Capies, is the Exploitation Justified? - Simple Question

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Is the exploitation of the worker by the bourgeoisie justified in the eyes of a capitalist. Since you are a capitalist, it must be, right? Do you plan on ending the exploitation through reforms? Do you deny that there is any exploitation? Do you not see a problem with the fact that in capitalism, the working class earns nothing, while creating fortunes for the small, elite class of wealthy capitalists? Is it just that basic human rights be given only to those that that are willing to work their ass off for wealthy bastards, while earning nothing for themselves? Is it just that only the members ofsociety who have sufficiet capital with which to appropriate the products of the worker are able to own whatever they want? While the others can barely get by, if that even?

[Invader Zim]

That was a dumb question Victorcommie.

You see the cappi's will either go "what exploitation?"

Or not answer at all, they have a tendancy to avoid shuch threads as this.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Quote: from AK47 on 2:10 pm on May 22, 2003
That was a dumb question Victorcommie.

You see the cappi's will either go "what exploitation?"

Or not answer at all, they have a tendancy to avoid shuch threads as this.

well, i've never seen a thread quite like this (surprinsingly!) and I actualy want to see them try to deny that there is no exploitation. I've heard it before, but i think it's so amazingly ridiculous and a demonstration of ignorance. The exploitation is obvious. Let's see what the meaning of the word is.
exploit: to make unfair use of; use selfishly or for one's own advantage
is this not exactly what is being done?

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Victorcommie on 9:13 pm on May 22, 2003

Quote: from AK47 on 2:10 pm on May 22, 2003
That was a dumb question Victorcommie.

You see the cappi's will either go "what exploitation?"

Or not answer at all, they have a tendancy to avoid shuch threads as this.

well, i've never seen a thread quite like this (surprinsingly!) and I actualy want to see them try to deny that there is no exploitation. I've heard it before, but i think it's so amazingly ridiculous and a demonstration of ignorance. The exploitation is obvious. Let's see what the meaning of the word is.
exploit: to make unfair use of; use selfishly or for one's own advantage
is this not exactly what is being done?

Noble motives, a while ago i created a thread about the third world explotation of workers relating to the flower industry, they ignored that one so... I have a soured opinion of there unwillingness to face difficult threads.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Personaly I would rather see them defend that country they love so much..America..whilst it is the most protectionist nation going...Smith must be turning in his grave.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

hegemonicretrebution, I don't understand what you're saying.

[Anonymous]

It's not like we're forcing them to work in these factories.

[the SovieT]

what?

WHAT??

you threaten teh lower classes withg starvation and ultra low style of lifes and then you say you dont force them?

fucking hilarious...

exploitation isnt necessarly forced exploitation..

thats the beauty of capitalism..

your exlpoited and yet theres aways a moron saying you "arent being forced"...

fucking hilarious...

you just won the "comediant of the year" award..

[Anonymous]

They have a choice, work or die.

(Edited by Dark Capitalist at 9:17 pm on May 22, 2003)

[HankMorgan]

Victorcommie, everything including a the value of a day's work has a market value. In some places, for some jobs, the value of a day's work may be so low as to appear exploitive.

The only "reform" that can improve the life of the worker is the creation of more jobs which will drive the market value of a day's work up. The answer is make it easy, desirable and rewarding to create new enterprise. In other words, you've got to be nice to the people with the capital.

That's probably not what you wanted to hear.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Victorcommie, everything including a the value of a day's work has a market value. In some places, for some jobs, the value of a day's work may be so low as to appear exploitive.

if the employer is planing on earning any money, the value of the worker's labor is going to be considerably less than the value of the product of his labor.

the rest of your argument can be replied with the above.

In other words, you've got to be nice to the people with the capital.

I have no idea what you mean.

That's probably not what you wanted to hear.

I don't mind

(Edited by Victorcommie at 9:41 pm on May 22, 2003)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Quote: from Dark Capitalist on 8:16 pm on May 22, 2003
They have a choice, work or die.

sounds like slavery to me, DC

[Tkinter1]

When do you not choose to work or die?

[vox]

DC wrote:

"They have a choice, work or die."

Yes, well, so did slaves. That's not a very good answer, is it?

