DC Tom Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 In fact, Greece, Italy, and Spain are abandoning the Euro in favor of the hammer. And sickle. you are a very , very sick person. What, you think beef cows survive the process? That is the ultimate example of "slavery" you're railing against - a living being, slaughtered for food. That's okay...but working for a wage isn't? this literally has nothing to do with what we are talking about... How the hell would you know? You literally have no clue what you're talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 And sickle. my thoughts exactly. Maybe MDP should move over with his communist friends! What, you think beef cows survive the process? That is the ultimate example of "slavery" you're railing against - a living being, slaughtered for food. That's okay...but working for a wage isn't? I will actually testify as an expert witness. It has been a study to find that at least 9 out of 10 cattle will not survive the slaughter process of harvesting of their meat. What I think you also need to take in to account for MDP is that there is an insurance payout available and future potential earnings of said animals that are a factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 my thoughts exactly. Maybe MDP should move over with his communist friends! I will actually testify as an expert witness. It has been a study to find that at least 9 out of 10 cattle will not survive the slaughter process of harvesting of their meat. What I think you also need to take in to account for MDP is that there is an insurance payout available and future potential earnings of said animals that are a factor. We don't refer to "potential earnings" 'round these parts. Please call it by its appropriate term: "indefinite interest." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 We don't refer to "potential earnings" 'round these parts. Please call it by its appropriate term: "indefinite interest." I will wait for MDP to answer. At least he knows what he is talking about! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 I will wait for MDP to answer. At least he knows what he is talking about! By the way, he's an anarchist. Not a communist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 By the way, he's an anarchist. Not a communist. Isn't it funny how two ideologies that are diametrically opposed to each other ultimately amount to the same thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 19 that I can think of. At least one in each truck under the seat (K20, F150, S10, F350). One in both tool boxes (F350, K20). One in each building, with the barn and tractor shed having 2 or 3. And if you count ball peen and heavy hammers, add about 8 more, maybe. Of course, there none of them are mine, due to the debt of depreciation they belong to the nails. Do you give nails an equal vote to the hammers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Isn't it funny how two ideologies that are diametrically opposed to each other ultimately amount to the same thing? No, they dont. traditional communists believe in a massive lenin state. anarchist oppose this. many want a market approach or independent negotiation between associations. this applies to economics and not the state in the sense of a police, fire, or speed limit, military, etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 About a dollar-two-fifty. It's about a hundred acres, about 50 cattle, we harvest about 12 a year, and we don't put anything in our pocket. Asking a farmer those questions is like saying how much do you make a year and how much is in your savings account. Heh...yeah, it's like a golden rule in the farming circles don't ask those questions. You're supposed to ask how many momma cows do you have (17)? How many calves do you have due next year (12)? How much hay did you cut (400 rolls)? How many do you plan on harvesting next year (14)? It is a big aside, but farmers are the most paranoid collective group out there. It comes from, my belief, having all of your assets exposed and being so volatile to the economy, plus being screwed over so many times in the past with politics and bureacracy. i never grew up on a farm, so sry for some ignorant questions... do people work for you? how much was the land, (100 acres), worth when originally bought, adjusted for inflation of course...? We don't refer to "potential earnings" 'round these parts. Please call it by its appropriate term: "indefinite interest." its not potential when actual real life surplus value surpasses capital value... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 its not potential when actual real life surplus value surpasses capital value... That doesn't even mean anything. What is that supposed to mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 No, they dont. traditional communists believe in a massive lenin state. anarchist oppose this. many want a market approach or independent negotiation between associations. this applies to economics and not the state in the sense of a police, fire, or speed limit, military, etc... Which ultimately leads to the same end. I've gotten an earful of anarchist theory on an occassion or two, and the flaw is that someone has to enforce agreements and initiatives or you can have no societal cooperation. If you cede enforcement power to a body you cease to have anarchy. To do otherwise will