sc94597 said:
Because its capitalism, and does not systematically oppose absolutist institutions in the economy. Socialism isn't merely about being "social" it's about having full compensation for all workers for the work they've completed. It's about destroying fundamental inequalities built into the norms of the system which make people dependent on welfare and the capitalist state in the first place. It's about obtaining as much autonomy, power, and control over your work-life and conditions as is possible. It's always been about these things. Capitalism =|= competition nor does it equal stability. It is a system based on monopoly, hierarchy, and power. Some forms of capitalism are more stable than others, but at the end of the day there is still tons of instability. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/exploited to utilize, especially for profit; turn to practical account: One does not have to feel exploited to be exploited. The existence of exploitation is an objective observation, not a whim. Your employer reaps profits off your work which could've gone to you and your peers instead. The only thing your employer brings into the equation which can't be brought by you and your peers is capital, and the employer earns disproportionate profits because of it. Do you deny that capitalists make profits off their laborers? Exploitation isn't the same thing as being an asshole. Perfectly good people exploit others. Your trust in the finality of the state seems like a misplaced fixed idea. How spooky. States can change very rapidly as sociopolitical conditions change, and when they do, they likely won't have your "back at all times." The world isn't some static entity with fixed social dynamics, and there are strong pressures on the stability of states. For example, demographic problems are hitting Europe and Asia pretty hard, and we're only now seeing how flexible the social institutions found in these countries are to these pressures. All states eventually come to an end, and when they do who is going to foot the costs? Definitely not those at the top of the hierarchy.
|
"Socialism isn't merely about being "social" it's about having full compensation for all workers for the work they've completed."
and how do you achieve this without government involvement since you claim that government is violence and oppression?
"It's about destroying fundamental inequalities built into the norms of the system"
well.. people are fundamentally inequal... that's just a fact of life
how do you plan to address the inequality that comes about as a result of the natural differences between people?
will there be great sports stars like lebron james in your world for example?
"It's about obtaining as much autonomy, power, and control over your work-life and conditions as is possible. "
you do that by being a capitalist and creating a business, not by tearing down the protections that we have in place for people to create businesses
". The only thing your employer brings into the equation which can't be brought by you and your peers is capital"
no not true at all, business owners have to come up with a competitive idea, a way to market that idea, ways to supply their customers, ways to compete against rival etc etc etc
you really believe for example that i can a server from mcdonalds, throw the CEO of a bridge and have that server run the whole company?
"Your employer reaps profits off your work which could've gone to you and your peers instead."
no... if your employer didn't have their business.. you wouldn't have a job
"Do you deny that capitalists make profits off their laborers?"
of course they do... that's their primary motivation generally for creating the business... otherwise they just wouldn't do it and you wouldn't be able to sit there on your computer and use the internet
" All states eventually come to an end, and when they do who is going to foot the costs? Definitely not those at the top of the hierarchy. "
what is this suppose to mean exactly?