Australian Politics Forum - Does Capitalism Exploit Workers?

ImSpartacus2

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6913

Re: Does Capitalism Exploit Workers?
Reply #480 - Nov 9^th, 2013 at 2:05am

Vuk11 wrote on Nov 9^th, 2013 at 1:12am:

[quote]
Why do you label this consequence, why don't you label this detriment. Alternatively why didn't you label the thing you called a benefit, a consequence. Its your deceitful capitalist double speak again. Everything that's good is thanks to capitalism, everything that's bad is either neutral or the governments fault

Apologies I wasn't trying to do any double speak I though people would understand where I meant benefit/consequence in the negative sense. But you do understand because you have pointed out that the words should be detriment instead of consequence.

I'm basically first off showing the state immorality. But in that particular post it was mainly about misconceptions, people seems to go "jobs outsourced OMG" therefore capitalism = bad. When I can show that it comes back to states throttling peoples opportunity and ability to interact with each other.

What you call the state throttling opportunity is in fact hard fought for laws and paid for in blood by working people from the start of the industrial revolution because at that time when capitalism was entirely unregulated (which you would call free market capitalism - yes, yes, its been done already don't lie about it) Capitalists worked people in shocking conditions for 16 to 20 hours a day, 7 days a week, in dangerous conditions (which resulted in numerous horrific injuries and deaths) for just enough pay for them to feed themselves to return to work the following day. This is historical. its well documented. I don't think anyone denies it. And that evil was the Capitalist's evil. Not the Government's. The capitalist's. Now you say you want to get rid of those laws because its throttling our opportunity. Whose being paternalistic now. We know what s good for us. dont you tell us whats good for us. Those laws protect us from the excesses of capitalism and from the brutality of your system should it ever come to pass.

"slave trade slave wages slave labour", if you want to debate wage slaveries existence and more importantly it's cause I'm willing to do so. I was merely trying to clear up a misconception as above.

Again, your double speak. If I disagree with you you call it a misconception on my part. For all your finger pointing at the so called evils of government you readily use their tactics in trying to confuse us. So get this straight. when I disagree with you its not because of a misconception. Its because you're wrong!

Would you not say to the Chinese worker that going from rural poverty to residential labour above poverty is beneficial?

Why do you label it "residential labour above poverty". Do you think those factory workers are not poor. They work 12 hours a day, 6 days a week and cant afford to buy the things they make. Whereas you buy them without a moments thought. And why do you live so well. Government regulation that protects you from the excesses of Capitalism and forces them to pay you a decent wage and which we would lose in an instance if we adopted your vicious slave market system. And we know that's true because when the industrial revolution began that's what the capitalists did and it did not start getting better until the 1832 reform Act in the UK. Take a moment away from those propaganda sites you go to and do some independent study. You might start seeing how unreal the system your advocating is. Oh and pay your taxes. Its what you owe for the privilege of being allowed to live as part of a community. Otherwise p!ss off back to the jungle and lets watch you come running back in no time, "please, please, I wont to be civilized again save me."

To be continued

Back to top

IP Logged

Vuk11

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1797
QLD
Gender: male

Re: Does Capitalism Exploit Workers?
Reply #481 - Nov 9^th, 2013 at 2:41am

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Nov 9^th, 2013 at 2:05am:

What you call the state throttling opportunity is in fact hard fought for laws and paid for in blood by working people from the start of the industrial revolution because at that time when capitalism was entirely unregulated (which you would call free market capitalism - yes, yes, its been done already don't lie about it) Capitalists worked people in shocking conditions for 16 to 20 hours a day, 7 days a week, in dangerous conditions (which resulted in numerous horrific injuries and deaths) for just enough pay for them to feed themselves to return to work the following day. This is historical. its well documented. I don't think anyone denies it. And that evil was the Capitalist's evil. Not the Government's. The capitalist's. Now you say you want to get rid of those laws because its throttling our opportunity. Whose being paternalistic now. We know what s good for us. dont you tell us whats good for us. Those laws protect us from the excesses of capitalism and from the brutality of your system should it ever come to pass.

I don't want to answer this off the top of my head at 2:30AM I fear I will make a fool of myself

But yes I will look into the worker rights some more of why they were like that and where the causation lies. As it stands I think you're right the industrial revolution was new and had many growing pains and perhaps laws came in for the good. But history always shows a distortion of truth with propaganda. Such as the great depression being due to a market failure, whereas many economists have argued government involvement and the FED as causes.

Though history aside I have explained why workers rights wouldn't change that much. Just like I said that we don't need laws to be paid above minimum wage the market does that. We don't need laws to realize that a broken worker is unproductive and that it's more beneficial to business now to offer protections than it is to cop the law suits for damages etc. (property rights) I imagine contracts and unions playing a massive role in this taking over where the arbitrary laws take off.

I have this sneaking suspicion that business was protected from workers by the state I remember a few people mentioning it but yeah I'll look into the history of it. But we do have to differentiate what would happen now and what happened at the start of the industrial revolution.

Quote:

Again, your double speak. If I disagree with you you call it a misconception on my part. For all your finger pointing at the so called evils of government you readily use their tactics in trying to confuse us. So get this straight. when I disagree with you its not because of a misconception. Its because you're wrong!

Hold on a second you jump the gun so much Cheesy

I wasn't saying you disagreeing is a misconception. The point of my post was about a misconception where people go "capitalism is bad because of outsourcing of jobs". I was merely explaining why it's beneficial and where the problem I think actually lies. Then you go off onto Slave labour. I specifically said I know they don't get paid much compared to us what going from poverty to above poverty and to be able to afford schooling for their children is better than what they had before they worked those jobs. What I meant by residential labour was how they move from farming into construction.

That's why I said if you want to debate wage slavery sure, but that doesn't have anything to do with my point. My point was about causation and scale. Causation in that where does the unemployment really come from and whats better than something else. The video I linked goes into and interviews these people they are better off but not nearly as good as we are. But in fact lower prices = good, above poverty jobs for Chinese = good, loss of jobs in the US = bad. I was merely explaining why market forces would correct the loss of jobs whereas government stifles it.

Would you not say to the Chinese worker that going from rural poverty to residential labour above poverty is beneficial?
Quote:

Why do you label it "residential labour above poverty". Do you think those factory workers are not poor.

That isn't the point, I was illustrating that they went from poverty as farmers, to above poverty as laborers in residential construction. I know they are poor compared to us but it's about scale, as the video illustrates they can afford education for their children now etc.

Quote:

Take a moment away from those propaganda sites you go to and do some independent study. You might start seeing how unreal the system your advocating is. Oh and pay your taxes.

I pay my taxes. I have done a lot of independent study in the recent years. Please stop accusing me as have others of not challenging my preconceived notions. The fact that I have accepted the logical arguments of others is what led me to transitions of opinion: Socialism (should be no money or rich people) -> fascism (government should ban what I want banned) -> Minarchism (small government capitalism) -> Anarcho capitalism (stateless free society)

I am continually reading more and more and love a good discussion. But so far the logic has held and I have yet to see a real defense of the state.

Anyway it's ridiculously late, I look forward to ....todays discussio

Back to top

IP Logged

Phemanderac

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3507
Gender: male

Re: Does Capitalism Exploit Workers?
Reply #482 - Nov 9^th, 2013 at 7:39am

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 8^th, 2013 at 10:52am:

Phemanderac wrote on Nov 8^th, 2013 at 10:37am:

NO.

Whilst the economic system that is capitalism certainly has the mechanisms (demonstrably) in place so that individuals can exploit workers, the ism itself is simply a system. Just like Communism/Socialism etc, are merely economic systems or models.

It is people who mess with it and act corruptly or exploitatively (or usually both simultaneously). Neither system of itself is political, however, history demonstrates both systems have been generally hijacked to fulfil ideological/political aims. I think being beholden to any ism is dangerous, because, it would seem that our species overall is not generally trust worthy.

There is a distinct difference between an economic model (like capitalism or the barter system) and a political ideology (such as socialism or democracy). These systems interact with other social and environmental systems which makes the overall effects or picture a little more complicated. Even the scientific method which is arguably Humankind's most objective invention and which is a self correcting rational tool (with minimum dogma) nevertheless interacts with society and is influenced by politics and economics etc.

A good example of this are the economic structures operating in apparently quite diverse countries

China = State run pseudo capitalist system
USA = Corporately run pseudo capitalist system

Both are tyrannical in nature and quasi fascist societies

The differences are superficial if you look deeply.

Yep, the models are different.

However, as I said, the common denominator here is people. How people implement their chosen system is where corruption and exploitation seeps in.

The system itself does not exploit workers

Back to top

On the 26th of January you are all invited to celebrate little white penal day...

"They're not rules as such, more like guidelines" Pirates of the Caribbean..

IP Logged

Phemanderac

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3507
Gender: male

Re: Does Capitalism Exploit Workers?
Reply #483 - Nov 9^th, 2013 at 7:46am

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Nov 8^th, 2013 at 12:15pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Nov 8^th, 2013 at 10:37am:

NO.

Whilst the economic system that is capitalism certainly has the mechanisms (demonstrably) in place so that individuals can exploit workers, the ism itself is simply a system. Just like Communism/Socialism etc, are merely economic systems or models.

It is people who mess with it and act corruptly or exploitative (or usually both simultaneously). Neither system of itself is political, however, history demonstrates both systems have been generally hijacked to fulfil ideological/political aims. I think being beholden to any ism is dangerous, because, it would seem that our species overall is not generally trust worthy.

Don't agree sorry. What isn't an ism? Whatever standards or system I adopt for myself to govern the way I lead my life is an ism, be it a standard/system commonly adopted by others, eg socialism capitalism, Buddhism or one I have developed myself for myself. Even a system that says i will deal with each situation as it presents itself at the time is an ism. But some isms are better suited to derive certain results then others. Don't get me wrong, no system is perfect as we all well know, but some systems are better then others (in the sense that overall the advantages outnumber the disadvantages). Capitalism makes some people extraordinarily rich and I also believe that in certain things it has made society more tolerant, overall (because if you are judgmental of other people's differences, you are less likely to secure a sale) but the price society has to pay in poverty, exploitation, power manipulation, war, environmental degradation, community breakdown, dehumanization, deceit, etc is way too great a price to pay just so a few little men and women can feel they're better then the rest of us. Frankly, this " I hate all ism's" approach is a bit of a cop out; it relieves you of having to make a decision,.

Hmm, I am not sure what exactly you don't agree with to be honest.

I probably overwrote my comment I suspect.

Whilst I acknowledge making comment about being beholden to any ism (which you did not include in the piece you quoted for some reason, when you clearly wanted to comment about that part), it was not my intent to suggest "all isms are bad" as you seem to imply.

The real issue that I was suggesting is that capitalism (or for that matter an extremely wide range of other isms) does not of itself exploit workers. It is people who exploit workers and they manage to do so regardless of whether it is under the banner almost any ism you care to name.

I just want to be clear about the intention of my original post. If I did not make that clear from the outset, my apologies.

I don't advocate that all isms are bad.

I don't agree that an ism of itself exploits workers, as per the question in the OP.

Back to top

On the 26th of January you are all invited to celebrate little white penal day...

"They're not rules as such, more like guidelines" Pirates of the Caribbean..

IP Logged

Phemanderac

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3507
Gender: male

Re: Does Capitalism Exploit Workers?
Reply #484 - Nov 9^th, 2013 at 8:01am

Vuk11 wrote on Nov 8^th, 2013 at 10:44pm:

When people criticize capitalism they tend to think employers are omnipotent and have all the bargaining power in the world and that workers are subjugated out of necessity.

First off when there is a skill shortage, the people with qualifications are being fought over and have large amounts of borrowing power.

Second even in places where there is no skill shortage it takes time to replace people that quit, time to hire, train, cover costs of the loss of productivity. A lot of people have multiple options that aren't taken into account by socialists. Maybe you worked at coles and now at a software company, if they treat you like poo you can go back to coles until another company/position comes along.

Basically in either scenario the employer needs you too. The employer is a worker too maybe your boss works for someone else. Also you have to remember we are all capitalists, you can own property too and if you don't want to work all your life why don't you learn to invest? If you don't want to make someone else wealthy , then take the RISK to allow others to make you wealthy by providing something people need/want. That's the clincher the risk involved is a lot more for a business owner than for an employee on top of actually providing jobs/services/products.

Then the unskilled workers well there are supposed to be other unskilled jobs however government regulation stifles that. But even then you may perceive working under those conditions more beneficial than being unemployed.

However you have to remember you are only forced to work not by employers but by A. nature (the need to survive) and B. the state (taxation is inescapable) . If there is no state then you can't blame the need to survive on a business as they are offering just one alternative solution, others include self sufficiency IE go survive yourself or start a business and many others.

