Danes will have a special vote this time around; not only is there the Euro vote, there is also a vote on the Monarchy.
The present regent is Queen Magrethe II. There has only been one queen before - Magrete in the 14th Century. The vote will be about who can succeed , the question being whether or not the gender of the air to the throne matters.
The Danish Left have been calling for a protest vote, calling on Danes to write "republic" across their voting papers. I am going to go one better and write "socialist republic" on my paper.
Honestly. What a question! Who cares if the person living in unearned luxury, and who thinks you are a piece of shit to be avoided, is male or female? Get rid of them and all the other parasites.
42 comments:
I'd write "World Socialism" comrade. We won't have any use for nations, states or republics in a socialist society.
"We won't have any use for nations, states or republics in a socialist society."
Actually, you will. Otherwise, it will turn into anarcho-capitalism. Which means freedom. You need a state to implement these grand socialist schemes.
We capture the State to abolish the State
The capture of power has to be done on a state-by-state basis because this is the way political power is structured in the world today.
As the Communist Manifesto pointed out, it will first be necessary for the working class of a country to win the struggle of democracy over the capitalists in that country. But this does not mean that there can be socialism in one country. Nor does it mean that we can expect the workers of one country to be ready for socialism while the rest of the world lags behind. The idea of world socialism cannot be confined to one country.
The state is, and always has been, an instrument of class rule.
Surely the development of the state and capitalism have been inextricably linked.
I am as perplexed about the concept of capitalism without the state as I am about the concept of socialism with the state!
"We capture the State to abolish the State."
I see a problem with this plan. Once the state is captured, it is tempting for the capturers to be the state instead of abolishing it. But in theory, it can be done.
But let me remind you that it will not lead to socialism, but a free market. Otherwise, it would be great. Join the club!
But let me remind you that this isn't the only method. Ignoring the state, using military as a defense from the state, guerilla tactics, etc. can all be used to abolish the state. However, the problem is that the victors usually create a new state instead of abolishing the old.
"The capture of power has to be done on a state-by-state basis"
not necessarily. What about an area within the state's jurisdiction. (Succession, anyone?)
"As the Communist Manifesto pointed out, it will first be necessary for the working class of a country to win the struggle of democracy over the capitalists in that country."
State does not imply democracy. What if it isn't a democracy?
"But this does not mean that there can be socialism in one country. Nor does it mean that we can expect the workers of one country to be ready for socialism while the rest of the world lags behind. The idea of world socialism cannot be confined to one country."
Wait a second, are you trying to say that socialism can only work if EVERYONE adopts it? Elaborate.
"The state is, and always has been, an instrument of class rule."
I would agree with this statement.
"I am as perplexed about the concept of capitalism without the state as I am about the concept of socialism with the state!"
Capitalism/the free market occurs when people make voluntary exchanges. It does not require the state. Basically, for the sake of the concept, imagine a world where the state is gone. Anything that the state provides that is unprofitable or criminal (subsidies, attack, price control laws) is gone. Anything that the state provides that is profitable (schools, roads, defense, bridges) will be provided at much better quality and much lower price.
Since I mentioned crime, I want to go on a brief tangent about it and the state. If crime is defined as the aggression of one person against another or their property, then the state is inherently criminal. It takes money without people's consent, forces people to follow regulations. Ironically, the state tries to ban the crime, but leaves an exception for itself.
Socialism without a state is self-contradictory. If there is not a state, people will make voluntary exchanges as they wish. The only way for socialism and no state to occur is for a unanimous agreement to follow this system, which is highly improbable, and is contrary with the ends and means people have chosen to follow.
Sorry Purplearcanist, now you've really confused me!
You talk about an anarcho-capitalist world being based on voluntary exchange by free individuals. You say that there would be no state, but that there would be private property, money and a concept of criminality.
Currently, within capitalism, I do not own any of the means of production so I either sell my physical and mental energies to an employer or I starve/live off state benefits depending on which country I live in. To what extent is this a voluntary exchange?
Or, of course, I could opt for the criminal option and take what I need. As it stands there is a state to uphold private property rights and I would expect swift retribution. Who punishes criminal elements like me in anarcho-capitalist society? A private security firm offering their services cheaper than the state would? A bullet in the head is cheaper than even a short prison term? Value for money? All this sounds like coercion to accept my proper place as a wage slave.
