sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7015|Argentina
While I don't agree with this article conclusion, I find it very interersting.

Paul Lafargue
Simple Socialist Truths
(1903)

Worker. But if there were no masters, who would give me work?

Socialist. That’s a question I am often asked; let us examine it. In order to work, three things are required: a workshop, machines, and raw material.

W. Right.

S. Who builds the workshop?

W. Masons.

S. Who made the machines?

W. Engineers.

S. Who grew the cotton you weave, who sheared the wool your wife spins, who dug the mineral your son forges?

W. Husbandmen, shepherds, miners – workers like myself.

S. Consequently, you, your wife, and your son can only work because these various other workers have already supplied you with buildings, machinery, and raw material.

W. That’s so; I could not weave calico without cotton and without a loom.

S. Well then, it is not the capitalist or master who gives you work, but the mason, the engineer, the ploughman. Do you know how your master has procured all that is necessary for your work?

W. He bought it.

S. Who gave him the money?

W. How do I know. His father had left him a little; to-day he is a millionaire.

S. Has he earned his million by working his machines and weaving his cotton?

W. Not very likely; it is by making us work that he gained his million.

S. Then he has grown rich by loafing; that is the only way to make a fortune. Those who work get just enough to live on. But, tell me, if you and your fellow workers did not work, would not your master’s machines rust, and his cotton be eaten by insects?

W. Everything in the workshop would got to wreck and ruin if we did not work.

S. Consequently, by working you are preserving the machines and raw material necessary for your labour.

W. That is true; I had never thought of that.

S. Does your master look after what goes on in his works?

W. Not much; he makes a daily round to see us at our work, but he keeps his hands in his pockets for fear of dirtying them. In the spinning-mill, where my wife and daughter work, the masters are never seen, although there are four of them; still less so in the foundry, where my son works; the masters are never seen nor ever known; not even their shadow is seen¾ it is a Limited Liability Company that owns the works. Suppose you and I had five hundred francs saved up, we could buy a share, and become one of the masters, without ever having put, or without putting, a foot in the place.

S. Who, then, directs and superintends the work in this place belonging to the shareholding masters, and in your own shop of one master, seeing the masters are never there, or so seldom that it doesn’t count?

W. Managers and foremen.

S. But if it is workers who have built the workshop, made the machines, and produced the raw materials; if it is workers who keep the machines going, and managers and foremen who direct the work,¾ what does the master do, then?

W. Nothing but twiddle his thumbs.

S. If there were a railway from here to the moon, we could send the masters there, without a return ticket, and your weaving, your wife’s spinning, your son’s moulding, would go on as before.. Do you know what the profit was realised by your master last year?

W. We calculate that he must have got a hundred thousand francs.

S. How many workers does he employ¾ men, women and children, all included?

W. A hundred.

S. What wages do they get?

W. On an average, about a thousand francs, counting in the salaries of managers and foremen.

S. So that the hundred workers in the work receive altogether a hundred thousand francs in wages, just enough to keep them from dying of hunger, while your master pocketed a hundred thousand francs¾ for doing nothing. Where did these two hundred thousand francs come from?

W. Not from the sky; I never saw it rain francs.

S. It is the workers in his works who have produced the hundred thousand francs they received in wages, and, besides, the hundred thousand francs profit of the master, who has employed part of that in buying new machines.

W. There is no denying that.

S. Then it is the workers who produce the money which the master devotes to buying new machines to make them work; it is the managers and foremen, wage slaves like yourself, who direct the production; where, then, does the master come in? What’s he good for?

W. For exploiting labour.

S. Say rather, for robbing the labourer; that is clearer and more exact.
IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|7000|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann

sergeriver wrote:

While I don't agree with this article conclusion, I find it very interersting.

Paul Lafargue
Simple Socialist Truths
(1903)

Worker. But if there were no masters, who would give me work?

Socialist. That’s a question I am often asked; let us examine it. In order to work, three things are required: a workshop, machines, and raw material.

W. Right.

S. Who builds the workshop?

W. Masons.

S. Who made the machines?

W. Engineers.

S. Who grew the cotton you weave, who sheared the wool your wife spins, who dug the mineral your son forges?

W. Husbandmen, shepherds, miners – workers like myself.

S. Consequently, you, your wife, and your son can only work because these various other workers have already supplied you with buildings, machinery, and raw material.

W. That’s so; I could not weave calico without cotton and without a loom.

S. Well then, it is not the capitalist or master who gives you work, but the mason, the engineer, the ploughman. Do you know how your master has procured all that is necessary for your work?

