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

[Velociryx]

Here's one for Serb... A complete listing of all cosmonauts with space flights of more than 400 days....

Valery Polyakov - 679
Anatoly Solovyev - 652
Musa Manarov - 541
Alexander Viktorenko - 489
Sergei Krikalev - 472
Yuri Romanenko - 430

Now...I got some catch up reading and commenting to do!

-=Vel=-

[alva]

Not much serious reading to do I'm affraid, as soon as 'quality' comes into the pictures both communists and capitalists are running away and/ going OT.
Wonder why

[Velociryx]

Che: Having read your replies before drifting off to sleep, I had several hours to mull them over before writing. It may surprise you (not sure), but I actually agree with some of what you post here, and of the things I agree with, chief among them is that every current society carries the seeds of the one to follow within it.

(bear with me cos I'm trying on some new thoughts, in light of your comment) Since capitalism was first put into practice wide-scale, we have seen the system undergo ENORMOUS changes. Among them are: The rise of labor unions, innumerable laws protecting the workers, vacation time, and a strong-and-growing socialization of some (not all, but some) sectors of the economy, most notably in welfare programs and health care.

Given this, is it not possible that the revolution will not be a "revolution" at all, but an "evolution," and that it is already well underway, with the end result being a synthesis of the best aspects of both systems? I daresay that Marx would scarcely recognize capitalism as it exists today in the most successful countries that make use of it. It is a far cry from the brutality he saw in its earliest days of widespread use.

The crux of your definition of exploitation seems to center around this phrase: Human labor-power is a unnique commodity, in that it is the only commodity that can create wealth. IIRC, it is a Marxian phrase, and IMO, it is incorrect. I would put forth that humans are not unique in their ability to create wealth, but that they are unique in their ability to put wealth to any sort of use.

Our own history is rife with examples that bear this out, and some of them are:
* A man with a hoe, tending his field cannot do it nearly as quickly as a man with two oxen and a plow. Thus, the man must be "exploiting" his oxen under the current definition, yes? They are working WITH the man and together creating more wealth than the man could possibly create on his own. (Of course, in the case of animals, we call that "domestication," but only when it suits our purposes -- see below).

* There was a pharma company (in Australia, if memory serves) that once trained chickens to recognize colors, and used these chickens to sort pills by color on the assembly line. The chickens were an integral part of making the company run (ie -- they were creating wealth for the company), but this was not seen as exploitation at all! (nor was it seen as a case of animal domestication, which is odd, given the above). It was, however, seen as a case of "cruelty to animals" (a lawsuit brought on by the former workers IN said plant, in coalition with an animal rights group). A suit which the company lost. The chickens were duly ¡§fired¡¨ and the humans got their jobs back (I guess it wasn¡¦t seen as "cruelty to humans"). It should be noted, however, that beyond getting some extra chicken feed, the chickens were not paid for their services. Thus, under the definition above, they were being exploited as well, yes?

* An artist has made quite a name for himself, not by painting pretty pictures, but by having his pet monkey slop paint onto the canvas. Some of the monkey's art has sold for more than $3,000 at galleries and showings. Predictably, the monkey never sees this money. Is he not being exploited under the definition you gave? Is he not creating that wealth, despite the definition's insistence that humans are unique in that regard?

Even if none of those examples above are suitable to you, the definition is still lacking, and here's why:

If you add up the wealth generated by the average worker, subtract the raw materials used in production and the wages necessary to keep the worker and his family alive, what is left is the surplus.

If you add up the wealth generated by the average worker (ie -- the value of the stuff he makes), subtract the cost of the raw materials used in production, and the wages necessary to keep the worker and his family alive, what you end up with is product sitting in a shop floor, because that equation does not take into account any of the following:

Shipping fees. The product must be sent somewhere else to be sold to the public. Unless you argue that the person who is doing the shipping is not actually working, then the definition falls apart right here.

Sales fees: The people actually selling the product created are working too. They need to eat as well.

Inventory fees: Your shop man, along with his fellow shop mates might make more of a given product than is needed "right now," and if so, it must be stored for later use. Someone has to take charge of that, and that person too, needs to eat.

Marketing fees: If no one is aware that you have MADE a given product, it will never be sold, and the people that do this are working as well.

Interests: The factory where the product was made did not spring into existence by magic, and in all probability, no one person (or even a group of persons) had the resources on hand to create it from scratch. Given the fact that a dollar today is worth more than a dollar later, and given that no one just had the resources to create the factory lying about, or hidden under their mattress, a loan almost surely had to have been taken from the bank to build the factory in the first place. Given that the loan (obviously) cannot be paid back on the same day it is made, the bank demands reasonable compensation for loaning the money to make the factory a reality in the first place. Thus "interest." And they'll get theirs, or the factory will be shut down. Their "work" in this case, is in the enabling of the whole process to begin, and that is valid work, is it not?

The definition also does not take into account willing workers.

If I open a shoe factory, for example, and I come to town and say that I've got fifty jobs for whomever wants one, and I get two hundred people who are interested....that's more than will fit in my factory. More than I need. The result will be competition, but how can these people compete with each other to snag a job?

Price.

If I'm offering $18 an hour for the work, the people who feel that this is "too low" and thus, exploitative, will not bother to even apply, unless there are no other alternatives available, but the rest (those who do not feel that $18 an hour is an abusive wage) will be lining up. Further, in the face of competition, some might even start bidding the wage down ("I know you only have fifty spots, and there are a lot of people here....hire me, and I will come do the work for $15 an hour).

I didn't suggest that....he did. If he is willing to come to work for $15 an hour, and volunteers to do it (I'm not putting a gun to anyone's head here), then....is he exploiting himself?

More later....I gotta pack at least one box, or Nancy will kill me!

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
„h There was a pharma company (in Australia, if memory serves) that once trained chickens to recognize colors, and used these chickens to sort pills by color on the assembly line. The chickens were an integral part of making the company run (ie -- they were creating wealth for the company), but this was not seen as exploitation at all! (nor was it seen as a case of animal domestication, which is odd, given the above). It was, however, seen as a case of "cruelty to animals" (a lawsuit brought on by the former workers IN said plant, in coalition with an animal rights group). A suit which the company lost. The chickens were duly ¡§fired¡¨ and the humans got their jobs back (I guess it wasn¡¦t seen as "cruelty to humans"). It should be noted, however, that beyond getting some extra chicken feed, the chickens were not paid for their services. Thus, under the definition above, they were being exploited as well, yes?

I say give the chickens the pigdogs' share.

[alva]

I didn¡¦t suggest that¡K.he did. If he is willing to come to work for $15 an hour, and volunteers to do it (I¡¦m not putting a gun to anyone¡¦s head here), then¡K.is he exploiting himself?

Hmm, borderline (not on the exploiting himself part).

If you knowingly pay someone less then that person needs to have a decent live, I would be inclined to call it 'exploiting'. Perhaps not the person, but certainly the circomstances/conditions.
However, if you are not able to pay more because it just isn't possible without going bankcrupt (sp?), then I would say that it isn't.
Are Nike (and others) exploting the third world countries by employing cheap labor and then selling it at normal price here? I would say yes.
Why? going out of your way (almost beyond reason), to ship materials half-way around the world to turn them into products and then going back around the world is something that no-one would normaly do, therefore they are exploting the situation.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by alva
Not much serious reading to do I'm affraid, as soon as 'quality' comes into the pictures both communists and capitalists are running away and/ going OT.
Wonder why

alva,

Are you the one trying to wedge European capitalism into the debate? I'll bite.

So, Europe doesn't look so good right now. There is high unemployment, and the standard of living is only high in a few countries. Worse, every country there that I know of is being forced to take austerity measures and weaken the powers of their unions.

Your turn

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by alva

I didn¡¦t suggest that¡K.he did. If he is willing to come to work for $15 an hour, and volunteers to do it (I¡¦m not putting a gun to anyone¡¦s head here), then¡K.is he exploiting himself?

Hmm, borderline (not on the exploiting himself part).

If you knowingly pay someone less then that person needs to have a decent live, I would be inclined to call it 'exploiting'. Perhaps not the person, but certainly the circomstances/conditions.
However, if you are not able to pay more because it just isn't possible without going bankcrupt (sp?), then I would say that it isn't.

Interesting, but the person is 'willing' to do the work regardless of the less than subsistance wage. That must be because no one is 'willing' to be exploited. They just don't have a choice.

[alva]

Are you the one trying to wedge European capitalism into the debate? I'll bite.

No, not really, I don't give a ** what system is used and certainly not to how it's called. All I want is for everyone to have at least a decent start and a minimum to go along.
If the system can't provide these, then the system has to change and not the people.

I'll come back to your other points later, have to go now or no food this weekend

[David Floyd]

Nope. WW2 and evacuation of Soviet industry provided a lot of workplaces and turned my home town into one of the biggest industrial centers of Siberia and entire country.

You know what else drove this industrial expansion? The resources in part provided by the US and Great Britain (steel, rubber, etc.), necessary to keep industry going

In any case, communism vs. capitalism comes down to one thing, and one thing only, in my opinion. The system that better protects the natural rights of everyone is the better system. Now, it's an interesting sidenote that neither communism or capitalism are really governing systems, but economic ones. Hence, for example, a capitalist system with no laws against murder would be a bad system, and, for that matter, a communist system which relies on voluntary compliance and does not FORCE anyone to do anything "communistic" or violate anyone's rights wouldn't necessarily be bad.