What happens if I've got more/bigger guns than them? I could capture the means of production for myself and become a purchaser of labour-power instead. Well, I don't want what I just did to happen to me. I need protection. Far better if I club together with some of the others who own the means of production and agree on some rules instead of living in fear. Yes, that's right, we need some rules for workers to obey. We need to legitimise the property that we have grabbed otherwise someone's going to see through this fraud. We need to agree some rules of competition too; blowing up each others factories is becoming too messy.
Whoops, we seem to have reinvented the state!
By making your starting point the exchange of commodities I fear that you have missed the point. Capitalist society is divided into economic classes based on their relation to the means of production. Capitalists and workers interests are antagonistic in nature and directly opposed. This is why I cannot see how capitalism can exist without a state to oil the works of the exploitation process.
"You talk about an anarcho-capitalist world being based on voluntary exchange by free individuals."
Yup.
"You say that there would be no state, but that there would be private property, money and a concept of criminality."
money - I would expect it, but it isn't a given. But historically, people have adopted it.
Private property and a concept of criminality would exist.
"Currently, within capitalism, I do not own any of the means of production"
But you own your own body. That implies you own a means to production: labor.
Actually, the fact that you wrote this statement contradicts that, since you produced something, and you could not have produced this without land, labor, capital (computer, but this is not a given within production), time, and entreprenuership.
"I either sell my physical and mental energies to an employer or I starve/live off state benefits "
You can become a capitalist. You can start a business. You can produce food. And there is charity. Those are not your only choices.
"To what extent is this a voluntary exchange? "
Wrong definition of voluntary exchange. A man may not have the power to survive, may be doomed to starve because there isn't enough food for him. But he can still be a free man, since he has free will, and is free from coercion.
"Who punishes criminal elements like me in anarcho-capitalist society?"
Whoever wants to. And trust me, there will be a demand for it, and entreprenuers will provide it.
"A private security firm offering their services cheaper than the state would? A bullet in the head is cheaper than even a short prison term?"
Does not imply that it would be profitable to shoot someone in the head. Private security firms would lose market share if they did that. Also, they would not necessarily use prison, after all, there exist other means of punishment.
"Value for money?"
What do you mean?
"All this sounds like coercion to accept my proper place as a wage slave."
You are not a wage slave. You are not coerced to be a wage slave. You can make the choice of whether you want to work or not.
"What happens if I've got more/bigger guns than them?"
If you have more power then the PDAs and anyone else who opposes you, you can enforce your criminality. But you can also do that if the state exists, and much easier too. But this begs the question of how you acquire such power.
"I could capture the means of production for myself and become a purchaser of labour-power instead."
You could do that today.
"Well, I don't want what I just did to happen to me. I need protection. Far better if I club together with some of the others who own the means of production and agree on some rules instead of living in fear. Yes, that's right, we need some rules for workers to obey. We need to legitimise the property that we have grabbed otherwise someone's going to see through this fraud."
LOL. Try doing this, I dare you to. What is stopping you today that isn't stopping you in anarchno-capitalism.
"Capitalist society is divided into economic classes based on their relation to the means of production. "
Nope. If somebody acts, they must produce (a rearrangement of circumstances in the world). If someone produces, they must have access to land, labor, time, and entreprenuership (the idea). Since everyone acts, everyone produces. Therefore, everyone has access to all of these.
Also, almost (?) everyone has access to capital. If someone did not, it would imply that they did not have any tools, that they only had their bodies. For example, a computer IS CAPITAL.
"Capitalists and workers interests are antagonistic in nature and directly opposed."
A capitalist can act in concert with worker interests.
"This is why I cannot see how capitalism can exist without a state to oil the works of the exploitation process."
Because you are not defining capitalism correctly. You are assuming that it requires certain conditions.
Ok Purplearcanist.
Since my share of the means of production is this computer and I "can become a capitalist" I'm afraid I feel obliged to charge you for any further comments!
Non sequitor.
And by the way, the computer isn't the only means of production you probably own. You do own a house, right? What about a vaccum cleaner? These things are factors of production. I can always list more.
A vacuum cleaner is part of the means of production? I love a good laugh on a Monday!
Following up on the actual post, with a 1/10th of the Danish electorate voting no or leaving their papers blank on the succession law, Monday's news in Denmark has looked - partly - at the future of the monarchy.
If the Danish monarchy is abolished they could start up an on-line house cleaning business. I've got a computer and vacuum cleaner they can hire.
"A vacuum cleaner is part of the means of production? I love a good laugh on a Monday!"
Why is this absurd? You need a vaccum cleaner, a capital good, to produce a clean floor. How else would you clean it, your bare hands?
"Following up on the actual post, with a 1/10th of the Danish electorate voting no or leaving their papers blank on the succession law, Monday's news in Denmark has looked - partly - at the future of the monarchy."
How does this relate to my post?
"If the Danish monarchy is abolished they could start up an on-line house cleaning business. I've got a computer and vacuum cleaner they can hire."
At least they would be doing something productive. Hope you make it more appealing than if they buy the computer and vaccum cleaner themselves.
Whats your point with this humor?
The bit about the monarchy doesn't relate to your post; it relates to what I blogged about. Hmmmm, forgive me for being so bold.
I could be trite and say people used brushes, cloths and water to clean floors (and still do), but I will not and instead say the capitalist mode of production got rid of the various classes in feudal society (such as the small owner, who owned his means of subsistance, ie. a plot of land and some beasts) and created a social relation where a minority own the means of living (including vacuum factories) and a majority who own nothing but their labour power.
Section I of the Communist Manifesto would be good reading for you. It is a remarkable piece despite dating from 1848.
"Whats your point with this humor?"
It might be funny to you, but "Regency Dane Dynamic Dusting Solutions" is no ssoner off the ground than you're pouring scorn on it!
Damn it! I said I was going to charge for these comments.
"
I could be trite and say people used brushes, cloths and water to clean floors (and still do)"
They are still using capital, the brushes, cloths, and water you mentioned.
"the capitalist mode of production got rid of the various classes in feudal society (such as the small owner, who owned his means of subsistance, ie. a plot of land and some beasts)"
Assertion. What is the capitalist mode of production? How did this happen?
"Section I of the Communist Manifesto would be good reading for you. It is a remarkable piece despite dating from 1848."
What is remarkable about the communist manifesto is that Marx told a big lie, yet many believed it and tried to implement it.
if you think a worker's personal scrubbing brush is capital, you have a lot to learn about economics!
"if you think a worker's personal scrubbing brush is capital, you have a lot to learn about economics!"
What is capital then? Actually, this is a logical conclusion of defining capital as goods used to produce other goods.
Oh, and by the way, this is simply another ad homineum attack. Nobody here has advanced a valid refutation of this capital theory.
Marxism can be based on three formulations:
1. Labor Theory of Value
2. Metaphysical 'Alienation'
3. Historical Materialism
Firstly, with historical materialism based specifically on 'class' struggle:
In 1848 Marx wrote this in the Communist Manifesto:
"Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — Bourgeoisie and Proletariat."
In Capital Volume 3, Chapter on Classes he wrote:
"The owners merely of labour-power, owners of capital, and land-owners, whose respective sources of income are wages, profit and ground-rent, in other words, wage-labourers, capitalists and land-owners, constitute then three big classes of modern society based upon the capitalist mode of production."
At the end of this chapter Marx goes on to say:
"However, from this standpoint, physicians and officials, e.g., would also constitute two classes, for they belong to two distinct social groups, the members of each of these groups receiving their revenue from one and the same source. The same would also be true of the infinite fragmentation of interest and rank into which the division of social labour splits labourers as well as capitalists and landlords-the latter, e.g., into owners of vineyards, farm owners, owners of forests, mine owners and owners of fisheries."
Then the third volume of Capital ends...
I propose to this group that the Marxist theory of class struggle is a facade formulated by Marx in order to substantiate his historical materialism dialectic. The idea of 'classes' in a society are ambiguous and can be carried out to suit the subjective needs of the viewer as Marx described in his above statement. Capitalists are in constant competition in acquiring wealth and resources, certainly not thinking of 'class interests'. The workers themselves can be described as thus "This organisation of the proletarians into a class, and, consequently into a political party, is continually being upset again by the competition between the workers themselves." Therefore, both capitalists and workers are continually competing with one another under the premise of self-interest. We have here above the 'logic progression' [if it can be called such] of Marx's inevitable class antagonism theory. From a theory of simplification of classes into either Bourgeois or Proletariat into a hints of a complex multi-class system with Ricardian flavor. If there is a multi-class system where one can be in any class at any time at any point of there life, then it is absurd to establish the claim that society will advance from the inevitable 'consciousness' of a class that is so haphazardly defined. Marxists to date are constantly changing what it means to be a proletariat in order to sustain their dying religion. I had recently been told that the proletariat class was now everyone from the lower to middle classes. Certainly Marx did not see the 'middle class' as the proletariat, perhaps in his mind they could be pushed into that class but it is very clearly stated that they are workers who make only subsistence. Capitalists themselves were described as those sustaining their lifestyles on 'surplus profit' and nothing else, yet Bill Gates labors for his corporation [however much he does is irrelevent, for when he labors he stops being a 'capitalist'] and yet these serve as examples of the facade I am presenting. Class could mean anything to anyone and this is only confirmed by continued Marxist revisionism.
