laissez-faire

[opie]

laissez-faire (Capitalism)

Hard working people work for their money

Bill Gates, he started in his garage and after some long hard working days he was able to build microsoft into what it is today. Whats wrong with that?

Survival of the fittest, you chose to work hard you will succeed and make wealth, you chose to be lazy and not work then you become a bum.

unless we are in the 1800s when the factory owners worked the workers like a slave with no benefits or anything, but we're not we have laws agianst that kind of thing we have laws against stuff from ENRON happening again

Whats wrong with honest hard work??

A utopian society where everyone wants to work for the good of society just won't work

can some one show me where im wrong, and why i should be a communist??

[synthesis]

we're not we have laws agianst that kind of thing we have laws against stuff from ENRON happening again

That's not laissez-faire. Don't you know the meaning of that term? It's "let go", or "hands off." It means no government interference - which means no legislation against corruption and exploitation.

[Guest1]

bill gates didn't work from his garage, he worked from his dorm. and he didn't really work. he offered IBM an operating system, then went and bought one on the street for $20 000 the day he was supposed to meet them. they signed a contract, and voila! the monopoly is born.

[Don't Change Your Name]

That's stupid. A lot of people work hard and they never get what they deserve.
"Survival of the fittest" is a very usual principle of cappies. They have tried to relate it with nature. Does working hard makes you the fittest? Animals dont work hard and sometimes "the fittest of them survive". So, what makes someone "fittest"? What indicator or system is used to qualify that? And this argument is based on the idea that there arent enough resources for everyone. Only if capitalist stop spending on useless things and using materials on useless things there will be resources for everybody. Part of our instinct is the preservation of our species. Now, why should some get everything and the rest nothing? After all, are you going to tell me you have never given even a small help to someone? If you havent you are probably greedy, egoist and you only care about yourself.

And what is "honest hard work"? It seems an idea some people in the "West" use to gain money, usually on commercial activities. But of course, a poor farmer in the 3rd world who doesn't even have a hospital nearby will never get the chance some dumb yanqui who invested in stocks and gained money had. And I doubt the farmer will be able to have good living conditions, and his sons and daughters wont either.
Don't forget that most pretty big companies, when they have to reduce what they spend, they fire thousands of workers while their managers have like 10 cars.
The wealth the proletarian class produces is usually stolen and given back in a small wage. What is gained goes to the pocket of their bosses. The corporations leave people two ways: or you accept been exploited, to follow strict rules or you are out in the street, and you wont survive.
And of course this free market capitalist bullshit tries to promote "democracy" (which means nothing but elections, where usually the right-wing politicians win because they have the money to pay the media and be everywhere, and the people, who is not very interested in politics and doesnt get information about all the alternatives, only picks the best of them without seeing other options), and of course the belief that free market is free, when we know the huge corporations control everything.

And why should your whole life be about ganing money? And ehy do you think the richer people got what they have from "honest hard work"?

I don't get why "A utopian society where everyone wants to work for the good of society" won't work. You cappies always say the same.

[opie]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 27 2003, 03:07 AM
bill gates didn't work from his garage, he worked from his dorm.
He dropped out.


I don't get why "A utopian society where everyone wants to work for the good of society" won't work. You cappies always say the same.

Why??? Cause people aways want more than their neighbor, yes i've read that you people say greed is a result of our society and that the only true nature of animals is to reproduce. Thats false, in the animal kingdom you can see the greed is inherit to all animals, how in a wolf pack when the alpha male has all the women and food he wants then another wolf will be jealous and will want more than what he has now and will fight for it. and so on i think you get my point

and also what will motivate people, if person A does all this hard work and gets the same thing as Person B who slacks off then person A will see this and also slack off so soon all your workers will stop working because of lack of motivation


what am I missing??? Can you people tell me how a sucesfull communist society will work because all the curent communist countries arnt working now

[Danish]

Originally posted by opie+Nov 27 2003, 04:41 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (opie @ Nov 27 2003, 04:41 AM)
Che y [email protected] 27 2003, 03:07 AM
bill gates didn&#39;t work from his garage, he worked from his dorm.
He dropped out.


I don&#39;t get why "A utopian society where everyone wants to work for the good of society" won&#39;t work. You cappies always say the same.

Why??? Cause people aways want more than their neighbor, yes i&#39;ve read that you people say greed is a result of our society and that the only true nature of animals is to reproduce. Thats false, in the animal kingdom you can see the greed is inherit to all animals, how in a wolf pack when the alpha male has all the women and food he wants then another wolf will be jealous and will want more than what he has now and will fight for it. and so on i think you get my point

and also what will motivate people, if person A does all this hard work and gets the same thing as Person B who slacks off then person A will see this and also slack off so soon all your workers will stop working because of lack of motivation


what am I missing??? Can you people tell me how a sucesfull communist society will work because all the curent communist countries arnt working now [/b]
First of all, I&#39;d like to differentiate between "communist" societies that exist now and the mature classless society that will exist after capitalism collapses. These "communist" societies aren&#39;t communist in the Marxist sense. Rather, they are extreme-left dictatorships where the people are controlled absolutely by a very small ruling class. They are still class-structured societies with a very clear heirarchy and a great deal of exploitation.

The idea that people naturally want more than their neighbours is absolutely preposterous. Our society promotes, and has always promoted, competition and selfishness. Every society in history holds true to that. But that doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s intrinsic to humanity. Co-operation and compassion are also components of human nature. You don&#39;t often see mothers stealing food from their children. There are many examples of this.

As for the "greed is inheirent in all animals" bit, that is completely one-hundred percent false. Perhaps it exists for a number of species, but there is a clear difference between humans and animals. Humans are intelligent, conscious beings. We have the ability to describe a set of moral values, for example. We have the ability to empathize with others. Besides, not all animals function in the same way as the wolf. Whales, for example, live closely together in familial groups, much different from wolves. Do I need to point that we, as well, aren&#39;t wolves?

Laziness is a product of exploitation. Man has a dialectal relationship with his work ie. he puts part of himself into his work and his work changes his consciousness. However, when a man (or woman) sells their labour to someone as is the case in a capitalist society, that man becomes alienated from his work, thus becoming alienated from himself. This results in a great deal of contempt for those who own his labour, his actual labour, and hence himself. Therefore, he no longer wants to put his best effort into "his" labour, which essentially isn&#39;t even his anymore. Under a classless system, the workers will own the means of production. This would completely obliterate exploitation and end alienation. Hence, laziness would no longer be a factor. Besides, in a communist society everyone would be able to labour at what they are good at and like. The main motivation for working in this sort of situation would be self-fulfillment and appreciation in one&#39;s own hard work and labour. They are no longer alienated from the work, thus it becomes part of them again.

I strongly suggest you read some leftist literature (NOT Michael Moore&#33;) if you&#39;d like a better idea of how Marxist theory works and why capitalism doesn&#39;t.

[Desert Fox]

"Survival of the fittest" => "Survival of the cheapest" is a more suiting term for cappies :P
Well Bil Gates didn&#39;t work that hard and he got way too much cash for what he did, I don&#39;t like him one bit, for me he is just a computer geek that got his cash because he f*cked over all the competition <_<

[opie]

I never saidi liked bill gates or microsoft or any big companies that ruin it for the little guy, i just said bill gates used to be the little guy


anyway heres another question, with the laws of supply and demand and all those other laws of laissez-faire; that leads to the progression of technology, sense companies are competing against each other it leads to cheaper and more efficient products

how does communism counter that???

[Unrelenting Steve]

why does it need to?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

That&#39;s in theory.

The Real World learns us that companies work together to keep the prices high. Low prices are only in the advantage of big companies. A small company can&#39;t pay the costs involving production if the prices are low. A big company on the other hand, can hold it out for a longer time. Low prices only strengten big companies in their monopoly position. How would low prices help us, if we can&#39;t buy the products. The buying power of the population is decreasing. Everyone has felt moneyloss, especially after 11-9. Bringing the products further out of our reach.

Technology does progress. But companies will only develop technologies which will bring up money. A power company wouldn&#39;t research technologies, which would make it possible to create cheap electricity in ones own backyard. Researching is done for profit, it&#39;s not done for the best of mankind. Second of all. Different companies who all research the same technology isn&#39;t effecient. It&#39;s a waste of time, effort and resources.

In Communism technologies would be developed for the best of mankind and not for profit and the scientists who would compete each other in Capitalism would work together now.

[Hoppe]

In Communism technologies would be developed for the best of mankind and not for profit and the scientists who would compete each other in Capitalism would work together now.

That&#39;s also theory

In a truly free market enormous companies like Microsoft probably wouldn&#39;t exist. The mere fact that they do exist now is thanks to governments which protect their interests. Pharmaceuticals can sue other companies if they produce drugs which is patented (thus protected by government). etc etc.

Do you really think that all research is done for profit? I don&#39;t thinks so. A lot of products and technologies come from university labs based on fundamental research. In some of the cases the obtained results can be used in real life. The invention of the steamengine wasn&#39;t done for whole mankind but eventually all people have profited from this because they could travel further and quicker.

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2003, 11:52 PM
anyway heres another question, with the laws of supply and demand and all those other laws of laissez-faire; that leads to the progression of technology, sense companies are competing against each other it leads to cheaper and more efficient products


That is pure theory kids learn when they are 12, I have seen the same thing first at my school BUT we have learned that such thing is very rare. It is really hard to find companies in such sector, most companies are more in the sector of : monopoly concurrence and that is not that good for the people that buy the stuff.


PS: Sorry for my lousy spelling, but it is hard to translate some economic terms to english :(

[monkeydust]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2003, 10:52 PM

anyway heres another question, with the laws of supply and demand and all those other laws of laissez-faire; that leads to the progression of technology, sense companies are competing against each other it leads to cheaper and more efficient products

how does communism counter that???
Progression of technology may well be as good or better in a communist society. For example in a capitalist country you may get some guy, say Bill Gates for example who may have his colleagues find a technology that stops computers from ever breaking down, would the implement it, well no. In capitalism the only motivation is money hence things are made to break so you buy the same again. In the same way car companies won&#39;t bother too hard trying to make energy efficent cars such as hydrogen powered simply because it&#39;s makes more money for them to keep traditional fuel powered cars.

Progression of technology in capitalism because of the systems nature is not always shared, simply becase it doesn&#39;t make commercial sense.

Finally ask yourself the question; does technological progression come before the overall welfare of the world? Is effiency more mportant than fairness? I would argue even if socialism was less efficient it is more desirable for the majoriy.

[opie]

I would have to disagree, i think this competition is causing cheaper more efficient products.

I think its most visable in the computer market, apple vs microsoft, if microsoft decided to keep their 2 GHz computer at &#036;2,000 and then apple came out with a faster computer for only &#036;1500 that forces microsoft to come out with an even faster computer thats just as cheap.

this can be easily seen in our market today especially when you see a brand new computer out and just a month later the price has dropped 30%

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Hoppe

Communism is theory, it has never been put into practise. Onfortunatly.

I can&#39;t see why Big Companies wouldn&#39;t exist in a truly free market system. You use Microsoft as an example and say that they own their Monopoly thanks to patent. Which use true, but other big companies such as McDonald&#39;s haven&#39;t invented anything of importance and still they have a monopoly position.

Further more. I assume that you mean that companies and government stand far away from each other and that the government should leave the companies alone.


The mere fact that they do exist now is thanks to governments which protect their interests.

You forgot that Companies and Government are melting more and more together in Capitalist Society. The Capitalists are the rulers and ofcouse they will protect their interrests. Afteral they&#39;re businessmen. They do not stand away from each other, they are connecting more and more. Businessmen are presidents, congressmen and not only in the US but everywhere in Capitalist World.

-------


But companies will only develop technologies which will bring up money.

I&#39;ve never claimed that research in Capitalist Society is only done for profit. I claim that companies research for profit. Their porpuse is profit. Uni&#39;s are governmental institutions and will not invent materials which would destroy or damage the business life.

[Hoppe]

but other big companies such as McDonald&#39;s haven&#39;t invented anything of importance and still they have a monopoly position.


Nonsense, who says you can only get your food at McDonalds?


You forgot that Companies and Government are melting more and more together in Capitalist Society. The Capitalists are the rulers and ofcouse they will protect their interrests. Afteral they&#39;re businessmen. They do not stand away from each other, they are connecting more and more. Businessmen are presidents, congressmen and not only in the US but everywhere in Capitalist World.

Don&#39;t expect anything else if you stick to democracy. If you want to see the downside of it, look at France, the US etc etc. It won&#39;t disappear if you abolish private property.

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2003, 07:50 PM
I would have to disagree, i think this competition is causing cheaper more efficient products.

I think its most visable in the computer market, apple vs microsoft, if microsoft decided to keep their 2 GHz computer at &#036;2,000 and then apple came out with a faster computer for only &#036;1500 that forces microsoft to come out with an even faster computer thats just as cheap.

this can be easily seen in our market today especially when you see a brand new computer out and just a month later the price has dropped 30%
Well the fact that the most programs aren&#39;t compatible with macs makes that microsoft have a edge on them. Even if they are more expensive people will buy microsoft since they want the use the programs that their friends have ... Macs are only good for in companies anyway ;)

[monkeydust]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2003, 06:50 PM
I would have to disagree, i think this competition is causing cheaper more efficient products.

I think its most visable in the computer market, apple vs microsoft, if microsoft decided to keep their 2 GHz computer at &#036;2,000 and then apple came out with a faster computer for only &#036;1500 that forces microsoft to come out with an even faster computer thats just as cheap.

this can be easily seen in our market today especially when you see a brand new computer out and just a month later the price has dropped 30%
Yes the example you have given is true however added to this companies will, if it makes a better profit seek to make things the cheapest way they can. What does this involve? Well for starters......

-As low wages as they can get away with paying people, for example Africans growing cocoa beans are vastly exploited without even realising it, the companies do this because their incentive is money.

-Cut corners in terms of quality, so with your example Microsoft might try to make their product cheaper still yet do so by using shoddy compnents that wont last

-Be inefficient in creating these products if it is cheaper to be so.

You also have to note that communism is not just capitalism without competition, it isn&#39;t about competition to create cheaper products in the way capitalism is, it&#39;s more about steady progress with the interests of the many not the few put first.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2003, 08:02 PM

but other big companies such as McDonald&#39;s haven&#39;t invented anything of importance and still they have a monopoly position.


Nonsense, who says you can only get your food at McDonalds?


You forgot that Companies and Government are melting more and more together in Capitalist Society. The Capitalists are the rulers and ofcouse they will protect their interrests. Afteral they&#39;re businessmen. They do not stand away from each other, they are connecting more and more. Businessmen are presidents, congressmen and not only in the US but everywhere in Capitalist World.

Don&#39;t expect anything else if you stick to democracy. If you want to see the downside of it, look at France, the US etc etc. It won&#39;t disappear if you abolish private property.
Who says you can get PC&#39;s only from Microsoft. It&#39;s undeniable that McDonald is leading in the fast-food industry and can use it&#39;s power and wealth to strenghten it&#39;s position and destroy competetors. Just like Microsoft can. Little companies can&#39;t compete with monopolistic companies such as McDonalds or Microsoft.


Don&#39;t expect anything else if you stick to democracy.

How do you mean this? Democracy is the will of the people. In it&#39;s modern form it&#39;s meaning, that people choose representatives who have to act in their interrest. Not in the interrest of money or companies. Since most people are not rich, it&#39;s not representative for a government to be governd by Capitalists aka Factoryowners. So why do I have to expect this from democracy.

Note that in US elections, presidential candidates are heavily supported by companies and the result of the election strongly depends on how much publicity and fundings one have had. Not having the support of companies means loosing. Resulting that candidates rather represent companies and business interrests then the people. Giving the people a choice between the lesser evil. A choice which always leads to depressing results for the people and most people aren&#39;t even willing to make. (Reffering to the low number of citizens who vote) I took the US as example, but the same is happening all over in the Capitalist World.

I am not against private property. I don&#39;t want to make everyone equally poor, but everyone wealthy. A society where there is no lack and no worries for materialism. And where one&#39;s wealth is not created at the expense of others or nature.

[Soviet power supreme]

Whats wrong with honest hard work??

If everybody could have same starting position this would be ok.
Now you go and tell to an african man that he hasn&#39;t worked enough and he is to blame for his current position.

Capitalism can&#39;t achieve this because like you said capitalists are greedy.Why capitalist should help building schools in Africa if they doesn&#39;t do any good for him?In fact it would harm him because african could become his rival.


sense companies are competing against each other it leads to cheaper and more efficient products


Yes this is pretty stupid.
Companies have to sack people so that they can make more money.But where they sell their products if those who they sacked can&#39;t afford those products because they are unemployees?


Think at larger scale.Capitalists have replace all their workers with machines.
Yes let&#39;s say about 10000 capitalist own everything but where they sell if 60000000 are unemployee?Nowhere no matter how cheap they are.Now think how high taxes they must have because goverments must pay benefits,allowances and supports to these 60000000.They must pay so much money that they are better off if they close their companies.Capitalism is destroying itself.Thats why you must be communist


Now why technology should progress?Could someone answer me that?

[Pete]

Technology needn&#39;t &#39;advance&#39; or &#39;progress,&#39; but it makes life easier. A balance needs to be achieved between &#39;technological progress,&#39; &#39;natural resource development&#39; and &#39;human resources.&#39; Peferably this balance would be infavour of destroying the terms mentioned above, as they each are loaded terms.

Technology in exchange for humanity? No. Humanity in exchange for the world? No. The world in exchange for technology? Well, no. A middle ground ("4th way") needs to be found.... I doubt capitalism will even look.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by Soviet power [email protected] 29 2003, 01:20 AM





If everybody could have same starting position this would be ok.
Now you go and tell to an african man that he hasn&#39;t worked enough and he is to blame for his current position.

I agree that the African man is not to blame for his current position. The real ones to blame are the ruling authorities who are keeping the country poor through debt and other mis-guided policies. Also, violence and fundamentalism would be to blame. Unfortunately the free market cannot operate under these conditions. For one thing the currency is worthless because of Government mis-management (spending and printing money causing inflation).


Capitalism can&#39;t achieve this because like you said capitalists are greedy.Why capitalist should help building schools in Africa if they doesn&#39;t do any good for him?In fact it would harm him because african could become his rival.

Capitalists build schools in western countries. If conditions were more favourable for capitalism (such as a stable economy political landscape), then companies may be given the incentive to operate there. Just like with transitional economies such as China.


Companies have to sack people so that they can make more money.But where they sell their products if those who they sacked can&#39;t afford those products because they are unemployees?

Companies sack people for a variety of reasons. Maybe the worker is underperforming, maybe they are cutting back on production. Nevertheless most businesses need to hire workers as part of production. YET for the individual working is not the sole choice of life under capitalism. There are plenty of opportunities to go into business themselves or become an investor in shares or property.


Think at larger scale.Capitalists have replace all their workers with machines.
Yes let&#39;s say about 10000 capitalist own everything but where they sell if 60000000 are unemployee?Nowhere no matter how cheap they are.Now think how high taxes they must have because goverments must pay benefits,allowances and supports to these 60000000.They must pay so much money that they are better off if they close their companies.Capitalism is destroying itself.Thats why you must be communist

If the machine can do a better job and is more efficient then a human worker - than it makes logical sense to use automation. But instead of millions of former workers living on welfare, maybe become entrepreneurs and use the same tools to start successful businesses themselves. Extensive welfare handouts will kill the economy and make people lazy.


Now why technology should progress?Could someone answer me that?

Because with technology you can produce more for less. You can solve problems that before were untenable.

[opie]

Originally posted by Soviet power [email protected] 29 2003, 01:20 AM
Capitalism can&#39;t achieve this because like you said capitalists are greedy.Why capitalist should help building schools in Africa if they doesn&#39;t do any good for him?In fact it would harm him because african could become his rival.

But America does build schools in africa, america does spend billions of dollars for helping 3rd world countries


Think at larger scale.Capitalists have replace all their workers with machines.
Yes let&#39;s say about 10000 capitalist own everything but where they sell if 60000000 are unemployee?Nowhere no matter how cheap they are.Now think how high taxes they must have because goverments must pay benefits,allowances and supports to these 60000000.They must pay so much money that they are better off if they close their companies.Capitalism is destroying itself.Thats why you must be communist

Interesting, but if capitalism got that advanced when all the workers are unemployed because machines have taken their place then i guess communism is the only answer because money would be useless to buy things so all the products must be distributed, so communism would be the final stage of capitalism

[Nyder]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 03:45 AM
Interesting, but if capitalism got that advanced when all the workers are unemployed because machines have taken their place then i guess communism is the only answer because money would be useless to buy things so all the products must be distributed, so communism would be the final stage of capitalism
Well if we got to the stage where machines would be doing everything for us then even extravagant ways of living today would be a cheap minimum standard in the future. That&#39;s why capitalism is the best system - it strives to produce more for less at greater efficiency. Think about it - even the poor today have a much better standard of living then the poor of 100 years ago.

However this is an evolution to a &#39;communism&#39; (ie. a state where basic needs are provided for) without using force or terror to achieve it.

[Pete]

However this is an evolution to a &#39;communism&#39; (ie. a state where basic needs are provided for) without using force or terror to achieve it.

You are confusing communism (a stateless, classless society) for Democratic Socialism, or Social Democracy here, or even Socialism...

[Nyder]

Sorry, I meant &#39;state&#39; as in state of things - not government state.

[Pete]

Ahhh.... I&#39;ve been jumping when it comes to terminology recently... society would be a better word...

-Pete

[Bolshevika]

Oh please, Bill Gates didn&#39;t earn 1/100th of what he has today. He in fact is a symbol of capitalist exploitation and laziness. Only in a capitalist society can someone gain capital without labouring, Bill Gates is a shining example of sloth and laziness in capitalism. He can simply pay other men to labour for him, yet he gains capital anyway for doing little to nothing&#33; Shows you how unequal the distribution of labour is.

[suffianr]

Bill Gates is a shining example of sloth and laziness in capitalism.

No, he&#39;s a greedy opportunist. He&#39;s not lazy. Just very quick to capitalize on his competitor&#39;s disadvantages. In other words, a successful businessman.

[synthesis]

I think he might have meant lazy in the physical sense.

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 09:05 AM
I think he might have meant lazy in the physical sense.
I concur, I don&#39;t see how spending a etire day after your computer screen can be hard work as spending one day in a hot storage room assembling furniture (my holiday job ;) )

[Hoppe]

Again, if Bill Gates was/is such a greedy bastard you cannot conclude that this is very bad. The development of computers and good programmes benefitted a lot of people. You must know of the critical examinations of various people on incentives in socialist economies.

[Nyder]

Capitalism thrives on ideas not physical labour. Bill Gates came up with a product that millions of people wanted to buy, and so he made an investment that paid off big time. He earned it and the only reason he is so rich and successful is because people WANT to buy from Microsoft. They did not get there from force, bribery, corruption or theft.

And if you think up of a successful product that you can market then you can enjoy the same success as Bill Gates. It&#39;s a simple matter of creating a product/service that people want to buy. In capitalism you are rewarded - in communism you are punished, your money stolen off you and given to people who have nothing to do with your innovation. Workers don&#39;t create profits - sales do.

And how is Bill Gates exploiting people? His empire has created thousands of jobs for people all over the planet. His products have helped millions of individuals worldwide. If you don&#39;t like Bill Gates you don&#39;t have to work for him or buy his products. Under socialism and communism you are forced to pay for the ideals of a minority. Under central ownership you are forced to buy from the Government as they are the sole producer.

Many people actually want to work for Bill Gates. Microsoft provides a great opportunity for anyone wanting a career in the I.T. area.

[redstar2000]

Bill Gates came up with a product that millions of people wanted to buy, and so he made an investment that paid off big time.

Not exactly.

Gates got his start by purchasing a "garage invention" called Q-DOS--"Quick and Dirty Operating System"--for pennies. This was the beginning of MS-DOS.

Then he managed to work out an arrangement with IBM and other PC manufacturers to install MS-DOS in the factory...so if you bought an "IBM-clone" PC, you bought MS-DOS whether you wanted it or not. It became the "industry standard" and software developers wrote programs for it...or found another line of work.

In those days, your only alternative was an Apple...a more expensive computer but with a graphics interface.

So Gates decided he needed an operating system with a graphics interface. Rather than start from scratch (hard work, that), he and his employees built a 2nd operating system "on top" of MS-DOS...and the clumsy, awkward, and frequently infuriating Windows&copy; was born.

I remember reading reviews of it when it first appeared...and people hated it.

Not much has changed since then except the balance in Bill&#39;s checkbook...it is still almost impossible to buy a new PC without Windows XP factory-installed...and the price is "built-in" to the total computer price. Even if you don&#39;t want Windows&copy;, you still pay for it.

And it is still clumsy, awkward, and frequently infuriating.

And people still hate it.

Only since the emergence of Linux has there been any alternative...and it&#39;s been tough going. Linux is still mostly perceived--rightly or wrongly--as user-unfriendly...as a system that requires considerable computer expertise to set up and maintain.

Or you can buy a Mac...and pay a good deal more for your computer. About 95% of all users reject that option.

It&#39;s a de facto monopoly...and Gates has sucked an enormous fortune out of his monopolistic price-structure.

Like all capitalists, he may pay lip service to "the virtues of competition"...but in his heart, he loves monopoly. The only thing that would make him happier than he already is...is if the government would make it a criminal offense to use anything but Windows&copy;.


Workers don&#39;t create profits - sales do.

It&#39;s mighty difficult to sell something that doesn&#39;t exist...and somebody has to actually make it.

Without workers, you have nothing to sell and, consequently, no profits of any kind.


Microsoft provides a great opportunity for anyone wanting a career in the I.T. area.

That&#39;s why the workers there refer to themselves as "microserfs".

They most likely "know better" than you.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[opie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 12:36 PM
Like all capitalists, he may pay lip service to "the virtues of competition"...but in his heart, he loves monopoly. The only thing that would make him happier than he already is...is if the government would make it a criminal offense to use anything but Windows©.


But after apple failed Gates did fund apple to get them on their feet again so they would have a chance

[Soviet power supreme]

Companies sack people for a variety of reasons. Maybe the worker is underperforming, maybe they are cutting back on production. Nevertheless most businesses need to hire workers as part of production.

Compare any industries or farms in 19th century and 20th century.Now in which industry capitalists have to hire more workers than in 19th century?
When in 19th century factory needed hundreds of workes today it need only few, because automation rules.

Sure technology has progressed and we have new products for example mobile phones,computers etc,etc.But those industries can&#39;t hire all of those who have got fired from old industries.We also have to count the exploitation of population.


There are plenty of opportunities to go into business themselves or become an investor in shares or property.

Yep go and say that to an african man.I bet he doesn&#39;t know what share is.No need to go to third world countries.You can ask many workers in western countries.As I said if everyone had same kind starting position:good home,good parents,good education,etc,etc then capitalism would be good.


