Why is it?

[manifold]

By "exploitation" I mean exactly that, taking full value and compensating for only part of the value, eg regarding labour. Capitalism works by exploiting the old idea of surplus value that goes back well before Marx.

With all due respect Diur, you're smoking some seriously high grade stuff right there. It might sound good in general and philosophical terms, but once you scratch the surface, you see that underneath is one massive, indefensible turd. What you are calling "exploitation" is what is commonly referred to as profit. And seriously, anyone that thinks that eliminating the profit motive is a good thing definitly has a screw loose.

In simplified terms, the following equation is essentially a truism:

material cost + labor cost + profit = selling price


What you are suggesting, IIUC, is that the profit (exploitative surplus value) variable should be zero and to keep the equation in balance, the elimination of profit must be offset by adjusting labor costs and/or selling price, assuming that material costs is a given. This is a completely unsustainable model since nobody with the capital to fund the operation has any incentive whatsoever to do so. And even if the "state" controlled said capital, it's still capital, and now you've gone and eliminated the one variable that provides any insight whatsoever as to how one endeavor compares with another when deciding the best uses for limited capital resources.

But here's where I'm going to take a left turn at Albequrque and lose just about everyone that's agreed with me so far. You see, I do agree with you that in the absence of constant vigilance protecting the best interests of labor, the natural drift of time will always be to shrink labor's overall piece of the pie. That is just an unavoidable aspect of human nature when those that control the capital seek to maximize the profit piece. To counter-balance this natural drift in the profit-driven capitalist model, there needs to be some institution of some kind that represents the collective best interests of labor. And if that ain’t gonna be unions, it’s gotta be government. What else is there? Arguing that it should be individual laborers looking out for themselves is a rather convenient, selfish, insincere and largely insidious pile of unrealistic bull shit.

IMO, true socialism is the Spruce Goose of economic models, too clumsy and ridiculously flawed to really ever take flight. However, true capitalism, over time, leads to an ever growing disadvantaged, ultimately impoverished, class left with no alternative other than to revolt.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

But here's where I'm going to take a left turn at Albequrque and lose just about everyone that's agreed with me so far. You see, I do agree with you that in the absence of constant vigilance protecting the best interests of labor, the natural drift of time will always be to shrink labor's overall piece of the pie. That is just an unavoidable aspect of human nature when those that control the capital seek to maximize the profit piece. To counter-balance this natural drift in the profit-driven capitalist model, there needs to be some institution of some kind that represents the collective best interests of labor. And if that ain’t gonna be unions, it’s gotta be government. What else is there? Arguing that it should be individual laborers looking out for themselves is a rather convenient, selfish, insincere and largely insidious pile of unrealistic bull shit.

IMO, true socialism is the Spruce Goose of economic models, too clumsy and ridiculously flawed to really ever take flight. However, true capitalism, over time, leads to an ever growing disadvantaged, ultimately impoverished, class left with no alternative other than to revolt.

So what's wrong with labor forming trade unions to represent themselves to counter-balance this "drift"?
Why should a nanny government step in? (other than as a legal referee)

 

[manifold]

So what's wrong with labor forming trade unions to represent themselves to counter-balance this "drift"?
Why should a nanny government step in? (other than as a legal referee)

Nothing.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Nothing.

Yet for some reason people think socialism is the only answer to the "evils" of capitalism...

 

[manifold]

Yet for some reason people think socialism is the only answer to the "evils" of capitalism...

True. But a lot of people also vehemently revile unions.

 

[rayboyusmc]

It's because, deep in the darkest recesses of their souls, they know that being liberal is really stupid. BUt they've invested some much energy into their liberalism, they can't just walk away. So they just try to hide it.

What an assinne right wing remark. You just described yourself.


I am a LIBERAL. I am proud of it. I am a moderate liberal in some areas and a more far left liberal in others.

GET A FUKKING LIFE. CONSERVATIVE OR LIBERAL ARE SIDES OF THE SAME COIN. RIGHT NOW THE LIBERAL POWER IS COMING BACK IN THE NORMAL PENDULUM MOVEMENT.

ANYONE WHO THINKS THAT THEIR SIDE HAS ALL THE CORRECT ANSWERS IS A BRAINDEAD BIGOT.

 

[Gunny]

True. But a lot of people also vehemently revile unions.

Because unions no longer function as designed. They represent perpetuation of the union, and their own bureaucracies. Their overhead is so high to maintain that bureaucracy that they price themselves out of business.

The IBEW here has at least 1k riding the pine because they won't bid small jobs. They don't pay enough to meet overhead.

While ideally the union is supposed to protect the worker, it is not doing so by pricing itself out of business and keeping it's members unemployed. Push comes to shove, we have to eat and pay the mortgage. The union's hold on this city which was prevalent in the 50s and 60s has been completely broken, and they did it to themselves.

