Liberty in Socialism?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
exchange for what? especially in a publicly traded company, you can literally convert it to ownership in the company. Now, the rates of exchange may vary, but it is always the equivalent of some amount of capital.[/quote]

I think orion is just alluding to the fact that money does not actually produce anything so it cannot be considered a means of production. It is a means of exchange to procure those things that are productive.[/quote]

You could use it as fuel for an industrial furnace.

102

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
I am going to put it very simple.

freedom in socialisme = freedom from exploitation. This meens that you dont have the right to the fruits of others labor, in other words: you dont have the freedom to get rich on the expens of others. Now I know some here will say that “but doesnt the individual worker get exploited by the collective”. well maybe in some abstract sence, but in a modern society with industry, people work in groups. there are non car factorys with only one worker. So to be clear, when I say exploitation I dont meen that the car factory worker doesnt get grain from the agrarian worker and vice verca, I meen that there are no person or group of people who takes out a profit from the labor of the car factory worker and the agrarian worker. Now if the factorys/workplaces should be owned by the community/country etc or if it should be owned in common by the workers on the individual workplace is a decision the people must make in the socialist society.

btw: people does also have freedoms like: freedom of speech, of organisation and of tought. [/quote]

I have always seen a glaring flaw in this defense of freedom in the practice of socialism. In a capitalist society all arrangements are voluntary. That is to say, no one can be literally forced to enter into any arrangement of employment/compensation/ect. No one can ever be forced to work at a specific place. The only way anyone can be forcibly taken advantage of is through government. How on earth can you argue that a factory is taking advantage of a worker when the worker has chosen and continues to choose employment at the place to all other alternatives they are free to choose?

Further, what if I get rich selling my paintings? Who am I exploiting? How can you justify the community having a right to my success. The community nationalizing my earnings is the only way I can truly be victimized. All other actions are voluntary.
[/quote]

where in my post did I say you cannot sell your own paintings? I said that you cant get rich on the expense of others.

Did I choose to be born in a capitalist society without any productiv property, no I did not. no societys are totally voluntary. I work where I work because I need the money, I did not have childhood dream of working at a supermarked. capitalisme/liberalisme sounds find on paper. but its a tyranny in the real life. the society you talk about could be possible in a pre-industrial age. a society consisting of indepentent farmers and artisans wich all owned there own property ( jeffersonian republicanisme ). while today the society and economy are bigger and more complex and it takes a different system than liberalisme to create a society that can grant the most freedom.

If I lived in a pre-industrial society I would have been a jeffersonian republican.[/quote]

Be patient with me, I am having a difficulty reading what you say. How do people get exploited by companies? And no, you do not have a choice as to where you were born, your parents do, however you can move.[/quote]

where can I move to escape capitalisme( mercantilisme as you call it ), its a system that stretches all over the globe.[/quote]

Yes, that is unfortunate that mercantilism stretches all over the globe, however there are places with different political-systems like Chile (white people are favored in Chile as are most South American countries).

Join a monastery, become an ultra-orthodox jew, or pick a religion and become a monk. I think they even have secular monks that copy religious monks as well. They usually have a vow of poverty, depending on which one you are with depends on what that means, however you’ll have to figure out which system they use as to which one you want to live with. You could also start up a group in your own state where you have a monastery of sorts and there are plenty of people that join those for virtue.

No, I am not being sarcastic.

103

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
The funny thing here, is when the State allows capitalism you have tolerance for socialism. In socialism, you do not have tolerance for anything but socialism.
[/quote]

I wish more people could grasp that concept.[/quote]

Me too, I do not agree with the Catholic Church on her views (not doctrine) on social justice, but she is a good example of socialism inside capitalism.

104

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
the thing is that I dont see freedom seperated from the collectiv/society. If humans lived alone in the forest and not in groups as we do no. nobody would talk about freedom, because they would be totally free from other humans, but also totally dependent on them self. as we know humans live in groups in some form. tribes, small willages, states etc. freedom becomes a concept when people live togheter and are depentent on each other. the term freedom/liberty is only interresting in a collectiv/society. freedom is the independence a individual has in the group/collectiv/society. to talk about freedom as something disconected from a group/collectiv/society is pointless and strictly abstract.

as an example of a abstract freedom concept, we can look to Sartre. Sartre said that humans = freedom. in others words, man is the manifistation of freedom. He said that we do always have the freedom to make a choice regardless of the conteks that choiche is taken. lets say you have no money and you have to get a job. the thing is there is only one job you can get, at that is a job is at a brothel as a gigolo. you offcourse dont want to be a gigolo, but its either that or starving. offcourse this is an extrem scenario, but its only to describe sartre. well sartre would say that you do have a choice, even do its beetwen death or daily rape. This is similar to the freedom concepts many in here have, and its not what I regard as a healthy freedom concept, I think it only serves to legitimate the exploiters and failures of the system of today. in other words it does not serve any purpose, because it says that you are always free regardless if you live in a fascist, capitalist or a socialist society.

I would then say that a freedom concept must be a properiory truth, it has to be conteks based.
when the burgeoise rebelled against the late feudalsystem, they fought for freedom from the feudal state. The feudal state with its priviligies for the nobility and its regulations was in direct opposition to the interrests of the burgeois class. So when they talked about freedom, they ment a society where trade where free of regulations and that there property was safe from confiscation. The american revolution was a revolt against british mercantilisme and for home rule. The american burgeois experienced many acts from the british that made them depentent on the british market. one example is the “hat act”. it made it illegal to produce hats in the colonies. So the freedom the american burgeois wanted was freedom from this unfair economic union beetwen america and england. This is an example that freedom is conteks based. Today we have had our burgeois revolutions in the west, and we have gotten rid of the aristocracy and its state. its marks as an progress in human history. but we still have unfreedom in the western society, but the enemy is not a aristocracy, a foreign colonial superpower or an unfair economic union. so it does not make sence to fight for freedom from this entitys I listed above. Whats make sense today in the western world is to fight for freedom from exploitation because its a real issue that hold the majority of the population down.

I answer your question about individual libertys in the socialist matrix later on.

ps. sorry for the wall of text.
[/quote]

You are absolutely correct that Liberty has context within the framework of human interaction - however, that interaction does not have to be conditional upon the existence of the collective or state. An individual can interact with a group/collective/state (GCS from now on) and not be a part of it - thus his liberty has context within that reference, but it is not conditional upon it. In his base state, the individual has liberty. His liberty moves with him as he comes into contact with the GCS, but should not be diminished by his contact with the GCS. At the point that he chooses to become a member of that particular GCS, he may have to surrender some of his liberty in accordance with the terms of the GCS (ie, rule of law in place of blood feud, etc).

