Keith Woods Capitalism = Slavery

[Volatire]

Marx call this the parasitic Rentier burden on both the Worker and the Factory owner.
The business owner having to pay Rent on his premises. The worker paying rent for his slum hovel.
Rent viewed as unearned income and earned while the parasite Rentier slept without contributing to the Productive Economy

If you forego paid employment to build a property with your own money and bare hands, then rent it out, the income is "unearned" and this makes you a Rentier Class parasite and a class traitor?

Marx wrote manifest horseshït, yet his imbecile groupies continue to spew the manure to this day.

 

[roc_]

But again this is dancing around the real argument I believe. These artificial rights you have thrown into the mix are a key aspect of Capitalism and its tendency to commodify anything and everything in order to generate interest on the debts required to exploit whatever the "right" realises which fuels the growth without which Capitalism is in "crises". The state, as explained in the discussion in the OP, is just the enforcer for the Banks. The state is the junior partner to the senior Banks.
This started from the get go. The Enclosure Acts turned land held in common for Generations into property to be bought and sold. Suddenly this land could be transacted and could generate interest on the debts used to purchase it. Once everything tangible had been commodified it was inevitable intangible or made up rights became commodified. The State simply serves a purpose in the commodfication process and make it appear natural.
So, as you say in another post, that they are lending against the wrong stuff - this is wrong, again, I believe. They can't lend against the same stuff all the time. A strip of land that was one the Commons will only be transacted so many times a century. They need to have new stuff to lend money against to maintain growth. Its necessary that they lend against the "Wrong" stuff

The significance of the enclosures was it broke up families and communities that lived by reciprocity, exchange and redistribution.

It took from them their traditional means of subsistence, their land for growing, the "commons" for their livestock.

It created a mobile workforce totally dependent on wages ready to work in the factories.

It created a market for labour that had not existed before. Their labour was made wholly available on the open market where it could be bought and sold for payment.

It was the end of the traditional insulated self-sustaining community and tribe, where labour was shared out, and money little figured.

The impetus for it was simply that the nobility could make more money turning the land over to sheep pasture to supply the new factories with wool.

 

[roc_]

But again this is dancing around the real argument I believe. These artificial rights you have thrown into the mix are a key aspect of Capitalism and its tendency to commodify anything and everything in order to generate interest on the debts required to exploit whatever the "right" realises which fuels the growth without which Capitalism is in "crises". The state, as explained in the discussion in the OP, is just the enforcer for the Banks. The state is the junior partner to the senior Banks.
This started from the get go. The Enclosure Acts turned land held in common for Generations into property to be bought and sold. Suddenly this land could be transacted and could generate interest on the debts used to purchase it. Once everything tangible had been commodified it was inevitable intangible or made up rights became commodified. The State simply serves a purpose in the commodfication process and make it appear natural.
So, as you say in another post, that they are lending against the wrong stuff - this is wrong, again, I believe. They can't lend against the same stuff all the time. A strip of land that was one the Commons will only be transacted so many times a century. They need to have new stuff to lend money against to maintain growth. Its necessary that they lend against the "Wrong" stuff

Understand banking. Get beyond the libertarian and other guff. David Ricardo said it best:

"No wealth can be created by banking operations. Rather, they are primarily an important device to bring about a better arrangement of productive forces."

It's not the central banks that create money by and large. It's the high Street bank. With the money they create they could create on the other side anything the want. They are supposed to create productive enterprise. But they instead mostly pump money into generating rents from government created artificial rights.

Think about it.

 

[bells of shandon]

If you forego paid employment to build a property with your own money and bare hands, then rent it out, the incomMarxe is "unearned" and this makes you a Rentier Class parasite and a class traitor?

Marx wrote manifest horseshït, yet his imbecile groupies continue to spew the manure to this day.

Marx was not referring to builders who built rental properties in their leisure periods and rent them at a fair rent .
He was referencing the Class based inheritors of property who exploited their tenants with exorbitant rents on dilapidated ,rat invested slums.
Thus exploiting the fruits of their productive labour.
We have plenty examples of the punitive rents imposed in Dublin by the NAMA enriched Vulture Funds, and the many hardworking families evicted from their homes,because of mortgage default,
The Banks collapsed because of reckless lending and defaulted.Their losses covered by the Irish Taxpayer, and a 20 year Tax holiday conferred on them.
There was no one to help the families evicted from their homes and today they are discriminated against in Public Housing, by Illegal migrants , who after 3 months in Direct Provision are being given preference in allocation.

 

[roc_]

If you forego paid employment to build a property with your own money and bare hands, then rent it out, the income is "unearned" and this makes you a Rentier Class parasite and a class traitor?

Marx wrote manifest horseshït, yet his imbecile groupies continue to spew the manure to this day.

In my understanding "unearned income" is income you get from something valuable that was created by nature, not by your own ingenuity or work, or the ingenuity or work from whom you bought or inherited or whatever, the rights to their work from.

 

[Volatire]

In my understanding "unearned income" is income you get from something valuable that was created by nature, not by your own ingenuity or work, or the ingenuity or work from whom you bought or inherited or whatever, the rights to their work from.

Your understanding is flawed.

 

[roc_]

Your understanding is flawed.

No, probably not. More economic thinkers than just Marx have used the term, and elaborated on it towards one or other explanation they want to communicate. It's not a scientific technical term. And you're a bit obsessed with Marx imho. E.g. Michael Hudson explains the rationale for high taxes on unearned income | P2P Foundation

 

[FF/FG/Lab/SF..stitchup]

forget about capitalism and communism. Both nasty. As is Feudalism and most other economic systems.

the ancient Greeks reckoned man was created free and he frolicked on this Earth in a paradise. Then along came Women, and man was enslaved.

MGTOW is freedom.

 

[sighthound]

That’s a caricature.
Were it not for the mortgage system nobody would ever own a house.
Is that what you want?

you are a very nasty little prick always belittleing everyone no wonder people are abandoning this site in droves.

 

[FF/FG/Lab/SF..stitchup]

you are a very nasty little prick always belittleing everyone no wonder people are abandoning this site in droves.

well he didnt mention the pope this time, so give him some credit.

getting back to the OP, Capitalism or communism.........any fair system must allow losers to fail - and to suffer the consequences of their failures. Otherwise chaos ensues. But at the same time, we must protect the vulnerable....the old, the sick, the under-talented. This is the dichotomy, the paradox of our world.

Social Liberalism will encourage losers to reproduce and taxes the daylights out of winners. It encourages career failures and broken families. The worse of all possible worlds.

 

[The Field Marshal]

I am a very nasty little prick always belittleing everyone no wonder people are abandoning this site in droves.

I agree.

 

[ShumanTheHuman]

Understand banking. Get beyond the libertarian and other guff. David Ricardo said it best:

"No wealth can be created by banking operations. Rather, they are primarily an important device to bring about a better arrangement of productive forces."

It's not the central banks that create money by and large. It's the high Street bank. With the money they create they could
create on the other side anything the want. They are supposed to create productive enterprise. But they instead mostly pump money into generating rents from government created artificial rights.

Think about it.

Thanks for the civil exchanges thus far but I think we've reached the end of the road for now
All the best