 

[Diuretic]

With all due respect Diur, you're smoking some seriously high grade stuff right there. It might sound good in general and philosophical terms, but once you scratch the surface, you see that underneath is one massive, indefensible turd. What you are calling "exploitation" is what is commonly referred to as profit. And seriously, anyone that thinks that eliminating the profit motive is a good thing definitly has a screw loose.

............

I'm no economist so the finer points are well beyond me. But it seems to me that if there's no private ownership of the means of production that the equation is immediately changed. And as I've said, I don't see socialism as being imposed, if capitalism is working at any given time then it's not in crisis and there's no need for the emergency of socialism. Capitalism is a human invention, just like other forms of economy have been throughout human history, it's not immutable and when it reaches the end of its usefulnes – that is when the damage it does far outweighs the benefits it brings and it has brought many benefits – then it has to be replaced like any other broken artifact.

 

[Diuretic]

Yet for some reason people think socialism is the only answer to the "evils" of capitalism...

Just making a note - that isn't my position.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Your confusion is due to your reliance on slogans and labels. When your stereotype of "liberals" is challenged you become disoriented. You also have trouble assessing what's centre, left and right, probably due to the error of parallax from your position on the extreme right where everyone other than the lunar right look to be left.

Actually the center, at least in our two political parties, has largely disappeared. The radical left pretty much controls the Democratic party. The southern conservatives that use to provide a buffer to the hard left of the party pretty much bailed and went Republican in the 1980's leaving mostly the hard left in control of the party. At the same time, Republican party leadership became dominated by it's hard right. Barry Goldwater, the Gold Standard of conservatism in the 1960's would be labeled a liberal by Limbaugh and company today.

Most the the centrists today, like Ben Nelson a Dem and McCain (before the nomination) on the Rep side, are ridiculed by BOTH sides and not "standing for anything".

You are basically a Liberal today if:

1) You think that the "wealthy" do not pay their fair share even if the top 1% pay 38%, top 5% pay 57%, and the top 10% pay 70% of all federal taxes...

2) You think government programs and more regulations are the answer to our social ills.

3) You believe that individuals should generally not be held accountable for their actions, and that the collective is more important than the individual.

4) That spirituality or belief in a supreme being is a "primative" practice that has no place in a modern society.

5) That people are entitled to a minimum standard of living solely on the basis that they exist, regardless of what they do or the life choices they made along the way

6) Belief in victimhood. People don't make bad choices on their own because they are victimized by some societal ill or such.

7) That their nation is nothing more than a single member of the community of nations and should never do anything without the consent of at least a majority of that community.

Conservatives generally

1) Believe in the primacy of the individual and see very little value in the collective

2) Government is the problem not the solution to most societal ills. Most government programs only make the problems worse

3) People in a free society make their own lot in life and should be made to live with their choices. You should be able to keep what you have earned or deal with your lack of earnings based on the choices you have made in your life.

4) Charity comes from within not forced from above.

5) God, not man, controls life, the planet

6) That their nation is always right and will never subjugate it's interests to any other nation for any reason.


Probably some more, but that sums a lot of it up.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Because unions no longer function as designed. They represent perpetuation of the union, and their own bureaucracies. Their overhead is so high to maintain that bureaucracy that they price themselves out of business.

The IBEW here has at least 1k riding the pine because they won't bid small jobs. They don't pay enough to meet overhead.

While ideally the union is supposed to protect the worker, it is not doing so by pricing itself out of business and keeping it's members unemployed. Push comes to shove, we have to eat and pay the mortgage. The union's hold on this city which was prevalent in the 50s and 60s has been completely broken, and they did it to themselves.

Unions, in their original form, served a vital service to the ecomomy by keeping the interests of the employer and owner in balance with the interests of the worker by leveling the negotiating table.

However, like you said, when they became corrupted with fraud and explosion of overhead costs by incorporating layers and layers of management, they ceased to function properly and only became an impediment to maintaining the competitiveness of their own employer in the marketplace, thus cutting their own throats. Very much like government. Government can provide valuable service but not when it crushed under its own weight like most modern governments are.

 

[Zoomie1980]

I think socialism is the answer because when our natural resources aren't as plentiful as they are now that the use of them will have to be based on need and not on exploiting them for profit. That's not a value judgement, I'm not condemning the profit motive because it's worked so far, but when we get to critical stages with our resources we'll have to find another way to use them and hopefully do so in a sustainable manner. Capitalism won't work in that environment. I suppose I'm conscious of this because I can see it happening where I live where water is becoming very scarce and is probably the number one domestic political issue.

By "exploitation" I mean exactly that, taking full value and compensating for only part of the value, eg regarding labour. Capitalism works by exploiting the old idea of surplus value that goes back well before Marx.

The theoretical model is the model developed by Marx and Engels. It's been worked over by others but the original theoretical model is my reference.

No when resources become that limited they will go to those with the biggest stick. The rest will simply do without. That's how it has worked throughout all human history and that will not change any time in the next thousand years, either. And since the United States has the only Nimtz class Aircraft Carriers, and we have 13 of them, that puts us in a pretty good position if that situation ever arises.

 

[Zoomie1980]

I think socialism is the answer because when our natural resources aren't as plentiful as they are now that the use of them will have to be based on need and not on exploiting them for profit. That's not a value judgement, I'm not condemning the profit motive because it's worked so far, but when we get to critical stages with our resources we'll have to find another way to use them and hopefully do so in a sustainable manner. Capitalism won't work in that environment. I suppose I'm conscious of this because I can see it happening where I live where water is becoming very scarce and is probably the number one domestic political issue.

By "exploitation" I mean exactly that, taking full value and compensating for only part of the value, eg regarding labour. Capitalism works by exploiting the old idea of surplus value that goes back well before Marx.

The theoretical model is the model developed by Marx and Engels. It's been worked over by others but the original theoretical model is my reference.

Marx's ideas came about in a completely different age, the dawn of the industrial age and really has no place in today's post-industrial reality. He never really contemplated the global economy driven by today's instant information nor the incredible level of wealth and standard of living by even many we consider "poor". Throughout the western world and most of Asia even the poorest of the poor have enough to eat, a computer with internet access a game console, cable TV, and even a car or mo-ped..... Marx had no possible concept of such.

If we go by the last 10 years worth of growth rate it appears rather than socialism, what have been the most successful is modern fascism, i.e. a complete partnership between government and business rather than the advesarial relationship that exists in the US and western Europe...

 

[manifold]

Because unions no longer function as designed. They represent perpetuation of the union, and their own bureaucracies. Their overhead is so high to maintain that bureaucracy that they price themselves out of business.

The IBEW here has at least 1k riding the pine because they won't bid small jobs. They don't pay enough to meet overhead.

While ideally the union is supposed to protect the worker, it is not doing so by pricing itself out of business and keeping it's members unemployed. Push comes to shove, we have to eat and pay the mortgage. The union's hold on this city which was prevalent in the 50s and 60s has been completely broken, and they did it to themselves.

I agree that there are certainly examples, such as the one you provided, where union leadership fails to deliver on the promise of worker advocacy being priority one. No argument here. But I see that as a failure of the leaders and not the principle. I disagree with anyone that says unions have "out-lived" their purpose. And like I said, if unions ultimately go away, prepare yourself for an eventual huge move toward socialism.

 

[Gunny]

I agree that there are certainly examples, such as the one you provided, where union leadership fails to deliver on the promise of worker advocacy being priority one. No argument here. But I see that as a failure of the leaders and not the principle. I disagree with anyone that says unions have "out-lived" their purpose. And like I said, if unions ultimately go away, prepare yourself for an eventual huge move toward socialism.

I don't necessarily think unions have outlived their purpose, but you are definng them as useful in a "perfect world" scenario. In a perfect world, there is no need for unions. Employers take care of their employees.

I don't really see your point in regard to preparing for a huge move toward socialism if unions go away. Unions themselves are a move toward socialism.

Seems to me it would be just the opposite. Non-union employees in the electrical trade here actually work. Union electricians punch a clock. The non-union workers are competing for jobs. Union employees in the good old boy network are not.

It's a more complex issue than most people want to bother with. As I previously stated, the ideals behind which labor unions were formed are sound, IMO. They checked unscrupulous employers. They themselves are now the unscrupulous employers, IMO.

Guess it just depends on where you look at the issue from.

 

[manifold]

I don't necessarily think unions have outlived their purpose, but you are definng them as useful in a "perfect world" scenario. In a perfect world, there is no need for unions. Employers take care of their employees.

I don't really see your point in regard to preparing for a huge move toward socialism if unions go away. Unions themselves are a move toward socialism.

Seems to me it would be just the opposite. Non-union employees in the electrical trade here actually work. Union electricians punch a clock. The non-union workers are competing for jobs. Union employees in the good old boy network are not.

It's a more complex issue than most people want to bother with. As I previously stated, the ideals behind which labor unions were formed are sound, IMO. They checked unscrupulous employers. They themselves are now the unscrupulous employers, IMO.

Guess it just depends on where you look at the issue from.

Refering back to my original response to Diuretic, I'm suggesting that without unions, there is no mechanism in place to counter the natural forces reducing labor's overall piece of the pie. IMO, the remedy would likely be the implementation of drastic socialist policies before it reaches the point of revolt.

 

[Gunny]

Refering back to my original response to Diuretic, I'm suggesting that without unions, there is no mechanism in place to counter the natural forces reducing labor's overall piece of the pie. IMO, the remedy would likely be the implementation of drastic socialist policies before it reaches the point of revolt.

Interesting idea. Here (what better model than the trade you work in?), what it has created is "wannabe" unions. There are a couple in the electrical trade. They offer pretty much the same stuff just watered down. However, you work for your company, not "the union." If you're enrolled in their apprentice programs they will find you work if you lose your job and they have a deal with employers that you get so much of a raise on a regular basis. The dues are about half as well.

Those "wannabe" unions appear to be more what unions are actually supposed to be than the actual trade unions themselves.

I DO agree you need the checks and balances. I just think the check has forgot all about balance.