Logical Argument Against Parasites

[gnarlylove]

The following is logical deduction regarding wage labor.

1. Wage labor is founded on surplus: the worker produces more value than their pay. Concretely, say the worker is paid $10/hr. They must produce a surplus of goods/services that exceeds $10/hr.

2. If a worker engages in wage labor, they are engaged in producing surplus [keep in mind the definition above].
2.1. Thus the worker produces more value than they earn (i.e. surplus), inherent to wage labor.
2.2. Surplus is earning less than produced.
2.3. Earning less than produced is a fundamental conflict.

3. Therefore, there is a fundamental conflict in wage labor.

4. Therefore, wage labor is a practice of fundamental conflict where humans produce surplus for an employer.


This syllogism seems obviously true and absent structural faults, of which it has none, the conclusion is naturally deduced and is hence known with complete certainty. But I understand this conclusion seems almost benign. What's the big deal about this conflict?Well, nothing much but let's look into the world of biology to contextualize this conclusion and inject it with some meaning and significance.

1. Biology defines a parasite as the relationship between two species of plants or animals in which one benefits at the expense of the other... see Britannica

2. If premise #4 (above) is true, then in essence wage labor is indeed a relationship between two humans in which one benefits at the expense of the other.

3. Given the definition of parasitism and the truth of the antecedent in premise 2, the conclusion deductively and certainly follows that wage labor is functionally parasitic.

4. Parasitic relations should be abolished when voluntary.
4.1 Wage labor is parasitic.

5. Wage labor should be abolished or overhauled.

Disclaimers: I do not think human beings that employee others are parasites per se, nor do I think they are bad people, wrong or immoral. They are merely taking advantage of the institutions and opportunities. If they weren't, someone else would. So my point is not to denounce human beings (the employers), it's to denounce the fundamental conflict within wage labor as naturally parasitic and therefore harmful to a great many people who toil under wage labor.

I can see contention with the premise 2 in the second argument. Let me offer the critique I expect and preemptively respond. One might object by saying that both the employee and employer are benefiting. This is true, I don't dare deny such a truism. But just because the employee is benefiting (in a partial manner) does not negate the fact that it comes at the expense of the employee. It takes no time to realize the relationship is disproportional. Indeed, it takes just a second to realize that to reap just a part of what you sow is genuinely abnormal, and parasitic in this case. When one does not reap the full benefit of an activity, one feels robbed or bereft of a natural process. Typically when a human wants to produce something, she has full access over what is done with the product: whether donate it to the tribe, sell it, consume it, discard it etc.

However, humans are now thrust into a fundamentally conflicting and parasitic system by mere virtue of birth and geographic happenstance. If one does not already have adequate capital to employee people, they must conversley rent their time and energy at partial rate to an employee, just in order to have some acceptable standard of living. So instead of allowing humans to fully benefit from activity, which is obviously the most natural and immediate way activity exists, employees take a portion of the activity, and it's really hard to tell what the real value of the worker is (it must be wage + x = ?). Yet we don't pay them the real value, not because it would mean the CEO doesn't get to eat, but for the simple fact that he wouldn't earn that extra minor percent.

I don't doubt a portion goes to overhead, but let's be honest, profit is the name of the game and employees are viewed as entities of profit. Thus they are understood in terms of numbers, not people. So they can be abstracted out thereby removing notions of personhood, responsibility to the worker etc. And we know how much profit is being made by McDonalds CEO, etc. despite workers generating most of the surplus they are on welfare. So that minor percent for the CEO is at the expense of the literal welfare of another person. What's more is we chip in just to support the CEOs whim of earning just a little more because he can't seem to find the value in paying his working above poverty wages.

For these reasons I think we should discuss how to overhaul wage labor and its alternatives. However, this post is asking if the 2 syllogisms above stand up to scrutiny? Snide remarks is not offering scrutiny and is a waste of time. I hope this can be a fruitful discussion absent of any rudeness or condescension. Would love to hear some reputable feedback and critiques.

 

[Capstone]

[...]2.3. Earning less than produced is a fundamental conflict.

I think you need to define "fundamental conflict" (and disambiguate some other terms), since that premise isn't necessarily in conflict (in the strictly logical sense) with any of the precedents, nor does it seem to be "obviously true" on its own.

That wage labor is "founded on surplus" seems true enough, alright; but implicit in this notion is a hierarchical relationship between the payer and the payee, in which the former's monetary incentive to pay the latter for his or her labor would be non-existent in the absence of the surplus on which the relationship was founded (see P1). Accordingly, granting the antecedent 2.3 seems counter-intuitive, unless the "fundamental conflict" somehow subsists in the payer's monetary incentive to provide the payee with a lower-order monetary incentive to work, in which case the simplest solution would be to deny the soundness of 2.3 and remove it from the syllogism altogether. After all, the only way to ensure monetary incentives remain intact for all involved parties is to allow this hierarchy to persist throughout the duration of the relationship.

As for the description of the employer/employee relationship, it seems more reasonable (to me) to account for the mutual benefits of the hierarchical order, and also to consider the many downsides of the employer's role. In truth, the term "parasitic" could apply to either role (albeit on different grounds), but considering the word's inflammatory nature, it doesn't seem appropriate for a reasoned discussion between all of the role-players.

My $.02...

 

[ABikerSailor]

Quick question for the OP........................

You DO realize that a business isn't going to start up unless they think they can pay for the overhead, as well as the employees, and still make a profit, right?

Every time the cost of doing business goes up, the corporations pass it on to the consumer.

 

[Crystalclear]

You're a bit right, but you forget one really important thing. Someone who practices wage labor has a safe job. He/she does her job and gets paid. Instead, a business owner takes a risk. The owner needs to get a bit more products and pay a bit less to the producer, so the owner can make a profit. Otherwise the business goes bankrupt. The wage slave then loses his/her job as well. So I guess the employee wants to produce a surplus to keep his/her job. When the surplus difference isn't too big, there mustn't be a big problem.

 

[jon_berzerk]

The following is logical deduction regarding wage labor.

1. Wage labor is founded on surplus: the worker produces more value than their pay. Concretely, say the worker is paid $10/hr. They must produce a surplus of goods/services that exceeds $10/hr.

2. If a worker engages in wage labor, they are engaged in producing surplus [keep in mind the definition above].
2.1. Thus the worker produces more value than they earn (i.e. surplus), inherent to wage labor.
2.2. Surplus is earning less than produced.
2.3. Earning less than produced is a fundamental conflict.

3. Therefore, there is a fundamental conflict in wage labor.

4. Therefore, wage labor is a practice of fundamental conflict where humans produce surplus for an employer.


This syllogism seems obviously true and absent structural faults, of which it has none, the conclusion is naturally deduced and is hence known with complete certainty. But I understand this conclusion seems almost benign. What's the big deal about this conflict?Well, nothing much but let's look into the world of biology to contextualize this conclusion and inject it with some meaning and significance.

1. Biology defines a parasite as the relationship between two species of plants or animals in which one benefits at the expense of the other... see Britannica

2. If premise #4 (above) is true, then in essence wage labor is indeed a relationship between two humans in which one benefits at the expense of the other.

3. Given the definition of parasitism and the truth of the antecedent in premise 2, the conclusion deductively and certainly follows that wage labor is functionally parasitic.

4. Parasitic relations should be abolished when voluntary.
4.1 Wage labor is parasitic.

5. Wage labor should be abolished or overhauled.

Disclaimers: I do not think human beings that employee others are parasites per se, nor do I think they are bad people, wrong or immoral. They are merely taking advantage of the institutions and opportunities. If they weren't, someone else would. So my point is not to denounce human beings (the employers), it's to denounce the fundamental conflict within wage labor as naturally parasitic and therefore harmful to a great many people who toil under wage labor.

I can see contention with the premise 2 in the second argument. Let me offer the critique I expect and preemptively respond. One might object by saying that both the employee and employer are benefiting. This is true, I don't dare deny such a truism. But just because the employee is benefiting (in a partial manner) does not negate the fact that it comes at the expense of the employee. It takes no time to realize the relationship is disproportional. Indeed, it takes just a second to realize that to reap just a part of what you sow is genuinely abnormal, and parasitic in this case. When one does not reap the full benefit of an activity, one feels robbed or bereft of a natural process. Typically when a human wants to produce something, she has full access over what is done with the product: whether donate it to the tribe, sell it, consume it, discard it etc.

