Static

Well, it was not my intent to come here and disturb your bubble. I quite enjoy this forum and appreciate all the opinions brought forth, especially the ones that differ from mine. Its become increasingly clear, though, that most (not all) in this forum are unwilling to accept anything said that has a hint of socialist (or for that matter, anti-capitalist) doctrine, so, to use Sabbath's metaphor, I will cease to beat the proverbial air and only post on non-political issues (To tell you the truth, I don't understand why you'd want everyone here to agree with you, what's the point of bringing forth an opinion that everyone else shares? To each his own, I guess). If I've offended any of you with my RADICAL ideas, I apologize and I'll leave you to discussing important matters like what kind of nuke to use on Fallujah. See you on the aesthetics page... And Aisa, I'm still truly interested as to why you requested my curriculum vitae.

Apparently that's interventionist and not capitalist by definition, or so Black Sabbath tells me And Sabbath, I'm still waiting for those examples of government intervention.

You're misrepresenting Adam Smith. He's stating that it usually doesn't make a difference whether the individual attempts to promote the interest of society or his own interest, society usually gains. There's also the option (which I was initially referring to) that this individual is attempting to directly avoid society's interests in the case of bankrupting competitors and exploiting this free market you so love. Saying that motives are irrelevant is incredibly naive. Does that make it any easier to swallow? Oh, cheaper, right, my mistake for overlooking that. Let's talk Nike, shall we? See, my mind was clouded with the fact that Nike spends about 4% of the consumer cost for a pair of shoes (Nike Air Pegasus at $70 USD, for example) on production labor. According to the statistics provided by CBS News, the New York Times, the Campaign for Labor Rights, and Thuyen Nguyen of Vietnam Labor Watch, that works out to $1.60-$2.46 per day, varying between Vietnam, Indonesia, and China. A simple, basic meal (like rice, vegetables and some tofu) costs 70 cents; three meals a day costs $2.10. So depending on where they work the basic salary they receive from Nike factory jobs barely covers the cost of food, if that, let alone other costs of living and anyone they may have to support. But oh, yeah, it's cheaper for Nike At this rate, it would take a Vietnamese worker 40 days to make enough money to buy the shoes they make. But that doesn't matter, Indonesian children aren't Nike's target demographic. That's why they spent $140 million to have Andre Agassi to wear their apparel for a month (One ******* month!) or the $978 million they spent in 1997 on marketing and promotion. But, oh, yeah, they have to cut costs somewhere to stay competitive, god forbid they cut them in marketing. Even if Nike doubled the wage of it's workers and passed that 4% directly on to the consumer, the extra cost would equal the price of a pair of shoelaces. You're telling me that Nike wouldn't be able to stay as competitive as they are now? All that crap to save a buck. I won't puke for peace, but I'll damn well puke for anyone who sees a sweatshop as a positive. (Puke for peace? Where'd you come up with that, cappie?) You wanna see what goes on inside? http://www.saigon.com/~nike/reports/report1.html

In most cases, you don't earn minimum wage based on your intellectual contribution to your job, you earn it because of the task you're expected to perform. If you choose a position that doesn't require intellectual contribution because you're specifically looking to avoid using your mind, then you're just lazy, not a Marxist. So, in answer to your question, yes, its been considered. Besides, my original point to Praxus was that he could do his half-assed job, devoid of intellect in our current society and still get paid, let alone in my hypothetical situation. And please don't assume I support all Marxist doctrines just because I mention some of them. I'm a strong believer in working with your mind. I'm not here to be refuted, my argument is.

I'm intrigued to see what purpose this will serve, but, like many students in university struggling to afford living expenses, let alone tuition, I've worked a variety of jobs: waiting tables, doing inventory and accounting, camp counseling, customer service, fundraising, ski patrolling, promoting natural gas deregulation, interacting with seniors in a local penitentiary to better integrate them back into society. I must warn you capitalists, though, that some of these were volunteer positions, so you probably wouldn't consider them "real" jobs and think I'm irrational for wanting anything more than money. There's just no reasoning with me, is there?

First of all, how many people go to work everyday in our society making minimum wage and contribute intellectually. Chances are very few. Second, you're taking a capitalist view of socialism thinking, "Me getting paid is all that matters" which isn't the case at all in a socialist society. You're working towards the good of everyone and if you can't wrap your head around that, then you are the one who makes socialism fail. If you're living in a socialist society with a capitalist mindset, nothing's going to get accomplished, so what you say about you not contributing intellectually is based around your own selfishness, not a tenet of socialism at all. Third, you're thinking in the realm of having the job of posting on my forum for money rather than for the passion of creating ideas. In a socialist society, you would choose your job for what you love and the greater good, not for the money, so you would not have the job of posting on my forum. And there are even examples of this in our society now. Teachers educating our next generation, police officers keeping the peace, hell, even the starving artists who have chosen their passion over working minimum wage every day for no purpose. Even the US military embodies socialist doctrines. They all get paid the same shit wages and put the greater good above their own lives and the irony of the whole thing is that the US administration sends them off to combat threats to Capitalism? Now taking your analogy, you would be paid the same in the military to go into war and decide to hide in the trenches rather than shoot any of your enemies, so by the same token, you wouldn't contribute. What about the greater good of the other soldiers in your company and the nation that you're supposedly defending? You not contributing is a flaw inherent in yourself, not in the system. Finally, having an administrator put a gun to your head never entered into what I said, you're thinking historically and I don't pretend to promote communism's historical practices. No one's forcing you to do anything in this hypothetical situation and if you choose not to put forth any effort as long as you get paid, you're a drain on society now, let alone in a socialist state.

Care to elaborate on that government intervention?

Capitalism may be good for the select few who can not only innovate and come up with these new products, but also have access to the capital required to commence production. Unfortunately, this is just a small percentage of those who can actually come up with these great ideas. Capitalism makes it possible for someone with a great idea to be run out of business because of this freely competitive market, not because their innovations are of any less value to the public than their competitors, but because larger corporations have a larger budget for marketing and promotions allowing them to effectively bankrupt these other companies. And why, you ask, would they do this? The answer is simply money. Some may say, "these larger businesses are offering customers more economical options, so why wouldn't they deserve to be on top?" Though not always the case, often times companies will lower prices long enough to bankrupt another company, then raise their rates and continue to gauge the general public. Their top priority is not the customer, not even their employee, but primarily their own pocketbook. Capitalism breeds greed and selfishness, not to mention corruption and scandal (Enron, Bre-X, etc) which I won't even get into. So, apparently Capitalism is good for the impoverished? Tell me, what's the point of having off-shore production in sweatshops (Which by the way is not a positive for South Koreans, their economy may have been boosted, but the workers involved in production aren't seeing any of this growth with their meager wages and horrible working conditions, nor are they happy) when the poor in your own country are without jobs. Offshore production may have made it possible to lower production costs but it also takes jobs away from the people who are consuming these products at home. This notion of happiness brings me to the marxist states. Communism may have its flaws, but when all was said and done and these states switched to democracy, suicide rates were never higher. Yes, there is more opportunity for growth in a capilist economy, but what's the point when the vast majority is left unhappy. And as far as there being no incentive to control costs, I find that to be a very individualistic view of socialism. If you look at it in terms of production costs affecting everyone in the state, it seems more reasonable that there would be more emphasis on controlling these costs than if it were to only affect the owners of a private company. And Yes, if you look at the history of communism, this is obviously not what has occurred, but I refuse to believe that human beings don't possess the ability to cooperate on such a large scale. Capitalism by contrast seems to be accepting our flaws as humans rather than trying to overcome the adversity we're faced with. I'm not saying capitalism is evil nor am I saying that anyone who experiences any form of success under a capitalist economy is inherently greedy and corrupt, but the way that this form of government and economy is structured makes it so easy to be selfish and esoteric. Is it that hard to imagine living in a society where everything one creates benefits everyone else? Imagine everyone contributing their ideas, strategies, etc into the same forum. We as a species could advance far beyond what we are now, keeping our ideas under lock and key from others. Maybe I'm a dreamer and the human condition can't allow for implementing this form of selflessness, but hey, wouldn't it be great if the world could live in harmony rather than always striving to better one's counterpart?