Adolf Hitler on Dec 10, 2007 at 10:19 AM:

I agree with ze letter from James Henderson. Those minorities are merely albatrosses for the might of the white race. We should cut all social spending and let those worthless darkies starve to death while the whiteness of free enterprise brings prosperity for all members of the master race. Heil!

Brian Averill on Dec 10, 2007 at 01:21 PM:

Since addressing most of James Henderson's letter will eat away at my soul, I will simply point out that the Pilgrims would have been fucked without the help of Native Americans. They would have all died. Pilgrims = Illegal Immigrants?

Nathan Johnson on Dec 10, 2007 at 08:47 PM:

James Henderson- in my article on Milwaukee's poverty I never mentioned race. In your letter, you seem to think I am a person of color, but I'm not- I'm white, but of course, judging people by the concentration of melanin in their skin is superficial. You know that, right?

Perhaps you thought I was African American because my last name is Johnson- a last name stereotypically considered 'black'- since that is the extent of how analytical [a-n?-li-ti-k?l] you seem capable of thinking.

The Civil Rights Movement legally ended discrimination not just against minorities but for all races in the U.S. Can you dig it? Or should African Americans still sit at the back of the bus?

Does society owe me anything? Perhaps you read Camus terribly out of context when he said there is no such thing as rights- but for some reason I doubt you've read any existentialism [eg-zi-sten-shuh-liz-uhm.]

To put it an easier way- society owes it's children a good education, human rights, the right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc.

Or should children in poverty be forced to compete with rich kids as though the playing field were even and they had the same resources and opportunities, AND THEN WE CAN PRETEND TO BE SURPRISED when we find that 'nothing changes if nothing changes' as wealth disparity reproduces itself the stronger with every passing generation and turnover of capital.

Aaron Jeske on Dec 11, 2007 at 08:46 AM:

Silly Commies, thinking that they can even out the playing field by stealing from others.

What James Henderson was trying to get across (and of course you missed) was that people need to take advantage of what public goods we offer as Americans to get on their feet and get a real job/education. You can not leech off of the government and expect to live well.

Albeit I of course too do not believe it is a race issue, due to the fact I do not believe any one person is different because they look different.

Adolf Hitler on Dec 11, 2007 at 04:47 PM:

Ja, but clearly ze white race is supreme. It is the vill of the free market, correct?

Aaron Jeske on Dec 12, 2007 at 04:06 PM:

Wow Adolf, no wonder you lost the war...

Maggie on Dec 12, 2007 at 09:47 PM:

It's great to know that you are colorblind. Unfortunately, it's easy to be colorblind when you don't have to worry about being discriminated against because of your race. Next time you whine about "lazy minorities" try reading a damn history book for a change. Hell, read the news.

Nathan Johnson on Dec 13, 2007 at 03:28 PM:

Aaron- the poor steal from the rich? Profit is unpaid wages, bro. The working class maintains the capitalist class, who can live off the interest on their capital. If self-emancipation has to be "stolen," it's only because the possessing class doesn't give up its power willingly.

The opportunity gap between minorities and white people in Milwaukee is nothing but a reflection of the opportunity gap. It will take a planned economy to fix this situation.

Aaron, why don't you take the 62 down Capitol and take a look for yourself? Good old free enterprise like McDonalds, liquor stores, a loan store, a pawn shop perhaps, etc. And all the people walking around aimlessly aren't jobless/homeless people, they're just shopping, in support of the thriving market economy.

You seem to think it is their own fault 25% of Milwaukeens are in poverty. Afterall, they received a stellar, free eduaction from MPS. But since the community is poor, it can't be taxed well enough to provide the necessary funds to provide a quality education to the youth, who in turn don't develop the necessary skills to become entrepreneurs or competent skilled laborers, who then cannot earn a high enough income and have to live in deteriorating housing, who's property value is so low that it can't be taxed so as to improve the education system, and so on- the cycle continues and nothing changes if nothing changes.

By the way, it's hard for children to concentrate in school when they're hungry and the only decent meal they get all day is the free lunch they federally qualify for, which does wonders for their self esteem and confidence, to know that their parents can't even feed them, and that society is not willing to pay for the remaining two meals. Think of the children Aaron, before you sing the praises of the market.

Johanan Raatz on Dec 14, 2007 at 09:13 PM:

"Aaron- the poor steal from the rich? Profit is unpaid wages, bro. The working class maintains the capitalist class, who can live off the interest on their capital."

That isn't exactly accurate. First of all people aren't split into capitalist vs. worker classes as such. It's possible to own capital and work as well. Secondly without people owning capital the people who don't own capital would not be able to work in the first place. So if anything the capital owners maintain the job's of the people who don't and not vice-versa.

Also profit isn't unpaid wages unless the employer is not paying the employee the wages the employee contracted for.

"If self-emancipation has to be "stolen," it's only because the possessing class doesn't give up its power willingly."

So? It's still wrong to steal money from someone because they won't give it to you willingly through charity. Why? Because that money is rightfully theirs?
And I'm not a rich guy trying to just say this to keep my riches. I'm middle class.

"The opportunity gap between minorities and white people in Milwaukee is nothing but a reflection of the opportunity gap. It will take a planned economy to fix this situation."

That we could agree on so long as the planned economy doesn't violate people's property rights. I think something along the lines of a command economy (like in Japan) might work here. That would have the added benefit if done correctly of making everyone richer in the country, rich middle class and poor alike. By treating the nation as one giant corporation and the citizens as stockholder and then finding ways to expand the value of the stock (increasing the dollar's value) we could make everyone wealthier without violating property rights by maintaining a sort of "capital pump" which sucks capital into the country and has the added benefit of opening up more avenues for expanding markets outside the country.

That way everyone can gain profit's from the system without taking money from other classes.
There's plenty of capital to go around you don't have to take it from the "capitalist class" to benefit the other classes. If you don't have enough just pump in more from outside the country.

Just research the JEM or Japanese Economic Model for more on how this might work. It's very clever it works on principles that can actually be associated with quantum mechanics.

Nathan Johnson on Dec 16, 2007 at 02:38 PM:

"without people owning capital the people who don't own capital would not be able to work in the first place."

Just look at all of history prior to capitalism- nobody could work because there weren't any capitalists! Similarly, in countries where capitalists have been overthrown, all the previous industrial capital such as factories and resources disappeared into thin air, making it impossible for people to work. Therefore we should be grateful that capitalists allow us to work for them, buy them a hallmark card today!

Working at the Milwaukee Country Club, I got to know rich people who never worked a day in their life, living off the interest on their capital- which can only be unpaid labor, because they certainly didn't do anything to deserve that money and rich lifestyle, never having worked a day in their life. Mr. Oster III, for example, inherited all his money from his father, who inherited it from his father who invented the popular blenders. Mr. Oster III buys new golf clubs every year- commodities the monetary counter-value of which is supplied by unpaid wages, otherwise, the 'profit' would just be inflationary. The profit in money is matched by surplus commodities, which are produced by surplus working hours by the working class- the 3 manifestations of capitalist exploitation.

You're right that people can own their own business and work as an employee as well- however, socialists don't take issue with mom and pop shops, they take issue with multi-national corporations owned by people who never worked in their lives, or exploited people to get to such a state.

"It's still wrong to steal money from someone because they won't give it to you willingly through charity." The working class is taking what the rich stole from them- their unpaid wages. Interst on capital is stealing from the working class. Mr. Oster III's new golf clubs every year are a form of stealing from the working class.

Japan with its state capitalism still has a business cycle and still exploits people through the market. There will never be a 'crisis free capitalism.' State capitalism planning is forecasting future market trends, whereas socialist planning is goal-oriented. State planning will always fall short of the rhetoric because capitalism is not goal oriented except for indirectly. Socialist planning asks "How can we end poverty?" Capitalist planning asks "How can we make ending poverty profitable?" And if ending poverty is not profitable, it won't be pursued, since production without turning a profit is unsustainable in the capitalist mode of production.

"There's plenty of capital to go around you don't have to take it from the "capitalist class" to benefit the other classes."

So you admit there are classes- distinct social classes. You can go ahead and enjoy living in the middle class- grateful that you are not in the lower classes, but I'm going to try to put an end to class-divided society.

You're right that there is a lot of capital lying around- for instance factories only run at 70% capacity, at tremendous waste and devalorization. Problem is, factories only run at 70% capacity because producing too much gluts the market and creates a crisis of overproduction, that is, the beginning of recession (too much produced, market overstocked, employees fired as business stagnates, worsens the ability to take commodities off the market, etc etc.) These market constraints are the very contradictions of capitalist production itself- so yes, there is a lot of capital lying idle, but will not be put to good use until capitalism is superseded.

Johanan Raatz on Dec 16, 2007 at 04:35 PM:

"Similarly, in countries where capitalists have been overthrown, all the previous industrial capital such as factories and resources disappeared into thin air,"

Well judging from the history of communism in the 20th century it sort of did. That's why those states failed. Their economies automatically went down. The same is true with socialism (or communism lite) in Europe, it's just happening in slow motion and the only reason communist China is doing so well right now is that they are receiving funding from capitalist economies.

"Therefore we should be grateful that capitalists allow us to work for them, buy them a hallmark card today!"

Nathan, in order for there to be employees there must be employers. That's just out of purely structural necessity. It doesn't even have to do with human nature or socioeconomic circumstance. Now people being what they are will take advantage of their position as an employer if given the chance, but that doesn't mean they have to. That doesn't mean you can overthrow them though and solve the problem though. If you do someone else will just be the next employer just out of structural necessity. To solve you need to reform society on a personal level because political solutions to the problem are structurally not possible.

"Mr. Oster III, for example, inherited all his money from his father, who inherited it from his father who invented the popular blenders."

Well people are allowed to give their money to whomever they wish. Just because the recipient doesn't have to work afterward doesn't make it wrong. After all he did get his money justly.

"The profit in money is matched by surplus commodities, which are produced by surplus working hours by the working class"

Surplus? Well if someone out there is willing to buy them then they are not surplus. Now obviously if everyone had the same access to capital this surplus wouldn't exist because everyone would make about the same amount, but they don't because capital doesn't belong to everyone. That doesn't mean it's right to take that capital away from the people who rightfully own it though.

"The working class is taking what the rich stole from them- their unpaid wages. Interst on capital is stealing from the working class."

Were the worker's paid what they agreed to work for? If so then their employers didn't steal from.

"You're right that people can own their own business and work as an employee as well- however, socialists don't take issue with mom and pop shops, they take issue with multi-national corporations owned by people who never worked in their lives, or exploited people to get to such a state."

Well where do you draw the line? When does a mom and pop business become a large company? And why should their capital be taken away just because they do become larger?

"Japan with its state capitalism still has a business cycle and still exploits people through the market."

Well rich middle-class and poor all get richer at the same time under in the JEM. It appears to be benefiting rather than exploiting the poor Japanese.

"There will never be a 'crisis free capitalism.'"

Not really. I don't see why capitalism can't be a stable system. You don't always need markets to expand to make capitalism work. There expanding now with industrialization but after industrialization they will probably just end up economically stable like they were before industrialization. Think of the same socioeconomic layout before industrialization. The same layout will appear after there are no more expanding markets just with more products this time. There is nothing out the ordinary about this either as has been the same general layout throughout most of civilization.

"Socialist planning asks "How can we end poverty?" Capitalist planning asks "How can we make ending poverty profitable?""

My point though is that the Japanese model actually worked. During the Japanese economic miracle their economic growth was 3 times faster than any other economic growth in history, and no matter how rich or poor you were you benefited from it. This is because the system treated everyone in the society as stockholders (mini-capitalists if you will). You could be poor and own little stock or rich and own lot's of "stock" but you would still hold stock and that stock's value would be made to increase via the command economy. By artificially spiking the stock values of Japanese companies more capital was flushed into the country on the whole thus making everyone richer.

"You're right that there is a lot of capital lying around- for instance factories only run at 70% capacity, at tremendous waste and devalorization. Problem is, factories only run at 70% capacity because producing too much gluts the market and creates a crisis of overproduction,"

Not what I had in mind exactly. The capital I was referring to comes from outside the country. If you don't have enough capital going around just import more.

"So you admit there are classes- distinct social classes."

Well in the general sense. Obviously some people will own more or less than other people, but not in any iron clad sense. People can always work harder so as to earn enough to purchase their own capital.

"You can go ahead and enjoy living in the middle class- grateful that you are not in the lower classes, but I'm going to try to put an end to class-divided society."

Well the only real way to do that is to change people at a personal level. Or you can also do some of that with unionization but even that still operates on capitalist principles. A political solution is doomed to failing though just because you will need to have employers in order to have employees. You can't ban being an employer because they are structurally required in any economic system.

Nathan Johnson on Dec 16, 2007 at 09:38 PM:

The USSR five year plans produced some of the highest industrial growth rates in history, which is why they industrialized in one generation. As Trotsky wrote: "First place among capitalist countries is occupied by Japan, who is furiously arming herself and robbing her neighbors. Her production has risen almost 40 per cent! But even this exceptional index fades before the dynamic of development in the Soviet Union. Her industrial production has increased during this same period approximately 3½ times, or 250 per cent."

And that is not because of, but despite Stalinism and bureaucracy. Gorbachev estimated 1/3 of working hours were wasterd due to bureacracy- and the USSR still industrialized in one generation, due to the superiority of a planned economy.

"Were the worker's paid what they agreed to work for? If so then their employers didn't steal from."

Wage laborers have to sell their labor power in order to live, capitalists do not- therefore it is not an even, fair deal. Workers may have to sell their labor power even if the labor market is unfavorable to them, because if they stop selling their labor power they'll be ruined sooner than later- and are thus coerced into selling their labor power, not to say they willingly "agree." That's why unions create reserve funds for when they go on stike, otherwise workers wouldn't be able to hold out long enough to bargain for a higher wage.

"because the recipient doesn't have to work afterward doesn't make it wrong."

Actually, it is in fact wrong to consume potentially millions of dollars worth of resources and never work a day in your life.

"Well if someone out there is willing to buy them then they are not surplus."

Surplus as in those working hours are above and beyond those needed to maintain the working class.

"It appears to be benefiting rather than exploiting the poor Japanese."

All workers are exploited in the sense that they aren't receving their full wages, but the Japanese working class isn't as exploited as much as the underdeveloped countries' workers are, whose commodities Japan may import. While it may 'benefit' the Japanese, it may be at the expense of foreign workers, like Americans may 'benefit' from cheap sweat shop commoditites.

"I don't see why capitalism can't be a stable system."

Given a history of imperialism and predatory war and the undeniable fact that the business cycle has NEVER STOPPED since capitalism began (since the law of value likewise hasn't) it is impossible to have a crisis free capitalism. There are always crises of overproduction, once every 10 years at the least.

"3 times faster than any other economic growth in history"

The early USSR growth rates were higher.

"Not what I had in mind exactly. The capital I was referring to comes from outside the country. If you don't have enough capital going around just import more."

Every country can't import more capital than they export. More capital would only lead to greater crises of overproduction- and on to recession. Giving all social layers greater access to capital would completely defy the capitalist law of accumulation of capital, concentrating into fewer and fewer hands since capitalism began.

"People can always work harder so as to earn enough to purchase their own capital."

But the fact is this is harder with every passing year, again, owing to the growing concentration of capital.

Capitalism is a class society- the country club is a perfect microcosm of this- caddies from the city, an immigrant Latino groundscrew working full time, and people who never worked a day in their lives golfing and spending time at the pool.

"in order for there to be employees there must be employers. That's just out of purely structural necessity."

Now that we have established and agree that people have worked for thousands of years prior to the appearance of the capitalist class- if there simply must be an employer, than it should be the Unions! Naturally, there has to be some way to direct workers to their respective tools and means of production- but do workers need to be hired? Everyone who can work is employed A PRIORI under socialism, and the "employers" are the workers themselves- but of course, not in the capitalist sense of the word.

The workers should be in control of the workplace, and that's all I have to say. We could argue forever, but that's all I really have to say anyways.

"Well the only real way to do that is to change people at a personal level."

Finally we agree on something! Like Kierkergaard said, "the crowd is untruth." If you want to debate further, it will have to be in person. And dude, learn what communism is before you start up with me again- as Marx said: "If anything is certain, it is that I myself am not a Marxist" because people, yourself included, certainly do misconstrue what Marx stood for. I know you know better, because I've talked to you about it- unless you simply don't believe me (because, afterall, I am a communist, right?)- but again, we can talk in person, since there's no need for this to continue here.