No Motivation - No Produce [Archive]

vox

29th September 2002, 07:25

"Vox: Henry Ford is a prime example. During the depression Ford payed his workers 2.50 cents. Workers started quitting and not attending work, so he increased their pay to 5 dollars. Absentism went down and production went up. If the employees stayed with ford for 1 year there pay increased even more. The workers now have an insentive to work and achieve."

As far as I can tell, this doesn't answer either "why" or "how" production is "better" in a capitalist society. All that was given was an example of how capitalism responds to wages so low that they do not sustain even daily life.

Also, Ford is an example of a Nazi who had a picture of Hitler on his desk and also someone who started a tiered wage system. See, Ford was a right-winger, and he didn't care for certain behaviors, like drinking, so he started the morality oath, and workers who signed it got paid more than workers who didn't, so, to Ford, a genuine capitalist whose name was invoked by a right-winger, wages were a way of controlling the behavior of the proletariat.

So, not only are the questions left unanswered but the spectre of Ford is raised, who was a racist piece of garbage (you'll remember that when "Schindler's List" was shown on commercial US television is was shown commercial free, sponsored by the Ford Motor Company as an apology for its past behavior) and used wages to change the behavior of workers.

Not a very good response from the right-winger, I think.

vox

Stormin Norman

29th September 2002, 07:27

The only reward that I need is the warm and fuzzy feeling I get knowing some welfare case is living wonderfully on the fruites of my labor. It makes me feel better knowing that I have become that self sacrificing idiot who loves his fellow man better than he loves himself. I sleep better knowing what a sucker I have become. Perhaps I should let others rape me while I am at it. After all isn't that the principle behind communism. If others derive something of value from me, who I am to say no? I should only be concerned about the feelings of others and put myself last.

peaccenicked

29th September 2002, 07:28

Workers often excersice negative control of their labour power when faced with a wage cut. They had nothing to do with the decision why should they accept it.
Under capitalism everybody wants money.
What socialists say is that the economy can be run in a different way. All can be part of it instead of units outside the decision making processes at all levels of life.
Under capitalism people can practice only what they can afford to practice in general. Belief cant be taken away from anybody.
Socialism gives everyone a chance of being what they want to be, without the restrictions of money, and not stuck in a slavish routine to money.

Tkinter1

29th September 2002, 07:32

*sigh

Vox Ford IMPROVED his success by giving the workers an incentive to work. That incentive to work also improved the lives of the workers.

"Also, Ford is an example of a Nazi"

here we go again with every capitliast is a nazi.

"wages were a way of controlling the behavior of the proletariat."

Ford had to raise wages becuase HIS COMPANY is controlled by the prolitariat. They don't work, he doesn't have success.

vox

29th September 2002, 07:37

"Becuase your not looking deep enough."

I'm afraid that's not an answer. That's typically called an excuse. Rather than stating your position, you fault the listener, which is both common and dishonest. If I'm not looking deeply enough, and you can tell that I'm not, then you should also be able to explain what I'm missing, yes? Obviously you believe you're seeing something that I'm not seeing, but you fail to elucidate the matter.

I, personally, don't think you can. I think that you're trying to escape an uncomfortable situation in which you do not have the background nor the ability to respond rationally, so you use one line attempts to blame me for your shortcomings.

It doesn't work.

vox

Tkinter1

29th September 2002, 07:38

"All can be part of it instead of units outside the decision making processes at all levels of life."

But they do have a part in it.

"Under capitalism everybody wants money."

In theory

But they do have a part in it.

"Under capitalism people can practice only what they can afford to practice in general. "

I can practice any religon i want. I can achieve any goal i choose. I can do what i want with my life.

"Socialism gives everyone a chance of being what they want to be, without the restrictions of money, and not stuck in a slavish routine to money."

The catch phrase thats never lives up to itself

Tkinter1

29th September 2002, 07:41

Vox:

Chill out. You need to look deeper into communites. Into churches and into family. Into people helping one another. Into the socialistic aspects of this nation. Its not all about money for everyone all the time.

"you might want to explain why the centerpeice of human society should be the production of commodities rather than the production of human development."

The production of commodites is the 'work for reward' aspect of this nation. There are other aspects

(Edited by Tkinter1 at 7:43 am on Sep. 29, 2002)

peaccenicked

29th September 2002, 07:46

''Ford had to raise wages becuase HIS COMPANY is controlled by the prolitariat. They don't work, he doesn't have success.''

The workers have the right to strike but they have no control over investment or the money Ford made out of the cars the workers made. They have no control over boom or depressions. They do not decide what is a reasonable wage.
That is hardly any control whatsoever.
AS I said money is an incentive under capitalism.
What you say is that there is no incentive under socialism.

You seem to be saying because A is A
B cant be B.
If you cant IMPROVE your logic then all we have is your dialoque with your self.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 7:47 am on Sep. 29, 2002)

Tkinter1

29th September 2002, 07:50

"have no control over investment or the money Ford made out of the cars the workers made. They have no control over boom or depressions. They do not decide what is a reasonable wage."

"They do not decide what is a reasonable wage."

why should they?

ANd they do under socialism?

vox

29th September 2002, 07:51

"*sigh

"Vox Ford IMPROVED his success by giving the workers an incentive to work. That incentive to work also improved the lives of the workers."

Well, wait a minute. You just said Ford improved HIS success, right? I don't argue that at all. I think that's fundamental to capitalism, don't you. Yes, the capitalist improved his own state. Not a revelation there. However, I thought that this was about the nature of PRODUCTION. You started out saying that "socialism provides no motivation to produce according to ones ability." However, Ford didn't produce according to his abilities, but only by the abilities of the workers. I think you're a bit confused as to what you want to say here.

"here we go again with every capitliast is a nazi."

Nope, not all of them. Not by a longshot. Ford in particular? Yes. Did you know that? What I wrote was true. He had a picture of Hitler on his desk. He supplied the Nazis. This isn't shocking, really. It's been known for a long time, and you can easily do a search and find tons of information about it. Are you familiar with google.com? You can find all of this out for yourself. I do have to notice, though, that you didn't even attempt to refute anything I wrote, but rather simply made a general statement that had absolutely nothing at all to do with the very specific things I pointed out. Why is that?

"Ford had to raise wages becuase HIS COMPANY is controlled by the prolitariat. They don't work, he doesn't have success."

I was referring specifically to the morality contract. Didn't you know about that, either? It's a truism, and one that Marx, of course, noted, that capitalists must pay the proletariat enough to reproduce their labour-power. If wages were so low that the proletariat could not do that, then of course Ford would have to raise wages. This does not, of course, have anything at all to do with HOW or WHY production is BETTER in a capitalist system. You still haven't stated why it's better, nor how, or even what, exactly "better" means. Better than what?

You do bluster a bit, but so far, you've not said much, have you?

vox

Tkinter1

29th September 2002, 07:53

They strike to get payed more. They control the company as a whole.

"They have no control over boom or depressions."
No one does

"They do not decide what is a reasonable wage."
But they do decide when it is unreasonable

vox

29th September 2002, 07:54

"I sleep better knowing what a sucker I have become. Perhaps I should let others rape me while I am at it. After all isn't that the principle behind communism. If others derive something of value from me, who I am to say no?"

Actually, that's the principle behind capitalism, for the worker creates something more than what she gets paid for. Her labour-power creates a commodity that has a greater exchange value than her labour-power has, which is then appropriated by the capitalist.

vox

peaccenicked

29th September 2002, 07:56

Why should they?
It is undemocratic to have one man decide everything. That is dictatorship.
Under socialism, democracy in the workplace is an intrinsic part of the system.
If you bear in mind that true socialism has yet to be practiced. This is what socialism is really about.

Tkinter1

29th September 2002, 07:59

Well, wait a minute. You just said Ford improved HIS success, right?

i also said it improved the workers state as well....

"Yes, the capitalist improved his own state. Not a revelation
there."

good

You started out saying that "socialism provides no motivation to produce according to ones ability." However, Ford didn't produce according to his abilities, but only by the abilities of the workers. "

His ability to improve the ability(motivation, incentive) of the workers yes.

"I think you're a bit confused as to what you want to say
here."

The debate has evolved natrually.

Tkinter1

29th September 2002, 08:01

Peaccenicked:

Supply and demand decides wages. Not one person. If workers are unhappy with the wages or they are not fair then they won't work. If workers decided wages they could bankrupt companies

(Edited by Tkinter1 at 8:02 am on Sep. 29, 2002)

peaccenicked

29th September 2002, 08:05

''Supply and demand decides wages. Not one person. If workers are unhappy with the wages or they are not fair then they won't work. If workers decided wages they could bankrupt companies''

I am sorry but it is a person who decides wages. Supply and demand is a part of his decision but so is his cut.
He also decides that undemocratically.

Tkinter1

29th September 2002, 08:07

"This does not, of course, have anything at all to do with HOW or WHY production is BETTER in a capitalist system. "

Becuase people want to work, when they are rewarded what they want. Not what they need. Thats why its 'better' for the people who live here. If they didn't like it they would change. You are very bitter and opinionated vox.

Tkinter1

29th September 2002, 08:09

That person decides the wages based on supply and demand. But ill admit its also based onthe companies best interests as well. If the workers aren't happy they can strike and earn change.

peaccenicked

29th September 2002, 08:16

So you admit the right to strike it exists because there is no real democracy in the workplace. You think the workers would abuse democracy and bankrupt the company.
You support dictatorship and are against democracy.

Am I clear on this?

vox

29th September 2002, 08:20

"Chill out. You need to look deeper into communites. Into churches and into family. Into people helping one another. Into the socialistic aspects of this nation. Its not all about money for everyone all the time."

Was Henry Ford responsible for the Church? For the family? No, of course not. These were pre-existing instituions. We, however, aren't discussing that, are we? We are discussing how "socialism provides no motivation to produce according to ones ability." Did you forget about that?

"The production of commodites is the 'work for reward' aspect of this nation. There are other aspects (sic)"

However, as I previously stated, before capitalism people still worked, so working isn't the issue, is it? The issue is why the production of commodities usurps the position of everything else you mentioned, that is, family, the church, and the ambiguous "other aspects" of society. For that you've no answer.

"i also said it improved the workers state as well...."

Improves it from what to what? As I've already made clear, at that stage in history, workers left because they were unable to reproduce the necessary labour-power to continue working, so Ford raised wages.

But then you say something that might shine a bit of a light on the subject:

"His ability to improve the ability(motivation, incentive) of the workers yes."

