11-12-2015, 06:44 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-13-2015, 11:17 PM by FireIceTalon.)
There's nothing philosophical here that I am saying, though, and this isn't about debunking a 'worldview', but about you being able to demonstrate real world observations made in regarding how capitalism works to be incorrect or false (which so far, you have been unable to do). Perhaps if I was an Anarchist, there would be some philosophical or moral/ethical point behind all of this, and my views would be structured around such a premise. But I'm not an Anarchist. I am a 'Scientific Socialist' of the Marxist tradition, using the materialist conception of history (a very useful tool I must say) to make sense of the world and the sociological processes that encompass it, again, independent of any political or moral judgements. That said, I DO have my own set of values, and personal tenets that one might call "ethics or morality", but that is neither here nor there when talking about capitalist social relations - I will leave that to the Anarchists to critique capitalism from the slippery slope of an ethical or philosophical lens - I prefer to avoid that subjective rabbit hole. Capitalism has no morality or ethics, and objectively operates completely independent of subjective abstracts like morality or ethics - the only internal logic it has is the accumulation of more capital and larger profits, at the expense of everything else. Therefore, I prefer a more scientific, concrete approach to understand the workings of the system. Lastly, me calling you a reactionary isn't 'name calling', its just me stating an observation - that you hold views which are reactionary - just as me being a Marxist has the logical conclusion of me also being a communist. Not sure why that offends you, since many people in the world hold such views, whether they are right or wrong isn't the point here. Either way, people with right wing views I have noticed, do not like facts - especially those facts which don't jive with their worldview. That is all I was pointing out.
I haven't backed up my claims? I've already backed them up by providing two well known, understood features of capitalism (workers forced to sell their labor power to survive, and then, workers not paid the full value or even close to what they produce). Those aren't unsubstantiated claims or rhetoric my friend, but real-world conditions that make the system what it is, and the reality that workers (and capitalists) have to face each and every day. There is nothing unsubstantiated about them since they have been and can be materially observed, quite easily in fact. Two facts that you seem very keen on avoiding if not flat out denying, because they provide inconvenient evidence that is counter to your personal ideology, or how you think things work. Nobody wants to acknowledge that they hold views which are on the wrong side of history, since for many people personal values and ideology is more important than truth. But one day we all have to face the music somehow. To be a Marxist, is simply to be one who has already faced that music - and that music is that capitalism by its very nature is exploitative, oppressive, and extremely violent - and there is no reforming it, the only alternative is to destroy it.
Then, you have the gall to complain that my only solution is violence, when capitalism, which came into the world drenched in blood, fire and ash (and it still drenched in these things), is probably the most violent epoch of history that humanity has had to endure; responsible for more human suffering, death and misery than probably just about anything else one could think of. I'm sorry if that is too much for you to stomach. But please, spare me the whole 'holier than thou' high road of being anti-violent, when the very system you advocate for is violent in the most utterly ruthless and extreme of ways; doing so only makes you hypocritical at best.
And no, your little example isn't even relevant, let alone sufficient evidence to refute the fact that capitalism is coercive and exploitative. Why? Because your "small" profit is meaningless and insignificant when you are up against Starbucks and Krispy Kreme (who own more capital than you do, and thus do what you do but far better and more efficiently), you wouldn't last a day in the market, at least not in terms of survival. Making a few extra bucks on the side isn't the same thing as surviving (many workers have to work 2 or even 3 full-time jobs just to make ends meet, and its even worse for students saddled with debt). Workers aren't trying to make profits of any kind, they are trying to SURVIVE. Further, this doesn't even address the exploitative and antagonistic relationship of capitalist and worker (regardless of how much the worker is paid), nor is the point for socialists in making money. We want to abolish wage labor and the money system entirely, since those are things that are conducive only to capitalism.
You are good with twisting the facts around and parroting the same capitalist propaganda that buffoons like Friedman and Hayek spewed, that people accept(ed) as truth for their own enslavement - this much I will merit you with. Every capitalist and fascist dictator, from Thatcher to Pinochet, would love you. Pseudo irrational arguments?? LOL. You aren't even at square one yet in demonstrating how anything I've said thus far is irrational or "pseudo" in any way, and very clearly you are frustrated by this. Besides, I'm not the one arguing here, I am simply explaining why I am right since an "argument" would somehow indicate that everything I've said is possibly untrue, but thats not the case now is it?
But I'm done here for now. *Smooches*
I haven't backed up my claims? I've already backed them up by providing two well known, understood features of capitalism (workers forced to sell their labor power to survive, and then, workers not paid the full value or even close to what they produce). Those aren't unsubstantiated claims or rhetoric my friend, but real-world conditions that make the system what it is, and the reality that workers (and capitalists) have to face each and every day. There is nothing unsubstantiated about them since they have been and can be materially observed, quite easily in fact. Two facts that you seem very keen on avoiding if not flat out denying, because they provide inconvenient evidence that is counter to your personal ideology, or how you think things work. Nobody wants to acknowledge that they hold views which are on the wrong side of history, since for many people personal values and ideology is more important than truth. But one day we all have to face the music somehow. To be a Marxist, is simply to be one who has already faced that music - and that music is that capitalism by its very nature is exploitative, oppressive, and extremely violent - and there is no reforming it, the only alternative is to destroy it.
Then, you have the gall to complain that my only solution is violence, when capitalism, which came into the world drenched in blood, fire and ash (and it still drenched in these things), is probably the most violent epoch of history that humanity has had to endure; responsible for more human suffering, death and misery than probably just about anything else one could think of. I'm sorry if that is too much for you to stomach. But please, spare me the whole 'holier than thou' high road of being anti-violent, when the very system you advocate for is violent in the most utterly ruthless and extreme of ways; doing so only makes you hypocritical at best.
And no, your little example isn't even relevant, let alone sufficient evidence to refute the fact that capitalism is coercive and exploitative. Why? Because your "small" profit is meaningless and insignificant when you are up against Starbucks and Krispy Kreme (who own more capital than you do, and thus do what you do but far better and more efficiently), you wouldn't last a day in the market, at least not in terms of survival. Making a few extra bucks on the side isn't the same thing as surviving (many workers have to work 2 or even 3 full-time jobs just to make ends meet, and its even worse for students saddled with debt). Workers aren't trying to make profits of any kind, they are trying to SURVIVE. Further, this doesn't even address the exploitative and antagonistic relationship of capitalist and worker (regardless of how much the worker is paid), nor is the point for socialists in making money. We want to abolish wage labor and the money system entirely, since those are things that are conducive only to capitalism.
You are good with twisting the facts around and parroting the same capitalist propaganda that buffoons like Friedman and Hayek spewed, that people accept(ed) as truth for their own enslavement - this much I will merit you with. Every capitalist and fascist dictator, from Thatcher to Pinochet, would love you. Pseudo irrational arguments?? LOL. You aren't even at square one yet in demonstrating how anything I've said thus far is irrational or "pseudo" in any way, and very clearly you are frustrated by this. Besides, I'm not the one arguing here, I am simply explaining why I am right since an "argument" would somehow indicate that everything I've said is possibly untrue, but thats not the case now is it?
But I'm done here for now. *Smooches*
https://www.youtube.com/user/FireIceTalon
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)