Capitalism and the exploitation of labor

[TECSHARE]

All of them are false and have been provren false by all sociologic studies.

And there we go. All of your evidence comes from the least scientific branch of the most unscientific field of study that people barely qualify as a science. Social sciences can maintain no controls, can not directly observe results, can not account for so many variables... IE it doesn't follow scientific theory. It attempts to at best. You think we have diggen far enough though, so lets stop diggen.

[af_newbie]

You like attributing motive to others a lot. Motives to me, motives to these people you talk about. No one deserves anything. People deserve what they can create for themselves. Just because some one works grinding themselves down forever does not mean they have no choice or are unable to change this. You insist on looking at everyone as victims. This doesn't help people. What helps people is not having a bloated bureaucracy sucking up endless resources while it regulates everyone around it to death while never actually attaining any of the goals it was designed to meet.

You only want to see the victim aspect of this story. The reality is some people belong in those factories, if you asked a few of these people a lot of them would tell you so themselves. A lot of them are grateful just to have a dependable wage, but no, here you come to save them from that for their own good! Aren't you morally superior!

Your vision of society and humankind is simply wrong and I can't do anything against that.

Not wrong as in "moraly wrong", simply wrong as in "stupidly wrong".

You believe in responsability, freedom and meritocravy. Those three things are believes and nothing more. They're the base of the American dream and the tools that hold current society together. All of them are false and have been provren false by all sociologic studies.

I can only advise you to try to read Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste of Pierre Bourdieu which would, rather elegantly, demonstrate how the whole "rational choice" and "freedom" ideas are complete fallacies.

Anyway we've diggen far enough. We now know exactly where is the difference between you and me. Not much more to discuss unless you're ready to open yourself to new ideas or ready to support your core beliefs.

You are forgetting about one thing:  we are not all born equal.  We respond differently to external stimuli.  You are painting everyone with the same brush.  That is your mistake.  Any study that does not take into account the fact that societies are heterogeneous systems is erroneous, right from the start.

Some of us are born 'slaves' while others are born 'slave' masters. If you don't like the word slave, substitute it with 'passive', 'submissive', 'weak', 'lazy', 'hopeless', 'apathetic',  'uneager' etc.

Equalizing outcomes is wrong, no matter who does it. It always leads to injustice.

[mOgliE]

All of them are false and have been provren false by all sociologic studies.

And there we go. All of your evidence comes from the least scientific branch of the most unscientific field of study that people barely qualify as a science. Social sciences can maintain no controls, can not directly observe results, can not account for so many variables... IE it doesn't follow scientific theory. It attempts to at best. You think we have diggen far enough though, so lets stop diggen.

This is utterly stupid.
So sociology is not a science because it doesn't directly observe results in a controled environment with controled variables? That's your argument against sociology and social sciences in general??

You are forgetting about one thing:  we are not all born equal.  We respond differently to external stimuli.  You are painting everyone with the same brush.  That is your mistake.  Any study that does not take into account the fact that societies are heterogeneous systems is erroneous, right from the start.

Some of us are born 'slaves' while others are born 'slave' masters. If you don't like the word slave, substitute it with 'passive', 'submissive', 'weak', 'lazy', 'hopeless', 'apathetic',  'uneager' etc.

Equalizing outcomes is wrong, no matter who does it. It always leads to injustice.

This is simply ridiculous.

Not being born equal is not the same thing as being born in a definitive way like you suggest.

Unless rare genetic disabilities, no one is born "submessive" or "weak" or "lazy".

Born lazy... And you dare calling yourself science supporter?

[Artemis3]

The solution would have been to not have an owner in the first place.  The only shareholders should be stakeholders and that way the interests of the company would always consider the interests of all stakeholders, most of whom are workers. 

The current shareholders have no skill or efficiency.  Shareholders hire people to run the company.  That doesn't have to change.  "worker control" is not a literal sense but in terms of power hierarchy.  Workers have no interest in their company being run inefficiently.

The socialist economy you describe is nothing like anything socialists are advocating.  Complete misrepresentation. 

I mentioned programs like TARP in the OP.  Those sort of programs could invest in builidng cooperatives instead of corporate welfare.  Mondragon in Spain is a perfect example and it is much more efficient than a company like GM.

Unfortunately that only works when the workers own the company, not the State. So a cooperative, like Haier, and not a state owned company like CNPC both Chinese.

Also unfortunately, many socialists advocate State ownership, not worker's ownership. As cooperatives are seen as another kind of capitalist company, only with a bit more horizontal hierarchy. Ideally there are no employees, but cooperatives can and often do employ people who do not own any shares.

In fact in a free capitalist society, a group of disgruntled "exploited" workers CAN leave en mass and form their own company, as long as that State isn't colluding with the former companies by giving them protections or special privileges. This is far from what we see in all "attempts" of socialism. Venezuela had a few attempts at worker's control, and the State itself dissolved them, or let them rot, because in a "command" central planned economy, if the bureaucrat doesn't "assign" you raw materials, or foreign currency (promptly), or let you set your own prices you go bankrupt. And they rather "assign" resources to their own (corrupt) people, ironically accusing the workers of being thieves or anti-revolutionaries (because in "socialist" Venezuela, if you don't raise prices to compensate inflation you go bankrupt, but if you raise the prices you are an agent of imperialism seeking to overthrow the gov.)...

The giant obstacle of socialism is the abysmal separation between theory and practice. "if only people behaved this, or that way", but they don't (unless coerced). Capitalism, at least exploits people's greed in a way where everyone ends benefiting, so long as the state remains small and out of the way...

The free market solves things with a near realtime highly scalable voting system called: "your wallet". This is forcibly taken away in Socialist States "in the name of... workers, revolution, party, blah, blahW) by bureaucracy. Even if you practice some form of "direct democracy", you cannot take decisions as quickly and efficiently as the free marker. By the time a decision is made, it is always too late, to little, too much, too high or too low.

"Communists" have it worse, as they push for a super strong omnipotent State dictating the economy and all aspects of life that "somehow" should later dissolve itself (never going to happen).

In "capitalism", you work because you need money. Socialism wants you to not need money, so there is no reason to work. Then no one makes anything.., except the bureaucrats who get to decide who eats and who doesn't, until the last resource is exhausted.

[TECSHARE]

Thank you. Explaining basic things he should have learned in high school is getting tiresome.

[KingScorpio]

You like attributing motive to others a lot. Motives to me, motives to these people you talk about. No one deserves anything. People deserve what they can create for themselves. Just because some one works grinding themselves down forever does not mean they have no choice or are unable to change this. You insist on looking at everyone as victims. This doesn't help people. What helps people is not having a bloated bureaucracy sucking up endless resources while it regulates everyone around it to death while never actually attaining any of the goals it was designed to meet.

You only want to see the victim aspect of this story. The reality is some people belong in those factories, if you asked a few of these people a lot of them would tell you so themselves. A lot of them are grateful just to have a dependable wage, but no, here you come to save them from that for their own good! Aren't you morally superior!

Your vision of society and humankind is simply wrong and I can't do anything against that.

Not wrong as in "moraly wrong", simply wrong as in "stupidly wrong".

You believe in responsability, freedom and meritocravy. Those three things are believes and nothing more. They're the base of the American dream and the tools that hold current society together. All of them are false and have been provren false by all sociologic studies.

I can only advise you to try to read Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste of Pierre Bourdieu which would, rather elegantly, demonstrate how the whole "rational choice" and "freedom" ideas are complete fallacies.

Anyway we've diggen far enough. We now know exactly where is the difference between you and me. Not much more to discuss unless you're ready to open yourself to new ideas or ready to support your core beliefs.

You are forgetting about one thing:  we are not all born equal.  We respond differently to external stimuli.  You are painting everyone with the same brush.  That is your mistake.  Any study that does not take into account the fact that societies are heterogeneous systems is erroneous, right from the start.

Some of us are born 'slaves' while others are born 'slave' masters. If you don't like the word slave, substitute it with 'passive', 'submissive', 'weak', 'lazy', 'hopeless', 'apathetic',  'uneager' etc.

Equalizing outcomes is wrong, no matter who does it. It always leads to injustice.

no one is voluntarily a slave, people are made slaves, by others that teach them crap or scam, reducing them to capitalist money earning cattle etc.

[coins4commies]

The solution would have been to not have an owner in the first place.  The only shareholders should be stakeholders and that way the interests of the company would always consider the interests of all stakeholders, most of whom are workers.  

The current shareholders have no skill or efficiency.  Shareholders hire people to run the company.  That doesn't have to change.  "worker control" is not a literal sense but in terms of power hierarchy.  Workers have no interest in their company being run inefficiently.

The socialist economy you describe is nothing like anything socialists are advocating.  Complete misrepresentation.  

I mentioned programs like TARP in the OP.  Those sort of programs could invest in builidng cooperatives instead of corporate welfare.  Mondragon in Spain is a perfect example and it is much more efficient than a company like GM.

Unfortunately that only works when the workers own the company, not the State. So a cooperative, like Haier, and not a state owned company like CNPC both Chinese.

Also unfortunately, many socialists advocate State ownership, not worker's ownership. As cooperatives are seen as another kind of capitalist company, only with a bit more horizontal hierarchy. Ideally there are no employees, but cooperatives can and often do employ people who do not own any shares.

I did not say Haier, I said mondragon.  The thing you need to realize about socialists adovocating for state ownership, is that they are viewing socialists the people as the state and you are thinking about socialism within a capitalist state like the U.S. or Soviet Union.  Two very different things. There is also a lot of nuance involved.  Natural resources should be collectively owned but that isn't the entire economy.

In fact in a free capitalist society, a group of disgruntled "exploited" workers CAN leave en mass and form their own company, as long as that State isn't colluding with the former companies by giving them protections or special privileges. This is far from what we see in all "attempts" of socialism. Venezuela had a few attempts at worker's control, and the State itself dissolved them, or let them rot, because in a "command" central planned economy, if the bureaucrat doesn't "assign" you raw materials, or foreign currency (promptly), or let you set your own prices you go bankrupt. And they rather "assign" resources to their own (corrupt) people, ironically accusing the workers of being thieves or anti-revolutionaries (because in "socialist" Venezuela, if you don't raise prices to compensate inflation you go bankrupt, but if you raise the prices you are an agent of imperialism seeking to overthrow the gov.)...

Exploited workers don't have the capital to do anything.  That is the point.  If they weren't being exploited, they would definitely start their own companies but that wouldn't be capitalism anymore. Capitalism is all about rewarding capital, not labor.

State control is not worker control.  Central planning is literally the opposite of worker control.

The giant obstacle of socialism is the abysmal separation between theory and practice. "if only people behaved this, or that way", but they don't (unless coerced). Capitalism, at least exploits people's greed in a way where everyone ends benefiting, so long as the state remains small and out of the way...

The free market solves things with a near realtime highly scalable voting system called: "your wallet". This is forcibly taken away in Socialist States "in the name of... workers, revolution, party, blah, blahW) by bureaucracy. Even if you practice some form of "direct democracy", you cannot take decisions as quickly and efficiently as the free marker. By the time a decision is made, it is always too late, to little, too much, too high or too low.

The free market is a mythological creature.  "Everyone ends benefiting" shows that you have bought into the externalization of costs.  Everyone loses long term because eventually you run out of resources to extract from the outside.  Capitalism is literally trashing the entire planet and only benefiting about 15% of the population.  Everyone else is in grave danger. 15% is far from everyone.  Most of the people on here are well into the top 1% and have no idea what its like for the 99%.

Capitalism is extremely inefficient and completely disregards the safety of the public as well as future sustainability.  Nothing is produced for actual consumption. Everything is produced to be sold.  This means we grow food for 10 billion people and feed 5 billion well while throwing half of it away.  We literally build products to break early so we can sell them again.  Don't ever mention efficiency and capitalism again.

"Communists" have it worse, as they push for a super strong omnipotent State dictating the economy and all aspects of life that "somehow" should later dissolve itself (never going to happen).

In "capitalism", you work because you need money. Socialism wants you to not need money, so there is no reason to work. Then no one makes anything.., except the bureaucrats who get to decide who eats and who doesn't, until the last resource is exhausted.

First of all, you are way off base with the bold statement because one of the key requirements for communism is a stateless society.  The rest of your post is irrelevant.  Maybe you should read Marx instead of letting Jordan Peterson types tell you what communism and socialism are.  Once you learn about it, you might actually like it.    

[TECSHARE]

The thing you need to realize about socialists adovocating for state ownership, is that they are viewing socialists the people as the state and you are thinking about socialism within a capitalist state like the U.S. or Soviet Union.  Two very different things....

First of all, you are way off base with the bold statement because one of the key requirements for communism is a stateless society.  The rest of your post is irrelevant.  Maybe you should read Marx instead of letting Jordan Peterson types tell you what communism and socialism are.  Once you learn about it, you might actually like it.

You cant even make a post without contradicting yourself within it. Basically you are saying Socialism (Communism stage 2) is not for government control because they VIEW the government as the people more than the government. Then you proceed to claim this state control because viewed as the people is not really state control, and is actually stateless. Well shit if it is that simple why don't you just view every government that way? OH RIGHT YOU CAN'T JUST CHANGE REALITY BY REDEFINING WORDS! DAMN!

I have actually read the work that the waste of space, boil covered ass, hypocrite Marx wrote. He was a joke from start to finish and himself met none of his own standards. He even had an in house servant which he refused to pay, which he then impregnated, and disowned the child. Essentially she was his house slave, but I am sure this man was serious about bringing power to the people and not just feeding his own fat boil infested ass. He was a tool, and you are a tool for following that hypocrite.

[_Miracle]

You like attributing motive to others a lot. Motives to me, motives to these people you talk about. No one deserves anything. People deserve what they can create for themselves. Just because some one works grinding themselves down forever does not mean they have no choice or are unable to change this. You insist on looking at everyone as victims. This doesn't help people. What helps people is not having a bloated bureaucracy sucking up endless resources while it regulates everyone around it to death while never actually attaining any of the goals it was designed to meet.

You only want to see the victim aspect of this story. The reality is some people belong in those factories, if you asked a few of these people a lot of them would tell you so themselves. A lot of them are grateful just to have a dependable wage, but no, here you come to save them from that for their own good! Aren't you morally superior!

Your vision of society and humankind is simply wrong and I can't do anything against that.

Not wrong as in "moraly wrong", simply wrong as in "stupidly wrong".

You believe in responsability, freedom and meritocravy. Those three things are believes and nothing more. They're the base of the American dream and the tools that hold current society together. All of them are false and have been provren false by all sociologic studies.

I can only advise you to try to read Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste of Pierre Bourdieu which would, rather elegantly, demonstrate how the whole "rational choice" and "freedom" ideas are complete fallacies.

Anyway we've diggen far enough. We now know exactly where is the difference between you and me. Not much more to discuss unless you're ready to open yourself to new ideas or ready to support your core beliefs.

Techshare,
that is the one point we can agree on.
There are psychological and sociological considerations that tie into economic and political constructs.

m0glie,
I'm enjoying your perspective but there is an inspirational/aspirational quote near the end of The Road to Serfdom:
"If in the first attempt to create a world of free men we have failed;
We must try again."

coins4commies,
you keep pointing out Mondragon? This is an example of a business model, we also have co-op's in America and privately held companies that include their workers as stake holders. I am with you: our current system needs improvement, it sounds like you want people to be taken care of...so do I, I want people to thrive.

[af_newbie]

All of them are false and have been provren false by all sociologic studies.

And there we go. All of your evidence comes from the least scientific branch of the most unscientific field of study that people barely qualify as a science. Social sciences can maintain no controls, can not directly observe results, can not account for so many variables... IE it doesn't follow scientific theory. It attempts to at best. You think we have diggen far enough though, so lets stop diggen.

This is utterly stupid.
So sociology is not a science because it doesn't directly observe results in a controled environment with controled variables? That's your argument against sociology and social sciences in general??

You are forgetting about one thing:  we are not all born equal.  We respond differently to external stimuli.  You are painting everyone with the same brush.  That is your mistake.  Any study that does not take into account the fact that societies are heterogeneous systems is erroneous, right from the start.

Some of us are born 'slaves' while others are born 'slave' masters. If you don't like the word slave, substitute it with 'passive', 'submissive', 'weak', 'lazy', 'hopeless', 'apathetic',  'uneager' etc.

Equalizing outcomes is wrong, no matter who does it. It always leads to injustice.

This is simply ridiculous.

Not being born equal is not the same thing as being born in a definitive way like you suggest.

Unless rare genetic disabilities, no one is born "submessive" or "weak" or "lazy".

Born lazy... And you dare calling yourself science supporter?

I guess you never had or worked with kids.  Some are born leaders, some are not.  No matter the circumstances.

[BADecker]

You like attributing motive to others a lot. Motives to me, motives to these people you talk about. No one deserves anything. People deserve what they can create for themselves. Just because some one works grinding themselves down forever does not mean they have no choice or are unable to change this. You insist on looking at everyone as victims. This doesn't help people. What helps people is not having a bloated bureaucracy sucking up endless resources while it regulates everyone around it to death while never actually attaining any of the goals it was designed to meet.

You only want to see the victim aspect of this story. The reality is some people belong in those factories, if you asked a few of these people a lot of them would tell you so themselves. A lot of them are grateful just to have a dependable wage, but no, here you come to save them from that for their own good! Aren't you morally superior!

Your vision of society and humankind is simply wrong and I can't do anything against that.

Not wrong as in "moraly wrong", simply wrong as in "stupidly wrong".

You believe in responsability, freedom and meritocravy. Those three things are believes and nothing more. They're the base of the American dream and the tools that hold current society together. All of them are false and have been provren false by all sociologic studies.

I can only advise you to try to read Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste of Pierre Bourdieu which would, rather elegantly, demonstrate how the whole "rational choice" and "freedom" ideas are complete fallacies.

Anyway we've diggen far enough. We now know exactly where is the difference between you and me. Not much more to discuss unless you're ready to open yourself to new ideas or ready to support your core beliefs.

Techshare,
that is the one point we can agree on.
There are psychological and sociological considerations that tie into economic and political constructs.

m0glie,
I'm enjoying your perspective but there is an inspirational/aspirational quote near the end of The Road to Serfdom:
"If in the first attempt to create a world of free men we have failed;
We must try again."

coins4commies,
you keep pointing out Mondragon? This is an example of a business model, we also have co-op's in America and privately held companies that include their workers as stake holders. I am with you: our current system needs improvement, it sounds like you want people to be taken care of...so do I, I want people to thrive.

Add to what you are saying, that...

The bankers like all the above points, as long as nobody ever wins. That is the way that they win.

[BADecker]

I guess you never had or worked with kids.  Some are born leaders, some are not.  No matter the circumstances.

Most of the time, people who look and act like born leaders are born psychopaths, but some are born sociopaths.

[af_newbie]

You like attributing motive to others a lot. Motives to me, motives to these people you talk about. No one deserves anything. People deserve what they can create for themselves. Just because some one works grinding themselves down forever does not mean they have no choice or are unable to change this. You insist on looking at everyone as victims. This doesn't help people. What helps people is not having a bloated bureaucracy sucking up endless resources while it regulates everyone around it to death while never actually attaining any of the goals it was designed to meet.

You only want to see the victim aspect of this story. The reality is some people belong in those factories, if you asked a few of these people a lot of them would tell you so themselves. A lot of them are grateful just to have a dependable wage, but no, here you come to save them from that for their own good! Aren't you morally superior!

Your vision of society and humankind is simply wrong and I can't do anything against that.

Not wrong as in "moraly wrong", simply wrong as in "stupidly wrong".

You believe in responsability, freedom and meritocravy. Those three things are believes and nothing more. They're the base of the American dream and the tools that hold current society together. All of them are false and have been provren false by all sociologic studies.

I can only advise you to try to read Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste of Pierre Bourdieu which would, rather elegantly, demonstrate how the whole "rational choice" and "freedom" ideas are complete fallacies.

Anyway we've diggen far enough. We now know exactly where is the difference between you and me. Not much more to discuss unless you're ready to open yourself to new ideas or ready to support your core beliefs.

You are forgetting about one thing:  we are not all born equal.  We respond differently to external stimuli.  You are painting everyone with the same brush.  That is your mistake.  Any study that does not take into account the fact that societies are heterogeneous systems is erroneous, right from the start.

Some of us are born 'slaves' while others are born 'slave' masters. If you don't like the word slave, substitute it with 'passive', 'submissive', 'weak', 'lazy', 'hopeless', 'apathetic',  'uneager' etc.

Equalizing outcomes is wrong, no matter who does it. It always leads to injustice.

no one is voluntarily a slave, people are made slaves, by others that teach them crap or scam, reducing them to capitalist money earning cattle etc.

Environment plays a role but qualities like leadership or ambition are innate, IMHO.  You cannot make a stallion into a draft horse.

[af_newbie]

I guess you never had or worked with kids.  Some are born leaders, some are not.  No matter the circumstances.

Most of the time, people who look and act like born leaders are born psychopaths, but some are born sociopaths.

No question about it.  Many psychopaths are leaders, probably a higher percentage than non-psychopaths.

The issue I brought up is that we are all born with different innate qualities and applying the same outcome to everyone is just not right.

Socialism and communism are wrong because they start with the wrong assumption about our human nature.

[KingScorpio]

Environment plays a role but qualities like leadership or ambition are innate, IMHO.  You cannot make a stallion into a draft horse.

you are writing nonsense.

nope thats not true, that would be a racist point of view, a stalion and a draft horse bodies are just vessels, can be any spirit inside. the one of an enslaving capitalists, and the one of a brainwashed money earning salary slave.

[KingScorpio]

I guess you never had or worked with kids.  Some are born leaders, some are not.  No matter the circumstances.

Most of the time, people who look and act like born leaders are born psychopaths, but some are born sociopaths.

No question about it.  Many psychopaths are leaders, probably a higher percentage than non-psychopaths.

The issue I brought up is that we are all born with different innate qualities and applying the same outcome to everyone is just not right.

Socialism and communism are wrong because they start with the wrong assumption about our human nature.

so if a sith lord with magical power shows up that is powerful with the "force" you would voluntarilly submit for the rest of your existence to be his salary slave?
isis tried to create such a sith lord actually

[mOgliE]

Environment plays a role but qualities like leadership or ambition are innate, IMHO.  You cannot make a stallion into a draft horse.

Well your humble opinion is deep deeeeeeeeeeeep shit according to every biologist and every sociologist!

There is no such thing as a gene of leadership for god's sake!

[dippididodaday]

Some of us are born 'slaves' while others are born 'slave' masters. If you don't like the word slave, substitute it with 'passive', 'submissive', 'weak', 'lazy', 'hopeless', 'apathetic',  'uneager' etc.
Equalizing outcomes is wrong, no matter who does it. It always leads to injustice.

Actually, we are all born bloody and naked, with a high pitched little voice.

Also, some try to equalize outcomes, those being placed in powerful positions, for instance, who have more means to try and do so. I agree it should rather not be done, but in stead, trying to contribute towards equalizing opportunities amongst all, and this is by no stretch of the imagination an easy task, if you asked me; but we have to try and keep on trying, those that are able, and those willing. Watching a fair game, being played on a level playing field is satisfying, no matter which side wins, but what is even more satisfying, is being a player yourself, knowing your efforts are worthwhile on a level field, whether you win or lose the game.

[Artemis3]

Thank you. Explaining basic things he should have learned in high school is getting tiresome.

I seriously think high school should teach more economy, the only reason some people fall for socialism, is that nobody ever told them about how prices and wages in a free market find its best point at any given time and place than any bureaucrat could ever do and what the results of attempting to do so have been in 40 centuries of human history:


Forty Centuries of Wage and Price Controls: How Not to Fight Inflation

Things like "the law of supply and demand", lack of understanding it, or naively thinking "that law is unfair" (Oh, like Newton's "law of gravity")... Learn it and use it to your advantage, instead of pretending you can dismiss it, as socialists preach.

Speaking of which:

🤝 Supply and demand | How does The Law of Supply and Demand work?

Also this:

👨‍💼 Where do jobs come from? | Employment vs self-employment

[BADecker]

I guess you never had or worked with kids.  Some are born leaders, some are not.  No matter the circumstances.

Most of the time, people who look and act like born leaders are born psychopaths, but some are born sociopaths.

No question about it.  Many psychopaths are leaders, probably a higher percentage than non-psychopaths.

The issue I brought up is that we are all born with different innate qualities and applying the same outcome to everyone is just not right.

Socialism and communism are wrong because they start with the wrong assumption about our human nature.

so if a sith lord with magical power shows up that is powerful with the "force" you would voluntarilly submit for the rest of your existence to be his salary slave?
isis tried to create such a sith lord actually

If ISIS had done it, the sith lord would use the force to make you think that you had volunteered.