Capitalism is Opposed to Human Happiness Debate, Volume 2
Using my quotes to beat me would have more effect if you had the decency to grasp the magnitude of how every quote I made of you captures my conclusion of your argument. Nevertheless, I would have explained the theories to you if you asked, as if it were the exact opposite of you actually acknowledging the simple existence of what you clearly ignored right now: everything else I said.
Mike, I think it's time you stop spamming this thread... I agree with Suska. And I also agree with Suska that it's a pretty admirable job that CNT-FAI Radical has done in this thread with his discussions. Like Suska said, clearly prepared... well done.
If I propose something and he says that it has no value compared to something else, then I would expect him to have the decency to not contradict himself by saying that he doesn't have comparatively little value of my proposition compared to the other thing. I say that capitalism increases growth, he says that the growth is not worth the punishment from inequality and that he primarily wants to increase material wealth with his plan, and so I expect him to either accept what he said, that production is less important, or admit that he is a bad writer.
CNT-FAI Radical wrote:
Before, you said:
This seems contradictory. Who would be Google's owners: the workers working at Google, the workers working in the software industry at large, or the whole society? I have been assuming the first: workers of Google.
If that assumption is correct, I assume we, the workers of Google, being the owners, would be sharing the profits. Now, if we collectively decide that we want to collectively hire a new worker to write a few lines of code for us, the new guy would also be participating in sharing the profits, correct? That would be too expensive for us, current workers, since the profits are large. It doesn't matter if he sells his share or keeps it. The profit share he would be getting would be larger than his expected contribution. Hence, we would never hire that guy - even though, if we only had to pay him say $60K a year, he would be worth it.
I don't get it. You said that every industry would be owned by the workers who labor there, and this seems to be saying the opposite.
I never suggested that people have a right to own each other. I simply asked if people have a right to the means of production, and labor is a means of production, does that mean that people have a right to each other? The answer is no.
I'm not redefining labor (or capital), but rather pointing out it's commonality with capital (labor). Some people might not be aware of that, and a wider perspective aids understanding. Also, unless you're preaching to the choir, it's to your advantage to avoid bashing "capitalism" as the name of every exploitive economy, no matter how many such writers you quote, particularly if you're talking to capitalists, or people who proudly wear that label. You yourself said you are referring to excessive ownership or power when you use the term. But you can also discuss the more fundamental aspect of capitalist ideology when it is not excessive -- i.e. whether or not it's ethical to own property, how ever little, which you can lend or rent-out for income, in lieu of working. I strongly believe it is ethical, and I suspect you don't. I think this is our fundamental disagreement, though we have a fundamental agreement on pursuing economic democracy.