I think this is an important factor - socialism focuses on the GCS/Capitalism focuses on the individual.

Here is where the interaction becomes more critical. Within a capitalistic society, the members prize liberty above result and so seek to minimize the surrender of individual liberty at all costs. Within a socialist society, the result is more important and individual liberty is place last on the list of priorities - something to be ignored if it diminishes the GCS result.

Your example illustrates the faulty premises of Marx and all resulting communist and socialist thought - the zero-sum scenario. In your illustration, the individual in a capitalistic society is forced to decide between two extremes: death/prostitution - life in a free society is never limited to such narrow scope - it’s a false analogy. No one in a free society ends up at a position like that without making other choices along the way. Didn’t pursue an education, never stayed at one job long enough to gain a needed skill or trade, wasted his family money on weed, etc. Satre is right that being a human does equal freedom at the base level, but it is a freedom that comes with responsibilities and choices.

I still do not see Liberty in a socialistic society - if I wanted to start a bakery that competes with the government bakery, I am not allowed. If I want to live in Chelsey instead of Berlin but there are no available housing units from the housing ministry, I am not allowed to simply go and build my own on a piece of property I own there. If I want to abandon the collective and go sell roses on the street corner, I am not allowed to do that . . .

The only freedom that Socialism promises the same thing that we saw in the US in the 60’s - freedom from consequence of action. That is the socialist concept of freedom. Don’t want to work really hard - no problem - The freedom of Union promises a mandatory 5 day work week and maximum 8 hour day with mandatory breaks at the maximum amount of pay with 2 months of vacation time plus lifetime healthcare free and retirement pension 100x your salary - sounds like a great deal - except that this “freedom” requires you to do whatever the Union says you must do. You have given up your individual liberty for the freedom of consequence and the security of dependency.

No successfully business person has ever built a personal fortune based on those kind of work conditions. They work hard - 60 to 100 hours a week, every day of the week if necessary, they sacrifice security, risk failure - but the reward is immense and they never have to surrender their liberty. and many fail! yes - there is danger in freedom, there is consequence to action, there is reward for effort.

The socialist ideal ignores the fact that actions have consequences - for instance, let’s examine Greece - social upheaval and riots by UNIONIZED workers upset that they can no longer suck the teat of government money because the government has run out of money. In a capitalist mindset, we simply say ok - let’s balance the budget, makes the cuts we need to make, tighten our belts and work through it. The socialist mindset says - NO! force the government to continue to pay our extravagant wages and funding our overly generous pension regardless of the debts, because we should never have to face the consequences of our laziness and greed - oops!!

What are the Unions seeking as a solution in Greece? Why riot? Why attack the government they have bankrupted? Because the government owes them their salary, their healthcare, their pensions, their everything. They have surrendered their freedom for a payoff and DAMIT! they want their payoff!
[/quote]

ok first I want to say I havent slept for 24hours because of a examen, so this reply can be a bit funky:P

the scenario was not to illustrait real life in capitalisme ( even doe such scenarios have happend ), but to illustrait the freedom concept of sartre.

I do set the individual very hig, and I think that the societys purpose is to improve the individuals life. remember I am a marxist, not a fascist. the fascists said that the individual is for the state. I think that is stupid. a state is just a entity that governs society with a gun, offcourse the individual are more importent that the state. But as a marxist I am an materialist not a idealist. So I look at how the society today are. The society today is a higly collectivist form of organisation. People live in groups( families ) it works in groups, and everybody is dependent on each other because of the industrial market economy, the irony is that, even doe society is collectivist, the importent decisions are taken by the few. the profit are taken by the few, even doe the society produced it collectively( the factory worker is only able to take the time to work at the factory, if someone else are producing the foods he consums and this goes for everybody in a modern industrial capitalist society ). We marxist say, hey this is not right. Why should only 20% of the team get the most of the fruits of the effort, when the entire team made it togheter. This is the thougt behind the socialist perception of explotation btw. this thus maybe not have so much to do with liberty. but ok, the logic statement for this is: collectiv matters should be taken by the collectiv. and the fruits of the collectiv labour should be shared by the collectiv. and to follow it trough the logic takes us here: individual matters should be taken by the individual. and the fruits of the individual labour should be enjoyed by the individual.

a picture of individual labour in socialisme could be this: let say you play and sing on the street for money, that money is yours. or lets say you bake some breads at home, and sell them to your neigbours, that money is yours alone. When we say means of production, we meen factorys, natural resources( gas, oil a.s.), forests, big farms, collectiv traffic, schools, hospitals etc. in other words big production and services. While stuff you can create at home and so one is still private. ( maybe there are some socialists that will make selling of home made bread illegal, but I dont see the reason for this ). To make it relevant to T-Nation. you can still be a personel trainer in socialisme.

hope this gave you irish steel a better understanding of my political philosophi.

[/quote]

The reason 20% of the “team” gets the majority is because that 20% took the time save money to buy the resources so you could work as a team to create something. Because they took the risk of not working for five years while they built the infrastructure of a business in order to provide a consumer product. All you did was agree to work for him for a wage and use his tools to create a product out of material he bought. You bring nothing to the table but your labor and knowledge. He brings everything else, since he puts in the majority of the input, he gets the majority of the output.[/quote]

ah not this argument again!!

have can you create profit without labour?

I can turn it around, the workforce takes the materials and tools, and trough labour they increases its value. the capitalist could not get that profit without the labour of the workers.

still the post I made back there about the team, was about the entire society. without all the combined effort from the society, the capitalist would not be able to by the tools and materials, and the workers would not be able to increase its value trough labour. [/quote]

Yes, but should the owner of the materials not be compensated for his ideas, and risk of losing his money?

105

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

you know this is wrong.

1, a capitalist( from a marxist definition) is a person who makes money by owning means of production and by others labour.

a worker is a person who must sell his labourforce to make money, because he dont own the means of production.

2, a worker looses his humanity in the marked, he is redused to a commodity. and as all commoditys on the marked, he falls under the law of supply and demand. so his wages are not based on how hard or long he is working, its based on how rare or not his skill is.[/quote]

LOL at using a marxist definition. I guess essentially no one anywhere is a capitalist by that definition because pretty much everyone inputs their own labor.

