Why Im Not A Socialist

1. Ok lets say theres a successful socialist revolution. The workers all rise up and overthrow the capitalists. What would stop them from fighting each other over the ownership of stores, factories, big fancy mansions, etc? Sure I know the answer is their leaders would stop them, the whole revolution being an organized thing and all, but things are uncertain during times like these. Revolutions create a lot of chaos so theres no telling what will exactly happen.Thats one reason why I dont support Socialism cause the whole purpose of it might be squashed after the revolution by greed. I mean think about it, millions of people would have their hands on wealth they've never seen. The urge to fight over it would sure as hell be great in many people. Greed can be found in all kinds of people ( not just capitalists) after all.

2. If lets say all goes well and workplace democracy is put in place, then everyone would have more responsibilities . I mean workers would have to have meetings and do other like stuff in order to run a business democractically. That would mean everyone would have to put more time and effort into their work and Id hate that. Mean after work I just wanna go home and drink whiskey, shoot guns, ride my Harley, etc. I dont wanna spend extra time at the paper plant attending meetings and shit. I think many people besides me think this way as well.

3. I dont like the whole lets be equal in economic standing side of Socialism. Yes I hate the fat cats but I dont think you can make everyone be almost equal in income. Theres so many tricks around that that greedy fucks can use so why even bother. More importantly I dont like the whole egalitarian spirit of Socialism ( which I might write more about in a future thread).

4. If I was to take part in a mass movement like this then Id have to fight alongside and for people I didnt like. See if Socialism came about then all the wigger , emo, and metalcore faggots would benefit from it as well. Everytime I see a wigger or emo kid, I can barely stop myself from waging a heavy metal crusade. I really fucking hate them. Along with some other types of people. I just dont see the point of fighting to benefit people I hate so thats my fourth main reason as to why Im not a Socialist.

i was going to bother with this idealist nonsense, but i decided it was best not too.....

4thsupporter wrote:i was going to bother with this idealist nonsense, but i decided it was best not too.....

My post doesnt mention ideals at all.

Just reading that first line gave me one more reason to hang myself lol.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:1. Ok lets say theres a successful socialist revolution. The workers all rise up and overthrow the capitalists. What would stop them from fighting each other over the ownership of stores, factories, big fancy mansions, etc? Sure I know the answer is their leaders would stop them, the whole revolution being an organized thing and all, but things are uncertain during times like these. Revolutions create a lot of chaos so theres no telling what will exactly happen.Thats one reason why I dont support Socialism cause the whole purpose of it might be squashed after the revolution by greed. I mean think about it, millions of people would have their hands on wealth they've never seen. The urge to fight over it would sure as hell be great in many people. Greed can be found in all kinds of people ( not just capitalists) after all.

a) There is a difference between socialist revolution and simply killing your boss so you can claim (then) unrecognised ownership of his workplace.
b) What leaders? A socialist revolution and consequential workers' organisation of society has no chance of materialising if what people actually want is some kind of chaotic anarcho-selfism.
c) Workers worldwide will overthrow a system based on greed and self-interest in order to establish a new one based on... greed and self-interest? Greed is subject to the conditions one is forced to survive under and the values they are fed through the society they live in. The only reason you and I are able to have this conversation right now is because our early human ancestors were not the selfish brutes you think so many people are by nature.

2. If lets say all goes well and workplace democracy is put in place, then everyone would have more responsibilities . I mean workers would have to have meetings and do other like stuff in order to run a business democractically. That would mean everyone would have to put more time and effort into their work and Id hate that. Mean after work I just wanna go home and drink whiskey, shoot guns, ride my Harley, etc. I dont wanna spend extra time at the paper plant attending meetings and shit. I think many people besides me think this way as well.

A problem shared is a problem halved! How do managers and other organisers cope in the workplace if the same job would be stressful when shared between a large number of workers alongside their other daily tasks? Work hours are likely to be cut down significantly under socialism depending on the stage of development it is in. Any areas of organisation or decision making which would be too much for workers to handle as a whole could easily be handed over to a smaller number of representative bodies if it was a democratic decision.

3. I dont like the whole lets be equal in economic standing side of Socialism. Yes I hate the fat cats but I dont think you can make everyone be almost equal in income. Theres so many tricks around that that greedy fucks can use so why even bother. More importantly I dont like the whole egalitarian spirit of Socialism ( which I might write more about in a future thread).

By equality we mean equally catering to everyone's needs, not giving everyone 3 slices of bread. As Lenin said in The State and Revolution:

"Hence, the equal right," says Marx, in this case still certainly conforms to "bourgeois law", which, like all law, implies inequality. All law is an application of an equal measure to different people who in fact are not alike, are not equal to one another. That is why the "equal right" is violation of equality and an injustice. In fact, everyone, having performed as much social labor as another, receives an equal share of the social product (after the above-mentioned deductions).

But people are not alike: one is strong, another is weak; one is married, another is not; one has more children, another has less, and so on. And the conclusion Marx draws is:

"... With an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal share in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, the right instead of being equal would have to be unequal."

The first phase of communism, therefore, cannot yet provide justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences, in wealth will still persist, but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible because it will be impossible to seize the means of production--the factories, machines, land, etc.--and make them private property. In smashing Lassalle's petty-bourgeois, vague phrases about “equality” and “justice” in general, Marx shows the course of development of communist society, which is compelled to abolish at first only the “injustice” of the means of production seized by individuals, and which is unable at once to eliminate the other injustice, which consists in the distribution of consumer goods "according to the amount of labor performed" (and not according to needs).
The State and Revolution - Chapter 5 (3. The First Phase of Communist Society)

4. If I was to take part in a mass movement like this then Id have to fight alongside and for people I didnt like. See if Socialism came about then all the wigger , emo, and metalcore faggots would benefit from it as well. Everytime I see a wigger or emo kid, I can barely stop myself from waging a heavy metal crusade. I really fucking hate them. Along with some other types of people. I just dont see the point of fighting to benefit people I hate so thats my fourth main reason as to why Im not a Socialist.

We have to get along with people we don't like all of the time. I can't stand emo kids either, but that doesn't mean I don't want them to live a decent life where they don't have a fat capitalist breathing on them. In fact, I have a strong distaste for something like 99.999999% of people on the planet for one reason or another. Don't worry, you won't have to sit at a campfire with a group of fringe-floppers singing acoustic Black Veil Brides songs while you decide on what colour the local town hall should be painted. Such people make up a very small percentage of the earth's population anyway.