Capitalists build schools in western countries.
I thought that goverments build them.Goverments aren&#39;t part of capitalism because pure capitalism is anarchism.Thats right when in pure capitalism there would be no state only companies rules.Capitalists pay taxes and goverment builds schools with tax money.But capitalists don&#39;t won&#39;t to pay taxes so thats why they move their companies in third world countries.They pay little taxes and wages there.And you say workers should go business themselves.Okay now think about a woman.She has educated herself in to dress maker.She loses her job and she have to start own.And you say that she can compete with big companies who make dresses cheap in third world countries.There is no way that she can compete with big companies because her dresses are much more expensive because she has to pay higher taxes and she is living in western countries and she must pay more for living in here west.


If the machine can do a better job and is more efficient then a human worker - than it makes logical sense to use automation

Of course it makes sense.Capitalists don&#39;t have to pay wages to machines.Only the maintenance costs.


Because with technology you can produce more for less. You can solve problems that before were untenable.

Not good enough.Have you studied history?Before neopolitian revolution population was at good level.There were planning in societys.They kept the population level at low.When people discovered the farming, the population started to rise.Now it is little over 6 billion.Experts have sudied that population will rise in the future to 9-10 billion.More and more automations will be needed because humans themselfs can&#39;t produce enough food.

So what i&#39;m trying to say that the growing need is an effect of technological progression.

[Unrelenting Steve]

Originally posted by opie+Nov 29 2003, 02:45 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (opie @ Nov 29 2003, 02:45 AM)
Soviet power [email protected] 29 2003, 01:20 AM
Capitalism can&#39;t achieve this because like you said capitalists are greedy.Why capitalist should help building schools in Africa if they doesn&#39;t do any good for him?In fact it would harm him because african could become his rival.

But America does build schools in africa, america does spend billions of dollars for helping 3rd world countries


Think at larger scale.Capitalists have replace all their workers with machines.
Yes let&#39;s say about 10000 capitalist own everything but where they sell if 60000000 are unemployee?Nowhere no matter how cheap they are.Now think how high taxes they must have because goverments must pay benefits,allowances and supports to these 60000000.They must pay so much money that they are better off if they close their companies.Capitalism is destroying itself.Thats why you must be communist

Interesting, but if capitalism got that advanced when all the workers are unemployed because machines have taken their place then i guess communism is the only answer because money would be useless to buy things so all the products must be distributed, so communism would be the final stage of capitalism [/b]
America created and services the system that keeps thos coutries in need of aid. America does so very little for the poor countries of the world, I am so sick of people Americans thinking they are so generous, France gives like 0.2billion dollars less than you, and its Economy is a 1/5th of yours, America absolutley sucks at giving aid&#33;&#33;&#33; And the aid is does give out it makes at least double back in the interest off the loans it has to those poor countries.......And while those countries are in debt, they cant themselves spend money on social programs and food relief, only cash crops ect. So they need aid only becuase they are not allowed to take steps to bring themselves out of poverty, and America does not build schools in other countries, it has no long term politices like that what so ever......It only every give gives food aid, which giving a man a fish and not teaching him to fish.......so America can do things like making him sell his fishing rights for a tenth of the value cause its easy when he&#39;s desperate......

Fundamenatalism does not make countries poorer, and from a Marxist point of view, i would rather have the institutions in my country that exploit it; blown up, and have America through whatever means nessesary destroyed (at east economicly- which would allow people to deveop so they could work towards revolution), which I can only basicly see happening through terrorism.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2003, 04:41 AM
Why??? Cause people aways want more than their neighbor, yes i&#39;ve read that you people say greed is a result of our society and that the only true nature of animals is to reproduce. Thats false, in the animal kingdom you can see the greed is inherit to all animals, how in a wolf pack when the alpha male has all the women and food he wants then another wolf will be jealous and will want more than what he has now and will fight for it. and so on i think you get my point
Let&#39;s see: let&#39;s say you move to a new neighbourhood. You hardly know your neighbours. One day, your neighbour&#39;s house sets on fire. You have a fire extinguisher (if that&#39;s how it&#39;s said in english) nearby, and you know how to use it. Will you go and stop the fire before the whole house is destroyed, and thus you will save the life of those who could be inside and save your neighbour&#39;s house, OR will you keep doing what you were doing and say "I hope this bastards die and their house is detroyed so that i can have more than what he has"?

About the wolves thing, that happens because the ruling wolf thinks he is stronger and uses what he has to get more. That&#39;s class struggle for power. That&#39;s capitalism. I doubt the big wolves of our species (like Microsoft) would really do this if they were equal to the "weaker". If we are soooo strong to dominate the world and we are more educated and civilized, why should we keep that ridicoulous thing?


and also what will motivate people, if person A does all this hard work and gets the same thing as Person B who slacks off then person A will see this and also slack off so soon all your workers will stop working because of lack of motivation

In my type of society, each gets according to what he/she does. If someone doesnt cooperate the rest of the people will see this and will take the right measures.


what am I missing??? Can you people tell me how a sucesfull communist society will work because all the curent communist countries arnt working now

What you are missing? Maybe freedom of thought. You shouldnt believe everything the media and your daddy told you. You must think if that&#39;s true and if it makes sense. And you havent seen all alternatives and why do they exist. And there arent communist countries, unless you mean countries governed by "socialists who believe socialism is the path for communism". Even if they were really communists, and would be working for that, their countries aren&#39;t yet. You should research about what communism is. In my oppinion, the opposite of corporatocracy, what is disguised with the name "free market".

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2003, 10:52 PM
anyway heres another question, with the laws of supply and demand and all those other laws of laissez-faire; that leads to the progression of technology, sense companies are competing against each other it leads to cheaper and more efficient products
We do not need to develop the technology basing in prices. Everyone will get it almost for free in my preferred type of society because i doubt there will be money, and they will only if they work.

And those who invent new things will probably have that as their main work task, and by developing things their are working, and according to how much they work, more respect they will get, more things him and the society will have and more small privileges he will be given by the other workers.


In a truly free market enormous companies like Microsoft probably wouldn&#39;t exist. The mere fact that they do exist now is thanks to governments which protect their interests.

They will exist. With capitalism some gain more capital becuase they are "the best", so even in the most perfect "free market", "the best" software company will gain more, so it will eat the competitions and once the competition is bankrupt, they will buy their business, and that they they will keep growing until their fucking control your life.


A lot of products and technologies come from university labs based on fundamental research

Which means that there will still be people researching without looking for profit in a leftist society.


I will keep checking this thread later.

[monkeydust]

Originally posted by Unrelenting [email protected] 29 2003, 04:41 PM

America created and services the system that keeps thos coutries in need of aid. America does so very little for the poor countries of the world, I am so sick of people Americans thinking they are so generous, France gives like 0.2billion dollars less than you, and its Economy is a 1/5th of yours, America absolutley sucks at giving aid&#33;&#33;&#33; And the aid is does give out it makes at least double back in the interest off the loans it has to those poor countries.......And while those countries are in debt, they cant themselves spend money on social programs and food relief, only cash crops ect. So they need aid only becuase they are not allowed to take steps to bring themselves out of poverty, and America does not build schools in other countries, it has no long term politices like that what so ever......It only every give gives food aid, which giving a man a fish and not teaching him to fish.......so America can do things like making him sell his fishing rights for a tenth of the value cause its easy when he&#39;s desperate......

Fundamenatalism does not make countries poorer, adn fomr a Marxist point of view, i would rather have the institutions in my country that exploit it blown up, and have America through whatever means nessesary, which I can only basicly see happening through terrorism.
I agree, America&#39;s &#39;aid&#39; is incredibly small compared to for example, their arms spending. Most aid is often on the behalf of those who either wish to help but do not realise how capitalism is damaging Africa or merely want to appear nice, you could call this capitalism with a nice face.

To add to this some aid can be detrimental to Africans, here&#39;s a fairly shoddy example.
Country A gives food handouts to the poor in African village B; their local farmer Mr.T (not b.a.) can&#39;t sell him his food because they don&#39;t need it while they have handouts, so this farmer eventually has no money to pay his employees who in turn cannot buy goods from village B because they have no money themselves, thus not solving anything.

African countries should be given more self-determination, many of their borders only exist as a result of European colonists drawing lines down the map with a ruler and do not represent cultural boundries. I feel that as long as capitalism exists, people will still get away with paying hard-working Africans next to nothing for their work simple because they can.

O yeah and Mugabe should be shot, obviously.

[dopediana]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 27 2003, 03:09 AM
That&#39;s stupid. A lot of people work hard and they never get what they deserve.
"Survival of the fittest" is a very usual principle of cappies. They have tried to relate it with nature. Does working hard makes you the fittest? Animals dont work hard and sometimes "the fittest of them survive". So, what makes someone "fittest"? What indicator or system is used to qualify that? And this argument is based on the idea that there arent enough resources for everyone. Only if capitalist stop spending on useless things and using materials on useless things there will be resources for everybody. Part of our instinct is the preservation of our species. Now, why should some get everything and the rest nothing? After all, are you going to tell me you have never given even a small help to someone? If you havent you are probably greedy, egoist and you only care about yourself.

gaaah&#33; (not a rant at you in particular, infiltr(a)do, but at people in general)

survival of the fittest has nothing to do with that. those fit at surviving are fit enough to pass on genes to the next generation and actually reproduce. survival success is measured in terms of reproductive success.

[opie]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 29 2003, 05:21 PM
In my type of society, each gets according to what he/she does. If someone doesnt cooperate the rest of the people will see this and will take the right measures.

But then wouldnt that result in classes, because there will always be people who just dont want to work

so you will still have bums, and if people who dont work dont get anything then people who work alot harder than everyone else will want more than people who are working to just get by


so once again you have classes of people

[Soviet power supreme]

so you will still have bums

No I don&#39;t think so.I believe that evreybody want to do something, but they can&#39;t.They aren&#39;&#39;t educated enough,there are no place where to do that specific job, etc,etc.

I don&#39;t believe that anyone want to be a bum and hang out in his home 24/7.

[Hoppe]

With capitalism some gain more capital becuase they are "the best", so even in the most perfect "free market", "the best" software company will gain more, so it will eat the competitions and once the competition is bankrupt, they will buy their business, and that they they will keep growing until their fucking control your life.

The best at what? Your answer will obviously contradict what you say here.

[synthesis]

I think most socialists generally do support the theory that "If you don&#39;t want to work, you don&#39;t get to eat." However, socialists see this as a fundamentally unjust proposition in an economy where it is possible to desire a job but be unable to find one.

[Hoppe]

Logically there is no such thing as involuntary unemployment in a fully free capitalist society. It can be disputable that there are indeed short terms where this doesn&#39;t apply but nevertheless no such thing exist.

[Pete]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 03:20 PM
Logically there is no such thing as involuntary unemployment in a fully free capitalist society. It can be disputable that there are indeed short terms where this doesn&#39;t apply but nevertheless no such thing exist.
This is pure rhetoric. It is completely possible to be looking for a job and not being able to find one. Why do you think people go onto welfare? Because they want to? No, because it is the only way that they can live since their are not enough jobs. Unemployment rates float around 8%. Oh great, almost one out of every ten people in my country is out of work, so does that mean that over 2 million people do want jobs? Hardly. Many good people are looking for jobs so they can support themselves and their families. The sad fact of the matter is that in most cases minimum wage is so low that they need more than one job to support themselves, and thus less jobs available.

[Rasta Sapian]

man ohhh man, if charles darwin was alive today he would be disgusted how his ideology of survival of the fittest has been misconscrewed into a plight for the exploition of the human race. Its time that the people of the world (stop for a fucking minute, in there impirialist fish eat fish, fat cat get fatter, mc fucking buy this, consume this, i am better than you because my house is bigger, my car is bigger and more expensive mindset) lets unite, and stop exploiting our planet&#33; We can be working the land producing our own food and technology, lots of work, where we can see the amazing results firsthand, and everyone benifets together&#33; If we keep going the way we are going, fueled by greed, our planet will be poisoned to death&#33;

how can you water a plant with poison water?

[Nyder]

Originally posted by CrazyPete+Nov 29 2003, 08:46 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CrazyPete @ Nov 29 2003, 08:46 PM)
[email protected] 29 2003, 03:20 PM
Logically there is no such thing as involuntary unemployment in a fully free capitalist society. It can be disputable that there are indeed short terms where this doesn&#39;t apply but nevertheless no such thing exist.
This is pure rhetoric. It is completely possible to be looking for a job and not being able to find one. Why do you think people go onto welfare? Because they want to? No, because it is the only way that they can live since their are not enough jobs. Unemployment rates float around 8%. Oh great, almost one out of every ten people in my country is out of work, so does that mean that over 2 million people do want jobs? Hardly. Many good people are looking for jobs so they can support themselves and their families. The sad fact of the matter is that in most cases minimum wage is so low that they need more than one job to support themselves, and thus less jobs available. [/b]
Ever thought that the high unemployment figure is due to the extensive regulations placed on business by Government in order to &#39;protect&#39; the labour market?

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2003, 06:50 PM
I would have to disagree, i think this competition is causing cheaper more efficient products.

I think its most visable in the computer market, apple vs microsoft, if microsoft decided to keep their 2 GHz computer at &#036;2,000 and then apple came out with a faster computer for only &#036;1500 that forces microsoft to come out with an even faster computer thats just as cheap.

this can be easily seen in our market today especially when you see a brand new computer out and just a month later the price has dropped 30%
Competition does keep down prices to an extent. However prices would be even lower if the price of goods was equil to their production costs. So for example if you buy a game for £30 in todays socioty, it would probably only cost a single £ in a socialist socioty, as you are removing the need to profit.

[Pete]

Ever thought that the high unemployment figure is due to the extensive regulations placed on business by Government in order to &#39;protect&#39; the labour market?

Actually, in Quebec there are more government jobs than anyother kind. The lack of jobs has something to do with companies laying off 1000 people to buy superbowl tickets (see the Newswire for this) or to cut costs, instead of thinking of things that could keep the same employment levels for less cost, like giving management the proper pay instead of their inflated fat checks. Especially upper management.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by Enigma+Nov 30 2003, 01:34 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Enigma @ Nov 30 2003, 01:34 AM)
[email protected] 28 2003, 06:50 PM
I would have to disagree, i think this competition is causing cheaper more efficient products.

I think its most visable in the computer market, apple vs microsoft, if microsoft decided to keep their 2 GHz computer at &#036;2,000 and then apple came out with a faster computer for only &#036;1500 that forces microsoft to come out with an even faster computer thats just as cheap.

this can be easily seen in our market today especially when you see a brand new computer out and just a month later the price has dropped 30%
Competition does keep down prices to an extent. However prices would be even lower if the price of goods was equil to their production costs. So for example if you buy a game for £30 in todays socioty, it would probably only cost a single £ in a socialist socioty, as you are removing the need to profit. [/b]
Ok so I buy say a bunch of apples for 10c each and I sell them for 10c each... How the hell am I supposed to make a living doing this? You would be a complete idiot to want to start a business like that. There is no incentive to produce at all.

So the only way anything will be produced is if you have a sole producer (monopoly) that creates inferior goods and is funded off money forcibly taken from people.

If you want to know what communism is like than throw away everthing you&#39;ve brought at the shops and live as basically as possible.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 02:06 AM

Ever thought that the high unemployment figure is due to the extensive regulations placed on business by Government in order to &#39;protect&#39; the labour market?

Actually, in Quebec there are more government jobs than anyother kind. The lack of jobs has something to do with companies laying off 1000 people to buy superbowl tickets (see the Newswire for this) or to cut costs, instead of thinking of things that could keep the same employment levels for less cost, like giving management the proper pay instead of their inflated fat checks. Especially upper management.
First off - what right should anyone have to tell a company how to spend its money? They should have no right, unless they are shareholders/managers/executives, etc.

Secondly, Quebec is hardly a productive economy and I doubt the pay incentives are any good. You are probably just allocated a job instead of being free to move to any job you please and work for anyone you want.

Thirdly, life is not about work. People should have options to either start their own business or become an investor of some sort. Relegating people to hard labour their life where they have no choice but to accept it is tyranny.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 02:14 AM
First off - what right should anyone have to tell a company how to spend its money? They should have no right, unless they are shareholders/managers/executives, etc.

Secondly, Quebec is hardly a productive economy and I doubt the pay incentives are any good. You are probably just allocated a job instead of being free to move to any job you please and work for anyone you want.

Thirdly, life is not about work. People should have options to either start their own business or become an investor of some sort. Relegating people to hard labour their life where they have no choice but to accept it is tyranny.
First, the workers are the ones the shareholders/managers/executive/slave-drivers/parasites rip off to make the money they spend. so yes, the workers should not just tell them what to do with that money, they should take it from them and spend it themselves for the benefit of all.

TOSS YOUR BOSS&#33;

Second, research Quebec before you talk about job allocation, because you apply for the job you want. And besides, they move you from branch to branch in private business all the time.

Third, life is not about work, which is why the work we do should be shared as well as the benefits. You should not have the option of just being a parasite, putting nothing into society but the elimination of jobs and taking so much from it that those who do the most can&#39;t afford proper housing, education or healthcare.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana+Nov 30 2003, 08:35 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Che y Marijuana @ Nov 30 2003, 08:35 AM)
[email protected] 30 2003, 02:14 AM
First off - what right should anyone have to tell a company how to spend its money? They should have no right, unless they are shareholders/managers/executives, etc.

Secondly, Quebec is hardly a productive economy and I doubt the pay incentives are any good. You are probably just allocated a job instead of being free to move to any job you please and work for anyone you want.

Thirdly, life is not about work. People should have options to either start their own business or become an investor of some sort. Relegating people to hard labour their life where they have no choice but to accept it is tyranny.
First, the workers are the ones the shareholders/managers/executive/slave-drivers/parasites rip off to make the money they spend. so yes, the workers should not just tell them what to do with that money, they should take it from them and spend it themselves for the benefit of all.

TOSS YOUR BOSS&#33;

Second, research Quebec before you talk about job allocation, because you apply for the job you want. And besides, they move you from branch to branch in private business all the time.

Third, life is not about work, which is why the work we do should be shared as well as the benefits. You should not have the option of just being a parasite, putting nothing into society but the elimination of jobs and taking so much from it that those who do the most can&#39;t afford proper housing, education or healthcare. [/b]

First, the workers are the ones the shareholders/managers/executive/slave-drivers/parasites rip off to make the money they spend. so yes, the workers should not just tell them what to do with that money, they should take it from them and spend it themselves for the benefit of all.

That&#39;s called THEFT you moral imbecile.

No one ever forces anyone to work for any company. You can work for anyone you like. And depending on your skills, qualifications and references - you can gain employment in better jobs because employers will be more willing to hire you.

What happens if workers just &#39;take all the money&#39; as you put it? EMPLOYERS WON&#39;T HIRE WORKERS WILL THEY. In fact no one will start a business and hire workers if all they are going to do is take all the money for themselves.

And you say &#39;benefit&#39; of all? Whose benefit exactly?


Second, research Quebec before you talk about job allocation, because you apply for the job you want. And besides, they move you from branch to branch in private business all the time.

In Quebec, do I have a choice of whether I want to work for the Government or not?


Third, life is not about work, which is why the work we do should be shared as well as the benefits. You should not have the option of just being a parasite, putting nothing into society but the elimination of jobs and taking so much from it that those who do the most can&#39;t afford proper housing, education or healthcare.

People who own capital create the jobs.

Work being &#39;shared&#39; is more like other people being parasitic off the work of others.

You talk about capitalists &#39;taking&#39; from society which is complete rubbish. By creating capital they build businesses, create jobs and trade goods and services.

Your communist system would involve all of the forcibly &#39;taking&#39;. People would take the profits from legitimate businesses by force and use it for their own purposes. That is tyranny.

[Guest1]

First, you can choose your job in Quebec. And yes, you can choose to work for private business. You&#39;re really making some rediculous assumptions about Quebec :blink:

Second, I don&#39;t recall ever saying that the parasites would remain to hire people. They are an unneeded burden on society, and would be fired. That&#39;s right, fired. Because it is with the labour, and money, of the workers, that they survive and hold their position in society. All they do is direct the flow of capital, direct marketing, etc... Why could the workers not do that? Or elect someone to do that for them, without losing the 50% or so of their labour value that the parasites currently take? as to benefit of all, the benefit of the majority of people, the benefit of the economy, the benefit of the environment. Ignoring my social conscience, I&#39;m really not that different from you Capitalists. From a business standpoint, it makes sense to downsize, it makes even more sense to layoff where the most waste occurs, and that&#39;s the top.

the following strip, taken from another thread you have read may shed some light on what I&#39;m getting at:

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2003, 07:50 PM
I think its most visable in the computer market, apple vs microsoft, if microsoft decided to keep their 2 GHz computer at &#036;2,000 and then apple came out with a faster computer for only &#036;1500 that forces microsoft to come out with an even faster computer thats just as cheap.


Sorry to bring up back this example, but just rememberd something Apple would never do something like that, since that would only decrease their profit, computer market is a pure form of "oligopolie" (don&#39;t know the english name for it) and they keep their prices high and never lower them unless the rest agrees :-)

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 08:46 PM
This is pure rhetoric. It is completely possible to be looking for a job and not being able to find one. Why do you think people go onto welfare? Because they want to? No, because it is the only way that they can live since their are not enough jobs. Unemployment rates float around 8%. Oh great, almost one out of every ten people in my country is out of work, so does that mean that over 2 million people do want jobs? Hardly. Many good people are looking for jobs so they can support themselves and their families. The sad fact of the matter is that in most cases minimum wage is so low that they need more than one job to support themselves, and thus less jobs available.
No this is logic. Someone who has had low eductation cannot say that he is involuntarily unemployed because he wants to be a rocketscientist but he cannot get the job.

I don&#39;t know the case in other countries but in Holland the lowest paid workers still pay an average of around 50% in taxes. I suspect the US won&#39;t be that much lower. Increasing minimum wages will only worsen their positions, it&#39;s better to let people keep more of their rightfully earned money and let them spend in on what they want in stead of weapons, subsidies on steel.


Sorry to bring up back this example, but just rememberd something Apple would never do something like that, since that would only decrease their profit, computer market is a pure form of "oligopolie" (don&#39;t know the english name for it) and they keep their prices high and never lower them unless the rest agrees :-)

Can you prove that? The cost of computers have steadily gone down the last decade.

[suffianr]

No this is logic. Someone who has had low eductation cannot say that he is involuntarily unemployed because he wants to be a rocketscientist but he cannot get the job.

True, but sometimes markets can get saturated; there is a bio-technology glut here in Malaysia, and a lot of bio-engineering graduates end up working as pharmacists or lab technicians because companies either a) don&#39;t have any demand for those kind of jobs or b) would rather rely on foreign expertise to meet their needs.

We also have way too many lawyers, marketing grads, IT consultants...people who don&#39;t specialize in their fields but have good qualifications in their respective fields.

Also, a lot of multinationals have ridiculously overrated employment standards, and most local grads who aren&#39;t competent in English usually never get anywhere near job interviews with companies like Shell, Ogilvy & Mather or even Phillip Morris, for that matter.

It&#39;s not just a case of being qualified or not, there are a shitload of other important factors.

[Pete]

Originally posted by Nyder+Nov 30 2003, 02:14 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nyder @ Nov 30 2003, 02:14 AM)
[email protected] 30 2003, 02:06 AM

Ever thought that the high unemployment figure is due to the extensive regulations placed on business by Government in order to &#39;protect&#39; the labour market?

Actually, in Quebec there are more government jobs than anyother kind. The lack of jobs has something to do with companies laying off 1000 people to buy superbowl tickets (see the Newswire for this) or to cut costs, instead of thinking of things that could keep the same employment levels for less cost, like giving management the proper pay instead of their inflated fat checks. Especially upper management.
First off - what right should anyone have to tell a company how to spend its money? They should have no right, unless they are shareholders/managers/executives, etc.

Secondly, Quebec is hardly a productive economy and I doubt the pay incentives are any good. You are probably just allocated a job instead of being free to move to any job you please and work for anyone you want.

Thirdly, life is not about work. People should have options to either start their own business or become an investor of some sort. Relegating people to hard labour their life where they have no choice but to accept it is tyranny. [/b]

what right should anyone have to tell a company how to spend its money? They should have no right, unless they are shareholders/managers/executives, etc.

The workers are the ones that make the company. Without workers no company, thus the workers should have complete controll over the use of capital within the company. Sure the president would have his salary cut, but then who needs 2mil a year?


Secondly, Quebec is hardly a productive economy and I doubt the pay incentives are any good. You are probably just allocated a job instead of being free to move to any job you please and work for anyone you want.

You know nothing about Quebec, obviously. In Quebec you are just as &#39;free&#39; to get a job wherever you want as you are in any other part of Canada, your presopistion is worthless.


Thirdly, life is not about work. People should have options to either start their own business or become an investor of some sort. Relegating people to hard labour their life where they have no choice but to accept it is tyranny.

Life is not about work, but you must work to live in this society. And the way things are set up that many hard working lower class people need two jobs to be able to live. Whose fault is that? It is the capitalists class that is causing these problems. Regulating labour so as to be sure that everyone gets a living wage and are not exploited is not tyranny. The tyranny exists today when the executive gets paid 200x more than the average worker on the floor.

[Pete]

No this is logic. Someone who has had low eductation cannot say that he is involuntarily unemployed because he wants to be a rocketscientist but he cannot get the job.

I don&#39;t know the case in other countries but in Holland the lowest paid workers still pay an average of around 50% in taxes. I suspect the US won&#39;t be that much lower. Increasing minimum wages will only worsen their positions, it&#39;s better to let people keep more of their rightfully earned money and let them spend in on what they want in stead of weapons, subsidies on steel.


First, education is limited to the wealthy, or those who work very very hard as youths. I am only in higher education because I&#39;ve been working since I was 12 in various means, not to mention studying my ass off and doing extracurricular to be able to get scholarships to make up for the amount of money that I need that I can&#39;t get in government loans and pay for by my past jobs. And I am working this year to allocate the rest of the money. Hardly justice. The rich get the schools past highschool, since they are expensive. 13 000 a year in tution and living expensises, closer to 15 000 when you add in books. A working class family cannot afford this. No justice here.

US has a lot lower taxes than Holland. Canada has something around 47% on average, and the poor pay a lot less than the rich (although the rich are able to do special tricks to make most of their money disappear when it comes to taxation time, and the tax rate plateaus after 150 000, that is when many CEO&#39;s are makning multiple hundreds of thousands.) You do not know your facts my friend.

Raising minimum wage will allow those who are working two jobs work one, opening more jobs up for the unemployed so that they can get by without government assistance, but since, here in Ontario, people are getting payed 6.85 an hour, even if they work 40 hours a week all year they are well below the poverty line. Why is that? Because the capitalist class is paying themselves in the hundreds of thousands a year, while those who work hard to &#39;make&#39; them the money are getting pennies in comparison. Workers know their jobs better than the management does, the management is just excess baggage.