Let me explain why your logic is dumb:

  1. a capitalist is really just a supporter of capitalism. Anyone freely and willingly making transactions in a capitalist system supports it. You are a capitalist by your actions.

  2. labor is capital. “workers” own a critical capital commodity in every company. They own part of the means of production. Unions even sometimes monopolize this capital.

  3. Name me a business owner that doesn’t input their own labor (generally they are the hardest working people in the company). By your definition, business owners aren’t generally capitalists. Besides, almost none of them would own the physical capital without great amounts of labor first.

  4. Money is capital. The very fact that workers are paid means they get a share of the company’s capital.[/quote]

not shure if you read my post trough. check it again, and you see what makes a capitalist a capitalist, and what makes a worker a worker.

ps. I guess most people in here are not capitalists, most of them are problably workers.[/quote]

By your definition I’ve shown capitalists essentially don’t exist. I’ve shown essentially everyone is a worker and that workers always own capital. Besides the idiocy of using a marxist definition for capitalist. Lets use Ayn Rand’s definition of socialist, okay?

106

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
the thing is that I dont see freedom seperated from the collectiv/society. If humans lived alone in the forest and not in groups as we do no. nobody would talk about freedom, because they would be totally free from other humans, but also totally dependent on them self. as we know humans live in groups in some form. tribes, small willages, states etc. freedom becomes a concept when people live togheter and are depentent on each other. the term freedom/liberty is only interresting in a collectiv/society. freedom is the independence a individual has in the group/collectiv/society. to talk about freedom as something disconected from a group/collectiv/society is pointless and strictly abstract.

as an example of a abstract freedom concept, we can look to Sartre. Sartre said that humans = freedom. in others words, man is the manifistation of freedom. He said that we do always have the freedom to make a choice regardless of the conteks that choiche is taken. lets say you have no money and you have to get a job. the thing is there is only one job you can get, at that is a job is at a brothel as a gigolo. you offcourse dont want to be a gigolo, but its either that or starving. offcourse this is an extrem scenario, but its only to describe sartre. well sartre would say that you do have a choice, even do its beetwen death or daily rape. This is similar to the freedom concepts many in here have, and its not what I regard as a healthy freedom concept, I think it only serves to legitimate the exploiters and failures of the system of today. in other words it does not serve any purpose, because it says that you are always free regardless if you live in a fascist, capitalist or a socialist society.

I would then say that a freedom concept must be a properiory truth, it has to be conteks based.
when the burgeoise rebelled against the late feudalsystem, they fought for freedom from the feudal state. The feudal state with its priviligies for the nobility and its regulations was in direct opposition to the interrests of the burgeois class. So when they talked about freedom, they ment a society where trade where free of regulations and that there property was safe from confiscation. The american revolution was a revolt against british mercantilisme and for home rule. The american burgeois experienced many acts from the british that made them depentent on the british market. one example is the “hat act”. it made it illegal to produce hats in the colonies. So the freedom the american burgeois wanted was freedom from this unfair economic union beetwen america and england. This is an example that freedom is conteks based. Today we have had our burgeois revolutions in the west, and we have gotten rid of the aristocracy and its state. its marks as an progress in human history. but we still have unfreedom in the western society, but the enemy is not a aristocracy, a foreign colonial superpower or an unfair economic union. so it does not make sence to fight for freedom from this entitys I listed above. Whats make sense today in the western world is to fight for freedom from exploitation because its a real issue that hold the majority of the population down.

I answer your question about individual libertys in the socialist matrix later on.

ps. sorry for the wall of text.
[/quote]

You are absolutely correct that Liberty has context within the framework of human interaction - however, that interaction does not have to be conditional upon the existence of the collective or state. An individual can interact with a group/collective/state (GCS from now on) and not be a part of it - thus his liberty has context within that reference, but it is not conditional upon it. In his base state, the individual has liberty. His liberty moves with him as he comes into contact with the GCS, but should not be diminished by his contact with the GCS. At the point that he chooses to become a member of that particular GCS, he may have to surrender some of his liberty in accordance with the terms of the GCS (ie, rule of law in place of blood feud, etc).

I think this is an important factor - socialism focuses on the GCS/Capitalism focuses on the individual.

Here is where the interaction becomes more critical. Within a capitalistic society, the members prize liberty above result and so seek to minimize the surrender of individual liberty at all costs. Within a socialist society, the result is more important and individual liberty is place last on the list of priorities - something to be ignored if it diminishes the GCS result.

Your example illustrates the faulty premises of Marx and all resulting communist and socialist thought - the zero-sum scenario. In your illustration, the individual in a capitalistic society is forced to decide between two extremes: death/prostitution - life in a free society is never limited to such narrow scope - it’s a false analogy. No one in a free society ends up at a position like that without making other choices along the way. Didn’t pursue an education, never stayed at one job long enough to gain a needed skill or trade, wasted his family money on weed, etc. Satre is right that being a human does equal freedom at the base level, but it is a freedom that comes with responsibilities and choices.

I still do not see Liberty in a socialistic society - if I wanted to start a bakery that competes with the government bakery, I am not allowed. If I want to live in Chelsey instead of Berlin but there are no available housing units from the housing ministry, I am not allowed to simply go and build my own on a piece of property I own there. If I want to abandon the collective and go sell roses on the street corner, I am not allowed to do that . . .

The only freedom that Socialism promises the same thing that we saw in the US in the 60’s - freedom from consequence of action. That is the socialist concept of freedom. Don’t want to work really hard - no problem - The freedom of Union promises a mandatory 5 day work week and maximum 8 hour day with mandatory breaks at the maximum amount of pay with 2 months of vacation time plus lifetime healthcare free and retirement pension 100x your salary - sounds like a great deal - except that this “freedom” requires you to do whatever the Union says you must do. You have given up your individual liberty for the freedom of consequence and the security of dependency.

No successfully business person has ever built a personal fortune based on those kind of work conditions. They work hard - 60 to 100 hours a week, every day of the week if necessary, they sacrifice security, risk failure - but the reward is immense and they never have to surrender their liberty. and many fail! yes - there is danger in freedom, there is consequence to action, there is reward for effort.

The socialist ideal ignores the fact that actions have consequences - for instance, let’s examine Greece - social upheaval and riots by UNIONIZED workers upset that they can no longer suck the teat of government money because the government has run out of money. In a capitalist mindset, we simply say ok - let’s balance the budget, makes the cuts we need to make, tighten our belts and work through it. The socialist mindset says - NO! force the government to continue to pay our extravagant wages and funding our overly generous pension regardless of the debts, because we should never have to face the consequences of our laziness and greed - oops!!

What are the Unions seeking as a solution in Greece? Why riot? Why attack the government they have bankrupted? Because the government owes them their salary, their healthcare, their pensions, their everything. They have surrendered their freedom for a payoff and DAMIT! they want their payoff!
[/quote]

ok first I want to say I havent slept for 24hours because of a examen, so this reply can be a bit funky:P

the scenario was not to illustrait real life in capitalisme ( even doe such scenarios have happend ), but to illustrait the freedom concept of sartre.

I do set the individual very hig, and I think that the societys purpose is to improve the individuals life. remember I am a marxist, not a fascist. the fascists said that the individual is for the state. I think that is stupid. a state is just a entity that governs society with a gun, offcourse the individual are more importent that the state. But as a marxist I am an materialist not a idealist. So I look at how the society today are. The society today is a higly collectivist form of organisation. People live in groups( families ) it works in groups, and everybody is dependent on each other because of the industrial market economy, the irony is that, even doe society is collectivist, the importent decisions are taken by the few. the profit are taken by the few, even doe the society produced it collectively( the factory worker is only able to take the time to work at the factory, if someone else are producing the foods he consums and this goes for everybody in a modern industrial capitalist society ). We marxist say, hey this is not right. Why should only 20% of the team get the most of the fruits of the effort, when the entire team made it togheter. This is the thougt behind the socialist perception of explotation btw. this thus maybe not have so much to do with liberty. but ok, the logic statement for this is: collectiv matters should be taken by the collectiv. and the fruits of the collectiv labour should be shared by the collectiv. and to follow it trough the logic takes us here: individual matters should be taken by the individual. and the fruits of the individual labour should be enjoyed by the individual.

a picture of individual labour in socialisme could be this: let say you play and sing on the street for money, that money is yours. or lets say you bake some breads at home, and sell them to your neigbours, that money is yours alone. When we say means of production, we meen factorys, natural resources( gas, oil a.s.), forests, big farms, collectiv traffic, schools, hospitals etc. in other words big production and services. While stuff you can create at home and so one is still private. ( maybe there are some socialists that will make selling of home made bread illegal, but I dont see the reason for this ). To make it relevant to T-Nation. you can still be a personel trainer in socialisme.

hope this gave you irish steel a better understanding of my political philosophi.

[/quote]

The reason 20% of the “team” gets the majority is because that 20% took the time save money to buy the resources so you could work as a team to create something. Because they took the risk of not working for five years while they built the infrastructure of a business in order to provide a consumer product. All you did was agree to work for him for a wage and use his tools to create a product out of material he bought. You bring nothing to the table but your labor and knowledge. He brings everything else, since he puts in the majority of the input, he gets the majority of the output.[/quote]

ah not this argument again!!

have can you create profit without labour?

I can turn it around, the workforce takes the materials and tools, and trough labour they increases its value. the capitalist could not get that profit without the labour of the workers.

still the post I made back there about the team, was about the entire society. without all the combined effort from the society, the capitalist would not be able to by the tools and materials, and the workers would not be able to increase its value trough labour. [/quote]

I think the part that you miss is that the workers are capitalists and the managment/owners are workers.

on average, the more a person works the more they are payed. As a general rule managers work more than there employees.[/quote]

you know this is wrong.

1, a capitalist( from a marxist definition) is a person who makes money by owning means of production and by others labour.

a worker is a person who must sell his labourforce to make money, because he dont own the means of production.

2, a worker looses his humanity in the marked, he is redused to a commodity. and as all commoditys on the marked, he falls under the law of supply and demand. so his wages are not based on how hard or long he is working, its based on how rare or not his skill is.[/quote]

That is the judgment of the workers as a whole, if the money does not compensate for the work then workers will leave to more profitable fields of work.

I do not think anyone (scratch that, not many people would have a mind) has such a skewed mind to think of workers as a commodity, but nothing escapes the laws of supply and demand, even the capitalist.

107

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
the thing is that I dont see freedom seperated from the collectiv/society. If humans lived alone in the forest and not in groups as we do no. nobody would talk about freedom, because they would be totally free from other humans, but also totally dependent on them self. as we know humans live in groups in some form. tribes, small willages, states etc. freedom becomes a concept when people live togheter and are depentent on each other. the term freedom/liberty is only interresting in a collectiv/society. freedom is the independence a individual has in the group/collectiv/society. to talk about freedom as something disconected from a group/collectiv/society is pointless and strictly abstract.

as an example of a abstract freedom concept, we can look to Sartre. Sartre said that humans = freedom. in others words, man is the manifistation of freedom. He said that we do always have the freedom to make a choice regardless of the conteks that choiche is taken. lets say you have no money and you have to get a job. the thing is there is only one job you can get, at that is a job is at a brothel as a gigolo. you offcourse dont want to be a gigolo, but its either that or starving. offcourse this is an extrem scenario, but its only to describe sartre. well sartre would say that you do have a choice, even do its beetwen death or daily rape. This is similar to the freedom concepts many in here have, and its not what I regard as a healthy freedom concept, I think it only serves to legitimate the exploiters and failures of the system of today. in other words it does not serve any purpose, because it says that you are always free regardless if you live in a fascist, capitalist or a socialist society.

I would then say that a freedom concept must be a properiory truth, it has to be conteks based.
when the burgeoise rebelled against the late feudalsystem, they fought for freedom from the feudal state. The feudal state with its priviligies for the nobility and its regulations was in direct opposition to the interrests of the burgeois class. So when they talked about freedom, they ment a society where trade where free of regulations and that there property was safe from confiscation. The american revolution was a revolt against british mercantilisme and for home rule. The american burgeois experienced many acts from the british that made them depentent on the british market. one example is the “hat act”. it made it illegal to produce hats in the colonies. So the freedom the american burgeois wanted was freedom from this unfair economic union beetwen america and england. This is an example that freedom is conteks based. Today we have had our burgeois revolutions in the west, and we have gotten rid of the aristocracy and its state. its marks as an progress in human history. but we still have unfreedom in the western society, but the enemy is not a aristocracy, a foreign colonial superpower or an unfair economic union. so it does not make sence to fight for freedom from this entitys I listed above. Whats make sense today in the western world is to fight for freedom from exploitation because its a real issue that hold the majority of the population down.