DSN wrote:a) There is a difference between socialist revolution and simply killing your boss so you can claim (then) unrecognised ownership of his workplace.
b) What leaders? A socialist revolution and consequential workers' organisation of society has no chance of materialising if what people actually want is some kind of chaotic anarcho-selfism.
c) Workers worldwide will overthrow a system based on greed and self-interest in order to establish a new one based on... greed and self-interest? Greed is subject to the conditions one is forced to survive under and the values they are fed through the society they live in. The only reason you and I are able to have this conversation right now is because our early human ancestors were not the selfish brutes you think so many people are by nature.

I give you that but to end Capitalism you would have to strip away the power of the Capitalists right? Mean you would at least have to walk in to all the offices of fat cats and say " Hey dudes your time is up, you have no power anymore, leave your offices or we will have to escort you all out of them". I know not all people are greedy and cooperation is a must in many cases, but I think my point still stands. I mean, for example, take a look at the movies where a bunch of adventurers find hidden treasure in some ancient temple, and then one of them tries to take all for himself. Now is there such a huge difference between that and some random people finding all of Walmart's dividends ( or whatever the fuck their called) that can be cashed in? You really think that not one of these people ( some of who have been busting ass for minimum wage all their lives) would think about taking the wealth for themselves? Im not saying its going to happen for sure but who knows. I think its only realistic to be ready for some high minded revolution to turn to shit.

A problem shared is a problem halved! How do managers and other organisers cope in the workplace if the same job would be stressful when shared between a large number of workers alongside their other daily tasks? Work hours are likely to be cut down significantly under socialism depending on the stage of development it is in. Any areas of organisation or decision making which would be too much for workers to handle as a whole could easily be handed over to a smaller number of representative bodies if it was a democratic decision.

But isnt the whole point of this direct democracy socialism thing to get all capable adults to have a say in workplace management? I mean if you hand over decision making processes to a smaller body of people to vote on, that means many are left out, and then youve created an elite, which means your pretty much back at square one. Thats not to say this idea isnt good its just that by doing this youve basically squashed the very change you wanted to make ( that is letting everyone have an equal say in the workplace). Work hours getting cut sound cool by the way.

By equality we mean equally catering to everyone's needs, not giving everyone 3 slices of bread. As Lenin said in The State and Revolution:

"Hence, the equal right," says Marx, in this case still certainly conforms to "bourgeois law", which, like all law, implies inequality. All law is an application of an equal measure to different people who in fact are not alike, are not equal to one another. That is why the "equal right" is violation of equality and an injustice. In fact, everyone, having performed as much social labor as another, receives an equal share of the social product (after the above-mentioned deductions).

But people are not alike: one is strong, another is weak; one is married, another is not; one has more children, another has less, and so on. And the conclusion Marx draws is:

"... With an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal share in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, the right instead of being equal would have to be unequal."

The first phase of communism, therefore, cannot yet provide justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences, in wealth will still persist, but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible because it will be impossible to seize the means of production--the factories, machines, land, etc.--and make them private property. In smashing Lassalle's petty-bourgeois, vague phrases about “equality” and “justice” in general, Marx shows the course of development of communist society, which is compelled to abolish at first only the “injustice” of the means of production seized by individuals, and which is unable at once to eliminate the other injustice, which consists in the distribution of consumer goods "according to the amount of labor performed" (and not according to needs).
The State and Revolution - Chapter 5 (3. The First Phase of Communist Society)

Lenin's stuff is ( as always) hard for me, he skips around a lot and doesnt get really into writing about the catering part . Speaking of that, catering to everyone's needs sounds like trying to please as many people as possible to me. Which I dont agree with at all because Ive never seen it work out without someone turning into a gutless coward.

We have to get along with people we don't like all of the time. I can't stand emo kids either, but that doesn't mean I don't want them to live a decent life where they don't have a fat capitalist breathing on them. In fact, I have a strong distaste for something like 99.999999% of people on the planet for one reason or another. Don't worry, you won't have to sit at a campfire with a group of fringe-floppers singing acoustic Black Veil Brides songs while you decide on what colour the local town hall should be painted. Such people make up a very small percentage of the earth's population anyway.

Now see thats what I cant get at all, If you dont like most people then why try to work so they can have a decent life? Why not just simply ignore them and work on trying to make life better for yourself and/or people you actually care about? This really does get me with all political ideologies. I mean a bunch of people sit around caring about people they have never met and never will meet while working to try and make life better for them. Call me selfish or whatever but I honestly think this is something that deserves to get held to the face of all political ideologies. I dont see why I should fight for people I wouldnt want anything to do with in real life. Which is why I reject all ideologies.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:Ok lets say theres a successful socialist revolution. The workers all rise up and overthrow the capitalists. What would stop them from fighting each other over the ownership of stores, factories, big fancy mansions, etc? Sure I know the answer is their leaders would stop them, the whole revolution being an organized thing and all, but things are uncertain during times like these.

If conflict of that sort were to ensue following the revolution, it would not qualify as being "successful." The reason we can suspect that this will not occur is because the revolutionaries, who are going to be risking their lives in the process of abolishing capitalism, will have a shared vision regarding what to replace the system with. It's also in everyone's interest not to allow chaos to emerge, so an agreed upon method of expropriation and set of property laws will likely be established prior to the revolution, and enforced promptly after the overthrow of the bourgeoisie.

In the Spanish workers' revolution of 1936, for example, people didn't start murdering each other over who would live in the bourgeoisie's mansions or control the landlords' vast estates. Instead, they collectivized lands, began constructing new homes for one another, and turned the mansions and churches into communal institutions (e.g., schools and storage spaces). The reason there won't be a struggle over ownership of factories and stores in particular is because the animating sentiment will be the abolition of private ownership of exploitative property—for without that, the revolution cannot be described as "socialist." (Workplace occupations will most likely be a key factor in the outcome of a successful revolution anyway, so the people will already possess an ethos opposed to the notion of bourgeois ownership and managerial control of the means of production.)

If lets say all goes well and workplace democracy is put in place, then everyone would have more responsibilities . I mean workers would have to have meetings and do other like stuff in order to run a business democractically. That would mean everyone would have to put more time and effort into their work and Id hate that. Mean after work I just wanna go home and drink whiskey, shoot guns, ride my Harley, etc. I dont wanna spend extra time at the paper plant attending meetings and shit. I think many people besides me think this way as well.

First of all, you're arguing under the assumption that you would have to devote more time into your job, which is untrue. Socialism permits society to strike a more rational balance between labor and leisure, so the means by which to reduce the workday will immediately arise with the adoption of participatory planning, and even with workers' self-management (albeit to a lesser extent). Theoretically, the workday could be reduced to 5-6 hours a day, without a significant loss in consumption, were we to adopt a socialist mode of production tomorrow. Capitalism, on the other hand, has absolutely no incentive to reduce labor time, which is why the 8 hour workday had to be enforced externally (via state legislation), and with immense resistance from the bourgeoisie. So, if you truly value leisure time, you should be a socialist.

Secondly, socialism wouldn't require that you come into work during your leisure time to participate in meetings. Workers at each collective would have the option to either manage their enterprise communally or simply elect a workers' council to appoint managers to handle the majority of the firm's operations. These meetings would be scheduled during the workday, so you wouldn't be sacrificing any of your personal time. (Even the Mondragón Cooperative Corporation—which is a network labor-managed firms currently functioning within a capitalist market—only requires workers to meet once a month to vote on enterprise decisions, and they are paid their usual rate for participating.)

Finally, think of the logic of your objection. You're essentially arguing that you would prefer other people to make decisions that intimately affect your life because you don't want to be burdened with the responsibility of thinking beyond 'drinking whiskey, shooting guns, and riding motorcycles.' In other words, you're comfortable allowing owners to unilaterally decide the conditions you will labor under (which can lead to outcomes such as these), what goods you will produce or services you will provide, and what to do with the profits accumulated in the process. If your employer decides it's profitable to produce using materials that will poison the water supply in your community, for instance, that's what you'll use; and if s/he decides it's more profitable to use sweatshop labor in China, you'll be out of work. Moreover, they will be living a lifestyle beyond what you could ever attain due to the exploitation of labor.

Chattel slaves didn't have to concern themselves with the commercial affairs their owners did, but I wouldn't consider that something to covet. Freedom means allowing people to participate in decisions in proportion to the degree they're affected by the outcomes.

I dont like the whole lets be equal in economic standing side of Socialism. Yes I hate the fat cats but I dont think you can make everyone be almost equal in income. Theres so many tricks around that that greedy fucks can use so why even bother.

Perfect equality isn't consistent with equity. It wouldn't be fair to allow a worker who exerted more effort, worked longer hours, or under more onerous conditions to receive the same exact income as someone who exerted little effort, worked fewer hours, or did so in a more agreeable setting, so a certain amount of inequality is actually necessary for justice. Socialists, however, argue that this needn't be too drastic in order to spur efficiency. If you believe otherwise, I would like to know why.

Your last sentence concerns what certain sociologists call the 'free rider problem,' and I agree that it might be problematic for advocates of free access communism, but not for the system I'm advocating. The remunerative norms and method of distribution many socialists favor would not enable selfish people to take advantage of others.

More importantly I dont like the whole egalitarian spirit of Socialism ( which I might write more about in a future thread).

Please do, because stating that you "don't like" something isn't an argument.

If I was to take part in a mass movement like this then Id have to fight alongside and for people I didnt like. See if Socialism came about then all the wigger , emo, and metalcore faggots would benefit from it as well. Everytime I see a wigger or emo kid, I can barely stop myself from waging a heavy metal crusade. I really fucking hate them. Along with some other types of people. I just dont see the point of fighting to benefit people I hate so thats my fourth main reason as to why Im not a Socialist.

This is completely illogical. You would prefer remaining a wage slave simply because you don't want the people you detest to benefit from socialism? In capitalism, these people could very well become your employer or manager, in which case you'd be at a structural disadvantage to them. You think there aren't groups of people that I loath in society? I assure you there are, but I'm not willing to allow my contempt for them interfere with my commitment to improving life for future generations, and you shouldn't either.

Now is there such a huge difference between that and some random people finding all of Walmart's dividends ( or whatever the fuck their called) that can be cashed in?

They couldn't be "cashed in" because the system which honored those payments would no longer exist. The same would apply to cash money in general.

But isnt the whole point of this direct democracy socialism thing to get all capable adults to have a say in workplace management? I mean if you hand over decision making processes to a smaller body of people to vote on, that means many are left out, and then youve created an elite, which means your pretty much back at square one.

Incorrect. Even in enterprises which are communally managed, workers would need to consult with specialists in order to make informed decisions, but that wouldn't serve to undermine horizontal social relations. In the case of firms which decide to utilize the managerial policy I described above, the workers' council would be charged with ensuring that managers were enforcing policies consistent with the shopfloor policy established by the collective. If they failed in that task, the delegates serving on the workers' council would be replaced and the managers would be fired. Hence, an "elite" wouldn't materialize because ultimate authority would rest with the workers.

I dont see why I should fight for people I wouldnt want anything to do with in real life. Which is why I reject all ideologies.

Because, for the mode of production we desire to exist, the "free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." You cannot have equitable remuneration, self-management, a more humane labor-leisure balance, or ecological sustainability within the confines of capitalism. If you're of a proletarian background, it's also improbable that you'll be able to escape exploitation in your lifetime, let alone achieve self-realization.

And even though you claim to "reject all ideologies," you clearly espouse hyperindividualism and are implicitly supporting the status quo with your apathy.

Celtiberian wrote:If conflict of that sort were to ensue following the revolution, it would not qualify as being "successful." The reason we can suspect that this will not occur is because the revolutionaries, who are going to be risking their lives in the process of abolishing capitalism, will have a shared vision regarding what to replace the system with. It's also in everyone's interest not to allow chaos to emerge, so an agreed upon method of expropriation and set of property laws will likely be established prior to the revolution, and enforced promptly after the overthrow of the bourgeoisie.

In the Spanish workers' revolution of 1936, for example, people didn't start murdering each other over who would live in the bourgeoisie's mansions or control the landlords' vast estates. Instead, they collectivized lands, began constructing new homes for one another, and turned the mansions and churches into communal institutions (e.g., schools and storage spaces). The reason there won't be a struggle over ownership of factories and stores in particular is because the animating sentiment will be the abolition of private ownership of exploitative property—for without that, the revolution cannot be described as "socialist." (Workplace occupations will most likely be a key factor in the outcome of a successful revolution anyway, so the people will already possess an ethos opposed to the notion of bourgeois ownership and managerial control of the means of production.)

Let me leave the question of whats a successful revolution aside for now, I think its totally reasonable to be ready for people ( who have been poor beggars all their life) to start butchering each other over wealth. I know you think more highly of humans than I do but I still stand by my point.

First of all, you're arguing under the assumption that you would have to devote more time into your job, which is untrue. Socialism permits society to strike a more rational balance between labor and leisure, so the means by which to reduce the workday will immediately arise with the adoption of participatory planning, and even with workers' self-management (albeit to a lesser extent). Theoretically, the workday could be reduced to 5-6 hours a day, without a significant loss in consumption, were we to adopt a socialist mode of production tomorrow. Capitalism, on the other hand, has absolutely no incentive to reduce labor time, which is why the 8 hour workday had to be enforced externally (via state legislation), and with immense resistance from the bourgeoisie. So, if you truly value leisure time, you should be a socialist.

Secondly, socialism wouldn't require that you come into work during your leisure time to participate in meetings. Workers at each collective would have the option to either manage their enterprise communally or simply elect a workers' council to appoint managers to handle the majority of the firm's operations. These meetings would be scheduled during the workday, so you wouldn't be sacrificing any of your personal time. (Even the Mondragón Cooperative Corporation—which is a network labor-managed firms currently functioning within a capitalist market—only requires workers to meet once a month to vote on enterprise decisions, and they are paid their usual rate for participating.)

Finally, think of the logic of your objection. You're essentially arguing that you would prefer other people to make decisions that intimately affect your life because you don't want to be burdened with the responsibility of thinking beyond 'drinking whiskey, shooting guns, and riding motorcycles.' In other words, you're comfortable allowing owners to unilaterally decide the conditions you will labor under (which can lead to outcomes such as these), what goods you will produce or services you will provide, and what to do with the profits accumulated in the process. If your employer decides it's profitable to produce using materials that will poison the water supply in your community, for instance, that's what you'll use; and if s/he decides it's more profitable to use sweatshop labor in China, you'll be out of work. Moreover, they will be living a lifestyle beyond what you could ever attain due to the exploitation of labor.

Chattel slaves didn't have to concern themselves with the commercial affairs their owners did, but I wouldn't consider that something to covet. Freedom means allowing people to participate in decisions in proportion to the degree they're affected by the outcomes.

Well much of what you say sounds cool ( short hours and all) but Im not so sure about that. Also I think many workers ( me included) would find meetings like that to be fucking boring. To be perfectly honest I think drinking whiskey, shooting guns, and riding Harleys ( among other awesome things) is life. Politics and all that stuff is mostly a pain in the ass. I think Id go loonier than Ozzy if I had to participate in decision making and all the high minded pastimes.

Perfect equality isn't consistent with equity. It wouldn't be fair to allow a worker who exerted more effort, worked longer hours, or under more onerous conditions to receive the same exact income as someone who exerted little effort, worked fewer hours, or did so in a more agreeable setting, so a certain amount of inequality is actually necessary for justice. Socialists, however, argue that this needn't be too drastic in order to spur efficiency. If you believe otherwise, I would like to know why.

Ok Ill get into this then: Socialism ( like many other ideologies) is basically based on humanism. Im using the word loosely here to mean the belief in making life better for humans. For this you need society and to have society you need people that the hippies used to call square. In other words people who have full time jobs, obey the laws, care about the community, etc. Society is the Antichrist of those who live at the sides of it. Especially those sidelined people ( like me) who are true heavy metal rebels. So yeah the main reason Im against Socialism ( and any kind of ideology) is cause I hate society.

Please do, because stating that you "don't like" something isn't an argument.

As for egalitarianism, the thing is Socialism is all about making life better for all people in a equal way. My grip is why the hell for? What have people ever done to make them deserve to be free from wage labor, have a say in things, etc? Honestly what? The simple fact that theyre human? Nobody has rights. The only thing you have is what you get for yourself. There are plenty of scumbags among proletarians as well so one shouldnt look at them as if they all equally deserved the same good stuff.

This is completely illogical. You would prefer remaining a wage slave simply because you don't want the people you detest to benefit from socialism? In capitalism, these people could very well become your employer or manager, in which case you'd be at a structural disadvantage to them. You think there aren't groups of people that I loath in society? I assure you there are, but I'm not willing to allow my contempt for them interfere with my commitment to improving life for future generations, and you shouldn't either.

No I dont like being what you call a wage slave but I dont want to fight for people I hate either. Yeah your system would end Capitalism but it would still fly the flag of the square man as its ideal so I wont support it either.

And even though you claim to "reject all ideologies," you clearly espouse hyperindividualism and are implicitly supporting the status quo with your apathy.

What you call hyperindividualism is simply how any true soldier of metal lives their life. I dont have an ideology, but I do have a lifestyle ( and an outlook that goes with it) that doesnt fit in with being square ( aka being what my 7th grade teacher called a productive member of society). And if I could kill the System I would. Im just not Superman.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:I think its totally reasonable to be ready for people ( who have been poor beggars all their life) to start butchering each other over wealth. I know you think more highly of humans than I do but I still stand by my point.

Most of the people that are going to be involved in the coming revolution aren't going to be "poor beggars," so your point moot. Proletarians, whether employed or unemployed, will be the agents of the revolt. And, again, even if people are as selfish as you believe they are, their interest in self-preservation will ensure that they refrain from partaking in unnecessary violence following the revolution.

Well much of what you say sounds cool ( short hours and all) but Im not so sure about that.

What exactly are you unsure about? Perhaps I can clarify the matter for you.

Also I think many workers ( me included) would find meetings like that to be fucking boring.

The empirical record suggests otherwise. Virtually every study conducted on workers' self-management has found a positive correlation between participation in management and overall job satisfaction. Meetings can certainly be boring, but they can just as easily be made to be interesting and engaging; it all depends on the manner by which workers organize them. But, for the sake of argument, let's suppose they are unbearably boring. Would that then suggest that it's reasonable to allow decisions to be made by an antagonistic social class, like the bourgeoisie? I don't think so. I would much rather suffer through tedious meetings than allow decisions which affect my life to be handled by individuals who view me as nothing more than an expendable and burdensome instrument of production.

To be perfectly honest I think drinking whiskey, shooting guns, and riding Harleys ( among other awesome things) is life.

...Then I pity you.

Nevertheless, in order to engage in those activities, you need income. Income can only be acquired through labor, which you'll spend an appreciable portion of your life performing. Thus, the question remains as to whether you'd prefer being a wage slave for the duration of your work life or a free man.

Socialism ( like many other ideologies) is basically based on humanism. Im using the word loosely here to mean the belief in making life better for humans. For this you need society and to have society you need people that the hippies used to call square. In other words people who have full time jobs, obey the laws, care about the community, etc. Society is the Antichrist of those who live at the sides of it.

Society is unavoidable. If you find it disagreeable, I suggest attempting to live in isolation (perhaps in the Appalachian wilderness), and see how long you can last before dying or going completely insane. Human beings are social animals, and rules are necessary to regulate social relations in a manner which enables everyone to lead a free and dignified existence. The rules which characterize bourgeois society are obviously objectionable, but that doesn't mean that we should descend into barbarity. It means we should change the rules.

You aren't on the 'outside of society' either. You're merely a member of a subculture, as I am. All that means is you associate with a group of people whose music, dress, and general lifestyle falls outside of the purview of mainstream pop culture. You're still the beneficiary of all that society has to offer. Ted Kaczynski lived without society, you do not.

