not exceed the existence of individuals themselves for a key element to collective functioning is the happiness of individuals. I don't like the extreme of one over the other.


Nope. I think all life is bound by duty and debt and nothing exists that is entirely free, not even breathing.
So then your position is of the radical collectivist in which uniformity is key where the behavior of humans are negated to mere uniformed drone like behavior of ants where the individuals are sacrificed for the superorganism of society.

Can't say I really support that position because I don't.


Define "forced" and "against their will".

They are not working for nothing, they obviously have something they want or need, and to make that gain they have to work for it. It's not if you have 12 year old children working in coal mines, you have people my age and older working to pay off things they have in regular jobs. Everyone's born with the same faculties, if they waste them don't expect anyone to replace them.

When it comes to the life of the individual and the countless choices, no one forces them into the job they hold, and no one forces them to buy the things they do, and if they have no other choice it must be a very sad hypothetical example.



Define "forced" and "against their will".Restricted, limited, and coerced into a position within a society that is of little benefit to themselves against their will usually by that of those who are in positions of control when it concerns resources or positions within a given society.



They are not working for nothing, they obviously have something they want or need, and to make that gain they have to work for it.They are working for a minimum in order to get the lowest basic essentials out of civilized living because they are limited or restricted based upon their skills and lack of when it concerns those with power that actually control the resources along with key governing portions of any given society.


It's not if you have 12 year old children working in coal mines, you have people my age and older working to pay off things they have in regular jobs. What you have instead is people pushing spatulas their entire lives or working in a assembly production line doing one menial task after another for the lowest possible income in order to subsist in living while they serve the wealthy [master] opulent class.


Everyone's born with the same faculties, if they waste them don't expect anyone to replace them.This is where your incorrect and this of course is the most blatant lie going on in our societies today thus being perpetuated.



When it comes to the life of the individual and the countless choices, no one forces them into the job they hold, and no one forces them to buy the things they do, and if they have no other choice it must be a very sad hypothetical example. So what your saying is that we live in a bright world of sunshine and lolli pops where freedom is there for everybody in this nice little utopia we call earth where oppression and coercion of any kind does not exist at all where everything can be solved by happy talk........
is this what your saying?

We all know the popular expression nowadays that goes on in saying that freedom isn't free. Why the expression?

It's because freedom is bought and purchased for a price thus reducing freedom as a ridiculous useless concept altogether in discourse.