[QatzelOk]

How about this:

An engineer
A school teacher

Do these people steal money from the poor when they earn a salary?

It really depends on the income source and mission of the two above-mentioned roles.

Don't let yourself be tricked into thinking that the name of a job position is an indication of productivity or parasitism. It all depends on how the economy and income distribution is set up.

In some countries, teachers are poor and underappreciated, and they give far more than they take. In other contexts, teachers walk all over the poor and illiterate and rip them off.

Same with engineers and any other "role" you can name. Including "ecologist" and "environmental activist." These are just names, and not clearly defined roles or economic relationships.

[ckaihatsu]

How about this:

An engineer
A school teacher

Do these people steal money from the poor when they earn a salary?

Besides Qatzel's individual-specific treatment, I'll add that, in general, we can look at the [1] *economic* factor, which is one's relationship to the means of mass industrial production, and [2] the *political* factor, namely how close the work role is to *management* and *ownership* interests, and if the person is *using / exploiting labor* themselves.

An engineer, in general, is closer to *management* / *ownership* interests, because the role directly adds to private 'constant' capital / fixed capital / infrastructure, since that work role produces *new technology*. Economically though, the work role may be proletarianized, though that would be doubtful in most cases -- engineers are usually professionally treated as being closer to *executives* than they are to *workers*.

A school teacher is also in a relatively privileged position since they're effectively working for the *state*, which, politically, is tacit *support* for the state unless there's participation in an explicitly counterposed political event, like a teachers' strike. Economically teachers may be proletarianized or they may have access to other streams of income through political connections.


[23] A Business Perspective on the Declining Rate of Profit

Spoiler: show

[Julian658]

Minneapolis Police Use Force Against Black People at 7 Times the Rate of Whites

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... force.html

Yes, there is racism in this world. And the blacks often have PTSD related to racism so they tend to be uncooperative. That is a recipe for trouble.

However, the cops will ruthlessly murder white people too. Obviously two wrongs do not make a right.

As a conservative type I see easy solutions:

BEHAVE LIKE A CHOIR BOY IF STOPPED BY A COP.

AVOID CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT ALL COST.

HIRE BLACK COPS TO POLICE BLACK AREAS. SOMEHOW CITIES LIKE BALTIMORE HAVE FEW BLACK COPS. I ASSUME THEY ARE NOT APPLYING. I am assuming black cops will be less violent, but that remains to be seen.

I am not condoning violence, but that would be a start.

[ckaihatsu]

Yes, there is racism in this world. And the blacks often have PTSD related to racism so they tend to be uncooperative. That is a recipe for trouble.

However, the cops will ruthlessly murder white people too. Obviously two wrongs do not make a right.

As a conservative type I see easy solutions:

BEHAVE LIKE A CHOIR BOY IF STOPPED BY A COP.

AVOID CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT ALL COST.

HIRE BLACK COPS TO POLICE BLACK AREAS. SOMEHOW CITIES LIKE BALTIMORE HAVE FEW BLACK COPS. I ASSUME THEY ARE NOT APPLYING. I am assuming black cops will be less violent, but that remains to be seen.

I am not condoning violence, but that would be a start.

If you're supporting police-protocols-as-usual, then, yes, you're condoning racist violence from the state.

I already addressed your racialist perspective, yesterday:

To clarify:


---


The source of police violence, however, is not racial antagonism, but class oppression. The unifying characteristic among victims of police violence—black, white, Hispanic or Native American—is that they are poor and among the most vulnerable segments of the population.

The role of Black Lives Matter and other proponents of racial politics, in claiming that racism is the cause of police violence, is to promote the idea that hiring more black police officers or electing more black politicians will resolve the problem. Inevitably, this means channeling opposition behind the Democratic Party, one of the twin parties of Wall Street and the military. And the epidemic of police violence continues unabated.

