Date: 07-20-2010, 03:10 PM
By Punkerslut...

Originally Posted by Erls
Your entire argument stems from the idea that happiness involves material happiness, and that all people should be materially equal. That is not the case.

     Materialism is instrumental to happiness, but I do not believe that everyone should be "materially equal." Rather, I stated that it would be better to have "to receive according to their contribution," since within the Capitalist system, those who produce everything receive the smallest and those who produce nothing receive the greatest. I do not want to equalize what everyone receives, but I want to equalize the terms upon which everyone bargains with each other -- that is, just as possession of society's productive forces creates bargaining power for the Capitalist, I want such possession to be given to the workers. Hence, Socialism, though more of a direct-worker management nature.

Originally Posted by Erls
Happiness does not stem from material goods, happiness stems from stimulation of the mind. Those who stimulate their minds, use their minds, are generally those who are rewarded with material things. Yet, the cause of their happiness is not in the material, it is in the mind. The material is merely the by product of a useful mind.

Originally Posted by Erls
As long as you believe happiness to stem from the material, you will never be happy. If you accept that happiness comes from the mind, and that you have the exact same ability to be happy as anyone else, you will see the choice before you. Because, happiness IS a choice. One can choose to use their mind and find happiness, or one can choose to not use their minds and demand from others while never finding happiness.

     Take anyone who has happiness of the mind, and prohibit them from shelter, and then from food, and then from water. How happy and pleasant would they become? Unless you're talking about a religious ascetic, they would not become happy. And, if we're talking about religious ascetics, then we really have lost sight of the larger picture of what system of economy maximizes the happiness of all people.

     Who is happier? The father who cannot afford the surgery to save his daughter's life, or the one who can? To quote economists Peter T. Bauer and Basil S. Yamey, in a text edited by John Keynes and Milton Friedman...­

"The increase in population in under-developed countries generally reflects a fall in the death rate and thus a longer life expectation. This implies a psychic income, the value of which is clear from people's readiness to pay for the satisfaction of the postponement of death, both their own death and that of their relatives, especially their children. Satisfactions or incomes of this kind are not included in estimates of national income; and to that extent the results and implications of population growth and economic development are obscured." ("The Economics of Underdeveloped Countries," page 63.)

     Greater income means greater security, and greater opportunities of experience and social involvement, as well as partial guarantees that can prevent misfortunes. So, naturally, if greater income means that people don't have to watch their children starve to death or die from easily-cured diseases, then yes, it is instrumental to happiness -- or, at the very least, it is instrumental to more happiness.

     When I say greater income, then, I am thinking of improved healthcare and education; or, more specifically, providing every person with everything that they need to fully develop themselves emotionally, intellectually, and socially. When I say "a greater share of income for the workers," I am saying the right to some leisure and freedom. What if it were possible to achieve a six-hour work-day, while maintaining the same pay, simply by improving the bargaining power of the workers? Or what about a five-hour day, or a four-hour day? Wouldn't people be happier, without having to work as much? In the essay, "The Instinct of Workmanship and the Irksomeness of Labor," by Sociologist Thorsten Veblen discusses why humanity hates work...

...men desire above all things to get the goods produced by labor and to avoid the labor by which the goods are produced. In a general way the common-sense opinion is well in accord with current theory on this head....

In the further cultural development, when some wealth has been accumulated and the members of the community fall into a servile class on the one hand and a leisure class on the other, the tradition that labor is ignoble gains an added significance. It is not only a mark of inferior force, but it is also a perquisite of the poor. This is the situation today.

     Imagine, for instance, that we are able to change the bargaining power between laborer and capitalist, so that the worker gains a larger share of their production. If the worker was somewhat rational and somewhat understood their own happiness, as economics tells us, then they would not spend the money on themselves, because they would know that further material wealth would not bring them greater happiness. And, with such a spiritual and emotional enlightenment, imagine that the excess of their paycheck goes to pay for medical supplies in developing nations to prevent high rates of infant mortality. With this reorganized distribution of society, would you say that people are more or less happy? Probably more.

     But of course, this is scenario is based on the premise that material wealth does not contribute to happiness, and therefore, it actually seems very unlikely. After all, if you don't need material wealth to be happy, trust me -- I would not ever get a job, because it wouldn't benefit me or anyone else. But actually, work -- or the production of desired wealth -- is regarded as an activity than can contribute to the common welfare of all; or, more specifically, towards the common happiness and well-being of all.

Originally Posted by Erls
For you see, the only truly indispensable people in this world are those who do not complain about things being unfair, who do not demand that others provide for them, or give to them.

     Those people who were content and did not complain, who lived under dictators and nourished their tyrants without a single word, have done nothing for me. Every piece of liberty that I have, actually, has come from those who have rebelled. The "indispensable people" you speak of are the ones who are indispensable to dictatorship.

Originally Posted by Erls
Furthermore, the laborer is not worth as much as someone who uses their mind to create happiness. The laborer is a dime a dozen: the majority of people willfully choose not to use their mind to create happiness but instead demand that happiness (in the form of material goods) be given to them by those who have created those goods. The laborer believes that (s)he is entitled to those goods, entitled to the same happiness, as (s)he who has created those goods with their minds, under the assumption that all (wo)men are created equal.

     Are you really sure about that?

     Actually, earlier, I pointed out very well that the great wealth of technological knowledge that we possess is from workers who were not compensated for this knowledge, or at least cheated of the full value of their labors.

Originally Posted by Punkerslut
Let's see... The automobile engine, railroad tracks, motion picture projectors and film equipment, the vast majority of the early industrial machinery of the 1600's to 1700's, etc., etc. -- not one of these inventors was ever paid. Well, Tesla received an extra $25 per week for the automobile engine, but he was pretty much promised $1 million in current standards money. So, the car you drive, the movie you watch, everything, was stolen -- illegally, in most cases -- from workers....

Even MS-Dos, which created the empire of Microsoft, was only rewarded a few grand for a company now worth 50 billion. Bill Gates, like other capitalists, have only existed by stifling genius, as Kropotkin has pointed out. Now, with their monopoly, which was established by exploiting the workers (sometimes illegally), they seek to crush competitors, destroy open-source programs by lying about standards, etc., etc.. Who is the most wealthy in the country? The one person who never contributed anything, destroyed initiative, and abolished all creativity within the commercial computer market.

     As you can see, the best technologies that have been contributed to society are the labor of "humble, rank and file workers." Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Edison, even Paramount Pictures, Warner Bros. Studios, Microsoft, etc., are all Capitalists who built themselves on technology that they stole or exploited out of workers. And every time, upon ascending to power, they always engaged in anti-competitive behavior, so as to use every ounce of their weight in destroying every possible form of initiative, ambition, and creativity that might improve the happiness of humanity. Why else do pharmaceutical companies lobby against investigations into natural, alternatives in treating cancer or other disease, like Marijuana? Because those who have enough money and power behave like a monopoly -- they limit the supply of food and coal, because public starvation and artificial winter makes them more valuable. They are not carrying the banner of science.

     Similarly, we should also be aware that none of these Capitalists did any labor. That is, they did not provide anything. They claimed deeds on land and machines that they neither understand nor labor upon. That is the only thing a Capitalist has ever done, and if he ventures beyond this, and does some tedium of work, then he is 99 parts Capitalist, and 1 part worker. The essential relationship, of the many suffering for the splendor and luxury of the few, has not changed.

     As Adam Smith would say, "It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased..." ("Wealth of Nations," 1776, Book 1, Chapter 5.) Or the economist Isac Gervaise, "...the whole annual Labour of a Nation being always equal to all its annual Revenues..." ("The System or Theory of the Trade of the World," 1720.) Or even the enlightenment philosopher David Hume, "Every thing in the world is purchased by labour..." ("Of Commerce.") Even John Locke weighs in, "It is labour, then, which puts the greatest part of value upon land, without which it would scarcely be worth anything; it is to that we owe the greatest part of all its useful products..." ("Second Treatise on Government," Chapter 5.) Economist Thomas Malthus also points out "...the labouring classes of society, as the foundation on which the whole fabric rests..." and "Of the class of landholders, it may be truly said, that though they do not so actively contribute to the production of wealth..." ("The Grounds of an Opinion on the Policy of Restricting the Importation of Foreign Corn," 1815.) Etc., etc., etc.. If wealth exists, it was made by the laborers, and the Capitalist is indispensible only to their exploitation of the whole of society.

Originally Posted by Erls
They have chosen not to use their mind to create happiness for themselves, but instead to demand material goods from others. Therefore, those people can never truly be happy, so they continually demand more and more from those few who are truly happy. In true capitalism, the only things law needs do is enforce contracts between parties. One need not worry about monopolies, as someone else of the mind will always come along and do something better than the prior person did, creating competition. One need not worry about laborers being unable to get food, as the less they are paid the cheaper prices will be. It is the demands of the many on the few that create embalances, as the many demand material happiness instead of happiness of the mind.

     There has never been a "true Capitalism," then, because there have always been laborers who are kept starving by isolated control of society's productive forces. And, if there has never been a true form of Capitalism, with a "Libertarian government," maybe that's the problem. Isolated control and power of the economy, so that a few can allow some to work and the many to starve, is equivalent to isolated control and power of politics. They are partners and equals, just as the church was the partner to the feudal baron, one helping the other in fleecing the public. If that is true, then true Democracy is only possible if we are capable of smashing Capitalism and creating a system where everyone has an equal right to the means of production.

Date: 07-20-2010, 03:16 PM
By Punkerslut...

Originally Posted by Meeping1
I know this is a short response but I'm a capitalist and it makes me very happy.

     In the words of Thoreau, "Do not ask how your bread is buttered; it will make you sick..." ("Life Without Principle," 1863.)

Date: 07-21-2010, 12:24 PM
By Punkerslut...

Originally Posted by axuality
Your post is well-intentioned and intelligent, but for one point.

The point you miss is an important one.

Capitalism is not necessarily concomitant with greed.

Without greed, capitalism works fine. Greed is so rampant however, that even someone who is rightly motivated like you are, can hardly conceive that Capitalism without greed is possible, or could be called Capitalism.

Wisely-fettered Capitalism is a possibility.

     This is like wisely-fettered monarchy. Yes, it is true that on occasion, there may be a truly enlightened, "philosopher-king," as Plato has described. However, examining the history of humanity, we find very rarely was there ever isolated authority in politics that didn't lead to corruption and tyranny. Similarly, isolated authority in economics must naturally lead to the same ends. Rather than the question of "how to make a wise king?", democracy defeated monarchy by asking the question of "how to reorganize society so as to equalize the powers of all citizens?" Naturally, if we are going to defeat the poverty and unemployment caused by Capitalism, we need to ask a similar question: "How do we reorganize the bargaining power of the common people so that they are not exploited by vastly powerful interests?" We must abolish isolated authority, and give everyone an equality of bargaining power. It was by making every citizen a king that created democratic society; so why shouldn't making every worker a capitalist also create a society without exploitation?

     To quote Peter Kropotkin, "It is because, having reduced the masses to a point at which they have not the means of subsistence for a month, or even for a week in advance, the few only allow the many to work on condition of themselves receiving the lion's share. It is because these few prevent the remainder of men from producing the things they need, and force them to produce, not the necessaries of life for all, but whatever offers the greatest profits to the monopolists." (Peter Kropotkin, 1892, "The Conquest of Bread," Chapter 1, Part II.)

Date: 07-21-2010, 02:40 PM
By Punkerslut...

Originally Posted by fpolitics
You're only seing half the picture like most capitalists: in a communist system people will always wait to do things till another day, because the weather is not perfect today and they're feeling tired. problem is not capitalism, problem is capitalism controling our government. (political prostitution, lobbyists, special interest groups having access and being able to influence government)

Originally Posted by Dr. Righteous
That's not capitalism. That's corporatism. Do some research before making ignorant claims.

     I disagree. Capitalism has always used government to enforce its interests. To quote Adam Smith, "The masters upon these occasions [of union strikes] are just as clamorous upon the other side, and never cease to call aloud for the assistance of the civil magistrate, and the rigorous execution of those laws which have been enacted with so much severity against the combinations of servants, labourers, and journeymen." ("The Wealth of Nations," Book 1, Chapter 8.)

     Or, in the words of Jean Jacques Rousseau, "Under bad governments, this equality is only apparent and illusory: it serves only to-keep the pauper in his poverty and the rich man in the position he has usurped. In fact, laws are always of use to those who possess and harmful to those who have nothing: from which it follows that the social state is advantageous to men only when all have something and none too much." (Rousseau, Jean Jacques, "Social Contract, or the Principles of Right, The," 1762, Book 1, Chapter 9, Footnote 5.)

     Many of these enlightenment thinkers were completely well aware that government is nothing but a church for the rich possessors of capital. They didn't know the word "Corporatism," so they called it for what they saw it as "Capitalism," or the ideological of the possessor of capital. The fact that all of these Capitalists have used government to violently repress the people doesn't change the fact that it is Capitalism -- it is a system in which the few possess the means of production.

     One more from Thomas More...

"Therefore I must say that, as I hope for mercy, I can have no other notion of all the other governments that I see or know, than that they are a conspiracy of the rich, who on pretence of managing the public only pursue their private ends, and devise all the ways and arts they can find out; first, that they may, without danger, preserve all that they have so ill acquired, and then that they may engage the poor to toil and labor for them at as low rates as possible, and oppress them as much as they please." (Thomas More, 1516, "Utopia," Book 2, Section: Of the Religions of the Utopians.)

Date: 07-24-2010, 02:17 PM
By Punkerslut...

Hello, hiimjered,

Originally Posted by hiimjered
But even in the historical small businesses there were two types of people, the capitalist who owned and ran the business, and in most cases laborers who worked for pay. Most businesses hired on some form of labor to assist with anything above what the family was able to produce. So throughout history there has always been a labor class and a capitalist class.

