TakeYouToTasker Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 (edited) So, he messes with the mechanics of the whole site for his own enjoyment, PM's people calling them every name in the book, along with his daily general assmudgeonry and I'm over the top? You said he was better on the main board and that may be true. I've seen that same thing with other posters, but MDP is a real ass here. I'll have a discussion with anyone, assuming they make conversation simple, and assuming they make an origional argument. I'll argue with his plagiarised positions specifically because, unopposed, they have the potential to ruin minds. Edited September 4, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 He's just a total ass. He does stuff like post videos in the Shoutbox that screw up people trying to use hand held devices and also tends to slow the whole site down for everyone else. He's been told time and again but does it anyway and then either says he forgot or was just doing it to piss people off. He's PM'd me swearing up a storm and also sending me videos of his particular political heroes. He desperately needs attention, thus the all caps in his screen name. He's so pathetic that he even asked for dating advice from the whole board (in the Shoutbox). So tell me, why would you want to even attempt to have an inteligent conversation with this Noam Chompsky disciple? this is !@#$ing hilarious... lmmfao! tasker- i will break down the arguments... http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionC2#secc29 - anarchist faq- c29- do profits reflect a reward for risk? "So does "risk" explain or justify non-labour income? No, anarchists argue. This is for five reasons. Firstly, the returns on property income are utterly independent on the amount of risk involved. Secondly, all human acts involve risk of some kind and so why should property owners gain exclusively from it? Thirdly, risk as such it not rewarded, only successful risks are and what constitutes success is dependent on production, i.e. exploiting labour. Fourthly, most "risk" related non-labour income today plays no part in aiding production and, indeed, is simply not that risky due to state intervention. Fifthly, risk in this context is not independent of owning capital and, consequently, the arguments against "waiting" and innovation apply equally to this rationale. In other words, "risk" is simply yet another excuse to reward the rich for being wealthy." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 this is !@#$ing hilarious... lmmfao! tasker- i will break down the arguments... http://www.infoshop....ectionC2#secc29 - anarchist faq- c29- do profits reflect a reward for risk? "So does "risk" explain or justify non-labour income? No, anarchists argue. This is for five reasons. Firstly, the returns on property income are utterly independent on the amount of risk involved. Secondly, all human acts involve risk of some kind and so why should property owners gain exclusively from it? Thirdly, risk as such it not rewarded, only successful risks are and what constitutes success is dependent on production, i.e. exploiting labour. Fourthly, most "risk" related non-labour income today plays no part in aiding production and, indeed, is simply not that risky due to state intervention. Fifthly, risk in this context is not independent of owning capital and, consequently, the arguments against "waiting" and innovation apply equally to this rationale. In other words, "risk" is simply yet another excuse to reward the rich for being wealthy." Go back and fix your quote tags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 (edited) Go back and fix your quote tags. the post was erased... but i linked the intro of the 5 arguments against risk in capitalism(c29)... you can read the rest and respond if you want? Edited September 3, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 No. Read the PM I sent you. Your quote tags suck. Fix them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 All this theoretical nonsense is interesting in a classroom setting, but ignores the reality of most small business owners. Take, for instance, my friend who started a restaurant. Now, whether you think his profits should be evenly distributed among those he hired to perform unskilled labor or not is irrelevant to the risk he took. He put his money on the line. If it failed, he's out the thousands of dollars and countless hours he put into it and is left with nothing but a mountain of debt to show for his efforts. He could have waited tables, or taken a job managing someone else's store, made enough to get by, and risked nothing by doing so. No one guaranteed him success and now many people have a better option than they had before to get food, more people now have jobs than did before, and he has a lot more money than he did before. And while someone may find his take disproportionate, he's the one with all the stress who has to keep the place running and who eats it if the place fails. You can dress it up in whatever Marxist or Anarchist theory impresses you, but none of that changes the plain and simple fact that he's the one who put his time and money on the line and stood to take a loss. As it pertains to the rant the moron in the OP clip made, his risk is not in any way similar to the "risk" of being poor. The analogy is !@#$ing stupid. And as far as the whole theory that the state enables him to steal the product of others labor, who would you suggest gets to determine how his profits are allocated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 All this theoretical nonsense is interesting in a classroom setting, but ignores the reality of most small business owners. Take, for instance, my friend who started a restaurant. Now, whether you think his profits should be evenly distributed among those he hired to perform unskilled labor or not is irrelevant to the risk he took. He put his money on the line. If it failed, he's out the thousands of dollars and countless hours he put into it and is left with nothing but a mountain of debt to show for his efforts. He could have waited tables, or taken a job managing someone else's store, made enough to get by, and risked nothing by doing so. No one guaranteed him success and now many people have a better option than they had before to get food, more people now have jobs than did before, and he has a lot more money than he did before. And while someone may find his take disproportionate, he's the one with all the stress who has to keep the place running and who eats it if the place fails. You can dress it up in whatever Marxist or Anarchist theory impresses you, but none of that changes the plain and simple fact that he's the one who put his time and money on the line and stood to take a loss. As it pertains to the rant the moron in the OP clip made, his risk is not in any way similar to the "risk" of being poor. The analogy is !@#$ing stupid. And as far as the whole theory that the state enables him to steal the product of others labor, who would you suggest gets to determine how his profits are allocated? Don't bother the utility of your friend doesn't matter in MDP's plagiarized argument. Your friends business is a service business, and service businesses are created by labor surpluses. According to MDP's theories, your friends business never would/should/could have been allowed to exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 That's a little over the top. No need to be so malicious. I actually think it was pretty accurate. Angry (3rd really needs a sedative sometimes), but neither over-the-top nor malicious, from what I've seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 (edited) I actually think it was pretty accurate. Angry (3rd really needs a sedative sometimes), but neither over-the-top nor malicious, from what I've seen. Glad to see you're back. I was starting to worry you'd fallen off the planet. BTW, you can't receive PMs. Edited September 4, 2012 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 Glad to see you're back. I was starting to worry you'd fallen off the planet. Four days without turning the computer on. It was heaven. Managed to read four books. BTW, you can't receive PMs. My inbox is probably full of warnings from moderators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 (edited) All this theoretical nonsense is interesting in a classroom setting, but ignores the reality of most small business owners. Take, for instance, my friend who started a restaurant. Now, whether you think his profits should be evenly distributed among those he hired to perform unskilled labor or not is irrelevant to the risk he took. He put his money on the line. If it failed, he's out the thousands of dollars and countless hours he put into it and is left with nothing but a mountain of debt to show for his efforts. He could have waited tables, or taken a job managing someone else's store, made enough to get by, and risked nothing by doing so. No one guaranteed him success and now many people have a better option than they had before to get food, more people now have jobs than did before, and he has a lot more money than he did before. And while someone may find his take disproportionate, he's the one with all the stress who has to keep the place running and who eats it if the place fails. You can dress it up in whatever Marxist or Anarchist theory impresses you, but none of that changes the plain and simple fact that he's the one who put his time and money on the line and stood to take a loss. As it pertains to the rant the moron in the OP clip made, his risk is not in any way similar to the "risk" of being poor. The analogy is !@#$ing stupid. And as far as the whole theory that the state enables him to steal the product of others labor, who would you suggest gets to determine how his profits are allocated? the reason the scenario of someone losing their life savings starting a business is appealing to capitalists is because it does reveal real risk, the problem is that risk does not justify profits for capital, why? because returns on capital are from use value, not capital. otherwise capital sold would simply be worth the initial capital...( thats the advantage of hiring someone instead of doing the work yourself.) the division of labor takes value away from the person actually adding work to the capital( hence unpaid labor and therefore exploitation).... reason being, surplus value is extracted to create profit and overhead, and there is no difference between capital investment and labor investment fundamentally... corporations in a market, are still collective institutions, and non labor income like i said before was created by the courts, otherwise labor wouldnt have allowed a such exploitation. Imagine a worker who is hired for an hour and paid $10. Once in the capitalist's employ, the capitalist can have him operate a boot-making machine using which the worker produces $10 worth of work every fifteen minutes. Every hour, the capitalist receives $40 worth of work and only pays the worker $10, capturing the remaining $30 as gross revenue. Once the capitalist has deducted fixed and variable operating costs of (say) $20 (leather, depreciation of the machine, etc.), he is left with $10. Thus, for an outlay of capital of $30, the capitalist obtains a surplus value of $10; his capital has not only been replaced by the operation, but also has increased by $10. The worker cannot capture this benefit directly because he has no claim to the means of production (e.g. the boot-making machine) or to its products, and his capacity to bargain over wages is restricted by laws and the supply/demand for wage labour. Hence the rise of trade unions which aim to create a more favourable bargaining position through collective action by workers. - wiki the 2nd problem is that elminating capital risk often times means more risk for labor, either with layoffs or dangerous working conditions, workers face serious risk, and their job is constantly put at risk with the bad decisions of arbitrary owners time after time. when corporations are in trouble, it is workers who pay the price, not shareholders....( especially with state intervention). to acknowledge capital risk and ignore the risk of humans in labor seems like a huge double standard and not intellectually honest considering the generation of new capital from labor's surplus value.... if you want to appeal using risk, and profits are created collectively, then risk should be equally shared by the corporation being shared in power democratically, and not top down totalitarian decision making. you cant say i took risk, then ignore the risk labor takes, and then say i deserve all profits from only my risk.... - anarchist faq capital is not productive, and anarchists/communists argue that capital should be provided with no interest from democratic community banks. the reason capital is not productive is because only labor can create the use value. if it was just one person, he would not randomly give away profits to land or tools. he would keep it. and by hiring others creating a division of labor, the capitalist through permission creates non- labor income and a surplus past his actual work... new wealth flows from production, the use of labour on existing wealth to create new wealth. for big business, this argument goes out the window, see bank/auto/ bailouts last 40 years... which is a big reason this argument comes up, to distract people that in reality capital accumulation will always create big business because of state intervention to create exploitation and then keep it going when that particular market fails. in reality, capitalists hate free markets and constantly lobby the state for protection... its also noteworthy that it is in the states interest to keep such markets sustained, otherwise recession sets in and creates political instability... this creates a safe house for big business and arguments of risk here are dumb... anarchist faq also see limited liability of investors... "Costs and risks are socialised," in other words, "and the profit is privatised." -Noam Chomsky "Appeals of risk to justify capitalism simply exposes that system as little more than a massive casino. In order for such a system to be fair, the participants must have approximately equal chances of winning. However, with massive inequality the wealthy face little chance of loosing. For example, if a millionaire and a pauper both repeatedly bet a pound on the outcome of a coin toss, the millionaire will always win as the pauper has so little reserve money that even a minor run of bad luck will bankrupt him. Ultimately, "the capitalist investment game (as a whole and usually in its various parts) is positive sum. In most years more money is made in the financial markets than is lost. How is this possible? It is possible only because those who engage in real productive activity receive less than that to which they would be entitled were they fully compensated for what they produce. The reward, allegedly for risk, derives from this discrepancy." [David Schweickart, Op. Cit., p. 38] In other words, people would not risk their money unless they could make a profit and the willingness to risk is dependent on current and expected profit levels and so cannot explain them. To focus on risk simply obscures the influence that property has upon the ability to enter a given industry (i.e. to take a risk in the first place) and so distracts attention away from the essential aspects of how profits are actually generated (i.e. away from production and its hierarchical organisation under capitalism). So risk does not explain how surplus value is generated nor is its origin. Moreover, as the risk people face and the return they get is dependent on the wealth they have, it cannot be used to justify this distribution. Quite the opposite, as return and risk are usually inversely related. If risk was the source of surplus value or justified it, the riskiest investment and poorest investor would receive the highest returns and this is not the case. In summary, the "risk" defence of capitalism does not convince." - anarchist faq http://infoshop.org/...ectionC2#secc29 Edited September 4, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 the reason the scenario of someone losing their life savings starting a business is appealing to capitalists is because it does reveal real risk, the problem is that risk does not justify profits for capital, why? because returns on capital are from use value, not capital... reason being, surplus value is extracted to create profit and overhead, and there is no difference between capital investment and labor investment fundamentally... corporations in a market, are still collective institutions, and non labor income like i said before was created by the courts, otherwise labor wouldnt have allowed a such exploitation. - anarchist faq anarchist faq also see limited liability of investors... "Costs and risks are socialised," in other words, "and the profit is privatised." -Noam