So now the job of the capitalist is dog trainer, eh? "Ability" now has nothing to do with actual ability, but only with, in your words, "motivation, incentive." The worker, who improves the life of the capitalist (for you said "good" in response to what I said about the capitalist improving his own life, so you've no argument here) is now subjected to the capitalist "improving" the worker FOR THE CAPITALIST'S OWN SAKE, FOR HIS OWN IMPROVEMENT!!!!!! You can't have it both ways, of course.

And still, the question of "better" hasn't even been addressed, though you are the one who raised it as an issue.

All in all, you're not doing a very good job. You're ignoring honest questions, which is never a good sign, and you haven't backed up your original one liner with anything but Ford exploiting workers for his own benefit, and you did agree that it was for his own benefit.

vox

Tkinter1

29th September 2002, 08:22

I am pro democracy. Strikes exist becuase they feel they are being treated unfairly. I believe that workers should have a say in their wages. But, No one person should have ultimate authoirty over wages. It should be based on supply and demand. implemented by the companies. refined by the workers. How can I be pro dictatorship yet pro workers rights?

vox

29th September 2002, 08:32

"Becuase people want to work, when they are rewarded what they want. Not what they need. Thats why its 'better' for the people who live here. If they didn't like it they would change. You are very bitter and opinionated vox."

Oh, sweet one, you've not even approached "bitter and opinionated." I'm much, much meaner than I've been with you.

You've made a very tragic error here. See, you say that "people want to work, when they are rewarded what they want. Not what they need." However, we both agreed, I think, that people worked before capitalism, right? Of course they did. Now you're suggesting that "need" is somehow stricken from history, from life itself, but that is simply not the case. People work because they have to work. It's the foulness of the capitalist system the prevents them from gaining the fruit of their labor.

Though you say that if "they didn't like it they would change," you fail to state, and this is a big failure on your part, that the only "change" they could make is to another capitalist business. How is that a change?

Now, you can say I'm bitter, you can say I'm opinionated, or you can try to actually respond to the questions your initial post raised. You say that "socialism provides no motivation," but you've failed to make the case that capitalism provides any motivation beyond the basic demands, on the part of the worker, that work has always demanded. In order to survive, people work. The nature of that work, however, is conditioned by the society in which people live. You and I agree that workers benefit not themselves but the capitalist ("Yes, the capitalist improved his own state. Not a revelation
there." good).

More blustering expected? Or an actual response?

vox

Stormin Norman

29th September 2002, 08:36

The only right the worker has is to negotiate the terms of their employment. If negotiations breakdown or they find that they do not like their working conditions, they can quit and find another job. Only an idiot would put control of this fundamental right in the hands of a third party labour union. Only an idiot would allow a labor union to control the labor force from which they are dependent. Union officials are extortionists that exploit both sides of the issue. Where is the right of the consumer represented in this? Shouldn't they also have a voice in labor management disputes?

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 8:37 pm on Sep. 29, 2002)

Tkinter1

29th September 2002, 08:36

Vox: "Was Henry Ford responsible for the Church? For the family? No, of course not. These were pre-existing instituions. We, however, aren't discussing that, are we? "

You asked me why the centerpeice for capitalism was money. I was trying to get you to see that it isn't all about money.

"however, as I previously stated, before capitalism people still worked, so working isn't the issue, is it? "

No, wanting to work is the issue

"The issue is why the production of commodities usurps the position of everything else you mentioned, that is, family, the church, and the ambiguous "other aspects" of society."

It doesnt usurp any of those things. For me at least.

"Improves it from what to what?"
From unfair to fair. To a wage in which the workers want to work for.

"As I've already made clear, at that stage in history, workers left because they were unable to reproduce the necessary labour-power to continue working, so Ford raised wages."
They didn't want to work for the wages they were being payes. and they didn't work. So ford sweatned the deal. and instilled incentive. which socialism has yet to show. I think we can all remeber the famous motto "they pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work".

"The worker, who improves the life of the capitalist"
Who in turn earns improvment as well.

The worker, who improves the life of the capitalist (for you said "good" in response to what I said about the capitalist improving his own life, so you've no argument here) is now subjected to the capitalist "improving" the worker FOR THE CAPITALIST'S OWN SAKE, FOR HIS OWN IMPROVEMENT!!!!!!

But i could just as easily say the working body manipulates the dog trainer by not doing the trick without a certain amount of treats. They both gain.

peaccenicked

29th September 2002, 08:37

You are for the right to strike, fair dos,
But you seem to think that workers should not be able to decide anything governing the level of wages, the level of investment. the level of profit, or how to respond to supply and demand.
All that should be dictated by the company.
How can you be pro-democracy at the same time?
How can you say that workers would bankrupt the company if you do trust them with democracy?

Tkinter1

29th September 2002, 08:42

"But you seem to think that workers should not be able to decide anything governing the level of wages, the level of investment the level of profit ."
They should have a SAY not decide.

All that should be dictated by the company.
NO.

How can you be pro-democracy at the same time?
The us isnt PURE democratic. Just as it isn't PURE capitalist or PURE republic.

How can you say that workers would bankrupt the company if you do trust them with democracy?

Becuase if one small elite group decides everything thats dictatorial.

