: : To remove the human cost from your occult doctrine of 'effective demand' is not the task of the Marxist. That is the task of the apologist for the capitalist. And you have all the moves down pat, Gee.
: You were simply avoiding the fact that people are discriminatory, and that this is inimical to egalitarian, and, I'm not apologizing for anyone or anything, nor is what I wrote a defense of anyone or anything.
People are 'discriminatory.' Is this supposed to say anything useful to the person who WANTS cancer treatment but has a job that pays so poorly that the cancer treatment is UNAVAILABLE?
: I have never been disingenuous about the need for force in the immediate socialist future. Yes, the capitalists WILL be oppressed---they will lose their land holdings, they will lose their industries, they will lose their grip upon the labor-power of all working men and women. I'm sure they won't like that one bit. The capitalists will be required to work. I'm sure they won't like that either.
: First - by capitalists I assume you mean that tiny minority of of the landed or stockholder wealthy, and not various 'managers' who are (or should be) considered 'workers' in your dichotomous analysis of society.
That's right. Please read SDF's post for continued clarification.
: Second - The oppression is constant and ongoing - wherever a 'minority' dare to differ from the 'majority' they will be forced to comply or risk overt violence - in every decision 'society' takes from then on. it isn't some temporary thing.
So this argument compels me to accept the current dictatorship of the bourgeoisie?
Again you fail to admit that coercion is presently used in the capitalist system. Again you assume that a content minority is preferable to a content majority. Unless you're advocating consensus, Gee, all you're doing is championing the MINORITY RULE of capitalist society.
We don't have millions of cops everywhere to control the poor because 'everyone' is thrilled with capitalist society, you know. Maybe you live where you don't have to see it perhaps...
: Third - your view of oppression seems to be that it entails a situation where someone who can, doesn't. For instance a doctor who can treat a patient but chooses not to is 'oppressing' him. Perhaps its worth a fresh post on the subject.
Yes, and try to make it clear this time.
: : Needless to say, I stand by my citations.
: Needless indeed - you are free to stand by them, and reprint them for the eyes of unsuspecting newcomers ad infinitum.
As if you ever challenged my citation that only 10% of the American population owns their own business; as if you ever challenged my citation that only 23% of the American population receives a B.A. or above; as if you ever challenged my citation that only 25% of all American jobs require any skill above a high school level.
All you have done is qualify my less than controversial claim that the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer.
I'll be the first to say that incomes in America are high---for all classes, relative to class.
But you still haven't 'proved' that everyone in America has a worthwhile job worthy of pride.
And you never will.
The issue in America, as I see it, is not what people make---but how they make it.