Rightfield

[Teddington]

I bet this is the point the people who took this particular WUM seriously felt like they'd been had

[eFestivals]

Those "idle c*nts with money would surely be supplying one vital element to the business - capital? If the business thinks this is insufficient/the wrong type then it needn't accept it.

but they wouldn't be supplying the business with anything.

If the business was profitable enough for them to think it worth buying they'd be (if everything remained equal) providing me with capital for their purchase of the business, but supplying the business with nothing at all.

The fact that the business does not require that capital is demonstrated in absolute facts by the already-existence of this business.

Put bluntly, nearly every claimed "business investment" is not a business investment. It's an investment in getting money for doing fuck all.

[Teddington]

ownership of a company is only 'capital' if someone is willing to exchange their cash for the company. Given that no one is, that's not capital.

The cash that I have is simply temporarily 'between places'. If I shut down today, every penny in my bank account would disappear to cover the bills that have accumulated to this moment in time. And that's precisely why "cash flow" is not the same thing as "capital" (as any accountant can tell you).

I have no land, or other* stock or company ownership.

(*other = not efestivals)

I have a small amount of equipment, with a value of less than #1k. You know, worth less than the gadgets you very probably own.

So you see, in real terms rather that the hypothetical, me and my business have no capital at all.

[clarkete]

Hello.

Is this the right room for an argument?

[Teddington]

Hello.

Is this the right room for an argument?

[Teddington]

Nah only joking.

Come in, the water's lovely.

[eFestivals]

Nothing like it. We exist in a capitalist economic system. But the fact remains that efestivals is a capitalistic venture, and Neill is a (whisper it) Capitalist - exploiting poor punters through disseminating advertising, and the surplus product of his exploted workers (employees). A wealthy capitalist? I've no idea, but I know a capitalist when they explain they operate a capitalist venture.

If that were true...

1. I would receive more from this business than every employee; I don't.

2. I would receive more from this business than any employee; I don't.

3. I would exploit every avenue to increase revenues; I don't.

4. I would maximise profits; I don't.

5. I would maximise sales revenue; I don't.

6. I wouldn't give 1% of turnover to charity (note: "turnover", not "profits").

7. I wouldn't put principles above any earnings potential; I do.

The only reason why this business might be deemed capitalist is because we live in a capitalist environment and some people are unable to view anything in anything but those terms.

Now, enough of me. Let's get back to destroying the right wing idiocy that some are spouting.

[Teddington]

If that were true...

1. I would receive more from this business than every employee; I don't.Not necessarily true. Normally true as generally this would be your reward for taking the risk (supplying the capital) but not always the case.

2. I would receive more from this business than any employee; I don't.see above

3. I would exploit every avenue to increase revenues; I don't. Not necessarily. It depends on your business objectives.

4. I would maximise profits; I don't. see above

5. I would maximise sales revenue; I don't.see above. Many businesses don't do this Bang and Olufsen for example.

6. I wouldn't give 1% of turnover to charity (note: "turnover", not "profits"). You might, you might not.

7. I wouldn't put principles above any earnings potential; I do. see above

The only reason why this business might be deemed capitalist is because we live in a capitalist environment and some people are unable to view anything in anything but those terms.

Now, enough of me. Let's get back to destroying the right wing idiocy that some are spouting.

[eFestivals]

Dear me.

Ok let's strip away all elements of capitalism from the fest shall we?

For a start there would be no...

.... there would be nothing at all if everything has to work to right wing stupidity or else it cannot exist in right wing theory.

Yeah, we've got that you are unable to think in anything but raving right wing terms.

Now, lock up your raving views for a moment and try a bit if thinking instead.

If you have a world of resources - and we do - and then take the money away, do those resources disappear into the ether the moment that the money ceases to exist?

So you see, nothing depends on money apart from stupid thoughts.

[Teddington]

.... there would be nothing at all if everything has to work to right wing stupidity or else it cannot exist in right wing theory.

Yeah, we've got that you are unable to think in anything but raving right wing terms.

Now, lock up your raving views for a moment and try a bit if thinking instead.

If you have a world of resources - and we do - and then take the money away, do those resources disappear into the ether the moment that the money ceases to exist?

So you see, nothing depends on money apart from stupid thoughts.

[eFestivals]

It depends on your business objectives.

Spot on!

And my objective is to not be a raving right wing free market c**t.

Which gets to prove that things do exist outside of the free market. Things can happen quite happily without money as the driver.

[Witty username here]

If that were true...

1. I would receive more from this business than every employee; I don't.

2. I would receive more from this business than any employee; I don't.

3. I would exploit every avenue to increase revenues; I don't.

4. I would maximise profits; I don't.

5. I would maximise sales revenue; I don't.

6. I wouldn't give 1% of turnover to charity (note: "turnover", not "profits").

7. I wouldn't put principles above any earnings potential; I do.

The only reason why this business might be deemed capitalist is because we live in a capitalist environment and some people are unable to view anything in anything but those terms.

Now, enough of me. Let's get back to destroying the right wing idiocy that some are spouting.

[bombfrog]

Could he have done that without exploiting the work of others? Nope.

A capitalist boss is no less dependent on his workers for his job as workers are on their boss. Take either away and both have nothing.

[Jack Nottm]

There would simply be another exchange mechanism occur. Be it gold, food or a mixture....

[eFestivals]

What is the incentive to exploit resources without money? Barter?

Did someone invent (say) the iPhone ONLY because someone was paying him?

Or did he invent it only because he had the knowledge for that invention?

(said in a Big Brother styleee) ... You decide!

And once you've decided, you might* turn away from being that raving right wing c**t into a human being who recognises that there's more to life than money.

(but I doubt it )

[Witty username here]

If you have a world of resources - and we do - and then take the money away, do those resources disappear into the ether the moment that the money ceases to exist?

So you see, nothing depends on money apart from stupid thoughts.

[sjseabass]

Dear me.

Ok let's strip away all elements of capitalism from the fest shall we?

For a start there would be no alcohol on sale. Well ok maybe a small amount of home brew, but certainly no major labels/names.

Still that may not be a bad thing considering that mobile phone in your pocket wouldn't be there either, so at least you would be able to "meet up" easier.

Then again, bit hard to see what you are going to "meet up" for isn't it? That set with the expensive speakers and instruments... Still I suppose it "could" be made by a workers co-operative and not a multinational profit seeking company couldn't it?

As could those tents that you sleep in. Nothing wrong with a bedsheet over some branches eh?

Edited May 13, 2013 by theevilfridge

[Witty username here]

Who knows what products we could produce under a sane socialist system?

[eFestivals]

All your arguments are pretty much about how equitable and right-on your capitalist venture is

It's not a capitalist venture. That's the point that is wooshing over your head.

If capitalist was what I was about, I'd be working stacking shelves in tesco and earning more.

I'm sure Richard Branson could equally claim to be a lovely employer

he couldn't, because he's not.

who contributes lots to charitable organisations

at a far-lesser rate than the tax he steals (check his criminal record!!), evades and avoids.

because you operate a capitalist venture.

I don't.

I operate a venture. Nothing of it is capitalist, aside from it having to exist within a world where earning anything at all is considered 'capitalist' by default.

It's not possible to operate outside of capitalism within a capitalist world. By default of that world we are all capitalists.

Self-fulfilling prophesies are not prophecies at all.

but it does rather run counter to your professed opinions - which, as I've already stated, are kinda potty, if genuine.

1. counter to them only because of the shape of the world.

2. potty only because you cannot think outside of the confines of the current shape of the world.

[Teddington]

Spot on!

And my objective is to not be a raving right wing free market c**t.

Which gets to prove that things do exist outside of the free market. Things can happen quite happily without money as the driver.

[bombfrog]

The reason I recognise you as a capitalist is not because we all live in a capitalist system, its because you operate a capitalist venture. I don't have a problem with that - good luck to you - particularly if you do all the things you claim - but it does rather run counter to your professed opinions - which, as I've already stated, are kinda potty, if genuine.

[Teddington]

Not that much of a mystery. Sweden operated as a pretty much definitive Social-Democratic mixed economy for decades and managed to produce products that competed at a world class level. The music wasn't much cop though.

[eFestivals]

I run my own business and I certainly don't exploit my staff.

so you don't take any of the profits those employees make for you for yourself?

Please!

It's the language you use that makes you sound like you've been brain-washed.

I simply say it how it is.

Just because that makes you feel uncomfortable about the exploitation you do doesn't make me "brain washed".

It makes you unable to face up to the truth of your actions.

[eFestivals]

Teddington, on 13 May 2013 - 5:10 PM, said:

No. What you are describing exists WITHIN the free market not outside it. You have chosen a different set of goals than the norm, which is entirely your decision to make.

As I keep pointing out, it's a free-market world - so it's not possible for anything to exist outside of that.

I have to work within the framework that exists. No matter how much I might wish to (and I wish to, I assure you!) it's simply not possible to operate outside of the confines of the world that exists at this time.

But that's merely how things are now, not how they'll always be. Marx got it right, and even the thinking raving right know it.

It's only the stupid raving right who believe there can never be anything but the free market.

[Witty username here]

It's not possible to operate outside of capitalism within a capitalist world. By default of that world we are all capitalists.