Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[gnarlylove]

What I actually am is an anarchist. I despise government in any form.

I would be really intrigued to carry a dialogue with you regarding anarchism and how I am certain you are not one. But before I determine that you are not anarchist, I would like for you to describe what you mean by "I am an anarchist." I understand you wish there was no state to exercise control in your life. But do you go so far as to eliminate all forms of control?

ROFL! I want to abolish government. That's the only control that matters because it's the only control that uses guns. "Anarchy" means without government. That's all it means.

ROFLOL! Government is hardly the only entity that exercises control in life.

How do people survive? Work. If you don't sell your brains and body for pay, you are likely to find yourself rummaging in a trash can and living on the street (as I have).

So for most people worldwide, either work and live OR don't work and suffer immensely, even to the point of death (through health complications of bad diet and stress). The choice to live or suffer/die is not really a choice unless you're an idiot.

Why is this so? Because workers have absolutely zero control over their own work. Their finished production is sold by the CEO and he determines how much to pay you having kept a certain amount called profit. So the distribution of survival is literally in the hands of CEOs and 10-20 Board of Directors. They determine what to do with everything produced and the money gained in this endeavor. We all know they try to maximize profit by distributing as little wages and taxes as possible while keeping as much as possible, the profit (to do otherwise is considered insane). Thus the worker has no say over the distribution--they can either ask for a raise or quit. If you don't call this basic relationship of the worker to distribution control, then I don't understand control.

Let's take an example. Monsanto owns 93% of soybean seeds. Therefore they decide who gets soybeans and who doesn't. If someone wants soybeans, they must listen to what Monsanto says because Monsanto distributes it. This is control. They control soybeans.

In the same manner, we both know virtually all raw materials on this planet are "owned" by a small group of people who determine what to do with it called corporations. The government may regulate them in ways they don't like but then again, they also have the resources to change the regulations and we all know this.

Are you telling me that when a group of people own something, determine how to distribute it and offer absolutely zero chance for input by workers or the public that this is not control? Then please elaborate. The very definition of control is when a person has no say over something that deeply effects them and it's clear that the worker has no decision in the matter of distribution or in the matter of survival. They must work to survive and the work they do is what they are told. This is control without the use of a gun.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I would be really intrigued to carry a dialogue with you regarding anarchism and how I am certain you are not one. But before I determine that you are not anarchist, I would like for you to describe what you mean by "I am an anarchist." I understand you wish there was no state to exercise control in your life. But do you go so far as to eliminate all forms of control?

ROFL! I want to abolish government. That's the only control that matters because it's the only control that uses guns. "Anarchy" means without government. That's all it means.

ROFLOL! Government is hardly the only entity that exercises control in life.

How do people survive? Work. If you don't sell your brains and body for pay, you are likely to find yourself rummaging in a trash can and living on the street (as I have).

So for most people worldwide, either work and live OR don't work and suffer immensely, even to the point of death (through health complications of bad diet and stress). The choice to live or suffer/die is not really a choice unless you're an idiot.

Why is this so? Because workers have absolutely zero control over their own work. Their finished production is sold by the CEO and he determines how much to pay you having kept a certain amount called profit. So the distribution of survival is literally in the hands of CEOs and 10-20 Board of Directors. They determine what to do with everything produced and the money gained in this endeavor. We all know they try to maximize profit by distributing as little wages and taxes as possible while keeping as much as possible, the profit (to do otherwise is considered insane). Thus the worker has no say over the distribution--they can either ask for a raise or quit. If you don't call this basic relationship of the worker to distribution control, then I don't understand control.

Let's take an example. Monsanto owns 93% of soybean seeds. Therefore they decide who gets soybeans and who doesn't. If someone wants soybeans, they must listen to what Monsanto says because Monsanto distributes it. This is control. They control soybeans.

In the same manner, we both know virtually all raw materials on this planet are "owned" by a small group of people who determine what to do with it called corporations. The government may regulate them in ways they don't like but then again, they also have the resources to change the regulations and we all know this.

Are you telling me that when a group of people own something, determine how to distribute it and offer absolutely zero chance for input by workers or the public that this is not control? Then please elaborate. The very definition of control is when a person has no say over something that deeply effects them and it's clear that the worker has no decision in the matter of distribution or in the matter of survival. They must work to survive and the work they do is what they are told. This is control without the use of a gun.

Let's take an example. Monsanto owns 93% of soybean seeds.

BS

If someone wants soybeans, they must listen to what Monsanto says because Monsanto distributes it.

You have to listen to Monsanto? Like we have to listen to you? LOL!

 

[gnarlylove]

Let's take an example. Monsanto owns 93% of soybean seeds.

BS

If it isn't, Todd, then what's the percentage they do own? I dare you to do some fact checking. You will find out that in 2009 Monsanto owned 93% of soybean seeds and 82% of corn produced in America, all GMO.

Your narrow understanding of the world is detrimental. You don't even know that one tiny group of 25 people own entire crops and can legally sue you for growing non-Monsanto seeds. Wake up you ignorant man otherwise you'd be really confused when Monsanto decides you don't eat corn anymore or whatever they decide profits them.

Monsanto rose to dominance via its genetically engineered Roundup Ready seed line, which was in 93 percent of the soybeans and 82 percent of the corn produced in the U.S. last year. The gene Monsanto adds to the seeds allows crops to withstand use of its Roundup weed killer.

Monsanto 7-State Probe Threatens Profit From Gene in 93% of Soy - Bloomberg

 

[MikeK]

In celebration of 200 pages of Equality and with constant reference to Marx, we deserve some real Marx. After the quote, begins a simple explanation of why capitalism is a system of parasitism, hardly different from feudalism. Therein lies the source of inequality.

The real barrier of capitalist production is capital itself. It is that capital and its self-expansion appear as the starting and the closing point, the motive and the purpose of production; that production is only production for capital and not vice versa, the means of production are not mere means for a constant expansion of the living process of the society of producers. The limits within which the preservation and self-expansion of the value of capital resting on the expropriation and pauperisation of the great mass of producers can alone move — these limits come continually into conflict with the methods of production employed by capital for its purposes, which drive towards unlimited extension of production, towards production as an end in itself, towards unconditional development of the social productivity of labour. The means — unconditional development of the productive forces of society — comes continually into conflict with the limited purpose, the self-expansion of the existing capital.

The conclusion was:
The last cause of all real crises always remains the poverty and restricted consumption of the masses as compared to the tendency of capitalist production to develop the productive forces in such a way that only the absolute power of consumption of the entire society would be their limit.
Das Kapital, pg. 245, 260

Does anyone work for a living? In other words are you an employee? Then let's articulate what you know but may not understand about some vital implications. The economic system of feudalism, lords and serfs, was abolished slowly but surely and replaced by glorious capitalism, employers and employees. So what does this new relationship mean?

When you collect your paycheck, do you think it equates the value of your production? I hope not because it's an impossibility. For ease of explanation, let's take wage labor, which is an hourly system (salaried people experience this same fundamental impossibility).

Let's say you are paid $10/hr. You must produce $10 of goods/services otherwise you will be fired. In fact, you must produce a surplus of goods/services that exceeds $10/hr otherwise the employer is not benefiting from you and so you will again be fired.

So fundamental to the system of wage labor and capitalism is the idea of surplus: we must produce beyond our pay. Do you see the inherent conflict that arises here? When you work, you can never earn as much as you are worth/produce. This is where profit enters and hence inequality.

So in order to remain employed, we must produce oftentimes far beyond what we are paid for the employer (CEO, Board of Directors). Obviously not all of surplus production goes towards profits, some is put back into the operation of the company but it takes a genius to not see the literal parasitic relationship between employee and employer.

Essential to capitalism is the idea of parasitism. Biology defines a parasite as "the relationship between two species of plants or animals in which one benefits at the expense of the other" (Britannica). In this sense, we have not come very far from the 13th century and serfdom.

And now that we grasp more fully our status as employee, is this the kind of system we should employ in order to sustain our existence? Parasitic relations can never be healthy. Why is it too much to ask for symbiotic distribution instead of parasitic distribution? It would end the concern of redistribution by simply distributing it right the first time.

So if you think this makes sense, it follows deductively that as employees we must oppose capitalism. It's our moral obligation to ourselves, our global community, and our children. This doesn't mean quit your job but it means as an employee you automatically are being drained of value and life...any self-respecting person cannot continue in such an arrangement without protesting parasitism (i.e. capitalism).

Anyone wanting a serious economics lecture that spells this out, watch the following at your leisure.

Thanks for posting the Wolff lecture. It's well worth listening to and I'm pleased to note the tendency emerging. It's good to see there is movement and more Americans are waking up to what has been happening.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let's take an example. Monsanto owns 93% of soybean seeds.

BS

If it isn't, Todd, then what's the percentage they do own? I dare you to do some fact checking. You will find out that in 2009 Monsanto owned 93% of soybean seeds and 82% of corn produced in America, all GMO.

Your narrow understanding of the world is detrimental. You don't even know that one tiny group of 25 people own entire crops and can legally sue you for growing non-Monsanto seeds. Wake up you ignorant man otherwise you'd be really confused when Monsanto decides you don't eat corn anymore or whatever they decide profits them.

Monsanto rose to dominance via its genetically engineered Roundup Ready seed line, which was in 93 percent of the soybeans and 82 percent of the corn produced in the U.S. last year. The gene Monsanto adds to the seeds allows crops to withstand use of its Roundup weed killer.

Monsanto 7-State Probe Threatens Profit From Gene in 93% of Soy - Bloomberg

You will find out that in 2009 Monsanto owned 93% of soybean seeds and 82% of corn produced in America, all GMO.

Changing your story? LOL!

one tiny group of 25 people own entire crops and can legally sue you for growing non-Monsanto seeds.

No they can't.

Are you going to explain how they can force you to listen to them? Should be good.

 

[gnarlylove]

Thanks for posting the Wolff lecture. It's well worth listening to and I'm pleased to note the tendency emerging. It's good to see there is movement and more Americans are waking up to what has been happening.

Yeah, you're welcome, I have found his work among dozens of others very insightful. I went to college and hung around the marginal groups talking about these things but never got involved beyond my assigned work and personal activism for poverty in Columbus, Ohio.

I think two main shifts have created a demand for such decisive and incisive criticism of the system itself. One is the youth population are less offended by socialism (though socialism is often misunderstood and therefore mis-applied or its simply a lighter version of state repression). Many working class people totally understand the government and what we hear is bogus. Secondly is the obvious one: wealth inequality has just skyrocketed and yet we keep being told life is getting better (for whom?: the rich only) and the recession is long gone (wrong).

But my fear is without swift, steady organization, which seems unlikely, we have little hope for overcoming this suicidal death march of capitalism towards the [ame="http://www.amazon.com/The-Sixth-Extinction-Unnatural-History/dp/0805092994"]Sixth Extinction[/ame]. I'm just disappointed too few human animals raise their heads and join together to make their lives better instead of being always suppliant and consumerist...but then again our culture is awash in precisely such propaganda and our connection to nature and understanding has never been this tenuous yet absolutely critical for moving forward.

I really imagine the world breaking down into tribalism and violent wars over reduced resources. And no wealthy person will give two shits about democracy or equality in that era, which is coming anon. But we still have a chance and hope can never die.

 

[gnarlylove]

Let's take an example. Monsanto owns 93% of soybean seeds.

BS

I dare you to do some fact checking. You will find out that in 2009 Monsanto owned 93% of soybean seeds and 82% of corn produced in America, all GMO.

Bloomberg News:
Monsanto rose to dominance via its genetically engineered Roundup Ready seed line, which was in 93 percent of the soybeans and 82 percent of the corn produced in the U.S. last year.
Monsanto 7-State Probe Threatens Profit From Gene in 93% of Soy - Bloomberg

You will find out that in 2009 Monsanto owned 93% of soybean seeds and 82% of corn produced in America, all GMO.

Changing your story? LOL!

Changing my story? What are you talking about? I have to be frank: only you could say something so stupid. That is a compliment.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I dare you to do some fact checking. You will find out that in 2009 Monsanto owned 93% of soybean seeds and 82% of corn produced in America, all GMO.

Bloomberg News:
Monsanto rose to dominance via its genetically engineered Roundup Ready seed line, which was in 93 percent of the soybeans and 82 percent of the corn produced in the U.S. last year.
Monsanto 7-State Probe Threatens Profit From Gene in 93% of Soy - Bloomberg

You will find out that in 2009 Monsanto owned 93% of soybean seeds and 82% of corn produced in America, all GMO.

Changing your story? LOL!

Changing my story? What are you talking about? I have to be frank: only you could say something so stupid. That is a compliment.

93% of soybeans ≠ 93% of soybeans in America

Are you going to explain how Monsanto can force you to listen to them?

 

[gnarlylove]

I didn't claim that it was the whole world did I? No. I always intended my statement for America. We both live here. Sorry youre so hostile towards me that you think this is even an issue. Grasping at straws.

Monsanto sets the price. Are you planning on not paying what they say or are you going to listen to their price and their legal team that notoriously sues any farmer violating their profit motive, which they determine, not you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I didn't claim that it was the whole world did I? No. I always intended my statement for America. We both live here. Sorry youre so hostile towards me that you think this is even an issue. Grasping at straws.

Monsanto sets the price. Are you planning on not paying what they say or are you going to listen to their price and their legal team that notoriously sues any farmer violating their profit motive, which they determine, not you.

You said.

Let's take an example. Monsanto owns 93% of soybean seeds. Therefore they decide who gets soybeans and who doesn't. If someone wants soybeans, they must listen to what Monsanto says because Monsanto distributes it. This is control. They control soybeans.

Seems clear what you meant. That's why I pointed out your error.
Monsanto does not control soybeans and does not own 93% of all soybean seeds in the world.
Try to be clear.

Monsanto sets the price.

They set the price for their product. You don't have to buy from them.

Are you planning on not paying what they say

Your point, "If someone wants soybeans, they must listen to what Monsanto says because Monsanto distributes it" , concerned the price? LOL!

Yes, if I want to buy a car, I have to "listen to what the dealer says", LOL!
You're hilarious.
I'm going to the grocery store later. I guess I have to listen to what they say. LOL!
Man, for someone who claims to be so smart, you sure say some stupid things.

or are you going to listen to their price and their legal team that notoriously sues any farmer violating their profit motive

They don't sue farmers for "violating their profit motive".
That's another one of those stupid things you like to say.
If you buy their seeds, you have to sign a contract that governs how you use them.
If you violate the contract, they will sue you.

 

[gnarlylove]

Monsanto is about as close as you can come to a true monopoly. Oligopoly, which is technically what we have with soybeans is a major market control and you'd have to be pretty desperate to continue believing your religion of free markets and capitalist enterprise. I can't help it if you are eager to disagree even at the expense of reason and logic. As you've demonstrated, you are not here to argue reasonably but to defend faith in markets, competition and the like when every business abandoned those principles almost 100 years ago. Ever wonder why there's a business school and economics school on the same campus? It doesn't help you've never been trained in academics so what you hear in the media is 90% false and you are dumb enough/inadequately critical to believe it because you are extremely gullible and trusting of what corporations tell you. I'd think twice before I just believed things that Fox and msnbc tells you. Can you tell me the last time you were critical of something you believe?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Monsanto is about as close as you can come to a true monopoly.

Plus, "If someone wants soybeans, they must listen to what Monsanto says because Monsanto distributes it"

 

[gnarlylove]

Karl Marx wrote, the whole capitalist system of production turns on the increase of this gratis labor by extending the working day or by developing the productivity, that is, increasing the intensity of labor power, etc.; that, consequently, the system of wage-labor is a system of slavery, and indeed of a slavery which becomes more severe proportionate to the development of the social productive forces of labor, whether the worker receives better or worse payment.

 

[georgephillip]

Karl Marx wrote, the whole capitalist system of production turns on the increase of this gratis labor by extending the working day or by developing the productivity, that is, increasing the intensity of labor power, etc.; that, consequently, the system of wage-labor is a system of slavery, and indeed of a slavery which becomes more severe proportionate to the development of the social productive forces of labor, whether the worker receives better or worse payment.

Marx believed that capitalists would eventually accumulate capital to such an extent a majority of productive workers would become impoverished, creating a revolution that would overthrow the institutions of capitalism:

"Private ownership over the means of production and distribution is seen as a dependency of non-owning classes on the ruling class, and ultimately a source of restriction of human freedom."

Criticism of capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[gnarlylove]

Karl Marx wrote, the whole capitalist system of production turns on the increase of this gratis labor by extending the working day or by developing the productivity, that is, increasing the intensity of labor power, etc.; that, consequently, the system of wage-labor is a system of slavery, and indeed of a slavery which becomes more severe proportionate to the development of the social productive forces of labor, whether the worker receives better or worse payment.

Marx believed that capitalists would eventually accumulate capital to such an extent a majority of productive workers would become impoverished, creating a revolution that would overthrow the institutions of capitalism:

"Private ownership over the means of production and distribution is seen as a dependency of non-owning classes on the ruling class, and ultimately a source of restriction of human freedom."

Criticism of capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes yes. Early on he wrote about this revolution showing how damn insightful he was:
For society to achieve emancipation for all it must be done by

"One particular class must be a class that rouses universal reprobation and incorporates all deficiencies: one particular social sphere must be regarded as the notorious crime of the whole society, so that liberation of this sphere appears as universal self-liberation. So that one class par excellence may appear as the class of the liberation, another class must conversely be the manifest class of oppression." Early Texts, 126

My fear is that climate change has already progressed beyond reparation. This change is based in geological time and so humans are so imperceptive regarding the change. Only when shit blows up in our face and massive famine will we finally realize the revolution that should have taken place long before. I suspect revolution will happen in 50-100 years because change won't come otherwise. Chomsky notes that change in policy etc. are not gifts from above but result from mass pressure. Any thoughts or articles you know of on this topic?

 

[Andylusion]

I don't see that climate change is all that damaging. In fact, recently an article came out about Ancient Frozen Forest being discovered in Alaska.

This indicates that in time past, far more of the land was productive than what is currently available.

Further, near as I can tell, the only reason we could have mass starvation, is if we're stupid enough to ban the companies and products that have increased food production.

In short, the only real danger right now, is not from the environment changing, but from people shooting down our own advancement.

 

[Erand7899]

Let's take an example. Monsanto owns 93% of soybean seeds.

BS

If it isn't, Todd, then what's the percentage they do own? I dare you to do some fact checking. You will find out that in 2009 Monsanto owned 93% of soybean seeds and 82% of corn produced in America, all GMO.

Your narrow understanding of the world is detrimental. You don't even know that one tiny group of 25 people own entire crops and can legally sue you for growing non-Monsanto seeds. Wake up you ignorant man otherwise you'd be really confused when Monsanto decides you don't eat corn anymore or whatever they decide profits them.

Monsanto rose to dominance via its genetically engineered Roundup Ready seed line, which was in 93 percent of the soybeans and 82 percent of the corn produced in the U.S. last year. The gene Monsanto adds to the seeds allows crops to withstand use of its Roundup weed killer.

Monsanto 7-State Probe Threatens Profit From Gene in 93% of Soy - Bloomberg

Monsanto cannot sue you for using non-Monsanto seeds. Nor, do you need Monsanto's permission to grow corn or soybeans. You just cannot use Monsanto genetically engineered seeds, whether from your own crop of Monsanto corn or soybeans, or from soneone else's crop of Monsanto corn or soybeans.

You can grow corn, soybeans, or any other crop from seeds that are not under the Monsanto patent. If you want the Monsanto engineered seeds, you have to buy them from Monsanto.

 

[Erand7899]

In celebration of 200 pages of Equality and with constant reference to Marx, we deserve some real Marx. After the quote, begins a simple explanation of why capitalism is a system of parasitism, hardly different from feudalism. Therein lies the source of inequality.

The real barrier of capitalist production is capital itself. It is that capital and its self-expansion appear as the starting and the closing point, the motive and the purpose of production; that production is only production for capital and not vice versa, the means of production are not mere means for a constant expansion of the living process of the society of producers. The limits within which the preservation and self-expansion of the value of capital resting on the expropriation and pauperisation of the great mass of producers can alone move — these limits come continually into conflict with the methods of production employed by capital for its purposes, which drive towards unlimited extension of production, towards production as an end in itself, towards unconditional development of the social productivity of labour. The means — unconditional development of the productive forces of society — comes continually into conflict with the limited purpose, the self-expansion of the existing capital.

The conclusion was:
The last cause of all real crises always remains the poverty and restricted consumption of the masses as compared to the tendency of capitalist production to develop the productive forces in such a way that only the absolute power of consumption of the entire society would be their limit.
Das Kapital, pg. 245, 260

Does anyone work for a living? In other words are you an employee? Then let's articulate what you know but may not understand about some vital implications. The economic system of feudalism, lords and serfs, was abolished slowly but surely and replaced by glorious capitalism, employers and employees. So what does this new relationship mean?

When you collect your paycheck, do you think it equates the value of your production? I hope not because it's an impossibility. For ease of explanation, let's take wage labor, which is an hourly system (salaried people experience this same fundamental impossibility).

Let's say you are paid $10/hr. You must produce $10 of goods/services otherwise you will be fired. In fact, you must produce a surplus of goods/services that exceeds $10/hr otherwise the employer is not benefiting from you and so you will again be fired.

So fundamental to the system of wage labor and capitalism is the idea of surplus: we must produce beyond our pay. Do you see the inherent conflict that arises here? When you work, you can never earn as much as you are worth/produce. This is where profit enters and hence inequality.

So in order to remain employed, we must produce oftentimes far beyond what we are paid for the employer (CEO, Board of Directors). Obviously not all of surplus production goes towards profits, some is put back into the operation of the company but it takes a genius to not see the literal parasitic relationship between employee and employer.

Essential to capitalism is the idea of parasitism. Biology defines a parasite as "the relationship between two species of plants or animals in which one benefits at the expense of the other" (Britannica). In this sense, we have not come very far from the 13th century and serfdom.

And now that we grasp more fully our status as employee, is this the kind of system we should employ in order to sustain our existence? Parasitic relations can never be healthy. Why is it too much to ask for symbiotic distribution instead of parasitic distribution? It would end the concern of redistribution by simply distributing it right the first time.

So if you think this makes sense, it follows deductively that as employees we must oppose capitalism. It's our moral obligation to ourselves, our global community, and our children. This doesn't mean quit your job but it means as an employee you automatically are being drained of value and life...any self-respecting person cannot continue in such an arrangement without protesting parasitism (i.e. capitalism).

Anyone wanting a serious economics lecture that spells this out, watch the following at your leisure.

Thanks for posting the Wolff lecture. It's well worth listening to and I'm pleased to note the tendency emerging. It's good to see there is movement and more Americans are waking up to what has been happening.

If you want the total worth of your labor, you work for yourself. Is that a difficult concept to figure out? That means you must be management, supply, salesman and laborer, all rolled into one. How much of your valuable time is invested in operations that do not pay you at all, let alone allow you to earn what you believe you are worth?

When you work for someone else, they eat the cost of overhead, management, contracting, sales, etc., and they expect something for their valuable time and effort. After all, they also labor.

Most workers do not desire to take the risks associated with ensuring work, and do not have the skills necessary to successfully managing a business. Consequently, they sell their labor to someone who does have the skills to run a business. In doing so, they necessarily must discount their labor rates to recompense that someone for their effort.

 

[dannyboys]

Hilarious. I read the thread title and told myself that the last page would be about why pink hondas are mostly sold in Maine. I was wrong.

 

[dannyboys]

Capitalism has been around since the cave men. If it wasn't for capitalism not one of us here would know what a computer was.
The only people who don't like/understand capitalism are the 'never-wasers/losers'. No one that is rich by their own efforts does not believe in the benefits of capitalism.
There isn't a single library or hospital speciality wing or a scholarship to a university that wasn't funded by an 'evil' capitalist.
Remember that the next time a family member needs special medical help.