Is pure Marxism wonderful?

[Hayek]

This does not actually alk about sweatshops though, so it can be assumed that they are talking of responsible, and fair companies.

That is what globalisation generally brings about to the Third World, though - responsible and fair companies. Irresponsible multinational corporations do exist, of course, but they are the exception rather than the rule. Just like some men are criminals, but most are not. In Vietnam, Nike offers its employees six times the minimum wage. This is not because Nike is driven by a huge will to help others, but because they gain by doing so, and its employees gain as well. And when productivity increases, so will the workers' wages.

Trade means that everybody wins, because otherwise, no trade would take place. It is the same thing with globalisation. People can specialise and do what they do best, thus maximising output. Therefore, it is most odd that after so many years of history time and time again proving Robert Owen's old theories wrong, they still seem to attract followers.

 

[Mise]

@Hayek:
How did they conduct this poll? I looked at the "Methodology" page, and though it only talked about the USA, it said that they were telephone polls! Clearly, a guy working in a sweatshop isn't going to be part of this poll.

 

[Hayek]

@Hayek:
How did they conduct this poll? I looked at the "Methodology" page, and though it only talked about the USA, it said that they were telephone polls! Clearly, a guy working in a sweatshop isn't going to be part of this poll.

I don't know. I haven't actually looked into this poll very much, though I constantly hear the same thing - globalisation is good - from people who have visited countries like Vietnam or done any research on the impacts of global trade on poor countries, so I thought it would give a very correct image of how people in the Third World view globalisation. I'm sure other surveys can be found, saying the same thing.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

@Aphex: I think it's Procrust with two "r's"...

You may be right. I'm not 100% familiar with the English names in Greek mithology.

 

[luiz]

Well, economy isn't natural, it's pretty much artificial.
But I agree that it's a more "legitimate injustice" than, say, tyranny. It's just a "passive injustice" so to speak.

That seems right. A legitmate unjustice. And to destroy this unjustice totally it would take a bigger unjustice.

Well, that's the point.
Defenders of capitalism often say that it's a moral system, because it rewards people for hard work. This example shows clearly, and moreover you recognize it : it's false.
Capitalism reward the people who successes at making money, be it deserved or not. Which is precisely what I dislike with it. It's an amoral system.

But the point is no one has the power to say who deserves who doesn't. Most people are willing to pay more to Jordan then to Mr. Bus Driver, so I think Jordan deserves more, even if the bus driver has to work twice as hard as Jordan. In fact, that's a great thing about Capitalism. It's the market, and thus ultimately the individuals, who decide what to pay to each worker, instead of a samll group of individuals in the government.
But hard work is also rewarded. A bus driver who works pn Saturdays will make more then one who doesn't. An employee who always stay overtime will likely be promoted and have his salary increased.

And additionnally : no, it's not easier to find a good bus driver than a good basketball player. It's just that you don't make entertainment television/sport with bus drivers.

Come on, how many Michael Jordans are there and how many good bus drivers are there?!

About mixing capitalism and freedom : capitalism is an economic system. It doesn't care for politics, and it completely doesn't care for slavery or freedom. Capitalism can be integrated in democracies (like western ones), just like it can be integrated in dictatorships (like Pinochet and the likes).
Capitalism in itself promote to have a large consumer base, so it can be said that it helps freeing people and improving their lifes.
Well, on the other hand, capitalism is maximizing profit, so it just equally tends to exploit and enslave workforce.
What makes the difference here is the political system, not the economical one.

An enslaved workforce is not the way to maximazi profits. A large middle-class is the way to go. The United States of America are the richest country on Earth because they have the world largest middle-class.
Slaves and sweat-shop workers are terrible consumers. They can't afford anything. A middle-class worker, OTOH, then afford most of the things the market can offer, with the exception of luxuries(that are only a small part of the economy).
As a rule, the larger the middle-class, the higher the GDP.

 

[luiz]

Cough!Watergate!Cough!
Cough!Al Capone!Cough!

There are numerous cases of corruption in ALL countries, and most of them even the higher Executive officers have something to hide.

The difference is, in Cuba, China and NK, corruption is widespread AMONG the population.
In Cuba, for exemple, the MAJORITY of people has to steal at least something from their workplaces to pay the bills. The government knows of this, and let it continue. Why? Because as soon as someone criticises them, they can arrest that person and say the reason is corruption, not crime of opinion.

 

[luiz]

Yeah, like the people who rule the country aren't rich college boys, but boys raised on a farm in Arkansas.

A CLASS can't rule anything, damn it!
The people who rule the US are mostly rich, sure. But it does NOT mean that the upper class rules the country! MOST rich americans have nothing to do with politics, so how can you say that the CLASS is ruling?

Right. Like the 2000 elections in Florida when thousands of black Floridans were disqualified from voting.

You're telling me that someone stopped thousands of blacks from votiong because they were black?

 

[luiz]

Luiz, I start to wonder if you have ever heard of Old Labour. They are a decidedly left wing government, yeat Neil Kinnock was elected. Not only that, he never took the title of "Commisar for the people" but the simple one of "Prime Minister".

Jesus, most left-wing governments do not create a dictatorship. Especially if they were elected.
The problem is marxist parties.

 

[insurgent]

You may be right. I'm not 100% familiar with the English names in Greek mithology.

Neither am I. I had to look it up to find the English form. In Danish he's called Prokrustes, which is very close to the original Greek form Prokroustes (IIRC).

@luiz: Can't participate in this debate for a couple of days, but you're doing fine!

 

[Mise]

An enslaved workforce is not the way to maximazi profits. A large middle-class is the way to go. The United States of America are the richest country on Earth because they have the world largest middle-class.
Slaves and sweat-shop workers are terrible consumers. They can't afford anything. A middle-class worker, OTOH, then afford most of the things the market can offer, with the exception of luxuries(that are only a small part of the economy).
As a rule, the larger the middle-class, the higher the GDP.

Eh? The larger the middle-class, the higher the GDP? So what you're saying is, if everyone was middle-class, the GDP would be highest. Hmm. This sounds oddly familiar. Isn't the aim of Socialism to distribute wealth in such a way that the middle class is, in fact, the largest, hence resulting in the highest GDP and everyone having money enough to buy both essentials and luxuries?

 

[nonconformist]

You're telling me that someone stopped thousands of blacks from votiong because they were black?

You havn't heard of it???
Thousands of black Americans were barred from voting for commiting alleged "crimes" they had never commmited!

 

[luiz]

Eh? The larger the middle-class, the higher the GDP? So what you're saying is, if everyone was middle-class, the GDP would be highest. Hmm. This sounds oddly familiar. Isn't the aim of Socialism to distribute wealth in such a way that the middle class is, in fact, the largest, hence resulting in the highest GDP and everyone having money enough to buy both essentials and luxuries?

The thing is, once you implement socialism poverty will be on the rise. Cuba isn't a middle-class nation, it's a poor nation. OTOH, the capitalist USA is a middle-class nation.
There's no way to forcibly create a stable middle-class.

 

[Mise]

I don't know. I haven't actually looked into this poll very much, though I constantly hear the same thing - globalisation is good - from people who have visited countries like Vietnam or done any research on the impacts of global trade on poor countries, so I thought it would give a very correct image of how people in the Third World view globalisation. I'm sure other surveys can be found, saying the same thing.

I'm inclined to believe that many such polls are biased against the poverty stricken victims of Globalisation, NOT because they are ideologically in favour of Globalisation, but because of obvious logistic problems in polling such people.

 

[luiz]

You havn't heard of it???
Thousands of black Americans were barred from voting for commiting alleged "crimes" they had never commmited!

If what you're saying was proven to be true, it would be more then enough to overrule the whole election and impeach the governor of Florida.
That's why I don't believe this is the whole truth.

 

[nonconformist]

I think the U.S.A is upper class.

 

[nonconformist]

Considering the governor of florida is Jeb Bush.....

 

[luiz]

I'm inclined to believe that many such polls are biased against the poverty stricken victims of Globalisation, NOT because they are ideologically in favour of Globalisation, but because of obvious logistic problems in polling such people.

That's what socialists tend to forgert: even though the situation in those countries is still terrible, it imrpoved a lot with Globalization and Libralism. It's easy to verify the the per-capita income of those countries is much bigger today then it was in 1990.

Capitalism doesn't promiss an utopia, nor a quick change in social conditions. That's only promissed by charlatains.
Capitalismm, or better yet Liberalism, promisses a gradual and sometimes tough proccess of continued capitalization, that will with time improve drastically the conditions of the people, and eventually lead to a developed economy and high quality of life for the majority of the people.

 

[luiz]

Considering the governor of florida is Jeb Bush.....

Believe it or not, the US has an independent Judicial system more then capable of taking the necessary action against high Executive officers.

 

[Mise]

The thing is, once you implement socialism poverty will be on the rise. Cuba isn't a middle-class nation, it's a poor nation. OTOH, the capitalist USA is a middle-class nation.
There's no way to forcibly create a stable middle-class.

Cuba isn't rich in natural resources like the USA. There are more reasons for Cuba being poor than simply the forced redistribution of wealth. Had Cuba been able to trade with the USA for all these years, perhaps the economy would have done better than it did, especially since the fall of the USSR/Comecon.

Cuba also brings up a fair example of how a Communist government can be pseudo-democratic also, considering the growing trend towards publicly elected officials, while maintaining state control over the economy. While it is hardly a shining example of a Marxist utopia, it certainly shows that Communism and democracy can coexist in a limited fashion.

 

[luiz]

Cuba isn't rich in natural resources like the USA. There are more reasons for Cuba being poor than simply the forced redistribution of wealth. Had Cuba been able to trade with the USA for all these years, perhaps the economy would have done better than it did, especially since the fall of the USSR/Comecon.

Cuba also brings up a fair example of how a Communist government can be pseudo-democratic also, considering the growing trend towards publicly elected officials, while maintaining state control over the economy. While it is hardly a shining example of a Marxist utopia, it certainly shows that Communism and democracy can coexist in a limited fashion.

Cuba doesn't trade with the US because they confiscated all american properties in the island. When any nation takes similar action, there will be consequences. In fact, a trade embargo is the least you would expect as a consequence.

As for Cuba beign democratic:
Fidel Castro is the leader staying in power for most time of ALL leaders alive.
Cuba is ranked only above NK and China as the countries with the least freedom of press
Cuba has admittedely thousands of political prisioners
Cuba executes people after a few hours of trial
The "elections" are a sick joke. You can only vote within one party, and all candidates must be approved by Fidel.

Fidel Castro is a bastard, a killer, an unhuman moster, only comparable to Pinochet in number of victims in all modern Latin-American history.