left wing or right wing???

Watch
PTMalewski
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#21
Report 3 weeks ago
#21
(Original post by seedee)
Socialism incentivizes workers more than capitalism does, because under socialism, they get paid their actual labor value.
What is the actual labor value? You probably underestimate the costs of product development, collecting capital to actually build a production plant, and the know-how of actually running a business. Not to mention the risk factor. Most people if they had a few millions, probably wouldn't risk losing them by investing in a business. So there has to be a huge prospective reward to make them invest the money and build something.
There indeed is a disproportion rewarding work these days, but this is not the fault of capitalism. It happens because capitalism has been removed and now we have corporatism.

(Original post by seedee)
When people understand that their needs will be taken care of through everyone's collective contribution,
That's your problem. People will never understand anything of the sort. A few intellectuals could do it. But most of people are completely unable to understand any even semi-complex concept. Millions in any country can't even understand the bus timetable.


(Original post by seedee)
then people would be free to work for autonomy, mastery, and purpose instead of not dying of starvation.x[/url]
This is just a wishful thinking. In communist countries, particularly in Poland where people since the Gierek's era (early 70's), had practically as much freedom as in the West, there was a policy of full employment, a warranty that everyone gets a place to live and so on. You know what was the results?
The pre-war generation that literally often had to struggle to survive, after WWII in the late 40ies and 50ies was working voluntarily, and even in paid work, buying tools for their own money, to build factories. But the post war generations brought up in socialism were completely different. Workers didn't care about work quality, because they knew they're going to have a job anyway. There was a huge problem with alcoholism and drinking at work. Workers were often drunk, worked badly, ignored procedures, could hide empty cans and bottles inside produced cars that later had to have their doors dismantled in search of something making strange noises while driving- which was turning out to be an empty can of beer or emptied vodka bottle. There is even a joke, that a good Polish car from communist times must have been made on Wednesday, because on Monday and Tuesdays workers still had hangover, and and on Thursday they were already starting their drinking.
A director of the best car factory in the country, Edward Pietrzak, said there was a constant trouble with qualified workers. People were not afraid of losing their job, so around 25% of the staff was either new, either office workers sent to help the production, soldiers or prisoners, which had 'a terrible effect on the cars' quality.
There was also a huge problem with theft. Workers were stealing stuff from factories. Security didn't help, some of the stolen stuff was given to security officers as a bribe so they'd blink their eyes. 8 sets of gauges were worth a monthly salary of a security officer, who could get as many in a few days.
It is also known that the people who actually cared about their job, were actually moving from state companies to private sector, because a man trained in a car factory, who wanted to do a good job, could earn much more in a private garage. It's even in the Polish research papers on the matter.


(Original post by seedee)
Who's ignorant of what?
Workers have no idea on running 'the means of production'.[/quote]
Last edited by PTMalewski; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
ritogo3765
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#22
Report 2 weeks ago
#22
(Original post by PTMalewski)
What is the actual labor value? You probably underestimate the costs of product development, collecting capital to actually build a production plant, and the know-how of actually running a business. Not to mention the risk factor. Most people if they had a few millions, probably wouldn't risk losing them by investing in a business. So there has to be a huge prospective reward to make them invest the money and build something.
There indeed is a disproportion rewarding work these days, but this is not the fault of capitalism. It happens because capitalism has been removed and now we have corporatism.



That's your problem. People will never understand anything of the sort. A few intellectuals could do it. But most of people are completely unable to understand any even semi-complex concept. Millions in any country can't even understand the bus timetable.




This is just a wishful thinking. In communist countries, particularly in Poland where people since the Gierek's era (early 70's), had practically as much freedom as in the West, there was a policy of full employment, a warranty that everyone gets a place to live and so on. You know what was the results?
The pre-war generation that literally often had to struggle to survive, after WWII in the late 40ies and 50ies was working voluntarily, and even in paid work, buying tools for their own money, to build factories. But the post war generations brought up in socialism were completely different. Workers didn't care about work quality, because they knew they're going to have a job anyway. There was a huge problem with alcoholism and drinking at work. Workers were often drunk, worked badly, ignored procedures, could hide empty cans and bottles inside produced cars that later had to have their doors dismantled in search of something making strange noises while driving- which was turning out to be an empty can of beer or emptied vodka bottle. There is even a joke, that a good Polish car from communist times must have been made on Wednesday, because on Monday and Tuesdays workers still had hangover, and and on Thursday they were already starting their drinking.
A director of the best car factory in the country, Edward Pietrzak, said there was a constant trouble with qualified workers. People were not afraid of losing their job, so around 25% of the staff was either new, either office workers sent to help the production, soldiers or prisoners, which had 'a terrible effect on the cars' quality.
There was also a huge problem with theft. Workers were stealing stuff from factories. Security didn't help, some of the stolen stuff was given to security officers as a bribe so they'd blink their eyes. 8 sets of gauges were worth a monthly salary of a security officer, who could get as many in a few days.
It is also known that the people who actually cared about their job, were actually moving from state companies to private sector, because a man trained in a car factory, who wanted to do a good job, could earn much more in a private garage. It's even in the Polish research papers on the matter.