As for egalitarianism, the thing is Socialism is all about making life better for all people in a equal way. My grip is why the hell for?

I explained why in my previous response to you.

What have people ever done to make them deserve to be free from wage labor, have a say in things, etc? Honestly what? The simple fact that theyre human?

What have people ever done to "deserve" to be free of chattel slavery? What have you ever done to "deserve" life? It's not an issue of one's deeds entitling them to justice, but rather of figuring out what justice entails and then configuring our societies to be consistent with it. The better question is why shouldn't people have the right to freedom and justice?

Nobody has rights. The only thing you have is what you get for yourself.

This is a perfect example of the sort of primitive thinking that market relations instills in the masses. Anyone who has transcends false consciousness and critically examines such logic, however, immediately recognizes that it is not a rational way to organize social interactions. If consistently followed, your social Darwinian Weltanschauung would result in sheer chaos—making your concerns regarding disorder ensuing after a socialist revolution pale in comparison.

There are plenty of scumbags among proletarians as well so one shouldnt look at them as if they all equally deserved the same good stuff.

Laws exist to punish the "scumbags" in society, so rights are just as conditional under socialism as they are in any other system.

No I dont like being what you call a wage slave but I dont want to fight for people I hate either.

You would be fighting for what's in your class interest. Regardless of whether or not you like every individual who's in your social class, you still belong to it, so your fate is inexorably bound to theirs.

What you call hyperindividualism is simply how any true soldier of metal lives their life.

I'm not going to entertain this juvenile 'heavy metal rebel' nonsense any longer. This sub-forum exists for people who espouse opposing views that are interested in seriously debating political philosophy. Either conform with those parameters or go somewhere else.

Celtiberian wrote:Most of the people that are going to be involved in the coming revolution aren't going to be "poor beggars," so your point moot. Proletarians, whether employed or unemployed, will be the agents of the revolt. And, again, even if people are as selfish as you believe they are, their interest in self-preservation will ensure that they refrain from partaking in unnecessary violence following the revolution.

All of us are beggars compared to the Capitalists. Self preservation is about yourself. In other words its pretty selfish. Going around and butchering people over wealth doesnt go against staying alive and well at all.

What exactly are you unsure about? Perhaps I can clarify the matter for you.

That shorter hours and all the other stuff are going to come about under Socialism.

The empirical record suggests otherwise. Virtually every study conducted on workers' self-management has found a positive correlation between participation in management and overall job satisfaction. Meetings can certainly be boring, but they can just as easily be made to be interesting and engaging; it all depends on the manner by which workers organize them. But, for the sake of argument, let's suppose they are unbearably boring. Would that then suggest that it's reasonable to allow decisions to be made by an antagonistic social class, like the bourgeoisie? I don't think so. I would much rather suffer through tedious meetings than allow decisions which affect my life to be handled by individuals who view me as nothing more than an expendable and burdensome instrument of production.

I simply cant stand meetings so Id rather have someone else do that crap for me. But setting that aside, how do you know your fellow co workers and owners wouldnt treat you like a tool of production? I mean what if you ended up in a co op full of workaholics who set 12 hour days ( or were big fans of overtime)? If they were the majority then their words would be the law. And that would be just as worse as working for a Capitalist.

...Then I pity you.

Nevertheless, in order to engage in those activities, you need income. Income can only be acquired through labor, which you'll spend an appreciable portion of your life performing. Thus, the question remains as to whether you'd prefer being a wage slave for the duration of your work life or a free man.

Now this may be the bridge that puts our ideas far across two sides of the river. Your view of freedom is different than mine. Freedom for me means not having to answer to any ( and I mean any) sort of authority. Authority would still exist under Socialism because the majority would enforce the rules they decided upon. So thats why Ive pretty much accepted that I wont ever be free, no matter what System Im under. Thats also why I reject all systems because there is no freedom in any of them. To go further Im not that bothered by the wage slave thing. Yeah it would be good if I got the full return of whatever I was doing but as long as Im paid enough money to live and have fun on Im fine. See what Im really pissed off at is the structure of work. No matter what System your under you have to answer to bosses or the majority vote ( in your type of Socialism). So yeah work sucks cause of authority. And by on the sides I mean fringe. I know Im in society I just dont fit into at all. And wont ever.

What have people ever done to "deserve" to be free of chattel slavery? What have you ever done to "deserve" life? It's not an issue of one's deeds entitling them to justice, but rather of figuring out what justice entails and then configuring our societies to be consistent with it. The better question is why shouldn't people have the right to freedom and justice?

Good question but people arent ever going to have freedom or justice I dont think. I mean for example are trials fair ? Is there real freedom of speech? The System says there is but its a fucking lie ( which you surely know). Take back the history clock 200 years. Now did people have rights and justice then? Go back five six hundred years and they sure as hell didnt. I dont see any period in time where there was freedom and I dont see why there will be any in the future. Im not saying dont fight it, go ahead and rebel. Im all for that. I just think rebelling should be simply for pissing off the System or showing them that your not a coward. Not for the cause of any ideology.

This is a perfect example of the sort of primitive thinking that market relations instills in the masses. Anyone who has transcends false consciousness and critically examines such logic, however, immediately recognizes that it is not a rational way to organize social interactions. If consistently followed, your social Darwinian Weltanschauung would result in sheer chaos—making your concerns regarding disorder ensuing after a socialist revolution pale in comparison.

Oh come on Celt, your 4 years older than me. Surely you must know that you have to fight like a dog all your life to get anywhere. Yes on paper you have rights but not in reality. Good stuff never comes to you from having rights. You actually have to work for it unless you got a silver spoon up your ass.

You would be fighting for what's in your class interest. Regardless of whether or not you like every individual who's in your social class, you still belong to it, so your fate is inexorably bound to theirs.

I dont see why my fate is bound to others. Sure the Im the master of my own destiny line is bullshit but that doesnt mean your going to fall in the same pit as everyone else. And even if thats true then fuck them. Im not gonna help out those I hate. If Im gonna suffer then Im at least going to let those I hate suffer with me.

I'm not going to entertain this juvenile 'heavy metal rebel' nonsense any longer. This sub-forum exists for people who espouse opposing views that are interested in seriously debating political philosophy. Either conform with those parameters or go somewhere else.

Ok call it juvenile nonsense. Whatever. A good part of my views comes from hessian music nonetheless.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:All of us are beggars compared to the Capitalists.

Yes, but how was I to know that you meant "beggars" in a figurative sense?

Self preservation is about yourself. In other words its pretty selfish. Going around and butchering people over wealth doesnt go against staying alive and well at all.