I answer your question about individual libertys in the socialist matrix later on.

ps. sorry for the wall of text.
[/quote]

You are absolutely correct that Liberty has context within the framework of human interaction - however, that interaction does not have to be conditional upon the existence of the collective or state. An individual can interact with a group/collective/state (GCS from now on) and not be a part of it - thus his liberty has context within that reference, but it is not conditional upon it. In his base state, the individual has liberty. His liberty moves with him as he comes into contact with the GCS, but should not be diminished by his contact with the GCS. At the point that he chooses to become a member of that particular GCS, he may have to surrender some of his liberty in accordance with the terms of the GCS (ie, rule of law in place of blood feud, etc).

I think this is an important factor - socialism focuses on the GCS/Capitalism focuses on the individual.

Here is where the interaction becomes more critical. Within a capitalistic society, the members prize liberty above result and so seek to minimize the surrender of individual liberty at all costs. Within a socialist society, the result is more important and individual liberty is place last on the list of priorities - something to be ignored if it diminishes the GCS result.

Your example illustrates the faulty premises of Marx and all resulting communist and socialist thought - the zero-sum scenario. In your illustration, the individual in a capitalistic society is forced to decide between two extremes: death/prostitution - life in a free society is never limited to such narrow scope - it’s a false analogy. No one in a free society ends up at a position like that without making other choices along the way. Didn’t pursue an education, never stayed at one job long enough to gain a needed skill or trade, wasted his family money on weed, etc. Satre is right that being a human does equal freedom at the base level, but it is a freedom that comes with responsibilities and choices.

I still do not see Liberty in a socialistic society - if I wanted to start a bakery that competes with the government bakery, I am not allowed. If I want to live in Chelsey instead of Berlin but there are no available housing units from the housing ministry, I am not allowed to simply go and build my own on a piece of property I own there. If I want to abandon the collective and go sell roses on the street corner, I am not allowed to do that . . .

The only freedom that Socialism promises the same thing that we saw in the US in the 60’s - freedom from consequence of action. That is the socialist concept of freedom. Don’t want to work really hard - no problem - The freedom of Union promises a mandatory 5 day work week and maximum 8 hour day with mandatory breaks at the maximum amount of pay with 2 months of vacation time plus lifetime healthcare free and retirement pension 100x your salary - sounds like a great deal - except that this “freedom” requires you to do whatever the Union says you must do. You have given up your individual liberty for the freedom of consequence and the security of dependency.

No successfully business person has ever built a personal fortune based on those kind of work conditions. They work hard - 60 to 100 hours a week, every day of the week if necessary, they sacrifice security, risk failure - but the reward is immense and they never have to surrender their liberty. and many fail! yes - there is danger in freedom, there is consequence to action, there is reward for effort.

The socialist ideal ignores the fact that actions have consequences - for instance, let’s examine Greece - social upheaval and riots by UNIONIZED workers upset that they can no longer suck the teat of government money because the government has run out of money. In a capitalist mindset, we simply say ok - let’s balance the budget, makes the cuts we need to make, tighten our belts and work through it. The socialist mindset says - NO! force the government to continue to pay our extravagant wages and funding our overly generous pension regardless of the debts, because we should never have to face the consequences of our laziness and greed - oops!!

What are the Unions seeking as a solution in Greece? Why riot? Why attack the government they have bankrupted? Because the government owes them their salary, their healthcare, their pensions, their everything. They have surrendered their freedom for a payoff and DAMIT! they want their payoff!
[/quote]

ok first I want to say I havent slept for 24hours because of a examen, so this reply can be a bit funky:P

the scenario was not to illustrait real life in capitalisme ( even doe such scenarios have happend ), but to illustrait the freedom concept of sartre.

I do set the individual very hig, and I think that the societys purpose is to improve the individuals life. remember I am a marxist, not a fascist. the fascists said that the individual is for the state. I think that is stupid. a state is just a entity that governs society with a gun, offcourse the individual are more importent that the state. But as a marxist I am an materialist not a idealist. So I look at how the society today are. The society today is a higly collectivist form of organisation. People live in groups( families ) it works in groups, and everybody is dependent on each other because of the industrial market economy, the irony is that, even doe society is collectivist, the importent decisions are taken by the few. the profit are taken by the few, even doe the society produced it collectively( the factory worker is only able to take the time to work at the factory, if someone else are producing the foods he consums and this goes for everybody in a modern industrial capitalist society ). We marxist say, hey this is not right. Why should only 20% of the team get the most of the fruits of the effort, when the entire team made it togheter. This is the thougt behind the socialist perception of explotation btw. this thus maybe not have so much to do with liberty. but ok, the logic statement for this is: collectiv matters should be taken by the collectiv. and the fruits of the collectiv labour should be shared by the collectiv. and to follow it trough the logic takes us here: individual matters should be taken by the individual. and the fruits of the individual labour should be enjoyed by the individual.

a picture of individual labour in socialisme could be this: let say you play and sing on the street for money, that money is yours. or lets say you bake some breads at home, and sell them to your neigbours, that money is yours alone. When we say means of production, we meen factorys, natural resources( gas, oil a.s.), forests, big farms, collectiv traffic, schools, hospitals etc. in other words big production and services. While stuff you can create at home and so one is still private. ( maybe there are some socialists that will make selling of home made bread illegal, but I dont see the reason for this ). To make it relevant to T-Nation. you can still be a personel trainer in socialisme.

hope this gave you irish steel a better understanding of my political philosophi.

[/quote]

The reason 20% of the “team” gets the majority is because that 20% took the time save money to buy the resources so you could work as a team to create something. Because they took the risk of not working for five years while they built the infrastructure of a business in order to provide a consumer product. All you did was agree to work for him for a wage and use his tools to create a product out of material he bought. You bring nothing to the table but your labor and knowledge. He brings everything else, since he puts in the majority of the input, he gets the majority of the output.[/quote]

ah not this argument again!!

have can you create profit without labour?

I can turn it around, the workforce takes the materials and tools, and trough labour they increases its value. the capitalist could not get that profit without the labour of the workers.

still the post I made back there about the team, was about the entire society. without all the combined effort from the society, the capitalist would not be able to by the tools and materials, and the workers would not be able to increase its value trough labour. [/quote]

The owners of that business and the workers agree to a fair wage. Every worker has the option to accept that wage in return for his labor or quit. No one is forced to do anything.

