5 ms·

> I look forward to capital peeing in a bottle in solidarity with labor. :) It does. Capital evaporates in risky endeavors all the time. It rusts by itself as

> I look forward to capital peeing in a bottle in solidarity with labor. :) It does. Capital evaporates in risky endeavors all the time. It rusts by itself as well. Sure interests arent perfectly aligned, but fighting capital is like fighting your brother for inheritance. Meanwhile, landowners see all that from afar, evict people into the streets, and those same people go pay taxes to get their food. Capital is not the opressive.

zasz 9y ago
Ahahah, so that's why capital called in the cops to kill members of the first labor unions in America, out of brother hood?
- conanbatt 9y ago
  The cops? Cops aren't capital. They are State.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - gonvaled 9y ago
    In this context, Cops are not State, but a tool, used by Capital.
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      Really, the guys with batons and guns are not the problem, it is capital that entices them to do it? How seductive capital is, that even lawful violents follow they every will! We must surely give those lawful violents more and more power to resist the allure of capital!
lovich 9y ago
Capital in the US currently seems more along the lines of private profits and socialized losses. You don't see labor getting handouts in the form of welfare and then pulling millions of dollars in bonuses the next year. Fighting capital is like fighting your brother for inheritance when your brother won the lottery, you are on welfare cause of a disability, and your brother decides to sue you for the family heirlooms because they feel they deserve it more. Yea it'd be better if we all worked together but labor wasn't the one that kicked people off the clearances, sent pinkertons to shoot people instead of negotiate, destroyed the environment, or any other of the great many ills that are happening on a daily basis. Look at the article your even commenting on! The workers had to pee in bottles because they couldn't even take care of biology. What did the workers do to the capital owners in this case? Deprive them of a few more dollars in profit because they had the gall to not be perfectly efficient machines?
- conanbatt 9y ago
  > You don't see labor getting handouts in the form of welfare and then pulling millions of dollars in bonuses the next year. Depends on what you consider social expenditures in the us like food stamps, social programs, medicaid , medicare and social security. > Fighting capital is like fighting your brother for inheritance when your brother won the lottery, you are on welfare cause of a disability, and your brother decides to sue you for the family heirlooms because they feel they deserve it more Who is paying welfare in this analogy. And who is the court that makes the rules for sueing. > Look at the article your even commenting on! The workers had to pee in bottles because they couldn't even take care of biology. What did the workers do to the capital owners in this case? Deprive them of a few more dollars in profit because they had the gall to not be perfectly efficient machines? The workers, as bad as they have it, would have it worse without this option. The best guarantee to improve the conditions of workers is to get more competition going, not to put some rules that can be skirted or worse, will do damage if they are followed. While amazon treats its workers like this, Seattle has expanded is expenditures two-fold, raised taxes and increase the salaries of all its public officials. Why doesnt the washington state, in all its taxing glory help workers directly instead? Because they will make more money if people ask for regulation instead of relief.
  - lovich 9y ago
    More competition has not lead to better conditions for workers. We are currently at such a low level of employment that economists don't know what the natural level of employment is anymore and this is still happening to employees. You're argument that "they would have had it worse" assumes that that Amazon wouldn't have employees these people if they were only making billionaires instead of people worth 100s of billions. How is western society making more money and goods than ever but the average worker is doing worse while the richest are getting richer than ever? Unfettered capitalism doesn't lead to all boats rising because eventually you run against hard limits like how many ISPs can run wires on telephone polls, or how many tons of freight can be physically moved from point a to point b. Someone will eventually take control of one of these natural monoplies and extract as much rent as possible from both employees and consumers unless they are forced to do otherwise. To state that, in an era of less regulation than in America's golden age where we see the average citizen's life stagnating or even getting worse, we need even less regulation so that the people who are worth more than entire countries can compete better is at best putting your head in the sand and at worst being actively against your fellow man. Not everyone deserves a fucking Lamborghini and steak every night with our current technology but they certainly don't deserve to have to choose between food and medicine or to have to piss in a fucking bottle to save their bosses a few dollars in exchange for not being made homeless Edit:your point about the government in Seattle not helping out because they make more money from people asking for regulations is not something I am arguing against, as you certainly have a point there. I think the main problem is that most humans on an instinctual level would value a 1% gain in their resources infinitely higher than preventing a 50% loss in all of societys resources and so we end up with assholes everywhere trying their best to be the quoted example on Wikipedia about the tragedy of the commons

zasz 9y ago

Ahahah, so that's why capital called in the cops to kill members of the first labor unions in America, out of brother hood?

conanbatt 9y ago
The cops? Cops aren't capital. They are State.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- gonvaled 9y ago
  In this context, Cops are not State, but a tool, used by Capital.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    Really, the guys with batons and guns are not the problem, it is capital that entices them to do it? How seductive capital is, that even lawful violents follow they every will! We must surely give those lawful violents more and more power to resist the allure of capital!

lovich 9y ago

Capital in the US currently seems more along the lines of private profits and socialized losses. You don't see labor getting handouts in the form of welfare and then pulling millions of dollars in bonuses the next year. Fighting capital is like fighting your brother for inheritance when your brother won the lottery, you are on welfare cause of a disability, and your brother decides to sue you for the family heirlooms because they feel they deserve it more. Yea it'd be better if we all worked together but labor wasn't the one that kicked people off the clearances, sent pinkertons to shoot people instead of negotiate, destroyed the environment, or any other of the great many ills that are happening on a daily basis. Look at the article your even commenting on! The workers had to pee in bottles because they couldn't even take care of biology. What did the workers do to the capital owners in this case? Deprive them of a few more dollars in profit because they had the gall to not be perfectly efficient machines?

conanbatt 9y ago
> You don't see labor getting handouts in the form of welfare and then pulling millions of dollars in bonuses the next year. Depends on what you consider social expenditures in the us like food stamps, social programs, medicaid , medicare and social security. > Fighting capital is like fighting your brother for inheritance when your brother won the lottery, you are on welfare cause of a disability, and your brother decides to sue you for the family heirlooms because they feel they deserve it more Who is paying welfare in this analogy. And who is the court that makes the rules for sueing. > Look at the article your even commenting on! The workers had to pee in bottles because they couldn't even take care of biology. What did the workers do to the capital owners in this case? Deprive them of a few more dollars in profit because they had the gall to not be perfectly efficient machines? The workers, as bad as they have it, would have it worse without this option. The best guarantee to improve the conditions of workers is to get more competition going, not to put some rules that can be skirted or worse, will do damage if they are followed. While amazon treats its workers like this, Seattle has expanded is expenditures two-fold, raised taxes and increase the salaries of all its public officials. Why doesnt the washington state, in all its taxing glory help workers directly instead? Because they will make more money if people ask for regulation instead of relief.
- lovich 9y ago
  More competition has not lead to better conditions for workers. We are currently at such a low level of employment that economists don't know what the natural level of employment is anymore and this is still happening to employees. You're argument that "they would have had it worse" assumes that that Amazon wouldn't have employees these people if they were only making billionaires instead of people worth 100s of billions. How is western society making more money and goods than ever but the average worker is doing worse while the richest are getting richer than ever? Unfettered capitalism doesn't lead to all boats rising because eventually you run against hard limits like how many ISPs can run wires on telephone polls, or how many tons of freight can be physically moved from point a to point b. Someone will eventually take control of one of these natural monoplies and extract as much rent as possible from both employees and consumers unless they are forced to do otherwise. To state that, in an era of less regulation than in America's golden age where we see the average citizen's life stagnating or even getting worse, we need even less regulation so that the people who are worth more than entire countries can compete better is at best putting your head in the sand and at worst being actively against your fellow man. Not everyone deserves a fucking Lamborghini and steak every night with our current technology but they certainly don't deserve to have to choose between food and medicine or to have to piss in a fucking bottle to save their bosses a few dollars in exchange for not being made homeless Edit:your point about the government in Seattle not helping out because they make more money from people asking for regulations is not something I am arguing against, as you certainly have a point there. I think the main problem is that most humans on an instinctual level would value a 1% gain in their resources infinitely higher than preventing a 50% loss in all of societys resources and so we end up with assholes everywhere trying their best to be the quoted example on Wikipedia about the tragedy of the commons