- Capitalism and Alternatives -


Posted by: Gee ( si ) on June 04, 1999 at 00:45:15:

In Reply to: Up the toon! posted by Red Deathy on June 03, 1999 at 18:07:16:

: A boss without workers would create no value, workers without a boss can create value.

Not without organisation. if they organise themselves as well or better than a specific manager then fine - the management role is still making value possible. If someone is takling on that role they are adding value by making it possible.

: No, people can see that having food produced is necessary, and they can see that their interests lie in more and better clothes, etc.

And i better cars according to Johnny, but better boats according to Simon, but better airplanes according to Sally etc etc etc etc etc etc

: Indeed, and the way they can increase the resources for their children is to increase the overall resources for their community. there is no 'Self interest' without a sommunal interest.

A simple model. If a parent has 100 units to dispose of and the village contains 10 children, one of which is his he will choose to give 100 units to his child sooner than 10 to each one so as to favor his childs chances. the only way in which the parent would feel equitable is if everyone put 100 in for each child to get 100. that doesnt happen.

: Ah, but capitalists don't create factories, I take my big pile of money made on stock market speculation (Gambling), and buy a factory- I didn't make it, but then I can block teh workers from using it, and thus extort them.

Who organised, designed the factory - who made it possible first - its his created wealth that is floating around and growing that gets later used to buy or employ others to make more factories. What greater right do some workers have to this factory than some other workers, some squatters, some rabbits or some others? Someone will use the property.

: Well, I'd like to not work in a shit job till I'm 65 cheers ;)

I'd love to work at a great job until im 75. if my current job isnt great, ill seek out a better one.

: No, because the workers couldn't spoend that tax money, because they'd never recieve it anyway.

I referred to their imposed choices in how they should retire. We could go into a lengthy debate about how unshackled free trade produces such wealth that $100 buys what $500 does now. We could look at what an average wage gets now to what it got 50 years ago.

:, surely even teh meesilliest worker ought to recieve a decent living in old age- ah, but then, such people are no longer useful.

Ought? you mean can. Ought means...what exactly?

: George Bataille- 'The Accursed Share' Volume 1.

Ill see if its netted.

: Its not 'OK' because it still replciates the class divisions, remember, its not a moral issue. Wealth is necessarilly relative, and the point of fluanting it is to have Others recognize you as wealthy.

You mean a person buys a ferrari, not because he enjoys driving it, but in order to say "look at me"? you really believe all 'luxuries' are for the benefit of being seen to have more rather than for the utlity of having more?

Follow Ups:

  • Magpies! Red Deathy Socialist Party Uk June 04 1999 (1)
    • rooks Gee si June 04 1999 (0)

The Debating Room Post a Followup