If you believe the workers are entitled to more of the business’s profits, would you also agree that when a business loses money the workers should have to pay for it themselves?
[/quote]

it depends on the situasion. if the workers own the business, they get the profit. if the business then goes bad, they must come up with money or they lose the business. if they are smart they save away much of the profit in a fund, so if it goes bad - they can save the business. but this is offcourse not the case today, because they dont own the place. if a business goes bad today, people get fired. so in a sence do the workers today( where they dont get the profit ) take the burden when a business goes bad.[/quote]

In America 90% of businesses fail (which is actually a high number likely because of our wonderful Federal Reserve /sarcasm), however about 97% of co-ops fail, which is by definition the workers owning the means of production.

That percentage might be high because of lag in being able to collect the capital by the workers compared to the businessman, but from dealing with co-ops it is usually because of indecisiveness of the workers/owners.

108

[quote]florelius wrote:

the so-called “free market” doesnt exist, so it doesnt not make sence talking about it, when I talk about the society I live in.

orion would agree that the capitalist system of today is not what he talks about when he talks about “capitalisme” or “free market”. [/quote]

Market forces exist. The fact that you are debating them makes you dumber than I thought.

109

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
I am going to put it very simple.

freedom in socialisme = freedom from exploitation. This meens that you dont have the right to the fruits of others labor, in other words: you dont have the freedom to get rich on the expens of others. Now I know some here will say that “but doesnt the individual worker get exploited by the collective”. well maybe in some abstract sence, but in a modern society with industry, people work in groups. there are non car factorys with only one worker. So to be clear, when I say exploitation I dont meen that the car factory worker doesnt get grain from the agrarian worker and vice verca, I meen that there are no person or group of people who takes out a profit from the labor of the car factory worker and the agrarian worker. Now if the factorys/workplaces should be owned by the community/country etc or if it should be owned in common by the workers on the individual workplace is a decision the people must make in the socialist society.

btw: people does also have freedoms like: freedom of speech, of organisation and of tought. [/quote]

I have always seen a glaring flaw in this defense of freedom in the practice of socialism. In a capitalist society all arrangements are voluntary. That is to say, no one can be literally forced to enter into any arrangement of employment/compensation/ect. No one can ever be forced to work at a specific place. The only way anyone can be forcibly taken advantage of is through government. How on earth can you argue that a factory is taking advantage of a worker when the worker has chosen and continues to choose employment at the place to all other alternatives they are free to choose?

Further, what if I get rich selling my paintings? Who am I exploiting? How can you justify the community having a right to my success. The community nationalizing my earnings is the only way I can truly be victimized. All other actions are voluntary.
[/quote]

where in my post did I say you cannot sell your own paintings? I said that you cant get rich on the expense of others.

Did I choose to be born in a capitalist society without any productiv property, no I did not. no societys are totally voluntary. I work where I work because I need the money, I did not have childhood dream of working at a supermarked. capitalisme/liberalisme sounds find on paper. but its a tyranny in the real life. the society you talk about could be possible in a pre-industrial age. a society consisting of indepentent farmers and artisans wich all owned there own property ( jeffersonian republicanisme ). while today the society and economy are bigger and more complex and it takes a different system than liberalisme to create a society that can grant the most freedom.

If I lived in a pre-industrial society I would have been a jeffersonian republican.[/quote]

Be patient with me, I am having a difficulty reading what you say. How do people get exploited by companies? And no, you do not have a choice as to where you were born, your parents do, however you can move.[/quote]

where can I move to escape capitalisme( mercantilisme as you call it ), its a system that stretches all over the globe.[/quote]

Dont buy, dont sell.

Problem solved.

[/quote]

and again are someone using a sarte-ish concept of freedom. if I dont buy or sell, I starv.
its a false choice you are creating. [/quote]

Well yes, if you do not work you starve but that is not capitalisms fault. You can blame God for that, or nature or the universe but man, like every other animal either does something for a living or dies.

That is a very real choice and we know that because some people choose to die voluntarily because they feel it is no longer worth the effort.

So you do have a choice, and if you value your life enough you will probably try to make a living somehow.

And when an evil capitalist comes along and offers you the use of means of production and to pay you a much higher wage than you could ever hope to achieve with your own bare hands, smile, say thank you and learn enough so that one day you might become a capitalist yourself so that you can help people who start with nothing, just like he did when you needed a job.

Also, from a purely pragmatical point of view, capital goods turn over so fast these days that everyone who is not very good at using them economically will not be a capitalist for long. Likewise, someone who knows how to use it very soon be. This insures that the very best allocators of capital decide where capital is actually allocated to-

Why would you want that process to become less efficient?

Do you want mass starvations?

[/quote]

I have to disagree with you on one little thing, the worker himself is a capitalist, he deals in human effort instead of machines and consumer product.

110

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

it depends on the situasion. if the workers own the business, they get the profit. if the business then goes bad, they must come up with money or they lose the business. if they are smart they save away much of the profit in a fund, so if it goes bad - they can save the business. but this is offcourse not the case today, because they dont own the place. if a business goes bad today, people get fired. so in a sence do the workers today( where they dont get the profit ) take the burden when a business goes bad.[/quote]

Did you ever actually wonder why it is that some people work at an assembly line while others while other manage whole companies?

Could it be, dare I say it, that some people are better at running companies than others?

Do you think that companies would be better run when every janitor in his company has the exact same vote as him?

Why do you want mass unemployment?

[/quote]

haha it seems like the “geist” came out of the closet.

so you are authoritarian after all orion. if we follow your logic, most people are dumb and should not have a saying in things. maybe we can find a really smart guy, and he can take all the decisions for us.
[/quote]

There is a difference between understanding most people might be on the dull side and thinking someone should rule over the “dumb” people.

111

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

you know this is wrong.

1, a capitalist( from a marxist definition) is a person who makes money by owning means of production and by others labour.

a worker is a person who must sell his labourforce to make money, because he dont own the means of production.

2, a worker looses his humanity in the marked, he is redused to a commodity. and as all commoditys on the marked, he falls under the law of supply and demand. so his wages are not based on how hard or long he is working, its based on how rare or not his skill is.[/quote]

LOL at using a marxist definition. I guess essentially no one anywhere is a capitalist by that definition because pretty much everyone inputs their own labor.

