ATM Robbery Sparks Ruminations on Capitalism

[JC]

I will say that I am of the opinion that government involvement in areas involving working people does hinder their progress, such as a minimum wage, making it illegal for certain unions to strike and so forth.  If the gloves were off and the employing class exploited the working class to the extent that they are inclined, the working class would form unions that would fight back and would win, because the working class is ultimately in control, they just don't know it.  I know "we should all just be lucky to have what we have" is the popular mentality but its wrong.

This document speaks about my beliefs more eloquently than I can. 

Preamble to the IWW Constitution

Direct Action Gets the GoodsThe working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life.

Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the Earth.

We find that the centering of the management of industries into fewer and fewer hands makes the trade unions unable to cope with the ever growing power of the employing class. The trade unions foster a state of affairs which allows one set of workers to be pitted against another set of workers in the same industry, thereby helping defeat one another in wage wars. Moreover, the trade unions aid the employing class to mislead the workers into the belief that the working class have interests in common with their employers.

These conditions can be changed and the interest of the working class upheld only by an organization formed in such a way that all its members in any one industry, or in all industries if necessary, cease work whenever a strike or lockout is on in any department thereof, thus making an injury to one an injury to all.

Instead of the conservative motto, "A fair day's wage for a fair day's work," we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword, "Abolition of the wage system."

It is the historic mission of the working class to do away with capitalism. The army of production must be organized, not only for everyday struggle with capitalists, but also to carry on production when capitalism shall have been overthrown. By organizing industrially we are forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old.

[buckethead]

Huh?

[BridgeTroll]

It is the historic mission of the working class to do away with capitalism. The army of production must be organized, not only for everyday struggle with capitalists, but also to carry on production when capitalism shall have been overthrown. By organizing industrially we are forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old.

Gee... this sounds like...um...uh...you know... the guy... uh...one of the Marx brothers??  Chico?  Harpo?

[JC]

It is the historic mission of the working class to do away with capitalism. The army of production must be organized, not only for everyday struggle with capitalists, but also to carry on production when capitalism shall have been overthrown. By organizing industrially we are forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old.

Gee... this sounds like...um...uh...you know... the guy... uh...one of the Marx brothers??  Chico?  Harpo?

do you see a mention of a the state in this text?

[Dog Walker]

International Workers of the World ....IWW....good grief, are the Wobblies still around?  JC must be one of the last of the pure Marxists left in the world.  I KNEW I last had this discussion about fifty years ago.

Wage slaves, worker exploitation.....nobody has seriously talked like this since 1991!

Marxism is a quasi-religious belief system and it as futile to argue with a believer as it is to try to argue with a fundamentalist Baptist about the rationality of those beliefs.


Stephen, in my mind you are conflating finance and capitalism.  Academically you may be correct, but my gut's definition of capitalism isn't so narrow.  Accumulation of surplus of any kind for the purpose of exchange or loan has to be at least a primitive form of capitalism.  "I'll give you three bushels of seed corn now if you pledge to give me ten bushels of corn when you crop comes in."

[Dog Walker]

Stephen, could it not be argued that we have just "outsourced" the exploitation to China, India, etc.?

[JC]

I am certainly up for a discussion on the topic, maybe not a debate, but certainly a discussion.  Unfortunately the only education I have regarding economics comes from years of arguing on message boards and my self ascribed reading list.

It may be better to start another thread, although I feel the split from the original topic is dead so probably not. 

I will read your posts thoroughly and give you a good response a little later, I am watching "Life" on NG with my kids at the moment. 

Oh, and just so you know where I am coming from, I am a huge fan of PJ Proudhon aside from his antisemitic and racist ideas. 

[JC]

Labor theory regards the capitalist system as evil because of its exploitation of labor in order to create mercantile value.  It ponders the gradual withering away of the capitalist system as inequities are reduced through organized labor action.  And we certainly saw a good bit of that in what many people are referring (prematurely I think) as the American Golden Age.  (Post WW2 to the Nixon Administration)

But I think what we are seeing in the industrialized nations (at least geographically) is the withering away of Labor.  In a mechanized society, one in which robotic and mechanical work has largely replaced the human element, where is the exploitative nature of capitalism expressed in the market place?

