- Mar 2017
- Matosinhos Portugal
capitalism vs. socialism
São iguais - They are the same
São iguais - They are the same
Labor is necessary for production. It is far from sufficient. Since most can do labor, and few can innovate, holding the laborer as more valuable is irrational. If you think I am wrong, ask a lineman to create your next cell phone.You seem to think that's an answer to something
You’re not making one. You just feel like you are.Your refusal to see the point I'm making doesn't obviate the point.
ALL wealth production, ALL profit, in fact ALL business revenue results from the joint efforts of the business elite (CEO, Board, etc.) and the employees.
If you work in my shop, and I pay you what we agreed, then I don’t owe you a bite of my apple just because I purchased it with profits made from our joint effort you greedy pig. I owe you what we agreed to. If instead of an apple, I buy or build a mechanical replacement for you, I don’t owe you continued benefits after your severance pay.But instead of acknowledging that this means that the employees LOGICALLY have a fair share interest in the new technology because they participated jointly with the business owners to produce those revenues and assets
There is no legal expropriation for private entities. Legal expropriation is for governments.Legal expropriation is still expropriation.
They have a time and a place. I can tone it down a bit if my sarcasm is over your head.You seem to value insults.
A very good point. That’s because Capitalists are individualists. It’s morally and functionally superior to collectivism.The capitalist always wants to make the question one of individuals.
Not at all. It’s simply to counter argument to the coattail riding of collectivism.It's a "divide and conquer" strategy.
Oh haha, I bet. “You want real world examples? You want individual people to take individual responsibility for their individual business dealings? Well that’s of no interest Mr.Bourgeoise. Now give individual me the wealth of individual you because your class owes mine!”Hence your questions here are of no interest.
A capitalist with weak employees is running a failing business. People work really hard just to get an interview at Google. If Google were keeping their employees in a weak position, Apple would gladly take them. And if they are working together, they won’t even see the next company coming.But the capitalist seeks to weaken the position of the employee by making issues only about individuals when it serves their interests.
Wow. You saw my analogy to the grocery store, right? Do you really think they are selling you produce for less than it is worth? Or exactly what it is worth? No. They are selling it to you at the agreed price. Honest transaction. AT WHAT THE MARKET WILL BEAR!Heh heh heh. Maybe, in economics, you've never heard the expression "what the market will bear" in pricing retail goods. The exact same expression applies in determining wages. No employers hires an employee if he doesn't believe the employee will produce more value than he is paid. So the "agreed upon price" becomes more similar to extortion under such conditions.
In this case, it wasn’t an insult. It was a fair analogy. You are simply in a position of not liking the price and as a result, you want to gain something from someone on terms they did not agree to. That is quite like a shoplifter who feels owed something when they don’t like the price.Again, we see your reliance on insults and hope of intimidating. Are you not up to the challenge of an honest, factual, and logical discussion?
By all means, pretend I didn’t insult you. If that’s what it takes to make a valid point, then please do so. However, if my insults provide you with a fine excuse to avoid the substance of my position in favor of crying about insults, I don’t think it will fool anyone.And to prove their contentious and exploitative perspective on employees, when the capitalist can't corral the prospective employee into their ideological world view, they attack him as you do here to try to make him to be an outcast, unacceptable, and unworthy.
Tell me, in what system is it not the case that a person needs to be productive or needs assistance via the productive efforts of others?--within the capitalist system.
Your welcome. Happy to help.In response to my answer to your question.
I offer mine for free, and require none in return. If you have some to toss out, it won’t dissuade me from arguing my position. If it serves as a reason for you to avoid arguing yours…You’re welcome.I'm not here to trade insults. If you wish to discontinue our conversation, feel free to continue the insults and I will bow out.
You haven’t heard them say it won’t cost YOU? There is only 1 who won’t pretend at this. It will always only cost someone else, unless you’re listening only to Sanders.I only see that as an unsupported fabrication with no factual truth to it. No one has said we can have more with no cost.
