Originally posted by rwingettbut in this case the union reps, appointed by the workers (but in my opinion corrupt, almost like a mafia) are promising them short term benefits which will lead them to long term harm - the equivelent of giving the cigerattes for todays pleasure and tomorrows lung cancer.
I refer both you and UncleAdam back to my post from: 07 May '03 23:59, specifically the second paragraph. I have already addressed your concerns. I would just like to maintain a distinction between managers appointed by the ruling capitalist class, and managers elected by the workers from within their own class. The former imposes decisions directed from ...[text shortened]... appy to expand upon this relationship in greater detail, if necessary.
Solidarity, comrades.
And I'm a manager appointed by the "ruling classes", but I don't take orders from up or down, rather make things run as smoothly as possible - easier & safer work for the workers, & more profits for the company as a whole. What does that make me?
Originally posted by rwingettWhat are trade union leaders? They manage their unions, but at the same time they represent the workers. Are they right or wrong?
I say again that I have no interest in discussing the vagaries of the capitalist marketplace. Labor is always right. Management is always wrong. It is a black and white issue. Just because the workers in your example have their labor exploited less rapaciously than others, does not mean they are not being exploited. Because the mangement in your example is ...[text shortened]... ith a new organism, run exclusively by, and for, the workers themselves.
Solidarity, comrade.
Capitalism is fundamentally different to slavery: In a slave economy, like the Roman Empire, some people were citizens, others slaves. It was quite clear who was oppressing whom. However, in a country such as the UK, most people are essentially middle-class, white-collar workers. They may start at the bottom of the corporate ladder, but there is always the prospect of climbing up in a career path, with the most lucky, talented and industrious eventually becoming executives. To say that the majority of managers are idle and/or incompetent is to talk nonsense. There is also no hereditary 'managerial class' from which such people are drawn.
However, ownership of companies is a different matter. Some companies are 'private', owned by wealthy families, and this may be what you are talking about. On the other hand, many companies (particularly large ones) are 'public', whose shares can be bought by anyone. Now you could talk about a 'shareholder class' - except, again, it doesn't really exist. For example, most of the largest shareholders in the world are banks and pension funds, who draw their power from millions of ordinary people putting their own savings into them. Ultimately, of course, everything is owned by someone; but the system of ownership is complicated and confusing, and it is often impossible to point to an individual and say 'he owns such-and-such.'
You seem to confuse owners and managers. It often seems that managers are overpaid, but this is not their fault, but the fault of the owners who choose them. They are on a contract the same as the lowliest desk worker. Certainly their contract will be much more favourable (better pay, more difficult to fire etc.), but again, this is decided by the owners.
I would say that your definition of productivity is too narrow. Productivity does not mean "Worker X produces Y pans per day", it means their overall effect on the system is to produce things which are in demand. In this way a software designer is productive, a hairdresser is productive and a manager is productive, provided they do their job properly: a manager's job is primarily to increase the efficiency of those working under him. In fact, the majority of the population in the West work not in primary industry (mining, fishing, agriculture), nor secondary industry (manufacturing) but in the service industry, whether it's restaurants, technical support, web design or legal advice. In such an economy the traditional definition of productivity is fairly irrelevant. You say you work as a graphic designer. How do you measure your own productivity?
Now in terms of fairness, I certainly think the current situation is extremely iniquitous. However this is more to do with relative advantage. The offspring of rich parents generally receive a better education, they benefit from their parents' experience in financial matters, and they start with money to invest in things (such as a car, a house or a university degree.) As a result, they are better-placed in the competition for jobs than they deserve to be. This is not the same as saying they 'inherit' the jobs, as you seem to imply. There is also iniquity between the rates of pay of, say, a teacher versus a lawyer, which shows our society's shameful undervaluing of some professions and overvaluing of others. I don't see why the only remedy to this is anarchism.
In a sense, we already have 'rule by the workers' in that the non-working aristocratic class, who maintained their power by military means, is all but obsolete (unless you want to argue we live in a gerontocracy, but that is a somewhat different situation.) What we need to do is make sure the rewards are distributed more fairly among those workers.
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettan additional thought - if you think where the first ruling classes came from they were probably apointed by the people - "we'll folow him because we believe that's best for us" (even if the reason it was best for them was otherwise they'd get the wrong end of a club). But once in power these people want to stay in power so build a system that keeps them & their progeny there.
Many post in this thread claim that it is necessary to have a ruling class, or a government to run society. They claim that groups larger than a few individuals would never be able to get anything done without somebody at the top giving or ...[text shortened]... and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?
