do you see any negatives on your point of view?

what CEO? this is why i said in the other thread that, if you want to argue on this stuff, you should at least look up information on what you are arguing against. as someone who was once a neo-conservative (to the point that i supported George Bush throughout his entire first and a large portion of his second term of presidency) with slight libertarian leanings, i can tell you that when i began opening my mind to outside opinions and thinking for myself a beautiful new world opened up for me.

i will be more than happy to post links to info and stats on worker co-ops and collectives and have already posted some on previous pages.

and just so you know, that revenue goes straight to the workers in the form of profit-sharing. the workers decide democratically how much they will make. they all are equal owners in the business, as opposed to being stockholders who own different amounts of shares and have more or less decision making power based on how much of the business they own, as in any form of stock owned business like the similar (although fatally flawed) ESOP.

absolutely, but the point of having conversations like these and of thinking critically on my ideas is to find and try to remove the negatives. my philosophy is becoming quite sound at this point, however, as i haven't had much of an ability to put it into practice, it still lacks completely the utterly necessary practical aspect.

that said, i base my personal philosophy on what will allow maximum personal liberty, what will best allow equality, both of political and social power and of economic opportunity throughout all of society, and of what will best assure productivity to satisfy the need of the most people and encourage the participation of the most people. i believe the price of products should reflect no more than scarcity, and if a product is not scarce it should be given away for free (though still be kept track of). i also believe that people should be paid, based on the average price of products in a given economy, directly for the productivity, duration, and/or onerousness of their labor and that no middle man (such as a boss) should interfere with that person's pay. i am also developing an elaborate economic theory, complete with its own value system, to expand on these philosophical bases.

just thought i'd let you know that so you can see where i'm coming from and why i think the way that i do. maybe it will help you understand, then, why i think the way i do in terms of politics, economics, and society.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/9435/

great article...

Nice to see you too. Man, i love how J breakz is jealous that we are sexying each other and we don't want to sex him too

The Co-operative Movement brings together over 800 million people around the world. The United Nations estimated in 1994 that the livelihood of nearly 3 billion people, or half of the world's population, was made secure by co-operative enterprise.

They can make a shitload of money i personally don't care but the thing is that business (capital) profitability has a tendency to fall that recurrently creates crises, in which mass unemployment occurs, businesses fail, remaining capital is centralized and concentrated and profitability is recovered. In the long run these crises tend to be more severe and the system will eventually fail. We just offer a social alternative which tends to put more emphasis on labor in this eliminating capitals tendency to fall, its about creating more jobs and good salaries .

Exactly, leaving all that revolutionary rhetoric aside that sums it all.

Could you be my lawyer ?

I'm currently unemployed because of this recession so Erik was half right i used to work there but the recession hit us hard and we had to close nobody helps us the workers when we get fired or need to close but when a CEO is in trouble the government is ready to butt fuck . Man capitalism and the state they complete each other its very romantic . Is that a hint of ignorance? so if i live in another country i am different then you ? am i an alien ?

are you afraid of me and Menace's gay agenda?

the purpose of me coming up with my own ideas is to present possible solutions to the problems and discrepancies of current societies and other theoretical ideologies. i don't hold my own personal ideologies as canon, but i do feel that they will work. for the record, i do not consider any system, whether it be capitalism, socialism, or even feudalism to "not work". i simply feel that these systems work for different ends. i am building a system on the specific ends that i see as most desirable, both for myself and for the rest of the world. that said, there are already infinite alternatives to my ideas out there. i take from other ideologies what i see as positive, critique what i see as negative, come up with various ideas of my own, many based on the ideas of others, and in doing so i build my own ideology which i do not oppose working in conjunction with other ideologies.

or maybe it's just that you inadvertently made 6 points without realizing it and so i addressed each of them accordingly

you take things rather personal, eh? i broke that down, not because i feel you are stupid and i need to clarify because of that, but rather because simply throwing labels out there and expecting you to know what i'm talking about won't suffice, especially since i'm creating my own personal economic and political theories as well as philosophies. in other words, it would require you to have the ability to read minds to know what i'm talking about as i've yet to express my ideas publicly, and so i am breaking down the basics of my ideology for you so that you can get an idea of what i am discussing and can better critique it from a standpoint of higher insight into what i am discussing.

no. on the contrary, if i didn't think you would understand it i wouldn't have bothered.

lol nice touch on that one. you know, if i worked for a collective i would have a very similar, likely higher salary, as well as more time off in order to take a similar, possibly better trip

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

how do you sell, or rent out, an abstraction such as "your labor power" without selling or renting out yourself? do you wake up your labor power at six in the morning and send it off to work while you stay home and sleep? there is no dichotomy between yourself and your labor power. you ARE your labor power. the two cannot be physically separated.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

what about the possibility of another option? what about working in a collective? you would, in effect, still be "making your money" while still not "whoring yourself out" (as you chose to describe it) to do it. to be fair, in this pseudo-capitalistic world it isn't exactly easy to seek employment at a collective, so i wouldn't necessarily expect you to do so. however, if it were more readily available as an option, as it should be, would it not be a much more desirable alternative? here's a video i made that discusses the philosophical basis on which society would need to be built on for collectivization of industry to come about in a society:

no. as i've said before, the fact that we control ourselves merely asserts our personal autonomy. it does not assert of self-ownership. if it did, we would also have the ability to divorce control of ourselves and transfer that control to someone else, as ownership means absolute domain over a thing. this is what i mean that we are our labor power. when we "rent our labor" to another person in exchange for a wage we are essentially renting ourselves as well, because we cannot be divorced from our labor. our labor is not a product to be bought and sold. our labor is a natural extension of us. work, mathematically speaking, is distance times time, meaning the difference in my position in space from one moment in time to another. labor is work. they are the same thing. you can see in this mathematical representation that my labor is dependent on my exertion on a temporal plane, and so my labor and i cannot be separated. with that in mind, the idea that...

...is flawed because, for all intensive purposes, i AM my working power. my existence in a temporal plane makes the concept of my work and myself inseparable.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

...what? If you're trying to find the speed of something then speed = distance / time. Work is make believe. There is no mathmatical equation that equals work, lol. there's women who get paid to stand outside of las vegas hotels in bikinis. That's work to them... There's people who get paid to party. That one mtv show, jersey shore. Thats work to those italians... I wish I could finish this, but I don't even get what your trying to say here lol

this is a video that I watched a long ass time ago.

while that is the basic definition, there are more complexities to it than that. for example, exclusive rights, absolute domain, etc. -- whatever you want to call it -- include the right to give up control of that thing at will. with your body, there is no physical way to do that without killing yourself and therefore ending that which is you. if you actually owned yourself you would also have the right to transfer ownership of yourself to someone else. since you don't have that right, how can you claim ownership of yourself? it must, then, be a very different relationship. would it then be control over yourself, or could we not say that you simply are yourself? if i am acting, why is it that i need a prime mover to act as me in order for me to act? that is completely redundant and ridiculous.

lol my bad, i was dead tired when i wrote this. the formula is actually "work = force x distance" (which necessitates time as F=d/dt(mv), so my argument still stands).

have you not taken a physics class????:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_%28physics%29

work is labor. work is a physical action and it involves the exertion of physical force by one massive object over another to move it a distance. in a business setting, such as a factory, all work performed is, at root, human labor, including automated labor which necessitates laborers who create, operate and maintain the machines that produce. because F=d/dt(mv) and work = F x d, and because force must be applied by another massive object on the object being worked on (the emboldened m in the equation), and since that object, in a work setting, must first be moved by a human, who by extension is an object doing the initial work, then the laborer cannot be divorced from the labor being performed as without him, there is no labor. one cannot rent out his or her labor power without also renting out his or her self. that was the point i was trying to make.

i'll give you an argument that pleads your case a bit better:

there are people that get paid to go out and pretend to be statues. this is labor to them, yet there is no force or distance. i'll even completely disregard the work the person performed to get ready and any other factors that may arise and simply stick to that person's specific job. if time elapses and no force is in effect (let's also ignore gravity and other forces that are not relevant to this discussion imo), nor has anything traveled a distance including the person or anything he may be directly touching (ie: his/her clothes, the ground, a platform he/she may be standing on, etc. -- directly touching something means you are exerting force on it but, again, let's ignore this), then W = F x d ---> W = 0 x 0 ---> W = 0, so while no work was performed, time did elapse, so to say that no work was performed is deceiving as the individual is still working and providing a potentially valuable product (entertainment).

he brings up emergentism which is a form of dual aspect theory (one that i myself actually prescribe to). the problem is that he says "my body is the property of my mind" which assumes that the mind is some sort of ultimate aspect of the person, that it actually controls the body. this couldn't be further from the truth. the opposite, in many cases, is actually true. however, ultimately, just like with every other part or aspect of your being, the mind and each of your body parts are co-dependent. for example, while your mind does control the actions of your body parts, whether consciously or subconsciously (at least to the best of our knowledge), its existence is dependent on the existence of the body. for example, if one of your body parts were to fail and lead to your death or your brain death, your mind would cease to exist, but the existence, and even to some limited extent the functions of your body parts would not cease to exist. your body and your mind exist, this much is true, but they are co-dependent on each other. you are not your mind, you are you and everything that constitutes you, including your mind and body and anything else we didn't think of here. "you" is a concept -- an interlinking web of co-dependent physical and metaphysical properties -- that changes over time and has a uniquely autonomous relationship to itself amongst its component parts and/or aspects. is this self-ownership? no, because again, there is nothing doing the owning. an autonomous thing cannot be owned unless its owner is itself which would require it to have multiple parts of which one or more were the subordinates to another or others.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0