You aren’t paying attention. It’s not just the opioid epidemic they helped to start with unnecessary narcotics; it’s unnecessary labs, scans, tests, and yes drugs that they sell to consumers who are paying with insurance. Not only do they sell, but they sell at bloated costs. Not because they are unethical, but because that’s how this screwy market works where we have high regulation and zero pricing information. Then insurance companies refuse to pay at said cost, and pay much less. If they charged insurance a reasonable price, they would end up losing money in the end.I can't logically argue the idea of doctors selling drugs because they don't.
It is not a loss to me if you decide to run from economic realities simply because I was mean about how I presented it. Even if it feels like a win for you.You should know you're walking on thin ice here. In your next reply I will expect an absence of personal attacks and insults.
Ok, allow me to be pedantic for your benefit. Maybe it will help.Labor is necessary for production. It is far from sufficient. Since most can do labor, and few can innovate, holding the laborer as more valuable is irrational. If you think I am wrong, ask a lineman to create your next cell phone.
There. I re-worded it, since you were apparently having difficulty tracking and comprehending the conversation (as if that’s what this is).
No, the problem is your failure to comprehend what isn't presented with precise simplicity. I just fed you such a simple and direct reply ^^^. Let's see if you can confuse that, too.You’re not making one. You just feel like you are.
...according to capitalist law. True. But that doesn't make it the most acceptable way to organize business.If you work in my shop, and I pay you what we agreed, then I don’t owe you a bite of my apple just because I purchased it with profits made from our joint effort ....
...under capitalist law. Yes. But that doesn't make it the most acceptable way to organize business.I owe you what we agreed to.
Definition of "expropriate":If instead of an apple, I buy or build a mechanical replacement for you, I don’t owe you continued benefits after your severance pay.
There is no legal expropriation for private entities. Legal expropriation is for governments.
You're walking on thin ice. In fact, I see from the remainder of your reply that you aren't up to the challenge of honest examination of your willfully-received brainwashing, and you hide behind it with insults and personal attacks so your fear of the truth is obscured. As such you are a waste of my time, so I leave you to your immaturity. You are now on "ignore".They have a time and a place. I can tone it down a bit if my sarcasm is over your head.
Remember when I said the CEO will build your cell phone? Me neither.Ok, allow me to be pedantic for your benefit. Maybe it will help.
You're saying a laborer cannot be expected to create the next cellphone. I'm here to tell you the CEO doesn't and can't either. It takes engineers, physicists, electronics experts,and many more ALL OF WHOM ARE WORKERS.
And I handily dismantled it. ^^^I just fed you such a simple and direct reply ^^^.
Since you can't respond to real world examples involving individuals, I'm not surprised you avoid specifics in law and economic principles as well. Do you also subscribe to a theory of cosmology that relies on ignoring stars?...according to capitalist law. True. But that doesn't make it the most acceptable way to organize business.
Well, yes. Perhaps "pig" was a bit much, but "greedy" was merely descriptive of the position you present.Are you really stooping to name-calling now? I warned you about that. Let's see what you do in the remainder of this reply to me....
Prove socialism (worker ownership and control of the MoP) has ever existed. If you can't, your rant is just empty insanity.Socialism is respectable for some of the largest genocides in world history.
Socialism is evil at it's root.
Socialism was the drink of choice for the former Nazi party and their maniacal leader Adolf Hitler
Socialism in essence is the industrial form of slavery
|State directed capitalism is not socialism||Socialism|
|There are different kinds of socialism as there are different forms of Capitalism||Socialism|
|Are state capitalism and market socialism the same thing?||Socialism|
|Call it what you will - socialism, welfare capitalism, the nordic model - it works and it has created a society that is both free and equal||Socialism|
|State directed capitalism is not socialism|
|There are different kinds of socialism as there are different forms of Capitalism|
|Are state capitalism and market socialism the same thing?|
|Call it what you will - socialism, welfare capitalism, the nordic model - it works and it has created a society that is both free and equal|