Proposed California "ethnic studies" curriculum to teach that capitalism is oppressive ...

[Loren Pechtel]

Ok, so, you keep asking for proof value extraction is a thing, and we keep pointing out the fact that people who do no work are taking the surplus labor from people who do work. It happens. We don't accept the paradigm wherein the people who made a decision of who gets resources may be said to "own" both the resources and the value of things made by them.

We are human. ALL these rules about ownership and what "belongs" to whom are made up. They didn't exist until someone decided to try doing things that way and it kind-of-worked for some of them.

What do you not get about "workers have a right to be part of the conversation as to the meaning, implications, and permanence of ownership"?

Then go fairly starve to death.

The problem with your approach is that there needs to be some reason for people to allocate resources to creating the means of production. (Note that having the state do so has a very bad track record.) Remove the benefit of doing so and virtually none of it will happen and everyone will starve.

Straw-man. I am not saying to remove it. I am saying to force those who benefit from doing it to continue working to continue seeing benefits. Else they can. Go fairly starve to death.

You misunderstand.

I'm saying that if you remove the incentive to invest there will be almost no investment--and that will bring down civilization.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If person A wants to accept a wage from person B to do certain work, why do you get to interfere in their relationship?

PersonB is sitting on all the food and guns. Person A does not want to die. He takes whatever bargain that Person B offers, knowing his choices are work for Person B's offered wage, die of starvation, or die of bloodloss.

If it were only A and B you would be right. You're describing the company town, not a competitive marketplace.

 

[ruby sparks]

When you were last hired to a permanent position, would you say that you had control over what sort of work you would be doing and what constituted fair compensation for that work? Not complete control, but effectively equal to that of your employer?

Equal to the employer? No, and I don't see why I should have. From where did you get the idea that they should?

Workers generally get certain rights and responsibilities, and employers get certain other rights and responsibilities, and as long as there's reasonableness to the contract between them, I don't see why employers and workers should be put on an equal footing, unless a particular company or institution wants to do it that way. I was an employee for most of my working life and now I run my own business. There are definitely pros and cons to both.

 

[ruby sparks]

A whopping 96% of businesses in the UK employ less than 10 people. In the USA, 90% employ less than 20. Typically, business owners work, for example, longer hours, significantly so during the early years of establishing the business, and often afterwards. They also take the greater financial risks if the business goes pear-shaped. The idea that employers or owners are generally lazy, entitled fat cats who simply sit back on their haunches and watch the money earned by exploiting others flowing in, as per the socialist stereotype, is just not correct.

 

[Politesse]

Workers generally get certain rights and responsibilities, and employers get certain other rights and responsibilities, and as long as there's reasonableness to the contract between them

What guarantees that there is any sort of "reasonableness", if the contract is entirely "take it or leave it" and explicitly designed to strip workers of any sort of rights or legal representation that isn't controlled by the company? What is reasonable in the first place about calling something "voluntary" when the parties are so unequal that one suffers no real consequences if the contract fails while the other either starves or finds an equally unfair deal with a different company?

 

[PyramidHead]

Attributing outcomes to individual actors vs. attributing outcomes to societal roles is the majority of what separates shallow analysis from correct and sophisticated analysis.

 

[ruby sparks]

What guarantees that there is any sort of "reasonableness", if the contract is entirely "take it or leave it" and explicitly designed to strip workers of any sort of rights or legal representation that isn't controlled by the company? What is reasonable in the first place about calling something "voluntary" when the parties are so unequal that one suffers no real consequences if the contract fails while the other either starves or finds an equally unfair deal with a different company?

You are citing a particular type of example. I myself do not know of any examples of it, to be honest, though they surely exist. I do not think they are the norm in business. If they are in your country, I'm surprised. They aren't here. There are many protections for workers here. There are in your country too as far as I know, though I believe they are lesser. They are also lesser here than they used to be. I think they are still more prevalent in other parts of Western Europe.

 

[Politesse]

What guarantees that there is any sort of "reasonableness", if the contract is entirely "take it or leave it" and explicitly designed to strip workers of any sort of rights or legal representation that isn't controlled by the company? What is reasonable in the first place about calling something "voluntary" when the parties are so unequal that one suffers no real consequences if the contract fails while the other either starves or finds an equally unfair deal with a different company?

