Are labor supply and freedom related?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Again, in Marx's day, yep...lots to be angry about.

That's not the way the game is played anymore.

The indictment doesn't hold.

-=Vel=-

Nothing to be angry about but plenty of angry people. hmmmmmm

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
I as well have been downsized twice in 3 years -- thats life!! -- you dust yourself off and then go find another job-- its disappointing, even heartbreaking but there is opportunity here and I am good at what I do.

Why do you think "that's life?" That's just the life that you know. Don't you believe in making things better?

[Velociryx]

Gone as in totally eradicated? No. Gone as in, largely a non-issue for the industrialized west? Marx wouldn't even RECOGNIZE the place!

I have never argued that capitalism was without fault, and as Arrian says, those issues need to be addressed, and they ARE being addressed.

It makes one wonder though....given the stark conditions in the third world, why are they not rushing to the big red banner? Why are they, instead, tending to seek to emulate capitalist states?

I would contend it is because one of these economic systems has proved itself "in the field" and one has not.

-=Vel=-

[Flubber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


This is the most important critique. The head of the Communist Party in Chicago once mentioned to me that it wasn't the dictatorship in the USSR that most workers in the US though was a problem. Most people live under a dictator known as the boss.

With the clear difference that people change jobs much much more frequently than in the past so people don't feel as stuck with a particular boss

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


It was the lack of productivity. I would argue it was the alienating nature of the Soviet system coupled with the lack of any useful motivating facot that lead to such low productivity in the 60s, 70s and 80s. If you aren't going to threaten people with starvation and homelessness to get them to work hard, then they need to have a say and some rewards. The Soviets had neither the stick nor the carrot.

I agree this was a huge problem. Any discussion with Kid on incentives always breaks down since I can see no reward for innovation and hard work in what he proposes-- To be fair, rewards might mean that someone has more than someone else -- a concept to which kid is allergic

che -- your brand of communism seems more open to the idea that not everyone might BE equal in condition

Originally posted by chegitz guevara



We have both. What history tells us is that communism cannot work if it is not open, pluralistic, and democratic. It still might not work then. Don't know. We haven't tried it.

I suspect

1. it would fail if tried..
2. being open and democratic would mean that you will never get the chance since you will not convince the majority in a western democracy that communist ideas will work

3. your best approach may be to allow prorams to evolve and strengthen such that the social safety net gets stronger and has fewer holes

[Velociryx]

Can you forgive us if we're a bit skeptical about leaping into a world wide implementation of that which HAS been tried (albiet, not in the manner you describe) and failed so spectacularly?

What I mean to say is....central planning is inefficient. We've seen this in action. We've also seen what happens when the change is revolutionary in nature.

Revloutions, by their nature, need strong leadership if they are to survive.

Strong leaders tend to REALLY like their power, especially if they were powerLESS before the revolution began.

The world has not been particularly lucky in terms of revolutionary leaders since the American revolution, and I'm doubting we'll be seeing another Washington anytime soon.

I'm certainly not going to throw my weight behind what I consider to be a fool's errand and blindly HOPE for one, especially when the current system is working fine.

-=Vel=-

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Gone as in totally eradicated? No. Gone as in, largely a non-issue for the industrialized west? Marx wouldn't even RECOGNIZE the place!

I agree. That doesn't mean his description of how capitalism works is inaccurate nor mired in the 19th Century and needs to be relagated to the dustbin. Obviously, as capitalism ha evolved, so have our analyses of it, but saying Marx is obsolete is like saying Newtonian mechanics is obsolete. It's not. It just doesn't describe everything, and how could it. To say something is limited is not to say that it is worthless.

It makes one wonder though....given the stark conditions in the third world, why are they not rushing to the big red banner?

Look what we did to them when they did.

I would contend it is because one of these economic systems has proved itself "in the field" and one has not.

-=Vel=-

Well yes, in that they no longer have another superpower to play us off of. It used to be they could bounce back and forth, getting what they wanted from one or the other, until the pushed the U.S. to far and we invaded or paid their military to overthrown them, etc. Now, to quote Maggie Thatcher, "There is no alternative." They don't necessarily seek to emulate usbecause they want to (though they may) but because they have to. Failure to do so can result in dismemberment, coups, economic ruin, or invasion.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Gone as in totally eradicated? No. Gone as in, largely a non-issue for the industrialized west? Marx wouldn't even RECOGNIZE the place!

No he wouldn't. The world is completely different and you really couldn't expect anyone to be able to forsee the future back then anymore than you should expect anyone to forsee the futre today. The thing is that the poor still suffer even though there life is very different.

It makes one wonder though....given the stark conditions in the third world, why are they not rushing to the big red banner? Why are they, instead, tending to seek to emulate capitalist states?

Are you actually claiming that poor people in the third world would not like to see a world united and working together for each and every human being on the planet. It is they who suffer the most from self-interest and capitalism.

I would contend it is because one of these economic systems has proved itself "in the field" and one has not.

-=Vel=-

Has capitalism proven itself? Even every country in the world every person recognizes serious problems, crime, proverty, war, racism, sexism, classism, environmental concerns etc... How can you say that capitalism has been a success. Oh, I guess you just measure it by your own financial success.

[Arrian]

My personal belief is that a democratic, pluralistic communist society would not remain communist. It might bounce back and forth between something like communism on the one hand and socialist capitalism on the other, due to the choices of the people.

Politics ebbs and flows. Countries sway back and forth from left to right, often by each generation. Action-reaction.

As such, if you have a democracy, and said democracy organizes its economy along communist lines, it seems likely to me that at some point a party that favors capitalism (most likely a rather socialistic version) would come to power.

-Arrian

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Why do you think "that's life?" That's just the life that you know. Don't you believe in making things better?

Things got better for me . . my job now is better than either of the previous two.

I don't expect anyone to guarantee me a job for life. If there were not ample employment opportunities, I might be more upset but

1. In job 1, the firm closed . . . we all got reasonable severance and everyone who was there got a new job.

2. Job 2-- work slowed down so they let some of the newer hires go-- I picked up a consulting contract and had a new position before the month was out


Kid you may call me indoctrinated but I see a system that works and will work. If my job ended tomorrow I would get severance and probably make money on the deal. I don't need or want to be protected in a job where I am not valuable . . . that's not efficient.

Instead I have confidnece in my individual skills to always make a good living. Oh and if catastrophic illness hits-- thats why I buy disability insurance

[Velociryx]

Marx = Buggy Whip. It had it's day in the sun. I am sure you will disagree. That's the beauty of the society we live in right now.

And Kid, what's wrong by measuring success using financial well being as a yardstick. That's the entire BASIS for your utopia. Making sure everyone is exactly financially equal....right?

-=Vel=-

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Flubber
With the clear difference that people change jobs much much more frequently than in the past so people don't feel as stuck with a particular boss

Yes, but the choice of masters isn't the same as the choice to have no master, or rather, to be your own master. It's the dream of the entrepreneur. We think it should be universal, and not merely for the lucky few.

I can see no reward for innovation and hard work.

che -- your brand of communism seems more open to the idea that not everyone might BE equal in condition

There are different kinds of reward systems. Being thought of by your community as a swell guy is really good reward. It is amazing the amount of positive emotion that social recognition generates. Having friends is great, Having a group of friends all hanging out together is a wonderful feeling. I would argue it's instinctual, as it reinforces the social bonds necessary to ensure good group harmony which increases the group's, and thus the individual's, chances for survival. As well, social ostracism is a powerful punishment.

As for equality, Marxism is less concerned with equality of result than with genuine equality of opportunity. This doesn't mean hampering the best able. It does mean giving a leg up to those who need it, and not a paltry leg (poultry leg . . . mmmmm) up, like modern affirmative action, but something like the original GI bill, which really created the middle class in this country.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Arrian
My personal belief is that a democratic, pluralistic communist society would not remain communist. It might bounce back and forth between something like communism on the one hand and socialist capitalism on the other, due to the choices of the people.

It definately won't. The only thing that remains the same is the dead. Communist society will continue to elve, into something new, maybe not better, but change is the only constant. We just can't foresee where it will go after that.

[Velociryx]

The problem, of course, is that we have never seen a "masterless" communist utopic society.

The reason we have not is that human nature abhors a vaccuum, and such a structure leaves a power vacuum begging to be exploited.

And it will be.

Every time.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
And Kid, what's wrong by measuring success using financial well being as a yardstick. That's the entire BASIS for your utopia. Making sure everyone is exactly financially equal....right?

-=Vel=-

Because I measure a society by how well the lowest member lives.

[Arrian]

See, now, I'd argue, Che that it's DEMOCRATIC society that will continue to evolve into something new, maybe not better, but change is the only constant. That would apply regardless of the economic arrangement said democractic society has chosen.

As such, the existing democratic capitalistic societies will continue to evolve - and may even strike a balance that we can all grudgingly accept.

We've certainly evolved quite a bit in the last 100 yrs.

-Arrian