The fact of the matter is that people have always worked, or they've always died. They worked to provide food, and shelter, and water and clothing and various things. Surely you're not suggesting that the only time people have ever worked is under capitalism, correct? That would be such utter nonsense even I think it beneath you.

But the question is what form the work takes. What are the social relations of production? In the US, they are certainly not feudal, but, by your question, they may as well be, correct? After all, the serf had a choice: work or die. That's not really very much of a choice though, is it?

So, if we agree that people always have had to work or die, then we can also agree that the social relations of production, that is, who does the work and who gets the cash, play a part in the lives of the people working, yes?

The thing is, that you can now say "work or die" as a threat, rather than as the nature of existence, means that there are people who control work, and they are not the same people who do the work. So, the worker must not serve himself, but another, the one who controls the capital, for, in capitalism, capital is the highest thing one can attain, which, of course and very obvioiusly, is the exact opposite of humanism, wherein humanity is the highest and best one can attain, so capitalism, which reduces human beings to the servants of capital, as I've just shown here through the structures of the ownership, is, in fact and deed, anti-human.

And you're response is "work or die."

Hmmm.

Rather telling, don't you think?

Work for capital or die.

Serve capital or die.

Forget the individual or die.

For capitalism, not socialism, is the tool through which the individual is defeated in modern society. Marx demanded the free development of all individuals, but in your society, the individual is only free to develop in the manner that capital desires. It's that or death, according to you.

I think that's a very limited and bleak world, and I believe that we can do better.

You don't.

Fair enough.

But please, don't expect your sad world to be accepted as the best of all possible. You've had your go, and you've billions of people into horrible poverty, starvation, and death. You've failed.

vox

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

No, it was not a very good answer, I suppose. My point was that in slavery as well as in capitalism the worker, the one subjected to serve the bourgeoisie or die, as vox showed, lives strictly in order to serve the bourgeoisie, once his labor is no longer efficient for the profit of the bourgeoisie, he is deemed useless. For that is the only point in the life of a proletarian, to work in the function of generating profits for the ruling class. the italicized part is resemblant of slavery.

[HankMorgan]

if the employer is planing on earning any money, the value of the worker's labor is going to be considerably less than the value of the product of his labor.


Victorcommie, you state the obvious. If a merchant/manufacturer cannot sell his product for more than what it cost to obtain he goes out of business. I'm not sure how that is a reply to what I said. Maybe you and I are talking past each other.

By the phrase "the people with capital" I'm talking about the people with the desire and ability to create new enterprise (means of production in the lingo of the left). Vilifying, taxing, regulating capitalists hinders the creation of enterprise and jobs. As workers compete for fewer jobs, the value of a days labor goes down. Giving tax breaks, speeding up permitting and licensing etc has just the opposite effect. More jobs and the value of a days wage goes up. Makes you want to treat Capitalists well, wouldn't you say, Victorcommie?

The vast majority of people are good, even employers. What you see as exploitation is really just the low market value of labor not somebody out to shaft the worker.

[vox]

"By the phrase 'the people with capital' I'm talking about the people with the desire and ability to create new enterprise (means of production in the lingo of the left). Vilifying, taxing, regulating capitalists hinders the creation of enterprise and jobs. As workers compete for fewer jobs, the value of a days labor goes down. Giving tax breaks, speeding up permitting and licensing etc has just the opposite effect. More jobs and the value of a days wage goes up. Makes you want to treat Capitalists well, wouldn't you say, Victorcommie? "

Wow, what an amazing heap of bullshit!

Let's deconstruct it a bit.

The first falsehood:

"By the phrase 'the people with capital' I'm talking about the people with the desire and ability to create new enterprise (means of production in the lingo of the left)."

Well, that's not what "the phrase" means at all. It means the people with the money. How DARE you suggest that simple desire and ability are enough! Money, CAPITAL, is what makes things possble, not some Romantic DESIRE for something. Your pathetic and sick definition of capital lacks the very thing that make it capital. What a foolish premise to begin with, and it gets worse from there.

"Vilifying, taxing, regulating capitalists hinders the creation of enterprise and jobs."

No, it doesn't, and we have the HISTORICAL proof that says so. First off, taxing isn't "villifying." During the Forties, Fifties and part of the Sixties the top income tax rate was over 90%. And the economy was BOOMING. So right there, your theory falls apart. You talking out of your Idealistic ass, because we have the historical record.

"As workers compete for fewer jobs, the value of a days labor goes down."

Huh? That's the exact OPPOSITE of what everyone else says. Since, as Marx proved, labor-power is a commodity, the wages tend to increase as the commodity becomes scarcer, that is, the price of the commodity rises. This even happened toward the end of the Nineties. How can you possibly suggest that scarcity REDUCES price? That's one of the most foolish things I've seen proposed in a long while.

"Giving tax breaks, speeding up permitting and licensing etc has just the opposite effect. More jobs and the value of a days wage goes up."

No, actually, that doesn't happen. There may be a "bump" in the economy, as people take advantage of lowered interest rates, but the fact is no one is going to invest in an economy where people are not BUYING, and the consumer confidence index is low.

What kind of moron would glut the market with product when people aren't buying? The whole theory is flawed like this.

As for shafing the worker, let's all remember that CEO salary has risen exponetially compared to the laborer on the floor, but who care about her, when the CEO is building himself a golden parachute? Yeah, right.

HankMorgan needs to take Econ 101, I think.

vox

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Dark Capitalist on 2:16 am on May 23, 2003
They have a choice, work or die.

(Edited by Dark Capitalist at 9:17 pm on May 22, 2003)


Does it not make you feal guilty the fact that they are working up to 16 hours a day and get paid less that a dollar for all that time, where as you (or your parants) will get paid probably over 100 times that much for only an 8 or nine hour job, which is probably less phisically difficult.

You dont find that shockingly unfair?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

HankMorgan, I'm just saying that even if there are more jobs and the employers compete with higher wages in order to get the workers, the workers will still not be earning the value of the product of their labor. Like vox, explained, the bourgeoisie will gain capital from the appropraiation of the labor of the worker, simply because they have capital to begin with. The worker cannot gain capital from wage labor, simply because he has ambitions and abilities, as you've implied.

[HankMorgan]

Victorcommie, I appreciate your forgiving my lack of precise use of language. Allow me to answer vox and then you.

On capital and desire as they relate to success: There is no relation, vox. Many failed ventures began with deep pockets and many successful ventures began with nothing.

On taxes: When a government wants less of an activity, say smoking, it taxes the activity. When a government wants more of an activity, say adoption of children, it gives a tax credit. Hang with me now, vox. If a government wants less economic activity, ie people working, it increases the tax on economic activity. If a government wants more economic activity and jobs, the tax is reduced. Easy as pie, right vox? That being said there are other activities that determine the rate at which an economy grows such as drought (and the price of oil). It is possible for an economy to grow during a period of high taxes and for an economy to shrink during a period of low taxes but to conclude because there is one example where an economy grew during a period of high taxes that high taxes cause economic growth isn't logical.

On scarcity and the price of a commodity: Here is where my language was imprecise. It is the ratio of workers to jobs that is important. When there are fewer jobs there is in effect a "glut" of workers. When there is a glut of workers, the value of each worker goes down. Just the opposite happened during the boom of the 1980's and 1990's, a lot of jobs were created and as a result, employers found themselves competing for workers and workers' wages increased. You are correct. Scarcity increases the value of a ommodity and labor is a commodity.

On CEO salaries versus the factory worker pay: I don't like it either but I don't see how to fix it without worse side effects.

Victorcommie, here is another place where language is so important. You say a worker will still not be earning the value of the product of their labor. What is the value of the product of their labor? The value of the product is exactly what a employer is willing to pay and a worker will accept to do the job. Market value in other words. The worker will be paid exactly the value of the product of their labor.

You are right that a programmer hacking code for Microsoft can never become as rich as Bill Gates by hacking code. That's OK and it isn't exploitation. What is of extreme importance is that the system that allows the possibility of a Bill Gates must not be weakened or destroyed. It is the only goose that lays golden eggs.

[Anonymous]

Vox,

I believe the second world war had a great deal to do with the booming U.S. economy of the forties a fifties. It was WWII after all, that brought us out of the depression.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Victorcommie what I said in my first post was another question I would like to ask is...why do you like America when they fuck with your ideology so much? Refering to the protectionist methods employed...example steel industry.....Then take areas with free trade zones...like the Phillipines...look how well the workers do there.


"The vast majority of people are good, even employers. What you see as exploitation is really just the low market value of labor not somebody out to shaft the worker. " Why can they not pay the cost of living then? Accomodation costs and a 3 meals a day for the family? If Jordan can get paid as much as the entire Nike Indonesian workforce...Without Jordan the are still a leading shoe manufacturer..without the Indonesian workforce they are nothing (until they find another cheap workforce)

Even without cutting profits on an individual shoe...to increase wages to the cost of living would cost a rise of less than a $1 a shoe...but they won't.

If most companies are not out to shaft they worker, why then do they constantly outsource to areas with low sosts of living (fair enough) little or no tax for investors (also fine) and little or no human rights standards (problem). They use this to avoid problems like minimum wage, worker rights and issues like child labour. The companies grab what they can with little or no concern for the people putting them there with that choice....WORK OR DIE.

There is even little point in them all trying to force higher wages as they cannot syncronise without unions which they cannot form...and even if they do investors will move off.

Capitalism might work better if we started again...anmd played by the same rules....What gets me most is those that break the most rules (america and co) do the best by it...those trying to succeedsimply can't because there are already enough rich people. Too many rich people. Or should I say not enough rich people depending how you look at it.

[Anonymous]

Even without cutting profits on an individual shoe...to increase wages to the cost of living would cost a rise of less than a $1 a shoe...but they won't.

And that is their right. The workers work at those factories by choice. If they don't like the wages they can go find another job, or starve.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Victorcommie, here is another place where language is so important. You say a worker will still not be earning the value of the product of their labor. What is the value of the product of their labor? The value of the product is exactly what a employer is willing to pay and a worker will accept to do the job. Market value in other words. The worker will be paid exactly the value of the product of their labor.You are right that a programmer hacking code for Microsoft can never become as rich as Bill Gates by hacking code. That's OK and it isn't exploitation. What is of extreme importance is that the system that allows the possibility of a Bill Gates must not be weakened or destroyed. It is the only goose that lays golden eggs.

The value of the product of one's labor, is the profit from the product of of his labor. What the employer is willing to pay means nothing, except that. The worker should not be subjected to the greed of the employer, he should be entitled to all the profits of his labor.

The fact that the programer can never become as wealthy as Bill Gates is not exploitative. What is exploitative, is the fact that Bill Gates is using the labor of the programer to generate money for himself, money that should belong to the man who produces the goods in question (programs). The system that allows Bill gates to appropriate the products of of his employees, must be destroyed!

[HankMorgan]

The value of the product of one's labor, is the profit from the product of of his labor. What the employer is willing to pay means nothing, except that. The worker should not be subjected to the greed of the employer, he should be entitled to all the profits of his labor.


No, Victorcommie. With respect, you are confused about who owns which profits.

Labor is one ingredient in a product. Saying a worker is entitled to the profit of a product is like saying the man who sells sand to a glassblower is entitled to the profit of the drinking glasses and vases sold by the glassblower. The sand vendor's profits are what's left over after making the sand available to the glassblower. The glassblower's profits are what's left over after selling the drinking glasses and vases. The sand vendor has no right to the profits of the glassblower. Do you see how there are two enterprises with two different profits here?

A similar truth holds for the commodity of labor.

The profit that the worker is entitled to is his own profit. A worker must pay for his own food, clothing and shelter (and anything else) in order to maintain himself as worker. What's left over is the worker's profit which is something different than the employer's profit.

Again I repeat the value of any good or service is the amount a willing buyer will pay to a willing seller.
Even if the commodity is labor.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Your glassblowing analogy is correct, but it does not correctly prove your point. My point is that the employer contributes nothing to the production of the goods, all that he does is to provide the goods which are used in the manufacturing process, a task done not with labor, but with capital. For example, the man who owns the glassblowing shop is not entitled to any of the profits of the blown glass. The profits of the blown glass belongs to the people involved in the production, not to the people who have capital with which to appropriate the labor of the employees.

Your implying that just because the employer has capital, he is entitled to a larger fraction of the profit.