Well purplearcanist and Laughing man can't both be right about class in capitalist society:
JN "The state is, and always has been, an instrument of class rule."
PA "I would agree with this statement."
LM "Capitalists themselves were described as those sustaining their lifestyles on 'surplus profit' and nothing else, yet Bill Gates labors for his corporation [however much he does is irrelevent, for when he labors he stops being a 'capitalist']..."
On LM's point; do you really suggest that if I own a huge multi-national corporation, but go in to the head office for an hour on Wednesday afternoons to water my weeping fig plant that I cease to be part of the capitalist class?
"Well purplearcanist and Laughing man can't both be right about class in capitalist society:
JN "The state is, and always has been, an instrument of class rule."
PA "I would agree with this statement."
LM "Capitalists themselves were described as those sustaining their lifestyles on 'surplus profit' and nothing else, yet Bill Gates labors for his corporation [however much he does is irrelevent, for when he labors he stops being a 'capitalist']..."
"
LULZ. Those two statements don't contradict with each other. By the state being an instrument of class rule, I mean it creates the ruling class and the ruled class.
"
On LM's point; do you really suggest that if I own a huge multi-national corporation, but go in to the head office for an hour on Wednesday afternoons to water my weeping fig plant that I cease to be part of the capitalist class?"
You are a capitalist and a laborer.
I have always loved that argument that a capitalist who works at his office is just the same as his workforce.
Mærsk McKinney Møller is Denmark's richest man. His firm Mærsk is well known for e.g. its shipping industry. He does look over his empire, like when he was kicking dock workers out of a job in Lindø.
SUUUUUUUUUURE Møller and those dockers are the same class.
BTW, Purplearcanist....Forgive me for not going into capital. Old Charlie did write a book about it after all.
"His firm Mærsk is well known for e.g. its shipping industry. He does look over his empire, like when he was kicking dock workers out of a job in Lindø."
That's true.
Didn't kick himself out of a job though, I suppose.
acute observation Jim, he did not. He is still a guest, too, when the Queen holds banquets.
"He is still a guest, too, when the Queen holds banquets."
Q: "And you, Mr Mærsk, what do you do?"
M: "I have a large shipping business, Ma'am.
Q: "Oh how lovely to have something in common! I have a small flotilla of my own, don't you know. Currently moored near Iranian waters, I believe."
"I have always loved that argument that a capitalist who works at his office is just the same as his workforce.
Mærsk McKinney Møller is Denmark's richest man. His firm Mærsk is well known for e.g. its shipping industry. He does look over his empire, like when he was kicking dock workers out of a job in Lindø.
SUUUUUUUUUURE Møller and those dockers are the same class."
Strawman, with obscure language. I said that if you define classes as people who hold capital and people who don't everyone is in the former.
Also, to destroy the wage slave idea (mentioned before in this thread), rich business owners can not drive down wages. If they did, other businessmen would offer higher wages and get the talented workers.
'do you really suggest that if I own a huge multi-national corporation, but go in to the head office for an hour on Wednesday afternoons to water my weeping fig plant that I cease to be part of the capitalist class?'
Judging my Marx's own definition of what a Capitalist is, living off solely surplus profit, then laboring in the office space removes an individual from the capitalist class
'You are a capitalist and a laborer.'
Under Marxist class system you cannot be both a capitalist and a laborer since laborers have no capital
Lets change the subject. Here are my problems with socialism:
1. Utopian. What happens if someone breaks the rules? What happens if people attack each other?
2. Its practicioners want to abolish property rights, while at the same time recognizing that they must exist in some form (opposition to war/death).
3. There is no good definition for what is a proliterian/capitalist.
4. There is an assumed conflict of interests, but in reality interests are completely subjective.
5. Capitalists are asserted as being evil/harmful.
6. There is no good way of people knowing how to best produce goods for others, and who wants them, under socialism.
7. Too many assertions. These are never proven, and often easily disproven.
8. No accurate description of what the world would look like under socialism. If there is any description, it is rife with contradictions.
9. Invalid, and confusing, definition of capital.
And there's more where that came from, folks!
"Judging my Marx's own definition of what a Capitalist is, living off solely surplus profit, then laboring in the office space removes an individual from the capitalist class"
I don't agree that this was Marx's position. If it was then I disagree with him. Marx knew only too well that many capitalists work hard at building their business, being a figurehead etc.
The point is not whether they work or what they do, but whether they need to.
If someone derives profit, rent or interest to the extent that they no longer need to sell their physical and mental abilities then they are a member of the capitalist class.
"
If someone derives profit, rent or interest to the extent that they no longer need to sell their physical and mental abilities then they are a member of the capitalist class."
One problem. Need is subjective.
Another problem. What if someone would rather sell their physical and mental abilities than eat food. Could this person be called a worker? What if they have surplus wealth?
Also, according to this definition, almost nobody is a capitalist, since they don't need to immediately work if they want to live.
Purp, I'm beginning to wonder whether you're a real person or a computer program sending out messages filled with words in a random order.
I didn't understand a word of what you just said.
"Purp, I'm beginning to wonder whether you're a real person or a computer program sending out messages filled with words in a random order. I didn't understand a word of what you just said."
What would you like me to clarify?
"Also, according to this definition, almost nobody is a capitalist, since they don't need to immediately work if they want to live."
A small percentage of the population makes up the capitalist class. They don't need to sell their labour power if they want to live.
"What if someone would rather sell their physical and mental abilities than eat food. Could this person be called a worker?"
A worker needs to sell their physical and mental abilities in order to buy food to eat. They also need to eat in order to reproduce their physical and mental abilities. There is no "rather" about it.
The capitalist class don't need to do this.
"A small percentage of the population makes up the capitalist class. They don't need to sell their labour power if they want to live."
Who is and isn't a capitalist? Many are not required to sell their labor if they want to live.
"A worker needs to sell their physical and mental abilities in order to buy food to eat. "
If this is the definition of a worker, than it applies to almost nobody. There are usually other choices for survival, but the person chooses work.
Even more entertaining, Robinson Cruesoe is a worker, even though he works for nobody but himself. He is the only one on the island.
"Robinson Cruesoe is a worker, even though he works for nobody but himself. He is the only one on the island."
We are not the only ones on the island. That's why the concept of class is relevant.
Crusoe uses his mental and physical abilities directly in order to survive. He does not sell his labour power.
"We are not the only ones on the island. That's why the concept of class is relevant.
Crusoe uses his mental and physical abilities directly in order to survive. He does not sell his labour power."
I ask for a clear definition of who is a capitalist and who is a worker. You give me an answer. But it keeps changing. I am looking at the logical conclusions of your definitions, finding out how it applies, but this seems to be arbitrary.
One more time, I ask. How do you know if someone is a worker, and someone is a capitalist? Please define what you mean by each term.
Purp, how much of the Socialist Party case have you read already?
I know it pretty well.
Here's an extract from our website: www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/
Class division
Capitalism is the social system which now exists in all countries of the world. Under this system, the means for producing and distributing goods (the land, factories, technology, transport system etc) are owned by a small minority of people. We refer to this group of people as the capitalist class. The majority of people must sell their ability to work in return for a wage or salary (who we refer to as the working class.)
The working class are paid to produce goods and services which are then sold for a profit. The profit is gained by the capitalist class because they can make more money selling what we have produced than we cost to buy on the labour market. In this sense, the working class are exploited by the capitalist class. The capitalists live off the profits they obtain from exploiting the working class whilst reinvesting some of their profits for the further accumulation of wealth.
This is what we mean when we say there are two classes in society. It is a claim based upon simple facts about the society we live in today. This class division is the essential feature of capitalism. It may be popular to talk (usually vaguely) about various other 'classes' existing such as the 'middle class', but it is the two classes defined here that are the key to understanding capitalism.
It may not be exactly clear which class some relatively wealthy people are in. But there is no ambiguity about the status of the vast majority of the world's population. Members of the capitalist class certainly know who they are. And most members of the working class know that they need to work for a wage or salary in order to earn a living (or are dependent upon somebody who does, or depend on state benefits.)
The profit motive
In capitalism, the motive for producing goods and services is to sell them for a profit, not to satisfy people's needs. The products of capitalist production have to find a buyer, of course, but this is only incidental to the main aim of making a profit, of ending up with more money than was originally invested. This is not a theory that we have thought up but a fact you can easily confirm for yourself by reading the financial press. Production is started not by what consumers are prepared to pay for to satisfy their needs but by what the capitalists calculate can be sold at a profit. Those goods may satisfy human needs but those needs will not be met if people do not have sufficient money.
The profit motive is not just the result of greed on behalf of individual capitalists. They do not have a choice about it. The need to make a profit is imposed on capitalists as a condition for not losing their investments and their position as capitalists. Competition with other capitalists forces them to reinvest as much of their profits as they can afford to keep their means and methods of production up to date.
As you will see, we hold that it is the class division and profit motive of capitalism that is at the root of most of the world's problems today, from starvation to war, to alienation and crime. Every aspect of our lives is subordinated to the worst excesses of the drive to make profit. In capitalist society, our real needs will only ever come a poor second to the requirements of profit.
Lets see if da new definition stands the test of logic.
"Capitalism is the social system which now exists in all countries of the world."
Ok, lets assume thats true as we see how capitalism is defined.
" Under this system, the means for producing and distributing goods (the land, factories, technology, transport system etc) are owned by a small minority of people. "
That statement is a flat out lie. If it were true, this minority would own everyone else as complete slaves, since labor is a means. Every good would be controlled by this minority, since if they own the means of producing goods, they own the goods that are produced. Although a society could theoretically follow this pattern empirically, this does not occur in most, possibly all places today.
In reality, this statement is not true because every human being owns themselves by their nature, irregardles of hedgemonic relationships.
"The working class are paid to produce goods and services which are then sold for a profit."
Wait, this said they were enslaved. Now they are paid to do this? Why should they be paid if they are slaves?
"The profit is gained by the capitalist class because they can make more money selling what we have produced than we cost to buy on the labour market."
1. Human beings can not be bought or sold, unless there is slavery, which is capitalism. Rather, it is the service of labor that is bought and sold.
2. That is not how profit is gained. Profit occurs from action, if after the action is done, the actor likes that he did the action.
"In this sense, the working class are exploited by the capitalist class. "
Assertion.
"The capitalists live off the profits they obtain from exploiting the working class whilst reinvesting some of their profits for the further accumulation of wealth."
Does it care to explain what investment is, why the rich would want more wealth?
"It is a claim based upon simple facts about the society we live in today."
WTF? What are these facts?
"This class division is the essential feature of capitalism."
Yes. Because Marx created the word. But if that is true, then this society is not capitalism.
"Members of the capitalist class certainly know who they are. And most members of the working class know that they need to work for a wage or salary in order to earn a living (or are dependent upon somebody who does, or depend on state benefits.)"
How do members of the capitalist class know who they are? Dreams? Weird instinctual knowledge? And by the way, you forgot to include how members of the working class can earn wealth.
"In capitalism, the motive for producing goods and services is to sell them for a profit, not to satisfy people's needs."
While that is the business owner's motive, a person's motive to trade money for this good is that it satisfies what he thinks he needs. If the good can be produced to better serve people's needs, it means more profit. Thus, goods will be produced to better satisfy the needs of the buyer.
"The products of capitalist production have to find a buyer, of course, but this is only incidental to the main aim of making a profit, of ending up with more money than was originally invested. "
And the implications of the fact that someone must trade for the final product in this system is completely ignored.
"This is not a theory that we have thought up but a fact you can easily confirm for yourself by reading the financial press."
Confirm? How?
"As you will see, we hold that it is the class division and profit motive of capitalism that is at the root of most of the world's problems today, from starvation to war, to alienation and crime. Every aspect of our lives is subordinated to the worst excesses of the drive to make profit. In capitalist society, our real needs will only ever come a poor second to the requirements of profit."
Big lie alert! Assertion! Misleading language! This is the worst thing I have heard on this site! Prove this if you want this to be taken seriously!
Post a Comment