There is no real coercion unless at the core there is state coercion that forces people into crap jobs instead of allowing alternatives.

Actually mate there are some significant gaps between the logic of your comments and the realities in practice.

That said though, I agree that it is not necessarily about "bad capitalism". Firstly, I am not a fan of the system itself, however, it is what we have to work with presently.

Now, the imbalances are there presently, but, that is an issue about power and control basically. This is where the complexity comes in from an economic system being married up against (a wide range of) socio - political systems.

The only check/balance mechanism that has been built into "employment" within capitalism has been the trade union movement - albeit horribly flawed in its modern incarnation. Prior to that, employers who employed under a capitalist model did indeed dictate what wages and conditions MIGHT be forthcoming.

Whilst the system of itself does not (IMHO) exploit workers, the old story about its inbuilt checks and balances is not consistently demonstrated through out history as being either effective or genuine.

This all comes back to depending on the individual people who are implementing, exploiting and monopolising the system.

Back to top

On the 26th of January you are all invited to celebrate little white penal day...

"They're not rules as such, more like guidelines" Pirates of the Caribbean..

IP Logged

Chimp_Logic Gold Member Offline πολιτικός Posts: 4826 Mawson Base Gender:	Re: Does Capitalism Exploit Workers? Reply #485 - Nov 9^th, 2013 at 9:19am Profit = taxation
Back to top	Mini Ice Age (2014-2029) Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness IP Logged

Vuk11

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1797
QLD
Gender: male

Re: Does Capitalism Exploit Workers?
Reply #486 - Nov 9^th, 2013 at 12:34pm

Phemanderac wrote on Nov 9^th, 2013 at 8:01am:

The only check/balance mechanism that has been built into "employment" within capitalism has been the trade union movement - albeit horribly flawed in its modern incarnation. Prior to that, employers who employed under a capitalist model did indeed dictate what wages and conditions MIGHT be forthcoming.

Whilst the system of itself does not (IMHO) exploit workers, the old story about its inbuilt checks and balances is not consistently demonstrated through out history as being either effective or genuine.

This all comes back to depending on the individual people who are implementing, exploiting and monopolising the system.

That's part of the main argument for a free market. That the reason we've had so many issues in history is because the equilibrium in the market has been distorted with state involvement, with business given powers by the state such as limited liability as far back as the East India Trading Company and so on.

Do you agree with the following logic:

5 business' are the only light bulb sellers in the country. They all decide to get together in private (announcing this on public would be ridiculous) and collude to raise prices quite a bit.

This has three consequences that combine to be a natural check/balance:
1. Raise the prices too high and people who can't afford them are no longer buying, people that can afford them are now switching to alternatives IE Candles/Torches, maybe some other alternative is brought it like....glow worms in a jar Cheesy

2. With the loss in business each of the 5 business' now have a massive incentive to dip just a tiny bit and get all of the customers to flock to them. The moment one breaks ranks and they always do (collusion between multiple business AFAIK has never held long term ever) the start to drop rapidly as they try to out compete each other.

3. You open up competition from entrepreneurs to create a 6th/7th business to compete with lower prices

This is one of the natural checks/balances that prevent collusion and monopolies etc. Also on monopolies in a free market the moment you take on debt to buy up other business you put yourself at a competitive disadvantage to those business that only need to worry about their own expenses. As you buy up companies the subsequent one becomes more and more expensive. You run the risk of the last company saying "No we won't sell out", or collapsing under the weight of debt, or having competitors compete with you whilst you have to pay back so much debt IE raise your prices/cut profits to pay the debt.

Another check and balance in a truly free market is consumers ability to simply stop dealing with companies that don't meet their needs or do something they find reprehensible. If McDonalds starts raising an army to force people to buy big Mac's in the absence of government well first off it has to fight the people, any defense DRO's, people will stop going to maccas, there may be clauses with banks for all business' where if you are found to be doing ridiculous things like that you have your accounts frozen, electricity cut etc etc.

I think we are so used to the way things are now that it would be impossible for business to radically change things such as wages etc unless through market forces. If business cut wages for no reason and stop OHS then you have massive incentive for A. someone to come in and offer those things taking all the skilled laborers and B. A fit workforce is a productive workforce, it's inefficient to have everyone broken and suing you.

