:
: borg:
: [Capitalism] allows everyone an opportunity to work where and in the manner they chose or own stock.: Stoller:
: That's like saying everyone has an opportunity to win the lottery today.
: : Straw man. Man does not live by lottery alone.
: And man does not acquire the means of production by propertyless labor-power alone, either.
You're the one that has a problem with that. I'm a proprietarian.
He who has the gold makes the rules or he who has the power does.
Ain't no 'in between' from where I sit, rule of law or no rule
of law.
: Sure, SOME exceptional individuals break out of the paradigm (and their stories glut the media)---but MOST 'success stories' are born into surroundings that ENGENDER success. And BIRTH, the last I heard, IS a lottery...
Bald assertion.
Birth is a lootery. You're born, you get looted.
: : : "the social relations attached to [the dominant mode of production], in many cases, simply holds back productivity."?
: : What does that mean?
: That the profit motive prevents, say, AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE (which ALL people need) while cranking out, say, illimitable PERSONAL COMPUTERS (which essentially benefits business) becuase there's more dollars to be had in making computers.
The production of computers and bits are largely unregulated.
D'ya suppose that's why there's more affordable computers than
there is affordable health care? You do know that health care is heavily subsidized and regulated, don't you?
: Or would you DENY that the current mode of production is not up to the task of providing basic health for people?
I would suggest that the ability of Anyman to hang out his shingle
has a lot to do with it.
: : The lure of riches precedes and drives the mode of production. It even follows it thru the distribution channels. The feedback from the latter results in more, less or zero production.
: Say it three times if you want but that's still untrue.
You're just full of bald assertions today, aren't you.
: Labor creates productivity. Profit simply skims some of it---and no matter what your neo-aristocratic homeboy O'Rourke says, consumer trinkets are NOT squandered 'profits' in which access to the means of production COULD have been acquired (think of how many VCRs it would take to enter Bill Gates' market)... The wealth of this country was generated by people who make NO PROFITS.
Only partially true. You snipped the part earlier about the
fuel, i.e. profits that stoke the fire.
: : : (Remember how Xerox sat on their computer R & D for ten years?)
: : Last I heard, Xerox computers were going the way of the Edsel. So...what's the point?
: Xerox prevented people from having personal computers IN THE 1970s because they were afraid that the 'paperless office' would wreck their copy sales...
Right. They lost.
Of course, the SWParadise would have 'disallowed' this market failure in some as yet unknown manner, eh?
Next!
: : : BTW, was your title question in this post at all?
: : Yea. It was in the part you snipped regarding the better than 50% of The Profits taken by the [capitalist] state from the producers without their consent , i.e. the unearned share of production.
: Look, the capitalist state taxes people mainly in order to dole out countless BUSINESS SUBSIDIES and to 'protect' overseas holdings for corporations...
: At least we can agree on rejecting THAT---eh?
Sans doute, mon vieux, sans doute...and all the other Grand Plans for my life. But subsidies are granted to those who deliver the vote. So much for what so many dream of wrt democracy. Business subsidies are only a part and after all, it's my money. I have better plans for it than any other slug could possibly dream up.
At all times I reserve the claim to be excluded and until you can dream up a Plan to allow me to exercise this claim, I ain't interested.
For example, I wouldn't even go to war for my favorite capitalist.
Why should I go to revolution for my most unfavorite of all causes, the cause that tells me that my life...
belongs to Daddy...
..or whatever he calls himself today?
