• Wealth Inequality in the United States
    196 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Eltro102;39809844]private property is not a form of theft you are not stealing the product of their labor because they have agreed to exchange their labor for money[/QUOTE] "agreed" implies they had a choice whether or not to when in reality they were likely compelled to for basic subsistence and in order to take advantage of advances made by humanity as a whole [QUOTE=Eltro102;39809844] then there would be no difference between how it is run now [/QUOTE] Unions running the workplace democratically being the same as it is now? I don't think so. Proper mutually associative unions, the kind he likely means, play for the worker's side and do not collude or conspire with management to reach compromises. What he means, I think, is that the workers manage themselves from the ground up instead of the "leaders" and "executives" doing it from the top down by making poor decisions based on incomplete data and vague "strategies". The union in this case would be far more integral to the running of a workplace or organisation than it is currently and day to day operation would be more like that of worker owned co-operatives. [QUOTE=Eltro102;39809844]the government is accountable to you, people elected them. It doesn't matter if they were backed by a unicef or zyklon b inc, you can still choose not to vote for them.[/QUOTE] Voting or not voting for someone doesn't constitute a real choice - all you're doing is electing someone to make decisions FOR you who can change their mind or position at any time and betray all reasons for voting for you leaving you no recourse. The vested interests of the "leader" get represented over the electorate most of the time because of lobbying and backhanders. Here's a couple fun George Carlin quotes on the subject: [quote]"I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don't vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain,' but where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote -- who did not even leave the house on Election Day -- am in no way responsible for that these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created." - [B]​George Carlin[/B][/quote] [quote]"The big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. [B]You don’t. You have no choice. You have [I]owners.[/I] They [I]own[/I]you.' [I]They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They’ve long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls. They got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying. Lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I’ll tell you what they don’t want. '[/I]They don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. [B]They don’t want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that. That doesn’t help them. That’s against their interests." - George Carlin[/B][/B][/quote] [QUOTE=Eltro102;39809844]except for the part where you can actually vote for your leader, crazy right?[/QUOTE] Exactly. You're forbidden to make real direct action in relation to the decisions made by them so you have to pick someone to make them for you and hope they don't fuck up. You're not allowed to make decisions for yourself or as a collective or a community - a pre-vetted "representative" has to make them for you and that's the only so-called "choice" you have in the matter.
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;39809445]Yeah, try having a poor person start a fundraiser. Hint: it doesn't work. Politician's lives run on fundraisers, without them they'd be out of a job. They spend their whole lives doing them, or if they don't they can't advertise themselves and stay in office.[/QUOTE] Uhh, isn't that basically the entire point?
[QUOTE=Eltro102;39809844]private property is not a form of theft you are not stealing the product of their labor because they have agreed to exchange their labor for money[/quote] an agreement made through coercive action. it is not a choice or an agreement at all, it is a threat. [quote]then there would be no difference between how it is run now[/quote] well our leaders would be accountable to us, for once. [quote]the government is accountable to you, people elected them. It doesn't matter if they were backed by a unicef or zyklon b inc, you can still choose not to vote for them. [editline]5th March 2013[/editline] except for the part where you can actually vote for your leader, crazy right?[/QUOTE] "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." - Emma Goldman our leaders are not chosen by the people, nor are we allowed to vote for our leaders. our leaders are chosen by corporate and financial interests in the united states, we are then told to choose between the two choices that have been pre-approved. that is pretty much how democratic the ussr was, and how democratic the iranian government is.
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;39810356]"agreed" implies they had a choice whether or not to when in reality they were likely compelled to for basic subsistence and in order to take advantage of advances made by humanity as a whole [/QUOTE] yes because the basic subsistence they need cannot be created from nothing, work has to be done to create it which is paid for in the form of 'universal work' - capital, money, dosh, wonga...... [quote] Unions running the workplace democratically being the same as it is now? I don't think so. Proper mutually associative unions, the kind he likely means, play for the worker's side and do not collude or conspire with management to reach compromises. What he means, I think, is that the workers manage themselves from the ground up instead of the "leaders" and "executives" doing it from the top down by making poor decisions based on incomplete data and vague "strategies". The union in this case would be far more integral to the running of a workplace or organisation than it is currently and day to day operation would be more like that of worker owned co-operatives. [/quote] except unions wouldn't run it democratically at all, the union leaders and higher management would work together to maximize their gains (with some vague nebulous benefits for the workers tacked onto the end if they're lucky), the power would still be at the top. The workers will still have no real say, the unions would be few and large and still all-controlling. [quote]Voting or not voting for someone doesn't constitute a real choice - all you're doing is electing someone to make decisions FOR you who can change their mind or position at any time and betray all reasons for voting for you leaving you no recourse. The vested interests of the "leader" get represented over the electorate most of the time because of lobbying and backhanders. [/quote] because this is the only way it would work, granted lobbying is generally bad but you cannot represent the views and wants of everyone - the politicians and parties exist to compromise between the views of the electorate. You cannot make the majority of the decisions needed yourself because you do not have the resources to adequately research, think-tank and descide, the parties cannot magic these resources out of nowhere so they will need fundraising. [quote] Here's a couple fun George Carlin quotes on the subject: [/quote] quoting a famous person does not make you right, I could quote animal farm but that wouldn't make me more right [quote] Exactly. You're forbidden to make real direct action in relation to the decisions made by them so you have to pick someone to make them for you and hope they don't fuck up. You're not allowed to make decisions for yourself or as a collective or a community - a pre-vetted "representative" has to make them for you and that's the only so-called "choice" you have in the matter.[/quote] the representative has to represent the communities' views, you cannot have a magical system where everyone gets to have their say over every matter because it would take too long to reach any decision, and people hate gridlock, they want change and they want it [I]now[/I]. If your representative fucks up then they won't get picked next time, or will be forced to resign. You could fund your own 'non-vetted' representative but you are not rich enough, only large companies can.
[QUOTE=Eltro102;39811177]except unions wouldn't run it democratically at all, the union leaders and higher management would work together to maximize their gains (with some vague nebulous benefits for the workers tacked onto the end if they're lucky), the power would still be at the top. The workers will still have no real say, the unions would be few and large and still all-controlling. [/quote] the union would have no arbitrary power though. the union is a voluntary association of workers and therefore would represent the needs of the workers more effectively than an unaccountable capitalist.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39811280]the union would have no arbitrary power though. the union is a voluntary association of workers and therefore would represent the needs of the workers more effectively than an unaccountable capitalist.[/QUOTE] not really because the union would be as accountable as it chose if the workforce was under its unbrella - not at all, it could have as much power as it chose because the workers would still have no choice but to work for it
[QUOTE=Eltro102;39811363]not really because the union would be as accountable as it chose if the workforce was under its unbrella - not at all, it could have as much power as it chose because the workers would still have no choice but to work for it[/QUOTE] except when the union fails to meet its obligations the workers can vote in new union leaders and management. that's the point of democratic workplaces, dude.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39811383]except when the union fails to meet its obligations the workers can vote in new union leaders and management. that's the point of democratic workplaces, dude.[/QUOTE] and why would the old union leaders and management leave? sure the some of the workers could splinter off and make their own union, but it wouldn't have any of the resources nor the management experience of the old one and would probably get crushed by the old one
[QUOTE=Eltro102;39811436]and why would the old union leaders and management leave? sure the some of the workers could splinter off and make their own union, but it wouldn't have any of the resources nor the management experience of the old one and would probably get crushed by the old one[/QUOTE] because they would be voted down. the union leaders have absolutely no power over the workplace except the power that each individual worker voluntarily gives the union leader. if the union leader doesn't meet the burden of proof required for his leadership, the people will simply not listen to him anymore. i'll repeat this, the union has NO arbitrary authority. any authority it exerts is done with direct consent of every worker within the union. if you are unpleased with the way your union is run you vote out the management or you simply stop associating with the union.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;39797543]Why is wealth inequality "unfair"? Why are people suddenly entitled to be equal financially despite economics and what not.[/QUOTE] It's hard to get a damn job when all work is being outsourced, so [b]more[/b] money can go to that dude at 1%
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39811477]because they would be voted down. the union leaders have absolutely no power over the workplace except the power that each individual worker voluntarily gives the union leader. if the union leader doesn't meet the burden of proof required for his leadership, the people will simply not listen to him anymore. i'll repeat this, the union has NO arbitrary authority. any authority it exerts is done with direct consent of every worker within the union. if you are unpleased with the way your union is run you vote out the management or you simply stop associating with the union.[/QUOTE] ok, so you stop associating with the union, then what? die of starvation? you could strike, but the effect of that would be the same as it is with the current system
Well this thread spiraled out of control quickly.
[QUOTE=Eltro102;39811527]ok, so you stop associating with the union, then what? die of starvation? you could strike, but the effect of that would be the same as it is with the current system[/QUOTE] depends on how the society is structured. if it's a free market socialist you go find another job somewhere else. if it's more syndicalist in nature you might start your own union. either way your working is generally not tied to whether you are provided substinence.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39811561]depends on how the society is structured. if it's a free market socialist you go find another job somewhere else. if it's more syndicalist in nature you might start your own union. either way your working is generally not tied to whether you are provided substinence.[/QUOTE] find another job and hope the management holds the same views as you? this is the same as the current system you could start your own union, and hope that people join, and hope that other people buy your products, but then that is the same as the current system too the only thing that has changed is that companies are now called unions
[QUOTE=Eltro102;39812089]find another job and hope the management holds the same views as you? this is the same as the current system you could start your own union, and hope that people join, and hope that other people buy your products, but then that is the same as the current system too[/quote] neither of those are the same as the current system because you aren't allowed to elect your leaders in the current system and you aren't allowed to find a new job without risking starvation or poverty. [quote]the only thing that has changed is that companies are now called unions[/QUOTE] and are owned by the workers instead of capitalists.
[QUOTE=theoneman;39797599]People are so entitled these days, get your own money, your own wealth. Stop acting like you deserve MY money, its mine, not yours...MINE!! If you are poor, then do something about it instead of b*tch and moan. Sitting and complaining about how Bill Gates has more money than you and that you deserve some of it, won't help you financially.[/QUOTE] This has the emotional depth of a two year olds temper tantrum.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.