This reign of terror raged under the watch of Democratic President Barack Obama and continues under the fascistic Republican Donald Trump. Regardless of whether a state has a Democratic or Republican governor, if the mayor or police chief is black, white, male, female, straight or gay, police killings continue unabated.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/0 ... s-m28.html

viewtopic.php?p=15096849#p15096849

[Julian658]

Besides Qatzel's individual-specific treatment, I'll add that, in general, we can look at the [1] *economic* factor, which is one's relationship to the means of mass industrial production, and [2] the *political* factor, namely how close the work role is to *management* and *ownership* interests, and if the person is *using / exploiting labor* themselves.

An engineer, in general, is closer to *management* / *ownership* interests, because the role directly adds to private 'constant' capital / fixed capital / infrastructure, since that work role produces *new technology*. Economically though, the work role may be proletarianized, though that would be doubtful in most cases -- engineers are usually professionally treated as being closer to *executives* than they are to *workers*.

A school teacher is also in a relatively privileged position since they're effectively working for the *state*, which, politically, is tacit *support* for the state unless there's participation in an explicitly counterposed political event, like a teachers' strike. Economically teachers may be proletarianized or they may have access to other streams of income through political connections.


[23] A Business Perspective on the Declining Rate of Profit

Spoiler: show

Assuming the engineer works for a salary. IF the engineer gets a higher salary than the clerk at Walmart: Does that mean the engineer stole money from the minimum wage clerk?

This is an important point. Many socialists like Qatzel tend to think wealth is finite.

[Julian658]

If you're supporting police-protocols-as-usual, then, yes, you're condoning racist violence from the state.

I already addressed your racialist perspective, yesterday:

I agree, poor people are treated differently. Humans tend to immediately judge others and this is done within a fraction of a second. The good news is that a well trained frontal lobe can control this impulse. Many upper class people even assume a role of compassionate caretaker with regards to lower class poor individuals. This often borders on condescending racism of low expectations. Sadly the lower class person grows into this role of dependency. For example there is a poster in this forum that longs for acceptance and lack of discrimination from white people. In this instance this leads to a position of weakness.

IN any event, if I was a cop I would treat black people like royalty regardless of socioeconomic state to avoid issues.

[ckaihatsu]

Assuming the engineer works for a salary. IF the engineer gets a higher salary than the clerk at Walmart: Does that mean the engineer stole money from the minimum wage clerk?

This is an important point. Many socialists like Qatzel tend to think wealth is finite.

With *this* statement, you're showing yourself to be more *money supply*-centric, than anything else.

This is because you wantonly *ignore* the value taken from labor, its surplus labor value, which is the *real* source of a business' profits. (Pay low wages, sell the products of labor higher, on the market.)

In other words your whole formulation is a *red herring*.

Value comes from *labor*, and not from the sheer number of dollars / whatever in the total money supply. The proof of this is that your type *knows* that when the government 'prints money' / enlarges-the-money-supply, it's not actually *growing* the economy -- it's just adding *debt* to the economy, hopefully for a 'stimulus' effect, as Trump has just done.

You're being *disingenuous*, yet again, because you *know* better than to posit 'value' in terms of bulk money-supply.

[ckaihatsu]

I agree, poor people are treated differently. Humans tend to immediately judge others and this is done within a fraction of a second. The good news is that a well trained frontal lobe can control this impulse. Many upper class people even assume a role of compassionate caretaker with regards to lower class poor individuals. This often borders on condescending racism of low expectations. Sadly the lower class person grows into this role of dependency. For example there is a poster in this forum that longs for acceptance and lack of discrimination from white people. In this instance this leads to a position of weakness.

IN any event, if I was a cop I would treat black people like royalty regardless of socioeconomic state to avoid issues.

Well, this whole state-sponsored racist-police-violence issue isn't about *you*, it's about the state sponsored racist police violence and the killer cops who haven't been prosecuted for all of the *damage* they've done to people's lives, including by *ending* lives.

http://stolenlives.org/


We have to ask 'Why are some people poor?', 'Why isn't capitalism's *overproduction* of commodities *given* to those who need those things?', and 'Dependency results from enforced *scarcity*, or *austerity*, because people would be much more self-determining if they got what they *needed* from society's productivity.'

You're trying to frame this in terms of *social psychology*, or on an *interpersonal* basis, when in fact it's *structural*, as with the state's routine exoneration of killer cops.

The *best* approach would be to have *workers* in control of production and administration, so that we could *abolish* wealth and the state, once and for all.

[Julian658]

Well, this whole state-sponsored racist-police-violence issue isn't about *you*, it's about the state sponsored racist police violence and the killer cops who haven't been prosecuted for all of the *damage* they've done to people's lives, including by *ending* lives.

We have police violence, that cannot be overstated anymore.

We have to ask 'Why are some people poor?', 'Why isn't capitalism's *overproduction* of commodities *given* to those who need those things?', and 'Dependency results from enforced *scarcity*, or *austerity*, because people would be much more self-determining if they got what they *needed* from society's productivity.'

I am OK with that as long s they have to work for what they need. Getting something for free causes a lack of purpose. Zizek believes in obligatory service to the state.

You're trying to frame this in terms of *social psychology*, or on an *interpersonal* basis, when in fact it's *structural*, as with the state's routine exoneration of killer cops.

The *best* approach would be to have *workers* in control of production and administration, so that we could *abolish* wealth and the state, once and for all.

We covered this before.

You sound like John Lennon.

[ckaihatsu]

We have police violence, that cannot be overstated anymore.

Good to hear it.


---

We have to ask 'Why are some people poor?', 'Why isn't capitalism's *overproduction* of commodities *given* to those who need those things?', and 'Dependency results from enforced *scarcity*, or *austerity*, because people would be much more self-determining if they got what they *needed* from society's productivity.'

I am OK with that as long s they have to work for what they need. Getting something for free causes a lack of purpose. Zizek believes in obligatory service to the state.

Well, you're missing the *point*, once again, and I continue to *disagree* with you philosophically.

If the *stuff* is there, it shouldn't be left to rot and go unused. Human need should be the *point* of economic activity, instead of being an *afterthought*, possibly satisfied with a *byproduct* of economic activity -- commodity production -- or not, depending on what one can afford.

I don't think one can *ever* balance what one produces, with what one *needs* from that production, or from social production in general. And this is irrespective of the mode-of-production, capitalism, or a potential workers-of-the-world socialism / communism.

Yet this is how capitalism *currently* measures things, as though regular wages would grant sufficient access to society's production on an equitable basis with everyone else.

If material *productivity* goes up then shouldn't *wages* go up as well? That's *not* what's happened:





Regardless, though, the overlooked factor is that of *industrial production* which increasingly leverages human labor, to the point where the *basic needs* for everyone should be *free* -- today, at least, there are *dollar stores* when there didn't used to be.

*Your* approach would effectively be an authoritarian *command* economy, because what would happen if any given commodity became *overproduced*, like those massive parking lots hosting surplus cars that will eventually rust away -- ? You'd rather *command* an arbitrary 'floor' price for everything instead of letting overproduced goods be *free* to everyone -- which is what the free-market price *would* be -- for the sake of your nationalist political ideology and ethos which is that 'everyone has to work for what they need'.

I maintain that people would mostly do *higher-level* / more-complex things if they're freed-up from having to spend their time for the sake of *lower*-level needs. Your policy approach would encourage *homelessness* over *leisure*, for the sake of maintaining an arbitrary, austerity-type *price regime* for all commodities.


---

The *best* approach would be to have *workers* in control of production and administration, so that we could *abolish* wealth and the state, once and for all.

We covered this before.

You sound like John Lennon.

Never looked into it before, but he was pro-Irish-Republican and pro-worker:

Following the Bloody Sunday incident in Northern Ireland in 1972, in which fourteen unarmed civil rights protesters were shot dead by the British Army, Lennon said that given the choice between the army and the IRA (who were not involved in the incident) he would side with the latter. Lennon and Ono wrote two songs protesting British presence and actions in Ireland for their Some Time in New York City album: "The Luck of the Irish" and "Sunday Bloody Sunday". In 2000, David Shayler, a former member of Britain's domestic security service MI5, suggested that Lennon had given money to the IRA, though this was swiftly denied by Ono.[242] Biographer Bill Harry records that following Bloody Sunday, Lennon and Ono financially supported the production of the film The Irish Tapes, a political documentary with a Irish Republican slant.[243]

Lennon's last act of political activism was a statement in support of the striking minority sanitation workers in San Francisco on 5 December 1980. He and Ono planned to join the workers' protest on 14 December.[248]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lenn ... l_activism

And, what do you have against workers collectively controlling their own labor?

[Julian658]

Good to hear it.


---








Well, you're missing the *point*, once again, and I continue to *disagree* with you philosophically.

If the *stuff* is there, it shouldn't be left to rot and go unused. Human need should be the *point* of economic activity, instead of being an *afterthought*, possibly satisfied with a *byproduct* of economic activity -- commodity production -- or not, depending on what one can afford.

I don't think one can *ever* balance what one produces, with what one *needs* from that production, or from social production in general. And this is irrespective of the mode-of-production, capitalism, or a potential workers-of-the-world socialism / communism.

Yet this is how capitalism *currently* measures things, as though regular wages would grant sufficient access to society's production on an equitable basis with everyone else.

If material *productivity* goes up then shouldn't *wages* go up as well? That's *not* what's happened:





Regardless, though, the overlooked factor is that of *industrial production* which increasingly leverages human labor, to the point where the *basic needs* for everyone should be *free* -- today, at least, there are *dollar stores* when there didn't used to be.

*Your* approach would effectively be an authoritarian *command* economy, because what would happen if any given commodity became *overproduced*, like those massive parking lots hosting surplus cars that will eventually rust away -- ? You'd rather *command* an arbitrary 'floor' price for everything instead of letting overproduced goods be *free* to everyone -- which is what the free-market price *would* be -- for the sake of your nationalist political ideology and ethos which is that 'everyone has to work for what they need'.

I maintain that people would mostly do *higher-level* / more-complex things if they're freed-up from having to spend their time for the sake of *lower*-level needs. Your policy approach would encourage *homelessness* over *leisure*, for the sake of maintaining an arbitrary, austerity-type *price regime* for all commodities.


---








Never looked into it before, but he was pro-Irish-Republican and pro-worker:









And, what do you have against workers collectively controlling their own labor?

I am glad you are coming around to the concept that the excessive productivity of capitalism will lead to redundant wealth and socialism. It is a much more simple and elegant way to achieve the utopia you seek-------which by the way,most people would want.

However, you will not get rid of classism. SOme people will find a way to be at the bottom of whatever hierarchy comes along. Make no mistake about this: There will be a hierarchy at that time.

As for the riots and racism: It is very unfortunate that many in the black community place their hopes and destiny on the concept of WHITE changing their ways. That is an incredibly weak position! IN fact it is downright demeaning and yet the word out there is to play the victim and hope the white people change and learn what is like to be black.

[Julian658]

With *this* statement, you're showing yourself to be more *money supply*-centric, than anything else.

This is because you wantonly *ignore* the value taken from labor, its surplus labor value, which is the *real* source of a business' profits. (Pay low wages, sell the products of labor higher, on the market.)

In other words your whole formulation is a *red herring*.

Value comes from *labor*, and not from the sheer number of dollars / whatever in the total money supply. The proof of this is that your type *knows* that when the government 'prints money' / enlarges-the-money-supply, it's not actually *growing* the economy -- it's just adding *debt* to the economy, hopefully for a 'stimulus' effect, as Trump has just done.

You're being *disingenuous*, yet again, because you *know* better than to posit 'value' in terms of bulk money-supply.

Nevertheless, an engineer deserves more than a clerk at Walmart. If they get paid the same then we get worthless engineers. At times the value of labor may be ZERO. The labor that went into the cars that no one bought is ZERO.

[ckaihatsu]

I am glad you are coming around to the concept that the excessive productivity of capitalism will lead to redundant wealth and socialism.

No, this is *your* misconception.

I've noted that the *class divide* would still exist, so that means that *private property* and *income inequality* would continue to exist, consequently -- in other words, a *non*-egalitarian *distribution* of whatever society produces, then as now.

I *will* allow for the possibility of a 'successful' *technological* revolution, one that enables people to use *robotics* to be locally self-sufficient for the basics of modern life and living, but that would only be for those with disposable income, and inequality would continue to exist unless there was a fully political, *proletarian* revolution.

It is a much more simple and elegant way to achieve the utopia you seek-------which by the way,most people would want.

'Utopia' here is rather *fanciful* -- I just mean a *humane* standard of living for all, barring no one. Basically everyone would be able to benefit from technologies of abundance.

However, you will not get rid of classism. SOme people will find a way to be at the bottom of whatever hierarchy comes along. Make no mistake about this: There will be a hierarchy at that time.

Again you're still conceiving of things *interpersonally* and in terms of *social psychology*, which is *not* how the world works, as you know. 'Wealth' is how things are measured, and its use, within capitalism, will always be *elitist* without the overthrow of the elites.

The class divide has to be mass-consciously *overthrown*. Social hierarchies could still exist, post-revolution, but no one would have any particular social *privilege* over others because there would no longer be wealth, private property, commodity production, the blackmailing of workers to work for a wage, etc. All social production would be *collectivized* by the workers themselves, with distribution according to *human need*, and by no other measure.

As for the riots and racism: It is very unfortunate that many in the black community place their hopes and destiny on the concept of WHITE changing their ways. That is an incredibly weak position! IN fact it is downright demeaning and yet the word out there is to play the victim and hope the white people change and learn what is like to be black.

Well, I ultimately don't think that a racialist perspective is the *correct* one -- I mentioned before that people of *all* demographic categories have been victimized by state-sponsored police violence, yet the *wealthy* have *not*, so this is more of a *class* issue than a racial one.

Nevertheless, an engineer deserves more than a clerk at Walmart. If they get paid the same then we get worthless engineers. At times the value of labor may be ZERO. The labor that went into the cars that no one bought is ZERO.

Oh, you're speaking to the *wrong* audience -- the main problem with what you're saying is that people shouldn't be compensated with *wages* whatsoever, because that economic process just winds up *commodifying* labor, as it does today. Everything should be de-privatized and returned to 'the commons', with productivity under collective workers control.

In this way there wouldn't even *have* to be nit-picking over who should get what on the pay scale, because people would have their needs *provided* for, mostly due to automated machinery, and would be liberated to work or not-work as they like.

On the latter statement, it's not that the labor that went into unsold cars had 'zero' value -- the workers who *made* those cars *were* paid a wage, so their labor *was* formally valuated. It's that the business *couldn't sell* those cars so the *cars'* value instantly *depreciated* to zero, after they were initially manufactured.

This is what happens due to capitalism's inherent tendency to *overproduction*, and why, according to the hypothetical 'free market' mythology, those goods *should* be given away for free. It's due to the nation-state's *command economy* that excess goods are junked, thereby artificially taking them off the market for the sake of maintaining a certain *pricing regime*.

[Julian658]

No, this is *your* misconception.

I've noted that the *class divide* would still exist, so that means that *private property* and *income inequality* would continue to exist, consequently -- in other words, a *non*-egalitarian *distribution* of whatever society produces, then as now.

I *will* allow for the possibility of a 'successful' *technological* revolution, one that enables people to use *robotics* to be locally self-sufficient for the basics of modern life and living, but that would only be for those with disposable income, and inequality would continue to exist unless there was a fully political, *proletarian* revolution.

Why is inequality so bad? Evolution worked on the concept of inequality and picked those that were best suited to pass DNA to the next generation. I suspect that in every generation there will be amazing athletes, musicians, artiststs , singers, inventors, scientists, etc that will not be equal to the average person on the street.

I had a neighbor that was a Russian immigrant, a physician. He came to America before the Berlin wall fell. He used to work for the state and had a clandestine black market private office in the back of his home. He found a way to make extra cash on the black market. Obviously he was violating the law. IN America he got his schooling validated by taking some special examinations and retrained in American hospitals. He used to turn me off because he was an ex-commie capitalist and he was pragmatic and always looking for a business opportunity outside his profession as a physician. The point of the anecdote is that there is such a thing as a hyper pro-capitalist that used to be a communist. people like that will aways exist in all societies. He was very driven and in fact found his way out of Russia to America.

'Utopia' here is rather *fanciful* -- I just mean a *humane* standard of living for all, barring no one. Basically everyone would be able to benefit from technologies of abundance.

Do you realize that many poor people are obese, have large screen TVs, i-pads, i-phones, and designer clothes without having to go to work. Wealth has trickled down a bit. The problem is that they are hopeless, depressed, and angry. Getting something for free can be lethal.

Again you're still conceiving of things *interpersonally* and in terms of *social psychology*, which is *not* how the world works, as you know. 'Wealth' is how things are measured, and its use, within capitalism, will always be *elitist* without the overthrow of the elites.

The class divide has to be mass-consciously *overthrown*. Social hierarchies could still exist, post-revolution, but no one would have any particular social *privilege* over others because there would no longer be wealth, private property, commodity production, the blackmailing of workers to work for a wage, etc. All social production would be *collectivized* by the workers themselves, with distribution according to *human need*, and by no other measure.

See above.

Well, I ultimately don't think that a racialist perspective is the *correct* one -- I mentioned before that people of *all* demographic categories have been victimized by state-sponsored police violence, yet the *wealthy* have *not*, so this is more of a *class* issue than a racial one.

Oh, sure! Appearance, grooming. clothing, speech, demeanor is highly variable.

Oh, you're speaking to the *wrong* audience -- the main problem with what you're saying is that people shouldn't be compensated with *wages* whatsoever, because that economic process just winds up *commodifying* labor, as it does today. Everything should be de-privatized and returned to 'the commons', with productivity under collective workers control.

In this way there wouldn't even *have* to be nit-picking over who should get what on the pay scale, because people would have their needs *provided* for, mostly due to automated machinery, and would be liberated to work or not-work as they like.

On the latter statement, it's not that the labor that went into unsold cars had 'zero' value -- the workers who *made* those cars *were* paid a wage, so their labor *was* formally valuated. It's that the business *couldn't sell* those cars so the *cars'* value instantly *depreciated* to zero, after they were initially manufactured.

This is what happens due to capitalism's inherent tendency to *overproduction*, and why, according to the hypothetical 'free market' mythology, those goods *should* be given away for free. It's due to the nation-state's *command economy* that excess goods are junked, thereby artificially taking them off the market for the sake of maintaining a certain *pricing regime*.

Yep, the reason they do not give the cars away is that they do not ant to flood the market. That would be the ugly side of capitalism. But, in essence is not really capitalism, it is just bad manners.

[ckaihatsu]

Why is inequality so bad? Evolution worked on the concept of inequality and picked those that were best suited to pass DNA to the next generation. I suspect that in every generation there will be amazing athletes, musicians, artiststs , singers, inventors, scientists, etc that will not be equal to the average person on the street.

We *don't have* to mimic nature. You've acknowledged *police brutality* -- is that 'natural', or is it *social*, and based in capitalism's class divide?

Sure, people can pursue their talents and whatever, but that's at the *individual* scale. It would be better for more people to see *results* from their efforts, which happens when people's talents are *encouraged* and *nurtured*. You've identified the *opposite*, here:

The nihilism of black youth in the inner city is very troublesome, they have nothing to live for. They are THE JOKER ! And then the media tells them on a daily basis they will never succeed because of racism: That is a recipe for low self esteem, anger, frustration hopelessness, and nihilism.

So why should society *discard* so much talent and effort, in the name of 'competitiveness', for limited professional / athletic positions?

*Everyone* should get the backing and support that they feel they need, and then society can *still* be choosy and gravitate to those who have done *more* with what they've been given.

To *clarify*, then, 'equality' should be about common access to *lower-level* resources, like the basics of life and living, which society certainly has the *capacity* to produce, so that people don't have to *scrounge* for such themselves, on whatever life-path they choose for themselves.

I had a neighbor that was a Russian immigrant, a physician. He came to America before the Berlin wall fell. He used to work for the state and had a clandestine black market private office in the back of his home. He found a way to make extra cash on the black market. Obviously he was violating the law. IN America he got his schooling validated by taking some special examinations and retrained in American hospitals. He used to turn me off because he was an ex-commie capitalist and he was pragmatic and always looking for a business opportunity outside his profession as a physician. The point of the anecdote is that there is such a thing as a hyper pro-capitalist that used to be a communist. people like that will aways exist in all societies. He was very driven and in fact found his way out of Russia to America.

Okay, well, what's the *alternative* -- ? In the capitalist U.S. *that's* what to do if one wants a higher-level material-type life. I happen to be very *relieved* myself, lately, due to the advent of computer technology being what it is now after almost *40* years of seeing it develop to this point. It's only fairly recently that I've been able to do the 3D graphics that I've done because just 10 years ago I *couldn't* do that stuff readily due to hardware underperformance. Also the *software* has gotten much better in quality and efficiency.

But that's *me*, and for someone else that *wouldn't* be enough. So capitalism encourages workaholism for those who want fancy stuff and fancy lives.

Do you realize that many poor people are obese, have large screen TVs, i-pads, i-phones, and designer clothes without having to go to work. Wealth has trickled down a bit. The problem is that they are hopeless, depressed, and angry. Getting something for free can be lethal.

I still think you're just being *harsh*. Obviously just having *stuff* isn't enough for a full -- I would argue *self-actualized* -- life, so maybe people just need to *try things out* first, like large screen TVs, etc., to see if that's what they really want, or not. You're being *dramatic*.

See above.

---

Well, I ultimately don't think that a racialist perspective is the *correct* one -- I mentioned before that people of *all* demographic categories have been victimized by state-sponsored police violence, yet the *wealthy* have *not*, so this is more of a *class* issue than a racial one.

Oh, sure! Appearance, grooming. clothing, speech, demeanor is highly variable.

You're being disingenuous again -- you're knowledgeable enough to know what I'm talking about, but you'd rather be snotty and revert to *superficialities* instead of dealing with the implications of a state-sanctioned violent racist police culture that protects the ruling class.

Yep, the reason they do not give the cars away is that they do not ant to flood the market. That would be the ugly side of capitalism. But, in essence is not really capitalism, it is just bad manners.

Disingenuous and snotty again -- you *know* better.

It's the ruling-class political *management* of the markets -- 'administration' -- that's at-stake here, and not a matter of 'personality', that keeps goods off the market, when it all should be *free* for everyone by now, due to massive advances in technological productivity.

The ugly side of capitalism is its *militarism*, genocide, and warmongering.

[ckaihatsu]

Hadrian X brick-laying robot ups the ante to 200 blocks an hour

https://newatlas.com/robotics/hadrian-x ... 00-blocks/

[Julian658]

We *don't have* to mimic nature. You've acknowledged *police brutality* -- is that 'natural', or is it *social*, and based in capitalism's class divide?

Police brutality is the imperfection of the human condition. And the fact that the police union protects the police workers (many are non-white).

Sure, people can pursue their talents and whatever, but that's at the *individual* scale. It would be better for more people to see *results* from their efforts, which happens when people's talents are *encouraged* and *nurtured*. You've identified the *opposite*, here:

In the Star Trek of the 25th century there is no currency and poverty has vanished. The only thing that divides humans is achievement.

*Everyone* should get the backing and support that they feel they need, and then society can *still* be choosy and gravitate to those who have done *more* with what they've been given.

To *clarify*, then, 'equality' should be about common access to *lower-level* resources, like the basics of life and living, which society certainly has the *capacity* to produce, so that people don't have to *scrounge* for such themselves, on whatever life-path they choose for themselves.

Equal access will not yield equal results. Hopefully, this is acknowledged.

Okay, well, what's the *alternative* -- ? In the capitalist U.S. *that's* what to do if one wants a higher-level material-type life. I happen to be very *relieved* myself, lately, due to the advent of computer technology being what it is now after almost *40* years of seeing it develop to this point. It's only fairly recently that I've been able to do the 3D graphics that I've done because just 10 years ago I *couldn't* do that stuff readily due to hardware underperformance. Also the *software* has gotten much better in quality and efficiency.

I am not a fan of the rat race or the concept of having to swim 24/7 to keep the head above water. I would do just fine in a communist system, assuming the system is fair and not corrupt.

But that's *me*, and for someone else that *wouldn't* be enough. So capitalism encourages workaholism for those who want fancy stuff and fancy lives.

I am no workaholic, but I have a robust work ethic. I would work hard in a socialist system out of self pride. However, many are not like that. They see no joy in work. I assume they work in alienating positions.

[Julian658]

Hadrian X brick-laying robot ups the ante to 200 blocks an hour

https://newatlas.com/robotics/hadrian-x ... 00-blocks/

That is the future, no jobs for the common man or even physicians.

[ckaihatsu]

Police brutality is the imperfection of the human condition. And the fact that the police union protects the police workers (many are non-white).

Police brutality is a symptom of the capitalist *state* -- the ruling class uses the state, and its monopoly on violence, to oppress and exploit the *working* class, including people of color.

The working class doesn't have the same power-structure interests of *class elitism* -- the working class could collectively *supply* to everyone's basic needs, from socialized production, without any class divide or bureaucratic-elitist administration.

In the Star Trek of the 25th century there is no currency and poverty has vanished. The only thing that divides humans is achievement.

Well, okay, and I see no *political* problem with this -- 'equality' should be about equal access to the *raw materials* and *infrastructure* of modern life and living. Beyond that would be *civil society*, without any class divide, so concerns at that point would be *social* and not really 'political' -- in the sense of overcoming elitism.


Components of Social Production

Spoiler: show

---

Equal access will not yield equal results. Hopefully, this is acknowledged.

Yes, acknowledged -- no prob.

I am not a fan of the rat race or the concept of having to swim 24/7 to keep the head above water. I would do just fine in a communist system, assuming the system is fair and not corrupt.

Cool -- thanks for your open-mindedness here.

I think the political responsibility that communists like myself have at *this* point is to lay-out what's worth fighting for -- hence my diagrams and discussion-board participation. It's also encouraging now to see the worldwide mass participation against police brutality. I hope this *political* front will also become *class consciousness*, in the direction of a workers-of-the-world socialism, because anything less, like the current knee-jerk reforms, will just get *diluted* over time.

The U.S.' empire establishment has *already* said that they're not going to do *jack shit* at the federal level, so that goes to show the *inertia* of the ruling class against commonsense *reforms*, much less any concern about the festering *class divide*.

[EDIT]

‘We’ve been here before’: Why Congress will struggle to act on police killings

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/0 ... sts-296826

I am no workaholic, but I have a robust work ethic. I would work hard in a socialist system out of self pride. However, many are not like that. They see no joy in work. I assume they work in alienating positions.

Yup, well, that's *you* -- ultimately everyone on earth should be *co-administrating*, so that we're all at the same level professionally, with *no one* in any subservient, wage-slave position.

Obviously I don't glorify work, but it can be a beneficial experience for some, being in a professional work environment, besides the pay, although I wouldn't *prescribe* it to anyone as such. My own experience has been 'mixed', shall we say.

[Tainari88]

@ckaihatsu your experience has been mixed and you don't glorify work? I like that attitude. I think people should work but their work should be meaningful and reflect who they are inside and what they enjoy accomplishing. One spends a lot of time working. Make it enjoyable and rewarding. If it is drudgery and unrewarding? it will lead to profound dissatisfaction with life.

I sometimes took jobs for paying bills and sometimes wound up enjoying the job unexpectedly. Sometimes I took jobs I thought I would enjoy and wound up not liking them. Because it was not about what I thought it was about. But I always worked.

My husband had a co-worker who went through very difficult times in her life. Raising three kids as a single mother while going to graduate school and living in a ghetto in NYC and then moving to Colorado and having her daughter commit suicide and getting flesh eating bacteria while not having private insurance and losing all of her savings and going from excellent credit to bad credit. Having domestic violence in her life. Not having the ability to cope with a lot of personal problems. But she told my husband so very true about working in jobs one doesn't find satisfying like it should be for working people....she said to him in Spanish---At the end of the day you work and it is a challenge and a daily test of character, and if you make it through without going crazy or getting fired, you should feel good about it, after all? You are bringing home the food for the family's table. And that is also sacred.

She was right about that one.

@ckaihatsu you have such interesting opinions. I hope you and I can discuss many of your views in depth someday eh?