[PLUG] PLUG meeting

[Bill Spears]

As long as list abuse is being practiced:
An interesting review of Frida (socialist artist, who never got a clue 
either): http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1110


On Thursday 12 December 2002 09:12 pm, Comrade Jeme wrote:
> On 10 Dec 2002, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> > >>>>> "Jeme" == Jeme A Brelin <jeme at brelin.net> writes:
> >
> > Jeme> Capitalists are those who exploit the labor of others for
> > Jeme> profit.  They believe that the value of an item is the greatest
> > Jeme> price at which a buyer can be found.  That's greedy.
> >
> > Hmm.  Sounds like you've been on the wrong end of that equation far
> > too often, or you have a narrow view of capitalist.
>
> I'm not really thinking about myself.  I've been fairly lucky to often be
> employed by people who aren't making a profit and, thus, paying me more
> than my labor's value.
>
> But the bulk of people ARE on the wrong end of that "equation".
>
> > Without introducing emotion-laden words like "exploit", let's call it:
>
> Well, "exploit" is the word used with regard to copyrighted work in the
> TRIPS treaty and often used in economics texts to describe the extraction
> of profits by withholding from the public.
>
> >     Capitalists produce products and services using labor and raw goods,
> >     motivated by the profit made as the difference between what they buy
> >     the labor and raw goods and what they can sell it for in a fair
> >     market.
>
> I agree with everything but the chosen verb.  Capitalists don't
> "produce" anything at all.  They simply come by to collect the proceeds
> and dole them out as miserly as possible so that as much is left in their
> pocket at the end as possible.  Assuming no subsidies on the raw goods,
> the profit is made by withholding payment to labor.
>
> As I quoted in another message on plug-talk just ten minutes ago, Wilhelm
> von Humboldt had something to say about people who work FOR others under
> coercion such as wages:
>
>   We may admire what he does [his skill and craft], but we must despise
> what he is [for he is a machine owned by a capitalist].
>
> > The difference between the leaders in a capitalist and socialist
> > society is that a capitalist is motivated by money (which buys power),
> > and a socialist is motivated by power.
>
> Wow, talk about narrow views.
>
> The difference between capitalist and socialist society is that a
> capitalist society has leaders (see the Thomas Jefferson quote in my
> previous message in this thread) and a socialist society does not
> necessarily.
>
> What form of power does a person working toward the broad distribution of
> power want to keep for himself?  If a person seeks personal power, he is
> not a socialist.
>
> In the words of Carl Estabrook,
>
>   To be an anarchist, one must first be a socialist.
>
> In other words, you have to believe in the ability of people to rule
> themselves individually before you can remove the tyranny of external
> rule.
>
> > Other than that, there's really no difference.  Both lead to
> > corruption.
>
> Only if you allow the consolidation of power.  A social-democratic
> movement seeks first and foremost the distribution of power.
>
> I swear, you sound like that nut Eric S. Raymond in Revolution OS where he
> freaks out and says some nonsense like, "Communism is being FORCED to
> share or you get a bullett in the back of your head and they push you into
> an unmarked grave or you get life in the gulag or something!"  He has no
> idea what he's talking about.  If I had to GUESS, I would think he's sort
> of confusing Stalinism with some myth foisted on him by propaganda films
> in the 1960s (like the Ad Council's massive "The American Way Of Life"
> series).
>
> Freedom and capitalism do not go hand-in-hand.  Moreover, socialism does
> not require an ominous and overbearing State to keep it running (but I
> think a fair argument can be made that capitalism does).
>
> > There's nothing inherently wrong with motivation, or power, or money,
> > or buying and selling on an open market.
>
> Money and power are the same thing under capitalism (i.e., unaccountable
> private tyranny).  I don't see how "buying and selling on an open
> market" is a motivation for anything at all.
>
> > And I find it hard to not laugh when the people who most claim that
> > "capitalists are evil" are the same ones that argue for collective
> > bargaining and unions, which is just a different form of corruption,
> > manipulating the supply/demand curve on the labor side rather than the
> > finished goods/services side. :)
>
> Why is that funny?  If one side should have power over the other, should
> it not be the side with the interests of the people doing the work rather
> than the side of the owners riding upon their backs?
>
> The curve is already manipulated by private power.  Unionism is just an
> attempt to counter-balance the violence of wage-slavery with a democratic
> process.
>
> It's true that labor unions can become corrupt, but this is through
> willful destruction of the democratic processes that labor movements
> attempt to make common by the owners and bosses who despise them.  Unions
> that stay democratic do not consolidate power at all and so there is no
> corrupting force or motivation.
>
> > I'm for full disclosure and a free market, in case it's not obvious.
>
> Well, if you could find a society that actually developed and moved
> forward under free markets and private ownership, I'd be interested to see
> it.  Every nation upon which free market principles have been forced today
> is living in dire poverty.  The industrialized nations operate under a
> system whereby massive amounts of public money is funnelled directly into
> the hands of a privileged few in order to prop up their empires.
>
> > I'll trade my two chickens for your pig.  Please keep the government
> > out of that.
>
> To me, that last sentence is a non-sequitor.
>
> J.