Sympo
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Young Master Smeet wrote:Politicians who receive a salary are salaried workers like any other
Is Theresa May exploited by capitalists?
Young Master Smeet wrote:"As little as a factory owner today ceases to be a capitalist if he becomes a municipal councillor…"Interesting quote. Do you think Marx means that the factory owner is still a capitalist because he has money left from exploiting the working class? Also, isn't the worker who has become a politician no longer dependent on getting exploited? My question to you kind of intertwines with my reply to ALB.
ALB wrote:"Some are obviously capitalists (more in America than in Britain), eg ex-PM Cameron and ex-MP Zac Goldsmith, rich men with nothing else to do."Did Cameron live off his father, the stockbroker, before becoming a politician?"When in government, their role is to manage the affairs of the capitalist class as a whole, inevitably in the interest of the capitalist class by giving priority to profits and conditions for profit-making."Are politicians, like Theresa May for example, economically exploited? They don't create value, right?
This may be the wrong article to comment on, but I have a question about politicians. What class do they belong to? Do they belong to any class whatosever?
ALB wrote:"I don't suppose Saudi Arabia has killed that many in Yemen, at least not yet."To be fair though those 50,000 people killed are ISIS fighters. But certainly a lot of civilians have also been killed by the US-led coalition.
mcolome1 wrote:There were many anti-fascists, who supported Nazism and Fascism in Italy and Garmany including Winston Churchill as this article shows:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1980s/1986/no-978-february-1986/fascism-democracy-and-warYes, I am aware of Churchills praise of Mussolini. That racist piece of crap might be the most overrated Briton of all time.
It is certainly hypocrisy but for some reason I always get more defensive when people who, for example, support the Russian government mention the hypocrisy of Western states. It always feels as if I have to bring up that they are also just as bad if not worse.Of course, this is not the case when I read articles by the SPGB that criticize the Western governments(sarcasm not intended).
mcolome1 wrote:"Before writing or accusing anybody, it is preferable to check history, the historical context, or to look for the evidences."I am not accusing you or any SPGB:er of supporting terror."You do not mention the killing of millions of peoples perpetrated by the rulers, where women and children have been killed, and continue being killed all over the world, and every day there are many civilian killed in Syria. You do not mention the terrorists attack of Hiroshima and Nagasaki when thousands of peoples were killed with two atomic bombs""You do not mention the consequences of the war in Iraq where thousands of children are born with genetics defects due to the dropping of uranium, in Iraq they dropped more bombs than during WWII, and they have killed more than 1.5 millions of peoples, and the killers are considered as heroes."Hey now, I do not think these atrocities like the Iraq war or Hiroshima etc are justifiable!"I have never collaborated to place my own enemies in power, and there are millions of peoples doing that, and probably your are one of them."If you are suggesting that I support pro-capitalist parties you are incorrect. I do not support any leninist or social democratic organisation."You do attack Marx, but you do not attack the capitalist class and their criminal wars"It's a question worth asking about. As someone said on this thread, the SPGB aren't Marx worshippers, Marx' opinion on terror is not really relevant to his economic theories. Perhaps other people will find this thread after reading this quote by Marx.I haven't talked about the war in Syria, Iraq, WW2 etc but this thread isn't about these wars. I do not support any side of these wars as they are all for Capitalism.
ALB wrote:"Having said that, we are not Marx-worshippers. If in 1848 Marx favoured revolutionary terror against opponents of the minority-led revolution he then envisaged, so what?"It means that Marx may have supported killing people because of their class backround(and this may involve killing wives and children though this may not be the case) at the time he wrote the Communist Manifesto. I assume he changed his mind later on but was this because he saw it as unnecessary or because he saw it as immoral?Not that I am trying to portray the SPGB or the WSM as a violent organisation or anything(not being sarcastic, honest).
What makes Capitalism a system of slavery? The fact that capitalists must pay people less than the value they create or the fact that people have to have jobs where surplus value is extracted from the workers by the capitalists in order for the system to work?Am I perhaps creating a false dichotomy or whatever?
SonofRage wrote:I can ask, but only a handful ever participate in the email list for what that is worth.No, that isn't necessary. Thank you for for offering, though
Young Master Smeet wrote:"No, the value paid to worker 1 will be less than the value they add to the product (food)."Oh, okay."From the point of view of the capitalist, worker 2 doesn't create anything, doesn't produce anything. Without worker 2 the goods cannot come to market, but the only operation 2 does is move a plate load of value from one place to another."I understand that the capitalist needs worker 2 in order to realize his profit, but I still don't see how worker 2 is being exploited.
Young Master Smeet wrote:"Worker one is paid the value of average socially necessary labour time that goes into creating and reproducing her ability to work. That value will be less than the value added by worker one to the food."Wait. what? The value produced by worker 1 will be less than the value produced by worker 1?"Worker two, does not add value: but without worker two, the restaurateur cannot get any payment unless the food reaches the tables. Worker two is paid the value of average socially necessary labour time that goes into creating and reproducing his ability to work."Is worker 2 not creating any value?"Workers two and three are not exploiting worker one."That I understand.