Stormin Norman

29th September 2002, 08:46

People have the right to strike. However, management has the right to replace them. Before strike is considered the labor unions should consider the possibility that strike could result in the loss of many jobs they claim to represent. Even if management caves and allows them to come back. The production cycle will have been affected and this could lead to the potential loss of work. When customers find other avenues by which to obtain the goods and services offered by the company affected by the complete disruption of business, cut backs may be inevitable to compensate for the loss in demand.

peaccenicked

29th September 2002, 08:46

''Only an idiot would put control of this fundamental right in the hands of a third party labour union''

I want the union to exist seperately from the business
What socialists want is democracy for workers in the work place over all that affects their lives. I see SN has no problem with dictatorship here. We want rid of the dictatorship all together.
The workers is are not third party. The workers make all products outside nature itself.

Stormin Norman

29th September 2002, 08:49

Tell me, peacenicked, what qualifies these workers to make such sweeping decisions. They do not own the company. The vested interest they have is in working efficiently so they can retain employment with the company. Going to work for a company does not give you the right to make executive decisions. Why should it?

Tkinter1

29th September 2002, 08:49

"What socialists want is democracy for workers in the work place over all that affects their lives."

If thats what the workers want, than thats what they should have. But i still believe that they should not have full and executive power as SN believes. I believe that could be enorporated into this society. and that it doesn't require pure socialism.

(Edited by Tkinter1 at 8:51 am on Sep. 29, 2002)

peaccenicked

29th September 2002, 08:56

Tkinter I am not asking you what the US is. I am asking you what you are? You dont seem to know.
''Becuase if one small elite group decides everything thats dictatorial''
You are not describing the company here strangely enough but the workforce. When did the workforce become a small elite.
Now you are saying that you are in favour of company dictatorship because democracy woud turn the work force into a small elite who would dictate.
How can you say you are pro democracy when all it does is leave us with small elites dictating or the company dictating?
Surely you are making arguments against democracy.

peaccenicked

29th September 2002, 09:01

''Tell me, peacenicked, what qualifies these workers to make such sweeping decisions. They do not own the company. The vested interest they have is in working efficiently so they can retain employment with the company. Going to work for a company does not give you the right to make executive decisions. Why should it? ''

If the workers have no say in executive decisions how can you call it democratic?
You are in favour of dictatorship.

You are against democracy because you say that the workers are too stupid to comprehend piss easy accountancy.

Tkinter1

29th September 2002, 09:08

Its 4:30 AM here im tired and a little incoherent so let my try to get this out.

I consider myself a mixture of some socialist ideologies but mostly capitalist. I believe in the right of workers to protest when they feel they are being treated unfairly. There should be a relative gain between the prolitariat and the borgousie

ill describe it in the dog and trainer method(ay vox?)

The trainer requests that the dog do a trick(job) for 1 treat(pay).The dog will do the trick but it wants 2 treats(pay) as all the other dogs are getting for the same trick. The dog refuses to do the trick until a fair and reasonable amount of treat is given. The trainer compromises and offers a treat and a half and then the other half if the job is done exceptional. Forget dictaorships with me. I dont believe in any of them.

I know thats lame, but that makes sense to me

(Edited by Tkinter1 at 9:12 am on Sep. 29, 2002)

vox

29th September 2002, 09:23

"You asked me why the centerpeice for capitalism was money. I was trying to get you to see that it isn't all about money."

Wait. Are you saying that the centerpeice of capitalism is the Church? Or family? Hmm. Could capitalism exist without either of these? Yes, it could. That doesn't sound very central to me. Does it to you? You're confusing the entire expanse of human experience, which certianly does include religion and family and many, many other things with an economic system of commodity production based on wages. How could anyone, even the stupidest of right-wing apologists, believe that capitalism embraces the entire scope of human experience? Yet Tk does, as he's stated himself.

"however, as I previously stated, before capitalism people still worked, so working isn't the issue, is it? "

No, wanting to work is the issue

Wow, this may be the actual stupidest thing I've yet read here on these boards.

Comrades, look at what Tk has done. He and I both agreed that people worked before capitalism came about, right? Right. We agreed that they worked for need, because they had to, right? Right. Now, Tk says that needing to work isn't the issue, only wanting to work is the issue, right? WRONG. The nature of work may change, but the need to produce does not. I say that people's needs haven't changed but the economic system in which the use values of these needs are produced and distributed have definitely changed. Tk wants to announce the end of work, that's how foolish he's become.

"The issue is why the production of commodities usurps the position of everything else you mentioned, that is, family, the church, and the ambiguous "other aspects" of society."

It doesnt usurp any of those things. For me at least.

Comrades, what does Marx say about this? From the Manifesto:

"[The bourgeoisie] has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his "natural superiors", and has left no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment". It has drowned out the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade."

I think that answers Tk quite clearly.

"Improves it from what to what?"

From unfair to fair. To a wage in which the workers want to work for.

Tk conveniently left out the rest of my quote: "As I've already made clear, at that stage in history, workers left because they were unable to reproduce the necessary labour-power to continue working, so Ford raised wages."

This isn't about the workers wanting something and having it magically appear before them, like so many Merlins conjuring justice. This has to do with, in this case, the reproduction of labour-power, and, in other cases, hard fought battles in which the blood of our fellow workers was shed by the capitalist machine. You don't think that the eight hour day was a beneficent gift given, in Utah Phillips words, by an "enlightened" management, do you? In the same way that Tk didn't seem to know the Nazi history of Ford, he doesn't seem to know the battles of the Labour Movement, either.

They didn't want to work for the wages they were being payes. and they didn't work. So ford sweatned the deal. and instilled incentive. which socialism has yet to show.

No, that's not right at all. The workers couldn't survive on the wages that were being payed, so Ford HAD to increase wages. Also, one should remember, I'll bring it up again since Tk, like a coward, avoids the issue, the morality contract. And more, can one forget the evil that was the "company store?" Remember, comrades, that workers in the US weren't always paid with money, but often "chits" that were only good at the company store, which was yet another way of exploiting the worker and modifying his behavior (by choosing what the store was allowed to sell).

"The worker, who improves the life of the capitalist"

Who in turn earns improvment as well.

"Earns" improvement? Improvement as what? A human being? I hope you're not going there, because you yourself said that there was more to life than money, right? Or were you lying?

Fact is, Tk, the worker "earns" nothing but a wage that is lower than her output.

Tk apparently thinks that "improving" oneself means being a better drone for the capitalist, one which does more and wants less.

"But i could just as easily say the working body manipulates the dog trainer by not doing the trick without a certain amount of treats. They both gain."

Does anyone else here think that the power lies in the hands of the proletariat? Other than right-wingers, of course. The fact of the matter is that the capitalist can survive without the proletariat. Remember when Donald Trump declared bankruptcy? As a bankrupt businessman he lived better than the proletariat. The economic power of the ruling class is also political power, and this comes into play anytime workers strike, or even threaten to strike. The News forum on this board has had articles about the Bush administration threatening the dock workers with bringing in the military to scab during a strike. Some ability for workers to create their own destiny, huh?

Tk is very good at spouting right-wing rhetoric that is completely divorced from reality, but the real world gets in the way of believing anything he has to say.

vox

Stormin Norman

29th September 2002, 09:29

Get this straight, asshole. Government and business are separate entities. The best form of government happens to be a democracy, but that doesn't mean the best form of business should also be run in this manner. The overall inefficiency of our political system can attest to this idea. However, that is a sacrifice that should be made for the freedom that we the people our afforded. Business can not afford such slow operation. Qualified people are needed to make the decisions on top. The discretion to operate is then compartmentalized, as certain decisions are left to various people who get paid for that responsibility. If businesses were to be run democratically, nothing would get done. No one would agree on the methodology.

The person that owns, I repeat owns, the company it the sole proprietor and has the final say in the company's decision making process. Does that mean he should ignore the people who work for his company? No, that would be a mistake as they can offer insight into how to improve the process. It is in the employer's best interest to keep the workers happy. That does not mean those who work for him should hold his business hostage. That is extortion, and should be met with immediate termination of their jobs.

The closest thing to democratically run business is the corporation where people the various contributors vote on certain decisions and can ultimately pull their monetary support if they have irreconcilable differences. If you want say on how business is run start a company of your own, or buy some stock in a corporation. Otherwise, move to a socialist country.

vox

29th September 2002, 09:33

"The vested interest they have is in working efficiently so they can retain employment with the company."

Comrades! This is most revealing. The right-wing SN states that the interest a worker has is in working efficiently in order to not be fired, but is that true?

It's my belief that the "vested interest" a worker has is her family, her home, her very life itself. In a capitalist system, how is one to live without work? The worker's interest is only coincidental to the capitalist's interest, and it's the capitalist who gets to define the relationship, for there is certainly an uneven distribution of power.

But SN can only see the capitalist point of view. He disregards the worker entirely.

Does anyone here need to listen to more of his filthy garbage?

vox

Stormin Norman

29th September 2002, 09:43

"Does anyone here need to listen to more of his filthy garbage?"

Filthy garbage? These are the rules of the game. Most of the people who are employed understand this and regard the purpose the job affords them with respect. Only when a relationship of mutual repsect is earned by both parties will a company advance. However, most jobs have an at will policy stating they can terminate your position for whatever reason. Why shouldn't this be? Why should the company take anything but business into consideration? Why should the business put your families survival over the families of all the other people who hold positions? To artificially maintain a position for somebody who is not needed would ultimately lead to the companies bankruptcy. Then what happens to all the others who were dependent upon the company's employment. Business evolves and should be operated as efficiently as possible. When business takes any other considerations into account that business it is doomed. The job of artificially butressing people's lives is better left to the welfare state not the businesses we all depend on to survive.

vox

29th September 2002, 10:29

"Only when a relationship of mutual repsect is earned by both parties will a company advance."

SN thinks, for those are his disgusting words, that business somehow respects humanity. As with all statements, we must first decide the validity of its foundation.

Here is an article that gives a good example of the "mutual respect" SN requires in his statement. (http://www.transnationale.org/anglais/sources/tiersmonde/zones_franches__labor.htm) For SN, this is a fair and a good system. For people with any sense of humanity, this is, of course, a disgusting example of capitalist exploitation of human beings.

Here's another example of "respect." (http://www.transnationale.org/anglais/sources/tiersmonde/zones_franches__nike_factories.htm) Yes, capitalism, which puts profit before any HUMAN concern, certainly shows itself to be exactly what people like SN want: a harsh and brutal system that destroys, by its very nature, the human spirit, for in the proletariat it demands obediance and the the capitalist it demands heartlessness. Both parties are deformed by this terrible system, which creates poverty, misery and hatefulness.

SN states that the "job of artificially butressing people's lives is better left to the welfare state not the businesses we all depend on to survive." One is left to wonder why a system that he holds so dear should require a welfare state in order to survive.

vox

antieverything

29th September 2002, 16:53

Let me put forth a few truisms that should be assumed in this argument.

1. People must work in order to live, regardless of the system.

2. Striking costs money out of the worker's pocket.

3. Socialist unions are very different than capitalist ones. Socialist unions are democratically controlled "from the bottom, up".

[hr]Now assuming #1, the economic aspects of our lives will always be a large part (and in capitalism the largest part) of life. If we don't have democracy in the largest aspect of our lives, how can we say that we live in a democratic society?

Assuming #2, striking is only slightly effective, especially with American-style anti-labor laws. The only strikes that can be relevent today are:
1. The general strike...which is outlawed
2. Skilled workers striking on behalf of the unskilled workers (sympathy strike). This, I believe, is also illegal.

Assuming #3, worker control is democratic control, not control by a small group of elites.

Thank you for your time.

peaccenicked

29th September 2002, 22:20

Dont play ball with SN if he owns the ball. He tells you what the game is and what rules they are. Play ball with me, we can choose the game and decide the rules
and lets keep the ball in the garden in case you want to use it when I am not there.

Dont play ball with SN. He is a spoiled brat.
His arguments show us the way he thinks.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 10:43 pm on Sep. 29, 2002)

Tkinter1

29th September 2002, 22:40

Socialism provides no motivation to produce according to ones ability. Its been proven in every failed experiment of socialism that has existed. It makes sense that it fails too. Can't you accept that pure socialism won't work? What makes you think that YOU can make it work?

Thats all that matters vox.

peaccenicked

29th September 2002, 23:07

Socialism would have to existed for it to have failed.
What was created was Bonapartist states.

A firework is not always a damp squib.
If all we experience is damp squibs, does that mean that all fire works are dysfunctional.

How can I make it work? Personally all I can do is be consistently democratic in my attitudes.
It is up to the majority to make it work.

Who does capitalism work for? Mostly the people at the top who make billions out of it.

antieverything

29th September 2002, 23:41

read these.

[hr]

http://dsausa.org/archive/Lit/Myths.html

3. Socialism will be impractical because people will lose their incentive to work.

We don't agree with the capitalist assumption that starvation or greed are the only motivations which drive people to work. There are other reasons people work; people work if the work is truly meaningful and enhances the worker's self-respect, and out of a sense of responsibility to other members of their community and the society-at-large.

Although a long term goal of socialism is to try to eliminate all but the most satisfying, meaningful kinds of labor, we do recognize that menial and unsatisfying jobs will remain. These tasks would be shared by many people. Clearly, they wouldn't be distributed on the basis of class, race, ethnicity, or gender, as they are under capitalism. Socialists are not opposed to the use of economic incentives if they are necessary, but we believe that a combination of individual incentives, along with social, economic, and moral ones, will motivate people.
[hr]
http://sp-nc.org/myths.htm

Socialism will reward laziness

It's not like we want to take money from those that deserve the money. What we want to do is implement laws that guarantee living and fair wages since businesses seem unwilling to do so themselves. The US welfare system did nothing to address the 'bad apples' that were abusing the system. When the welfare-to-work program was implemented, it created many working poor. If it weren't for the IT revolution, wages would have stagnated with a larger labor pool and brought the rest of the country down economically. We shouldn't even have to have welfare. There should be higher wages that guarantee that no worker lives in poverty. However, some service businesses may not survive having to pay higher wages. That's why we should either help encourage automation or provide labor subsidies for necessary businesses to meet wage laws. We'll also do away with corporate welfare that rewards pork barrel projects and discourages competition from those who don't receive corporate welfare.

Socialism will discourage success - With more funding for R & D, we'll create more opportunities for people to innovate and build our economy. With free higher education, we'll encourage more people to become successful. We will increase government services while keeping tax increases to a bare minimum. We believe that no person should make more than 20 times their lowest paid worker. Greed is not the primary builder of our economy. The primary builder is having the resources to succeed and build up the economy. If we can open up access to more resources to more people, then more people will be able to build businesses and other organizations.
[hr]
http://www.idsi.net/~lepore/soc/facts.htm

YOU'VE READ THE LIE that socialism would destroy incentive, enforce an equality of poverty - and that it just won't work.

THE FACT IS that socialism would broaden and stimulate incentive, offer an equality of opportunity with abundance for all, and work with less friction than any social system ever conceived by man.

Capitalism offers incentive to capitalists, incentive that is stimulated or discouraged by the chance of making or not making a profit. Socialism would offer incentive to all. Instead of fearing the loss of their jobs as a result of improved methods of production, workers would know that every such improvement would mean more leisure and more of the good things of life. Thus, socialism would give an unprecedented impetus to incentive on the part of all the members of a free society.

Capitalism keeps the workers on the ragged edge of pauperdom, by forcing them to keep their noses to the grindstone in order to eke out a bare existence. Socialism would offer an equality of opportunity under which each worker would become the architect of his own future.