Well you will, at least for the foreseeable future need skilled trades people and artisans to build.  However there is a threat to the wages and benefits of skilled union workers and its undocumented workers.  I should preclude my next statement by saying, I aint mad at em.  My beef is with organized labor for not doing its part to prevent contractors who use undocumented workers from working, both through direct action and legislatively, we have failed.  The courthouse is a perfect example of such a failure.  The moment undocs were found on the job the contract should have been ripped up, although, if the city gave a shit about its residents it would have stipulated that local labor was used with a % of it being organized.  Mayoral Candidate Warren Lee conceded this point, he said if the rail system were to come to fruition he would ensure that the local labor force would be used, call me protectionist but whatever!

Can we legitimately describe the value derived from the mechanical labor as a property belonging to the machines that produce them?  And can we logically describe such profits as 'stolen'?  Of course, the default argument falls back on the labor and skill of the operators of the machinery, but we are rapidly approaching the era when even those kinds of task workers will be few and largely unskilled.

I have long had problems with who gets residuals.  For example, I worked for a large mechanical contractor in Jacksonville, we were responsible for doing maintenance work and new construction in places like Jefferson Smurfit in Fernandina.  The way I see it is that the workers "contract" with the employer unfairly ends at the end of the day.  Contrast that with the residuals those who invent and take capital "risk" receive.  Yet its the worker who actually takes the real risk.  Risking life and limb, as well as possible chronic illness we do what we MUST to provide for our families.   

So then where is the labor value derived?  Would it be in the work of the engineers and programmers and foundry workers that made the mechanized labor force?  And if so, are we supposed to regard all profits from future products of the mechanized factories as partially the property of the collective design workers?

Unfortunately, I think the way things are going in the US will require the government to redistribute wealth to a greater extent, particularly because the increasing wealth gap. 

And in an age where even industrial design is becoming a programmable task for technology, do we then count derivative value another step back?

I personally think that Technology has doomed the psuedo proletariat of the Industrialized nations.  If there are no actual workers producing goods, then whose derivative labor was acually robbed?

What becomes of a Manifesto whose underpinnings are based on a crime which no longer happens?

I will get to this later...

[buckethead]

Workers unite, overthrow government and recover the wealth of the people. Then....

[JC]

Workers unite, overthrow government and recover the wealth of the people. Then....

Where has this been proposed?

[Dog Walker]

Everybody talks about the "Wealth Gap" as if were a bad thing.  Why?  Short answer is that people think that "wealth" was a zero-sum game, i.e. if somebody is getting wealthy, then someone else must be getting poorer.  Wrong!

Am I worse off because Bill Gates is the richest man in the world?  (Old joke:  When Bill Gates walks into a crowded auditorium, everybody there, on average, becomes a millionaire.)

No I am not, I'm richer.  His company, his software has vastly increased my productivity, allowed me to collaborate with colleagues around the world and get richer myself. Not to mention improving the quality of my life by allowing me access to information instantly.  I would willingly kiss the hands of the young billionaires who founded Google.  And I bet so would the "exploited" millionaires who are their employees.

Creative people in a capitalist system create additional wealth for everybody.  They make the pie bigger, not smaller. 

"Labor", muscle power, is the least important and least valuable part of productivity.

[JC]

Everybody talks about the "Wealth Gap" as if were a bad thing.  Why?  Short answer is that people think that "wealth" was a zero-sum game, i.e. if somebody is getting wealthy, then someone else must be getting poorer.  Wrong!

I can see your point and agree that in the US everyone is wealthier than say, during the depression.  Poverty means something completely different now.

Am I worse off because Bill Gates is the richest man in the world?  (Old joke:  When Bill Gates walks into a crowded auditorium, everybody there, on average, becomes a millionaire.)

