This thread is permanently archived
U.S. Voting...
| If absolutely nobody voted then there wouldn't be an elected person.
| >>425973
It's not exactly correct. The issue is:
Whoever is elected, he (or she) would hardly be able to change anything. Because bourgeois democracy is limited by capitalist dogmas. Even if you are the far-far-far left candidate, supporting social programmes, rising mimimum standards for workers etc. you won't be able to overcome the system-inherent contradictions of this economic system. As long the means of production are private property, everything goes in the same direction.
| 1/5
Let's assume all workers are well paid (which is far from reality) and share the surplus 50:50 with their employer, the company owner (=capitalist). So we have a shoe farbric, producing shoes. Let the cost for material, energy, machine maintainance and sale (important!) for 1 pair shoes cost 100$, provided by the capitalist. Then the capitalist hires labour to finally produce the shoes, where a pair is worth 200$ in the end - a surplus of 100$!
| 2/5
As already suggested it's shared 50:50, which means 50$ dividend for the capitalist and 50$ wage for the worker. At this point don't forget, that the capitalist still owns the shoes worth 200$, that he's going to sell. This makes plus his dividend and minus his costs 150$. Now we say the company produces 4 pairs of shoes. Which means the worker now has 4*50$=200$ and the capitalist has 4*150$=600$. Now the worker will spend all his 200$ wage for living (e.g. for new shoes),
| 3/5
while our capitalist only will spend a part of his money for living. Maybe he spends a litte more than the worker (luxury and stuff), so he maybe consumes 400$ (two pairs of shoes, yeah!). Now he still has 200$ left, which he can and will invest into his business (competition).
Now there are three conclusions from this super-simplified model:
- Labour will always consume all it's wage for living.
- The ammount of capital is continiously increasing.
| 4/5
- On the long term there are more products on the market than labour is able to buy (not to be confuse to than it "needs" to buy, which also can happen).
In reality capitalists handle this issues in the following ways:
- Labour can lend money from financial markets (driving them into a spiral of debt)
- Capital will invest and export products in underdeveloped, foreign countries.
| 5/5
- Material values must be destroyed regulary, e.g. by war (which is always a good business itself and unfortunately can be good combined with the previous point).
- Capitalists will invest into "artificial" values such as arts, e.g. paying thousands of dollars for simple line on a canvas.
Nevertheless, the inherent contradiction of the system are not realy solved this way. They're only postponed and finally trapped in a repeating circle of war and destruction.
| And now we come back to democracy:
What is the actual discourse about in all democratic estates? Is it about economy and foreign policy? No! It is all about identity politics, recently shifting from left to right. While identity politics is a business itself, it also offers all the options to artificially keep the system as we know it alive with all the things I mentioned in >>426045 and>>426047 :
Arts and other investment bubbles, neo-colonialism and finally war.
| "as long the means of production are private property"
What exactly counts as a means of production? Am I a means of production? What about my yard? What about pencils, paint, or canvas? A screwdriver? Where is the line drawn between personal production and industrial production? Should I be allowed to sell or trade anything?
| >>426282
>What exactly counts as a means of production?
Everything which can be used to produce something and generating a surplus.
>Am I a means of production?
No you are either a capitalist or a worker. Or in neoliberal newspeak: Either an "enterpreneur" or a "human recource".
>What about my yard?
Your yard is the production factor "land" or a "natural resource". Feudal reign was based on the ownership of land. Industrialization made it less significant.
| >>426282
>What about pencils, paint, or canvas? A screwdriver?
Do you pay people generating a surplus with it for you, paying them wages?
>Where is the line drawn between personal production and industrial production?
It's not that hard, see above. But your question is really interesting regarding personal computers and software.
>Should I be allowed to sell or trade anything?
Of course, why not? Specialization and distribution of work will make it unavoidable.
|
If absolutely nobody voted then there wouldn't be an elected person.
/thread
| I would much rather you take the time to vote instead of discouraging it. With all the avenues to vote that can help fit your schedule, there really is no excuse not to vote.
| Whatever you do you wont change anything. Scream kick cry and struggle but in the end it doesnt matter. Stick to your own happyness for a pleasant life
| >>427095
>Whatever you do you wont change anything.
Not with that attitude, this is for sure.
>Scream kick cry and struggle but in the end it doesnt matter. Stick to your own happyness for a pleasant life
Who says it's not compatible with trying to change things? I enjoy the struggle and I don't mind if "it does matter", whatever that means. Your world-view sounds pretty depressed, resignated and unsatisfying to me and way more contradictionary to your "pleasant life" stuff.
This thread is permanently archived
| Your vote does not affect who is elected
Change my mind