Rage against the Machine - Communism Vs. Capitalism (again!)

[Velociryx]

Couldn't disagree more, Kid. Which choice is clearly superior, and why? Does that not depend on the individual (ie - which choice is better FOR that person?). Of course, I know your views on it, and in your world where the individual doesn't much matter, and where exploitation lurks around every corner, rock and tree, your response comes as no great surprise.

-=Vel=-

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Couldn't disagree more, Kid. Which choice is clearly superior, and why? Does that not depend on the individual (ie - which choice is better FOR that person?). Of course, I know your views on it, and in your world where the individual doesn't much matter, and where exploitation lurks around every corner, rock and tree, your response comes as no great surprise.

-=Vel=-

That's crap. Who want's to be exploited more? Jobs have different levels of exploitation. Only in you fantasy world do people choose to be exploited.

[Velociryx]

Nope....I don't live in a fantasy world (though you are questionable... Fantasy Island, anyone?). Hate to break it to you, Kid, but just because you "think" you're work X dollars an hour, if the rest of the market doesn't agree with you....you're not.

I could arbitrarily "say" I'm worth $300.00 an hour. If I did, obviously any job I took for less than that, I could b*tch and moan that I"m being "exploited." On the other hand, if I AGREE to work for less, while shopping around to get the best salary I can (which is how the job hunt works, in case you're curious), then I have a good feel for how much market value my skills have.

If I'm not happy with that number, then I can acquire some new skills that will be worth more on the open market.

That's the way the game is played, and in no way is it exploitative. Of course, on Fantasy Island, EVERYTHING is exploitation, so there you go....

-=Vel=-

[alva]

I guess my main point is "you can't rape the willing," and in the same vein, if someone negotiates their own salary and is happy with that amount of money, and willing to go to work for that price, then how can it be exploitative?

Not if you put like that, no.
As long as you are not exploiting the fact that that person has no real alternatives.
IE
- no money(or means) to set up his own business.
- Can at least survive (and then some) on what you are paying him/her
- other work (your competition) within a reasonable travel radius.
- no chance of an alternative income (legal)
--
- your are able to pay more and still make a more then decent income. ( you took the risk etc., so you are more then entitled to make more gain)

So, if you are taking advantages of these points, then I think one could argue, you are exploitng that person for your own benefit.

Sure those people will outbid each other, since they have no option. They need to eat too.
You know that too, so again, taking advantage of that situation is exploting them/it. Hmm it's even getting close to blackmail.

Is it shrude business, sure, but not a society I would like to call civilised and certainly not a direction I would like us to go too(worldwide).

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Nope....I don't live in a fantasy world (though you are questionable... Fantasy Island, anyone?). Hate to break it to you, Kid, but just because you "think" you're work X dollars an hour, if the rest of the market doesn't agree with you....you're not.

I could arbitrarily "say" I'm worth $300.00 an hour. If I did, obviously any job I took for less than that, I could b*tch and moan that I"m being "exploited." On the other hand, if I AGREE to work for less, while shopping around to get the best salary I can (which is how the job hunt works, in case you're curious), then I have a good feel for how much market value my skills have.

It works this way. You work all day and your boss treats you like ****. You know damn well that the stock holders of the company are getting a share of what you worked for, but you can't afford to pay your bills. It's got nothing to do with how much you think you should get paid, and everything to do with the fact that you are being exploited.

[Velociryx]

Alva: I largely agree. Again though, companies (like my hypothetical shoe factory) don't just spring up in a vacuum. Obviously, I selected to build my shoe factory in a certain location because there was a town there.

The townspeople were doing stuff before my shoe factory was even a thought. A perfectly valid choice then, would be to keep doing whatever it is that they were doing before I came along offering jobs to make shoes. They don't HAVE TO even bother coming to check it out....unless they want to.

As to the exploitation angle (or potential exploitation under the conditions you mentioned), I look at it like this:

* If I open my shoe place in town, I've obviously done some homework. If the average wages being paid at other places in town is $20.00 an hour, then if I come in offering $10.00, it is highly doubtful that I'll even attract any interest. I'll be hard pressed to get ANYBODY to come to work for me at that price, cos everybody else in town is paying better. I will truly be the last place in town that anybody wants to consider working. So the wages that other places in town are paying will (at least in part) guide my decision. If I want to compete with other places in town, I have to pay comparably.