Workers have no idea on running 'the means of production'.
Labor is prior to capital and that's all I need to say. Yeah dude, Marx literally never considered the costs of production. He literally became the most influential economist ever after Adam Smith without thinking about this simple trick which actually destroys him lol. How about you go to a PDF of Das Kapital and look at the section called "simple reproduction" for an answer.

Product development is accounted for in the price, value does correlate with price, but it is not directly linked.

Collecting capital to actually build a production plant is accounted for in the price, surplus value is mostly reinvested into capital accumulation or capital deepening as modern economists call it.

Capitalists don't know how to run the technical side of an enterprise either they hire managers for this. Managerial skill plays a role in businesses obviously but it's usually not the owner filling such a role, particularly in larger firms where stockholders basically run the show. Turns out the people who actually operate the means of production know how to run it the best, not people like you. The data is clear, horizontally organized worker cooperatives are on average much more efficient and productive than traditional top-down capitalist businesses. We have owners because they want to control and own the means of production, not because they are needed

There's always some risk to any enterprise, hence why smart capitalists usually will not just throw money around like candy. Capitalists don't carry any risk, they have enough wealth to insulate their life-style from business failures, it's the workers that loose their income if companies go bust, workers are at risk of loosing their homes and quality of life. Workers carry the risk, capitalists just take the profits.

Socialists can do quality control, the reason why communist cars were low quality is because socialists prioritize public transport, which was really good quality. Moscow subway is probably one of the most famous example of this. And also socialist cars were meant to be easily repaired without special tools, which made them crude and simplistic by design not by lack of capitalism. You just showed that you know nothing about the subject and just regurgitate some numers you picked up on prageru without understanding how to analyse those numbers.

Corporatism is just a different stage of capitalism, this is what the system produces. It's pure semantics to differentiate between what is essentially different points in time of capitalist development. The fact that corporatism/cronyism exists is not just because of the state. Certain components of free-market capitalism will naturally lead to the development of cronyism. If you have a system in which the means of production are operated collectively, but owned privately, the value created by the collective during the labor process will be appropriated by the private owner. The capitalist mode of production requires that wealth be continuously pumped upwards, and accumulated by the bosses. In short, the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. Free market capitalism requires that class division will be perpetuated on a systematic basis. There will be economic inequality under a capitalist mode of production, and this means there will be competing class interests. The capitalist class of private owners will have a vested interest in retaining private ownership of the means of production, and the consequent economic inequality, whereas the working class will have an economic interest in abolishing private ownership of the means of production, and getting rid of the consequent economic inequality. Unless the capitalist class act directly against their own interest, they must establish ways of protecting their class position from the working class and consolidating economic privilege in the long term. Establishing a state apparatus to act in their interests with a monopoly on the use of violence that is perceived to be legitimate is an excellent way of doing that, even if it results in a deviation from market principles. The institutions created under free market capitalism have a greater economic interest in power consolidation than actually having a free market system. This is why crony capitalism exists.
I should also add that I find the right-wing libertarian position on this issue disingenuous in certain respects. I don't like how they boldly declare that the economic problems in the world are all because we live under cronyism/corporatism or whatever, and then go on to say that all of the prosperity in the world comes from free markets. It always amazes me capitalist shills never actually know the definition of "capitalism" and "socialism". "Capitalism" is turned into some airy-fairy ******** about "free markets" and "voluntary transactions" when the term "capitalism" has always referred to the mode of production and the commodity, social and labour relations that arise for it, which is why it can quite easily be said that capitalism was born in the year 1834 which was when all these relations come together to form capitalism as a system. If "free trade" is capitalism, then market socialism and feudalism would be capitalism too. All of these systems can engage in trade in a market.
This is why it's near impossible to argue with propertarians, ancaps, etc. When they talk about capitalism, they are talking about some idealistic fantasy that doesn't actually exist, nor does it explain anything and is completely malleable to the debate at hand. None of them are arguing in good faith, because then they would actually have to address criticisms to issues that are inherent to capitalism as a system, which is something propertarians, ancaps and mainstream economists have been bolting from since the early 20th century, which then goes into the interesting history of why sociology was largely decoupled from economics as a school when they were highly integrated in the 19th and early 20th century.
1
reply
PTMalewski
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#23
Report 2 weeks ago
#23
Blah blah blah blah blah.
Lots of ignoring facts and opinions of people who actually lived in the system and run these things.

