24-03-2004 23:44									#61
	Suffering from ads?

Highly paid professionals are middle class. CEOs are typically drawn from the ranks of the capitalist class, and even when they aren't, they soon join it.

	24-03-2004 23:46									#62
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious I agree. Highly paid prodessionals should be classified as capitalists. Just like the capitalists, the're able to gain high income, because of the current system. .

I dont know id go that far. As Guev correctly indicates, class analysis is about relationship to production, and i (not really a marxist) would add, role in society and politics. Its not simply a question of income strata. I would simply argue that managers and professionals function as class quite distinctively from any reasonably defined working class. With respect to means of production, i think the case can be made more strongly for the distinctive role of the management class, while the professional class, though of greater importance and autonomy, is still more like the classic professional class.

	24-03-2004 23:52									#63
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark I dont know id go that far. As Guev correctly indicates, class analysis is about relationship to production,

I did write economic class. There are all kinds of classes. What is a class other than a subset of a larger group which shares certain commonalities that the larger group does not. Unfortunately, Marx, Engles, Lenin, etc. didn't leave us much to understand the nature of economic class.

	24-03-2004 23:55									#64
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Highly paid professionals are middle class. CEOs are typically drawn from the ranks of the capitalist class, and even when they aren't, they soon join it.

I believe you are incorrect about the social origins of CEOS, who at least in the US are largely drawn from the same origins as other upper managers and upper professionals, though I dont have any data handy to prove it.

You are correct that in some sense CEOs are assimilated quickly into the capitalist class, in the sense that through Stock options and other means they typically have very large equity stakes in the companies they run (as well as large amounts of general wealth, but then thats true for other upper managers and upper professionals as well) On the other hand they are also subject to being fired, and their economic power and status is primarily dependent on their functioning as managers, not prinmarily on their ownership of capital. Think of Michael Eisner vs Warren Buffet. Warren Buffet is important in ANY industry he chooses to invest in. Michael Eisner, should he leave the media complex where his management skills matter, is a figure of much less importance. Who cares if Michael Eisner invests in say, General Motors, on his own account. I would say that in terms of RELATIONS OF PRODUCTION, Michael Eisner is NOT in the same class as Warren Buffet. Doesnt matter if they happen to attend the same parties (that last is a general remark - I know you know better, Guev)

	25-03-2004 00:00									#65
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara I did write economic class. There are all kinds of classes. What is a class other than a subset of a larger group which shares certain commonalities that the larger group does not. Unfortunately, Marx, Engles, Lenin, etc. didn't leave us much to understand the nature of economic class.

Fortunately social thinkers since then, both Marxist and non Marxists, have investigated the nature of economic and social class.

When I want to worry about what cannonical texts say, I turn to my religion, which is obsessed with such things. When it comes to social analysis, Im not really worried that a 120 year old text, however insightful, is inadequate as a guide to contemporary realities. (leads us to the question - would Marx be a "Marxist" if he we alive today??? I rather think not - i cant see such a creative and original thinker engaged in talmudic debate about texts from a previous century - which is NOT to say he wouldnt still be a Socialist - he might well be)

	25-03-2004 00:03									#66
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

That fact that there are hierachies and stata in classes should not be seen as evidence that classes don't exist or are other than what they are. Steelworkers and burger flippers and web page coders are all workers but our relationships within society are different. Yet we are all the same in that we sell our labor-power to a capitalist in order to live.

I have to admit, class is an area on which I'm not well versed. I do recognize the problems you raise with classifying high level corporate executives as members of the capitalist class. Are they bourgeois or petit-bourgeois? I'm not sure.

	25-03-2004 00:05									#67
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark When I want to worry about what cannonical texts say,

The point wasn't slavish devotion to old books but to the methods by which Marx understood class. Anyway, the fundimentals are pretty much the same. Capitalism hasn't become something new, just more complicated.

	25-03-2004 00:06									#68
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara I did write economic class. There are all kinds of classes. What is a class other than a subset of a larger group which shares certain commonalities that the larger group does not. Unfortunately, Marx, Engles, Lenin, etc. didn't leave us much to understand the nature of economic class.

Of course Marx DID say that class conflict is the driving force in history, and class relations are the substructure to other social relations. IIUC he meant economic class defined by means of production. He would certainly have recognize that other social groupings exist, but he would have seen as superstructure, not the true driving force in society and politics. By calling myself a non-Marxist, im indicating that while recognizing the power of a social analysis based on economic class, i am not convinced it is the essential motor of history.

	25-03-2004 00:11									#69
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara That fact that there are hierachies and stata in classes should not be seen as evidence that classes don't exist or are other than what they are. Steelworkers and burger flippers and web page coders are all workers but our relationships within society are different. Yet we are all the same in that we sell our labor-power to a capitalist in order to live..

A professional EMPLOYEE is different from other employees, in that they have control over the details of their work. Arguably they are the least "proletarianized" workers on a continuum.

Independent professionals OTOH, do NOT sell their labor power, they sell services. They are really more like small capitalists, or master craftsmen. Confusion is added by the contemporary practice of corporations using individual "contractors" who in effect ARE selling their labor power, but using institutional means associated with the purchase of services.

	25-03-2004 00:11									#70
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Just becaue something is the driving motor doesn't mean it has control. A steering wheel doesn't move the car, but it has a lot of influence on where it goes. Same with social superstructure. Engels later wrote that he and Marx put such emphasis on economics because they were argueing against people who ignored it altogether. He said they never denied other aspects of society had great importance. Unfortunately, this was in a single letter and I seem to be one of the few Marxists to have paid it much attention.

	25-03-2004 00:12									#71
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark A professional EMPLOYEE . . .

I don't think I disagree with what you write there.

	25-03-2004 00:18									#72
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara . Capitalism hasn't become something new, just more complicated.

That was the original response of Marxists to the studies that showed the seperation of management and ownership. Non-Marxists were inclined to say that it HAD become something new.

Unfortunately in Academe today hardly anyone other than Marxists is interested in serious class analysis, AFAIK, so if capitalism HAS become something new, there really isnt anyone to tell us.

BTW the classic study on the separation of management and ownership was Berle and Means, 1932.

	25-03-2004 00:21									#73
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

There are the post-modernists, but I doubt either of us care what they have to say.

	25-03-2004 00:26									#74
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by SKILORD Socialism is rejection of the equality of man.

capitialism is in direct confrontation with true equality of men.

wealth = power
power = inequality
wealth -> inequality

economic equality must be realized before any true notion of equality can be realized.

the son of a major CEO has a far greater chance to succeed in society than the son of a janitor. people are being born into their classes. it's still a feudal caste system, albiet more mobile.

the rich always seem to get off when they get in legal trouble, except for a few token cases to make us feel we're all ok. martha stewart got taken down for selling stock with some insider information. how many people did she hurt? the enron executives GOT OFF for the same thing AND MORE, and screwed thousands of hard working people out of their money.

this is gettinf fragmented, so i will stop.

	25-03-2004 00:45									#75
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark A professional EMPLOYEE is different from other employees, in that they have control over the details of their work. Arguably they are the least "proletarianized" workers on a continuum. Independent professionals OTOH, do NOT sell their labor power, they sell services. They are really more like small capitalists, or master craftsmen. Confusion is added by the contemporary practice of corporations using individual "contractors" who in effect ARE selling their labor power, but using institutional means associated with the purchase of services.

Even if they are employees, not independent contractors, as you say, they are able to negotiate control over their work and pay. That significantly seperates them from the working class.

In this day and age knowledge capital works the same as tangable and financial capital. UberKrux put it corectly, wealth leads to inequality, and knowledge is a type of wealth.

	25-03-2004 00:50									#76
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

As for class conflict driving society. I don't realy go for that. I think people believe in justice, and gradually we will get it. But history has proven that it won't work out the way that Marx invisioned.

	25-03-2004 00:51									#77
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

"...wealth leads to inequality, and knowledge is a type of wealth."
One great leader, Pol Pot, also got this and did something about it! Back to year Zero!!!

	25-03-2004 00:54									#78
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Kropotkin "...wealth leads to inequality, and knowledge is a type of wealth." One great leader, Pol Pot, also got this and did something about it! Back to year Zero!!!

Thanx for pointing that out, because I would like to say that I'm cerainly not against knowledge.

	25-03-2004 01:00									#79
	Put an end to popups!

(Hey! Don't you diss Pol Pot. I got hold of a speech of him from the Kampuchean communist parties congress (translation courtesy of the Swedish-Kampuchiean friendship association) and I have to say, he's a killer comedian. I laught my ass off!)

	25-03-2004 01:52									#80
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by *End Is Forever* CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. (SOUND - EVERYONE's A WINNER)

Allow me to correct that.

Capitalism- You have two cows. As all the grazing land is already owned by "McMoo! plc" you cannot feed them, except on artificial "Cow Chow" supplied by "Plague and Poison plc", the price of which outstrips the value of your milk. Therefore you sell both cows for dog food (at a knockdown price, because they know you're desperate) and get a job flipping burgers.

	25-03-2004 02:25									#81
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp Allow me to correct that. Capitalism- You have two cows. As all the grazing land is already owned by "McMoo! plc" you cannot feed them, except on artificial "Cow Chow" supplied by "Plague and Poison plc", the price of which outstrips the value of your milk. Therefore you sell both cows for dog food (at a knockdown price, because they know you're desperate) and get a job flipping burgers.

Now that's right on!

	25-03-2004 03:51									#82
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Sometimes some people are so wrong, you don't even know how to correct them. Siklord falls into that catagory. Why do Libertarians have to make up their own language that no one else uses?

You don't know how to correct me because I am right. You cannot accept my words because they are against your excruciatingly simple basic beliefs (Work is bad, I hate people who are wealthier than me. Let's get together and take their money). And if they are true then you are wrong and you simply do not wish to admit that.

I wish I could be self-righteous and smug with you (ie: That che is so wrong... I don't even know where to start and so I won't correct him. Let us take on the faith of my word that he is wrong.) but I'm no that sort of a person.

In addition I seem to speak english.

I don't understand what's so complicated about what I'm saying... I really don't.

Maybe I'll issue a manifesto to explain my stance properly...

quote: capitialism is in direct confrontation with true equality of men. wealth = power power = inequality wealth -> inequality economic equality must be realized before any true notion of equality can be realized. the son of a major CEO has a far greater chance to succeed in society than the son of a janitor. people are being born into their classes. it's still a feudal caste system, albiet more mobile.

On the other hand... let us view Soviet Russia. The son of the Premier had no better chances at sucess than the son of a common farmer. How idyllic.

As for Social mobility, where is that in Socialism? There is absolutely and inheritly NONE. A man cannot work hard his entire life and work his way up the Social ladder. A man's work is valueless in Socialism.

Who was Carnegie's father? Rockefeller's? Walt Disney's?

Who were their sons?

Let us now name a rags to riches story from Socialism....

No I guess we won't.

-

Capitalism cannot be said to treat people inequally because Capitalism is by its very defenition not organized and has no system or platform. It is simply the granting of economic freedom and to hell with what you do with it.

Irresponsible?

Yes, but when authorities are irresponsible it is time for us to act. Socialism does not allow one to act, it does not allow one to live. It acts for them, it lives their life for them.

How convienient.

	25-03-2004 04:15									#83
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by SKILORD You don't know how to correct me because I am right.

No, because you are so wrong I don't know where to start. On top of that, words seem to have different meanings for you.

quote: You cannot accept my words because they are against your excruciatingly simple basic beliefs (Work is bad, I hate people who are wealthier than me. Let's get together and take their money).

You have obviously not paid any attention to this thread or you wouldn't set up such a simple strawman. Socialism does not think work is bad. We think that people who sponge off those who actually do the work, i.e., capitalists are bad, to put it terrbly simply. It is not the politics of envy, but of justice.

quote: On the other hand... let us view Soviet Russia. The son of the Premier had no better chances at sucess than the son of a common farmer.

So in otherwords, it's a meritocracy. You get ahead siomply on your own ability and not those of your parents.

quote: As for Social mobility, where is that in Socialism?

There is social mobility, it's just not based on wealth.

quote: Who was Carnegie's father? Rockefeller's? Walt Disney's? Who were their sons?

And why are their children wealthy and powerful today? What did they do to deserve such positions of power? And let us not forget the Rocketfeller built his wealth through criminal means, like so many capitalists. Carnegie too.

quote: Let us now name a rags to riches story from Socialism....

Since there are no riches, it's impossible. You might as well blame submarines for not being able to fly.

quote: Capitalism cannot be said to treat people inequally because Capitalism is by its very defenition not organized and has no system or platform.

This is why I say it's impossible to argue with you. We live in the coetiy capitalism has made. It has a system. It has a platofrm. It is inherently unequal. If they didn't create a state to restrain them, there is nothing they wouldn't do in their quest for accumulation. They lie, cheat, steal, murder, and so on. They are violent, dishonest, an dangerous. They have misruled this world and killed hundreds of millions in their lust for wealth. Socialism isn't about taking their wealth. It's about justice.

	25-03-2004 04:20									#84
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by SKILORD Capitalism cannot be said to treat people inequally because Capitalism is by its very defenition not organized and has no system or platform. It is simply the granting of economic freedom and to hell with what you do with it.

Looks like someone doesn't know what an economic system is either.

	25-03-2004 05:56									#85
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara quote: Originally posted by SKILORD You don't know how to correct me because I am right. No, because you are so wrong I don't know where to start. On top of that, words seem to have different meanings for you. quote: You cannot accept my words because they are against your excruciatingly simple basic beliefs (Work is bad, I hate people who are wealthier than me. Let's get together and take their money). You have obviously not paid any attention to this thread or you wouldn't set up such a simple strawman. Socialism does not think work is bad. We think that people who sponge off those who actually do the work, i.e., capitalists are bad, to put it terrbly simply. It is not the politics of envy, but of justice. quote: On the other hand... let us view Soviet Russia. The son of the Premier had no better chances at sucess than the son of a common farmer. So in otherwords, it's a meritocracy. You get ahead siomply on your own ability and not those of your parents.

I see that we cannot sense sarcasm. The sons of the Premiers ion Soviet Russia did notgo to Soviet schools.

quote: quote: As for Social mobility, where is that in Socialism? There is social mobility, it's just not based on wealth. quote: Who was Carnegie's father? Rockefeller's? Walt Disney's? Who were their sons? And why are their children wealthy and powerful today? What did they do to deserve such positions of power? And let us not forget the Rocketfeller built his wealth through criminal means, like so many capitalists. Carnegie too.

Are their children wealthy and powerful today?

I daresay not.

You base your entire beloved system of government off of revolution and then complain if others begin criminally?

quote: quote: Let us now name a rags to riches story from Socialism.... Since there are no riches, it's impossible. You might as well blame submarines for not being able to fly.

So there is no way to succeed in Socialism? SO if you do succeed in Socialism your victory will only be stolen by your brothers?

quote: quote: Capitalism cannot be said to treat people inequally because Capitalism is by its very defenition not organized and has no system or platform. This is why I say it's impossible to argue with you. We live in the coetiy capitalism has made. It has a system. It has a platofrm. It is inherently unequal. If they didn't create a state to restrain them, there is nothing they wouldn't do in their quest for accumulation. They lie, cheat, steal, murder, and so on. They are violent, dishonest, an dangerous. They have misruled this world and killed hundreds of millions in their lust for wealth. Socialism isn't about taking their wealth. It's about justice.

Au Contraitre, MEN lie, cheat, steal, murder, they do so regardless of the government they live under or the economic system they have.

Capitalism takes nmo responsibility for the actions of those who claim its name, it grants them freedom to do as they please. Therefore it cannot be blamed when men screw up.

	25-03-2004 08:04									#86
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Capitalism isn't about freedom. It's about rules. Men have to follow those rules to survive. They are only free to either follow the rules or end up dead or in prison.

Someone needs to get real.

	25-03-2004 09:52									#87
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by SKILORD As for Social mobility, where is that in Socialism?

Social mobility is an illusion in Capitalism, it is just a pipe dream to pacify the common folk.

quote: Originally posted by SKILORD There is absolutely and inheritly NONE. A man cannot work hard his entire life and work his way up the Social ladder. A man's work is valueless in Socialism.

There are no classes in a socialist country. Don't you know that?

quote: Originally posted by SKILORD Capitalism cannot be said to treat people inequally because Capitalism is by its very defenition not organized and has no system or platform. It is simply the granting of economic freedom and to hell with what you do with it.

There goes your credibility.

	25-03-2004 09:54									#88
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp Capitalism- You have two cows. As all the grazing land is already owned by "McMoo! plc" you cannot feed them, except on artificial "Cow Chow" supplied by "Plague and Poison plc", the price of which outstrips the value of your milk. Therefore you sell both cows for dog food (at a knockdown price, because they know you're desperate) and get a job flipping burgers.

Gimpy did a much better job than I.

	25-03-2004 09:54									#89
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by SKILORD Are their children wealthy and powerful today? I daresay not.

They are quite powerful, acutally. Disney's kid owns 40% of Disney, a powerful media empire. The Rockerfellers still own most of the Standard Oil companies, and several of them have been important politicians (govenor, senator, etc). And one of Carnegie's decendents Mellon-Scaife, who pours his billions into extreme right-wing causes.

Dude, if you are going to argue about people, know something about them.

As for your complain about there being no success in capitalism, you must be a materialistic miser, because there are plenty of ways to gauge success without money. No, people will not grow wealthy under socialism, but they will still receive honor and recognition and merit and all that comes with doing a good job, helping others, coming up with great new ideas, etc. There is more than one way to reward someone than being rich.

	26-03-2004 03:17									#90
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: There are no classes in a socialist country. Don't you know that?

That is my point, that's why I said 'Inheritly'

quote: but they will still receive honor and recognition and merit and all that comes with doing a good job, helping others, coming up with great new ideas, etc. There is more than one way to reward someone than being rich.

Well whupity doo, a fuc*ing pat on the back.

quote: Dude, if you are going to argue about people, know something about them.

Well... I can confess that you're right here... I was wrong.