I would also say that a portion (and perhaps even a large portion) of the responsibility for the well being of the town (and by extension, the well being of the folks IN the town) rests with the governing body of the town--and at the "state" level as well. That is to say, most advanced capitalist societies have a safety net to protect their workers from exploitation. If my plant is ill constructed, such that is a dangerous place to work in, some outside agency (ie - the government) will come in and shut me down. I don't want that, so of course, I'm going to build a safe place to work.

Likewise, if I start doing things like forcing people to work long hours, renigging on my promise to pay a certain wage, not letting people take breaks, etc., then that same outside agency will come in and shut me down for it. Again, I don't want that, so I'm going to play by the established rules.

My job then, as the owner of the factory, is to play by the rules. Obviously, I spent a lot of time and effort (and probably a good bit of my own money, to say nothing of the time and risk involved) to get the shoe factory up and running in the first place. I therefore, have a vested interest in seeing that it a) abides by the rules, and b) is competitive and profitable (after all, I've got a loan to repay, and I need to eat too! None of which will be possible if I don't play fair and get shut down for it). So it is in my best interest to pay as much as I can to remain competitive, wage-wise in town, but as little as folks will accept WITHIN the pre-established framework. And that is the specific mechanism that drives market and wage price.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Kid: It doesn't work that way for everyone. Does it work that way sometimes? Undoubtedly. But remember in the last thread when MtG and I were called on the carpet for using "individual" examples? We were told they were irrelevant to the discussion. Are you changing your mind now? Are individual examples now valid, because you chose to make use of them? If so, I can come back with TONS of individual examples that run counter to the situation you just described. Shall I?

-=Vel=-

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Kid: It doesn't work that way for everyone. Does it work that way sometimes? Undoubtedly. But remember in the last thread when MtG and I were called on the carpet for using "individual" examples? We were told they were irrelevant to the discussion. Are you changing your mind now? Are individual examples now valid, because you chose to make use of them? If so, I can come back with TONS of individual examples that run counter to the situation you just described. Shall I?

-=Vel=-

You still don't get it about that do you. I'm describing the reality for most Americans. You were describing your own reality.

[Velociryx]

Cite? Show me where you pulled that "reality for most Americans" from.

Can you?

-=Vel=-

EDIT: Off to pack some more boxes ("self exploitation" perhaps? :hmm: Back soon)

[alva]

Yes, but Japan and then the US made productivity improvements. The US did so at the expense of their unions. Japan never had any unions to speak of. In order for Europe to compete now they will have to lower their employment costs, and in the end they will have even higher unemployment. Worse, they will add to a global glut. The US, Japan, and even nations like China will push for more productivity gains hurting workers more. I depression is a very likely possibility.

Well, that's probably where I differ from most people, I don't see this as a competition between nations.

I would like to see more of a global system (with culture differences btw, please let's not turn the world into one big mall), where, yes we pay taxes, but the state takes cares of the rest, such as infrastructure/medical needs etc.and where business is given a chance to reward those that want to better themselves without taking it to extremes.
(damn, I just rewrote the socialist manifest, didn't I

ATM countries are outbidding each other and this can't go one for ever, this will result in either war or going back to some kind of slavery. I mean, be honest, you are not free when you have to work 100 hours a week just to able to feed your kids and to make sure your country is not doing as bad as the one on the other side of the ocean.
That is the problem of capitalism anyway, it NEEDS poverty and misery to sustain itself. Where the misery is to be found, doesn't really matter but there will never be a world with high(ish) standard of living ruled by capitalism.
Is communism the answer, I hope to God it isn't .
Do I have an alternative, well, not yet but I'm working on it .

To paraphase someone:
"We must find new answers instead of a way."