Let me explain why your logic is dumb:

  1. a capitalist is really just a supporter of capitalism. Anyone freely and willingly making transactions in a capitalist system supports it. You are a capitalist by your actions.

  2. labor is capital. “workers” own a critical capital commodity in every company. They own part of the means of production. Unions even sometimes monopolize this capital.

  3. Name me a business owner that doesn’t input their own labor (generally they are the hardest working people in the company). By your definition, business owners aren’t generally capitalists. Besides, almost none of them would own the physical capital without great amounts of labor first.

  4. Money is capital. The very fact that workers are paid means they get a share of the company’s capital.[/quote]

not shure if you read my post trough. check it again, and you see what makes a capitalist a capitalist, and what makes a worker a worker.

ps. I guess most people in here are not capitalists, most of them are problably workers.[/quote]

By your definition I’ve shown capitalists essentially don’t exist. I’ve shown essentially everyone is a worker and that workers always own capital. Besides the idiocy of using a marxist definition for capitalist. Lets use Ayn Rand’s definition of socialist, okay?
[/quote]

are you saying that there are no people who owns means of production, and makes a profit( capitalists )?

again you did not grasp the marxist concept of classes.

lets put it like this: marx is regarded as a serious political thinker all around the world. ayn rand is only regarded as a serious thinker in the us. outside people dont know about here or they do and dont take here serious.

112

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

the so-called “free market” doesnt exist, so it doesnt not make sence talking about it, when I talk about the society I live in.

orion would agree that the capitalist system of today is not what he talks about when he talks about “capitalisme” or “free market”. [/quote]

Market forces exist. The fact that you are debating them makes you dumber than I thought.[/quote]

Im not saying that market forces dont exist, Im saying the “free market capitalisme” utopi dont exist. there is a difference, if you cant grasp that, it makes you dumber than I thought.

113

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

the so-called “free market” doesnt exist, so it doesnt not make sence talking about it, when I talk about the society I live in.

orion would agree that the capitalist system of today is not what he talks about when he talks about “capitalisme” or “free market”. [/quote]

Market forces exist. The fact that you are debating them makes you dumber than I thought.[/quote]

My retort to your post didn’t require pure free market utopia to exist, only market forces.
Im not saying that market forces dont exist, Im saying the “free market capitalisme” utopi dont exist. there is a difference, if you cant grasp that, it makes you dumber than I thought.
[/quote]

114

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

it depends on the situasion. if the workers own the business, they get the profit. if the business then goes bad, they must come up with money or they lose the business. if they are smart they save away much of the profit in a fund, so if it goes bad - they can save the business. but this is offcourse not the case today, because they dont own the place. if a business goes bad today, people get fired. so in a sence do the workers today( where they dont get the profit ) take the burden when a business goes bad.[/quote]

Did you ever actually wonder why it is that some people work at an assembly line while others while other manage whole companies?

Could it be, dare I say it, that some people are better at running companies than others?

Do you think that companies would be better run when every janitor in his company has the exact same vote as him?

Why do you want mass unemployment?

[/quote]

haha it seems like the “geist” came out of the closet.

so you are authoritarian after all orion. if we follow your logic, most people are dumb and should not have a saying in things. maybe we can find a really smart guy, and he can take all the decisions for us.
[/quote]

What about my post makes me an authoritarian?

The idea that some people are better at some stuff than others?

[/quote]

hm the idea that you think some people are better to take decisions in collectiv matters.
[/quote]

Well, some are.

This is not about whether you like the idea or not, but whether some people are better at making such decisions than others.

115

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

you know this is wrong.

1, a capitalist( from a marxist definition) is a person who makes money by owning means of production and by others labour.

a worker is a person who must sell his labourforce to make money, because he dont own the means of production.

2, a worker looses his humanity in the marked, he is redused to a commodity. and as all commoditys on the marked, he falls under the law of supply and demand. so his wages are not based on how hard or long he is working, its based on how rare or not his skill is.[/quote]

LOL at using a marxist definition. I guess essentially no one anywhere is a capitalist by that definition because pretty much everyone inputs their own labor.

Let me explain why your logic is dumb:

  1. a capitalist is really just a supporter of capitalism. Anyone freely and willingly making transactions in a capitalist system supports it. You are a capitalist by your actions.

  2. labor is capital. “workers” own a critical capital commodity in every company. They own part of the means of production. Unions even sometimes monopolize this capital.

  3. Name me a business owner that doesn’t input their own labor (generally they are the hardest working people in the company). By your definition, business owners aren’t generally capitalists. Besides, almost none of them would own the physical capital without great amounts of labor first.

  4. Money is capital. The very fact that workers are paid means they get a share of the company’s capital.[/quote]

not shure if you read my post trough. check it again, and you see what makes a capitalist a capitalist, and what makes a worker a worker.

ps. I guess most people in here are not capitalists, most of them are problably workers.[/quote]

By your definition I’ve shown capitalists essentially don’t exist. I’ve shown essentially everyone is a worker and that workers always own capital. Besides the idiocy of using a marxist definition for capitalist. Lets use Ayn Rand’s definition of socialist, okay?
[/quote]

are you saying that there are no people who owns means of production, and makes a profit( capitalists )?

[/quote]
You argument contrasting workers and capitalists and your definition require a capitalist to not be a worker. I’ve shown that this simply isn’t the case. they all work.

Second, I’ve also shown that all workers make a profit out of their ownership of capital.

[quote]

again you did not grasp the marxist concept of classes.

lets put it like this: marx is regarded as a serious political thinker all around the world. ayn rand is only regarded as a serious thinker in the us. outside people dont know about here or they do and dont take here serious. [/quote]

Marx is also regarded as a seriously wrong thinker whos models are disproved. However, my point is not whether or not he is a seriously considered thinker, but the fact that he is as biased a person as you could chose to define that word. But if you insist that my comparison be of a person widely regarded as a thinker, how about adam smith?

116

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

you know this is wrong.

1, a capitalist( from a marxist definition) is a person who makes money by owning means of production and by others labour.

a worker is a person who must sell his labourforce to make money, because he dont own the means of production.

2, a worker looses his humanity in the marked, he is redused to a commodity. and as all commoditys on the marked, he falls under the law of supply and demand. so his wages are not based on how hard or long he is working, its based on how rare or not his skill is.[/quote]

LOL at using a marxist definition. I guess essentially no one anywhere is a capitalist by that definition because pretty much everyone inputs their own labor.

