Steve Schacher Posted June 28, 2002 Report Posted June 28, 2002 quote:The issue is not about how wide the range of options is; it's about who determines what the options are in the first place. My point is that workers have no substantial say in that regard.My point is that the options are unlimited until the worker makes the first choice for himself -- which vocation to pursue. Once THE WORKER makes that choice, he automatically reduces the number of options available to him to those that fall within his chosen vocation. If the worker does not have the option of vocation in the first place, then he is a slave (that word again). quote:Let's say I've had a shower...This is a ridiculous analogy. Unless you're living in Mao's China, this would never happen. If you want a serious debate on this, then pick a serious example. How about this: Suppose you just turned 18 and decide to enter the workforce. What occupation should you pursue? Do you want to be a doctor, a lawyer, a designer, a repairman, a postal worker, a nurse, a politician, a policeman, a soldier, and on and on and on. Your choices are limitless. Now you choose -- Doctor. You want to be a doctor. Do you have the grades? Do you have experience? Can you get into medical school? Yes? Great! No, then your choice of doctor was unrealistic -- try again. Repairman? High School grades weren't good enough for business jobs? Did you even graduate HS? Okay, society needs repairmen but you probably won't be making the $100k/year that doctors make. Whose fault is that? Choices. They are unlimited at first, but your downstream choices become more limited based on your earlier choices. Still, they are your choices, not choices imposed on you by others.
Menchise Posted June 28, 2002 Report Posted June 28, 2002 quote:My point is that the options are unlimited until the worker makes the first choice for himself -- which vocation to pursue. Once THE WORKER makes that choice, he automatically reduces the number of options available to him to those that fall within his chosen vocation. If the worker does not have the option of vocation in the first place, then he is a slave (that word again).The choice of vocation occurs outside of the economy; it is not an economic decision. The economy comes into play when the job options are considered. Even a slave can choose a vocation; the difference is that the slave has no job options, hence the choice of vocation is pointless. quote:Suppose you just turned 18 and decide to enter the workforce. What occupation should you pursue? Do you want to be a doctor, a lawyer, a designer, a repairman, a postal worker, a nurse, a politician, a policeman, a soldier, and on and on and on. Your choices are limitless. Now you choose -- Doctor. You want to be a doctor. Do you have the grades? Do you have experience? Can you get into medical school? Yes? Great! No, then your choice of doctor was unrealistic -- try again. Repairman? High School grades weren't good enough for business jobs? Did you even graduate HS? Okay, society needs repairmen but you probably won't be making the $100k/ year that doctors make. Whose fault is that? Choices. They are unlimited at first, but your downstream choices become more limited based on your earlier choices. Still, they are your choices, not choices imposed on you by others.The worker has the choice of vocation, which determines his or her preference for a set of tasks. Even if the person is qualified (it would be insane to hire someone who's not), and the job options are available to him or her, the choice is not free because the set of tasks and the rewards for completing such tasks have been organized into job structures unilaterally by owners and/or managers. Like all other labour conditions, the job structure has been designed to further the interests of owners above all other interests, including the interests of the worker. The worker has no substantial say in this, hence the choice of any such job is not free. Of course, this only applies to rote work. There are some jobs (e.g. doctors, lawyers, architects, etc.) where the employee has a substantial say in the structure. That's because those jobs are not worker's jobs, they are managerial or coordinator jobs (also known as the coordinator class). This was the class that Marx overlooked, which became the ruling class in Russia, China, etc.
Steve Schacher Posted June 28, 2002 Report Posted June 28, 2002 quote:The choice of vocation occurs outside of the economy; The choice to work is solely for economic reasons, unless you're an altruist who volunteers his time because it makes you feel better. quote:the choice is not free because the set of tasks and the rewards for completing such tasks have been organized into job structures unilaterally by owners and/or managers. Are you saying that you can just choose to walk into my home, paint it, and then demand that I pay you for your effort? The job structure tasks are decided by the owners because it is the owners who need the work to be done. Once they define what tasks need to be completed, they go out on the open market and solicit laborers to perform those tasks. The only exception to this that I can recall is when I was a youngster in Manhattan, and "squeegee men" would come up to cars stopped at red lights, spray the windshields with water, squeegee them dry, and then ask for payment from the drivers. Other than that, it is the owners who decide what work is needed.
Menchise Posted June 28, 2002 Report Posted June 28, 2002 My reply to Robert Tracinski's The Moral Basis of Capitalism: quote:With the fall of communism and the alleged end of the "era of big government," many commentators and politicians grudgingly acknowledge the practical value of capitalism. The free market, they concede, is the best system for producing wealth and promoting prosperity; the private economy, in Bill Clinton's words, is the "primary engine of growth."The free market, I concede, is the best system for producing wealth and promoting prosperity for the rulers (property owners) of the means of production, and to a lesser extent, the managers of the means of production. In other words, a quarter of the population. quote:But this has not led to the triumph of capitalism. Quite the opposite: Federal taxes as a percentage of gross domestic product are at their highest rate since the Second World War; antitrust assaults on the market's winners are growing; the regulations on the federal register continue to expand by 60,000 pages per year; even the Republicans' recent tax cut proposal would only mandate a minor decrease in the projected growth of government revenues. By practically every measure, government interference in the free market is growing. If capitalism is recognized as the only practical economic systemÔÇöthen why is it losing out to state control? The reason is that no one, neither on the left nor the right, is willing to defend capitalism as moral. Thus, both sides agree, whatever the practical value of capitalism, morality requires that the free market be reigned in by government regulations. The only disagreement between the two sides is over the number of regulations and the rate of their growth.This is the result of the other three quarters of the population going to their representatives in government, since they have no representatives in business, and demanding changes for producing wealth and promoting prosperity for more people. quote:What no one has grasped yet is that capitalism is not just practical but also moral. Capitalism is the only system that fully allows and encourages the virtues necessary for human life. It is the only system that safeguards the freedom of the independent mind and recognizes the sanctity of the individual.This is where Tracinski uses the infamous Spin language that is most commonly associated with the government that he dreads. What he calls the 'independent mind' is not simply a mind with independent thought (if that were the case then everyone with independent thought would be wealthy and prosperous), but a mind with independent power. More specifically, since he is defending an economic system, it is a mind with independent economic power. By definition, the minds with independent economic power in capitalism are the minds of capitalists: the owners of the means of production. What he calls the 'sanctity of the individual', which is supposed to mean the holiness or supreme importance of the individual, actually refers to the atomization of the individual, which means the division of all individuals into disparate units. This is where the contradictions begin to surface when applied to capitalism in practice. While the system does safeguard the freedom of the independent economic powers (the owners), it does not safeguard the same freedom for workers, because they are dependent on the owner's power for subsistence. It also doesn't recognize the so-called 'sanctity' of the individual worker, because the workplace is a collective unit where workers operate collectively in the service of the owner. quote:Every product that sustains and improves human life is made possible by the thinking of the world's creators and producers. We enjoy an abundance of food because scientists have discovered more efficient methods of agriculture, such as fertilization and crop rotation. We enjoy a lifespan double that of the pre-industrial era thanks to advances in medical technology, from antibiotics to X-rays to biotechnology, discovered by doctors and medical researchers. We enjoy the comfort of air conditioning, the speed of airline transportation, the easy access to information made possible by the World Wide WebÔÇöbecause scientists and inventors have made the crucial mental connections necessary to create these products.I agree. quote:Most people recognize the right of scientists and engineers to be free to ask questions, to pursue new ideas, and to create new innovations. But at the same time, most people ignore the third man who is essential to human progress: the businessman. The businessman is the one who takes the achievements of the scientists and engineers out of the realm of theory and turns them into reality; he takes their ideas off the chalkboards and out of the laboratories and puts them onto the store shelves.The businessman is only essential to progress in a capitalist economy because in that system the businessman is indispensable. Therefore, in order for that to change, the economic system must change. Progress in capitalism is not the progress of humans (if that were the case then every hard working human being would have all the great inventions that elites enjoy), but the progress of capital, hence the relatively huge inventory of inventions that bring joy to the holders of capital: the owners of the means of production. Businessmen do not turn the achievements of scientists and engineers into reality, nor do they put them onto store shelves. The businessman produces conditions in which the workers do all of those things for his benefit. quote:Behind the activities of the businessman there is a process of rational inquiry every bit as important as that of the scientist or inventor. The businessman has to figure out how to find and train workers who will produce a quality product; he has to discover how to cut costs to make the product affordable; he has to determine how best to market and distribute his product so that it reaches its potential buyers; and he has to figure out how to finance his venture in a way that will best feed future growth. All of these issuesÔÇöand many othersÔÇödepend on the mind of the businessman. If he is not left free to think, the venture loses money and its product goes out of existence.Yes. In a capitalist system, the businessman does all of these things, but not in the best way for human progress as Tracinski claims; the businessman organizes everything in a way that is best for him as an owner of the means of production (in other words, what is best for capital), which is contrary to the interests of the people who actually produce the products and generate all of that profit that he pockets for himself: the workers. quote:The businessman has to have an unwavering dedication to thinking, not only in solving these problems, but also in dealing with others. He has to use reason to persuade investors, employees, and suppliers that his venture is a profitable one. If he cannot, the investors take their money elsewhere, the best employees leave for better opportunities, and the suppliers will give preference to more credit-worthy customers.The businessman may use reason to persuade investors and suppliers, although even that is questionable, but the businessman certainly does not use reason to persuade employees (if he did then there would be no employees whatsoever because the owner's interests are in conflict with theirs); to persuade people to become employees, the businessman uses bargaining power, namely his independent economic power to subsist them. quote:The businessman's dedication to thought, persuasion, and reason is a virtueÔÇöa virtue that our lives and prosperity depend on. The only way to respect this virtue is to leave the businessman free to act on his own judgment. That is precisely what capitalism does. The essence of capitalism is that it bans the use of physical force and fraud in men's economic relationships. All decisions are to be left to the "free market"ÔÇöthat is, to the un-coerced decisions of buyers and sellers, manufacturers and distributors, employers and employees. The first rule of capitalism is that everyone has a right to dispose of his own life and property according to his own judgment.The fact that our lives and prosperity depend on the thoughts, persuasion, and 'reason' of the businessman is the inherent problem with capitalism. In order to live in such a system, the so-called 'virtues' of the businessman must be respected, even though they are contrary to the interests of everyone else, including other businessmen. The essence of capitalism is that it defends these exploiters and oppressors, hence banning any resistance to them that doesn't serve the interests of capital. The 'free' market is only free for the businessmen because production in that market is always in the interests of capital above all others, hence it is in the interests of the businessmen above all others. The first rule of capitalism is that if you own the property that produces the conditions of labour then you have the power and you are free to use it according to your own judgement, regardless of its effect upon others. quote:Government regulation, by contrast, operates by thwarting the businessman's thinking, subordinating his judgment to the decrees of government officials. These officials do not have to consider the long-term resultsÔÇöonly what is politically expedient. They do not have to back their decisions with their own money or effortÔÇöthey dispose of the lives and property of others. And most important, they do not have to persuade their victimsÔÇöthey impose their will, not by reason, but by physical force.Businessmen are no better than government officials. These businessmen do not have to consider the long term effects - only what is profitable. They do not have to back their profits with their own labour or sacrifice - they dispose of the lives and labour of others. And most important, they do not have to persuade their victims - they impose their will, not by reason, but by bargaining power (economic force). quote:The government regulator does not merely show contempt for the minds of his victims; he also shows contempt for their personal goals and values.The businessman is the same, except that his victims are workers. quote:In a free-market economy, everyone is driven by his own ambitions for wealth and success. That's what "free trade" means: that no one may demand the work, effort, or money of another without offering to trade something of value in return. If both partners to the trade don't expect to gain, they are free to go elsewhere. In Adam Smith's famous formulation, the rule of capitalism is that every trade occurs "by mutual consent and to mutual advantage."The consent is not mutual on the part of the worker: it is forced by the owner's bargaining power. The advantage is not mutual either: it is relative to bargaining power. On a side note, what Tracinski calls free trade is not even remotely similar to the agenda that the World Trade Organization is trying to push: its agenda is to remove trade protectionism, but other trade barriers, such as export subsidies, are preserved. The substantial difference between them is that export subsidies can only be used to significant effect by the major powers (USA, Britain, etc.) because it requires more money to implement than the minor powers are capable of accumulating (the USA's agricultural subsidies alone are twice the size of Australia's national budget). quote:It is common to condemn this approach as selfishÔÇöyet to say that people are acting selfishly is to say that they take their own lives seriously, that they are exercising their right to pursue their own happiness. By contrast, project what it would mean to exterminate self-interest and force everyone to work for goals mandated by the state. It would mean, for example, that a young student's goal to have a career as a neurosurgeon must be sacrificed because some bureaucrat decrees that there are "too many" specialists in that field. Such a system is based on the premise that no one owns his own life, that the individual is merely a tool to be exploited for the ends of "society." And since "society" consists of nothing more than a group of individuals, this means that some men are to be sacrificed for the sake of othersÔÇöthose who claim to be "society's" representatives. For examples, see the history of the Soviet Union.Capitalism is the same thing, except that the businessman claims to represent society's interests instead of government officials. quote:A system that sacrifices the self to "society" is a system of slaveryÔÇö and a system that sacrifices thinking to coercion is a system of brutality. This is the essence of any anti-capitalist system, whether communist or fascist. And "mixed" systems, such as today's regulatory and welfare state, merely unleash the same evils on a smaller scale.This is where Tracinski's argument falls to pieces. He fails to justify the injustice of capitalism, so instead he tries to label anti-capitalism as the road to Cold War Russia. This argument assumes that anti-capitalists are all marxist-leninist, fascist, or reformist. He ignores the anarchists, pareconists, etc. quote:Only capitalism renounces these evils entirely. Only capitalism is fully true to the moral ideal stated in the Declaration of Independence: the individual's right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Only capitalism protects the individual's freedom of thought and his right to his own life. Only when these ideals are once again taken seriously will we be able to recognize capitalism, not as a "necessary evil," but as a moral ideal.Capitalism adopts the very same evils that it claims to renounce. It is not recognized as a moral ideal because it is not moral.
Menchise Posted June 28, 2002 Report Posted June 28, 2002 quote:The choice to work is solely for economic reasons, unless you're an altruist who volunteers his time because it makes you feel better.I agree with that irrelevant point, but the vocation is a personal preference. Economies do not offer vocations, they offer jobs. quote:Are you saying that you can just choose to walk into my home, paint it, and then demand that I pay you for your effort?Now who's making absurd analogies? I'm not saying anything like that. You refer to a job without structure. I'm suggesting a job with a different structure. quote:The job structure tasks are decided by the owners because it is the owners who need the work to be done. Once they define what tasks need to be completed, they go out on the open market and solicit laborers to perform those tasks.You're reinforcing my point. The owners need labourers to generate profit, so they define job structures that maximize profit, then they go to market and use their bargaining power to solicit labourers into a job structure that is, by design, contrary to their interests, because maximization of profit is equal to minimization of rewards for labour. The only resistance to this minimization is in the low bargaining power of the worker.
Guest Posted June 28, 2002 Report Posted June 28, 2002 quote: The owners need labourers to generate profit, so they define job structures that maximize profit, then they go to market and use their bargaining power to solicit labourers into a job structure that is, by design, contrary to their interests, because maximization of profit is equal to minimization of rewards for labour. The only resistance to this minimization is in the low bargaining power of the worker. What the devil are you talking about? If an owner offers too little money to the workers, HE WON'T GET WORKERS!!! HELLO!!! If an owner offers excellent pay, excellent benefits, he will get and keep excellent workers, whereas those that offer less will get less capable and less loyal workers. Yeah, my boss makes more money then I do, from my work, but he owns the company, he took the risks, he built it from nothing, he deserves that money, but I also make a good living. He gives me excellent benefits, an excellent commission plan, etc etc ad nauseum. He will keep me here a good long time, why? Because I make him a lot of money and he gives me a lot of money, works for both of us. And if at some point he chooses to cut my pay or cut my benefits, hey, I'll walk down the street and get another job that pays more then he does. Capitalism works the best, and has always works the best. And I have the best bargaining power in the world, it's called my feet, I can walk at any time. It's all about choices. The owner took the risk to create the company and build it, there is NOTHING wrong with him making more money then I do or profiting from his risk, otherwise no one would take that risk. I'll say it again, and again, and again until it FINALLY sinks through, socialism CANNOT work, will NEVER work, PERIOD. It has been tried, it has failed EVERY time. Those that want socialism, are those that do not have the drive to succeed in a capitalist society.
Epsilon 5 Posted June 28, 2002 Report Posted June 28, 2002 quote:If an owner offers too little money to the workers, HE WON'T GET WORKERS!!! HELLO!!!And if someone needs a job desperately? and if the job offers are inferiors to the amount of people than could be hired there?
Steve Schacher Posted June 28, 2002 Report Posted June 28, 2002 quote:Now who's making absurd analogies?I was graciously tossing you a softball... You're way too sweeping in your generalizations. You need to differentiate between private owners and public owners. For public owners (stock shareholders), the money made in profit does not come out of the laborers pay, it is factored into the costs of the product and is paid by the consumers. For private owners, it is a simple arrangement between the owner who requires services and the laborer who offers services. You're stuck in this "win-lose" mindset that any gain by the owners must therefore be a loss for the laborer. That is not so. [ 06-28-2002, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]
Menchise Posted June 29, 2002 Report Posted June 29, 2002 quote:If an owner offers too little money to the workers, HE WON'T GET WORKERS!!! HELLO!!!I already said this when I referred to the bargaining power of the worker. What workers are paid is relative to the worker's bargaining power. quote:He gives me excellent benefits, an excellent commission plan, etc etc ad nauseum. He will keep me here a good long time, why? Because I make him a lot of money and he gives me a lot of money, works for both of us. And if at some point he chooses to cut my pay or cut my benefits, hey, I'll walk down the street and get another job that pays more then he does.If you don't mind me asking, what's your job? quote:The owner took the risk to create the company and build it, there is NOTHING wrong with him making more money then I do or profiting from his risk, otherwise no one would take that risk.That's my point! Capitalism makes this class of owners indispensable, hence the resulting labour conditions are inherently exploitative. You're trying to justify the exploitation by saying that no one would take the risk if there was no profit, which only reinforces my point. The problem runs deeper than the motives of the owners themselves; the problem is in the institutional structure of the economic system, which causes such motives to be the driving force of the economy. quote:I'll say it again, and again, and again until it FINALLY sinks through, socialism CANNOT work, will NEVER work, PERIOD. It has been tried, it has failed EVERY time.And I'll say it again, and again: I do not support what you call socialism! Have you even read the proposal that I referred to? quote:Those that want socialism, are those that do not have the drive to succeed in a capitalist society.Define the 'drive to succeed'.
Menchise Posted June 30, 2002 Report Posted June 30, 2002 quote:For public owners (stock shareholders), the money made in profit does not come out of the laborers pay, it is factored into the costs of the product and is paid by the consumers.No it's not. Shareholders invest capital into production just like private owners do, hence their profit comes from the same source as the profit of private owners: the value that is generated by labour. The factoring of public investment into costs is just a method of diverting some of that profit to the hands of the owners who have a controlling interest in the company. [ 06-29-2002, 11:45 PM: Message edited by: Menchise ]
Guest Posted June 30, 2002 Report Posted June 30, 2002 quote: No it's not. Shareholders invest capital into production just like private owners do, hence their profit comes from the same source as the profit of private owners: the value that is generated by labour. The factoring of public investment into costs is just a method of diverting some of that profit to the hands of the owners who have a controlling interest in the company. Give me a fricking break Menchise, you obviously have been given some real whirlwind garbage about capitalism. If I own a company, and I build a widget, let's say that the raw materials cost me $10, and the Labor to put that product together costs me $20, then the total cost of my product is $30. That $20 includes cost of benefits, hourly pay, vacation pay, sick pay, workers comp insurance, taxes, etc etc ad nauseum, all included in that $20.00 labour cost. If I lowered those costs to say $15.00 instead, I would have to cut something, if I cut something, I am taking the chance that my workers will move down the street where they would be payed MORE!!! They vote with their feet Menchise. Those workers CHOOSE to work for me, I don't have a gun to their head, I do NOT exploit them as you so easily throw around. If they felt that I was exploiting them, then they would move on to another company and I would have a turnover rate that would cost me a fortune. Exploitation, give me a fricking break!!! If I pay you a fair wage for an honest days labor, that is NOT exploitation, it is paying a fair wage. Give me a break, exploitation, geez.... OK, so my product costs me $30 total to build, I of course have NOT included the rest of the overhead of running a business, like B&O taxes, property lease or payment, property taxes, etc etc ad nauseum. I take my product out to market and the market TELLS me that I can sell a load of this product at $60 a pop, no more then that, because if I try to sell it for more, IT WON'T SELL!! Hey, my shareholders and I just made $30 a piece on this product, but wait, the government gets about 30% of that because of income tax, probably more, so OK, I made $30, then the government takes $10. Hey lookey there, I just made $20, but now let's see, I own 51% of my company, so I get $10, but hey, wait a minute, the government gets another 30% of that, so I actually get $7.00. I made $7 on a $30 profit margin. What happened? What's wrong with this picture? I own the company, I started it, I made the initial investment. My workers made $20, whereas I made $7. This is exploitation? My workers CHOOSE to work for me, they don't HAVE to work for me. Exploit: "to make use of meanly or unjustly for one's own advantage." Meanly, unjustly? I would be paying my workers a living wage, because that is what the market demands, nothing MEAN or UNJUST about it. Because if it were mean or unjust, they would CHOOSE NOT to work for me. Nothing exploitive about it, now if on the otherhand I ran a sweatshop with slave labor imported from China and hid it in some back room somewhere, THAT would be exploitive. BUT, when someone chooses to work for you, as it is in a free market, capitalist society, IT IS NOT exploitation. My workers are not slaves, therefore by definition, I CANNOT exploit them, because if I try to exploit them, they will CHOOSE to walk!! Socialism on the other hand IS exploitive, because I would NOT be allowed to choose my vocation, because if I wanted to be an assembler, and there was a glut of assemblers, well guess what, I get to go drive a tractor or something, I therefore am getting exploited. The choice to work and do something that I wish to do is FORCED upon me. In a capitalist society, if there is a glut of assemblers, and my second choice is to be a grocery checkout person, hey, I go and apply at the grocery store and CHOOSE to do that. This is NOT exploitation, because it is MY choice. So, you could say that socialism is exploitive because I do not have a choice and the the socialist structure therefore EXPLOITS my labor, because I have NO choice, whereas in a capitalist society, I CHOOSE WHERE I want to work, HOW MUCH I am willing to work for, etc etc. Socialism=exploitation Capitalism=Choice/freedom I as a worker also get the opportunity to become one of those owners and create jobs and make more choices for workers, and add to the compatition for workers which will drive up labor rates and benefits. In a socialism, I am where I am, dead end, it is what I will do ALL my life, for the same amount of pay, for the same amount as everyone else, FOREVER!!! I have no choices, I am NOT free. I am a SLAVE!!! And FYI, I work in Sales, I sell electronic components to OEMS around the world. I make my money from the component level of a product, the power cord, the LED, the transformer, the RCA jack, etc etc. And I am REAL good at it, so I get payed REAL well!!! I work hard, so I make good money, the more my boss makes, the MORE I make. I chose to work here, and I am glad that I did. It took me a while, and I had to work my butt off to get where I am, but that is the great thing about capitalism, if I work hard, I will get MORE!!!! And boy am I and will I. Exploited? give me a break!!!
Epsilon 5 Posted June 30, 2002 Report Posted June 30, 2002 quote: if I cut something, I am taking the chance that my workers will move down the street where they would be payed MORE!!! They vote with their feet Menchise. Those workers CHOOSE to work for meYou haven't answered to my post. I see that you are believing that there is more jobs than people to fill in, which is a false idea. Most people will hold on their job whatever happens, because if theit lose it, it might be a good while before they get another one. Especially if those people are over 40. they have next to zero chance to be hired somewhere decent unless they have good education in a specific domain even then... you know the wood problem between Canada and US? Just because Mr Bush is afraid that Canadian competition has an advantage, he preventing us from making profit throught FREE-TRADE, which here Bush obviously didn't cared about. Well to stay on topic, that already caused over 20,000 jobs to be lost, and the vast majority of these people are over 40 years old. It's all they did all their life. What will happen with these workers? NOTHING! they'll stay on welfare because there's nobody else that will hire them, and have no specialisation. Nice, huh? Just because there was too much competition, and some bighead decided to strike at the balance of markets in his favor.
Raven Posted June 30, 2002 Report Posted June 30, 2002 quote: So, you think I'm ignorant because I'm a well-off academic, and you think E5 is ignorant because he's not. Read to yourself! ThatÔÇÖs not what IÔÇÖm saying at all, I donÔÇÖt think youÔÇÖre ignorant because youÔÇÖre a well off academic, you obviously know an inordinate amount about socialism and capitalism even if I do disagree with your opinions. The problem with your arguments is that they are based of an idealistic view of the world. quote: It doesn't matter how wide the range of options is, the choice is not free because consumers don't have a substantial say in the options. Picking one option instead of another may prompt other owners or managers to determine options that are more compliant with the choices of consumers, but that does not make the choice more free. The freedom simply isn't there. Then, keeping with our analogy, how would socialism be different? quote: you know the wood problem between Canada and US? Just because Mr Bush is afraid that Canadian competition has an advantage, he preventing us from making profit throught FREE-TRADE, which here Bush obviously didn't cared about. Well to stay on topic, that already caused over 20,000 jobs to be lost, and the vast majority of these people are over 40 years old. It's all they did all their life. What will happen with these workers? NOTHING! they'll stay on welfare because there's nobody else that will hire them, and have no specialisation. Nice, huh? Just because there was too much competition, and some bighead decided to strike at the balance of markets in his favor. Actually that is perfectly reasonable on BushÔÇÖs part, part of his job is to protect domestic interests (that is, the interests of his constituency), not the interests of Canada. If that hurts Canada, then it hurts Canada, and thatÔÇÖs how it goes. On the other side of the coin, if Bush hadnÔÇÖt acted then it would result in a loss of American jobs (no doubt by people over 40). Ultimately, what you are saying is that you wished that is was America that suffered rather then Canada, not exactly altruistic, and not all that likely. It is my opinion that you support socialist reforms because they directly benefit you rather then because of any high minded ideals. There is nothing wrong with this, but it looks rather bad when you pretend to support said reforms for altruistic reasons.
Guest Posted June 30, 2002 Report Posted June 30, 2002 EP5, I am going to say this just once, and hopefully you will get it. There are ALWAYS jobs out there, problem is that you may have to move to them, or you may have to train to those jobs. There is always a surplus in jobs, but there is also always unemployment. Reasons? people are NOT willing to move to where the jobs are, or people are not willing to change their career in an overloaded market for a career that is not overloaded. Free Market at work, so you either wait for a job in your market, or you take a job in another market until one becomes available in your market again. So, instead of selling electronics components, I had to mow lawns, build webpages, etc, etc. I did whatever it took, and made about a 1/4 of the money that I normally make. Took me 6 months, but I found a job, but it is in Seattle, so I have to sell my house and move to my new job. Free Market at work. Is it fair you ask? YES, big old YES!! I know what it takes to survive in a free market society, I have the drive and the ambition to excel in a free market. Those that snivel and cry about how unfair it is, and how exploitive it is, are thoise that DO NOT have the drive and ambition to compete in a free market capitalist society, so they want socialism to make it FAIR. Well, if you do not have the drive NOR the ambition to make it in a free market society, then go to china, you'll get food, roof, and clothes, enough to live, hope that will do it... Because it is NEVER just enough for me nor my family. I wish to succeed, I wish to excel, too bad that those who want socialism feel that people like me are bad, well, sorry, it's people like me that support freaks like that with these BS social programs. I want MORE for myself and my family, there is absolutley nothing IMMORAL about that, NOTHING, and I refuse to feel guilty because some non-driven, non-excelling loser cries about how unfair it is. It is as fair as you want to make it. If you have the drive and the ambition to succeed, YOU WILL, end of story, in a capitalism.
Menchise Posted June 30, 2002 Report Posted June 30, 2002 quote:If I own a company, and I build a widget, let's say that the raw materials cost me $10, and the Labor to put that product together costs me $20, then the total cost of my product is $30. That $20 includes cost of benefits, hourly pay, vacation pay, sick pay, workers comp insurance, taxes, etc etc ad nauseum, all included in that $20.00 labour cost.Those first ten words prove my point succinctly: "If I own a company, and I build a widget,...". The owner does not build the widget; the workers are the producers. The owner does not add any value to the product whatsoever, and yet it is the owner that benefits the most from its production and the worker that is treated as an expense. It is unjust use for one's own advantage, hence the exploitation. quote:If I lowered those costs to say $15.00 instead, I would have to cut something, if I cut something, I am taking the chance that my workers will move down the street where they would be payed MORE!!! They vote with their feet Menchise. Those workers CHOOSE to work for me, I don't have a gun to their head, I do NOT exploit them as you so easily throw around. If they felt that I was exploiting them, then they would move on to another company and I would have a turnover rate that would cost me a fortune.The problem with that argument is that every owner exploits. It is institutionally inherent: without exploitation the owner is out of business. The worker can only choose among the lesser exploiters. quote:I take my product out to market and the market TELLS me that I can sell a load of this product at $60 a pop, no more then that, because if I try to sell it for more, IT WON'T SELL!! Hey, my shareholders and I just made $30 a piece on this product, but wait, the government gets about 30% of that because of income tax, probably more, so OK, I made $30, then the government takes $10. Hey lookey there, I just made $20, but now let's see, I own 51% of my company, so I get $10, but hey, wait a minute, the government gets another 30% of that, so I actually get $7.00. I made $7 on a $30 profit margin. What happened? What's wrong with this picture?That is the government responding to popular demand for better conditions, also known as 'vote buying'. Since I'm not reformist, I do not regard it as a long term solution, but I can't say that I weep for the owners, because I don't. quote:I as a worker also get the opportunity to become one of those owners and create jobs and make more choices for workers, and add to the compatition for workers which will drive up labor rates and benefits.Competition only increases labour rates and benefits during labour shortages. Once the economy enters its boom period, which is when the labour shortages subside, the growing need to be more competitive forces the owners into a situation where they have to undercut each other to maintain their profit margins. It is during this time that competition decreases the quality of labour conditions. Therefore, competition fails to achieve what you say it does, because the gains disappear as quickly as they appear.
Epsilon 5 Posted June 30, 2002 Report Posted June 30, 2002 quote:Actually that is perfectly reasonable on BushÔÇÖs part, part of his job is to protect domestic interests (that is, the interests of his constituency), not the interests of Canada. If that hurts Canada, then it hurts Canada, and thatÔÇÖs how it goes.Actually that part was kinda off-topic, but anyway I believe jobs should only be lost to fair competitions or due to wrongdoings by the company executives, not by someone that promotes free-trade and have been accused of protectionism at the G8.
Guest Posted June 30, 2002 Report Posted June 30, 2002 Menchise, Capitalism is NOT inherently evil, NOR is it exploitive. You're dream world that you live in is a crock. The workers are payed a very good living wage in this country, and to say that if I as a worker start out as a hmaburger flipper at mcdonalds, and therefore I will ALWAYS be a hamburger flipper at McDonalds is a load of crap. A worker moves up and up and up, they NEVER stay at the same job for the same pay for long. 10% of the people in this country are considered working poor, the problem with this falacy is that NO ONE stays in that group for more then 5 years, they ALWAYS move up into better paying positions as their experience grows. You have this static view of the world, and I find it rather amusings. The rantings of intellectuals that have no REAL clue of how the REAL world works. Capitalism works, has always worked and will always work. Socialism in all it's different clothes will never work, has never worked, and CANNOT work. Never has, NEVER WILL. It is some sort of intellectual dream, and it is obvious that you have much more booklearning then REAL experience, or you would not be spouting such garbage, because that is exactly what it is, GARBAGE!!! Exploitive, my ass, if a worker doesn't like the treatment they get from a company they can quit and move on, or start their own company and compete with thier ex-employer and treat their employees better then their ex employer did. I am very good at my job, took me 12 years of work to get where I am and as I continue to work, I will continue to move up in pay, in benefits, in everything. If that is exploitive, exploit me please!!! I am liking it a LOT!!! But then again, I have the drive and ambition to do what I like to do and have the drive and the ambition to succeed. In order to succeed and not just be one of the cogs in the machine, you must have the drive to go beyond that, but you also must be willing to start where everyone else did. Some people actually enjoy, going to work, doing what they do, collect thier paycheck and go home, and I feel great for those people, it is what they want, they are quite happy. Me, I am never happy with the status quo, I know I can do better, I know I can be better, that is why I like capitalism, I can grow as far and as high as I wish to grow, NO ONE will stop me, except the government of course, because they hate people that succeed without thier help. That is what socialism is all about, CONTROL!! The government likes to try and convince you that you CANNOT succeed without thier help, you cannot succeed without taxing the successful people out of thier hard earned money and handing it over to those that are happy to take without producing. It's called buying votes, and the socialists and democrats are very good at it. Class warfare, straight out of the communist manifesto. It's not, "hey if you work hard, you can get what these people have", it's, "these people are exploiting your labor, and therefore it is unfair." You cannot get there on your own, you are incapable of it, so we will take from them, and give it to you. Aren't we nice? We think that you are INCAPABLE of succeeding, like these others, whom we are demonizing have. You are stupid, unintelligent, you cannot succeed, unless you win lifes lottery, and get lucky enough to make lots of money or create a product that people want and need and are willing to pay for. It's all LUCK!! No skill, no drive, is needed, it's all luck. The above is what you are saying Menchise, just as the socialists and democrats and liberals before you. It is NOTHING new. You are saying that people that succeed are lucky and that a vast majority of people are incapable of such luck. It has NOTHING to do with luck, it is called hard work and effort. ANYONE can succeed in a capitalist society, ANYONE!!! Just put in enough effort and the payoffs are incredible. Class warfare works only because people do not see the fact that you are calling them incapable of success, you are calling them stupid, you are saying that there is NO way that they could do what other people have done. I am a living picture of that, I started out $1.65 and hour, and after 21 years, I have increased my income by quite a bit, by how much is really none of your business, but to say that I am above average in pay would be an understatement. quote: Those first ten words prove my point succinctly: "If I own a company, and I build a widget,...". The owner does not build the widget; the workers are the producers. The owner does not add any value to the product whatsoever, and yet it is the owner that benefits the most from its production and the worker that is treated as an expense. It is unjust use for one's own advantage, hence the exploitation. It proves nothing accept for the fact that you don't understand why that happens. I as an entrapaneur, go out with an idea, I create a widget, I patent it, I create the first working prototype. I decide that I could probably market it, so I quit my job and start working out of my garage, slowly I build my business to point where I need to hire workers, so I bring in a freind of mine, he is taking a huge risk with his life and family, so I tell him that I will give him stock in the company, as we grow, hiring workers, selling more products, I and my freind, start to make a good amopunt of money. But, I CREATED the product, I envisioned it, I had the drive to make it happen. Why should I NOT profit from that? Or do you think that multimillion dollar companies with CEO's at the helm just sort of pop out of the ground? If I as an entapaneur cannot profit from my own inventions and drive, guess what? There will be NO invention and Drive. That is why socialismn dies a horrible death, because it stagnates, there is no drive to succeed, there is no drive to make a better product, socialism decays and dies. Capitalism on the other hand, there is a drive to succeed, because you PERSONALLY will profit from that success. You create a better product, you will take business from your competition, and create more business in the process. The ecomnomy of a country is not just a certain size and everyone gets a portion, it is ALWAYS growing and getting BIGGER, so there is MORE for everyone. You think that the US has always had a 20 trillion dollar economy? or does it just magically grow for no apparent reason? Pull your head out of this dream world Menchise, because you are clueless as to why a capitalism works, and are trying desperatley to make your socialist dream work. HINT HINT, it can't and it won't!!
CommanderJohnson Posted July 1, 2002 Report Posted July 1, 2002 First off, I totally agree with Jaguar. The view of capitalism being debated on this thread is that of the people being exploited in factories during the Industrial revolution in England by Capitalism, not the view of how it is currently enacted in first world countries today. Another thing that needs to be considered that isn't being argued is the value trade off in a socialist system. People have hinted at it concerning the "drive to succeed". If what is valued is the output of your labor, as Menchise keeps repeating over, and over, and over, and over again, what happens if *I*, come up with an idea of a product to help the world or make peoples lives easier. I didn't actually do any LABOR, I came up with an idea, it's in my head. Socialism says that I gain nothing from that idea except a good feeling that I helped the world. There is no reward for it at all. Capitalism says that good ideas and helping mankind is REWARDED. On a utilitarian level, socialism is stupid. It requires EVERYONE to be a good person and want to help society because it's the right thing to do. Capitalism, on the other hand, GIVES YOU SOMETHING. Look at little kids. Are they more likely to be good because it's the "right thing to do" or because they are rewarded for it? If you think that ALL people will do things because it's the "right thing to do", why don't more people work at homeless shelters and food kitchens instead of doing their jobs they get paid for? You can't argue with empirical evidence. Also, what happens with people who organize the labor (clump big wig coporation CEOs into this)? They arent DOING labor, they are telling the people under them what to do in order to maximize production. You say this is somehow "exploiting" the labor. In a capitalist system, they are rewarded for the increase in output which THEIR organization caused. Without the managers, and the CEOs, etc, organizing it, any sort of INCREASE in production never would have happened, because there would have been no one above them to notice their flaws and to change them. Sure, in an ideal world everyone will work together to do it, but if you havn't noticed, in the real world, a lot of people are dumb and lazy and aren't going to do anything and DONT want to do anything beyond following orders from their bosses. A socialist system requires EVERYONE to care and EVERYONE to think for the betterment of society, or for EVERYONE to give up freedom to an EXTREMELY powerful government, in which case it defeats the purpose of socialism. Either way, socialism doesn't work. You either lose all freedom or you need a perfect society of a bunch of caring people. Neither will happen, so how can you say socialism will work?
Menchise Posted July 1, 2002 Report Posted July 1, 2002 quote:Then, keeping with our analogy, how would socialism be different?I'll describe what would happen in Parecon (the system that I currently support): As a consumer, I develop a proposal for what I want, and because I am the only consumer who will be affected by the decision, I have all of the say, so I don't need to go to any consumer council (Parecon's alternative to private ownership is council democracy). However, the decision also affects the workers who have to produce the clothing, so I take this proposal to the appropriate worker council (there are several layers of worker and consumer councils for issues of different scales). Those workers develop a proposal of how much they're willing to work to produce the clothing (which, inevitably, doesn't match the consumer's proposal), then the two parties negotiate and reach a compromise. Because of the small scale of the issue, hence the small number of people involved in decision-making (the consumer and the team of workers who will produce the item), the entire procedure of councils and such would take a matter of minutes, and the decision is made in proportion by the people who are affected by it. It's called Participatory Planning (a new alternative to central planning and markets). Therefore, when I get out of the shower and decide what to wear, the options available are the results of decisions that I was able to take part in with a substantial say. That is genuine freedom of choice.
Steve Schacher Posted July 1, 2002 Report Posted July 1, 2002 quote:As a consumer, I develop a proposal for what I want, and because I am the only consumer who will be affected by the decision, I have all of the say, so I don't need to go to any consumer council (Parecon's alternative to private ownership is council democracy). However, the decision also affects the workers who have to produce the clothing, so I take this proposal to the appropriate worker council (there are several layers of worker and consumer councils for issues of different scales). Those workers develop a proposal of how much they're willing to work to produce the clothing (which, inevitably, doesn't match the consumer's proposal), then the two parties negotiate and reach a compromise. Because of the small scale of the issue, hence the small number of people involved in decision-making (the consumer and the team of workers who will produce the item), the entire procedure of councils and such would take a matter of minutes, and the decision is made in proportion by the people who are affected by it. It's called Participatory Planning (a new alternative to central planning and markets). Therefore, when I get out of the shower and decide what to wear, the options available are the results of decisions that I was able to take part in with a substantial say. That is genuine freedom of choice. Just hire a tailor.
Guest Posted July 1, 2002 Report Posted July 1, 2002 Menchise, If every person did this, NOTHING would get done, you'd have meetings after meetings after meetings, there would be NO production. In a small community, say 10,000 or so people, with varied skills etc, your system might work, but try to put that into a population of 250 million and you can forget about it. It would NEVER work. NOTHING would get done, EVER!! The workers and the consumers or whatever you wish to call them would never have time to produce anything, because they would be meeting about what to produce. Talk about a waste of time. In a capitalism, if a product can be sold, it is produced, sure there are meetings, and there are marketing surveys, and once those prove that indeed within a good percentage that the product will sell, it is put into production. And just as said above, if I want a piece of special clothing, I can go hire a tailor and it will get done.
Steve Schacher Posted July 1, 2002 Report Posted July 1, 2002 Now, tell me how that tailor is being exploited? Or am I the one being exploited? I am the owner, in that I own the money and have a service that needs to be performed, namely the construction of specialty clothing for me. The tailor is a laborer who is hired to construct the clothing for me. I have the design of the clothing in my mind, the tailor has the experience to construct it. The clothing requires a few yards of cloth, some buttons, thread, needles, maybe some power for the sewing machine, maybe amortizing some of the cost of the sewing machine, so the tailor should be paid just the cost of producing the clothing, say $25? Maybe give him a $5 tip because I'm a moral capitalist and I'm nice? Or, the tailor is the owner of the apparel business, started out working out of his home with his mother's sewing machine, becomes successful, rents a storefront and gets a new sewing machine, buys a supply of material, hires an apprentice, and is now exploiting his apprentice? How much should the consumer (me with my special clothing) be charged? The tailor needs to cover his rent, electricity, inventory costs, labor costs, and still make a small profit. Say, $75? So who's being exploited?
CommanderJohnson Posted July 2, 2002 Report Posted July 2, 2002 I don't see why we are getting into debates over who is exploited, and how a socialist system would work when you simply look at reality. TWO POINTS: FIRST, and Most Importantly, Socialism wont work, 1. Not everyone wants to work as hard as everyone else in a socailist system and be in a socialist system. They will want to have it easier than everyone else. 2. Those that don't will RISE ABOVE EVERYONE ELSE, exploit the system, and center power around themselves. (taking control of a council or leadership positions) 3. Those people will, at that point, be exploting those "under them", and thus the problems you CLAIM socialism solves for, remanifest. SECOND, 1. You fail to point out how there is any net disadvantage/exploitation to/in the capitalist system as used in the United States. 2. Who exactly thinks that the United States capitalist system is "exploting" other American citizens? Your arguments seem like they are from the Industrial Revolution in England. EDIT: Just a small 3rd point, you've failed to recognize: 1. A police force. 2. A military force. 3. Enforcement and punishment of laws. People in the police and military force aren't necesarrily "producing" anything, so how is their worth determined in a socialist system? Also, those groups have the easiest time to abuse power since they have guns. [ 07-02-2002, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: Dredd ]
Lotharr Posted July 3, 2002 Author Report Posted July 3, 2002 As a consumer, I develop a proposal for what I want, and because I am the only consumer who will be affected by the decision, I have all of the say, so I don't need to go to any consumer council (Parecon's alternative to private ownership is council democracy). However, the decision also affects the workers who have to produce the clothing, so I take this proposal to the appropriate worker council (there are several layers of worker and consumer councils for issues of different scales). Those workers develop a proposal of how much they're willing to work to produce the clothing (which, inevitably, doesn't match the consumer's proposal), then the two parties negotiate and reach a compromise. Because of the small scale of the issue, hence the small number of people involved in decision-making (the consumer and the team of workers who will produce the item), the entire procedure of councils and such would take a matter of minutes, and the decision is made in proportion by the people who are affected by it. It's called Participatory Planning (a new alternative to central planning and markets). Maybe unions will get wind of this kind of stuff and try to implement it.....I hope they get the word. I don’t think something like this can happen until we have another economic catastrophe…and will current systems I think it’s just a matter of time.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now