Originally posted by
[email protected] 3 2005, 05:48 AM
First off, by Computer programmer, i mean the guys who run server systems in the US.
System and Network administrators are also being pushed to India. This is completely possible with the internet and what we techies call "remote administration." Even most help desk and tech support positions are being pushed there. Dell employed a number of Indian's for phone tech support. It was cheaper to train them to speak English well and then pay them than it was to pay workers here, so they did it. The retracted from this idea only when they started to lose customers because of it because they were sick of hearing Indian accents.
Secondly, you dont get my poibnt.
Of course I do. I'll prove it by ripping apart the argument that's about to follow.
Lets Say You Have a Computer Factory
OK. So it's equivalent under communism would be an association of engineers and computer programmers as well as some people building them.
In order to build computers you need a design.
Right. Engineers are great at designing such things.
The CEO in order to keep his company alive and to fufill his responsibility commissions the designing of a new computer.
This exists in capitalism, but not under communism. Under communism they don't need to keep their commune afloat. They work so long as people need/want these products.
This computer is designed.
OK
Then the people at shipping and recieving are ordered by the CEO to follow the orders of the tech guys to get parts.
Ok. Equivalent in communism would be, after the engineers design the new system a select few workers contact the labor associations who produce the necessary parts and ask them to be shipped out.
On the factory floor, supervisors and trainers teach and tell the workers how to make computers.
Certainly the engineers could teach these workers how to do this. They can design the system but not teach people how to build it?
With the production of these new computers, the company dominates the market, and the people's wages increase, especially workers, since their company can raise wages, to attract even better labor.
1) The production of these new computers must settle a demand. That demand assumes people in capitalism have money to buy these new computers. So under capitalism the demand for whether this product is sold or not comes from the overall economy and whether or not people have money to spend. Under communism the demand is obvious as people are requesting these new systems.
2) How many places have you worked? I've never met a worker who's wage rose and fell with the profit of the company. If they do increase their wage to attract "better labor" what happens to those people who were not trained as well? They are fired, and their wages at the very most compliment the additional wage this company is paying trained workers.
Under Capitalism the job market is also subject to supply and demand. Say 12.50 an hour for a job running a particle acelerator, and anyone dumb enough to take that job will give you crappy service.
Right. Under communism there is no wage or profit, thus people work according to what they want to do. Someone really interested in physics will run the particle accelerator because they're doing something very interesting to them. Thus there is no "crappy service" as the people doing the work TRULY wish to be there. Under capitalism someone might take the job out of necessity and thus give you "crappy service." They may be dumb enough to take the job for 12.50, but if they are they probably also really need a job. A starving person willing to work doesn't care what they're doing for 12.50, that's awesome pay for them, whether they're mining coal or running a particle accelerator. So long as they know how to do it and the company is willing to pay it they'll take it no matter how "dumb" it may seem to you to take a job simply because you can't find labor anywhere else and badly need money to survive.
Anyways, under Communism, if only factory workers exist, how can any of the steps in the computer making process occur?
Explained above. Engineers and programmers are workers. They decide on what type of systems their building (for what use etc..) and decide on what types of parts and software will be necessary to make these systems do what they're designed to do. After they've come up with the design they may do additional work expanding on the core parts (engineers may wish to overclock the CPU on a media system) and programmers may wish to extend to software to have certain media capabilities it didn't have before.
Once they've done this they work with others, or simply with one another to actually put the systems together and install the necessary software. Where exactly is the CEO necessary? You admitted all he does is decide they need a new computer system to make profit to stop their company from going under. There's no need to make a profit and no threat for what they do to "go under." Even if the was no demand for their products they would still be supplied with what is needed to live, so there's no incentive for them to ensure people want computers. They might look to build systems that appeal to people, because that's what they like to do. They're interested in the technology. Are you familiar with the free software/open source movement?
Communism can't work unless we all revert to farms, and that means shortening our lives by 20 years, and living miserable lives.
Farms have CEO's under capitalism as well. I suppose they are no "necessary" to maintain the farms? Seriously. You've said all the CEO does is protects the company, but when there's not company ot protect you don't need a CEO. Even if the CEO decided on what the systems were going to do or how they were going to be designed, the engineers would be better at this anyway. That is what they were trained to do.
Once again, you've assumed some sort of market exists under communism. You think there are "companies" and that these companies can fail, and when they do people lose their jobs. This is not the case. People do what interests them. If you like to help people and are interested in things like chemistry and biology you might want to become a bio-chemist and work at producing new medicines. If you find human anatomy and the human body in general interesting you might want to become a doctor.
Let me ask you something. Is there nothing you do that you do not get paid for? Do you have no hobbies? Are you good at your hobbies? Would you be better at your hobbies if someone paid you? How bout this, would you be better at your hobbies if you knew what you enjoyed doing could be your contribution to society, and that alone would give you what you needed and wanted from society?
If you could have whatever you needed and whatever you wanted, so long as it existed, would you be willing to do what you love to do for no money?
I only need to focus on one part. The idea that as long as the people do not want better computers, the building of better ones will not commense. Once again, how do you direct the coming together of all these different parts of the business? How do you ensure seamless integration of shipping/recieving, and all these other parts. Someone has to take iniative and tell other people to make computers. Otherwise, everyone does what they want and nothing is achieved. How does a union of workers come to agreement on what to do? Because in the end aren't certain people going to oppose working as factory-men? Someone has to ensure that everything comes together. Don't expect people to take inative. Engineers may design a new computer to meet the needs of the people, but how do you get logistics and everything else to come together. Someone has to take iniative and run things.