W. He bought it.

S. Who gave him the money?

W. How do I know. His father had left him a little; to-day he is a millionaire.

S. Has he earned his million by working his machines and weaving his cotton?

W. Not very likely; it is by making us work that he gained his million.

S. Then he has grown rich by loafing; that is the only way to make a fortune. Those who work get just enough to live on. But, tell me, if you and your fellow workers did not work, would not your master’s machines rust, and his cotton be eaten by insects?

W. Everything in the workshop would got to wreck and ruin if we did not work.

S. Consequently, by working you are preserving the machines and raw material necessary for your labour.

W. That is true; I had never thought of that.

S. Does your master look after what goes on in his works?

W. Not much; he makes a daily round to see us at our work, but he keeps his hands in his pockets for fear of dirtying them. In the spinning-mill, where my wife and daughter work, the masters are never seen, although there are four of them; still less so in the foundry, where my son works; the masters are never seen nor ever known; not even their shadow is seen¾ it is a Limited Liability Company that owns the works. Suppose you and I had five hundred francs saved up, we could buy a share, and become one of the masters, without ever having put, or without putting, a foot in the place.

S. Who, then, directs and superintends the work in this place belonging to the shareholding masters, and in your own shop of one master, seeing the masters are never there, or so seldom that it doesn’t count?

W. Managers and foremen.

S. But if it is workers who have built the workshop, made the machines, and produced the raw materials; if it is workers who keep the machines going, and managers and foremen who direct the work,¾ what does the master do, then?

W. Nothing but twiddle his thumbs.

S. If there were a railway from here to the moon, we could send the masters there, without a return ticket, and your weaving, your wife’s spinning, your son’s moulding, would go on as before.. Do you know what the profit was realised by your master last year?

W. We calculate that he must have got a hundred thousand francs.

S. How many workers does he employ¾ men, women and children, all included?

W. A hundred.

S. What wages do they get?

W. On an average, about a thousand francs, counting in the salaries of managers and foremen.

S. So that the hundred workers in the work receive altogether a hundred thousand francs in wages, just enough to keep them from dying of hunger, while your master pocketed a hundred thousand francs¾ for doing nothing. Where did these two hundred thousand francs come from?

W. Not from the sky; I never saw it rain francs.

S. It is the workers in his works who have produced the hundred thousand francs they received in wages, and, besides, the hundred thousand francs profit of the master, who has employed part of that in buying new machines.

W. There is no denying that.

S. Then it is the workers who produce the money which the master devotes to buying new machines to make them work; it is the managers and foremen, wage slaves like yourself, who direct the production; where, then, does the master come in? What’s he good for?

W. For exploiting labour.

S. Say rather, for robbing the labourer; that is clearer and more exact.
that's pretty Marxist TBH - that kind of socialism doesn't take into account such things as Health care, Education, social security etc etc, Marxism along with communism should be consigned to the rubbish bin of history imo
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7015|Argentina
It's from 1903, of course Socialism has evolved.  I don't agree with the main idea, being an employer myself, but there are some similarities between the things the article describes and Corporate Exploitation of today.
IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|7000|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann
Well of course Capitalism will always put Profit before People same now as it was in 1903, that's why there has to be some kind of a socialist mechanism to temper it..
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6807|Southeastern USA
"How do you tell if someone's a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell if someone's an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."-Ronald Reagan

Calibre's right, it is very marxist. it strays far from the truth of the matter, especially since most business (in the US at least) is small business it does it's best to downplay the true role of the entrepreneur and venture capitalist and serves only to invoke jealousy and class envy, which seems to be the one constant driving force throughout communism, socialism, and marxism
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6807|Southeastern USA

IG-Calibre wrote:

Well of course Capitalism will always put Profit before People same now as it was in 1903, that's why there has to be some kind of a socialist mechanism to temper it..
true capitalism realizes that happy workers are good, efficient workers, if you take care of your employees they will take care of the business. if the government steps in a starts fucking things up mandating benefit packages, pay and such, not only are they interfering with free enterprise, but they are interfering with economic darwinism. the best employees will go where the best deals are, if you start forcing the best companies to pay the worst workers and treat them the same as the best ones everybody suffers. From consumer to "master" (another interesting choice of terminology, again invoking class envy).

Last edited by kr@cker (2006-11-15 07:43:47)

misconfiguration
GURU
+86|6654|Indianapolis, IN
Take that Karl Marx
IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|7000|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann

kr@cker wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:

Well of course Capitalism will always put Profit before People same now as it was in 1903, that's why there has to be some kind of a socialist mechanism to temper it..
true capitalism realizes that happy workers are good, efficient workers, if you take care of your employees they will take care of the business. if the government steps in a starts fucking things up mandating benefit packages, pay and such, not only are they interfering with free enterprise, but they are interfering with economic darwinism. the best employees will go where the best deals are, if you start forcing the best companies to pay the worst workers and treat them the same as the best ones everybody suffers.
I disagree Capitalism doesn't give a fuck if its workers are happy or otherwise, all it's interested in is maximum profit. Don't kid yourself - Socialist principles such as minimum wage ensure that workers are happy, do the capitalists like that? no they don't, taxes on the capitalists profits ensure Health Care, Education, social security etc,etc  are the capitalists happy paying those? no they are not.  They Better someone does in the Freemarket the higher the Tax burden should be on them, are they happy with that? you know the answer..

Last edited by IG-Calibre (2006-11-15 07:46:02)

Parker
isteal
+1,452|6652|The Gem Saloon
woohoo communism......i love watching this belief fail over and over. hell the chinese cant even be communists anymore....eeerrrrrr maoists or whatever the hell they were....anyway its only a matter of time until that system is done all together and no one will even give two shits about vlad or karl.
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6807|Southeastern USA

IG-Calibre wrote:

They Better soomeone does in the Freemarket the higher the Tax burden should be on them,
perfect example of class envy, punishing people for being successful. naturally the people who use the tax funded programs the least should contribute to them the most! why should they be allowed to keep the money to.........I don't know, invest more into the business (as history has shown us actually happens everytime, contrary to popular THEORIES) or, god forbid, pay the employees more and reduce their dependency on the government (the government knows best! another bulwark of communism that has been shown repeatedly to not be true). as parker said, if communism, socialism, and marxism are so great why can't they do anything other than fail?

Last edited by kr@cker (2006-11-15 07:54:22)

Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6703|The Land of Scott Walker

IG-Calibre wrote:

kr@cker wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:

Well of course Capitalism will always put Profit before People same now as it was in 1903, that's why there has to be some kind of a socialist mechanism to temper it..
true capitalism realizes that happy workers are good, efficient workers, if you take care of your employees they will take care of the business. if the government steps in a starts fucking things up mandating benefit packages, pay and such, not only are they interfering with free enterprise, but they are interfering with economic darwinism. the best employees will go where the best deals are, if you start forcing the best companies to pay the worst workers and treat them the same as the best ones everybody suffers.
I disagree Capitalism doesn't give a fuck if its workers are happy or otherwise, all it's interested in is maximum profit. Don't kid yourself - Socialist principles such as minimum wage ensure that workers are happy, do the capitalists like that? no they don't, taxes on the capitalists profits ensure Health Care, Education, social security etc,etc  are the capitalists happy paying those? no they are not.  They Better soomeone does in the Freemarket the higher the Tax burden should be on them, are they happy with that? you know the answer..
My company cares about keeping me happy, if they don't, I leave and take my customers with me.  Period.  Kr@cker is right, keep the workers happy with fair wages and other compensation and they'll be motivated to keep the customers happy.  I see it every day at my job.  You think minimum wage workers are happy? I hated earning minimum which motivated me to get a real job.  Capitalists are happy with success and understand that death and taxes are two things we can't avoid in life.  It's part of doing business.  They aren't going to try to do worse so they can pay less taxes.  That makes no sense.
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6807|Southeastern USA
capitalism= rewarded for being successful, performing well, making a superior product
socialism= what's a reward? what is this "success"? Performing well? Superior product? why bother? i get paid the same
IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|7000|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann

kr@cker wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:

They Better soomeone does in the Freemarket the higher the Tax burden should be on them,
perfect example of class envy, punishing people for being successful. naturally the people who use the tax funded programs the least should contribute to them the most! why should they be allowed to keep the money to.........I don't know, invest more into the business (as history has shown us actually happens everytime, contrary to popular THEORIES) or, god forbid, pay the employees more and reduce their dependency on the government (the government knows best! another bulwark of communism that has been shown repeatedly to not be true). as parker said, if communism, socialism, and marxism are so great why can't they do anything other than fail?
Class envy? I beg your pardon?  typical capitalist propaganda, how is it punishing exactly? People still make considerable wealth and remuneration they also pay higher tax. No the only motivation to not pay is greed- that's how socialism works in a democracy, it all depends where the burden of tax is placed - You can be sure that the ultra rich Right wing passes the burden onto those who perceive themselves "middle class" while stripping away the social safety net to maximise their profit again.  Then the Socialists get back in power and place the burden back on the Ultra Rich again, and so it too and froe's - that's Democracy
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7015|Argentina

kr@cker wrote:

capitalism= rewarded for being successful, performing well, making a superior product
socialism= what's a reward? what is this "success"? Performing well? Superior product? why bother? i get paid the same
Dude I love Capitalism, because it allows me to be succesful by my own performance, but I want the government to take care of issues like Health, Education and Social Security, and that's what we call Modern Socialism.  It really works.
IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|7000|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann

kr@cker wrote:

capitalism= rewarded for being successful, performing well, making a superior product
socialism= what's a reward? what is this "success"? Performing well? Superior product? why bother? i get paid the same
eh? soocialism = minimum wage for all workers, plus all the trappings of capitalism - rewarded for being successful, performing well, making a superior product; except with a burden of tax.  The greater you suceed the more tax you contribute back to society..
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6807|Southeastern USA
then why not just tax based on pure percentages? 20 percent across the board? the people making 10 dollars an hour pay 2 dollars in taxes, the people making 100 dollars pay 20, there, the "evil rich" people are paying ten times what the poor widdle factory worker pays, but since there are thousands of factory workers to each "master" the tax revenue actually goes up. not enough to hurt the factory worker, but they do get to benefit from the "all knowing" government's having more tax funding for it's programs. instead, you want the person making 100 dollars to pay 30 percent, someone making 200 to pay 40%, someone making 300 to pay 50%, therefore you are punishing them for being successful, no propaganda about it. try explaining how it's fair for the top 1 percent of earners to pay more than a third of the tax base, or the top 50 percent to fund more than 95% of the tax base (that's the way it's currently distributed in america, despite what you hear about "tax breaks for the wealthy").
IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|7000|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann
I dunno about your system but here it is set by income thresholds - and we enjoy free health care, medical percriptions, education, and have very little or no poverty, crime, manage to mantain a police force and army.
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6807|Southeastern USA
no such thing as "free healthcare" you're taxed to death for it, "the government pays for" is another communist misdirection, the government can't pay for anything. they have to tax you for it. I'd rather be allowed to keep that money and pay for my own healthcare than have the government take it and pay for some crackwhore's STD treatment, rewarding her for being a crackwhore with my paycheck.
IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|7000|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann

kr@cker wrote:

no such thing as "free healthcare" you're taxed to death for it, "the government pays for" is another communist misdirection, the government can't pay for anything. they have to tax you for it. I'd rather be allowed to keep that money and pay for my own healthcare than have the government take it and pay for some crackwhore's STD treatment, rewarding her for being a crackwhore with my paycheck.
not only are we taxed to death for it, we die and are taxed again
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7015|Argentina

kr@cker wrote:

then why not just tax based on pure percentages? 20 percent across the board? the people making 10 dollars an hour pay 2 dollars in taxes, the people making 100 dollars pay 20, there, the "evil rich" people are paying ten times what the poor widdle factory worker pays, but since there are thousands of factory workers to each "master" the tax revenue actually goes up. not enough to hurt the factory worker, but they do get to benefit from the "all knowing" government's having more tax funding for it's programs. instead, you want the person making 100 dollars to pay 30 percent, someone making 200 to pay 40%, someone making 300 to pay 50%, therefore you are punishing them for being successful, no propaganda about it. try explaining how it's fair for the top 1 percent of earners to pay more than a third of the tax base, or the top 50 percent to fund more than 95% of the tax base (that's the way it's currently distributed in america, despite what you hear about "tax breaks for the wealthy").
Because you need to allow the people earning a minimum wage to pay their bills.  That's why the VAT is so unfair, the rich and the poor pay the same.  The income tax needs to be gradually increased, let's say a person earning 25k a year doesn't pay income tax, a person earning 25k-50k pays 10% of the second 25k, a person earning 50k-100k pays 10% for the second 25k and 15% for the second 50k, a person earning 100k-200k pays 10% for the second 25k, 15% for the second 50k and 20% for the second 100k, and a person earning more than 200k pays all that and 25% for the excedent of 200k.  Something like this should be fair.
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6807|Southeastern USA

IG-Calibre wrote:

kr@cker wrote:

no such thing as "free healthcare" you're taxed to death for it, "the government pays for" is another communist misdirection, the government can't pay for anything. they have to tax you for it. I'd rather be allowed to keep that money and pay for my own healthcare than have the government take it and pay for some crackwhore's STD treatment, rewarding her for being a crackwhore with my paycheck.
not only are we taxed to death for it, we die and are taxed again
we get that too
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6807|Southeastern USA

sergeriver wrote:

kr@cker wrote:

then why not just tax based on pure percentages? 20 percent across the board? the people making 10 dollars an hour pay 2 dollars in taxes, the people making 100 dollars pay 20, there, the "evil rich" people are paying ten times what the poor widdle factory worker pays, but since there are thousands of factory workers to each "master" the tax revenue actually goes up. not enough to hurt the factory worker, but they do get to benefit from the "all knowing" government's having more tax funding for it's programs. instead, you want the person making 100 dollars to pay 30 percent, someone making 200 to pay 40%, someone making 300 to pay 50%, therefore you are punishing them for being successful, no propaganda about it. try explaining how it's fair for the top 1 percent of earners to pay more than a third of the tax base, or the top 50 percent to fund more than 95% of the tax base (that's the way it's currently distributed in america, despite what you hear about "tax breaks for the wealthy").
Because you need to allow the people earning a minimum wage to pay their bills.  That's why the VAT is so unfair, the rich and the poor pay the same.  The income tax needs to be gradually increased, let's say a person earning 25k a year doesn't pay income tax, a person earning 25k-50k pays 10% of the second 25k, a person earning 50k-100k pays 10% for the second 25k and 15% for the second 50k, a person earning 100k-200k pays 10% for the second 25k, 15% for the second 50k and 20% for the second 100k, and a person earning more than 200k pays all that and 25% for the excedent of 200k.  Something like this should be fair.
if you're earning minimum wage and paying bills you should be drug out in the street and shot, MW is for teens living at home. how is it fair to allow some people not to pay taxes by forcing someone else to pay their taxes for them?

edit: i see perhaps i shall have to pontificate like i used to and explain the "fair tax" concept. until i get a chance to do so this is a good start

http://fairtax.org/

Last edited by kr@cker (2006-11-15 08:34:18)

Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6703|The Land of Scott Walker
Capitalism spurs innovation.  Why bother trying to develop something that could change the world if I'm only bringing more tax burden on myself?  That's why capitalist nations have developed the advances in medicine and technology, people like self-determination with the government involved as little as possible in their business.
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7015|Argentina

kr@cker wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

kr@cker wrote:

then why not just tax based on pure percentages? 20 percent across the board? the people making 10 dollars an hour pay 2 dollars in taxes, the people making 100 dollars pay 20, there, the "evil rich" people are paying ten times what the poor widdle factory worker pays, but since there are thousands of factory workers to each "master" the tax revenue actually goes up. not enough to hurt the factory worker, but they do get to benefit from the "all knowing" government's having more tax funding for it's programs. instead, you want the person making 100 dollars to pay 30 percent, someone making 200 to pay 40%, someone making 300 to pay 50%, therefore you are punishing them for being successful, no propaganda about it. try explaining how it's fair for the top 1 percent of earners to pay more than a third of the tax base, or the top 50 percent to fund more than 95% of the tax base (that's the way it's currently distributed in america, despite what you hear about "tax breaks for the wealthy").
Because you need to allow the people earning a minimum wage to pay their bills.  That's why the VAT is so unfair, the rich and the poor pay the same.  The income tax needs to be gradually increased, let's say a person earning 25k a year doesn't pay income tax, a person earning 25k-50k pays 10% of the second 25k, a person earning 50k-100k pays 10% for the second 25k and 15% for the second 50k, a person earning 100k-200k pays 10% for the second 25k, 15% for the second 50k and 20% for the second 100k, and a person earning more than 200k pays all that and 25% for the excedent of 200k.  Something like this should be fair.
if you're earning minimum wage and paying bills you should be drug out in the street and shot, MW is for teens living at home. how is it fair to allow some people not to pay taxes by forcing someone else to pay their taxes for them?
For the first 25k nobody pays taxes.
IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|7000|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann

Stingray24 wrote:

Capitalism spurs innovation.  Why bother trying to develop something that could change the world if I'm only bringing more tax burden on myself?  That's why capitalist nations have developed the advances in medicine and technology, people like self-determination with the government involved as little as possible in their business.
can you name me all these Capitalist Nations?

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard