PDA

View Full Version : Slavery is murder



SicN Twisted
01-17-2005, 11:35 PM
Murder means someone forcefully takes another life. If someone controlls every aspect of someone's life, by either owning them legally as slaves, controlling their finances and their living conditions, or even governing them on any level, then one person openly rules over another and in essence, murders them. Life is basically defined by someone's control over their own bodies in minds - slavery prevents them of this, and is just the same as murder. Therefor, one human being having any kind of enforced authority over another slavery, so authority is murder.

BlackCat
01-18-2005, 12:24 AM
Slavery is also freedom, if you'd like to think on a 1984 level.

Murder technically is killing another life, and I mean killing as in physiologically killing. But hey, we already know that slavery takes on a pretty damn similar effect.

But your analogies stretch too far, like:

Knowledge = Power
Power = Energy
Energy = Mass (from e=mc2)
Therefore Knowledge = Mass (smart people are fat)
But this gets all quite out of hand.

RXP
01-18-2005, 03:08 AM
Er Sic you need to look up the legal definitino of murder and stop your random rantings.

Betty
01-18-2005, 08:43 AM
Yeah... so I don't know if you really think this or not... but it seems more like you're just trying to make a "logical" flow of arguments.

And even if you do think so, I think your implication of slaves not having control over their bodies or minds is wrong. Because regardless of your situation, you can still have control of at least your mind.

Mota Boy
01-18-2005, 09:13 AM
I can see where you could have a point in a purely philosophical sense. It's something that causes me to cock my head to the side and say "Oh yeah, I can kinda see that." But to argue that it should move beyond the realm of ideas and that such logic should be the basis for anything in life is to get too wrapped up in the philosophy that you blind yourself.

sKratch
01-18-2005, 11:14 AM
If you replace "taking someone's life" to "killing" it doesn't have nearly the same effect. You're depending on linguistics for your shit to make sense. You're also depending on your own definitions--a method by which you could make absolutely anything progress from anything else.

JohnnyNemesis
01-18-2005, 03:29 PM
Psh. You can use facts to remove anything that's even remotely true.

Once again, Homer Simpsons guides us with the truth in his humor.

nieh
01-18-2005, 03:36 PM
Whenever I hear people say things like this, I can't help but be reminded of pseudo-intellectual 15 year old potheads in their sophomore year of high school. While they're kinda-sorta philosophically true, it's such a stretch that it carries no real validity.

Moose
01-18-2005, 06:01 PM
thank you.

Sirotilc
01-19-2005, 06:28 PM
I agree with Betty on this. Real freedom is the freedom to think.

SicN Twisted
01-19-2005, 09:57 PM
Slavery ir murder is one of Proudhon's thesises you idiots, I didn't make it up. We was a famous anarchist political philosopher and revolutionary from the 18th century - he was part of the First International, with Karl Marx. The idea that slavery is murder for the reason's I've given is respected socialist theory that's taught in political science classes at universities, your trying to discredit it shows that you're all literal minded.

Betty
01-19-2005, 10:01 PM
I'm certainly not offended by that accusation.

Mota Boy
01-19-2005, 10:24 PM
The idea that slavery is murder for the reason's I've given is respected socialist theory that's taught in political science classes at universities, your trying to discredit it shows that you're all literal minded.
All I mentioned was that it was an impractical basis for anything in the real world. Considering that that's also my stance on socialism and anarchism, I'm not surprised to learn its roots.

HornyPope
01-19-2005, 10:45 PM
The Exisentialists would disagree. How can one impose his will upon another when, no matter how confined and limited you are in your decisions, they are still, in source, your own. The whip caressing your back, to take but one mean to force someone into action, still won't make the final decision. The 'slave' ultimately remains guilty for all his actions. You can even make an argument that slavery doesn't exist at all--because the slave always has the legs to run away. Or shoot himself and deprive his master of his services.

Yah, you can argue anything from a philosophical stand-point.

And btw, Proudhon lived and died in the 19th century, not 18th. More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon

RXP
01-20-2005, 01:28 AM
Slavery ir murder is one of Proudhon's thesises you idiots, I didn't make it up. We was a famous anarchist political philosopher and revolutionary from the 18th century - he was part of the First International, with Karl Marx. The idea that slavery is murder for the reason's I've given is respected socialist theory that's taught in political science classes at universities, your trying to discredit it shows that you're all literal minded.

That guy's a fucking idoit then.

wheelchairman
01-20-2005, 02:19 AM
If memory serves, he was one of the foremen for the Paris Commune, one of the earliest socialist states. A well organized revolutionary government that lasted for 3 months, before it was crushed by the reactionary forces.

He literally helped lead the working men to revolt and throw up the chains of their current oppressors, and then to organize a government of the working people. Although unfortunately it was also plagued by sectarianism.

I don't agree with Proudhon on a lot of things, but you have to respect this.

nieh
01-20-2005, 04:08 AM
when you're living in reality, being "literal minded" isn't an insult and you shouldn't try to make it one.

RXP
01-20-2005, 04:46 AM
when you're living in reality, being "literal minded" isn't an insult and you shouldn't try to make it one.

..........

sKratch
01-20-2005, 09:39 PM
Slavery ir murder is one of Proudhon's thesises you idiots, I didn't make it up.

I'm pretty sure you made up the word thesises, though.

SicN Twisted
01-21-2005, 11:14 AM
Living in reality has absoilutely nothing to do with an abstract philosophical idea. You could critisize any philospher for being unrealistic.

nieh
01-21-2005, 11:20 AM
then you shouldn't criticize realists if they think a philosopher is full of shit.

RXP
01-21-2005, 12:20 PM
Hahahahah exactly.

nieh
01-21-2005, 01:15 PM
Philosopher - one who studies philosophy

Philosophy - phi·los·o·phy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (f-ls-f)
n. pl. phi·los·o·phies
1 Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
2 Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
3 A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
4 The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
5 The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
6 The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
7 A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
8 A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.

Realist -
1: a **PHILOSOPHER** who believes that universals are real and exist independently of anyone thinking of them
2: a person who accepts the world as it literally is and deals with it accordingly
3: a painter who represents the world realistically and not in an idealized or romantic style


There are MANY famous philosophers whose ideas apply just as much to the real world as they do to the philosophical world . It's NOT possible to write each and every one of them off as unrealistic.

Betty
01-21-2005, 01:22 PM
Yeah, I took a couple philosophy classes and some things are great and some things are just total bullshit.

You can debate God to no end, and there's really no "proof" either way, so it can apply equally well the the real world.

You can talk about Plato's "forms" which is just a concept, and so really doesn't make a difference either.

Existentialism, which intrigues me quite a bit, is more of a "meaning of life" type thing, which also doesn't matter what the world is like.

However, the fact that these things are just ideas that really don't affect anything concrete can make them fairly useless, other than the fact that they make you think, etc.

But when you start applying crazy ideas where actual physical laws, or "human nature" comes into play, then it's totally different.

SicN Twisted
01-21-2005, 11:31 PM
It's depressing that you people don't see life in any sort of abstract terms. If you denounce philosophy as unrealistic, then you also shouldn't like any kind of art. Abstract concepts about humanity are only bullshit if you see in black and white and can't think beyond what affects you directly.

nieh
01-22-2005, 12:06 AM
There are MANY famous philosophers whose ideas apply just as much to the real world as they do to the philosophical world . It's NOT possible to write each and every one of them off as unrealistic.


Yeah, I took a couple philosophy classes and some things are great and some things are just total bullshit.

Never did we denounce ALL forms of philosophy, just the ones that have no possible translated meaning in reality. There are lots abstract ideas that can in some way be applied to life, but being abstract for the sole purpose of being abstract with no depth to it is pointless.

