"Communism is the greatest evil unleashed on humanity" (2 Viewers)

[Zeitgeist308]

I have absolutely nothing to add to the debate - and I don't pretend otherwise. I just find unjustified elitism a tad annoying. You argue with what's being said, not who is saying it.

I agree, my most humble apologies.

The free market ensures that the businesses which float to the top are those which offer superior products, doesn't have laws to warp and ensures that if a company is treating their workers like shit there's nothing preventing them from working elsewhere.

That is except of course, when monopolies are established (as a result of them production exceptional products as in your example). Where then is the choice?

"Oh that's simple the workers can start their own business."

And if their business can not enter the market as a result of insufficient capital or unmatchable competition?

"Well then everyone's happy, once again we see that the free market ensures that the businesses which float to the top are those which offer superior products."

Everyone's happy except the workers of course who are forced to put up with shit wages and working conditions as a result of the monopoly

"Well if that's the case without laws to warp the normal functioning of the market if a company is treating their workers like shit there's nothing preventing them from working elsewhere.”

So on and so on, ad infinitum

The highest price/best package wins, especially when that labour is collectivised and well represented.

Oh my, endorsing the formation of oligarchical cartels are we now! Stone the blasphemer!

 

[zstar]

That is except of course, when monopolies are established (as a resultof them production exceptional products as in your example). Where thenis the choice?

"Oh that's simple the workers can start their own business."

And if their business can not enter the market as a result of insufficient capital or unmatchable competition?

"Well then everyone's happy, once again we see that the free marketensures that the businesses which float to the top are those whichoffer superior products."

Everyone's happy except the workers of course who are forced to put upwith shit wages and working conditions as a result of the monopoly

"Well if that's the case without laws to warp the normal functioning ofthe market if a company is treating their workers like shit there'snothing preventing them from working elsewhere.”

So on and so on, ad infinitum

Microsoft is a monopoly I don't hear anyone whining about working conditions.

Sometimes in life if you want to move up then you have to put up with crap pay because when you work hard then eventually your social mobility goes upwards.

There's no free ride in life unlike what you and the Marxists keep preaching.
You also confuse free markets with workers rights.

Supporting workers rights has nothing to do with regulating free markets. When employers are abused then that is infringing in their civil liberties which is completely different so government creates laws to protect them from those abuses. Furthermore once a free market economy advances such as Australia then employers face labour shortages meaning that in order to keep staff from leaving they have an incentive to treat workers better and give higher pay as workers would have more choices to leave for a better deal.

 

[ASNSWR127]

That is except of course, when monopolies are established (as a resultof them production exceptional products as in your example). Where thenis the choice?



Microsoft is a monopoly I don't hear anyone whining about working conditions.

Sometimes in life if you want to move up then you have to put up with crap pay because when you work hard then eventually your social mobility goes upwards.

There's no free ride in life unlike what you and the Marxists keep preaching.
You also confuse free markets with workers rights.

Supporting workers rights has nothing to do with regulating free markets. When employers are abused then that is infringing in their civil liberties which is completely different so government creates laws to protect them from those abuses. Furthermore once a free market economy advances such as Australia then employers face labour shortages meaning that in order to keep staff from leaving they have an incentive to treat workers better and give higher pay as workers would have more choices to leave for a better deal.

the thing is that if it is a free market that would imply nil government intervention in anything

so workers rights and government intervention go hand in hand.

That system whereby everyone is happy because they can move around and 'shop around' might sound nice in theory but would give absolutely no help to those seeking to build a professional career because they would forever be moving around, the same with a trade or small business.

It would also leave everybody constantly in the lurch about where they stand and who is in charge and would again lead to and everyone eat everything you can situation. Even with gov't control this happens too much!

So no - the days of lasse faire are over! I am sorry but you are going to have to move on, we socialists have agreed that the days of total socialism are over and have moved on. A compromise leaning more to the socialist teaching is almost certainly the best way.

 

[Zeitgeist308]

Microsoft is a monopoly I don't hear anyone whining about working conditions.

1. Whilst Microsoft may be monopolistic in the operating software industry, it is certainly not monopolistic in the market for skilled IT labour.

2. It's workers (laregly speaking), require technical training which adds to the value of their labour-power (resulting in a higher wages).

Sometimes in life if you want to move up then you have to put up with crap pay because when you work hard then eventually your social mobility goes upwards.

That is of course unless you are working a third-world sweatshop, or a woman, or are unskilled, or have poor/no representation etc. etc.

There's no free ride in life unlike what you and the Marxists keep preaching.

That is of course unless your the heir of a business magnate, oil tycoon, media mogul or industrialist.

Supporting workers rights has nothing to do with regulating free markets. When employers are abused then that is infringing in their civil liberties which is completely different so government creates laws to protect them from those abuses.

Sorry, but there is no difference what so ever. Laws protecting the "rights of workers" are in fact regulations and distortions of labour markets by governments.

Furthermore once a free market economy advances such as Australia then employers face labour shortages meaning that in order to keep staff from leaving they have an incentive to treat workers better and give higher pay as workers would have more choices to leave for a better deal.

What exactly necessitates labour shortages? Isn't it just as likely that job shortages and high unemployment rates may be experienced at a particular time? If this were the case it would have the opposite effect, employers would be able to reduce pay and working standards as a result of a surplus labour force (Marx called this the "reserve army of the unemployed") and thus increased demand for work.

we socialists have agreed that the days of total socialism are over and have moved on.

We have!? Did I miss a memo or something?

A compromise leaning more to the socialist teaching is almost certainly the best way

1. What is your definition of socialism?
2. In what way can you have a socialist-capitalist compromise?
3. What do you mean by "best way"?

 

[Trefoil]

Microsoft is a monopoly I don't hear anyone whining about working conditions.

Microsoft isn't a monopoly in any sense.

It was becoming a monopoly on the production side but the government intervened to stop it. There's also a big counter-culture against it among intellectuals.

Anyway, cyberspace is an arena far more conducive to laissez faire than the outside world. It's still prone to corporatism even then, though, because it cannot be fully divorced from the outside world (e.g. Microsoft uses its power to ship Windows on most new computers)

1. What is your definition of socialism?
2. In what way can you have a socialist-capitalist compromise?
3. What do you mean by "best way"?

It's called the Third Way. It's what we have in Australia. Read up on it sometime.

Are you one of those people who believes we need some radical shift to communism or capitalism? Considering Australia is one of the top 10 most successful countries in the world on pretty much all fronts (including social and political stability, education, market freedom, economic prosperity, and social welfare), I'm inclined to strongly disagree.

 

[zstar]

1. Whilst Microsoft may be monopolistic in the operating softwareindustry, it is certainly not monopolistic in the market for skilled ITlabour.

2. It's workers (laregly speaking), require technical training whichadds to the value of their labour-power (resulting in a higher wages).

Then how do you define monopolistic? What you just said could be valid for any industry because no industry really holds a monopoly of labour on anything except maybe the military but even the military has many choices.

That is of course unless your the heir of a business magnate, oil tycoon, media mogul or industrialist.

And what you don't think they have to work hard? The price of laziness is fallen revenue and failure of business, Companies don't run by themselves.

Sorry, but there is no difference what so ever. Laws protecting the"rights of workers" are in fact regulations and distortions of labourmarkets by governments.

Sorry but it is.

What exactly necessitates labour shortages? Isn't it just as likelythat job shortages and high unemployment rates may be experienced at aparticular time? If this were the case it would have the oppositeeffect, employers would be able to reduce pay and working standards asa result of a surplus labour force (Marx called this the "reserve armyof the unemployed") and thus increased demand for work.

Booms and busts are the result of Keynesian economics.

Keynesian believe in government interventionism and inflation so they create the conditions for unemployment. This is a flawed ideology and is largely responsible for the great depression and other such cycles. Markets function perfectly when you allow it to.

It's called the Third Way. It's what we have in Australia. Read up on it sometime.

That's wiki crap.

There is no third way. Markets cannot properly when the government interferes.
Governments have a negative effect on the markets.

 

[gnrlies]

You've made the same mistake that the neoliberals make; you assume people are instinctually rational. If that was the case then why would anyone gamble?

Because some people have a preference for risk in certain situations (i.e. they gain utility from risk).

People are instinctfully rational, its just that rationality is bounded. It is bounded by imperfect information amongst other things.

 

[Zeitgeist308]

Microsoft isn't a monopoly in any sense.

In any sense?

It's called the Third Way. It's what we have in Australia. Read up on it sometime.

I know what the "Third Way" is, thank you. This response doesn't answer any of my questions!

Are you one of those people who believes we need some radical shift to communism or capitalism?

Well judging from my avatar, my signature and the 70-odd posts I've made in this thread alone, I think it's fairly obvious I'm one of those "out-there radicals".

Considering Australia is one of the top 10 most successful countries in the world on pretty much all fronts (including social and political stability, education, market freedom, economic prosperity, and social welfare), I'm inclined to strongly disagree.

Quite frankly I'm not much interested in our disagreement. My perspective is that of working class, so that's not at all a surprise.

Then how do you define monopolistic?

A monopoly exists when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it. (from Milton Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom")

What you just said could be valid for any industry because no industry really holds a monopoly of labour on anything except maybe the military but even the military has many choices.

That's not true. Monopolistic labour markets can and do occur, particularly in niche skilled labour-markets and also unskilled labour-markets, the effects of which may be exacerbated by geographic mobility and a host of other factors.

And what you don't think they have to work hard?

Quite frankly I don't give a shit how hard they work, so long as they exploit and live off the wage labour of others, they are the enemy of the working class.

Companies don't run by themselves.

Correct, they are run by managers, technicians, shop-floor workers and a host of other wage-labourers.

Sorry but it is.

Very good arguement you have there.

 

[Trefoil]

Then how do you define monopolistic? What you just said could be valid for any industry because no industry really holds a monopoly of labour on anything except maybe the military but even the military has many choices.



And what you don't think they have to work hard? The price of laziness is fallen revenue and failure of business, Companies don't run by themselves.



Sorry but it is.



Booms and busts are the result of Keynesian economics.

Keynesian believe in government interventionism and inflation so they create the conditions for unemployment. This is a flawed ideology and is largely responsible for the great depression and other such cycles. Markets function perfectly when you allow it to.



That's wiki crap.

There is no third way. Markets cannot properly when the government interferes.
Governments have a negative effect on the markets.

Nice libertarian tirade.

I guess that explains why Australia has both a strong welfare state and higher market freedom than America.

 

[zstar]

Nice libertarian tirade.

I guess that explains why Australia has both a strong welfare state and higher market freedom than America.

How can you be proud of welfare?

Welfare is not sustainable.

The system will not last forever, Supporting this system will put a huge financial burden in the long run and as Australia ages this means less tax payers to support the aging population.

Basically it will eventually be a headache and Australia will simply be unable to afford it.

This system creates a dependency and you my dear will have to foot out the bill and work 2-3 jobs because the government had to increase taxes to keep the system alive.

 

[ASNSWR127]

How can you be proud of welfare?

Welfare is not sustainable.

The system will not last forever, Supporting this system will put a huge financial burden in the long run and as Australia ages this means less tax payers to support the aging population.

Basically it will eventually be a headache and Australia will simply be unable to afford it.

This system creates a dependency and you my dear will have to foot out the bill and work 2-3 jobs because the government had to increase taxes to keep the system alive.

you are a tosser - nothing else

 

[zstar]

you are a tosser - nothing else

Why because I'm telling the truth?

 

[Silver Persian]

Cataclysmic forecasts about the effect of the ageing population on the welfare state are often based upon a shonky understanding of economcs, demographics and the relationship between individuals and the welfare state. For a good discussion see Paul Johnson, "Grey Horizons" in the Australian Economic Review (1996)

 

[ASNSWR127]

Why because I'm telling the truth?

because I trust you have never had to rely on this system...

 

[zstar]

because I trust you have never had to rely on this system...

Neither you or I need the system and I certainly don't need the system.

That money comes from taxes, Why do you want the government to take more of your money? Wouldn't you rather use it spend it on yourself?

The only people you ever need is your family, friends, neighbours and the people around you. If someone wants to give to another person then it should be through voluntary means, You have private charities and people in this society who are philanthropic.

Furthermore you become poorer for it in the long term.

Nobody needs government welfare, If you want support then there are other ways you can get it.

If you want something then get a job and save up.

 

[Enteebee]

Neither you or I need the system and I certainly don't need the system.

That money comes from taxes, Why do you want the government to take more of your money? Wouldn't you rather use it spend it on yourself?

The only people you ever need is your family, friends, neighbours and the people around you. If someone wants to give to another person then it should be through voluntary means, You have private charities and people in this society who are philanthropic.

Furthermore you become poorer for it in the long term.

Nobody needs government welfare, If you want support then there are other ways you can get it.

If you want something then get a job and save up.

If really rich and successful people don't want to give up x% of their income and I earn far less and would like welfare for my neighbour... is it wrong for me to suggest that the really rich and successful people be forced to give up x% of their income?

 

[melanieeeee.]

 

[ASNSWR127]

Neither you or I need the system and I certainly don't need the system.

That money comes from taxes, Why do you want the government to take more of your money? Wouldn't you rather use it spend it on yourself?

The only people you ever need is your family, friends, neighbours and the people around you. If someone wants to give to another person then it should be through voluntary means, You have private charities and people in this society who are philanthropic.

Furthermore you become poorer for it in the long term.

Nobody needs government welfare, If you want support then there are other ways you can get it.

If you want something then get a job and save up.

mate you are a sickeningly stupid person...

go and experience the real world rather then bourgeiose north shore....

 

[Zeitgeist308]

Neither you or I need the system and I certainly don't need the system.

(Capitalism)

Why do you want the government to take more of your money? Wouldn't you rather use it spend it on yourself?

Why do you want your boss to appropriate the value of the products/services you produce? Wouldn't you rather it benefit yourself and the community?

The only people you ever need is your family, friends, neighbours and the people around you.

What....? So the handfull of you will all fulfil all the roles socially-necessary including doctors, plumbers, electricians, construction workers, teachers, factory workers, miners, transport workers, etc. etc.

If someone wants to give to another person then it should be through voluntary means

*whispers* that is, of course, excluding the boss *whispers*

Nobody needs government welfare

Nobody needs capitalistic exploitation and management of their life

If you want something then get a job and save up.

I want something a job and any income can't provide for me, I want the abolition of work (qua wage labour) and the abolition of all class.

You know something, I think ASNSWR217 has a point when he says "go and experience the real world rather then bourgeiose [sic] north shore". Your outlook is diametrically opposed to mine (and to a lesser extent to that of ASNSWR127). The reason for that is quite simple, we have very different positions in the system of social production and very different life experiences in relation to it. My guess is you do live in north Sydney, have both parents working in professional occupations (which are not necessarily non-working class may I note, the "middle class" is a bourgeois gradation based on income and not necessarily part of a Marxian analysis) and you have probably never had a job or at least any direct experience with the class struggle in your entire life. I think it is because of this that you think as you, and after all it's not surprising.

The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness. - Marx, Preface to the Critique of Political Economy​

 

[Trefoil]

zstar: "I don't need the welfare system so neither do you!"