|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 13, 2019 21:07:51 GMT -5
I thought this was really funny.
If their business is a success, doesn't that refute their Socialist beliefs?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2019 9:47:45 GMT -5
Why would a successful business refute Socialist beliefs?
Do Socialists believe that private businesses cannot be profitable?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 14, 2019 10:16:51 GMT -5
Why would a successful business refute Socialist beliefs? Do Socialists believe that private businesses cannot be profitable?
No. But Socialists do believe that private businesses are evil because they exploit workers. These Socialists are becoming "evil exploiters."
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2019 19:06:07 GMT -5
And how is that a refutation of socialist beliefs?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 14, 2019 19:55:04 GMT -5
And how is that a refutation of socialist beliefs?
A Socialist founding a private business is hypocritical.
Reminds me of a Catholic clergyman in the late 1400's who wrote a book criticizing the printing press. He claimed that it was destroying the beautiful practice of copying books by hand. This cleric wanted to get his opinions before the public as fast as he could.
So he had his essay printed.
These "Socialists" want to spread their criticism of Capitalism as fast as they can too. So they're forming a private business to do it.
If they really believe that Socialism is better, why are they forming a Capitalist business?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2019 8:11:46 GMT -5
How is it hypocritical to function as a capitalist in a capitalist society? Socialism doesn't say that you shouldn't engage in business while living in a capitalist society, does it?
Is it hypocritical for an Objectivist to live off government subsidies or pay taxes?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 15, 2019 11:34:14 GMT -5
How is it hypocritical to function as a capitalist in a capitalist society? Socialism doesn't say that you shouldn't engage in business while living in a capitalist society, does it? Is it hypocritical for an Objectivist to live off government subsidies or pay taxes? Capitalists are evil. They exploit people. If you start a business that means that you are an evil Capitalist and you are exploiting people. As for an Objectivist living off of government subsidies, yes that would be wrong. But if you don't pay taxes, you can be arrested and have your property seized.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2019 12:44:54 GMT -5
Capitalists are evil. They exploit people. If you start a business that means that you are an evil Capitalist and you are exploiting people. Is that your personal opinion or are you quoting somebody here? Next time, could you please include your source for these claims?
You're still on Medicare are you not? Do you get a pension from the government or are you living exclusively off your personal wealth and income?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 15, 2019 15:00:53 GMT -5
Capitalists are evil. They exploit people. If you start a business that means that you are an evil Capitalist and you are exploiting people. Is that your personal opinion or are you quoting somebody here? Next time, could you please include your source for these claims? But I've already given several quotes from Marx and Engles. Exploitation is built into the Capitalist system and can only be eliminated by setting up a Dictatoirship of the Proletariat. Yes. It is an insurance program to which I am forced to contribute by law. Since I am forced to contribute, I might as well get some of my money back. By contrast, no one forced that couple to start their own Capitalist business. They did it by choice. Same thing here. I was forced by law to contribute to Social Security so I see nothing wrong with trying to get some of my money back. And BTW, I still work full time.
That couple by contrast was not forced to start their own business. They could have started some sort of Commune instead. But I don't know how that could have worked. Come to think of it, they probably don't know how that could have worled either. That's why they started a Capitalist business. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2019 22:00:31 GMT -5
Is that your personal opinion or are you quoting somebody here? Next time, could you please include your source for these claims? But I've already given several quotes from Marx and Engles. Which quotes? Can you mark them properly next time, please? Is that a direct quote? From what source are you quoting? You can't freely choose which economic system is valid in your society. In a capitalist society, they could only have realized their project as a capitalist one, under capitalist law, with capitalist means, or not at all. No, they couldn't have have abolished private property on their own project. That would be a violation of capitalist property rights. And relinquishing their ownership would have allowed any capitalist to seize their project for himself and making it his own property. That's not how this system works. You paid for the people who were receiving Medicare back when you were still paying into the system. Now you're the recipient. You're not "getting some of your money back", you're leeching off the people who are currently paying into the system. Again, that's not how social security works. You're leeching off other people's money right now.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 15, 2019 23:52:26 GMT -5
But I've already given several quotes from Marx and Engles. Which quotes? Can you mark them properly next time, please? This is too easy. There are quotes all over the place. Try this: " Marx on Exploitation Exploitation is a set of social relations on which capitalism is built. Marx argues that capitalists exploit workers by paying them less in wages than the value they produce. While a worker may earn eight dollars a day in wages, s/he may produce ten dollars a day worth of value, creating what Marx called surplus value which is key for the accumulation of capital. Capital grows by exploiting workers to generate ever greater amounts of surplus value, usually by lowering workers’ wages. In addition, capitalists constantly compete with one another over capital by finding new ways to generate profit and surplus value in order to maintain an edge. Marx calls this drive the general law of capitalist accumulation. Capitalism is not the only historical epoch in which individuals are exploited, but it is the only one in which the mechanisms of exploitation are hidden behind independent, objectified, and reified structures, such as the market." culturalstudiesnow.blogspot.com/2017/03/marx-on-capitalism-and-exploitation.htmlSee the quote directly above. Don't be silly. They could have formed a Commune where everyone donates time and labor. They could have formed a non-profit charity and asked for donations. Instead they chose to form a business. They can't abolish property rights? Are you serious? Even today there are religious groups where the members take a vow of poverty. It's perfectly legal you know. So are Communes. Communes were all over the place during the 1960's. I even looked over a couple of them while I was still a Marxist. That's not how this system works. You paid for the people who were receiving Medicare back when you were still paying into the system. Now you're the recipient. You're not "getting some of your money back", you're leeching off the people who are currently paying into the system. It would help if you verified your claims before you post. Actually, I still work full time and money is still being taken from my income to pay into Medicare. It also helps if you read what I post before you put your foot in your mouth. I clearly said I still work full time. You even re-posted my words! Since I still work full time, I still have to pay Social Security Security and Medicare fees. They are added to my taxes. You also should learn how private insurance companies work. People pay into their policies before they take anything out. So how can private insurance companies and private retirement plans make any money? Simple. They invest the money, take a profit, and still have enough to pay the beneficiaries. Everybody wins here. Beneficiaries do not "leech" off of the system. By contrast, government doesn't invest Social Security contributions. They put the money in the general budget and spend it They replace the money with IOU's. If a private company tried that, all of the officers would be arrested for fraud. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2019 11:25:24 GMT -5
Don't be silly. They could have formed a Commune where everyone donates time and labor. They could have formed a non-profit charity and asked for donations. Instead they chose to form a business. Do you have actual evidence to support these claims, or are you just engaging in baseless speculation here?
What evidence available to you makes you think that "a Commune where everyone donates time and labor" was a viable or even legal option for that kind of project? What argument can you field to support the implied claim that a non-profit charity does not in fact exploit labor?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 16, 2019 17:45:50 GMT -5
Don't be silly. They could have formed a Commune where everyone donates time and labor. They could have formed a non-profit charity and asked for donations. Instead they chose to form a business. Do you have actual evidence to support these claims, or are you just engaging in baseless speculation here?
What evidence available to you makes you think that "a Commune where everyone donates time and labor" was a viable or even legal option for that kind of project? What argument can you field to support the implied claim that a non-profit charity does not in fact exploit labor?
Evidence? Easy. Start with this list:
As for your question about a non-profit charity "exploiting labor", are you really serious?
I am assuming you mean the Marxist definition: "Exploitation of labour (or labor) is the act of treating one's workers unfairly for one's own benefit. It is a social relationship based on an asymmetry in a power relationship between workers and their employers."
Exactly how does the owner of a non-profit business manage to take the profits?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2019 7:35:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 17, 2019 13:12:25 GMT -5
Very well. Then exactly how does the owner of a non-profit business take the benefits? BTW, isn't financial profit a "benefit?"
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2019 3:44:10 GMT -5
Very well. Then exactly how does the owner of a non-profit business take the benefits?
Most people who work for charities do so voluntarily i.e. without fair compensation for the work they put in.
Even if they were being paid (and as I have said, most are not),they would at best be (badly) compensated for the time they put in, but never for the value they created through their work - the latter is all in the benefit of their employer.
Yes, but not all benefit is financial profit.
Funny coincidence by the way - earlier this year, social workers and caregivers in several major Austrian charities went on strike because they were being paid significantly less than their colleagues in government-funded facilities in the same field.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 18, 2019 11:35:33 GMT -5
Very well. Then exactly how does the owner of a non-profit business take the benefits? Most people who work for charities do so voluntarily i.e. without fair compensation for the work they put in. Even if they were being paid (and as I have said, most are not),they would at best be (badly) compensated for the time they put in, but never for the value they created through their work - the latter is all in the benefit of their employer. LOL! Of course volunteer workers in charities are not Financially compensated financially at all. They are Volunteers! They are paid with the satisfaction they get for doing what they consider to be "the right thing." Exactly my point! People who volunteer for unpaid charity work are compensated with the good feeling of "doing the right thing." And this proves...? What, exactly? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2019 12:24:19 GMT -5
Most people who work for charities do so voluntarily i.e. without fair compensation for the work they put in. Even if they were being paid (and as I have said, most are not),they would at best be (badly) compensated for the time they put in, but never for the value they created through their work - the latter is all in the benefit of their employer. LOL! Of course volunteer workers in charities are not Financially compensated financially at all. They are Volunteers! They are paid with the satisfaction they get for doing what they consider to be "the right thing." And unless you want to argue that you could pay your bills in "satisfaction", that's just a fancy way of saying that they aren't being paid for their work.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 18, 2019 13:01:14 GMT -5
LOL! Of course volunteer workers in charities are not Financially compensated financially at all. They are Volunteers! They are paid with the satisfaction they get for doing what they consider to be "the right thing." And unless you want to argue that you could pay your bills in "satisfaction", that's just a fancy way of saying that they aren't being paid for their work.
Volunteer Charity workers aren't being paid! Well then, you had better contact these poor fools and tell them that they aren't being paid. I am sure they will give that Revelation all the attention it deserves.
Are you seriously claiming that Volunteer Charity workers are somehow being exploited? Then people who pay taxes to government programs to aid the poor are also being exploited. And it's worse in that case because their contributions are not voluntary.
What if, in the case of a private charity, all members of the organization do not take any salary? Who is being exploited then?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2019 19:09:09 GMT -5
And unless you want to argue that you could pay your bills in "satisfaction", that's just a fancy way of saying that they aren't being paid for their work. Volunteer Charity workers aren't being paid! Well then, you had better contact these poor fools and tell them that they aren't being paid. I am sure they will give that Revelation all the attention it deserves. Are you seriously claiming that Volunteer Charity workers are somehow being exploited? Yes, I am. And so far, you have not managed to refute that claim with a coherent argument. According to Marxism, you would be correct, since the government is simply another stooge for the capitalist class. By the way, since you believe that taxation is theft, and you consider private charities and public welfare to be similar, does that mean you believe that charities are stealing from their employees? Or is it not stealing if you believe that they enjoy it? If everyone pays taxes, including every single government official, then does that mean that taxation is no longer theft, as you like to claim? If not, then who is stealing in that example?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 18, 2019 20:10:39 GMT -5
Volunteer Charity workers aren't being paid! Well then, you had better contact these poor fools and tell them that they aren't being paid. I am sure they will give that Revelation all the attention it deserves. Are you seriously claiming that Volunteer Charity workers are somehow being exploited? Yes, I am. And so far, you have not managed to refute that claim with a coherent argument. Sorry but I only refute claims that have at least some factual support. So far you haven't supplied even one fact to demonstrate that people who volunteer to work for charity organizations are being "exploited." Unfortunately for that claim, the Soviet Union did have taxes too. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnover_tax_in_the_Soviet_UnionComplex Question Fallacy. When did I ever say that private charities and public welfare are "similar?" How are voluntary transactions and forced transactions "similar." Again, you don't seem to know the difference between a voluntary transaction and one based on force and penalties. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2019 16:52:23 GMT -5
Yes, I am. And so far, you have not managed to refute that claim with a coherent argument. Sorry but I only refute claims that have at least some factual support. So far you haven't supplied even one fact to demonstrate that people who volunteer to work for charity organizations are being "exploited." But I have, you just refuse to acknowledge them. Here, in case you forgot (or "forgot") again: And you've agreed: In your previous post, you were making an analogy between taxation and the exploitative practices of private charities. Are you retracting your argument that taxation is analogous to exploitation? This is based on your argument that taxation is exploitation. You were argueing that if the exploiters exploit themselves, then no exploitation occurs, since there would be no individual beneficiary.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 21, 2019 17:49:44 GMT -5
Sorry but I only refute claims that have at least some factual support. So far you haven't supplied even one fact to demonstrate that people who volunteer to work for charity organizations are being "exploited." But I have, you just refuse to acknowledge them. Here, in case you forgot (or "forgot") again: Yes. I refuse to acknowledge that as a valid argument for the simple reason that you are ignoring the clear difference between someone voluntarily donating money or time and someone who is being forced to give. You do see a difference between giving money to a beggar on the street and being robbed at gunpoint, don't you?LOL! That's not an agreement. I was simply giving the Communist fantasy version of Capitalism. As usual, you don't bother to cut and paste the alleged quote. I never made any such analogy. I never claimed that private charities had built-in "exploitative practices." No. It's based on the fact that taxes are collected by force. And it should be obvious that if every member of a non-profit charity is not taking a salary, then no one is being "exploited." And BTW, I never claimed that non-profit charities ever exploited anyone. That one is your "addition." Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2019 0:25:51 GMT -5
As usual, you don't bother to cut and paste the alleged quote. I never made any such analogy. Your own words, as requested: Are you seriously claiming that Volunteer Charity workers are somehow being exploited? Then people who pay taxes to government programs to aid the poor are also being exploited. And it's worse in that case because their contributions are not voluntary. Looking forward what you come up with to explain how actually, you were saying something completely different. As usual.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 22, 2019 9:39:04 GMT -5
As usual, you don't bother to cut and paste the alleged quote. I never made any such analogy. Your own words, as requested: Are you seriously claiming that Volunteer Charity workers are somehow being exploited? Then people who pay taxes to government programs to aid the poor are also being exploited. And it's worse in that case because their contributions are not voluntary. Looking forward what you come up with to explain how actually, you were saying something completely different. As usual.
Congratulations for finally giving a supporting quote. Unfortunately you didn't quote enough. Here is the full exchange:
"Bob- Then people who pay taxes to government programs to aid the poor are also being exploited. And it's worse in that case because their contributions are not voluntary.
Mcans- According to Marxism, you would be correct, since the government is simply another stooge for the capitalist class.
By the way, since you believe that taxation is theft, and you consider private charities and public welfare to be similar, does that mean you believe that charities are stealing from their employees? Or is it not stealing if you believe that they enjoy it?"
To which I responded: "Complex Question Fallacy. When did I ever say that private charities and public welfare are "similar?" How are voluntary transactions and forced transactions "similar.""
You see. I NEVER claimed that Public Welfare (which is compulsory) and Private Charities (which are voluntary) were SIMILAR. I was making a COMPARISON to show how absurd it is to claim that they are similar.
I never claimed there was any "similarity" between them.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2019 11:22:18 GMT -5
You see. I NEVER claimed that Public Welfare (which is compulsory) and Private Charities (which are voluntary) were SIMILAR. I was making a COMPARISON to show how absurd it is to claim that they are similar. I never claimed there was any "similarity" between them.
So your original argument about taxation was a non sequitur then, and we don't need to talk about this nonsense any more? Fine by me.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 22, 2019 14:09:00 GMT -5
You see. I NEVER claimed that Public Welfare (which is compulsory) and Private Charities (which are voluntary) were SIMILAR. I was making a COMPARISON to show how absurd it is to claim that they are similar. I never claimed there was any "similarity" between them.
So your original argument about taxation was a non sequitur then, and we don't need to talk about this nonsense any more? Fine by me.
No, my original argument was clearly not a non-sequitur. And you haven't demonstrated that anything I said on this topic is nonsense. That's just another one of your Ad Hominems.
But if you don't have any good arguments left, I can understand why you don't want to talk about this any more.
Fine by me.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2019 13:22:02 GMT -5
No, my original argument was clearly not a non-sequitur. And you haven't demonstrated that anything I said on this topic is nonsense. That's just another one of your Ad Hominems. But if you don't have any good arguments left, I can understand why you don't want to talk about this any more. Fine by me. Bob
So you stand by this: Are you seriously claiming that Volunteer Charity workers are somehow being exploited? Then people who pay taxes to government programs to aid the poor are also being exploited. And it's worse in that case because their contributions are not voluntary. And this: What if, in the case of a private charity, all members of the organization do not take any salary? Who is being exploited then? Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 23, 2019 14:24:15 GMT -5
No, my original argument was clearly not a non-sequitur. And you haven't demonstrated that anything I said on this topic is nonsense. That's just another one of your Ad Hominems. But if you don't have any good arguments left, I can understand why you don't want to talk about this any more. Fine by me. Bob
So you stand by this: Are you seriously claiming that Volunteer Charity workers are somehow being exploited? Then people who pay taxes to government programs to aid the poor are also being exploited. And it's worse in that case because their contributions are not voluntary. And this: What if, in the case of a private charity, all members of the organization do not take any salary? Who is being exploited then? Bob
Yes, I stand by those posts. What's the problem?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2019 21:29:44 GMT -5
The problem is that you are claiming that "you never said taxation and private charity are similar" when you made a post drawing an analogy between private charity and taxation.
Remember, contrary to Randian beliefs, you can't have your cake and eat it.
|
|