Giving workers control over companies is just as clever as giving a watch to a monkey, and telling it to measure lap times.
2
reply
ritogo3765
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#24
Report 2 weeks ago
#24
(Original post by PTMalewski)
Blah blah blah blah blah.
Lots of ignoring facts and opinions of people who actually lived in the system and run these things.

Giving workers control over companies is just as clever as giving a watch to a monkey, and telling it to measure lap times.
"Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently" - What do we really know about worker co-operatives by Virginie Pérotin. Google it.

I accept your concession though. The LTV is empirically verified, it is objectively true. There is nobody who even tries to refute it. Capitalists just find it politically convenient to deny the LTV, and they are just attempting to socially discredite it, You also are just engaging in the attempt of socially discrediting the LTV.
0
reply
PTMalewski
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#25
Report 2 weeks ago
#25
(Original post by ritogo3765)
"Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently"
If this was true, they would have dominated the market. It didn't happen even in the times of true capitalism, when corporations were forbidden.

(Original post by ritogo3765)
I accept your concession though. The LTV is empirically verified, it is objectively true. There is nobody who even tries to refute it. Capitalists just find it politically convenient to deny the LTV, and they are just attempting to socially discredite it, You also are just engaging in the attempt of socially discrediting the LTV.
That isn't my point. My point it who has know-how of collecting capital for bigger investments and making strategic decisions. Also, who has time for thinking about it. Workers might have some good first line observations so a good manager should listen to them to some extent, but otherwise they have no knowledge or time to think about running a company. And while there are a few intelligent people among them, who could have done PhDs in different circuimstances, most of them are daft beyond imagination, and you would have known that if you actually worked in factories or warehouses for a bit longer.
0
reply
bigblockofcheese
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#26
Report 2 weeks ago
#26
Economically Right wing, Socially Centre-right
1
reply
ritogo3765
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#27
Report 1 week ago
#27
(Original post by PTMalewski)
If this was true, they would have dominated the market.
No, they wouldn't. Rich investors can't make any money off of them, so how would they dominate in a market with a bunch of rich investors? Traditional businesses can get investors who take a share of the profit, whereas a cooperative can't do this or by definition, they are no longer worker-controlled.

(Original post by PTMalewski)
That isn't my point. My point it who has know-how of collecting capital for bigger investments and making strategic decisions. Also, who has time for thinking about it.
It was already explained to you that your point is moot. Implying that it is the fault of the workers for not possessing the know-how is disingenuous, as the bourgeoisie managerial and engineering strata, which hold a virtual monopoly on technical skills, have robbed the proletariat of a comprehensive education in this area.

(Original post by PTMalewski)
muh true capitalism
Pure idealism
Last edited by ritogo3765; 1 week ago
0
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#28
Report 1 week ago
#28
I would say socially I tend to argue from the right, but i'd like to think a tolerant right. For example, I do think that our society would be better if it wasn't loosing its religous core, and I am fully supportive of goverment policy that promotes the family structure as the best and key way of living... but I also fully support gay marriage because that is 100% living in line my ideology of promoting a unified religion+family ideology.

Equally with culture.. I think that a mono-culture is absolutely the best and most optimum way to run a harmonious society.. but it doesn't have to be 'white british' culture, if anything these days white british culture isn't the most effective or prosperous and we should be looking outwards to learn from others - migration is a key part of this, but should be framed in a way that fully backs the merging into one single culture rather than multi-culturalsim.

