Capitalism, A Worker's Best Friend?

I am not, nor have I ever been, a landlord, slum or otherwise. I did own my own business for a few years, but I was the only employee, and health issues have rendered me for now and at least the midrange future, unemployed and unemployable. But if/when I do get back into the job market, I expect it of myself to carry my own weight, and to do whatever job I might get as per the job description. If I'm unwilling or unable to, I deserve to be fired.

Seems like your communist ass expects to get paid for just existing. I do not. While I never "expected" to be in the situation I am now, I did prepare for it just in case. Perhaps you should as well.

 

As a socialist, I have no love for nationalism. It's used to herd, using false blame gaming to ensure the elite go unchallenged.

 

More accurate is Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and to add to that, the amount of corruption will always follow how concentrated the power is.
Anti-Capitalist always complain about too much power and corruption by owners of production...and their cure for that is to concentrate power even more by giving ownership and lawmaking to the SAME people. At least with capitalism owners and lawmakers are different people. The problem we have today is Americans pay little attention to anything until they are standing at the precipice of their demise. Then all of a sudden they want action, and then they get settled again, and the process starts over.
Also adding to this greatly is the establishment has done a fantastic job over the past 30 years of marginalizing patriotism. Indeed to the young leftist everywhere - someone who is a patriot...proud to be an American is seen as intolerant, possibly a racist and unenlightened. This is madness.

 

See analysis by the likes of Galbraith, where oligopoly can only be understood by referring to the breakdown between the distinction between private and public sectors. Next see the analysis into market socialism, removing the negative impact of oligopoly and reducing the power of central government through worker ownership.

 

Worker ownership... you are talking about a revolution. Military enforced revolution. And those pretty much never go the direction they started out in. Name a single "Peoples Revolution" that didn't end in totalitarianism or dictatorship.
So a guy who owns, say a printing company, been in business for 2 generations. He has all the risk, works 60-70 hrs a week, maybe even has his house on the line for borrowed money for capital investment. So...one day he loses everything so his employees can take over?
Really?

 

A tad melodramatic! I'm actually talking about the protection of property rights: i.e. the value of one's labour should go to oneself. You've simply confused yourself by assuming anti-capitalism is really just support for state capitalism.

And this doesn't impact on small and medium sized enterprises. It refers to the drivers of exploitation: big business.

 

uh... you do realize that profit is not an option right?
If each employee shares wholly in the profits, then the company is always broke.
But let's say "the people" decide that printing companies need to install strict environmental equipment that will cost on average $150,000. Who is going to pay for that?? The employees??

 

A nonsensical claim. We already know that worker owned companies have higher productivity levels. They just don't make additional profit through exploitation.

Weird effort, given private enterprise is characterised by the moral hazard in pollution costs. You'd have to show that worker ownership leads to lower investment levels. It doesn't. Indeed, its neo-liberalism which has driven an environment where firms are more short termist (and subsequently more reliant on government subsidies for R&D)

 

Not always true. And EOB's do better as small to medium sized companies. And they often pay less to employees than standard companies of their size. You have also probably saw the studies that show higher absentee rates and SOME with higher turnover rates.

 

I'm going by the empirical evidence. Best I can do! Of course its also predicted by economic theory, even the Austrian School (given hierarchy will corrupt information flows and increase problems associated with distributed knowledge).

So they're more productive, but pay less? Yep, that'll work!

Nope. Why don't you present these studies?

Of course you're continuing to show inconsistency. If absenteeism was higher, we'd expect lower productivity.

 

... you are coming from the theory side (or seeming to) and I am coming from the practical side.
If you care to know background, otherwise you can skip this.
I started out many years ago in middle management, then upper-middle then finally a department head of a large company from late 80's through 2000. In 2000 after being exhausted of the companies indecisive board I left to run a company for a different corporation. One that was known for providing considerable autonomy to GM's. I was quite successful, too successful. My division was out profiting all others, but we were not the core of what the company did. So in 2014...the board sold my company. The new corporation cored in what we did (printing) and was really only interested in the book. Everything that I built was destroyed. Gone in a few months. All due to jealousies and rifts created by a non core company outdoing what the entire company is known for.
Why am I telling you this?
Discussing theories and studies, you will out do me. Discussing practical, and experience in the understanding of how companies operate I will out do you. In the end we will never agree. You will not give up your ideas of how you believe things should be, and I won't ignore the reality of how things actually are.

 

Wrong! I started with the empirical evidence. I just widened it to include Austrian economics. That was deliberate, given your position is based on ignoring the reality of authoritarianism.

You seem to think you can come out with inconsistency and blame practicality. You can't. For example, if absenteeism was a problem, productivity wouldn't be higher. That's just basic sense.

Now we could compare 'real world' credentials (I'm a businessman and successful entrepreneur), but that would be futile. I will simply continue to make valid economic argument and acknowledge the holes in your approach. You haven't understood the alternatives to capitalism. Simple as.

 

I'm a national socialist not a communist.

You sound like an aging boomer that has lost all connection with reality.

I suppose you think individuals should work two to three part time jobs just to make ends meat only instead in this wonderful economy year eleven of the so called economic recovery you're just lucky enough to find one part time job because the jobs are simply not there. In the rural town I live in there's a huge industrial factory complex that has remained abandoned for fifteen plus years.

You expect people to do all these fantastic things with wages stagnant the last forty five years, the nation deindustrialized, and about sixty five percent of the nation's manufacturing outsourced overseas. In short people like you sir are delusional.

 

There's nothing wrong at all with outsourcing. You continue to allow your nationalism to disrupt relevant economic comment.

There are issues with 'race to the bottom' multinationals, but that just shows how reliance on the nation state- without real socialism and not the extreme right wing drivel you've referred to- fails.

 

There's nothing wrong with job outsourcing? Are you serious?

There's only one way to deal with these so called multinationals or internationalists and it certainly isn't playing paddy cakes with them. There needs to rules and laws in place through enforcement concerning corporations or businesses, very strict ones.

 

Yep. Its basic business sense (and typically means higher domestic productivity as home workers are used more efficiently)

You merely want business to suffer (which will then mean workers suffer). If you were really interested in the worker, you'd be calling for real socialism.

 

Workers used more efficiently how exactly?

No, I'm interested in protecting the interests of the working class and the majority of working people where those with financial capital need to be kept in check from completely ruining an entire nation or society. View the current dilemma of the United States for details.

 

Through outsourcing. It can be seen as more finetuned application of comparative advantage (ensuring gains for both foreign and domestic worker).

We can refer to problems associated with outsourcing, whereby short term profiteering is adopted by a firm failing to understand long term consequences (such as increased risk of hold-up). However, that's really a problem with the capitalist paradigm. With, or without, out-sourcing; it wouldn't matter. The firm will twin inefficiency and inequity.

We both know that isn't true. The extreme right only play lip service to working class problems. Its about manipulating folk towards their warped blame-game cretinous nationalism. For real economic change, socialist political economy is a must.

 

maybe in right wing fantasy;

for the left, it makes no sense to reward lousy capitalists who can Only make it on Cheap labor in our more expensive, First World.

 

Same difference.

Wrong on both counts.

That is precisely what I expect. If you're having trouble finding work, perhaps the fact that you don't know the difference between the word meet and the word meat might be part of the cause. And in case you haven't read the news recently, unemployment is literally the lowest it's been since I was born. YOUR expectation that others should work to make YOUR ends MEET is the misguided one.

 

I am not concerned with the interests of the foreign worker in that it is up to their nation for foreign workers to make strides. Now I certainly don't believe in exploitative practices concerning foreign workers in other nations as practiced by international capitalists, I believe in equitable international trade where ideally nobody is economically exploited.

No, my concerns are for the domestic worker of my nation in that I hold the interests of my nation first and foremost.

There are many problems with international capitalism but there is also the same for international forms of socialism like communism. I have no intention of trading one bad system [international capitalism] for another equally horrible one [international communism].

You sir with your antagonism towards nationalism sound like an international marxist or communist, am I right in this assertion?

Explain to me without all sorts of abstract economic jargon how under your version of socialism job outsourcing is a good thing.

The rightwing you describe is that of capitalism, I represent the socialist rightwing of things where there is no comparison. Your stance is that of a false equivalence.

Exactly how is your internationalist stance of socialist political economy better than my nationalist stance of political economy? If you're going to make such claims I am of course going to call you out on them.

 

Well recently they've been discussing it a lot, look it up.

That's what I really like about these so called rightwing of capitalists that always complain about foreign immigration yet at the same time their entire economic model can't exist without foreign cheap labor. The hypocrisy is mind boggling.

 

National socialism is the same as communism? As usual I have to laugh at you so called libertarian and capitalist intellectuals.

The reason you guys like equating us as being the same is because you're worried about national socialism making in grounds politically all over again and you should be to be honest. You have no defense against national socialism which is why you lump us up with communists even though we ourselves hate communism.

I'm wrong? Probably an indoctrinated son of a boomer then.

Actually ends meat is another variation of the phrase ends meet but I am betting anything doing with literature isn't your forte in the same way economics isn't given your lack of ability to make an argument economically or your lack of knowledge concerning the horrendous economic practices of the current United States.

Unemployment is at historical lows? Only if you believe in manipulated or deceptive statistical metrics revised and controlled by the Federal Reserve with all the government bureaus that work under it concerning economic employment data. I stopped believing in all official government economic data posted publicly in 2007.

You're just another misguided MAGA [or is that MIGA?] supporter of Donald Trump that doesn't have a clue.

 

All workers would lose out. We already see that with Trump and how he's pandered to cretinous nationalism.

Its a fact that trade is skewed against the developing world (with even the World Bank acknowledging that trade harms sub-Saharan populations). Those demanding for equitable trade, if they aren't from those countries, are not talking reality.

I've already demonstrated that isn't the case. Outsourcing can be deemed to be a finetuning of comparative advantage. Productivity of the domestic workforce is found to increase. That should lead to increased wage.

International communism? Is this non-economic far right comment?

Nope. Its just basic sense. Nationalism is used to avoid genuine economic comment. Its political manipulation. If you're a nationalist then you'll struggle to give any logical comment on this sub-forum. You will always gravitate to blubbering blame-gaming. Ultimately that's the point of your far right stance: to use injustice to demand more injustice

That you sneer at economics here is revealing somewhat. Jowever, outsourcing has nothing to do with socialism. I've already justified it through reference to comparative advantage. The importance of socialism is that it eliminates any short term profiteering associated with outsourcing (i.e. divide and conquer is eliminated as owner and worker is no longer divorced).

Utter nonsense. I've seen your nature, as neatly illustrated by your feeble anti-semitism. Socialists fought against your ilk at the Battle of Cable Street (anniversary was yesterday!). They will continue to do so.

You don't have any political economy. A nationalist merely looks to half-truths to spread their hate virus.

 

I guess what I am saying is I am not particularly interested in discussing theory of things that isn't going to happen. Not in our lifetimes, nor our children's...perhaps our grandchildren.
What I do want to discuss with all comers is how corporatism has fundamentally changed America in the past 40 years.
When I was a kid, a typical drive would be something like this... and this applies throughout suburban and midsized town America.
You start in the city center. Every storefront was occupied. Approximately 80% was locally owned businesses. Driving out of the center and into the retail areas, again... every building was occupied. Approximately 70% was locally owned, including regional chains. Drive a little further... now you start seeing industry. Large, medium sized and small manufacturers... approximately again 70% was local/regionally owned. About a 1/3 were large corporate manufacturing, auto...steel...coal...ship building...whatever the region holds. Drive still further out and you reach the rural areas....farms. 100% locally owned, most multi-generational.
Most homes (67%) were single income.
Today....take the same drive.... city center depending on what town/city is perhaps 40-50% empty or converted to apartments. Most still locally owned....the rent is cheap.
Driving out to retail areas...approximately 90% corporate owned. Box stores one after another...Anytown, USA... all the same.
Drive out to undustrial areas... abandoned. Empty parking lots and dilapidated factories. Long gone. Many were torn down to build apartment buildings.
Even some of the large corporate manufacturing plants are gone.
Roads are in bad shape, infrastructure is crumbling... tax base is disappearing.
In the late 1970's America's economic engine was dramatically changed. One day...the customer was the focus of business. The next... the focus became the shareholder.
And here we are. Wealth concentrated to an extraordinary small number of people. The investor class. Not the wannabe investor with 5 or low 6 figures...nah... the 7, 8 or even 10 figure guys. Few...but own an inconceivable percentage of production.