For every positive example you can come up with I can come up with at least one negative example.  I realize thee impacts are hard to quantify, which cuts both ways.  I am sure you would agree that the people of Vietnam could have done without Monsanto, as could the farmers in the US who are being sued because the genetics of the seeds they are growing are now owned, genetics are owned, I hope I dont have to explain the negative impact of that up decision.

No I am not, I'm richer.  His company, his software has vastly increased my productivity, allowed me to collaborate with colleagues around the world and get richer myself. Not to mention improving the quality of my life by allowing me access to information instantly.  I would willingly kiss the hands of the young billionaires who founded Google.  And I bet so would the "exploited" millionaires who are their employees.

What if you do not have access to these tools?

Creative people in a capitalist system create additional wealth for everybody.  They make the pie bigger, not smaller.

As much as I love my ipod, I would trade it in a heart beat if it meant that the children being exploited in sweat shops to create it, were no longer exploited!  The point is that there is always a cost for this creativity, and those who have the least access to information are the ones who pay the highest price.  

"Labor", muscle power, is the least important and least valuable part of productivity.

This is just fucking insulting....

When someone spends their time working in a factory, lets say packaging cookies, they are selling their LIFE.  Do you understand what that means?  They are selling their health, their time with friends and family, for what?  So they can survive, that's all.  The model of slavery never went away, it just costs a little more than it did.  Why bring Africans to the US factories when you can bring the US factories to Africa, Mexico, India, The Philippines and so on?  

Here is a piece about a labor struggle I worked on.

http://www.indypendent.org/2009/03/20/bronx-bakery-battle/

[JC]

Im not sure Im following you there, dogwalker.  I know that this is a common criticism, but I think its deflection.  I dont think that people (at least the ones who actually think about it) actually believe that wealth is derived by depriving someone else of the chance to make their own.  Where do you see evidence of this?

Separately, I agree with you on the productive and creative powers of wealth creation however.  But youve been involved in industrial fabrication yourself.  It has historically taken good labor to produce anything according to the design of the creator.

Yes, without labor, thinkers would be just that and they would starve...

Since I took the time to post this please take the http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,8251.msg145115.html#msg145115 time to respond.

[buckethead]

I can agree with the point that without labor, the thinker becomes obsolete. In theory. Of course the thinker is smart enough to become a doer, in that case.

The thinker (or visionary) is simply more valuable than the mover of dirt. The capital to impliment the thinking, which organizes the moving of dirt, is the most valuable of all.

All of this makes money the ultimate goal, which some find unfair. Often, it is unfair. Absolute solutions have been attempted, and oddly, the result is an absolute failure.

We simply need to strive to maintian a balance between socialism and capitalism which allows for change.There will never be a perfect system, and ours is always in need of reform. Still I view the American Economic model to be the most productive and commonly beneficial system so far. ( Please educate me if I am wrong)

[JC]

I can agree with the point that without labor, the thinker becomes obsolete. In theory. Of course the thinker is smart enough to become a doer, in that case.

The thinker (or visionary) is simply more valuable than the mover of dirt. The capital to impliment the thinking, which organizes the moving of dirt, is the most valuable of all.

All of this makes money the ultimate goal, which some find unfair. Often, it is unfair. Absolute solutions have been attempted, and oddly, the result is an absolute failure.

We simply need to strive to maintian a balance between socialism and capitalism which allows for change.There will never be a perfect system, and ours is always in need of reform. Still I view the American Economic model to be the most productive and commonly beneficial system so far. ( Please educate me if I am wrong)

I think we mostly agree here, however, I don't think the visionary is more valuable because her/his time spent away from the things they love is mitigated by doing, in many cases, the thing they love.

Contrast that with the uneducated person who is stuck in a mine, getting some fatal disease.  Whose life and time are worth more?  

Oh and this is worth a loo... http://www.mondragon-corporation.com/language/en-US/ENG.aspx