You are citing a particular type of example. I myself do not know of any examples of it, to be honest, though they surely exist. I do not think they are the norm in business.

Then you've never been lower class in America. That was every entry level job available to me during the recession. Question a company policy? Fired. Talk to a union organizer? Fired. Want to contest the firing? Binding arbitration with a company-hired lawyer. No rights.

 

[ruby sparks]

Attributing outcomes to individual actors vs. attributing outcomes to societal roles is the majority of what separates shallow analysis from correct and sophisticated analysis.

What's that meant to mean? Should we analyse Scandinavia? We might find that some of the best, most equitable societies ever known are not socialist.

 

[ruby sparks]

What guarantees that there is any sort of "reasonableness", if the contract is entirely "take it or leave it" and explicitly designed to strip workers of any sort of rights or legal representation that isn't controlled by the company? What is reasonable in the first place about calling something "voluntary" when the parties are so unequal that one suffers no real consequences if the contract fails while the other either starves or finds an equally unfair deal with a different company?

You are citing a particular type of example. I myself do not know of any examples of it, to be honest, though they surely exist. I do not think they are the norm in business.

Then you've never been lower class in America. That was every entry level job available to me during the recession. Question a company policy? Fired. Talk to a union organizer? Fired. Want to contest the firing? Binding arbitration with a company-hired lawyer. No rights.

Sure, but we weren't talking about that. We were talking specifically about whether things should go as far as saying that workers in general should be equal to employers in general. The implication is owners/employers = exploitative baddies and workers = exploited goodies. To me that doesn't wash, even, from what I understand, in relation to the USA, where things do seem to be more stacked against workers (by which I mean employees specifically, given that most business owners appear to work very hard) than here or in Western Europe generally.

And if you think many bosses are tough to deal with, the business owner's customers and clients are too. If, as often happens, a big invoice is either not paid or is contested or delayed, an employer still generally has to pay the wages of his workforce in the meantime.

Imo there is nothing wrong in principle with employers and owners 'extracting profit' from workers. It's only a problem imo if it goes too far.

 

[Politesse]

Sure, but we weren't talking about that. We were talking specifically about whether things should go as far as saying that workers in general should be equal to employers in general.

In the specific matter of negotiating a work contract, yes. It has nothing to do with the moral character of either party, I don't think rights should be contingent on reputation either. And I don't really care how "tough" a company finds it to operate ethically, it's not as though they give a flying crap about how "tough" things are for me. Make the "hard decisions" if you like, but don't expect me to thank you for it or pretend that you did the right things by anyone but yourself. On the bright side, if you don't want to be a baddie, there's nothing to stop you personally from operating in an ethical fashion. Just spare me the Orwellian nonsense of calling things other than what they are and insisting that I agree with the relabeling.

 

[PyramidHead]

Attributing outcomes to individual actors vs. attributing outcomes to societal roles is the majority of what separates shallow analysis from correct and sophisticated analysis.

What's that meant to mean? Should we analyse Scandinavia? We might find that some of the best, most equitable societies ever known are not socialist.

It means that exploitation under capitalism is not a matter of bad bosses who are mean and greedy, it's a matter of things being set up so that in order to produce what society needs, a relatively small number of people must control the means of producing it and a relatively larger number of people must rent themselves out to produce it for the owners or face deprivation.

 

[Jarhyn]

A whopping 96% of businesses in the UK employ less than 10 people. In the USA, 90% employ less than 20. Typically, business owners work, for example, longer hours, significantly so during the early years of establishing the business, and often afterwards. They also take the greater financial risks if the business goes pear-shaped. The idea that employers or owners are generally lazy, entitled fat cats who simply sit back on their haunches and watch the money earned by exploiting others flowing in, as per the socialist stereotype, is just not correct.

I might point out that in my example, these owners that you describe, as a function of their work, still retain an outsized interest in their ownership through that outsized contribution of work. Further, loss of ownership has, at least in my presentations, been proposed as a function of extraction through dividend.

The only people for whom this creates an impact are "owners" who do none of the work and watch money earned by exploiting others flow in. They also happen to be the people for whom 99% of the money is flowing towards.

