|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on May 5, 2021 13:24:27 GMT
But the workers did profit. Otherwise many of them were likely to lose their jobs. When Apple makes millions per year but the slave workers in China get paid death wages or the factory worker gets paid slave wages when Ford makes billions and gets laid off because Ford doesn't want to give him is pension, I don't call that a "profit". |
|
|
|
Post by Juan Carlos Bodoque on May 5, 2021 14:52:23 GMT
When Apple makes millions per year but the slave workers in China get paid death wages or the factory worker gets paid slave wages when Ford makes billions and gets laid off because Ford doesn't want to give him is pension, I don't call that a "profit". If say your a father of a family of 2 children and a wife, you need to get income to feed them, say you come from the lower sectors of society and your family couldn't give you a higher education and you had to end school after high school, you'll be forced into manual labor. It's called wage slavery, forcing you to work to be able to survive. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery |
|
|
|
Post by Juan Carlos Bodoque on May 5, 2021 14:54:38 GMT
Why get a job when what you do will be profited by the person who sells them. Steve Jobs shouldn't have profited from the Ipad, the children workers in China should have. The fact that the success of your product doesn't have a ripple on your salary when you produced it is simply horrible. But the workers did profit. Otherwise many of them were likely to lose their jobs. They didn't profit, their wages stagnated, there is a reason why the wages of the average american worker has stagnated while technological and scientific improvements make compagnies profit several times over. All the money goes to the high placed people who make one decision per week while the worker barely can pay off his house in his entire lifetime. |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on May 5, 2021 17:41:07 GMT
BUT THEY CAN QUIT AT ANY TIME!!! IF THEY DON'T LIKE THE CONDITIONS, THEY CAN QUIT!!! If say your a father of a family of 2 children and a wife, you need to get income to feed them, say you come from the lower sectors of society and your family couldn't give you a higher education and you had to end school after high school, you'll be forced into manual labor. It's called wage slavery, forcing you to work to be able to survive. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slaveryClause 1: "If say your a father of a family of 2 children and a wife, you need to get income to feed them": Agreed.
Clause 2: "say you come from the lower sectors of society and your family couldn't give you a higher education and you had to end school after high school": If talking about America or most First-World Countries, this is a vast minority. If talking about other countries, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Clause 3: "you'll be forced into manual labor": Strongly disagree. Many trades exist for a variety of skillsets even if you did not finish high school. (i.e. Mechanic, Electrician, Agriculture). Even so, Manual Labor is a requirement in all societies in order for them to function. If one wants higher wages, they can learn an additional job on the side. Please note, I am all for people getting a high wage. I come from a (by American Standards) relatively poor family, and I wish we were able to make more money. I just don't like Unions, as they hurt many people's jobs and livelihood. They act as a bureaucratic menace no better than the government itself.
Clause 4: " It's called wage slavery, forcing you to work to be able to survive.": If that is the actual definition of Wage Slavery, then I am all for it. One who cannot be productive to Society can either be taken care of by their loved ones, they can find a real job, or they can leave society. I don't like people who don't work getting by just fine when my family, which works very hard, gets the scrap heap.
|
|
|
|
Post by Juan Carlos Bodoque on May 5, 2021 18:57:22 GMT
NO ! If say your a father of a family of 2 children and a wife, you need to get income to feed them, say you come from the lower sectors of society and your family couldn't give you a higher education and you had to end school after high school, you'll be forced into manual labor. It's called wage slavery, forcing you to work to be able to survive. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery Clause 1: "If say your a father of a family of 2 children and a wife, you need to get income to feed them": Agreed.
Clause 2: "say you come from the lower sectors of society and your family couldn't give you a higher education and you had to end school after high school": If talking about America or most First-World Countries, this is a vast minority. If talking about other countries, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Clause 3: "you'll be forced into manual labor": Strongly disagree. Many trades exist for a variety of skillsets even if you did not finish high school. (i.e. Mechanic, Electrician, Agriculture). Even so, Manual Labor is a requirement in all societies in order for them to function. If one wants higher wages, they can learn an additional job on the side. Please note, I am all for people getting a high wage. I come from a (by American Standards) relatively poor family, and I wish we were able to make more money. I just don't like Unions, as they hurt many people's jobs and livelihood. They act as a bureaucratic menace no better than the government itself.
Clause 4: " It's called wage slavery, forcing you to work to be able to survive.": If that is the actual definition of Wage Slavery, then I am all for it. One who cannot be productive to Society can either be taken care of by their loved ones, they can find a real job, or they can leave society. I don't like people who don't work getting by just fine when my family, which works very hard, gets the scrap heap.
Clause 3: Unions ok, some unions are built that way but syndicates are from the ground up, the very principle of democracy. Workers organizing into larger masses to stand up for themsleves, there is a very rich labour history in the U.S in which there are demonstrations of this system. Clause 4: Sorry, I probably should have made a more precise, that was more of a paraphrasing, the exact definition would be : Situation in which a person's livelihood depends on wages or a salary, especially when the dependence is total and immediate. |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on May 5, 2021 19:38:06 GMT
Clause 1: "If say your a father of a family of 2 children and a wife, you need to get income to feed them": Agreed.
Clause 2: "say you come from the lower sectors of society and your family couldn't give you a higher education and you had to end school after high school": If talking about America or most First-World Countries, this is a vast minority. If talking about other countries, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Clause 3: "you'll be forced into manual labor": Strongly disagree. Many trades exist for a variety of skillsets even if you did not finish high school. (i.e. Mechanic, Electrician, Agriculture). Even so, Manual Labor is a requirement in all societies in order for them to function. If one wants higher wages, they can learn an additional job on the side. Please note, I am all for people getting a high wage. I come from a (by American Standards) relatively poor family, and I wish we were able to make more money. I just don't like Unions, as they hurt many people's jobs and livelihood. They act as a bureaucratic menace no better than the government itself.
Clause 4: " It's called wage slavery, forcing you to work to be able to survive.": If that is the actual definition of Wage Slavery, then I am all for it. One who cannot be productive to Society can either be taken care of by their loved ones, they can find a real job, or they can leave society. I don't like people who don't work getting by just fine when my family, which works very hard, gets the scrap heap.
Clause 3: Unions ok, some unions are built that way but syndicates are from the ground up, the very principle of democracy. Workers organizing into larger masses to stand up for themsleves, there is a very rich labour history in the U.S in which there are demonstrations of this system. Clause 4: Sorry, I probably should have made a more precise, that was more of a paraphrasing, the exact definition would be : Situation in which a person's livelihood depends on wages or a salary, especially when the dependence is total and immediate. Clause 3: By a syndicate, do you mean a group of people working to produce some sort of product of their labor so they can survive in a world that wants said product from them? Or what do you mean by syndicate? Clause 4: That is literally the definition of a market world. One needs income in order to survive, otherwise they will have no food, shelter, et cetera. |
|
|
|
Post by Juan Carlos Bodoque on May 5, 2021 19:47:55 GMT
Clause 3: Unions ok, some unions are built that way but syndicates are from the ground up, the very principle of democracy. Workers organizing into larger masses to stand up for themsleves, there is a very rich labour history in the U.S in which there are demonstrations of this system. Clause 4: Sorry, I probably should have made a more precise, that was more of a paraphrasing, the exact definition would be : Situation in which a person's livelihood depends on wages or a salary, especially when the dependence is total and immediate. Clause 3: By a syndicate, do you mean a group of people working to produce some sort of product of their labor so they can survive in a world that wants said product from them? Or what do you mean by syndicate? Clause 4: That is literally the definition of a market world. One needs income in order to survive, otherwise they will have no food, shelter, et cetera. By syndicate I mean an association of workers self-organizing themselves to improve their conditions, known as a labour union or trade union As for clause 4, not necessarly, look at Canada, we aren't the best but when you get sick, your whole financial structure of you and your family won't collapse. It also refers to the fact that I work for less pay thus I have worse living conditions, it is not relative in anyway to the work that a person does. A factory worker probably does more handy work than a CEO but since the CEO makes more money, the CEO can live it breezy while the worker starves |
|
|
|
Post by Isaac Brock on May 5, 2021 21:47:26 GMT
I believe that capitalism is the best system we have. That doesn't mean it's perfect though. It is possible we find something better. But communism had already been tried many times, and it has never worked. If you notice, China is gaining more prosperity now that it's implemented some capitalist systems. Also, countries listed that are suffering from said slave labour usually have an ineffective government that is prone to corruption, and is not suited to help its citizens. If the government was more effective, those citizens would be making real profit. Co-operative system is better than "capitalist" system because here Workers or suppliers or both get profit, best example is Amul- a milk company which started in Gujarat as a small cooperative to become India's largest Dairy company and Sugarmills in western maharashtra are also successful in Increasing income of Farmers. It can also succeed if it is in Soviet form where local governments have most power and is elected directly by people like in Soviets in Russia. for once I agree with you |
|
|
|
Post by Isaac Brock on May 5, 2021 21:49:15 GMT
When Apple makes millions per year but the slave workers in China get paid death wages or the factory worker gets paid slave wages when Ford makes billions and gets laid off because Ford doesn't want to give him is pension, I don't call that a "profit". |
|
|
|
Post by warlord247 on May 5, 2021 22:27:37 GMT
Alright, both sides of this argument are on the extremes. Gerd von Rundstedt, there are different circumstances where someone is unable to work due to a job lay off, or other extenuating circumstances. Their is also the fact that a tragic event can leave someone mentally incapable of participating in school effectively. If they fail highschool (which is a MUCH higher percentage in America than you think) they are basically stuck working minimum wage jobs. As for everyone else. As I said, not a perfect system, but we have seen time and time again that other systems implemented have failed. Also, China has turned more capitalist for the people in recent years (not saying they are capitalist, only that they have some capitalist systems now) and they have benefited greatly. Even if you want to look WAY back, the pilgrams started out as what we would consider a socialist/communist society. Crops grown were shared and the like. Not enough food was produced, and the colony started to die. They then introduced a capitalist system, where people produced what they needed for themselves, and anything extra they could trade. This led to the colony surviving. Even 400 years ago it was the same. That should say something. |
|
|
|
Post by warlord247 on May 5, 2021 22:30:03 GMT
Regulation is important, but to get rid of capitalism would lead to to society's demise, as things stand today. The way only way I see communism working is if it is combined with Transhumanism, and robots are the only things working, therefore allowing everyone everyone truly thrive and have what they want. This is centuries off though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isaac Brock on May 6, 2021 0:05:58 GMT
Regulation is important, but to get rid of capitalism would lead to to society's demise, as things stand today. The way only way I see communism working is if it is combined with Transhumanism, and robots are the only things working, therefore allowing everyone everyone truly thrive and have what they want. This is centuries off though. you only addressed Gerdy's side though. What about ours? Anarcho Syndicalism still has some aspects of capitalism. |
|
|
|
Post by warlord247 on May 6, 2021 0:26:18 GMT
Regulation is important, but to get rid of capitalism would lead to to society's demise, as things stand today. The way only way I see communism working is if it is combined with Transhumanism, and robots are the only things working, therefore allowing everyone everyone truly thrive and have what they want. This is centuries off though. you only addressed Gerdy's side though. What about ours? Anarcho Syndicalism still has some aspects of capitalism. I dont personally know enough to address it. I was addressing gerdy and the pro communists. If you tell me about it I could give you my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by Adozf Hitzer on May 6, 2021 1:15:39 GMT
you only addressed Gerdy's side though. What about ours? Anarcho Syndicalism still has some aspects of capitalism. I dont personally know enough to address it. I was addressing gerdy and the pro communists. If you tell me about it I could give you my opinion. What about cooperatives? |
|
|
|
Post by warlord247 on May 6, 2021 2:40:04 GMT
I dont personally know enough to address it. I was addressing gerdy and the pro communists. If you tell me about it I could give you my opinion. What about cooperatives? Not sure about that either, can you explain it? |
|
