Why we still need socialism in 2008. [Archive]

Banquo's Ghost

09-25-2007, 14:27

As I recall from when I ran a business in the UK, one cannot bar an employee from belonging to a union and obtaining advice and guidance from that source.

However, as the employer you do not have to recognise the union as having any official capacity (ie for wage bargaining) - one deals entirely with the individual employee regardless of their memberships. If the employer decides to recognise a union, then the representatives from that union may speak on behalf of a group of employees.

For example, in a business that does not recognise a union, a disciplinary procedure would involve the employee. Because employment law states that an employee subject to a formal disciplinary is entitled to a witness/advisor, the employee who is a union member may bring a union representative to the meeting - whether the union is formally recognised or not. But equally they might bring their lawyer - or their mum, all of whom would have the same status in the disciplinary.

Clear as mud, I expect. :embarassed:

Ice

09-25-2007, 15:43

Why exactly do we still need, or did we ever need socialism?

Why not just basic protection for the basic rights of workers?

Unions should be allowed, TO AN EXTENT

They always should be willing to meet the company halfway. Likewise for their employers.

Dictatorships and authoritarian governments in Belarus, Burma, China, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Iran, North Korea and several Gulf countries maintained their suppression of independent trade unions, with more than 100 Chinese workers detained in prisons and forced labour camps in appalling conditions. The Zimbabwean government continued its violent repression of the country’s trade union movement. Of 265 participants in a trade union protest who were arrested by the authorities, 15 including the top leaders of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions were severely beaten whilst in detention.

Eh, I don't think socialism is the answer to the problems in those countries.

Rodion Romanovich

09-25-2007, 18:56

America, especially, needs more unionists. $100,000 plus benifits a year for screwing on the armrest of an Escalade is corporate fraud! :laugh4:

Unions had a place, but are now damaging industry in the West.
I agree, let's remove the unions, and use these instead:
http://educaterra.terra.com.br/voltaire/mundo/pimage/guilhotina.gif
:dizzy2:

Rodion Romanovich

09-25-2007, 18:59

Why exactly do we still need, or did we ever need socialism?

Why not just basic protection for the basic rights of workers?

Unions should be allowed, TO AN EXTENT
When there are corporate-funded organizations cooperating to screw workers as much as possible and drive down their salaries, there won't be any "basic protection for the basic rights of workers". Governments too tend to be really bad at protecting the rights of the workers, especially with the way western "the-mock-crazy" works: vote for a package of opinions, instead of separately for each issue. Usually in package-voting, the entire choice of who rules the country is based on a single or a few questions, and worker rights are often forgotten.

Pre-18th century the workers got screwed because the rich had good administration cooperating to further their own goals, while poor had no organization at all. Post 18th century, this form of organization between poor, turned tables and made the poor even more influential than the rich due to their numbers. Now, unions and socialist parties are getting undermined in power, and cooperation and socialistic ideology are dissolving, while globalization also strengthens the companies (modern counterpart to nobility) again. Unions and moderate socialism are good peaceful ways of defending against oppression from the stronger, the guilliotinne becomes the only alternative if political measures prevent the poor from being able to influence the decisions of the rich in time by peaceful measures, before the misery grows too strong. The surveillance technology is another such threat towards the poor, that is growing these days. It causes silence and fear of protesting the society developments, and may also strive to take us back to alternating between oppression and guilliotinne.

That's why I think socialism is needed again, to fight both communists, guilliotinne users, and oppressors and anti-democratic measures. Nobody will really benefit more than a few years from the breakdown of moderate socialism.

Crazed Rabbit

09-25-2007, 19:06

At the painting business I worked at recently, one of the older hands told me they used to be a unionized group, but they weren't anymore. He also said that being in a union shop will get you a certain wage depending on experience, but that not being union will get you paid what your worth.

Now, I don't think people (aside from public employees) should be barred from unionizing, but companies should be free to ignore any unions, fire employees trying to turn their business into a unionized one, and not have closed shops.

CR

Don Corleone

09-25-2007, 19:16

Soulforged

09-25-2007, 19:17

Why exactly do we still need, or did we ever need socialism?

Why not just basic protection for the basic rights of workers?

Where do you think those "basic rights of workers" come from?

HoreTore

09-25-2007, 20:00

And besides, don't think you the Union's own propaganda about its activities to be just a little slanted guys? You won't believe a story in the Wall Street Journal, but you'll take as gospel the union's own newsletter? There's some objective thinking for you... :juggle2:

When it comes to american unions, I have no problem believing a WSJ article declaring them idiots, as, well, they do seem to behave like idiots...

However, this article wasn't about them, it was about union workers in china getting hunted down and killed for trying to demand a break every 6 hours and things like that...

Ice

09-25-2007, 20:02

Where do you think those "basic rights of workers" come from?

:inquisitive:

Unions and the government?

Ice

09-25-2007, 20:14

When there are corporate-funded organizations cooperating to screw workers as much as possible and drive down their salaries, there won't be any "basic protection for the basic rights of workers".

I'm pretty sure most corporations try to make a profit, and their primary goal is not to "screw workers". Many treat their workers well to attract investors who actually care about who they are investing in.

Governments too tend to be really bad at protecting the rights of the workers, especially with the way western "the-mock-crazy" works: vote for a package of opinions, instead of separately for each issue. Usually in package-voting, the entire choice of who rules the country is based on a single or a few questions, and worker rights are often forgotten.

Not really true. Maybe 50-100 a hundred years ago, but I'd have to disagree now.

Now, unions and socialist parties are getting undermined in power, and cooperation and socialistic ideology are dissolving, while globalization also strengthens the companies (modern counterpart to nobility) again.

There are many advantages/disadvantages to globalization , one advantage being the increased factor of competition and the lower price of goods to the consumer. One disadvantage being workers losing jobs to other places. That is another topic though.

Unions and moderate socialism are good peaceful ways of defending against oppression from the stronger, the guilliotinne becomes the only alternative if political measures prevent the poor from being able to influence the decisions of the rich in time by peaceful measures, before the misery grows too strong.

This isn't the 18th century. Your argument can't really be directly applied to many situations today.

The surveillance technology is another such threat towards the poor, that is growing these days. It causes silence and fear of protesting the society developments, and may also strive to take us back to alternating between oppression and guilliotinne.

While surveillance technology exists, you seem to be exagerating a bit.

That's why I think socialism is needed again, to fight both communists, guilliotinne users, and oppressors and anti-democratic measures. Nobody will really benefit more than a few years from the breakdown of moderate socialism.

Again, I disagree. Communists? Guiliotinne users? Anti-democratic measures?

Examples of how this applies to modern society would be nice.

AntiochusIII

09-25-2007, 20:16

Unions and the government?Oh, come on. It's pretty obvious. Socialism. The whole bloody ideology bases itself on protecting the people's rights against the Robber Barons tm .

Nobody in their right mind (I don't count extreme capitalists, fascists, and other assorted nuttorios as particularly sensible) would deny socialism's place in history for forcing the powers-that-be to take action to improve the lot of Joe Commoner. Though this thread is about whether the concrete ideology of socialism is still needed or not.

Without...whatwasit, Knights of Labor?...protesting and rioting back in the day we probably wouldn't see workers being treated as decent human beings for quite a while in the History of Man.

Though I agree that you can't necessarily compare the AFL-CIO's activities to the few brave Chinese people who dared stand against the scums in Beijing with only torture rooms and firing squads waiting for them at the end of the road.

And besides, don't think you the Union's own propaganda about its activities to be just a little slanted guys? You won't believe a story in the Wall Street Journal, but you'll take as gospel the union's own newsletter?I always thought they were crap myself. All they say is "Bush is evil. Bush is evil. Bush is evil." Boring.

Geoffrey S

09-25-2007, 20:20

However, this article wasn't about them, it was about union workers in china getting hunted down and killed for trying to demand a break every 6 hours and things like that...
Precisely. In countries where whether there is socialism is the least of the people's worries.

HoreTore

09-25-2007, 20:25

Precisely. In countries where whether there is socialism is the least of the people's worries.

Bah. There's Maoism and Marxist-leninism.

Marx held the idea that workers should own the factory where they work themselves. Lenin decided that the state should own the factory, and the unions and workers should be happy about it.

You get the same in a leninist state that you have in a brutal capitalist state. I'm not promoting marxist-leninism, I'm promoting socialism. Reformist socialism, if you will. And that's not present in either China, Burma or Thailand.

Geoffrey S

09-25-2007, 20:54

How does that relate to my post?

What can socialism offer those people more than any other (not dicatatorship or whatever) form of political ideology could offer? The problems in the countries mentioned in the articles aren't caused by a lack of socialism, but by the presence of dictatorships, military regimes, etc. Any change would be preferable, and I really don't see the link to a necessity of socialism in general based on the presented article.

InsaneApache

09-25-2007, 20:59

Bah. There's Maoism and Marxist-leninism.

Marx held the idea that workers should own the factory where they work themselves. Lenin decided that the state should own the factory, and the unions and workers should be happy about it.

You get the same in a leninist state that you have in a brutal capitalist state. I'm not promoting marxist-leninism, I'm promoting socialism. Reformist socialism, if you will. And that's not present in either China, Burma or Thailand.

Socialism is the oppression of the working classes.

Watchman

09-25-2007, 21:56

Well, "really existing socialism" has indeed turned out to be that way - but then again, it's not like China for example was paying even lip service to Marxist economic theory anymore (it is actually debatable if any of the Communist states ever did to begin with, given that Marxist theory cannot actually be employed to understand their crackpot systems). It's free-for-all capitalism of the jolly bad old mid-1800s fashion there now.

That's the endgame of revolutionary Communism for you.

Reformatory Socialism, or "Social Democracy" as it's also known, has - besides been earnestly hated by both revolutionary Communists and all brands of Fascists - however proven to work right fine, as us folks up here in Scandinavia can attest to. And much of the rest of the part of Europe that wasn't dragooned into sharing the "really existing socialism" experience, for that matter.

But labor unions are a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Once the original grievance is resolved, they don't disband, they invent new 'issues' to try to justify their existence.And since when did things remain static ? New grievances pop up readily enough (although often they're just aspects of the old ones thathaven't yet been addressed) and more importantly the second they get the opportunity the Management will start trying to cut costs in all the merry old ugly ways - when the cat is away the mice...

Since they these days have a hard time doing it to the workers in the First World, they've moved it to the Third since logistics and communications and suchlike now make it feasible. Somewhat curiously, they also seem to employ rank thuggery to brutalize and terrorize their workforce there to bend knee as needed, and merrily engage in straight corruption with whatever authorities now exist to try and keep the peons in line and unorganized.
Which is pretty much exactly what they were doing here in the "West" not even a hundred years back.

Plus, there's the fact that the workers are basically making a living selling their work capacity to the employers. What's wrong with them banding together so they can negotiate as good "returns of investement" out of it as possible ?

Ironside

09-25-2007, 21:58

Socialism is the oppression of the working classes.

Considering that Socialism arose from a very obvious oppression of the working classes, I'm taking it that you argue that it's outlived it's purpose?

I would make a claim with that:

In a not that far future Socialism will be a neccessity for a stable society.

You cannot aviod it. ~;)

That is unless we came up with something completely new system. Or accept some very nasty human treatment.

Why you may ask? Well, if you promise to atleast try to make a decent attemt to counter it, I'll tell you (I don't really expect you to succeed, it's a natural consequence). Mentioned it before but then none responded at all :no:

I'm pretty sure most corporations try to make a profit, and their primary goal is not to "screw workers". Many treat their workers well to attract investors who actually care about who they are investing in.

The problem is that some will "screw the workers" if they get the chance. And something isn't really working well if it "only" screws half the work-force.

Watchman

09-25-2007, 22:25

That "not screwing your workers" is a selling point to begin with - and the matter appears to be changing these days - is pretty much solely due to the fact organized labour and the authorities force-fed the idea to the employers. The powers-that-be had no interest in seeing an impoverished proletariat radicalizing and going revolutionary en masse, y'see.

The fundamental problem lies in the basic paradigm of making a profit - namely, earning as much as possible as cheaply as possible. Buy cheap, sell dear. The issue is that the backbone of the system is that the employers are buying the work capacity of the employees, and selling the products; obviously it is only logial they'll try to buy as cheaply as possible.

Which is why things like minimum wage legislations, maximum work hours etc. had to be devised to keep the Management from treating the Labour like so many serfs, as they still do in parts of the world where protective legislation is not enforced or didn't exist in the first place.

Ice

09-25-2007, 22:40

The problem is that some will "screw the workers" if they get the chance. And something isn't really working well if it "only" screws half the work-force.

Many companies have proven tract records about how they treated who they employee. When applying for a position, it should be the future employee's job to do some research and find out who they are going to be working for.

Believe it or not, they do teach ethics to business majors in university. Don't confuse ethics with law. Those are two separated things, and two separate classes. Something can be legal, but not ethical.

People in MOST corporations, atleast lately, are expected to act ethically in the sense for respect for the environment and workers benefits/rights for example. Many corporations won't hire you, and will dismiss you if they are find you are acting unethically to the companies values.

Like i said before, it is in the corporations best interests these days to act ethically and treat their workers correctly. People feel more comfortable and moral investing money in them.

Watchman

09-25-2007, 22:51

Swell, but why is it the workers still get squeezed all the harder these days ?

Geoffrey S

09-25-2007, 23:02

Because for the larger part, they themselves are disinterested in and uninformed about what their rights actually are. Makes for easy targets for unions in a number of cases.

InsaneApache

09-25-2007, 23:04

Socialism has a vested interest in holding back the working classes. Think about it.

Watchman

09-25-2007, 23:21

"Socialism" as in the USSR form or as in the Social Democratic form ?

Seamus Fermanagh

09-26-2007, 03:38

...Stop de-humanising the economy. It is supposed to be run for the people, so let the people run it.

Basic disconnect. I do not believe that an economy is "run" despite the claims of various politicians that they're doing so. Economies happen as a result of the interplay of various market forces. Government, environment, people, etc. are all influences.

If "workers" wish to band together to perform some service or make some product, more power to them. Partnerships are a good thing. In this way, they own the means of production and can reap the rewards of their efforts directly.

If I use my resources to fund an organization and become an owner of that organization by so investing, I am seeking a return on investment. From that rubric, "workers" are a cost that must be borne. This does not mean that an absolute minimum wage is the goal, however, since this means a loss of quality applicants and a host of turnover problems etc. Compensation must be reasonable. Just as some of the capital has to be plowed back into the business for proper growth, some of it has to be plowed into the workstaff to minimize turnover and protect vital skills and knowledge -- that's just good long term thinking.

Nothing wrong with workers voluntarily banding together to encourage equitable treatment, nor with collective bargaining.

The assumption that the purpose of a workplace is to provide a livelihood for its workers is fatuous.

HoreTore

09-26-2007, 06:58

Many companies have proven tract records about how they treated who they employee. When applying for a position, it should be the future employee's job to do some research and find out who they are going to be working for.

Believe it or not, they do teach ethics to business majors in university. Don't confuse ethics with law. Those are two separated things, and two separate classes. Something can be legal, but not ethical.

People in MOST corporations, atleast lately, are expected to act ethically in the sense for respect for the environment and workers benefits/rights for example. Many corporations won't hire you, and will dismiss you if they are find you are acting unethically to the companies values.

Like i said before, it is in the corporations best interests these days to act ethically and treat their workers correctly. People feel more comfortable and moral investing money in them.

Uhm, no it's not. A slave will earn you more money than a regular employee. And do we really care about how our clothes were sewn together? Do we really care if it was done by slaves? The market tells us, sadly, that we don't.

Ice

09-26-2007, 07:12

HoreTore

09-26-2007, 07:26

Uhm, you are thinking short term and simply.

Nope, take as long a term as you like. The slave will still be the best option for easy production.

CountArach

09-26-2007, 07:57

Socialism has a vested interest in holding back the working classes. Think about it.
Not true. Social Democracy, once successfully implemented will continue to win votes from those it has helped - i.e. the lower classes. If they have not done anything to help those who need it, then they won't win the votes. Democracy is great as a safety net in that way. However, if by Socialism you mean the USSR sense of the word (Ie, Not Socialism), then I absolutely agree with you.

Rodion Romanovich

09-26-2007, 11:20

I'm pretty sure most corporations try to make a profit, and their primary goal is not to "screw workers". Many treat their workers well to attract investors who actually care about who they are investing in.

Lower salaries = more profit. Plus, given that most investors these days invest in oil blood money, porn and weapons industry, I'd think twice about trusting the investors to be an important factor in making sure workers are treated well.

Not really true. Maybe 50-100 a hundred years ago, but I'd have to disagree now.

It was actually shown in a study that Norway and Sweden, who had union-based salary deals instead of government-based minimum salary deals on average led to much better protection of the workers than in other European countries. Among other things for the reason I mentioned.

There are many advantages/disadvantages to globalization , one advantage being the increased factor of competition and the lower price of goods to the consumer. One disadvantage being workers losing jobs to other places. That is another topic though.

You forgot that the "advantage" of increased factor of competition also causes lower price of workers, i.e. shitty salaries.

This isn't the 18th century. Your argument can't really be directly applied to many situations today.

Why not? If social justice through legal measures is eliminated, then only violence remains. Social justice is something so central to most human beings that they are - as we've seen in 1789 in France and 1917 in Russia, prepared to kill for it. And why shouldn't they, considering that the regimes in 1789 France and 1917 Russia didn't care about their population dying like flies while the leaders and nobility became rich, it's pure self defense? If things decline to the levels of 1789 or 1917, I'm quite sure a guilliotinne or similar method will be used, and violent massed revolts will become a reality again. This serves as a good reminder to those who wish to abolish unions and basic rights of the workers, because their abolishment will cause this form of decline, and when it reaches a bad enough state, violence will be the result. That is why we need a legal right to have unions, and not forbid or "legally restrict" it, as you put it.

Examples of how this applies to modern society would be nice.
This applies to the future that would be created by following your suggestion to "limit" or "forbid" unions, thus removing all legal methods to prevent total oppression of the workers, leaving violence as their only alternative to communicate and protest.

Watchman

09-26-2007, 11:53

Uhm, you are thinking short term and simply.Uhm, that's exactly the timespan the Market mostly operates in. Shareholder value and quarterly capitalism, remember ?

Plus, have you read up on the history of serfdom and the early Industrial Revolution ?

Seamus Fermanagh

09-26-2007, 14:30

Uhm, that's exactly the timespan the Market mostly operates in. Shareholder value and quarterly capitalism, remember?

A worthy point of criticism.

Organizational leaders may well be inclined to think long term -- working for market share as opposed to immediate profits, investing in work force development etc. -- but that doesn't mean they have the freedom to enact such efforts.

I do admit it annoys me that a stock futures broker sometimes has such influence over organizational decisions. Their vested interest is ONLY centered in making bets on the relative price of stock, and they have zero incentive to think more than 90 days into the future. Yet all too often their opinions -- and the impact on stock prices -- influence decisions.

Goofball

09-27-2007, 00:05

There's no such thing as an industry that has an organized workforce that didn't do something to deserve them in the first place. But labor unions are a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Once the original grievance is resolved, they don't disband, they invent new 'issues' to try to justify their existence.

And besides, don't think you the Union's own propaganda about its activities to be just a little slanted guys? You won't believe a story in the Wall Street Journal, but you'll take as gospel the union's own newsletter? There's some objective thinking for you... :juggle2:

Amen brutha.

A few truths:

1) If a business's employees decide to unionize, this represents a failure of management.

2) Management gets the union it deserves.

In a nutshell, if you have treated your employees so badly that they feel they need to unionize, then you have failed.

Having said that, I have had union experience as follows:

1) Worked in a factory for the summer when I was sixteen. The company hired me because they were given a grant by the Canadian government to hire a student for the summer. On my first day the shop steward came over and gave me a hard time for taking a job away from "somebody who really might have needed it." For the remainder of that job, none of the staff would talk to me, sit near me at lunch, or have anything to do with me.

2) Worked in a bar that went union while I was working there when I was 19 because one of the waitresses was an activist of sorts and convinced the rest of us that we weren't being fairly compensated. Within three months, the cooks were bitching because the servers weren't giving them a big enough cut of their tips, the servers were bitching because they were forced to give too much of a cut to the cooks, nobody had gotten a pay increase, and the woman who had instigated union certification had quit because everybody hated her.

3) One of my restaurant clients (I am a commercial banker) had a student working there for the summer who was in the process of working on his PHD at uni, something to do with labor relations and commerce. This kid, as part of his research, made it his mission/project to unionize the restaurant through lies, manipulation, and deceit. Wtihin 90 days of certification, a restaurant that had been successful for over 15 years and whose staff had been making good money had to close its doors forever.

The Don summed it up nicely: unions are a permanent solution to a short-term problem. For staff, it is usually akin to signing a deal with the devil. There might be some short-term benefit, but then you suffer for an eternity.

Goofball

09-27-2007, 00:11

Lower salaries = more profit.

Not even anywhere near an absolute truth. And in most cases, is completely untrue.

Ice

09-27-2007, 00:21

Lower salaries = more profit

For the short term this holds usually holds true.

Plus, given that most investors these days invest in oil blood money, porn and weapons industry, I'd think twice about trusting the investors to be an important factor in making sure workers are treated well.

Indeed, that's why some government restriction is needed. I'm not laissez faire.

It was actually shown in a study that Norway and Sweden, who had union-based salary deals instead of government-based minimum salary deals on average led to much better protection of the workers than in other European countries. Among other things for the reason I mentioned.

What point are you arguing with me here?

You forgot that the "advantage" of increased factor of competition also causes lower price of workers, i.e. shitty salaries.

For the most part, this forces people to reeducate in order to get to the salary they were making. I can't speak for other countries, but here the government will help pay for an additional two year degree if your job gets outsourced.

Besides, jobs are created for those in many poor countries that didn't have them before.

That is why we need a legal right to have unions, and not forbid or "legally restrict" it, as you put it.

I never said they should be legally restrict, so I'm not sure why you are quoting me saying that.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make was trying to make is that companies should not be bound to unions. I never said anything about forbidding union organization or participation.

This applies to the future that would be created by following your suggestion to "limit" or "forbid" unions, thus removing all legal methods to prevent total oppression of the workers, leaving violence as their only alternative to communicate and protest.

Yeah, my apologies for not wanting to bind corporations to unions.

Ice

09-27-2007, 00:23

Nope, take as long a term as you like. The slave will still be the best option for easy production.

No. You are thinking to polar, debate really is rather useless.

Ice

09-27-2007, 00:25

Uhm, that's exactly the timespan the Market mostly operates in. Shareholder value and quarterly capitalism, remember ?

Somewhat. That's why there are certain laws in place to try to prevent this.

I'd have to say there are many though that think long term.

Plus, have you read up on the history of serfdom and the early Industrial Revolution ?

I have not, so please explain what you are trying to get at here.

John86

09-27-2007, 00:28

Lower salaries = more profit.
You forgot that the "advantage" of increased factor of competition also causes lower price of workers, i.e. shitty salaries.

Not so much. Ford was famous for paying workers well above the average pay at the time to boost production. I'd say he was pretty successful.

Corporations are not stupid, they understand the best average to satisfy employees while beating competition.

Watchman

09-27-2007, 00:51

I have not, so please explain what you are trying to get at here.Can be summed up roughly as "so long as the workers don't have alternatives, I can always squeeze them a bit harder to maintain the profit margin". Did wonders to retard both technological and social developement back in the day - the estate owners kept getting filthy rich mind you, but the society went to Hell and more often than not a neighbour who wasn't running as crappy a system came and took over.

Or the peons rose up in a bloody rebellion.

That's roughly the history of serfdom in a nutshell. Industrialization worked slightly differently - obviously - but an unifying feature was that the owners for the most part had a bad habit of treating their workforce like so much disposable dirt unless they had pressing reasons not to; this usually equaled intervention from the authorities or other such trouble.

And where things for one reason or another didn't improve (usually because the authorities sided with the owners), well, Russian Revolution is one example of what lay at the end of that path.

The owners only play nice these day for around two reasons. One, some of them actually have internalized the value-sets of enlightened treatment of the Labour, fair business ethics etc. Alas these qualities aren't exactly the ones the private sector generally encourages, as they have a bad tendency to get in the way of making (short-term) profit.
Two, and easily the most important one, is that if they don't the auhtorities tend to read them the riot act. Where the authorities fail to provide this function they have an unpleasant tendency to revert to the exploitative employee-treatment pattern - crappy and dangerous working conditions, child labour, absurd work hours for minimal wages, the works. Violence and similar abuse of the workers is optional.

The inherent operative logic of business is to drive costs down as much as possible while getting as much return-of-investement out of them as possible; the unfortunate result of this built-in tendency, when left to fend for itself, is that the treatment of the workers becomes best characterized with the epithet "slave driving". Even if they're well paid and otherwise enjoy similar fiscal benefits, the devotion and investement of time and energy and general submission of the Self to the Job expected of them tends to be unhealthy at best - nevermind now that one has to wonder what time they are supposed to enjoy their wages in...
And that's the upper end of the spectrum, the personnel who are at least marginally difficult to replace. The disposable lower rungs ? Chewing-gum. Spit out when the taste goes and get a new one.

Now the point of the above is that just because some time back things were worked out to the point where workers actually have de facto human rights doesn't mean the matter will remain so forever on its own; or to misquote one chestnut, "every new generation has to be won back from barbarism".

It's not like "the Management" were inherently bad people wanting to reduce "the Labour" to virtual slavery or anything; it's just that the inherent logic of cost-efficiency considerations (especially in the context of an economy obsessed with short-term profit) inevitably steers them in that direction sooner or later, and it is just for barring this developement - and generally maintaining the status and factual rights of the workers - that "socialism" in the broad sense is still required and will be required in the future.

Ice

09-27-2007, 01:20

Now the point of the above is that just because some time back things were worked out to the point where workers actually have de facto human rights doesn't mean the matter will remain so forever on its own; or to misquote one chestnut, "every new generation has to be won back from barbarism".

So, how do you forsee human rights, that workers currently enjoy, detereiting so much in the future?

...that "socialism" in the broad sense is still required and will be required in the future.

What do you mean exactly by this?

Good post by the way. I disagree with a few points, but most of it holds true. Seems we disagree about the future course of business though.

Watchman

09-27-2007, 01:30

Ice

09-27-2007, 01:46

New Public Management my arse.

Want the bad end ? Take a look at the conditions of the workers in third-world sweatshops (where most manufacturing is migrating from the Fist World anyway, as a cost-cutting measure - it's simply impossible for First World workers to even consider wages that count as decent there), where protective legislation doesn't even exist or if it does isn't enforced and unionizing tends to be de facto if not also de jure forbidden. Or the short-term employement farm hands (not rarely former smallholder peasants bought out of their lands) cutting crops around the same parts of the world, exposed to pesticides and other pleasantness as a matter of course as if their work alone wasn't grueling enough.
Or the itinerant workers at Chinese construction sites.

Get the picture ?

Not really. If governments aren't respecting basic human rights and legislation like you claim, why exactly is socialism needed, when much less extreme measures haven't really been tried to their full affect?

Big King Sanctaphrax

09-27-2007, 02:14

Bellum

09-27-2007, 04:30

So you believe that a Company has the right to ignore Unions? If so, I fail to see what a Union would achieve.

None, if the powers that be have any sense. Lets not infringe on the rights of either the employees or the entrepreneurs. There is no reason why a union should be forced to be recognized by the state, but it should be illegal (as it infringes on rights guaranteed by the constitution of the US) to discriminate based on union membership.

Of course, these are the economic values I would choose to live by. What you do in your own country is of very little concern to me.

As far as corporations become militaristic and killing people and stuff...It's happened in America in the past, and it's horrible. That's not the free economy we try to work towards.

HoreTore

09-27-2007, 06:41

I'm a little confused. I've always thought Socialism by definition involved re-distribution of wealth, workers owning the means of production, etc, which don't seem to be relevant here. The thread instead seems to be about why we still need trade unions and workers' rights-things that are perfectly compatible with a laissez-faire capitalist economy.

Stages, BKS, stages... We're not talking about revolutionary socialism here ~;)

CountArach

09-27-2007, 07:22

I'm a little confused. I've always thought Socialism by definition involved re-distribution of wealth, workers owning the means of production, etc, which don't seem to be relevant here. The thread instead seems to be about why we still need trade unions and workers' rights-things that are perfectly compatible with a laissez-faire capitalist economy.
Trade Unions have a lot of impact within a Socialist economy, because it is generally believed that they would be a major player in Industrial Relations issues , especially when it comes to ownership of the Means of Production.

HoreTore

09-27-2007, 07:52

Trade Unions have a lot of impact within a Socialist economy, because it is generally believed that they would be a major player in Industrial Relations issues , especially when it comes to ownership of the Means of Production.

Not to mention that a lot of the models for how to implement workers owning the means of production are quite similar if not identical to the current union structure.

Rodion Romanovich

09-27-2007, 09:54

Not so much. Ford was famous for paying workers well above the average pay at the time to boost production. I'd say he was pretty successful.

Corporations are not stupid, they understand the best average to satisfy employees while beating competition.
That depends on how intellectually challenging the work is, and if it's a market where there's an excess of workers compared to jobs, you can only benefit, in the 10 years long term, as a company owner to pay lower salaries. IIRC Ford had the danger of competitors stealing his skilled engineers, and additionally the luck of being one of the first to be able to massproduce cars when the demand exploded, so he could both afford it, and had good reason to.

Not a good example. How about we take the average coal mine in Poland as an example. Workers are treated as expendable.

For the short term this holds usually holds true.

See above, and additionally: short term is the key word in modern economies. After you've worked them out for 5-10 years you can just replace them.

Indeed, that's why some government restriction is needed. I'm not laissez faire.
[...]
What point are you arguing with me here?

The government is not enough to make sure worker's rights are expected. Just look at USA at the moment, there are at least two issues of greater importance in the next election: 1. making sure those who wish to destroy the country (Bush administration and similar-minded) are removed from power before the damage is too big, 2. fight for various human rights issues such as death penalty, abortion, not teaching creationism in biology lessons, abolishing Guantanamo etc.

With so many more important questions, worker's rights are forgotten, because you vote for packages. If you find a package that fulfills your opinions in the above two issues, it may not be a package that cares a rat's *** about worker's rights.

That's why the unions are needed. And you may not be aware, but there exist lobbyist cooperation organizations among employers. If unions did not exist, we would have a one sided situation with employers cooperating, but workers not doing so.

That most US unions are corruption-infested doesn't mean unions are a bad idea - it means the US doesn't have unions, but something else pretending to be unions, and should strive to create unions and remove the current vermin.

For the most part, this forces people to reeducate in order to get to the salary they were making. I can't speak for other countries, but here the government will help pay for an additional two year degree if your job gets outsourced.

You lose pension money for 2 years of work even if this works, not to mention that the new branch you go to, will most likely already be full just like all other branches. This means you either become unemployed, or someone else will be fired from his job. Globalization gives no benefit to any except the company owners and employers. Hopefully, their benefit will only be short term, and there will be political movements to halt globalization.

Besides, jobs are created for those in many poor countries that didn't have them before.

Unemployment is hardly the biggest problem for these poor countries, where already the 5 years old children work.

I never said they should be legally restrict, so I'm not sure why you are quoting me saying that.

You said they should be limited:

Why exactly do we still need, or did we ever need socialism?
[...]
Unions should be allowed, TO AN EXTENT

InsaneApache

09-27-2007, 09:59

and they all failed.

Rodion Romanovich

09-27-2007, 10:25

and there was much rejoicing

JR-

09-27-2007, 10:42

yeah, but which unlucky country has to bear the brunt of socialism for the 'betterment' of the rest of us?

Rodion Romanovich

09-27-2007, 10:45

and there was much rejoicing

Watchman

09-27-2007, 12:32

"Socialism" as in reformatory Socialism as in Social Democracy as in the form that the revolutionary types accused - justifiably - of trying to correct the faults of the capitalist system and therefore preserve it and forestall the Revolution.

Which is also what the right-wingers here normally term "socialism" for short; not my problem if they don't know the difference between the moderate-reformatory and radical-revolutionary strains.

The latter gave the world such pleasantries as the USSR and PRC; the former, the Scandinavian welfare states and workers' rights in general.

HoreTore

09-27-2007, 19:04

A reformist socialist isn't a social democrat. Now you almost made me cry.

Watchman

09-27-2007, 19:24

Around the same thing as far as practical policies go insofar as I am aware of. Differences in political liturgy don't particularly interest me.

HoreTore

09-27-2007, 19:53

Pfft, it's in the practical area where the labour/social democratic parties and the more generic socialist parties differ, as the social democrats steer more towards privatization(especially after Blair), while the socialists use(or wish to use, they're generally a lot smaller than labour) the state.

Watchman

09-27-2007, 20:22

Ah, you were talking about parties. That's different of course; usually the SocDems/Labour are the more "centre" of the two, leading to the inevitable drift towards the political "middle ground" in competing for the voters there with their closest peers on the centre-Right whereas the "Socialist" parties tend to be further out in the Left (there sometimes being a Communist fringe beyond them).

Blair, though, was pretty much a turncoat if you ask me.

Crazed Rabbit

09-27-2007, 20:59

The government is not enough to make sure worker's rights are expected. Just look at USA at the moment, there are at least two issues of greater importance in the next election: 1. making sure those who wish to destroy the country (Bush administration and similar-minded) are removed from power before the damage is too big, 2. fight for various human rights issues such as death penalty, abortion, not teaching creationism in biology lessons, abolishing Guantanamo etc.

Um...Bush is going to be removed no matter what. The rest of the issues you listed are not issues of great importance this election cycle.

You what I find funny about the contention that employers will also try to get the cheapest employees? The idea that somehow management does not understand 'you get what you pay for'. Do any of you buy the cheapest car you find? Why would management always drive for the cheapest employees like you claim? Getting the best value for employees is very different from just getting the cheapest. Really, economics 101 people.

CR

The Wizard

09-27-2007, 21:06

Bah. There's Maoism and Marxist-leninism.Psst... "Marxism-Leninism" is good ol' Joe Dzugashvili's euphemism for "Stalinism" ~;)

As for these killings and beatings, it's appaling and wrong. People should be allowed to state and defend what they think is right, regardless of the fact if it's moronic (or not). However, a little over a hundred dead unionists, eight hundred beatings, eight thousand people getting fired (allegedly) for being part of a trade union -- on a world population of six billion and a working world population of what, three, four billion? Terrible, yes, but don't you think this is a little bit too large of a fuss?

EDIT: Also Watchman, I believe the correct term used by revolutionary socialists and communists would be "revisionist socialism".

Blodrast

09-27-2007, 21:39

Um...Bush is going to be removed no matter what. The rest of the issues you listed are not issues of great importance this election cycle.

You what I find funny about the contention that employers will also try to get the cheapest employees? The idea that somehow management does not understand 'you get what you pay for'. Do any of you buy the cheapest car you find? Why would management always drive for the cheapest employees like you claim? Getting the best value for employees is very different from just getting the cheapest. Really, economics 101 people.

CR

Then I guess outsourcing is just a collective fantasy we're all having around here...

As to "why" does management does that: simple - short term solutions. Picture board room, and manager with shiny colorful graphs: "Look, we're hiring these 4 <insert nationality here>, instead of one <American or whatever>, and we're saving 20k every year, and of course 4 people will do a much better job than just one guy!".

Come on, I'm sure you're not so disconnected from the real world, and you know all of this is going on.

I've read several examples of companies who had one department/section/project crash precisely because the "obviously cheaper" version turned out to be actually much more expensive in the long run.

Watchman

09-27-2007, 21:54

Like the recent thing with the toys Made In China, where the problem turned out to have been at the initial planning stage rather than actual execution.

People can actually be amazingly stubborn about failing to recognize the coefficent between price and quality. All the more so if all they deal with is stock values and never a whiff of what those correlate to in reality.

Crazed Rabbit

09-27-2007, 22:33

Then I guess outsourcing is just a collective fantasy we're all having around here...

Outsourcing, at least in regards to the computer industry, happens because the Indian engineers are just as talented as American ones, but much cheaper to hire. The Indian workers are a better value, not just cheaper.

As to "why" does management does that: simple - short term solutions. Picture board room, and manager with shiny colorful graphs: "Look, we're hiring these 4 <insert nationality here>, instead of one <American or whatever>, and we're saving 20k every year, and of course 4 people will do a much better job than just one guy!".

Come on, I'm sure you're not so disconnected from the real world, and you know all of this is going on.

I've read several examples of companies who had one department/section/project crash precisely because the "obviously cheaper" version turned out to be actually much more expensive in the long run.

Ya, that's capitalism. Those people who make stupid decisions either start making better decisions or go out of business.

Do you have a beef with outsourcing? If you do, does that extend to the whole idea of international trade; namely buying things from other countries cheaper instead of making them yourself?

CR

Seamus Fermanagh

09-27-2007, 22:45

...If you do, does that extend to the whole idea of international trade; namely buying things from other countries cheaper instead of making them yourself?

You reminded me of a thought I once had, Rabbitt. Namely, that all of the "we need to be one world" crowd was going about it the wrong way. International trade will, via the exchange of value, slowly level the entire playing field and bring the world together more naturally than will any attempt to do so by fiat. A long slow process though....

Geoffrey S

09-27-2007, 23:15

A reformist socialist isn't a social democrat. Now you almost made me cry.
Reformist socialist, as in, changing socialism so much that it basically isn't socialism any more but yet another possible direction in the political spectrum of a liberal democracy? As in, social democrats?

The Wizard

09-27-2007, 23:20

I'd say the diffence between social democrats and socialists/communists is that social democrats wish to bring about the dreamed communism of Karl Marx from the inside of the capitalist society he saw, while Marxists et al wish to do so from the outside.

Watchman

09-27-2007, 23:35

The main practical difference I know of is that one bunch wants to overthrow the whole Capitalist structure and build something better in its place, while the other wants to fix it where needed and as such actually keep the whole Revolution from happening on account of No Reason To.

Which is, obviously, why back in the day the Revolutionaries loathed the Reformists with the passion typically encountered in regards to heretics and reprobates.

Given which party for a while was actually all for Fascist takeover (on the account that they were the ultimate expression of everything wrong with the Capitalist sytem, and would hence only bring about the Revolution that much faster) and quite manifestly failed to factually deliver what it should, I figure it's pretty clear which camp I prefer.

HoreTore

09-28-2007, 08:17

Reformist socialist, as in, changing socialism so much that it basically isn't socialism any more but yet another possible direction in the political spectrum of a liberal democracy? As in, social democrats?

No... Reformist socialist as in wanting to create the socialist state(and utopia) through stages of reform, not through a(or stages of) revolution.

In the easy version, the revolutionaries believe that there's no reason to wait, we can make it quickly. The reformists believe that the change will take a long time, and you go about it one piece at a time.

The social democrats seem to have found their place already, between a planned and market economy.

EDIT: Also Watchman, I believe the correct term used by revolutionary socialists and communists would be "revisionist socialism".

Revolutionaries call themselves revolutionaries. It's a damn good name, why would they want to call themselves something else?

Geoffrey S

09-28-2007, 08:57

No... Reformist socialist as in wanting to create the socialist state(and utopia) through stages of reform, not through a(or stages of) revolution.
That's the thing. Through various stages of reform implies working through the current system, and ultimately that entails making compromises either way; at some point either a revolution is required, or they remain nothing more than social democrats who still claim to have utopia in mind.

Rodion Romanovich

09-28-2007, 08:58

You what I find funny about the contention that employers will also try to get the cheapest employees? The idea that somehow management does not understand 'you get what you pay for'. Do any of you buy the cheapest car you find? Why would management always drive for the cheapest employees like you claim? Getting the best value for employees is very different from just getting the cheapest. Really, economics 101 people.

Pure BS, there are certain jobs that, although we don't say so often these days (nearly tabboo - made tabboo by the right-wingers obviously) can be done by almost everyone. In those cases, lower salary = higher profit for the employer, it's as simple as that. Those are the positions where the workers are generally classified as "workers" and were the reason for the founding of socialism. A worker at MacDonalds, cleaning staff, assembly line workers, etc., are typically treated in this way by corporations unless there are unions to prevent it from happening.

If I were to compare your ideas with those of the people of the 18th century, I'd say those of the 18th century were those who knew how to take us from the 18th century chaos into the rich and prosperous 20th century with democracy, freedom and justice. However, you are one of the people who know how to take us from the greatness of the 20th century to the darkness of the 18th century. And you call yourself enlightened...

Banquo's Ghost

09-28-2007, 12:49

Let's be careful with making personal statements about who is or is not "enlightened".

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

HoreTore

09-28-2007, 20:32

That's the thing. Through various stages of reform implies working through the current system, and ultimately that entails making compromises either way; at some point either a revolution is required, or they remain nothing more than social democrats who still claim to have utopia in mind.

One word: Bah!

It doesn't mean "working within the system". It means changing the system(through reforming the capitalist system to the socialist system). It's more like a very very long revolution ~;)

Watchman

09-28-2007, 22:43

So long as they stick to the established legal (usually reads as parliamentary) methods though, what's the meaningful difference to "social democrats" ?

HoreTore

09-28-2007, 23:24

So long as they stick to the established legal (usually reads as parliamentary) methods though, what's the meaningful difference to "social democrats" ?

Revolutionaries want parliaments too btw ~;)

But the usual difference is that the socialists wants less free market than the social democrats. Especially after the hated Blair.

Watchman

09-28-2007, 23:46

Regarding revolutionaries and parlamentarism, one is reminded of what the "soviet" in Soviet Union originally meant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_%28council%29).

Anyway, that doesn't sound like there was any practical difference between "reformatory socialist" and "social democrats" beyond the former being further to the Left in their political views.
Which seems to be pretty much what I was saying in the first place.

HoreTore

09-29-2007, 00:31

Which seems to be pretty much what I was saying in the first place.

You've been in the backroom for some time now, haven't you? :laugh4:

Watchman

09-29-2007, 00:35

Years, actually. "You never really quit the Agency." :cool2:

Geoffrey S

09-29-2007, 05:44

Regarding revolutionaries and parlamentarism, one is reminded of what the "soviet" in Soviet Union originally meant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_%28council%29).
That's an interesting discussion we're working on for next week's SU lecture: was the Octoberrevolution actually a coup both against the temporary government and the soviets?

Ironside

09-29-2007, 10:40

Not really following where the thread has been going for a while, but still something I would like to see some thoughts on:

When the service sector will start to have a simular efficiency increase on the worked hours/vs productivity* done as the industry and agriculture sector (were you've got less people producing more), were will the jobs go? Or will they disappear, making job shortage a major problem?

*
While I suspect it will happen quite a bit earlier, by the time "the andriods are taking our jobs" statement will ring true, this is a fact. The service sector at that point can't simply expand even more to cover up the jobs lost.

The Wizard

09-29-2007, 16:26

Seeing this thread, I'm reminded of the fact that them commies are like metalheads: every second eejit has his own movement and corresponding name. ~;)

HoreTore

09-29-2007, 16:31

That's true with any political direction. How many Christian churches are there, for example? ~;)

And we have 4 completely different parties here all claiming to be the true liberal party, for example...

The Wizard

09-29-2007, 16:34

Truly, Høyre is superior! ~;)

But seriously. The left, especially the far left, is just a teeny bit worse than the rest. One look into Trotskyism and you know enough

Redleg

09-29-2007, 16:35

Don't confuse the corrupt version of the union system in America with the real and important unions.

I find this statement very amusing - going to have to read the rest of the thread just to see if anyone pointed out the error in your statement here. If they didn't I might just have to. But here is a hint - the corruption of the present does not mean that the American version of the union system is not important or real, or that its impact on American History is less important then anything that went on in Europe in regards to unions.

Redleg

09-29-2007, 16:38

When it comes to american unions, I have no problem believing a WSJ article declaring them idiots, as, well, they do seem to behave like idiots...

However, this article wasn't about them, it was about union workers in china getting hunted down and killed for trying to demand a break every 6 hours and things like that...

This gets even better - the article is about China and its Unions but you continue to blast at American Unions.

So are you agreeing with us capitalists that communism is even more broke as a political system then capitialism?

Redleg

09-29-2007, 16:44

Uhm, no it's not. A slave will earn you more money than a regular employee. And do we really care about how our clothes were sewn together? Do we really care if it was done by slaves? The market tells us, sadly, that we don't.

Only in the short term. Slaves require upkeep and replacement over time.

In the long run a statified employee who recieves in his opinion a fair wage for the work that he performs is the best solution for both the company that employe's the worker and the worker.

Some confuse government interference in the economy with unfair work conditions. One should review how governments tax the people before making such claims as you did here.

Reguler workers also have to pay taxes..

Redleg

09-29-2007, 16:49

Stages, BKS, stages... We're not talking about revolutionary socialism here ~;)

The definition he provided was not one of revolutionary socialism either. I have become even more entertained as I read this thread.

A communist government that uses marxist-lenist doctrine is killing citizens of its own nation that are attempting to form union collations. However the topic is focused on capitalism and the formation of unions.

LOL

Redleg

09-29-2007, 16:57

Now things might be different where you live, but I know around here an increase in stress levels, workload, uncertainty of future (eg. if you'll still have this job next year) etc. has been on a pretty sharp upswing for the past, oh, probably actually ten years or so.

This statement only tells me that your beginning to live in the real world. Even in the best of situations the future is always uncertain, one can make predictions concerning the future - but one never knows for sure what the future is until it has arrived. Economies change over time due to competition and resource availablity. All individuals and yes even collective work groups must be able to adjust to this reality or they are doomed to fail.

All in the name of business efficiency of course. And it's not even restricted to the private sector; public servants are feeling the cost-cutting squeeze too, and expected to meet ever-increasing demands with ever fewer personnel.

Probably can be explained through the ecomony and the tax base and how much revenue is coming into the government.

New Public Management my arse.

LOL - not an attentible arguement when your arguement seems to be leaving much out. How is the economy of your nation doing, how is the tax base and tax revenue of your nation doing? Lots of things might be happening that you are not wishing to acknowledge in your arguement.

Want the bad end ? Take a look at the conditions of the workers in third-world sweatshops (where most manufacturing is migrating from the Fist World anyway, as a cost-cutting measure - it's simply impossible for First World workers to even consider wages that count as decent there), where protective legislation doesn't even exist or if it does isn't enforced and unionizing tends to be de facto if not also de jure forbidden. Or the short-term employement farm hands (not rarely former smallholder peasants bought out of their lands) cutting crops around the same parts of the world, exposed to pesticides and other pleasantness as a matter of course as if their work alone wasn't grueling enough.
Or the itinerant workers at Chinese construction sites.

Get the picture ?

the first arguement that comes close to actually address the initial premise of the article. The recourse of the first world is to stop buying the goods from the third world until such issues are addressed, and for the workers of the third world to unite under a collective system to insure they are treated fairily by the companies that they work for. Are you willing to take such an approach, is your nation and its economy willing to also suffer the consequences of such an approach?

I for one would like to see such a solution, but I also understand the harm it will do to the world economy and worse yet the death and destruction it will cause in many of the third world nations.

Many nations went through this conflict - and most of them were bloodly.

Redleg

09-29-2007, 17:04

Again an rather amusing thread for me to wander into. Many directions were attempted to appoarch the arguement, but really all failed to address the initial premise of the article.

How does the article and its contents demonstrate that we still need socialism in 2008, when the major premise seems to be about civil rights violations done by China, a communist country, to its citizens that are attempting to establish unions.

Now one can argue that China is not communist in the sense of the theory of communism, but it is communist in name.

Geoffrey S

09-29-2007, 18:22

On that note, I'll re-emphasise:

What can socialism offer those people more than any other (not dicatatorship or whatever) form of political ideology could offer? The problems in the countries mentioned in the articles aren't caused by a lack of socialism, but by the presence of dictatorships, military regimes, etc. Any change would be preferable, and I really don't see the link to a necessity of socialism in general based on the presented article.
I also have yet to see in this topic any reason for needing socialism in particular right now.

Crazed Rabbit

09-29-2007, 19:37

Pure BS, there are certain jobs that, although we don't say so often these days (nearly tabboo - made tabboo by the right-wingers obviously) can be done by almost everyone. In those cases, lower salary = higher profit for the employer, it's as simple as that. Those are the positions where the workers are generally classified as "workers" and were the reason for the founding of socialism. A worker at MacDonalds, cleaning staff, assembly line workers, etc., are typically treated in this way by corporations unless there are unions to prevent it from happening.

Really? So if a manager at McDonalds could find someone willing to work for 50 cents an hour (assuming it was legal and all that), you'd think they'd hire them? How good of a worker do you think someone like that would be? Here's a hint; probably not that good.

If I were to compare your ideas with those of the people of the 18th century, I'd say those of the 18th century were those who knew how to take us from the 18th century chaos into the rich and prosperous 20th century with democracy, freedom and justice. However, you are one of the people who know how to take us from the greatness of the 20th century to the darkness of the 18th century. And you call yourself enlightened...

Lol. In America, the late 19th century (us not being around for most of the 18th) was one of great economic growth - without socialism or government interference.

CR

Watchman

09-29-2007, 20:41

Really? So if a manager at McDonalds could find someone willing to work for 50 cents an hour (assuming it was legal and all that), you'd think they'd hire them? How good of a worker do you think someone like that would be? Here's a hint; probably not that good.You really like tendentious hyperboles do you ? 50 cent/hour will naturally not go through period for the simple reason the cost of living, even at the most minimal level, in these wealthy postindustrial countries of ours just doesn't allow it.

Anything down to borderline starvation wages, however, will work and if the food's still (relatively) cheap the customers aren't going to give a jack until something goes wrong, as happened with those merry poorly designed products made dirt cheap in China recently.

Moreover, do recall that the workers can be kept "good" by sheer coercion if you can get away with it.

In America, the late 19th century (us not being around for most of the 18th) was one of great economic growth - without socialism or government interference.I seem to recall interesting stuff that happened during the period included the virtual extermination of the native population, near extinction of at least one major land animal, a fair bit of exploitation of unprotected workforces, and a fair few disputes between Capital and Labour reaching the point of armed confrontations with casualties and the occasional outright murder (not surprisingly by the Capital)...

For some odd reason a fair few other states with "socialism and governement interference" seemed to largely escape such internal issues and still had a period of great economic growth on the side.

You were saying ?

Redleg

09-29-2007, 22:29

You really like tendentious hyperboles do you ? 50 cent/hour will naturally not go through period for the simple reason the cost of living, even at the most minimal level, in these wealthy postindustrial countries of ours just doesn't allow it.

It really was not all that tendentious of a hyperbole, it almost matched the logic exhibit in the comment it was addressing.

Anything down to borderline starvation wages, however, will work and if the food's still (relatively) cheap the customers aren't going to give a jack until something goes wrong, as happened with those merry poorly designed products made dirt cheap in China recently.

Define borderline starvation wage. In different parts of the world that wage has different meaning.

Moreover, do recall that the workers can be kept "good" by sheer coercion if you can get away with it.

Not a necessarily true statement. Sheer coercion does not work in the long run.

I seem to recall interesting stuff that happened during the period included the virtual extermination of the native population, near extinction of at least one major land animal, a fair bit of exploitation of unprotected workforces, and a fair few disputes between Capital and Labour reaching the point of armed confrontations with casualties and the occasional outright murder (not surprisingly by the Capital)...

For some odd reason a fair few other states with "socialism and governement interference" seemed to largely escape such internal issues and still had a period of great economic growth on the side.

You were saying ?

There was still violence associated with the other few states as they developed the socialism and governmental interference into the economy.

HoreTore

09-29-2007, 23:05

This gets even better - the article is about China and its Unions but you continue to blast at American Unions.

It was because they were mentioned. The US unions have acted like completely dolts too many times, they deserve to be blasted. That they don't have any real popular support says it all really.

So are you agreeing with us capitalists that communism is even more broke as a political system then capitialism?

Yes. If by capitalism, you mean the more moderate form. If you mean the extreme version of say Pinochet, then no.

Redleg

09-30-2007, 04:08

It was because they were mentioned. The US unions have acted like completely dolts too many times, they deserve to be blasted. That they don't have any real popular support says it all really.

So by taking that stance - are you attempting to ignore the bloodshed that was spilt in the 20-40's when many unions tried to form to better the working conditions of the worker? Are you aware of the changes that the UAW did to better the working conditions for the common auto worker back in the early days of the union and the bloodshed that done in doing so? Or how about the attempt by the railroads to break any formation of a union? Or such statements just beg to be shot full of holes. Just because the current crop of union leaders are corrupt politicans - does not discount the union - only the leadership.

That unions have no popular support? Hmm what industry do you work in? Do you work in the United States or do you only read what is in the popular media.

Care to guess what union could shut down the United States transportation system if it wishes to? One should study the subject a little more before making certain statements.

Is their corruption in the unions in the United States - yes there is, I also believe that its present in other nations as well. The old saying that power corrupts is valid for more then just governments.

Yes. If by capitalism, you mean the more moderate form. If you mean the extreme version of say Pinochet, then no.

The meaning of the sentence is quite clear - are you agreeing with us capitalists?

Tsk tsk this has been to easy for me - give it a little more effort instead of the standard bash on the United States and its systems.

Adrian II

09-30-2007, 21:16

Interesting thread, particularly for the notion, entertained by some, that socialism is somehow a distant future perspective. It is not. It's here, and it's here to stay.

If you look at the agenda proposed by democratic socialists one hundred years ago, you will see that most of those demands have long been met in the western world as a result of both social and political struggle. Democratic socialism is a huge success story, even if it sometimes went under different names in various countries and historical periods.

I agree that we still need socialism, though, but for a different reason than the one stated by the original poster. We need it because man needs to master blind economic forces, lest they master him.

A good example is markets. Markets are never spontaneously free and fair. They can be made more or less free and fair by state regulation only. In this respect, too, the modern state has come a long way. State regulation of markets is the sensible solution to many economic problems. The two extremes of state control of the economy on the one hand, and withdrawal of the state on the other hand, both result in crisis and chaos.

Watchman

10-01-2007, 23:03

"Good worker, bad master" as it were.

Define borderline starvation wage. In different parts of the world that wage has different meaning.Depends on the costs of living involved, which in turn are pretty much state-specific. Duhh.

In this case, they can be defined to be whatever people are still willing to accept without the use of force in the negotiations - obviously not too many folks will actually accept wages they can't even keep themselves fed with.

Not a necessarily true statement. Sheer coercion does not work in the long run.Quarterly shareholder-value capitalism doesn't really give a hoot about the long run though. And you'd actually be surprised how well it has worked until someone - peasant revolt, organized labour, official legislation - has made it impossible to continue.

There was still violence associated with the other few states as they developed the socialism and governmental interference into the economy.AFAIK primarily in the stage where the State hadn't yet gone over to the side of the Labour, and instead at the insistence of the Capital treated such rumblings as uprisings against the rule of the law and common peace and - property rights.

At some point most realized they had better start listening to the workers or they'd have a real problem in their hands down the road; governements are actually generally rather better at this "long term" thing than fiscal entities.