If its private, its all good!!!!

We're coming under ever increasing digital surveillance, we're consuming excessive amounts of natural resources at the expense of the planet because "economic growth makes it all go round" (Boom to recession to boom to recession, poverty to affluence to poverty and so on and so on), workers are losing all their rights because whats good for the worker is bad for the shareholder, globalisation is creating one giant country, we're going to war just because we can afford it, the very individualism that capitalism is reputed to uphold is being constantly threatened because the corporation (but not the state, because that would be communism) is greater than the individual!!!

But this is nothing like Orwell's 1984 because in 1984 everything was state owned. But its ok now, because its all being done privately. Ask your favourite capitalist. As long as it aint communism, tyranny is completely acceptable! In fact, its necessary!

Communist tyranny, capitalist tyranny....Can anyone tell me, WHATS THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE?

 

You mean other than the fact that you can find a better job if you don't like your current one, acquire new skills and/or training to improve the amount of money you can earn and invest your wages only in businesses you deem to be profitable (or not invest it in any at all)?

If that's capitialism and America, I'd sure hate to see what a real tyranny looks like.

 

If you are telling me that you can't tell the difference between North Korea and the US, then freedom is wasted on you.

Seriously, there's something very lame about people in rich, free countries pretending that they suffer the same oppression as people in places like Stalin's Russia.

 

ahaah, nothing. people will be slaves in either system..

In the Tyrannic communist state you answer to the state and obey it and in the capitalistic tyranny you do whatever they tyranny likes, he sets the markets rules, the laws and everything.

Capitalistic tyrannies are hard to notice and use the state indirectly to control and maintain thier status, that is why it is so hard for the average Joe to see whether the system they live in is just or unjust or whether they are being cheated or not. From the surface capitalism looks very fair and just, but when you dig deeper, which most people do not do is where you see all the injustices and evils.

 

Looks like freedom is wasted on you too.

 

So first America (and capitalism generally) is tyrannical, and now we're slaves? Slaves, for Christ's sake!

Do you guys even know what these words mean?

 

So are you implying people will be free in a tyrannic capitalistic system just because the underlining system is capitalism and not communism? So in your eyes there is a difference between a tyrannic capitalistic society and a communist one? If so, why? because to me tyranny is tyranny whether it is communist or capitalist.

 

wage-slaves

 

Here again, the rhetoric doesn't fit reality. I chose to work this job, and not at the point of a gun or through any other kind of coercion. And I agreed with my employer about what my wages would be if I decided to accept their offer (note that word) of employment. I can leave for a different, better paying job whenever I'd like. I can even wake up one day and just not go to work any more and no one will come and arrest me.

Where's the coercion that is necessary for slavery, a tyranny, or oppression?

 

Like, I said before everything looks good on the surface. But, who creates the rules and produces the contracts? Obviously it is not you, your only right is pick and accept contract A, B, or C with whatever conditions (wages, hours) that come with it or you end up homeless. In other words, you have the right to sell yourself to whoever you like in-order to earn an income in the form of money or you die. The people you seek employment from compete against each other for lowest wages in-order to increase their passive income. Employer and employee interests clash; its in the interest of the employer to pay as little as he can to increase his passive income and it is in the interest of the employee to earn as much as he can. When the employer fails to give the employee the benefits he likes; the employee is forced to sell himself elsewhere. The employer always wins, because he creates the rules that the employee conform to. When a company goes bankrupt who takes the bigger hit and ends up in poverty, is it the employer or employee?

What is the coercion? Simple, you have to sell your labour or else you will starve (most of humanity) and die just like the ancient slaves did. Ancient salve their form of payment was food to keep them alive and working, while modern salves their form of payment is money to keep them alive and working productive capital (owned by a few) and consume products to create money for the same few.

All in all, the term wage-slavery means anyone who is a worker, which is a person that earns their living by selling their labour (mental, physical, sexual), have to accept some wage to survive or else they will starve.

 

You create, then they sell you what you create and pay you with what you create. nice cycle

Working (to sell youself to other in-order to live) itself is slavery and involuntary because if you do not work you will starve.

 

This is true.

I'm not pleased with the way our American capitalistic works necessarily, nor do I like to see huge corporate entities basically control politics. The further separation of the rich and poor is basically eliminating the middle class, but tyranny is not the word I would use to describe it. In no way do most of us suffer as did those under Stahlin's state, or suffer as do millions of others in third world dictatorships or those under military rule.

I did have the choice of what trade to become efficient in and have had the choice of who I worked for and where I worked. I had the choice to buy land and cultivate it and raise and hunt food there. Trying to be self-sufficient and live without selling myself for wages has been my main goal in life and I'll tell you one thing, if I don't work I'll starve no matter what the situation is.

 

And Point, Point why do I have to keep reminding you of that either/or mentality of yours?

Why does it have to be either the US or North Korea?

Either a ‘rich’, ‘free’ country or one that is a dictatorship?

**

As we have discussed before AND YOU HAVE AGREED, Stalin’s Russia and Kim’s North Korea are not examples of communism nor even of socialism. They are examples, first and foremost, of dictatorial regimes that favoured an elite.

YOU HAVE ALSO AGREED that being capitalist is not a guarantee of being rich and free there are many countries that have been poor and un-free that claimed to be capitalist, but were just examples, first and foremost, of dictatorial regimes that favoured an elite.

But as you know there have been many left wing, socialist or even communist type governments elected into power. But as we have discussed before and YOU HAVE AGREED one of the problems was that these often clashed with the perceived interests of the US and came under attack by US governments. Sometime diplomatically other times more directly. Those that were overthrown with US assistance, often had regimes installed that were right wing, anti-left and claimed to be capitalist but were in fact just dictatorships that served an elite and US interests.

To me tyranny is tyranny even if it claims to be right wing or left wing.

Would I have liked to live in the Shah’s Iran, Pinochett’s Chile, Stalin’s Russia or today in Kim’s North Korea? Hell no, as someone that believes in freedom and democracy and as a socialist and green I don’t think I would like have liked it at all, even if I had stayed alive long enough to have had an opinion. I’d choose the US over any of them.

But given the choice I’d choose a lot of different places before the US.

It is not a matter of either/or but of degrees of preference.

 

“there's something very lame about people in rich, free countries pretending that they suffer the same oppression as people in places like Stalin's Russia”

I agree.

But just remember that the freedoms and riches that we share in many western countries were hard fought for and many of them involved in some way the curtailment of capitalistic exploitation.

Labour laws, health and safety, wealth distribution, social and welfare programmes etc, etc, etc…

The problem is that some argue that such protections against capitals excesses should be removed or never brought in as they reduce global capitalistic ‘competitiveness’.

Basically they wish to reduce our freedoms and the common wealth, in favour of an elite.

And if you think that such capitalists have the best interests of ‘the people’ at heart remember that these people fought against these freedoms and were happy to work with regimes that were dictatorial and had appalling human rights records.

The question is at what point do you start fighting back?

 

Just because some employer creates a contract doesn't mean that I'm compelled to sign it. They can draw up any contract they want, but if it's not what I determine to be a fair wage, I'll take my services elsewhere. I could even take up hunting and fishing, and learn about log cabin construction so that I could live off the land in some remote wilderness. Again, that's my choice. Just because I don't have a proper job doesn't mean I'll end up homeless.

Not if they want to hire and retain quality employees, which is important for running a successful business. It's not in a company's best self-interest to have employees with a low morale.

The employee is out his wages until he finds another job. The employer, especially if he owns the business, is out not only his wages, but all of the capital he invested in the business to start it. That's a vastly bigger risk than your average employee faces

Again, it's nice rhetoric to someone who resents his employer (for whatever reason) and doesn't especially like his job. But the fact remains that no one is forced to sell one's labor either at all, or to any employer he feels isn't paying him a "fair wage".

 

gunison

So you argument is that nobody has to work for a living if they don’t want to, because they could all take up hunting and fishing, and learn about log cabin construction so that they could live off the land in some remote wilderness?

I don’t know if to laugh or cry.

This is just a US myth of a bygone frontier time that was gone almost as soon as it started.

This isn’t a serious argument it is a survivalist fantasy.

 

No, my argument is that characterizing workers as slaves (or oppressed or as pawns in a tryanny) is not accurate. I'm not romanticizing frontier life (in fact, I never mentioned it to begin with). Living off the land is merely possible. This is playing no more prominent role in my position than that.

Then maybe you should see a psychiatrist.

 

You don't decide anything, you just accept whatever available contracts exist in the market. The so called free-market determines your wage not you because you and your fellow workers are constantly underbidding each other to be employed. Your only freedom is to accept, which oppressor and exploiter you would like to work for in-order to live.

Screw morale, obedient, passive, and unthinking workers make greater workers. You think corporations are running to China because Chinese workers have great high morale?

The whole point is not to retain workers, you have to keep them in a constant struggle and desperation because they will be willing to work for less when desperate and the profit-makers can increase thier passive income.

But, why should the employees suffer because of the mismanagement of the employer? Simply because the employees are no different than slaves, just like the slaves lived under the authority of thier owners and depended on them for survival (employment); the employees thier survival depends on thier employers.

So people, who work at McDonald's love thier jobs and work thier out of thier own freewill? You either sell your labour or own productive capital (land, company) to sustain yourself or starve. Is there a fourth option?

 

Why don't you go down to Alabama and tell people that you can understand what their granparents went through, because you work at Starbucks and its, like, total slavery dude!

That is the standad line, but the reality (which you may or may not consider relevant) is that wages rise. They rose in the US and they are rising in China. They are being exploited upwards?

 

Since when does the labor market exist separately and distinctly from me, the supplier of my labor? You can't acknowledge that 'contracts exist in the market' and then try to think away either the supply side (in this case, me and the labor I'm selling to prospective employers), or the demand side merely to suit your argument. Here again, if the wages are "too low", I don't accept the offer of employment. So, how again am I not determining my wages?

So what? Employers don't want to pay any more in labor costs than they "have to" in much the same way you don't want to pay more for gasoline. And now they found people who are willing to work for a lower wage. So how is that slavery, exploitation or oppression? Moreoever, the unemployment rate in this country is still pretty low AND real wages are going up. Even though some jobs are going off-shore, people in this country are still finding well paying jobs. If the employee's desire for higher wages doesn't figure into the labor market, then how come wages in this country are increasing, rather than decreasing?

But for the fact that the employee can chose for himself (rather than have his labor sold by someone else) where he goes to work next. Anyway, who goes to work for a company that he believes will most certainly fail? I have the opportunity to avoid doing such a thing, while a slave surely does not.