Let me explain why your logic is dumb:

  1. a capitalist is really just a supporter of capitalism. Anyone freely and willingly making transactions in a capitalist system supports it. You are a capitalist by your actions.

  2. labor is capital. “workers” own a critical capital commodity in every company. They own part of the means of production. Unions even sometimes monopolize this capital.

  3. Name me a business owner that doesn’t input their own labor (generally they are the hardest working people in the company). By your definition, business owners aren’t generally capitalists. Besides, almost none of them would own the physical capital without great amounts of labor first.

  4. Money is capital. The very fact that workers are paid means they get a share of the company’s capital.[/quote]

not shure if you read my post trough. check it again, and you see what makes a capitalist a capitalist, and what makes a worker a worker.

ps. I guess most people in here are not capitalists, most of them are problably workers.[/quote]

By your definition I’ve shown capitalists essentially don’t exist. I’ve shown essentially everyone is a worker and that workers always own capital. Besides the idiocy of using a marxist definition for capitalist. Lets use Ayn Rand’s definition of socialist, okay?
[/quote]

are you saying that there are no people who owns means of production, and makes a profit( capitalists )?

[/quote]
You argument contrasting workers and capitalists and your definition require a capitalist to not be a worker. I’ve shown that this simply isn’t the case. they all work.

Second, I’ve also shown that all workers make a profit out of their ownership of capital.

[quote]

again you did not grasp the marxist concept of classes.

lets put it like this: marx is regarded as a serious political thinker all around the world. ayn rand is only regarded as a serious thinker in the us. outside people dont know about here or they do and dont take here serious. [/quote]

Marx is also regarded as a seriously wrong thinker whos models are disproved. However, my point is not whether or not he is a seriously considered thinker, but the fact that he is as biased a person as you could chose to define that word. But if you insist that my comparison be of a person widely regarded as a thinker, how about adam smith? [/quote]

many biased thinkers has disproved his models. but still you dont aknowledge that there is a difference beetwen a guy that owns a factory and a guy that dont. the who dont has to sell hes labour to survive. the who do own a factory, dont need to sell his labour, he lives off the profit of the factory. you should be able to see the difference.

adam smith is ok. what did he say?

117

[quote]florelius wrote:

the so-called “free market” doesnt exist, so it doesnt not make sence talking about it, when I talk about the society I live in. [/quote]

[quote]And then florelius wrote:
Im not saying that market forces dont exist, Im saying the “free market capitalisme” utopi dont exist. there is a difference, if you cant grasp that, it makes you dumber than I thought.
[/quote]

That is exactly what you wrote, then you call him dumb for thinking you meant what you said.

Now my wife works for a company, so under your belief system she is a worker. But she also buys stock in the company. In fact she is encouraged to buy the stock, and is given an incentive to buy that stock. So she is now part owner of the company. As is thousands of other employees of that company.

We can be the worker, and we can own the “means of production.” It is our choice here.

in 2008, over 60% of Americans owned stock. That meant 60% of Americans were part owners of “The Means of Production.” And of the remaining 40%, many if not most still owned something. They just chose something other then stocks. They could have chosen to be owners also, but they decided not to. Now we can get into the stock market crash, but that only hurt the owners, not the workers. (And because I didn’t sell, like all the lemmings, my portfolio is up 30% over before the crash. Would have been more if I had the money to toss in at that point.)

95% of the people in America who have a net worth above $1M (American) made it on their own. They did not inherit it, and it was not given to them. And by an interesting twist of fate they are more likely to be first or second generation immigrants to this country. And the study done by the authors of The Millionaire Next Door found that financial assistance from parents actually made it less likely to get into that wealthy group.

Did you know there are business owners who have employees that make more then they do? They actually pay one or more employee more then they make themselves. Then there are some business owners who are not making any profit, and in fact are taking a loss solely to keep from putting their employees out of work.

The Socialist sits around blaming everybody else for their problems, and waits for the government to help them. The Capitalist accepts responsibility for his situation, and goes about working to improve that situation.

The difference is between the guy who sued McDonald’s for making him fat, and they guy who eats right and exercises right, avoiding McDonald’s most of the time, or choosing better options when eating there.

118

[quote]florelius wrote:

many biased thinkers has disproved his models. but still you dont aknowledge that there is a difference beetwen a guy that owns a factory and a guy that dont. the who dont has to sell hes labour to survive. the who do own a factory, dont need to sell his labour, he lives off the profit of the factory. you should be able to see the difference.

adam smith is ok. what did he say?[/quote]

You really need to read the book Rich Dad Poor Dad. He talks about this exact thing. He mentions the whole idea of passive income, the factory owner you mention. He tells people to get into that passive income, and they will be better off.

Again, instead of complaining about that guy, you can become that guy. We all can.

He didn’t just wake up one day owning the fucking factory. He worked his ass of building that factory, or making the money to buy that factory.

119

ok guys - seriously - just quote the relevant passage instead of the whole discussion thread - makes follow up comments much easier to track without having to scroll through pages and pages of repeated text . . . .

120

[quote]The Mage wrote:

in 2008, over 60% of Americans owned stock. That meant 60% of Americans were part owners of “The Means of Production.” And of the remaining 40%, many if not most still owned something. They just chose something other then stocks. They could have chosen to be owners also, but they decided not to. Now we can get into the stock market crash, but that only hurt the owners, not the workers.

are you saying that no one got fired under the crisis, really?

95% of the people in America who have a net worth above $1M (American) made it on their own. They did not inherit it, and it was not given to them. And by an interesting twist of fate they are more likely to be first or second generation immigrants to this country. And the study done by the authors of The Millionaire Next Door found that financial assistance from parents actually made it less likely to get into that wealthy group.

Did you know there are business owners who have employees that make more then they do? They actually pay one or more employee more then they make themselves. Then there are some business owners who are not making any profit, and in fact are taking a loss solely to keep from putting their employees out of work.

The Socialist sits around blaming everybody else for their problems, and waits for the government to help them. The Capitalist accepts responsibility for his situation, and goes about working to improve that situation.

I dont blame any one for my problems! I am not socialist from a egoistic point of wiew. I am a socialist because I think it is the most humanist society. its a question about integrity for my part, to see politics from a bigger wiew than myself.