lead to mob rule and the strongest mob's leader becomes dictator. Those who assume dictatorial power are seldom into the whole personal autonomy thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Which ultimately leads to the same end. I've gotten an earful of anarchist theory on an occassion or two, and the flaw is that someone has to enforce agreements and initiatives or you can have no societal cooperation. If you cede enforcement power to a body you cease to have anarchy. To do otherwise will lead to mob rule and the strongest mob's leader becomes dictator. Those who assume dictatorial power are seldom into the whole personal autonomy thing. Or, in other words, there's a reason the Anarchist Federation has a .org web site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 (edited) Which ultimately leads to the same end. I've gotten an earful of anarchist theory on an occassion or two, and the flaw is that someone has to enforce agreements and initiatives or you can have no societal cooperation. If you cede enforcement power to a body you cease to have anarchy. To do otherwise will lead to mob rule and the strongest mob's leader becomes dictator. Those who assume dictatorial power are seldom into the whole personal autonomy thing. nobody ever said anarchy equals no authority. if they did than they were telling you the wrong thing.. it needs to be justified... you dont cease to have anarchy when you have a democratic body. again, nothing is a utopia but a democratic body with individual rights, similar to the bill of rights would usually suffice. you still have courts,police... you still have common law. all anarchy really means in the traditional sense is democracy. people are able to self manage through cooperation. its based on free association. if you dont want to be part of a union, dont. if you want to be part of a union, then go ahead. you are not allowed to hurt others through exploitation and unjustified hierarchy. if you own a farm/bar, and you work the farm/bar with your family, then its yours. you own what you work for. Edited June 3, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 (edited) That doesn't even mean anything. What is that supposed to mean? ill try this again. its a very very simple concept. i can understand if you dont agree, but if you dont understand then this is way over your head... "Difference between a worker's wages (exchange value) and the value of goods and services he or she produces (use value). Since use value is (or should be) always higher than the exchange value, workers produce a positive surplus value through their labor." this positive surplus is labor's value added to the raw materials usually or capital. if a person hires labor, they will take part of that use value and split it three ways. wages, overhead, profit. once the profit, ie ( surplus value ), surpasses the original value of the capital, you have exploitation. labor is not getting paid their full worth, and the capitalist is getting a free ride. quickly, when business expands, labor is aksing permission to use their own capital. this is how capital works, ie land, machinery, or rent... bonds and investment are money with interest. which is how capital should be treated, otherwise the capitalist gets a welfare check from labor every 2 weeks... hence the term indefinite interest... its a self contradiciting ideology for the purpose of power... you cant say i worked for my capital, and i should own it, and then say labor worked for their capital and they shouldnt own it. Edited June 3, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 ill try this again. its a very very simple concept. i can understand if you dont agree, but if you dont understand then this is way over your head... "Difference between a worker's wages (exchange value) and the value of goods and services he or she produces (use value). Since use value is (or should be) always higher than the exchange value, workers produce a positive surplus value through their labor." this positive surplus is labor's value added to the raw materials usually or capital. if a person hires labor, they will take part of that use value and split it three ways. wages, overhead, profit. once the profit, ie ( surplus value ), surpasses the original value of the capital, you have exploitation. labor is not getting paid their full worth, and the capitalist is getting a free ride. quickly, when business expands, labor is aksing permission to use their own capital. this is how capital works, ie land, machinery, or rent... bonds and investment are money with interest. which is how capital should be treated, otherwise the capitalist gets a welfare check from labor every 2 weeks... hence the term indefinite interest... its a self contradiciting ideology for the purpose of power... you cant say i worked for my capital, and i should own it, and then say labor worked for their capital and they shouldnt own it. You don't have to keep repeating it. Everyone gets it. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it any less retarded. The fact that you find it so insightful and persuasive says quite a bit about you. Let me explain why it's retarded: Say I buy a lawn mower for $200 and I agree to rent it to Harry for $10/yard to start a lawn mowing business. Harry charges $40/ yard. After mowing 20 yards Harry has paid me what I paid for the mower. But it's still my mower. If he mows 20 more yards with it I'll double my investment and retain ownership of the now depreciated mower. According to your silly little theory I've exploited Harry and I should no longer be allowed to rent my mower to him because he's paid me the value. However, we made a deal, we both got what we wanted, and if he chooses to voluntarily continue to rent my mower he is receiving utility for it. You can hardly say he's being exploited. He could buy his own mower if he would like. And if he's not able to then the only reason he's in business is because of the value of my capital. We're both better off for the arrangement. If he wasn't he wouldn't do it. A liberal in anarchist's clothing would stick his nose into other people's business and prevent Harry and I from engaging in a mutually beneficial enterprise of our choosing because it offended his busy-body sensibilies. Then when we called him a dick for doing it he'd assume it was because I was a greedy capitalist and Harry was an ignorant stooge who needed a do-gooder lib, er um anarchist, to protect him from getting exploited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 ill try this again. its a very very simple concept. i can understand if you dont agree, but if you dont understand then this is way over your head... "Difference between a worker's wages (exchange value) and the value of goods and services he or she produces (use value). Since use value is (or should be) always higher than the exchange value, workers produce a positive surplus value through their labor." this positive surplus is labor's value added to the raw materials usually or capital. if a person hires labor, they will take part of that use value and split it three ways. wages, overhead, profit. once the profit, ie ( surplus value ), surpasses the original value of the capital, you have exploitation. labor is not getting paid their full worth, and the capitalist is getting a free ride. quickly, when business expands, labor is aksing permission to use their own capital. this is how capital works, ie land, machinery, or rent... bonds and investment are money with interest. which is how capital should be treated, otherwise the capitalist gets a welfare check from labor every 2 weeks... hence the term indefinite interest... its a self contradiciting ideology for the purpose of power... you cant say i worked for my capital, and i should own it, and then say labor worked for their capital and they shouldnt own it. Yeah, I got what you were saying the first thirty times. It's still retarded. In no small part because labor gets to keep their capital: it's called a friggin' paycheck, you moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 ill try this again. its a very very simple concept. i can understand if you dont agree, but if you dont understand then this is way over your head... "Difference between a worker's wages (exchange value) and the value of goods and services he or she produces (use value). Since use value is (or should be) always higher than the exchange value, workers produce a positive surplus value through their labor." this positive surplus is labor's value added to the raw materials usually or capital. if a person hires labor, they will take part of that use value and split it three ways. wages, overhead, profit. once the profit, ie ( surplus value ), surpasses the original value of the capital, you have exploitation. labor is not getting paid their full worth, and the capitalist is getting a free ride. quickly, when business expands, labor is aksing permission to use their own capital. this is how capital works, ie land, machinery, or rent... bonds and investment are money with interest. which is how capital should be treated, otherwise the capitalist gets a welfare check from labor every 2 weeks... hence the term indefinite interest... its a self contradiciting ideology for the purpose of power... you cant say i worked for my capital, and i should own it, and then say labor worked for their capital and they shouldnt own it. What about bartering services for product? I barter meat for services. Who is the one allowed to charge full price, if you will? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 What about bartering services for product? I barter meat for services. Who is the one allowed to charge full price, if you will? No capital involved, so your bartered goods/services are all above and beyond you input, and you're both enslaving each other with indefinite interest. (I put effort into it, and I STILL can't achieve the surreal stupidity of MDP. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 No capital involved, so your bartered goods/services are all above and beyond you input, and you're both enslaving each other with indefinite interest. (I put effort into it, and I STILL can't achieve the surreal stupidity of MDP. ) That **** made me laugh, I will have to tell Charlie my construction guy. Maybe it is MDP who is 2y/o? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 You don't have to keep repeating it. Everyone gets it. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it any less retarded. The fact that you find it so insightful and persuasive says quite a bit about you. Let me explain why it's retarded: Say I buy a lawn mower for $200 and I agree to rent it to Harry for $10/yard to start a lawn mowing business. Harry charges $40/ yard. After mowing 20 yards Harry has paid me what I paid for the mower. But it's still my mower. If he mows 20 more yards with it I'll double my investment and retain ownership of the now depreciated mower. According to your silly little theory I've exploited Harry and I should no longer be allowed to rent my mower to him because he's paid me the value. However, we made a deal, we both got what we wanted, and if he chooses to voluntarily continue to rent my mower he is receiving utility for it. You can hardly say he's being exploited. He could buy his own mower if he would like. And if he's not able to then the only reason he's in business is because of the value of my capital. We're both better off for the arrangement. If he wasn't he wouldn't do it. A liberal in anarchist's clothing would stick his nose into other people's business and prevent Harry and I from engaging in a mutually beneficial enterprise of our choosing because it offended his busy-body sensibilies. Then when we called him a dick for doing it he'd assume it was because I was a greedy capitalist and Harry was an ignorant stooge who needed a do-gooder lib, er um anarchist, to protect him from getting exploited. no, its only your mower because the state is protecting your theft.(yes you keep your mower dummy, but you dont get the extra mower or extra money after capital value is met.) e.g. if you decided to not buy more lawn mowers... you are contradicting yourself. you say its ok for you to own your mower but its not ok for labor to keep their money. so you are a hypocrite. plus, YOU ARE NOT WORKING. ITS A WELFARE SYSTEM. harry is doing all the work... not only that, but the business could expand, and that expansion in this system would belong to you, creating a bigger and bigger gulf of unpaid labor and stolen property. pretty soon harry is not in charge of the lawn mowers he buys from his work and effort. you believe in this utter myth that capital somehow represents your work even after other people expand beyond that value and are still not allowed to own their own surplus value. its a self refuting philosophy on what constitutes private property. your other myth is that their is no coercion. this is a total fallacy beyond epic proportions...! 1- supply and demand logically entails coercion to some extent... there is a vast supply of unskilled labor that is always replaceable. its vast and low in demand. yet capital is finite in a capitalist system, ( because of this alienation of surplus value), and in high demand. the choice is have value stolen from you or starve. 2- the state takes vast amounts of wealth created from labor and uses it to protect the capitalist and his theft of labor. 3- neoliberalism has created incredibly cheap labor overseas that makes it hard to compete. the low prices from slave labor in a market create a system where its very hard generally speaking for small co-ops to stay in business and even have the ability to offer ethical wages. 4- whether it be cutting lawns, mcdonalds, walmart, burger king, security guard, etc, you cant just quit your job without suffering severe consequences potentially. you might not get hired right away, you might get evicted, you could lose good credit, hell, you might go with very little food and transportation... ill give you a perfect example. my dad was laid off. he was still getting unemployment and his military pension, but we still lost the house. and his credit went to ****... we got too far behind. and thats when he was laid off. he obviously would not just quit, even if things were very miserable. he would make sure he found a job making roughly the same amount before he just quit. ( and thats not easy, hell its probably not even realistic anymore if you dont have college.) he ended up taking this temp job for the past few years making 950 an hr. he was making 32 a hr. he cant find anything else making more than 10 a hr... this is obviously even way harder for people who make way less. my brother is the same. he has no college, ( cant afford it), and is making 10 a hr. if he just quit, he would lose his car and his credit would go to ****... people are forced to put up with tons of bs and do not have free association because the state protects this system of exploitation and non labor income... its literally stolen wealth! again, there is a huge difference between desire, realistic desire, and limited choices against your consent... the biggest coercion is the threat of unemployment. nothing puts the fear of god more in a man with bills and a family then getting canned on friday. im actually for people working to get unemployment. im for full employment if you are working... im also for the state helping people find private work while they are getting a temporary state job. yes, i know you cant have the salary to high because people would just keep that job forever. obviously there would be some limitations. if a job is available for sure on the private market, you will probably have to take it. the reason the capitalist class is against this is because full employment empowers workers tremendously. workers with the security of minimal employment would not put up with exploitation! but most of the large unemployment cycles are caused by the vast expansion of leverage by the fed and smaller banks. it was the major cause of our crisis in 08... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts