How does Europe compete with such unproductive workers?

How much a given worker makes in a capitalist society is a function of how easy it is to replace him. Which is to say how common his particular skill set is in society which is further a function of how easy it is to acquire that skill set. The less time and effort it takes you to learn a given skill set the less anyone will pay you to use it.

It is called the law of supply and demand. the only equitable way to raise wages and the only way that has no negative lasting effects on the economy is to increase the number of Jobs.

 

i don't think that is 100% correct. i know people from various groups who have a strong sense of community - including people who are reminiscent of the hippies of the sixties. some of these people are quite anarchic in their thinking, and involved in protest movements, yet I see them as having sound values towards eaxh other - and towards other people.

they tend not to be very materialistic.

I don't necessarily want to hold them up as an example of what we should be like, but they seem to have far more of a sense of community spirit than a lot of people who ezpuse "old fashioned values" while focussing on amassing material wealth.

community is about caring and sharing. its fear that stands in the way of this - and maybe an obsession with possessions is a contributing factor to that fear.

you may not need to be attacked to get that sense of community happening, we see a lot of people helping each other in the community during natural disasters.

 

Europeis more civilised than America and has wider intelligent support.

 

Europe is more civilised than America and has wider intelligent support.

 

True about helping each other out brings unity..the Joplin, MO & Alabama et al tornadoes, as well as New Orleans flooding from a hurricane, did bring Americans together across the country.

But the utopian communes of the 60's hippies was a proof of failure, and most disbanded and had multiple probs: as in not carrying one's weight, no fixed sexual partners, and drugs dont expand one's mind as they would like ppl to believe.

So Hippies, and also the OWS crowd may have a 'couple of good points,' they still produce a failed utopian society; and as Margaret Thatcher would say, "Socialism is fine until you run out of other ppl's $$$." Too many utopian deadbeats to succeed long term..

 

In most cases workers get more in pay and benefits than their labor contributes to production.

The actual fruits of a worker's labor is the amount that worker could produce without any of the capital - tools, equipment, etc. - that the business owner contributes to production.

 

"Europe is more civilised than America and has wider intelligent support."

That could be debated. A continent that came up with fascism, Nazism, socialism, and Communism has little room to throw stones.

 

What wrong has Anarchism or Comunism?

 

there is an assumption that "hippies" are promiscuous drug takers. I don't necessarily find this is correct aamong those i am referring to. they are "alternative," but don't live in communes. many work - often in professional jobs.

its not all or nothing, black or white, straight or alternative OD. you can be multifaceted.

 

lols - if that were true, who would employ anyone?

 

You mean 'hippie wannabes,' huh?! They still like the 60's garb et al, but not being a poor deadbeat! Still it's all utopian based, and unfortunately for them they are but grasping at the wind, as utopia wont be realized until the Millennium, i.e. not being of man, but of God [sorry, Cass, but I dont put God 'on the shelf' as many fair-weather Christians do ]

 

Europe is a diverse group of countries with different cultures but yes, generally they are more civilized than (the majority of) Americans. There are some crappy "uncivilized" European countries, charicterised by their poor education systems and lack of social programs - like America.
The truth is Socialist and Communist theory's goals are noble - most people agree with that even if they're ardent capitalists.

And Nazism, fascism etc are really just a combination of inherently ugly ideas that've had support in a lot of countries. Before and leading up to the Nazi era there was a huge amount of antisematism in America, do a bit of research into Walt Disney and see what you discover
And what about the KKK?
What about all of the dictators America has helped install?

 

Their labor still has value, but the business owner is able to increase the value of that labor - which is where profit comes from.

For illustration, I'll use the same example that Karl Marx liked to use:

A man on his own with nothing but a bunch of yarn may be able to weave about a yard of fabric in a day.
The business owner provides him a loom. Now he can weave about six yards a day. The contribution of the business owner made the worker's labor six times more valuable. Thus the business owner's contribution is equal to 5 yards and the worker's contribution is equal to 1.
Now the business owner provides an electric weaving machine. This can run 36 yards a day. The business owner's contribution is now 35 yards, the worker's is still 1.

In most situations, the business owner splits the increase with the worker so both people get more income due to the increased productivity. Thus the worker is usually paid more than the value of his contribution.

 

Where did the owner get the equipment? Did he make it himself?

Oh, I guess he bought it using money gained by exploiting the workers. So all he contributes to the group is buying equipment on the behalf of the workers and pocketing a hugely unfair proportion of the profit gained compared to the minimal effort he used shopping with their money.
He contributes less, and is rewarded more.

 

In many cases, the business owner got the money for the equipment by working and saving his own money. The workers could also save their own money, buy their own loom and go into business for themselves.

But that doesn't work within your Marxist philosophy, does it?

 

Let me get this straight:
You're saying that the business owner often gets the money for the equipment by joining and working with the workers? Why would he be a business owner?

 

Business owners rarely start their lives as business owners. They start as workers where they save money and learn the skills that they will need to start their business. Even then, they usually work for the business for several years (often with zero pay) while the business is starting out.

You act as if you believe that a business owner wakes up one morning and decides to start a business, so he goes out and buys a building, a bunch of equipment, hires a bunch of workers, then suddenly starts making money. Businesses don't start that way.

 

I was not arguing that all business owners start out as business owners.

Just as I don't argue that all dictators start out as dictators.

 

So you accept that the initial capital, such as the loom, comes as a product of the business owner's labor. The owner then shares the profit from the increased production that the looms creates with the worker. From part of the owner's share of that increased production he will buy an automatic weaving machine, further increasing the productivity and increasing his profit.

No where in any of those exchanges is any worker exploited. In fact the worker benefits because he also gets a share of the benefits of the increased productivity provided by the contribution of the business owner.

 

A continent that got rid of both fascism and State Capitalism is a place where we can debate it, too. We don't have to spend our time saluting flags and waffling about this wunnerful country of ours.

 

You are of the belief that systematically stealing the capital produced from the workers is not only justified, but somehow a fairer arrangement for the workers than the workers getting the fruits of their labor and democratically electing leaders from amongst themselves who are rewarded according to what they contribute.

 

Perhaps people are coming to their senses and realising that 'honouring' a flag in lockstep allegiance is actually rather silly. You're right; you don't live in the America of your Fathers. This is 2012, and societal mores, attitudes and patterns of behaviour have all changed long since. Fortunately poverty, disease, slavery and puritanism are largely things of the past...

 

There is nothing in the current system preventing a group of workers putting together a business in exactly the same model as you describe. They can get together, pool resources, buy capital, vote in their own leadership, vote on compensation - any of the above.

The problem is that no workers seem to be willing to do so, or that every such attempt has failed.

 

Just got back from Europe in May. They're happy. They live decent lives, they're openly affectionate, they take the time to talk to each other and they have the time to spend with their wives and kids and lovers. They have their own history, their own culture, their own way of doing things. The women bathe topless in the sun and gay couples walk down the street with their arms wrapped around each other. Nobody even notices. They have a long, checkered history of having a stick up their ass and they finally decided it wasn't worth it.

Trust me, they have nothing to learn from us.

 

A few have been quite successful, so I don't know where you're coming from. We want a socialist enonomy though, not just socialist workplaces. We're forced to compete in the capitalist system when we want to produce things directly for use. And naturally we can't compete with the big businesses in a system designed for them.

Besides, what happens if we claim the means of production that is our right? We get arrested because apparently the business "owner" legally owns it.