Betty
01-22-2005, 12:41 AM
If I wasn't interested, I obviously wouldn't have taken two philosophy classes out of my limited number of electives. I just think there's a difference between thinking abstractly and unrealistically. Which is clearly what I said.

I will admit I am more logical minded than creative minded, but I do not entirely lack that capacity.

SicN Twisted
01-22-2005, 04:01 PM
Slavery is murder is an idea that can easily be translated into real life, since slavery is such a dominant aspect of capitalist society.

Moose
01-22-2005, 05:11 PM
last time i checked, slavery by definition has ended in the united states.

SicN Twisted
01-23-2005, 03:53 PM
THat's not true. The slave trade of Negroes ended in the United States - Slavery is still a dominant aspect of our economic system.

Moose
01-23-2005, 04:06 PM
by definition it does not exist...no one is forced into labor legally in the united states. there may be low wages, but it isnt slavery. you are just being extreme with your definition of slavery and simply trying to say that a capitalist society is evil.

HornyPope
01-23-2005, 04:14 PM
Shut up Moose.

Moose
01-23-2005, 04:18 PM
i'll fight you.

HornyPope
01-23-2005, 04:24 PM
You'll suck my dick before you get a chance to assume a fighting stance. Go fucking die.

Moose
01-23-2005, 04:26 PM
has every kind of humor been sucked out of this bbs?

HornyPope
01-23-2005, 04:33 PM
Yes. I'm not funny.

JoY
01-23-2005, 04:34 PM
you can wonder if anyone of us is really free. we're bound to our nature; our will to survive, our need for entertainment, our wishes to bring offspring. (think eating, drinking, (medical) knowledge - computergames - make up, going out, dancing, clothing brands....) we're bound to our culture & thus language. this brings many restrictions in the way we live, think, speak & act.

I bet this all has already been said a thousand times. bite me & my lack of will to read this all at 1:34 AM.

SicN Twisted
01-23-2005, 05:17 PM
Moose, slavery is a term with a definition, the law does not define it. United States law is completely illigitimate, we're a rogue terrorist nation. People in this country are forced into labor and paid not enough for it to support themselves because producers don't control their own assets, it's indentured servitude. Workers in the United States are slaves to their managers - they do labor because they have no other options and reap none of the benefits of their work.

Joy, philosophically, that's a great thing to think about. We may all be slaves to our culture and our humanity. I'm more talking of literal slavery, people not having any say in the course of their lives.

Moose
01-23-2005, 05:23 PM
if the factory worker who created the blueprint for the car wouldnt be a factory worker...in most cases he/she is a factory worker due to a lower form of education or did not go out and succeed or have the mind of the one who created the blueprint for the car or for whichever business that person is running. you can still make a fine living in the united states as a worker for a boss.

people have more of a say in their lives than they think and simply fold under the eyes of society. i as well fall into that trap. many of us believe we are made to fail or not succeed. that is a mind set, it is not because of how the economy is set up. we are the ones who set up that economy and live it.

wheelchairman
01-23-2005, 05:25 PM
Anyone who believes that everyone in society can be a CEO is a flippin' idiot. That's rather simple. Our economy needs workers, that's as obvious as butter on toast is good.

Moose
01-23-2005, 05:32 PM
of course not everyone can or will be, thats obvious...but sic is making it seem a factory worker is a slave, im simply saying that worker is not.

SicN Twisted
01-23-2005, 09:34 PM
Look up slavery in a dictionary and tell me how a factory worker is not a slave.

Betty
01-23-2005, 10:27 PM
It annoys me that, in defending the working class, etc. you guys make them out to be worthless/stupid/poor/unable to think for themselves/etc.

Regardless of how you would define it, I'm sure the factory workers would just LOVE to consider themselves as slaves. As poor. As stupid.

I don't know, I just want to hear what the factory workers themselves would have to say about themselves and their situation.

Fuck, by that definition, nearly anybody could be a "slave".... and hence dead following your logic.

SicN Twisted
01-23-2005, 11:13 PM
I mean slave in the physical sense - where you have no control of what to do in your life or the assets of your labor. And factory workers, in the rare cases where they're allowed to assemble, speak clearly of their situations. It's ashame that fascists like the Bolcheviks exploited their struggle for power.

Also, I don't think factory workers are stupid and incompitent - I think it's impossable for them to better their lives because they live in a system that enslaves them, I've made myself quite clear on that.

Betty
01-24-2005, 12:03 AM
And you think they feel enslaved? They think "I am a slave. There is no possible way I could change my life. I could not have went to community college and gotten a career in the trades. I was doomed to a life of slavery from the day I was born." ???

If you agree with this, well I would think you were wrong, and that it's a terrible way to think.

If, on the other hand, you believe that they don't actually think this way, but that in essence that is their situation, then I think that that implies you think they are too stupid to realize their own situation.

HornyPope
01-24-2005, 08:07 AM
Lack of career prospect is not synonymous to slavery, Sic. And factory workers is a bad, albeit widely used, example of 'poor employment'. I've worked in a factory for six months and my personal experience tells me that the employees weren't any more bitter about their position than the white collar workforce. People who work such jobs (factory) are modest by nature and don't ask for much more but what they already provide for their family with a weekly paycheck. With this said, there are jobs that awfully ressemble classic examples of colonial era slavery-- like plantation and sweatshops. Rather use those fields to illustrate your points if you're trying to get anywhere.

SicN Twisted
01-24-2005, 01:03 PM
Alot of factory workers are diluted into thinking they can improve their lives, and there are alot of acknowledge that they're slaves. More or less, it's nearly impossable to a factory worker to be socially mobile.

Moose
01-24-2005, 01:18 PM
you really make it seem that being an employee and not the boss, is infact, the seventh layer of hell.

Betty
01-24-2005, 04:25 PM
Sic, you seriously have the worst spelling ever!!!

And I'm not even gonna bother trying to argue more, I think my point was made.

HornyPope
01-24-2005, 07:57 PM
I don't see where you're coming from. You're a suburban New York kid with a university professor for a father and a house in Paris, you come to one of the fanciest Montreal neighberhoods for summer holidays, you con your daddy for some allowance money to buy drugs, and now you pass yourself as the big defender of poor mistreated factory workers? Shit, I really hate to get personal about it but if there's one thing I can never tolerate is fakeness. What the fuck do you know about factory workers? Have you ever worked there? Have you ever worked any job at all?

Shut up with your philosophical mantras.

sKratch
01-24-2005, 09:13 PM
Owned?
7890

SicN Twisted
01-24-2005, 09:54 PM
Relax dude - too much caffein maybe? I've never worked in a factory, although I've had my share of jobs, not that it matters. One thing I can't tollerate is people who act like it's hypocritical for someone who isn't poor to be sympathetic towards people who are. I'm not impoverished, but I wouldn't call myself super priveleged either - that doesn't mean I can't understand the socio-economic conditions of capitalism. You don't have to work in a factory to know the average yearly wages of factory workers, how they remain consistent, and exactly how factories function.There's nothing fake about being socially conscious - I don't have cancer, but I'm still sympathetic to people who do, and I understand how painful and destructive cancer is.

If middle class people weren't allowed to join the worker cause, the worker cause would never get anywhere because even though the Communists would disagree with me, the concept of revolution transcends class. I'm no factory worker, but I have just as much of a right as anyone else to be concerned about their situation. If you're gonna argue with me, do it, stop using semantics and acting like they somehow connect to your broken theory that factory workers are perfectly fine and happy or whatever it is you're trying to say, I'm not quite sure.

Betty
01-24-2005, 10:06 PM
People are usually unsatisfied with their lives to a certain extent no matter what they do. It's all relative. Somebody who "has it all" can hate their life, and somebody who is a factory worker can be quite content with their routine life. Money certainly doesn't always equal happiness.

