Teen Ink on Twitter
Where Y equals the wealth you produce
X equals what your paid
and T equals how much your boss steals
What you need to do is rearrange the equation like this:
(take the original equation)
(add X to each side to cancel the negative X)
There. You get an equivalent equation. Problem solved. :)
No, but seriously, just ignore me being a smart-alec, I actually agree. Socialism is rampant. :/
No I am a socialist, I was argueing for that when you go to work, your boss steals most of what you produce for example:
I make 7 dollars an hour
I make the company about 500 dollars an hour
The company stole 493 dollars from me
I thought you were an anarchist.
Okay, well. This is awkward...
"All anarchists are socialists, but all socialists are not anarchists."- Haymarket Martyr.
Anarchism is the opposition to all forms of domination, and capitalism is the most destructive and domineering force inexistance.
I am also a class struggle, and communist anarchist
why is it awkward?
Even though I know I won't convince you, I nevertheless will try valiantly.
The problem is that I don't "produce" value by working. The Labor Theory of Value, which you use, is accepted by very few economists. Work doesn't make something worth money, like you seem to imply. In other words, diving to the sea to get a pearl from an oyster doesn't make the pearl valuable; being valuable made me dive to get the pearl.
More work doesn't make a product worth more. Even if it did, you don't get paid based on what you produce. You get paid on your relative value to the company. Sure, a minimum wage worker might MAKE an iPad in a factory, but the CEO will get paid much more. Why? You can replace the minimum wage worker with a million other people. Only certain people have the skill sets to make smart business and leadership decisions like a CEO, affecting the lives of all their employees.
No one really produces wealth. Therefore, their boss can't "steal" money that never belonged to them.
Oh, I see.
I always assumed that socialists and anarchists were on opposite ends of the spectrum.
I mean, the definition of anarchism (as found on Google) is:
"Belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force."
And socialism is:
"A political and economic theory of that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated."
So aren't they kind of oxymoronic?
How can you believe there should be no government or rules (anarchism), yet at the same time believe the government should control everything (socialism)?
Or do you have a different definition of these words that I'm not aware of?
And it's awkward because I completely misunderstood what you said.
(Sorry about that, by the way.)
Anyways, glad we could clear this up. I was confused for a moment there. :)
Okay, my above post is for human6.
This post is for Redsfan:
I agree. Value is based on rarity and demand.
Take, water, for example. If you were dying of thirst, wouldn't you pay all the money you have and give up all you own just to get enough water to quench your thirst? But, if you have just drank a bottle of water, you wouldn't value water as much. You wouldn't be willing to pay all you have for something you don't really need.
Very interesting. Thanks for bringing up that point. :)
Half: from the anarchist FAQ
Yes. All branches of anarchism are opposed to capitalism. This is because capitalism is based upon oppression and exploitation (see sections B and C). Anarchists reject the “notion that men cannot work together unless they have a driving-master to take a percentage of their product” and think that in an anarchist society “the real workmen will make their own regulations, decide when and where and how things shall be done.” By so doing workers would free themselves “from the terrible bondage of capitalism.” [Voltairine de Cleyre, “Anarchism”, Exquisite Rebel, p. 75 and p. 79]
(We must stress here that anarchists are opposed to all economic forms which are based on domination and exploitation, including feudalism, Soviet-style “socialism” — better called “state capitalism” — , slavery and so on. We concentrate on capitalism because that is what is dominating the world just now).
Redsfan: actually I wasn't using the LTV, I was using an appeal to morals. I work my as.s off to enrich my boss, who gets to sit on his fat baccardi drinking a.ss and order the US terrorist corp (army, Navy and Marines) to kill Iraqis to spread his buisinees
A worker doesn't work all day to enrich his boss. It's a mutual agreement. The company knows he needs/wants the money, and he the company needs/ wants his labor. He works hard all day to enrich himself, and the company benefits too. I mean if you think the minimum wage is too low, that' s a separate issue. Like I said before, though, there's another million people who would love to have a minimum wage job, and are able to do it. There aren't many people qualified to make decisions on the entire company level, so they get a higher pay. You do need laborers to do the work, but you also need good management to make decisions or everyone's job goes up in flames.
Also, the army thing is totally a separate issue.
Reds: The system is designed so we have to work I don't own any capital, in fact the majority don't so we have to work. However if every worker in the company got together and just ignored the boss and ran the place for ourselves we could do a much better job. I know off the top of my head 12 ways to make the company run better
I was just saying that the coffee we poor is cheap because my boss sends troops to overthrow democratic govts in Latin America who try to help their people
If there are ways to make your workplace run better, then if you mention them to your management, they will be implemented, and if they are successful, any well-run company would promote you or give you a pay-raise. If your company has poor management, doesn't respond to changes, and never adapts or accept new ideas (from all sources, including you), then they will go out of business or be forced to change. That's the beauty of capitalism: redundancies and inefficiences are pruned by competition. There'a a reason companies that used seem invincible now are in financial trouble: they don't adapt to the times. Many, for example Nucor Steel, now the largest steel manafactureer in the US (I think), have grown due at least in part to input from everyday workers. The free market doesn't hate the workers at entry-level positions. If a company is smart, they value these people and give them an opportunity to help both themselves and the company.
most of the improvements would make me redundant. And minimum wage= minimum effort, that's the mentality of me and everyone I know. We got hire wages by unionizing and fighting for our rights. The middle class was born in the union hall and picket line, by the blood and sweat of working people who really did die for our freedom.
Pruning is another word for replacing workers with machines
I have nothing against unions in the 1800's, when people actually needed them. I think they did a fine job protecting people's ACTUAL rights back then, not what they think they're entitled to, like now. There's a reason union membership is dropping: people realize that now, unions largely only get in the way. Now businesses aren't allowed to overwork and underpay their employees, or have dangerous workplaces, or a number of other smart rules that have been placed on them.
Pruning is not replacing workers with machines. It's replacing flawed ways of doing things with new ones, and sometimes replacing old businesses with newer ones that serve the consumer better. Sure, a lot of jobs have been lost to technology. After all, in 1400, it took 80% of the people in the average country to provide enough food! Now, it doesn't take nearly as many, but that doesn't mean every former farmer is now jobless! The free market does destroy some jobs, but it also creates new ones. There aren't any more VHS producers out there; now there's Blu ray. Change can be scary, and sometimes it seems like there will never be enough jobs to go around. But people have been screaming for a century how machines are going to replace human jobs. Heck, they HAVE been replacing human jobs for a century. Unemployment was still like 4% in 2000 (before a lot of problems not named capitalism ruined it, in my opinion). The free market destroys some jobs and makes newer, better ones. A worker today has a better life than one in 1900, even after a century of being "replaced" by machines.
We have things today not even imaginable in 1900. Most of it is because people have been freed to do something other than farm all day, so now they can make a better car and sell it. Or find a vaccine for polio. Or make an iPod. Losing some jobs to technology isn't a bad thing. It almost always opens up newer, better opportunities.