Raven Posted June 5, 2002 Report Posted June 5, 2002 Welcome Back quote: RE: Menchisean Socialism No such thing. I have not invented a socialism nor do I have any intention of inventing one. I do not have a base to argue from because I have not currently adopted a particular socialism yet, although I find ParEcon the most appealing so far. I was not so much saying that you had invented a form of socialism as I was referring to your personal take on socialism. Clearly you have an idea of what socialism looks like, but as you have claimed no other system I simply referred to it as Menchisean for simplicity, and as a bit of a joke. quote: There have been a few statements in this thread about intellectuals that are, quite plainly, irrational. Some posts label socialism as a wonderland created by intellectuals, thus it has no foundation in the real world. What these posters ignore is that capitalism was also invented by intellectuals, namely John Locke and Adam Smith among many others. Therefore, these statements are just plain irrational and not worthy of further discussion, thus I will not reply to them if they're regurgitated in the future. True, the fact that socialism was thought up by intellectuals does not necessitate it being a ÔÇ£wonderland.ÔÇØ This is a status that it achieves on its own. quote: Many anti-socialist posters continue to claim that history is on their side because of their interpretation of history, and I have been accused of ignoring history simply because my interpretation is not the same as theirs. What really annoys me is the claim that history proves socialism in every form does not work when historical fact indicates that only two forms have been implemented (Reformist and Marxist-Leninist), and in most cases were implemented in an unsuitable environment. Therefore, history does not prove socialism wrong. So you claim that we ignore history because your interpretation is different then ours? Wonderful logic. As far as the validity of socialism from a historical point of view, I'm not saying that it was an unmitigated disaster or that it fails in every example, simply that the vast majority have failed for whatever reason and that those still around havenÔÇÖt been around long enough to prove anything. quote: All working people have the common interest of supporting themselves through their labour, thus there is a solidarity between workers that capitalism invariably divides and atomizes through its competitive mode of production. The collaborative nature of socialist production supports this solidarity, thus it is within the individual interests of working people to work together, and working together is within the collective interests of socialism. Actually, most working people are interested in advancing themselves, many do so at the expense of others. It is not sufficient that aiding the society aids the individual, but rather that aiding the society is the singly most advantageous thing that an individual may do for themselves. This simply isnÔÇÖt the case as aiding the society at large sufficiently to be noticed by individuals takes a lot of work, but advancing ones own interests (though often still difficult) takes both less work and aids the individual more. Perhaps it would be better for everyone (that is, everyone poor, rich people donÔÇÖt count) if everyone worked to better the society and themselves at the same time, but most people will prefer to work directly to aid themselves. quote: What, then, is the cost of production of labor-power? It is the cost required for the maintenance of the laborer as a laborer, and for his education and training as a laborer. You will note that as most laborers are paid more then bare subsistence they are selling there labor-power for more then its production cost. It would be wrong to denounce capitalists for similarly selling products for more then they require to make. quote: The 12 hours' work, on the other hand, has no meaning for him as weaving, spinning, boring, and so on, but only as earnings, which enable him to sit down at a table, to take his seat in the tavern, and to lie down in a bed. This is, of course, first of all assuming that the individual has no interest vested in there job, I donÔÇÖt know what the norm was 150 years ago, but a lot of people these days actually (gasp) enjoy there work, or at least donÔÇÖt dislike it. Perhaps menial jobs such as those Marx mentions are simply unenjoyable, but for the majority of people their work is at least bearable. What about the rest of those people? Nothing, itÔÇÖs irrelevant whether someone likes there job or not in the long rung (I simply pointed it out as another out of date idea). The fact of the mater is that even if people were producing their own goods (and hermits and subsistence farmers are the only examples I can think of off the top of my head that come close) they would still have to invest a large portion of there lives into staying alive, in fact (judging from my knowledge of such activities) it would take a lot more time then most modern workers spend working. Furthermore, workers in socialism still work, and (for the most part) the same jobs still have to be done, but the only difference is that they (as I understand things) get paid more (there are no social elites getting more then ÔÇ£their fair shareÔÇØ of money) and there they work for the government rather then private enterprises. People would still give up part of their lives, only in socialism they donÔÇÖt even have the choice of who to give it up too. quote: One example of how this manifests in human behaviour is the perception of work as alien from one's life (e.g. "I work all day, I have no life"). That is an erroneous use of the idiom ÔÇ£I have no lifeÔÇØ as it is an abbreviated version of ÔÇ£I have no social life.ÔÇØ If I were to describe someone who plays EverQuest in every moment of their spare time as having no life would you think that there life activity was being deprived of them. I should hope not.
Menchise Posted June 5, 2002 Report Posted June 5, 2002 quote:I was not so much saying that you had invented a form of socialism as I was referring to your personal take on socialism. Clearly you have an idea of what socialism looks like, but as you have claimed no other system I simply referred to it as Menchisean for simplicity, and as a bit of a joke.Fine. By the way, I found an interesting definition of socialism in general by August Bebel. It's not the broadest of definitions, and some types of socialism may disagree with some elements, but it's the most descriptive 'nutshell' I've read on the system. Here it is: The organisation of society in such a manner that any individual, man or woman, finds at birth equal means for the development of their respective faculties and the utilisation of their labour. The organisation of society in such a manner that the exploitation by one person of the labour of his neighbour would be impossible, and where everyone will be allowed to enjoy the social wealth only to the extent of their contribution to the production of that wealth. quote:True, the fact that socialism was thought up by intellectuals does not necessitate it being a ÔÇ£wonderland.ÔÇØ This is a status that it achieves on its own. quote:So you claim that we ignore history because your interpretation is different then ours?No. I claim that your interpretation of history is not the only one, and I am challenging it right now. quote:As far as the validity of socialism from a historical point of view, I'm not saying that it was an unmitigated disaster or that it fails in every example, simply that the vast majority have failed for whatever reason and that those still around havenÔÇÖt been around long enough to prove anything.The reasons for their failures make or break the issue, as well as the vast majority of socialist frameworks that remain untested in practice. quote:Actually, most working people are interested in advancing themselves, many do so at the expense of others.The advancement point is a good one and prompts a revision. Therefore, all working people have the common interest of supporting and/or advancing themselves through their labour, hence the solidarity. Many currently do so at the expense of others because the competitive mode of production does not enable them to do any different, hence my point about capitalism's division and atomization of workers' interests. quote:It is not sufficient that aiding the society aids the individual, but rather that aiding the society is the singly most advantageous thing that an individual may do for themselves. This simply isnÔÇÖt the case as aiding the society at large sufficiently to be noticed by individuals takes a lot of work, but advancing ones own interests (though often still difficult) takes both less work and aids the individual more.Capitalism is notorious for producing huge amounts of waste due to overproduction in a competitive mode, thus it is notorious for requiring more labour for less earnings by working individuals to produce vast quantities of items that will never be used. That takes more work and aids the individual less. quote:You will note that as most laborers are paid more then bare subsistence they are selling there labor-power for more then its production cost.Read the whole sentence: Marx wrote that "It is the cost required for the maintenance of the laborer as a laborer, and for his education and training as a laborer." Therefore, bare subsistence is not the only cost of producing labour-power. quote:It would be wrong to denounce capitalists for similarly selling products for more then they require to make.What they charge the consumer does not relate to whether they exploit workers or not. quote:This is, of course, first of all assuming that the individual has no interest vested in there job, I donÔÇÖt know what the norm was 150 years ago, but a lot of people these days actually (gasp) enjoy there work, or at least donÔÇÖt dislike it. Perhaps menial jobs such as those Marx mentions are simply unenjoyable, but for the majority of people their work is at least bearable.It does not assume any such thing. Job preference is irrelevant because the value of doing that job is still taken away from the worker. quote:What about the rest of those people? Nothing, itÔÇÖs irrelevant whether someone likes there job or not in the long rung (I simply pointed it out as another out of date idea). The fact of the mater is that even if people were producing their own goods (and hermits and subsistence farmers are the only examples I can think of off the top of my head that come close) they would still have to invest a large portion of there lives into staying alive, in fact (judging from my knowledge of such activities) it would take a lot more time then most modern workers spend working.There is nothing wrong with making a product that other people will consume. What matters is what one receives in return. quote:Furthermore, workers in socialism still work, and (for the most part) the same jobs still have to be done, but the only difference is that they (as I understand things) get paid more (there are no social elites getting more then ÔÇ£their fair shareÔÇØ of money) and there they work for the government rather then private enterprises.Whether they work according to what a separate government entity assigns them or not depends on the type of socialism, but in either case the workers would not be working for anyone apart from themselves since they are the ones who receive the value of their labour (if they didn't then it wouldn't be socialist). quote:People would still give up part of their lives, only in socialism they donÔÇÖt even have the choice of who to give it up too.People would not still give up part of their lives because the value of their life-activity is not taken away from them. quote:That is an erroneous use of the idiom ÔÇ£I have no lifeÔÇØ as it is an abbreviated version of ÔÇ£I have no social life.ÔÇØ If I were to describe someone who plays EverQuest in every moment of their spare time as having no life would you think that there life activity was being deprived of them. I should hope not.The EverQuest example is irrelevant because it is not production. Whether my use of the term is erroneous or not depends on one's interpretation of what is social.
CommanderJohnson Posted June 5, 2002 Report Posted June 5, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Menchise: The organisation of society in such a manner that any individual, man or woman, finds at birth equal means for the development of their respective faculties and the utilisation of their labour. The organisation of society in such a manner that the exploitation by one person of the labour of his neighbour would be impossible, and where everyone will be allowed to enjoy the social wealth only to the extent of their contribution to the production of that wealth. Ok, lets look at the last few bits of that since it's probably the most important thing. "Everyone would be allowed to enjoy the social wealth only to the extend of their contribution to the production of that wealth". What is the "social wealth"? How would you contribute to that wealth? By making good and doing labor? So lets say that weaver referred to earlier makes some cloth. Does cloth need to be in demand for that person to have food? How much production of cloth is enough for that person to enjoy the use of a car? Most important, WHO determines what the EXTENT of their contribution to that wealth is? A ruling class of some sort to judge that extent. How are they CONTRIBUTING to the social wealth? What is their "contribution" equal to? They aren't working, so at that point you have a higher "class" since they have power over determining who has contributed to the social wealth to what extent. At that point, socialism ceases to exist since the ruling class can exploit the labor of everyone else because of their power, and the people closely related to the people in power have a greater chance to succeed in the society. Ok, no one has told me yet, and I really want you to tell me now. How EXACTLY is a socialist society going to work? You keep talking in abstract terms, but that ISNT the real world. Menchise, if you really beleive in a socialist system, please explain exactly how one would be formed in the current world, and exactly what effects it would have. Please explain: 1. If a country becomes socialist, it's interactions with other nations militarily and economically. 2. How it's government would transition and then subsequently work. 3. What the people in the CURRENT system would be doing in a socialist system. Please explain what they would do in their every day lives, their MOTIVES for doing those things, how their achievement would be measured, and how they would gain material things in regards to: a. Government Officials b. CEOs and high executives of companies c. Middle management d. Independent business owners e. Employees of independent business owners. f. People surviving solely off welfare g. Homeless people h. Radical groups (the *radical* state militias, neo-nazis, KKK members, racists, etc) If you can respond to the three above questions and all sub-questions in a logical and realistic manner, i'm quite sure that everyone who is arguing against socialism would STRONGLY support it. Short of that, socialism is utopian and would NEVER work and NEVER be helpful.
Raven Posted June 5, 2002 Report Posted June 5, 2002 quote: The reasons for their failures make or break the issue, as well as the vast majority of socialist frameworks that remain untested in practice. I would like to point out that, while there may be many reasons that socialism failed, it is pretty much well understood that socialist production methods, while good for industry, do poorly with high tech applications. As for the socialist frameworks that remain untested, there are a lot of ideas that go untested, nothing special about socialism. The advancement point is a good one and prompts a revision. Therefore, all working people have the common interest of supporting and/or advancing themselves through their labour, hence the solidarity. So long as no one thinks to advance themselves at the expense of others (or at least at no gain to others) then there is a true common interest, but as soon as people figure out that they will do better if they look out only for themselves (or primarily for themselves) they will cease to have a true common interest and instead be disparate individuals with similar but mutually exclusive goals. quote: Many currently do so at the expense of others because the competitive mode of production does not enable them to do any different, hence my point about capitalism's division and atomization of workers' interests. People succeed at the expense of others because for someone to have more then everyone else they must either produce more (something that is fairly hard to do) or succeed off of others labor. The second is far, far easier, and results in greater success anyway. quote: Capitalism is notorious for producing huge amounts of waste due to overproduction in a competitive mode, thus it is notorious for requiring more labour for less earnings by working individuals to produce vast quantities of items that will never be used. That takes more work and aids the individual less. Perhaps, though whether bureaucratic waist wouldnÔÇÖt equal competitive waist is something neither of us knows. That said, however, it is still better for the individual if they help themselves rather then try to help everyone, though perhaps it would be best if everyone looked after everyone it simply isnÔÇÖt going to happen. quote: Read the whole sentence: Marx wrote that "It is the cost required for the maintenance of the laborer as a laborer, and for his education and training as a laborer." Therefore, bare subsistence is not the only cost of producing labour-power. Picky picky Ok, so we include cost of ÔÇ£education and training as a laborer,ÔÇØ but people are still paid more then this. If a worker can afford, say, a radio (not a costly item in todayÔÇÖs market) they can be considered to be getting more for there labor then it costs to produce it. My point stands. quote: What they charge the consumer does not relate to whether they exploit workers or not. A large part of MarxÔÇÖs point was that capitalists sell the product of laborers for more then said product requires to produce, thus making money. Workers sell there labor similarly, charging more then it costs to produce. quote: It does not assume any such thing. Job preference is irrelevant because the value of doing that job is still taken away from the worker. This makes no sense, your saying that if someone enjoys what they do for a living that they still get nothing out of it save wages? I donÔÇÖt buy this. quote: There is nothing wrong with making a product that other people will consume. What matters is what one receives in return. What they receive is a means for survival, what do you think they should receive? quote: Whether they work according to what a separate government entity assigns them or not depends on the type of socialism, but in either case the workers would not be working for anyone apart from themselves since they are the ones who receive the value of their labour (if they didn't then it wouldn't be socialist). Well, for one, I hardly think that working for the government (or whoever assigns tasks) would be considered working for ones self, but forgetting that for a moment I have to wonder how ÔÇ£working for yourselfÔÇØ in this manner is any different from working for someone else. quote: The EverQuest example is irrelevant because it is not production. Production is not a requirement for one to be deprived of there life, prison does the same thing, but this is a little beside the point. quote: Ok, no one has told me yet, and I really want you to tell me now. How EXACTLY is a socialist society going to work? IÔÇÖll let you in on a little secret here Dredd, it isnÔÇÖt.
Menchise Posted June 6, 2002 Report Posted June 6, 2002 quote:What is the "social wealth"? How would you contribute to that wealth? By making good and doing labor? So lets say that weaver referred to earlier makes some cloth. Does cloth need to be in demand for that person to have food?Cloth produced in demand is one example of an item of social wealth. In other words, yes. quote:How much production of cloth is enough for that person to enjoy the use of a car?The process for determining this 'ratio' - if there is one - depends on the type of socialism, but in general, and strictly within the context of this hypothetical scenario, when the worker satisfies the demand for cloth to the extent that is required of him or her, then his or her demand for a car is satisfied. In return, when the other worker satisfies the demand for cars to the extent that is required of him or her, then his or her demand for cloth is satisfied. quote:Most important, WHO determines what the EXTENT of their contribution to that wealth is?That is probably the most varied factor of the different socialisms, thus I cannot answer that question on general terms. Some suggest a centralist state, others suggest an anarchistic democracy, and just about everything in between. quote:A ruling class of some sort to judge that extent.Like I said, it's the most varied factor, and one of the mostly hotly debated in socialist circles. For example, one of ParEcon's criticisms of Marxism-Leninism is its tendency to merely replace the ruling class with a coordinator class. quote:Ok, no one has told me yet, and I really want you to tell me now. How EXACTLY is a socialist society going to work? You keep talking in abstract terms, but that ISNT the real world. I'm speaking in general terms because socialism is very broad. It's just like me asking you how a capitalist system would work: other pro-capitalists would disagree with your explanation unless you described it in general terms, because there are many types of capitalism: the American way is very different from the Japanese way, or the Swedish way, etc. If you want me to respond to all of those questions, you need to be more specific about what socialism you want me to describe, because there are some types of socialism that I also disagree with, just as there are some types of capitalism that you disagree with.
CommanderJohnson Posted June 6, 2002 Report Posted June 6, 2002 quote:The process for determining this 'ratio' - if there is one - depends on the type of socialism, but in general, and strictly within the context of this hypothetical scenario, when the worker satisfies the demand for cloth to the extent that is required of him or her, then his or her demand for a car is satisfied. In return, when the other worker satisfies the demand for cars to the extent that is required of him or her, then his or her demand for cloth is satisfied.So someone who fills his/her demand of dsitributing or organizing that cloth gets the same thing that someone who mines iron ore all day? quote:That is probably the most varied factor of the different socialisms, thus I cannot answer that question on general terms. Some suggest a centralist state, others suggest an anarchistic democracy, and just about everything in between.Well whatever group is in the "management" or leadership role will just change the system to suit themselves. In EVERY government, democracy, socialist, communist, the people in charge change the rules to suit their interests. In socialistic and other left-wing governments, it is assumed that people are inherently GOOD and will not do that. At the point you have a ruling class, your defeating the point of socialism since those people in the ruling class (and going with your previous definition of socialism) can EASILY exploit the labor through their management. quote: quote:A ruling class of some sort to judge that extent. Like I said, it's the most varied factor, and one of the mostly hotly debated in socialist circles. For example, one of ParEcon's criticisms of Marxism-Leninism is its tendency to merely replace the ruling class with a coordinator class.Well, what type of socialism do you personally/specifically advocate? We can't have a constructive argument about ALL types of socialism, since flaws of one will be saved by flaws of another. For all intents and purposes, lets use your advocacy of socialism, and all the pro-capitalists views of capitalism (I think we're advocating American capitalism or lasse-faire). The problem with a ruling class it seems, in whatever type of socialism you advocate, is that they can easily change the system to help themselves or their friends, and it'd be just as easy to warp that power into an oppressive organization to feed totally off the people (like in the USSR) quote: quote:Ok, no one has told me yet, and I really want you to tell me now. How EXACTLY is a socialist society going to work? You keep talking in abstract terms, but that ISNT the real world. I'm speaking in general terms because socialism is very broad. It's just like me asking you how a capitalist system would work: other pro-capitalists would disagree with your explanation unless you described it in general terms, because there are many types of capitalism: the American way is very different from the Japanese way, or the Swedish way, etc.If you want me to respond to all of those questions, you need to be more specific about what socialism you want me to describe, because there are some types of socialism that I also disagree with, just as there are some types of capitalism that you disagree with.
Raven Posted June 6, 2002 Report Posted June 6, 2002 quote: The process for determining this 'ratio' - if there is one - depends on the type of socialism, but in general, and strictly within the context of this hypothetical scenario, when the worker satisfies the demand for cloth to the extent that is required of him or her, then his or her demand for a car is satisfied. In return, when the other worker satisfies the demand for cars to the extent that is required of him or her, then his or her demand for cloth is satisfied. Your scenario will fall apart if ever actually applied because everyone would demand a car, and an apartment (or house, depending on where they live), and food, and nice clothing, and fancy electronics (boom box, large TV, etc.), and a good computer, and a zillion other things. The demand would far outstrip the supply on a grand scale and no one could ever complete the demand for a product to the extent that it is required of him. Never. It would be a disaster.
Menchise Posted June 8, 2002 Report Posted June 8, 2002 quote:I would like to point out that, while there may be many reasons that socialism failed, it is pretty much well understood that socialist production methods, while good for industry, do poorly with high tech applications.Can you be more specific? quote:So long as no one thinks to advance themselves at the expense of others (or at least at no gain to others) then there is a true common interest, but as soon as people figure out that they will do better if they look out only for themselves (or primarily for themselves) they will cease to have a true common interest and instead be disparate individuals with similar but mutually exclusive goals.That statement contradicts itself. The common interest is in the pursuit of individual goals through labour. The goals don't need to be the same. Therefore, in looking out for themselves, the working people will not be disparate, because collaborative production allows for a constructive method of pursuing individual goals. quote:People succeed at the expense of others because for someone to have more then everyone else they must either produce more (something that is fairly hard to do) or succeed off of others labor. The second is far, far easier, and results in greater success anyway.The second is far, far more difficult in socialism because the workers have the power. Therefore, they would not be willing to give up that power so that they can work longer and harder for someone other than themselves and receive less for it. quote:Perhaps, though whether bureaucratic waist wouldnÔÇÖt equal competitive waist is something neither of us knows.A market economy produces more waste than a planned economy. quote:Ok, so we include cost of ÔÇ£education and training as a laborer,ÔÇØ but people are still paid more then this. If a worker can afford, say, a radio (not a costly item in todayÔÇÖs market) they can be considered to be getting more for there labor then it costs to produce it. My point stands.Since when does a radio become the fine line between subsistence and excess? Your point makes no sense. quote:A large part of MarxÔÇÖs point was that capitalists sell the product of laborers for more then said product requires to produce, thus making money.Actually, the large part of Marx's point is that the surplus value of the product, which was generated by labour, is going to the capitalist instead of the labourer. quote:This makes no sense, your saying that if someone enjoys what they do for a living that they still get nothing out of it save wages? I donÔÇÖt buy this.I did not say that. I said that even if the job was preferred, the value that is generated by the workers' labour is still taken away from them. quote:What they receive is a means for survival, what do you think they should receive?The value of their labour. quote:Well, for one, I hardly think that working for the government (or whoever assigns tasks) would be considered working for ones self, but forgetting that for a moment I have to wonder how ÔÇ£working for yourselfÔÇØ in this manner is any different from working for someone else.I was referring to 'working for oneself' in the sense of workers getting out what they put in, not in the sense of job rankings. It's a redundant point anyway.
CommanderJohnson Posted June 8, 2002 Report Posted June 8, 2002 C'mon Menchise, answer my questions in regard to specifically how socialism would work in the above scenarios.
Menchise Posted June 9, 2002 Report Posted June 9, 2002 My 1000th post! W00t! quote:So someone who fills his/her demand of dsitributing or organizing that cloth gets the same thing that someone who mines iron ore all day?Probably not, because mining iron ore is more difficult and hazardous, thus more labour is expended and the value is greater. In that scenario, the miner would receive more. quote:Well whatever group is in the "management" or leadership role will just change the system to suit themselves. In EVERY government, democracy, socialist, communist, the people in charge change the rules to suit their interests. In socialistic and other left-wing governments, it is assumed that people are inherently GOOD and will not do that. At the point you have a ruling class, your defeating the point of socialism since those people in the ruling class (and going with your previous definition of socialism) can EASILY exploit the labor through their management.I agree, which is why I don't support socialisms that aim for centralist political management. A more appropriate socialist government is one where all workers can participate in decision-making. quote:Your scenario will fall apart if ever actually applied because everyone would demand a car, and an apartment (or house, depending on where they live), and food, and nice clothing, and fancy electronics (boom box, large TV, etc.), and a good computer, and a zillion other things. The demand would far outstrip the supply on a grand scale and no one could ever complete the demand for a product to the extent that it is required of him. Never. It would be a disaster.That's why the economy is planned: obviously, if everyone demanded a golden palace and everyone tried to supply each other with one it would be a disaster, because the demand is unreasonable. A well-planned economy is one that balances demand and supply instead of making demand a runaway train that supply must constantly chase. This balance is inherent in socialism because the workers would only apply themselves to satisfying their own aggregate demand to the aggregate extent of how long and/or how hard they're willing to work towards supply. If some workers want more than everyone else, and those workers are willing to put in the hard yards to get it, then they'll get it. If they're unwilling, they don't. Simple and effective. quote:Use American capitalism and whatever view of socialism you personally believe in/advocate when responding the questions, because I really don't see how a socialist society would work, and putting it in concrete terms would be much easier.Next post.
Raven Posted June 9, 2002 Report Posted June 9, 2002 IÔÇÖll respond to all of this tomorrow, itÔÇÖs to late tonight. Oh, and DreddÔÇÖs right, letÔÇÖs hear it.
CommanderJohnson Posted June 9, 2002 Report Posted June 9, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Menchise: This balance is inherent in socialism because the workers would only apply themselves to satisfying their own aggregate demand to the aggregate extent of how long and/or how hard they're willing to work towards supply. If some workers want more than everyone else, and those workers are willing to put in the hard yards to get it, then they'll get it. If they're unwilling, they don't. Simple and effective. Isn't that the way capitalism works? The more you work, the money money you get, the more stuff you can get? I'm not totally up on theories and theorists, but aren't you just advocating a capitalist system where the labor gets paid more than management instead of management getting paid more than labor?
Menchise Posted June 10, 2002 Report Posted June 10, 2002 quote:Isn't that the way capitalism works? The more you work, the money money you get, the more stuff you can get?While people who work more than others can get more in capitalism, most of the value that they produce, no matter how much they work, goes to the capitalist. Therefore, it is those who exploit the most that get the most, rather than those who work the most. quote:I'm not totally up on theories and theorists, but aren't you just advocating a capitalist system where the labor gets paid more than management instead of management getting paid more than labor?No, because there would be no external management: labour would manage itself. Now to those questions... quote:1. If a country becomes socialist, it's interactions with other nations militarily and economically.I think a socialist revolution would only be successful if it was an international one, or at the very least, a series of national revolutions, because no single country, whether it's socialist or capitalist or feudalist or whatever, can prosper or even survive these days without international trade or some equivalent. If a country becomes socialist, and that one revolution does not lead to others, then the other nations can just isolate the country with trade blocks, thus starving it into submission or into taking aggressive measures for self-sufficiency. I think the second and third questions would be answered better than I could answer them by the link below. It's very long, but it's worth reading. Michael Albert's WSF Testimony
Steve Schacher Posted June 12, 2002 Report Posted June 12, 2002 I'm not sure exactly how this article fits into the discussion, but let me drop it here: Poor Nations Demand Market Access Excerpt: quote:Led by Cuba, developing countries on Tuesday demanded greater access to international markets and an end to export subsidies, saying fairer free trade was the only way to end world hunger. On the second day of the U.N. World Food Summit, leaders of the world's poorest countries called on the United States, European Union and other exporting nations to give poor farmers a competing chance to sell their wares. "We are poor. You are rich. Level the playing field!" Teofisto Guingona, foreign minister of the Philippines, said. "Do not in the name of free trade deny us time to integrate our resources, and having integrated them deny us access to your rich markets."At what point do economies of scale overrule moralistic principles? The farmers are "demanding" that existing producers somehow curtail or change their method of doing business. The existing farmers have been in the business for a long, long time, and probably had a hand in developing the marketplace and how it functions. What are they to say to a new farmer who just comes along and demands to be included without having paid the dues like everyone else? -- (the dues being what it took to create the marketplace, not the hardships of life) Who can tell the farmer that being a farmer in an already saturated global market makes no sense? Even if farming is all that the particular farmer has to depend on, it doesn't justify changing the marketplace just to satisfy the demands of someone who chooses to be a farmer. Perhaps the farmer should choose another field of endeavor (like tourism, for instance). If a Cuban farmer feels that he can help the plight of other Cubans by farming, that is great and more power to him. But why should a Cuban farmer try to sell his produce on the global market when he surely has a market at home that would eagerly consume his produce?
IceCold Posted June 12, 2002 Report Posted June 12, 2002 [capitalism-socialism part 1: introduction] Capitalism as a pure system would destroy the vast majority of the citizens underneath it. There would be a small quantity of extremely rich corprate managers and the rest would be dirt poor. There would be no benefits, no minimum wage, and inadequate services for the impoverished population. This situation is described very well in The Jungle which curtails the factory conditions and the life of an industrial worker in the late 19th century. Socialism cannot exist as a pure system because it is a utopian form of government (one where all people exist in harmony and prosperity). Humans will always seek to better themselves to a greater degree than their peers for domination of others appears to be a strong instinctual drive for humanity as a whole. A pure socialist system has never existed and will never exist for there will always be a person or group leading the nation and all citizens must be equal for such a system to exist. The form of Government adopted by western culture is a blend of the two extremes. There are examples of predominant socialism in countires such as France and Canada. Health care is offered free of charge and vacation time is extended however taxes are much higher and the quality of living decreases as a result. The system adopted by the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany uses ideals of socialism to temper the caustic capitalist system. This blend of Government allows for prosperity through commerce and the distribution of wealth through socialist programs. Ice Cold [ 06-12-2002, 00:28: Message edited by: IceCold ]
IceCold Posted June 12, 2002 Report Posted June 12, 2002 [Capitalism-Socialism part 2: centers of power and developing nations] In relation to the aforementioned topic involving the poor countries of the world. History has recorded a constant battle between two factions of the globe, the havs and the have-nots. The members of these factions have shifted drasticaly in the course of history for europe was an economic center in Roman times, a regressed land in the dark and middle ages, and has again become a economic center from the romance era to the post-modern era. Countries develop at different rates to different ends. The western economy and way of life is not the natural progression of the world as a whole for there are some nations whose culture values subsistance living as compared to development. The invastion of the western world into cultures of different social tracks is devastating for the culture of said country and promotes a feeling of inferiority among its members. The culture then begins to lash out at the force which caused a change in thier established way of life (Bin Laden). Over time the nation's culture will begin to accept the western culture and through cultural diffuion while at the same time the western culture is ammended by the same process. This process is known as globalism. Extremeist such as the aforementioned terrorist are swept away through public will through this process. The answer for the developing nations is time. The United States was once a backwards nation and required ~150 years to assert itself in the global community. One must rember that most of the developing nations are former colonies and have only had their independence for a maximum of 70 years. Ice cold
Epsilon 5 Posted June 12, 2002 Report Posted June 12, 2002 Good stuff in the article Steve linked to quote: The European Union pushed for the summit to consider food a human rightGood idea! quote:In an interview with Associated Press Television, however, he said recent allegations by U.S. officials that Cuba was trying to develop biological weapons were an excuse to justify a hardening of the U.S. embargo on the island.Agree. That embargo is ridiculous, I'm not even sure why it's still there.
Guest Posted June 12, 2002 Report Posted June 12, 2002 Let me have go at this now, First of all, the reason that Capitalism got "curtailed" in the late 19th century was because of Unions, it had NOTHING to do with government. As a matter of fact, government tried to stop unions. Unions is what brought about the changes that we see today. Good wages, benefits, time off, hour limits, overtime pay, etc. etc. Government came in on the back end of this and created laws that made ALL business have to conform to the new standards. Government DID NOT have to get involved, they wanted the credit for the work that already had been done. The unions are what caused capitalism to come under control. Now, if you have a job opening and you are willing to pay $5 an hour, you will NOT find anyone willing to work for you. But, your competition down the street is willing to pay 8 an hour plus benefits, he'll having them banging down his door. This is the free market at work. The government does NOTHING but DESTROY a free market by putting laws and restrictions on it that either slow it down or destroy the business that actually produce jobs and benefits. If the government took away 90% of it's regulations and let the free market do it's thing, you would see a HUGE increase in production, a HUGE increase in Jobs, and a HUGE increase in taxable income. The Unions were a necessity back in those times, but nowadays the Unions are a dinosaur, there are so many employee owned business's now that it is unreal. 90 days at home depot and you begin to collect stock options etc. Nothing will motivate a worker more then to have a direct effect on their own bottom line. The harder you work the more money the company makes, and the more money the company makes, the more money YOU make. Capitalism, it's a wonderful thing!!!
Epsilon 5 Posted June 12, 2002 Report Posted June 12, 2002 quote:The government does NOTHING but DESTROY a free market by putting laws and restrictions on it that either slow it down or destroy the business that actually produce jobs and benefits. If the government took away 90% of it's regulations and let the free market do it's thing, you would see a HUGE increase in production, a HUGE increase in Jobs, and a HUGE increase in taxable income. Yeah. Remove the minumum wage, so companies cut salaries to increase the amount of jobs. Afterall, there are PLENTY of people who need jobs out there, so if you don't like it, go to .... How wonderful.
Guest Posted June 12, 2002 Report Posted June 12, 2002 Minimum wage increases actually decrease the job base, because you have to CUT jobs in order to pay that minmum wage. The market should create the minimum wage, not some socialistic government bureaucrat who has no clue how a business works. Government has no place in creating minimum wage requirements. It HURTS far more then it helps.
Lotharr Posted June 12, 2002 Author Report Posted June 12, 2002 The bottom line for a whole lot of people is the alleged free market is a nice way of sayin your gettin screwed... And the fears of globalization are big time. Take America and put it on a global scale. A thriving and spoiled tiny overclass and a large underclass with poor social support. I think this is the fear. However, it sounds like not all are interesting in having a McWorld so I guess we'll see what happens....
Epsilon 5 Posted June 12, 2002 Report Posted June 12, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: Minimum wage increases actually decrease the job base, because you have to CUT jobs in order to pay that minmum wage. The market should create the minimum wage, not some socialistic government bureaucrat who has no clue how a business works. Government has no place in creating minimum wage requirements. It HURTS far more then it helps.And you'd rather see EVERYONE underpaid? The government is just forcing companies to do the basics syndicates struggled to get. Working safety. Job security (keeping that job). Decent life. Tell me, Jaguar, how old were you when you got your first job?
Guest Posted June 12, 2002 Report Posted June 12, 2002 I was 13 when I got my first job, I was an assistant manager at a Baskin Robbins Ice Cream parlor. I made over $1.85 an hour, yeah, it's been a while, but the fact of the matter is, if they ahd MADE them give me 3.80 an hour instead, the girl I worked with, WOULD NOT HAVE HAD A JOB!!! Minimum wage jobs are about 5% of the total jobs in the market, and when you raise those minimum wages, you kill about 1/3 of those jobs in order to pay for the new pay for the other 2/3. So, if you are new to the work force, you get a job at say McDonalds, or Baskin Robbins, for 3.85 an hour, and actually the minimum wage in Seattle right now is 6.90 an hour, McDonalds is hiring right now for 8 an hour plus benefits immediately. When the market sets the rates, there is a good chance that it's gonna be higher. At the same time, and excellent example came out of Eastern Washington. The largest asparagus processing plant in the world is over there. The growers used to be able to pay the workers by the amount of asparagus they picked, and some of the REALLY good pickers were making upwards of $12 an hour. Now they have to pay them ALL a minimum of 6.90 an hour, well, the good ones have now slacked off and the bad ones are even worse. Their production is now 75% of what it was, their profits are down, and so now they are talking about shutting down the plant because they cannot afford to do business in Washington because of its high minimum wage. Washington state in it's STUPIDITY had now forced a plant that employs over 1500 people year round and over 60,000 seasonly, to shut down. IT'S gonna be gone, all because the government decided what the true "living wage" should be. A minimum wage increase destroys, nothing more, it helps NO ONE in the long run.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now