Of course it did; their entire societies were deliberately restructured to be unstable and to require the help of the empires to function. Ethnic hatred was encouraged (divide and conquer), the locals were not allowed to acquire the expertise needed to run the industries and institutions of the colonial regime. When the imperialists left, it was to be expected that the locals wouldn’t be able to keep the hollow shell over left running.
Then there was the fact that the nations in question were artificial ones drawn up by European imperialists, with no particular connection to the local cultures and with little to no loyalty from the populace. And the only design for a national government they were familiar with was an imperialist one designed solely as a tool for exploitation.
And then you had the Cold War, with America and the USSR deliberately stirring things up, imposing tyrants and creating chaos everywhere they could. Of course life on a battlefield is going to be hellish.
You’re obviously having trouble following your own posts. As has been noted, we posited a hypothetical new business in which the owner puts forward 100% of the capital and then hires 5 people, and each of the 5 employees receives an 18% share in the company. The owner then gets to keep a 10% share in the company.
You said this was fine and how it should be, so let us presume that is what we are talking about, not something else.
It seems like you are attempting to ‘weasel’ out of this conversation. Capitalism works by lying and conniving to get as much as an individual can get. Why wouldn’t a capitalist lie and connive to block a system that says ‘no’ to the “all about me” way of thinking and says ‘yes’ to the “all about us” way of thinking?
Oh course, that’s how capitalism started. And in any communist society there will be those mislead dissenters. That is why it is necessary to teach children from the start that “we” is more important than “me.” The lessons learned in childhood are stick with people throughout their entire lives.
Some ‘capitalists’ will become adults and will espouse capitalistic virtues. They will have to be dealt with accordingly, educated again about the benefits of the society in which they ‘now’ live (now being sometime in the future) and reintroduced into society when they show that they can fairly participate in it like everyone else. Since communism (as I’ve stated) is benevolent, the people will welcome the former dissenters with open arms.
Exactly.
It’s not the other way around. Capitalism’s “ideal state” is to have a massive poor class and elite, wealthy few. Therefore, clearly capitalism is what hindered communism’s goal of having, rather than an elite few, an equal many.
This is all incorrect and extraordinarily disingenuous. People generally don’t have a choice about it. By your logic slave labor is worth nothing because slaves “accept” it. What a crock.
I have no idea how your question is analogous to anything I’ve said or what it has to do with people deserving to be justly compensated for their labor.
Why do conservatives always see justly compensating people for their labor as some sort of gift or largesse? it’s weird.
This isn’t a “conversation”. It’s a debate. You are making outrageous claims, and if you want to debate with people around here, you will have to back up those claims with cites. Bring cites, and I’ll be happy to continue the debate.
And just so you know, the debate strategy you have been employing thus far is the logical fallacy known as “No True Scotsman”.
Just to clarify, I’m saying that labor, as a whole, deserves a greater share of the profits than capital as a whole. The hypothetical you mention was asked about what I personally would accept, not about what should be imposed on anyone else.
If you can’t pay your labor what they’re worth, then don’t start a business.
Not here. The sort of “conversation” you are looking for can, perhaps, be found in the IMHO and MPSIMS forums of this message board. This forum is for debates.
Please look up “No True Scotsman” and get back to us when you have a non-fallacious argument to put forward.
This is patently idiotic. Everyone has a choice about whether they work for someone or not. Your reference to slaves is beyond idiotic–we obviously aren’t discussing that.
Of course you don’t–you don’t have the mental equipment to engage in this conversation. Let me cut to the chase–any policy that results in increased cost of labor results in less labor (i.e., more unemployment).
Why do certain people feel that their own opinions are “just” whereas other people’s opinions are “injust”?
Well, you can’t determine the value of the end product without a price system, and a price system is what you want to eliminate for labor, so I don’t see how that can work.
But let’s say we can somehow make that work.
How have you determined that this is the way to determine the value? Clearly, God didn’t tell you this, so it must start from some basic assumption.
What percent goes to labor, and how is that objectively determined?
Dio, if a government instituted your policies (i.e,. required labor to be paid in accordance with the end value of the product), what effect do you think it would have on unemployment?
None. This is the same bullshit kind of argument we always hear about forcing employers to pay a minimum wage or give benefits or any number of other things. Businesses will still employ as many people as they need to employ to stay in business. They are not going to shut down.
Likewise they will not hire more people if they get more generous tax cuts. They employ as many people as they need. No more, no less.
It’s not self-evident to me, and since it has never been the policy of any capitalist system in the world, then I’d say it’s not self-evident to the majority of humans living in the developed world. Got anything else?
I’m a worker in your factory. What share of the profits does my labor get me? If you’re claiming the value is determined by the value of the end product, what percent of that value goes to the worker?
But if I have capital to invest, and find laborers offering to work for less than “profit minus capital”, why shouldn’t I shrug and accept their valuation?
I like the way he just shrugs off this sort of thing by saying you shouldn’t start your business. Tough shit for the people who would’ve have those jobs, too. Because it’s not profitable to pay them Dio wages, they get… no job!