PS: I know this is utopian thinking but this is a theoretical/hypothetical anyway isn't.Well, we wouldn't be taking 'bout communism if it weren't .
I'm fully aware of the real world and it's problems

Check OECD. Europe may be close when you include quality of life measurements, but pure income per capita, they are not too close.

Here again, what does 'quality' mean? To me that doesn't mean having 4 cars, 3 houses and a boat.
To me it means: decent medical for all/ the possibility of free school/ etc.
Having enough free time to enjoy the things I have aquired
(marriage not included )

Do you a good link for this? I would to check out a couple of numbers.

Well if they cut spending instead of raising taxes that's going to hurt the people of Europe.

Not yet, they think that by taking these measures to stimulate the economy enough so they won't have to 'hurt' people.
So far it looks like we will have 0.3% budget deficit at the end of the year. The first time it happens in 5 or 6 years.
We are not an world economy, we can't act, only react.
(so please leave NATO where it is )

[alva]

That's the way the game is played, and in no way is it exploitative. Of course, on Fantasy Island, EVERYTHING is exploitation, so there you go....

Hmmm, not really and I think this is my main problem with capitalism.
It's a game set-up by (big)business and not the individual.
We (the little guy) just has to play along whether he wan't to or not. We don't even know, let alone undestand the rules, and they are changed whenever the balance is going the 'right' way.

Before you say anything about possible alternatives,
I know, but I just don't like living in a self-made hut in a forest either

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Cite? Show me where you pulled that "reality for most Americans" from.

Can you?

-=Vel=-

EDIT: Off to pack some more boxes ("self exploitation" perhaps? :hmm: Back soon)

You think a significant number of people have experiences like you do. I leave it up to you to show that to be true. But I will say this. Look at African Americans. They started out on the bottom and they overwhelmingly stay at the bottom. Do you agree?

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by alva

Quote:

Yes, but Japan and then the US made productivity improvements. The US did so at the expense of their unions. Japan never had any unions to speak of. In order for Europe to compete now they will have to lower their employment costs, and in the end they will have even higher unemployment. Worse, they will add to a global glut. The US, Japan, and even nations like China will push for more productivity gains hurting workers more. I depression is a very likely possibility.

Well, that's probably where I differ from most people, I don't see this as a competition between nations.

I'm with you on that, but unfortunately it is a competition. It's a competition to get each nations workers to accept terms for work that are less favorable than the terms that the workers in other countries accept. That way they can get MNCs to do business in their nation. The right and the middle, that's all we get to choose from here in the US, argue that that's the best way.

Originally posted by alva
To paraphase someone:
"We must find new answers instead of a way."

If there is a better third way so be it. Personally I believe that Communism just needs to be improved.

Originally posted by alva

Quote:

Check OECD. Europe may be close when you include quality of life measurements, but pure income per capita, they are not too close.

Here again, what does 'quality' mean? To me that doesn't mean having 4 cars, 3 houses and a boat.
To me it means: decent medical for all/ the possibility of free school/ etc.
Having enough free time to enjoy the things I have aquired
(marriage not included )

Unfortunately, per capita income seems to be a better measure of global competitiveness. I'm not against quality of life at all though.

Originally posted by alva
Do you a good link for this? I would to check out a couple of numbers.

No, but I think someone else might.

[alva]

* If I open my shoe place in town, I've obviously done some homework.

Havn't quoted the whole post, but sure I have no problem with a mechanism.
The problem is that, and I think we can all agree on the fact that man is greedy, why would we exclude business from being so.
If business plays by the book, sure make the market as free as possible, but well, we all know that aint happening.

Let's say you start off by paying more then all the other businesses in your neigborghood which will see them loose their workforce and will be forced to close the shops.
Now, you will have made that same town depend on you, and therefore shift the balance too much.
From this point, all you have to do (to make it being accepted) is shout crisis and demand pay-cuts.
Car manufactioring towns anyone.
Ok, the above example is a very short version, (which makes me sound like a drugdealer ). just to state that control is needed and some common sence. That's probably where all breaks down though

[alva]

The right and the middle, that's all we get to choose from here in the US, argue that that's the best way.

You see, Europe is better

If there is a better third way so be it. Personally I believe that Communism just needs to be improved.