However, humans are now thrust into a fundamentally conflicting and parasitic system by mere virtue of birth and geographic happenstance. If one does not already have adequate capital to employee people, they must conversley rent their time and energy at partial rate to an employee, just in order to have some acceptable standard of living. So instead of allowing humans to fully benefit from activity, which is obviously the most natural and immediate way activity exists, employees take a portion of the activity, and it's really hard to tell what the real value of the worker is (it must be wage + x = ?). Yet we don't pay them the real value, not because it would mean the CEO doesn't get to eat, but for the simple fact that he wouldn't earn that extra minor percent.

I don't doubt a portion goes to overhead, but let's be honest, profit is the name of the game and employees are viewed as entities of profit. Thus they are understood in terms of numbers, not people. So they can be abstracted out thereby removing notions of personhood, responsibility to the worker etc. And we know how much profit is being made by McDonalds CEO, etc. despite workers generating most of the surplus they are on welfare. So that minor percent for the CEO is at the expense of the literal welfare of another person. What's more is we chip in just to support the CEOs whim of earning just a little more because he can't seem to find the value in paying his working above poverty wages.

For these reasons I think we should discuss how to overhaul wage labor and its alternatives. However, this post is asking if the 2 syllogisms above stand up to scrutiny? Snide remarks is not offering scrutiny and is a waste of time. I hope this can be a fruitful discussion absent of any rudeness or condescension. Would love to hear some reputable feedback and critiques.

1. Wage labor is founded on surplus: the worker produces more value than their pay. Concretely, say the worker is paid $10/hr. They must produce a surplus of goods/services that exceeds $10/hr.

there is more to consider then the 10 bucks an hour you give the employee
when you look at wages that get tacked on

federal and state workers unemployment insurance
medicare
social security
workers comp

 

[Bill Angel]

I understand the thrust of the assertion, but corporate benefit packages can complicate the situation. For instance one company where I worked had a profit sharing plan and offered employees the opportunity to purchase stock in the company at a 15% discount from its current market value. Its a benefit that to a certain extent turns us wage slaves into stockholders.

Sent from my BNTV600 using Tapatalk

 

[Toro]

OP demolished here.

... Marx's labor-theory-of-value-schema makes no distinctions between profits on capital that have their origins in luck, theft, and choosing the right parents on the one hand; and profits on capital that have their origins in sacrifice, industriousness, or flashes of genius on the other. They are all, to Marx, "exploitation," "unjust enrichment," "extraction of surplus value." They are all, to Marx, signs of evil. But in this particular example the proprietors are, in reality, not evil. The proprietors are, in reality, public benefactors. The effect of their savings and investment is to raise not just their own incomes (after an extended period of sacrifice) but everyone else's incomes as well.

Thus the labor theory of value category of "exploitation" does not map onto what either ordinary language or our moral intuitions call "exploitation." There are social and economic changes that are good that are, in Marx's schema, increases in the rate of exploitation. There are social and economic changes that are bad that are, in Marx's schema, increases in the rate of exploitation. It's simply not a useful tool for either moral philosophy or political action.

Moreover, the labor theory of value is of little help in predicting what average market prices will be. It's not a useful tool for economic analysis either. In my view, the labor theory of value is pretty much useless.

 

[Sallow]

Minimum wage, had it kept up with the rest of wages would probably be around $15.00.
Had it kept up with productivity? Around $18 or $20..
Had it kept up with CEOs raises? Around $29 or $30..

As it stands the government of the majority is skewed to protect the interests of those making the most in our economy.

They benefit most from our laws, and justice, power, education, water, military and transportation infrastructures. And the cost of that is spread out among ALL taxpayers.

Labor and consumerism are the driving forces in our Capitalistic society, yet the CEO of most major corporations fail to recognize that.

