Welcome to the kittyradio.com forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. Remove these ads when you register. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us. | 
04-13-2006, 12:58 AM
|  | I'm kind of a big deal | | Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Rocky Mountains
Posts: 172
| | | saying employers "exploit" employees is asinine
two different definitions of exploitation are implicit, simultaneously, in such discussions...
1) the first is that i exploit you if i benefit from your existence
in the sense, i hope to exploit my signifigant other, and she hopes to exploit me (as with any relationship...the same goes for friendship)
we both hope to benefit by the others relationship to us...otherwise, we wouldn't be in the relationship as there would be nothing to gain by being so.... if that is the definiton of exploitation we are using, then that is why humans are social animals and not solitary ones (like cats)....
lets say we own a house and rent out a room to some individuals who are enthusiastic gardeners. and we are not. we get free gardening, they get free use of a yard to garden in.. who is exploiting who?
2) the second definiton is that i exploit you if i gain and you lose by our association.
the connection between the two can be made either by claiming that the world is a zero-sum game in which one person can only gain at anothers expense, or by arguing that if i gain by our association you deserve to have the gain given to you, so my refusal to do so injures you....
the first argument is implausible. the second has a very curious asymmetry... if i give you all the gain, you have now gained by our association and should give it all back. and this would continue on and on from one back to another....
one can see that employees definately gain by working for an employer. they leverage their labor for money, trading leisure for monetary gain.
by deciding to work for a given wage, the employee is literally making the decision that this time/labor he trades is equal to the payment he receives....otherwise, he would trade his time/labor elsewhere.....  |
04-13-2006, 09:18 AM
| | new and improved | | Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Boston
Posts: 299
| | | And here I thought all the old archives were lost...
or is this a recreation?? |
04-13-2006, 06:33 PM
| | Registered Member | | Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 24
| | | i think you fail to truly grasp the issue. it isn't that simple. |
04-14-2006, 10:19 AM
| | unregistered user | | Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: the greatest country on earth!
Posts: 1,462
| | | I've always wondered... is Luftwaffe for real or are they some sort of parody? |
04-14-2006, 10:23 AM
|  | in a strange way, hch > u | | Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: THAWNG ISLAND
Posts: 6,311
| | | youre asininininine
haha |
04-14-2006, 10:24 AM
|  | hates you | | Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: London!
Posts: 254
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by OrangeSapphire I've always wondered... is Luftwaffe for real or are they some sort of parody? | I think he just likes to bait and then sit back and watch the ensuing chaos.
Re: exploitation. The original examples of 'gets and receives' don't actually hit the mark when referring to exploitation. That is the 'exchange of equivalents'. Actual capitalist exploitation goes beyond that. It goes back to the labour theory of value. I found this and think it's pretty apt for the thread: Quote: Exploitation
Workers are exploited under capitalism. But how? What does this mean? The law of value analyses the circulation of commodities as an exchange of equivalents. Marx poses the problem this way (Capital Vol. 1) "The transformation of money into capital is to be explained in such a way that the starting point is an exchange of equivalents. Mr. Moneybags, who is as yet only an embryo capitalist, must buy his commodities at their value and must sell them at their value; and nevertheless at the end of the process he must draw more value out of circulation than he puts into it at starting?This is the nut we have to crack!"
Nothing could be simpler than to explain the profits of the capitalist in terms of them adding a bit on the price for themselves. And capitalists like the ballpoint magnate Reynolds probably did operate with the notion of a standard mark-up. However Reynolds and the other market leaders had to drastically revise their notion of what that mark-up might be as they were confronted with the prospect of a full-scale price war in the 1940s, as the technology for producing ballpoints became standardised. Capitalists continually try to rip each other and the working class off by pushing up their prices, and therefore their profits. But first they come up against limits imposed by the law of value, the regulator of their system. Secondly marking-up prices is quite simply a zero-sum game for the boss class as a whole. What one gains, the other loses. It just cannot explain the steady unremitting flow of new income into the pockets of the rich, as they sit at home and wait for the dividends to plop on to their doormats.
The historic dispossession of the ancestors of the modern working class, such as peasants and artisans, from their means of making a living gives the capitalists the whip hand. Marx goes on, "If, then, the owner of money is to transform his money into capital, he must find in the commodity market a free worker, free in a double sense. The worker must be able to dispose of his labour power as his own commodity; and, on the other hand he must have no other commodities for sale, must be 'free' from everything that is essential for the realisation of his labour power."
| http://www.marxist.com/Economy/theory_of_value_2.html |
04-14-2006, 10:54 AM
| | in a strange way, hch > u | | Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: THAWNG ISLAND
Posts: 6,311
| | | any lower level bickering over ideologies is just supporting th capitalism of the sshitstem thats all within
theman is essentially capitalisty/socialdarwiny is essence
*yawn* |
04-14-2006, 11:02 AM
| | hates you | | Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: London!
