Quote:
Originally Posted by Masorovka
Alright, there is alot of nonsense and mostly rhetoric here, but I'll try my best to get around it.
So you make the contention that you have to have money to get into the Prestigious universities. That simply isn't the case, we live in a meritocracy, not an aristocracy. Obama did not come from a rich background and he graduated from a very good school I'd say. Furthermore if you have the grades most ivy leagues will give you a free ride. The problem of not affording prestigious universities is simply not applicable anymore. Between the massive student loans and FAFSA grants available, not to mention the free rides that schools give to talented students really makes your point trivial if not outright obsolete.
Next, this notion of class warfare rest on Marxist notions of 'class consciousness' which is very problematic and suffers from some deep epistemic issues.
The actual purpose of a union isn't to 'collective' the factory, that is called stealing. Unions merely exist to put labor in a position of power when negotiating wages and contracts.
The notion that because you, the worker, made the product makes your inherently deserve more money is nonsense. You provide a service, that is to make the product. There is no metaphysical connection between you and the product. Its not like the steel created by steelworkers is somehow inherently connected to the workers. Its just a product that they create, a product that the workers did not provide for the capital or efforts necessary to even give the worker a job.
'You said that you think the problems in capitalism are caused by government intervention? You haven't been paying attention.'
I'd actually say you haven't been paying attention. It is government intervention within the free-market that created the conditions for an inflated market that led to unnatural, insofar as the freemarket wouldn't have done it, levels of risk. Because the government subsidized many risks in the market, the corporations took on levels of risk they normally would not have taken on.
The point of capitalism from the supply side is for everyone to make as much money as possible. A company wants to hire the very much worker money can buy as long as it is within cost constraints.
|
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You really think that Ivy League schools will give you a free ride just because you have good grades?!
First of all, there are fewer and fewer entry level jobs- you can have a job that requires a degree and still make minimum wage. This means that more and more people who can't afford to live like you're supposed to be able to in a first world democracy are trying to go to school (or stay in school longer), and there's no way all of those people are going to get a scholarship. Grades-based scholarships are almmost obsolete- you have to have a perfect 4.0 along with having done a shit-ton of community service, which no one who has to take a job to help support his or her family while still completing highschool can be expected to acheive.
There are a lot of reasons why many working class and working poor kids still can't get into college, even though a general degree is becoming more and more neccesary for survival.
Trade Unionism is class warfare. Negotiating wages and so are are just steps in the ultimate goal of expropriation to the collective of workers, or what you call "stealing". Collectivism is the desired result of trade unionism.
I'm not arguing a metaphysical connection, and the last half of your post is bullshit that doesn't even address the arguments I brought up, much less have basis in reality, but here it goes.
Innitially, yes, the owner provided the capital for the means of production and for the steel, in the case of your example. But once the labor of the workers, who were not in a position to start a company in the first place, brings in enough money to make the investment profitable, what claim does the owner have? The workers know their factory better than anyone. They would be just as qualified to make descisions for the factory, if not more, than the boss who has already made back his or her contribution, which was nothing more than supplying the means of production, and as little possible a wage for the workers as he or she can manage.
From the Open Door Policy to NAFTA, please, I would love to hear how unregulated globalism has ever been anything but an anal-r ape fest.
Everyone CAN'T make as much money as possible unless you're a socialist- for everyone to make as much money as possible, everyone would have to make about the same.