Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[gnarlylove]

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.

You're 100% correct using your non-reality based perspective and I can understand why you believe its a problem of not allowing expansion. Nature is to be overcome in this ass-backwards understanding of sustenance.

A reality-based perspective recognizes the relative stasis of the environment as having been essential to sustenance of all current forms of life including particularly human advancement into societies. We are currently the provocateurs of the [ame="http://www.amazon.com/The-Sixth-Extinction-Unnatural-History/dp/0805092994"]6th mass extinction[/ame]. This is no joke. And it's rapidly increasing. A reality-based perspective also recognizes the diversity of life doing its thing is innumerably essential for life in general which obviously includes human life.

You've shown no interest in recognizing basic facts of reality and instead propagate this extremely detrimental view that increases the annihilation of the biosphere. Completely idiotic for an organism to pretend its condition is irrelevant to its existence.

 

[gnarlylove]

If you want the total worth of your labor, you work for yourself. Is that a difficult concept to figure out?

You have no idea that other people exist, do you? This is not so hard to figure it out, is it? Look around.

The question is how to organize society. The results of capitalism is what we see before us. And if you think bodies are to be dispensed based on racial lines and poverty then you and I have very different concepts of justice. Justice is not for the individual, it is for all human beings. Take a peak at the Human Rights Declaration for a frame of reference beyond your ego. I don't even espouse that declaration but it helps to think beyond yourself for a change.

Moreover, capitalism has brought us faux electoral politics. What they really are, are bouts between, on occasions, the same donor. Both parties yield to their donors, and these donors are not stupid: they buy both parties so they damn well get some victory. And it doesn't take a degree to recognize this famously 1%-ers are really 1/10 of 1%, thus a central group of people dominate the entire discourse and it's completely stupid for people like that to not pursue profit maximization. But profit maximization leads to distress in communities from upheaval of jobs sent overseas. There is no concern for social welfare and humanity as you clearly display with your curt "what's so hard to understand about self-centered existence pursuing your needs at the expense of others in the world of competition?"

This isn't a personal complaint. I make the choices I want and I am 100% satisfied with them. This is about recognizing the inherent dignity in human beings that must be acknowledged. Instead we allow bodies to line up with no where to go and are constantly harassed by regular police brutality. Can you even think outside of yourself an imagine that although you may be doing OK and all your friends that it might not be a good system that states as fact "there must be a mass of unemployed people simply because it's not profitable." And remember, profits are not set by physical laws of nature, they are determined by the choices of the CEO and Board. They can determine to earn a decent life without extravagance while massively contributing to social welfare by paying wages that create security for humans. Instead, Greenspan praised the idea of worker insecurity as the main reason the 90s economy was so hot. It keeps wages low and complaints down. Yep, this is an intolerable system for the mass of people. Sorry that you happen to avoid that group, it explains your skewed view of reality.

 

[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.

You're 100% correct using your non-reality based perspective and I can understand why you believe its a problem of not allowing expansion. Nature is to be overcome in this ass-backwards understanding of sustenance.

A reality-based perspective recognizes the relative stasis of the environment as having been essential to sustenance of all current forms of life including particularly human advancement into societies. We are currently the provocateurs of the [ame="http://www.amazon.com/The-Sixth-Extinction-Unnatural-History/dp/0805092994"]6th mass extinction[/ame]. This is no joke. And it's rapidly increasing. A reality-based perspective also recognizes the diversity of life doing its thing is innumerably essential for life in general which obviously includes human life.

You've shown no interest in recognizing basic facts of reality and instead propagate this extremely detrimental view that increases the annihilation of the biosphere. Completely idiotic for an organism to pretend its condition is irrelevant to its existence.

Coming from someone who basically has no facts. The irony is endless with you.

 

[Andylusion]

If you want the total worth of your labor, you work for yourself. Is that a difficult concept to figure out?

You have no idea that other people exist, do you? This is not so hard to figure it out, is it? Look around.

If you want the total worth of your labor, work for yourself....

"You have no idea that other people exist, do you?"

Do you see why people on the right, think you are a fruit cake? Your messages would be funny, if not for the fact you think you are making a great point. That's just sad.

Do you want us to respond to you as though you are making an intelligent point? Try not to make mindlessly stupid responses, and we will.

Otherwise, be ready to be ignored. We're not going to bother responding to rather weak minded attempts at insults, that make you look like a clown, rather than someone attempting a serious discussion.

 

[gnarlylove]

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.

You're 100% correct using your non-reality based perspective and I can understand why you believe its a problem of not allowing expansion. Nature is to be overcome in this ass-backwards understanding of sustenance.

A reality-based perspective recognizes the relative stasis of the environment as having been essential to sustenance of all current forms of life including particularly human advancement into societies. We are currently the provocateurs of the [ame="http://www.amazon.com/The-Sixth-Extinction-Unnatural-History/dp/0805092994"]6th mass extinction[/ame]. This is no joke. And it's rapidly increasing. A reality-based perspective also recognizes the diversity of life doing its thing is innumerably essential for life in general which obviously includes human life.

You've shown no interest in recognizing basic facts of reality and instead propagate this extremely detrimental view that increases the annihilation of the biosphere. Completely idiotic for an organism to pretend its condition is irrelevant to its existence.

Coming from someone who basically has no facts. The irony is endless with you.

You stick true to your method: your opponent must not have the facts no matter how many times I've referred you to articles, books and lectures. I intentionally gave you material in my last post. It is the summary of field notes from around a variety of ecosystems by Dr. Kolbert recounting the changes, decay, and extinction that's currently underway. I don't see any scientist publishing on how the biosphere is shrieking for capitalist joy and is remotely healthy. They aren't because the objective fact is our biota is in decline at mass extinction rates. This is observable fact and has been recounted by numbers researchers in various fields. Kolbert gives great sources too.

 

[gnarlylove]

"The U.S. government does not represent the interests of the majority of the country's citizens, but is instead ruled by those of the rich and powerful, a new study from Princeton and Northwestern universities has concluded."

After sifting through nearly 1,800 U.S. policies enacted in that period and comparing them to the expressed preferences of average Americans (50th percentile of income), affluent Americans (90th percentile), and large special interests groups, researchers concluded that the U.S. is dominated by its economic elite.

The peer-reviewed study, which will be taught at these universities in September, says: "The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."

Read more: Major Study Finds The US Is An Oligarchy - Business Insider

 

[Andylusion]

"The U.S. government does not represent the interests of the majority of the country's citizens, but is instead ruled by those of the rich and powerful, a new study from Princeton and Northwestern universities has concluded."

After sifting through nearly 1,800 U.S. policies enacted in that period and comparing them to the expressed preferences of average Americans (50th percentile of income), affluent Americans (90th percentile), and large special interests groups, researchers concluded that the U.S. is dominated by its economic elite.

The peer-reviewed study, which will be taught at these universities in September, says: "The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."

Read more: Major Study Finds The US Is An Oligarchy - Business Insider

Which again, explains why Skinner is in jail. Apparently the oligarchy dominated the government so much, that the all powerful CEOs demanded that their own companies be shut down, than that they themselves were thrown in jail. Apparently Countrywide, Lehman Brothers, and Wachovia demanded they be eliminated from the economy.

I know that if I was in the all powerful Oligarchy, I would demand government bankrupt me. Yes sir.....

You keep posting random crap, and thinking that doing endless topic changes will confuse us into thinking you are intelligent. Sorry. Not happening.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

When you work, you can never earn as much as you are worth/produce.

Of course you're worth less than you produce.
Someone has to pay for the equipment, pay for the real estate, pay the payroll taxes, pay the insurance, pay for the excessive regulations, licenses, paperwork.

 

[gnarlylove]

You keep posting random crap, and thinking that doing endless topic changes will confuse us into thinking you are intelligent. Sorry. Not happening.

Why does it always center around my trying to gain something? I didn't post that to change the topic, and all of it was verbatim from Business Insider, I didn't write one iota! I didn't post it for you. I didn't post it so I would appear intelligent. I don't have any concern in the slightest regarding my apparent intelligence. I don't need to be validated through asinine grade school standards that you have clearly clung to.

I didn't even want you to respond to it because you don't have any frame of reference for understanding the significance of it. I bet you think you observe reality when it's well-known that human thinking significantly limits observational powers through limited perspectives. It's no secret how limited your perspectives are. I, on the other hand, have existed in multifarious cultures, cities, rural areas, interacted with the least among us and those who have no voice in jail. You simply have no perspective for understanding what things mean outside your narrow highly exclusionary perspective.

Though we exist in the same state I cannot determine any common ground with you because your perspective is so radically different from mine. Beyond the english language, there seems to be no mutual understanding. You seem to ceaselessly compete with me as if that has anything to do with intelligence.

 

[gnarlylove]

When you work, you can never earn as much as you are worth/produce.

Of course you're worth less than you produce.
Someone has to pay for the equipment, pay for the real estate, pay the payroll taxes, pay the insurance, pay for the excessive regulations, licenses, paperwork.

Why is it when I make 5 bird houses with my tools and equipment that I get the result of 5 birdhouses? Why is it that when I make 5 birdhouses for Alibaba LLC, a birdhouse distributor, I not only don't get 1 single birdhouse, but I am recompensed through a necessarily lower value then the value of my labor?

The reason is exploitation. You absolutely would crack me up if you weren't so frighteningly trained to say completely bogus things outside very narrow limits of wage labor. At no other time do humans think it should be illegal for them to claim what they produce. Why should we settle for a system that necessarily exploits us so a few families can live lavishly? We cannot live together if we cannot work together without being exploited. We are not trying to die with the most toys, we are trying to construct a civilization that doesn't resemble savages in suits devouring and selling as much as possible for self gain without concern for it being at the expense of society.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When you work, you can never earn as much as you are worth/produce.

Of course you're worth less than you produce.
Someone has to pay for the equipment, pay for the real estate, pay the payroll taxes, pay the insurance, pay for the excessive regulations, licenses, paperwork.

Why is it when I make 5 bird houses with my tools and equipment that I get the result of 5 birdhouses? Why is it that when I make 5 birdhouses for Alibaba LLC, a birdhouse distributor, I not only don't get 1 single birdhouse, but I am recompensed through a necessarily lower value then the value of my labor?

The reason is exploitation. You absolutely would crack me up if you weren't so frighteningly trained to say completely bogus things outside very narrow limits of wage labor. At no other time do humans think it should be illegal for them to claim what they produce. Why should we settle for a system that necessarily exploits us so a few families can live lavishly? We cannot live together if we cannot work together without being exploited. We are not trying to die with the most toys, we are trying to construct a civilization that doesn't resemble savages in suits devouring and selling as much as possible for self gain without concern for it being at the expense of society.

Why is it when I make 5 bird houses with my tools and equipment that I get the result of 5 birdhouses? Why is it that when I make 5 birdhouses for Alibaba LLC, a birdhouse distributor, I not only don't get 1 single birdhouse,

I already explained why.
Sounds like you should be your own boss, that way you'd only have yourself to blame.

The reason is exploitation.

And now we see why you're not very employable.
Nobody likes a whiny, self proclaimed intellectual with few actual skills.

At no other time do humans think it should be illegal for them to claim what they produce.

Who said it should be illegal to "claim what you produce"? Where? Link?

Why should we settle for a system that necessarily exploits us so a few families can live lavishly?

Be your own boss, so you can exploit yourself.

We are not trying to die with the most toys,

In your case, no risk of that.

 

[gnarlylove]

The reason is exploitation.

And now we see why you're not very employable.
Nobody likes a whiny, self proclaimed intellectual with few actual skills.

You clearly know more about me as a hostile troll on USMB then the people with whom I work with in real life, including my nursing home facility (employer).

We are truly graced by your presence. Keep telling the truth as it feels to you and always continue to disregard facts like you do so well. I bet it didn't even occur to you that the reason I'm calling attention to exploitation is because capitalism relies on exploitation of fellow human beings just like you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The reason is exploitation.

And now we see why you're not very employable.
Nobody likes a whiny, self proclaimed intellectual with few actual skills.

You clearly know more about me as a hostile troll on USMB then the people with whom I work with in real life, including my nursing home facility (employer).

We are truly graced by your presence. Keep telling the truth as it feels to you and always continue to disregard facts like you do so well. I bet it didn't even occur to you that the reason I'm calling attention to exploitation is because capitalism relies on exploitation of fellow human beings just like you.

 

[gnarlylove]

By the way, thanks for the compliment of calling me an intellectual. You are the only one that has proclaimed such a title. I've never said that here. I'd love to see a citation or even a phrase I've written that alludes to such a self-proclamation. Go ahead and try but you're going to come up empty handed and therefore I'ma ask you to delete your fucking lie. Why must you want so desperately to make this about me anyway? Why is it so hard for you to discuss ideas instead of making up stuff about anyone who disagrees with you? Oh, that's right, you actually do not know how to analyze assertions. It's much easier to say "Todders is a whiner who didn't get enough nursing as a baby" then it is to say "your claims about exploitation are wrong and here are the reasons why..."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

By the way, thanks for the compliment of calling me an intellectual. You are the only one that has proclaimed such a title. I've never said that here. I'd love to see a citation or even a phrase I've written that alludes to such a self-proclamation. Go ahead and try but you're going to come up empty handed and therefore I'ma ask you to delete your fucking lie. Why must you want so desperately to make this about me anyway? Why is it so hard for you to discuss ideas instead of making up stuff about anyone who disagrees with you? Oh, that's right, you actually do not know how to analyze assertions. It's much easier to say "Todders is a whiner who didn't get enough nursing as a baby" then it is to say "your claims about exploitation are wrong and here are the reasons why..."

By the way, thanks for the compliment of calling me an intellectual.

You're a wanna be intellectual.
Your drivel really isn't intelligent.

Why is it so hard for you to discuss ideas

Like the idea we've been genetically modifying our food for ten thousand years?
You ran away from that discussion.

 

[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

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?

Chomsky along with Professors Wolff and Alperovitz believe worker-owned enterprises represent a viable alternative to today's socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor model:

"In, I guess it was 1977, as part of this change in socioeconomic policy, the US Steel Corporation decided to close down its operations in Youngstown, Ohio.

"Youngstown is a steel town that was built by, and around the steel industry.

"The working people and the community were extensively involved in steel production and everything that flows off of it, and manufacturing plants spawn all sorts of other things, so it was a steel town.

"US Steel decided to sell it off, kill the town.

"Instead of just giving up, the workers in the communities — who are called the stakeholders — offered to buy the plant and run it themselves.

"That could’ve been done; with enough public support, it could’ve happened.

"These were not public issues at the time. It did go to court. The union took the case to court to try to get the right to do it; they lost in the court. But they could’ve won, and it could’ve been carried forward.

"Well, so it was a kind of defeat, but like a lot of defeats, it wasn’t the end of the story: it was the basis of moving on to something else.

"And what it spawned was a lot of much-smaller-scale efforts to establish worker-owned enterprises. A lot of it’s called the Cleveland Model, a lot of them around Cleveland and other parts of Ohio, which are not huge enterprises, but there’s a lot of them.

"Alperovitz, in his book, reviews all of this; you can look at it for details.."

Noam Chomsky on "America Beyond Capitalism" - Gar Alperovitz

 

[georgephillip]

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.

About pink Hondas and capitalism since the latter leads to concentration of capital, employment, and power and the nearly complete destruction of economic freedom.

Criticism of capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

Chomsky along with Professors Wolff and Alperovitz believe worker-owned enterprises represent a viable alternative to today's socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor model:

"In, I guess it was 1977, as part of this change in socioeconomic policy, the US Steel Corporation decided to close down its operations in Youngstown, Ohio.

"Youngstown is a steel town that was built by, and around the steel industry.

"The working people and the community were extensively involved in steel production and everything that flows off of it, and manufacturing plants spawn all sorts of other things, so it was a steel town.

"US Steel decided to sell it off, kill the town.

"Instead of just giving up, the workers in the communities — who are called the stakeholders — offered to buy the plant and run it themselves.

"That could’ve been done; with enough public support, it could’ve happened.

"These were not public issues at the time. It did go to court. The union took the case to court to try to get the right to do it; they lost in the court. But they could’ve won, and it could’ve been carried forward.

"Well, so it was a kind of defeat, but like a lot of defeats, it wasn’t the end of the story: it was the basis of moving on to something else.

"And what it spawned was a lot of much-smaller-scale efforts to establish worker-owned enterprises. A lot of it’s called the Cleveland Model, a lot of them around Cleveland and other parts of Ohio, which are not huge enterprises, but there’s a lot of them.

"Alperovitz, in his book, reviews all of this; you can look at it for details.."

Noam Chomsky on "America Beyond Capitalism" - Gar Alperovitz

United Airlines was worker owned.

How'd that turn out?

 

[Andylusion]

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?

Chomsky along with Professors Wolff and Alperovitz believe worker-owned enterprises represent a viable alternative to today's socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor model:

"In, I guess it was 1977, as part of this change in socioeconomic policy, the US Steel Corporation decided to close down its operations in Youngstown, Ohio.

"Youngstown is a steel town that was built by, and around the steel industry.

"The working people and the community were extensively involved in steel production and everything that flows off of it, and manufacturing plants spawn all sorts of other things, so it was a steel town.

"US Steel decided to sell it off, kill the town.

"Instead of just giving up, the workers in the communities — who are called the stakeholders — offered to buy the plant and run it themselves.

"That could’ve been done; with enough public support, it could’ve happened.

"These were not public issues at the time. It did go to court. The union took the case to court to try to get the right to do it; they lost in the court. But they could’ve won, and it could’ve been carried forward.

"Well, so it was a kind of defeat, but like a lot of defeats, it wasn’t the end of the story: it was the basis of moving on to something else.

"And what it spawned was a lot of much-smaller-scale efforts to establish worker-owned enterprises. A lot of it’s called the Cleveland Model, a lot of them around Cleveland and other parts of Ohio, which are not huge enterprises, but there’s a lot of them.

"Alperovitz, in his book, reviews all of this; you can look at it for details.."

Noam Chomsky on "America Beyond Capitalism" - Gar Alperovitz

But *WHY* did US Steel sell off the factory? Answer? Because it was not making a profit.

If the Unions had bought the plant, can kept the same wage/cost structure, they would not have made a profit either. Socializing something, doesn't magically change the economic math.

This is yet another example, of dozens, where Noam Chomsky proves once again, he's a great linguist, and a terrible economist.

 

[georgephillip]

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?

Chomsky along with Professors Wolff and Alperovitz believe worker-owned enterprises represent a viable alternative to today's socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor model:

"In, I guess it was 1977, as part of this change in socioeconomic policy, the US Steel Corporation decided to close down its operations in Youngstown, Ohio.

"Youngstown is a steel town that was built by, and around the steel industry.

"The working people and the community were extensively involved in steel production and everything that flows off of it, and manufacturing plants spawn all sorts of other things, so it was a steel town.

"US Steel decided to sell it off, kill the town.

"Instead of just giving up, the workers in the communities — who are called the stakeholders — offered to buy the plant and run it themselves.

"That could’ve been done; with enough public support, it could’ve happened.

"These were not public issues at the time. It did go to court. The union took the case to court to try to get the right to do it; they lost in the court. But they could’ve won, and it could’ve been carried forward.

"Well, so it was a kind of defeat, but like a lot of defeats, it wasn’t the end of the story: it was the basis of moving on to something else.

"And what it spawned was a lot of much-smaller-scale efforts to establish worker-owned enterprises. A lot of it’s called the Cleveland Model, a lot of them around Cleveland and other parts of Ohio, which are not huge enterprises, but there’s a lot of them.

"Alperovitz, in his book, reviews all of this; you can look at it for details.."

Noam Chomsky on "America Beyond Capitalism" - Gar Alperovitz

But *WHY* did US Steel sell off the factory? Answer? Because it was not making a profit.

If the Unions had bought the plant, can kept the same wage/cost structure, they would not have made a profit either. Socializing something, doesn't magically change the economic math.

This is yet another example, of dozens, where Noam Chomsky proves once again, he's a great linguist, and a terrible economist.

And you've proved, yet again, you're neither.
Neither are you particularly knowledgeable about worker owned enterprises, like Mondragon, which doesn't pay management at a rate of hundreds of times the average worker.
If you are going to criticize my sources, give me a good reason to believe you possess the necessary intellectual qualifications to make an informed opinion.