Chef Jim Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 You know what pisses me off? I just read that damn post Why the !@#$ would you do that?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Why the !@#$ would you do that?? He's like OC, but with half the brain cells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 There is a market out there for people who appreciate quality and that are willing to pay more. And why am I even responding to marcell? i think this is just to simplistic. a shirt is a shirt, a shoe a shoe. i mean, should i put flashing lights on the shirt? the consumer will look at the bottom line. and because the cost of labor and raw materials are vastly more for me, i simply would not be able to compete. its analogous to a walmart bar opening under a new name and selling alcohol next to a small town bar at 5 cents a drink. the old small bar would be out of business in 2 weeks... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 As Proudhon put it, "[w]ho is entitled to the rent of the land? The producer of the land, without doubt. Who made the land? God. Then, proprietor, retire!" [Op. Cit., p. 104] Much the same can be said of "capital" (workplaces, machinery, etc.) as well. The capitalist, argued Berkman, "gives you a job; that is permission to work in the factory or mill which was not built by him but by other workers like yourself. And for that permission you help to support him for the rest of your life or as long as you work for him." [What is Anarchism?, p. 14] "Capital, tools, and machinery are likewise unproductive . . . The proprietor who asks to be rewarded for the use of a tool or for the productive power of his land, takes for granted, then, that which is radically false; namely, that capital produces by its own effort - and, in taking pay for this imaginary product, he literally receives something for nothing." [What is Property?, p. 169] "In other words, capitalist economics tries to confuse the owners of capital with the machinery they own. Unlike labour, whose "ownership" cannot be separated from the productive activities being done, capital and land can be rewarded without their owners actually doing anything productive at all." -anarchist faq As David Schweickart puts it, "'providing capital' means nothing more than 'allowing it to be used.' But an act of granting permission, in and of itself, is not a productive activity. If labourers cease to labour, production ceases in any society. But if owners cease to grant permission, production is affected only if their authority over the means of production is respected." [Against Capitalism, p. 11] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 He's like OC, but with half the brain cells. Careful tool. I doubt you want my attention that badly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 you ignored a key tenet, the division of labor. all labor does produce capital, yet the capitalist is in charge(ie the state protecting the reward for doing nothing), not labor. this is why the capitalist is a freeloader and not labor. ie, the slave owner owns capital, and slaves produce everything, yet the slave owner is in charge. you put words in my mouth.... i said capital is finite. and capital is unproductive. this is shown in the flaw of marginal productivity theory. in the case of walmart starting a new business/or just expanding, then yes, all that capital is produced by labor. as walmart gets bigger, all capital is then generated by labor. meaning the capitalist is the freeloader. if you want, i would even argue only labor is productive and capital is not. the problem is initial capital. i dont have that ability.( workers are not in charge ). and even with the remote chance i got the money to buy a hypothetical bike shop or any small general store to compete with walmart, the co-op could not deliver prices as low as walmart. you see, capital can be a 100$ investment. but that is a finite value and will not sustain walmart. in fact, the 100$ is useless and produces nothing without the returns of labor, ie exploitation and extraction... but labor keeps working and working and working, while the capitalist does nothing. its a pyramid scheme. its a power structure with an assinine notion of private property that expands and never stops. this logical end would mean someone could conceptually spend 1$ and then own the world simply because they gave capital. its a joke... like the earlier example noted, which is ironic because the poster didnt realize this hurts capitalism, if someone drives me to work, even one time, do they now own my business. another example would be someone buying a candybar at walmart, do they now own all walmart? that is just ridiculous, yet thats exactly what marginal productivity theory states in capitalism.... this is what you (tom) said.---- at least here is what you should have said, because the above made no sense at all. "you just spent the whole thread explaining all capital is generated by labor, and anyone who wants infinite profits for finite capital is just a freeloader. ie non labor income. but you cant start your own company for lack of capital. so basically, youre saying gaining infinte profits from no work is being a freeloader." yes!!!! because im not in charge of my labor. lol..... sorry i had to make your last statement resemble actual logic and sense.... you need to understand that the state enforces the reward for doing nothing. ie, allowing someone to use your tools is not a productive act. its simply an act of structural power and advantage. ie marginal productiviy theory is incoherent and is facutally not productive. permission is not work, its hierarchy. a hammer, land, money, rent, none of this produces anything without returns on labor. a hammer or land will not produce anything by itself. this is the major distinction between private possesion and private property. private property here means the means of production, not a car, or personal hosue, candybar, etc. land, rent, and interest are forms of arbitrary power, not productivity. Who is the nameless, faceless capitalist in all your ridiculous examples? Shareholders or management? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronc24 Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 (edited) As Proudhon put it, "[w]ho is entitled to the rent of the land? The producer of the land, without doubt. Who made the land? God. Then, proprietor, retire!" [Op. Cit., p. 104] Much the same can be said of "capital" (workplaces, machinery, etc.) as well. The capitalist, argued Berkman, "gives you a job; that is permission to work in the factory or mill which was not built by him but by other workers like yourself. And for that permission you help to support him for the rest of your life or as long as you work for him." [What is Anarchism?, p. 14] "Capital, tools, and machinery are likewise unproductive . . . The proprietor who asks to be rewarded for the use of a tool or for the productive power of his land, takes for granted, then, that which is radically false; namely, that capital produces by its own effort - and, in taking pay for this imaginary product, he literally receives something for nothing." [What is Property?, p. 169] "In other words, capitalist economics tries to confuse the owners of capital with the machinery they own. Unlike labour, whose "ownership" cannot be separated from the productive activities being done, capital and land can be rewarded without their owners actually doing anything productive at all." -anarchist faq As David Schweickart puts it, "'providing capital' means nothing more than 'allowing it to be used.' But an act of granting permission, in and of itself, is not a productive activity. If labourers cease to labour, production ceases in any society. But if owners cease to grant permission, production is affected only if their authority over the means of production is respected." [Against Capitalism, p. 11] You make it sound like workers are uncompensated slaves who are performing tasks without free will. How many of the "capitalists" in North America (I am Canadian) started as workers, yet rose to positions of prominence because they actually had ambition to succeed in life? How many of those "workers" you repeatedly refer to vacation frequently, have great homes, possessions and families and live a comfortable lifestyle? You are continually painting the picture of a slave-like labour force being totally exploited by a demon capitalist elite. Last time I checked, we have freedom and opportunity to succeed. I'd say of those protesting the 1%, 99% sit on their asses all day and list "winning the lottery" at the top of their goals in life. Edited May 24, 2012 by Marauder24 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 You make it sound like workers are uncompensated slaves who are performing tasks without free will. How many of the "capitalists" in North America (I am Canadian) started as workers, yet rose to positions of prominence because they actually had ambition to succeed in life? How many of those "workers" you repeatedly refer to vacation frequently, have great homes, possessions and families and live a comfortable lifestyle? You are continually painting the picture of a slave-like labour force being totally exploited by a demon capitalist elite. Last time I checked, we have freedom and opportunity to succeed. I'd say of those protesting the 1%, 99% sit on their asses all day and list "winning the lottery" at the top of their goals in life. We are slaves. This year for example, I'm only given 5 weeks of vacation. You believe that? Five weeks??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 We are slaves. This year for example, I'm only given 5 weeks of vacation. You believe that? Five weeks??? I'm not given any. I take what I need. See I'm not a slave. I'm the !@#$ing MASTER!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronc24 Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 We are slaves. This year for example, I'm only given 5 weeks of vacation. You believe that? Five weeks??? I'd camp out and fight for 6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 I'd camp out and fight for 6 I would but those 7.5 hour days really drain the hell out of me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronc24 Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 I would but those 7.5 hour days really drain the hell out of me. Unbelievable. Take 8 hours off to sleep and you only have 8.5 hours to yourself in a day. SLAVE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 As Proudhon put it, "[w]ho is entitled to the rent of the land? The producer of the land, without doubt. Who made the land? God. Then, proprietor, retire!" [Op. Cit., p. 104] Much the same can be said of "capital" (workplaces, machinery, etc.) as well. The capitalist, argued Berkman, "gives you a job; that is permission to work in the factory or mill which was not built by him but by other workers like yourself. And for that permission you help to support him for the rest of your life or as long as you work for him." [What is Anarchism?, p. 14] "Capital, tools, and machinery are likewise unproductive . . . The proprietor who asks to be rewarded for the use of a tool or for the productive power of his land, takes for granted, then, that which is radically false; namely, that capital produces by its own effort - and, in taking pay for this imaginary product, he literally receives something for nothing." [What is Property?, p. 169] "In other words, capitalist economics tries to confuse the owners of capital with the machinery they own. Unlike labour, whose "ownership" cannot be separated from the productive activities being done, capital and land can be rewarded without their owners actually doing anything productive at all." -anarchist faq As David Schweickart puts it, "'providing capital' means nothing more than 'allowing it to be used.' But an act of granting permission, in and of itself, is not a productive activity. If labourers cease to labour, production ceases in any society. But if owners cease to grant permission, production is affected only if their authority over the means of production is respected." [Against Capitalism, p. 11] "Op. Cit."