Capitalism is a modern day Slavery

DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
edited January 2011 in Spurious Generalities
Capital is dead labor, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks.
Karl Marx

Capital is money, capital is commodities. By virtue of it being value, it has acquired the occult ability to add value to itself. It brings forth living offspring, or, at the least, lays golden eggs.
Karl Marx

I know a thread was made on Capitalism was made already but it was created by a troll who never returned. Based on his first post it's unlikely any real discussion will be started there. I'm making this one to discuss some other aspects of Capitalism not just in America but in most of the world. I hope we can get a serious discussion going on it. I will start this thread with comparing the capitalist system to slavery and feudalism and then I'll continue from there.

Capitalism as Slavery
Capitalism is no different than slavery. A well disguised slavery but still slavery. When the slave works he works sand at the end of the day all he receives is the food and shelter he is required to live all the surplus value for the rest of the labor goes into the hands of the slave owner.

In capitalism there is the minimum wage. The worker instead of being paid for the value of his labor is paid the minimum to own a home and survive and as you can see now a lot of people are barely making ends meet. Rather than pay the worker for his true labor value the surplus value goes into the hands of the business owner.

It's the same as feudalism how the serf would work for the bare essentials while the noble collected all of the surplus value of the serfs labor. In this way capitalism is similar in many respects to slavery and feudalism.

Also think about this. Is the capitalist business owner even necessary for the commodities production to continue? No he isn't. He doesn't do any of the actual work himself he just collects based on the fact that he owns the business or has wealth. In the end there isn't a logical reason for his existence.

Capitalism as a modern aristocracy
In America people talk about how this country fought for it's freedom against the King of England and the aristocracy to form a government of the people and by the people. Now I will show how all we did was trade one aristocracy for another and why Capitalism is to blame.

Politics is a perfect example of this. It isn't even a complex example at all just a simple question. Could any of you reading this right now have any chance at all in holding political office? I'm sure the answer to this is no. Why? Because most people on here are not wealthy. The dollar determines all political power. Just look at our last president. Bush and his father came from vast wealth from no real work of their own. Look at the Rockefeller's or the Kennedy's. Anyone born into those names is almost guaranteed a voice in the political arena. Virtually all of the wealthy business owners are granted a voice in politics. George Soros is another example of this. Special interest groups are an example of this.

American politics are controlled by the dollar and by the name you were born into. What does this sound familiar too? Feudalism and Monarchy's where the king and the noble had all the power and the people had none. George Bush and the Kennedy's did not work for what they have yet they have massive influence. That hardly sounds to me like a government by the people for the people.

What is to be done?
Now that I've laid out exactly what is wrong with our society I will talk about what needs to happen to correct this. The capitalist and the aristocrat needs to be cut out the equation entirely. I've already illustrated how they aren't necessary in the slightest because they do not contribute to the actual work involved. They only gain from the exploitation of others.

I agree with Lenin in the idea of a vangaurd party. Because of years of oppression and control the masses are disorganized and weakened. What's needed is a small group of determined revolutionary's intellectuals and workers to seize control. Once in control a centrally planned economy would start.

Some will say wait how does this differ from capitalism if the control is still in the hands of the few? THis is because now the people would be paid based on the true value of their labor. Instead of the surplus profits going into the hands of a business owner the profits would go be redisributed for the benefit of the collective good rather than the individual.

The Capitalist system is already beginning to fail and it is fact that it will destroy itself and Socialism will evolve. I will go into the science behind the historical inevitability of Communism later in this thread or maybe in a different thread entirely.

This was meant as a very very brief overview of the flaws of Capitalism so I know there are flaws here but it should be a good starting point and hopefully generate some good conversation.

Comments

  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited December 2010
    Shameless bump
  • Darth BeaverDarth Beaver Meine Ehre heißt Treue
    edited December 2010
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited December 2010
    ^^Such a great contribution:rolleyes:

    BTW Guests can now respond in this section. So reply.
  • edited December 2010
    BTW Guests can now respond in this section. So reply.

    You are wrong, but I do not have to defend myself because I am a guest.
  • Oink The PigOink The Pig Acolyte
    edited December 2010
    hey retard, just stopping by to tell you to go fuck yourself
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited December 2010
    hey retard, just stopping by to tell you to go fuck yourself

    So I guess an intelligent argument is to much to ask for?:rolleyes:
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited December 2010
    spazz wrote: »
    Moral of the story: Be successfully self employed

    The moral of the story is we need socialism and it's inevitable that it will come.
  • Darth BeaverDarth Beaver Meine Ehre heißt Treue
    edited December 2010
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited December 2010
    ^^Obama is a capitalist. He has always taken the side of the corperation such as goldman sachs and fannie mae as well as people like George Soros over the people every time. Obama is a progressive and a social Marxist which isn't the same thing as true Marxism. The fact that you would even compare Obama to Marx and Lenin just shows how stupid you really are.
  • Darth BeaverDarth Beaver Meine Ehre heißt Treue
    edited December 2010
    ^^Obama is a capitalist. He has always taken the side of the corperation such as goldman sachs and fannie mae as well as people like George Soros over the people every time. Obama is a progressive and a social Marxist which isn't the same thing as true Marxism. The fact that you would even compare Obama to Marx and Lenin just shows how stupid you really are.


    You calling Anyone stupid is like a candle calling the sun hot.
  • NegrophobeNegrophobe Regular
    edited December 2010
    You calling Anyone stupid is like a candle calling the sun hot.

    Come on, man. Refute his points if you want to make a stronger point of DirtySanchez being stupid. As a fascist I don't even agree with a lot of his ideas, Giovanni Gentile, the philosopher of fascism, admired Marx, although being opposed to the class struggle advocated by Marx. Here is an interesting read about that.

    Here's an interesting quote from Marx that I think you'll like in regards to what can be done, Sanchez. Mussolini himself took this idea, although Marx wasn't saying that war was good its own sake:
    Karl Marx, Sept 24, 1855: "The redeeming feature of war is that it puts a nation to the test. As exposure to the atmosphere reduces all mummies to instant dissolution, so war passes supreme judgment upon social systems that have outlived their vitality."
    Collected Works, vol. 14, p. 516

    What he means is war is instead good for its direct potential in paving the way for the overthrow of dated social systems, such as how World War I showed the flaws of Tsarist Russia's primitive and feudal capitalist system which enabled the Bolsheviks to overthrow it. Kind of like Lenin's idea of "worse is better."
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited December 2010
    World war 1 in general is a great example of war being a good thing as far as changing old systems. Old Europe was destroyed after that war. It was the end of Monarchy's across the board in a lot of Europe. It paved the way for the Bolsheviks for Hitler and for Mussolini. That war changed the world in a way not even WW2 could come close too. But I'm getting off subject. Speaking of this though I may write up a thread or text file on WW1 later.

    Thanks for the link on Gentile btw. I just finished the Doctrine of fascism a couple days ago. It was interesting read but I need to look a bit deeper into it before I can make a real analysis of it.

    I will add though that I do disagree with Marx on one very critical point. I do not believe that Socialism can lead to world wide communism. I'm with Stalin on the idea of building and crafting a socialist system in one country. It was another point I thought trotsky was retarded on with his whole "world wide revolution" idea.
  • NegrophobeNegrophobe Regular
    edited December 2010
    This explains why all the political experiments of our day are anti-liberal, and it is supremely ridiculous to endeavor on this account to put them outside the pale of history, as though history were a preserve set aside for liberalism and its adepts; as though liberalism were the last word in civilization beyond which no one can go.

    The Fascist negation of socialism, democracy, liberalism, should not, however, be interpreted as implying a desire to drive the world backwards to positions occupied prior to 1789, a year commonly referred to as that which opened the demo-liberal century. History does not travel backwards. The Fascist doctrine has not taken De Maistre as its prophet. Monarchical absolutism is of the past, and so is ecclesiolatry. Dead and done for are feudal privileges and the division of society into closed, uncommunicating castes. Neither has the Fascist conception of authority anything in common with that of a police ridden State.

    A party governing a nation “totalitarianly" is a new departure in history. There are no points of reference nor of comparison. From beneath the ruins of liberal, socialist, and democratic doctrines, Fascism extracts those elements which are still vital. It preserves what may be described as "the acquired facts" of history; it rejects all else. That is to say, it rejects the idea of a doctrine suited to all times and to all people. Granted that the XIXth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the " right ", a Fascist century. If the XIXth century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the "collective" century, and therefore the century of the State. It is quite logical for a new doctrine to make use of the still vital elements of other doctrines. No doctrine was ever born quite new and bright and unheard of. No doctrine can boast absolute originality. It is always connected, it only historically, with those which preceded it and those which will follow it. Thus the scientific socialism of Marx links up to the utopian socialism of the Fouriers, the Owens, the Saint-Simons ; thus the liberalism of the XIXth century traces its origin back to the illuministic movement of the XVIIIth, and the doctrines of democracy to those of the Encyclopaedists. All doctrines aim at directing the activities of men towards a given objective; but these activities in their turn react on the doctrine, modifying and adjusting it to new needs, or outstripping it. A doctrine must therefore be a vital act and not a verbal display. Hence the pragmatic strain in Fascism, it’s will to power, its will to live, its attitude toward violence, and its value.
    Here's a section from The doctrine of Fascism that is well worth remembering.
  • Darth BeaverDarth Beaver Meine Ehre heißt Treue
    edited December 2010
    Negrophobe wrote: »
    Come on, man. Refute his points if you want to make a stronger point of DirtySanchez being stupid. As a fascist I don't even agree with a lot of his ideas, Giovanni Gentile, the philosopher of fascism, admired Marx, although being opposed to the class struggle advocated by Marx. Here is an interesting read about that.

    Here's an interesting quote from Marx that I think you'll like in regards to what can be done, Sanchez. Mussolini himself took this idea, although Marx wasn't saying that war was good its own sake:

    Collected Works, vol. 14, p. 516

    What he means is war is instead good for its direct potential in paving the way for the overthrow of dated social systems, such as how World War I showed the flaws of Tsarist Russia's primitive and feudal capitalist system which enabled the Bolsheviks to overthrow it. Kind of like Lenin's idea of "worse is better."


    You can't reason with someone who is as stupid as this kid is. Like my Great Grandpa Schaeffer (who was a pig farmer from West Virgina) use to tell me, "Boy, never try to teach a pig to sing. Cuz' you will only wind up frustatin' yerself and annoyin' the hog."

    I could point to human nature (greed) and outline how that prevents socialism. I could point to motivation and the fact that socialism removes it. I could point to George Orwell's Animal Farm as a literary outline of the failures of marxist/socialist/communist methods. But to quote George Orwell;
    All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome.
    and
    Each generation imagines itself to be more intelligent than the one that went before it, and wiser than the one that comes after it.
    I could do all of this, but since DS is a total idiot it is more satisfying to just wind him up and watch him bump off the walls like the little cymbal monkey he is.

    So yeah, I could but why bother? Anyone with a true understanding of things can see the kid is just some confused little dis-empowered child with anger issues. Hell this is the same guy that 6 months ago was all about his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. One can only wonder what drum of moronic resonance he will be pound on come July. I for one can't wait to find out because lately his little Cymbal Monkey Theater has been more like...
    DirtySanchez and his one trick pony
    95021356.jpg
  • edited January 2011
    What I like about capitalism is that no matter what you do someone will always do it for cheaper and that person is always replaceable regardless of how high in society they are. Like a rifle or car everything is standard and you can always just go find another piece, in fact they'll come to you practically begging to be your slave or billionaire. Human life is worth basically nill in the mind of a true capitalist meaning things like say multiple covert wars (with night raids) and other human rights atrocities can be committed without this slightest concern from the people who give the orders. I agree with DirtySanchez in regards to Obama and aristocracy.

    Why I enjoy the standardization of human life is that in the thread with the really long scroll image links there was some statistic that every minute an american worker makes X amount of cash and while everyone else is making X/10. Then Americans whine about outsourcing even though the entire world is following their game (capitalism) just playing better, because they're better at being slaves then the americans are (they've got no practice it's not even fair really most of them dont even realize they're being enslaved). The nation that enslaves the world with multinational corporations and free trade has yet to realize that they are the ones being manipulated and controlled. Obama is playing into the hands of the corporations because he knows if he doesnt get at least the medicare industry to fund him he doesnt stand a chance against whatever prostitute the neo-conservative party is willing to dish out in '12. Obama might look like hes selling out (because he is) but its not half as bad as what the republicans would be doing right now. Serious :angry: /offtopicrant
  • MeloncholyMeloncholy Regular
    edited January 2011
    Leave aside for a second the few suckers that fall the Greater Good rhetoric and consider everyone else for a second. Under a socialist system a worker's only motivator is the stick. There is no incentive for them to work to improve their own lot (unless of course they are corrupt) as they will recieve according to their need regardless of how hard or diligently they work.

    What could be closer to "modern day slavery" than a system where people work not becuase they want to but becuase they will be punished if they don't?
  • fanglekaifanglekai Regular
    edited January 2011
    Meloncholy wrote: »
    Leave aside for a second the few suckers that fall the Greater Good rhetoric and consider everyone else for a second. Under a socialist system a worker's only motivator is the stick. There is no incentive for them to work to improve their own lot (unless of course they are corrupt) as they will recieve according to their need regardless of how hard or diligently they work.

    What could be closer to "modern day slavery" than a system where people work not becuase they want to but becuase they will be punished if they don't?
    You assume in capitalism it's not the same way. How many jobs pay an hourly wage or a salary? A lot. If you work as a UPS driver it doesn't matter how many houses you go to. You're going to get paid the same rate. If you fuck up, you'll get punished. If you work at McDonald's where's the incentive to work hard? You get minimum wage. Most places give raises after a certain amount of time. You might be the best motherfucking burger flipper out there, but you're still only making minimum wage at McDonald's.

    Sure, you can improve and try to make more money, but where's the incentive for the people in those jobs to work hard at what they are currently doing? Capitalism keeps people in low paying jobs. Not everyone gets to be a successful CEO or investment banker. Should their life be shit because of that? The reality is that all industrialized societies have a division of labor, which means people are needed to flip burgers, clean toilets, and do shit work. If everyone has to do something, why not pay them better to do shit work? Capitalism is based on the exploitation of the worker. Pay as little as possible to get maximum profits.
  • dr rockerdr rocker Regular
    edited January 2011
    I'm with Stalin on the idea of building and crafting a socialist system in one country.

    How will that work? With an isolationist economy? Where will you get your rare earth metals from then? Take over a country that has them and rather than have an empire, just make it part of your own country?

    The idea of 'building and crafting' to me seems a way of saying 'well, we will try this, and when it fails we will try something else, and when that fails...'.

    You need something hard and fast that can be put to work right away where all of the cogs in the machine turn as they have been designed too. The only things that comes close are feudalism, capitalism and pastoralism.

    Two of them worked quite well 900 - 1550. Good luck going back to the dark ages.

    Society can only progress when it creates a surplace. Any communist / socialist ideology does not provide the individual with the drive to create any more of a surplace than might see them through a winter.
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited January 2011
    The united states has plenty of natural resources. Even huge amounts of oil but we need to stop listening to the hippies and drill. You live in the UK so I'm not sure what your resources are like. As far as incentive goes Lenins economic policy allowed the private ownership of small businesses which I agree should be allowed to remain but the large and vital areas of the economy just can't be trusted by the private sector. For those company's Central planning is needed.
  • dr rockerdr rocker Regular
    edited January 2011
    fanglekai wrote: »
    Capitalism keeps people in low paying jobs. Not everyone gets to be a successful CEO or investment banker. Should their life be shit because of that? The reality is that all industrialized societies have a division of labor, which means people are needed to flip burgers, clean toilets, and do shit work.

    This argument leans to the argument all men are created equal in mind and body, and we both know that is bullshit. I know people who are happy sweeping a factory floor for a living - they do not want to be a CEO and do not have the mental capacity to do it.

    Not directed at you, but people need to get out and speak with some CEO's and MD's of medium to large sized companies. Then they will realise they are on a different planet in their ability to organise and progress.

    Think of it as a place for everyone and everyone finding their place.

    Capitalism, although it places restraints on people does not restrain people from advancement. Every single person I know who wants to be successful is successful.
  • fanglekaifanglekai Regular
    edited January 2011
    The united states has plenty of natural resources. Even huge amounts of oil but we need to stop listening to the hippies and drill. You live in the UK so I'm not sure what your resources are like. As far as incentive goes Lenins economic policy allowed the private ownership of small businesses which I agree should be allowed to remain but the large and vital areas of the economy just can't be trusted by the private sector. For those company's Central planning is needed.
    And then what happens when it's all gone?
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited January 2011
    fanglekai wrote: »
    And then what happens when it's all gone?

    Limited trade with the outside world or find and implement a renewable source of energy. I'm not saying we should be like North Korea and completely Isolate ourselves to the point where everyones starving but a version of Juche that still allows trade when needed would be good imo.
  • fanglekaifanglekai Regular
    edited January 2011
    Limited trade with the outside world or find and implement a renewable source of energy. I'm not saying we should be like North Korea and completely Isolate ourselves to the point where everyones starving but a version of Juche that still allows trade when needed would be good imo.
    Or we could just do renewable energy now and save the oil for later.
  • dr rockerdr rocker Regular
    edited January 2011
    The united states has plenty of natural resources. Even huge amounts of oil but we need to stop listening to the hippies and drill. You live in the UK so I'm not sure what your resources are like. As far as incentive goes Lenins economic policy allowed the private ownership of small businesses which I agree should be allowed to remain but the large and vital areas of the economy just can't be trusted by the private sector. For those company's Central planning is needed.

    We have maybe 15 years of oil left and 25 years of gas left in the North Sea. We have 200-300 years worth of coal left under our feet.

    Yes, the USA does have oil reserves - flaky, badly polluting ones at that (compared to the oil reserves of others). Canada has some decent oil but a lot is locked in sand / shale - I think there is some in Alaska like that too. The global rise in oil prices has meant that it is economically viable to extract those at the present time. I am surprised no one has brought up the link with middle eastern conflict, the rise of glabal oil prices and that being a driver for oil extraction from oil sands and shale.

    Sinking in yet? The war was not about stealing the oil of others, it was about pushing up the price to make the USA's reserves viable to econimically extract.

    While Lenin may have 'allowed' the ownership of small businesses, in a state controlled economy, the vast majority of workers will be employed by the state. Let us compare this to Cuba or China ten years ago. They allowed small private businesses - bycicle repair shops and barbers / hairdressers.

    All of the barbers and hairdressers and bicycle repairmen I know work all of the hours they can - they are not industries you are going to create a legacy for your offspring from.

    Now, tell me, is the labour of a street sweeper worth as much as a teacher or a doctor or a chartered engineer?

    They are wide examples, but why should man aspire to progression when he will have the same rewards?

    Man would much rather be rewarded for the skills he has and use his spare time to be alturistic.
  • dr rockerdr rocker Regular
    edited January 2011
    Limited trade with the outside world or find and implement a renewable source of energy. I'm not saying we should be like North Korea and completely Isolate ourselves to the point where everyones starving but a version of Juche that still allows trade when needed would be good imo.

    You cannot just impletment renewable energy. Decades of research (private research BTW in persuit of profit) has gone into it and we are not far from where we started.

    To progress in such a way, we need surplace or the promise of a huge payback. Socialism has never delivered a surplace for more than two years - it is childhood economics - the reason the masses have subscribed to it in the past is because it is put to them on a level they can understand.

    Forrest Gump said stupid is as stupid does - when you have a captive population of stupid, or uneducated, feed them the same and they will eat. They will feast.

    Think of it like this - you have been eating X brand of bread all of your life, and then I tell you (rightly so) that it contains turds. You will not believe me.

    It is true however that humans are have two base desires advancement (which is often misinterpreted as greed or power seeking) and lazyness.

    The conflict that exists between the two was around before us and shall be around after us.
  • NegrophobeNegrophobe Regular
    edited January 2011
    My axe to grind with Capitalism: It's not meritocratic. You can work as hard as you can and still get nowhere, through no fault of your own. It also displaces racial integrity and loyalty, and causes a lot of unnecessary war and conflict, but HEY! atleast the free market areas have the most economic activity! Atleast something is happening! :rolleyes:. I'm no Marxist(-leninist), but I've more sympathy for it than capitalism.
Sign In or Register to comment.