combatting the argument of "comeptition and monetary incentive"

[Rusty Shackleford]

i still am not able to strongly counter this argument and i was wondering if any of you would be able to help me with this.

[FSL]

You could point out that the Soviet Union had stronger growth than just about any western country where competition and monetary incentives existed.
Also, that the Soviet Union had stronger growth in the years before 65 when this came up http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19650212,00.html

That monopolies are a logical result of capitalism itself, with huge companies like Wal-Mart or Toyota and GM being much more cost-efficient and more able to develop new production methods and technological innovations than smaller ones. So the question isn't really one of competition or no competition but of private monopolies serving a handul of shareholders or worker-owned enterprises serving everyone.

Lastly, that the notion of workers being more productive when they work to enrich someone else is absurd. The only ones significantly benefitting from fast growth in capitalism are people who spend their time playing golf. Their happiness and satisfaction is irrelevant to economic success.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Lastly, that the notion of workers being more productive when they work to enrich someone else is absurd. The only ones significantly benefitting from fast growth in capitalism are people who spend their time playing golf. Their happiness and satisfaction is irrelevant to economic success.

but the notion is that hard work leads to personal enrichment. though what you said is true. could i counter the personal worker oriented hard work argument by saying that in times of slavery, the slaves worked the hardest, in the modern agricultural industry(in which immigrants legal or illegal) are employed are the hardest working? and even the workers in sweatshops(akin to slavery almost) are not all millionaires?

also, could the argument that americans are richer because of harder work(when really it is the same or less difficult) could be countered with the explanation of labor aristocracy?

[FSL]

but the notion is that hard work leads to personal enrichment. though what you said is true. could i counter the personal worker oriented hard work argument by saying that in times of slavery, the slaves worked the hardest, in the modern agricultural industry(in which immigrants legal or illegal) are employed are the hardest working? and even the workers in sweatshops(akin to slavery almost) are not all millionaires?

also, could the argument that americans are richer because of harder work(when really it is the same or less difficult) could be countered with the explanation of labor aristocracy?


Yes, for hard work to lead to enrichment that person must also be the one who's gaining from the increased production. In slavery as well as in capitalism, the one who gains is the one who gets the surplus product. Real wages have stagnated in the past decades and are now under a brutal attack despite recent growth and productivity increases.

One part of the american working class can be considered bought off but I doubt that is true for most of them. As I doubt Americans are generally "richer". The american economy has one of the best infastructures, organisational models etc (all of course the result of work) which means their productivity is among the highest in the world.
As you can see here http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=LEVEL american productivity is through the roof at 55.3$/hour. But of course the average hourly wage is much, much lower. Americans can work as hard they like but it won't really matter if most of what they produce ends up in someone else's pockets.

[manic expression]

but the notion is that hard work leads to personal enrichment.
If that were true, then why do those who work the hardest have so little? Indonesian sweat-shop workers work harder than we could imagine, and yet does it lead to personal enrichment? Fat chance. It's important to remember that businessmen create nothing, they either manage and profit from other people's labor or they shift around debt in the stock market. Either way, they don't make anything. The people who DO make everything we use in our world have very little.


also, could the argument that americans are richer because of harder work(when really it is the same or less difficult) could be countered with the explanation of labor aristocracy?
Never let someone say the US is wealthy. 70% of America's financial assets are owned by 1% of the population (see below). Real wages for the majority of Americans have been declining since the 80's. Unemployment is far higher than official numbers (unemployed workers who have given up on looking for a job are not counted as "unemployed"). America is wealthy...only for the wealthy few. The real mechanism at work is the exploitation and deprivation of American workers for the benefit of the capitalist class...that's it.

http://www.alternet.org/economy/145705/the_richest_1%25_have_captured_america%27s_wealth_--_what%27s_it_going_to_take_to_get_it_back

[robbo203]

also, could the argument that americans are richer because of harder work(when really it is the same or less difficult) could be countered with the explanation of labor aristocracy?

The labour aristocracy idea is a complete myth. The FDIs (Foreiign Direct Investment) from First World to Third World countries is miniscule compared to the total capital flows globally and the vast majority of FDI flows are from one First World country to another.

Also, of course, if capitalists in the First world were so intent upon "buying off" their workforce or even a section of it, why would they be so resistant to wage demands from the later?