You can say that doesn't matter...

I think you're full of shit because I believe in social mobility. Regardless of the stats, if somebody really wanted to move up, I think they would have good chances of doing so.

Also, you can sympathize with someone, but you cannot TRULY UNDERSTAND unless you've been there.

What does the worst harm to the lower class? Telling them they're doomed to remain there for the rest of their lives. Your theory encourages them to feel socially trapped.

nieh
01-24-2005, 10:27 PM
Relax dude - too much caffein maybe? I've never worked in a factory, although I've had my share of jobs, not that it matters. One thing I can't tollerate is people who act like it's hypocritical for someone who isn't poor to be sympathetic towards people who are. I'm not impoverished, but I wouldn't call myself super priveleged either - that doesn't mean I can't understand the socio-economic conditions of capitalism. You don't have to work in a factory to know the average yearly wages of factory workers, how they remain consistent, and exactly how factories function.There's nothing fake about being socially conscious - I don't have cancer, but I'm still sympathetic to people who do, and I understand how painful and destructive cancer is.

If middle class people weren't allowed to join the worker cause, the worker cause would never get anywhere because even though the Communists would disagree with me, the concept of revolution transcends class. I'm no factory worker, but I have just as much of a right as anyone else to be concerned about their situation. If you're gonna argue with me, do it, stop using semantics and acting like they somehow connect to your broken theory that factory workers are perfectly fine and happy or whatever it is you're trying to say, I'm not quite sure.

The fact of the matter is that Pope has worked in a factory, you haven't. Therefore, he's more capable of understanding what factory workers ACTUALLY feel (because of being one himself for a while, and working with those that have done it for even longer), as opposed to your ASSUMPTION of how they feel. I believe another point he was trying to make is that you have no idea what it feels like to actually earn what you have because you live off your parents. You don't get the satisfaction that comes with that.

I have an example for you: I work doing data entry shit at a title company. While it's not physical labor, it fits just as well into the definition of "slavery" that you were trying to pass off before (i.e. working your ass off for just enough to get by). My family split up about 2 years ago, everyone moved someplace else. I could've (a) went to school somewhere (probably NJ) and gone to live with my parents during vacations (either in PA or MI), or (b) start working and get my own apartment going to night classes when I can afford them. I chose B. Do I hate the place I work at? Yes. Do I think I deserve more money from them? Of course, I'm the best worker they have there. Do I blame the fucked up system for enslaving me? No, it was my own choices. If I ever wanted to, I could stop doing this and revert back to plan A. Why don't I? Is it because I'm incapable of getting out of the system? No. It's pride. I don't want to lose the things I've earned (a place I can call mine, the freedom to not have to worry about calling home to let someone know I'll be back later than expected, etc.), for even few years to speed up the whole college thing. I'm willing to bet that with your jobs, you've never had to pay bills, you've never had to pay for any sort of necessity, you just spend it on things you wanted, right? The fact is, you've never experienced the lifestyle that you're trying to criticize, so you have no right to criticize it because it just sounds patronizing. "I'm going to fight for you guys because your lives are miserable"

SicN Twisted
01-25-2005, 12:34 AM
People are usually unsatisfied with their lives to a certain extent no matter what they do. It's all relative. Somebody who "has it all" can hate their life, and somebody who is a factory worker can be quite content with their routine life. Money certainly doesn't always equal happiness.

By that logic, nothing should be done to fix epidemics of starvation because those with food to eat can be just as miserable.




I think you're full of shit because I believe in social mobility. Regardless of the stats, if somebody really wanted to move up, I think they would have good chances of doing so.

So poor people are poor because they're lazy or unmotivated? Or they're all perfectly happy being paid minimum wage? Then how come poverty levels in countries rise and fall directly due to the economy? What was the great depression then? An international epidemic of laziness? Throughout the 30s, everyone suddenly got incredibly lazy, but in the 40s, they got their asses in order and started working again? How come different countries are more socially mobile then others? Are the Japanese genetically more motivated then Swedes? Betty, you're way too intelligent to say that someone can move up on the social latter if they really want to, it's such a ridiculous statement. If it was true, the majority of people would end their carreers with more money they had when they began them? Let me guess, you also believe that any homeless person can simply get a job if they had the desire to?


Also, you can sympathize with someone, but you cannot TRULY UNDERSTAND unless you've been there.

I never claimed to have detailed understanding of the inner workings of a factory worker's psychology. I do however understand their wages, hours, and exactly what rights they have with their managers. Again, your logic is completely reletive. Should I not believe in researching a cure for AIDS because I don't have AIDS myself?


What does the worst harm to the lower class? Telling them they're doomed to remain there for the rest of their lives. Your theory encourages them to feel socially trapped.

I think it's much worse to lie and say that they control their futures and have an opportunity to affect their fates in ways that, at least economically, are almost impossable? People are kept at bay by believing they have more abilities then they do - if you rest blame in yourself for a problem instead of the one who rightfully deserves it, you're less likely to understand it and fix it. I definately don't tell lower classes they're doomed, I actually strongly encouraged an armed social revolution of the proleteriate. Encouraging workers by saying the harder they work, the more money they'll make (which simply isn't true, you don't need to work in a factory to know that) is misguiding and false. I'd rest my hope in encouraging workers to take up arms and overthrow capitalism themselves by creating a syndicalist society.

Nieh, what can I say to you? You're making insane assumptions - I've never worked in a factory, but I've definately been down and out, and I've been part of workers organizations and have rallied alongside them in solidarity movements. I've worked quite a few minimum wage jobs (unlike Pope's allegations, my parents haven't always supported me). I definately know what it's like to be poor, although I don't know what it's like to be starving to death, but I can imagine it's pretty unpleasant. You have no more right to play the "I've been there" card then I do. We've both worked shit jobs, but neither of us have had to support families with and build pensions with them, so just stop talking about who can and can't understand the psychology of a worker. I'm talking entirely economically - workers physically build things but their assets belong to their managers. If factory workers were content with their situations, there'd be no need for the existence of unions. As long as the proletariate don't control their own assets, they are by definition slaves, and you can say they're happy as much as you want, but they're still, again, slaves BY DEFINITION. You can just as easily say that black slaves durring the 19th century were perfectly happy in the cotton fields. How could I argue with you, I've never been one.

Trip Boy
01-25-2005, 01:19 AM
There are only two churches: the church of the Lamb of God, and the church of the devil.You either belong to the good chuch or the bad church (the mother of abominations, the whore of all the earth).

nieh
01-25-2005, 04:12 AM
I'm talking entirely economically - workers physically build things but their assets belong to their managers. If factory workers were content with their situations, there'd be no need for the existence of unions. As long as the proletariate don't control their own assets, they are by definition slaves, and you can say they're happy as much as you want, but they're still, again, slaves BY DEFINITION. You can just as easily say that black slaves durring the 19th century were perfectly happy in the cotton fields. How could I argue with you, I've never been one.

since when do workers not control their assets? They work, the company pays them (like every worker EVERYWHERE does, from the factory worker, to the data entry person, to the janitor, to the doctor, to the manager, to the lawyer). By your logic, doctors and lawyers are slaves as well, because they have to work to make a living. How in the hell are factory workers slaves any more than anyope else?

1. One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household.
2. One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence: “I was still the slave of education and prejudice” (Edward Gibbon).
3. One who works extremely hard.
4. A machine or component controlled by another machine or component.