So if you have "people appointed" leaders, like the union leaders here, who stops them becoming the ruling classes themselves? Believe me when I say that the union bosses have their own interests in mind, and very mch have more control over the workers than the workers have control over them. For example, the workers have just been told that they will be striking, even though many don't want to.
I guess I am trying to ask - once they are put in a place of management how do you keep them from becoming the ruling class? By having a body that controls them? But that body would then be the ruling class...
Wow some heavy duty stuff in here! After reading the last four pages I wanted to throw a few comments in to the mix...
1. We are no longer natural creatures, and large parts of our instinctual behavior is suppressed our whole lives.
2. Most people don't give a rat's arse about anyone outside their immediate circle, or even about the effects their actions will have have on themselves in the future. For this reason some form of management/government enforcement is required. The anti-management posts earlier don't adequately explain to me what stops productivity slacking off if someone isn't monitoring them.
3. I strongly object to "Law making to the lowest common denominator", where if something is bad for some people it is banned for all. Similarly I don't like laws that are set by what is easily enforcable and not what is just.
4. I didn't expect to find such debates on chess site (especially one called RedHotPawn)!
Cheers
Sandy
some issues can't be resolved by reason, that's why we have a supreme court. some issues can't be resolved, that's why we go to war. there will always be conflicits and disagreement of ideas actions, even between good, reasonable people. that's why we need governor of some sort on the national, state, and even family level.
Originally posted by AcolyteThe current trade unions that exist in capitalist society are not models that an anarchist would wish to follow. Trade unions accept the existence of the capitalist class, and proclaim that labor and capital are brothers. The capitalist trade unions have had some success in ameliorating some of the symptoms of capitalist exploitation, but they have no intention of attacking the disease at its root and eliminating capitalism. As such, the trade unions are poor representatives of the working class. The anarcho syndicalist labor organizations would start from the premise that capital and labor have nothing in common. Any managers that the workers elected would not be leaders. They would merely be administrators who would help facilitate and organize production. A worker would be right by functioning in this capacity.
What are trade union leaders? They manage their unions, but at the same time they represent the workers. Are they right or wrong?
Capitalism is fundamentally different to slavery: In a slave economy, like the Roman Empire, some people were citizens, others slaves. It was quite clear who was oppressing whom. However, in a country such as the UK, most p ...[text shortened]... .) What we need to do is make sure the rewards are distributed more fairly among those workers.
My comparison between capitalism and slavery was a figurative one, and not a literal one. I do not claim that majority of capatilists and their managers are idle or incompetent. My claim is that they do no productive labor. They add nothing of value to society, while they reap the rewards of wealth created by labor's exertions.
In some of my previous posts, I have made the error of blending capitalist owners and management too closely together, as you have pointed out. Even though the managers are the willing lackeys of the capitalists, they are technically part of the working class themselves. They make the mistake of turning their backs on their fellow workers and associating themselves too closely with their capitalist overlords.
The establishment of the "white collar" workers is partly how capitalism has been able to maintain its rotting edifice on the face of the Earth for so long. By establishing differing strata within the working class, the capitalists have managed to blunt any revolutionary impulse the workers once had. By exploiting workers at different levels, and by allowing a handful of workers to rise to higher levels, the capitalist have managed to insidiously strip away the class conciousness of the working class. Now, the workers expend all their effort in trying to reach the next elusive rung of the capitalist ladder, instead of working to abolish the system of explotation altogether.
My definition of productivity is much the same as yours. I do not take it to mean simply the production of material goods. Like you, I include the rendering of useful services under the overall term of productivity. Therefore, anyone who produces useful goods or services would be a productive worker. Capitalists produce nothing that is useful. They are a parasitic class.
The capitalist class IS a non-working aristocratic class that maintains its power by military means. Just because they are not hereditary monarchs is little consolation. For you to claim that we have "rule by the workers", because the divine right of kings has become an obsolete concept, is ludicrous. To try to bring about a more equitable distribution of wealth within the capitalist system is an excercise in futility. Capitalism can not be adequately reformed. It must be eliminated.
this is from http://www.camcoc.cth.com.au/~gcutts/Management/1manager.html and you can find out more there
One of first to believe that management was an acquired skill
universal application, including in the home - 14 principles:
1 -- division of labour
2 -- authority
3 -- discipline
4 -- unity of command
5 -- unity of direction
6 -- subordination of individual to common goal,
7 -- remuneration for effort
8 -- centralisation
9 -- chain of command,
10 - order
11 - equity
12 - stability
13 - initiative , and
14 - team spirit
Therefore, anyone who produces useful goods or services would be a productive worker. Capitalists produce nothing that is useful. They are a parasitic class.One thing I still don't get is who is the none working parasite? If I look at what I know, which is my company, I see none that doesn't work in some capacity, from operator to director. I see many who I don't think work particularly hard or well, but these are evenly distributed through the "ranks" (if not more towards the bottom). I don't see anyone who doesn't work for their living, either in direct production or organisation or finance or management. What I do see is that the guys at the "bottom" of the rung care mostly about their own welfare, whereas the guys nearer the "top" are fighting to save the company, and therefore save all of our jobs.
