Workers are enslaved, exploited and under attack

[tieguy]

I already stated I'm a package handler. I'm not any better or smarter than any other worker. I've simply come to understand historical processes and the way things work. I still live under capitalism. I'm still a worker. I still have no way to survive other than to sell my labor to a capitalist.

Is an an attitude of defeatism not required to be a proper wage slave.?

Isn't the selling of your labor to the highest bidder really just another form of capitalism?

If you buy a hot dog stand and sell hot dogs are you not the capitalist and the slave labor at the same time? If so then which one predominates?

Are you not required to be chained or secured in some fashion to be truly considered slave labor. Wouldn't the fact that you personally can walk away from your job at any time eliminate you from the ranks of slavery?

 

[tieguy]

As usual Brett, You didnt understand his point. What you wrote is in NO WAY what he wrote.

I would suggest you abandon the attempt at retort.

You're like a groupie for extreme concepts and the criminally insane.

 

[tieguy]

I'll be sure to mention that trickle down next time I talk to my dad who lives in a one bedroom house in West Virginia, with water that comes from a cistern, with a 1985 Buick in the driveway.

you realize its the opportunity that trickles down. Dad still has to get off his but and get a job and lay off the vices for his opportunity to come.

 

[pickup]

Is an an attitude of defeatism not required to be a proper wage slave.?

Isn't the selling of your labor to the highest bidder really just another form of capitalism?

If you buy a hot dog stand and sell hot dogs are you not the capitalist and the slave labor at the same time? If so then which one predominates?

Are you not required to be chained or secured in some fashion to be truly considered slave labor. Wouldn't the fact that you personally can walk away from your job at any time eliminate you from the ranks of slavery?

ahh, the running dog of capitalism comes barking to its defense.

Sorry tie, just testing my marxist lingo, it's been so long since I've heard this stuff. Plus it works doubly well in conjunction with your avatar

 

[tieguy]

ahh, the running dog of capitalism comes barking to its defense.

Sorry tie, just testing my marxist lingo, it's been so long since I've heard this stuff

No problem. Its been a while since we had a good marixst here we're alll a little rusty at it.

 

[22LR]

Is an an attitude of defeatism not required to be a proper wage slave.?

I have no clue what you're talking about here. Sorry.

Isn't the selling of your labor to the highest bidder really just another form of capitalism?

Yes. It's the part of capitalism that turns labor power into a commodity.

If you buy a hot dog stand and sell hot dogs are you not the capitalist and the slave labor at the same time? If so then which one predominates?

No, you're petty bourgeois (middle class).

Are you not required to be chained or secured in some fashion to be truly considered slave labor. Wouldn't the fact that you personally can walk away from your job at any time eliminate you from the ranks of slavery?

You're talking about chattel slavery. I'm talking about wage slavery. Two different things.

 

[22LR]

No problem. Its been a while since we had a good marixst here we're alll a little rusty at it.

"As for me, I'm not Marxist." - Karl Marx

 

[22LR]

you realize its the opportunity that trickles down. Dad still has to get off his but and get a job and lay off the vices for his opportunity to come.

This again?

I guess I might as well rehash the same answer.

"HAHAHA. Yeah, there were a lot of options for kids born in coal camps in West Virginia in the 40's. The schools were top notch, universities were nearby and affordable for workers, there were means of transporation to get you wherever you needed to go, parents needed no help from their kids to survive and there were thousands of fields to work in and the jobs paid more than enough to live and store a nice nest egg! He simply chose to work in a coal mine his hole life and retire a few years from death only to live in squalid conditions with poisoned lungs.

It would be funny if it wasn't so disgusting."

I've replied thoughtfully and based my posts on rational thought and sources. You haven't bothered to engage any of the actual issues at hand.

Apologists for capitalism always fall back on the same few arguments (which are always "common sense," emotions to appeal or pure rhetoric).

Is that your method of debate? It may wear down the other person to the point where they won't bother responding to you anymore, but that doesn't mean you've won.

 

[pickup]

).

Is that your method of debate? It may wear down the other person to the point where they won't bother responding to you anymore, but that doesn't mean you've won.

I know , capitalism just produces its own gravediggers, your victory is inevitable. So what are you worried about?

 

[Catatonic]

"As for me, I'm not Marxist." - Karl Marx

Perhaps this site will help explain what 22LR is saying.
http://pawatersheds.org/
The PoWR says it all.

 

[wkmac]

22LR,

May I enquire another question or two of you sir. As you stated, capitalism being fuedalism, the next step towards pure communism is the "dictatorship of the proletariat" where society is transformed via the means of state socialism. The last step into pure communism according to the Marx/Engle theory is the abolition of both class and the State itself. With the numerous countries across the globe having adopted Marx theory (Lenin/Trotsky being the most infamous first timers) I've yet to see one nation make that final step into the realm of pure communism even after many, many years under the "dictatorship of the proletariat" so my question is, at what point will we see someone make that final step proving Marx's theory as workable?

Fact is, all the nations sold to us as communist, IMO a contradicting false flag used by both alleged communists and anti communist alike, seems to be turning back towards a type of capitalist/socialist admixture more along the lines the the Musolinni model of socialism is national socialism while maintaining a type of dictatorship of the proletariat under the false illusion of protecting the so-called worker. IMO, most all if not all Dictatorships of the Proletariat are more rightwing authortarian than left wing socialism but that's a matter of opinion.

My 2nd question has to do with the wage slave having his wages pluddered from him by the capitalist using the LVT to determine the wage slaves true wages. That said, if the capitalist is acting as the pludder in his elite capacity, then how is the State any different as it extracts a portion of the wage slave's wages in the form of State rents or other means otherwise called taxation? Even moreso, if the State owns the means of production, capital if you will, has not the State inserted itself into the position of the pluddering capitalist and the worker finds him or herself no better off than before? Especially if the Dictatorship refuses to abolish it's power and move into the final phase of pure communism in it's classless/stateless phase.

Just a couple of questions that came to mind while considering your Point's of view!

Thanks.

maybe someone had a point earlier about anti matter after all. If this is Hegel's dialectic, who or what is the synthesis?


BTW: If you are a pure communist, as to the end product in a Stateless Society, we agree. However, I'm more inclined to follow Marx's contempoary in Proudhon than in following the force and aggression of Marx and the worker's revolutionary ideal. Even stealing from what you believe to be a thief still makes you a thief or to enslave someone, even for a higher purpose still makes you a slave master. Don't focus on the enemy without and ignore the greater enemy within!

 

[JimJimmyJames]

Actually organized religion with its accompanying hierarchy arose around the same as agriculture and surpluses.

Humans originally came up with superstitious beliefs to explain natural occurrences they couldn't understand. After the rise of surpluses, the new rulers used them to justify their positions of privilege (by claiming it was gods' will, that they were incarnations of / speakers for / gateways to god or gods, or something similar).

I maintain that if you study the teachings of the majority of the world's religions you will find that by focusing unselfishly outward, inner peace may be achieved.

No matter how religion came to be or what sinister manipulations of it's teachings the world's elites have used to maintain their power, it does not take away from it's core message.

I do not want to belabor this subject, I understand this is not a religious thread. The thoughts being thrown around here just made me ponder Marx and religion.

Carry on .

 

[tieguy]

[/COLOR]You're talking about chattel slavery. I'm talking about wage slavery. Two different things.

perhaps you are. But even then there is no wage slavery unless the person is forced into a specific form of slavery. In fact the laborer in a capitalistic society has choices.

He has the choice to acquire a specific skill that makes him/her marketable in what ever field the laborer choses.

He then has the opportunity to market his labor and his skills to the highest bidder in that particular market.

thus the question to ask where is the slavery?

 

[tieguy]

This again?

I guess I might as well rehash the same answer.

"HAHAHA. Yeah, there were a lot of options for kids born in coal camps in West Virginia in the 40's. The schools were top notch, universities were nearby and affordable for workers, there were means of transporation to get you wherever you needed to go, parents needed no help from their kids to survive and there were thousands of fields to work in and the jobs paid more than enough to live and store a nice nest egg! He simply chose to work in a coal mine his hole life and retire a few years from death only to live in squalid conditions with poisoned lungs.

Here again you display the sense of defeatism that I previously mentioned and with which you claimed you had no understanding.

With your above example how would you then explain someone like Doctor Ben Carson who started in conditions that were certainly as bad if not worse then what you describe above.

If you really thought your points through or are you still reading from your marxist primer?

It would be funny if it wasn't so disgusting."

I've replied thoughtfully and based my posts on rational thought and sources. You haven't bothered to engage any of the actual issues at hand.

This tactic as highlighted above is quickly become a charateristic defensive mechanism of yours when challenged on your arguments.
See if you can actually reply with some rational thought you claim you have provided.