Chomsky "Appeals of risk to justify capitalism simply exposes that system as little more than a massive casino. In order for such a system to be fair, the participants must have approximately equal chances of winning. However, with massive inequality the wealthy face little chance of loosing. For example, if a millionaire and a pauper both repeatedly bet a pound on the outcome of a coin toss, the millionaire will always win as the pauper has so little reserve money that even a minor run of bad luck will bankrupt him. Ultimately, "the capitalist investment game (as a whole and usually in its various parts) is positive sum. In most years more money is made in the financial markets than is lost. How is this possible? It is possible only because those who engage in real productive activity receive less than that to which they would be entitled were they fully compensated for what they produce. The reward, allegedly for risk, derives from this discrepancy." [David Schweickart, Op. Cit., p. 38] In other words, people would not risk their money unless they could make a profit and the willingness to risk is dependent on current and expected profit levels and so cannot explain them. To focus on risk simply obscures the influence that property has upon the ability to enter a given industry (i.e. to take a risk in the first place) and so distracts attention away from the essential aspects of how profits are actually generated (i.e. away from production and its hierarchical organisation under capitalism). So risk does not explain how surplus value is generated nor is its origin. Moreover, as the risk people face and the return they get is dependent on the wealth they have, it cannot be used to justify this distribution. Quite the opposite, as return and risk are usually inversely related. If risk was the source of surplus value or justified it, the riskiest investment and poorest investor would receive the highest returns and this is not the case. In summary, the "risk" defence of capitalism does not convince." - anarchist faq http://infoshop.org/...ectionC2#secc29 I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm convinced. Makes me want to go out and shoot an Archduke... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 Someone want to explain to her that we have a social safety net? Is being poor risky? Sure. But you also have the chance using those safety nets to claw your way out of it. What safety nets are we referring too? Because I don't know about to many safety nets in America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 What safety nets are we referring too? Because I don't know about to many safety nets in America. It's notoriously difficult to do, but you've managed to strike me absolutely dumbfounded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 (edited) What safety nets are we referring too? Because I don't know about to many safety nets in America. i think food stamps, unemployment insurance, medicaid... probably a few others... but i was referring to risk of investment ( which is the most common defense when being critical of capitalism imo), not the risk of life in general, which applies to all people in many different ways... this is why i hate msnbc It's notoriously difficult to do, but you've managed to strike me absolutely dumbfounded. yes it is... which it should be... i prefer a work requirement, ie full employment, to end the stigma of welfare, and to allow people dignity and the ability to have food, shelter, transportation... nothing should ever be free Edited September 4, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm convinced. Makes me want to go out and shoot an Archduke... Yes, welcome back. I was on vacation at the Cape last week and missed a lot here, came back and thought you might be taillights for a while. Do you think we could get a group rate for the cabal's travel and hotel and arms purchases? Wait. Are there any Archdukes around anymore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 economics is not something you can trim down, its very complicated and involves a long disscussion on human nature and philosophy... I'll trim it down for you. If you do nothing you should have nothing. Remember JFK's words.. "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country" Too many Americans are worried about "what's in it for me" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 I'll trim it down for you. If you do nothing you should have nothing. Remember JFK's words.. "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country" Too many Americans are worried about "what's in it for me" umm i agree... hence the reason im against capitalism... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 umm i agree... hence the reason im against capitalism... the system you espouse has failed each and every time it was attempted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 (edited) the system you espouse has failed each and every time it was attempted. leninism, yes... workers councils and labor ownership has worked fine in parts of europe, especially germany. it was also working great during the spanish revolution in 1936 until hitler invaded. other philosophies of social democracy in the economy has worked very well in south america among a myriad of other places.... and capitalism, in its current form is failing and incredibly corrupt along with being a welfare system for the elite rich... as far as capital ownership with no state protection in a laissez faire market, thats has not existed. there are various reasons why including state interest in keeping business afloat... Edited September 4, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts