Turn on thread page Beta

The Survival of Capitalism watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by baffled_mathman)
    You can't really be so thick that you don't understand propaganda and its role in many societies down the years (including this one) can you?

    Sadly..I think you are that thick. :rolleyes:
    Classic response from someone who thinks they are losing an argument but won't admit it...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Relaxicat)
    Classic response from someone who thinks they are losing an argument but won't admit it...
    I can promise you I didn't think for one second I was "losing an argument". I don't have the time to write detailed responses rebutting complete nonsense unfortunately.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    Do you believe in cause and effect in the physical world? Yes except on a quantum level.

    Do you believe that human thoughts are generated only through human brain processes? As I said, I subscribe to the 'Ghost-in-the-machine' hypothesis, which means I believe that the human brain is structured on its most base level through genetics, and that filters how one perceives the world, this then effects how the human mind interprets and decides things. In a sense, I believe the entity that is 'you' is held within the biological processes of your mind, but, is made up by a lower, more primal base nature which dictates the patterning of those signals and how they relate to the rest of your mind. I do not believe in Cartesian dualism.

    Do you believe human brains are physical in their structure?

    I did answer this in the above question, but I will elaborate further. The human mind is confined to the biological processes taking part in ones own mind, however, there are 'segments of code' if you will which are as of yet, undetermined that affect our most base behavior and personality. The physical structure and neural map of your core functions I believe to be inherited by your parents, it is how one might inherit a fathers stubborness or a mothers intelligence. On top of this, I believe that there are certain patterns unique to each human which dictate how they think, and how they behave.

    To contextualize this into a simpler format; I believe that nature takes part in filtering how we are nurtured, adjusting our interpretations thusly.
    Bold.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by baffled_mathman)
    You're not bright enough for me to bother...you give it away in several ways ! ;-)
    Looking through your previous posts it would probably be best to conclude you are most likely a troll.

    EDIT : Even a political opponent of mine is agreeing with me in this instance.

    Oh, and its spelt 'Rebuttal'. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Marx was a man like anybody else, an intelligent one yes.. a prophet? no.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by baffled_mathman)
    I can promise you I didn't think for one second I was "losing an argument". I don't have the time to write detailed responses rebutting complete nonsense unfortunately.
    There is, of course, always time for name calling, though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    Oh, and its spelt 'Rebuttling'. :rolleyes:
    No it isn't you retarded troll! It's spelt "rebutting"...! Edit: HAHAHAHAHA...he's altered it now to something that's also incorrect...what a clot! No, it's not "rebuttal" either!! Hahahahaha!

    Just like the idiotic error in your first post!

    Edit: Oh my God, this plonker is now sending me private messages!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Relaxicat)
    The first part of this quote paraphrases what I have already said (in terms of exploitation). So thanks for that. I might add that the second part is entirely wrong:
    So we agree Marx believed Capitalism was exploitative. You're easily pleased.

    The 'value of the finished product' is calculated by the necessary labour time embedded in that commodity, so in an inverse way the value of the finished product does indeed affect their pay! Would you pay someone for a rubbish finished product, no matter what 'skills' they supposedly possess? Please actually read Das Kapital.
    So the factory in which this product was made just appeared one day from a packet of magic beans perhaps. Or, maybe the "owner" invested in it and in doing so provided employment for thousands of people and profits for themselves and other investors. What a jolly good egg.

    The second part is inconsequential; of course foreign pay is not based upon our wage system, but the fact remains that we exploit third world countries (think Primark) for cheap labour due to their lack of of local laws safeguarding the labour force from this. In this way, capitalism is clearly exploitative - we do not pay the producers of value according to the value they produce: capitalists pay them less and gain through surplus value (see wikipedia for an explanation).
    The laws in each country are for the people in that country to decide. If an investor abides by the laws, and pays a rate of pay which fulfils their labour demand, how can this be exploitative? You are judging the laws and conditions in one country and saying if these are different in another it is exploitation. Clearly a ridiculous argument.

    So you have not really answered, disputed, or furthered my point.
    If you ignore everything I say then yes.

    As for the third part, for you to argue that 'it is clearly nonsense' that the means of production are owned by a small capitalist class, in Marx's argument and in actuality, shows that you really have very little concept of (or entirely fail to understand) Marx's views of capitalism. The whole point is that the working class do not own the means of production!
    You are really making yourself look stupid. Have you heard of this thing called "The Stock Market". It's this system that allows companies to be split into these things called shares. You can buy some of them for pennies and hence you are an "owner". Through pension funds everyone who has a pension is an owner. Capitalism has increased the number of owners not decreased them.

    Please give support for your view that it is nonsense, or otherwise you will just look more ridiculous.
    I have said it is nonsense twice now, what more do you want?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by baffled_mathman)
    No it isn't you retarded troll! It's spelt "rebutting"...!

    Just like the idiotic error in your first post!

    THICKO!
    I do pity you. :hugs:

    :troll:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    I do pity you. :hugs:

    :troll:
    Ha...you messed up there..correcting me wrongly, and "correcting" your mistake wrongly...!

    I pity you..how embarrassing!!

    And please don't send me private messages you freak...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    That's the problem, too many 'GCSE' economists at TSR
    Very good. I like that. I didn't do GCSE's but anyway..............


    Without land and natural resources humans do not have shelter, they do not have food, they do not have clothing, they do not have medicine. Indeed every aspect of human life is dependent upon the existence and use of land and natural resources, like water. Everything else, everything else, in human life is derived from the land and natural resources. So, if we can find inequitable arrangements in the distribution and access to land and natural resources we can find alienation and we can find subsequent exploitation. It really is that simple. Please read my previous posts where I have repeatedly spelt out just such inequitable arrangements.
    I'm not arguing with you about the scarcity of land and natural resources, obviously. I'm disagreeing with you on how these are distributed under a capitalist system.

    Under such a system it would go to the highest bidder. Humans can either buy land or rent it. Meaning everyone has access to land not just the "capitalist pigs". You suggest that without vast access to land then you cannot possibly live. This is clearly rubbish. In a capitalist system the distribution of land is equitable not "inequitable", this is the whole point you are missing. Your whole argument is based on a false assumption.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by baffled_mathman)
    Ha...you messed up there..correcting me wrongly, and "correcting" your mistake wrongly...!

    I pity you..how embarrassing!!

    And please don't send me private messages you freak...
    *public/visitor messages.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    *public/visitor messages.
    Whatever their official name is..don't message you freak, end of. Spend your time learning to spell and use apostrophes correctly.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It has survived (and will continue to survive indefinitely if people want to not starve) because Marx's analysis was wrong. His understanding of the economy has been shown to be wrong a hundred times over, what the hell is the big deal with accepting this?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arabcnesbit)
    So we agree Marx believed Capitalism was exploitative. You're easily pleased.



    So the factory in which this product was made just appeared one day from a packet of magic beans perhaps. Or, maybe the "owner" invested in it and in doing so provided employment for thousands of people and profits for themselves and other investors. What a jolly good egg.



    The laws in each country are for the people in that country to decide. If an investor abides by the laws, and pays a rate of pay which fulfils their labour demand, how can this be exploitative? You are judging the laws and conditions in one country and saying if these are different in another it is exploitation. Clearly a ridiculous argument.



    If you ignore everything I say then yes.



    You are really making yourself look stupid. Have you heard of this thing called "The Stock Market". It's this system that allows companies to be split into these things called shares. You can buy some of them for pennies and hence you are an "owner". Through pension funds everyone who has a pension is an owner. Capitalism has increased the number of owners not decreased them.



    I have said it is nonsense twice now, what more do you want?


    'So the factory in which this product was made just appeared one day from a packet of magic beans perhaps. Or, maybe the "owner" invested in it and in doing so provided employment for thousands of people and profits for themselves and other investors. What a jolly good egg.'

    I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here, you have rather ruined your pseudo-intellectual standing with copious and childish sarcasm. I relish the point that you are unable to disagree with me that commodity value is embedded in necessary labour time however (which was, after-all, my original point), so perhaps you did read Kapital after all. That or my use of big words has confused you into hitting back with nonsense about eggs and beans?! If you mean the technology itself, (again please actually read Kapital), then this exists to replace labour, and its worth is calculated in terms of the labour it displaces, and so the operator of this technology, sayeth Marx, earns less than he would otherwise, or else is entirely replaced by it. So the factory does not in facts provide employment for thousands! (Well it may, but it takes it away from thousands of others in the process!). I hope you're not so naive to assume that the factory owner creates the factory in order to provide jobs for thousands of people; this merely is a necessary consequence of his wish to make money.

    Your next point:

    "The laws in each country are for the people in that country to decide. If an investor abides by the laws, and pays a rate of pay which fulfils their labour demand, how can this be exploitative? You are judging the laws and conditions in one country and saying if these are different in another it is exploitation. Clearly a ridiculous argument."

    Well, some countries decide laws such as 'Let's stone women to death for infidelity', or 'Jewish and homeless people should be euthanised'. By your reasoning, we should leave these people well alone? Fair enough.

    You must admit however that we have moral standards such as 'thou shalt not condemn a 14 year old boy to working 20 hours a day for 5 pence', which means that even though 'the laws and conditions in one country' may well differ from our own, it is not morally right to take advantage of these differing laws by sending our factories to their countries, for the cheap labour which would ensue.

    Inhumane labour practices are different from our own values and therefore in our eyes are exploitative. Whether or not the foreign country agrees is immaterial - it is in the nature of capitalism to go to these countries where workers can be paid far less than they deserve because it allows the capitalist to make more money. Ergo capitalism is exploitative. ... Unless you argue that because a country makes a law that everyone must work for 1 pence a day, it is therefore not exploitative, simply because the law says so? And therefore that we are therefore doing nothing wrong as long as we follow this law? ... Oh dear.

    You argue that 'If an investor abides by the laws, and pays a rate of pay which fulfils their labour demand' then it would be ok. But this rather flies in the face of all evidence to the contrary - the point of locating factories in different countries is that we can avoid having to pay people an amount 'which fulfils their labour demand'. Otherwise why would we do it? You really do have a rose-tinted view of humanity.


    Your final 'point':

    'You are really making yourself look stupid. Have you heard of this thing called "The Stock Market". It's this system that allows companies to be split into these things called shares. You can buy some of them for pennies and hence you are an "owner". Through pension funds everyone who has a pension is an owner. Capitalism has increased the number of owners not decreased them.'

    Unless (I wouldn't be much surprised) you live under a rock, you can't have failed to notice this entirely undesirable event which has rocked the world recently which we have called 'The crash in the stock market' which has been to the subsequent detriment of world economies. Your godly egalitarian stock market, with all its fictitious capital, doesn't look quite so great now really, does it? Really, to use the stock market to defend capitalism, in the current climate, is just absolutely hilarious.

    Furthermore, you seem to have confused the stock market with equalised division of labour. Which is quite amusingly misguided. It is especially misguided in our context of globalised capitalism (exploiting the third world proletariat). Can the young indonesian child buy shares in the Trans national corporation which has located its factory to his country? Hardly.

    The labour process: No-one owns the means of production except the bourgeois capitalist (says Marx).

    Workers must sell their labour time in consequence to the capitalist.

    They are then exploited by the capitalist, but have no way to overthrow the system except by violent revolution and class solidarity.

    On the other hand, the stock market is an entity which allows you to buy shares in a company.

    Yes, well done.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by baffled_mathman)
    Whatever their official name is..don't message you freak, end of. Spend your time learning to spell and use apostrophes correctly.
    D'awwww, a grammar Nazi, how cute.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Relaxicat)
    I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here, you have rather ruined your pseudo-intellectual standing with copious and childish sarcasm. I relish the point that you are unable to disagree with me that commodity value is embedded in necessary labour time however (which was, after-all, my original point), so perhaps you did read Kapital after all. That or my use of big words has confused you into hitting back with nonsense about eggs and beans?! If you mean the technology itself, (again please actually read Kapital), then this exists to replace labour, and its worth is calculated in terms of the labour it displaces, and so the operator of this technology, sayeth Marx, earns less than he would otherwise, or else is entirely replaced by it. So the factory does not in facts provide employment for thousands! (Well it may, but it takes it away from thousands of others in the process!). I hope you're not so naive to assume that the factory owner creates the factory in order to provide jobs for thousands of people; this merely is a necessary consequence of his wish to make money.
    If technology has replaced everyone's jobs then I suppose everyone must be unemployed by now then? Oh wait that didn't happen did it. Technology leverages labour it doesn't replace it. Any idiot should be able to understand that, or should we add luddite to your growing list of superlatives. I'm trying to make my argument as simple as possible for you to understand. Perhaps I shall make a nursery rhyme for you. You assume that commodity value is only gathered from land and labour, another false assumption. Do I have to start quoting Adam Smith and the invisible hand at you?



    Well, some countries decide laws such as 'Let's stone women to death for infidelity', or 'Jewish and homeless people should be euthanised'. By your reasoning, we should leave these people well alone? Fair enough.
    It's up to the people of that country. There is a reason why we have revolutions from time to time.

    You must admit however that we have moral standards such as 'thou shalt not condemn a 14 year old boy to working 20 hours a day for 5 pence', which means that even though 'the laws and conditions in one country' may well differ from our own, it is not morally right to take advantage of these differing laws by sending our factories to their countries, for the cheap labour which would ensue.
    No one is forcing these people to work. If five pence paid my living expenses and a little extra then why not? According to whose morals?

    Inhumane labour practices are different from our own values and therefore in our eyes are exploitative. Whether or not the foreign country agrees is immaterial - it is in the nature of capitalism to go to these countries where workers can be paid far less than they deserve because it allows the capitalist to make more money. Ergo capitalism is exploitative. ... Unless you argue that because a country makes a law that everyone must work for 1 pence a day, it is therefore not exploitative, simply because the law says so? And therefore that we are therefore doing nothing wrong as long as we follow this law? ... Oh dear.
    If it wasn't worth their while to work for a specific rate, then they wouldn't do it. If any capitalist country's firms could set up, there would be competition for labour and so labour rates would move to the equilibrium. What is unfair about that?

    You argue that 'If an investor abides by the laws, and pays a rate of pay which fulfils their labour demand' then it would be ok. But this rather flies in the face of all evidence to the contrary - the point of locating factories in different countries is that we can avoid having to pay people an amount 'which fulfils their labour demand'. Otherwise why would we do it? You really do have a rose-tinted view of humanity.
    No it doesn't. They move because labour is cheaper there but still high enough to attract workers in the first place.


    Unless (I wouldn't be much surprised) you live under a rock, you can't have failed to notice this entirely undesirable event which has rocked the world recently which we have called 'The crash in the stock market' which has been to the subsequent detriment of world economies. Your godly egalitarian stock market, with all its fictitious capital, doesn't look quite so great now really, does it? Really, to use the stock market to defend capitalism, in the current climate, is just absolutely hilarious.
    It proves that ownership has increased rather than decreased as you believe. Well avoided though. And I suppose you don't think government intervention played any part in leading up to these events?

    Furthermore, you seem to have confused the stock market with equalised division of labour. Which is quite amusingly misguided. It is especially misguided in our context of globalised capitalism (exploiting the third world proletariat). Can the young indonesian child buy shares in the Trans national corporation which has located its factory to his country? Hardly.
    Eh, no I haven't, you have. I never said anything of the sort. The stock market is division of ownership. If you can't see that and believe I meant it to be a division of labour you are even more dumb than I thought. :eek: Oh and the little Indonesian boy is very welcome to buy shares in whatever company he wishes.

    The labour process: No-one owns the means of production except the bourgeois capitalist (says Marx).

    Workers must sell their labour time in consequence to the capitalist.

    They are then exploited by the capitalist, but have no way to overthrow the system except by violent revolution and class solidarity.

    On the other hand, the stock market is an entity which allows you to buy shares in a company.

    Yes, well done.
    Through Pension funds a lot of people own the means of production and have the opportunity to own the means of production through shares.

    Workers can invest there wages in whatever they want and hence become owners themselves.

    Indeed the stock market is. At least we agree on one thing.

    Perhaps instead of quoting Marx every 10 seconds you should maybe consider thinking for yourself? Or as I suspect, you tried this once, realised you weren't too successful and decided to veil your intellectual inadequacies by quoting people who died over 100 years ago. Marx may have been misguided, but at least he was capable of original thought, something that clearly evades yourself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    D'awwww, a grammar Nazi, how cute.
    I think that was you, telling me that "rebutted" should be "rebuttled" then "rebuttal" (both wrong). If you're going to be a grammar Nazi, at least get it right! :rolleyes:

    A "grammar Nazi" who actually knows their stuff always looks better than someone who incorrectly uses the "after s" apostrophe just to try and look clever! ;-)
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by baffled_mathman)
    I think that was you, telling me that "rebutted" should be "rebuttled" then "rebuttal" (both wrong). If you're going to be a grammar Nazi, at least get it right! :rolleyes:

    A "grammar Nazi" who actually knows their stuff always looks better than someone who incorrectly uses the "after s" apostrophe just to try and look clever! ;-)
    :hugs: Tangent much?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    :hugs: Tangent much?
    Troll much?
 
 
 
Poll
Cats or dogs?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.