I do think the individual and individual choice comes first, so no communism for me, having said that I don't believe in one person having more then a gazillion others put together, no matter how brilliant he/she is.
All within reason works fine by me.

-=Vel=-

EDIT: Off to pack some more boxes ("self exploitation" perhaps? :hmm: Back soon)

Nope, however, you should have exploited your shoefactory workers more
Hell, just call one of them to drop by, saying you are thinking about giving him promotion, I'll bet you he'll take that box anywhere you want.

[The diplomat]

I hope it is not too late for one more person to jump into the debate.

I think both capitalism and communism have been distorted by human nature. During the industrial revolution, greedy and ambitious people used the system to amass as much wealth as possible at the expense of the worker. Likewise, as we saw during in the Soviet Union, greedy, powerful and ambitious people used communism to concentrate all the power and wealth in their hands at the expense of the workers.

Human nature corrupts all things!

But from a purely theoretical level, I do believe that capitalism is unquestionably superior to communism. Each person is different. Each person has unique skills and abilities. Some people are more intelligent than other people. Some people are great athletes, some are terrible. Some are very skilled at manual labor, some are better at intellectual work. This uniqueness of each individual is an undeniable fact. Human beings are not equal. Now, we should be treated fairly and with dignity, but we are not all equal. Communism denies this by pretending that each person can be completely equal. Capitalism understands these inherent differences in every person. As a result, it is based on the moral foundation that each person should be able to do what they are best at, and reap the rewards of their work.

Capitalism is the free exercise of man's unique skills, and the free exchange of the fruit of each man's labor, for the benefit of each man according to the worth of his work.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Is there anything interesting and new in this thread, or is it the same stuff in the first two just going back and forth?

I'm too lazy to look.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Human beings are not equal. Now, we should be treated fairly and with dignity, but we are not all equal. Communism denies this by pretending that each person can be completely equal. Capitalism understands these inherent differences in every person. As a result, it is based on the moral foundation that each person should be able to do what they are best at, and reap the rewards of their work.

Capitalism is the free exercise of man's unique skills, and the free exchange of the fruit of each man's labor, for the benefit of each man according to the worth of his work.

There you go. You hit it on the head. Everyone's work isn't equally beneficial to society. In today's economy one scientist can do more to benefit society than 10 workers. Why, because if those 10 workers were to parish there are 10 others to take their place. But really there are only so many people who are even capable of doing scientific work.

People are equal regardless of the market value of their work. Do you dispute this? Do you say that you are only worth what your boss pays you? No, you have other qualities. You do things that benefit society that you don't even get paid for.

I'm not saying that people have equal capabilities in the market place. I'm saying that they should be treated equally regardless, but scientist and such should be compensated a little more just for the sake of incentives.

[alva]

Yep, I joined
-
Don't know really, didn't follow the fist one. It is a slightly different topic, well differents accents anyway

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Is there anything interesting and new in this thread, or is it the same stuff in the first two just going back and forth?

I'm too lazy to look.

Vel is still denying exploition with the same old 'opportunity in infinite' argument. I'm showing that that's not true.

[MichaeltheGreat]

I never saw that "opportunity is infinite" argument. Opportunity exists.

If I get your latest bit, if someone decides their lifestyle costs them $40,000 a year to support, and they want a job as a ditchdigger or stock clerk in a grocery store warehouse, they're being "exploited" if the job doesn't offer them that amount of money, regardless of the value of the services entailed by the job?

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
I never saw that "opportunity is infinite" argument. Opportunity exists.

If I get your latest bit, if someone decides their lifestyle costs them $40,000 a year to support, and they want a job as a ditchdigger or stock clerk in a grocery store warehouse, they're being "exploited" if the job doesn't offer them that amount of money, regardless of the value of the services entailed by the job?

I think that most people would be satisfied with around 30k. Anything less than that is pretty hard to live on. And no, the market value of their labor doesn't matter to me. A persons worth should not be established in this manner.

