To those who oppose global trade

[Publius]

On what grounds do you justify opening up US trade with Cuba if globalization is indeed a pernicious, immiserating force around the globe, as large contingents within the left maintain that it is? This is to say, if globalization is bad, is not its antithesis good? I use the Cuba case only specifically, but you could apply it generally, and you should.

[RebelDog]

Socialists/communists/anarchists are not against globalisation or global trade per se, we oppose capitalist globalisation, which operates not to ensure the efficient distribution of needed goods, but to exploit new markets, resources and low cost labour.
Your logic is wrong.

[IcarusAngel]

Leftists are of course opposed to corporate managed free-trade, but of course support a "uniting" of the world as prescribed by Marx. It has little to do with the politically motivated sanctions against Cuba (probably the harshest sanctions in the world), Nicaragua, etc. that have existed (of course the much weaker sanctions against harsher dictatorships, i.e. the Duvaliers in Haiti, were never enforced).

And Dissenter: nice avatar.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 01:13 am
On what grounds do you justify opening up US trade with Cuba if globalization is indeed a pernicious, immiserating force around the globe, as large contingents within the left maintain that it is? This is to say, if globalization is bad, is not its antithesis good? I use the Cuba case only specifically, but you could apply it generally, and you should.
If A is bad, it does not necessarily follow that the exact opposite of A is good.

I do not think any serious leftist would ever claim that international trade is bad in and of itself. It's not a question of trade vs. autarky; it's a question of trade on the imperialists' terms or trade on the workers' terms.

[Publius]

Socialists/communists/anarchists are not against globalisation or global trade per se, we oppose capitalist globalisation, which operates not to ensure the efficient distribution of needed goods, but to exploit new markets, resources and low cost labour.
Your logic is wrong.

Not so fast. A lot of people on the left say the US should take down their embargo on Cuban goods. I happen to agree. But I can't imagine how these new trading system would by anything other than 'capitalist globalization'. We both know what opening up trade to Cuba would be like: it would be like opening up trade with China. But I would call that 'capitalist globalization' through and through, wouldn't you?

I guess the operant question is, would you support 'capitalist globalization' to the current protectionist-by-fiat system?

[Publius]

If A is bad, it does not necessarily follow that the exact opposite of A is good.

So protectionism is not what the opponents of globalization prefer?



I do not think any serious leftist would ever claim that international trade is bad in and of itself. It's not a question of trade vs. autarky; it's a question of trade on the imperialists' terms or trade on the workers' terms.

But it isn't. The actual question is, should the US embargo on trade with Cuba be lifted? A lot of leftists (including Icarus, presumably), say yes. But we all know exactly what type of trade would occur in Cuba. Chomsky made the very point in an Alternet article that opening up trade with Cuba would aid US agribusiness, among other industries. Is that preferable to the current system?

It seems like a lot of the left are crypto-free-traders, in that they oppose it with their voices but support it in their policies, at least in Cuba.

The left broadly supports restrictions on free trade, such as tarrifs and laws and regulations. This is undeniable. But these very same type of trade barriers are acknoledged by the left as being harmful to the economy of Cuba. Nothing that's been said so far has reconciled this contradiction.

If global capitalist free trade is bad, then why should the US open up trade with Cuba? That would only allow the capitalists to do in and exploit the Cuban cigar industry and the ethanol industry, tourism, etc.? I think you can see the evidence of my point.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 04:29 pm


Socialists/communists/anarchists are not against globalisation or global trade per se, we oppose capitalist globalisation, which operates not to ensure the efficient distribution of needed goods, but to exploit new markets, resources and low cost labour.
Your logic is wrong.

Not so fast. A lot of people on the left say the US should take down their embargo on Cuban goods. I happen to agree. But I can't imagine how these new trading system would by anything other than 'capitalist globalization'. We both know what opening up trade to Cuba would be like: it would be like opening up trade with China. But I would call that 'capitalist globalization' through and through, wouldn't you?

I guess the operant question is, would you support 'capitalist globalization' to the current protectionist-by-fiat system?
It is a question of the lesser evil. Trade on workers terms is obviously far superior to trade on capitalists terms, but even that kind of trade can often be better than autarky.

[RebelDog]

Not so fast. A lot of people on the left say the US should take down their embargo on Cuban goods. I happen to agree.

I agree too, but for different reasons I imagine. Cuba needs goods that the embargo denies them, and I disagree that the Cuban people should suffer through this act of bullying. The US business elites who argue for a 'democratic' Cuba and the end of the embargo merely want to sell their goods in a new market or exploit a new cheap labour source. They don't give two fucks about the Cuban people.


But I can't imagine how these new trading system would by anything other than 'capitalist globalization'. We both know what opening up trade to Cuba would be like: it would be like opening up trade with China. But I would call that 'capitalist globalization' through and through, wouldn't you?

No. Cuba already trades with other countries, Spain, Canada etc. Cuba does this because like every other country it needs goods it cannot produce itself. Capitalist globalisation has trade and production privatised. It is also not a necessary pre-condition that a country cannot produce the traded goods itself. In other words, the cheapest goods are imported over domestic ones. Cuba doesn't co-operate in capitalist globalisation, that is why the US elite hate it so much. If the US drops the embargo I am certain it would come with the pre-condition that it privatises its economy and reverses its social achievements. China is a different matter and I cannot disagree there.


I guess the operant question is, would you support 'capitalist globalization' to the current protectionist-by-fiat system?

I reject both. They do not change the fundemental questions of ownership of the means of production and the goods produced.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 07, 2007 04:40 pm
It is also not a necessary pre-condition that a country cannot produce the traded goods itself. In other words, the cheapest goods are imported over domestic ones.
The cheapest goods are often those goods and service which are produced using the fewest resources.

Why is it bad to use fewer resources in production from overseas, or anywhere, than to use more resources in production from local suppliers, or anywhere? Is it not better to use as few resources as possible in production?

[RebelDog]

The cheapest goods are often those goods and service which are produced using the fewest resources.

You have to explain how that is the case.


Why is it bad to use fewer resources in production from overseas, or anywhere, than to use more resources in production from local suppliers, or anywhere? Is it not better to use as few resources as possible in production?

I don't understand how "fewer resources" would be used. What about all the extra machines/resources to transport it to the docks/airport, load it, ship it, and decant it at the other end? Companies can afford to export to countries and undercut domestic production, generally, because they pay far less in labour costs. That is simply greater exploitation of the working class, not using less resources.

[RebelDog]

Here is a fantastic clear-cut example of how more resources are actually used in a production process that 'off-shores'. It shows clearly that the profit is made by slashing the wages, not the total resources used. This is what happens when trade and distribution are done for the primary purpose of profit.

Absurd:

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1414252006

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 06:35 pm

If A is bad, it does not necessarily follow that the exact opposite of A is good.

So protectionism is not what the opponents of globalization prefer?
Of course not. If the only choices presented to me are protectionism and capitalist free trade, I am a priori neutral between them. Now, it may turn out that, after further study, I discover that one of those choices is better (or less bad) for the workers than the other. In that case I will take sides, but only because of the specific present conditions which make protectionism better than trade (or vice versa); certainly not out of any universal principle.

Simply put, socialist principles say nothing about trade. Between protectionism and free trade we will choose whatever side seems to give more benefits to the working class in a given place at a given time.

Not all opponents of globalization are socialists, though, so it is entirely possible that some of the non-socialist ones may oppose free trade on principle.


The actual question is, should the US embargo on trade with Cuba be lifted? A lot of leftists (including Icarus, presumably), say yes. But we all know exactly what type of trade would occur in Cuba. Chomsky made the very point in an Alternet article that opening up trade with Cuba would aid US agribusiness, among other industries. Is that preferable to the current system?
Honestly, I don't know if the US embargo on Cuba should be lifted. I don't have enough information on that subject to determine the outcome of each possible course of action.


The left broadly supports restrictions on free trade, such as tarrifs and laws and regulations. This is undeniable. But these very same type of trade barriers are acknoledged by the left as being harmful to the economy of Cuba. Nothing that's been said so far has reconciled this contradiction.
There are no leftist principles that I know of which argue that free trade is always bad or should always be restricted. It is entirely possible that free trade may be good in some cases and bad in others. I admit that I do not have enough information on the Cuban economy to determine whether trade with the USA would help it or harm it.

For my part, I like to point out that the entire question of protectionism vs. free trade only makes sense within the context of capitalism - that is, within the context of an economic system where trade is mostly done by private business. There is no such question in the context of trade between socialist countries (because all inter-socialist trade would be done by governments).

[ZX3]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 07, 2007 05:00 pm

The cheapest goods are often those goods and service which are produced using the fewest resources.

You have to explain how that is the case.


Why is it bad to use fewer resources in production from overseas, or anywhere, than to use more resources in production from local suppliers, or anywhere? Is it not better to use as few resources as possible in production?

I don't understand how "fewer resources" would be used. What about all the extra machines/resources to transport it to the docks/airport, load it, ship it, and decant it at the other end? Companies can afford to export to countries and undercut domestic production, generally, because they pay far less in labour costs. That is simply greater exploitation of the working class, not using less resources.
See- Now that socialists have eliminated "money" or "cost" in factoring economic activity, they have no idea how to judge and allocate resources.

One would think that sugar grown and refined in the carribean, and shipped via ships to the USA, and then distributed to all points,would be more expensive than American grown sugar and distributed within the USA. But that is not so, and the only reason the American sugar industry has not been wiped out is because the American government subsidises American sugar cane farmers. I do not know why, but for whatever reason, sugar grown in the Carribean uses fewer reources in its production and distribution than does sugar grown in the USA (and perhaps it is of a higher quality as well).

The point being that economics is an extremely involved subject, one where one has to look beyond what is on the surface.

[RebelDog]

See- Now that socialists have eliminated "money" or "cost" in factoring economic activity, they have no idea how to judge and allocate resources.

Make sense please. You have not addressed my point.


The point being that economics is an extremely involved subject, one where one has to look beyond what is on the surface.

And discover nothing:


I do not know why, but for whatever reason, sugar grown in the Carribean uses fewer reources in its production and distribution than does sugar grown in the USA (and perhaps it is of a higher quality as well).

[RNK]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 08, 2007 06:24 am

See- Now that socialists have eliminated "money" or "cost" in factoring economic activity, they have no idea how to judge and allocate resources.

Make sense please. You have not addressed my point.
Impossible.


I do not know why, but for whatever reason, sugar grown in the Carribean uses fewer reources in its production and distribution than does sugar grown in the USA (and perhaps it is of a higher quality as well).

You know why you don't know? Because you're stupid. No, this isn't a baseless flame; this statement is my honest conclusion of your intelligence. Particularly after Dissenter just told you:


It shows clearly that the profit is made by slashing the wages, not the total resources used.

To elaborate; for a company to operate any sort of production facility in the United States it must first pay its workers. What's the minimum wage in the US? $6/hr or something? Okay, let's say we have a sugar cane field that employs 100 workers for 10 hours per day, 7 days a week, for $6 an hour. That's over 2 million dollars a year on wages alone.

Now let's say they decide to move production to central america or asia where they can hire workers for 0.16 cents an hour ($50 a month, which is about the average salary for sugar cane workers in Brazil). That same sugar cane field now only has to spend less than $60,000 on wages per year -- meaning that the sugar cane company can hire 100 south american workers for less than the cost of three american workers (at minimum wage!).

THAT is how companies make profits.


The point being that economics is an extremely involved subject, one where one has to look beyond what is on the surface.

Like Dissenter pointed out; considering you don't even know why companies send production overseas, I don't see how you have any sort of base from which to criticize socialist economics.

[KC]

I don't see the point in opposing what's commonly called "globalization"; it's a necessary development of capitalism. What I do oppose, though, is the conditions in which workers of other countries have to work. The opposition to globalization is tied in closely with the nationalist labour movement, which you will find few communists a part of.


One would think that sugar grown and refined in the carribean, and shipped via ships to the USA, and then distributed to all points,would be more expensive than American grown sugar and distributed within the USA.

Uh, nobody would think that. Caribbean sugar is cheaper because workers are paid less; once less money is spent on labour the product can be sold for less.


I do not know why, but for whatever reason, sugar grown in the Carribean uses fewer reources in its production and distribution than does sugar grown in the USA

The fact that it's cheaper in no way proves your assertion that they use fewer resources to produce it.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by RNK+April 08, 2007 06:02 am--> (RNK @ April 08, 2007 06:02 am)
The [email protected] 08, 2007 06:24 am

See- Now that socialists have eliminated "money" or "cost" in factoring economic activity, they have no idea how to judge and allocate resources.

Make sense please. You have not addressed my point.
Impossible.


I do not know why, but for whatever reason, sugar grown in the Carribean uses fewer reources in its production and distribution than does sugar grown in the USA (and perhaps it is of a higher quality as well).

You know why you don't know? Because you're stupid. No, this isn't a baseless flame; this statement is my honest conclusion of your intelligence. Particularly after Dissenter just told you:


It shows clearly that the profit is made by slashing the wages, not the total resources used.

To elaborate; for a company to operate any sort of production facility in the United States it must first pay its workers. What's the minimum wage in the US? $6/hr or something? Okay, let's say we have a sugar cane field that employs 100 workers for 10 hours per day, 7 days a week, for $6 an hour. That's over 2 million dollars a year on wages alone.

Now let's say they decide to move production to central america or asia where they can hire workers for 0.16 cents an hour ($50 a month, which is about the average salary for sugar cane workers in Brazil). That same sugar cane field now only has to spend less than $60,000 on wages per year -- meaning that the sugar cane company can hire 100 south american workers for less than the cost of three american workers (at minimum wage!).

THAT is how companies make profits.


The point being that economics is an extremely involved subject, one where one has to look beyond what is on the surface.

Like Dissenter pointed out; considering you don't even know why companies send production overseas, I don't see how you have any sort of base from which to criticize socialist economics. [/b]
Labor is a resource, my friend. It needs to be used in the most advantageous way for the benefit of the community. If it isn't, then the community suffers. A socialist shouldnot find such a comment particularly scandalous.

So yes, while a capitalist firm might save on labor costs by shipping jobs to a country where labor resources are not as expensive, that means that labor resources are being more adantageously gained in both countries, since labor in the home country can now do other things, and labor in the poorer country is more readily utilising its advantages.

Nor is it true that labor is the only resource which matters in matters of "cost." In the case of sugar, the land and climate of the Carribean might be better for growing sugar than the land and climate in the USA. We know that is the case with respect to growing bananas. Thus it does not make sense to deploy labor in endeavors which can be done elsewhere for less cost. It is better deploy the labor to take advantage of the community's strength, whether it be the land, climate, education levels of the community ect.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 08, 2007 01:24 am

See- Now that socialists have eliminated "money" or "cost" in factoring economic activity, they have no idea how to judge and allocate resources.

Make sense please. You have not addressed my point.


I did address it. At this point, you are condemning the poorer workers of the Caribean islands for willing to produce sugar at a smaller rate of compensation as opposed to the wealthier sugar workers of the USA. One would suppose that opportunities are greater in other areas of the economy in the USa than on these carribean isles. So why should American labor be deployed to producing sugar, when that labor will not do it for a smaller use of resources than the Caribean folks? It does not benefit the Caribean community, who now have a more difficult time producing their product (and have fewer options to fall back upon). Nor does it benefit the American community, because it means there are fewer workers available to produce in segments of the economy which american workers may be more skilled at.

[RebelDog]

At this point, you are condemning the poorer workers of the Caribean islands for willing to produce sugar at a smaller rate of compensation as opposed to the wealthier sugar workers of the USA.

You are the one that supports a system where the greatest exploiter of human beings wins, not me. Don't even pretend for one minute that you or any other capitalist gives a shit about caribean sugar-cane workers.


One would suppose that opportunities are greater in other areas of the economy in the USa than on these carribean isles.

One could suppose anything if one wishes.


So why should American labor be deployed to producing sugar, when that labor will not do it for a smaller use of resources than the Caribean folks?

You mean fewer wages. Do you think caribean people want to work for peanuts?


Nor does it benefit the American community, because it means there are fewer workers available to produce in segments of the economy which american workers may be more skilled at.

Oh, its a social thing to benefit the community? So manufacturing jobs are not being off-shored?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 08, 2007 11:50 pm

At this point, you are condemning the poorer workers of the Caribean islands for willing to produce sugar at a smaller rate of compensation as opposed to the wealthier sugar workers of the USA.

You are the one that supports a system where the greatest exploiter of human beings wins, not me. Don't even pretend for one minute that you or any other capitalist gives a shit about caribean sugar-cane workers.


One would suppose that opportunities are greater in other areas of the economy in the USa than on these carribean isles.

One could suppose anything if one wishes.


So why should American labor be deployed to producing sugar, when that labor will not do it for a smaller use of resources than the Caribean folks?

You mean fewer wages. Do you think caribean people want to work for peanuts?


Nor does it benefit the American community, because it means there are fewer workers available to produce in segments of the economy which american workers may be more skilled at.

Oh, its a social thing to benefit the community? So manufacturing jobs are not being off-shored?
Ah Dissenter, when you finaly step down from the books, and deal with reality, a spanking you do not well take:


You are always free to argue that the community is best served by factories which produce cars, pots and pans, all manner of industrial goods that can be conceived and which perhaps were seen in the USA, or at least western Europe, oh a century or so ago. Perhaps the world should have frozen at that point in economic progress.

But it didn't and it can't. No community can produce all of what it needs itself. Some can produce items betetr than others due to advantages they might possess, which could be a skilled labor force (or an unskilled labor force) climate, geopgraphy ect.

Guess what: The socialist community will face this exact same issue (imagine that).

So the community, if its rational, which will be questionable if it adopts a socialist scheme, will have to figure what it can do best, and forego other efforts.

So yes, the Catrribean islanders can do a pretty good job of supplying sugar because they will work for less than what an American sugar worker will work for (and please spare us the wondering as to whether there are more economic opprtunities in the Dominican Republic or the USA). That is their advantage. Sugar cane workers are unskilled, so that community will not do very well building cars or making petrochemicals. Condemning them for taking the jobs of higher skilled and educated American cane workers (who can more easily find other work) does not strike me as being particularly compassionate.

[chimx]

I don't see the point in opposing what's commonly called "globalization"; it's a necessary development of capitalism. What I do oppose, though, is the conditions in which workers of other countries have to work. The opposition to globalization is tied in closely with the nationalist labour movement, which you will find few communists a part of.

I agree entirely with this.

[RebelDog]

But it didn't and it can't. No community can produce all of what it needs itself. Some can produce items betetr than others due to advantages they might possess, which could be a skilled labor force (or an unskilled labor force) climate, geopgraphy ect.

I have never said that a community can produce all of what it needs. I am fully aware that is not possible. Not all raw materials are available everywhere on the planet and some items are so highly specialised that they only need to be produced from a few locations worldwide. The reasons I understand this to be true are developed from a practical concept of production, yours are not. All of the reasons you suggest for a global spread of different commodity productions are undermined and essentially negated by your support for capital shifting production to low wage areas. Capitalists are moving skilled and non-skilled jobs to low-wage economies to make larger profits and for no other reason.


Guess what: The socialist community will face this exact same issue (imagine that).

And do you think it is possible that anyone could argue in a rational, democratic society that we should send prawns half way across the world to be de-shelled, and then send them back to be packed/sold just because shareholders want to exploit slave wages? The single principled goal of capitalism is to make a profit, common bloody sense has no chance.


So yes, the Catrribean islanders can do a pretty good job of supplying sugar because they will work for less than what an American sugar worker will work for

Are you trying to say working for pennies is some kind of crude skill Caribbean sugar-cane workers bring to the production process?


Sugar cane workers are unskilled, so that community will not do very well building cars or making petrochemicals.

Everyone is unskilled until they are trained.


Condemning them for taking the jobs of higher skilled and educated American cane workers (who can more easily find other work) does not strike me as being particularly compassionate.

Where did I condem Caribbean sugar-cane workers? You have patronised them, yes, but I have never condemned them. I want the sugar-cane workers to take over the fields and the factories and kick out the capitalists. You want them to struggle all their lives on slave-wages to make idle shareholders rich.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 10, 2007 01:32 am

But it didn't and it can't. No community can produce all of what it needs itself. Some can produce items betetr than others due to advantages they might possess, which could be a skilled labor force (or an unskilled labor force) climate, geopgraphy ect.

I have never said that a community can produce all of what it needs. I am fully aware that is not possible. Not all raw materials are available everywhere on the planet and some items are so highly specialised that they only need to be produced from a few locations worldwide. The reasons I understand this to be true are developed from a practical concept of production, yours are not. All of the reasons you suggest for a global spread of different commodity productions are undermined and essentially negated by your support for capital shifting production to low wage areas. Capitalists are moving skilled and non-skilled jobs to low-wage economies to make larger profits and for no other reason.


Guess what: The socialist community will face this exact same issue (imagine that).

And do you think it is possible that anyone could argue in a rational, democratic society that we should send prawns half way across the world to be de-shelled, and then send them back to be packed/sold just because shareholders want to exploit slave wages? The single principled goal of capitalism is to make a profit, common bloody sense has no chance.


So yes, the Catrribean islanders can do a pretty good job of supplying sugar because they will work for less than what an American sugar worker will work for

Are you trying to say working for pennies is some kind of crude skill Caribbean sugar-cane workers bring to the production process?


Sugar cane workers are unskilled, so that community will not do very well building cars or making petrochemicals.

Everyone is unskilled until they are trained.


Condemning them for taking the jobs of higher skilled and educated American cane workers (who can more easily find other work) does not strike me as being particularly compassionate.

Where did I condem Caribbean sugar-cane workers? You have patronised them, yes, but I have never condemned them. I want the sugar-cane workers to take over the fields and the factories and kick out the capitalists. You want them to struggle all their lives on slave-wages to make idle shareholders rich.
If it is true that capitalists simply look for low wage labor, why isn't ALL American industry now sitting in Mexico or Nicaragua? Or all German industry in the USA?

Because it isn't true.

What is true is that capitalism will use a region's environment (land, climate, labor) to its advantage in production. It may indeed make little sense to deshell prawns halfway around the world, becaue there certainly is no profit in it. But that would merely mean the costs involved in such transport were greater than what the product is worth, and no rational economic system would contenance it. But if profit could be accrued, that is to say, the the value of the prawns was greater after the shipments, then it wouldbe difficult for a rational system NOT to countenance it. Because it means that the labor of prawn deshellers in the original community is not being properly allocated. The democratic socialist community might not vote in favor of destroying their jobs, to be sure, but that does not mean they have made a rational decision. An understandable decision to be sure.

[RebelDog]

If it is true that capitalists simply look for low wage labor, why isn't ALL American industry now sitting in Mexico or Nicaragua? Or all German industry in the USA?

Capitalists will always chase, and are indeed compelled to chase, the greatest profits. The manufacturing base of the first world is being stripped away bit by bit. German industry will clearly not move to the US if far eastern labour is dramatically cheaper. Executives make decisions for the benefit of their share-holders, not for any region or community. Some of the flow of jobs to low-wage economies has been stemmed in the first world by giving private companies public money and artificially lowering the labour costs for companies. It takes time for developing countries to build the infrastructure to host all this production. Be patient, capitalist globalisation is a bourgeois dream not yet completely realised.


What is true is that capitalism will use a region's environment (land, climate, labor) to its advantage in production.

If you agree this is a truism, then can you agree that what is good for the share-holders is not the same as what is good for workers, society, the environment? Historically, capitalists have done whatever is possible to maximise profit. German companies had no qualms using slave labour during WW2. A capitalist cannot sleep at night if they think a rival(s) has a distinct advantage like having much lower labour costs.


It may indeed make little sense to deshell prawns halfway around the world, becaue there certainly is no profit in it. But that would merely mean the costs involved in such transport were greater than what the product is worth, and no rational economic system would contenance it. But if profit could be accrued, that is to say, the the value of the prawns was greater after the shipments, then it wouldbe difficult for a rational system NOT to countenance it.

It would be difficult and in fact illegal for any rational capitalist not to countenance it. You keep getting what is good for the capitalist mixed up with what is good for us all. It makes perfect sense for the share-holders in the prawn company to ship the goods to China to be de-shelled, and shipped back to Scotland, if the process is more profitable than the previous local process. It makes no sense to rartional people who are interested in the welfare of workers, proper management of resources/energy and it is environmental madness. If you can switch-off your support for the share-holders of the prawn company then you see that this decision makes no sense whatsoever. They have acted to increase the resources used to produce a given product and that is insanity. The share-holders only see profits increase, thats their twisted rational. They have increased their profit through a more ruthless exploitation of labour, but actually increased the burden on the earths resources to produce this product. Earlier I mentioned first world governements giving subsidies to companies in a vain attempt to stem the tide of production shifting to low-wage economies. Think of the Chinese prawn workers now paying this subsidy through their stolen surplus value.


Because it means that the labor of prawn deshellers in the original community is not being properly allocated.

Say what you mean. The workers in the original country cannot and will not work for 20p an hour salve wages.


The democratic socialist community might not vote in favor of destroying their jobs, to be sure, but that does not mean they have made a rational decision. An understandable decision to be sure.

As I have mentioned before, you think what is rational for the capitalist is rational for the community/workers. A democratic, planned economy would not ship prawns half way round the world and back just to exploit the labour of fellow workers. Capitalism is not rational. The capitalist has one goal only, profit, and if that has positive/negative effects on people/communities/environment is of no consequence.

[bezdomni]

Arguably, the United States would be hard-pressed to exploit the labor of a socialist country.

Of course, this raises the question of "Is Cuba socialist?". Which, frankly, I am tired of arguing about.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 11, 2007 11:44 am

If it is true that capitalists simply look for low wage labor, why isn't ALL American industry now sitting in Mexico or Nicaragua? Or all German industry in the USA?

Capitalists will always chase, and are indeed compelled to chase, the greatest profits. The manufacturing base of the first world is being stripped away bit by bit. German industry will clearly not move to the US if far eastern labour is dramatically cheaper. Executives make decisions for the benefit of their share-holders, not for any region or community. Some of the flow of jobs to low-wage economies has been stemmed in the first world by giving private companies public money and artificially lowering the labour costs for companies. It takes time for developing countries to build the infrastructure to host all this production. Be patient, capitalist globalisation is a bourgeois dream not yet completely realised.


What is true is that capitalism will use a region's environment (land, climate, labor) to its advantage in production.

If you agree this is a truism, then can you agree that what is good for the share-holders is not the same as what is good for workers, society, the environment? Historically, capitalists have done whatever is possible to maximise profit. German companies had no qualms using slave labour during WW2. A capitalist cannot sleep at night if they think a rival(s) has a distinct advantage like having much lower labour costs.


It may indeed make little sense to deshell prawns halfway around the world, becaue there certainly is no profit in it. But that would merely mean the costs involved in such transport were greater than what the product is worth, and no rational economic system would contenance it. But if profit could be accrued, that is to say, the the value of the prawns was greater after the shipments, then it wouldbe difficult for a rational system NOT to countenance it.

It would be difficult and in fact illegal for any rational capitalist not to countenance it. You keep getting what is good for the capitalist mixed up with what is good for us all. It makes perfect sense for the share-holders in the prawn company to ship the goods to China to be de-shelled, and shipped back to Scotland, if the process is more profitable than the previous local process. It makes no sense to rartional people who are interested in the welfare of workers, proper management of resources/energy and it is environmental madness. If you can switch-off your support for the share-holders of the prawn company then you see that this decision makes no sense whatsoever. They have acted to increase the resources used to produce a given product and that is insanity. The share-holders only see profits increase, thats their twisted rational. They have increased their profit through a more ruthless exploitation of labour, but actually increased the burden on the earths resources to produce this product. Earlier I mentioned first world governements giving subsidies to companies in a vain attempt to stem the tide of production shifting to low-wage economies. Think of the Chinese prawn workers now paying this subsidy through their stolen surplus value.


Because it means that the labor of prawn deshellers in the original community is not being properly allocated.

Say what you mean. The workers in the original country cannot and will not work for 20p an hour salve wages.


The democratic socialist community might not vote in favor of destroying their jobs, to be sure, but that does not mean they have made a rational decision. An understandable decision to be sure.

As I have mentioned before, you think what is rational for the capitalist is rational for the community/workers. A democratic, planned economy would not ship prawns half way round the world and back just to exploit the labour of fellow workers. Capitalism is not rational. The capitalist has one goal only, profit, and if that has positive/negative effects on people/communities/environment is of no consequence.
In the United States, manufacturing output today is greater than it was 50 years ago, even while using fewer people to do it. By your rationale, the communities then were better than today, which is simply not so. The "good old days" were rarely that.

You keep harping on labor costs, that that is the final determinant in production. It isn't. By your own admission, shipping costs are another (which is why German and Japanese auto companies have built factories in the USA).

You also keep harping on certain things regarding capitalist production which you seem to think will not matter in a socialist production. But that is false. How are people benefitted if their resourcers are NOT used in the most advantageous way?
A socilaist community will be faced by the same sorts of problems: be willing to "outsource" production elsewhere when needed (since even you concede a community cannot produce everything for themselves), determine whether their workers are using their time to produce what is best for the community as opposed to other production (labor is a resource), ect.

It may make little sense to ship the jobs of prawn shuckers from Scotland to China. I have no idea. But i do know that should it occur there is a thought behind it. It may ultimately be a foolish thought, but the rationale behind is solid. The socilaists however, have yet to propose their own rationale for their own thinking about economic activity.

[RebelDog]

In the United States, manufacturing output today is greater than it was 50 years ago, even while using fewer people to do it.

I'm sure it is. So your saying off-shoring is a myth?


By your rationale, the communities then were better than today, which is simply not so. The "good old days" were rarely that.

Cannot decipher that sorry.


You keep harping on labor costs, that that is the final determinant in production. It isn't. By your own admission, shipping costs are another (which is why German and Japanese auto companies have built factories in the USA).

I have always said that the capitalist will chase the greatest profits. Have no US car companies moved from US soil?


You also keep harping on certain things regarding capitalist production which you seem to think will not matter in a socialist production. But that is false. How are people benefitted if their resourcers are NOT used in the most advantageous way?

As I have already said the earths resources are used primarily for the benefit of the capitalist class. I cannot think of any situation whereupon a planned world economy would not have the scope and common sense to use our resources in such an efficient manner that would make capitalism look very primitive.


It may make little sense to ship the jobs of prawn shuckers from Scotland to China. I have no idea. But i do know that should it occur there is a thought behind it. It may ultimately be a foolish thought, but the rationale behind is solid. The socilaists however, have yet to propose their own rationale for their own thinking about economic activity.

Some of that doesn't make sense and some of it is complete rubbish.

[Tungsten]

As I have already said the earths resources are used primarily for the benefit of the capitalist class. I cannot think of any situation whereupon a planned world economy would not have the scope and common sense to use our resources in such an efficient manner that would make capitalism look very primitive. A national planned economy is a daft enough idea, but a planned world economy...?

[Red Tung]

In the United States, manufacturing output today is greater than it was 50 years ago, even while using fewer people to do it. By your rationale, the communities then were better than today, which is simply not so. The "good old days" were rarely that.

Then it should logically follow that Americans in general should be materially richer than 50 years ago since manufacturing output per worker has increased. Why is this not the case? It is probably because you are only paying people who are working in the factories, but the general material wealth that is produced is not accounted as wealth from a material perspective, but as debt for unit of labour cost for the owners of the factories employing the workers, therefore more people working less efficiently would actually produced more "wealth" which doesn't make any sense at all from a material perspective. This goes to the basic problem of how money does or doesn't account for actually produced physical wealth. For example, scarce but not very useful antique works sells for a higher price than many modern high quality products that is many times more useful to the average consumer. If utility is any indicator of consumer demand then shouldn't the Mona Lisa be worth as much as old newspaper?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 18, 2007 02:58 am

In the United States, manufacturing output today is greater than it was 50 years ago, even while using fewer people to do it. By your rationale, the communities then were better than today, which is simply not so. The "good old days" were rarely that.

Then it should logically follow that Americans in general should be materially richer than 50 years ago since manufacturing output per worker has increased. Why is this not the case? It is probably because you are only paying people who are working in the factories, but the general material wealth that is produced is not accounted as wealth from a material perspective, but as debt for unit of labour cost for the owners of the factories employing the workers, therefore more people working less efficiently would actually produced more "wealth" which doesn't make any sense at all from a material perspective. This goes to the basic problem of how money does or doesn't account for actually produced physical wealth. For example, scarce but not very useful antique works sells for a higher price than many modern high quality products that is many times more useful to the average consumer. If utility is any indicator of consumer demand then shouldn't the Mona Lisa be worth as much as old newspaper?
Americans are far wealthier today than 50 years ago.

The "utility" of antiques, or the Mona Lisa, is because of the consumers so judging.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 16, 2007 11:07 pm

In the United States, manufacturing output today is greater than it was 50 years ago, even while using fewer people to do it.

I'm sure it is. So your saying off-shoring is a myth?


By your rationale, the communities then were better than today, which is simply not so. The "good old days" were rarely that.

Cannot decipher that sorry.


You keep harping on labor costs, that that is the final determinant in production. It isn't. By your own admission, shipping costs are another (which is why German and Japanese auto companies have built factories in the USA).

I have always said that the capitalist will chase the greatest profits. Have no US car companies moved from US soil?


You also keep harping on certain things regarding capitalist production which you seem to think will not matter in a socialist production. But that is false. How are people benefitted if their resourcers are NOT used in the most advantageous way?

As I have already said the earths resources are used primarily for the benefit of the capitalist class. I cannot think of any situation whereupon a planned world economy would not have the scope and common sense to use our resources in such an efficient manner that would make capitalism look very primitive.


It may make little sense to ship the jobs of prawn shuckers from Scotland to China. I have no idea. But i do know that should it occur there is a thought behind it. It may ultimately be a foolish thought, but the rationale behind is solid. The socilaists however, have yet to propose their own rationale for their own thinking about economic activity.

Some of that doesn't make sense and some of it is complete rubbish.
Oh, offshoring has occurred. Its also proven to be a benefit to both the USA, and to those countries receiving the factories.

There are American auto factories in canada, and I believe in some European countyries as well. And yes, capitalists will chase the greatest profit potential. So what? So will the socialist community, if it is to function in a rational manner.

Fine. A planned world economy will allocate and use resources far more effectively and efficiently than capitalism. Prove it.

My comment was that socialism has to have a rationale for doing what it does. It has to make an argument that its stated objectives will be reached by using its stated means. Capitalism makes such an argument. Socialism does not.

[KC]

In the United States, manufacturing output today is greater than it was 50 years ago, even while using fewer people to do it.

Looking at the absolute increase in productive forces in the US from 50 years ago to today is completely irrelevant, as you have to examine the relative productive forces; you have to look at it in the context of the productive forces of society as a whole.

For example, if we used your logic we could say that gas nowadays costs around 80 times more than it did 50 years ago. This of course isn't true, because you have to take inflation into account. You have to put the value into some context because value is a relative term.

[RebelDog]

Oh, offshoring has occurred. Its also proven to be a benefit to both the USA, and to those countries receiving the factories.

It has proven to be a benefit to the bourgeoisie. The workers are more ruthlessly exploited.


There are American auto factories in canada, and I believe in some European countyries as well. And yes, capitalists will chase the greatest profit potential. So what? So will the socialist community, if it is to function in a rational manner.

You somehow harbour strange ideas that capitalism is the same as communism/socialism and has the same goals. We will not chase profit, we will produce what the human-race needs with emphasis on common sense localised production. If the UK needs cars we will not shut down car factories in the UK and import cars, that is madness.


Fine. A planned world economy will allocate and use resources far more effectively and efficiently than capitalism. Prove it.

By mere definition it would be a more efficient system. Its the 21st century and capitalism is now highly primitive in this regard. Capitalism, in its globalisation stage, is literally a free-market free-for-all, with the rights of the bourgeoisie coming above all aspects of common-sense and even basic efficiency. The UK imports around 250,000 tonnes of pork each year and exports about the same amount. Thats sheer bloody madness. We would use the resources saved in abolishing such insane waste to produce substantially more food.


My comment was that socialism has to have a rationale for doing what it does. It has to make an argument that its stated objectives will be reached by using its stated means. Capitalism makes such an argument. Socialism does not.

Socialism/communism/anarchism, to lesser and greater degrees, are radical doctrines that exist to change society and harness the great abilities of the human race for the collective good. You want to turn the whole world in to a giant sweatshop churning out a luxury lifestyle for a tiny minority. Your ideas are doomed and unsustainable.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Zampanò@April 18, 2007 11:10 am

In the United States, manufacturing output today is greater than it was 50 years ago, even while using fewer people to do it.

Looking at the absolute increase in productive forces in the US from 50 years ago to today is completely irrelevant, as you have to examine the relative productive forces; you have to look at it in the context of the productive forces of society as a whole.

For example, if we used your logic we could say that gas nowadays costs around 80 times more than it did 50 years ago. This of course isn't true, because you have to take inflation into account. You have to put the value into some context because value is a relative term.
The value of agriculture was, in context, greater in the USA in the 19th Century than today. Even though American farms today are fewer in number, they produce far more amount of food than in the 19th century. It is difficult though to conclude Americans ate better in 1850 than in 2007.

The same with manufacturing. Fewer Americans are working in factories today than in 1950. And yet those Americans are producing more today than in 1950.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 20, 2007 01:08 am

Oh, offshoring has occurred. Its also proven to be a benefit to both the USA, and to those countries receiving the factories.

It has proven to be a benefit to the bourgeoisie. The workers are more ruthlessly exploited.


There are American auto factories in canada, and I believe in some European countyries as well. And yes, capitalists will chase the greatest profit potential. So what? So will the socialist community, if it is to function in a rational manner.

You somehow harbour strange ideas that capitalism is the same as communism/socialism and has the same goals. We will not chase profit, we will produce what the human-race needs with emphasis on common sense localised production. If the UK needs cars we will not shut down car factories in the UK and import cars, that is madness.


Fine. A planned world economy will allocate and use resources far more effectively and efficiently than capitalism. Prove it.

By mere definition it would be a more efficient system. Its the 21st century and capitalism is now highly primitive in this regard. Capitalism, in its globalisation stage, is literally a free-market free-for-all, with the rights of the bourgeoisie coming above all aspects of common-sense and even basic efficiency. The UK imports around 250,000 tonnes of pork each year and exports about the same amount. Thats sheer bloody madness. We would use the resources saved in abolishing such insane waste to produce substantially more food.


My comment was that socialism has to have a rationale for doing what it does. It has to make an argument that its stated objectives will be reached by using its stated means. Capitalism makes such an argument. Socialism does not.

Socialism/communism/anarchism, to lesser and greater degrees, are radical doctrines that exist to change society and harness the great abilities of the human race for the collective good. You want to turn the whole world in to a giant sweatshop churning out a luxury lifestyle for a tiny minority. Your ideas are doomed and unsustainable.
Off shoring benefits all. It redploys labor in both countries, for the benefit of both. Labor can be more rationally allocated, for example.

Socialism isn't a magic wand. All things aren't made perfect by waving it. I've said this countless times, socilaism has to resolve the same sorts of economic issues and problems which capitalism has to resolve. Capitalism has certain ideas on how to do this; socialism dissagrees as it does not like its results. Fine. But then the socialists on these boards rarely bother coming up with their own ideas in solving the problem. When they do, the solutions seem to compound, not solve, the problem.

For example, its called "sheer madness" for the UK to import cars. Its better for the UK to build auto factories to make their own. But that principle cannot just be limited to automobiles, but all other goods. Do the English grow their own tea on the island? how about oranges? Ever see wine for sale at a shop? A socialist UK could probably build giant greenhouses so as to produce tea, oranges, and vinyards, but imagine the waste of labor, and other resources? far better to rely upon workers in another country. British labor can focus on something else. Same is true with respect to automaking. Let British labor focus on those things they can do better. And what British labor can do better will change over time. An economy is not static, its active.

[Rawthentic]

Capitalism has certain ideas on how to do this; socialism dissagrees as it does not like its results
You act as if all of humanity comes together and decides that capitalism is organized better. Wrong, capitalism works for the capitalists, socialism for the proletariat.

Thats why none of your arguments will ever hold any water. Because it is an objective fact of history that the class struggle under capitalism must end in the victory of the working class or the end of the world.

[wtfm8lol]

Because it is an objective fact of history that the class struggle under capitalism must end in the victory of the working class or the end of the world.

hmm..how can it be a fact of history if it hasn't happened yet?

[Rawthentic]

The Russian Revolution didn't happen, nor China, nor Korea, or Cuba, or Vietnam, or the Paris Commune, or Hungary 1956.

These are examples when the class struggle exploded, and this is just a tiny list compared to what has happened, especially of the United States. Most people fail to or refuse to see that the history of the US is one of intense class struggle unlike many other nations.

And the class struggle goes on today, and always will until there are no class. Take Oaxaca, or Venezuela, India, Nepal, etc.

And it also goes on in everyday aspects. When a worker hates his boss, which we do in our great majority, it is a feeling of class anger, just like when we take that extra 10-20 minutes for lunch, knowing that the boss won't like it.

[wtfm8lol]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 07:31 pm
The Russian Revolution didn't happen, nor China, nor Korea, or Cuba, or Vietnam, or the Paris Commune, or Hungary 1956.

These are examples when the class struggle exploded, and this is just a tiny list compared to what has happened, especially of the United States. Most people fail to or refuse to see that the history of the US is one of intense class struggle unlike many other nations.

And the class struggle goes on today, and always will until there are no class. Take Oaxaca, or Venezuela, India, Nepal, etc.

And it also goes on in everyday aspects. When a worker hates his boss, which we do in our great majority, it is a feeling of class anger, just like when we take that extra 10-20 minutes for lunch, knowing that the boss won't like it.
hmm...last i checked you guys were denying that any of those were actually workers revolutions. (with perhaps the exception of the paris commune, which isn't a good example of what you said since paris is currently mostly capitalist and capitalism therefore didn't end there)

[RebelDog]

Off shoring benefits all. It redploys labor in both countries, for the benefit of both.

Absolute nonsense. Your living in a fantasy land. Profit is the rationale, nothing else. Its all for the benefit of the share-holders, profit is the only consideration.


For example, its called "sheer madness" for the UK to import cars. Its better for the UK to build auto factories to make their own. But that principle cannot just be limited to automobiles, but all other goods. Do the English grow their own tea on the island? how about oranges? Ever see wine for sale at a shop? A socialist UK could probably build giant greenhouses so as to produce tea, oranges, and vinyards, but imagine the waste of labor, and other resources?

What principle? Who is it that says that if one thing is produced in one area then all other things must be too? Nobody here did. Your logic is absurd. Clearly tea will be shipped to temperate zones. People in the UK love tea and cannot possibly grow it locally, so its shipped here, I see nothing wrong with this. That makes sense. It makes no sense to de-shell prawns through a 14,000 mile round trip, import 250,000 tonnes of pork and export 250,000 tonnes of pork at the same time, or close UK car factories while local demand actually increases. We might as well leave taps running and switch street lights on during the day. You need to separate what is practical and sensible in terms of what and where we produce things, from what is just an enterprise for greater profit. Simple logic is all you need to apply.

[Rawthentic]

hmm...last i checked you guys were denying that any of those were actually workers revolutions. (with perhaps the exception of the paris commune, which isn't a good example of what you said since paris is currently mostly capitalist and capitalism therefore didn't end there)

It is my opinion that the only time that the working class rose to power was in Soviet Russia, though I might concede Cuba as well. But regardless, we are talking about the class struggle, and these are undeniable things.

And the Paris Commune was the first attempt at establishing socialism, so it is again irrelevant whether it is capitalist or not.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 20, 2007 07:49 pm


For example, its called "sheer madness" for the UK to import cars. Its better for the UK to build auto factories to make their own. But that principle cannot just be limited to automobiles, but all other goods. Do the English grow their own tea on the island? how about oranges? Ever see wine for sale at a shop? A socialist UK could probably build giant greenhouses so as to produce tea, oranges, and vinyards, but imagine the waste of labor, and other resources?

What principle? Who is it that says that if one thing is produced in one area then all other things must be too? Nobody here did. Your logic is absurd. Clearly tea will be shipped to temperate zones. People in the UK love tea and cannot possibly grow it locally, so its shipped here, I see nothing wrong with this. That makes sense. It makes no sense to de-shell prawns through a 14,000 mile round trip, import 250,000 tonnes of pork and export 250,000 tonnes of pork at the same time, or close UK car factories while local demand actually increases. We might as well leave taps running and switch street lights on during the day. You need to separate what is practical and sensible in terms of what and where we produce things, from what is just an enterprise for greater profit. Simple logic is all you need to apply.
Oh, I agree that it maj\kes no sense to say that becauase one thing is made in a community, all things must as well. It is a physical impossibility, after all, and you seem to recognise it.

But what you don't seem to recognise is that, since it is true that workers in a community cannot produce all things, they then OUGHT to be producing those things which they are better at producing, than workers in other communities. It makes no sense for the workers in a comunity to focus on those things which they are not good at. So in order to determine this, there needs to be a system which gives people information as to whether their production is indeed bettter than others.


But so far, it seems what makes sense to you and is logical to you is being based upon your own calculations. Its not objective, its based upon your own personal views on the matter. It may indeed make sense to import tea from temperate zones (ie to rely upon the workers in India or Pakistan to grow tea for the workers of the british Isles). But it might make sense for someone else in their own calculations to reason the British should grow tea on the islands (build giant greenhouses). Why?, the argument might go, there are unemployed people in the UK who could be depoloyed to build the greenhouses, plant, harvest and nurture the teas, and the tea is of course grown closer to the consumer. I don't see any rational argument against that view from your end, other than saying the idea makes no sense (from your own personal views since you have not given any other rationale to grow tea in Pakistan as opposed to UK other than that own personal view) and then a hope and prayer that 50% +1 would agree with your view of things.

[RebelDog]

But what you don't seem to recognise is that, since it is true that workers in a community cannot produce all things, they then OUGHT to be producing those things which they are better at producing, than workers in other communities.

You say this but you also extol off-shoring, I don't understand? I worked in a paper mill that closed and off-shored to India. We had 50 years proud history of producing top-grade, high quality paper with ever increasing efficiency. We were good at it and my local area was renowned for paper production. Do you agree that with all the skills, knowledge etc, in place, production should have continued at the site, or do you uphold the right of the bourgeoisie to waste and destroy this base and move to low-wage India?


It makes no sense for the workers in a comunity to focus on those things which they are not good at. So in order to determine this, there needs to be a system which gives people information as to whether their production is indeed bettter than others.

You mean co-operation and planning on a global scale?


But so far, it seems what makes sense to you and is logical to you is being based upon your own calculations. Its not objective, its based upon your own personal views on the matter. It may indeed make sense to import tea from temperate zones (ie to rely upon the workers in India or Pakistan to grow tea for the workers of the british Isles). But it might make sense for someone else in their own calculations to reason the British should grow tea on the islands (build giant greenhouses). Why?, the argument might go, there are unemployed people in the UK who could be depoloyed to build the greenhouses, plant, harvest and nurture the teas, and the tea is of course grown closer to the consumer.

People will argue and decide these things. At present capitalists decide and rule peoples lives. If there is a practical need to produce things like tea in the locality then why would people not favour it?


I don't see any rational argument against that view from your end, other than saying the idea makes no sense (from your own personal views since you have not given any other rationale to grow tea in Pakistan as opposed to UK other than that own personal view) and then a hope and prayer that 50% +1 would agree with your view of things.

I don't follow this, its a mess.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 21, 2007 11:50 pm

But what you don't seem to recognise is that, since it is true that workers in a community cannot produce all things, they then OUGHT to be producing those things which they are better at producing, than workers in other communities.

You say this but you also extol off-shoring, I don't understand? I worked in a paper mill that closed and off-shored to India. We had 50 years proud history of producing top-grade, high quality paper with ever increasing efficiency. We were good at it and my local area was renowned for paper production. Do you agree that with all the skills, knowledge etc, in place, production should have continued at the site, or do you uphold the right of the bourgeoisie to waste and destroy this base and move to low-wage India?


It makes no sense for the workers in a comunity to focus on those things which they are not good at. So in order to determine this, there needs to be a system which gives people information as to whether their production is indeed bettter than others.

You mean co-operation and planning on a global scale?


But so far, it seems what makes sense to you and is logical to you is being based upon your own calculations. Its not objective, its based upon your own personal views on the matter. It may indeed make sense to import tea from temperate zones (ie to rely upon the workers in India or Pakistan to grow tea for the workers of the british Isles). But it might make sense for someone else in their own calculations to reason the British should grow tea on the islands (build giant greenhouses). Why?, the argument might go, there are unemployed people in the UK who could be depoloyed to build the greenhouses, plant, harvest and nurture the teas, and the tea is of course grown closer to the consumer.

People will argue and decide these things. At present capitalists decide and rule peoples lives. If there is a practical need to produce things like tea in the locality then why would people not favour it?


I don't see any rational argument against that view from your end, other than saying the idea makes no sense (from your own personal views since you have not given any other rationale to grow tea in Pakistan as opposed to UK other than that own personal view) and then a hope and prayer that 50% +1 would agree with your view of things.

I don't follow this, its a mess.
In a socialist world, why is the community only considered people from your own neck of the woods? Why aren't the socialist workers from India also factored in? I have no idea the circumstances of the paper factory shutting down in the UK and moving to India. Maybe their workers are better at producing paper in some fashion. In any event, I fail to see why offshopring would end in a socialist world which agrees that the socialiost communities should be focusng their attentions on only those goods which they excel at, and let somebody else do the work in which they might be better. Otherwise, the socialist community is going to be deploying labor in inefficient means, which doe not better the community.

I have no dispute that people will argue and debate things like using land to grow tea. The issue is that unless there is a set of idea which guide its decision making, the debates will based upon nothing. For example, one could use land to grow tea in the UK. But that means that land cannot be used to grow grain, or feed livestock. What guides the community in making a rational decision in this regard?
How doe it know it is making a rational decision?

[RebelDog]

In a socialist world, why is the community only considered people from your own neck of the woods?

Who said it was? Communism/socialism is internationalist, it has to be.


Why aren't the socialist workers from India also factored in? I have no idea the circumstances of the paper factory shutting down in the UK and moving to India. Maybe their workers are better at producing paper in some fashion.

Who says they are not. What you are trying to propose in your love of off-shoring is that it is taking from some workers/communities who have too much and giving to others who have less in some sort of fair, wealth-redistribution programme. Your well aware that paper production was moved there to maximise profit through more ruthless labour exploitation.


I fail to see why offshopring would end in a socialist world which agrees that the socialiost communities should be focusng their attentions on only those goods which they excel at, and let somebody else do the work in which they might be better. Otherwise, the socialist community is going to be deploying labor in inefficient means, which doe not better the community.

You've deluded yourself again. A communist world would focus on what people need. I live on the island that is Britain. Here in Britain we could focus on what we need, and produce that. It makes sense to have bakeries in every town, it doesn't make sense to have a computer chip plant in every town. More specialised production can take place regionally or nationally. There will be things that need to be produced at very few sites in the world, say forinstance, space rockets. I see no reason why the highly skilled production of space rockets should move from its already established skilled base. You see one reason why it should, profit.


I have no dispute that people will argue and debate things like using land to grow tea. The issue is that unless there is a set of idea which guide its decision making, the debates will based upon nothing. For example, one could use land to grow tea in the UK. But that means that land cannot be used to grow grain, or feed livestock. What guides the community in making a rational decision in this regard?
How doe it know it is making a rational decision?

There will be what capitalism can never offer, democracy in the economic sphere. It scares you so much because it will be established on the back of the destruction of the bourgeois stranglehold of the economy and an end to class society and exploitation. If we grow tea in the UK right now it means that land will not be used for anything else. There will be no private enterprises in a communist society and workers and communities are more than capable of prioritising land use. Again this is an area where we can be more efficient than capitalism because we will not destroy crops, or pour wine down drains to keep their market price up. You, I'm sure, will defend the bourgeois right to destroy food at the same time as 30,000 people are starving to death every day, after all profit comes first and to you thats what makes madness rational. Every ruling class will delude itself and others that there is nothing beyond their model of society and the idea that society could function without them in control. History has shown this to be false.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 26, 2007 12:15 am

In a socialist world, why is the community only considered people from your own neck of the woods?

Who said it was? Communism/socialism is internationalist, it has to be.


Why aren't the socialist workers from India also factored in? I have no idea the circumstances of the paper factory shutting down in the UK and moving to India. Maybe their workers are better at producing paper in some fashion.

Who says they are not. What you are trying to propose in your love of off-shoring is that it is taking from some workers/communities who have too much and giving to others who have less in some sort of fair, wealth-redistribution programme. Your well aware that paper production was moved there to maximise profit through more ruthless labour exploitation.


I fail to see why offshopring would end in a socialist world which agrees that the socialiost communities should be focusng their attentions on only those goods which they excel at, and let somebody else do the work in which they might be better. Otherwise, the socialist community is going to be deploying labor in inefficient means, which doe not better the community.

You've deluded yourself again. A communist world would focus on what people need. I live on the island that is Britain. Here in Britain we could focus on what we need, and produce that. It makes sense to have bakeries in every town, it doesn't make sense to have a computer chip plant in every town. More specialised production can take place regionally or nationally. There will be things that need to be produced at very few sites in the world, say forinstance, space rockets. I see no reason why the highly skilled production of space rockets should move from its already established skilled base. You see one reason why it should, profit.


I have no dispute that people will argue and debate things like using land to grow tea. The issue is that unless there is a set of idea which guide its decision making, the debates will based upon nothing. For example, one could use land to grow tea in the UK. But that means that land cannot be used to grow grain, or feed livestock. What guides the community in making a rational decision in this regard?
How doe it know it is making a rational decision?

There will be what capitalism can never offer, democracy in the economic sphere. It scares you so much because it will be established on the back of the destruction of the bourgeois stranglehold of the economy and an end to class society and exploitation. If we grow tea in the UK right now it means that land will not be used for anything else. There will be no private enterprises in a communist society and workers and communities are more than capable of prioritising land use. Again this is an area where we can be more efficient than capitalism because we will not destroy crops, or pour wine down drains to keep their market price up. You, I'm sure, will defend the bourgeois right to destroy food at the same time as 30,000 people are starving to death every day, after all profit comes first and to you thats what makes madness rational. Every ruling class will delude itself and others that there is nothing beyond their model of society and the idea that society could function without them in control. History has shown this to be false.
If paper can be produced in India using fewer resources, why is that a bad thing? It would seem even the workers of a communist UK would seek production using the fewest amount of resources possible (how else would they prioritise their land use?). This would seem to be true as well in a worldwide socialist community as well, since, you have already agreed that every community cannot possibly produce all things that it could possibly need or want. Thus the community ought to maximise its strengths, which you seem to have agreed to as being true as well. And if India can produce paper using fewer resources, then that is India;s strength. The UK will have to figure out its own strengths over India's.

So if a capitalist community's strength is having skilled rocket scienitists nearby, then it wont't move, unless some other advantage can be found (I would think the liklihood of its move would be greater in a communist community, since these types of issues are not factored in their economic calculations).

In a socialist community, these types of conflicts are supposed to dissapear, or at least minimise in importance, since all workers are supposed to be working for the benefit of each other. But that that it seems a high point of contention in socialist thinking, suggests otherwise.