Politics as usual using a 1930s model. Now its Fascist (right) against the Socialist (left).

[untermensche]

But you're wrong -- if there had been a democratic system in place as opposed to our existing non-dictatorial system, the flight of US jobs to China would have gone on in much the same way, if a bit slower. If a company was owned and run by workers they would not move it to China and put the workers out of a job, true; but they would charge more than a Chinese company, they wouldn't grow and hire more workers, there'd be a lot of unemployment in the U.S., and a bunch of those unemployed Americans would start their own co-op: an import/export co-op specializing in bringing cheap Chinese goods to the U.S. and undercutting that company owned and run by American workers who wouldn't move it to China and put themselves out of a job.

Rigid top down control is called a dictatorial system.

It is the system in place in capitalist work environments.

There would be no need for cheap Chinese goods when people are enjoying the fruits of their labor instead of suffering under a "market wage".

The people in China would have been allowed to start their own system.

Instead of having capitalism shoved down their throats by a totalitarian government.

 

[Bomb#20]

But you're wrong -- if there had been a democratic system in place as opposed to our existing non-dictatorial system, the flight of US jobs to China would have gone on in much the same way, if a bit slower. If a company was owned and run by workers they would not move it to China and put the workers out of a job, true; but they would charge more than a Chinese company, they wouldn't grow and hire more workers, there'd be a lot of unemployment in the U.S., and a bunch of those unemployed Americans would start their own co-op: an import/export co-op specializing in bringing cheap Chinese goods to the U.S. and undercutting that company owned and run by American workers who wouldn't move it to China and put themselves out of a job.

Rigid top down control is called a dictatorial system.

It's called that by you, since you determinedly speak Humpty Dumpty. In English, having a ruler whose word is law is called a dictatorial system. Top-down companies in capitalist countries are not dictatorships, no matter how many times you recite the accusation.

Corporate CEOs are not above the law. If they commit crimes they go to jail; if they violate their employees' workplace rights they get sued and they lose and they pay millions in damages. Dictators are not answerable to anyone. CEOs are answerable to courts and to legislatures. Democratic legislatures. "Democracy" doesn't mean decisions are made by popular vote at whichever level somebody pulls out of his ass. You might as well claim Beverley Hills is a dictatorship because its residents aren't allowed to pay their gardeners $1.00/hour by voting to. They have to follow the law passed by the people's elected representatives in Sacramento. Just like the CEO of Apple has to follow the law passed by the people's elected representatives in Sacramento.

There would be no need for cheap Chinese goods when people are enjoying the fruits of their labor instead of suffering under a "market wage".

Well, in the first place, that's ridiculous. If you succeed in outlawing private employment for a market wage and imposing your vision of workplace democracy on the rest of us, unemployment will skyrocket. All those impoverished victims of your success, enjoying the zero fruits of their zero labor, will need cheap Chinese goods more than ever.

And in the second place, what's your point? Suppose you were right that there would be no need for cheap Chinese goods. Do you think that would mean nobody would buy cheap Chinese goods? How would that happen? Would Californians spontaneously become unwilling to buy from Chinese people if they had the option of paying double to Nebraskans? Would you outlaw imports at the same time you outlaw market wage labor? Would you prohibit people from having things you decide they don't need?

The people in China would have been allowed to start their own system.

Instead of having capitalism shoved down their throats by a totalitarian government.

Not seeing how American workplace democracy would make that happen. The people in China always have something shoved down their throats by a totalitarian government. Sometimes it's feudalism; sometimes it's communism; sometimes it's the current capitalism/communism/mercantilism/cronyism meld. Nobody who wants to give them a vote has the power to make it happen.

 

[untermensche]

It's called that by you, since you determinedly speak Humpty Dumpty. In English, having a ruler whose word is law is called a dictatorial system. Top-down companies in capitalist countries are not dictatorships, no matter how many times you recite the accusation.

How is the word of those at the top of the corporation not the law of the corporation?