By these definitions, EVERYONE WHO HAS A JOB IS A SLAVE. I mean come on, look at definition #3. Anyone that puts an honest day's effort in at work will work extremely hard. Definition #1 isn't true in this case, it's not like the company pays them and then forces them to buy or not buy certain things. That money becomes the worker's and is theirs to do what they want/need. Definition #2 depends on the particular job in question (some management is better than others, so the word "abject" may or may not apply). #4 doesn't work unless you consider workers components and their managers other components

wheelchairman
01-25-2005, 05:22 AM
I believe what Sic meant in this area, is that a worker's finished product is alienated from himself.

A factory worker will not be able to take pride in his work, like a doctor can, for a doctor's work is individualized, as is a carpenter's, as is a lawyer's etc. etc.

A worker must do the exact same repititive work for it, and get paid for a fraction of the value of the work he has done.

RXP
01-25-2005, 05:58 AM
The world is though, there are millions of guys who can work in a factory but not many that can be doctors. Believe me I KNOW what it's like to work in a factory, you work your fucking ass off for minimum wage. But that's the way of the world. There are other things that make people happy than money, look to that.

And if we're arguing the 'end product' price should refelect compensation Doctors are WAY WAY WAY underpaid. No price on human life. Doctors should be getting paid according to the life they save. If they save Bill Gates life they should get a couple billion. If they save some worker only like £100,000 or something.

Betty
01-25-2005, 08:07 AM
Hahaha... you're gonna get massacred for that last comment RXP...

Alright Sic, NO I don't think all factory workers are LAZY. I'd say a better word might be complacent? Some are quite lazy of course, but then again some people in more advanced careers are lazy too, but less so. Also, I think a homeless person just getting a job is much more difficult, because for one most homeless people are either crazy/drug addicts/etc. and two, if they weren't (smaller chances), it would be really hard for them to actually get a job, but then I'd think they'd just have to slowly make their way up.

I realize Nieh may have made some assumptions about your life, which I didn't want to do because it was risky. However his example was quite good. He explained exactly how somebody could fall into the trap of a shitty job and, while being able to get out, just not do it for whatever reason. How many times do you see the scenario where somebody (hopefully) finishes highschool and then is sick of the schooling system, and so takes whatever job they can? They may think they'll go back to school eventually, they may not care because they're 18 and still little kids. But either way, in this day and age school leads to success. Even a 2 year college program. And it's VERY hard to go back to school once you've left.

I think the big thing is that you (and WCM) think people should be fairly equal in terms of their earnings. I don't agree with that. I don't think a factory worker who isn't trained in something should earn as much as somebody who got an education. The system isn't perfect, not all earnings are fairly distributed, but a lot of the time they are a good reflection of the investments put in (be it by education/personal risk/time worked/etc.). That's why I'm arguing that, since not everybody has the intelligence/motivation (not that they're lazy and stupid, but sometimes it takes a LOT to go out and get a degree/diploma), some people will have the lower-wage jobs, and that's how it works. I'm also arguing that MOST could get further within their capabilities if they wanted. I'm also arguing that a factory is a terrible example of a "bad job" because it's not really that bad (not minimum wage, benefits, security, full time, etc.) Some sweat shop style factories are bad of course, but that's different.

Okay, inspiration story, feel free to skip. People CAN change. My family has experienced ups and downs like mad. My parents are both extremely hard working people and therefore were bound to succeed, but not without struggles. My mom went to journalism school out of highschool... one of those not-so-useful programs realistically. So after writing for a few smalltown papers, she did other things. My father and her owned a grocery store. My father had the initial capital from working at a grocery store, eventually getting to be meat manager from mad hard work and motivation, he lived as a batchelor and rented out rooms in his home to capitalize on his earnings. It's easy to save when you're single and have an entrepreneuring mindset. So, they did that and then the store went down hill. So they moved around, my father working random managerial grocery jobs, my mother working other random low-wage jobs. I moved a lot as a child... and I'm shy, so it sucked. At one point, my dad lost his job due to some internal political reasons and we were pretty fucked. 4 kids to support, no job. What happened? My mom went back to school to be a nurse at 35 years old with 4 kids and a husband with no job! She got a loan, my dad worked little odd jobs Mr Fix It style and we were pretty poor. One shitty $3000 car to get them both to work and to chauffeur us around, hand me down clothes, parents borrowing my newspaper delivery money(I was rich), etc. We were still doing pretty fine overall though. Cause the family was happy. After that my mom worked like, 3 nursing jobs to get us back on our feet, my dad got another grocery job as grocery manager. But now, maybe 7-8 years later, my dad is assistant manager, and my mom is director of care at a nursing home. They're doing well. But they have little savings from before (for retirement, for their 4 children's education, etc.) but since they are actually earning quite a bit, it's really hard for us kids to get student loans. I'm lucky because I've gotten a lot of scholarships (due to grades, not financial need). I had also saved up $10 000 before leaving highschool. My sister left for a year, and is moving back home to finish school there due to lack of funds even though she hates living with my parents with a passion. But you gotta do what you gotta do.

So, the moral of the story is, that while a certain amount has to do with "the system" and a certain amount has to do with luck (right place right time), a lot of it comes down to LIFE CHOICES. And I firmly believe that.

Betty
01-25-2005, 08:11 AM
Oh, I forgot, since you made the mistake THREE times in this thread, it's "impossible".

nieh
01-25-2005, 10:32 AM
I realize Nieh may have made some assumptions about your life, which I didn't want to do because it was risky.

HornyPope did it first...

Betty
01-25-2005, 11:12 AM
Well, I was just saying that because in his response to you he solely focussed on those accusations and disregarded the rest of what you said. I'm sure any accusations made by either you or Horny Pope were at least partially founded... and I just wouldn't have the nerve to get into that kinda thing.

HornyPope
01-25-2005, 11:21 AM
Sic,

You can be sympathetic towards a factory worker as you can be sympathetic towards anyone you want. You can also analyze their wages versus their efforts. Go ahead. Feel free. Economics are fine. But you trascend your position of a 'neutral observer' when you come out with quotes like these:


Alot of factory workers are diluted into thinking they can improve their lives, and there are alot of acknowledge that they're slaves.

That's when I have to step in and remind you of your position. You do NOT know what they're thinking. Nor can you judge if they're 'intelligent and competent' or whether they arent'--though you've been constantly using those very two words to assure us that they aren't. You grasp to the fact that you have the right to judge/comment/analyse a group without ever being part of it. Yes, you do. As long as you keep the position of a 'neutral observer'.

SicN Twisted
01-25-2005, 12:46 PM
HP, I use those words in saying that being intelligent and compitent will not change the situation of a poor man. I'm just speculating on conditions that are common amongst humans in general, and how they affect the workforce. Also, I know that many workers feel like slaves because I've been part of workers rallies.

Nieh, factory workers do not own any portion of the products they create, and they don't get paid based on the sales of the products, they get paid based on how much the company pays them, which is a fixed wage determined based on how little it's possible for the company to pay them. This means that workers do not control their assets.

Betty, while you're inspirational story brought tears of joy to my eyes, you can't possibly use it as an example of something that anyone can do. You have way too much faith in the American (or Canadian) dream. For one, most industrial workers are industrial workers because (and this is census, not speculation), they were born into families of industrial workers, were not given access to the best education, and needed to start supporting themselves and their families from an early age. People who grow up in middle class neighborhoods rarely become factory workers - it's like a watered down lighter version of the Indian caste system. Yes, it's technically possible to move up, but it's very imporbable. How do you expect a proletarian worker to go up on the social latter? Where will he find the money or time to go to college (since hours and fixed as well as wages, someone in a dead end job cannot just ask for manager for less hours cause they have this class to take). The workforce isn't filled with disillusioned middle class kids who dropped out of high school. The proletariate is a class, not a form of employment, and it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to transcend class because of practical reasons. How can someone earning just above minimum wage and supporting a family go to college (you work 9-5 and have no time to study or money to pay tuition, does the degree magically appear)? I know miracle American dream rags to riches tails can happen, but they're seldom - the working class still exists in record numbers. It's almost the same as telling a poor black kid in the projects that they can easily become a famous rapper or an NBA basketball player - of course it can happen, but for the most part it's a dream.

SicN Twisted
01-25-2005, 12:46 PM
Betty, I hate to use this as a referance, but read some of Lenin's related works on www.marx2mao.com - they're very insightful to this issue, not that they excuse Lenin's crimes.

wheelchairman
01-25-2005, 01:15 PM
You probably should mention some specific works, because Lenin wrote a lot. I would say for example, that certain chapters in Imperialism- Capitalism's Highest Stage would be valuable for example.

I personally would say that "The Civil War in Paris" by Karl Marx gives a great account of the working class (which is still relevant to the situation of the worker's today) and some historical perspective in France, as well as a good example of early Marxist analysis. Also Aleksandra Kollontai (who mostly focused on the sex issues (as in gender, but also in open sexuality) wrote quite a bit.

some, but unfortunately not all the work's of Kollontai can be found here www.marxism.org

I'm surprised you used that link Lenin, you can find the same works in the above mentioned link, plus your link mostly focuses on the works of Stalin and Mao (the runner's of the site were disappointed with www.marxism.org's lack of Stalin and Mao.)

HornyPope
01-25-2005, 02:25 PM
Both you Sic and Betty missunderstand something: It's possible for one man to rise from the lows of a factory-job to as high as he aims. It's possible for two men to rise. Even for a hundred men. However, what Sic neglets to mention and Betty fails to realize is there aren't enough high positions to satisfy everyone. The definition of Capitalism is such that for one to succeed another must fail. Naturally, the best among us--or rather those best adapted to the current system--will prevail, whether they are issued from poor families or rich. I don't buy that shit that your ancestory dictates your social status. At the same time, it's equally natural that some of us will not be able to advance any higher in society because those positions are already occupied by more competitive people. Not saying if it's good that life is such, simply pointing out the restrictions.

HornyPope
01-25-2005, 02:30 PM
Another thing I wanted to explain was that the factory workers class has largerly shifted from what it was before. No longer it is a standard job since new industries (i.e. customer service) has opened up a lot of positions to people with no to little education, but rather factory workers remain a class of either immigrants (chiefly from third-world and developping countries) and native macho men who couldn't see themselves working in any other position anyways. I know many of them will much more comfortable at this job than anywhere else--only downside is the salary.

Betty
01-25-2005, 08:57 PM
First, it's a lot harder to go back to school once you've already begun raising a family. It's hard. But it's doable. And I think it could be doable in nearly anybody's case if they really, really, really put the effort into it. Whether the effort would be worth it (going to school 9-5, working at the call centre 5-1 every day, or a similar scenario) would be up to the individual. That is my point. That it CAN be done.

But what it comes down to is that one should not put themselves into that position in the first place. Now, as you say, most "factory workers" types come from those sorts of families that do not place emphasis on education. That's true. Which means (unless you think that low class people are less intelligent and hence breed more less intelligent people) that it's not a factor of intelligence that they don't go to school. And it's not even that much of an issue of money, because a factory worker can certainly save up for their child to go to school with all those bonds or whatnot that you put like $25/week into. That's only 4 packages of cigarettes. Or 25 coffees. Or a cheap case of beer. And the kid can work part time during school. And they can get loans if they're poor. So, as I see it, no excuses. There will be of course the rare situation where somebody is living with a family and has to drop out of school and work full time to support, like, their parents and little baby brother or something. But I don't believe that's the norm. I think a lot of it has to do with their mindset. With their values. With the way they were brought up. Which isn't the system. It is human nature. Hence the divisions.

Betty
01-25-2005, 09:06 PM
Ack, Pope, I hadn't even read your last two posts before posting mine. Too hasty, apparently.

Anyway, yes, I agree with you.

But this thread is concerning the job being like slavery, and, since you CAN move up, it's not slavery anymore.

I think a way of putting it is that, since there are only a certain number of positions available, it gets harder and harder to get them, and once you can't face the challenge of getting them anymore, you settle for something.

wheelchairman
01-26-2005, 01:20 AM
Ack, Pope, I hadn't even read your last two posts before posting mine. Too hasty, apparently.

Anyway, yes, I agree with you.

But this thread is concerning the job being like slavery, and, since you CAN move up, it's not slavery anymore.

I think a way of putting it is that, since there are only a certain number of positions available, it gets harder and harder to get them, and once you can't face the challenge of getting them anymore, you settle for something.
You could also buy yourself out of slavery as well back in the more feudalist times, it doesn't mean it wasn't slavery.

HornyPope
01-26-2005, 01:24 AM
I'm not gonna call it "slavery" because i'm sick and tired of the contemporary proletarian dogmas people spin offs, but you have to agree with me that as long as the concept of working in a factory exists, people can't really get away from it. Sure, someone can go up higher in social ranks. I have. But for every worker who leaves for higher riches, he is remplaced by a new sucker. Case in point: I worked in a plastic bag factory, as you already know. When I got fired, the company didn't reduce their production by the equivalant of one less laborer. They simply went out and got a new one. Duh. The company is still producing bags and unless you figure a way to either : A) find new ways to make plastic bags without resorting to manual labour B ) live without plastic bags, those factories will remain and they will continue hiring people, and for every guy who dreams the dream of leaving this shithole of a job to look for success elsewhere, there is someone else up-and-coming (or rather down-and-coming) to work there.

RXP
01-26-2005, 01:48 AM
And ironically Pope, when machines do replace factory workers THE WORKERS moan about it. THEY WANT THEIR JOBS!

HornyPope
01-26-2005, 02:15 AM
See that's why I never said that it's a bad job. Truth to be told, it satisfies the needs of a lot of people who are better off doing that shit than anything else, not to mention the important product they are delivering to the rest of us. Yeah, the pay sucks, and I wish it was raised (yes im aware that it will proportionally bring up retail prices) but this isn't the worst job a man can have. This only further supports my point that Sic is completly clueless on the topic he professes to know. From my personal recollection, we got as many paid holidays and paid lunch breaks as anywhere else, we got 150% salary for overtime, we were free to talk to anyone during work time, we had qualified mechanics to take care of the machinery if anything got fucked so there were no repercussion carried on the employee, men were allowed to step out of the door to smoke, there was no gay dressing code except for safety shoes and sometimes gloves, we were free to leave our machine at any time for a short period as long as we secured the carefull eye of a fellow employee etc... It wasn't a fun job of course but in all honesty I can imagine a lot of people prefering this over a more 'prestigious' office job for instance.

SicN Twisted
01-26-2005, 10:19 AM
It's not a bad job for some people, because even though the proleteriate is practicly defined by factory working, the working class consists of dozens of jobs much worse then one that's actually in a factory. None the less, it is a dead end - you don't get raises based on merit or based on the company's sales - your pay is fixed.

Betty, I really can't agree with. Capitalism is a trickle down theory - there are so more more thousands of dead end jobs then spots available for enrolment in college or executive positions. I can't believe you're saying that ANYONE can succeed. It's completely ludicrous, since our economy is based on a strong, stable working class that is incapable of going up in the corperate ladder. Look around you Betty, hundreds of people are and have been for centuries trying to succeed, and they didn't lack anything it takes, they just lacked opportunity. I still can't believe you and HP are saying most industrial workers are perfectly happy making next to shit. Your believe in the land of opportunity is overwhelming - poverty is a natural and neccesary force to drive capitalism. There are more homeless people in the US then unoccupied homes. There are more unemployed people in the US then there are jobs. You need to realize the financial structure of every step of life. You have to pay money to go to college, and you have to pay money to live in a neighborhood that will send your kids to a good high school. Why is it that inner city schools have the worst SAT scores - would it be that the kids are naturally stupider? No, it's that they're denied access to a bourgeois education, and since the western carreer pattern is based on bourgeois culture and values, poor people are sent into the world with no opportunity.

WCM, I gave that link because it's the one where I read most of the Lenin that impressed me - mostly in his more libertarian moods.

HornyPope
01-26-2005, 11:26 AM
Seeing that there is but one point you still attempt to refute, I assume that all my previous statements are fully agreed upon. Glad we got them out of the way. Now, we shall continue:


I still can't believe you and HP are saying most industrial workers are perfectly happy making next to shit.

Nope, never said that. I think their pay is miserable and remains the biggest downside about this job. With this acknowledged, you must understand that low wage (I define low wage as no more than few dollars over established hourly minimum-wage) is very common in the workforce--clerks, customer support, construction, restaurant jobs etc... Millions of people in this continent live off no more than a 300$ weekly paycheck. Factory workers aren't alone in their fate.

HornyPope
01-26-2005, 11:39 AM
None the less, it is a dead end - you don't get raises based on merit or based on the company's sales - your pay is fixed.

For the sake of the conversation, i'll ask you to propose an alternative to this practice. Mind you however that a lot of peeople, believe it or not, feel much better knowing there is a guaranteed paycheck delivered every week. Few trust action shares and such. Another case in point: in my company I offer my employees a base salary. Why? Because if I promised people a certain percentage of profits, most will be sceptical of those numbers. Not because it's unbelievably good or anything, but because how does one know if im not simply trying to sucker him into joining this with false expectations? Or what if the profits for this month are stingy? How is he to pay rent, food, bills? And how am I to convince him that next month will be better?

Not saying there aren't ways around it. I'll be interested to hear your take on the matter. See if you have thought up something.

SicN Twisted
01-26-2005, 02:51 PM
As you probably know, I'm an anarchist, and the form of anarchism I believe in is anarcho-syndicalism (or anarcho-socialism, whatever you wanna call it). We generally believe that trade unions and worker collectives should take over their own factories and democratically set up their own wages by controlling the products they create equally, or almost equally to the designers of the products themselves. Under this system there would be no CEOs and no managers, the workers would democratically control the companies with the creative expertise of consultants. In a few words, trade unions control the factories so instead of CEOs making millions and workers getting the minimum salaries the companies can afford to pay them, proffits are divided equally. In this case, workers will make much more money, which is what I believe they deserve.

And I'm using factory workers because they're historically the prime example of capitalist slavery. Of course it applies to the entire working class.

Betty
01-26-2005, 03:05 PM
Regarding anybody being able to succeed, it's anybody in specific, not everybody at once. So, there are still divisions. We're looking at it in different ways I think. I'm looking at in more on a case by case basis. I'm not looking at society as a whole.

Also, I am VERY skeptical about your theory above. We've discussed this before as well. But in groups, leaders are automatically made (whether officially or unofficially) because there are naturally leaders and followers. However, as a leader, one has more responsibility. Not necessarily "harder" work. But different work. Dealing with stupid issues. Etc. When somebody has to take this responsibility, they feel like they should get a bigger share of the profits. And that's how capitalism happens. Now, I suppose it COULD work if you had some very benevolant people who chose to lead the group. Like, I have "led" various groups with no particular benefit to myself. I was definitely somewhat bitter about it though, but accepted it as I preferred to be in charge, or didn't trust anybody else to do a job that was up to standards. But it doesn't seem like a very efficient method that would work in all cases. Nor does it seem overly fair.

I have a hard time thinking of a solution however.

Raising minimum wage results in inflation which is bad.

Heavily taxing the super rich has other economic downfalls.

Etc.

wheelchairman
01-26-2005, 03:17 PM
Heavily taxing the rich worked wonders for the Danish economy, now that we have been easing up on them and implementing neo-liberal economic policies, as the pattern with any country that does this, our economy has been suffering.

nieh
01-26-2005, 06:10 PM
HP, I use those words in saying that being intelligent and compitent will not change the situation of a poor man. I'm just speculating on conditions that are common amongst humans in general, and how they affect the workforce. Also, I know that many workers feel like slaves because I've been part of workers rallies.

Nieh, factory workers do not own any portion of the products they create, and they don't get paid based on the sales of the products, they get paid based on how much the company pays them, which is a fixed wage determined based on how little it's possible for the company to pay them. This means that workers do not control their assets.

Betty, while you're inspirational story brought tears of joy to my eyes, you can't possibly use it as an example of something that anyone can do. You have way too much faith in the American (or Canadian) dream. For one, most industrial workers are industrial workers because (and this is census, not speculation), they were born into families of industrial workers, were not given access to the best education, and needed to start supporting themselves and their families from an early age. People who grow up in middle class neighborhoods rarely become factory workers - it's like a watered down lighter version of the Indian caste system. Yes, it's technically possible to move up, but it's very imporbable. How do you expect a proletarian worker to go up on the social latter? Where will he find the money or time to go to college (since hours and fixed as well as wages, someone in a dead end job cannot just ask for manager for less hours cause they have this class to take). The workforce isn't filled with disillusioned middle class kids who dropped out of high school. The proletariate is a class, not a form of employment, and it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to transcend class because of practical reasons. How can someone earning just above minimum wage and supporting a family go to college (you work 9-5 and have no time to study or money to pay tuition, does the degree magically appear)? I know miracle American dream rags to riches tails can happen, but they're seldom - the working class still exists in record numbers. It's almost the same as telling a poor black kid in the projects that they can easily become a famous rapper or an NBA basketball player - of course it can happen, but for the most part it's a dream.


assets

1. A useful or valuable quality, person, or thing; an advantage or resource: "proved herself an asset to the company."
2. A valuable item that is owned.
3. A spy working in his or her own country and controlled by the enemy.
4. assets
1. Accounting. The entries on a balance sheet showing all properties, both tangible and intangible, and claims against others that may be applied to cover the liabilities of a person or business. Assets can include cash, stock, inventories, property rights, and goodwill.
2. The entire property owned by a person, especially a bankrupt, that can be used to settle debts.

You know, I always hate it when people quote a dictionary in an argument, but you've given me so many reasons to in this one topic that it makes me hate myself for it. I've encountered brick walls that are less stuck in their positions than you.

What a factory worker creates is in no way considered their assets and shouldn't even be mentioned when you say something like "their assets aren't under their control". The company pays them in exchange for the worker's service to make their product. That money becomes their assets, not the products they produce. No, they don't get paid a lot of money, but they get paid enough simply because they could just as easily be replaced by any other person on the street that was willing to put in an honest day's work, it doesn't require prior knowledge of anything.

Anyway, the fact of the matter is that, even if factory workers tend to come from a line of factory workers, that's not a chain that can't be broken. The fact of the matter is, someone born into poverty is much more accepting of the poverty than someone that's not. People tend to accept the environment that their born into as home. While other people might look in at it and say "that's horrible!", they live there and feel fine. If they have a wife and kids that they love, then obviously it's not that bad.

Also, you keep saying things like "they don't have time for school because they have to take care of their family" but is it the company's fault that they're starting a family before they had a career picked out? No, it's the worker's fault for choosing that path. They could have worked minimum wage part time jobs through high school, saved that money, and used it to take classes at community college (which is incredibly cheap), but they chose not to go that route. Also, there's this amazing invention called student loans. It's where the government lends you money to help you out with the whole college thing, and you end up paying them back once you graduate.

HornyPope
01-26-2005, 08:18 PM
I'm fully aware of what anarcho-syndicalism is, I was just under the impression that your beef was with the mistreatement of the factory workers versus others positions in the context of capitilism. At times you almost hinted that we should abolish factory work all together.

Ok.

SicN Twisted
01-26-2005, 09:38 PM
No - more like, abolish capitalism all together.

Nieh, I know how factories function. I'm trying to say that they function in a manor that makes the workers slaves, as in fixing wages. If someone physically creates something and sells it, that's their asset, and if they make the same amount of money whether or not the product makes $10 or $10 million, that means the workers are being robbed and deceived because of their neccesary situations.

As for student loans, you obiously don't know how the university system works. The Ivy League has what's called need blind admissions, in that anyone who's accepted into the college can recieve financial aid based on how much they need it. This is a progressive system that charges you based on your income which I support. With most colleges, a select few people recieve scholorships based on extreme merit, because colleges are granted a small amount of money by the state to fund peoples educations. Aside from this, colleges are full proffit organizations that will only education people who pay for it. As for student loans, state budgeting for student loans is pathetically small. You really only get student loans if you're a really good student and your number comes up right in the raffel. Middle and upper class students can go to college with very little merrit because they're willing to pay, but the lower classes require academic excellence. This is a ridiculous system that completely favors the rich. You try getting a scholorship if you're forced to drop out of high school at 16 because your single mother does not get payed a high enough salary to feed her three kids. The occasional all American Colin Powell kinda guy who goes from the South Bronx to Harvard would disagree with me, but most people who aren't exceptionally talented or intelligent are victims of their class.

SkunkIt
01-26-2005, 09:46 PM
An now for an interruption.

I have a link for you, SicN Twisted, I think you can liven up the thread!

http://www.offspring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4050

And now back to your debate.

nieh
01-29-2005, 11:15 AM
Nieh, I know how factories function. I'm trying to say that they function in a manor that makes the workers slaves, as in fixing wages. If someone physically creates something and sells it, that's their asset, and if they make the same amount of money whether or not the product makes $10 or $10 million, that means the workers are being robbed and deceived because of their neccesary situations.



assets

1. A useful or valuable quality, person, or thing; an advantage or resource: "proved herself an asset to the company."
2. A valuable item that is owned.
3. A spy working in his or her own country and controlled by the enemy.
4. assets
1. Accounting. The entries on a balance sheet showing all properties, both tangible and intangible, and claims against others that may be applied to cover the liabilities of a person or business. Assets can include cash, stock, inventories, property rights, and goodwill.
2. The entire property owned by a person, especially a bankrupt, that can be used to settle debts.

Nope...I don't see that definition of asset anywhere, care to try again? Unless you try one of those "if you define it as..." things, but apparently the dictionary chooses not to define it that way, and for the sake of preventing another arguement, I think the dictionary is who we're going to listen to on this one. Plus, it's not the factory worker's job to make and sell things, it is their job to make them. Selling them is done by someone else.


The purpose of unions are to represent workers against the state, nothing adequate could really be done on a national level. Also, that longevity thing makes perfect sence. Unskilled laborers aren't meant to get promoted, they're meant to keep their jobs until someone else is hired to take their position, when they most likely take a similar position with another job. Unions aren't for people who are working to pay college tuition or working durring the summer, they're for people who make a living off menial labor and need adequate representation. Raises baised on skill are rediculous in fields of unskilled work. No matter what you think about unions, they give employees job security and better salaries.

(pulled from another topic)
How come factory workers are an exception to this? They're unskilled laborers and can easily be replaced, so why are fixed wages so wrong when they have a union giving them fixed raises for longevity? You were arguing earlier that they don't get paid based on merit, but in the union arguement you were saying that there's certain jobs that CAN'T get raises based on merit and should get them for longevity.



As for student loans, you obiously don't know how the university system works. The Ivy League has what's called need blind admissions, in that anyone who's accepted into the college can recieve financial aid based on how much they need it. This is a progressive system that charges you based on your income which I support. With most colleges, a select few people recieve scholorships based on extreme merit, because colleges are granted a small amount of money by the state to fund peoples educations. Aside from this, colleges are full proffit organizations that will only education people who pay for it. As for student loans, state budgeting for student loans is pathetically small. You really only get student loans if you're a really good student and your number comes up right in the raffel. Middle and upper class students can go to college with very little merrit because they're willing to pay, but the lower classes require academic excellence. This is a ridiculous system that completely favors the rich. You try getting a scholorship if you're forced to drop out of high school at 16 because your single mother does not get payed a high enough salary to feed her three kids. The occasional all American Colin Powell kinda guy who goes from the South Bronx to Harvard would disagree with me, but most people who aren't exceptionally talented or intelligent are victims of their class.

Why the hell are you talking IVY LEAGUE and UNIVERSITIES!? We were talking COUNTY COLLEGE. Are you familiar with how county colleges work? So long as you have a high school diploma or equivalent, you can sign up. County college classes cost everyone exactly the same. Each individual class costs between $200-300 per semester which makes it almost not necessary for student loans (and that's at MY county college which is considered one of the best in the state and the surrounding area, I'm sure there's places that are even cheaper) and you can take as many, or as few as you like at a time, day or night, weekdays or weekends. You can take one 1-hour class 2-4 days of the week, or a single 2-4 hour class once per week depending on your schedule. You can even take cram courses that are friday-saturday-sunday and you're done the course in 3 weeks. In regards to student loans, if your parents make below a certain amount of money, you automatically qualify for a certain amount of student loans if you get accepted to college (where county college pretty much can't reject you). If you're the child of a single parent, or your parents are divorced and you jump back and forth, again, you automatically qualify for a different set of student loans. If one of your parents is disabled, you automatically qualify again. If you meet any of those requirements AND are a minority, then you qualify for even MORE student loans. So, if you drop out of high school, study on your own time and get a fucking G.E.D. Do well on the G.E.D. exam, and again, you will qualify for a different set of student loans.

Betty
01-29-2005, 01:46 PM
I guess it depends where you live.

In Canada, you can get Canada Student Loans based on financial need. If you're poor, you can get nearly $10 000 a year. Mostly this system screws over the middle class, where the parents don't make tons but make just enough to not have their children qualify to get much money, and they are expected to shell out $10 000 for their three children who are all going to college, regardless of how much that screws them over. But for the middle classers, another solution exists which would be getting bank loans for students. Slightly less convenient in terms of interest rates and payback leisure, but still a solution. I'm not sure if this is an option in the US as well. And then of course there are certain bursaries offered through the actual schools.

nieh
01-29-2005, 02:09 PM
There are also all sorts of organizations you can speak to and get scholarships or grants. Even If you didn't do too well in high school, you can meet with someone and discuss why you think you'll do well despite not having much history to prove it. Because these groups aren't affiliated directly with the school or the government, you have a good chance of getting something (especially if you let them beleive you're interested in pursuing an education to work in their field).

Bank loans are possible here as well, but if you don't have the best credit history, they're likely to turn you down if you're asking for a loan for college (you can't exactly repossess someone's education like you can repossess a car...)

offspringrammsteinfan
01-29-2005, 02:11 PM
slavery is worse than dead... but what!! you could need a virgin who does the dishes and the cleanings to... still FUCK U DO IT YOURSELF...

SicN Twisted
01-29-2005, 03:11 PM
Wow, you're talking about community colleges as the magic escape from poverty? Community Colleges offer two year Associates Degrees which are easy enough to attain if you have enough time to be a full time student, which you simply can't do if you're paying your family's rent on a 9-5 job fixed salaries (assuming you had enough time to graduate from high school in the first place). Your pipe dreams or not only theaoretically but in this case logically impossible. How about some more logic, the point I made a few posts ago that you neglected to respond to. If social mobility is possible, and anyone can just go to Community College and eventually make their way into the middle class, then how come there's more people uneducated people then spaces at colleges? Home come there's more unemployed people then job openings? How come there's more homeless people then occupied homes? How come throughout history, the working class has been huge and haven't been able to escape the same standards as a class, even in "Communist" societies? And please don't say they're lazy and uninspired, because we're trying to be intelligent here and the moronic "poor people are just lazy" is not relevent? How come there aren't enough homes, jobs, and classes to accomidate everyone? I'll tell you why, because capitalism could allow equal opportunity, it requires a class divide in order to consolidate a wage divide. If you think my answer to this question is wrong, then provide a better one.

EDIT: I'll add that if you're working in a factory, living in a one bedroom slum appartment with your whole family, you're a minority, and your porperty value is shit because of the neighborhood you live in, you're not getting a bank loan.

Betty
01-29-2005, 03:28 PM
Sic, you have already said all that!

The point at least I am trying to make is to not start raising a family before you get an education. And if you do that, well then you CHOSE to do that. If your mom was single and poor and couldn't support you, and you dropped out of highschool (as opposed to working afternoons/evenings) well that's different. But if you go and get some girl pregnant or vice versa and have to support your kids you had at 18 years old by working a shitty min. wage job, that's your own fault. That's not because of your class.

We're talking about getting an education out of highschool, and that it should be possible for people to do so.

I also think you can still get a degree while raising a family, etc, but that it is really, really difficult. Hence why most people don't do it.

And regarding your comment about lack of jobs, college positions, etc. I have said what I thought about that a whole bunch of times already.

"Regarding anybody being able to succeed, it's anybody in specific, not everybody at once."

"I think a way of putting it is that, since there are only a certain number of positions available, it gets harder and harder to get them, and once you can't face the challenge of getting them anymore, you settle for something."

Fuck, I seriously don't know what your solution to this would be. Some people are better equipped to rise to the top than others. Some people are luckier in life than others. But in your system, even if everybody were made more equal financially, I think it would turn out more that all the rich people would be making something similar to minimum wage as well along with everybody else as opposed to the poor people all suddenly getting rich. If everybody were evenend out, the poor might be a slight bit richer, but the standards of living overall could not be the same.

nieh
01-30-2005, 06:25 AM
Wow, you're talking about community colleges as the magic escape from poverty? Community Colleges offer two year Associates Degrees which are easy enough to attain if you have enough time to be a full time student, which you simply can't do if you're paying your family's rent on a 9-5 job fixed salaries (assuming you had enough time to graduate from high school in the first place). Your pipe dreams or not only theaoretically but in this case logically impossible. How about some more logic, the point I made a few posts ago that you neglected to respond to. If social mobility is possible, and anyone can just go to Community College and eventually make their way into the middle class, then how come there's more people uneducated people then spaces at colleges? Home come there's more unemployed people then job openings? How come there's more homeless people then occupied homes? How come throughout history, the working class has been huge and haven't been able to escape the same standards as a class, even in "Communist" societies? And please don't say they're lazy and uninspired, because we're trying to be intelligent here and the moronic "poor people are just lazy" is not relevent? How come there aren't enough homes, jobs, and classes to accomidate everyone? I'll tell you why, because capitalism could allow equal opportunity, it requires a class divide in order to consolidate a wage divide. If you think my answer to this question is wrong, then provide a better one.

EDIT: I'll add that if you're working in a factory, living in a one bedroom slum appartment with your whole family, you're a minority, and your porperty value is shit because of the neighborhood you live in, you're not getting a bank loan.

You act like the only options in capialism are "slave" or millionare. An associates degree isn't enough to become a doctor or lawyer, but it is enough to get a better job. How come, despite there being classes that are overcrowded and can't take more people, there are still a lot of classes every year that end up being dropped because not enough people signed up for it? How come, despite unemmployment rates being relatively high, there's still teacher and doctor shortages in places? It's at least in part because the majority of people all go into the same typical specialized tried and true courses of study. You get a flood of people that are educated to the point of being surgeons, lawyers, etc., but not enough people that are educated to become teachers, pediatricians, etc. Look at computers. In the 80s and early 90s, computers were 'the next big thing' and everyone took classes on it. Only 10-20 years later did anyone realize, "oh wait, now EVERYONE knows this, even without going to school for it. Now all our degrees are pointless. Not to mention that we only need 1 or 2 trained people to fix a whole network instead of the 20 that we originally hired" That's far from the only reason though. If every factory worker in the country up and decided "fuck this, I'm going back to college" and (for a second, let's just ignore the overcrowded schools caused by the flood in this hypothetical situation) every one of them got their associate's degree, then that would open up a whole new slew of possible jobs (even if many of the jobs weren't currently hiring). The factory would naturally have to raise it's wages because everyone that would be working there is now capable of working someplace else, and they need to remain competitive. While that's definitely a hypothetical situation, it's hard to say that wages wouldn't increase if everyone became educated.

Regarding the associates degree only being easy to obtain to a full time student, that's bull and you know it. Taking about 2 classes per semester (on any of the random night/weekday/weekend schedules I mentioned before) as opposed to being a full time student, would get you an associates degree in about 4 years instead of the typical 2. Plus, as I mentioned before, if you're starting a family BEFORE you have a career set out, it's your own fault that things are difficult for you. If you didn't graduate high school, TAKE THE FUCKING G.E.D.

SicN Twisted
01-30-2005, 11:02 AM
Who said anything about starting a family? I'm generally referring to your family as in your sivilings and single mother, whom you need to support well into adulthood as is the situation with most poverty.

I got my associates degree at Westchester Community College and it took two years of a full 15 credit schedual every semester. This is not possible if you're working full time. I know people who have had to quit their part time jobs because they could not accomidate both of these rolls. If you want to spend four years getting your Associates, I assume it is physically possible for some people with a specific amount of endurance in which they'd literally have no free time, because they'd have to balance 4 two credit night classes a week with a full time job, so they'd only be able to study at night, rarely sleep, and NEVER have free time. I assure you for those who can do this, most are forced out of it by circumstance, either because they're denied financial aid or loans or they have a family to take care of - and I'll stress that even if you have unwanted kids in high school, it's not your fault. If you have no access to sex education like in most ghettos, young unwanted parenthood would be rampant.

You mentioned shortages, even though there's a surplus of eligible people. Why's this? Again I ask you is it because the majority of poor people are lazy? You haven't established whether or not you think this even though you've certainly implied it, and I'd really like to know.

sKratch
01-30-2005, 02:09 PM
wtf which part of wcc did you go to? Peekskill or Valhalla? I live very close to there.
edit- don't mean to ruin the thread, maybe it should have been a pm

SicN Twisted
01-30-2005, 02:34 PM
Mainly Valhala but some classes in Peekskill. I thought you live in California?

sKratch
01-30-2005, 09:55 PM
Are you serious? Peekskill is a 5 minute car ride from my house.
If you thought I was from California, you should carefully consider suicide.

Trip Boy
01-30-2005, 10:47 PM
This woman died in a car accident.

SicN Twisted
01-30-2005, 11:38 PM
Where do you live? Courtland manor? Yorktown Heights? Continental Village? I have alot of friends from that area.

If you're not from California, then you're not Going95, you just took his name. I don't see how you didn't expect that confusion. But I'll forgive you since you live closer to me then any other BBS member.

sKratch
01-31-2005, 10:42 AM
Uhh... I was The Molotov, and when vlad allowed name changes I changed to sKratch because that's the name I use for everything else. My... ex girlfriend lives in continental village.

JohnnyNemesis
01-31-2005, 10:59 AM
Sketch is from Cali. Easy mistake to make, unfortunately.