In GENERAL, a capitalist economic system implies a far superior system of government - which means, of course, a much more free system - while a communist system implies a totalitarian government, because let's face it, you aren't going to find a significant number of people from different economic classes willing to make themselves economically equal with everyone else - that is, millionaires won't want to give up their wealth and become the middle class, and the middle class won't want to give up their wealth and become poor.

If you find people who will voluntarily set up a communist system, and behave in a free, non-coercive manner, then I will be the last to argue that such a system is bad. Likewise, if a capitalist system fails to protect an individuals liberty and/or life, and only protects property rights, then I will be the last to argue that such a system is good.

Oh, and finally - neither Victorian England or the United States of the late 1800s had free market capitalist systems.

[Az]

I think the arrival of DF to such a thread is what is called "When **** hits the fan".

No offence, David.

[alva]

So, Europe doesn't look so good right now. There is high unemployment, and the standard of living is only high in a few countries. Worse, every country there that I know of is being forced to take austerity measures and weaken the powers of their unions.

As in the rest of the world, business is slow at the moment.
AFAIK the US is in recession too, right?
Don't forget that Europe is relative new (at least the democracy part).
I'm pretty sure though that the average standard of living is as good in europe as it is in the US ( and perhaps the northers countries have a higher average then the US)
So far they are (can only speak for belgium) not raising taxes and will lower cost of impolyment (which is very high here).
Let's see what happens and it goes well.

Some unions do have to much power, while others have practically none, but like stated before, they are needed but shouldn't have too much power.
There task is to protect the worker and to come up for it's rights, not to decide on co-oporate strategy.
Besides, they are as corrupt as the rest. human nature I'm affraid
And btw, I'm not an economist, well I don't have any degree at all, all I do is observe and try to make sence of it.
I do however have a pretty BS filter

[Ecthy]

you're right though, it can only go into one direction from then on

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by alva

So, Europe doesn't look so good right now. There is high unemployment, and the standard of living is only high in a few countries. Worse, every country there that I know of is being forced to take austerity measures and weaken the powers of their unions.

As in the rest of the world, business is slow at the moment.

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.

Originally posted by alva
I'm pretty sure though that the average standard of living is as good in europe as it is in the US ( and perhaps the northers countries have a higher average then the US)

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

Originally posted by alva
So far they are (can only speak for belgium) not raising taxes and will lower cost of impolyment (which is very high here).

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

In the end all of the austerity measures are not going to pay off. As you state the productivity improvements in the US and Japan don't even seem to be paying off right now. The reason is glut and lack of demand.

[Velociryx]

Just back from packing boxes, organizing, and planning, and have some comments on what's been said here so far:

To Alva: I think the real question is: Whose responsibility is it to see that an individual is not exploited?

If a man comes to me, I'm offering $18, and he OFFERS to work for $15, is it my responsibility to ask to see a statement of that person's living expenses so I can determine if $15 is insufficient to support him, or is that responsibility best given to the individual (ie - trusting that he won't offer to work for fifteen if fifteen is insufficient to meet his individual needs).

As to choice....I would argue that the person certainly DOES have a choice. Nowhere in my example was there any mention of me opening the shoe factory, then riding through town with some gun-toting men, rounding townsfolk up and forcing them to come to the plant to be put to work.

The choices are:
1) Come to work for me
2) Go to work for someone else
3) Set up your own business
4) Continue doing whatever it was you were doing prior to my factory opening (maybe the person in question was working, maybe not....the (admittedly simplified) example did not go into that

Further, in the most highly advanced capitalist economies, we have established minimum wage laws and such, meaning that there's a lower limit to wage negotiations. Currently in the US, that minimum wage is less than the $15/hr used in my example, and therefore falls within the realm of legality insofar as negotiations go. OTOH, if a person said "Hey, I know you've only got fifty slots....hire me and I'll work for a buck an hour," that falls beneath the established minimum threshold, and is therefore, clearly exploitative.

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?

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
The choices are:
1) Come to work for me
2) Go to work for someone else
3) Set up your own business
4) Continue doing whatever it was you were doing prior to my factory opening (maybe the person in question was working, maybe not....the (admittedly simplified) example did not go into that

There is only one choice that is the best. So how can we consider the rest choices?

If out of all the jobs that I can accept pay less than I feel is right, I have no choice but to accept exploition. That is, there is no choice whether to accept exploitaion or not to, only to accept the job which exploits me the least.