Why are people generally politically apathetic? (1 Viewer)

[boganxcore]

I'm a member.



Yeah, the freedom to sell your labour for less than its value, while the super rich exploit the world and get rich and fat off the toil and hardship of everybody else.

Capitalism is slavery and exploitation you stupid fuck.

hahaha what a dumb cunt

 

[Cowbell]

people are generally politically apathetic because our generation is the first one to actually think for themselves, and most of us have come to the conclusion that there will always be fuckers in power and it doesn't really make a difference what label they're under, they will always have the same motive and you can't change that by voting for one party over another.

 

[Phoenix Fury]

people are generally politically apathetic because our generation is the first one to actually think for themselves, and most of us have come to the conclusion that there will always be fuckers in power and it doesn't really make a difference what label they're under, they will always have the same motive and you can't change that by voting for one party over another.

Exactly.

We need a real libertarian in to actually allow us to progress.

 

[SylviaB]

Yeah, the freedom to sell your labour for less than its value,

You can sell your labour for whatever the fuck you want.

Capitalism is slavery and exploitation you stupid fuck.

Slavery.

THROUGH VOLUNTARY INTERACTION OMG

 

[Funky Monk]

our generation is the first one to actually think for themselves

umm what

 

[anch612]

im new to this and i cant figure out how to post a thread can anyone help me please

 

[TacoTerrorist]

Piss off trolls.

You can sell your labour for whatever the fuck you want.

No you can't. How does that work? Who will buy my labour if I price it too high? How can one even determine the price of labour? No matter how high my wages are, someone at the top of the chain is profiting off my labour and contributing nothing to society.

Slavery.

THROUGH VOLUNTARY INTERACTION OMG

Yes, I voluntarily interact with a giant multinational company who exploits plant resources of developing countries, whom promote war and economic sanctions to further their own greed.
I work for someone richer than me or I starve. Freedom? Yeah right.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

No you can't. How does that work? Who will buy my labour if I price it too high? How can one even determine the price of labour? No matter how high my wages are, someone at the top of the chain is profiting off my labour and contributing nothing to society.

Yes, business hire labor to make a profit. Profits compensate entrepreneurs for the risk of investing in a business and them time taken to manage the business.

If you support laborers receiving all the profits that their work generates, would you also support them bearing the losses when business performs poorly and makes losses?

 

[TacoTerrorist]

I don't support government at all, and I don't support capitalism at all. It isn't a question of the individual tenets of the capitalist system, it's a question of equality and fundamental human rights. Whether you like it or not, capitalism is a system in which profits are the number one priority. The welfare of the human race should be priority, not the interests and greed of the few over the many.

In any case, we don't have true free market capitalism, because the Government bails out businesses that fuck up. At the expense of the workers of course.

You do realise there are small businesses, and you can start your own business, right? Without exploiting anyone?

With what capital? I would be exploiting someone if I hired anybody, and I would be indirectly exploiting someone by paying taxes to the government.

Yes, business hire labor to make a profit. Profits compensate entrepreneurs for the risk of investing in a business and them time taken to manage the business.

Profits are a motive for said 'entrepreneurs' to exploit their employees. Capitalists and their workers have directly opposed interests. By raising wages, companies lose profit. By giving workers better conditions, companies lose profit. Those CEOs, managers etc are not needed. They are the parasites of the modern era.

If you support laborers receiving all the profits that their work generates, would you also support them bearing the losses when business performs poorly and makes losses?

There wouldn't be losses in the system I support because there would be no drive to make profit.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

I don't support government at all, and I don't support capitalism at all. It isn't a question of the individual tenets of the capitalist system, it's a question of equality and fundamental human rights. Whether you like it or not, capitalism is a system in which profits are the number one priority. The welfare of the human race should be priority, not the interests and greed of the few over the many.

So what system do you support that is not capitalistic, but that has no government either?

It's hard to envisage, because in the absence of someone powerful like government trying to suppress them (and even in spite of governments), markets almost always emerge. They have done so throughout history and across cultures. Only the most primitive tribal societies have not had markets and entrepreneurship of some sort.

There wouldn't be losses in the system I support because there would be no drive to make profit.

Haha. Wow, a system where there are no losses. Sounds pretty amazing.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

@ taco terrorist

your understanding of capitalism is severely flawed. if all companies are providing wages below the market price. then workers will leave that industry all together. this will force companies to raise them to the market price. this will bring workers back. also workers will apply to work at companies that give them better conditions. this will force other companies to upgrade their conditions to stay in the market.

 

[postnatal]

what is so bad about profit? you spend money to make more money? does this not make sense to you? more profit also means capacity to increase wages

 

[TacoTerrorist]

@scuba_steve2121: I don't have a flawed understanding of capitalism, I know how it works. I just don't agree with it or support it. You think capitalism is a happy little society where everybody is taken care of and this magical 'invisible hand' protects people. It doesn't. Capitalism murders, mentally enslaves and commits genocide with the use of the government in order to protect and grow its profits and keep the rich rich and the poor poor and stupid.

@postnatal You're missing the point.

So what system do you support that is not capitalistic, but that has no government either?

It's hard to envisage, because in the absence of someone powerful like government trying to suppress them (and even in spite of governments), markets almost always emerge. They have done so throughout history and across cultures. Only the most primitive tribal societies have not had markets and entrepreneurship of some sort.

Anarcho-syndicalism.

Haha. Wow, a system where there are no losses. Sounds pretty amazing.

Define losses in your sense.


You people support the very system that keeps you in chains. Keep dancing to their tune while they exploit and kill in your name.

 

[SylviaB]

No you can't. How does that work? Who will buy my labour if I price it too high?

I mean that you can accept any offer you want. You can say that you won't take a job unless you earn $X. You might not get 'bought' i.e. employed, but unlike in socialism etc you can decide if you'll accept a certain wage, and try to get a better wage from a different company.

How can one even determine the price of labour?

Wow. You see, you do a certain amount of work, and it results in goods and services produced equivalent to an amount of money.
Say you produce $10 an hour worth of goods. Your hourly wage is not going to be over $10 an hour because the company would be losing money. It won't be $10 because then it wouldn't be making money and thus has no reason to employ you.
After that, the market will determine your wage i.e. how valuable your skills are.
An unskilled labourer is easily replaceable because plenty of people are willing/able to his/her job. Say, an engineer, however, has skills that are far more scare and as a result the employer pays them more because other companies will be competing for his/her skills (with higher wages).

Seriously, this is fucking high school stuff here. "Down with capitalism!! Even though I don't even have a rudimentary understanding of basic economics..."

No matter how high my wages are, someone at the top of the chain is profiting off my labour

1. If he/she wasn't profiting off of your labour then you wouldn't have a fucking job in the first place. If they're not getting thing out of it, what the hell incentives would they have to give you a job?


2. He/She deserves to make a profit because they're providing you with employment. They're providing you with the means of producing wealth and hence make a living.

and contributing nothing to society.

So creating wealth and employment = not contributing society?

Wtf, I consider the very epitome of contributing to society.

Yes, I voluntarily interact with a giant multinational company who exploits plant resources of developing countries,

Yeah so you have no clue about anything, do you?

I work for someone richer than me or I starve. Freedom? Yeah right.

yeah okay so you're wrong about absolutely everything, but let's say that you're right: What system, exactly, do you think would be better?

Because if you say socialism or communism, you're completely wrong AND a complete moron.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

@scuba_steve2121: I don't have a flawed understanding of capitalism, I know how it works. I just don't agree with it or support it. You think capitalism is a happy little society where everybody is taken care of and this magical 'invisible hand' protects people. It doesn't. Capitalism murders, mentally enslaves and commits genocide with the use of the government in order to protect and grow its profits and keep the rich rich and the poor poor and stupid.

That's why I hate state capitalism, and support anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism allows for people to experiment with your ideas about sydicalism. Anything goes as long as you don't use force against anyone else.

Anarcho-syndicalism.

and how do you prevent capitalism from emerging under such a system? Would you advocate forcibly preventing corporations and for profit businesses from forming?

Define losses in your sense.

Ending up with less than you started with.

Suppose we have a syndicate farm that is collectively owned and managed by the workers, and that one unfortunate year there is little or no harvest.

There are no capitalists to pay them wages or offer them alternative employment, and there is no government to bail them out or pay them welfare. What do these syndicalists eat?

 

[scuba_steve2121]

I'm an anrcho capitalist and agree with the statement above.

dam hippies thinking that anarchism with out capitalism works

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

I'm an anrcho capitalist and agree with the statement above.

dam hippies thinking that anarchism with out capitalism works

I'm perfectly happy to concede the communes would work for some people, and I'm more than happy to let them live that way.

However, history shows that most people will tend to trade and specialize their labor, and that businesses will form.

Even the label anarcho-capitalism is misleading. I support all people being free and having complete ownership of their own bodies, its just anarchism. I strongly suspect it would lead to capitalism emerging as the dominant system of economic organisation, but even if it didn't, I would still advocate the same thing.

 

[TacoTerrorist]

I mean that you can accept any offer you want. You can say that you won't take a job unless you earn $X. You might not get 'bought' i.e. employed, but unlike in socialism etc you can decide if you'll accept a certain wage, and try to get a better wage from a different company.

True, but that doesn't mean the system is fair.

Wow. You see, you do a certain amount of work, and it results in goods and services produced equivalent to an amount of money.
Say you produce $10 an hour worth of goods. Your hourly wage is not going to be over $10 an hour because the company would be losing money. It won't be $10 because then it wouldn't be making money and thus has no reason to employ you.
After that, the market will determine your wage i.e. how valuable your skills are.
An unskilled labourer is easily replaceable because plenty of people are willing/able to his/her job. Say, an engineer, however, has skills that are far more scare and as a result the employer pays them more because other companies will be competing for his/her skills (with higher wages).

I know this. The problem is the divide between the rich and the poor. People shouldn't have the right to exploit others, which undoubtedly occurs under the capitalist system. The point I'm trying to make is that these managers etc aren't needed. Their only function is to thrive off the work and labour of others. We don't need capitalism to have an equal and fair society. Capitalism divides the populace and creates a dog-eat-dog world of backstabbing and profiteering.

I am not arguing with the mechanics of capitalism, I'm arguing with the fundamental principles it supports. At the end of the day, I think that everybody has a right to a decent life, without being suppressed and forced to compete under capitalism, and you disagree. There is a fundamental ideological divide here, and neither of us can convince the other. the only thing on which we agree on is Anarchism, and it's debatable whether 'Anarcho-capitalism' is truly Anarchism, which I believe it isn't.

Seriously, this is fucking high school stuff here. "Down with capitalism!! Even though I don't even have a rudimentary understanding of basic economics..."

Don't fucking belittle me you right-wing piece of shit. I have an understanding of basic economics and if I didn't I wouldn't be here talking about this with you.

1. If he/she wasn't profiting off of your labour then you wouldn't have a fucking job in the first place. If they're not getting thing out of it, what the hell incentives would they have to give you a job?

Exactly. They wouldn't have an incentive and that's mostly why so many people don't have work.

2. He/She deserves to make a profit because they're providing you with employment. They're providing you with the means of producing wealth and hence make a living.

The means of production shouldn't be owned by individuals. This allows conflict, injustice and class division which is opposed by Anarchism. We don't need someone to 'provide us with employment'. They simply own the means of production, which they shouldn't, and they're stealing a portion of our output. Owning capital isn't a sufficient reason to justify profit.

Yeah so you have no clue about anything, do you?

It's unethical you fuckwit.

and how do you prevent capitalism from emerging under such a system? Would you advocate forcibly preventing corporations and for profit businesses from forming?

In a society where Anarchy was implemented, people would be aware of the dangers of corporatism. Corporations and for-profit businesses would be quickly recognised and physically overthrown by the populace. 'Guilds' i.e joint syndicates would work to suppress any capitalistic notions.

Ending up with less than you started with.

Suppose we have a syndicate farm that is collectively owned and managed by the workers, and that one unfortunate year there is little or no harvest.

There are no capitalists to pay them wages or offer them alternative employment, and there is no government to bail them out or pay them welfare. What do these syndicalists eat?

Their community of syndicates would provide for their needs. Free contracts would be made to allow for events like the one you described.

Under anarcho-capitalism, what is to prevent corporations from gaining too much power and inevitably forming their own privatised army? Wouldn't we eventually revert back to state-capitalism? How are monopolies prevented, if at all?

Also, what do you think about Mutualist Anarchism etc.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

Under anarcho-capitalism, what is to prevent corporations from gaining too much power and inevitably forming their own privatised army? Wouldn't we eventually revert back to state-capitalism? How are monopolies prevented, if at all

first of all a true free market prevents monopolies from forming. and even if they did it wouldn't matter. also there are things called private security companies.

 

[SylviaB]

haha you're completely fucking batshit insane, fuck off.