Why we still need socialism in 2008.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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...

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

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

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 ~;)

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

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.

Regarding revolutionaries and parlamentarism, one is reminded of what the "soviet" in Soviet Union originally meant.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

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:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Regarding revolutionaries and parlamentarism, one is reminded of what the "soviet" in Soviet Union originally meant.

---

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?

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?

*

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.

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. ~;)

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...

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

On that note, I'll re-emphasise:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

Quote:

---

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 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

"Good worker, bad master" as it were.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.