Back to top

IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: Does Capitalism Exploit Workers?
Reply #487 - Nov 9^th, 2013 at 1:27pm

Phemanderac wrote on Nov 9^th, 2013 at 7:39am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 8^th, 2013 at 10:52am:

Phemanderac wrote on Nov 8^th, 2013 at 10:37am:

NO.

Whilst the economic system that is capitalism certainly has the mechanisms (demonstrably) in place so that individuals can exploit workers, the ism itself is simply a system. Just like Communism/Socialism etc, are merely economic systems or models.

It is people who mess with it and act corruptly or exploitatively (or usually both simultaneously). Neither system of itself is political, however, history demonstrates both systems have been generally hijacked to fulfil ideological/political aims. I think being beholden to any ism is dangerous, because, it would seem that our species overall is not generally trust worthy.

There is a distinct difference between an economic model (like capitalism or the barter system) and a political ideology (such as socialism or democracy). These systems interact with other social and environmental systems which makes the overall effects or picture a little more complicated. Even the scientific method which is arguably Humankind's most objective invention and which is a self correcting rational tool (with minimum dogma) nevertheless interacts with society and is influenced by politics and economics etc.

A good example of this are the economic structures operating in apparently quite diverse countries

China = State run pseudo capitalist system
USA = Corporately run pseudo capitalist system

Both are tyrannical in nature and quasi fascist societies

The differences are superficial if you look deeply.

Yep, the models are different.

How people implement their chosen system is where corruption and exploitation seeps in.

The system itself does not exploit workers

So you are defending a fascist Ideology by blaming the people who practice it.

Interesting cop out you have there...

It would be like saying Nazism wasn't the problem, it was the Germans who interpreted it wrong.

Look at the fundamental principles of the capitalist ideology and its fascist corporate companion.

They are crystal clear.

Not much room for miss-interpretation one would assume

Back to top

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness

IP Logged

Phemanderac

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3507
Gender: male

Re: Does Capitalism Exploit Workers?
Reply #488 - Nov 9^th, 2013 at 3:49pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 9^th, 2013 at 1:27pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Nov 9^th, 2013 at 7:39am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 8^th, 2013 at 10:52am:

Phemanderac wrote on Nov 8^th, 2013 at 10:37am:

NO.

Whilst the economic system that is capitalism certainly has the mechanisms (demonstrably) in place so that individuals can exploit workers, the ism itself is simply a system. Just like Communism/Socialism etc, are merely economic systems or models.

It is people who mess with it and act corruptly or exploitatively (or usually both simultaneously). Neither system of itself is political, however, history demonstrates both systems have been generally hijacked to fulfil ideological/political aims. I think being beholden to any ism is dangerous, because, it would seem that our species overall is not generally trust worthy.

There is a distinct difference between an economic model (like capitalism or the barter system) and a political ideology (such as socialism or democracy). These systems interact with other social and environmental systems which makes the overall effects or picture a little more complicated. Even the scientific method which is arguably Humankind's most objective invention and which is a self correcting rational tool (with minimum dogma) nevertheless interacts with society and is influenced by politics and economics etc.

A good example of this are the economic structures operating in apparently quite diverse countries

China = State run pseudo capitalist system
USA = Corporately run pseudo capitalist system

Both are tyrannical in nature and quasi fascist societies

The differences are superficial if you look deeply.

Yep, the models are different.

How people implement their chosen system is where corruption and exploitation seeps in.

The system itself does not exploit workers

So you are defending a fascist Ideology by blaming the people who practice it.

Interesting cop out you have there...

It would be like saying Nazism wasn't the problem, it was the Germans who interpreted it wrong.

Look at the fundamental principles of the capitalist ideology and its fascist corporate companion.

They are crystal clear.

Not much room for miss-interpretation one would assume

Nope...

I am not defending anything presently. I have spoken about Capitalism and if it can exploit workers, which, as I have said three times now, it cannot, only people can exploit workers and those people manage to do so regardless of the ism they manipulate to do so.

Capitalism is an economic model and NOT an ideology. Granted, Facism and Nasiism are both ideologies, neither of which I mention, however, granted I said the isms are not in effect the problem and touché, you point out a couple of isms that are a problem....

