Politics.be
Activiteiten laden. Even geduld...

Ga terug   Politics.be > Diverse > Archief
Registreer FAQForumreglement Ledenlijst Markeer forums als gelezen

Archief Gearchiveerde fora.
Hier kun je discussies nalezen uit fora die niet meer actief zijn.

 
 
Discussietools
Oud 16 May 2004, 20:13   #1
@lpha
Parlementsvoorzitter
 
@lpha's schermafbeelding
 
Geregistreerd: 17 November 2002
Locatie: 't Stad
Berichten: 2.322
Standaard

Een Georgistische kijk op de huidige kapitalistische maatschappij ...

THE SLAVER
Suppose I am the owner of an estate and 100 slaves, all the land about being held in the same way by people of the same class as myself. It is a profitable business, but there are many expenses and annoyances attached to it. I must keep up my supply of slaves either by buying or breeding them. I must pay an overseer to keep them continually to their work with a lash. I must keep them in a state of brutish ignorance (to the detriment of their efficiency), for fear they should learn their rights and their power, and become dangerous. I must tend them in sickness and when past work. And the slaves have all the vices and defects that slavery engenders; they have no self-respect or moral sense; they lie, they steal, they are lazy, shirking work whenever they dare; they do not care what mischief their carelessness occasions me so long as it is not found out; their labor is obtained by force, and given grudgingly; they have no heart in it. All these things worry me.

FLASH! ....
Suddenly a brilliant idea strikes me. I reflect that there is no unoccupied land in the neighbourhood, so that if my laborers were free they would still have to look to me for work somehow. So one day I announce to them that they are all free, intimating at the same time I will be ready to employ as many as I may require on such terms as we may mutually and independently agree. What could be fairer? They are overjoyed, and falling on their knees, bless me as their benefactor. Then they go away and have a jollification, and next day come back to me to arrange the new terms.

THEY BELIEVE ...
Most of them think they would like to have a piece of land and work it for themselves, and be their own masters. All they want is a few tools they have been accustomed to use, and some seed, and these they are ready to buy from me, undertaking to pay me with reasonable interest when the first crop comes in, offering the crop as security. As for their keep, they can easily earn that by working a few weeks on and off on any of the plantations, or by taking a job clearing or fencing, or such like. This will keep them going for the first year, and after that they will be better able to take care of themselves.

HOLD ON, NOW!
"But," softly I observe, "you are going too fast. Your proposals about the tools and seed and your maintenance are all right enough, but the land, you remember, belongs to me. You cannot expect me to give you your liberty and my own land for nothing. That would not be reasonable, would it?" They agree it would not, and begin to propose terms. A fancies this bit of land, and B that. But it soon appears that I want this bit of land for my next year's clearing, and that for my cows, and another is too close to my house and would interfere with my privacy, and another is thick forest or swamps, and would require too long and costly preparation for me who must have quick returns in order to live, and in short that there is no land suitable that I care to part with.

THE BENEFACTOR
Still I am ready to do what I promised - "to employ as many as I may require, on such terms as we may mutually and independently agree." But as I have now got to pay them wages instead of getting their work for nothing. I cannot of course employ all of them. I can find work for ninety of them, however, and with these I am prepared to discuss terms.

At once a number volunteered their services at such wages as their imagination had been picturing to them. I tell the ninety whose demands are most reasonable to stand on one side. The remaining ten look blank, and seeing that since I won't let them have any of the land, it is a question of hired employment or starvation, they offer to come for a little less than the others. I tell these now to stand aside, and ten others to stand out instead. These look blank now, and offer to work for less still, and so the "mutual and voluntary" settlement of terms proceeds.

But, meanwhile, I have been making a little calculation in my head, and have reckoned up what the cost of keeping a slave, with his food and clothes, and a trifle over to keep him contented, would come to, and I offer that. They won't hear of it, but as I know they can't help themselves, I say nothing, and presently first one and then another gives in, till I have got my ninety, and still there are ten left out, and very blank indeed they look. Whereupon, the terms being settled, I graciously announce that though I don't really want any more men, still I am willing, in my benevolence, to take the ten, too, on the same terms, which they promptly accept, and again hail me as their benefactor, only not quite so rapturously as before.

WAGE SLAVES? ...
So they all set to at the old work at the old place, and on the old terms, only a little differently administered; that is, that whereas I formerly supplied them with food, clothes, etc., direct from my stores, I now give them a weekly wage representing the value of those articles, which they w ill henceforth have to buy for themselves.

There is a difference, too, in some other respects, indicating a moral improvement in our relations. I can no longer curse and flog them. But then I don't want to; it's no longer necessary; the threat of dismissal is quite as effective, even more so; and much pleasanter for me.

I can no longer separate husband from wife, parent from child. But then again, I don't want to. There would be no profit in it; leaving them their wives and children has the double advantage of making them more contented with their lot, and giving me greater power over them, for they have now got to keep these wives and children out of their own earnings.

My men are now as eager as ever to come to me to work as they formerly were to run away from work. I have neither to buy or breed them; and if any suddenly leave me, instead of letting loose the bloodhounds, I have merely to hold up a finger or advertise, and I have plenty of others offering to take their place. I am saved the expense and worry of incessant watching and driving. I have no sick to attend, or worn-out pensioners to maintain. If a man falls ill there is nothing but my good nature to prevent my turning him off at once; the whole affair is a purely commercial transaction - so much wages for so much work. The patriarchal relation of slave-owner and slave is gone, and no other has taken its place. When the man is worn out with long service I can turn him out with a clear business conscience, knowing that the State will see that he does not starve.

Instead of being forced to keep my men in brutish ignorance, I find public schools established at other people's expense to stimulate their intelligence and improve their minds, to my great advantage, and their children compelled to attend these schools. The service I get, too, being now voluntarily rendered (or apparently so) is much improved in quality. In short, the arrangement pays me better in many ways.

REJOICE! I AM CAPITAL AND I EMPLOY PEOPLE!
But I gain in other ways besides pecuniary benefit. I have lost the stigma of being a slave driver, and have, acquired instead the character of a man of energy and enterprise, of justice and benevolence. I am a "large employer of labour," to whom the whole country, and the labourer especially, is greatly indebted, and people say, "See the power of capital! These poor labourers, having no capital, could not use the land if they had it, so this great and far-seeing man wisely refuses to let them have it, and keeps it all for himself, but by providing them with employment his capital saves them from pauperism, and enables him to build up the wealth of the country, and his own fortune together."

Whereas it is not my capital that does any of these things. lt is not my capital but the labourer's toil that builds up my fortune and the wealth of the country. It is not my employment that keeps him from pauperism, but my monopoly of the land forcing him into my employment that keeps him on the brink of it. It is not want of capital that keeps the labourer from using the land, but my refusing him the use of the land that prevents him from acquiring capital. All the capital he wants to begin with is an axe and a spade, which a week's earnings would buy him, and for his maintenance during the first year, and at any subsequent time, he could work for me or for others, turnabout, with his work on his own land. Henceforth with every year his capital would grow of itself, and his independence with it, and that this is no fancy sketch, anyone can see for himself by taking a trip into the country, where he will find well-to-do-farmers who began with nothing but a spade and an axe (so to speak) and worked their way up in the manner described.

ENTER THE LANDLORD ....
But now another thought strikes me. Instead of paying an overseer to work these men for me, I will make him pay me for the privilege of doing it. I will let the land as it stands to him or to another - to whomsoever will give the most for the billet. He shall be called my tenant instead of my overseer, but the things he shall do for me are essentially the same, only done by contract instead of for yearly pay. He, not I, shall find all the capital, take all the risk, and engage and supervise the men, paying me a lump sum, called rent, out of the proceeds of their toil, and make what he can for himself out of the surplus. The competition is as keen in its way for the land, among people of his class, as it is among the labourers for employment, only that as they are all possessed of some little means (else they could not compete) they are in no danger of immediate want, and can stand out for rather better terms than the labourers, who are forced by necessity to take what terms they can get. The minimum in each case amounts practically to a "mere living", but the mere living they insist on is one of a rather higher standard than the labourers'; it means a rather more abundant supply and better quality of those little comforts which are next door to necessaries. It means, in short, a living of a kind to which people of that class are accustomed.

For a moderate reduction in my profits, then - a reduction equal to the tenant's narrow margin of profit - I have all the toil and worry of management taken off my hands, and the risk too, for be the season good or bad, the rent is bound to be forthcoming, and I can sell him up to the last rag if he fails of the full amount, no matter for what reason; and my rent takes precedence of all other debts. All my capital is set free for investment elsewhere, and I am freed from the odium of a slave owner, notwithstanding that the men still toil for my enrichment as when they were slaves, and that I get more out of them than ever. If I wax rich while they toil from hand to mouth, and in depressed seasons find it hard to get work at all; it is not, to all appearances, my doing, but merely the force of circumstances, the law of nature, the state of the labour market - fine sounding names that hide the ugly reality.

If wages are forced down it is not I that do it; it is that greedy and merciless man the employer (my tenant) who does it. I am a lofty and superior being, dwelling apart and above such sordid considerations. I would never dream of grinding these poor labourers, not I! I have nothing to do with them at all; I only want my rent-and get it. Like the lillies of the field, I toil not, neither do I spin, and yet (so kind is Providence!) my daily bread (well buttered) comes to me of itself. Nay, people bid against each other for the privilege of finding it for me; and no one seems to realise that the comfortable income that falls to me like the refreshing dew is dew indeed; but it is the dew of sweat wrung from the labourers' toil. It is the fruit of their labour which they ought to have; which they would have if I did not take it from them.

This sketch illustrates the fact that chattel slavery is not the only nor even the worst form of bondage. When the use of the earth - the sole source of our daily bread - is denied unless one pays a fellow creature for permission to use it, people are bereft of economic freedom. The only way to regain that freedom is to collect the rent of land instead of taxes for the public domain.

Once upon a time, labour leaders in the USA, the UK and Australia understood these facts. The labour movements of those countries were filled with people who fought for the principles of 'the single tax' on land at the turn of the twentieth century. But since then, it has been ridiculed, and they have gradually yielded to the forces of privilege and power - captives of the current hegemony - daring no longer to come to grips with this fundamental question, lest they, too, become ridiculed.

And so the world continues to wallow in this particular ignorance - and in its ensuing poverty and debt.

__________________
Milton Friedman: "In my opinion, the least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved value of land, the Henry George argument of many, many years ago."
@lpha is offline  
Oud 20 June 2004, 14:52   #2
IlluSionS667
Banneling
 
 
IlluSionS667's schermafbeelding
 
Geregistreerd: 15 June 2004
Berichten: 2.922
Standaard

Capitalisme zuigt. Lang leve het cooperatieve systeem ! !
IlluSionS667 is offline  
Oud 20 June 2004, 16:11   #3
Dies
Europees Commissaris
 
Dies's schermafbeelding
 
Geregistreerd: 17 April 2003
Berichten: 6.621
Standaard

Citaat:
Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door IlluSionS667
Capitalisme zuigt. Lang leve het cooperatieve systeem ! !
Laat het vooral niet uit om uw intelligente stellingen ook met argumenten te onderbouwen.
__________________
Met dank aan: TomB, Supe®Staaf, Brabo, Sato, boer_bavo, @lpha, Knuppel, Raf, Antoon, Tantist, Distel, Pelgrim, Paulus, nou nou, Bobke, Griffin, Spetsnaz, oriana, C uit W, Seba, ingenious, Zeno!, zorroaster, alpina, dejohan, circe, Kotsmos, S., luc broes, Aangebrande, solidarnosc, maddox,Tzuvar Raemborr, Spelev, Mieke 79, DaBlacky, numarx,Vlaanderen Boven, bartje, Turkje, ossaert, Fribre, de Vexille, Groot Bakkes, Jos Verhulst, Bece, Babeth, Nynorsk, driewerf, wb, cuboidz, sancho, Dimitri, e.a.
Dies is offline  
Oud 20 June 2004, 16:31   #4
IlluSionS667
Banneling
 
 
IlluSionS667's schermafbeelding
 
Geregistreerd: 15 June 2004
Berichten: 2.922
Standaard

Citaat:
Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Dies
Laat het vooral niet uit om uw intelligente stellingen ook met argumenten te onderbouwen.
- Kapitalisme leidt tot uitbuiting : er vormt zich een upperclass, die een groot deel van de economie in handen heeft, en steeds maar groeit, terwijl de lagere echelons enkel de keuze hebben tussen voor die upperclass te werken of te creperen.
- Kapitalisme leidt tot populisme : omdat enkel de stem van de domme massa van belang is, is het populisme steeds meer aanwezig in media en andere vormen van reclame. Volksverheffing bestaat niet meer, omdat populisme nu eenmaal meer opbrengt.
- Kapitalisme leidt tot verspilling : massa's reclame en immense overproductie leiden tot reusachtige verspilling.
- Kapitalisme leidt tot apathie en egoisme : mensen worden zo gefocust op consumptie, bezit en luxe dat apathie en egoisme hier vanzelf uit vloeien
- ....

De prachtigste vorm waarin het cooperatieve systeem heeft gefunctioneerd, is de Inca samenleving. Zowel Hitler en Lenin hadden ieder hun visie om het cooperatieve systeem te integreren in de maatschappij van de 20ste eeuw, maar beiden faalden om verschillende redenen. Het succes van de Inca samenleving en andere minder opvallende cooperatieve systemen is echter een aanwijzing dat cooperatisme niet noodzakelijk leidt tot een miserabel einde.

Zo beter?
IlluSionS667 is offline  
Oud 23 June 2004, 19:19   #5
chiquillo
Partijlid
 
chiquillo's schermafbeelding
 
Geregistreerd: 10 January 2004
Berichten: 212
Standaard

Citaat:
Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door IlluSionS667
- Kapitalisme leidt tot uitbuiting : er vormt zich een upperclass, die een groot deel van de economie in handen heeft, en steeds maar groeit, terwijl de lagere echelons enkel de keuze hebben tussen voor die upperclass te werken of te creperen.
ja en fascistisch of communistisch staatskapitalisme is daar geen uitzondering op in het tegendeel zelfs, u wou zelfs de democratie afschaffen
__________________
‘Waar gezag is kan geen vrijheid zijn’
chiquillo is offline  
Oud 24 June 2004, 14:06   #6
IlluSionS667
Banneling
 
 
IlluSionS667's schermafbeelding
 
Geregistreerd: 15 June 2004
Berichten: 2.922
Standaard

Citaat:
Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door chiquillo
ja en fascistisch of communistisch staatskapitalisme is daar geen uitzondering op in het tegendeel zelfs
Dit KAN een uitzondering bieden. De Russen hebben het helaas slecht aangepakt.

Citaat:
Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door chiquillo
u wou zelfs de democratie afschaffen
Democratie is slechts een illusie. Effectieve democratie zou ik nog wel lusten, maar dit particratische systeem lust ik rauw.
IlluSionS667 is offline  
Oud 25 June 2004, 16:25   #7
chiquillo
Partijlid
 
chiquillo's schermafbeelding
 
Geregistreerd: 10 January 2004
Berichten: 212
Standaard

Citaat:
Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door IlluSionS667
Citaat:
Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door chiquillo
ja en fascistisch of communistisch staatskapitalisme is daar geen uitzondering op in het tegendeel zelfs
Dit KAN een uitzondering bieden. De Russen hebben het helaas slecht aangepakt.
een door de autoritaire staat gecontroleerde economie verschild in weze niet van het huidige systeem enkel een andere en enige aandeelhouder die dan eigenlijk een monopolie heeft. Uitbuiting zal waarscheinlijk veel groter zijn wand der is maar één werkgever en men heeft geen zak te zeggen. En onder het fascisme zelfs geen vakbonden meer om tegen de staatsuitbuiting te reageren.

trouwens als de sovjets het fout hebben aangepakt hoe zou jij het dan doen?

Citaat:
Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door IlluSionS667
Citaat:
Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door chiquillo
u wou zelfs de democratie afschaffen
Democratie is slechts een illusie. Effectieve democratie zou ik nog wel lusten, maar dit particratische systeem lust ik rauw.
ik heb nooit gezecht het huidige systeem democratisch was. Democratie in een kapitalistisch systeem is een illusie. effectieve democratie, wat moet ik daar onder verstaan? volgens mij is dat basisdemocratie maar daar was je ook tegen.
__________________
‘Waar gezag is kan geen vrijheid zijn’
chiquillo is offline  
Oud 27 June 2004, 15:13   #8
IlluSionS667
Banneling
 
 
IlluSionS667's schermafbeelding
 
Geregistreerd: 15 June 2004
Berichten: 2.922
Standaard

Citaat:
Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door chiquillo
een door de autoritaire staat gecontroleerde economie verschild in weze niet van het huidige systeem enkel een andere en enige aandeelhouder die dan eigenlijk een monopolie heeft. Uitbuiting zal waarscheinlijk veel groter zijn wand der is maar één werkgever en men heeft geen zak te zeggen. En onder het fascisme zelfs geen vakbonden meer om tegen de staatsuitbuiting te reageren.

trouwens als de sovjets het fout hebben aangepakt hoe zou jij het dan doen?
Het sovjet systeem mislukt om de volgende redenen :

- gebrek aan inzicht in afzonderlijke bedrijven : de macht lag te sterk bij de partij en te weinig bij de managers
- gebrek aan concurrentie
- loon op basis van werktijd, en niet op basis van prestatie

Door verschillende staatsbedrijven met elkaar te laten concurreren, met verschillende competente managers die elk voldoende inspraak hebben, en een loon voor iedereen op basis van prestatie zijn we al heel wat verder.

Citaat:
Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door chiquillo
effectieve democratie, wat moet ik daar onder verstaan? volgens mij is dat basisdemocratie maar daar was je ook tegen.
Onder effectieve democratie versta ik basisdemocratie. Ik geloof niet dat het systeem haalbaar is, en ik heb schrik dat de massa te veel macht krijgt. Maar, onder de veronderstelling dat ze toch haalbaar is, heb ik meer vertrouwen in een basisdemocratie dan in het huidige systeem. De reden is omdat ik liever verkies te geregeerd te worden door een incomptente massa dan door een incompetente elite.
IlluSionS667 is offline  
 


Discussietools

Regels voor berichten
Je mag niet nieuwe discussies starten
Je mag niet reageren op berichten
Je mag niet bijlagen versturen
Je mag niet jouw berichten bewerken

vB-code is Aan
Smileys zijn Aan
[IMG]-code is Aan
HTML-code is Uit
Forumnavigatie


Alle tijden zijn GMT +1. Het is nu 11:59.



Forumsoftware: vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content copyright ©2002 - 2016, Politics.be