portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts

SOME REFLECTIONS ON THE INFLUENCE OF PROUDHON

some reflections on the influence of proudhon
SOME REFLECTIONS ON THE INFLUENCE OF PROUDHON
 http://www.franciscotrindade.com

SOME REFLECTIONS ON THE INFLUENCE OF PROUDHON
IN C.G.T. AND IN THE SOCIAL FIGHTS IN PORTUGAL

Since it is spoken in Proudhon it is necessary to have present that your work plays a multiplicity of problems that is urgent to have in bill: In first place, the economic regime (as for instance in the works That it is the Property, 1840 and Organization of the Credit of 1848 and The Political Capacity of the working classes of 1865), the problem of the State (The Confessions of a Revolutionary of 1849, The General Idea of the Revolution in the century XIX of 1859 and The Principle Federativ of 1863), the Philosophy (System of Economics Contradictions of 1846), the subject of the Justice (The Justice in the Revolution and in the Church of 1858) and still the international problems and the national subject (the War and Paz 1861, the Federation and the Unit in Italy 1862 and The Agreements of 1815 of 1863).
The main lifted up subjects for Proudhon were the following ones:
- The critic of the capitalism, where it is pointed out the critical analysis of the property and the analysis of the contradictions economics.
- The social classes, in that the classes that Proudhon refers were fundamentally the great bourgeoisie, the middle class, the peasants and the working classes.
- The critic of the State.
- The critic of the Religion.
- The dialectic and your object, where it is underlined the social dialectic and the reality of the social.
- The social philosophy, where the work pontificates as fact and as value, the social life and the problem of the justice.
- The social revolution.
- The economy mutualist, where it is had to have in bill of the beginnings to the reforms, the agriculture mutualist, the craft of the production and your planning.

 http://www.franciscotrindade.com
Update of the site
With a new text

SOME REFLECTIONS ON THE INFLUENCE OF PROUDHON
IN C.G.T. AND IN THE SOCIAL FIGHTS IN PORTUGAL

Technical responsible for the totality of the site
The friend always Josť Carlos Fortuna.
 http://www.franciscotrindade.com

homepage: homepage: http://www.franciscotrindade.com

Get over it! 25.Jan.2003 14:23

Bush Admirer

Get over it. Proudhon was nothing more than a Socialist along with his buddy Marx. Both of them were born brain-dead as history has shown. Socialism was dead on arrival. It never worked, never could work, never will work, and (still) sucks big time.

Capitalism is mans greatest invention. We enjoy our current high standard of living because of Capitalism.

Today's so-called anti-capitalists and anarchists are just another variation of the Socialists and Communists of fifty years ago. They too will quickly fall into the more obscure trash bins of history. That will be the 'whiner-complainer' trash bin for losers who never did have a valid idea or concept. They were radical leftists driving down the freeway of life looking for the exit marked, "Short-Cut." They never had a clue, still don't, never will. The only thing they were ever good at -- the only thing -- was whining and complaining and blaming others for their own failures.

They vote for losers like Ralph Nader and Hugo Chavez. They have no potential to ever be successful. Their heros are amonst the world's dumbest men: Noam Chomsky, Gore Vidal, Ramsey Clark. They're hopeless in addition to being clueless.

Dear BA 25.Jan.2003 15:03

your friend, Bush Detractor

If socialism never has worked, then what do you call public education, social security, public streets, health plans for the poor, etc? America wouldn't be anywhere near what it is today if it hadn't been for PUBLIC education. Gee, I guess sometimes socialism ain't so bad.

America is successful, in part, because of some of its socialist programs. And, in part, it's successful because of its capitalist bent. I don't think you want total capitalism, and I know you don't want total socialism. In a world of total and unregulated capitalism, the rich pay their workers next to nothing. You have to have money to get an education. In other words, the advance of technology slows down, and suddenly the middle class vanishes. It's happened before. And if America had been completely capitalist when you were growing up, you might never have become the successful businessman that you are.

As, of course, you will point out, if you go entirely socialist it becomes difficult to amass wealth and to pursue the American dream of a life filled with amenities. Innovation is stifled because why should anybody do more than what they must (these are actually descriptions of the negatives of communism and not socialism, but socialism is at the very least a step closer to communism...)?

However, if a society's prosperity is measured by how well the MAJORITY of its people are doing, then America's on the way down the prosperity ladder. The rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. The government just released a report which shows this. It wasn't inflation-adjusted, apparently, and the increase in the earning of the poor didn't keep up with the cost of living. The rich people advanced by leaps and bounds. I hope that's not what you want.

Nope, that's not correct Bush Detractor 25.Jan.2003 16:03

Bush Admirer

>>> If socialism never has worked, then what do you call public education, social security, public streets, health plans for the poor, etc? America wouldn't be anywhere near what it is today if it hadn't been for PUBLIC education. Gee, I guess sometimes socialism ain't so bad.

I don't think public education is a big success story. Quite the contrary, the Teacher's Union has screwed it up pretty badly. Private schools seem like a whole lot better deal to me. I attended public schools up until college. It wasn't a very motivational experience. I think public schools generally suck Do you have a different opinion? Read this article by Walter Williams and give me your feedback. ( http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww20030108.shtml)

Social Security is a hoax. The Democrats put that through and then spent the money. Geez. We need retirement accounts, private retirements accounts like 401K. We don't need the Democrats spending our retirement funds before we even get them. Duh! Let's privatize Social Security and have real reserves put away and under our control. Social Security, in it's present form, is a hoax. The money, our money, has already been spent rather than invested in our name.

We do need good roads and streets. That's a legitimate government function. There are a few legitimate government functions like road building, the military, police, prisons, etc. But government have far outgrown those boundaries.

Health care for the poor? I'm not interested in Socialized medicine? Are you? Then immigrating to Canada might be your priority. I'm imagining an anti-American unemployed druggie with ample body piercings and tattoos - a perpetually unemployed, and unemployable loser who's main contribution has been to collect food stamps and attend protest marches. When that lazy bum gets old, do I want to pay for his or her medical care? No thanks!

Socialism is always bad. There is no upside. Communism is worse, but they're first cousins.

>> However, if a society's prosperity is measured by how well the MAJORITY of its people are doing, then America's on the way down the prosperity ladder. The rich are getting richer and the poor poorer.

Why do you care how the majority is doing? The majority includes a huge percentage of slackers and losers.

What's important is that the folks who get their act in gear and put the pedal to the metal have the opportunity to become wealthy. America is, was, and always should be, the land of opportunity for those with energy, vision, talent, initiative, and ideas. It should never become 'wefare, or slacker, paradise.'

>>> The government just released a report which shows this. It wasn't inflation-adjusted, apparently, and the increase in the earning of the poor didn't keep up with the cost of living. The rich people advanced by leaps and bounds. I hope that's not what you want.

Let's flip that around. I'm not the least bit interested in seeing incomes going up for slackers, welfare recipients, and non-contributors. Are you?

I am interested in seeing rewards for achievement. Are you?

Closing the gap between the rich and the poor is not on my priority list. However, I can understand that it would be on the priority list of poor people. In which case, they need to get their asses in gear and contribute.

Some of the people are riding in the wagon. Some of the people are pulling the wagon. Why do you consider it a national priority to make things better for the riders? Why do you want to further penalize the pullers?

here we go again!!! 25.Jan.2003 17:21

Bush Detractor

Hi. Looks like you're in the mood to exercise your typing fingers, so take a look here  http://portland.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=40721&group=webcast
so that we can get to the bottom of that debate. And here  http://portland.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=40488&group=webcast where you seem to have bailed as well. It's quite frustrating to debate you when you won't see a debate through to its end.

Now, back to this posting. I answer paragraph for paragraph with your reply. To begin, I checked out the article you linked to. It's a bit silly that you would debate that way. There are tremendous reasons not to go the route of private schools (like separation of church and state, etc). But *either way, that's socialism* because the government is taking our money and distributing it to all of society, so you really don't have an argument against socialism there. Don't try to change the subject.

I'll agree with you that Social Security is broken. I brought it up because lots of Republicans like it. There are real problems with ditching social security at this point. When it started, family was strong and people helped take care of their elderly members. Now? I don't know what would happen to them if social security went away. We as a society no longer feel the need to help our parents.

Roads, socialism. Case closed there. Glad you admit it. Socialism: "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."

Socialized medicine... there are those who work very hard and get payed dirt for it. They need our help and they deserve it. True, they mostly made some stupid decisions in failing to study during high school, but don't you think that working 40 hard hours a week should entitle a person to enough money to cover rent, food, and health care? It doesn't. I am for socialized (at least somewhat) medicine for that reason. True, America kicks Canada's ass when it comes to the cutting edge health care, but Canada kicks America's ass when it comes to preventative care.

Socialism is *not* always bad, as you *admitted* when you stated that you support government paying for ALL of us to get an education.

I care a lot about how the majority is doing. Yeah, there are plenty of slackers, and I say that giving them cash isn't doing them any favours. But losers? How do you define a loser? I say that you couldn't live like you do if those "losers" weren't out there serving you food, stitching you clothes, sweeping your streets, etc. You wouldn't be as wealthy as you are if it weren't for those "losers" generating your wealth with their hard work. Yeah, I do care. If you don't, I'd say you need to wake up.

"What's important is that the folks who get their act in gear and put the pedal to the metal have the opportunity to become wealthy. America is, was, and always should be, the land of opportunity for those with energy, vision, talent, initiative, and ideas. It should never become 'wefare, or slacker, paradise.'"
Come on now, BA, it's not quite that simple. Why do you think the kids of poor folks USUALLY grow up to be poor, and the kids of rich folks usually grow up to be rich? Do you think that's about merit? Sure, I resent paying for lazy folks to sit on the couch, but I see there's more to the story than slackers.

"Let's flip that around. I'm not the least bit interested in seeing incomes going up for slackers, welfare recipients, and non-contributors. Are you?"
You haven't shown them to be slackers. Those who make minimum wage and work 40 hours a week are usually not slackers. The boss man wouldn't tolerate that. But they're still poor, and getting poorer. And yes, I come down strongly against that. What do the CEOs of the world do to make themselves earn several thousand times annually what a poor person earns--I wouldn't have a problem with it if they paid their workers a decent wage. That's what capitalism has wrought; a ruling class that doesn't care about the people who keep them on top.

We both think acheivement should be rewarded. It's just that I think working at a small shop with just a high school diploma is an achievement of sorts that deserves a living wage. I think you've forgotten (or never knew) that you couldn't live like you do without POOR PEOPLE pulling the wagon. Pulling the wagon! Hmpf. Yeah, how many fortunes were made without the efforts of the proletariat. It's the poor man who pulls the wagon. Your Republican ass sits on top and cracks the whip. Try to remember that the unemployed are just a fraction of the poor, and that most poor people are out there pulling hard, and getting a kick in the ass for thanks.

BD 25.Jan.2003 19:49

Bush Admirer

I appreciate your frustration. On those earlier threads, I stayed with them quite a while, and responded to most of your points. Sometimes I get busy and don't read this board for several days. It would be nice if Portland Indymedia had a 'commentary' link like la.indymedia.com, which brings up the latest comments. As it is, you have to scroll each article and they fall off the page after several days. The commentary link keeps the most recent comments where you can find them easily, no matter how old the original article might be.

>> There are tremendous reasons not to go the route of private schools (like separation of church and state, etc). But *either way, that's socialism* because the government is taking our money and distributing it to all of society, so you really don't have an argument against socialism there. Don't try to change the subject.

Throw out religion based schools. I'm thinking of private schools because of competence vs. inherently inefficient government bureaucracy. You brought up public schools as a shining and positive example of Socialism. I pointed out that they suck. That's not changing the subject.

Social Security couldn't be 'ditched' overnight because it would leave people hanging who are depending on it. It should be ditched, but not overnight. There should be a long term privatization over a period of perhaps 20 years.

I sincerely wish that the monies my wife and I paid in over the years were in a private account. They were paid in, but they were spent. Those funds are gone rather than invested. The only way for us to be paid 'Social Security' in retirement is for the government to tax young people and pay us with those funds. That's not the way it should work, but here we are. Thank you Democrats!

No question, our current medical system is flawed with layers of HMO bureaucracy, government regulation, opportunistic doctors, opportunistic lawyers and outrageous malpractice suits, large profit minded hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies profiteering on certain drugs. It's a complex web of competing interests who distrust one other, but somehow manage to work together.

But keep in mind that ours is the one medical system in the world that invents these drugs and medical procedures. Without our medical system, there wouldn't have been the amazing advances in medicine that we've seen over the past 50 years. Many of today's 'survivors' would have been 'cadavers.' So let's not tamper with the system to such an extent that we destroy this most precious feature. Most drugs and medical advances come from private drug companies, though there is sometimes a contribution from academia or government sponsored research (one aspect of government spending that I approve of).

I'm for everyone having medical care including the poor people in Africa who are faced with a terrible Aids epidemic. But there is a dilemna here. I do favor helping the indigent worldwide, but I don't favor the forced confiscation of funds from the more successful members of society to pay for it. Government forced redistribution of income is morally wrong and grossly unfair. Figure out a way to do it without such confiscatory practices, and I'm all for it.

>>> But losers? How do you define a loser? I say that you couldn't live like you do if those "losers" weren't out there serving you food, stitching you clothes, sweeping your streets, etc. You wouldn't be as wealthy as you are if it weren't for those "losers" generating your wealth with their hard work. Yeah, I do care. If you don't, I'd say you need to wake up.

Hey, wake up. We're not on the same wavelength. Those are not 'losers.' Those are workers and important members of society. They're great. My problem is not with the guys who mow lawns, fix pipes, stitch clothes, etc. They're productive members of society. They're not losers.

I'm thinking about the guy at the supermarket last week who looked like a 23 year old linebacker for the NFL. A very able, healthy, and personable young man paying for his groceries with food stamps. Furthemore, his 'groceries' consisted of a giant economy size bag of Reese chocolate peanut butter candy cups, Doritos, Beer, and another type of bagged candy. Looked like taxpayer money down the drain to me.

>> Come on now, BA, it's not quite that simple. Why do you think the kids of poor folks USUALLY grow up to be poor, and the kids of rich folks usually grow up to be rich?

I don't think that's the case. I grew up in a latino gang infested neighborhood in Los Angeles (El Sereno) and almost flunked out of high school. Somehow I managed to climb out of that and graduated first in my class from college. I got my MBA a few years later. I've managed to own and operate several companies, each with nearly 100 employees, and had zero funds of my own to start with. There are more opportunities to do that now than ever (eBay comes to mind).

The reason the kids of poor folks often stay poor is 'mind set.' If you apply for a job at the post office, or as a UPS driver, then you're probably not going to run your own company. You have to be a bit more ambitious than that. Attitude is another big thing. If you have a 'union activist' attitude (perhaps picked up from your parents) and believe that management is your enemy, then you'll be unlikely to get promoted to management yourself.

Take a look at AboutSocks. Here's a link:
 http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewSellersOtherItems&userid=aboutsocks&include=0&since=-1&sort=3&rows=25
AboutSocks appears to be your basic hustler. He's done about 3,500 deals on eBay. Like a lot of others, he may be a plumber or school teacher or policeman during the week. EBay's a great place to see the American dream at work. I love seeing guys (or gals) like AboutSocks, who spend their free time trying to build a business, rather than marching in the latest whiner/complainer protest march.

And please give it up with the "CEO whine." Corporate CEO's often make less than NBA basketball players, and contribute more to our economy. Apple Computer was floundering badly and in danger of failing when Steve Jobs returned to the helm. He came back for $1 per year but later got a ton of stock options. Whatever they're paying him, it was a good deal for the stockholders, the employees, Macintosh enthusiasts, computer store employees, America, and the world.

On the other hand, Amy Goodman of Pacifica Radio gets a salary. Whatever it is, it's too much. She's a cancer on America and $2 a year would be overpaying her.

Look at the relative contributions of Steve Jobs and Amy Goodman. One is an American Icon, the other a leading whiner/complainer.

Do you want the government to decide salaries? Or do you want me to do it. If I were making the decision, I'd pay Steve Jobs $500 million per year because of the positive contributions he makes to our economy; and I'd assess Amy Goodman $2 Million a year for the damage she does to our country. If you think 'being fair' is the thing, then that's fair. Let's do it!

The working poor should make a decent wage. But that should be determined by the free market, and not by government, labor union, or some other artificial device. They should make a decent wage because the services they provide are needed and 'worth the money.' The market will bid up the price for their services if they are needed. If they're not needed, the market will send them that message too.

When their services aren't needed, or become surplus, then the market should 'purge' some of them which forces them into a different line of work. For example, one of the great career fields of the 1890's was telegrapher. It was a highly skilled occupation requiring one to know Morse Code and to be able to tap out messsages, and to read messages over the telegraph. They became surplus, as did Pony Express Riders some years earlier.

It's not the poor people who pull the wagon in this country, it's the taxpayer. Money pays for services, and taxpayers provide the money.

BA 25.Jan.2003 21:02

Bush Detractor

Jeeezus! Do you type 100 words a minute?

>>Throw out religion based schools. I'm thinking of private schools because of competence vs. inherently inefficient government bureaucracy. You brought up public schools as a shining and positive example of Socialism. I pointed out that they suck. That's not changing the subject.

Actually, if you fund private schools with taxpayer dollars, they suddenly become a part of a socialist system. I'll be the first to admit that public schools have serious issues. Do you think private schools, if they are provided funding from the government, won't suffer many of the same problems? Let's face it, there are only so many schools in a geographical area, so if you argue for free market forces driving schools to compete to get their share of the federal pie, that's maybe not a good point. If you argue that we actually need to pay teachers to get the good ones, well what happens to the mediocre ones? There's a shortage of good teachers, but not a shortage of students. Anyway, you're right, I did put forth public education as a shining example of socialism--and your private schools will fall into that category when they are used to educate all our children using our tax dollars. The reason public education is so good for society is because it ensures all the population at least have a chance at a good education. An educated population is quite important to the well-being of a nation, is it not? Again, you basically said you support socialism when you say you support government-funded education.

>>Social Security couldn't be 'ditched' overnight because it would leave people hanging who are depending on it. It should be ditched, but not overnight. There should be a long term privatization over a period of perhaps 20 years.

Wish I had the answers, BA, because I'd rather be saving my money as well.

>>I'm for everyone having medical care including the poor people in Africa who are faced with a terrible Aids epidemic. But there is a dilemna here. I do favor helping the indigent worldwide, but I don't favor the forced confiscation of funds from the more successful members of society to pay for it. Government forced redistribution of income is morally wrong and grossly unfair. Figure out a way to do it without such confiscatory practices, and I'm all for it.

Then you're pro-socialism if you don't feel like it targets the wealthy.

>>Hey, wake up. We're not on the same wavelength. Those are not 'losers.' Those are workers and important members of society. They're great. My problem is not with the guys who mow lawns, fix pipes, stitch clothes, etc. They're productive members of society. They're not losers.

>>I'm thinking about the guy at the supermarket last week who looked like a 23 year old linebacker for the NFL. A very able, healthy, and personable young man paying for his groceries with food stamps. Furthemore, his 'groceries' consisted of a giant economy size bag of Reese chocolate peanut butter candy cups, Doritos, Beer, and another type of bagged candy. Looked like taxpayer money down the drain to me.

OK, I'll try to break this down for you--those people who you just called "important members of society" are not treated like it. They work hard like you and me but don't make enough money to save for retirement, or to pay for health insurance, etc. Their salaries are decided by the free market. The free market, over the past few decades, has decided that their earnings should not keep up with the cost of living. It is for this reason that they need our help. Do you read me? Much of our social program spending goes to helping THEM--the people you called "great".

It's a little-known fact that welfare is paid for in just a couple of days worth of America's tax dollar out of each year. That's peanuts compared to Social Security, interest on our national debt, and military spending. By all rights, your villain should be Bush, for spending more when we have less. Go ahead and call the unemployed villains for stealing your tax dollar, but I think it's stupid to have 20% of my tax dollar go paying off interest on the national debt, and I sure don't think our military spending needs to be 50% of the world total... but I digress. Sorry, back to the subject of socialism.

It's great that you came up from a poor background, but you are the exception not the rule--that's the facts, Jack. I would never say to a poor kid that "you can't do that in life", but that message is conveyed to that kid by so many people. Why does the rich kid succeed? Attitude? Education? Probably. And why do rich kids have better education or "attitude" (though I frankly think a lot of them are snots, having known a few at my high school)?

The CEO whine? Let's not distract from things. Basketball players make a lot, and the vendors get paid dirt, but it's the team OWNERS who decide what they players should make. In the case of basketball stars, the free market you love so much has enabled them to say "look, I bring in the money, you pay me or I'll do it for another team". The skill of an NBA player is truly a rare thing, and people are willing to pay for it, but what of the person selling shoes at the mall? Free market has decided to pay them minimum wage, but shouldn't their labor be enough to live on and maybe even save a little? The NBA star isn't held over the barrel like your average salesperson.

Your average salesperson would make even less if the free market were allowed to have its way. Face it, corporations want to make lots of money and one way to do that is to skimp on the paychecks of those who can't fight back. They need a job, and they'll work before they starve to death. That doesn't make the free market of capitalism a fair thing just because that person has chosen to work. So SOCIALISM is, ultimately, a way of giving back that which grubby CEO capitalists have taken unfairly by not paying a decent salary.

>>It's not the poor people who pull the wagon in this country, it's the taxpayer. Money pays for services, and taxpayers provide the money.

This reveals a really distorted picture of the world. The taxpayer "pays for" the services, true, but the taxpayer makes money on the backs of the poor! That is, the wealth was generated by labour. Without underpaid workers making the product to sell, there wouldn't be a class of mega-wealthy.

BA, you really are a great villain, saying that poor people don't pull the wagon!

Educating BD re Capitalism 26.Jan.2003 07:40

Bush Admirer

B.A. - It never occurred to me to pay for private schools with taxpayer dollars. To me, a private school is an entrepreneurial business paid for by the parents of the kid(s) attending. I could see giving those parents a tax break (because they?re not sending their kids to public schools, and shouldn?t have to pay twice).

B.A. - I'm for everyone having medical care including the poor people in Africa who are faced with a terrible Aids epidemic. But there is a dilemna here. I do favor helping the indigent worldwide, but I don't favor the forced confiscation of funds from the more successful members of society to pay for it. Government forced redistribution of income is morally wrong and grossly unfair. Figure out a way to do it without such confiscatory practices, and I'm all for it.

B. D. - Then you're pro-socialism if you don't feel like it targets the wealthy.

B.A. - Someone has to pay for it, and that winds up being the taxpayers, both corporate and individual. It?s always the same folks pulling the wagon. If we try to cure aids in Africa, we get a lot of new riders, no new pullers.

B. D. - OK, I'll try to break this down for you--those people who you just called "important members of society" are not treated like it. They work hard like you and me but don't make enough money to save for retirement, or to pay for health insurance, etc. Their salaries are decided by the free market. The free market, over the past few decades, has decided that their earnings should not keep up with the cost of living. It is for this reason that they need our help. Do you read me? Much of our social program spending goes to helping THEM--the people you called "great".

B.A. - If you find yourself in a line of work, (ie: yard man) that won?t enable you to live at a high enough lifestyle to suit your needs, then you might consider another line of work. It?s not your neighbor?s responsibility to subsidize you because you got into a low paying job. People should take responsibilitiy for themselves.

B.D. - It's great that you came up from a poor background, but you are the exception not the rule--that's the facts, Jack. I would never say to a poor kid that "you can't do that in life", but that message is conveyed to that kid by so many people. Why does the rich kid succeed? Attitude? Education? Probably. And why do rich kids have better education or "attitude" (though I frankly think a lot of them are snots, having known a few at my high school)?

B.A. - If you drop out of high school; take a job as a dock worker; join the ILWU; become a militant and ?raise your fist,? then you?ve chosen your own career path, now haven?t you? In that event, you?re probably not going to become a successful entrepreneur, drive a BWM, or own a home in Palos Verdes with a nice view. And please don?t bitch about your lot in life. You made your own bed, now lie in it.

B.D. - The CEO whine? Let's not distract from things. Basketball players make a lot, and the vendors get paid dirt, but it's the team OWNERS who decide what they players should make. In the case of basketball stars, the free market you love so much has enabled them to say "look, I bring in the money, you pay me or I'll do it for another team". The skill of an NBA player is truly a rare thing, and people are willing to pay for it, but what of the person selling shoes at the mall? Free market has decided to pay them minimum wage, but shouldn't their labor be enough to live on and maybe even save a little? The NBA star isn't held over the barrel like your average salesperson.

B.A. - The minimum wage shoe salesman at the mall should ask himself a few questions: ?Is this my career of choice?? ?Is this the best I can do, the best I can make of myself?? ?Why am I here? Is it because I applied for the job? Or is it because I?m being exploited by business owners??

B.D. - Your average salesperson would make even less if the free market were allowed to have its way. Face it, corporations want to make lots of money and one way to do that is to skimp on the paychecks of those who can't fight back.

B.A. - Oh c?mon. They can quit that job tomorrow and get another job. They can start their own business. They have many options. Blaming their own lack of initiative on their employer is bullshit.

B.D. - So SOCIALISM is, ultimately, a way of giving back that which grubby CEO capitalists have taken unfairly by not paying a decent salary.

B.A. - That?s a convoluted view of the facts. If you start a business and build it up, you?ll be creating jobs. If your business is going to be successful, then you?ll want to attract and retain the more talented employees. You?ll do that be creating an appealing career opportunity for them. A successful business that thrives long term must be a win - win proposition for customers, owner/stockholders, management, and employees. Otherwise it won?t prosper and achieve it?s ultimate potential.

The only time your ?labor exploitation? argument holds even a little water, is with transitory workers like strawberry pickers. They?re not looking for a long term career, just a paycheck. The farmer isn?t looking for a permanent employee, just a crop harvest. Temporary employment, like that, doesn?t typify Capitalism

B.A. - It's not the poor people who pull the wagon in this country, it's the taxpayer. Money pays for services, and taxpayers provide the money.

B.D. - This reveals a really distorted picture of the world. The taxpayer "pays for" the services, true, but the taxpayer makes money on the backs of the poor! That is, the wealth was generated by labour. Without underpaid workers making the product to sell, there wouldn't be a class of mega-wealthy. BA, you really are a great villain, saying that poor people don't pull the wagon!

B.A. - That?s bullshit, typical Socialist/Marxist bullshit. Bill Gates is probably the most mega-wealthy guy around. He?s the prime example of a successful capitalist in this day and age. He didn?t make any money on the ?backs of the poor.? To the contrary, Microsoft created many many young millionaires with stock options and a rising stock price. I don?t think any of these young kids expected to become millionaires by taking a job at Microsoft, but that?s how it played out. Here?s a link that gives insight into the nerdy employee climate that existed  http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~nhughes/htmldocs/micro.html

If you interview guys like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison and other mega-successful Capitalists you?ll find one common denominator in their success. It is that they were able to attract, impassion, and retain really talented employees over the long haul. That?s what?s at the heart of Capitalism -- team building and competitive products with a strong customer acceptance -- everthing clicks.

Whenver I hear the term, ?Exploitation of Labor,? If figure there must be a labor union lurking in the woods. Organized labor is a sickness that sometimes infects Capitalism and makes it ineffective, forcing jobs and products to be exported to Taiwan or Mexico.

Whiney Bitches 26.Jan.2003 09:46

made up

Would you two whiney bitches shut the fuck up?!? Get eachother's email and bitch to eachother there, not on this forum.

made up, and BA 27.Jan.2003 00:33

BD

Dear "made up". I don't care if you're annoyed. This board is FOR DISCUSSION, and if you don't like it, then don't read it. Personally, I'm having a grand old time and covering interesting ground so you can just deal with it. BTW, last time I read this thread, you were the only one whining. :)

Hello BA.

BD--the school program Bush proposes would mean the government paying to send us all to school. Socialism, though I don't like Bush's twisting of it because there WOULD BE state-funded religious schools, elitist schools, etc. Booyah. Regardless, public education, whether or not it's an ailing system, is FAR SUPERIOR to an uneducated society. If the government stopped paying for school, you'd have millions of uneducated youths in America--people who were never given much of a chance to succeed just because of who their parents were. You know that's not fair, and I know you support education for all, so just break down and say socialism isn't ALL bad! ;)

B.A. - If you find yourself in a line of work, (ie: yard man) that won?t enable you to live at a high enough lifestyle to suit your needs, then you might consider another line of work. It?s not your neighbor?s responsibility to subsidize you because you got into a low paying job. People should take responsibilitiy for themselves.

BD--Yeah, people should take responsibility for themselves. I think working a 40 hour job should pay the rent, food, healthcare, etc. That's a bare minimum, and corporations quite often don't meet that bare minimum. If a person quits a job to look for something better, is there something better out there? Maybe, but maybe not. Clearly, if everybody woke up and took responsibility for themselves and went to look for a new job, they would not all be able to find better. Many folks would still get an insufficient salary. How can I get through to you? Free market will not give when it does not have to, and it does not have to. The bottom of the pile is screwed. One thing I'd like to hear from you is this. Please admit it and don't sidestep by saying they should look for another job because there are many people who don't have that ambition. Take a good guy, a hardworking guy who toils an honest 40, and tell me that you don't agree he should be able to pay rent, and buy food and health care. Free market has already decided that an honest 40 guarantees no such thing. And free market is trending downward. The real earnings of the working poor are not keeping up with the cost of living.

B.A. - If you drop out of high school; take a job as a dock worker; join the ILWU; become a militant and ?raise your fist,? then you?ve chosen your own career path, now haven?t you? In that event, you?re probably not going to become a successful entrepreneur, drive a BWM, or own a home in Palos Verdes with a nice view. And please don?t bitch about your lot in life. You made your own bed, now lie in it.

BD--Just to make sure you know where I'm coming from, I'm college educated with a science degree, and I do make enough money and seem to be on a slow upwardly-mobile path. And just because you recognize that people make their own beds does not change the sad reality that many people do not know how to make their own bed. If we didn't ensure all our kids were educated, they'd mostly be sleeping on pretty hard ground. Similarly, kids of poor folks usually make harder beds than kids of rich folks. And since they spent their formative years poorly, they are less likely to make as much as someone who pulled through and who probably had good guidance (you and me). That's only fair because our skills are more specialized. But it doesn't address the point that those without specialized skills have worth to society also (and more worth than they are paid for). I can't emphasize that enough.

B.A. - Oh c?mon. They can quit that job tomorrow and get another job. They can start their own business. They have many options. Blaming their own lack of initiative on their employer is bullshit.

BD--Already covered that above! And, by the way, most businesses fail.

B.A. - That?s a convoluted view of the facts. If you start a business and build it up, you?ll be creating jobs. If your business is going to be successful, then you?ll want to attract and retain the more talented employees. You?ll do that be creating an appealing career opportunity for them. A successful business that thrives long term must be a win - win proposition for customers, owner/stockholders, management, and employees. Otherwise it won?t prosper and achieve it?s ultimate potential.

BD--There's only so much money to be spent. That's why many respected economists think that tax breaks for the rich are bullshit. I think this is diverging to another subject, so I'll stop commenting on it shortly. Let me just say one word to counteract what you've said above--WALMART.

B.A. - That?s bullshit, typical Socialist/Marxist bullshit. Bill Gates is probably the most mega-wealthy guy around. He?s the prime example of a successful capitalist in this day and age. He didn?t make any money on the ?backs of the poor.? To the contrary, Microsoft created many many young millionaires with stock options and a rising stock price. I don?t think any of these young kids expected to become millionaires by taking a job at Microsoft, but that?s how it played out.

BD--For every Microsoft, Intel, and whatever other company that requires highly skilled labour to succeed, there's more than enough WALMARTS. What you're spouting is typical Republican "bullshit", to borrow your term. We have a difference of ideology here, and let me explain how I disagree with yours! You mentioned Microsoft, but microsoft is a company which needs skilled workers--workers who can choose where they work, and can command a salary higher than minimum wage. The real issue we've been debating is not about the college-educated, it's about the poor. It's about the people who don't have specialized skills who cannot command a reasonable paycheck. Take McDonalds. Take Burger King. Take Walmart. Take Kmart. Take the chain grocery store down the street. Take the gas station attendant. Admit to me that they deserve enough to pay rent, buy food, and get healthcare for their honest 40. Admit to me that they aren't payed enough for that. Admit to me that their bosses are getting rich, but couldn't get rich without having somebody to do the grunt work.

B.A. - If you interview guys like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison and other mega-successful Capitalists you?ll find one common denominator in their success. It is that they were able to attract, impassion, and retain really talented employees over the long haul. That?s what?s at the heart of Capitalism -- team building and competitive products with a strong customer acceptance -- everthing clicks.

DB--And if you interview the owners of companies who don't need specialized labor to succeed, then you'll be interviewing the ones who created the need for public services in the first place. Pay people a fair wage, and they won't need your help. You'll find one common demonimator. They were able to employ people who prefer working for dirt and barely scraping by to the alternatives.

B. A. - Whenver I hear the term, ?Exploitation of Labor,? If figure there must be a labor union lurking in the woods. Organized labor is a sickness that sometimes infects Capitalism and makes it ineffective, forcing jobs and products to be exported to Taiwan or Mexico.

BD--Read a history book or two and look at pre-union America. Look at Carnegie Steel. Look at England during the beginning of the industrial era when workers didn't have rights. Dark times.

BD--It looks like we've about argued this to the ground. I think we've fairly covered why we don't agree, but I would like to see you close by telling me how you feel about some of the things I've asked. You get the last word!

Later,
Bush Detractor