[Kidicious]

MtG,

Maybe you can help Vel explain how choosing the best possible job for yourself is choosing not to be exploited, regardless of what the job pays.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Kidicious
There you go. You hit it on the head. Everyone's work isn't equally beneficial to society. In today's economy one scientist can do more to benefit society than 10 workers. Why, because if those 10 workers were to parish there are 10 others to take their place. But really there are only so many people who are even capable of doing scientific work.

If the scientists' work is more valuable then why shouldn't they get paid more? Shouldn't people be rewarded proportionally to the value of their work?

People are equal regardless of the market value of their work. Do you dispute this?

No, I don't dispute this. But the market value is the only thing that really matters in our economy. I can shout to the world, "I have worth!" all I want, but the nasty little truth is that the world is not going to care much if I can't actually give them something they need.

Do you say that you are only worth what your boss pays you? No, you have other qualities. You do things that benefit society that you don't even get paid for.

But capitalism is the best way for someone to do something about it. If you are smart and have perseverance, you can turn those unused qualities into wealth.

You can't do that with communism, because it already predetermines what everybody's worth is.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Do you say that you are only worth what your boss pays you? No, you have other qualities. You do things that benefit society that you don't even get paid for.

That's your main problem. You believe that your market value (ie, salary) is your worth as a PERSON! It isn't! It's your worth as a WORKER! A salary is your market value as an economic agent. The rest of your worth is for other things and structures to determine.

[Velociryx]

Vel is taking a break for busting his a$$ packing and back for more!

Alva: I quite agree that we certainly cannot say businesses are not greedy. Man is greedy, man made "business," and business inherits his traits. Being that it is run by man, yep....there's an inherent greed factor there. No argument from me on that one!

Is this something that can be controlled? Absolutely, and we see evidence of that here in America, as well as in all other highly advanced capitalist societies.

What Kid refuses to acknowledge is the fact...not the supposition, but the FACT that capitalism has been continually reinventing itself since day one. As far as I can see, communism has not (perhaps Che can chime in here and clarify if I am wrong), but Communism still chants the Marxist mantra like it was this morning's news, DESPITE the fact that Capitalism has moved on. In highly advanced capitalist societies, we have labor laws, minimum wage (the same concept as Kid's "guaranteed wage" but without the loss of personal freedom), and there's a strong move in most highly advanced capitalist nations for "Universal Healthcare" (IMO, the best example of this resides in Canada, but Europe has some highly attractive models too, and America is slowly shifting in that direction as well). Add in vacation pay, family leave, the undeniable power of labor unions in certain sectors of the economy, anti-trust laws, checks against the formation of monopolies, etc., and Marx would frankly not recognize what we call "Capitalism" today as being the same creature he wrote about. It's not. Capitalism is all about competition, and has been forced (continually forced) to adapt to an ever-changing environment. Marx would most likely applaud most, if not all of the changes to capitalism I mentioned above, because it goes a long ways toward levelling the playing field.

Is it perfect? Nope. There's still TONS of room for improvement, and that improvement continues on an almost constant basis.

What that suggests to me is that the current system, recognizing some of the core strengths of alternative systems, is going about adopting the best features, and ditching the rest (capitalism requires private ownership, so it has rejected the notion of the state controlling everything, however, as we have seen by the rise in terms like "Universal Healthcare" there is a strong trend to adopt socialist ways for certain aspects of human life.

That it is happening is absolutely undeniable (unless you want to pretend that the US, Canada, and Europe simply do not exist).

Are there sweatshops in SE Asia right now? Yes!

Is the answer to that to rip down capitalism? No.

The answer to that is to encourage those governments ruling over the people their to pass laws modelled after the laws in highly advanced capitalist nations to protect their people's best interests. Do that, and the sweatshops disappear, just as they have, by and large, disappeared from the highly developed capitalist nations.

It has been said before that capitalism requires a large poverty-class to function effectively.

IMO, that is incorrect. Capitalism, by its nature, leads to social stratification, yes. There will be rich and there will be poor, but there is NO reason....no reason whatsoever that the poorest of the poor must live lives that deny them the basics of human dignity. History will bear out that capitalism has been the most efficient engine history has ever seen in terms of improving the standard of living and quality of life for the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time.

I am well aware of its flaws and limitations, and equally well aware that there is wide lattitude for improvement of the current system. Again, that improvement is a continuous, ongoing process, in action every day and MANDATED, not by the state or any governing agency, but by the market itself.

The "Captains of Industry" know full well that their industry is consumer driven. If consumers aren't working, they aren't making money. If they aren't making money, they aren't SPENDING money and the whole thing grinds to a halt. For this reason alone (and there are plenty of other checks, both natural and officiated) the situation doomsayers like Kid rant about will never occur. These are smart guys. Smarter by far, than most of us here (myself included, most certainly!). Hasn't happened so far, doesn't look like it's going to happen in the immediate future, and if I'm wrong and it DOES happen, I'm quite sure that Kid will be first in line to tell me "I told you so" But I'd not hold my breath on it

Companies exist to compete. That's what they do. They will compete within whatever framework the law allows (some compete outside these bounds, and invariably, to a bad end....Enron, Standard Oil, MCI WorldComm, a whole host of others), but by and large, companies tend to play by the rules, especially if the rules are well-structured enough that not playing by the rules is prohibitively expensive.

The equalizing factor here (again, in most highly advanced capitalist societies) is the democracy that travels with them. One man, one vote. Companies can mistreat their workers...it's happened before, it's happening today, and when they do, the workers (who outnumber the bosses significantly) can elect governing officials to change or strengthen existing laws in their favor (happens all the time). There are entire law firms (not just one or two, but tons of them) who specialize in litigation against corporations. It's sexy and romantic on the TV news to run a story about a big company getting bit by the little guy.

What makes the whole system hum is the checks and balances built in (via law). If there's an imbalance, it doesn't mean the system is broken....the system is working exactly as designed, but what needs fixing are the laws that govern the rules of the game (which is why, going back to the earlier example of the sweatshops in SE Asia, the answer is in strengthening the laws in those countries, not tearing down the system).

-=Vel=-
(of course, Kid will still disagree... )

[Velociryx]

Here's what cracks me up!

From Kid:
I think that most people would be satisfied with around 30k.

2002 PPP Adjusted Avg. Annual Income in the US:
$34,280

But "the majority of Americans" are being exploited.



-=Vel=-

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by The diplomat
If the scientists' work is more valuable then why shouldn't they get paid more? Shouldn't people be rewarded proportionally to the value of their work?

What if only scientists' work had a market value? Whould you support a system that only allowed scientists a living? People should be allowed a comfortable living regardless of there ability to be compensated in a purely capitalistic system.

Originally posted by The diplomat
No, I don't dispute this. But the market value is the only thing that really matters in our economy. I can shout to the world, "I have worth!" all I want, but the nasty little truth is that the world is not going to care much if I can't actually give them something they need..

That's because of extremists who only believe in individualism. We need to get them out of power.

Originally posted by The diplomat
But capitalism is the best way for someone to do something about it. If you are smart and have perseverance, you can turn those unused qualities into wealth.

Not really. How do you make reporting a crime profitable? Or how do you make helping little old ladies across the street profitable? There are many things that people do that is no compensatable within the capitalist system.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Do you say that you are only worth what your boss pays you? No, you have other qualities. You do things that benefit society that you don't even get paid for.

That's your main problem. You believe that your market value (ie, salary) is your worth as a PERSON! It isn't! It's your worth as a WORKER! A salary is your market value as an economic agent. The rest of your worth is for other things and structures to determine.

So you tell me why people should not recieve an income for their worth to society.

[Velociryx]

So you tell me why people should not recieve an income for their worth to society.

"I'm cool." does not equal "Pay me what I think I deserve to be paid."

"I'm a human being." does not equal "Pay me what I think I deserve to be paid."

The capitalist system is driven by work and initiative. Those that work...those that have initiative, WILL get more than those who don't.

We DO have a welfare system in this country that pays people who cannot work. Now, you may argue that what they get paid is insufficient, and that's a valid argument. But the system is working now as you describe. What it does NOT do is pay people what they "say" they're worth, or what they want to be paid.

-=Vel=-