By your own definition they are dictators within the corporation. Nobody has ever claimed they are dictators over society as a whole, just a small part of it. But the immorality of dictatorship does not end at the society level.

Corporate CEOs are not above the law.

They are not dictators over society. But some have more power than national leaders.

You are making no point.

You are waving your arms and shouting a dictatorial power system is not a dictatorial power system.

 

[Bomb#20]

It's called that by you, since you determinedly speak Humpty Dumpty. In English, having a ruler whose word is law is called a dictatorial system. Top-down companies in capitalist countries are not dictatorships, no matter how many times you recite the accusation.

How is the word of those at the top of the corporation not the law of the corporation?

Ooh, tough one. Hmm, let me think...

If the word of those at the top says "Agree that you'll never quit and take a job with our competitor or we won't hire you.", that won't stick. That will get their contract tossed aside as contrary to public policy and unenforceable.

If the word of those at the top says "Don't talk union to the other workers or you're fired.", that won't stick. That will get their asses stomped on for unfair labor practices.

If the word of those at the top says "Have sex with us or you're fired.", that won't stick. That will get their asses sued off for sexual harassment.

If the word of those at the top says "Work for $2.00/hour or you're fired.", that won't stick. That will get their asses prosecuted for minimum wage law violation.

If the word of those at the top of the corporation were the law of the corporation, all those words would stick. So no, the word of those at the top of the corporation not the law of the corporation.

By your own definition they are dictators within the corporation.

Nice try.

You are waving your arms and shouting a dictatorial power system is not a dictatorial power system.

So being uppity enough to contradict you and post a counterargument qualifies as "shouting" now, does it?

 

[Harry Bosch]

But you're wrong -- if there had been a democratic system in place as opposed to our existing non-dictatorial system, the flight of US jobs to China would have gone on in much the same way, if a bit slower. If a company was owned and run by workers they would not move it to China and put the workers out of a job, true; but they would charge more than a Chinese company, they wouldn't grow and hire more workers, there'd be a lot of unemployment in the U.S., and a bunch of those unemployed Americans would start their own co-op: an import/export co-op specializing in bringing cheap Chinese goods to the U.S. and undercutting that company owned and run by American workers who wouldn't move it to China and put themselves out of a job.

Rigid top down control is called a dictatorial system.

It is the system in place in capitalist work environments.

There would be no need for cheap Chinese goods when people are enjoying the fruits of their labor instead of suffering under a "market wage".

The people in China would have been allowed to start their own system.

Instead of having capitalism shoved down their throats by a totalitarian government.

You don't know/understand China very well! No one tells them what to do. They converted to capitalistic economy in order to compete with the west. They were tired of falling behind...

 

[untermensche]

Ooh, tough one. Hmm, let me think...

If the word of those at the top says "Agree that you'll never quit and take a job with our competitor or we won't hire you.", that won't stick. That will get their contract tossed aside as contrary to public policy and unenforceable.

You don't seem to comprehend the idea of power WITHIN the organization.

Dictatorial power is not absolute power over everything. It never was. That is a child's understanding of dictatorship.

The King of England didn't tell the peasants of France what to do. He didn't tell people how to plow their fields.

If the word of those at the top says "Don't talk union to the other workers or you're fired.", that won't stick. That will get their asses stomped on for unfair labor practices.

The asshole at the top giving orders is not the dictator of society. They are just the dictator of their little scummy dictatorship. They have to follow the laws of society.

That does not mean they are not the dictator within their scummy little dictatorial scheme. They have the power to make any rules within the organization within the laws of society.

These scumbag dictators can decide to move all the jobs, except theirs, somewhere else. Union or no union.

How is that not absolute power within the organization?

If you can just wipe away the entire work force and move and then trap others within your scummy scheme how is that not absolute power?

If the word of those at the top says "Have sex with us or you're fired.", that won't stick. That will get their asses sued off for sexual harassment.

More of the 3 year old understanding of dictatorship.

