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. ~;)
Printable View
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
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
This gets even better - the article is about China and its Unions but you continue to blast at American Unions.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
So are you agreeing with us capitalists that communism is even more broke as a political system then capitialism?
Only in the short term. Slaves require upkeep and replacement over time.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
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..
The definition he provided was not one of revolutionary socialism either. I have become even more entertained as I read this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
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
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:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Probably can be explained through the ecomony and the tax base and how much revenue is coming into the government.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.
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:
New Public Management my arse.
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?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 ?
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:
I also have yet to see in this topic any reason for needing socialism in particular right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
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:
Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich
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.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...
CR
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
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.
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)...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.
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 ?
It really was not all that tendentious of a hyperbole, it almost matched the logic exhibit in the comment it was addressing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Define borderline starvation wage. In different parts of the world that wage has different meaning.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.
Not a necessarily true statement. Sheer coercion does not work in the long run.Quote:
Moreover, do recall that the workers can be kept "good" by sheer coercion if you can get away with it.
There was still violence associated with the other few states as they developed the socialism and governmental interference into the economy.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 ?
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
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 Redleg
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
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.
The meaning of the sentence is quite clear - are you agreeing with us capitalists?Quote:
Yes. If by capitalism, you mean the more moderate form. If you mean the extreme version of say Pinochet, then no.
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.
Depends on the costs of living involved, which in turn are pretty much state-specific. Duhh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
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:
Not a necessarily true statement. Sheer coercion does not work in the long run.
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.Quote:
There was still violence associated with the other few states as they developed the socialism and governmental interference into the economy.
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.