Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour
×



Details

Submitted on
October 18, 2013
Image Size
676 KB
Resolution
1002×1052
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
247
Favourites
19 (who?)
Comments
19
Downloads
1
×
Capitalist Labour Relations by Party9999999 Capitalist Labour Relations by Party9999999
Workers can do without bosses. Bosses can't do with without workers.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconlerevolutionnaire:
Proudhon makes sense, the worker gives and gets little in return from the capitalist who exploits the worker, the poor, the oppressed.
Reply
:iconirkenconfederate:
IrkenConfederate Oct 18, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
As old as this quote is, it's still tiresomely true. Keep fighting for the common man!
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Oct 18, 2013
You commies are in for a very brutal lesson if you keep ignoring the facts about employers.

And the men of the mind can do without the looters who claim the means of production belong to the masses.
Reply
:iconirkenconfederate:
IrkenConfederate Oct 18, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
All this statement says is that, in the past (and now, in many parts of the world), people often have worked their fingers to the bone, and get almost nothing for their troubles. And the employer who perpetuates this is an enemy of the hard worker. Is there something so wrong with that?
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Oct 19, 2013
And while you're belching and farting this without giving a damn about specifics (for example, you don't separate producing something to simply copying it on a mass scale, and you mislabel dictatorships as capitalist when they're nowhere near the definition of it), you're ignoring all the workers who started out at the bottom rung and worked their way to the top...but then again, if people knew they could rise on their own effort, you commies couldn't use them as expendable pawns.

So when you demonstrate you're willing to go by evidence and assign blame where it rationally belongs, instead of just tarring everyone with the same brush regardless of guilt or innocence, let me know.
Reply
:iconirkenconfederate:
IrkenConfederate Oct 19, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist

Wow. You think I'm a communist? Just because I see some desirable traits in socialist ideology? Well, you're wrong. I'm more capitalist, but I do see some good things about socialism. Socialism. Not the same as communism. See, communism is a socialist dictatorship, while socialism can exist with democratic systems. I have a problem with dictatorships, so I have a problem with communism, as it's thus far appeared.

On your earlier note, if children work in a sweat-shop, they get almost no pay, if any, and I highly doubt any chance at advancement. If you're working in a factory, doing the work that machines do in the US, (i.e. on an assembly line), in a Third World country, and you never get any chance to better your miserable living conditions--which is the case in many parts of the Third World--then you're just lazy? When you have no opportunity for advancement, isn't it the employer's fault for not providing that opportunity? Or at least the employer's fault for not taking care of his workers, through pay or otherwise? And if the employer is in a tight bind and can't afford to give up any of his earnings, shouldn't legislation be put in place to remedy that?

Finally, I'm not ignoring those workers who started low and rose high. I'm just saying that far too many people don't even get that chance. And far too many people work hard, with no reward, for their entire lives, just so their families live on the brink of starvation instead of in starvation. It's a detestable situation, and I desperately want to fix it.

Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Oct 20, 2013
"Wow. You think I'm a communist? Just because I see some desirable traits in socialist ideology? Well, you're wrong. I'm more capitalist, but I do see some good things about socialism. Socialism. Not the same as communism. See, communism is a socialist dictatorship, while socialism can exist with democratic systems. I have a problem with dictatorships, so I have a problem with communism, as it's thus far appeared." 

The only difference between communism and socialism is the former is a bit more honest about what it really wants.  And democracy that doesn't respect individual rights (ie, socialism) is little better than an outright dictatorship; it just allows the majority to dictate, rather than one person.

"On your earlier note, if children work in a sweat-shop, they get almost no pay, if any, and I highly doubt any chance at advancement. If you're working in a factory, doing the work that machines do in the US, (i.e. on an assembly line), in a Third World country, and you never get any chance to better your miserable living conditions--which is the case in many parts of the Third World--then you're just lazy? When you have no opportunity for advancement, isn't it the employer's fault for not providing that opportunity? Or at least the employer's fault for not taking care of his workers, through pay or otherwise? And if the employer is in a tight bind and can't afford to give up any of his earnings, shouldn't legislation be put in place to remedy that?"

First off, I'm getting sick and tired of this endless "the poor worker in a sweatshop" line.  Show me some actual examples and I'll address them.

Second, as bad as sweatshops are, what kind of lives were people living before they went to work in the sweatshops?  A meager, day to day existence of barely getting by?  And how many of those sweatshops forced people to come to work for them?  

Third, absolutely not.  The government's job is to protect people from force and fraud and nothing more.  You can't legislate prosperity and you can't outlaw poverty; our current economic woes are from thinking you can.

"Finally, I'm not ignoring those workers who started low and rose high. I'm just saying that far too many people don't even get that chance. And far too many people work hard, with no reward, for their entire lives, just so their families live on the brink of starvation instead of in starvation. It's a detestable situation, and I desperately want to fix it." 

Instituting a system where what little they produce "belongs to everyone" isn't the answer.  And that's life, my friend; there is no guarantee of success, there is only the right to keep the fruit of your labor.

And I'm willing to bet a lot of these countries you're thinking of are far from capitalist, regardless of how favorably employers are treated.  Government and business owners mixing and trading favors is NOT capitalism; capitalism is where there is a strict separation between the two and the latter is allowed to rise or fall on their own and the former's sole purpose is to protect the people from force and fraud.


Reply
:iconkajm:
Kajm Oct 18, 2013  Hobbyist Writer

So 17th-Century!

And sounds so much like what the pro-AGW elites want the entire world to do, so they can live in luxury. algor, john Effing Kerry, michael moore, babs boxer, and so on...

Reply
:iconbttlrp:
19th century actually.

What has this anarchist idea that employment fundamentally restricts the freedom of the worker got to do with AGW? :)
Reply
:iconkajm:
Kajm Oct 18, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
You mean, besides all the rhetoric from the pro-AGW crowd, that we must cut back on everything? Meat, electricity, industry? While the people claiming we need to do so, continue to live the massive carbon-footprint lifestyles they are accustomed to? david suzuki, algor, rajenda pachauri, and so on?
Reply
Add a Comment: