Leftism Is Quite Primtivist [Archive]

Richard Nixon

26th September 2009, 04:08

These are true claims.

Historically, governments have played a large role in civilizations. This is because in civilization, property has been defined in such a way that it's one group of people taking the property away from another group. This could be aristocrats, slave owners, etc. This led even Aristotle to define the political line as being between Democracy on the one side, and oligarchy (capitalism/fascism, what have you) on the other.

Well then couldn't you say leftism is quite that way since it believes in taking away large amounts of property from everyone?

However, history also shows that as civilization advances, more and more people have property and resources. In feudalism, I believe more people had property than in a pure aristocracy. Land was often divided up among the peasants. There were even times when peasants demanded from the king that the land be divided up evenly. Generally, certain people were given an amount of land and each had a specific rol.e

One could have called a feudal system vaguely leftisit as the state was (in theory) to hold all land and dispense it to people at it's will.

Then came capitalism, and more people had more resources, and this has worked better than a one dictator system or feudalism. Thus, there has been progress because more people started sharing in the power.

It stands to reason then that once society as a whole takes power over the resources, there will be even more progress.

That is because in capitalism that unlike say fedualism the state is not held to own all land or any other resources. Thus the ideal form of government will be when everyone is involved in the capitalist system which unfortunately is quite impossible however communism will going back to in a sense to feudalism or tribalism where in theory everyone was to hold land communally.

It's not that hard to think about: the reason the government constantly has to involve itself in the market in today's capitalism, is not because of the working class - they're doing what they're supposed to be doing. It's largely because of the decisions that corporate CEOs make, the people who are playing with other peole's time and resources.

"For humanity to live under capitalism, is to live on borrowed time."

The decisions of irresponsible and otherwise stupid CEOs can be covered by regulations, fines, and such systems.

1. Getting rid of government is not primitivist.
2. Not all forms of anarchism want to get rid of capitalist economics.
3. The government has not been the base of human organization for civilized societies.

Do you disagree with any of these points?

1. Every civilized society: Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, Rome, China, the West, Russia all have had some form of government.
2. I know there are Anarcho-Capitalists, I was addressing this to leftist (ie anti-capitalist) anarchists.
3. See #1

bcbm

26th September 2009, 04:15

late-era feudalism (which as an aside probably needs a better name given it had changed a lot by then)

Mercantilism?

Kwisatz Haderach

26th September 2009, 04:18

Both wish to do away with government which has been the base of human organization for civilized societies...
Define "civilised", and explain (1) what aspects of "civilisation" require a government, and (2) why those aspects are desirable.

...both wish to get rid of capitalist economics which has been the base of civilised economies...
So, uh, there were no "civilised" economies before the 18th century?

...and generally devolve to the level of villiages and communes, quite similar to tribalism.
Ok, this one is a fair criticism of some anarchists and a small number of communists. I really can't imagine how a modern technological society could be run by a political structure based on groups of people the size of villages.

My brand of communism, however, calls for organizations on a large scale - continental and even planetary.

Kwisatz Haderach

26th September 2009, 04:26

Well then couldn't you say leftism is quite that way since it believes in taking away large amounts of property from everyone?
That would be a one-time event in the transition to a "leftist" society. Not an ongoing feature of the system.

One could have called a feudal system vaguely leftisit as the state was (in theory) to hold all land and dispense it to people at it's will.
Or you could look at it the other way and say that landowners were in control of the state. This is more accurate. A person did not crown himself king and then set about establishing his ownership of land. Rather, a person acquired a large area of land as his property and then crowned himself king over it.

And anyway, the modern concept of "the state" did not exist under feudalism. There was no single central entity with the power to make all the laws of the land. Rather, there was an insanely complicated system of overlapping jurisdictions. Your king had some authority over you, and your local lord had some other kind of authority over you, and the Church had a third kind of authority, and maybe there was a guild in the area as well, and... you get the point.

1. Every civilized society: Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, Rome, China, the West, Russia all have had some form of government.
But not capitalism.

mykittyhasaboner

26th September 2009, 04:27

Leftists claim that their ideologies are the wave of the future
Perhaps, but not in such a cheesy way.

and are the most advanced and modern political and economic systems yet thought of. Well if you understood historical materialism, maybe you would understand why. I would recommend some reading (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/h/i.htm#historical-materialism), rather than blabbering about topics you clearly have little knowledge of.

You see using a materialist outlook of history, we find that the working classes (specifically the proletariat) are the ascendant class in our epoch. Just like the bourgeois merchants, industrialist middle-classes over threw feudalism and other pre-capitalist economic structures as a result of their inherent reactionary role in society; so to will the workers overthrow capitalism in favor of a more progressive and advanced mode of production and economy, that is to say, socialism.

However many aspects of communism and anarchism are quite primtivist. No they aren't. Primitivism is an anti-technological political philosophy which advocates primitive hunter-gatherer-esque forms of sociali organization. Primitivists want to rid the earth of industrial technology, while socialists and anarchists (that is, those who clearly haven't fallen of the proverbial band wagon) want to see an increase in technological output in order to enhance and improve our lives.

Both wish to do away with governmentWrong. Anarchism is a philosophy which esoupses the destruction of the state, while communists or Marxists wish to create a state run, by, and for the workers of the world. Both wish to create a classless society, but differ on the material conditions of our present situation, the means of which this society should be molded and developed, as well as plenty of other specific things that aren't really important for this discussion.

I could expand on this, but it's uneccesary in order to prove you wrong, which I have already done. No *sane* leftist wants to get rid of government.

which has been the base of human organization for civilized societiesI guess this is partially correct. However I would argue that the government isn't the basis for civilized society, rather it is the embodiement of a dominant section of said civilized society.

, both wish to get rid of capitalist economics which has been the base of civilised economies,Again, wrong. Capitalism is not the base of 'civilised economies' rather it is property relations and social contracts based on said property/economic relations (i.e. social philosophies which originally rejected the supposed "divine right" for the fuedal lords and monarchs to rule society); which from the very base of society. Market and 'private property' existed before capitalism, it was only when capitalism emerged that the highest form of private property production (or using another term, commodity production) came into place.

and generally devolve to the level of villiages and communes, quite similar to tribalism.lol. I would love for you to try and find someone here advocating "tribalism" or any kind of primitivist rubbish that isn't restricted.

Richard Nixon

26th September 2009, 04:31

Define "civilised", and explain (1) what aspects of "civilisation" require a government, and (2) why those aspects are desirable.

Civilised generally mean literate, and organised societies which have formal laws rather then traditions or customs. And civilisations that are organised have to have at the least people who enforce laws and make laws.

So, uh, there were no "civilised" economies before the 18th century?

There were elements of capitalism in ancient and medieaval economies namely merchants and the use of money.

Ok, this one is a fair criticism of some anarchists and a small number of communists. I really can't imagine how a modern technological society could be run by a political structure based on groups of people the size of villages.

My brand of communism, however, calls for organizations on a large scale - continental and even planetary.

Good.

Richard Nixon

26th September 2009, 04:43

You see using a materialist outlook of history, we find that the working classes (specifically the proletariat) are the ascendant class in our epoch. Just like the bourgeois merchants, industrialist middle-classes over threw feudalism and other pre-capitalist economic structures as a result of their inherent reactionary role in society; so to will the workers overthrow capitalism in favor of a more progressive and advanced mode of production and economy, that is to say, socialism.

Even if such a revolution happens oftentimes it will be corrupted by it's leaders who may desire power for themselves which is exaclty what happened with the bourgeois.

No they aren't. Primitivism is an anti-technological political philosophy which advocates primitive hunter-gatherer-esque forms of sociali organization. Primitivists want to rid the earth of industrial technology, while socialists and anarchists (that is, those who clearly haven't fallen of the proverbial band wagon) want to see an increase in technological output in order to enhance and improve our lives.

I meant primitive organisation which I will detail below.

Wrong. Anarchism is a philosophy which esoupses the destruction of the state, while communists or Marxists wish to create a state run, by, and for the workers of the world. Both wish to create a classless society, but differ on the material conditions of our present situation, the means of which this society should be molded and developed, as well as plenty of other specific things that aren't really important for this discussion.

I could expand on this, but it's uneccesary in order to prove you wrong, which I have already done. No *sane* leftist wants to get rid of government.

Marx explicitily said he wished to see the State whither away so the only thing so while he disagreed with anarchists on method on the end result communism and anarchism (those variants not anarcho-capitalist) is the same. The State is the civilized form of government. Apologies for not clarifying this before but you could call a tribal council and chief of a cannibal tribe in Papua New Guinea a government, by government I meant the State.

I guess this is partially correct. However I would argue that the government isn't the basis for civilized society, rather it is the embodiement of a dominant section of said civilized society.

True and the goals of both myself and you is to have a government dominated by the people.

Again, wrong. Capitalism is not the base of 'civilised economies' rather it is property relations and social contracts based on said property/economic relations (i.e. social philosophies which originally rejected the supposed "divine right" for the fuedal lords and monarchs to rule society); which from the very base of society. Market and 'private property' existed before capitalism, it was only when capitalism emerged that the highest form of private property production (or using another term, commodity production) came into place.

However leftists usually are opposed or at least severely limit the market or private property including currency. Among primitive groups there is no property or market except in the most rudimentary forms of barter and oftentimes property is held in common.

lol. I would love for you to try and find someone here advocating "tribalism" or any kind of primitivist rubbish that isn't restricted.

Well leftists advocated devolving into small communes rather then large nations. And communes and villiages are the typical form of organisation of primitive tribes.

Kwisatz Haderach

26th September 2009, 04:54

Civilised generally mean literate, and organised societies which have formal laws rather then traditions or customs. And civilisations that are organised have to have at the least people who enforce laws and make laws.
Yes, true. But those people who enforce laws and make laws - why do they have to be a special subset of society? Why can't everyone be part of the people who enforce laws and make laws?

You can abolish the state by giving everyone the power that is currently reserved for the leaders of the state. That's what communists usually mean by the "withering away of the state". A form of direct democracy, basically.

There were elements of capitalism in ancient and medieaval economies namely merchants and the use of money.
Well, then there were "elements of capitalism" in the Soviet system too, because it had merchants and used money for all economic transactions.

Of course, in reality, those things are not elements of capitalism. The unique features of capitalism are private property and markets for the means of production, alongside a market for labour-power. Markets for other things - like spices - are not necessarily capitalist.

mykittyhasaboner

26th September 2009, 05:04

Even if such a revolution happens oftentimes it will be corrupted by it's leaders who may desire power for themselves which is exaclty what happened with the bourgeois.
Sorry, but I don't take idealist garbage like this seriously. You'll have to try a little harder. Any moron can say that "pwer corruptzz" and stuff like that.

I meant primitive organisation which I will detail below.
Nothing about communism or anarchism (class struggle anarchism) advocates "primitive organization".

Marx explicitily said he wished to see the State whither away so the only thing so while he disagreed with anarchists on method on the end result communism and anarchism (those variants not anarcho-capitalist) is the same. The State is the civilized form of government.
Apologies for not clarifying this before but you could call a tribal council and chief of a cannibal tribe in Papua New Guinea a government, by government I meant the State.
Tribal councils of a cannibal tribe would be a primitve form of the state.

State- organized institutions of governance created by and ruled by the dominant class of any given society.

True and the goals of both myself and you is to have a government dominated by the people.
No, I don't want a government dominated by "the people". "The people" aren't a single homogeneous group of individuals. We are divided by classes.

However leftists usually are opposed or at least severely limit the market or private property including currency. Among primitive groups there is no property or market except in the most rudimentary forms of barter and oftentimes property is held in common.

OK...this isn't an argument. Communists are against private property and markets, so that means we're primitivists? :laugh:

Well leftists advocated devolving into small communes rather then large nations.
Ever heard of the Soviet Union, China, Cuba?

And communes and villiages are the typical form of organisation of primitive tribes.
Well thats great for them.

Richard Nixon

26th September 2009, 05:16

Yes, true. But those people who enforce laws and make laws - why do they have to be a special subset of society? Why can't everyone be part of the people who enforce laws and make laws?

You can abolish the state by giving everyone the power that is currently reserved for the leaders of the state. That's what communists usually mean by the "withering away of the state". A form of direct democracy, basically.

The problem with everyone making and enforcing laws is that people who aren't experienced or learned in law or politics will have equal say over those who are. For instance the majority of Americans support banning gay marriage, in a direct democracy that would happen quite easily. Also how will 6.6 Billion people participate in a direct democracy especially since you advocated continental and planetary organisations?

Well, then there were "elements of capitalism" in the Soviet system too, because it had merchants and used money for all economic transactions.

Of course, in reality, those things are not elements of capitalism. The unique features of capitalism are private property and markets for the means of production, alongside a market for labour-power. Markets for other things - like spices - are not necessarily capitalist.

Other things you said are uniques features of capitalism however private property did exist primitive systems of economies like feudalism or mercantilism.

Sorry, but I don't take idealist garbage like this seriously. You'll have to try a little harder. Any moron can say that "pwer corruptzz" and stuff like that.

See Soviet Union, Communist China, and Cambodia.

Nothing about communism or anarchism (class struggle anarchism) advocates "primitive organization".

Communes and villiages as I have said are small-scale.

Tribal councils of a cannibal tribe would be a primitve form of the state.

State- organized institutions of governance created by and ruled by the dominant class of any given society.

Wouldn't that therefore mean that anarchists and communists will also be the state themselves in say a commune they rule over?

No, I don't want a government dominated by "the people". "The people" aren't a single homogeneous group of individuals. We are divided by classes.

Well the majority of the people which would be in the West the middle class and the working class.

OK...this isn't an argument. Communists are against private property and markets, so that means we're primitivists? :laugh:

I mean economically speaking it's primitivist.

Ever heard of the Soviet Union, China, Cuba?

You leftists seem to always insist that the former two are not really "leftist".

Well thats great for them.

Can you say the same thing about the American system of government then?

Jimmie Higgins

26th September 2009, 05:22

Well then couldn't you say leftism is quite that way since it believes in taking away large amounts of property from everyone?Capitalism takes away large amounts of property from people... foreclosures, enclosure of communal or native lands, corporate takeovers, buyouts, imperial conquest. This would be a "bad" way that property is taken away in my opinion.

On the other hand, I support taking property away from people like when Lincoln liberated (stole) the slaves from the southern plantation-owning class.

One could have called a feudal system vaguely leftisit as the state was (in theory) to hold all land and dispense it to people at it's will. Some people say that capitalism is vaguely fascist since both systems have cops and wage wars... but that comparison is as wrong as yours.

Marxism 101: without capitalism there can be no such thing as scientific socialism as Marx described or socialists and anarchists fight for. In short: how can there be working-class self-emancipation in feudalism where there is little to no working class?

If you want to debate the progressiveness of capitalism vs. feudalism, there's not much of an argument from any of us. Marx supported bourgeois movements against reaction as a progressive step forward.

Capitalism has allowed humanity to progress greatly! But the contradictions of the system itself as well as its class nature mean that it is unsustainable and ultimately a barrier to future progress. For example, capitalism has created the conditions for feeding the world right now - but will never do so because it is unprofitable and would destroy the capitalist economy. Capitalism in the US can build millions of McMansions that somehow create a crisis that ends up causing millions of others to losse their homes to forclosures while the McMansions sit empty and unsold.

Socialism/Communism/Anachy is not a return to feudalism, but a progression from capitalism - this is why one of the biggest debates among revolutionaries over the last 150 years is over the question of if it's possible for a semi-feudal country to go stright to socialism or weather there needs to be capitalism first. Our movement argues that workers should take control of the means of production that capitalism has created (yet can not operate without the working class) into their own hands so that we can run industry together. That's a step forward, not a step back.

Revy

26th September 2009, 06:03

I am a "technogaian" eco-socialist. I support heavy use of technology for peaceful purposes of social development and environmental sustainability.

I also support a world socialist federation. The United Nations is not even half of that. I would like to demolish nationalism and the concept of the nation-state entirely, by making the entire world (which will include any lunar or Martian colonies) a new global nation, based on the ideology of humanism not nationalism.

The existence of helium-3 on other worlds could help ground-breaking development of nuclear fusion, a clean non-polluting and everlasting energy source.

The use of technology we see in the age of capitalism and imperialism has led to the deaths of millions of people in war. Sources of energy are based on what is best for the profit motive and not what is best for the environment.

Finally, under socialism, the working class will be liberated from most forms of labor, especially the most menial ones, by the use of robots. This was not possible before but is increasingly available and is the foremost emerging technology.

What Would Durruti Do?

26th September 2009, 06:20

pranabjyoti

26th September 2009, 07:33

I am a "technogaian" eco-socialist. I support heavy use of technology for peaceful purposes of social development and environmental sustainability.
The existence of helium-3 on other worlds could help ground-breaking development of nuclear fusion, a clean non-polluting and everlasting energy source.
Finally, under socialism, the working class will be liberated from most forms of labor, especially the most menial ones, by the use of robots. This was not possible before but is increasingly available and is the foremost emerging technology.
I agree with your above conclusion except for one point. At present, even heilum-3 isn't necessary for a pollutionfree way to electricity generation. The radiation from the Sun remained in cloudy condition and even at dark as heat of atmosphere and earth and oceans. By extracting atmospheric heat, nearly endless amount of electricity can be generated without polluting the environment.
That's why I am proposing an organization for searching and materializing new innovative technological and product ideas by the countries with socialist inclination. Countries like Venezuela, Cuba can set a high power organization together for searching and reviewing new and exciting ideas. The orgnaization will review new ideas and will do the prototyping, testing and other research jobs for the ideas upto the level of commercial implementation. In internet, you can get a lot of such wonderful (and very very scientifically sound) ideas posted on various blogsites.

pranabjyoti

26th September 2009, 07:44

I think it's quite the contrary. After all, how are people going to work when technology does all the working? The human resource will be replaced eventually and made very invaluable. The more technology and globalization grows, the more true this becomes.
Well, socialism means classless society and that means abolition of the working class too. In our class based society, we have to do repetative works, which we know as "production job". So far, as long this kind of jobs will be eliminated by more and more improved machines, then the whole human kind will be free of the shackles of "work" and will appoint its brain power for new and creative kind of works. IN SHORT, IN SOCIALISM, AT HUMAN BEING WILL BE FREE OF REPETATIVE WORKS, THEY WILL FLOURISH THEIR UNIQUE BRAINPOWER UPTO ITS FULL LEVEL. UPTO WHAT EXTENT, CAN NOT BE IMAGINED FROM HERE AS OUR THINKING IS BOUNDED BY EXPERIENCES FROM CLASS BASED SOCIETIES.
The replacement of workers by machines is a very strong argument in favor of socialism. In a capitalist society, it will bring just misery to maximun part of the human race. While in socialism, the same machines will free workers from repetative "labor".
IN SHORT, IN A CAPITALIST SOCIETY, MACHINES ARE ENEMY OF THE WORKERS. IN A SOCIALIST SOCIETY, MACHINES ARE SERVANT OF WORKERS AND MANKIND.

Revy

26th September 2009, 09:30

Well, socialism means classless society and that means abolition of the working class too. In our class based society, we have to do repetative works, which we know as "production job". So far, as long this kind of jobs will be eliminated by more and more improved machines, then the whole human kind will be free of the shackles of "work" and will appoint its brain power for new and creative kind of works. IN SHORT, IN SOCIALISM, AT HUMAN BEING WILL BE FREE OF REPETATIVE WORKS, THEY WILL FLOURISH THEIR UNIQUE BRAINPOWER UPTO ITS FULL LEVEL. UPTO WHAT EXTENT, CAN NOT BE IMAGINED FROM HERE AS OUR THINKING IS BOUNDED BY EXPERIENCES FROM CLASS BASED SOCIETIES.
The replacement of workers by machines is a very strong argument in favor of socialism. In a capitalist society, it will bring just misery to maximun part of the human race. While in socialism, the same machines will free workers from repetative "labor".
IN SHORT, IN A CAPITALIST SOCIETY, MACHINES ARE ENEMY OF THE WORKERS. IN A SOCIALIST SOCIETY, MACHINES ARE SERVANT OF WORKERS AND MANKIND.

Exactly.

When I bring this up to non-socialists, they try and make fun of me for it. One can't call leftists primitivists, and then laugh at them when they connect issues of politics to technology.

I am sure if the capitalists could they would replace every worker with a robot. that would maximize profits. But they know that would mean the end of the capitalist system. Without a job to give people money, workers would starve, when they'd starve, they'd revolt. So under capitalism, robots will not be used to their full potential, ironically, to preserve capitalism. They will be sold for household work only (that is currently the case, see here. (http://store.irobot.com/home/index.jsp))

Ovi

26th September 2009, 11:44

Leftists claim that their ideologies are the wave of the future and are the most advanced and modern political and economic systems yet thought of. However many aspects of communism and anarchism are quite primtivist. Both wish to do away with government which has been the base of human organization for civilized societies, both wish to get rid of capitalist economics which has been the base of civilised economies, and generally devolve to the level of villiages and communes, quite similar to tribalism.
I do not reply to trolls. Oh, wait.

Exactly.

When I bring this up to non-socialists, they try and make fun of me for it. One can't call leftists primitivists, and then laugh at them when they connect issues of politics to technology.

I am sure if the capitalists could they would replace every worker with a robot. that would maximize profits. But they know that would mean the end of the capitalist system. Without a job to give people money, workers would starve, when they'd starve, they'd revolt. So under capitalism, robots will not be used to their full potential, ironically, to preserve capitalism. They will be sold for household work only (that is currently the case, see here. (http://store.irobot.com/home/index.jsp))
Productivity increased many times, yet we still work as much as we did 50 years ago (or 500). Surely we consume way to much.

And even if robots would completely replace workers in manufacturing, we would still work as much as today, in the service sector, convincing each other to buy our shit. So no, I don't think that capitalists don't user robots instead of people to do their work because they are afraid of uprisings, but because a low wage worker is cheaper.

Demogorgon

26th September 2009, 14:06

Mercantilism?
Yeah, I wondered if that was the best name, but that is more early capitalism than late feudalism. The two blur a lot though so maybe it does fit.

Richard Nixon

26th September 2009, 16:10

Capitalism takes away large amounts of property from people... foreclosures, enclosure of communal or native lands, corporate takeovers, buyouts, imperial conquest. This would be a "bad" way that property is taken away in my opinion.

On the other hand, I support taking property away from people like when Lincoln liberated (stole) the slaves from the southern plantation-owning class.

Then in communism would you support people completely fairly buying and selling property?

Some people say that capitalism is vaguely fascist since both systems have cops and wage wars... but that comparison is as wrong as yours.

Marxism 101: without capitalism there can be no such thing as scientific socialism as Marx described or socialists and anarchists fight for. In short: how can there be working-class self-emancipation in feudalism where there is little to no working class?

If you want to debate the progressiveness of capitalism vs. feudalism, there's not much of an argument from any of us. Marx supported bourgeois movements against reaction as a progressive step forward.

I do agree capitalism is progress from feudalism. Also as for peasents leading a revolution, look at the Chinese Communist movement it was dominated by the peasents albeit it turned itself into an unspeakably sadistic government.

Capitalism has allowed humanity to progress greatly! But the contradictions of the system itself as well as its class nature mean that it is unsustainable and ultimately a barrier to future progress. For example, capitalism has created the conditions for feeding the world right now - but will never do so because it is unprofitable and would destroy the capitalist economy. Capitalism in the US can build millions of McMansions that somehow create a crisis that ends up causing millions of others to losse their homes to forclosures while the McMansions sit empty and unsold.

Socialism/Communism/Anachy is not a return to feudalism, but a progression from capitalism - this is why one of the biggest debates among revolutionaries over the last 150 years is over the question of if it's possible for a semi-feudal country to go stright to socialism or weather there needs to be capitalism first. Our movement argues that workers should take control of the means of production that capitalism has created (yet can not operate without the working class) into their own hands so that we can run industry together. That's a step forward, not a step back.

However the workers are not experienced in managing production while the current runners of factories are. There will be far more mistakes and inefficienies if the working class are ruled by the factories.

Demogorgon

26th September 2009, 17:35

However the workers are not experienced in managing production while the current runners of factories are. There will be far more mistakes and inefficienies if the working class are ruled by the factories.
Evidence shows that worker run firms are actually more successful.

At any rate those who run factories (to use the overly tired example) and those who own them are two different sets of people. Owners have no intrinsic managerial ability. They higher those that do. What is to stop workers electing those most skilled in organising the workplace to do so?

Richard Nixon

26th September 2009, 17:44

Demogorgon

26th September 2009, 18:44

Because 1) oftentimes owners are the managers and 2) even if not owners are more adapt at hiring the right people then workers.
If owners are more adept at it then why do worker run firms have a higher success rate?

pranabjyoti

26th September 2009, 19:26

Evidence shows that worker run firms are actually more successful.

At any rate those who run factories (to use the overly tired example) and those who own them are two different sets of people. Owners have no intrinsic managerial ability. They higher those that do. What is to stop workers electing those most skilled in organising the workplace to do so?
But at one point, help from the state is necessary. The research and development part. Both capitalist and socialst ownership of production will need assistance from state for improvement in the way of production. Therefore, the chance of continuous running of a factory led by workers in a capitalist society is nearly nil. Because it wouldn't get any help regarding research and development of the production means.

Havet

26th September 2009, 19:28

[QUOTE=Stancel;1556091
I am sure if the capitalists could they would replace every worker with a robot. that would maximize profits. But they know that would mean the end of the capitalist system. Without a job to give people money, workers would starve, when they'd starve, they'd revolt. So under capitalism, robots will not be used to their full potential, ironically, to preserve capitalism. They will be sold for household work only (that is currently the case, see here. (http://store.irobot.com/home/index.jsp))[/QUOTE]

Sorry but this is complete lunacy

The reason capitalist DON'T replace every worker with a robot is because there are many jobs that require a level of skill robots cannot perform, nor will they ever (who will check on the maintenance of the robots? other robots? And who will check on them? Do you see where I am coming?).

And the irobot (which I have, as a matter of fact) is not even 10% efficient as a human cleaning the house. I'll give you that at some point in the future it will, but that will just allow for other jobs to theoretically appear.

Just as the development of the machine loom reduced cost of cloth for normal people (leaving them more money), and allowed the same amount of cloth to be made with 1/10th the workforce (leaving more workers free to work other businesses).

And lets not forget, the machine loom was a catalyst for so many different inventions and industries.

Machine looms required power to run, which led to water wheels and valves, when there wasn't sufficient water power, coal was used to generate steam to power the machines, that technology was then used to make steam engines, which same technology was used to make combustion engines, all of which allowed for massive amounts of trade and transportation to occur.

In other words:

The more efficient an industry is, the more labor, land and resources are free to be spent in other markets.

This is goes down to a key principle of marketing, and economics, of market division.

When the first motocar was invented, the entire motor car market was a tiny percentage. Then as the motorcar market grew, there was enough wealth for sub markets to emerge.

Not only does this happen within markets, but it happens across markets.

Mining iron ore allows for production of iron bars which allows for production of steel, which allows production of steel machine tools, which allows for production of consumer goods, consumer goods allow business to repair those consumer goods which.

Of course, at some point in this whole process, government granted capital privilege began to allow for worker exploitation, and that is what it must be fought: forceful privilege, not the (nonexistant) free markets per se.

Richard Nixon

27th September 2009, 02:58

If owners are more adept at it then why do worker run firms have a higher success rate?

Please cite. Because the economic output of the Soviet Union did not match that of the US despite a larger population.

Skooma Addict

27th September 2009, 03:38

1. Every civilized society: Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, Rome, China, the West, Russia all have had some form of government.

They also had many other things in common, what makes you think a government was what led these nations to become prosperous? Besides, I can name many societies that had some form of government that ended in complete disaster. Look at the U.S.S.R, Zimbabwe, North Korea, ect. These countries all had governments as well. So it seems there must be something else that leads nations to prosperity.

Let me ask you this......

Do you believe the free market is more efficient than the government at providing goods and services?

IcarusAngel

27th September 2009, 03:48

Actually in the US as machinery becaome more highly specialized the US once again started to have sharp dividing line between capitalist class and the working class. Riffkin's book "The End of Work" documents a lot of this. Another good example is that under Reaganism, which we are still suffering under, there was a shift from the manufacturing sector to the financial sector.

In fact, manufacturing was about 25% of the GDP pre-Reagan, whereas financial services were about 11%. That trend has since reversed, with financial services making up 21% of our GDP and manufacturing about 13%.

The US is pretty much the epitome of capitalism, and we see the frightening results of it.

IcarusAngel

27th September 2009, 04:00

Please cite. Because the economic output of the Soviet Union did not match that of the US despite a larger population.

Untrue. Soviet production went from to above 17% in 1938. Technical education was vast, and the Soviet Union had a better educated populus than what current Russia has now. The Soviet Union grew in agricultural, steel production, and nearly every other industry. The arble land of the USSR was greater than that of the US and Canada combined, and at under the USSR it was producing more natural gas, oil, coal, led, iron, and nickle than any other country.

In the 1950s it was the most advanced nation in terms of rocketry and had sent the first satellite into space. They were also the first to orbit the earth. For those of us who are astronomy geeks, we know the Soviet Union were the first to land a probe on Venus, the venra 7.

They went from a third world country to a first world productive economy faster than any other economy in history.

They started declining when they started liberalizing.

Plus, the US was pouring money into the electronics industry, the computer industry, the automobile industry and so on. Brezhnev tried to keep up, but he was unable to do so due so and fell behind Japan, Korea, the US in manufacturing. All their money and talent was going to the "arms race" they found themselves in with the US.

Richard Nixon

27th September 2009, 04:08

They also had many other things in common, what makes you think a government was what led these nations to become prosperous? Besides, I can name many societies that had some form of government that ended in complete disaster. Look at the U.S.S.R, Zimbabwe, North Korea, ect. These countries all had governments as well. So it seems there must be something else that leads nations to prosperity.

Let me ask you this......

Do you believe the free market is more efficient than the government at providing goods and services?

In some areas yes. Also the USSR, and North Korea and to a lesser extent Zimbabwe are all socialist/communist economies.

Untrue. Soviet production went from to above 17% in 1938. Technical education was vast, and the Soviet Union had a better educated populus than what current Russia has now. The Soviet Union grew in agricultural, steel production, and nearly every other industry. The arble land of the USSR was greater than that of the US and Canada combined, and at under the USSR it was producing more natural gas, oil, coal, led, iron, and nickle than any other country.

In the 1950s it was the most advanced nation in terms of rocketry and had sent the first satellite into space. They were also the first to orbit the earth. For those of us who are astronomy geeks, we know the Soviet Union were the first to land a probe on Venus, the venra 7.

They went from a third world country to a first world productive economy faster than any other economy in history.

They started declining when they started liberalizing.

Plus, the US was pouring money into the electronics industry, the computer industry, the automobile industry and so on. Brezhnev tried to keep up, but he was unable to do so due so and fell behind Japan, Korea, the US in manufacturing. All their money and talent was going to the "arms race" they found themselves in with the US.

But the US catched up to the USSR in a few years long before liberalization. Also the US military forces were more technically oriented while the Soviet Union focused on destroying their enemies thorough massive numbers.

Skooma Addict

27th September 2009, 04:15

In some areas yes. Also the USSR, and North Korea and to a lesser extent Zimbabwe are all socialist/communist economies.

Well, I can name monarchies, democracies, fascist countries ect that had terrible economies. While it is true that some forms or governments are better than others, I do not think that the governments were the cause of economic growth.

So you think the government is more efficient than the market in certain areas of the economy? What are these sectors? Do you think they all have something in common that makes the government a better provider of these services? Or does each sector have its own reasons why the government would be the preferred supplier?

IcarusAngel

27th September 2009, 04:18

Also the US military forces were more technically oriented while the Soviet Union focused on destroying their enemies thorough massive numbers.

What about Vietnam, Korean war, third world wars (domincan republic etc.), etc.?

Actually not even Vietnam was a mistake, this is true. It showed the US is a crazy animal that lashes out enemies with unforgivable violence, chemical warfare, etc. Anybody who opposed capitalism was to be destoryed.

The US was much better at waging warfare and propagandizing our citizens ("red scares," "communist witch hunts," capitalist indoctrionation in the schools etc.) than the USSR was. That is another reason the US came out ahead.

pranabjyoti

27th September 2009, 05:18

But the US catched up to the USSR in a few years long before liberalization. Also the US military forces were more technically oriented while the Soviet Union focused on destroying their enemies thorough massive numbers.
Certainly, the capitalist economy you are advocating is based on exploitation of other countries of the world. US and other western capitalism earned their prosperity at the cost of suffering of billions of people in the third world. At least I can say that USSR under Stalin haven't exploited other countries for their prosperity. It can be understood easily that if both USSR and US will remain in same technological level, USA wil have more wealth because of its exploitation of others.
Prospering by exploiting many others is always a good option. People like you, when proudly says that USSR lags behind USA and other capitalist countries, they just forgot that this had been and still being done at the cost of billions of people of the third world.
I AM VERY MUCH SANGUINE THAT I WOULDN'T GET ANY REPLY FROM YOU REGARDING THIS MATTER IN FUTURE.

pranabjyoti

27th September 2009, 06:24

Sorry but this is complete lunacy

The reason capitalist DON'T replace every worker with a robot is because there are many jobs that require a level of skill robots cannot perform, nor will they ever (who will check on the maintenance of the robots? other robots? And who will check on them? Do you see where I am coming?).
True, machines require people too for maintenance. But, does that requires same amount of workers that the machine has replaced? NO. And moreover, "Machines always replace complex and high standard jobs with simple and low standard jobs" [Karl Marx]. Therefore, the question of salary arises from there. No capitalist will pay a worker with the same salary before and after installing a machine.

Just as the development of the machine loom reduced cost of cloth for normal people (leaving them more money), and allowed the same amount of cloth to be made with 1/10th the workforce (leaving more workers free to work other businesses).
What about the 9/10th of workforce that had lost their jobs? If the working condition and social conditions will remain in the same level as the period of introduction of machine loom. A huge majority of people wouldn't have money to buy the clothes. It's the workers struggle, that have forced the capitalists and the state to increase the workers portion in the GDP. THAT AND ONLY THAT HAD CREATED THE MARKET OF THE NEW PRODUCTIONS AND THE NEW JOBS, WHICH YOU ARE SO FAR BLUBBERING ABOUT AS A GRAND SUCCESS OF CAPITALISM.

The more efficient an industry is, the more labor, land and resources are free to be spent in other markets.
Until recession strikes.

Of course, at some point in this whole process, government granted capital privilege began to allow for worker exploitation, and that is what it must be fought: forceful privilege, not the (nonexistant) free markets per se.
Govt. in the capitalist countries is the representative of capitalists. What they will do will certainly be in favor of capitalists. The welfare and other progressive measures that ity had taken so far is in the fear of labour uprising.

Havet

27th September 2009, 12:05

True, machines require people too for maintenance. But, does that requires same amount of workers that the machine has replaced? NO.

So what? Did you even read my post? Robotization of an industry/market means new markets, more jobs, etc

And moreover, "Machines always replace complex and high standard jobs with simple and low standard jobs" [Karl Marx].

I don't regard anyone's word as a final argument, and neither should you. If you are going to quote someone, show me actual facts that the claims are true.

Therefore, the question of salary arises from there. No capitalist will pay a worker with the same salary before and after installing a machine.

What about the 9/10th of workforce that had lost their jobs? If the working condition and social conditions will remain in the same level as the period of introduction of machine loom. A huge majority of people wouldn't have money to buy the clothes. It's the workers struggle, that have forced the capitalists and the state to increase the workers portion in the GDP. THAT AND ONLY THAT HAD CREATED THE MARKET OF THE NEW PRODUCTIONS AND THE NEW JOBS, WHICH YOU ARE SO FAR BLUBBERING ABOUT AS A GRAND SUCCESS OF CAPITALISM.

Until recession strikes.

Govt. in the capitalist countries is the representative of capitalists. What they will do will certainly be in favor of capitalists. The welfare and other progressive measures that ity had taken so far is in the fear of labour uprising.

The question of salary is a useless off-topic deviation from the current conversation.