This relationship, by the way, is what causes the worker to be unable to amount any capital of his own.

(Edited by Victorcommie at 8:43 pm on May 23, 2003)

[HankMorgan]

Let's continue with the glass blowing shop.

The glass blower starts out as a one man show, blowing drinking glasses and flower vases. Do we both agree that the glass blower is entitled to all the profits of the glass blowing enterprise? It's a safe bet we do.

A little time passes and the glass blower hears about a machine that makes drinking glasses three times as fast as he can make them by hand. The glass blower buys the machine and it works beautifully. Now he can sell more glasses and each glass costs him less to make. His profits soar. Do we still agree the glass blower is entitled to all the profits of the expanded glass blowing business? Probably we are still in agreement.

Then one day the drinking glass making machine breaks just when the glass blower needs to fill a large order. He hires three glass blowers to help him fill the order. Everything is the same except the broken machine has been replaced by three workers. If I understand what you are saying, the glass blower suddenly looses all rights to the profit of his glass making business. The right to the profit now goes to the three men who were just hired. Have I got what you are saying?

I say the glass blower will pay the newly hired men the prevailing rate for glass blowing. If he could hire other glass blowers for less he would. If the workers could find other glass blowing work for more money they would. There is an equilibrium on the price of glass blowers. After the drinking glasses are sold and the newly hired workers are paid, what is left belongs to the original glass blower.

The work done by the hired glass blowers was a commodity bought and paid for just like the sand in the flower vases. An employer is entitled to what remains of the revenue after the cost of production has been satisfied. Labor is one of the costs of production.

Also there are workers who are able to amount significant capital. There was an article several years ago about a postal worker who invested his money wisely and amassed a fortune of $80,000,000. That doesn't happen every day but it does happen.

Have we beat this to death? I like your style, Victorcommie. Thoughtful and not abusive.

[CubanFox]

Assuming that both the employer and his workers do the same job (blowing glass bottles) they should get equal pay.

[Blibblob]

What CubanFox said. If he just sat there and supervised, he shouldn't get more than how much he paid for the materials. All of the profit should go to the workers. But, yes, if he worked, he should profit for how much he worked. But he also should get a little bit more, because he paid for the materials. They should all get equal PROFIT, but in the end, the owner of the shop will get a little bit more capital. Unfortunatly it doesn't work that way. Most owners of shops get more profit than the others who work. And generally, people are to stupid to figure that out.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

If the original glassblower does as much work as his employees, he should earn one fourth of the profits, plus the cost of the materials.


The work done by the hired glass blowers was a commodity bought and paid for just like the sand in the flower vases. An employer is entitled to what remains of the revenue after the cost of production has been satisfied. Labor is one of the costs of production.


This is the exploitation, Hank, the use of one's exceptional property to purchase the workers' labor for one's personal gains.

I like your style too, Hank, good discussion.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from Victorcommie on 8:04 pm on May 22, 2003
Is the exploitation of the worker by the bourgeoisie justified in the eyes of a capitalist. Since you are a capitalist, it must be, right? Do you plan on ending the exploitation through reforms? Do you deny that there is any exploitation? Do you not see a problem with the fact that in capitalism, the working class earns nothing, while creating fortunes for the small, elite class of wealthy capitalists? Is it just that basic human rights be given only to those that that are willing to work their ass off for wealthy bastards, while earning nothing for themselves? Is it just that only the members ofsociety who have sufficiet capital with which to appropriate the products of the worker are able to own whatever they want? While the others can barely get by, if that even?




Back in the 1980 Margaret Thatcher broke up the coal miners unions. The coal industry in the UK was loosing money and inefficient. UK tax payers pounds were supporting an inefficient industry. The freemarket arguement was taxpayers dollars should not go into a money loosing industry. It should go into investing other profitable industries or support other social programs. The union had no right to decide the use of taxpayers dollars to support themselves.

The socialist argued that employed men were better than unemployed men on welfare. No one argued with that, but the Margeret Thather and the UK taxpayers got tired of supporting the coal miners. The coal miners had already brought down previous government who tried to break up the unions. Who was exploting who?

