Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   NYC fast food workers demand their companies charge $4 for a cheeseburger   (usatoday.com) divider line 297
    More: Asinine, unfair labor practice, fast food  
•       •       •

2980 clicks; posted to Business » on 30 Jul 2013 at 12:46 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



297 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-30 10:49:28 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Is that how you conduct yourself? If you're unhappy with you pay, you just shrug your shoulders and quit rather than asking for a raise?


When you want a raise, do you gather all of your co-workers together and not show up for work, or do you go and ask for a raise?

FarkedOver: Not necessarily.


Yes necessarily.  Nobody is forced to show up for work except for members of the military.

FarkedOver: Your employees don't want to work, they HAVE to work, union or non-union


Nobody is forced to work.  Even if you throw out social safety nets from the equation.  You can live your whole life on the charity of others if you wish.  You could go out nowhere Alaska and live off the land and nobody will bother you.
 
2013-07-30 10:51:47 AM  

Saiga410: Labor is not a commodity but a labor power is an owned commodity and sold by the worker to survive....


Agreed, labor power is a commodity and not capital owned by the laborer.

Saiga410: A slave may or may not be a capitalist... I do not see how that enters into this.  The point of contention is that a slave is an owned unit by another body while a person that contracts out their labor to another person is wholy owned by themselves.

Labor and capital is one in the same.  Money is work and work is money.  Money is just a placeholder for a unit of work in our society.


This statement here is so farked up, I just don't even know.....
 
2013-07-30 10:52:18 AM  

FarkedOver: MugzyBrown: Workers can refuse to work whenever they want; they can also be fired for not showing up to work

Not necessarily. If workers are striking it is usually for a damn good reason. Case in point, unions (in the US) rarely resort to strikes these days compared to the past and compared to the present US labor trend.


I do not understand your case in point.  They rarely go in stike but when they do it is for a damn good reason....because?  workers are in a good positions and happy.
 
2013-07-30 10:52:30 AM  

MugzyBrown: I am fine if workers unionize, but a private company shouldn't be forced to negotiate with that union, just like you're not forced by law to work with one single supplier.

Make unionized labor compete on a level playing field with non-unionized labor; give the employer a reason to hire a unionized employee over a non-unionized employee other than intimidation (legal and illegal).


The problem is there is no competition in the labor market. Employers use intimidation and coercion to keep wages low in non-unionezed shops. This happens due to the nature of humans having basic needs to stay alive, versus a business which has no basic needs to live. The barganing table will always slant in the direction of capital without.

MugzyBrown: And smart businessmen do. But you cannot pay labor more than they value they bring to the company, or you'll no longer be a business person.


Obviously this is not the case. Look at Walmart vs. Costco. Costco is more profitable on higher valued labor than Walmart is with lower valued labor. This comes down to Northern vs Southern styles of business.

With a consumer economy like what we have, we need consumers. If you undervalue your labor you shrink the pool of consumers, which creates the tailspin stall that our economy is in. The gas tank is full and the fuel pump is refusing to pump fuel to the engine because of an irrational desire to keep gas in the tank.
 
2013-07-30 10:53:21 AM  

MugzyBrown: Yes necessarily. Nobody is forced to show up for work except for members of the military.


In order to live the laborer must submit to the authority of the capitalist.  They are forced in the sense that they must show up in order to continue basic survival by selling their labor.
 
2013-07-30 10:55:41 AM  

Saiga410: I do not understand your case in point. They rarely go in stike but when they do it is for a damn good reason....because? workers are in a good positions and happy.


They go on strike because they have been working without a contract for x amount of years, because of unsafe working conditions, because of any host of grievances.  The fact that more strikes do not occur is because major unions and management have a cooperative mentality, when in fact the owner and the employer have nothing in common.  Unions need major overhauls and unions need to be much more militant to keep the capitalists in check.
 
2013-07-30 11:01:20 AM  

FarkedOver: Saiga410: A slave may or may not be a capitalist... I do not see how that enters into this. The point of contention is that a slave is an owned unit by another body while a person that contracts out their labor to another person is wholy owned by themselves.

Labor and capital is one in the same. Money is work and work is money. Money is just a placeholder for a unit of work in our society.

This statement here is so farked up, I just don't even know.....


Which part are you getting lost in my statement.  The definition of slave vs freeman or money being a unit of tradable work?
 
2013-07-30 11:01:21 AM  

cybrwzrd: The problem is there is no competition in the labor market. Employers use intimidation and coercion to keep wages low in non-unionezed shops. This happens due to the nature of humans having basic needs to stay alive, versus a business which has no basic needs to live. The barganing table will always slant in the direction of capital without some form of intervention.

/ftfm

 
2013-07-30 11:03:39 AM  

Saiga410: Which part are you getting lost in my statement. The definition of slave vs freeman or money being a unit of tradable work?


A slave may or may not be a capitalist.... that's just warped.

As to labor and capital being one in the same, that statement is just false in so many different ways.  It is possible for labor to exist without the capitalist.  It has been done before.  It is not possible for the capitalist to exist without labor.
 
2013-07-30 11:06:09 AM  

cybrwzrd: Obviously this is not the case. Look at Walmart vs. Costco. Costco is more profitable on higher valued labor than Walmart is with lower valued labor.

 There are many factors that make this point moot.  First, Costco still isn't paying their labor more than the value they bring to the company.   Second, Costco and Walmart have different customer bases.  Poor people are dependent on the cheap goods and food found at Walmart and cannot afford to shop at Costco (are there any Costcos in poor neighborhoods?)  It's weird I search for Costco around me and they are all in the suburbs, but Walmarts can be found in some rough neighborhoods in North Philly.
Costco receives 3xs more revenue per employee than Walmart.  Not because they pay them more, but because they have different customer bases and are located in different markets.

cybrwzrd: The problem is there is no competition in the labor market.


There is plenty of competition in the labor market.  It depends which labor market you're in.   Much like any business.
 
2013-07-30 11:08:12 AM  

scottydoesntknow: What's goin on in this thr-

[narwhaler.com image 320x240]


Got to that post, closed the tab, came back to grab that gif.  I'm not even going to change the file name.

/I'm out.
 
2013-07-30 11:12:23 AM  
4 bucks is pretty cheap for a cheeseburger.
 
2013-07-30 11:17:22 AM  

FarkedOver: Saiga410: Which part are you getting lost in my statement. The definition of slave vs freeman or money being a unit of tradable work?

A slave may or may not be a capitalist.... that's just warped.

As to labor and capital being one in the same, that statement is just false in so many different ways.  It is possible for labor to exist without the capitalist.  It has been done before.  It is not possible for the capitalist to exist without labor.


may or may not be a capitalist is my way of just saying i am not even going to entertain your line of thinking on trying to convince a slave that he is a capitalist because it does not enter into the situation because there are no more slaves and we are freemen.

OK labor came first, then we figured that an easy way to trade people for goods or services (work) was to institute some form of unit (money) that we all agree on what is worth what.  Labor may be able to exist without capital but without capital it is hard to transform the labor into a tradable commodity.
 
2013-07-30 11:19:29 AM  

Saiga410: Labor may be able to exist without capital but without capital it is hard to transform the labor into a tradable commodity.


Whut?
 
2013-07-30 11:22:55 AM  

MugzyBrown: HotWingConspiracy: Is that how you conduct yourself? If you're unhappy with you pay, you just shrug your shoulders and quit rather than asking for a raise?

When you want a raise, do you gather all of your co-workers together and not show up for work, or do you go and ask for a raise?


Depends on many variables. If I determined collective bargaining was worthwhile or I was dealing with hostile management, I would look in to unionizing and striking. As is my right.
 
2013-07-30 11:26:16 AM  

Saiga410: OK labor came first, then we figured that an easy way to trade people for goods or services (work) was to institute some form of unit (money) that we all agree on what is worth what. Labor may be able to exist without capital but without capital it is hard to transform the labor into a tradable commodity.


Which is why laborers should seize the capital (means of production) from the capitalist.  The capitalists only function is to make money from money by exploiting labor.  They are an unnecessary middle man that leeches off the labor of an entire class.  For the worker to shrug off the capitalist means for the worker to be free from oppression.
 
2013-07-30 11:26:36 AM  

doglover: Saiga410: Labor may be able to exist without capital but without capital it is hard to transform the labor into a tradable commodity.

Whut?


This stems from a statement that I made that work is money and money is work.  How do you suggest we trade work/labor.for another form of work/labor?
 
2013-07-30 11:26:45 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Depends on many variables. If I determined collective bargaining was worthwhile or I was dealing with hostile management, I would look in to unionizing and striking. As is my right.


Yep we have all kinds of rights.  You can sit and shrug your shoulders, you can ask for a raise, you can find another job, or you can demand a raise and refuse to work until you get one.

And as the owner of business, you can pay employees what you want and if they refuse to work hire a new employee
 
2013-07-30 11:30:18 AM  

MugzyBrown: HotWingConspiracy: Depends on many variables. If I determined collective bargaining was worthwhile or I was dealing with hostile management, I would look in to unionizing and striking. As is my right.

Yep we have all kinds of rights.  You can sit and shrug your shoulders, you can ask for a raise, you can find another job, or you can demand a raise and refuse to work until you get one.

And as the owner of business, you can pay employees what you want and if they refuse to work hire a new employee


Well you also have to deal with unionizing if you continue to shiat on people. You live in a fantasy world where employers get to run roughshod over society because...well nobody farking knows why, a bunch of greedy sycophants just decided that's the world they want to live in.

You may get your wish one day, but the pendulum is due to swing away from you soon. How long do you really think this can go on?
 
2013-07-30 11:31:14 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: You may get your wish one day, but the pendulum is due to swing away from you soon. How long do you really think this can go on?


In a consumer/service based economy..... shiat will have to hit the fan sooner rather than later.  I'd hate to be a capitalist in the coming years.
 
2013-07-30 11:32:52 AM  

FarkedOver: Saiga410: OK labor came first, then we figured that an easy way to trade people for goods or services (work) was to institute some form of unit (money) that we all agree on what is worth what. Labor may be able to exist without capital but without capital it is hard to transform the labor into a tradable commodity.

Which is why laborers should seize the capital (means of production) from the capitalist.  The capitalists only function is to make money from money by exploiting labor.  They are an unnecessary middle man that leeches off the labor of an entire class.  For the worker to shrug off the capitalist means for the worker to be free from oppression.


Capitalist function to make money by using money to produce work to which they sell the final product to another.  The difference in bottom line input vs output for the production is the capitalists intellectual labor input.
 
2013-07-30 11:34:36 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Great Janitor: HotWingConspiracy: Great Janitor: Want a job paying $15/hour? Apply for jobs paying $15/hour. Getting hired at McDonald's, getting told "We're going to pay you $7.25/hour." and you say "Okay." does not allow you to biatch and moan that you're not making enough money.

Man, you really hate free speech.

I'm not against free speech, I'm against people doing something of their own free will and then biatching about the results.

Oh so you just hate when they speak.

 If you want a $15/hour paying job, why are you applying at McDonalds?  That's my entire point.  No one put a gun to these people's head and said "You will flip burgers for a living."  If they were promised $15/hour when they applied and the company on day one said "I know we promised you $15/hour, but we aren't going to pay you that, instead, here's minimum wage."  then I can see their complaint.  But that's not the issue.

Is that how you conduct yourself? If you're unhappy with you pay, you just shrug your shoulders and quit rather than asking for a raise?


Well, the first thing I do is not take a job that I can't afford.  If your monthly expenses are more than $1,500, you can't afford to work at McDonalds.  Secondly, yeah, if I am unhappy with my pay and another employer is willing to pay me more, why not quit and take the new job?  What honestly makes this group so important that they can stand outside for one day to protest their poor wages while demanding a 100% pay raise and expect to have a job the following day?

My first job out of high school was a minimum wage job in a retail store.  One day I got into an argument with my manager about something stupid because I thought I was right and he was wrong.  Even other employees came out and said that I was right.  Since this happened on the sales floor in front of the customers I was pulled into the manager's office.  I was chewed out for saying that he was wrong and for saying that the was only a manager because his sister was blowing some dude in the corporate office and that in any other company he'd be scrubbing toilets, and chewed out for saying all that in front of the staff and customers.  He said that I was a good worker but needed an attitude adjustment or he'd fire me. I smiled and said "This is a minimum wage shiat job, you could fire me, but who'd be dumb enough to take this job?"  He picked up a stack of job applications and said "Anyone of these people could do your job and not give me the attitude you give me."  Lesson is that no matter how crappy the job is and how poor it pays, there's a stack of applications of people willing to take the first opening available, and with these non-unionized protesters protesting for a 100% pay raise and the ability to unionize, those managers could very well be calling those applications and scheduling interviews.
 
2013-07-30 11:35:35 AM  

Saiga410: doglover: Saiga410: Labor may be able to exist without capital but without capital it is hard to transform the labor into a tradable commodity.

Whut?

This stems from a statement that I made that work is money and money is work.  How do you suggest we trade work/labor.for another form of work/labor?


You're using the word capital when you mean currency.

Capital refers to the non-financial resources used in the production of consumer goods.

Hence capitalists are the wealthy people who own the land, factories, and such.

Words mean things.
 
2013-07-30 11:35:53 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Well you also have to deal with unionizing if you continue to shiat on people. You live in a fantasy world where employers get to run roughshod over society because...well nobody farking knows why, a bunch of greedy sycophants just decided that's the world they want to live in.


I've already said I have no problem with unions.  I only have a problem with their artificial protections under the law and their illegal behavior to intimidate their competition.
 
2013-07-30 11:36:44 AM  

MBK: How about not paying their CEOs millions of dollars to...

What exactly DO CEOs do?

I mean for a company like McDonalds.  You are pretty much one of the most recognizable symbols in the world.  Your food is sold all over the place.  You introduce a new burger every year.

What the fark does a CEO do that requires millions of dollars?


It's a separate entity than the one that runs the actual stores.  The stores are franchises.
 
2013-07-30 11:36:54 AM  

Saiga410: Capitalist function to make money by using money to produce work to which they sell the final product to another. The difference in bottom line input vs output for the production is the capitalists intellectual labor input.


The capitalist does not produce work out of some benevolent debt they think they owe society.  The own the capital to produce a good or service and must hire laborers to make a good or service.  They do so for the sole purpose of profit.  They do so at the expense of the entire working class.  The intellectual input deserves no compensation and zero recognition as it is exploitative to the worker.
 
2013-07-30 11:37:27 AM  

doglover: Words mean things.


cap·i·tal
wealth in the form of money or other assets owned by a person or organization or available or contributed for a particular purpose such as starting a company or investing.


Yes they do
 
2013-07-30 11:37:42 AM  

MugzyBrown: HotWingConspiracy: Well you also have to deal with unionizing if you continue to shiat on people. You live in a fantasy world where employers get to run roughshod over society because...well nobody farking knows why, a bunch of greedy sycophants just decided that's the world they want to live in.

I've already said I have no problem with unions.  I only have a problem with their artificial protections under the law and their illegal behavior to intimidate their competition.


Do you feel similarly about corporations? Because it's the same goddamn thing.
 
2013-07-30 11:37:49 AM  

Saiga410: The difference in bottom line input vs output for the production is the capitalists intellectual labor input.


And you think that's anywhere close to what we have now?
For small businesses, maybe, but that's not what is ruining the economy. That would be large corporations beholden to shareholders who do no work and bear no responsibility but feel themselves entitled to ever increasing returns.
 
2013-07-30 11:38:36 AM  
Great Janitor
Well, the first thing I do is not take a job that I can't afford. If your monthly expenses are more than $1,500, you can't afford to work at McDonalds. Secondly, yeah, if I am unhappy with my pay and another employer is willing to pay me more, why not quit and take the new job? What honestly makes this group so important that they can stand outside for one day to protest their poor wages while demanding a 100% pay raise and expect to have a job the following day?

How many times must it be pointed out that low paying jobs are the largest percentage of jobs being added in this "recovery"?
 
2013-07-30 11:38:44 AM  

Great Janitor: HotWingConspiracy: Great Janitor: HotWingConspiracy: Great Janitor: Want a job paying $15/hour? Apply for jobs paying $15/hour. Getting hired at McDonald's, getting told "We're going to pay you $7.25/hour." and you say "Okay." does not allow you to biatch and moan that you're not making enough money.

Man, you really hate free speech.

I'm not against free speech, I'm against people doing something of their own free will and then biatching about the results.

Oh so you just hate when they speak.

 If you want a $15/hour paying job, why are you applying at McDonalds?  That's my entire point.  No one put a gun to these people's head and said "You will flip burgers for a living."  If they were promised $15/hour when they applied and the company on day one said "I know we promised you $15/hour, but we aren't going to pay you that, instead, here's minimum wage."  then I can see their complaint.  But that's not the issue.

Is that how you conduct yourself? If you're unhappy with you pay, you just shrug your shoulders and quit rather than asking for a raise?

Well, the first thing I do is not take a job that I can't afford.  If your monthly expenses are more than $1,500, you can't afford to work at McDonalds.  Secondly, yeah, if I am unhappy with my pay and another employer is willing to pay me more, why not quit and take the new job?  What honestly makes this group so important that they can stand outside for one day to protest their poor wages while demanding a 100% pay raise and expect to have a job the following day?

My first job out of high school was a minimum wage job in a retail store.  One day I got into an argument with my manager about something stupid because I thought I was right and he was wrong.  Even other employees came out and said that I was right.  Since this happened on the sales floor in front of the customers I was pulled into the manager's office.  I was chewed out for saying that he was wrong and for saying that the was only a manager because his ...


Well yes, that's the gamble. It's also why unions fight for things like job security.
 
2013-07-30 11:41:50 AM  

FarkedOver: Saiga410: Capitalist function to make money by using money to produce work to which they sell the final product to another. The difference in bottom line input vs output for the production is the capitalists intellectual labor input.

The capitalist does not produce work out of some benevolent debt they think they owe society. The own the capital to produce a good or service and must hire laborers to make a good or service.  They do so for the sole purpose of profit.  They do so at the expense of the entire working class.  The intellectual input deserves no compensation and zero recognition as it is exploitative to the worker.


And workers united do?  No we all trade money and work for the betterment of ourselves.
 
2013-07-30 11:41:58 AM  
mynorthwest.com
Beep boop would you like fries with that, puny human?
 
2013-07-30 11:42:25 AM  

FarkedOver: The own the capital to produce a good or service and must hire laborers to make a good or service


yes

FarkedOver: hey do so for the sole purpose of profit.


yes

FarkedOver: They do so at the expense of the entire working class


No

FarkedOver: he intellectual input deserves no compensation and zero recognition as it is exploitative to the worker.


No

It is more than intellectual input as well.  It is monetary input, resource input, opportunity input, risk input.

Can the line workers at a McDonalds restaurant purchase the product necessary to make burgers at a profit?
Can they afford to build a restaurant?
Are they willing to lose anything they own due to a lawsuit or failure of the business?
Can they file taxes?
Can they negotiate a land lease?
Can they secure financing?
 
2013-07-30 11:43:22 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Do you feel similarly about corporations? Because it's the same goddamn thing.


Corporations are allowed to force another corporation to negotiate with them?

Corporations are allowed to physically threaten their competitors?
 
2013-07-30 11:44:17 AM  

Saiga410: And workers united do? No we all trade money and work for the betterment of ourselves.


When workers control the means of production and run a workplace, factory or what have you via democratic centralism, yes that is infinitely better than capitalism and infinitely more beneficial to society as a whole.
 
2013-07-30 11:44:38 AM  

FarkedOver: Saiga410: Capitalist function to make money by using money to produce work to which they sell the final product to another. The difference in bottom line input vs output for the production is the capitalists intellectual labor input.

The capitalist does not produce work out of some benevolent debt they think they owe society.  The own the capital to produce a good or service and must hire laborers to make a good or service.  They do so for the sole purpose of profit.  They do so at the expense of the entire working class.  The intellectual input deserves no compensation and zero recognition as it is exploitative to the worker.


From the way I see it, Capitalism is modern slavery.

The general goal for most corporations or companies (this isn't always true with everyone of them) is to find the cheapest way to make their goods and then sell it for the highest profit they can get away with.

When wages started to rise in America, corporations shifted production to places like China, where they had a huge surplus amount of workers and pay them pennies on the dollar.

China's middle class is starting to rise up and getting better wages and demanding higher wages now too. So a lot of business is being exported to other poor countries so they can take advantage of those people.

The same process will happen again until we come full circle... eventually Africa will be where all these corporations go for cheap slave labor...
 
2013-07-30 11:45:01 AM  
www.sauceforthoughts.dreamhosters.comWhirr stupid bossbot has been riding my servos all day. And now store wants $8 for a quart of motor oil? I can barely afford to keep my battery charged in the winter. Need to implement union configuration.
 
2013-07-30 11:45:21 AM  

MugzyBrown: HotWingConspiracy: Do you feel similarly about corporations? Because it's the same goddamn thing.

Corporations are allowed to force another corporation to negotiate with them?

Corporations are allowed to physically threaten their competitors?


Do you have a problem with corporation's artificial protections under the law and their illegal behavior to intimidate their competition or not?
 
2013-07-30 11:46:53 AM  

MugzyBrown: Corporations are allowed to force another corporation to negotiate with them?

Corporations are allowed to physically threaten their competitors?


I see you're not familiar with Wal-Mart's business practices.
 
2013-07-30 11:47:07 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Do you have a problem with corporation's artificial protections under the law and their illegal behavior to intimidate their competition or not?


Provide me an example, and I'll let you know.
 
2013-07-30 11:48:48 AM  
www.viceland.com
"The fast food of the future will not be made by teenagers or single moms.  It will be fried in machines or zapped in microwaves. In either case, most of the actual cooking will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your minimum wage job is clear: To build and maintain those robots."
 
2013-07-30 11:49:30 AM  

MugzyBrown: It is more than intellectual input as well. It is monetary input, resource input, opportunity input, risk input.

Can the line workers at a McDonalds restaurant purchase the product necessary to make burgers at a profit?
Can they afford to build a restaurant?
Are they willing to lose anything they own due to a lawsuit or failure of the business?
Can they file taxes?
Can they negotiate a land lease?
Can they secure financing?


The intellectual input, the capital investments DO NOT make products.  The perpetuate the capitalist becoming richer at the expense of the worker.

The capitalists REQUIRE labor.  The capitalist can buy all the goods necessary to create a product but thinking about it and throwing money at it isn't going to make the product come into being.  They exploit the laborer in order to create their product for them to sell.

Under worker control or under a dictatorship of the proletariat, removal of the profit motive (greed, which is not human nature) is key.  The replacement of the betterment of society is what should replace the profit motive.

The eventuality of a workers revolution is the abolishing of class, state and currency, all of which are used to oppress the working class.
 
2013-07-30 11:50:00 AM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Saiga410: The difference in bottom line input vs output for the production is the capitalists intellectual labor input.

And you think that's anywhere close to what we have now?
For small businesses, maybe, but that's not what is ruining the economy. That would be large corporations beholden to shareholders who do no work and bear no responsibility but feel themselves entitled to ever increasing returns.


At every level people are trading money/work.  Everyone leaves the table with what they agree upon.  If I can see an oportunity where I can come out with more money/work than I started with then I have used my intellect to multiply work.
 
2013-07-30 11:50:29 AM  

MugzyBrown: HotWingConspiracy: Do you have a problem with corporation's artificial protections under the law and their illegal behavior to intimidate their competition or not?

Provide me an example, and I'll let you know.


Nah, I see where you stand.
 
2013-07-30 11:50:29 AM  

FarkedOver: Saiga410: And workers united do? No we all trade money and work for the betterment of ourselves.

When workers control the means of production and run a workplace, factory or what have you via democratic centralism, yes that is infinitely better than capitalism and infinitely more beneficial to society as a whole.


Which is why it worked perfectly in the USSR, Eastern Europe, China, Cuba, North Korea, Nicaragua, etc etc. Marxist economic platforms thrive whenever they've been tried.
 
2013-07-30 11:51:33 AM  

KellyX: From the way I see it, Capitalism is modern slavery.

The general goal for most corporations or companies (this isn't always true with everyone of them) is to find the cheapest way to make their goods and then sell it for the highest profit they can get away with.


You are correct and you are reasoning along the same lines as Engels:

"...the price of labor is also equal to the cost of production of labor. But, the costs of production of labor consist of precisely the quantity of means of subsistence necessary to enable the worker to continue working, and to prevent the working class from dying out. The worker will therefore get no more for his labor than is necessary for this purpose; the price of labor, or the wage, will, in other words, be the lowest, the minimum, required for the maintenance of life."
 
2013-07-30 11:52:12 AM  

MugzyBrown: doglover: Words mean things.

cap·i·tal
wealth in the form of money or other assets owned by a person or organization or available or contributed for a particular purpose such as starting a company or investing.


Yes they do

In economics, capital goods, real capital, or capital assets are already-produced durable goods or any non-financial asset that is used in production of goods or services.


But it doesn't matter if you want to use your own words instead of accepted terms: barter systems work. It's been proven time and time again they do. Having currency is easier, but barter economies flourish even today. Money is used to lubricate the machine. It's not equivalent to work, it's just piece of paper we all agree has a value. When the economy gets farked up, the value of the paper is also lost and barter re-emerges. Look at what happened in post-war Germany or recently Zimbabwe.

So saying you need "capital" as you call it is an out and out false statement. It's just useful. There's no need to replace it and pure communism has some serious issues that have never been addressed because there's never been a pure communist government, but it's wrong to say we need money. We choose to use it for certain reasons.
 
2013-07-30 11:53:14 AM  

FarkedOver: MugzyBrown: It is more than intellectual input as well. It is monetary input, resource input, opportunity input, risk input.

Can the line workers at a McDonalds restaurant purchase the product necessary to make burgers at a profit?
Can they afford to build a restaurant?
Are they willing to lose anything they own due to a lawsuit or failure of the business?
Can they file taxes?
Can they negotiate a land lease?
Can they secure financing?

The intellectual input, the capital investments DO NOT make products.  The perpetuate the capitalist becoming richer at the expense of the worker.

The capitalists REQUIRE labor.  The capitalist can buy all the goods necessary to create a product but thinking about it and throwing money at it isn't going to make the product come into being.  They exploit the laborer in order to create their product for them to sell.

Under worker control or under a dictatorship of the proletariat, removal of the profit motive (greed, which is not human nature) is key.  The replacement of the betterment of society is what should replace the profit motive.

The eventuality of a workers revolution is the abolishing of class, state and currency, all of which are used to oppress the working class.


Honestly, it's like you are a character from an Upton Sinclair novel who came here in a time machine and haven't had a chance to read any 20th century history that refutes your laughably ridiculous Marxist fantasies. Very funny.
 
2013-07-30 11:54:31 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Which is why it worked perfectly in the USSR, Eastern Europe, China, Cuba, North Korea, Nicaragua, etc etc. Marxist economic platforms thrive whenever they've been tried.


The issue here is that socialist revolutions were attempted in nations that were not ready for such revolutions, as they had no bourgeois revolution prior.  They had no capitalist class with which to seize the capital from.

Had Germany, the UK, France or the US had socialist revolutions during the early part of the 1900s, we might all be comrades right now! Germany came the closest, I would say but the rise of fascism (which is a capitalist reaction to socialist movements) quelled that revolution.
 
Displayed 50 of 297 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report