Bottom line though mate, no matter how you decide to twist or extrapolate what I say, people are the exploiters and not (necessarily) the ism they function within.

As you will note, I give ground where appropriate, i.e. you point out flaws and I acknowledge them, however, be honest - none of that takes away from the basic common denominator - that being man's inhumanity to man. It would be nice to be able to wrap it all up in a nice one size fits all box with a bow, but, the reality is that won't happen. People manipulate and exploit loopholes - you do it with comments you wish to attack as is demonstrated, I don't say that in any accusatory sense, just by way of relevant example.

Back to top

On the 26th of January you are all invited to celebrate little white penal day...

"They're not rules as such, more like guidelines" Pirates of the Caribbean..

IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: Does Capitalism Exploit Workers?
Reply #489 - Nov 9^th, 2013 at 5:05pm

Phemanderac wrote on Nov 9^th, 2013 at 3:49pm:

I am not defending anything presently. I have spoken about Capitalism and if it can exploit workers, which, as I have said three times now, it cannot,

By its very definition a capitalist economic model relies on workers generating wealth/profit for capital owners/controllers who almost exclusively don't engage in the very work that generates the wealth.

Exploitation is a very emotive word, and is generally coupled with notions of force, or lack of choice.

Now if a society only offers access to work that is embedded in a capitalist model, then the choice a worker has is reduced to choosing which capitalist corporate structure they wish to be enslaved by.

Ultimately, the capitalist regime treats workers like expense items or even liabilities on their balance sheet.

The corporate capitalist tyrants always try to reduce worker numbers, worker wages and conditions, and worker security and this is driven by the profit and market share idiom.

A capitalist system cannot be anything other than exploitative when it comes to its workers.

Back to top

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 42612

Re: Does Capitalism Exploit Workers?
Reply #490 - Nov 9^th, 2013 at 5:35pm

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 8^th, 2013 at 1:37pm:

|dev|null wrote on Nov 8^th, 2013 at 11:12am:

Pantheon wrote on Nov 7^th, 2013 at 11:45am:

|dev|null wrote on Nov 7^th, 2013 at 11:29am:

Why don't you credit your sources? Ayn Rand? Yea gods! Individual rights at the expense of destroying society! Cheesy

Google....Its really not hard, plus im on my phone and its difficult at best!

Your failure to address the point I made about Rand is noted.

Rand and other such advocates of capitalism attack the very basis of civilisation - collective, co-operative actions to create something which is much greater than the sum of it's individual components. Without such collective, co-operative action, we would not have cities, we would not have edifices such as the Pyramids, the Parthenon, and so on across the world. We would not have networks such as the internet. We originally banded together for protection, now we band together for the synergistic effect of working together as a collective. Cheesy

It's funny you mention the Pyramids and Parthenon. Egypt and Greece were slave economies. I thought "progressives" were interested in workers' rights? Hilarious.

You miss his point, the Pyramids and the Pathenon were not built by slaves. The Pyramids are now believed to have been built primarily by free men, brought together by the Pharoanic State, for periods of where they gave their labour to build the Pyramids. The Parthenon was again, largely built with free labour, not slaves. In both cases, religion was the motivation (with in the Egyptian case perhaps a bit of prodding from the State).

His point however is very valid. Co-operative, collective effort is the basis of civilisation. Randites (is there such a word for followers of Rand and her Libertarian creed?) prefer to believe the basis is the individual. As Thatcher once famously decreed, "there is no such thing as society!" She of course was ideologically drive to deny it. The rest of the world just rolled it's eyes collectively and got on with one another, keeping society running.

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 42612

Re: Does Capitalism Exploit Workers?
Reply #491 - Nov 9^th, 2013 at 5:38pm

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 8^th, 2013 at 3:28pm:

Karnal wrote on Nov 8^th, 2013 at 1:45pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 8^th, 2013 at 1:37pm:

|dev|null wrote on Nov 8^th, 2013 at 11:12am:

Pantheon wrote on Nov 7^th, 2013 at 11:45am:

|dev|null wrote on Nov 7^th, 2013 at 11:29am:

Why don't you credit your sources? Ayn Rand? Yea gods! Individual rights at the expense of destroying society! Cheesy

Google....Its really not hard, plus im on my phone and its difficult at best!

Your failure to address the point I made about Rand is noted.