? Really? Could you at least pretend to read what you cut and paste? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Careful tool. I doubt you want my attention that badly. Ooooh "careful" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 We are slaves. This year for example, I'm only given 5 weeks of vacation. You believe that? Five weeks??? Only 5 weeks? That's criminal! I truly feel for you, brother. Say the word, and I will start a sympathy slave-revolt here to support your cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Only 5 weeks? That's criminal! I truly feel for you, brother. Say the word, and I will start a sympathy slave-revolt here to support your cause. Too late brother. The man is trying to take us down. My link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 "Op. Cit."? Really? Could you at least pretend to read what you cut and paste? ad hom?.... Who is the nameless, faceless capitalist in all your ridiculous examples? Shareholders or management? anyone who wants somethig for nothing. management- we have gone over this. you need a reason, like expertise or aptitude, for this. or consent. shareholders- yes. You make it sound like workers are uncompensated slaves who are performing tasks without free will. How many of the "capitalists" in North America (I am Canadian) started as workers, yet rose to positions of prominence because they actually had ambition to succeed in life? How many of those "workers" you repeatedly refer to vacation frequently, have great homes, possessions and families and live a comfortable lifestyle? You are continually painting the picture of a slave-like labour force being totally exploited by a demon capitalist elite. Last time I checked, we have freedom and opportunity to succeed. I'd say of those protesting the 1%, 99% sit on their asses all day and list "winning the lottery" at the top of their goals in life. this is ad hom. all production comes from labor, so what you just said is in reality, factually untrue. of course its coercion, the state protects the means of production, with tax payer money coming from labor. its parasitic. you are trying to justify rewards for doing nothing, you assume capital is productive, its not. again, its ironic because in reality the capitalist is the freeloader, yet you spew this nonsense.... its a joke... "Capital, tools, and machinery are likewise unproductive. . . The proprietor who asks to be rewarded for the use of a tool or for the productive power of his land, takes for granted, then, that which is radically false; namely, that capital produces by its own effort -- and, in taking pay for this imaginary product, he literally receives something for nothing." [What is Property?, p. 169] As Proudhon put it, "[w]ho is entitled to the rent of the land? The producer of the land, without doubt. Who made the land? God. Then, proprietor, retire!" [Op. Cit., p. 104] Much the same can be said of "capital" (workplaces, machinery, etc.) as well. The capitalist, argued Berkman, "gives you a job; that is permission to work in the factory or mill which was not built by him but by other workers like yourself. And for that permission you help to support him for the rest of your life or as long as you work for him." [What is Anarchism?, p. 14] this is a reductio ad absurdum.... this theory entails me buying a candybar at walmart and then owning all walmart( including its workers). its a sick, sick joke!!!... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 ad hom?.... anyone who wants somethig for nothing. management- we have gone over this. you need a reason, like expertise or aptitude, for this. or consent. shareholders- yes. this is ad hom. all production comes from labor, so what you just said is in reality, factually untrue. of course its coercion, the state protects the means of production, with tax payer money coming from labor. its parasitic. you are trying to justify rewards for doing nothing, you assume capital is productive, its not. again, its ironic because in reality the capitalist is the freeloader, yet you spew this nonsense.... its a joke... "Capital, tools, and machinery are likewise unproductive. . . The proprietor who asks to be rewarded for the use of a tool or for the productive power of his land, takes for granted, then, that which is radically false; namely, that capital produces by its own effort -- and, in taking pay for this imaginary product, he literally receives something for nothing." [What is Property?, p. 169] As Proudhon put it, "[w]ho is entitled to the rent of the land? The producer of the land, without doubt. Who made the land? God. Then, proprietor, retire!" [Op. Cit., p. 104] Much the same can be said of "capital" (workplaces, machinery, etc.) as well. The capitalist, argued Berkman, "gives you a job; that is permission to work in the factory or mill which was not built by him but by other workers like yourself. And for that permission you help to support him for the rest of your life or as long as you work for him." [What is Anarchism?, p. 14] this is a reductio ad absurdum.... this theory entails me buying a candybar at walmart and then owning all walmart( including its workers). its a sick, sick joke!!!... No this is ad hom: You're an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 No this is ad hom: You're an idiot. please respond with an argument, not 5th grade bs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 please respond with an argument, not 5th grade bs... That is my argument. You're a retard. I'm rarely this nice so you should be honored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts