Comments by "Awesome Avenger" (@awesomeavenger2810) on "'Capitalism will always create bullshit jobs' | Owen Jones meets Rutger Bregman" video.

  1. Well good luck trying to eradicate international inequality. The left couldn't even manage to support a war against the mass murdering fascist dictatorship in Iraq. So I'm not sure how you're ever gonna implement your inequality eradication program when you won't even fight for basic human rights and freedoms. And bringing everyone from there to here is not a realistic solution.
    10
  2. The influx of immigrants into Europe has nothing to do with western governments bombing other countries. The problems come from incompetent dictatorships desperate to cling to power. If the war in Syria proves anything, its that the west is part of the wider world. And cannot ignore what is going on outside its borders. Because it will effect us.
    5
  3. No. The problem is poverty. Not inequality. There will always be inequality no matter what system you attempt to force onto society. And that inequality can take many forms. Wealth inequality is just one example. But I can live with the knowledge that some have more than others. The real problem is poverty. And is there less real poverty in the capitalist west compared to much of the rest of the world? Yes. very much so. Compared to anytime in human history (and much of the rest of the world today) we live in a golden age. So let's not fuck it up, yeah?
    5
  4. My idea includes the introduction of a universal basic income twice as much as whatever Rutger Bregman advocates. And a 10 hour working week. I haven't costed it or anything. But the very fact that I advocate it scores me +100 Virtue Points.
    3
  5. +erzan That is down to government spending, financial responsibility (on the part of governments), and, I would argue, wrong priorities. Perhaps rather than wasting huge sums of cash on higher education (pointless gender studies degrees and lectures about unworkable Marxist economic theory), we should be spending it instead on those who can no longer earn for themselves?
    3
  6. There never has been any such time in history as 'pre-capitalism'. In such a situation where 'everyone works on the land', there would still have been a bartering system even if no currency was involved. And yes. Poverty is relative. But not everyone needs to run their own international corporation. And you don't measure poverty against multi-billion dollar businesses. There would have still been (real) poverty in your mythological 'pre-capitalist' history. And with no large corporations, there would have been no modern medicines. No research into disease. You would have died at thirty two. Of toothache. =(  People in the west are living longer, healthier, and enjoying a higher standard of living than at any time in human history. And no system has, or will ever be able, to do away with 'power relations'. But once again, in the free capitalist west, we see generations growing up with more freedoms, rights, and privileges than ever before.  And 'Unpaid domestic labour'? You mean looking after yourself and your family, surely? And who should pay a woman (or a man for that matter) to clear up their own mess at home? You? Me? Nah.
    2
  7. +musikiola The market has always decided where goods are to be distributed and what should be produced. No other artificial system has proved to work as effectively. Certainly not any kind of command economy. Perhaps it would be easier if you could point out your mythical 'pre-capitalist' society? Do you have a date? And yes. I suspected 'unpaid domestic labour' referred to looking after yourself and your own family. And I also expected you wouldn't answer my question. Which was: who should pay someone for looking after their own needs?  You say that the such costs (of a person cooking and cleaning for themselves) are born by someone else. I am assuming you mean that the costs fall on the person who is cooking and cleaning for themselves? That is as it should be, is it not? After all, why should you be paid (by someone else) for looking after your own domestic needs?  I wouldn't disagree with the claim that 'there is no equality of opportunity without real equality'. However, inequality comes in many forms. Age. Health. Intelligence. Education. Self discipline. Upbringing. And many others. But in a free society (assuming you wish to live in one) there is no way you can do away with those inequalities without committing a far greater injustice: Taking away the individuals freedom to do the best for himself that he possibly can.      I'm assuming you've had an education? Did you think about those less academically gifted than yourself as you sat your exams? Did you purposely answer a few questions wrong in order to make your results more equal when compared to those who aren't as bright as you? Why not? After all, if you're advocating that inequality is a problem, then that would make you part of the problem. Am I right?
    2
  8. I don't think it is up to me to provide a date for your pre-capitalist society. Ancient Egypt perhaps? Nope. That can't be it. The Minoans? I'd have to check but I'm fairly certain that can't be it either. How about a clue?    And again, we all know that a wife who stays at home and brings up her kids does necessary work. For herself and her family. That is not being denied. The question is, who should pay her for looking after herself and her family?  An employer only has the duty to pay for the effort and time his employees spend working for him. He has no responsibility to pay for the effort and time an employee spends looking after himself at home. Obviously I'm assuming you think the employer should be the one paying. Because despite asking two times already, you haven't said who you think it should be. But let's suppose we say the employer does have a duty to pay his employees to look after themselves at home. How is the employer to know that his employee is doing an adequate job of it? Rather than just slacking off and not bothering to clean behind the fridge? House inspections? Some kind of timetable? Should he employ a manager? You seem to think that the very fact that you are on this earth means that someone owes you. That someone has to pay you for just being there. No they don't. You have no right to demand anything from anyone. And yup. I find the idea of gender studies ludicrous. The video above is entitled 'Capitalism will always Create Bullshit Jobs''. But I can tell you, it ain't capitalism that created gender studies. Its a bullshit subject with no practical use in the real world. Unless you want to go on to teach it. And the only possible worth of studying Marxism is to learn how deeply flawed theories can bring about abject tyranny and cost the lives of millions.
    2
  9. I haven't deleted any comments. The phrase 'means of production' in Marxist jargon may only include tools, machinery, buildings, and capital. But then Marxism is a deeply flawed political theory. My argument is that the worker himself is the means of production. The tools, machinery, buildings etc. didn't just appear out of nowhere. They were built. By people. Nothing gets done without the worker. In a capitalist economy, the worker is recognised as being part of the means of production. He owns his own time. And may hire himself out to an employer in return for a wage. In capitalism, the worker truly does own the means of production. He owns the results of his own labour. In the communist system, the results of his labour suddenly become 'the means of production' and are then taken from him by the state. This theft is poorly justified by defining the 'state' as being 'the worker'.  Only, as I have already pointed out, that is an impossibility. The state cannot be the worker, because not everyone agrees. The mantra 'the workers own the means of production' is simply political spin. And defining the means of production in such a narrow way is all part of the spin.
    2
  10. Lot of meaningless rhetoric there. Income and wealth inequality is created by force? How so? And what kind of poverty are we talking? First World 'poverty'? Or Real World poverty? In a capitalist system you are free to set up your own 'means of production'.  Many people have and do. You are also free to distribute your own resources if you want. But you can keep your thieving hands off mine.
    1
  11. +erzan No. He mentioned 'inequality'. As in ''...It looks as if the levels of inequality are heading back to pre-WW2 standards.'' Poverty isn't heading back to pre-WW2 standards. And it is poverty that matters. Not inequality. Talking about inequality is simply using slight of hand to fool people into thinking you are talking about poverty. But no one has the right to demand all others are equal to them In wealth.
    1
  12. Feudalism, like slavery, never existed as an economic system in of itself (to my knowledge anyhow. Altho I'm willing to believe that may have been the case in the Aztec empire or someplace like that at some point. idk enough about south American history to say). In other words, you had the capitalist system working alongside it. For instance, you had freemen, artisans, mercenaries, moneylenders, the merchant class, etc. And they all expected to be paid for their services. After all, that was the very reason why the nobility and the churches raised their own taxes. You could point to Tsarist Russia, I supposed. The peasant classes had to work for free for a certain number of days on their master's land. And got the weekends off or whatever to work for themselves. That system pretty much continued right up until the revolution. But even then you still had the professional classes who worked for themselves.   I was gonna put in a bit about a command economy here. But I can't now be bothered. All that matters is that its shit.
    1
  13. +musikiola ''...Capitalism is, in a basic sense, the existence of a wage earning class - those who have to work in order to get money and buy what they need'' Your words. Your definition.
    1
  14. The wage earner is the means of production. Otherwise, what are they selling and why would anyone buy it? ''A feudal serf generally owns the means of production, but not the land...'' Means of production can't be the land then can it? Not if the serf owns the means of production. So what is the means of production if not the serf himself? You are the means of production. That is what you are selling when you take a wage. Your time. ''...grows what they need to subsist and will grow extra to pay the landlord and maybe some to trade at the market'' So capitalism then. In other words, the opposite of capitalism is when the worker owns nothing. Not even his own time. Rather like communism. Rather like slavery.
    1
  15. You seem surprised that labour is the means of production. If not, how then do things get built? How does the produce get farmed? Do these things come into being by themselves independently of manual labour and/or time? You seem to be quoting a mantra without even thinking about what you are saying. You even said it yourself ''...A feudal serf generally owns the means of production, but not the land...'' Well, if the land isn't the means of production. And now, according to you, the serf isn't the means of production. Then what the fuck is the means of production? Magic beans? Under communism, nobody owns anything but the (one party) state. And as history has proved time and again, all communist theory inevitably evolves into tyranny. Essentially it teaches that private ownership of industry leads to a corrupt boss class. If that is true then, you certainly don't want to hand it over to a one party state. One party states already have more than enough power as it is. You want them to now decide where you work and how much you get paid too? How stupid are you? The workers own shit. They don't own the factory or the machinery or the tools. The one party state does. You can be a gullible idiot and buy into the 'workers are the state' propaganda. But its just meaningless Marxist bollox. How are the workers anymore 'the state' than in a multi-party democracy? How can a one party state possibly represent everyone? In a multi-party liberal democracy any party must sell itself to the electorate if they want power. And the existence of opposition parties means that no party in government can afford to abuse their power without risking the loss of that power. How can a one party state possibly represent everyone? You live in a liberal democracy. And I'm betting that you don't see the current government as representing you. What is there to prevent the one party state from abusing its power? The media? The media is controlled by the one party state. The courts? The courts are controlled by the one party state. The unions? The unions are controlled by the one party state.  You can afford to piss off your boss in a capitalist system. Because you can always go work for someone else. But you sure as hell better not piss off the one party state because they are your boss. They're the only boss. And they control everything. The courts, the police, the health care system, education, the stores. There is no one else. So maybe you ought to stop being so naive. And go rethink the whole 'under communism the workers own the means of production' bullshit. You read it somewhere. It sounded cool and you got the tee-shirt. But its worthless bullcrap.
    1
  16. Big words. But what you really mean is that I don't buy into your faulty Marxist doublespeak. You claim that ''...under communism the workers own the means of production''. How? How do the workers own the means of production? Can a worker sell it? Can a worker take the tools home with him?  How can the workers own the means of production in a command economy?   All you've done is to simply show your willingness to play along with the redefinition of words for political expediency. And that's something that all Marxist/communists do. So the state becomes the 'workers'. Even tho it isn't. Pravda (truth) becomes whatever bullshit the one party dictatorship says it is. The Great Leader becomes first among equals. And dissenters become 'enemies of the people'. Words matter. You can't just change their meanings to suit your argument. And I'm pretty sure that you yourself would make it very clear what the word 'ownership' meant if anyone tried to take anything you owned away from you.
    1