[Don't Change Your Name]

But then wouldnt that result in classes, because there will always be people who just dont want to work

so you will still have bums, and if people who dont work dont get anything then people who work alot harder than everyone else will want more than people who are working to just get by


so once again you have classes of people

Everyone wants to at least do something, and those who work won&#39;t want to have more than the lazy ones, they will start taking what the lazy people isn&#39;t trying to gain, until that lazy one starts working.


The best at what? Your answer will obviously contradict what you say here.


I said "the best" with ""s to make reference to the attitude capitalists have, that the "fittest" should always have everything. I wrote it with ""s because those are not ym words and they are not my thoughts. I should have written "fittest" instead of "best". And btw, I dont see how this condradicts what I said, in fact I was talking about "free market", and my point is that such a thing as those big business cant be really measured to see how they are the "best" or "fittest", but its just how much they have and how they make people believe they are. My point is, they arent the best, and even if they were, they would become those big business those pro-"free" market people deny that would exist.




It is completely possible to be looking for a job and not being able to find one.

True. And those available jobs arent very good, they pay few money, they are inhuman, and people wont respect you.


Ok so I buy say a bunch of apples for 10c each and I sell them for 10c each... How the hell am I supposed to make a living doing this? You would be a complete idiot to want to start a business like that. There is no incentive to produce at all.

What if you dont have to buy the apples?


That&#39;s called THEFT you moral imbecile.

Capitalism = theft. Private property = theft. Not giving the workers the wealth they produced = theft. Workers getting rid of their bosses tyranny is not theft.


No one ever forces anyone to work for any company. You can work for anyone you like. And depending on your skills, qualifications and references - you can gain employment in better jobs because employers will be more willing to hire you.

Bullshit. Bosses won&#39;t hire you if you studied in a certain university, if you don&#39;t look like a damn cappie, if you have opposing ideals, if you dont have a certain age or experience, if you move around in wheelchairs, and I don&#39;t know how many more stupid things they will think before hiring you. It&#39;s clear you don&#39;t live in a 3rd world country, where you can&#39;t really pick who to work for, excepting some multinational corporation that hires you because you are cheaper. Those companies rule the world. And by doing inhuman jobs I doubt you will become a CEO at Coca-Cola.


What happens if workers just &#39;take all the money&#39; as you put it? EMPLOYERS WON&#39;T HIRE WORKERS WILL THEY. In fact no one will start a business and hire workers if all they are going to do is take all the money for themselves.

Well, in that case he is talking about a whole revolution, not about a single company&#39;s employer&#39;s rebellion. So the "money" is available to everyone, and in a revolution everyone should know their responsibilities, so some will open new workplaces using the collective "capital", and some will ask other worker&#39;s unions to take him/her. As they are working, they will produce "wealth" out of resources, so it wont make the other workers poorer. At least that&#39;s how it will work in my society.


You talk about capitalists &#39;taking&#39; from society which is complete rubbish. By creating capital they build businesses, create jobs and trade goods and services.

And take most of the profits.

[Hoppe]

you do not know your facts my friend

What facts?

If a worker has to pay 50% on taxes and you abolish taxation, you have the same result, only this one is better. Basic economics can tell you that if you raise minimum wages unemployment will increase because the marginal value of the worker will decrease. A bit of common sense can tell you that raising minimum wages to, let&#39;s say 50.000 &#036; won&#39;t solve your problem or does it?

There are only a handfull of people who make that amount of money out of a salary. It is much more interesting for governments (yes they are the bad ones) to increase taxation on lower incomes, since the total amount is much larger.

[Pete]

Taxation is there for a reason. How do you think you have roads? Hospitals? Schools? Water flowing to your house? Energy to run your computer? Libraries? Public transportation? Only someone with little world experience would think removing taxes would do anyone but the very wealthy any good. Just think, a privatized postal service. Woopie. You want to send your cousin in Moosonee a letter? Forget it the closest that letter will come is NorthBay&#33;

Think about it. Taxes are not bad wrong evil or theft. You get what you give.

[Hoppe]

We have a privatised postal service in the Netherlands. It works quite well actually. Germany has around 450 privatised hospitals, all making profit and rich or poor can get treatment without having to wait. Various countries in Europa have roads that have tollboots, if you don&#39;t want to use them can take the slower local routes. The first railroads were all build by private individuals as were for instance lighthouses. Individuals or churches also took care of the poor and sick etc etc.

Can you prove that no roads, hospitals or schools would be build in a stateless society?

What happens if I don&#39;t pay my taxes? You guys are all taking about exploitation but it takes place right in front of you.

[Soviet power supreme]

We have a privatised postal service in the Netherlands

Jep so do we in here Finland.It&#39;s pretty fucked up when we went and privatized it.

[Guest1]

we&#39;re not talking about a stateless society. but until we get to a stateless society, the government&#39;s onbly job should be social services. Healthcare, education, crime-control, fire-control, public transportation. these are pretty much the only things the government should be spending money on. Cut the military budget by 75%, down to a japan-like defense network with guerrilla training. cut useless laws, prohibition. it is our right to do what we want with our body and prohibition is a massive waste of money. take away the government&#39;s ability to kill, to eliminate constitutional rights without a state of emergency, etc..

that is how you eliminate the state gradually. but eliminating the state to keep capitalists is backwards Sovietism. They eliminated the capitalists to keep the state, and look what horrors that created. I don&#39;t wanna be around when shell builds a private army under your Capitalist Anarchy.

[Hoppe]

I don&#39;t wanna be around when shell builds a private army under your Capitalist Anarchy.

As if that would happen :rolleyes:

[Guest1]

and why not? without subservient rulingc lasses to conquer oil-fields for it, do you think it&#39;ll just give up on aquisition through war?

[Nyder]

Ok so I buy say a bunch of apples for 10c each and I sell them for 10c each... How the hell am I supposed to make a living doing this? You would be a complete idiot to want to start a business like that. There is no incentive to produce at all.

What if you dont have to buy the apples?

Do you mean instead we could just steal the apples? I could see that under communism as communism is basically legalised theft.



That&#39;s called THEFT you moral imbecile.

Capitalism = theft. Private property = theft. Not giving the workers the wealth they produced = theft. Workers getting rid of their bosses tyranny is not theft.

I know all lefties share the same brain cell, but read carefully;

#How can it be theft if the worker agreed to perform certain duties at a pre-determined wage or salary?
#Worker&#39;s don&#39;t produce the wealth - other factors go into production like capital and technology. But that in itself does not create profits; it is how these inputs are managed to go into the final stage of success in selling in the marketplace which is the only way to earn revenue for a business.




No one ever forces anyone to work for any company. You can work for anyone you like. And depending on your skills, qualifications and references - you can gain employment in better jobs because employers will be more willing to hire you.

Bullshit. Bosses won&#39;t hire you if you studied in a certain university, if you don&#39;t look like a damn cappie, if you have opposing ideals, if you dont have a certain age or experience, if you move around in wheelchairs, and I don&#39;t know how many more stupid things they will think before hiring you. It&#39;s clear you don&#39;t live in a 3rd world country, where you can&#39;t really pick who to work for, excepting some multinational corporation that hires you because you are cheaper. Those companies rule the world. And by doing inhuman jobs I doubt you will become a CEO at Coca-Cola.

Employers can be picky but that&#39;s their right. However if your skills would be valuable to the employer yet they refuse to hire you because of their prejudices that is their loss.

The reason 3rd world countries are such a mess is because of totalitarian governments, fundamentalism and violence. These are not favourable conditions for businesses to invest in said country. If the country was politically stable, had a strong economy supported by free market policies and weren&#39;t ruled by socialist dogma and dictatorial thugs - then they would prosper (ie. like China who is in a transitional stage to capitalism - their growth levels outstrip the US&#33;).



What happens if workers just &#39;take all the money&#39; as you put it? EMPLOYERS WON&#39;T HIRE WORKERS WILL THEY. In fact no one will start a business and hire workers if all they are going to do is take all the money for themselves.

Well, in that case he is talking about a whole revolution, not about a single company&#39;s employer&#39;s rebellion. So the "money" is available to everyone, and in a revolution everyone should know their responsibilities, so some will open new workplaces using the collective "capital", and some will ask other worker&#39;s unions to take him/her. As they are working, they will produce "wealth" out of resources, so it wont make the other workers poorer. At least that&#39;s how it will work in my society.

And who is going to control all that money and what will it be spent on? How are you going to be certain that everyone will know their &#39;responsibilities&#39; and who is decide/enforce these &#39;responsibilities?

How are you going to enforce that every workplace is collectively run?



You talk about capitalists &#39;taking&#39; from society which is complete rubbish. By creating capital they build businesses, create jobs and trade goods and services.

And take most of the profits.

Maybe you should start a business and put all of your energy and resources into it only to hire workers who will take all of your profits away from you leaving you with nothing and see how likely you will be to hire masses of workers.

It&#39;s no wonder companies want to move to automation with all of the stringent labour laws and regulations already placed on businesses.

[Pete]

A problem is that you are set in your ways. Some basics facts you should know:

1) Apples grow on trees, you could actually do some work and grow them instead of buying and selling them.
2) People need to eat, so they agree to working as wage-slaves.
3) Workers operate the machines inside of the factory, which are bought using capital that is the product of selling products which the workers produce. Thus the workers are the root of all capital.
4) For competion there must be a limited job pool. Those who cannot compete get the worst jobs whether or not they are skilled.
5) In capitalism more people loose then win.
6) Colonization is root of the problem in the third world.
7) Dictatorships serve the purpose of the capitalist powers, thus they stay. Democracy&#39;s do not (Nicaragua, Chile, Grenada) so they are crushed by capitalist powers.
8) Dictatorships which supress the people are supported by the freemarket, companies like cheap labour and do little to improve the conditions of the workers since they don&#39;t have to.
9) Money will be spent as seen fit by the workers.
10) By raising the workers consiousness their will be no need for an overlooking power. They will be smart and strong enough not to accept any management, as they will see the waste that executives cause.
11) Profit belongs to those who create the product, those who distribute it, not those who commission it.
12) Workers will add new employees as they are needed, they will not cut costs by firing people.
13) Laws and regulations help the workers, keep them from the oppression of the industrial revolution.

These are selfevident to any with a social consious and who are willing to look into the subject from any number of alternate view points.

-Pete

[Guest1]

pretty well said crazy pete. except that workers will cut costs by firing people. and they&#39;ll do it even more efficiently than the CEO&#39;s do. they&#39;ll fire the pigs.

[Nyder]

1) Apples grow on trees, you could actually do some work and grow them instead of buying and selling them.

You could grow them and sell them. But I was using an example for producing anything. What about computers, cars, movies, ice cream, shirts, books, fans, etc..? Who is going to want to produce these if there are no rewards to do so?


2) People need to eat, so they agree to working as wage-slaves.

But once people have a job they can leave at any time they want so how does this make them slaves? They can get another job because there are lots of jobs out there from many different firms. Also people can earn money while gaining credit and invest in capital if they so wish and go into business themselves. Communism doesn&#39;t give people this freedom and relegates them to working for a monopoly (the state) for their whole lives.

Frankly the situation is that people have always been motivated to work to eat because if they didn&#39;t they would starve. Are the ancient humans slaves because they had to slaughter animals and collect food in order to survive?


3) Workers operate the machines inside of the factory, which are bought using capital that is the product of selling products which the workers produce. Thus the workers are the root of all capital.

Are you still living in the 19th century?

Most jobs in capitalist countries are in the service and IT sector. Most factories are now automated. Marx was writing from his 19th century perspective, things are very different now.

And as I&#39;ve mentioned before - capital doesn&#39;t create profit, it is how the capital is managed to turn it into the final product/service that has to be sold on the marketplace to meet supply and demand. For example, what if your main inputs are machinery to create products? What if you run a home based business?



4) For competion there must be a limited job pool. Those who cannot compete get the worst jobs whether or not they are skilled.

You are wrong there is nothing indicating that for competition there must be a limited job pool. It all depends on the supply and demand for the type of skills that are needed in the economy.


5) In capitalism more people loose then win.

Then why is that capitalist countries have the highest per capita wealth whilst communist countries are generally wrought with poverty?


6) Colonization is root of the problem in the third world.

Colonisation by whom?


7) Dictatorships serve the purpose of the capitalist powers, thus they stay. Democracy&#39;s do not (Nicaragua, Chile, Grenada) so they are crushed by capitalist powers.

Then why is it that the major capitalist countries aren&#39;t dictatorships and live under democracy?


8) Dictatorships which supress the people are supported by the freemarket, companies like cheap labour and do little to improve the conditions of the workers since they don&#39;t have to.

Who then is really at fault here? The dictatorship is, obviously. Something that is quite easy to do with a large and powerful state.

However, you are right, companies do like cheap labour. But in a diversified marketplace where there is competition and a choice of who the worker can work for - then wages can improve through competition of skills in the marketplace (ie employers are willing to pay more for skilled labour that will give them a greater return)


9) Money will be spent as seen fit by the workers.

Have you ever tried to run a business? You would need some management anyway because running a business takes skills and experience. How the hell are the workers going to automatically run a profitable business if all they do are menial jobs?


10) By raising the workers consiousness their will be no need for an overlooking power. They will be smart and strong enough not to accept any management, as they will see the waste that executives cause.

How exactly do you propose to &#39;raise the worker&#39;s consciousness&#39;? "They will be..." "they will see"... how can you be sure?

What makes you think that a business can be run without management? Management are critical in running a company as you&#39;d know if you studied business/commerce or finance.


11) Profit belongs to those who create the product, those who distribute it, not those who commission it.

Production costs are a constant - they have no bearing on the profitability of the product. When you and work for an employer you are commissioned to perform duties at a mutually agreed upon wage/salary. If there is no clause pertaining to you gaining a share of the profits then tough luck because that is what you agreed to. Next time you go for a job interview set the terms that you&#39;ll only work if you can get a share of the businesse&#39;s profits if you want and refuse to work otherwise :lol:

And for the last time it is management that brings in the profits not the workers or the machinery. If workers create profits then everytime a boss sacks 100 workers they&#39;d be losing lots of profits.


12) Workers will add new employees as they are needed, they will not cut costs by firing people.

Again you are denying the right of people to operate their own business. Why the fuck would I hire a worker if they are going to take over a business that I worked hard to set up?


13) Laws and regulations help the workers, keep them from the oppression of the industrial revolution.

Bullshit - they create a burden on businesses so they can&#39;t meet the costs of hiring more workers and you have unemployment.

The industrial revolution is over. :rolleyes:


These are selfevident to any with a social consious and who are willing to look into the subject from any number of alternate view points.

I used to very left leaning until I started learning economics. I used to think very much like you so don&#39;t say that I am ignorant of your viewpoint. Maybe you should investigate further why capitalism is such a revered system and why it has produced such wealth where it is allowed to operate in rich western countries.

[Pete]

What about computers, cars, movies, ice cream, shirts, books, fans, etc..? Who is going to want to produce these if there are no rewards to do so?

If there is a need they will be made. Shirts will be made because people want something to wear. Cars, well I&#39;d like to believe that a more enlightened society would not need cars and would have more communal forms of transportation, yet in rural areas cars are more effincent, though in cities they are a hassle. Ice cream can be made at home. Books, I am a writer, I don&#39;t do it because of the rewards only an idiot would write for money alone. Fans? Its pratical.

You look at things from a money basis not a need basis, which is your down fall. Sure today things are driven by profit. That was not always so and does not have to be so.


But once people have a job they can leave at any time they want so how does this make them slaves?

THEY NEED TO EAT. DIFFERENT FIRMS ARE NOT MUCH DIFFERENT THAN ANYOTHERS IN MOST CASE. In our society you need capital to get food, and you can only get capital by selling your time to an employer. We are wage-slaves today since we are not given our due right for what we produce. We are given less, since the management and executives, and other baggage take &#39;their share&#39; of the profit which is much higher than what the person on the assembly line, on the floor, ect gets, although it is those working with th emachines, with the customers, that produce the capital.


Are you still living in the 19th century?

Most jobs in capitalist countries are in the service and IT sector. Most factories are now automated. Marx was writing from his 19th century perspective, things are very different now.

Ignorance is what I see on your face. I know things are different now, but the exploitation continues. Ever hear of the term &#39;Microserf&#39; or &#39;McJob?&#39; The same conditions exist today, hell in BC it is now legal for children between 12-15 to work full time in any sector. Who actually does the work in the service and IT sectors? Those on the floor and at the computers, not those walking around and making sure it gets done. Who gets more pay? The one who does, comparitively, the least amount of actual work.


capital doesn&#39;t create profit, it is how the capital is managed to turn it into the final product/service that has to be sold on the marketplace to meet supply and demand. For example, what if your main inputs are machinery to create products? What if you run a home based business?

Capital is used to hire workers, who create more capital, more capital than it costs to keep them employed, thus creating a profit which the capitalists take for themselves. Machines need to be serviced and operated. A lot of people still work for GM although it is run by machines for the most part. And where did the capital to get the machines come from? Selling the products made by workers. Capital and profit are rooted in those who do the work, not those who condition it.

In a home business, the modern &#39;cottage industry,&#39; those who do the work get the products of their work. It is the closest to justice, except when those in this &#39;cottage industry&#39; are merely buying and selling products at inflated prices... that is like the stock market: gambling on the fortunes of the hard working populance.


You are wrong there is nothing indicating that for competition there must be a limited job pool. It all depends on the supply and demand for the type of skills that are needed in the economy.

Supply and demand. Why do you prove yourself wrong and then claim to be right? I&#39;ll say this in your terms. There is a limited supply of jobs in comparison to the demand for them, therefore their is compitiion for the jobs that are available. If there was adequate supply, then their would be no unemployment among those who can do work. The problem is that capitalism is creating the situation where less jobs are open for a large amount of people. For example my summer job for the last two summers came to me the first time at the last minute because someone pulled out. Their were less jobs than people available, so because I was the first on the &#39;waiting list&#39; for the job I got it when someone decided they didn&#39;t want it. The demand was greater than the supply. There was competition for fewer jobs. Supply and demand when applied to the job pool show that for competition there must be less jobs than people going for them. THat is your logic, and it proves you wrong.


Then why is that capitalist countries have the highest per capita wealth whilst communist countries are generally wrought with poverty?

Socialist nations -- there is no such thing as a communist country as it is a stateless, classless society -- where third world nations. Cuba was a third world nation, and when compared to other third world nations it trumps them in almost all catergories. In America, though, there is a greater disparity of wealth, yet a higher amount of wealth per person, that is because most of the capital is owned by fewer of the people, yet there is so much capital concectrated in the First World because of the legacy of colonization, which I will tell you about in just a moment, that even though the average income is around 20 000 (a few years ago) in the States, that is only because so many people are insanely rich (baseball playesr making millions a year), to counter balance the inherent poverty of capitalism.


Colonisation by whom?

I&#39;m sorry, but are you ignorant of the history of the world? European nations colonized the rest of the world, and, in a different form, still are.

For example, the native populations of Latin America and Africa where crippled, if not wiped out (as is the case in the americas) for the most part, by the exploitation of indegiounous people by the glorious colonizers. About 10% of the African population was either sold into slavery, or died as an effect of the slave trade. MOst of the dead where young men. Without this portion of the &#39;workforce&#39; starvation and lack of resistance to futher western explotation followed. In the Americas, the Europeans tried to enslave the natives where they could (especially in the Latin America), but they died of disease and where culturally destroyed by the spanish, french, and english. Also the economic policies created a hinterland/heartland cylce where Europe imported raw materials and produced good to sell back to the colonies. This lead to a lack of development in much of the colonies (with a few exceptions....development in America happened because of weaker governmental control and Britans lack of firm enthuasism for merantalism). Now, these former colonies are weakend by their traditional position as resource suppliers, and are still poor in comparison. It is not like after colonization ended everything changed majically and became better. Things stayed the same, and when the people tried to stand up (nicarguage, chile) the West pushed them back down with brutal dictators. The current policy of taking the cheap resources and labour of the 3rd world and exploiting them to the benifit of the 1st world keeps the capital concentrated in the hands of the 1st world, thus the 3rd world can not get up under this system. The recent WTO and FTAA protests are signs that they are no longer accepting this economic imperalism.


Then why is it that the major capitalist countries aren&#39;t dictatorships and live under democracy?


In the major capitalist countries are not where the worst exploitation happens, but in the 3rd world where dictators are needed to keep the people quiet and in line. We can live with an illusion of freedom under &#39;democratic&#39; ideals as long as we don&#39;t speak up too much (see Maimi and the recent FTAA protests). In Ontario the current government hold 69% of the seats (or so) with only 46% of the vote. That is a dictatorship of the minority over the majority who obviously don&#39;t agree with the ruling party&#39;s platform. In addition, since we enjoy the &#39;benifits&#39; of capitalism through the exploitation of the 3rd world, we can be &#39;more free&#39; as we are the ones reaping the benifits. The relationship that exists between the capitalist and the worker in the 1st world is a microcosm to the relationship that exist between the 1st world and the 3rd world. In the 3rd world, in most cases, the relationship between capitalist and worker are much closer to the hellish condtions of the 19th century then they are here. To keep that up dicatorships are needed. That keeps prices down, now doesn&#39;t it? If you don&#39;t pay the kids in the sweat shops, the serfs in the coffee plantations, what they deserve, you can sell products for cheaper in North American and Europe. Or just sell them as if the people are being paid properly and reap a huge profit. Exploitation = dictatorship.

And who says we are not in a dictatorship? Do you elect or chose who runs your work place? or do the &#39;suits&#39; decide over the heads of the workers, who constitute a majority of the people within the buisness?


However, you are right, companies do like cheap labour. But in a diversified marketplace where there is competition and a choice of who the worker can work for - then wages can improve through competition of skills in the marketplace (ie employers are willing to pay more for skilled labour that will give them a greater return)

Your second statement is a bit idealist and is not the case. You can talk about that all you wnat, but the fact exists that in all but name those in the 3rd world and the bottom of the 1st world cannot get out of their current caste because of the economic oppression and exploitation of those in charge of teh 1st world. Their are limited oppurtunites for movement, but education is expensive and limited to the middle and upper classes, thus they stay where they are, as the poor, unablet o get training and competeing for limited jobs (often having to have more than one job) stay poor. They have to work more since they are not paid their fair due, and thus have no time to seek extra training, as they are too busy trying to survive.

I have worked in many places where I have been told that &#39;the harder youw ork the more you get paid&#39; which is bullshit. They have in theory that system, but every august or 300 hours or something every one gets a 15 cent raise or something minor like that. Sure now I&#39;m getting 7 bucks an hour, but I can&#39;t live off taht even if I work 40 hours a week, the realities of life do not allow that. In skilled labour the wages are higher, but their are less jobs so those who cannot get those jobs are stuck with the poorer paying jobs with false promises of &#39;work hard and get paid more.&#39; They can work the bare minimum and get paid and treated the same as an over achiever. So minimum wage, which is below the living wage, is a mere token gesture, and your theory that if people are skilled they will get paid more exists -- to a point. SInce there are less jobs than skilled workers, those who cannot get a job in their own field must go somewhere lower, and get paid less. Every wonder why so many convience stores are run by asians with Ph.D&#39;s? Or how many of those people drive taxis? (well in Canada that is a case, if not in Holland, as we are not a european nation but increasingly multicultrual (dont know much about the make up of Holland) )


Have you ever tried to run a business? You would need some management anyway because running a business takes skills and experience. How the hell are the workers going to automatically run a profitable business if all they do are menial jobs?

I have worked for plenty of businesses. The fact is the management usually does not understand the work that is involved in getting the job done. They do not deserve a bigger cut of the pie, but an equal one. Do you not think that an experienced worker would be better than management to run the business? They know well what it takes to get the job done, where as the managementw ith their fancy mba&#39;s don&#39;t. they know the economics behind it, sure, but what does that mean when they see those underthem as &#39;human resources?&#39; (a classist term at best). In the past century many of those who ran the stores and owned them also worked in them. That trend has been crushed by the rise of a powerful capitalist class, which knows little about the actually conditions in place. Since the workers do the menial jobs, those essential to the business (if they where not there NO BUSINESS), they should have the final say in what gets done.

"Hey joe I want you to come in on saturday to do this." "why boss?" "its for the good of the company&#33;"

What is good for the company? More profit for those at the top. That is what &#39;profitable&#39; refers to, not what is good for those acutally doing the work. If workers where in charge their would be no one exploiting their hard work doing the menial jobs that mean the most to the existance of the company. THose at the top would have to do their fare share and be paid for what they do, not what they think the &#39;deserve&#39; because it is &#39;their&#39; company. Thats horseshit. The company belongs to those who keep it in existance.

A real world example: In argentina after the economic crash many factories closed down. THe bosses went away and fired all the workers. The workers said &#39;to hell with this&#39; and kept going to work. Do you know what? THe factories operated better without the management and executives there&#33; These factories became &#39;profitable&#39; through the work of the workers. And then, after a few years when the former owners saw this, they demanded there place at the top, which, in the first place, is one of the reasons why the business went under. They care to much for money. The workers, just wanting to get enough to eat, worked better with out Mr Jones breathing down their necks and ordering them around then with him. Fancy that eh? It sounds good in theory AND WORKS&#33;


How exactly do you propose to &#39;raise the worker&#39;s consciousness&#39;? "They will be..." "they will see"... how can you be sure?

In the Argentina example it is obvious that the workers, seeing that they where exploited and fired when things got bad, did not want Mr Jones to come back. "Worker&#39;s consciousness" is the level at which those who work see their explotation, so obviously through education this can be achieved. Some unions have this as a focus, although in my union experience they where a mere presence of to the side that didn&#39;t do much in the way of trying to empower the workers.

Lets take the sufferage movement for example. Women where unable to vote in Canada fedearlly until the 1920&#39;s. Before then it was commonly thought that men should take care of the women, and that they did not know what was necassary. Obivously they where proved wrong. Now women are closer to being equals with men in society, although not completely. They started to go to school could see their oppression, thus demand more of a role in society. Their consiousness was raised, so can that of the workers.

In Argentina they saw the disadvantage Mr Jones and his executives and management caused when they bailed after the economy went bad. The workers still worked, managed the business better than the bosses. When the bosses want back they said "NO" because they had a high enough level of consiousness to see that they would just be exploited again. That is their workers consiousness.

Do you understand now?


Management are critical in running a company as you&#39;d know if you studied business/commerce or finance.


Obviously not. You would know your statement to be false if you saw workers as real people capable of real thought and responisibility, instead of looking through the capitalist lense of the way things are today as the way they should be. Argentina, remember.


Next time you go for a job interview set the terms that you&#39;ll only work if you can get a share of the businesse&#39;s profits if you want and refuse to work otherwise

That is an illogical demand since I would not get the job and be unable to pay rent or buy food. This is what I mean by wage-slavery. Do yuo think slaves wanted to be enslaved? Wanted to work or be whipped? Basically in todays system if you do not accept the &#39;deal&#39; proposed by the capitalist you do not get the job. Their are enough people who are unwilling to negoitiate to take the place of someone who wants fair terms. More people looking for jobs than there are jobs available. You see? Exploitation.


it is management that brings in the profits not the workers or the machinery. If workers create profits then everytime a boss sacks 100 workers they&#39;d be losing lots of profits.

It is the workers who create the products that are sold by the management that create the profits. The workers make the products. The workers MAKE the products. THE WORKERS MAKE THE PRODUCTS. No workers = no profits. The management is an unneeded relic of a past age. Workers can be taught to do the things the managenment do. As you said before this is not the 19th century, so why are businesses still set up the same way? People from the upper class become executives, the middle class management or service workers, and the lower class become those who do the &#39;menial work.&#39; Funny how that is usually the case eh? Bosses cut workers, and then force more work onto those who are left, without increasing there pay thus increasing profits. I gave you a concrete example. A company fired 1000 people then used the money &#39;saved&#39; to buy superbowl tickets. Less people working means less wages, but if you can make them produce the same amount, then the profit is higher and the management and exectuives reap the benifits of the sweat of the working class. You see?


Again you are denying the right of people to operate their own business

Yes I am. The people who work for the business should be the ones who &#39;own&#39; it. It is called collective ownership. It has proved itself more effective than having a topdown structure. For a society to be truly democratic then all parts of society have to be demoratic. That includes the economic side.


Why the fuck would I hire a worker if they are going to take over a business that I worked hard to set up?

Because you need someone to help you. They should become your partner and work beside you and get equal say in what they are doing, aswell as equal pay. That is only logical. The problem with that is that the workers consiouness is not yet developed high enough that everyone demands that. If everyone did, then the employers would have to accept the terms of the workers, not the other way around. That is only logical, sicne the employer set upt he business, should he not also work in it? I mean do the same work as the others, and get paid the same, since they are all working together. That is not the case today, but two hundred years ago the idea of all the workers in a plant striking until they where given something better was unheard of. Today it is more common. When all the workers see the injustice in taking what is handed to them, then mass action can happen and humble the capitalists. If they work, then sure they should get their equal share, but if they expect others to forfiet part of their cut for the owner&#39;s bank account... well that is not fair now is it? Companies do not exist because someone is at the top pulling strings, they exist because there are people at the bottom working and getting things done. These people should be the ones in controll, since they are the only essential part of the system. Remember my ARgentina example?


Bullshit - they create a burden on businesses so they can&#39;t meet the costs of hiring more workers and you have unemployment

How so? They make sure that businesses have to pay workers close to a living wage? Are you complaining that regulation force humane conditions onto employers? That they cannot exploit those who are doing the work for them? Of please, quit your *****ing.


The industrial revolution is over.

Yet you want to reverse all of the progress made since then so that profit margins increase. In BC children can now legally work full time, that is from the ages 12 and up. This is after a laxing of labour laws. What does it mean? SInce kids will demand less than adults, wages will drop as the kids of poor families who no longer can get social assistance will have to go to work since they cost less than the parents do to employ. That occured during the industrial revolution. Sure it is over, but the regulations placed on businesses keep those conditons from coming back with a vengence.


used to very left leaning until I started learning economics. I used to think very much like you so don&#39;t say that I am ignorant of your viewpoint. Maybe you should investigate further why capitalism is such a revered system and why it has produced such wealth where it is allowed to operate in rich western countries.

It is such a revered system because it creates disproportionate wealth in favour of the societies we live in. The 3rd world is poor because the 1st is rich. For one to be ahead, the other must be behind. Cheap labour and resources from the 3rd world create the products for teh 1st world, yet it is the 1st worlds companies which controll this procedure, making sure the capital stays at home instead of where the work is being done.

I am sad to see that you have changed to the oppressers side, but hey that&#39;s your choice no? Capitalism has put hundreds of millions if not a few billions into poverty for what? The wealth of the 1st world. We have the most capital, sure. Have you ever asked your self why? Exploitation with its origins in colonization and a eurocentric world view are key causes of this.

Very simply: capitalism = class oppression of the poor by the rich. It is revered because the rich controll most of the means of revering the system. Major newspapers, radio stations, and television channels will promote the system, because those behind it are winning, yet those at the bottom still have their face in the mud.

-Pete

[Hoppe]

I am extremely curious, if collectively owned companies are much more effective why don&#39;t I hardly see them in the real world?

No workers=no profit? Has one century of economic thought missed you guys completely?

[Pete]

I am extremely curious, if collectively owned companies are much more effective why don&#39;t I hardly see them in the real world?


Because it goes directly against the current reality, where those at the top make more than those at the bottom. The greedy rich do not want to loose their wealth, and thus continue to oppress.


No workers=no profit? Has one century of economic thought missed you guys completely?

No. I reject the claim that workers do not create the capital. Anything else is baseless, as it is the workers who make the product and who sell the product. All capital comes from these two activities. People on the floor make them in the factory. People on the floor sell them in the stores. Profit comes from not giving the workers their due. But if there where no workers making and selling, then their would be no capital produced and thus no capital.

I reject oppression as legitmate and just economics.

-Pete

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 01:04 PM
Can you prove that? The cost of computers have steadily gone down the last decade.
All the decent computer trades (I did say the decent) have the same price ratings you have no big diff between them. I don&#39;t speak of the pcs you can get on demand (most of the gear in it, is boosted :P )

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 12:05 PM
I am extremely curious, if collectively owned companies are much more effective why don&#39;t I hardly see them in the real world?

No workers=no profit? Has one century of economic thought missed you guys completely?
I can&#39;t remember the name of the company right now, but it makes the majority of fireproofing material, those shiny suits you see them wear especially. this company is operated on a collective basis. there&#39;s a maximum of 200 workers per factory, so that the workers can work on a personal basis with each other. the management is paid exactly the same as the workers and are from amongst them. they are a very successful company and has contracts witht he US government to provide material for fire departments across the country.

I&#39;ll get you the name soon, and a link.

[Hoppe]

Because it goes directly against the current reality, where those at the top make more than those at the bottom. The greedy rich do not want to loose their wealth, and thus continue to oppress.

Well say fuck you to your boss and start up your own company with some collegues. Or aren&#39;t you a risklover?


I reject oppression as legitmate and just economics.

Well you can of course reject it but unjust? That is a moral argument. That all value is created by labour has been refuted on many occassions, not on a moral basis, but on a scientific. Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk for instance refuted this because the workers traded in their share of the end price for the more certain and soon wages paid by the entrepreneur. The profit from wages were not therefor exploitation but a rational response from the workers who prefered certainty of income to the risk entailed in a full share of the profits. David Ricardo also showed the fallacies in the reasoning of Marx. And with them many more.

How come that the price of a commodity doesn&#39;t equals the value on many occasions?


All the decent computer trades (I did say the decent) have the same price ratings you have no big diff between them. I don&#39;t speak of the pcs you can get on demand (most of the gear in it, is boosted

If you say that only few are controlling the market keeping the prices artificially up then you haven&#39;t proven anything.


I&#39;ll get you the name soon, and a link.

Please do, I would like to have a closer look.

[Pete]

You are trying to get me to see through idealism instead of realism. The fact is that workers have to accept what tehy are offered but not eat. My brand of leftism (whatever it may be called) believes that when the workers are able to see that they are being exploited and demand a fairshare, instead of what tehy get now, then justice can come.

Sure &#39;justice&#39; is moral, but theft is wrong isn&#39;t it? Stealing from workers is, there fore wrong. That is what the inequities in pay virtually are.

Your social scientists only support your opinion if you share the same basic assumptions as them. As you can see by my posts, I do not. I think their reality is skewed infavour of the upper class, and wants exploitation both at home and abroad to continue.

I think (may be wrong) that Birkenstock is collective run.

[Nyder]

CrazyPete,

I have responded to most of your comments except for the issues regarding worker&#39;s and the earning of profits which I have replied to at the bottom of this post.



What about computers, cars, movies, ice cream, shirts, books, fans, etc..? Who is going to want to produce these if there are no rewards to do so?

If there is a need they will be made. Shirts will be made because people want something to wear. Cars, well I&#39;d like to believe that a more enlightened society would not need cars and would have more communal forms of transportation, yet in rural areas cars are more effincent, though in cities they are a hassle. Ice cream can be made at home. Books, I am a writer, I don&#39;t do it because of the rewards only an idiot would write for money alone. Fans? Its pratical.

You look at things from a money basis not a need basis, which is your down fall. Sure today things are driven by profit. That was not always so and does not have to be so.

Who do you think is determine what people &#39;need&#39; and what they &#39;want&#39; besides the individual concerned? If you seperate it into needs and wants - and you only provide for the needs - you will have a society of peasants who only have the bare minimum needed to survive.

And whoever decides the &#39;needs&#39; will undoubtedly satisfy their needs above all else. Everyone else will have to accept the terms through force (threat and/or application of violence). Is this really the society you want to live in?

As for the production of shirts, ice creams, etc; the reason why everyone doesn&#39;t go out and get the materials to produce them and perform the labour themselves in order to make them is because it is much more cheaper, time saving and efficient to let sole producers do the task. It is called specialisation. It is much better to have companies specialising in producing different goods and services to each other than have just one organisation, or one household, producing everything they need and want.



But once people have a job they can leave at any time they want so how does this make them slaves?

THEY NEED TO EAT. DIFFERENT FIRMS ARE NOT MUCH DIFFERENT THAN ANYOTHERS IN MOST CASE. In our society you need capital to get food, and you can only get capital by selling your time to an employer. We are wage-slaves today since we are not given our due right for what we produce. We are given less, since the management and executives, and other baggage take &#39;their share&#39; of the profit which is much higher than what the person on the assembly line, on the floor, ect gets, although it is those working with th emachines, with the customers, that produce the capital.

You ignored my analogy - if you had to go out and hunt for food, does that make you a slave to hunting because if you do not hunt you will starve?

Also, you will find in capitalist societies that the wages/salary earned from their work not only covers their food bills, but also their other necessities of living as well as extra money for frivolous &#39;wants&#39;. Of course this all depends on your style of budgeting and your income, but you will find that in the main people are earning over the amount needed to cover their basic needs.

I will cover your arguments about the wage system at the bottom of this post (as you have repeated your arguments several times and I do not want to repeat myself).




Are you still living in the 19th century?

Most jobs in capitalist countries are in the service and IT sector. Most factories are now automated. Marx was writing from his 19th century perspective, things are very different now.

Ignorance is what I see on your face. I know things are different now, but the exploitation continues. Ever hear of the term &#39;Microserf&#39; or &#39;McJob?&#39; The same conditions exist today, hell in BC it is now legal for children between 12-15 to work full time in any sector. Who actually does the work in the service and IT sectors? Those on the floor and at the computers, not those walking around and making sure it gets done. Who gets more pay? The one who does, comparitively, the least amount of actual work.

Are you saying the same conditions exist today that existed in the 18th and 19th centuries in the factories? If you are then I think you are very ignorant. As for Microsoft - I don&#39;t know how you formulated that opinion but I have friends who graduated in IT and went on to work for Microsoft. They cherished their ability to work for one of the biggest organisations on the planet and have figured it prominently into their CVs. McDonalds - they hire multitudes of young people giving them experience in the workforce and starts to better careers with higher wages (if they play their cards right). McDonalds is one of the world&#39;s biggest employer&#39;s and franchisees that have brought success to many small businesspeople. Of course you are the eternal cynic, lol.



You are wrong there is nothing indicating that for competition there must be a limited job pool. It all depends on the supply and demand for the type of skills that are needed in the economy.

Supply and demand. Why do you prove yourself wrong and then claim to be right? I&#39;ll say this in your terms. There is a limited supply of jobs in comparison to the demand for them, therefore their is compitiion for the jobs that are available. If there was adequate supply, then their would be no unemployment among those who can do work. The problem is that capitalism is creating the situation where less jobs are open for a large amount of people. For example my summer job for the last two summers came to me the first time at the last minute because someone pulled out. Their were less jobs than people available, so because I was the first on the &#39;waiting list&#39; for the job I got it when someone decided they didn&#39;t want it. The demand was greater than the supply. There was competition for fewer jobs. Supply and demand when applied to the job pool show that for competition there must be less jobs than people going for them. THat is your logic, and it proves you wrong.

Firstly, ask why there is a limited supply of jobs - and I will give you a very pertinent reason. In most of the western nations (and certainly where I live - Australia), there are a myriad of regulations placed on the labour market making hiring labour much more expensive. For example; minimum wages, unfair dismissal laws, worker entitlements such as superannuation, paid leave, etc and other costs that Government impose on businesses such as taxes, levies, registration fees and all of the other costs. The costs on business hamper their production levels and also raise the price of goods to the consumer.

It is simple economics that if you make the price of an item more expensive, you will buy less of it. By making hiring labour more expensive, the Government has caused business to hire less to save on costs. Thus one of the major causes of unemployment (particularly the long-term unemployed) is the Government.

I&#39;m not saying this is the only cause of unemployment, there are other factors affecting the economy besides the Government, but it is particularly prevalent when the economy is in an upswing.



Then why is that capitalist countries have the highest per capita wealth whilst communist countries are generally wrought with poverty?

Socialist nations -- there is no such thing as a communist country as it is a stateless, classless society -- where third world nations. Cuba was a third world nation, and when compared to other third world nations it trumps them in almost all catergories. In America, though, there is a greater disparity of wealth, yet a higher amount of wealth per person, that is because most of the capital is owned by fewer of the people, yet there is so much capital concectrated in the First World because of the legacy of colonization, which I will tell you about in just a moment, that even though the average income is around 20 000 (a few years ago) in the States, that is only because so many people are insanely rich (baseball playesr making millions a year), to counter balance the inherent poverty of capitalism.

It doesn&#39;t matter how much you try to gloss it; Cuba is still a third world nation. Notice how every country adopting communism or extreme socialism (or any variant) is wracked with poverty, violence and exploitation. Is this a fault of capitalism or of collective force and tyranny?

Also, if Cuba is such a wonderful country, why is that it&#39;s net migration rate is - 1.05 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2003 est.) (sourced from: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbo...k/geos/cu.html) (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/cu.html)).

More on Cuba:

The government continues to balance the need for economic loosening against a desire for firm political control. It has undertaken limited reforms in recent years to increase enterprise efficiency and alleviate serious shortages of food, consumer goods, and services but is unlikely to implement extensive changes. A major feature of the economy is the dichotomy between relatively efficient export enclaves and inefficient domestic sectors. The average Cuban&#39;s standard of living remains at a lower level than before the severe economic depression of the early 1990s, which was caused by the loss of Soviet aid and domestic inefficiencies. High oil import prices, recessions in key export markets, damage from Hurricanes Isidore and Lili, and the tourist slump after 11 September 2001 hampered growth in 2002.

It surely doesn&#39;t sound like the wonderful country many people here (including yourself) make it out to be. It has severe shortages of basic supplies and has a very low standard of living.



Colonisation by whom?

I&#39;m sorry, but are you ignorant of the history of the world? European nations colonized the rest of the world, and, in a different form, still are.

For example, the native populations of Latin America and Africa where crippled, if not wiped out (as is the case in the americas) for the most part, by the exploitation of indegiounous people by the glorious colonizers. About 10% of the African population was either sold into slavery, or died as an effect of the slave trade. MOst of the dead where young men. Without this portion of the &#39;workforce&#39; starvation and lack of resistance to futher western explotation followed. In the Americas, the Europeans tried to enslave the natives where they could (especially in the Latin America), but they died of disease and where culturally destroyed by the spanish, french, and english. Also the economic policies created a hinterland/heartland cylce where Europe imported raw materials and produced good to sell back to the colonies. This lead to a lack of development in much of the colonies (with a few exceptions....development in America happened because of weaker governmental control and Britans lack of firm enthuasism for merantalism). Now, these former colonies are weakend by their traditional position as resource suppliers, and are still poor in comparison. It is not like after colonization ended everything changed majically and became better. Things stayed the same, and when the people tried to stand up (nicarguage, chile) the West pushed them back down with brutal dictators. The current policy of taking the cheap resources and labour of the 3rd world and exploiting them to the benifit of the 1st world keeps the capital concentrated in the hands of the 1st world, thus the 3rd world can not get up under this system. The recent WTO and FTAA protests are signs that they are no longer accepting this economic imperalism.

Thank you for that history lesson. But colonisation and imperialism are because of Governments, not free entreprise.

Globalisation is in fact very good for third world nations as it provides much needed foreign investment, business, trade and jobs to these struggling countries. If you are against globalisation then you are against eliminating poverty in the third world.



Then why is it that the major capitalist countries aren&#39;t dictatorships and live under democracy?


In the major capitalist countries are not where the worst exploitation happens, but in the 3rd world where dictators are needed to keep the people quiet and in line. We can live with an illusion of freedom under &#39;democratic&#39; ideals as long as we don&#39;t speak up too much (see Maimi and the recent FTAA protests). In Ontario the current government hold 69% of the seats (or so) with only 46% of the vote. That is a dictatorship of the minority over the majority who obviously don&#39;t agree with the ruling party&#39;s platform. In addition, since we enjoy the &#39;benifits&#39; of capitalism through the exploitation of the 3rd world, we can be &#39;more free&#39; as we are the ones reaping the benifits. The relationship that exists between the capitalist and the worker in the 1st world is a microcosm to the relationship that exist between the 1st world and the 3rd world. In the 3rd world, in most cases, the relationship between capitalist and worker are much closer to the hellish condtions of the 19th century then they are here. To keep that up dicatorships are needed. That keeps prices down, now doesn&#39;t it? If you don&#39;t pay the kids in the sweat shops, the serfs in the coffee plantations, what they deserve, you can sell products for cheaper in North American and Europe. Or just sell them as if the people are being paid properly and reap a huge profit. Exploitation = dictatorship.

And who says we are not in a dictatorship? Do you elect or chose who runs your work place? or do the &#39;suits&#39; decide over the heads of the workers, who constitute a majority of the people within the buisness?

Third world dictatorships are not based on capitalism, they are based on collective tyranny like Saddam Hussein and Robert Mugabe&#39;s regimes.

Democracy is not a product of capitalism, it is another collectivist system of Government based on mob rule (the opposite of dictatorship). In most countries they use a muted version of democracy to keep politicians in power. I disagree completely with democracy as a political system.

The way business is run, is different. Businesses can run however they like because they are not using the principle of force to subjugate you as you are free to leave a business organisation any time if you don&#39;t like it. The same thing can&#39;t be said for communism/socialism or government.

Also, you are wrong about the third world&#39;s relationship with the first world. You got it right that goods are available cheaper in third world countries, therefore logically most goods should be purchased from the third world by first world countries. This demand would build up the third world economies and create lots of new opportunities. We can see this trend happening in certain parts of the world (especially China), however first world economies (particularly the USA) are charging tariffs on imports from the third world and are subsidising their own industries in order to protect them from competition from the third world producers. Hence the fault here lies with the Government and their misguided protectionist policies.



However, you are right, companies do like cheap labour. But in a diversified marketplace where there is competition and a choice of who the worker can work for - then wages can improve through competition of skills in the marketplace (ie employers are willing to pay more for skilled labour that will give them a greater return)

Your second statement is a bit idealist and is not the case. You can talk about that all you wnat, but the fact exists that in all but name those in the 3rd world and the bottom of the 1st world cannot get out of their current caste because of the economic oppression and exploitation of those in charge of teh 1st world. Their are limited oppurtunites for movement, but education is expensive and limited to the middle and upper classes, thus they stay where they are, as the poor, unablet o get training and competeing for limited jobs (often having to have more than one job) stay poor. They have to work more since they are not paid their fair due, and thus have no time to seek extra training, as they are too busy trying to survive.

I have already explained to you that the only economic oppression and exploitation comes from governments.

As for education - if all of the money was taken out of spending on public schools and education was handed to the private sector - we would see a lot more providers of education at more affordable prices (plus people would not have their money taken off them to fund public schools).

If low income earners weren&#39;t taxed so heavily and if the regulations put on businesses and the labour market were lifted then there would be a lot less unemployment and people would have more money to spend on training and upgrading their skills.


I have worked in many places where I have been told that &#39;the harder youw ork the more you get paid&#39; which is bullshit. They have in theory that system, but every august or 300 hours or something every one gets a 15 cent raise or something minor like that. Sure now I&#39;m getting 7 bucks an hour, but I can&#39;t live off taht even if I work 40 hours a week, the realities of life do not allow that. In skilled labour the wages are higher, but their are less jobs so those who cannot get those jobs are stuck with the poorer paying jobs with false promises of &#39;work hard and get paid more.&#39; They can work the bare minimum and get paid and treated the same as an over achiever. So minimum wage, which is below the living wage, is a mere token gesture, and your theory that if people are skilled they will get paid more exists -- to a point. SInce there are less jobs than skilled workers, those who cannot get a job in their own field must go somewhere lower, and get paid less. Every wonder why so many convience stores are run by asians with Ph.D&#39;s? Or how many of those people drive taxis? (well in Canada that is a case, if not in Holland, as we are not a european nation but increasingly multicultrual (dont know much about the make up of Holland) )

I suggest while you are still working that you try and find a better job and always put money aside to save in case you ever need it or if you are saving for a deposit on a capital investment.

A career can be a very long haul but if you want one the opportunity is there. If you want to take charge of your own life and be financially independent then you will have to research business and investment strategies. The opportunities are out there if you look hard enough.

I do agree with you that working harder does not equal getting more money. You have to work smarter. ;)


I will now get to your oft stated point that since workers create input into the value of the final product, that they should then have a share in the company&#39;s profits....

If a company wants to hire a worker and pay that worker a share in the company&#39;s ownership based on their input into production and the resulting profit from that input then that is up to them. However, if a worker is going to accept this, he/she will also have to incur whatever loss the company takes as well. The amount that the employee earns will be dictated by the share price of the company at the end of the pay period; therefore their wages/salary can be unstable and they may be running at a significant loss.

The reason I would presume is that this system hasn&#39;t been adopted is that employees would rather receive a flat rate instead of an unpredictable share value. Companies can be running at a loss for long periods of time until they get their average costs and marginal costs down in order to start making profits. I for one would rather receive a flat rate wage based on an agreed spoken contract with the employer then gambling on the future profitability of the company when I go for a job.

Even the owners of the factory (who may have nothing to do with the business but merely hire out their facility) would only accept a flat rate of regular rent to be paid for providing the capital that is a big input into production. They would be nuts to want to risk losing money based on the profitability of the firm (this is why owners of business often go bankrupt because they cannot pay their debtors - rather then the workers or other inputs into the production line having to incur debt).

Therefore this is simply risk aversion on the part of employees.

As for why management are paid more then the workers - it is because it has been determined by the business that management contributes greater value then the workers because their direction is more important to the company then the mere production of the good or service. It is true that management can make poor decisions and be paid disproportionate amounts according their contribution but this is a fault of the internal mechanism of the company and it could jump up and bite them in the arse in the long run.

[Misodoctakleidist]

I havn&#39;t read all the posts in this topic so i apologise if i&#39;m repeating something.

As i understand it laissez-faire is unrestricted capitalism, how could you possibly support this. The only example in history (which i know of) in which capitalist were allowed to do as they please without government interference was at the very start of the industrial revolution in England, is this the kind of society you want? People had to work upwards of 18 hours a day, 5 or 6 days a week, and in return recieved scarecly enough to live. Many families could only afford to eat meat once every few months and even then it was several days old and not fit for consumption, the working class concidered themselves luck if they had a room to 4 or 5 people because for some families this number was closer to 20, there were massive outbrakes of deseases such a cholera and typhus, children had to work from the age of 9 and often younger and recieved no education, deformities due to poor working conditions were commonplace especially of the spine. The average life span amongst the working class was 15 years&#33;&#33;&#33; These people had no choice but to work for capitalist comapnies with very few laws to protect them or else face starvation. All of these consequences and many others, too numerous to list here, were directly the result of unrestrained capitalism, is this really the kind of society you want?

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Nyder+Nov 30 2003, 07:08 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nyder @ Nov 30 2003, 07:08 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 01:34 AM

[email protected] 28 2003, 06:50 PM
I would have to disagree, i think this competition is causing cheaper more efficient products.

I think its most visable in the computer market, apple vs microsoft, if microsoft decided to keep their 2 GHz computer at &#036;2,000 and then apple came out with a faster computer for only &#036;1500 that forces microsoft to come out with an even faster computer thats just as cheap.

this can be easily seen in our market today especially when you see a brand new computer out and just a month later the price has dropped 30%
Competition does keep down prices to an extent. However prices would be even lower if the price of goods was equil to their production costs. So for example if you buy a game for £30 in todays socioty, it would probably only cost a single £ in a socialist socioty, as you are removing the need to profit.
Ok so I buy say a bunch of apples for 10c each and I sell them for 10c each... How the hell am I supposed to make a living doing this? You would be a complete idiot to want to start a business like that. There is no incentive to produce at all.

So the only way anything will be produced is if you have a sole producer (monopoly) that creates inferior goods and is funded off money forcibly taken from people.

If you want to know what communism is like than throw away everthing you&#39;ve brought at the shops and live as basically as possible. [/b]
How the hell am I supposed to make a living doing this?

The state buys your produse and gives you other things for free.

For example, you have a farmer who grows potato&#39;s, a weaver who makes cloathes and person who runs a generator. The person who runs the generator provides power to the others, the weaver provides cloaths and the farmer provides food. All for free. You just allocate a government to do the distributing. sell suplus to foreigners, use the money upgrade the stystem.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2003, 10:39 PM
I havn&#39;t read all the posts in this topic so i apologise if i&#39;m repeating something.

As i understand it laissez-faire is unrestricted capitalism, how could you possibly support this. The only example in history (which i know of) in which capitalist were allowed to do as they please without government interference was at the very start of the industrial revolution in England, is this the kind of society you want? People had to work upwards of 18 hours a day, 5 or 6 days a week, and in return recieved scarecly enough to live. Many families could only afford to eat meat once every few months and even then it was several days old and not fit for consumption, the working class concidered themselves luck if they had a room to 4 or 5 people because for some families this number was closer to 20, there were massive outbrakes of deseases such a cholera and typhus, children had to work from the age of 9 and often younger and recieved no education, deformities due to poor working conditions were commonplace especially of the spine. The average life span amongst the working class was 15 years&#33;&#33;&#33; These people had no choice but to work for capitalist comapnies with very few laws to protect them or else face starvation. All of these consequences and many others, too numerous to list here, were directly the result of unrestrained capitalism, is this really the kind of society you want?
This is fallacious. You cannot have a society based on farming and then instantly a society with the wealth we now have.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Hoppe, this is fact, it happened.

I didn&#39;t claim that it was an instant transition from feualism to capitalism (i dont know why you got this impression) and anyway this is beside the point. The only thing you could despute about this is that there were some, although few and inadaquit and unenforced, laws to protect the worker, if there weren&#39;t it would have been worse.