Apologists for capitalism always fall back on the same few arguments (which are always "common sense," emotions to appeal or pure rhetoric).

And your endless pages of dribble here is expected to be what? Conclusive proof to counter some of the basic traits of capitalism which you chose to ignore or discount?

Is that your method of debate? It may wear down the other person to the point where they won't bother responding to you anymore, but that doesn't mean you've won.

I'm not here to win anything. I'm just trying to see if you can actually explain your extremist position. So far you're quick to go on the defensive when someone actually decides to ask you a question that counters your brainwashing.

 

[tieguy]

Nowadays there is no need for competition. We have the potential to give everyone what they need and want. The capitalists use it to divide us. They pit black workers against white workers, immigrants against citizens, workers in the US against workers in Mexico and China, all in the interest of driving down our wages and living conditions in order to maximize their profits.

I am curious as I read this little jem. when you walk into the local 7 eleven or burger joint or laundramat all owned by capitalist do you remind them that they pit black workers against white workers. In other words do you relate this theory on capitalism to real people you meet and see every day or is this exploitive capitalist you refer to some type of faceless bogeyman?

 

[Babagounj]

I am curious as I read this little jem. when you walk into the local 7 eleven or burger joint or laundramat all owned by capitalist do you remind them that they pit black workers against white workers. In other words do you relate this theory on capitalism to real people you meet and see every day or is this exploitive capitalist you refer to some type of faceless bogeyman?

tieguy, now you broken UPS' rule #1, logic don't work here. You are only going to confuse this already confused person.

 

[tieguy]

It appears our marxist lost some steam.

 

[bbsam]

This is the old "human nature" argument. Of course it's completely bologna.

No anthropologist would go along with you. Nor would anyone with an understanding of human history.

People aren't "naturally greedy." For the largest part of our history we lived together, communally, and shared the products of our labor.

"The earliest human societies were egalitarian in nature. With no reserves of food or other resources, all able-bodied members of society had to participate in their collection. The fruits of their labor were then divided up and quickly consumed."

It wasn't until we discovered agriculture and started to build up surpluses that one group came to rule over and control others.

Historically speaking, classes and private ownership are relatively recent developments.

People are shaped by their surroundings. When you grow up in a "dog eat dog" world, you have no choice but to adapt. If you grew up in a primitive tribe in the Amazon your "human nature" would be cooperation and sharing.

Nowadays there is no need for competition. We have the potential to give everyone what they need and want. The capitalists use it to divide us. They pit black workers against white workers, immigrants against citizens, workers in the US against workers in Mexico and China, all in the interest of driving down our wages and living conditions in order to maximize their profits.

I think the more relevant point that I was trying to make is that we are exactly who we want to be. We don't want an "ability/need" formulation. We want competition. As ugly as it may be, we want winners and losers. We like to be superior or at least percieve ourselves to be.

It almost seems like you want all of human history to revert back to earliest times. Why? If you grew up in a primitive tribe in the Amazon you would get along with those of your tribe but what of other tribes? If you trace history back through Rome, Egypt, Greece, Sparta, China where do you find a history of societies getting along without oppression, enslavement. and exploitation of poprlations. You call private ownership "relatively recent" but all of these are ancient societies that prided themselves on competition and expansion of empires. These are the great human histories that you seem to poo-poo away in a somewhat vain dismissal of what most historians would call human progress.

So although I cannot point to a gene that declares mankind to be selfish and self centered, I believe history bears at least a strong suggestion to that theory. For you to reference prehistoric agrarian cultures seems to me to view only on the evidence that supports your argument. Do we know for instance that ancient tribes didn't do battle on the neanderthal plains? And if we know that for a fact, can we conclusively state that they must have been peaceful and nonterritorial? Or did they simply not come into enough contact with other tribes or clans? Taken as a whole, history supports the idea that man is a violent, possessive, and competitive creature.

Bologna? Maybe, but the thousand of years of man oppressing man, empires expanding, retracting, and dying can't be dislodged by a dream (I know "I'm not the only one."). I maintain that we are what we've always been and we like it that way.

 

[tieguy]

interesting how this guy shows up and basically trolls us with the marxist propaganda then dissapears. Very interesting.

 

[Catatonic]

interesting how this guy shows up and basically trolls us with the marxist propaganda then dissapears. Very interesting.

Probably got lost in Central Park.