If the word of those at the top says "Work for $2.00/hour or you're fired.", that won't stick. That will get their asses prosecuted for minimum wage law violation.

You can probably be told they are not absolute dictators a hundred times and that no dictator ever was an absolute dictator but it won't matter.

You love the very idea of a dictatorial power structure and will defend your love any way you can. As humans have always defended that which they love.

If the word of those at the top of the corporation were the law of the corporation, all those words would stick. So no, the word of those at the top of the corporation not the law of the corporation.

The dictator(s) decide the direction of the organization. They decide what the organization will do. They take the lions share for themselves and give others as little as possible.

And if they want to they will fire all the workers that created the capital they use to move to China.

You are waving your arms and shouting a dictatorial power system is not a dictatorial power system.

So being uppity enough to contradict you and post a counterargument qualifies as "shouting" now, does it?

Childish misunderstandings and a love of dictatorial power structures are not arguments.

 

[untermensche]

But you're wrong -- if there had been a democratic system in place as opposed to our existing non-dictatorial system, the flight of US jobs to China would have gone on in much the same way, if a bit slower. If a company was owned and run by workers they would not move it to China and put the workers out of a job, true; but they would charge more than a Chinese company, they wouldn't grow and hire more workers, there'd be a lot of unemployment in the U.S., and a bunch of those unemployed Americans would start their own co-op: an import/export co-op specializing in bringing cheap Chinese goods to the U.S. and undercutting that company owned and run by American workers who wouldn't move it to China and put themselves out of a job.

Rigid top down control is called a dictatorial system.

It is the system in place in capitalist work environments.

There would be no need for cheap Chinese goods when people are enjoying the fruits of their labor instead of suffering under a "market wage".

The people in China would have been allowed to start their own system.

Instead of having capitalism shoved down their throats by a totalitarian government.

You don't know/understand China very well! No one tells them what to do. They converted to capitalistic economy in order to compete with the west. They were tired of falling behind...

It was shoved down their throats. Dictators at the top decided to force the system onto the people.

It was a safe way to develop since the US attacks any other way to develop.

All China proves is that capitalism and totalitarian government have no conflict.

Ain't that great!

 

[PyramidHead]

Workplaces are not tyrannical, because if you don't like your boss or the way they run your job, you can just leave and go to another company! And this is obviously preferable to workplace democracy, just like in the rest of society. If you don't like what your president or senator does, just leave and go somewhere else. You exist to serve them. They should not be expected to change their behavior to fit your needs.

Why even have elections? If you want to run nations like businesses, then you shouldn't expect the right to vote for the CEO unless you're on the board of the directors, and to be among that crew you need to be voted upon by the majority shareholders, and to be one of those you have to already be rich. If you're not among that minority, pick where you want to live based on what they decide to provide you and stop making silly noises about democracy.

If there is enough consumer demand for a government that doesn't treat its citizens like shit, market forces will naturally produce one that fits the bill, without any input required by the population itself. Then you can just move there. It's amazing that all the developed nations of the world are still bothering with this idea that ordinary people should have a say in how their lives go, beyond the ability to select from a menu of powerful elites who will decide those things on their behalf. There's bound to be one that has all the right policies. Packing up your family and relocating there should be a cinch. Right?

To be generous, I'll even grant you this: if some country out there still wants to indulge in the counterproductive fantasy of holding elections, they can do so. But we should give people the choice of whether they want to live in a place where they can contribute to how things are done, or whether they prefer the businesslike and totally non-tyrannical model of living under whoever is best at following the market trends of what citizen-consumers would like from their government-corporations, which they express by "voting" with their residency-dollars (and of course, literal dollars). Since there is clearly no moral or social benefit to one system over the other, I guess the only rational course of action is to be neutral with regard to whether governments include an element of democracy or not. It's only fair.

 

[untermensche]

Workplaces are not tyrannical, because if you don't like your boss or the way they run your job, you can just leave and go to another company!

That is the definition of tyranny.

You have no say and if you don't like it leave if you can.