Of course it does, because such conditions increase the likelihood of individuals being murdered exponentially. People have a natural tendency to desire order as a consequence of that fact. The only areas you'll find prolonged periods of violence are those afflicted by an asymmetrical distribution of force and/or extreme sectarianism.

That shorter hours and all the other stuff are going to come about under Socialism.

The following passage adequately explains the matter:

". . . .For the vast majority of jobholders, the hours of work are fixed. Once hired, you do not have the choice of trading a bit of income for a bit more leisure. You can quit your job and try to find less demanding work that pays somewhat less, but you have virtually no chance of negotiating a consumption-leisure trade-off with your current employer. (There are exceptions, but they are rare.)

Given the fact that leisure is not a real option, people adjust their consumption accordingly. You spend most of what you make (or more), since there is not much else to do with your money. You can save some of it, but that just means spending more later. Of course, you can always substitute a large increase in leisure for a large decrease in consumption by quitting your job, but that is a choice that few of us would want to make, and one altogether different from the marginal option - to substitute somewhat more leisure for somewhat less consumption. In the absence of the marginal option, you orient your life toward consumption; you search for happiness in things; you even go into debt in search of that fulfillment that consumption alone (you know in your heart) can never bring.

Harvard economist Juliet Schor has calculated just how much leisure our increased productivity could in fact support. Suppose, fifty years ago, we in the United States, happy with our standard of living (which was the envy of the world) had opted to take our productivity gains in leisure instead of increased consumption:

'We could now produce our 1948 standard of living (measured in terms of marketed goods and services) in less than half the time it took that year. We actually could have chosen the four-hour day. Or a working year of six months. Or, every worker in the United States could now be taking every other year off from work—with pay.'

Let us think about this for a moment. The year 1948 was not a bad time to be alive in America. People had washing machines, refrigerators, cars (not as many as today, but more buses and trams), telephones, record players, TVs (admittedly black and white), typewriters, lots of movie theaters. True, they didn't have cell phones, CDs, PCs, or VCRs, but life was hardly uncomfortable. (I'm thinking here of middle class life. Life for poor people was miserable—as it still is.) Suppose we (current voters) were given a choice: either our current standard of living or a 1948 standard with a full-pay sabbatical every other year. Or perhaps a third option: a consumption mid-point between 1948 and now, say 1975, and a three month summer vacation every year? (For everyone, not just schoolteachers and academics.) Is it so obvious that we would choose the present consumption-leisure trade-off? If we were given the choice—which, of course, we are not.

Although our technologies might have given us more leisure, in fact, as Schor's research shows, the hours of work (for those who have work) have been steadily increasing since 1948. It is possible that we as a society prefer it that way, but the fact is, no choice was ever offered.

This is not an accidental feature easily remedied. A bias for consumption is built into the structure of capitalism. Even though workers in an enterprise might prefer to take a part of their productivity increase in leisure rather than income, the owner of an enterprise has nothing whatsoever to gain from such a trade-off. A capitalist wants to get as much work from his workforce as possible. Unless it can be demonstrated that there would be a significant gain in worker productivity, the capitalist has no reason to consider such a proposal. The fact that workers might be happier is irrelevant.

From the perspective of the capitalist class as a whole, the undesirability of allowing leisure to substitute for consumption is even more striking. Capitalist firms make a profit only from selling. If profit rates are to remain high then goods and services must be consumed in ever increasing quantities. Any kind of cultural shift that emphasizes leisure over consumption bodes ill for business. To be sure, individual businesses catering to the increase in leisure that people would have might profit, but if this leisure comes at the expense of income, overall aggregate demand will stagnate or slip into recession. Consumption is good for business. Leisure—if not oriented toward consumption—is not.

"In principle, a labor-saving technological improvement introduced into the workplace can be used to increase either production or leisure. Do we want more goods with the same labor or the same goods with less labor? In a worker self-managed firm, this choice translates into a choice between consumption and leisure. Since democratic solidarity forestalls the option of laying off part of the workforce, the choice is either to produce more (and hence make more money) or to spread the work around so that everyone works less. There would be no systemic bias to the choice. Making more money is always attractive, but so too is working less. It is generally easier to increase production than to rearrange work. However, increasing production means more things have to be sold, so it is safer to produce the same amount as before and take more leisure.

. . . . Under capitalism, labor-saving technology does not provide workers with a choice between increased consumption and more leisure. The option for 'leisure' means workers are laid off—hardly a voluntary choice. The option for consumption is the decision to increase production to increase profits—for the owners. Over time, this increased production may result in lower prices and hence more worker consumption, but there is nothing in this process that resembles a conscious choice.

Since choices between consumption and leisure can be freely made under Economic Democracy, we would expect to see, over time, various patterns develop, some firms opting for more leisure, some for higher incomes. Indeed, workers within a given firm could opt for different leisure-income packages, so long as overall production can be effectively coordinated. Raises and bonuses might be formulated in terms of choices between more income and more leisure. Reduced-time work, earning the same hourly rate as full-time work, could be readily offered."
David Schweickart, After Capitalism (Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002), pp. 99-100, 141 (bold emphasis added).

Michael Albert also offers a concise explanation in the following video (2:21-4:20):

But setting that aside, how do you know your fellow co workers and owners wouldnt treat you like a tool of production? I mean what if you ended up in a co op full of workaholics who set 12 hour days ( or were big fans of overtime)? If they were the majority then their words would be the law. And that would be just as worse as working for a Capitalist.

Your example isn't reflective of a worker being used as a disposable tool of production, but rather of having co-workers who have a higher consumption preference. Capital treats workers in the former manner because labor is viewed as a burdensome cost to production, to be minimized whenever and wherever possible. If that means, say, discarding a worker after 20+ years of service to improve the company's bottom line, it will happen. Labor-managed firms, on the hand, endow every worker with equal decision-making power and an incentive to work in the collective's interest, which has the effect of creating a more solidaristic environment. (I recommend viewing this recent documentary to gain a better understanding of the issue.)

Your view of freedom is different than mine. Freedom for me means not having to answer to any ( and I mean any) sort of authority.Authority would still exist under Socialism because the majority would enforce the rules they decided upon. So thats why Ive pretty much accepted that I wont ever be free, no matter what System Im under. Thats also why I reject all systems because there is no freedom in any of them.

What socialism does is enable people to participate in decisions in proportion to the degree they're effected by the outcome. That is what freedom means to me. Your problem seems to be with rules per se, which is incredibly childish.

To go further Im not that bothered by the wage slave thing. Yeah it would be good if I got the full return of whatever I was doing but as long as Im paid enough money to live and have fun on Im fine.

