Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Sell Marxism/Communism to me
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
quote=efla]I found little explicit reference to Marx in Sokal[/quote]
Neither did I, but but if I may repeat his statement of motivation in full:Sokal wrote:“Why did I do it? I must confess that I'm an unabashed Old Leftist who never quite understood how deconstruction was supposed to help the working class. And I'm a stodgy old scientist who believes, naively, that there exists an external world, that there exist objective truths about that world, and that my job is to discover some of them”
Hoaxing aside, I'm tempted to take the trickster at his word; yet as with the publication of the hoax, the issue of the credibility of the speaker cannot be guaranteed. As Wiki codifies, we must 'assume good faith', with all the vulnerabilities this entails. As with more mundane reality, if we trust, we can be conned. Seems quite the fundamental dilemma, tbh.
Lots of meat in the Sokal Affair: 'physics envy' throughout the humanities or the cultural and cognitive capital of science (or science-as-rhetoric), the Orwellian point of the effects of language on thought, leading through Sapir-Whorf and Foucauldian Truth/Power, and the epistemic tension on the status of scientific knowledge, among others. All seem to me somewhat replete with ironies: the 'deconstructors' of a oppressive science ape its style, generally without comprehension, while 'Science' comes to be deployed (since Social Darwinism, through 'Scientific Marxism', and on to date) quite rhetorically and self-certainly to prove some highly ideological (and conveniently unfalsifiable) points, in a frightfully unscientific attitude of Final Closure of the Gates of Ijtihad; and that postmodernism, born from and railing against the highly canon-prizing and orthodoxy-privileging French academy system founds its most vociferous home in American universities, where pluralism had been more entrenched and 'oppression by dominant knowledge hierarchies' far less of an issue. I'd mention finally, that with the fall of the Soviet Union the change in liberal discourse from being based on the right to choose ones own political-economic destiny to 'There Is No Alternative'.
As per usual, extremists dominate the debate, the (to me, anyway) boring Hurrah-Boo hardening of putatively-polar arguments occurs, and the 'Mangle' of complexity gets reduced to the caricature of ivory-tower scientific certainty versus a corrosive multiculti-relativist horde of Vandal-Huns destroying the possibility of knowledge. Again, it'd be way off topic to go through the relativist-empirical schools, or whether PoMo commitments are actually anathematic to doing 'real' research, but as with the libertarian/socialist debates here, I'm of the basic opinion there's a degree of (to recruit some more pseudo-science to my argument) projection of insecurity and disavowed insufficience: terror and denial of the individual for the 'Communist', and of the collective for the 'Libertarian'.
As to homogeny in the academy, I didn't find it that bad, but perhaps I was lucky. But then I'm a bit of a contrarian, and a proponent of the approach that you should all the more study the approaches you disagree with, to benefit from either the experience or rebutting and countering for the partisan, or for a more balanced view for the more holist. LitCrit I'd agree more, from my more limited xp, than the social sciences, but then you need to factor in selection bias: collectivist worldviews I'd presume as a first approximation will be more common in something like sociology, founded on study of societies, individualist more common in (generally axiomatically individualist) economics, so meeting Right sociologists or Left economists are generally the exception, with feedback effects on what the disciplinary character or culture, and consequently selection criteria tend to be self-reinforcing. Given most people want a good result, writing what the marker wants becomes > writing what you honestly think. Again, this is hardly a monopoly of the Left in academia, more of a structural issue in a hierarchical system, and the possibly-unanswerable problem of how do you adequately correct for, or mark without, bias. I know for a fact I wouldn't have made it through my undergrad without external examiners.
Balkanization of knowledge, and the propagandist self-certainty of groupthink-confirmation effects are something keeps me up at night, and something the internet seems prone to enabling, for all ideological varieties. I was horrified when I first heard about StumbleUpon, I thought it seemed like, or enabled, utter ideological incest, a cocooned net that only told you what you already agreed with, but then this is just a development of a trend that starts with ignoring other people you don't want to be forced to think by.Donegalfella wrote:Economists no longer take Marx seriously, for instance, because -- well, bluntly, he was wrong. When it comes to theories of capital, labour, and the like, his analyses have long since been superseded.
As have the analyses of his classical-liberal frenemies; Ricardo and Smith also used labour theory, but then (to play the milder form of epistemic relativism) different theoretical maps lead you to different places, and foreground or background different landmarks. An analysis can be superceded, while still being 'good to think with'; a theory can be flawed, but remain interesting. The concept of labour being alienated resonates for many; why? The (to me) interesting aspect of the social construction of knowledge is tracing what interests or effects a system of knowledge is expressed from or by. You don't need a (hard) epistemic relativist position to see systems of thought as socially grounded in their time when we read theory from the past, and it doesn't require much more to assume the same goes for our own.
I'll fall back towards my religion comment...Marx could be 99.9% wrong (on some arbitrary scale of truth, measured with our fully-warranteed and tested social-science-o-meter
), but through the alchemical marvel of human creativity, some damn interesting thoughts can emerge from the research program of his intellectual descendants. I'd regard my intellectual life as being the poorer if all Marxist scholarship was redacted out. Let a thousand flowers bloom, and all that...And to say 'economists' as if they were some homogenous herd seems tendentious; even before the current 'crash' we had FT articles praising his analysis, before Das Kapital started flying off the shelves with the accumulation financial crisis. As efla said, you can separate the analytic and the political Marx, domesticate the Beast. 'Well he's just wrong', to my mind, means you need to account for why so many have thought him either right, or valuable. The arguments I've seen here: 'they are naive/sheeple', and 'itsa conspiracy', both fairly unconvincing arguments to me, raising more questions than they answer.Liberalism at least has been consistent in critiquing abuses of power wherever they have occurred.
Jesus said it best with motes and beams...due to the dynamics I whines about earlier, honest critique of your own side is a rarity; Maggie didn't complain about Pinochet's 'abuses', would be the stock rejoinder here. Again, just like people, but on a macro scale, terribly prone to bitching about the 'abuses' others, highly unlikely to 'fess up to our own wrongs, and generally more than willing to either find an excuse for why they either didn't happen (denial or negationism), or if they did, why they were necessary (Realist International Relations, 'preventative war', utilitarian justifications, etc). Of course, if it's necessary, then that's ok...
Anonymous wrote:however today democratic structures allow for progress, structures not present in a communist society.
I was quite young when my grandmother (quite the good liberal) put it to me as 'before we got the vote, violence could be legitimate, but once we got it, it can't be', which was my earliest infusion of the ideas of democratic legitimacy. Though there are tensions here again, as with DF's (democraphobic?) position, if a vote goes against your fundamentals, or if your vote is structurally undervalued (swing states, gerrymandering) or unheard as with institutional capture and authoritarian democracies like Singapore. Does this problematize legitimacy? Makes me kinda uncomfortable with my childish simplicity, anyway...
On Communism, a question (mainly for the antis, since the answer from the other side is trivially obvious)...Can Communism be democratic? Or is it necessarily, rather than contingently, antidemocratic? We have more authoritarian and more democratic forms of capitalism, why not for Communism?Anonymous wrote:I put this down to the theoretical attractiveness of Marxism both sociological and politically (classless society) however it tends to ignore economic realism about the inefficiencies of allocating resources under state control. I would also note however that extreme Liberalism is similarly as attractive and lacking in realism with regard to the tendency of the most politically and economically powerful in society to abuse and exploit the rest.
That's my feelings anyway. A little like DF's comment on insular universities, I think one of the worst things to ever happen to liberal-capitalism is to have 'won' the Cold War; ideological arrogance and groupthink set in, from TINA through Fukuyama, until the 'relief' of 'terrorism' gave us back that most legitimating of psychic structures: an Eternal Foe.
Problem being, as in arguments, proving someone else wrong doesn't make you right...but it does provide a satisfying illusion and sensation of rightness. But perhaps thats all most people want...0 -
Demand is a reflection of the ability and willingness to pay. Generally people put needs before wants you will not purchase skin lotion if you need a life saving drug. As such capitalism addresses needs before wants and the prevalence of luxuries exemplifies that basic needs are satisfied. The failure of the profit motive to encourage the development of life saving drugs in the third world is more a reflection of the poor rule of law to support the market rather the market and profit motive itself.
No, the nature of capitalism itself ensures that needs are not expressed, and without recourse to an external state mechanism the un-restricted market leaves people to die. My initial point stands intact, individual transactions on the market are unable to transmit adequate ''information'' considering those who are most in need are invariably unable to express their requirements. The fact that luxury commodity production is a more profitable endeavour ensures its prioritized position relative to human need - this is of course an irrational prioritization - unless we are using bourgeoisie terminology which equates rationality with '''profit maximization''.The individual or consumer has the best information to decide what their needs and wants are and the market allows them to express this through their ability and willingness to pay.
Individuals hold essential information, however the capitalist market ''ensures'' that people cannot express it in the event of insufficient income. Likewise the ability to pay in a system where wealth becomes concentrated ensures that luxury commodities retain a high price, neither representative of social demand or labor input. For instance a painting can assume a high price due to the fact that a wealthy minority are willing to pay such costs. The given commodity may be in low demand, thus price under capitalist transaction does not reflect value in terms of social desirability or labor expended in production.The welfare state has attempted to resolve the ability to pay problem to some degree by providing for those unable to work.
The welfare state merely re-distributes social surplus, in regions where the state apparatus does not re-allocate a portion of expropriated value in the form of social facilities, the market due to its inherent inability to transmit adequate ''information'' leaves social requirements neglected. Essentially it is the free market in which people are most susceptible to poverty - the more affluent regions of the world predominantly developed via high state regulation and have ensured that needs are met via a planned system of redistribution. Moreover, what is taken as surplus value by the capitalist class by far exceeds the amount re-invested in even the most well funded public facilities either as welfare or aid to developing regions, the latter have more expropriated in profit then they receive in aid. "The relationship of these global corporations with the poorer countries had long been an exploiting one . Whereas U.S. corporations in Europe between 1950 and 1965 invested $8.1 billion and made $5.5 billion in profits, in Latin America they invested $3.8 billion and made $11.2 billion in profits, and in Africa they invested $5.2 billion and made $14.3 bullion in profits." [Howard Zinn, A People's History of the United States, p. 556] Socialists argue therefore, that society should re-appropriate its capital in entirety and retain the full value of its productive capacity - this would under all circumstances result in a dramatic increase in living standards.In a Marxist society who will decide "whatever course of action best meets societies needs/demands" because I would not trust a politician to make my decisions for me.
Under a socialist economy individuals decide what luxury commodities to avail of on the market. Centralized planning with regards production would be confined to specified areas - food staples, housing, telecommunications, airline-co-ordination, train networks, health care, education ect. What qualifies as a social requirement would be decided democratically - general consensus tends to be that housing, education ect should not be com-modified, note that this occurs under the current system to a lesser extent.What about the death toll from a bloody revolution and the dictatorship that follows?
Death is an inevitable characteristic of revolution, those who through violence attempt to maintain their social power will either succeed or perish in the process.Take Tienanmen Square for example.
Again, the Tiananmen square massacre was ordered by the neo-liberal reformist Deng Xiaoping - much of the general protest was in opposition to the privatization of state owned industry and the wholesale removal of social welfare.Marx described the path to communism involving a dictatorship of the proletariat however this has inevitably resulted in a military dictatorship in which the spirit of Marxism ultimately was given up once power is consolidated into a dictatorial leader e.g. Stalin and Mao.
I would agree with you to an extent on this point. Marx considered the agrarian peasantry incapable of organizing a social revolution for numerous reasons, geographic dipesment, lack of education and susceptibility to the power of the religious institutions. He therefore reasoned that it would be the growing industrial proletariat who would ''lead'' the revolution in the interests of society at large - the ''dictatorship of the proletariat'' therefore was initially a form of minority governance considering the agrarian peasantry although in rapid demise - still constituted around 70-80% of European population. It was on this ground that the anarchists rejected the concept - arguing that transition to socialism would require the active participation of the mass's - (a position I agree with). Lenin however expanding on Marx developed the notion of the vanguard - the urban proletariat and revolutionary intelligentsia as the driving force. The dictatorship is however an entirely outdated concept, the contemporary rural populations have become increasingly proletarianized in the developed world. Considering the great majority of the workforce are proletariat - the term is today of little meaning. Ironically - Mao (being a peasant) not only rejected the idea, but argued that the agrarian peasantry would be the primary force of the revolution - which proved a successful theory given the role of land reform and abolishment of serfdom ect.The only genuine "Marxist" revolution that comes the mind was the french revolution where the people freed themselves from the monarchy and set the context for Marxist thought to emerge
Not without its own bloodshed, although I don't cry over dead aristocrats and neither should you considering they where the primary obstacle to liberal bourgeoisie progression.however today democratic structures allow for progress, structures not present in a communist society.
The liberal notion of constitutional representation within a capitalist system is contradictory. Democracy can only occur in the public domain, capitalism under conditions of competition invariably seeks to expand so as to open up new sites of investment. The private tyrannies of the market domain therefore are invariably compelled to privatize all public spaces save the very institutions required to legitimize the process of de-democratization - ie (the liberal electoral system). The liberal constitution in its central defence of the market ensures that democracy within wider society - insofar as it would require the (socialization and democratic arrangement of the workplace) becomes impossible within the confines of the liberal system. Constitutional governance - is in reality, a form of despotism in that those who have constructed the constitution which society is obliged to abide by are none other than the liberal minority, who devised the legal tenants of society in such a manner that the object of bourgeoisie rule and sole means of appropriation/theft (property) becomes sacrosanct. Revolutionary socialists understand - as liberals do ''in secret'', the nature of the legal system - which will be the primary target of the socialist movement. Voting every four years for one business funded organization/political party to oversee the indentured process of bourgeoisie accumulation can hardly be described as a democracy in any meaningful sense - its plutocracy, a form of despotism.
Communism/socialism - is none other than the democratization of societies institutions, socialism aims to provide every person with an equal say in the management of their own workplace, it aims to provide a form of radical democracy. Capitalism on the other hand equates freedom with property - needless to say, I can not be free to even move one foot without permission if another person owns the land under my feet, liberals in their blatant deception defend only the ''freedom'' of the property owner to command society. Given that the means of subsistence become concentrated under capitalism - those without property must subordinate themselves before those who own it in order to make a living. Freedom is by degrees determined by ones relationship with the economic means of production. The worker must obey (like a dog) the despotic command of the manager in the workplace, the personal initiative of the many is negated in service to the dictates of the few. The idiotic liberal response to this situation is that (the worker may choose another property owner to subordinate him/her self before) - socialists however want to abolish private property and democratize society in its (entirety) - a project that is disallowed by the liberal constitution on the premise that it would be ''unjust'' ect. Liberal theorists understand perfectly well and have ''always'' understood how a constitutional arrangement whereby property is protected via the state is an effective mode of class rule, in their more lucid moments they admit itMao's reforms were successful because he was industrialising an undeveloped agricultural society and commanding all resources.
Economic planning certainly had its part to play. The de-construction of feudalism and the democratization of rural society had a tremendous effect - following collectivization peasants where for the first time in Chinese history allowed active participation in their own working conditions ect.However greater gains may have been achieved by private enterprise.
I disagree, from observation of the historical track record command economies have consistently outperformed capitalist economies when cases of relative economic similarity are compared over a given time span. Below is a previous comment I made on this point using soviet development as an example.
Did the USSR fail ? Well lets look at the facts. The liberal assertion that the USSR was a failure is predicated upon its being compared economically with the USA or Europe within a given time frame - a ridiculous comparison in that that these areas had been developed prior - you would have to go back about 800 years before both economies where alike. The rational comparison would be to look at nations that were similar to the soviet states in 1910 and compare their level of development in 1990. So we could compare Russia and Brazil or Bulgaria and Guatemala ect. Brazil for example should be a wealthy nation given its vast natural resources - peace ect (Russia being destroyed by world wars). Brazil is actually better equipped to develop than Russia ever was. Theirs a reason no-one undertakes the above comparison - because the result exposes liberal sophistry.
For Brazil about 5-10% of the population enjoy a high living standard, however the remaining 80% live in conditions comparable with central Africa. For the vast majority of Brazilians Soviet Russia would have looked like heaven. In fact when you look at the rate of industrial development within the USSR - it surpasses that of the developed western world. Living standards shot up from around 1917 - 1950 in terms of average income. The economy stagnated around the mid 60s until its collapse. Now if we compare living standards from the last period of the soviet regime - to the period of economic liberalization we see something very interesting, massive reduction in living standards and an increase in poverty levels. UNICEF documented half a million additional deaths a year in Russia alone due to the implementation of capitalist reform, or more accurately the removal of social supports and price controls. In the Czech Rep poverty went from 5.7% in 1989 to 18.2% in 1992. In Poland during the same period from 20% -40%. The massive votes retained by the eastern European communist parties aren't hard to explain at all in light of the facts - with the Russian CP alone averaging with roughly a third of the vote. Some months ago Moldova voted the communist party back into power. Now its often thrown around by misinformed liberals that this is due to the ''youth vote'' - who had no experience of soviet misery. The truth is actually the opposite - the majority of communist party voters are the elderly. So did the USSR fail ? - well the USSR had internal problems - social repression, difficulty with adequate production esp in the form of consumer goods ect. However its clear that it resulted in a higher standard of living than economic liberalism would have provided within the given time span.That's ignoring the mass famine that ensued from Mao's reforms because capitalism was not allowed to direct food to those who needed it.
Again I have already addressed this issue -
This is largely in response to propagandistic Liberal accusations that negative events occurring under socialist regimes must necessarily be a consequence of ''socialism''. Taking famine as a much cited example - the deaths in China during the great leap forward are attributed by liberals to socialism as opposed to ill planned industrial reform resulting in the subsequent neglect of agriculture. Supposing we apply this same rational to capitalism - Amartya Sen has estimated that during the Bengal famine of the 1940s the death toll compared to that of the great leap forward numbers an additional 4 million per year. Chomsky argues therefore, that India alone under a democratic capitalist system has during one famine seen excess of the total 100 million deaths attributed to global communism by liberal propagandists. - ''China in the late 1940s began to institute rural public health and educational programs, as well as other programs oriented towards the mass of the population. India played the game by our rules. It didn’t do any of this and there are consequences, for example, in mortality rates. These started to decline sharply in China from around 1950 until 1979. Then they stopped declining and started going up slightly. That was the period of the reforms. During the totalitarian period, from 1950 to about 1979, mortality rates declined. They declined in India, too, but much more slowly than in China up to 1979. Sen then says, suppose you measure the number of extra deaths in India resulting annually from not carrying out these Maoist-style programs or others for the benefit of the population, what you would call reforms if the term wasn’t so ideological. He estimates close to four million extra deaths every year in India, which means that, as he puts it, every eight years in India the number of skeletons in the closet is the same as in China’s moment of shame, the famine. If you look at the whole period, it’s about 100 million extra deaths in India alone after the democratic capitalist period enters.''
So just in case you try to ignore the point - according to the historian Amartya Sen (who lived through the famine) enough food was being produced in Bengal, however people could not afford it and starved as a consequence. This could have been averted through state re-distribution, however this clearly refutes your assertion that the capitalist market rationally allocates resources.You will not trust western media from democratic countries where freedom of the press is guaranteed however you will trust reports from a society that restricts all aspects of personal freedom and if enforced would be knocking at the door following this debate? That is the true form of contemporary repression in China.
Actually Im not taking my information from the Chinese state media - which is just as blatent in its neo-liberal propaganda as the western media.Imperialism was one component of the industrial revolution, technological innovation and a vast increase in the productivity of workers was another.
Technological innovation and enhanced productivity predicated entirely upon imperial revnue.It was this increase in labour productivity that increased wages and ultimately lead to the empowerment of workers that Marx envisioned.
It was labor unions that fought for increases in wage - in conjunction with the bourgeoisie realization that a section of labor ought to be co-opted into the process of capitalist accumualtion in order to reduce class antagonisms.The industrial revolution freed slaves because advances in technology increased productivity reducing the need for cheap slaves.
Slavery was used by the capitalist class to fuel the industrial revolution, then when wage labor become a cheaper means of exploitation slavery was abolished. It had nothing to do with liberal capitalism being a moral system - rather it became more profitable to avail of a labor source that required no maintinence costs.It was the industrial revolution that freed the working class and slaves.
It was the industrial revolution that required and supported slavery to begin with.You yet again you equate capitalism with a form of government whereas it is an economic system.
Capitalism is an economic system - its political manifestation is liberalism.An empire removes the freedoms of its colonies.
It does indeedThe US is not a empire as it cannot change Irish law.
It could invade torrorow and install a puppet gov - as it has consistently done throughout its history and continues to do so (read chomsky).A capitalist society does not require a imperialist society simply because imperialism is both an economic and political structure whereas capitalism is not a political structure in the sense of government.
Imperialism is an expression of antagonisms within the global market - it is a bi-product of capitalism. "just as capitalist production and banking speculation, which in the long run swallows up that production, must, under the threat of bankruptcy, ceaselessly expand at the expense of the small financial and productive enterprises which they absorb, must become universal, monopolistic enterprises extending all over the world - so this modern and necessarily military State is driven on by an irrepressible urge to become a universal State. Hegemony is only a modest manifestation possible under the circumstances, of this unrealisable urge inherent in every State. And the first condition of this hegemony is the relative impotence and subjection of all the neighbouring States." - Bakunin "men no longer fight for the pleasure of kings, they fight for the integrity of revenues and for the growing wealth [for the] benefit of the barons of high finance and industry . Political preponderance is quite simply a matter of economic preponderance in international markets. What Germany, France, Russia, England, and Austria are all trying to win is not military preponderance: it is economic domination. It is the right to impose their goods and their customs tariffs on their neighbours; the right to exploit industrially backward peoples; the privilege of building railroads to appropriate from a neighbour either a port which will activate commerce, or a province where surplus merchandise can be unloaded . When we fight today, it is to guarantee our great industrialists a profit of 30%, to assure the financial barons their domination at the Bourse [stock-exchange], and to provide the shareholders of mines and railways with their incomes." [Words of a Rebel, pp. 65-6] Lenin also writes extensively on the nature of imperialism - ie. state/monopoly capitalism.Remove equality and your definition of socialism actually describes liberalism. Liberalism is about freedom of the individual where the individual be a person or business,
Liberalism is about the ''freedom'' of the individual to assertain so much property that he/she may rule half the planet.it is the anti-thesis of executive order however in its extreme form it tends to result in a small few gaining power quite like Marxism unless individual rights are guaranteed.
Liberalism ensures that the power of the few remains intact through its defence of property rights - as explained by John Jay in the youtube link above. Marxism at heart aims to remove from society only the means of consolidating power.Marxism specifically requires a hierarchical bureaucracy to control all aspects of the economy and ultimately the individual. Neither extreme is desirable and is possibly catastrophic.
No it doesnt - Marxism isnt a system of governence, its a socio economic philosophy that has various interpriations. I would consider myself a libertarian marxist/anarcho socialist. You quite right however that some aspects of Marxist thought (namely vanguardism) - once enacted can potentially lead to a hierarchical red burarchracy.Socialism on the other hand offers a democratic provision for vulnerable members of society and is not same as Marxism or Communism.
Socialism is generally considered a transition towards communism - your prob refering to social democracy. The Irish socialist party for example are a marxist communist party whereas the spanish socialist party are social democrats - like labor.Most businesses that are nationalised are therefore usually unsustainable and inefficient.
Again - the economic record of the USSR disproves this assertion.You argue that workers are enslaved by the burgeoise however workers have the freedom to chose who they work for and to an extent how long they work for (once minimum living standards are met any additional work is optional).
They are allowed a choice between various hierarchial arrangments - we argue for democracy in the workplace.If they opt to work hard enough they can save enough to possible start their own business and become their own employer essentially freeing themselves under your exploitation of labour logic.
In ancient rome slaves could potentially become free and proceed to purchase slaves themselves - social mobility does not justify slavery - nor does it justify exploitation. A good extract from kapital on ''exploitation'' ''The commodity that I have sold to you differs from the crowd of other commodities, in that its use creates value, and a value greater than its own. That is why you bought it. That which on your side appears a spontaneous expansion of capital, is on mine extra expenditure of labour-power. You and I know on the market only one law, that of the exchange of commodities. And the consumption of the commodity belongs not to the seller who parts with it, but to the buyer, who acquires it. To you, therefore, belongs the use of my daily labour-power. But by means of the price that you pay for it each day, I must be able to reproduce it daily, and to sell it again. Apart from natural exhaustion through age, &c., I must be able on the morrow to work with the same normal amount of force, health and freshness as to-day. You preach to me constantly the gospel of “saving” and “abstinence.” Good! I will, like a sensible saving owner, husband my sole wealth, labour-power, and abstain from all foolish waste of it. I will each day spend, set in motion, put into action only as much of it as is compatible with its normal duration, and healthy development. By an unlimited extension of the working-day, you may in one day use up a quantity of labour-power greater than I can restore in three. What you gain in labour I lose in substance. The use of my labour-power and the spoliation of it are quite different things. If the average time that (doing a reasonable amount of work) an average labourer can live, is 30 years, the value of my labour-power, which you pay me from day to day is 1/365 × 30 or 1/10950 of its total value. But if you consume it in 10 years, you pay me daily 1/10950 instead of 1/3650 of its total value, i.e., only 1/3 of its daily value, and you rob me, therefore, every day of 2/3 of the value of my commodity. You pay me for one day’s labour-power, whilst you use that of 3 days. That is against our contract and the law of exchanges. I demand, therefore, a working-day of normal length, and I demand it without any appeal to your heart, for in money matters sentiment is out of place. You may be a model citizen, perhaps a member of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and in the odour of sanctity to boot; but the thing that you represent face to face with me has no heart in its breast. That which seems to throb there is my own heart-beating. I demand the normal working-day because I, like every other seller, demand the value of my commodity.'' Capital p 343. I think this also gives an insight into how marxist economic theory is inherently idealogical - efla, and I maintain that is is ''humanly impossible'' to sepreate analysis from subjective valuation. Of course you might consider this ''an excuse not to do fieldwork'' - but I would rather be true to myself than ''pretend'' to be a scientist.However the idea that anyone can be free of work in any society is ridiculous, who will produce the food, clothing and shelter and why work if someone else will do it instead?
Socialism seeks to re-numerate people with the value of their productive output - making an allowance for taxation, which would be decided on a democratic basis and unlike profit is re-invested into social facilites.This is probably the most extremist and illogical argument yet. In a democratic society as we have now if the workers revolt the democratic structures in place in developed countries offer the means to peacefully take power. A violent revolution can only suggest that an extreme minority are responsible.
Extremist yes, hardly illogical. For socialism to be enacted both the liberal legal system and the electorial system would need to be de-constructed.A revolution to tear up everything we know and start from scratch is destined to fail.
The only way to prove TINA wrong is to kill her.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
As well as the poor general method of argument taken, the specific points argued by communist supporters dont appear any better. We have heard, on Boards, that there will be no laws and that jurers will decide only "on their conscience." So heres hoping that when Im hauled up for sunbathing naked on a beach that the 12 juries aren't members of Cóir.
Without actually venturing to suggest any "communist" interpretation of your actions (given that there is no such socialist dogma which has ideologues rigidly adhering to it), there is more then enough room to argue for your being hauled up in front of a jury or a private execution squad or whatever it is you have in a libertarian society. The holy grail of moral action under right libertarianism is that you can do what you want so long as you dont hurt others, right? Well if you take this as your conception then two arguments against your being allowed to injure yourself are as follows:
1. If you were to die of melanoma you may harm relatives or other loved ones through the pain which they feel at your senseless loss
2. Kids or even adults are indirectly influenced by your life, which serves as a visible example of how one may live their own life. If you happen to be famous, looked up to, admired, whatever, then you create yet another instance of someone respected who buys into the social convention of tanned = good, despite the fact that the process of becoming tanned is in fact dangerous. If any of these kids/adults who respect or compete or whatever with you actually go out and immitate your dangerous behaviour and come to harm on your count, you have indirectly help to cause them harm. If you dont see how this "causation" occurs then here you go:
they see you -> they think "wow that guy is tanned" -> "look how pale I am" -> "I want to be tanned" -> they lie in the sun -> BAM Melanoma
So you, through your careless action, have instigated a chain of events which led to a child getting melanoma. What a c*nt
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
True the un-restricted market will return us to the bourgeoisie society we escaped from post industrialisation but we don't have a
Im not sure what you mean by this exactly - wealth and power is today more concentrated than it was during the industrial revolution. During early capitalist development - there existed a large class of petite proprietors, artisans - small landholders ect. The growth of the corporation has consolidated material wealth and political power to an extent never seen before.The propose of government is to deal with the market failures inherent in some aspects of capitalism i.e. minimum safety standards. State intervention can aid the functioning of a capitalist society to the benefit of everyone it is not simply a choice of one or another.
This is social democratic nonsense and comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of how capitalism works. The state does not ''manage'' the market - the market/capitalist class manages the state.Luxuries are prelevent in industrial societies because needs are satisfied. Luxuries are inherently more profitable because the demand for wants is essentially limitless.
Luxuries are prevalent because capitalist exploitation has created a market for them - it has nothing to do with ''needs being met''. You can take a tour of any Latin American capital and find porches being sold in the vast commercial districts, the telling contradiction being the malnourished slum dwellers living within miles of these areas.Why you ask then are people still suffering from starvation in some parts of the world? The un-developed world has not developed the institutions necessary to support a functioning capitalist society i.e. the rule of law and democratic structures.
This is grade A neo-liberal bull****. The rule of law and parliamentary democracy do not invariably lead to high levels of economic wellbeing, take Brazil as an example. There is in general absolutely no connection between economic growth, ''democracy'' and the rule of law. Seriously - don't try to fly that crap from the CATO institute past me and think I wont notice it. The most developed nations of the world grew via the revenue accumulated through extensive imperialism. Imperialism couldn't be in further breach of the liberal law you refer to. Marx destroys the myth of primitive accumulation peddled by smith and the other bourgeoisie propagandists in capital ''This primitive accumulation plays in Political Economy about the same part as original sin in theology. Adam bit the apple, and thereupon sin fell on the human race. Its origin is supposed to be explained when it is told as an anecdote of the past. In times long gone-by there were two sorts of people; one, the diligent, intelligent, and, above all, frugal elite; the other, lazy rascals, spending their substance, and more, in riotous living. The legend of theological original sin tells us certainly how man came to be condemned to eat his bread in the sweat of his brow; but the history of economic original sin reveals to us that there are people to whom this is by no means essential. Never mind! Thus it came to pass that the former sort accumulated wealth, and the latter sort had at last nothing to sell except their own skins. And from this original sin dates the poverty of the great majority that, despite all its labour, has up to now nothing to sell but itself, and the wealth of the few that increases constantly although they have long ceased to work. Such insipid childishness is every day preached to us in the defence of property. M. Thiers, e.g., had the assurance to repeat it with all the solemnity of a statesman to the French people, once so spirituel. But as soon as the question of property crops up, it becomes a sacred duty to proclaim the intellectual food of the infant as the one thing fit for all ages and for all stages of development. In actual history it is notorious that conquest, enslavement, robbery, murder, briefly force, play the great part. In the tender annals of Political Economy, the idyllic reigns from time immemorial. Right and “labour” were from all time the sole means of enrichment, the present year of course always excepted. As a matter of fact, the methods of primitive accumulation are anything but idyllic.'' Capital p 873
The reason that many nations in the third world are ''unable'' to develop is that they are exploited by the international bourgeoisie via debt bondage - the prescription for which is the sale of public assets and the implementation of tax reductions so as to attract FDI. Needless to say an excuse for further acquisition on the part of the fat bastards that your ideology is designed to protect. The capital that is established on the periphery - extracts more in profit than enters in aid, this when the outflow of capital in debt reparations are taken into consideration.Therefore capital will not flow into these countries because economic transactions cannot be supported by legal guarantee, i.e. the profit motive is removed by the lack of developed property rights.
Again more unadulterated bollox from neo-liberal econ 101, capital frequently travels where the interests of business are put before ''individual rights''. Indonesia, Brazil, Philippians ect. Capital investment does not lead to development, or rising quality of life in fact it often results in ''diminishing living standards''. Nor does increase in GDP indicate any increase in general living standards. Sorry to smash your neo-liberal orthodoxies.Hence the welfare state.
The welfare sate is to a large extent a concession made in order to reduce class antagonisms.Luxuries retain high prices because of want or desirability,
No not necessarily, those with sufficiently high income can afford to pay what is ''from their relative position'' a low cost - price tells us nothing about individual desire. Price only conveys the fact that some people have massive incomes.it may not represent social demand or labour input but it does represent the perceived value or the value that people place on the production of creativity and originality in the painting.
No it doesn't, your just re-regurgitating neo-classical bull. You cant measure subjective desire on a graph, unless you can read peoples minds.A painting assumes a high price because it is one of a kind, often created by a specific individual.
No, it assumes a high price because a yuppy with to much money can afford it. BTW before you say ''theirs no such thing as too much'' - thats a matter for society to decide.The perceived value lies in its exclusivity and its popularity. The more popular a painting the higher the price.
It has ''absolutely nothing'' to do with popularity - most people have no interest in Picasso, again price in this case merely represents the affluence of the rich, nothing more.True the market fails to account for some social needs which is why the government provides services where the market fails.
The governments ability to provide social services is entirely dependent on the market - if investment dries up, social expenditure is eroded given the reduction in tax revenue and lack of collateral for borrowing. Again - the market is entirely blind to human needs and the welfare system being a practical subsidiary of the market is no different.I agree to a degree however the developed world could hardly be described as high regulation in comparison to what a Marxist government calls for.
Well thats arguable - I have outlined the extent to which developed capital is predicated upon imperial/neo-imperial revenue. One of main sources of revenue in the US is the military industrial complex ect - moreover most of the technological utilities that contemporary socialists propose be used in economic planning is already in use within the market.There is certainly room for improvement in striking the balance between income equity and growth.
More propaganda fresh from econ-101, their is ''absolutely no'' trade off required between efficiency and equity, in fact I would argue equity better serves to enhance efficiency.Simply arguing that society will re-appropriate capital leaves the allocation of resources open to political manipulation.
Better for resources to managed democratically as opposed to being controlled by a small elite - the latter in its lack of transparency is immeasurably more susceptible to corruption.
Neo-liberals seem to think private domination of resources and social process is more ''fair'' and ''efficient'' - Im surprised how easily people swallow this tripe.Yes, social provision should exist but it should not eliminate market efficiencies.
Using bourgeoisie terminology no doubt, your equating ''efficiency'' with profit maximization - needless to say profit maximization rests in direct opposition to social provision and is therefore inefficient.The revolution you refer to can be equated with war. I only see justification for war in self defense, this is not necessary in the developed world at least.
Society will decide whats ''necessary'' - of course Im sure neo-liberal executives will retain their arrogant pre-supposition that they may decide what is necessary for society until their destruction as the hegemonic block.I agree Mao's achievement was the removal of the feudal system and land reform.
Don't forget his destruction of the liberalsI fail to understand to this logic, how does the constitution which guarantees equity among its citizens end up enslaving them?
It does not ensure equity among citizens - it negates it in so far as it abolishes democracy via its protection of property.Does it really matter who devised the constitution if it offers equal rights to every citizen?
Your trying to evade the point - it offers rights of property, and under the mechanism of the market property must expand into public space, thereby robbing individuals of the ability to determine with equality the conditions of their own lives.It does not matter whether a political party resembles a business.
It does - the most well funded political parties hold undue advantage in terms of media coverage ect. Additionally they invariably act in the interests of their sponsors as opposed to the interests of the electorate.The radical democracy that you refer to is simply unworkable in reality. Ultimately a decisions and compromises between interested parties must be made.
Self serving bourgeoisie tripe thinly veiled under a veneer of pragmatism. Direct democracy has historically functioned and continues to functionCurrent democracy addresses the big issues however effective implementation of these polices requires executive decision making.
What your referring to isn't democracy - its plutocracy and its primary concern is how to best facilitate the process of upper class accumulation.The greater the state planning required the greater the dictatorial power afforded to politicians and as such a planned economy will necessitate dictatorial control.
You commented in this very thread that ''Some level of dictatorial executive order is necessary is society''. . I disagree, we can implement a democratic system of participatory planning - again this is far more inclusive than the despotic mode of organization your defending.With regard to property rights, its a tradeoff between the individual and society's freedom, I would argue slightly in favour of the individual because of the ability of society to oppress the individual.
The freedom of the individual is inseparable from the freedom of society. Your arguing that it is more admirable for the individual to oppress the majority than allow the majority to oppress the individual. This is general component of the liberal pathology, in that liberals are aware on some level that they would be targeted as oppressors in the event of popular democracy de-constructing the liberal mechanisms of executive order ie. constitution - judiciary ect.it would have been better served if individuals were afforded the ability to purchase their own property from the state.
You wouldWhy then are the most developed economic nations capilist?
Again - prolonged imperial exploits facilitating the advancement of monopolistic capital.The idea that the bourgeoisie consciously thought we better let some more people into the club would suggest a strong organised unit of bourgeoisie which seems a little farfetched.
Not far-fetched at all, its on record. ''The workman does not understand the position of the capitalist . The remedy is to put him in the way by practical experience .. working men, once enabled to act together as owners of join capital, will soon find their whole view of relations between capital and labor undergo radical alteration. They will learn with anxiety and toil it costs to ven hold a small concern together in tlerable order .. the middle and operative class's would derive great material and social good by the example of the joint stock principle.'' Edinburgh journal 1853It seems profit did eradicate slavery. I'm not arguing that profit is moral rather I think it is mechanistic and a reflection of needs and wants not necessarily good or bad and rather mechanical if anything.
It reflects absolutely nothing other than the constant drive to accumulate. Capitalist accumulation holds no bias - it can eradicate need or enhance it.If I am to follow your reasoning the decrease in general wages removed the need for slaves.
The decrease was facilitated by slavery to begin with - in that revenue extracted from the colonial slave trade was used to invest in mechanical advancement.I don't see how slaves were needed for the industrial revolution.
You wouldn't, your a liberal and as such must ignore history when it undermines the ideological justification for upper class rule.I guess it could be described as an empire in this sense but it is not one in the traditional sense of the word as its power is very much diluted and it affords a very large level of autonomy to the newly installed government.
Well define empire in the traditional sense then. If your referring to constant military invasions, instillation of puppet governments, trade embargoes and international economic blackmail - then yes the US qualifies.The existence of what you refer to as imperialism occurs because of the difference in the strength of supporting structures and institutions between the developed and un-developed world.
Waffle, the existence of imperialism has to do with the expansion of capital accumulation, the social resistance it faces and opposition from countervailing bourgeoisie interests.Sadly corporations can and do exploit the weakness and corruption in some of the worlds most under-developed nations.
Its not some mistake, exploitation is a systemic property of capital expansion, an invariable necessity, a structural characteristic of the system you advocate.In effect it is playing out the class struggle on a global scale.
The first thing you've said that's made any senseI agree, however Marxism fails to adequately explain the process of achieving communism or a classless society following the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Marxism doesn't explain it - its for people to understand and realize through their own struggle.I think that Marxism as a socio economic philosophy exposes it weakness as a system.
Again its not a systemIt bases itself on how the world should operate rather than how it does operate.
By that reasoning - we should have never abolished slavery, given ethnic minorities rights or given woman the vote. After all - visionary nonsense, explained how society ''could'' be organized - as opposed to how it ''was'' organized.No it does not, I was referring to a situation such as the mining industry in the UK where a nationalised industry resulted in in-efficient allocation of resources.
To re-iterate, soviet Russia was nationalized to far greater extent than great Britain and it outperformed correlating capitalist economies in terms of industrial output ect. This negates the notion that nationalized industry is somehow less efficient than private.Yes I do see it as highly ideological, hierarchical arrangements are how society and humans and indeed animals organize themselves and the larger the grouping the more hierarchical it will likely become.
More neo-liberal tripe, there exists a greater degree of democracy now in the highly populated regions than existed under feudal arrangements when a lower population inhabited the earth.As for pretending to be a scientist, simply because you can not state with certainty and objectivity the exact value of a good or service does not mean estimating it with subjectivity is useless.
Soft science is viable - however theoretical padagrams don't qualify as factual, given their subjective nature. Still that doesn't stop economists from passing subjective theories off as scientific ''facts'' does it ?
The subjectivity involved is the consumers perception of their needs, wants and their ability and willingness to meet them, only they can approximate this information. A person may not be able to tell you they like 2.3 apples for every orange however they can tell you they like apples more than oranges.
True but approximation is worthless without the ability to express it.What if I decide I'm not going to work and I'm going to let everyone else pay for the services?
This a problem that exists under capitalism. Socialism would entail welfare.And replaced with what? we have a level of democracy already.
We have plutocracy - we propose a participatory system where every individual is ensured an equal say in how their own life operates.There is always an alternative. The mixed economy.
Capitalism with a human face, no thanks - Il take socialism.0 -
Anonymous wrote:ironically its likely that the majority of people will be unhappy with the compromises made.
As long as everyones complaining, its probably as close to fair as makes no difference
The problem, and it's touched on by your precondition of (political?) equality, is that 'voice' can, and often is, distributed unequally: in support of synd's more Marxist argument, in a liberal-capitalist environment where 'freedom of speech' is a commodity like any other (advertising, PR, academic funding etc) the advantage is to those who have it to begin with. Homer Simpson said 'Facts? You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!', and I've more than a suspicion this goes as much in the social sciences, inc. economics, and in ideology. I'm reminded of the newspaper magnate who, when asked if he owned a paper so he could influence peoples views, answered 'why else would you have a newspaper?'. It wasn't Murdoch, but the same applies.The least ideological route is often the best after all this world is far too complex for simple ideologies.
Mmm, I don't think ideology is a slur-word, or that ideology means 'false', more that it's an internally-coherent frame used to order and define a perceived world, a perspective or a map to a territory (Korzybski), highlighting or editing out different features. Yes, it's less complex than the terrain itself (a 1-1 map is an awkward and impractical guide), but equally any scientific theory reduces massively to an elegant and simplistic remainder. Indeed, success in convincing others tends to require a highly simplified view and (mis)representation of the world (as in neoclassical economics )
Similarly, I personally don't 'get' how one can truly be post-ideological, while retaining any values that you consider core and non-compromisable. I'd venture to say that pragmatism could also, perhaps, be an ideological position? To say that 'what works, is good' bypasses an initial step, deciding what we want to achieve. Which is, I'd argue, an intensely political-ideological question. My key difference from synd's position is I don't think killing TINA is either an efficient or advantageous 'path to communism greater socialism'; coercion or violence being a fairly cack-handed way to convince anyone, imho.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
My key difference from synd's position is I don't think killing TINA is either an efficient or advantageous 'path to communism greater socialism'; coercion or violence being a fairly cack-handed way to convince anyone, imho.
Dont be silly KAMA - you commit violence ''after'' you've convinced people TINA needs to die though, seriously. Heres how you go about it
0 -
Hehe with DF absent, I feel my intrinsic ideological nature moving towards the Right; if there's one thing I can't stand, it's the tedium of agreement I'd better put my running-dog subversive for the bourgeois-hegemonic liberal-capitalist imperialists hat on!
Let the Struggle continue!synd wrote:I cant help realize the tendency among liberals to equate success relative to position within the historic timeline to justification of the given social-orde ie.
Without access to some objective ahistorical position, gifted by a passing God or metanarrative, regime comparison on indicators like outcomes seems a better yardstick than any other I can find, though I'd also accept a expressed democratic preference, whether it's one based on the current liberal-democratic order, or a parallel democratic structure. I'm fully in support of the democratic right of the people to be wrong. I also think it's easier to convince people of socialism by showing them evidence of its success, rather than berating the failings of capitalism, and that its a more fertile emancipatory strategy. I'd also note that imo the main beneficiaries of a violent disruption tend to be sociopaths, they possess somewhat of an elective affinity for such circumstances.
In general, I reckon DF underestimates the achievements of the Soviet Union, while you overestimate them. I had family in Moscow during the Soviet regime, one of whom on a visit here fell down crying in a supermarket because she'd never seen so much food in one place, and whose mother queued for more than 4 hours on the rumour that a shop would have eggs. Anecdotal evidence of course, which you are free to disbelieve, but I generally privilege peoples lived experience over other sources or assumptions.Socialists as far as Im aware don't advocate the market being abolished. The market is mere transaction between individuals that would exist under any conceivable system.
Depends which socialist, or communist, you ask. I assure you, some do, arguing instead for a production and distribution system based on a democratic model, with communal ownership of property. How individuals could trade that which they do not own appears oxymoronic to me, unless, for example, we trade usufructuary rights while ultimate ownership remains with the commonality. With a structure of exchange, the potential for inegality on some level arises, which appears antithetical to communism, as I understand its definition. However I agree with you, that markets and 'The Market' are not the same thing, and DF will be glad to agree with you that individual transaction is a natural and omnipresent phenomenon.Sustainablity, full employment and participitory organization within the workplace have not yet been achieved.
I agree, and this was precisely where I parted company from comrades such as the SWP; I don't think its sufficient to blame capitalism, carry placards, and demonstrate, I think if you fully believe this, its obligate to act on it. An effective and sustainable socialism should, and must, build forms of participatory economic organization that embody and live these principles.
There's far less stopping us than at almost any other time; if you set up an anarchosyndicalist union in Ireland, Franco isn't going to liquidate you, not will the Special Branch follow you out of the pub every night as in decades past. To repeat myself, a purely oppositional socialism that does not show or exemplify an alternative, is precisely what makes TINA plausible. Unless you can show an alternative, be an alternative, all you can do is complain. Which explains, to me, the current weakness of the Left in Ireland; there's insufficient praxis. Too many newspapers, not enough workers cooperatives.
The Thomas Cook workers demands, I believe, were for 8 weeks of redundancy, rather than 5 weeks. I fail to see how, in any manner, this achieves anything like communism, or forging an alternate economic trajectory to neoliberalism; ALBA seems a lot closer. While I can see the mobilization and recruiting benefits of the occupation, what remains once political street-theatre posturing is removed, and the slogans stopped ringing in my ears, seems no more than a form of wage-bargaining, a larger share of the (capitalist) pie, a mere 'trade union consciousness' - quite similar in fact, but less developed, than the welfarist settlement of social democracy decried earlier as 'buying off workers'.
If the closest thing to a plan the combined forces of the radical Left can do in Ireland is to ask Thomas Cook for a few more weeks of wages...eh...if I really had my DF-hat on I could be scathing now, but I don't have the heart.0 -
Dont be silly KAMA - you commit violence ''after'' you've convinced people TINA needs to die though, seriously. Heres how you go about it
Hardly a revolution more like clever use of the media and political support to improve worker bargaining power. It might help their case to use a few facts to support their claims of loyalty and their right to better compensation. I'm not saying they they weren't loyal workers but too often protests like this could be handled more effectively if they used factual evidence such as the average length of time employees worked at Thomas Cook rather than rhetoric about "fat cats". The only fact I got from this clip was the CEO was paid a £7m bonus, 200 times salary of the average worker, if true and unrelated to performance, it seems like a mismanagement of the business against shareholder interests and will surely impact profitability if not addressed.
The workers are arguing for 8 weeks redundancy pay after being offered 5 weeks it is their right to bargain for a better redundancy package not to break the law and forcefully occupy private property and it will certainly hurt their case given that they knowingly broke the law as it would if a business had done the same. Where would unions draw the line at breaking the law? would they intimidate workers whose rights it is they are supposed to protect? Again I would stress its about striking the balance of power between business and workers.
Synd, I was going to reply to your other comments and had prepared a few responses but then I decided whats the point, if I don't agree with your strict Marxist view you will dismiss my thoughts as liberal propaganda. I do agree with some of you're points such as corporate exploitation of less developed countries however I outlined my thoughts on this. I respect Karl Marx however I think a classless society is politically impossible.0 -
Hardly a revolution more like clever use of the media and political support to improve worker bargaining power.
Not quite - it serves as a platform for the far left to expand within the city. The majority present where, the WSM (anarcho socialists) of which im a member - socialist party (rev marxists)- socialist workers party (rev marxists) - people before profit - sinn fien and trade union activists. The greatest mobilization came on the part of the far left. The current economic climate and its obvious prolongation will radicalize people - naturally it will begin in the urban centers however it will ''hopefully'' radiate outwards into the more finnna fail/finna gael dominated rural areas. The political climate in Dublin is quite separate from the greater national climate at the moment.It might help their case to use a few facts to support their claims of loyalty and their right to better compensation.
Their arrest was a massive blow to the credibility of the ruling class- provocation will further serve to de-legitimize the trinity - gov, capital and judiciary.The only fact I got from this clip was the CEO was paid a £7m bonus, 200 times salary of the average worker,
Richard Boy Barret - Socialist Workers Party, recently elected onto Dún Laoghaire council at 22.8% - defeated Fina Gaels John Bailey.if true and unrelated to performance, it seems like a mismanagement of the business against shareholder interests and will surely impact profitability if not addressed.
Thats quite typical - primarily amongst corporate CEOs.The workers are arguing for 8 weeks redundancy pay after being offered 5 weeks it is their right to bargain for a better redundancy package not to break the law and forcefully occupy private property and it will certainly hurt their case given that they knowingly broke the law as it would if a business had done the same.
These companies have been expropriating the labor value of workers since the assertion of capital - its institutionalized theft facilitated by the liberal court. The workers case would not have been hurt had they gone further - in fact the increased force of the courts invariable response would only serve to breed more public contempt for the court.
0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAgJs9anhw8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peeOlANurX0
Advertisement