capitalism vs. socialism

May 2019
244
26
US
You seem to think that's an answer to something
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).
Your refusal to see the point I'm making doesn't obviate the point.
You’re not making one. You just feel like you are.
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.
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
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.
Legal expropriation is still expropriation.
There is no legal expropriation for private entities. Legal expropriation is for governments.
You seem to value insults.
They have a time and a place. I can tone it down a bit if my sarcasm is over your head.
The capitalist always wants to make the question one of individuals.
A very good point. That’s because Capitalists are individualists. It’s morally and functionally superior to collectivism.
It's a "divide and conquer" strategy.
Not at all. It’s simply to counter argument to the coattail riding of collectivism.
Hence your questions here are of no interest.
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!”
You know that your collectivists dribble is what justifies slavery, right? Racism too. And that’s on top of being irrational.
But the capitalist seeks to weaken the position of the employee by making issues only about individuals when it serves their interests.
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.
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.
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!
Those apples are worth more than a dollar to you, otherwise you wouldn’t buy them for the dollar. They are worth LESS than the dollar to the store. Honest transaction, and you both win.
Do you know what that looks like in the labor market? It looks like someone hiring you because your labor is worth more to them than what they are paying you, and THEIR MONEY is worth more to YOU than your labor. So are you stealing from them or are they stealing from you? Well, if your labor is truly worth more somewhere else, then you are selling yourself short. But that’s your choice.
YOU could be doing something else with your labor. But you choose to sell it to them. You know why? Because they had a better idea for your labor than you did. If you had a better idea, then your labor would be worth more than what they are paying you and you wouldn’t work for them. Maybe you could be the lineman making the next cell phone.
You can’t just call it extortion because you don’t like the value of your labor. The grocery store would sell you those apples for $100 if they could. But the fact that they can’t doesn’t make you a shoplifter.
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?
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.
That’s not an insult. My stated lack of surprise that you cannot see the analogy is though. If that’s going to render you incapable of addressing the analogy or the underlying point, just pretend I didn’t just insult you.
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.
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.
--within the capitalist system.
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?
Or, if this referred to the other sentence, In what system is being of no use to anyone better than being useful to someone?
In response to my answer to your question.
Cool.
Your welcome. Happy to help.
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.
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 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 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 can't logically argue the idea of doctors selling drugs because they don't.
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.
You should know you're walking on thin ice here. In your next reply I will expect an absence of personal attacks and insults.
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.
 
Feb 2018
1,508
886
Oregon
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).
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.

You’re not making one. You just feel like you are.
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.

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 ....
...according to capitalist law. True. But that doesn't make it the most acceptable way to organize business.

[/QUOTE] .... you greedy pig.[/QUOTE]
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....

I owe you what we agreed to.
...under capitalist law. Yes. But that doesn't make it the most acceptable way to organize business.

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.
Definition of "expropriate":
to dispossess (a person) of ownership: The revolutionary government expropriated the landowners from their estates.
to take (something) from another's possession for one's own use: He expropriated my ideas for his own article.


They have a time and a place. I can tone it down a bit if my sarcasm is over your head.
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".
 
May 2019
244
26
US
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.
Remember when I said the CEO will build your cell phone? Me neither.
The skillsets of a CEO are unique to that top management position and do not necessitate inventive genius. Often the innovators have to hire a CEO for the skills they lack. That CEO typically signs a contract, just like anyone else involved in the voluntary joint endeavor of the given business. If the CEO takes the company into new areas of wealth creation, and is then let go, he doesn't get to come back later and claim that he is owed more since he had something to do with it. It would be even more corrupt if he came back and tried to claim something for himself, which no one ever agreed to, on behalf of the CEO class. But that kind of coat tail riding is what you are promoting for the "labor class". All while insisting we do not discuss individual laborer s.
I just fed you such a simple and direct reply ^^^.
And I handily dismantled it. ^^^
...according to capitalist law. True. But that doesn't make it the most acceptable way to organize business.
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?

If you think that "capitalist law" (in this context you could only mean contract law), which requires that people keep their promises, is not "most acceptable" in the organization of business, then please enlighten us. How can one better organize business law without a requirement that people keep their promises?

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....
Well, yes. Perhaps "pig" was a bit much, but "greedy" was merely descriptive of the position you present.
You don't have to waste time with "warnings". Like I said, if you want to hash it out, then by all means. If my jabs somehow keep you from that, then leave without hashing it out. That's no loss for me. If anyone is "hiding" behind my insults, I expect it's the person who runs from the economic realities provided (along with my insults).
Perhaps I should be more civil, since then you can't use my unkind words as an excuse to avoid my points. It's just that disdain is all your position merits.


Also, you can plainly see by the definition you provided, that legal expropriation is a thing that governments do. If you sell me something, if haven't disposessed you of the ownership of whatever you willingly gave in trade. If I tax you though...
 
Nov 2019
359
34
Upstate NY
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
 
Feb 2018
1,508
886
Oregon
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
Prove socialism (worker ownership and control of the MoP) has ever existed. If you can't, your rant is just empty insanity.