And that's why it becomes the necessary role of government to mitigate corporate greed.

 

[Toro]

Minimum wage, had it kept up with the rest of wages would probably be around $15.00.
Had it kept up with productivity? Around $18 or $20..
Had it kept up with CEOs raises? Around $29 or $30..

As it stands the government of the majority is skewed to protect the interests of those making the most in our economy.

They benefit most from our laws, and justice, power, education, water, military and transportation infrastructures. And the cost of that is spread out among ALL taxpayers.

Labor and consumerism are the driving forces in our Capitalistic society, yet the CEO of most major corporations fail to recognize that.

And that's why it becomes the necessary role of government to mitigate corporate greed.

This doesn't have anything to do with minimum wage. It's Marx's Theory of Surplus Value. If anyone pays you to do anything, you're being exploited.

Of course, in the theory, the CEO is being "exploited" even though he's making $10,000,000 because the CEO is an employee of the shareholders.

Nice theory.

 

[gnarlylove]

You're a bit right, but you forget one really important thing. Someone who practices wage labor has a safe job. He/she does her job and gets paid. Instead, a business owner takes a risk. The owner needs to get a bit more products and pay a bit less to the producer, so the owner can make a profit. Otherwise the business goes bankrupt. The wage slave then loses his/her job as well. So I guess the employee wants to produce a surplus to keep his/her job. When the surplus difference isn't too big, there mustn't be a big problem.

Wage labor can be safe. It can also be defined by worker insecurity, the very opposite of what you're describing. Greenspan praised worker insecurity in the 90s. Not know whether you'll have a job next week helps keep demand for above-poverty wages and better conditions low. So according to Greenspan and economists, worker insecurity is healthy for the economy. But that can only mean the economy does not including the workers.

Although the entrepreneur is taking risks in starting a personal business, don't be fooled, majority of businesses are coming from massive corporations who have socialized risk and when they take extra big risks, we know they have an insurance policy that the American people don't; too big to fail. So I don't really believe you can make a blanket statement that all business is the one taking risk. It isn't really a risk with insurance from the government and thus they don't go bankrupt. There are concentrations of capital and it has real world meaning and influence.

 

[gnarlylove]

[...]2.3. Earning less than produced is a fundamental conflict.

I think you need to define "fundamental conflict" (and disambiguate some other terms), since that premise isn't necessarily in conflict (in the strictly logical sense) with any of the precedents, nor does it seem to be "obviously true" on its own.

That wage labor is "founded on surplus" seems true enough, alright; but implicit in this notion is a hierarchical relationship between the payer and the payee, in which the former's monetary incentive to pay the latter for his or her labor would be non-existent in the absence of the surplus on which the relationship was founded (see P1). Accordingly, granting the antecedent 2.3 seems counter-intuitive, unless the "fundamental conflict" somehow subsists in the payer's monetary incentive to provide the payee with a lower-order monetary incentive to work, in which case the simplest solution would be to deny the soundness of 2.3 and remove it from the syllogism altogether. After all, the only way to ensure monetary incentives remain intact for all involved parties is to allow this hierarchy to persist throughout the duration of the relationship.

As for the description of the employer/employee relationship, it seems more reasonable (to me) to account for the mutual benefits of the hierarchical order, and also to consider the many downsides of the employer's role. In truth, the term "parasitic" could apply to either role (albeit on different grounds), but considering the word's inflammatory nature, it doesn't seem appropriate for a reasoned discussion between all of the role-players.

My $.02...

For the parasite assertion applying to both makes literally no sense. How can an asymmetric relationship apply both ways? Then it becomes symmetrical.? "On different grounds" is without meaning. It redefines parasite to make parasite reductio ad absurdum but this doesn't fit here. The worker has no choice unless they don't need to survive. Remember, I'm not attacking the employer, I am attacking the institution of wage labor as parasitic in nature and parasitsm is defined by asymmetry.

I'll stipulate your discussion of monetary incentives. But why should we wish to keep money as the main incentive? Introducing traditional means of incentives like gratitude, compassion etc. along with monetary compensation could revolutionize this parasitic function of wage labor. In shifting societal values away from "pursuing wealth, forgetting all but self" to [global] community values where people are not profit entities but are human beings who need decent standards (because from CEO to fry cook, they is virtually no inherent difference in value). This could really undermine the presently destructive employer/employee relationship.


GROWTH:

I thought I read someone arguing that we must maintain growth. And keeping the current wage labor monetary incentive in tact so the system survives (a little longer) is really just moving around the disaster that is culminating. Is growth healthy? What about no growth? In nature we consistently see growth and decay. So do we think we can maintain growth on a growth/decay cycle? Do we really think we can keep compounding growth year after year indefinitely? Where is the infinite planet that must exist in order to keep this compounded growth growing? This is the trouble economists bring because they think within a value system that externalizes essential parts of reality like a limited planet.

 

[Capstone]

For the parasite assertion applying to both makes literally no sense. How can an asymmetric relationship apply both ways? Then it becomes symmetrical.? "On different grounds" is without meaning. It redefines parasite to make parasite reductio ad absurdum but this doesn't fit here. ...

The asymmetry of the relationship isn't geared solely toward the benefit of the employer. The employee also "benefits at the expense" of the employer in several respects (a few of which have been pointed out by others in this thread), so the question as to who benefits from various asymmetrical aspects depends on which factors are being considered (those "different grounds" I mentioned earlier). This isn't tantamount to redefining "parasite", nor does it qualify as a reduction to absurdity; it's simply a recognition of the fact that both parties "benefit at the expense" of one another in different respects.

In line with the statement in my previous post, I don't believe the adjective "parasitic" is appropriate, primarily because the employer/employee relationship is mutually beneficial in general; but also because the asymmetry doesn't always favor one party.

...The worker has no choice unless they don't need to survive. Remember, I'm not attacking the employer, I am attacking the institution of wage labor as parasitic in nature and parasitsm is defined by asymmetry. ...

Just to be sure I'm reading you correctly here, are you suggesting that the worker's very "surviv[al]" is associated with his or her relationship to the employer?

If so, how is the employee living off the employer indicative of the parasitic nature of the employer?

...I'll stipulate your discussion of monetary incentives. But why should we wish to keep money as the main incentive? Introducing traditional means of incentives like gratitude, compassion etc. along with monetary compensation could revolutionize this parasitic function of wage labor. In shifting societal values away from "pursuing wealth, forgetting all but self" to [global] community values where people are not profit entities but are human beings who need decent standards (because from CEO to fry cook, they is virtually no inherent difference in value). This could really undermine the presently destructive employer/employee relationship.

GROWTH:

I thought I read someone arguing that we must maintain growth. And keeping the current wage labor monetary incentive in tact so the system survives (a little longer) is really just moving around the disaster that is culminating. Is growth healthy? What about no growth? In nature we consistently see growth and decay. So do we think we can maintain growth on a growth/decay cycle? Do we really think we can keep compounding growth year after year indefinitely? Where is the infinite planet that must exist in order to keep this compounded growth growing? This is the trouble economists bring because they think within a value system that externalizes essential parts of reality like a limited planet.

Listen, I'm all for tearing down the walls on Wall Street, doing away with the Federal Reserve and the world's monetary systems, ETC, but it's hard for me to believe the dirtbags in control of those criminal institutions (and by extension the world's governments) would ever allow that to happen without contingencies in place to ensure their power and control over whatever system replaced it. So, the best we can do, in my mind, is to try to find ways to work within the system to oppose the aspects we don't especially like. Anything more radical than that seems more like pie in the sky than anything else.

 

[gnarlylove]

If so, how is the employee living off the employer indicative of the parasitic nature of the employer?

I get it. You believe that there really is such a thing as surplus and that the worker never had the right to their production to begin with. No one's production is their own, it's abstracted out and sold on the market--and you believe this is reasonable or at any rate is detrimental to the employer who is involved not in production but orchestration of labor and often lives in gated communities. The system's familiarity has allowed you to think this makes sense when its foundationally corruptive to human creativity and anti-thetical to human activity. But you probably don't accept this so I won't continue convincing you.

 

[gnarlylove]

Listen, I'm all for tearing down the walls on Wall Street, doing away with the Federal Reserve and the world's monetary systems, ETC, but it's hard for me to believe the dirtbags in control of those criminal institutions (and by extension the world's governments) would ever allow that to happen without contingencies in place to ensure their power and control over whatever system replaced it. So, the best we can do, in my mind, is to try to find ways to work within the system to oppose the aspects we don't especially like. Anything more radical than that seems more like pie in the sky than anything else.

It is pie in the sky because we have been atomized as profoundly social creatures. So this separation plays into antipathy and the like. I've gone though that and I don't doubt there are plenty of opportunities for change within the system. However, if we think that within this system we can remotely achieve justice within our current system is betraying the nature of the problem. I am convinced that science clearly is convinced this planet will not sustain anywhere near our ideals and dreams. And as it crumbles, the elites will retreat into their gated communities and personal armies (CEO's at least), leaving the rest of us without access to what they've stowed away: water, food etc.

We can prevent such a terrifying scenario and indeed, as far as I'm concerned, this is a moral imperative given the injustices endlessly generated from our corrupt legal system and corrupt business practices to deceitful media/advertising tactics preying on the vulnerable. I have served a variety of impoverished communities and became homeless for a few months and having understand the reality of what I and billions of people face, some much worse, there is no tolerating this intolerance and indifference to human life and the injustice carried out in the name of the economy. It is radical to believe every person ought to live freely without being forced into labor to survive, esp for pennies an hour! Their subsistence livelihoods are rendered useless and thus move into urban environments where they need food. So to get food they are exploited outrageously all the while the particular neoliberal system driving this profit is ending decent survival starting the next couple generations. Then when people are not eating, we won't be saying let's only reform the system, we will be demand food on deaf ears and infertile soil or harmful weather. No amount of reforms are going to side step this slow motion train wreck.

But do work within the system to help build a better one, it only make sense. But we cannot betray reality here, there are severe limits on what can be accomplished using the system we have. And without knowing history, one forgets the only way rights and decent survival was won was through mass movement and popular struggles. Don't forget the French Revolution for all its gory detail, it ended Monarchy and a host of other seemingly eternal institutions overnight basically. So if we want change within or without we must join popular resistance movements and not to give up. What more important struggle can their be than for the liberation not of the self, but of society?

 

[Capstone]

I get it. You believe that there really is such a thing as surplus and that the worker never had the right to their production to begin with. No one's production is their own, it's abstracted out and sold on the market--and you believe this is reasonable or at any rate is detrimental to the employer...

If a person's labor were the only factor involved in the production of surplus, he or she would have a claim to sole responsibility for and ownership of the production, but that's virtually never the case in practice under the current status quo. In almost all instances, the costs of material, equipment, stock, along with various other 'direct' expenses are absorbed by the employer.

Then there's overhead.

An accounting term that refers to all ongoing business expenses not including or related to direct labor, direct materials or third-party expenses that are billed directly to customers. Overhead must be paid for on an ongoing basis, regardless of whether a company is doing a high or low volume of business. It is important not just for budgeting purposes, but for determining how much a company must charge for its products or services to make a profit.

These factors make 'doing business' in the United States in particular prohibitively expensive to the man in the street, for whom the capacity to 'make a living' under the wings of those who can afford to do business ...is not only a blessing but vital to the functionality of our society on levels only peripherally connected to employment.

...[the employer] is involved not in production but orchestration of labor and often lives in gated communities. ...

Granted, the orchestration of labor is only one aspect of production, but it's a pretty darned important one that's never divorced from the equation. As any competent employer would tell you: hiring and firing are directly related to worker productivity.

As implied earlier, the relative wealth of the employer is requisite to affording the expenses associated with doing business; but I think the choice to live in a "gated community" (which I don't believe is quite as common among business owners as you seem to believe it is) might be due more to the sort of demonization implied by your continual use of the phrase. Something to think about.

...The system's familiarity has allowed you to think this makes sense when its foundationally corruptive to human creativity and anti-thetical to human activity. But you probably don't accept this so I won't continue convincing you.

You're right, I don't accept any of those premises. As the old adage goes, familiarity breeds contempt, and I think this is at least as prevalent as any amount of social acceptance fostered by it. The system, while flawed and corrupted by human activity on several levels, isn't completely rotten at its core, in spite of the widespread contempt currently aimed in its direction. More succinctly: the system isn't the problem; those who misuse it across the entire socioeconomic spectrum are...

It is pie in the sky because we have been atomized as profoundly social creatures. So this separation plays into antipathy and the like. I've gone though that and I don't doubt there are plenty of opportunities for change within the system. However, if we think that within this system we can remotely achieve justice within our current system is betraying the nature of the problem. ...

I think you might be onto something there. Humanity's propensity to "achieve justice" is quite often at odds with how things work in the 'real world'. Life's not always fair, and the unwillingness to function in-bounds of that truth may be more harmful than helpful on a societal scale.

...I am convinced that science clearly is convinced this planet will not sustain anywhere near our ideals and dreams. And as it crumbles, the elites will retreat into their gated communities and personal armies (CEO's at least), leaving the rest of us without access to what they've stowed away: water, food etc.

Why should it crumble, when a more realistic consensus WRT our ideals and dreams could prevent it?

By no means am I suggesting we should give up our most cherished principles or the effort to realize as many of them as possible within the current paradigm; I'm just saying we need to be realistic in our collective mindset and temper any activism accordingly.

...We can prevent such a terrifying scenario and indeed, as far as I'm concerned, this is a moral imperative given the injustices endlessly generated from our corrupt legal system and corrupt business practices to deceitful media/advertising tactics preying on the vulnerable. I have served a variety of impoverished communities and became homeless for a few months and having understand the reality of what I and billions of people face, some much worse, there is no tolerating this intolerance and indifference to human life and the injustice carried out in the name of the economy. It is radical to believe every person ought to live freely without being forced into labor to survive, esp for pennies an hour! Their subsistence livelihoods are rendered useless and thus move into urban environments where they need food. So to get food they are exploited outrageously all the while the particular neoliberal system driving this profit is ending decent survival starting the next couple generations. Then when people are not eating, we won't be saying let's only reform the system, we will be demand food on deaf ears and infertile soil or harmful weather. No amount of reforms are going to side step this slow motion train wreck.

But do work within the system to help build a better one, it only make sense. But we cannot betray reality here, there are severe limits on what can be accomplished using the system we have. And without knowing history, one forgets the only way rights and decent survival was won was through mass movement and popular struggles. Don't forget the French Revolution for all its gory detail, it ended Monarchy and a host of other seemingly eternal institutions overnight basically. So if we want change within or without we must join popular resistance movements and not to give up. What more important struggle can their be than for the liberation not of the self, but of society?

Those last two paragraphs seem to be at odds with each other in a number of ways. This is totally understandable to me, because I'm conflicted on some of these matters, as well.

Speaking of history, let me just suggest we should guard against playing an unwitting role in any "revolution" promulgated by the true string-pullers of the world. Nothing would please some of those psychopaths more than a significant reduction in the world's serfdom population by any and all means possible -- not least another bloody revolution, from which humanity's real enemies would surely emerge as unscathed as their predecessors have time and again in the past.

There's a delicate balance to be struck, and radical activism is NOT the way to get there, despite what mainstream historians would have us believe.

 

[gnarlylove]

The daily dejection and egregious hardships of the majority of human beings are the direct result of policy. The master/slave dialectic has not ceased throughout history even in the present. I confidently say this because 85 humans own the equivalence of the bottom 3.5 billion people. This circumstance is not the result of physics or natural law. It is the decision of the architects of policy. They designed the system that benefits them the most and you accept it. We must work within this system, as you rightly assert because you also benefit significantly from this system although it does not compare to the elites. So by virtue of codifying the system you have approved of its maxim: ever greater exploitation of humans and land to sustain the infinite growth model. By approving this fundamental assumption of our current system you are also approving of the results this system produces: permanent abject poverty and despair. If you think this is tolerable, you have a moral compass that centers on you, which is no moral compass at all. Morality is universal or its nothing. I'm glad you don't face daily hunger but I have and know innumerable people who do. This is not tolerable yet it is a total product of our system, not natural law.

And regarding your comment about mainstream historians. How divorced from reality must you be in order to assert such a false claim? If you didn't know, your mentality of working within the system is mainstream. Radical activism is by no stretch of the imagination "mainstream." Your false claim demonstrates how unconcerned you are with reflecting reality in your assertions, you'd just prefer they sound good to your entrenched ideology that our system is the best system. You are a typical American who remains uncritical of self and our institutions in any substantive sense. You're clearly intelligent, but so are the innumerable intellectuals who more or less support our current system. Your empathy needs a booster shot, say, start volunteering among inner city youth or homeless and begin to treat them as people--not by-products of the best system.

 

[Capstone]

The daily dejection and egregious hardships of the majority of human beings are the direct result of policy. The master/slave dialectic has not ceased throughout history even in the present. I confidently say this because 85 humans own the equivalence of the bottom 3.5 billion people. This circumstance is not the result of physics or natural law. It is the decision of the architects of policy. They designed the system that benefits them the most and you accept it. We must work within this system, as you rightly assert because you also benefit significantly from this system although it does not compare to the elites. ...

The Oxfam International report, true and accurate though it may be, plays right into hands of those now openly trying to foment a worldwide war between the classes. I'm sure those manipulators would happily give you kudos for doing your part by spreading the news.

Look again, GL: my assertion, that we should work within the system "in order to oppose the aspects we don't especially like", wasn't based on how much (or how little) I've benefited from it personally; it was based on the recognition of the fact that setting out to demolish the system by potentially violent means wouldn't necessarily do away with its hidden controllers. In fact, in all likelihood the current 'powers that be' ...would essentially remain the powers that be over whatever stripe of 'trade control' that might emerge from the ashes in the old system's wake.

We're dealing with a largely invisible enemy, whose present day soldiers are the descendants of "the [O.G.] architects of policy" (monetary and otherwise) ...and whose passed-down legacy has been to rule the masses by subversion and deceit, both within and outside of the halls of legitimate governments. Not only would this foe not be defeated by bloody confrontations between the people and the puppets it has so brazenly placed before us, it would actually be strengthened by such confrontations.

I'm not going to be drawn into an argument on the merits of the history we've been given to believe by mainstream historians, nor do I plan to further engage you on issues more relevant to the OP, but I'll leave you with this: overt resistance to an enemy cloaked by its covert MO over the past hundred years in particular ...really is futile.

 

[westwall]

What ALL of these class warfare drones ignore is the simple fact that once the evil master is destroyed, someone just as evil, or sometimes even more so...takes over. For all the faults of the Romanovs, they never murdered 60 million of their own people.

That took progressives to do that. Yes, they were able to kill the ruling elite that they so despised. But why oh why did they find it necessary to murder all those other people?

Progressivism is a disease. It springs up from time to time like ebola and leaves death and misery in its wake.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Abraham Lincoln would have liked following the syllogism and logic of the OP.

If "The owner needs to get a bit more products and pay a bit less to the producer, so the owner can make a profit" were the case, most would be good.

Unfortunately, the owners wants a big bite out of labor and a big bite out of consumer.

Fairness does not enter the concept of profit: look at most of the wage payers in your community.

 

[westwall]

Abraham Lincoln would have liked following the syllogism and logic of the OP.

If "The owner needs to get a bit more products and pay a bit less to the producer, so the owner can make a profit" were the case, most would be good.

Unfortunately, the owners wants a big bite out of labor and a big bite out of consumer.

Fairness does not enter the concept of profit: look at most of the wage payers in your community.

I am very non-corporate. to the point I don't shop at walmart or any of the other big box stores. I pay more for what I need or want, but I value local business. Until people begin shopping locally and not at the big box stores the corporations are going to get ever more powerful.

They buy the politicians they need to put their small competitors out of business with onerous legislation that most libs thinks are great.

They don't realize that most of those regs don't do what they claim and merely serve to concentrate power and wealth in the hands of a very few. You're your own worst enemies.