Middle of the road - problems with my friends.

[mentalbunny]

I was talking to my friend earlier about the problems of wealth disparity and globalisation, etc. I suggested the possibility of a law that would mean corps. would have to pay all their employees in whichever country, a decent wage that yuou could actually live on without becoming almost a slave. She said that it would be dictatorial and tyranical, do you agree? I would be the first to say that I can see problems in this "law" as agencies would spring up, willing to provide cheap labour to big corps like Nike, but at least it's a start. However, I dissagree that such a law could be like living in a dictatorship (to paraphrase her words). We have a duty to our fellow man, just because society excepts a fat cat to earn a fat salary doesn't mean that it is right, or even human nature. Besides, human nature can always evolve.

We also had a dispute aqbout what anarchism meant, I would love to hear your responses on the subject, I think she's confusing it with chaos, she said that the rich would get richer and the poor would get poorer, I said "No, that's capitalism" but she wouldn't believe me. All she has to do is look at figures for the last few year's pay-rises to see that the gap is widening. Maybe in figures the poor have more money but in real terms they are slipping behind. I have to admit I don't have a text-book (I don't mean the ones written by the right-wing) definition for real anarchism, could someone give me a hand?

[Saint-Just]

Forget Anarchy. These evil corporate leaders can be crushed in our own nation. We need not laws but to propose they experience forced labour for the duration of their existence so that maybe they will understand their crimes towards workers abroad. In addition a planned economy will mean anyone aspiring to a similar way of life never has such an opportunity.

[Reuben]

Harriet you are completely right.

The girl obviously does not understand what the words dictatorship and tyrrannyemean. Tyrranny refers to the population being stripped of their political rights and freedoms. If democratic governemtns/international bodies choose, on behalf of the great mass of the population to regulate economic relations between boss's ad workers that is copleely ilegitimate. What is closer to Tyranny is the complete autocracy that the owners of capital have over their economic relations with their workers. In parts of latin america where trade and production has been completely deregulated, parents are forced to send their children into the field to work for the company which employs them, for fear they will lose their jobs if they do not comply. This, you should tell her, is tyranny. And this is not tyranny brought about by governmnt inervention. this is the free market, being allowed to flow freely, facilitating the dictatorship of those who own capital over those who dont.

Your competely right on anrachism im not even going to go into that one. At least there are people like you at your school to enlighten these morons a little

[Som]

Anarchy is a society without authority.

So the real definition of Anarchism is to build a society free of authority and heirarchy, based on the principles of free association and voluntary cooperation.

The rich wouldn't get rich and the poor wouldn't get poorer as thats a feature of capitalism, which is an authoritarian system and can't exist in anarchy. some anarchist systems are even completley monetarless, so thats a weak argument.

Your idea for about the corporations is just another bandaid for capitalism of course, but its still a good idea.
Saying that thats somehow dictatorial and tyrannical is about as rational as say a law requiring slaveholders not to kill their slaves is.

Theres nothing tyrannical about restricting the power slave owners have over their slaves.

[Donut Master]

Sometimes we must call upon the government to enforce laws which protect us from abuse by the elite. Yes, such regulations may be a form of "big government", but it is government being used on behalf of the people, lest we are left to the mercy of the rich and powerful.

When your friend calls this tyrranical, it is because she has a knee-jerk reaction to "big government" business regulation. But you should let her know: the question is not really about big or small government, it's about government for whom. Government that protects the rights of workers, or government that lets business run free to take advantage of it's employees?

[jjack]

I always think of it this way. We make off-the-cuff remarks about freedom all the time but we don't really think about what it means. Complete freedom is impossible because some rights are mutally exclusive. That is why we have laws that say it's illegal to kill your neighbor for no particular reason. We take away the right to murder eachother because to do so would deny another individual the right to have access to his/her own life, which is a more valuable liberty. If one minor freedom impedes upon another, more important freedom, we choose to discard the one of least importance. I'm sure your friend wouldn't claim that making murder illegal would be tyrannical.

What I would point out is that capitalism is a vehicle for murder, torture, theft and oppression. Certain folks have the right to participate in these crimes under capitalism, and if taking the right to kill, torture and cheat away from a handful of conservative capitalists gives the rest of us the right to live happier, fuller lives, the society as a whole becomes more libertarian and less tyrannical in the end.

[Jaceau]

Don't forget Anarchy.

One of the key principles of anarchy is to question and challenge any and all establishments of authority. If something has power over you, but cannot justify itself, you'd be a fool to not destroy it on the spot.

[praxis1966]

Mentalbunny: It sounds like what you're talking about is only semantically different from a raise in the minimum wage. While theoretically a good idea, the corporate bosses would only use this as an excuse to institute price hikes. The resulting inflation would only serve to devalue whatever higher wage you were making, and your standard of living would therefore remain stagnant.

If you want regulation which is real and impactual, advocate the institution of a maximum wage. Set it at $100,000 dollars (more than enough for anyone to live off of) and take any excess income as tax for the purpose of redistribution of wealth. Eventually, everyone would have the same income, whether by subsidy or earning.

(Edited by praxis1966 at 11:53 am on April 28, 2003)

[Donut Master]

A maximum wage is an idea agreed upon by many of the left. However, Praxis, setting it to a fixed amount would be an economical nightmare. The value of money is constantly changing, thus, you must have the maximum wage set to a variable, like 10x the minimum wage.

[mentalbunny]

Thank you everyone for your great responses, I'll come back whenever i need a hand, which will be frequently and I'll print this off soon and see what she says. It should be good!

I like the idea of a maximum wage, I wish I'd thought of it sooner but it's an idea that won't even be a mild possibility for generations.

[hawarameen]

a maximum wage would only work if all countries agreed to it, otherwise those who were on a million a year would just go abroad and work for more than 100,000. in any case, a wage is only one way fatcats get money from the corp they work for, the benefits, share options and pensions etc amount to far more than their yearly wage.

[Dirty Commie]

If only corporate leaders were humane, and at least reduce their salary to pay the near slave laborers in asia.
Fat cat bastards.

[exploding toast]

i am going to have to go with jjack on this one

[mentalbunny]

Ah, I could go on about the inhumanity of the fat cats until I was blue in the face, but it wouldn't do us any good. For some companies it is easier it make a difference, I mean for companies that make consumer products. If they think the consumer doesn't like thier product they change it, or change it to stop them from getting bored, etc. So all we have to do is get loads of consumers to write to these coprorations and tell them what we want them to do and to prove that they've done it. With a significant response we could have serious power, but right now people don't give a shit. It's up to us to raise awareness but it's not easy...

[Reuben]

its not as easy as cosumers telling them what they want.

Although we all have a sense of right and wrong, people are also rational n act rightly wrongly in their material interests. It is not a matter of trying to change this aspect of human beings.Marz recognied that people reponded to their material conditions and generally acted on their interests. This is why a , however moral/ideological consumers becaome, companiess tht ay their workers £4 an hour generally cannot compete with companies that pay £4 a week.
What is significant i the economi structure. It is not so much a matter of fatcats being inhumane. They act rationally within the capitalist system. The point is that in the context of this structure for those who have any power, acting rationally meansbeing a complete bastard.

Consumer campaigns can have an effect, though significant upheaval will occur at the point of production, in the factories etc. It will be workers acting collectively on their own self interest who overthrow exploitation and private ownership of the means of production.

[mentalbunny]

So what do we do if consumer campaigns don't work?

[Reuben]

What we can do for a strt is, in our workpalces (if we work) try to raise consciousness of the disprity between the value we create and what we ar paid. Perhaps more igniicnatly we can support working class struggles in countries such as venezuela where the working clas have used democratc institutions to ty and better their position (ie the election of chavez). We should show solidarity with people such as chavez and support the left in the thrird world agianst the aggression of western governments. But essentially we need to prepare the ground, to raise consciousness. I cant to political with my work mates bu i do try and draw attention to the level of exploitation that exists.

Well consumer can be used to some extent to target the most inhumane and exploitative companies however this cannot resolve the basic problem of capitalism. As long capitalism exists exploitation will necessarily exist. (i use the word exploitation not in the descriptive sense but in he quanitative sense, ie the fact that capitalism rests on workes being paid less than the value of their labour.

[mentalbunny]

I feel so helpless :sad:

[Wolfie]

The abolition of currency is the ultimate ideal.

[mentalbunny]

I think that was established by most members a long time ago but thanks for reminding us Wolfie.

Recently I haven't had too many problems with my friends, except Charlotte, the one who started off this thread, seems a bit skeptical about reading fact as she usually reads fiction (I mean real fiction, not fiction masquerading as fact, although we all know there's loads of that around!!).