 

[ruby sparks]

Just spare me the Orwellian nonsense of calling things other than what they are and insisting that I agree with the relabeling.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[ruby sparks]

Attributing outcomes to individual actors vs. attributing outcomes to societal roles is the majority of what separates shallow analysis from correct and sophisticated analysis.

What's that meant to mean? Should we analyse Scandinavia? We might find that some of the best, most equitable societies ever known are not socialist.

It means that exploitation under capitalism is not a matter of bad bosses who are mean and greedy, it's a matter of things being set up so that in order to produce what society needs, a relatively small number of people must control the means of producing it and a relatively larger number of people must rent themselves out to produce it for the owners or face deprivation.

We disagree with what 'expolitation under capitalism' is. To you, it seems that working for a wage (call it renting yourself out if you like) = being exploited. I don't buy that. Plus, I'm not at all sure you have a better alternative. I think it's all a bit pie in the sky of an ideal world and quite possibly unworkable.

 

[ruby sparks]

A whopping 96% of businesses in the UK employ less than 10 people. In the USA, 90% employ less than 20. Typically, business owners work, for example, longer hours, significantly so during the early years of establishing the business, and often afterwards. They also take the greater financial risks if the business goes pear-shaped. The idea that employers or owners are generally lazy, entitled fat cats who simply sit back on their haunches and watch the money earned by exploiting others flowing in, as per the socialist stereotype, is just not correct.

I might point out that in my example, these owners that you describe, as a function of their work, still retain an outsized interest in their ownership through that outsized contribution of work. Further, loss of ownership has, at least in my presentations, been proposed as a function of extraction through dividend.

The only people for whom this creates an impact are "owners" who do none of the work and watch money earned by exploiting others flow in. They also happen to be the people for whom 99% of the money is flowing towards.

I'm not following your point.

For starters, who are the owners who do none of the work and watch money earned by exploiting others flow in? That appears to be some sort of caricature.

Out of interest, have you yourself ever tried to start or run a business for either yourself or that employed others? If so, how did that go?

 

[PyramidHead]

It means that exploitation under capitalism is not a matter of bad bosses who are mean and greedy, it's a matter of things being set up so that in order to produce what society needs, a relatively small number of people must control the means of producing it and a relatively larger number of people must rent themselves out to produce it for the owners or face deprivation.

We disagree with what 'expolitation under capitalism' is. To you, it seems that working for a wage (call it renting yourself out if you like) = being exploited. I don't buy that. Plus, I'm not at all sure you have a better alternative. I think it's all a bit pie in the sky of an ideal world and quite possibly unworkable.

I would recommend you read some actual Marxist theory, then. Not sure what else I can tell you.

 

[ruby sparks]

It means that exploitation under capitalism is not a matter of bad bosses who are mean and greedy, it's a matter of things being set up so that in order to produce what society needs, a relatively small number of people must control the means of producing it and a relatively larger number of people must rent themselves out to produce it for the owners or face deprivation.

We disagree with what 'expolitation under capitalism' is. To you, it seems that working for a wage (call it renting yourself out if you like) = being exploited. I don't buy that. Plus, I'm not at all sure you have a better alternative. I think it's all a bit pie in the sky of an ideal world and quite possibly unworkable.

I would recommend you read some actual Marxist theory, then. Not sure what else I can tell you.

For starters, the capitalism and indeed the class system that Marx was on about were not those of today. Quite apart from anything else (including dealing in abstract ideas and hypotheticals and ideologies) Marx is arguably way out of date.

 

[PyramidHead]

I would recommend you read some actual Marxist theory, then. Not sure what else I can tell you.

For starters, the capitalism that Marx was on about was not the same as today. Marx is arguably way out of date. But hey.

I bet you've read the Wikipedia entries of so many books.

 

[ruby sparks]

I would recommend you read some actual Marxist theory, then. Not sure what else I can tell you.

For starters, the capitalism that Marx was on about was not the same as today. Marx is arguably way out of date. But hey.

I bet you've read the Wikipedia entries of so many books.

I've read your posts. To me the ideas in them are not convincing, even if well-intended and noble. They're also a tad binary. I'm still in favour of a mixed capitalist/socialist system, not least because that's what appears to have actually worked best, outside the heads of people who think otherwise. Your alternatives are borderline mythical, and that's quite a big flaw, imo.