Capitalism functions so badly that increased production spells war or depression. When capitalists cannot profitably dispose of the wealth of which they despoil the workers, factories close and unemployment mounts. In order to avoid such depressions at home, capitalists seek foreign markets. The competition for such markets leads inevitably to war. Socialism would function smoothly because socialist production would be carried on for use, and not for sale and private profit. The anarchy of capitalist production would be replaced by socialist cooperation, based on the principle that each worker should receive the equivalent of the full social value of his product.

Tkinter1

30th September 2002, 02:14

(Edited by Tkinter1 at 2:23 am on Sep. 30, 2002)

antieverything

30th September 2002, 03:29

Yes, interesting.

Stormin Norman

30th September 2002, 10:06

I have asked this question of the commies here on occasion, never to get a good response. I will ask them once again to see if you have any real idea about how an economy should work, or if you are simply blowing smoke out of your asses, like I suspect. The question I have posed is this:

You seem to be a supporter of big government taking control of the market place. Why don't you lay it out for me? How exactly would your socialized economic system address the key issue of operating an economy. That being, the allocation of scarce resources. In the free-market we use a principle known as marginal utility. Obviously, this principle along with many others, like mutual benefit for mutual exchange, would be hindered by direct government control of the marketplace. The efficiency of the economy would, of course, be stiffled. How then, would your proposed system make up for this drawback.
Finally, it can be said that no economy operates on the production possibilities curve. However, under socialistic regimes the total efficiency falls further back from the line. Simple mistakes made by govenment officials could add to the overall opportunity cost of manufacturing the wrong product at the wrong time. Who will make the production desicions, like method of production, and the types of goods and services produced? How can it be seen that the resources involved are being used efficiently and other areas of the economy are not left with shortages due to poor planning? Finally, how will your 'just' society distribute goods and services?

Please don't simply tell me that it will be done democratically, for that is an impossibility in a socialized system. Put some thought into this and get bask with a reasonable response.

Vox, do you care to revisit this issue?

peaccenicked

30th September 2002, 10:18

You seem to be a supporter of big government taking control of the market place.
Communists neither support big government or the market. Why don't you get your facts right before you build up straw men.

Stormin Norman

30th September 2002, 10:28

I wouldn't expect you to understand the question, Peacenicked. It is quite clear that you are an uneducated old fart that would like nothing better than to steal that which is not yours. I never stated that communists supported a market. Your claim that you don't support big government is bullshit. Your claim that you don't support a market is testimony to your desire to completely destroy that which is human. I stated socialism requires direct government control of the means of production. Implicit in the question is how this kind of intervention destroys the operation of a free market. The question I posed is how will your system replace the market and how will it account for built in inefficiencies? Answer it or admit that you know nothing about economics, and are completely unqualified to make the statements that you do.

peaccenicked

30th September 2002, 19:06

When the governed become the government then
it is not big government it is called freedom.
The 'free' market is a lie, because you cant have freedom without fairness.
You dont need a degree in economics to know that.
What you need is basic humanity. Something you know damn all about.

antieverything

30th September 2002, 22:18

Something that I can't understand is, even if we are wrong and they are right, what good is increased productivity if all of the wealth created goes to a few people who then use it to amass more wealth (which is invariably gotten through exploitation)? And if no right is absolute, if our rights only extend to the point where they infringe on those of another, why are the rights of capital any different?

Stormin Norman

6th October 2002, 17:00

Are you ever going to get around to the question I asked long ago, or will you continue to ignore it?

peaccenicked

6th October 2002, 17:25

SN. When will right wing bastards like you stop telling lies. I have been waiting for answer this question for over thirty years.
No communist believes in big government. Get it you idiotic redneck.

Lardlad95

6th October 2002, 17:28

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 10:06 am on Sep. 30, 2002
I have asked this question of the commies here on occasion, never to get a good response. I will ask them once again to see if you have any real idea about how an economy should work, or if you are simply blowing smoke out of your asses, like I suspect. The question I have posed is this:

You seem to be a supporter of big government taking control of the market place. Why don't you lay it out for me? How exactly would your socialized economic system address the key issue of operating an economy. That being, the allocation of scarce resources. In the free-market we use a principle known as marginal utility. Obviously, this principle along with many others, like mutual benefit for mutual exchange, would be hindered by direct government control of the marketplace. The efficiency of the economy would, of course, be stiffled. How then, would your proposed system make up for this drawback.
Finally, it can be said that no economy operates on the production possibilities curve. However, under socialistic regimes the total efficiency falls further back from the line. Simple mistakes made by govenment officials could add to the overall opportunity cost of manufacturing the wrong product at the wrong time. Who will make the production desicions, like method of production, and the types of goods and services produced? How can it be seen that the resources involved are being used efficiently and other areas of the economy are not left with shortages due to poor planning? Finally, how will your 'just' society distribute goods and services?

Please don't simply tell me that it will be done democratically, for that is an impossibility in a socialized system. Put some thought into this and get bask with a reasonable response.

Vox, do you care to revisit this issue?

Thats the point the goverment shouldn't have "total" control

It doesn't have the time to search through every little thing.

However it should have partial control over industries not products

Mixed Economies work best...ie Democratic Socialism

antieverything

6th October 2002, 21:59

Free enterprise is not exclusive to Capitalism. If you want to start a business and make money off of YOUR OWN expert labor, creativity, and resolve then that is just fine with me. If you want to start a business but have employees, that is fine, they can always get a socialized job that can pay better if you don't want to pay them what they deserve. If you want to start a sweatshop, they won't have to take it.

Ymir

7th October 2002, 02:10

The goal of Marxism is not to "get the most out of the workers", like it is in capitalism, Marxism is empowering the workers with self-control.

Why should there be such tremendous amounts of productivity?

antieverything

7th October 2002, 03:08

We allready produce enough wealth to give everyone a comfortable life. We already produce enough food that nobody should starve...the difference in socialism is that everyone does have a comfortable life and nobody starves.

Stormin Norman

7th October 2002, 13:03

Still waiting for an answer to any one of the questions that I have asked. Nothing here would indicate that I should listen to you guys and become a socialist/communist. Everything here would indicate that I would starve in the event that those like you were running the show. Like those before you, who have attempted to bring about your socially just reforms, you can not answer these questions. Instead you choose to ignore the fact that these are fundamental problems, made worse by interference within the market.

I ask how would you allocate scarce resources, and you tell me "democratically", or simply deny the fact that resources are scarce. Somebody claimed that there are enough resources to go around, but if that were true the illustrious field of economics would not exist. Would it?

Stormin Norman

7th October 2002, 13:07

"We allready produce enough wealth to give everyone a comfortable life. We already produce enough food that nobody should starve...the difference in socialism is that everyone does have a comfortable life and nobody starves."

???How???
That's basically the question I asked you to answer.

Stormin Norman

7th October 2002, 13:32

"Thats the point the goverment shouldn't have "total" control

It doesn't have the time to search through every little thing.

However it should have partial control over industries not products

Mixed Economies work best...ie Democratic Socialism"

Tell me how mixed economies equal democratic socialism, and why this does not equate to direct government control.

By its very definition socialism is "any of various economic theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. It is a system of society or group living in which there is no private property. That is a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state" (Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 10th Edition).

Now you can either chose to ignore the definition of socialism, like Peacenicked does; or you can admit that socialism is anti-property, anti-freedom, and anti-democracy, and should therefore be rejected on principle. That statement would suggest that government should only regulate that which is unlawful and harms the rights of the individual components of the society. To regulate the 'fairness' of living conditions and standards does not fall under that category. Man's ability to determine the outcome of his own life is the underlying theory behind the document that laid the foundation for the ideas of modern democracy. Socialism and democracy are anti to each other and can not be combined in harmonious parallel.

However, if you agree that man does not own the right to his labor and property, thus making him a slave, then I suggest you stand behind your socialistic ideology, but do not expect me to distinguish between your flawed ideas about socialism and democracy when the "clash of the civilizations" or ideologies puts us at odds with each other. I will be on the side of freedom and justice, and will not hestitate when reacting to your hostilities on the battlefield. Choose a side, but know what you are standing behind, for it would be a pity to die a fools death.

antieverything

7th October 2002, 23:00

Freedom and justice? What you call freedom and justice we call freedom and justice for some, slavery and exploitation for others.

I've seen so many dumbasses like you quote the dictionary to back up their claims. I don't give a fuck about Webster's Dictionary. It isn't a political dictionary and you can't expect a normal dictionary to give complete definitions of complex subjects.

Guess what, SN...there is enough food to go around. If the United States planned it's agriculture in the way that they do in the Netherlands, we could feed the entire world several times over just with our own production. Yes, resources are scarce, but your beloved corporations aren't doing much to remedy this! Of course it would be in their long term interests to conserve, but that isn't how corps operate...even when the land is private, the shots are still called by a few rich guys. They go right ahead and strip mine, make a killing, and say, "fuck the environment, I'm rich." You and your stupid homo economicus are the laughing stock of real economists.

Lardlad95

7th October 2002, 23:06

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 1:32 pm on Oct. 7, 2002
"Thats the point the goverment shouldn't have "total" control

It doesn't have the time to search through every little thing.

However it should have partial control over industries not products

Mixed Economies work best...ie Democratic Socialism"

Tell me how mixed economies equal democratic socialism, and why this does not equate to direct government control.

By its very definition socialism is "any of various economic theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. It is a system of society or group living in which there is no private property. That is a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state" (Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 10th Edition).

Now you can either chose to ignore the definition of socialism, like Peacenicked does; or you can admit that socialism is anti-property, anti-freedom, and anti-democracy, and should therefore be rejected on principle. That statement would suggest that government should only regulate that which is unlawful and harms the rights of the individual components of the society. To regulate the 'fairness' of living conditions and standards does not fall under that category. Man's ability to determine the outcome of his own life is the underlying theory behind the document that laid the foundation for the ideas of modern democracy. Socialism and democracy are anti to each other and can not be combined in harmonious parallel.

However, if you agree that man does not own the right to his labor and property, thus making him a slave, then I suggest you stand behind your socialistic ideology, but do not expect me to distinguish between your flawed ideas about socialism and democracy when the "clash of the civilizations" or ideologies puts us at odds with each other. I will be on the side of freedom and justice, and will not hestitate when reacting to your hostilities on the battlefield. Choose a side, but know what you are standing behind, for it would be a pity to die a fools death.

Listen you deaf Storming Moron

Democratic Socialism isn't something I created...it's an ideology and several parties are formed around this ideology.

What the fuck about Socialism has different forms don't you understand.

You may be smart but if you don't listen that doesn't even fucking matter.

I already win because you don't even understand what Democratic Socialism is