So they're going to get our money
whether we want to buy something or not,
which is really what they wanted in the first place.
They only make things to exchange to make profit.
It doesn't matter what the things are -
SUVs, plasma TVs, cheeseburgers or medicine,
diapers, pizza or toilet paper,
or some shiny beads in exchange for Manhattan,
as long as we give back the money they paid us
for some thing that any business has had made for them.
They wish didn't have to give us some thing in exchange,
but it's illegal to use a gun and just take it.
And though we create much more value with our work
than the measly wage that we get as our share of it,
and businessmen appropriate all the rest,
calling it "surplus value", e.g. their profit,
they just can't stop thinking about how to enlarge
their share, or the margin of profit,
'til we wind up as no wage labor, or slaves,
but then they'd have to feed, house and clothe us.
If they could just ... get rid of us entirely
and keep all the money that's made as for themselves.
But they need someone to make all that stuff for them
and for it be bought by a lot of somebody "elses".
This is the asininity of supply side,
or voodoo, economics.
You can have all the supply you want,
but if there isn't a demand
your profit is going to plummet.
And the more skimmed from workers
the less they demand.
Yes, it's really that simple. Now, got it?
Without workers to buy products they themselves make,
the businessman would be totally fucked.
Do you begin to see why the businessman
hates the workers so very, very much?
"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion, but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."
- Samuel R. Huntington
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
- Abraham Lincoln
1 | 2