It's not an issue of being deprived of the "full return" of 'your' labor—which is a social effort anyway—it's about being denied the right to participate in decisions that intimately effect your life, whilst having having surplus labor expropriated from you to subsidize the bourgeoisie's extravagant lifestyle, simply due to belonging to a social class which is at a structural disadvantage in society. If you're really "fine" with that, then you're just a masochistic imbecile who I'm wasting time engaging with.

Take back the history clock 200 years. Now did people have rights and justice then? Go back five six hundred years and they sure as hell didnt. I dont see any period in time where there was freedom and I dont see why there will be any in the future.

There has been incredible progress, insofar as achieving rights is concerned, throughout history. Humanity was perhaps its freest during the hunter-gatherer epoch, because our social relations were classless and there was a equal distribution of force. With the ascent of property and invention of inaccessible weaponry, society became inequitable and exploitative. Nevertheless, each epoch has made strides toward overcoming injustice. Bourgeois society, however, continues to conflict with our 'instinct for freedom,' as Bakunin called it, which is why communism remains a possibility.

Oh come on Celt, your 4 years older than me. Surely you must know that you have to fight like a dog all your life to get anywhere. Yes on paper you have rights but not in reality. Good stuff never comes to you from having rights. You actually have to work for it unless you got a silver spoon up your ass.

You misinterpreted my point. Of course I realize that we have to struggle to survive in capitalism, but that isn't some immutable law of nature. Mutual aid and cooperation can replace competition in many of life's domains.

I dont see why my fate is bound to others. Sure the Im the master of my own destiny line is bullshit but that doesnt mean your going to fall in the same pit as everyone else.

Your in the same structural position as any other proletarian, it's that simple. And unless you can acquire sufficient capital to escape from that position at some point in your life, your fate is bound to them.

And even if thats true then fuck them. Im not gonna help out those I hate. If Im gonna suffer then Im at least going to let those I hate suffer with me.

In other words, you're content with allowing hatred to prevent you from realizing emancipation. That's absolutely brilliant. I suppose you're not in favor of socialized health care either. After all, even though it might save your life, it would also save the lives of the individuals you loath.

Ok call it juvenile nonsense.

I shall.

Celtiberian wrote:

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:All of us are beggars compared to the Capitalists.

Yes, but how was I to know that you meant "beggars" in a figurative sense?

Self preservation is about yourself. In other words its pretty selfish. Going around and butchering people over wealth doesnt go against staying alive and well at all.

Of course it does, because such conditions increase the likelihood of individuals being murdered exponentially. People have a natural tendency to desire order as a consequence of that fact. The only areas you'll find prolonged periods of violence are those afflicted by an asymmetrical distribution of force and/or extreme sectarianism.

That shorter hours and all the other stuff are going to come about under Socialism.

The following passage adequately explains the matter:

"For the vast majority of jobholders, the hours of work are fixed. Once hired, you do not have the choice of trading a bit of income for a bit more leisure. You can quit your job and try to find less demanding work that pays somewhat less, but you have virtually no chance of negotiating a consumption-leisure trade-off with your current employer. (There are exceptions, but they are rare.)

Given the fact that leisure is not a real option, people adjust their consumption accordingly. You spend most of what you make (or more), since there is not much else to do with your money. You can save some of it, but that just means spending more later. Of course, you can always substitute a large increase in leisure for a large decrease in consumption by quitting your job, but that is a choice that few of us would want to make, and one altogether different from the marginal option—to substitute somewhat more leisure for somewhat less consumption. In the absence of the marginal option, you orient your life toward consumption; you search for happiness in things; you even go into debt in search of that fulfillment that consumption alone (you know in your heart) can never bring.

Harvard economist Juliet Schor has calculated just how much leisure our increased productivity could in fact support. Suppose, fifty years ago, we in the United States, happy with our standard of living (which was the envy of the world) had opted to take our productivity gains in leisure instead of increased consumption:

'We could now produce our 1948 standard of living (measured in terms of marketed goods and services) in less than half the time it took that year. We actually could have chosen the four-hour day. Or a working year of six months. Or, every worker in the United States could now be taking every other year off from work—with pay.'

Let us think about this for a moment. The year 1948 was not a bad time to be alive in America. People had washing machines, refrigerators, cars (not as many as today, but more buses and trams), telephones, record players, TVs (admittedly black and white), typewriters, lots of movie theaters. True, they didn't have cell phones, CDs, PCs, or VCRs, but life was hardly uncomfortable. (I'm thinking here of middle class life. Life for poor people was miserable—as it still is.) Suppose we (current voters) were given a choice: either our current standard of living or a 1948 standard with a full-pay sabbatical every other year. Or perhaps a third option: a consumption mid-point between 1948 and now, say 1975, and a three month summer vacation every year? (For everyone, not just schoolteachers and academics.) Is it so obvious that we would choose the present consumption-leisure trade-off? If we were given the choice—which, of course, we are not.

Although our technologies might have given us more leisure, in fact, as Schor's research shows, the hours of work (for those who have work) have been steadily increasing since 1948. It is possible that we as a society prefer it that way, but the fact is, no choice was ever offered.

This is not an accidental feature easily remedied. A bias for consumption is built into the structure of capitalism. Even though workers in an enterprise might prefer to take a part of their productivity increase in leisure rather than income, the owner of an enterprise has nothing whatsoever to gain from such a trade-off. A capitalist wants to get as much work from his workforce as possible. Unless it can be demonstrated that there would be a significant gain in worker productivity, the capitalist has no reason to consider such a proposal. The fact that workers might be happier is irrelevant.

From the perspective of the capitalist class as a whole, the undesirability of allowing leisure to substitute for consumption is even more striking. Capitalist firms make a profit only from selling. If profit rates are to remain high then goods and services must be consumed in ever increasing quantities. Any kind of cultural shift that emphasizes leisure over consumption bodes ill for business. To be sure, individual businesses catering to the increase in leisure that people would have might profit, but if this leisure comes at the expense of income, overall aggregate demand will stagnate or slip into recession. Consumption is good for business. Leisure—if not oriented toward consumption—is not.

"In principle, a labor-saving technological improvement introduced into the workplace can be used to increase either production or leisure. Do we want more goods with the same labor or the same goods with less labor? In a worker self-managed firm, this choice translates into a choice between consumption and leisure. Since democratic solidarity forestalls the option of laying off part of the workforce, the choice is either to produce more (and hence make more money) or to spread the work around so that everyone works less. There would be no systemic bias to the choice. Making more money is always attractive, but so too is working less. It is generally easier to increase production than to rearrange work. However, increasing production means more things have to be sold, so it is safer to produce the same amount as before and take more leisure.

. . . . Under capitalism, labor-saving technology does not provide workers with a choice between increased consumption and more leisure. The option for 'leisure' means workers are laid off—hardly a voluntary choice. The option for consumption is the decision to increase production to increase profits—for the owners. Over time, this increased production may result in lower prices and hence more worker consumption, but there is nothing in this process that resembles a conscious choice.

Since choices between consumption and leisure can be freely made under Economic Democracy, we would expect to see, over time, various patterns develop, some firms opting for more leisure, some for higher incomes. Indeed, workers within a given firm could opt for different leisure-income packages, so long as overall production can be effectively coordinated. Raises and bonuses might be formulated in terms of choices between more income and more leisure. Reduced-time work, earning the same hourly rate as full-time work, could be readily offered."
David Schweickart, After Capitalism (Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002), pp. 99-100, 141 (bold emphasis added).

Michael Albert also offers a concise explanation in the following video (2:21-4:20):

But setting that aside, how do you know your fellow co workers and owners wouldnt treat you like a tool of production? I mean what if you ended up in a co op full of workaholics who set 12 hour days ( or were big fans of overtime)? If they were the majority then their words would be the law. And that would be just as worse as working for a Capitalist.

Your example isn't reflective of a worker being used as a disposable tool of production, but rather of having co-workers who have a higher consumption preference. Capital treats workers in the former manner because labor is viewed as a burdensome cost to production, to be minimized whenever and wherever possible. If that means, say, discarding a worker after 20+ years of service to improve the company's bottom line, it will happen. Labor-managed firms, on the hand, endow every worker with equal decision-making power and an incentive to work in the collective's interest, which has the effect of creating a more solidaristic environment. (I recommend viewing this recent documentary to gain a better understanding of the issue.)

Your view of freedom is different than mine. Freedom for me means not having to answer to any ( and I mean any) sort of authority.Authority would still exist under Socialism because the majority would enforce the rules they decided upon. So thats why Ive pretty much accepted that I wont ever be free, no matter what System Im under. Thats also why I reject all systems because there is no freedom in any of them.

What socialism does is enable people to participate in decisions in proportion to the degree they're effected by the outcome. That is what freedom means to me. Your problem seems to be with rules per se, which is incredibly childish.

To go further Im not that bothered by the wage slave thing. Yeah it would be good if I got the full return of whatever I was doing but as long as Im paid enough money to live and have fun on Im fine.

It's not an issue of being deprived of the "full return" of 'your' labor—which is a social effort anyway—it's about being denied the right to participate in decisions that intimately effect your life, whilst having having surplus labor expropriated from you to subsidize the bourgeoisie's extravagant lifestyle, simply due to belonging to a social class which is at a structural disadvantage in society. If you're really "fine" with that, then you're just a masochistic imbecile who I'm wasting time engaging with.

Take back the history clock 200 years. Now did people have rights and justice then? Go back five six hundred years and they sure as hell didnt. I dont see any period in time where there was freedom and I dont see why there will be any in the future.

There has been incredible progress, insofar as achieving rights is concerned, throughout history. Humanity was perhaps its freest during the hunter-gatherer epoch, because our social relations were classless and there was a equal distribution of force. With the ascent of property and invention of inaccessible weaponry, society became inequitable and exploitative. Nevertheless, each epoch has made strides toward overcoming injustice. Bourgeois society, however, continues to conflict with our 'instinct for freedom,' as Bakunin called it, which is why communism remains a possibility.

Oh come on Celt, your 4 years older than me. Surely you must know that you have to fight like a dog all your life to get anywhere. Yes on paper you have rights but not in reality. Good stuff never comes to you from having rights. You actually have to work for it unless you got a silver spoon up your ass.

You misinterpreted my point. Of course I realize that we have to struggle to survive in capitalism, but that isn't some immutable law of nature. Mutual aid and cooperation can replace competition in many of life's domains.

I dont see why my fate is bound to others. Sure the Im the master of my own destiny line is bullshit but that doesnt mean your going to fall in the same pit as everyone else.

Your in the same structural position as any other proletarian, it's that simple. And unless you can acquire sufficient capital to escape from that position at some point in your life, your fate is bound to them.

And even if thats true then fuck them. Im not gonna help out those I hate. If Im gonna suffer then Im at least going to let those I hate suffer with me.

In other words, you're content with allowing hatred to prevent you from realizing emancipation. That's absolutely brilliant. I suppose you're not in favor of socialized health care either. After all, even though it might save your life, it would also save the lives of the individuals you loath.

Ok call it juvenile nonsense.

I shall.

Well I do write in a colorful way.

Your right about shorter hours. That still doesnt get rid of my main problem though.

Why exactly is it childish to not want anyone tell you what to do? Do you like it when other people tell you what to do? Cause thats exactly what happens at work. I suppose people who want comfort more than freedom might be okay with government, workplaces, religion, and all the authority shit but I value freedom more which is why Im against all that. I want to do whatever the hell I want to without some bastard trying to stop me.

I meant the surplus labor thing by full return. As you know my main problem with Capitalism ( just like with all other political and economic systems) is the fact that you have to obey authority when living under it. I know your going to say that without the rule of law everything would be shit but I say no. The fact that words written on paper trump any code of honor is shit already. The law should be in people's heads and not in the guns of the cops. Mean already those who have any sort of good in them know that murder, theft, rape, etc is bad, you dont need to have fucking schoolteachers give lectures about it. The idea that only the cops should have the right to enforce the law is totally arrogant. I mean if you happen to see some pervert molesting a little kid then why shouldnt you be able to just waste the bastard? I think its up to everyone to not only live by the law but also to enforce it as best they can. No group of holy cows should have a monopoly on doing good.

Progress in freedom? Not much there dude when you can get put in jail ( in the land of the free of all places) for simply drinking a beer out on the street. Not to mention the fact that whorehouses are illegal, gambling isnt allowed in bars, schoolkids get kicked out if they beat up a bully, all the drivers license renewal shit, income tax, so on. You can forget about free speech at work and the situations twice as worse in Europe ( with all the hate speech shit). Im not saying any other age was freer but its a joke to say this one is. Hell the government can keep track of you real good now. Fucking Ivan the Terrible would have gone postal on Russia if he could have gotten his hands on wiretaps back then.

Well nobody in the Western world has to go out and wrestle with nature today just to get food but theres always gonna be struggle. Your still gonna have to deal with shitty coworkers under Socialism. Who can fire you with majority vote so yeah I think we can still talk about survival there.

Ok Im gonna have to work for a big boss just like everyone else. I know, hate it but Im not gonna jump on some other bandwagon cause all systems come with authority taped to their ass. Free healthcare would be cool but that doesnt mean Id like having to bow to the opinions of most people on the street.