Posts: 254
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by fagarielina any lower level bickering over ideologies is just supporting th capitalism of the sshitstem thats all within
theman is essentially capitalisty/socialdarwiny is essence
*yawn* | Struggle?
Sometimes you're difficult to decipher.
ETA: i guess that's why revolution is the way to go - takes it up a notch. |
04-14-2006, 11:04 AM
| | in a strange way, hch > u | | Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: THAWNG ISLAND
Posts: 6,311
| | | forced artificialorder nurtures ignorance and in turn the irresponsibility neccesarytojustify/enforce said forced artificial order
any ideology you choose from
=upholding what already is |
04-14-2006, 11:09 AM
| | hates you | | Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: London!
Posts: 254
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by fagarielina forced artificialorder nurtures ignorance and in turn the irresponsibility neccesarytojustify/enforce said forced artificial order
any ideology you choose from
=upholding what already is | True enough. Ignorance in getting caught up with lower-league political/ideological struggle? Or ignorance meaning 'happy as a pig in shit'? I guess with capitalism (or indeed with any ideology - whoever it benefits - knowingly? Or just 'comfort'?) those in the middle are quite happy with the current system.
Darwin in action. It's nice to know we have another few billion years of this left  |
04-14-2006, 11:14 AM
| | in a strange way, hch > u | | Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: THAWNG ISLAND
Posts: 6,311
| | | Fuck
My Assatar Doesnt Shake |
04-14-2006, 11:18 AM
| | How did I get these? | | Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: On a trailer park
Posts: 182
| | | I can see it shake. |
04-14-2006, 11:19 AM
| | hates you | | Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: London!
Posts: 254
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by fagarielina Fuck
My Assatar Doesnt Shake | It shakes.
Gawd.
*Goes to study* |
04-14-2006, 11:23 AM
| | in a strange way, hch > u | | Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: THAWNG ISLAND
Posts: 6,311
| | | wword?
it doesnt shakefor me
thats good tho! |
04-14-2006, 11:28 AM
| | How did I get these? | | Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: On a trailer park
Posts: 182
| | | Try Tools>>Internet Options>>Advanced Tab and see if the 'Play animations in web pages' box is unchecked. |
04-14-2006, 11:45 AM
| | in a strange way, hch > u | | Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: THAWNG ISLAND
Posts: 6,311
| | | its checked whateva
maybe its just this oparticular session awnline its dialup so whateva
just that you guys can see! |
04-14-2006, 02:34 PM
|  | girl who bought the world | | Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: singapore
Posts: 1,261
| | | fuck me. still havent improved on your vocab? |
04-15-2006, 02:35 AM
| | Registered Member | | Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: MELBOURNE
Posts: 74
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by luftwaffe two different definitions of exploitation are implicit, simultaneously, in such discussions...
1) the first is that i exploit you if i benefit from your existence
in the sense, i hope to exploit my signifigant other, and she hopes to exploit me (as with any relationship...the same goes for friendship)
we both hope to benefit by the others relationship to us...otherwise, we wouldn't be in the relationship as there would be nothing to gain by being so.... if that is the definiton of exploitation we are using, then that is why humans are social animals and not solitary ones (like cats)....
lets say we own a house and rent out a room to some individuals who are enthusiastic gardeners. and we are not. we get free gardening, they get free use of a yard to garden in.. who is exploiting who?
2) the second definiton is that i exploit you if i gain and you lose by our association.
the connection between the two can be made either by claiming that the world is a zero-sum game in which one person can only gain at anothers expense, or by arguing that if i gain by our association you deserve to have the gain given to you, so my refusal to do so injures you....
the first argument is implausible. the second has a very curious asymmetry... if i give you all the gain, you have now gained by our association and should give it all back. and this would continue on and on from one back to another....
one can see that employees definately gain by working for an employer. they leverage their labor for money, trading leisure for monetary gain.
by deciding to work for a given wage, the employee is literally making the decision that this time/labor he trades is equal to the payment he receives....otherwise, he would trade his time/labor elsewhere..... | screw you and your doublethink. |
04-15-2006, 03:25 AM
|  | Possible implosion | | Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Where you are not.
Posts: 53
| | | recreating threads that were asinine is asinine. |
04-15-2006, 03:42 AM
|  | ZTedster | | Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: herding cats
Posts: 1,013
| | | I noticed neither of you argued his logic. | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:58 PM. |
Forum Stats:
Members: 14,719
Threads: 42,142
Posts: 1,124,726
Welcome to our newest member, mrs_blonde Latest Threads: |
