[QUOTE="doubutsuteki"][QUOTE="carpon"][QUOTE="doubutsuteki"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="doubutsuteki"] I refuse to limit myself to such a perspective.
I would gladly take responsibility for myself. Unfortunately I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth and learnt pretty quickly that there's really no way to make it all by yourself. I live, basically, as long as I can find work, and school and everything up until the day I had my first job was all about preparing me for a life as a worker. I will take welfare rather than starving and being thrown out on the street or having to borrow money from friends, relatives, etc.
I'm not asking other workers give me their wages to pay for my expenses. I encourage them to take more from the capitalists - there's no reason I would hinder them because the capitalists are the ones feeding off of their surplus labour.
carpon
It's not the wealthy that are hurting under the tax structure...it's the middle/working class. Why should I get up every day and go into work just to support generations of lazy individuals that have never held a job and don't intend to do so.
As for you jealousy over the rich....still doesn't give others the right to live off of them.
You are asking for the workers to pay your expenses. I take it you don't know how the system works because if you think you're taking from the wealthy you are mistaken,.
Your rant isn't based on fact but hate for the wealthy and as such merits no more consideration.
What part of my post didn't you understand? I am against taxes on labour, and for taxes on profits. I am not asking for any worker to pay for me, I am encouraging workers to make the capitalists pay. The capitalists are the ones who steal from the workers.
Why go up and work? Have you got any other way to support yourself? In that case that's fine with me as long as you don't live off of someone's elses work. What do you think happens if the government forces everyone to have a job? You will be looking forwards to wage dumping, forcing people out on the job market, selling their labour for a lower price than other workers, that's what happens. Maybe that's what you're interested in? Have you ever wondered why in no capitalist state there has never been and will never be full employment? Full employment is incompatible with a market economy. The capitalists always want a reserve work force to compete with the regular work force to push wages down.
You assume alot about people who are on welfare. Where are your facts?
Hatred for the "wealthy"? Depends on the person. Hatred for capitalism? You bet I have. That doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about.
Before I dive into my argument against this, I want to note this is nothing personal, and I do not expect you to agree with me. Everyone has their own opinions about things and how they should be done, and obviously people's experiences seperate them. I also want to note that I have been on Welfare in my life, and now enjoy an upper-middle class lifestyle, so I know both sides of the fence decently enough. Doesn't make me right, just helps give me some perspective.
Now to dive into it. First off, I want to pose you a question, and I think that it is critical to this argument. If you were exceedingly wealthy, would your position still be the same? More than likely it would be. It is not a critique on your character, but a simple fact that if you were a billionaire your opinion on this matter would be much different. See, this whole thing is a matter of perspective. A poor man below the poverty line and a billionaire certainly aren't going to agree. If you have become wealthy off of capitalism, I find it unlikely that you would dislike it. Humans are by nature selfish. It is just our natural instincts of self-preservation, so if you were rich you would not fault the system that you used to achieve that.
Now, the argument against this is that it is hard to become rich in a capitalist society and actually move yourself up out of poverty. This I heartily disagree with. In fact I would say that capitalism is one of the easiest societies to move up in...in theory. Of course in a modern economy things such as education make it much more unlikely that someone born poor is going to be the next Bill Gates, but with hard work, it is possible to remove yourself from that situation. Do people get screwed over by the system? Yes. But people get screwed over in every system, simple as that.
My next point is concerned with taxes. You say you are for taxes on profits and against taxes on labourers. That is already how things are, though perhaps not to the degree you wish. You do realize that the wealthy already pay a large majority of taxes, right? Should the wealthy be required to pay all of the taxes, no. Many wealthy people work very hard for their money, why should the government take it away. Again, simple human nature. Do you think a caveman who made the best tool, got the best mate was going to give it up. No. Does that mean every wealthy person works hard, of course not. Plenty of people simply get by on the hard work of their parents, grandparents, etc. But again, I bring this up, if you were wealthy, would you not pass your wealth on to your kids? I'm assuming that you would, so although I do agree that it is wrong they are wealthy with no work,someone did work hard for that wealth.
Finally, on to your support of communism or socialism. I love your quote of Karl Marx in your sig, it is very true.Socialism works very well...in theory. In practice, no it is not a very good working idea.The problem is that to make everyone equal economically, they have to all want to be equal economically and co-operate. Again, human instinct steps in, and it is natural that we want to be better than our neighbor. That is one of the primary reasons that communismhas failed (besides thepolitical opression associated with many of these regimes) because many people do not like to be forced to share what they believe they have earned with those who are not as skilled, not assmart, not as talented. It is survival of the fittest. Maybe it is wrong, but people do not want to share their abilities so that someone else is equal to them. People naturally want more. Moves for communism were drivenout of widespread poverty, and communism doessolve that. Everyone survives, everyone meets the status quo. The problem is people want more than the status quo. It is the problem with Karl Marx's theory in the modern era; why would someone only want the basics when so much more is now available?
You alsoquestion in another post being free in capitalism. That is true to adegree. You are not as freeeconomically as you want to be. But certainly not as constrained as you are in communism, and even socialism to a lesser degree. Even in these societies someone is always rich, because those in controlof the systemare corrupt. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely as they say. Someone will always get wealthy off the efforts of someone else, someone will always get screwed over. That is something that is simply human nature do to innate selfishness. Again, I want tonotenone of this is personal, and I don't expect you to agree with me. I just hope that maybe you might be able to see the counterpoint to your point more clearly.
I have not once believed that man isn't selfish. Actually, I voiced this very idea in the beginning of this thread - you must have missed it. It is in fact one of the reasons that I came to the conclusion that communism is the only real alternative - especially since it is the only alternative society that manifests itself in this one, there are elements of communism everywhere. And the actual movement for communism is in line with the overall struggle between the c.lasses. It is not idealistic, but has a concrete, material base for it's achievement. It doesn't matter what other alternative you propose, and it's either not really an alternative, just a few reforms within capitalism or a dream to return to a previous era in history. No matter what you propose it is just your opinion, and it will never change history. No fundamental change of things come through opinions.
Since you liked my Marx quote - how about this?
"History is not like some individual person, which uses men to achieve its ends. History is nothing but the actions of men in pursuit of their ends."
Just as workers aren't going to carry out your mission, whatever it may be - unless they are forced to, of course, I probably wouldn't be a communist if I was among the privilegied in the capitalist system. Not because I would think that communism sounds like a horrible society, but because my material reality would make me unwilling to take part in a revolution. I can't really say though, as I am far from upper class. Like the majority of the people in the world. And people are different. Not oh so different, but still. People are drawn to socialism for different reasons, mostly for economical reasons - and that's how it must be if it is going to be a successful movement at all - but it may even be for other reasons. Some are idealists and devote their life to a cause, for decency, and refuse to accept an upper class life, or and upper class outlook on life, such as idealist philosophy and bourgeois economics - which do not explain the world and society as they actually are, but as they have to be to justify the existence of a ruling c.lass.
That is all I'm going to say for now. I might continue my post later, but as I read further the post you have written to me, I was put off by what I mean is the popular misconception of socialism and communism - not surprising though, considering the total domination of stalinism and social democracy in the labour movement in the 20th century.
Until next time.
Hmm...well first of all dont' take what I said personally.I am not trying to insult your beliefs, simply state mine. The problem is that you have to bring Stalinism and the socialist movements of the 20th century into the discussion because they are the only examples of large-scale communism in history. Neither worked too well. Of course, that could be put down to the leaders or the times in which they occured or any other number of factors, I will agree. I have a lot of respect for Karl Marx and his beliefs. In an ideal world, his beliefs would be great. It would be great if everyone could be equal. The problem is that not everyone will accept being equal, and therefore everyone simply will never be completely be equal. Karl Marx was an idealist, whose ideals were twisted around into many very wrong causes. Communism, again in theory, could work. Yet for it to work everyone would have to accept it, and you would need a leader charismatic enough to implement it and preserve it without using force against his or her own people, because that would alienate people. Given the right, ideal conditions, communism could be great. Too bad those condistions haven't been met.
Maybe communism should replace capitalism, i don't really know, nor do I really care. Both systems have flaws. It is just a matter of opinion which one seems to have less flaws. The problem is that much of the world is more resistent to communism. Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Ill, and Stalin are hardly poster childs for Marx's very different theory, at least in my (and I get the feeling, your) opinion. If a person can come along who can convince people that communism is right, convince a majority of the world and implement it closer to Marx's original intentions, then maybe it would be for the best.
First off, communism has very little to do with equality. Marx himself opposed egalitarianism.
To say that socialism has failed because of "leaders" is an oversimplification if anything - I recommend that you read the book "The Revolution Betrayed" by L. Trotsky. It is only natural that I bring it into the discussion, since when you talk about socialism and communism you actually talk more about the stalinist regimes in the U.S.S.R., China, Cuba, etc.
Let me take just two examples of this:
"Convince a majority of the world" - A reformist, parliamentary approach to change. No marxist does this. Social democrats always go that way, stalinists tend to do the same thing when they are in a minority.
"Implement it closer to Marx's original intentions" - He never created an ideal that people should realize, he basically just said "you - the workers - can go forward and establish your own rule", he only intended to guide them to victory by telling them what they had the ability to do, and how they could go about it. Marxism is a theory for change, a guideline to action. Not an ideal or a religion that should be realized by brainwashing people.
Karl Marx's least prominent trait was belief, he researched - more so, and with greater attention to detail, than anyone else - and produced an understanding for history and economics and the society as a whole far surpassing what any bourgeois economist or historian has ever done. He was, perhaps, an idealist in the sense that he took great pride in his work. But he was anything but an idealist in the philosophical sense. Obviously, since he developed a material understanding of history - the opposite of an idealist understanding of history, such as the one you give an example of.
And I'm not offended, but rather bored.
Log in to comment