Rand and other such advocates of capitalism attack the very basis of civilisation - collective, co-operative actions to create something which is much greater than the sum of it's individual components. Without such collective, co-operative action, we would not have cities, we would not have edifices such as the Pyramids, the Parthenon, and so on across the world. We would not have networks such as the internet. We originally banded together for protection, now we band together for the synergistic effect of working together as a collective. Cheesy

It's funny you mention the Pyramids and Parthenon. Egypt and Greece were slave economies. I thought "progressives" were interested in workers' rights? Hilarious.

Good propaganda, comrade. We progressives are interested in workers rights in developed countries. We're quite happy for workers in developing countries to be exploited so we can buy cheaper and cheaper goods.

Bangladesh is little more than a slave economy too.

And this is progress.

Hot Breath's insinuation was that Ancient Egypt and Greece were some kind of workers' paradise. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I am surprised you've come to that conclusion because I can't see any such insinuation. He was merely making the point that civilisations which created the very concept for modern people, were created through the co-operative and collective efforts of people who worked together, as a whole, not as individuals, each fiercely protecting their own rights. Roll Eyes

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 42612

Re: Does Capitalism Exploit Workers?
Reply #492 - Nov 9^th, 2013 at 5:47pm

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 8^th, 2013 at 6:40pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Nov 8^th, 2013 at 6:18pm:

There was no such insinuation. Mist, you really have a problem getting your head around logic. How is referring to the marvels of the Pyramids and the Parthenon "insinuating" that Egypt and Greece were workers' paradise? You serious?

Read this part of Hot Breath's post again:

Quote:

Without such collective, co-operative action, we would not have cities, we would not have edifices such as the Pyramids, the Parthenon, and so on across the world.

So, yes, I am serious.

How much cooperation do you think there would have been between masters and slaves thousands of years ago? Human Rights and workers' rights did not exist. In fact, workers' rights only begin in the 19th century, and Human Rights arrives much later in 1948.

I would even reverse Hot Breath's assertion. I would say such marvels were created by using cheap, expendable labour, that could be replaced at whim without interference from rights advocates.

You are assuming that all workers were not free men, MM. They were not all slaves, indeed, in most ancient societies, slaves made up only a minority of workers (the exception, later, Imperial Rome, where I've seen estimates as high as 50% across the whole Empire). Most ancient societies are estimated to have had less than 25% of their workers as slaves. Higher than that, it becomes difficult to prevent rebellions (which is perhaps why Rome had so many) and undermines the imperial economy (again, one of the theories as to why Roman collapsed).

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 42612

Re: Does Capitalism Exploit Workers?
Reply #493 - Nov 9^th, 2013 at 5:55pm

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 8^th, 2013 at 7:03pm:

Why do I have to know the context?

Perhaps because it would stop you from putting your foot into your gob quite so deeply?

Quote:

How is that related to their slave economy? Are you saying slaves weren't used, and that there were workers' rights in these times?

Yes. Guilds existed and were created expressly to protect the rights of their members who were often specialised tradesmen and craftsmen.

Guilds had the rights to claim compensation for their members and organise strikes in most societies.

Quote:

WORKERS' COMPENSATION IN ANTIQUITY

The history of compensation for bodily injury begins shortly after the advent of written history itself1. The Nippur Tablet No. 3191 from ancient Sumeria in the fertile crescent outlines the law of Ur-Nammu, king of the city-state of Ur. It dates to approximately 2050 B.C.2. The law of Ur provided monetary compensation for specific injury to workers' body parts, including fractures. The code of Hammurabi from 1750 B.C. provided a similar set of rewards for specific injuries and their implied permanent impairments. Ancient Greek, Roman, Arab, and Chinese law provided sets of compensation schedules, with precise payments for the loss of a body part. For example, under ancient Arab law, loss of a joint of the thumb was worth one-half the value of a finger. The loss of a penis was compensated by the amount of length lost, and the value an ear was based on its surface area3. All the early compensation schemes consisted of "schedules" such as this; specific injuries determined specific rewards. The concept of an "impairment" (the loss of function of a body part) separate from a "disability" (the loss of the ability to perform specific tasks or jobs) had not yet arisen.

Yet the compensation schedules of antiquity were gradually replaced as feudalism of the Middle Ages gradually became the primary structure of government. The often arbitrary benevolence of the feudal lord determined what, if any, injuries garnered recompense. The concept of compensation for the worker was bound up in the doctrine of noblesse oblige; an honorable lord would care for his injured serf.

[Source]

Quote:

5. Egyptian workers were known to organize labor strikes.

Even though they regarded the pharaoh as a kind of living god, Egyptian workers were not afraid to protest for better working conditions. The most famous example came in the 12th century B.C. during the reign of the New Kingdom pharaoh Ramses III. When laborers engaged in building the royal necropolis at Deir el-Medina did not receive their usual payment of grain, they organized one of the first recorded strikes in history. The protest took the form of a sit-in: The workers simply entered nearby mortuary temples and refused to leave until their grievances were heard. The gamble worked, and the laborers were eventually given their overdue rations.

[Source]

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

Setanta

Gold Member

Offline

\/ Peace man!

Posts: 16646
Northern NSW
Gender: male

Re: Does Capitalism Exploit Workers?
Reply #494 - Nov 9^th, 2013 at 6:16pm

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 9^th, 2013 at 5:55pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 8^th, 2013 at 7:03pm:

Why do I have to know the context?

Perhaps because it would stop you from putting your foot into your gob quite so deeply?

Quote:

How is that related to their slave economy? Are you saying slaves weren't used, and that there were workers' rights in these times?

Yes. Guilds existed and were created expressly to protect the rights of their members who were often specialised tradesmen and craftsmen.

Guilds had the rights to claim compensation for their members and organise strikes in most societies.

Quote:

WORKERS' COMPENSATION IN ANTIQUITY

The history of compensation for bodily injury begins shortly after the advent of written history itself1. The Nippur Tablet No. 3191 from ancient Sumeria in the fertile crescent outlines the law of Ur-Nammu, king of the city-state of Ur. It dates to approximately 2050 B.C.2. The law of Ur provided monetary compensation for specific injury to workers' body parts, including fractures. The code of Hammurabi from 1750 B.C. provided a similar set of rewards for specific injuries and their implied permanent impairments. Ancient Greek, Roman, Arab, and Chinese law provided sets of compensation schedules, with precise payments for the loss of a body part. For example, under ancient Arab law, loss of a joint of the thumb was worth one-half the value of a finger. The loss of a penis was compensated by the amount of length lost, and the value an ear was based on its surface area3. All the early compensation schemes consisted of "schedules" such as this; specific injuries determined specific rewards. The concept of an "impairment" (the loss of function of a body part) separate from a "disability" (the loss of the ability to perform specific tasks or jobs) had not yet arisen.

Yet the compensation schedules of antiquity were gradually replaced as feudalism of the Middle Ages gradually became the primary structure of government. The often arbitrary benevolence of the feudal lord determined what, if any, injuries garnered recompense. The concept of compensation for the worker was bound up in the doctrine of noblesse oblige; an honorable lord would care for his injured serf.

[Source]

Quote:

5. Egyptian workers were known to organize labor strikes.

Even though they regarded the pharaoh as a kind of living god, Egyptian workers were not afraid to protest for better working conditions. The most famous example came in the 12th century B.C. during the reign of the New Kingdom pharaoh Ramses III. When laborers engaged in building the royal necropolis at Deir el-Medina did not receive their usual payment of grain, they organized one of the first recorded strikes in history. The protest took the form of a sit-in: The workers simply entered nearby mortuary temples and refused to leave until their grievances were heard. The gamble worked, and the laborers were eventually given their overdue rations.

[Source]

Good post Brian.

@vuk
When I said I wasn't a big fan of free trade agreements, it not because of outsourcing, it because of our laws being overridden. I like the PBS, will the TPP stuff with that? Allow foreign corps to sue our govt for disallowing something they think they have a right to? Dunno, it's secret. We had to bend our copyright and other laws for the FTA with the US. The current discussions of a FTA with China, Abbott says it must be done in 12 months, putting a time on it means he must keep it or be politically embarrassed. China now know the deadline and can hold off to get whatever the want. It's not the trade, it's the agreements and laws that come with it.

Back to top

IP Logged

Poll
Question: Does Capitalism Exploit Workers?
Yes, ofcause. 18 (72.0%) No, it doesnt 7 (28.0%) Total votes: 25 « Created by: Pantheon on: Oct 29^th, 2013 at 9:31am »