The capitalist class IS a non-working aristocratic class that maintains its power by military means.
If I can't see anyone who is the capatalist parasitein our company, because everyone is working to help produce something, then does that meen that we are all workers and it is the company itself that is slaved to capatalism?
Originally posted by belgianfreakThe capitalist owners and their henchmen do unnecessary work, and non-productive labor. Finding new markets for their product in the capitalist marketplace, and working to improve their rate of return is unnecessary labor. It only has meaning within a capitalist system. Your contention that the owners are motivated by altruism, and the well being of the whole, is difficult to take seriously. The capitalist is motivated by one thing only: the desire to maximize profits. Whether he uses the carrot or the stick to reach that goal matters little, his endeavors are still driven by the profit motive. If the workers seem to care only about themselves, it is because they have bought into the capitalist mentality, and spend their time competing against one another. The workers need to re-assert their class conciousness and work in solidarity against the common capitalist enemy.
One thing I still don't get is who is the none working parasite? If I look at what I know, which is my company, I see none that doesn't work in some capacity, from operator to director. I see many who I don't think work particularly hard or well, but these are evenly distributed through the "ranks" (if not more towards the bottom). I don't see any ...[text shortened]... s that meen that we are all workers and it is the company itself that is slaved to capatalism?
I would like to apologize to you, and others in this thread, for not responding to each of your posts individually. I just don't have sufficient time to compose them all. Perhaps in an anarchist system I would, but then, my efforts would be superfluous.
Originally posted by rwingettI couldn't have said it better myself. 😉
The capitalist owners and their henchmen do unnecessary work, and non-productive labor. Finding new markets for their product in the capitalist marketplace, and working to improve their rate of return is unnecessary labor. It only has meaning within a capitalist system. Your contention that the owners are motivated by altruism, and the well being of the who ...[text shortened]... ose them all. Perhaps in an anarchist system I would, but then, my efforts would be superfluous.
What truly bothers me is how difficult it is to be an individual nonconformist. I have often thought to myself that I should just head out into the wilderness and live off the land, forgetting all about modern society and its woes. As someone who grew up in the boonies I think in time I could establish a decent and fairly stress free life out in the woods. Then I remind myself that any kind of structure I built would be conveyed as squatting, agriculture I developed would be seen as destroying the natural habitat, and any hunting I did would be poaching.
Alas, it was a nice dream while it lasted. 😞
if i grow oranges in florida, but wish to market my harvest to the UK, i might hire the services of a UK middleman for contacts and potenital buyers, navigate UK laws and regulations, etc. so such middlemen, although 'unproductive capitalists,' contribute value to me. as an aside, let me ask whether one thinks consultants are nonproductive ? consultants peddle ideas and knowledge, but do you consider such things unproductive/intangible too ?🙄
Or the ability to say anything that is not totally silly, childish, lazy and stupid?
I would like to apologize to you, and others in this thread, for not responding to each of your posts individually. I just don't have sufficient time to compose them all. Perhaps in an anarchist system I would, but then, my efforts would be superfluous.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettWhat have you done in your life to date? I have (with my own hands) framed 2450 houses, remodeled 1900 entry doors, built 300 sets of cabinets as well as trimmed out the houses they went into. I have designed and marketed software used by over a thousand people. The software has enabled them to go from approx. 1 million dollars per year in sales to over 59 million per year. ALL OF WHICH I DID AS A CAPITALIST. So as regards your knowledge of monetary systems ... yes. Your posts are worse than silly. They are .... words fail... lets just say that I am very, very tired of hearing drivel from OLD WORN OUT COMMIES AND THEIR OLD WORN OUT COMMIE CRAP that meant nothing in 1900 and has decreased in value since. And please don't hide behind this anarchy crap. You just want somebody to pay your way in life. Ain't gonna happen.
Huh? Are you saying that my posts are totally silly, childish, lazy and stupid?