     Yes, this is true, but for the majority of history, the laboring class has been very small. And the Capitalist class actually was a dual class, Capitalist in that they own their tools, and laborer in that they must work upon. The vast majority of people did not have to ask a very few people for the right to work and eat. The problem of inequality of bargaining power is much weaker, when there are 10,000 capitalists and 2,000 laborers, versus 10 capitalists and 20,000 laborers.

Originally Posted by hiimjered
The opening statement and core idea here is that all people are the same. Not all people are the same. That is why, in a country where anyone smart enough and driven enough can start a business and prosper at it, only a few people are capitalists. Those that are disciplined enough to put off reward for future gains, hard working enough to prepare for years to build a business and industrious enough to learn all the aspects necessary to run a successful business can and do succeed. - My brother started a business at 17 with a pickup, a couple of tools and a credit card. He netted over $50k his first year. My father built a six-figure business from the ground up. I know it can be done. I know how to do it. I've started a few businesses of my own, even sold a couple off, but I have a different calling, and my service doesn't allow for me to get a business to grow to big. After I retire I'll probably kick off another and see how far I can and am willing to take it.

     But everyone is not in an equal economic position to make economic decisions. Not everyone has the start-up capital, or can live with their parents when making a business. Other problems, such as land, patents, and market oligopoly can pose significant and serious problems. These are the "barriers to entry." Statistically, it is unlikely for businesses to succeed. The rate of failure after only a few years, according to the US census, is fifty percent. Many of the businesses that succeed may not provide enough income or work to the owner. Many of the other businesses, too, aren't much better improved than the position of the average worker. (For instance, many truck drivers own their own trucks, which does give them a significant boost in bargaining power; but, essentially, they are still in the same, dependent situation.)

Originally Posted by hiimjered
I state the above examples to show that anyone can start a business if they are willing to do the work necessary. The fact that only a few do so reflects that the people willing to do the hard work and make the difficult decisions are the exception, not the rule.

     I disagree. There are many things that prevent people from owning their own business, such as the above-stated barriers to entry. In the United Kingdom, 70% of the land is owned by less than 1% of the people. (http://www.progress.org/revwob.htm) If you want to rent a piece of property for a business, you don't have many options.

Originally Posted by hiimjered
You seem to believe that the business owner is hard working because he knows the results affect him directly. This is true. It seems that it is also likely that the same person is a business owner because he is industrious and hard working.

     Whether or not the industrialist or entrepreneur works, there is one underlining aspect of their right to income: possession of the means of production.

Originally Posted by hiimjered
In fact, the conclusion you made above, "As you can see, the effect is almost the exact opposite: workers, aware that their labor produces their immediate gratification, will work upon their terms of production with even greater zeal, and without having to be taxed by some middleman, will value their tools even greater." Seems to reinforce the point that people are focused on immediate gratification. Add in the fact that in large manufacturing, such as at an automobile manufacturing plant, the production of one car, after all costs would only make an employee-owner a couple of extra dollars, it is unlikely that such a worker would gain much motivation to produce any extra vehicles on a given day.

     A few extra dollars buys food for a worker. It's not even enough for a rich man to blow his nose. Austrian School of Economics: "The Marginal Utility Theory." There is little value for the Capitalist, there is immense value for the worker. Incentive does not work to make Capitalism efficient, it makes socialized industry efficient.

Originally Posted by hiimjered
I've only seen situations where divisions or even whole plants have closed down because the labor costs exceeded the value of local production. In the situations I've seen unions refuse to waiver on their positions.

     I agree that many unions have engaged in "business unionism," which focuses on lifting up only those workers in the union, usually at the cost to the rest of society -- as in the case of the American Federation of Labor. This union has spent most of its existence trying to limit the entry of new workers into industries which might depress wages.

Originally Posted by hiimjered
The problem is that people expect to be granted great responsibility, great pay and benefits, great reward - all without proving themselves to begin with. If they work hard up front - get a useful degree, save and invest, develop useful trades and skills, then they will get the rewards. Not making the up-front investment in their future makes them worthy of exactly what they get, a menial wage-slave existence.

     Nikola Tesla invented the modern American car engine, and was paid $25 for something he was promised $1 million for. The same goes with the Industrial Revolution, textile machinery, the railroad, movies, etc., etc.. Babbage, who invented the computer, lost five out of eight children to disease, dying in poverty himself. The inventor of MS Dos, who created the Microsoft Empire, received $50 grand for creating $50 billion in value. The fact is, perhaps nobody wants to achieve responsibility, because they know for a fact that it will never benefit them. Nobody wants to do better. That is why goldbricking and quota restriction are so popular and widely used, especially in cheap labor areas, like India and China.

     There is always tedious work. But it is vastly intensified when the only jobs are those with low pay and long hours, leaving you in poverty no matter how hard you work. In this sense, Capitalism deprives people of the right to fully develop themselves physically and intellectually.

join the punkerslut.com mailing list!

copyleft notice and responsibility disclaimer