[HankMorgan]

The following Monday, the glass blower was thinking as he walked to his shop. He had worked hard for is father-in-law to buy the land the shop stood on. It had taken a whole summer to build the shop with his own hands. He had built or purchased all the tools in the shop.

I like the sand vendor, he thought. He brings his sand to my shop, I pay him the prevailing price for sand and we part friends. Not so with the three labor vendors (the glass blowers he had hired). I can't pay them the prevailing wage for glass blowers. No, they insist on each taking 1/4 my profits. When the three glass blowers work for me, my profits are 4 times as great but my share is 1/4 so at the end of the day I take home to my wife the same amount of money as if I worked alone. In addition to providing the shop, the tools and the sand, I have to do extra bookkeeping for the payroll and fill out all the employment forms for the government and I have to listen to the workers prattle on about Marx and some man named Che. I'm being exploited and it isn't worth it. There is no advantage to having the three glass blowers working for me. So the glass blower terminated the employment of the three glass blowers.

A year later the glass blower was dining in his friend's restaurant. He noticed there were no drinking glasses on any of the tables and asked the restaurant owner about it. The restaurant owner said "There is a shortage of drinking glasses in the city.".

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Common Sense Reasons for Worker Self-management (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=485)

[HankMorgan]

I believe the gem "The value of labor is the difference between the income of the business and it's non-labor expenses", written by Neutral Nation applies to our discussion.

The first day of the month the glass blower addressed his three workers: "The recent storm blew away most of the sand in the area which caused a spike in sand prices. Drinking glasses sold for less than the cost of sand therefore the value of your labor this month is zero.".

Or


The first day of the month the glass blower addressed his three workers: "Merchants from the neighboring state have been flooding our market with cheap drinking glasses. Drinking glasses sold for less than the cost of sand therefore the value of your labor this month is zero.".


No, no, a thousand times no, Victorcommie. The value of labor is NOT the differrence between revenue and material costs. The value of labor is what the market will bear regardless of the profitability of the enterprise. Don't take my word for it. Ask the airline pilots that are still flying and still making their mortgage payments.

Neutral Nation is so profoundly wrong I have to wonder if he read what he wrote. So wrong I have to suspect a typo.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I'll have to agree with Neutral Nation there, Hank.

Scenario 1, the price of the glasses should rise.

Scenario 2, unions do not allow the price of a product to be so low that competitors cannot keep up.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from Victorcommie on 9:09 pm on May 25, 2003
Common Sense Reasons for Worker Self-management (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=485)
[/quote]



What do bosses do?
- Scheduling-Deciding when work needs to be done.....


Management is a specialized job function. If you eliminate a manager, decisions still need to be made. In your management model decisions are made by all workers. Good luck. Have you aever tried to get a group of people to agree to do anything? It is not very easy. Even within small families agreement is very difficult. Try it with unrelated people in a factory.







What do stockholders (Capitalists) do? Nothing!.....


Where does investment resources come from? Stockholders. Factories do not have a pile of money they can just borrow from when they need investment dollars. Even a worse situation of you are opening a new business. No stockbrokers, no pool of resourses for investment. Where do communist get investment start up capital? From workers?



- A bosses performance is usually measured by how much profit they can squeeze out of you. Many are paid in stock or profit-sharing to make them more greedy. ...


That is only one factor in how profits are made. There is marketing, distrubution, sales strategy, etc.

Where does a factory worker get training to make an educated decision regarding marketing, distrubution, sales, etc. You need trained Harvard MBAs to make those decisions.



Having a boss is a dictatorship.
- Modern production was invented by Henry Ford who wanted to reduce the actions of the workers to the repetitive motions of machine and Frederick Taylor who wanted to minimize the number of motions to maximize the "productivity" of each worker. Bosses design work tasks to dehumanize workers.
- Many workplaces require you to work overtime. Many workers are paid a fixed salary (instead of by the hour) so they can be worked as much as the boss likes without paying them for overtime.
- Many workplaces spy on their workers using time clocks, computer programs, hidden cameras, informers, and even private detectives. Some workplaces even limit the number of times and amount of time workers may spend going to the bathroom!




You forget to mention that when Henry Ford first built an assembly line factory he paid approx X5 the average worker wage. No one was about to quit.

Dictatorship? = Stalin, Mao, and Pol pot. Do Harvard MBAs put you in the gulag for exercising your first amendent rights? Do they send tanks to crush student rebellions (Tienmen Square). Do Harvard MBAs dig mass graves?



Without a boss, access to these crucial resources would be decentralized and made available based on need.


Are you kidding? Communist are notorious for centralization. They have centrailization fever at all levels.

(Edited by kelvin9 at 5:39 pm on May 26, 2003)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Kelvin, you don't know what you're talking about, so I'll help you out.
http://www.marxists.org/glossary/frame.htm

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics.../manifesto.html (http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html)

[Anonymous]

Quote: from Victorcommie on 8:00 pm on May 26, 2003
Kelvin, you don't know what you're talking about, so I'll help you out.
http://www.marxists.org/glossary/frame.htm


]http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics...esto.html (http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html[/url)


Probably so. I have read your threads. There is nothing there regarding the day to day operation of a factory or applied management methods or tools. It was a very general ideas about society and politics.

None of it was about:
Scheduling shifts.
Organizing meetings flowing down ideas.
Building an infrastructure.
Building team unity and worker morale.
Orginazing work details.
Contract negotiations with vendors.
Legal.
Marketing and distrubution.


None of it gave me any tools to run a business or a factory day to day.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Management is a specialized job function. If you eliminate a manager, decisions still need to be made. In your management model decisions are made by all workers. Good luck. Have you aever tried to get a group of people to agree to do anything? It is not very easy. Even within small families agreement is very difficult. Try it with unrelated people in a factory.

if you read the common-sense reasons for worker self-management you should understand.

Where does investment resources come from? Stockholders. Factories do not have a pile of money they can just borrow from when they need investment dollars. Even a worse situation of you are opening a new business. No stockbrokers, no pool of resourses for investment. Where do communist get investment start up capital? From workers?

if you knew anything about communism, you would realize how assinine this comment really is.

That is only one factor in how profits are made. There is marketing, distrubution, sales strategy, etc.

Where does a factory worker get training to make an educated decision regarding marketing, distrubution, sales, etc. You need trained Harvard MBAs to make those decisions.

I am not trying to undermine the function of the better-paid employees, I am simply saying that they earn much of what they do not produce. Surely their work is worth something, and they are needed, but they should not hold an upper hierarchal position.

You forget to mention that when Henry Ford first built an assembly line factory he paid approx X5 the average worker wage. No one was about to quit.

Dictatorship? = Stalin, Mao, and Pol pot. Do Harvard MBAs put you in the gulag for exercising your first amendent rights? Do they send tanks to crush student rebellions (Tienmen Square). Do Harvard MBAs dig mass graves?

yeah Henry Ford may have been a 'good boss' (is there such a thing??), but did his workers earn anywhere near to what the profit of their work earned Mr. Ford? Bosses may not put anyone in the gulags, but they subjugate the labour of the worker by means of appropriating capital from society. Stalin & Mao only put those in the gulags who were threats to communism, an act that I do not approve of, by the way.

(Edited by Victorcommie at 1:13 pm on May 28, 2003)

[Anonymous]

Yes I did read it. The whole document is a mission statement. Not instructions or tools to run a factory or a business.

Does your auto handbook in the glove box make you a mechanic? If you know the handbook from cover to cover can you set the timing, drop the transmission, or bleed the brakes?

Your Worker Self-Management has only the very basic ideas and none of the application to run a business or make an orgainization function together.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

kelvin, so what exactly can workers not do collectively that bosses can do?

[Anonymous]

Quote: from Victorcommie on 5:22 am on May 29, 2003
kelvin, so what exactly can workers not do collectively that bosses can do?

Nothing. MBAs in a corporation are workers too. Even you stated something to the effect that highly special employees are also need. (Sorry if I miss quote, I'm drawing from a few days old memory)

Your Worker Self-Management document is incomplete. I would describe it more as a mission statement not a manual. It is not a course of study for workers to self-manage or for specialized workers who will be doing managerial tasks.

[Anonymous]

Can anyone remember where the discussion about the production plants on US military bases in Indonesia were?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

i did not write the common sense reasons... thing, i believe mentalbunny did, it can be found in theory, it's a sticky.