Economically I also tend to find myself a bit of a mess.. I don't like excessive borrowing and debt, which puts me at odds with many on the left these days, but I am also fully supportive of natioanlisation of key and monopolised industries (power, rail, etc) which puts me at odds with those on the right.

If you averaged everything out, I'd say I'm just to the right socially, and just to the left economically..
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#29
Report 1 week ago
#29
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
If you averaged everything out, I'd say I'm just to the right socially, and just to the left economically..
Or a normal person with your own mind.
0
reply
PTMalewski
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#30
Report 1 week ago
#30
(Original post by ritogo3765)
No, they wouldn't. Rich investors can't make any money off of them, so how would they dominate in a market with a bunch of rich investors? Traditional businesses can get investors who take a share of the profit, whereas a cooperative can't do this or by definition, they are no longer worker-controlled.
It only means that workers are unable to make a joint venture and take the risk. That's why you need a 'rich' investor, who has earned the money elswhere and is willing to take the risk.

(Original post by ritogo3765)
It was already explained to you that your point is moot. Implying that it is the fault of the workers for not possessing the know-how is disingenuous, as the bourgeoisie managerial and engineering strata, which hold a virtual monopoly on technical skills, have robbed the proletariat of a comprehensive education in this area.
Do me a favor. Even intelligent and motivated people often have no idea how to run a business. I personally wouldn't ever start a company that produces anything because I have no clue about targeting, marketing, product development, export etc. Let alone researching what's the situation and analisis that takes up a lot of time, and we don't even have to mention that blue collars have on average lower IQ than people working in management.


(Original post by ritogo3765)
Pure idealism
Do you actually know than in the prime time of classical capitalism there were laws penalising corporations, meaning businesses could be owned an ran only by real people who were taking full responsibility? And also had liberty to choose what to do, eg. they could choose to pay their workers much higher wages than those average on the market. In corporation it's impossible, because a whole group of people would need to agree to this, and then the shares owners would start a lawsuit against them.
1
reply
TCA2b
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#31
Report 1 week ago
#31
Economically I am strongly in favour of laissez faire capitalism (I could be termed a minarchist), but I also take various other positions that would be classed as "right wing" (although they haven't always been), such as controlling borders and immigration levels, some traditionalist points of view and a general revulsion and rejection of cultural marxism/social justice claptrap, which I see as little more than subversive. Otherwise I live by a live and let live philosophy in regards to most social matters.

Don't care much for socialism - it belongs in the fiction section and what "viable" implementations there are of it are just a ball and chain around the neck of capitalist systems that inevitably lead to corruption and inefficiency on a massive scale, manifesting to a lesser or greater degree in our run of the mill Keynesian/interventionist market economies. That said, I think the intersectionalist swill now festering in universities and spilling out into broader society is by far the more dangerous strain of such thinking.
Last edited by TCA2b; 1 week ago
0
reply
TCA2b
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#32
Report 1 week ago
#32
(Original post by ritogo3765)
Labor is prior to capital and that's all I need to say.
No, it's really not. Marx was utterly wrong in his theory of value. I find it a bit bizarre that people still cling to the utter nonsense upon stilts that is Marxism. Its core theory of value is wrong in that it ignores the element of time. The rest of your post seems to be structured off rather unbacked generalisations.

That you think the LTV has not been refuted boggles my mind. It's been dead and gave way to the subjective and marginal theories of value for something like 150 years now. Hint: the entire theory requires the concept of "socially necessary" labour to work. Guess what the problem is with that concept if you're trying to put together some theory of "objective" value based on labour? It's subjective! No one outside of diehard Marxists still clings to this theory.
Last edited by TCA2b; 1 week ago
0
reply
ritogo3765
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#33
Report 1 week ago
#33
(Original post by PTMalewski)
It only means that workers are unable to make a joint venture and take the risk. That's why you need a 'rich' investor, who has earned the money elswhere and is willing to take the risk.



Do me a favor. Even intelligent and motivated people often have no idea how to run a business. I personally wouldn't ever start a company that produces anything because I have no clue about targeting, marketing, product development, export etc. Let alone researching what's the situation and analisis that takes up a lot of time, and we don't even have to mention that blue collars have on average lower IQ than people working in management.




Do you actually know than in the prime time of classical capitalism there were laws penalising corporations, meaning businesses could be owned an ran only by real people who were taking full responsibility? And also had liberty to choose what to do, eg. they could choose to pay their workers much higher wages than those average on the market. In corporation it's impossible, because a whole group of people would need to agree to this, and then the shares owners would start a lawsuit against them.
IQ and status don't match in capitalism. High IQ people drift to low status boring jobs, capitalism lacks the features for individuals to leverage high intelligence.
0
reply
ritogo3765
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#34
Report 1 week ago
#34
(Original post by TCA2b)
Mises.org
It's funny when you pretend that you are this rationally minded and scientifically backed guy and commies are stuck in the 19th century, when you link the flat-earthers of economics that no notorious economist today takes seriously anymore. Your post and sources are nothing but baseless claims which misrepresent both Marxist and Classical economics. They ignore how the free market Gilded Age, which used Child Labor and lead to widespread monopolies, was notorious for its treatment of workers which only ended as a result of stronger unions and government intervention/trustbusting. They could not even parse how the C-M-C cycle works.

You say socialism belongs in the fiction section while free market minarchism hasn't even been attempted by any group of people on a substantial scale. Laissez-Fair capitalism has only even led to anti-competitive corporatism on an almost dystopian scale when attempted in the US and abroad and should be left firmly in the past alongside Feudalism and slavery. Again, corporatism is just a different stage of capitalism, this is what the system produces. It's pure semantics to differentiate between what is essentially different points in time of capitalist development. It's catastrophic failure blows the collapse of the Soviets out of the ballpark.

Unlike most libertarians I've actually read Böhm-Bawerk in the original German, he's smarter than most online lolberts but you can tell relatively quickly that he's dishonest, he claims that Marx himself secretly abandoned the LTV for a cost-price theory in Capital III, which he clearly didn't because constant capital is nothing but dead labor, c + v are just different components of C. It's really easy to see through and the fact that no Marxian economists afterwards ever concerned themselves with this "problem" kinda tells you that it is a fake one. That Böhm-Bawerk called his work the "closing" of the Marxist system is his attempt of imitating Marx himself who considered Feuerbach's work the closing of theology.

Capitalists exploiting those who work for them is not a "conspiracy theory"; it's a fact of life in much of the developing world where American billionaires such as American Celebrity billionaires making merch off of 6 cent an hour Bangladeshi Child Labor or how the conditions in Apples sweatshops are so terrible that they set up suicide nets surrounding their factories to stop their employees from killing themselves. That's not to mention how american workers are getting compensated less and less as their productivity has increased since the 70s, largely due to a collapsing labor sector and lack of corporate oversight while the cost of living has risen exponentially. Food insecurity is rising, healthcare costs upwards of $1000 a month and people are getting laid off while Congress bails out Kanye West and the Rand Institute. But do go on about how the free market will some how magically solve all of this
Last edited by ritogo3765; 1 week ago
0
reply
PTMalewski
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#35
Report 1 week ago
#35
(Original post by ritogo3765)
IQ and status don't match in capitalism. High IQ people drift to low status boring jobs, capitalism lacks the features for individuals to leverage high intelligence.
You have literally zero evidence to support this claim.
0
reply
ritogo3765
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#36
Report 1 week ago
#36
(Original post by PTMalewski)
You have literally zero evidence to support this claim.
You are literally wrong - yet again
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...289616303324#!

"Wage labor and capital", and "value price and profit" are really short. You can also search The Marxist Project and Hakim on youtube. It helps to understand theory to blow your talking points out of the water. I have never found an intellectually honest debunking of Marx.
Last edited by ritogo3765; 1 week ago
0
reply
PTMalewski
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#37
Report 2 days ago
#37
(Original post by ritogo3765)
You are literally wrong - yet again
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...289616303324#!

"Wage labor and capital", and "value price and profit" are really short. You can also search The Marxist Project and Hakim on youtube. It helps to understand theory to blow your talking points out of the water. I have never found an intellectually honest debunking of Marx.
First of all, it has been measured numerous times, that people who do engineering or management jobs have on average higher IQ than blue collar workers, or even low rank office clerks.

Second of all, capitalism has been removed and replaced in the early XXth century, by corporatism so you can't claim you have any data on IQ of people working in capitalism, because there is next to none data from that time!
0
reply
BlueIndigoViolet
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#38
Report 2 days ago
#38
(Original post by lilybaxter)
left for me
Chicken wing
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you confident you could find support for your mental health if you needed it in COVID-19?

Yes (79)
21.82%
No (283)
78.18%

Watched Threads

View All