And let's not forget you are basing your argument in fallacies that are hundreds of years old.

Luddites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddites) are one of the earliest examples.

The invention of the automated machine loom, meant that the work of 5 previous workers, could now be done by 1 machine operator. Not only that, but the machine operated looms where very easy to use, compared to hand looming, which meant there was much more competition for those jobs.

Now lets ignore for a moment, that I should be free to hire whoever I want, for however much I want, and just talk about practicality.

It is a very short sighted view to believe the invention of the machine loom was actually harmful to anyone, or caused anyone to become poorer.

Of course in the immediate short term, some people will lose their jobs, but this takes a very limited, zero sum view of wealth, a daddies pockets view.

If there is only a limited amount of jobs and wealth, then the invention of the machine loom is bad, because it would reduce the amount of jobs needed

but of course, this is not the case. Textile Mills where not set up to give people jobs, they were created by a person, to make money.

If a machine loom means the same amount of cloth can be made with less workers, then it means the cloth can be made for a cheaper price, and will produce more profit.

This means the mill owner has more money to spend, and the cloth will be cheaper, which means the average person will be able to buy the same amount of cloth and have money left over.

Not only this, but the workers who no longer are needed to make cloth, can gain jobs in other parts of the market.

Obviously the invention of the machine loom just means more wealth for more humans, as one human with a machine loom can make much more cloth with less time, so thousands of humans with thousands of machine looms are making thousands of times the wealth they could do

Also, through the complex interaction of the price system, the improvements in one area of industry, incentivise business in other areas of business.

If lots of people are making cloth, then making other goods will be more profitable. This means that when jobs in cloth making dissapear due to mechanization, it is a good thing, as there is now more money to be made in jobs where machines cannot do the work of humans.

It is through these improvements in wealth that have benefited humanity. If we had no tractors, no ploughs, then more people would have to work on farms. This would not make anyone richer, it would make us poorer, we would be spending more time working just to feed ourselves, and would have less time and money to make machines, make art, engage in entertainment.

Everyone benefits indirectly from better business. The reason people in Europe can afford to spend thousands of pounds on luxuries, entertainment and expensive food is because wealth in other places is being generated.

Under state-socialist systems (which usually degenerate into state-capitalism anyway), they would have everything to be made for as high a cost as possible, and sold for a highest price as possible, that way everyone will "make" alot of money.

This is commonly known as the broken window fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_window_fallacy). Cut short, a boy breaks a window. For the window to be fixed, the local glazier is payed, the glazier then uses the money he gets paid to buy shoes from the cobbler, who then buys bread from the baker and the boy is hailed as a benevolent benefactor for providing work for the village.

Nearly all forms of state-socialist intervention involve some form of broken window fallacy, although the cost of the broken window is decidedly more hidden.

In the case of cheap foreign labor, there are a number of broken window suggestions.

1. is to not allow trade between western countries and chinese countries.

In this situation, Chinese workers would make much less money, and many would have to return to subsistence farming. The most profitable thing for Chinese people to make, is goods for the richest countries, as those people have the most wealth and can afford the most goods.

If Chinese workers only sold goods to Chinese people, they would not be able to make much money, because much fewer people in China can afford expensive electronics and household consumer goods.

Also, in Western countries, they can no longer buy cheap goods from China, which means goods will be more expensive, which will mean people can buy less goods. This reduction in wealth, also will demonstrate it in reduction of high skill jobs.

When you stop trading goods with chinese workers, this means those same goods will have to be provided by western workers, who will no longer be able to work other jobs.

Also removing the asian workers from the labor pool, means decreased competition for jobs, which means businesses will have to pay their staff more, and therefore goods will cost more.

In economic terms, this will manifest by having less jobs in high industry, because less people will be able to afford videogames, expensive medicines, electronics, and leisure industries such as going to the cinema or bars and clubs.

2. is to force those poor workers to be paid at a higher rate. Of course their skills in the job market do not warrant a higher wage than that which they are paid, so forcing businesses to pay more, will simply reduce the amount of workers that are hired, and reduce the amount of wealth created by the company,

this is the "broken window". Where although a small number of workers may be paid more, less wealth is created, just like in the luddite situation, and people will not be able to gain

Of course only an idiot would try and use cheap Asian labor as an example of harms of Economic freedom.

When China allowed private owners to farm and sell food, starvation was reduced, when China allowed private business owners to make and sell goods.

Not only is free trade good for Chinese by increasing their standard of living, but it is good for the rest of the world, who also enjoy an increased standard of living, in the form of cheaper goods, due to the creation of wealth in those countries.

As more Chinese workers get jobs in factories away from relatively unprofitable farming, there will be more wealth generated, and more wealth will be available for people to send their children to high skill training.

Eventually countries like China, assuming they kept as free or freer, will start to overtake western countries in terms of wealth, so eventually Chinese people will be producing wealth in the forms of high tech invention, entertainment creation like films and videogames, and somewhere

Now a common misperception is that all countries cannot be this wealthy, that there needs to be "poor workers" in order to sustain "rich consumers". This is a fundamental misreading of the economic reality.

It is likely that in the future, Africa and South America will become the major industrial nations, whereas western countries with high government waste, like America and Europe, will slightly fall behind Asia in terms of wealth.

Currently wealth from China is created in the form of cheap workers. This is partially because cheap workers can be exploited for wealth. The reason why a man in America makes much more in an office or a lab, is because his job creates more wealth, as his skills are more valuable than a skill that billions of people can do.

When places like China have lots of skilled workers, more wealth will be produced, not less.

While it is neccesary to have lots of workers when they are cheap and unskilled, when workers are more valuable, through the balance of the price system, it will start to become more profitable to use machines.

That is why certain goods are made almost entirely by machine, because no human skilled enough, will work cheaper than the machine will.

Say now it costs $0.20 an hour to pay a chinese worker to make an electric flashlight. Maybe you can only get a machine to make that flashlight for $0.30 an hour, but when that worker gains skills, say as a writer or biologist, and his job is now worth $10 an hour, you will no longer be able to find a worker worth $0.20 an hour.

Now shortsightedly, this may be viewed as a decrease in wealth, as it now costs 10 cents more to make a flashlight, but that same human life, is now generating $9.80 dollars more per hour, so the flashlights can afford to be made at a more expensive price, as more wealth is generated in total, so not only can consumers buy the slightly more expensive flashlight, they will have lots more money to buy other things, and very soon, due to supply and demand, lots of these flashlight making machines will be built, and eventually a machine will be built that costs less to run than the original worker.

It is only through the independent activities of the (partially existent) free market and the price system that can orchestrate such complex exchanges of wealth. Any decision to try and decide what something is worth, that is not a value placed by the market, will merely lead to waste and wealth destruction.

Demogorgon

27th September 2009, 13:06

Please cite. Because the economic output of the Soviet Union did not match that of the US despite a larger population.
The Soviet Union did not have worker self management.

Anyway US Department of Health Education and Welfare (1973 p112):
"in no instance of which we have evidence has a major effort to increase employee participation resulted in a long-term decline in productivity”

Jones and Svejnar (1982 p11):
“there is apparently consistent support for the view that worker participation in management causes higher productivity. This result is supported by a variety of methodological approaches, using diverse data and for disparate time periods.

Levine and Tyson (1990, pp205-14)
“participation usually leads to small, short-run improvements in performance, and sometimes leads to significant long lasting improvements… There is almost never a negative effect.”

It is important to note that worker self management has difficulty existing under capitalism as capitalists don't like it and take steps to prevent it. However in those areas where due to one anomaly or another it has been allowed to thrive (the Emillia-Romagna region in Italy for instance) it has been so successful that traditional capitalist firms have been pretty much unable to compete and it makes up the main part of the economy (it is one of the richest areas in Italy-and indeed Europe).

trivas7

27th September 2009, 15:04

Time was when capitalism was a new system seeking to supplant late-era feudalism (which as an aside probably needs a better name given it had changed a lot by then) and that said feudalism was the most advanced system that mankind had yet achieved. Did that make capitalism primitivist?
Depends on what you mean by primitivist. Marx in his last years trolled through the history of the Iriquois Indians and other pre-modern societies looking for the gleanings of socialist civilization. Sounds primitivist to me.

pranabjyoti

27th September 2009, 18:57

So what? Did you even read my post? Robotization of an industry/market means new markets, more jobs, etc.
Sorry, perhaps you haven't read my post properly. I also have said that the labour movement have forced capitalists and the state to enforce positive changes like less working hours, more holidays, more wage; which in turn created bigger markets and that will end up in new industries. Mechanisation in intself can not make new markets and industries. Proof? Just go to any third world country compare the condition of its industrial workers with the workers of your own country. You can see the difference very clearly. I am very very curious to know that if any leader of the state in one fine morning will withdraw doll and other welfare measures, how many hours the so called NEW INDUSTRIES will continure.

I don't regard anyone's word as a final argument, and neither should you. If you are going to quote someone, show me actual facts that the claims are true.
I am requesting you to use your observation power.

The question of salary is a useless off-topic deviation from the current conversation.
OFF TOPIC? You are saying about workers and the question of salary is off topic.

And let's not forget you are basing your argument in fallacies that are hundreds of years old.
What kind of fallacies are you talking about? The marxist theory itself.

Luddites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddites) are one of the earliest examples.
Ludites were just unable to understand that NOT THE MACHINES, but the capitalist control of society is the root of their misery. Perhaps root of all evil to the workers.

The invention of the automated machine loom, meant that the work of 5 previous workers, could now be done by 1 machine operator. Not only that, but the machine operated looms where very easy to use, compared to hand looming, which meant there was much more competition for those jobs.
FACT.

It is a very short sighted view to believe the invention of the machine loom was actually harmful to anyone, or caused anyone to become poorer.
at least I never have argues that. I ALWAYS WANT TO SAY THAT NOT THE MACHINES, BUT THE CAPITALISTS CONTROL OVER THE MACHINE IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL.

but of course, this is not the case. Textile Mills where not set up to give people jobs, they were created by a person, to make money.

If a machine loom means the same amount of cloth can be made with less workers, then it means the cloth can be made for a cheaper price, and will produce more profit.
This means the mill owner has more money to spend, and the cloth will be cheaper, which means the average person will be able to buy the same amount of cloth and have money left over.
You have forgot one thing that the average person have to earn the money by having a job. A worker is a consumer too. Less worker means less consumers.

Not only this, but the workers who no longer are needed to make cloth, can gain jobs in other parts of the market.
I hope they would be lucky enough. But, can they have the same level of salary as before. NOT. And when machines will be introduced in that part too. Where they will go then?

Obviously the invention of the machine loom just means more wealth for more humans, as one human with a machine loom can make much more cloth with less time, so thousands of humans with thousands of machine looms are making thousands of times the wealth they could do.
But, the wealth accumulated in the hands of a few capitalist can not do any common good for the human race.

Also, through the complex interaction of the price system, the improvements in one area of industry, incentivise business in other areas of business.
Mechanisation and job loss too.

If lots of people are making cloth, then making other goods will be more profitable. This means that when jobs in cloth making dissapear due to mechanization, it is a good thing, as there is now more money to be made in jobs where machines cannot do the work of humans.
Machines too enter in that field and that fields too will end in job cut and termination of services. Where the workers wil go then? Perhaps in the Sahara desert or in the Amazon jungle, where there are practically no machines.
There are much more to say, but it is a very irritating and tiresome job to answer you with your very poor knowledge of reality. I suggest you to read some essays of Karl Marx, specially "Labour, wage and capital". Marx never had made any REMARKS, HE ALWAYS PROVED HIS POINTS WITH REAL INSTANCES.

Plagueround

27th September 2009, 19:21

Depends on what you mean by primitivist. Marx in his last years trolled through the history of the Iriquois Indians and other pre-modern societies looking for the gleanings of socialist civilization. Sounds primitivist to me.

Perhaps you should educate yourself on the numerous advancements made by indians before making such stupid remarks.

Havet

27th September 2009, 22:43

Sorry, perhaps you haven't read my post properly. I also have said that the labour movement have forced capitalists and the state to enforce positive changes like less working hours, more holidays, more wage; which in turn created bigger markets and that will end up in new industries. Mechanisation in intself can not make new markets and industries. Proof? Just go to any third world country compare the condition of its industrial workers with the workers of your own country. You can see the difference very clearly. I am very very curious to know that if any leader of the state in one fine morning will withdraw doll and other welfare measures, how many hours the so called NEW INDUSTRIES will continure.

"Positive changes" like forced maximum working hours, forced number of holidays and forced minimum wages hurt more the workers they are supposed to help and benefit the big business and power-that-be.

To take some of the common arguments against minimum wages:

Excludes low cost competitors from labor markets, hampers firms in reducing wage costs during trade downturns (etc.), generates various industrial-economic inefficiencies as well as unemployment, poverty, and price rises, and generally dysfunctions as basically a special form of political-economic protectionism – the labour market equivalent or analogue of such things as tariff barriers to low cost imports.[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage#cite_note-27)
Hurts small business more than large business. [29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage#cite_note-28)
Reduces quantity demanded of workers. This may manifest itself through a reduction in the number of hours worked by individuals, or through a reduction in the number of jobs.[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage#cite_note-29)[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage#cite_note-The_Wages_of_Politics-30)
Reduces profit margins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_margin) of business owners employing minimum wage workers, thus encouraging a move to businesses that do not employ low-skill workers.[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage#cite_note-31)
Businesses try to compensate for the decrease in profit by simply raising the prices of the goods being sold thus causing inflation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation) and increasing the costs of goods and services produced. [33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage#cite_note-32)[34] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage#cite_note-33)
Does not improve the situation of those in poverty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty), it benefits some at the expense of the poorest and least productive.[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage#cite_note-cato.org-34)
Is a limit on the freedom of both employers and employees, and can result in the exclusion of certain groups from the labor force. For example, during the apartheid era in South Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_South_Africa_in_the_apartheid_era), white trade unions lobbied for the introduction of minimum wage laws so as to exclude black workers from the labor market. By preventing black workers from selling their labor for less than white workers, the black workers were prevented from competing for jobs held by whites.[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage#cite_note-35)
Businesses spend less on training their employees.[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage#cite_note-economist2006-36)
Is less effective than other methods (e.g. the Earned Income Tax Credit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_Income_Tax_Credit)) at reducing poverty, and is more damaging to businesses than those other methods.[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage#cite_note-economist2006-36)
Discourages further education among the poor by enticing people to enter the job market.[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage#cite_note-economist2006-36)
Causes outsourcing and loss of domestic manufacturing jobs to other countries.[38] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage#cite_note-37)

Of course, I wouldn't be arguing against minimum wages if I didn't thought there wasn't any practical alternative. Oh wait, but there is one.

Sweden is an example of a developed nation where there is no minimum wage that is required by legislation. Instead, minimum wage standards in different sectors are set by collective bargaining (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_bargaining).

I am requesting you to use your observation power. And i'm requesting you to stop posting quotes if you are not going to back them up with facts.

OFF TOPIC? You are saying about workers and the question of salary is off topic.We were talking about MACHINES and WORKERS, and how the first affect the later, not workers and their salaries.

What kind of fallacies are you talking about? The marxist theory itself.I'm talking about fallacies based on a zero-sum view of the world.

Ludites were just unable to understand that NOT THE MACHINES, but the capitalist control of society is the root of their misery. Perhaps root of all evil to the workers.

FACT.

at least I never have argues that. I ALWAYS WANT TO SAY THAT NOT THE MACHINES, BUT THE CAPITALISTS CONTROL OVER THE MACHINE IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL.

You have forgot one thing that the average person have to earn the money by having a job. A worker is a consumer too. Less worker means less consumers.

I hope they would be lucky enough. But, can they have the same level of salary as before. NOT. And when machines will be introduced in that part too. Where they will go then?

But, the wealth accumulated in the hands of a few capitalist can not do any common good for the human race.

Mechanisation and job loss too.

Machines too enter in that field and that fields too will end in job cut and termination of services. Where the workers wil go then? Perhaps in the Sahara desert or in the Amazon jungle, where there are practically no machines.
There are much more to say, but it is a very irritating and tiresome job to answer you with your very poor knowledge of reality. I suggest you to read some essays of Karl Marx, specially "Labour, wage and capital". Marx never had made any REMARKS, HE ALWAYS PROVED HIS POINTS WITH REAL INSTANCES.You're just using the typical correlation that cause countries with big governments have high wages.

Of course, it's governments that made those wages high

I'm afraid i'm going to have to throw Switzerland in your face

they have no minimum wage and a higher average wage than nearly every other country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_minimum_wage#Minimum_wages_by _country

"none; however, a majority of the voluntary collective bargaining agreements contain clauses on minimum compensation, ranging from 2,200 to 4,200 francs per month for unskilled workers and from 2,800 to 5,300 francs per month for skilled employees[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_minimum_wage#cite_note-CRHRP-2008-3)"

You also seem confused in your arguing, because you say you don't blame machines for "misery", yet then go on to talk about how less workers mean less consumers, so obviously you think machines destroy jobs.

I doubt you even understand what marx says, you just seem to absorb it as gospel.

Richard Nixon

27th September 2009, 22:43

Well, I can name monarchies, democracies, fascist countries ect that had terrible economies. While it is true that some forms or governments are better than others, I do not think that the governments were the cause of economic growth.

So you think the government is more efficient than the market in certain areas of the economy? What are these sectors? Do you think they all have something in common that makes the government a better provider of these services? Or does each sector have its own reasons why the government would be the preferred supplier?
I meant the EXACT REVERSE of what you're saying: I meant that the market is more efficient then the government in certain areas of the economy.

Certainly, the capitalist economy you are advocating is based on exploitation of other countries of the world. US and other western capitalism earned their prosperity at the cost of suffering of billions of people in the third world. At least I can say that USSR under Stalin haven't exploited other countries for their prosperity. It can be understood easily that if both USSR and US will remain in same technological level, USA wil have more wealth because of its exploitation of others.
Prospering by exploiting many others is always a good option. People like you, when proudly says that USSR lags behind USA and other capitalist countries, they just forgot that this had been and still being done at the cost of billions of people of the third world.
I AM VERY MUCH SANGUINE THAT I WOULDN'T GET ANY REPLY FROM YOU REGARDING THIS MATTER IN FUTURE.

Please do not TYPE IN ALL CAPS. Also that is nonsense, do you know how many people Stalin killed, tens of millions died due to him, it was way way more then all American capitalism killed in the 20th Century.

The Soviet Union did not have worker self management.

Anyway US Department of Health Education and Welfare (1973 p112):
"in no instance of which we have evidence has a major effort to increase employee participation resulted in a long-term decline in productivity”

Jones and Svejnar (1982 p11):
“there is apparently consistent support for the view that worker participation in management causes higher productivity. This result is supported by a variety of methodological approaches, using diverse data and for disparate time periods.

Levine and Tyson (1990, pp205-14)
“participation usually leads to small, short-run improvements in performance, and sometimes leads to significant long lasting improvements… There is almost never a negative effect.”

It is important to note that worker self management has difficulty existing under capitalism as capitalists don't like it and take steps to prevent it. However in those areas where due to one anomaly or another it has been allowed to thrive (the Emillia-Romagna region in Italy for instance) it has been so successful that traditional capitalist firms have been pretty much unable to compete and it makes up the main part of the economy (it is one of the richest areas in Italy-and indeed Europe).
I do support increased worker participation which is quite different from the workers seizing total control of businesses.

Perhaps you should educate yourself on the numerous advancements made by indians before making such stupid remarks.
Is it incorrect to state that the Iroquois Indians were less technically advanced then Europe at that time?

Skooma Addict

27th September 2009, 22:46

I meant the EXACT REVERSE of what you're saying: I meant that the market is more efficient then the government in certain areas of the economy.

That is basically the exact same thing. But you do think the government is more efficient than the market in certain areas of the economy, correct? If so, which sectors of the economy do you think should be run by the government, and why do you choose these sectors specifically?

Richard Nixon

27th September 2009, 22:52

That is basically the exact same thing. But you do think the government is more efficient than the market in certain areas of the economy, correct? If so, which sectors of the economy do you think should be run by the government, and why do you choose these sectors specifically?

Let's see:

National Defense (The US Military>mercenaries)
Law Enforcement (Police>vigilantes)
Roads (Interstate Freeways)
Education (Neutral (ideally), free from religious or political biases, for poor parents)

And that's about it. Also while I don't think for instance government should run healthcare they ought to have Medicare for those can't afford private health car.

Plagueround

27th September 2009, 23:00

Is it incorrect to state that the Iroquois Indians were less technically advanced then Europe at that time?

Generally speaking, indians were behind in certain developments and ahead in others, it isn't as black and white as people make it out to be. However, even if one views Europeans as being "more advanced", it is erroneous to label indian society as "primitivist" as they had numerous advances far from what one could call a primitive society. Many of them also had no problem with adapting technologies and customs that enhanced their standard of living or made day to day live easier.

Skooma Addict

27th September 2009, 23:07

National Defense (The US Military>mercenaries)

Of coarse, this is where I disagree. Why do you think we must give a single institution a monopoly on the use of force? Also, do you support a single world government with a single military? If not, why? Because if we take your stance to its logical conclusion, that monopoly is better than competition, that is where we would end up.

On a side note, mercenaries would play little to no role. PDAs are what would arise.

Law Enforcement (Police>vigilantes)

So you assume that there would be no police if it were not for the government?

Roads (Interstate Freeways)

Again, there is no reason to assume a state is necessary for interstate highways. Also, over 40,000 people die ever year on public roads. The state is failing to do its job. Roads would also be far cheaper and safer if competition were allowed.

Education (Neutral (ideally), free from religious or political biases, for poor parents)

Why education? First of all, one does not require "proper schooling" in order to get a good job in the free market. Second of all, isn't it a little unfair that public schools would have a secular bias? Why not let people choose what kind of education is best for them?

And that's about it. Also while I don't think for instance government should run healthcare they ought to have Medicare for those can't afford private health car.

Medicare has been a complete disaster.

Richard Nixon

27th September 2009, 23:16

Of coarse, this is where I disagree. Why do you think we must give a single institution a monopoly on the use of force? Also, do you support a single world government with a single military? If not, why? Because if we take your stance to its logical conclusion, that monopoly is better than competition, that is where we would end up.

On a side note, mercenaries would play little to no role. PDAs are what would arise.

The problem is that for instance one if Armed Band One goes off to China and attacks them and they declare war on all of the US and attacks a lot of targets causing American casualties? Also yes I do support a democratic World Federation, a USA writ large, as that is the only solution for humanity in the far future. BTW, what do PDAs stand for?

So you assume that there would be no police if it were not for the government?

There would be people who would protect the community yes but there will be a tendency toward lynch mobs or vigilantes as these law enforcement won't be professionals.

Again, there is no reason to assume a state is necessary for interstate highways. Also, over 40,000 people die ever year on public roads. The state is failing to do its job. Roads would also be far cheaper and safer if competition were allowed.

And if one group gained monopoly over roads in an area and they decided to build nothing but dirt roads...?

Why education? First of all, one does not require "proper schooling" in order to get a good job in the free market. Second of all, isn't it a little unfair that public schools would have a secular bias? Why not let people choose what kind of education is best for them?

1. Even if they aren't going to use it at their jobs it is good to know some English, math, history, and science.
2. People can send children to schools they wish to but what about poor parents who can't afford private schools?

Medicare has been a complete disaster.

I agree but that's the best we have without going to the extreme of a Universal Health Care system or uninsuring millions. Reform is obviously direly needed. BTW, I assume you're an anarcho-capitalist, correct?

Skooma Addict

27th September 2009, 23:34

The problem is that for instance one if Armed Band One goes off to China and attacks them and they declare war on all of the US and attacks a lot of targets causing American casualties? Also yes I do support a democratic World Federation, a USA writ large, as that is the only solution for humanity in the far future. BTW, what do PDAs stand for?

If a group of armed thugs goes and attacks China for some amazingly odd reason, China would not attack America in retaliation. "America", as we now know it would not exist. Imagine if Sweden, Norway, and Finland didn't exist, and a Scandinavian attacks someone in France. It would make absolutely no sense for France to wage war on the Scandinavian people. There would be no government that "represented" the people.

I find it odd that you support a single world government, but I don't want to get off topic. PDA stands for Private defense agency. They would work a lot like insurance companies. So you would pay a monthly fee which would vary according to each person.

There would be people who would protect the community yes but there will be a tendency toward lynch mobs or vigilantes as these law enforcement won't be professionals.

Of coarse they would be professionals. Only the best protection agencies would stay in business. In every other industry, the best business stay in business, while the worst go bankrupt. Defense is not some strange exception.

And if one group gained monopoly over roads in an area and they decided to build nothing but dirt roads...?

Another company would see the event as a profit opportunity, and build better roads. But this assumes one company could get a monopoly in the first place....and that would be unbelievably difficult.

1. Even if they aren't going to use it at their jobs it is good to know some English, math, history, and science.
2. People can send children to schools they wish to but what about poor parents who can't afford private schools?

1. Of coarse, not everyone agrees with you. Different people think different subjects are necessary.

2. People can only send their children to schools that are approved by the government. Also, the cost of private schooling would drop if there were competition. If all schools were private, they would be cheaper than public schooling currently is. Also, it is true that not every person in the world will go to school. Some communities will provide schooling. Some people will simply educate themselves, Some people will become an apprentice of some kind, some people will attend a school provided by some kind of charity ect.

I agree but that's the best we have without going to the extreme of a Universal Health Care system or uninsuring millions. Reform is obviously direly needed.

What about the people who do not want Medicare? Must they pay for it?

BTW, I assume you're an anarcho-capitalist, correct?

Correct.

Richard Nixon

27th September 2009, 23:50

If a group of armed thugs goes and attacks China for some amazingly odd reason, China would not attack America in retaliation. "America", as we now know it would not exist. Imagine if Sweden, Norway, and Finland didn't exist, and a Scandinavian attacks someone in France. It would make absolutely no sense for France to wage war on the Scandinavian people. There would be no government that "represented" the people.

I find it odd that you support a single world government, but I don't want to get off topic. PDA stands for Private defense agency. They would work a lot like insurance companies. So you would pay a monthly fee which would vary according to each person.

But in such a society what if an armed group attacked in retaliation and decided to so unilateraly against all locals? PDAs won't be unlike professional armies be governed by laws of war. As for paying for it I will say what about the people who can't afford it?

Of coarse they would be professionals. Only the best protection agencies would stay in business. In every other industry, the best business stay in business, while the worst go bankrupt. Defense is not some strange exception.

Let's say one group does do well and holds a monopoly in the community. But despite that the group is anti-Semitic and decides when in a murder they can't find a criminal to use a Jew as a scapegoat and execute him? Or what if the community prefers to have people who shoot first and ask questions later?

Another company would see the event as a profit opportunity, and build better roads. But this assumes one company could get a monopoly in the first place....and that would be unbelievably difficult.

Then what about people who charge money for others to use roads?

1. Of coarse, not everyone agrees with you. Different people think different subjects are necessary.

2. People can only send their children to schools that are approved by the government. Also, the cost of private schooling would drop if there were competition. If all schools were private, they would be cheaper than public schooling currently is. Also, it is true that not every person in the world will go to school. Some communities will provide schooling. Some people will simply educate themselves, Some people will become an apprentice of some kind, some people will attend a school provided by some kind of charity ect.

Well despite that not everyone will fit any of those criteria and become illiterates and uneducated? Do you not believe that every human being has the right to be educated whether they can afford it or not?

What about the people who do not want Medicare? Must they pay for it?

Some people are ultra pacifists but they pay taxes to keep up the military or they can go to jail.

Correct.

Speaking of that what is your opinion of Ayn Rand? She was a minarchist but still.

IcarusAngel

27th September 2009, 23:56

Actually, medicare has less overhead than private insurance, a mere fraction of the amount. Medicare administrative costs are far less than private insurance. The federal governmet, through the VA, medicare, etc., is able to take care of a greater amount of people far cheaper than the insurance industry.

Private insurance, like private anything, is always a disaster:

Medicare, the health program for the elderly and the disabled, and Medicaid, the federally and state-funded program that funds medical care for the poor, together cost some $850 billion a year. Add to that the $150 billion that hospitals and local governments spend annually to cover the uninsured poor who don’t qualify for Medicaid, and the $50 billion the federal government spends for veterans’ care. That’s just over $1 trillion in government spending to cover the health care of roughly half the population of the United States.

The rest of us—working people and our families—rely on private insurance, some of it paid for by employers, some by us, either as our share of the cost of company plans (growing every year), or as the deductible and co-pay portions of our medical bills. That privately- funded medical care costs us about $1.5 trillion a year—50% more than the government spends on the medical care for a roughly equal number of people. If you do the math, it turns out that we who rely on the private sector are spending about $10,000 per person per year on health care, either directly out of our own pockets, in the form of money our employers are paying into insurance plans for us—money that could otherwise be coming to us in the form of higher wages or lower-priced goods, or in taxes to cover the cost of treating the poor or uninsured.

You two need to quit posting lies on the forum just about now.

What failed was 'medicare advantage' - which was closer to corporatism than it was to UHC. I'll let you two research that, and see if you can explain why it was a disaster.

Skooma Addict

28th September 2009, 00:18

But in such a society what if an armed group attacked in retaliation and decided to so unilateraly against all locals? PDAs won't be unlike professional armies be governed by laws of war. As for paying for it I will say what about the people who can't afford it?

Well, I am going to give a short answer mainly due to laziness on my part. But I can give you some good readings if you would like.

Your scenario is a little unfair in that it already assumes that an armed group will attack locals. But I think this would be highly unlikely. Also, where does this armed group get its income from? Also, it must be pretty big if it is going to wage war on an entire community. But still, a group of bandits would be defeated by a communities well funded, organized, and professional PDAs.

By and large most people would be able to afford police protection. But the people who couldn't, and the people who just didn't want to pay for one could rely on self protection, voluntary community protection, or something of that variety.

But the world is not comprised of angels, so I do not claim there will never be conflicts. There will always be conflicts between individuals no matter what.

Let's say one group does do well and holds a monopoly in the community. But despite that the group is anti-Semitic and decides when in a murder they can't find a criminal to use a Jew as a scapegoat and execute him? Or what if the community prefers to have people who shoot first and ask questions later?

Before I answer that question, tell me, who on earth would live in this community? How did such a crazy group gain monopoly status in the first place? Also, notice how in this scenario the PDA is practically a state.

But anyways, the group can only obtain its income through voluntary transactions. It cannot rely on taxation to maintain itself. People would simply cancel their subscription to this PDA, and switch providers. If the PDA tries to attack all of it's competition, the premiums its customers pay MUST go up, in which case they would only lose more customers. In other words, there are incentives to remain peaceful. Then there is the fact that people could simply choose a different PDA that is not in the community. There would be small PDAs, and there would also be very large ones that may even operate on a national level.

Then what about people who charge money for others to use roads?

Is there something wrong with charging people to use your road? Anyways, roads can be financed by advertisements as well. In the cities, roads would probably be free. Businesses would either build their own roads that connect a main road to their property, or pay another company to build a road for them. The business that gives free access to their road is going to get more customers than the business that charges a fee.

Do you not believe that every human being has the right to be educated whether they can afford it or not?

No. But I also do not believe going to a school is necessary for a proper education. In fact, now that I look back at my years in school, I have to say that most of what I learned was self taught.

Some people are ultra pacifists but they pay taxes to keep up the military or they can go to jail.

I know that. I am going to pay my taxes because I do not want to go to jail. But I am asking you why you think people should be forced to pay for Medicare even if they don't want it.

Speaking of that what is your opinion of Ayn Rand? She was a minarchist but still.

I never read Rand in my life. What is your opinion of her?

Skooma Addict

28th September 2009, 00:28

You two need to quit posting lies on the forum just about now.

I can find thousands of sources saying just the opposite. So at most, we would just go back and forth providing sources. Maybe one day you could provide an actual theory explaining why a governmental monopoly on all goods and services more efficient than private companies competing under the markets price system?

Also, please don't confuse Americas system of Health Insurance with the private health insurance under the free market.

On a side note, please don't tell me you believe in the dogmatic Labour Theory of Value. I know socialists are starting to realize how stupid the theory really is, I am just hoping you have decided to face reality.

But we don't need to have this discussion right here and now. I don't want to get too off topic.

Richard Nixon

28th September 2009, 01:00

Well, I am going to give a short answer mainly due to laziness on my part. But I can give you some good readings if you would like.

Your scenario is a little unfair in that it already assumes that an armed group will attack locals. But I think this would be highly unlikely. Also, where does this armed group get its income from? Also, it must be pretty big if it is going to wage war on an entire community. But still, a group of bandits would be defeated by a communities well funded, organized, and professional PDAs.

By and large most people would be able to afford police protection. But the people who couldn't, and the people who just didn't want to pay for one could rely on self protection, voluntary community protection, or something of that variety.

But the world is not comprised of angels, so I do not claim there will never be conflicts. There will always be conflicts between individuals no matter what.

I did not mean bandits, I meant a community based PDA that retaliated unilateraly for an attack. And in this system pacifist communities will not be protected (ie right now in the US the US Army protects our pacifists). Also I would like some links please.

Before I answer that question, tell me, who on earth would live in this community? How did such a crazy group gain monopoly status in the first place? Also, notice how in this scenario the PDA is practically a state.

But anyways, the group can only obtain its income through voluntary transactions. It cannot rely on taxation to maintain itself. People would simply cancel their subscription to this PDA, and switch providers. If the PDA tries to attack all of it's competition, the premiums its customers pay MUST go up, in which case they would only lose more customers. In other words, there are incentives to remain peaceful. Then there is the fact that people could simply choose a different PDA that is not in the community. There would be small PDAs, and there would also be very large ones that may even operate on a national level.

Well that makes sense. I'm going to log off so a longer answer will be coming.

Is there something wrong with charging people to use your road? Anyways, roads can be financed by advertisements as well. In the cities, roads would probably be free. Businesses would either build their own roads that connect a main road to their property, or pay another company to build a road for them. The business that gives free access to their road is going to get more customers than the business that charges a fee.

No. But I also do not believe going to a school is necessary for a proper education. In fact, now that I look back at my years in school, I have to say that most of what I learned was self taught.

[/QUOTE]

Well that's you but it is different for other people.

I know that. I am going to pay my taxes because I do not want to go to jail. But I am asking you why you think people should be forced to pay for Medicare even if they don't want it.

I never read Rand in my life. What is your opinion of her?[/QUOTE]

Skooma Addict

28th September 2009, 01:22

Well that makes sense. I'm going to log off so a longer answer will be coming.

Alright. I will wait until then to respond. But you asked for links earlier. Here is something that you should read. It is a good introductory piece, but this alone probably won't convince you. I will link some other stuff later.

http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf

pranabjyoti

28th September 2009, 04:47

[QUOTE=Richard Nixon;1557269]Also that is nonsense, do you know how many people Stalin killed, tens of millions died due to him, it was way way more then all American capitalism killed in the 20th Century.[QUOTE]
REALLY? The British regime killed 5 millions just in province of Bengal in India. The French regime killed 45000 people in a single day in Algeria. I think combining Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Iraq and Afghanistan, USA have already exceeded much more than 10 million.

Outinleftfield

28th September 2009, 05:17

Leftists claim that their ideologies are the wave of the future and are the most advanced and modern political and economic systems yet thought of. However many aspects of communism and anarchism are quite primtivist. Both wish to do away with government which has been the base of human organization for civilized societies, both wish to get rid of capitalist economics which has been the base of civilised economies, and generally devolve to the level of villiages and communes, quite similar to tribalism.

You don't seem to get the concept of "bottum-up decision-making". Ultimate authority would be at the bottom at the level of villages and communes or even lower, workplaces, shops, and houses.

That wouldn't stop people at this level from voluntarily forming larger organizations with recallable delegates to help coordinate large-scale projects and to maintain more large-scale things, even planetary organizations.

There's no reason people have to be coerced by large organizations to get things done. People can create large organizations voluntarily to get things done. The decisions would require more consensus. Not just the majority vote would have to be taken into account but also whether certain groups are threatening to leave the larger organization and whether they are needed and irreplaceable in that case they might take another vote to see if they're willing to keep the decision even though they're losing certain groups. But it would work and it would make sure no one involved could be exploited, because everyone has an equal say and no one is forced to be there.

eyedrop

28th September 2009, 13:44

I do support increased worker participation which is quite different from the workers seizing total control of businesses.
Since worker participation is good, and increases productivity, is it that much of a strech to think that even more participation would be even better.

Green Dragon

28th September 2009, 13:59

You don't seem to get the concept of "bottum-up decision-making". Ultimate authority would be at the bottom at the level of villages and communes or even lower, workplaces, shops, and houses.

That wouldn't stop people at this level from voluntarily forming larger organizations with recallable delegates to help coordinate large-scale projects and to maintain more large-scale things, even planetary organizations.

There's no reason people have to be coerced by large organizations to get things done. People can create large organizations voluntarily to get things done. The decisions would require more consensus. Not just the majority vote would have to be taken into account but also whether certain groups are threatening to leave the larger organization and whether they are needed and irreplaceable in that case they might take another vote to see if they're willing to keep the decision even though they're losing certain groups. But it would work and it would make sure no one involved could be exploited, because everyone has an equal say and no one is forced to be there.

WHAT in the Consensus?? Getting WHAT done??? How are the decisions arrived at?? WHAT is the information used for making these decisions???

Green Dragon

28th September 2009, 14:08

[QUOTE]Evidence shows that worker run firms are actually more successful.

A worker-run firm is not anti-capitalist.

At any rate those who run factories (to use the overly tired example) and those who own them are two different sets of people. Owners have no intrinsic managerial ability. They higher those that do. What is to stop workers electing those most skilled in organising the workplace to do so.

Workers have no intrinsic managerial abilities either.

What is to stop the owners of a firm from electing their own managers? Nothing. But it does seem to limit the pool of potential managers. As a guiding principle, it seems rather inefficient. A capitalist owner can always hire somebody from the outside for the day to day operations. Such a decision by the capitalist owner is not "uncapitalist." But would it be "unsocialist" for the workers of the firm to hire somebody from outside the firm to run the day to day operations?

Dimentio

28th September 2009, 14:09

Green Dragon

28th September 2009, 14:19

It is important to note that worker self management has difficulty existing under capitalism as capitalists don't like it and take steps to prevent it. However in those areas where due to one anomaly or another it has been allowed to thrive (the Emillia-Romagna region in Italy for instance) it has been so successful that traditional capitalist firms have been pretty much unable to compete and it makes up the main part of the economy (it is one of the richest areas in Italy-and indeed Europe).

And is the opinion of the revlefters hereabouts that Italy is a proper socialist community? Or does it remain a capitalist one?

What is the environment in which these firms in Romagna operate?

trivas7

28th September 2009, 14:19

Generally speaking, indians were behind in certain developments and ahead in others, it isn't as black and white as people make it out to be. However, even if one views Europeans as being "more advanced", it is erroneous to label indian society as "primitivist" as they had numerous advances far from what one could call a primitive society. Many of them also had no problem with adapting technologies and customs that enhanced their standard of living or made day to day live easier.
You make my point for me: it depends on what one means by primitivist.

eyedrop

28th September 2009, 14:30

A worker-run firm is not anti-capitalist. No one is claiming that. But it counters the arguement that workers need capitalists to run things.

Workers have no intrinsic managerial abilities either. Except from first hand experience in the working of the enterprice and the internal problems, which actually makes them more aware of what needs improvement.

What is to stop the owners of a firm from electing their own managers? Nothing. But it does seem to limit the pool of potential managers. As a guiding principle, it seems rather inefficient. A capitalist owner can always hire somebody from the outside for the day to day operations. Such a decision by the capitalist owner is not "uncapitalist." But would it be "unsocialist" for the workers of the firm to hire somebody from outside the firm to run the day to day operations? Well the workers need to be sick of the manager having the absolute authority in the enterprice and therefore wouldn't bestow absolute authority on the manager/coordinator. The last word should rest upon the working-council.

And is the opinion of the revlefters hereabouts that Italy is a proper socialist community? Or does it remain a capitalist one?

What is the environment in which these firms in Romagna operate?No.

Rosa Provokateur

28th September 2009, 18:21

Green Dragon

28th September 2009, 19:10

[QUOTE=eyedrop;1557765]No one is claiming that. But it counters the arguement that workers need capitalists to run things.

That isn't the argument being made.

The argument being made is that the same type of problems face the capitalist as does the socialist.

Except from first hand experience in the working of the enterprice and the internal problems, which actually makes them more aware of what needs improvement.

Management and coordination is more than simply knowing the business.

Well the workers need to be sick of the manager having the absolute authority in the enterprice and therefore wouldn't bestow absolute authority on the manager/coordinator. The last word should rest upon the working-council.

Then what is the role of the manager if he or she does not have the authority to manage?

Skooma Addict

28th September 2009, 19:24

If the way things are now is the price we have to pay for civilization then why not go primitive?

So hundreds of millions of people don't die?

eyedrop

28th September 2009, 19:43

That isn't the argument being made.

The argument being made is that the same type of problems face the capitalist as does the socialist. I skimmed over the thread again and couldn't see where that arguement was made. Feel free to point out where.

As for the arguement itself: Yes, but evidence suggests that workers are atleast as good as capitalists (if not better) at handling those problems.

Management and coordination is more than simply knowing the business. Sure, but we're still left with that more worker participation not decreasing productivity.

"

Anyway US Department of Health Education and Welfare (1973 p112):
"in no instance of which we have evidence has a major effort to increase employee participation resulted in a long-term decline in productivity”

Jones and Svejnar (1982 p11):
“there is apparently consistent support for the view that worker participation in management causes higher productivity. This result is supported by a variety of methodological approaches, using diverse data and for disparate time periods.

Levine and Tyson (1990, pp205-14)
“participation usually leads to small, short-run improvements in performance, and sometimes leads to significant long lasting improvements… There is almost never a negative effect.”"

Then what is the role of the manager if he or she does not have the authority to manage? Oversee and decide unimportant day to day decisions.

Demogorgon

28th September 2009, 20:24

Eyedrop has saved me the job of refuting the individual arguments, so I will make a more general statement here. I argued quite specifically that capitalists have no intrinsic managerial ability and hire those who do to do it for them. I don't think anyone disputes that. I also proved that worker involvement in running a firm improves productivity.

The objection was raised that workers have no inherent managerial ability either. Eyedrop pointed out that they still have more than the capitalists and I made clear that they could elect those are best suited to it. It has been claimed that it would narrow the pool of talent, it would not. There is no particular reason a manager has to be a pre-existing member of a particular firm, simply that they are elected by the members of that firm and be dismissible by them.

Finally to the rather silly question of whether Emille-Romagna is socialist-of course it isn't. Socialism does not yet exist. The Embryo of it does however. The proof of the success of worker self management is one aspect of this.

Rosa Provokateur

28th September 2009, 23:39

So hundreds of millions of people don't die?

I cant speak for hundereds of millions but as for myself, death is preferable to the industrial onslaught mankind brings against the natural world. I think people are very capable of living without mass industry, the problem is that they've built up a dependence to it (like a drunkard with wine) and have been so attached to it for so long that they've forgotten how.

I'm included with people attached to it and I know knowbody will agree with me, just personal opinion.

Искра

28th September 2009, 23:53

I cant speak for hundereds of millions but as for myself, death is preferable to the industrial onslaught mankind brings against the natural world.
Then kill yourself :rolleyes:

Rosa Provokateur

28th September 2009, 23:57

Then kill yourself :rolleyes:

After reading the VHEMT site I strongly considered it... I dont have the courage.

Skooma Addict

29th September 2009, 01:13

After reading the VHEMT site I strongly considered it... I dont have the courage.

Just out of curiosity, what is the VHEMT site?

Demogorgon

29th September 2009, 01:39

Just out of curiosity, what is the VHEMT site?
Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. They don't call for suicide per se but rather to stop all reproduction so as humanity becomes extinct in a century or so. Right nasty piece work.

Plagueround

29th September 2009, 02:42

Plagueround

29th September 2009, 02:44

You make my point for me: it depends on what one means by primitivist.

Ok, I'll make it easier for you. Calling indians primitive is not only historically incorrect, but its also borderline racist.

eyedrop

29th September 2009, 09:12

I cant speak for hundereds of millions but as for myself, death is preferable to the industrial onslaught mankind brings against the natural world. I think people are very capable of living without mass industry, the problem is that they've built up a dependence to it (like a drunkard with wine) and have been so attached to it for so long that they've forgotten how.

I'm included with people attached to it and I know knowbody will agree with me, just personal opinion. How far back do you want to go?

Should we all live in longhouses surrounded by the smell of animals, not to mention that most of us would be serfs.

Or should we go further and live in a cave and freeze our asses of?

Everytime I spend a few days out in nature I always long back to society.

Bud Struggle

29th September 2009, 13:50

The objection was raised that workers have no inherent managerial ability either. Eyedrop pointed out that they still have more than the capitalists and I made clear that they could elect those are best suited to it. It has been claimed that it would narrow the pool of talent, it would not. There is no particular reason a manager has to be a pre-existing member of a particular firm, simply that they are elected by the members of that firm and be dismissible by them.
That is pretty close to what is being done already under Capitalism. The difference is that the managers (for the Capitalists) appoint the best or most talented workers to be supervisors or fellow managers and thus move then out of the worker pool. I honestly don't know if "electing" managers would work--it politicizes the who process and would make it more inefficient.

Also there is the matter of worker run companies in general. There may be some out there in the market place but I have never seen any. I could state categorically that no Capitalist owned company would have the slightest trouble doing business with one if they had a better product and/or a lower cost. I imagine such experiments have been tried but for some reason they haven't worked out.

Demogorgon

29th September 2009, 17:08

That is pretty close to what is being done already under Capitalism. The difference is that the managers (for the Capitalists) appoint the best or most talented workers to be supervisors or fellow managers and thus move then out of the worker pool. I honestly don't know if "electing" managers would work--it politicizes the who process and would make it more inefficient. They made the same argument once that the Executive branch of the Government should not be elected for the very same reason.

The difference between an elected executive and a Royally appointed one however was that a Royal appointee was beholden to the crown where as one chosen by the people would be beholden to them (although as it turns out they are really dominated by other forces such as big business but it is still an improvement over Royal Patronage).

So too is the difference between management elected by the workers and management appointed by the owners or elected by the shareholders. They will act in the interests of those that put them there as they are the ones that keep them in employment.

Also there is the matter of worker run companies in general. There may be some out there in the market place but I have never seen any. I could state categorically that no Capitalist owned company would have the slightest trouble doing business with one if they had a better product and/or a lower cost. I imagine such experiments have been tried but for some reason they haven't worked out.
No. First off they do exist, I pointed out that they are the dominant form of enterprise in Emilia-Romagna and of course there is also Mondragon. Debate rages of course about how close the latter remains to its original intentions, but certainly the management is elected, so it demonstrates that working.

So why do we only see them in certain areas? Two reasons really. Firstly they can only do well where they can get start up capital. Capitalists don't like worker run firms as a rule and won't lend to them. Because capitalists monopolise capital resources (hence the name) that makes things a bit tricky. Therefore without a wealthy benefactor (which counts for nothing in the larger scheme of things) worker run firms can only operate where substantial alternative funding is available. In Emila-Romagna for instance the existing firms pay a levy that goes towards creating new firms, but that simply does not exist most other places.

The second reason in extremely important and that is in many countries-Britain and America included-it is impossible to operate a co-operative as a so-defined legal entity, meaning the cooperative cannot maintain a properly democratic structure. Some find their way around this to some extent of course and they do exist, but it is a huge handicap and as a result most coops you see in such countries are consumer co-operatives, a different thing entirely.

This enormous legal impediment set up by the capitalist state rather undermines the argument that capitalists would be happy to deal with them on an equal footing.

Green Dragon

30th September 2009, 01:06

So too is the difference between management elected by the workers and management appointed by the owners or elected by the shareholders. They will act in the interests of those that put them there as they are the ones that keep them in employment.

It is probably true that an elected manager will act in the interest of the MAJORITY of the workers of the firm.
A problem would seem to be that the purpose of the firm is not to satisfy the interests of the majority workers of the firm, but satisfy the interests of the consumers who want the product the firm produces.

Richard Nixon

30th September 2009, 01:09

I cant speak for hundereds of millions but as for myself, death is preferable to the industrial onslaught mankind brings against the natural world. I think people are very capable of living without mass industry, the problem is that they've built up a dependence to it (like a drunkard with wine) and have been so attached to it for so long that they've forgotten how.

I'm included with people attached to it and I know knowbody will agree with me, just personal opinion.

Virtually all anti-civilization primtivists (not just primitivist organisation but actual let's be cavemen) types are hypocrites. They use books and web sites like you to spread their ideas which if there was no civilization you wouldn't be on right now. Really if you don't want to commit suicide then get off your computer go to I don't know the Sierra Nevadas or the Appalachians or some other mountain and live like a caveman or else you are a hypocrite.

And no, the world population in 1800 right before the Industrial Revolution was one billion thus you'd be warranting the death of 5.6 Billion human beings.

Green Dragon

30th September 2009, 01:09

As for the arguement itself: Yes, but evidence suggests that workers are atleast as good as capitalists (if not better) at handling those problems.

The issue though is handling the problems by doing what? In what way? In what manner?

Sure, but we're still left with that more worker participation not decreasing productivity.

"

Anyway US Department of Health Education and Welfare (1973 p112):
"in no instance of which we have evidence has a major effort to increase employee participation resulted in a long-term decline in productivity”

Jones and Svejnar (1982 p11):
“there is apparently consistent support for the view that worker participation in management causes higher productivity. This result is supported by a variety of methodological approaches, using diverse data and for disparate time periods.

Levine and Tyson (1990, pp205-14)
“participation usually leads to small, short-run improvements in performance, and sometimes leads to significant long lasting improvements… There is almost never a negative effect.”"

One would think such observations are made within the confines of a capitalist framework. It is invalid when considring from a socialist angle, because those firms were functioning in a capitalist environment.

Oversee and decide unimportant day to day decisions.
[/QUOTE]

Ha! Then why have them if it is not neccessary?

Green Dragon

30th September 2009, 01:17

The objection was raised that workers have no inherent managerial ability either. Eyedrop pointed out that they still have more than the capitalists

Only if one misunderstands what management is about.

and I made clear that they could elect those are best suited to it. It has been claimed that it would narrow the pool of talent, it would not. There is no particular reason a manager has to be a pre-existing member of a particular firm, simply that they are elected by the members of that firm and be dismissible by them.

The term "elected" in the above situation is no different then the word "hire." The manager would then be a hired employee of that firm.

Kwisatz Haderach

30th September 2009, 04:28

Virtually all anti-civilization primtivists (not just primitivist organisation but actual let's be cavemen) types are hypocrites. They use books and web sites like you to spread their ideas which if there was no civilization you wouldn't be on right now.
Primitivists are idiots, but they are not hypocrites. What's wrong with using the weapons of the enemy against him? You don't have to turn your life into a miniature model of the type of society (or non-society, in the primitivists' case) that you want.

Primitivists are not hypocrites when they use computers and books, for the same reason why communists are not hypocrites when they go shopping and capitalists are not hypocrites when they give out free gifts. You don't have to display your ideology in all your daily actions.

Demogorgon

30th September 2009, 11:24

It is probably true that an elected manager will act in the interest of the MAJORITY of the workers of the firm.
A problem would seem to be that the purpose of the firm is not to satisfy the interests of the majority workers of the firm, but satisfy the interests of the consumers who want the product the firm produces.
Well given managers are there for the benefit of the capitalists not the consumers at present...

Of course you will argue that capitalists are in trouble unless they can satisfy consumers, therefore a manager will be useless to them if he or she should alienate the consumers. Now with workers....

Actually let's see if you can follow that thought through without my help.

One would think such observations are made within the confines of a capitalist framework. It is invalid when considring from a socialist angle, because those firms were functioning in a capitalist environment.
What is the argument meant to be here? That when worker self management manifests itself currently, it succeeds, but when it manifests itself in the future, it will fail?
Only if one misunderstands what management is about.

Well then, what does it mean according to you and how are we misunderstanding it?

The term "elected" in the above situation is no different then the word "hire." The manager would then be a hired employee of that firm.
In the same way perhaps as a mayor is an employee of a city, but what exactly is your point?

Richard Nixon

1st October 2009, 00:53

Primitivists are idiots, but they are not hypocrites. What's wrong with using the weapons of the enemy against him? You don't have to turn your life into a miniature model of the type of society (or non-society, in the primitivists' case) that you want.

Primitivists are not hypocrites when they use computers and books, for the same reason why communists are not hypocrites when they go shopping and capitalists are not hypocrites when they give out free gifts. You don't have to display your ideology in all your daily actions.

However leftists don't have much of an option to choose from as they wish to live the life of a modern citizen while primtivists can go into the forest and live like cavemen.

Demogorgon

1st October 2009, 01:10

However leftists don't have much of an option to choose from as they wish to live the life of a modern citizen while primtivists can go into the forest and live like cavemen.
They can, but they want to convince others too, which means using the internet and other technology.

They are nutters to be sure, but that isn't the same as hypocrisy.

Kwisatz Haderach

1st October 2009, 01:51

However leftists don't have much of an option to choose from as they wish to live the life of a modern citizen while primtivists can go into the forest and live like cavemen.
What Demogorgon said. Also, I'd like to point out that, in this day and age, people really can't go off into the wilderness and separate themselves completely from the rest of humanity any more. Every piece of wilderness (except for Antarctica and the ocean floor) is owned by some entity or other. If you want to move there, you have to deal with the current owner, and some payment will most likely be involved. People who do not have the money to buy a large piece of land simply cannot leave the existing system. And if you want to gain the necessary money, you have to play by the system's rules...

This is not just a defense of the actions of primitivists who live in cities. It's also an argument against libertarians and anarcho-capitalists who claim that, in their ideal society, communists would be free to break away and form a separate commune. That is a lie. In any modern society based on private property, you cannot break away unless you have the money to buy a lot of land for your commune. Not to mention that if you want your commune to be a technological society, you also need to buy factories, tools, and lots of other means of production... and if you can do that, then you are, by definition, a capitalist. So, in a libertarian or anarcho-capitalist society, only rich capitalists would be able to break away and form a commune if they wanted to. Ironic, isn't it?

And while we're on the subject, if you're going to read Olaf's stuff, please also read my criticism of anarcho-capitalism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarcho-capitalism-empty-t84983/index.html?t=84983).

Bud Struggle

1st October 2009, 22:43

They made the same argument once that the Executive branch of the Government should not be elected for the very same reason.

The difference between an elected executive and a Royally appointed one however was that a Royal appointee was beholden to the crown where as one chosen by the people would be beholden to them (although as it turns out they are really dominated by other forces such as big business but it is still an improvement over Royal Patronage).

So too is the difference between management elected by the workers and management appointed by the owners or elected by the shareholders. They will act in the interests of those that put them there as they are the ones that keep them in employment. And who are the shareholders in most companies? A lot of times they are pensionholders that have stock in a vast array of companies--and those retired workers only care about one thing--and you can guess what that is. The Capitalist system is often driven by the owner/proletarians who have stock in their pension funds.

No. First off they do exist, I pointed out that they are the dominant form of enterprise in Emilia-Romagna and of course there is also Mondragon. Debate rages of course about how close the latter remains to its original intentions, but certainly the management is elected, so it demonstrates that working. OK, yea, they exist in a rarified place with rarified rules--where the government has a specific desire to hold them afloat. Anything can exist like that. And FWIW a lot of large businesses in the US (and I imagine the UK) exist in the same way--dependancies of the government. But they aren't Capitalistic by any streach of the imagination.

So why do we only see them in certain areas? Two reasons really. Firstly they can only do well where they can get start up capital. Capitalists don't like worker run firms as a rule and won't lend to them. Because capitalists monopolise capital resources (hence the name) that makes things a bit tricky. Therefore without a wealthy benefactor (which counts for nothing in the larger scheme of things) worker run firms can only operate where substantial alternative funding is available. In Emila-Romagna for instance the existing firms pay a levy that goes towards creating new firms, but that simply does not exist most other places. Capitalists aren't as ideologically biased as Communists--we support anything that works, makes us money or saves us money. No ideology involved. If a worker run company sells me widgets $.02 cheeper I'll buy from them. Show they can make money and he'll have an inverstor--NOT a benefactor. The investor wants a return for his investment--the benefactor not so much. So yea, nobody's going to start these guys up for nothing. But then again to expect such things in life is--a bit like believing in Santa Clause.

The second reason in extremely important and that is in many countries-Britain and America included-it is impossible to operate a co-operative as a so-defined legal entity, meaning the cooperative cannot maintain a properly democratic structure. Some find their way around this to some extent of course and they do exist, but it is a huge handicap and as a result most coops you see in such countries are consumer co-operatives, a different thing entirely. Sure you can do it--partnerships, maybe limited partnerships. If there are somethings to iron out I don't think there is really much trouble in discussing thing with your legislator and getting something passed to accomodate you. It's done all the time.

This enormous legal impediment set up by the capitalist state rather undermines the argument that capitalists would be happy to deal with them on an equal footing. If this was an actual way to make money the legal part of it would be gone in a heart beat. The problem is--that while it's been though of, it hasn't been done, and for that you need a real entrepreneaur, don't you think? :D

Demogorgon

1st October 2009, 23:51

EDIT: I perhaps got a little short tempered on this post. I will reply again later when I am in a better mood.

Bud Struggle

2nd October 2009, 01:08

For God's sake I have just pointed out to you that it has ben done, many times, but that in specific places it is almost impossible legally speaking to do so. Under the law you can do anything you want--run your business any way you want. There really aren't any laws telling what you can or can't do when you start a business.

To say that you can just "speak to your legislator" to get that changed is naive to the point of absurdity. This isn't just a minor legal change required to close a loophole. It is a major feature of corporate law and there are extraordinary vested interests there. You might as well say you can just have a quiet word with your Congressman and bring about a fairer electoral system with them happily going along with it. I really don't think it's such a big deal. Laws are changed all of the time, really--all you have to do is convice your legislator that your idea is a worth while one. I've seen it done a hurdred times. And frankly I think a co-op is really one big partnership. Law firms and CPA firms operate like this all of the time. You start with that idea and if you need changes--you can change. Really and truly no one gives a damn about keeping the Commies down and out. They really aren't a consideration.

We aren't talking about a matter of theoretical debate here. I have shown three separate studies showing that worker self management improves productivity and have further indicate that in my research I have never found anything that suggests the contrary. Well you said:
Anyway US Department of Health Education and Welfare (1973 p112):
"in no instance of which we have evidence has a major effort to increase employee participation resulted in a long-term decline in productivity”

Jones and Svejnar (1982 p11):
“there is apparently consistent support for the view that worker participation in management causes higher productivity. This result is supported by a variety of methodological approaches, using diverse data and for disparate time periods.

Levine and Tyson (1990, pp205-14)
“participation usually leads to small, short-run improvements in performance, and sometimes leads to significant long lasting improvements… There is almost never a negative effect.”
And that's all fine. Almost every Capitalist knows that if you include workers in some decisions, make them fell a part of the team, give them incentives they work harder and better. Their imput should always be part of management decision making. The studies say nothing about the workers actually RUNNING the company. That's something else alltogether.

ed out that in areas where it has avoided the normal impediments it is so successful that capitalist firms are often unable to compete. Bologna is a agricultural place--lots of farmer co-ops. Farmers do that well. But you don't think Farrari is a co-op do you? If the government stands in back of any type of business other ways of doing businesses won't be able to compete.

I further argued that the reason it is not more widespread is that workers can hardly start up their own (genuine) cooperatives when control of capital is not in the hands of the working class and also that in many cases the law makes all but the most small scale cooperative enterprises impossible. And I have no idea what that means. You GET capital from investers--Capitalist that invest in your business. If you have something worthwhile to invest in--you sell part of your ownership to someone in order toget cash to succeed. Capitalism is all set up for investment--but if you don't want anyone to have a share in your business--you'll never get investors. In that respect co-ops are doomed to failure.

And the law doesn't give a hoot how you set up your business legally. But as I said before the limited partnership model could work out well for the co-ops.