Western democracies are no longer fit for purpose. - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15139060
The same political elite work for the rich as the latter funds them, the government, the military, businesses, etc. Much of the same media is also owned by the same. And the rich will obviously prefer politicians who work in their favor.
#15139117
ralfy wrote:The same political elite work for the rich as the latter funds them, the government, the military, businesses, etc. Much of the same media is also owned by the same. And the rich will obviously prefer politicians who work in their favor.

And everyone else (the schmoes like us) have been conditioned to see rich control freaks as "treat-givers who control when we get to go outside and pee."

Decisions are made *without* the house dogs' consent. His opinion doesn't matter - he just wants treats.
#15139129
ckaihatsu wrote:This is politically *elitist* and economically *monetarist* -- you obviously value the *entity* of the nation-state, over the actual *people* of it, and to what end, exactly? More plutocracy and Western imperialist military conquest, most likely.

'.


This is facts and history, not a political view point. People have no value, unless they create value. The state provides protection, fairness, and order and depending how well it does at that dictates how much value the individual people can create. As far as conquest, it is not a western concept. Actually it is the west that conquered and improved peoples lives (actually less conquest and more like collaborations), where people like Genghis wiped out cities and even whole civilizations.
#15139143
Verv wrote:
And what did it replace it with? A reign of terror that climaxed with the tyrants being murdered, and then Bonaparte's France,



It's a matter of *emphasis* -- at the time I don't think there was any *clean*, *bloodless* way to transition away from the monarchy and the aristocracy, so what happened, happened, and now there are no hereditary titles in France, which is a *good* thing. (There are also no hereditary titles in the U.S., either.)

The revolutionaries at the time had no *plan*, or politics, really, unfortunately, so reaction took over, and thus Bonaparte.


Verv wrote:
then there's a complicated web of governments afterwards that mostly just amount to a bourgeois power structure with random moments where the First & Second estate look like they might once again have some victories.



Right, but the Church was *ended* in politics there, basically, along with the monarchy and nobility, in favor of the merchants / bourgeoisie, which was the *most* decisive bourgeois revolution, along with the U.S., of course, which didn't have that feudal baggage to begin with.


Verv wrote:
I also feel like monarchy routinely gets an unfair shake in all of these things because monarchies tended to exist at times of the least stability, but this does not necessarily have to be the case. A monarchy can exist in a perfectly prosperous time. The reason that they do not, however, was because the bourgeoisie used the power of the industrial revolution to totally supplant them and institute plutocracy over the whole of the Western world.



You keep *mentioning* a monarchy, Verv, on almost all of your posts, but you still haven't made any *case* for a return to a monarchical system -- recall that such would have to be based on *heredity*, by definition, while the world has soundly *surpassed* the need for that mechanism, with the use of *wealth*, and private property. How would you *justify* hereditary rule when people today can simply *ignore* such court theatrics, as they do today for the few vestigal monarchies that remain -- ?


Verv wrote:
Plutocracy has faired better over all because the world is wealthy enough to enjoy more stability. Since the 17th century, and especially since the 20th century, famines and other scarcity issues have decreased significantly, and the tools of the state to have a full monopoly on power have also increased sharply, especially in the 20th century. Plutocracy has smoother seas and more tools at its disposal -- it's a fundamentally different period of history, and comparing the two is thus difficult.



What about local warlordism and the continuing tensions between today's 'superpowers', the U.S. and China -- ? I'm seeing plenty of recent localist opportunism in the Middle East (Islamic State, and Turkey), and in Africa, and a possible re-carving-up-of-the-world *neocolonialism*, for whatever debt-based internattional markets may remain despite shitty, shitty capitalism these days that's often not even worth the effort.


Oxymoron wrote:
This is facts and history, not a political view point. People have no value, unless they create value. The state provides protection, fairness, and order and depending how well it does at that dictates how much value the individual people can create. As far as conquest, it is not a western concept. Actually it is the west that conquered and improved peoples lives (actually less conquest and more like collaborations), where people like Genghis wiped out cities and even whole civilizations.



Yeah, I'm not defending *any* mass conquests, warlordism, or imperialism, at *any* scale -- even though such *may* have a byproduct of globalizing previously-backward, isolated parts of the world.

Do you have any stance on workers' surplus labor value?
#15139148
ckaihatsu wrote:
Yeah, I'm not defending *any* mass conquests, warlordism, or imperialism, at *any* scale -- even though such *may* have a byproduct of globalizing previously-backward, isolated parts of the world.

Do you have any stance on workers' surplus labor value?


Yet you single it out for some reason....

as far as your question, my stance on it is that the value in question is not the result of labor value, but rather market value. Since the laborer in most cases contributes zero to the marketing of the product, he has no business benefiting for the profits they entail. Most of the surplus value is added by the marketing, sales, and logistics teams. Now if I am talking long term I might provide the laborer more incentives to maintain stable work force, and increase productivity but it would be very limited as their productivity can only get so high for a consistent period of time.
#15139154
Oxymoron wrote:
This is facts and history, not a political view point. People have no value, unless they create value. The state provides protection, fairness, and order and depending how well it does at that dictates how much value the individual people can create. As far as conquest, it is not a western concept. Actually it is the west that conquered and improved peoples lives (actually less conquest and more like collaborations), where people like Genghis wiped out cities and even whole civilizations.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Yeah, I'm not defending *any* mass conquests, warlordism, or imperialism, at *any* scale -- even though such *may* have a byproduct of globalizing previously-backward, isolated parts of the world.

Do you have any stance on workers' surplus labor value?



Oxymoron wrote:
Yet you single it out for some reason....



No, *you* mentioned Genghis Khan, as a quintessential historical conqueror.


Oxymoron wrote:
as far as your question, my stance on it is that the value in question is not the result of labor value, but rather market value.



Workers' labor value, including *surplus* labor value, *can't* be defined in terms of market value (of the finished commodities produced), because the bosses pay wages to the worker *for* the production of those commodities, which occurs *before* the commodities are made available to the markets, for market pricing and commerce.

In other words market values (of the produced commodities) are *post-production*, meaning that you're *ignoring* the labor value provided by the worker to *produce* those commodities (goods and services), for sale, at post-production market pricing.


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

Spoiler: show
Image



---


Oxymoron wrote:
Since the laborer in most cases contributes zero to the marketing of the product, he has no business benefiting for the profits they entail.



Yet, without the labor of the wage-worker there would be *zero* products to market whatsoever.

Why can't the workers and employers control the sales revenue *jointly*, instead of it being solely in the control of the employers / bosses / business entity -- ?

Why shouldn't the workers enjoy a proportion of the profits from the sale of the products of their labor?


Oxymoron wrote:
Most of the surplus value is added by the marketing, sales, and logistics teams.



Actually, those functions are *executive*, for competition in the industry's *markets*, versus business *competitors*, which have nothing to do with the actual *production* of the goods or services *themselves*, by the wage-laborers.

You're only addressing matters of market *pricing*, and fluctuations, and you're *not* addressing the economics of the production of the *commodities* in the first place.


Oxymoron wrote:
Now if I am talking long term I might provide the laborer more incentives to maintain stable work force, and increase productivity but it would be very limited as their productivity can only get so high for a consistent period of time.



Historically this has not happened, though:


Image
#15139155
ckaihatsu wrote:No, *you* mentioned Genghis Khan, as a quintessential historical conqueror.





Yes because you were associating imperialism with the west.

Yet, without the labor of the wage-worker there would be *zero* products to market whatsoever.


Is there a shortage of workers I should know about? One laborer is the same as any other laborer. Its like saying the tree is responsible for the table, since without the tree I would have no wood to make it from.

Why can't the workers and employers control the sales revenue *jointly*, instead of it being solely in the control of the employers / bosses / business entity -- ?


Because it is the employer who takes the risk, and has the vision. The laborer is basically a machine, that adds no extra benefit outside his mechanism.

Why shouldn't the workers enjoy a proportion of the profits from the sale of the products of their labor?

They should then open their own company, and produce things themselves. Like many artisans, and skilled laborers can do.
Also the labor part is a very tiny part of what it takes to make a profit. Actually it is one of the least important parts.

Actually, those functions are *executive*, for competition in the industry's *markets*, versus business *competitors*, which have nothing to do with the actual *production* of the goods or services *themselves*, by the wage-laborers.


Yet they have everything to do with maximizing the amount of money you can sell a product for.

You're only addressing matters of market *pricing*, and fluctuations, and you're *not* addressing the economics of the production of the *commodities* in the first place.


economics of production are a very small part of what creates commodities. Like i said before they are pretty much equal to raw goods.

As far as wages going up, like I said a good company will try to maintain a consistent work force with lower turnover rates. This could be either through increase in salary, or other benefits. As a company owner that concern is of importance but not top priority. when talking about other members of the company team including sales, logistics and marketing those need to be of prime importance when talking about compensation and keeping them on your staff.
Last edited by Oxymoron on 23 Nov 2020 19:56, edited 1 time in total.
#15139157
Oxymoron wrote:Yes because you were associating imperialism with the west.



Is there a shortage of workers I should know about? One laborer is the same as any other laborer. Its like saying the tree is responsible for the table, since without the tree I would have no wood to make it from.



Because it is the employer who takes the risk, and has the vision. The laborer is basically a machine, that adds no extra benefit outside his mechanism.


They should then open their own company, and produce things themselves. Like many artisans, and skilled laborers can do.
Also the labor part is a very tiny part of what it takes to make a profit. Actually it is one of the least important parts.



Yet they have everything to do with maximizing the amount of money you can sell a product for.



economics of production are a very small part of what creates commodities. Like i said before they are pretty much equal to raw goods.



As far as wages going up, like I said a good company will try to maintain a consistent work force with lower turnover rates. This could be either through increase in salary, or other benefits. As a company owner that concern is of importance but not top priority. when talking about other members of the company team including sales, logistics and marketing those need to be of prime importance when talking about compensation and keeping them on your staff.
#15139159
ckaihatsu wrote:
No, *you* mentioned Genghis Khan, as a quintessential historical conqueror.



Oxymoron wrote:
Yes because you were associating imperialism with the west.



---


Oxymoron wrote:
Since the laborer in most cases contributes zero to the marketing of the product, he has no business benefiting for the profits they entail.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Yet, without the labor of the wage-worker there would be *zero* products to market whatsoever.



Oxymoron wrote:
Is there a shortage of workers I should know about? One laborer is the same as any other laborer. Its like saying the tree is responsible for the table, since without the tree I would have no wood to make it from.



Okay, so you're implicitly *acknowledging* that commodities can't be produced without the labor-power from wage workers.

You seem to think, though, that profits are sourced from *battle* in commerce, like spoils from war. If a company uses *zero* marketing or advertising, though, and pays wage labor to produce something that's sold for a profit, where did that profit value *come from* -- ?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Why can't the workers and employers control the sales revenue *jointly*, instead of it being solely in the control of the employers / bosses / business entity -- ?



Oxymoron wrote:
Because it is the employer who takes the risk, and has the vision. The laborer is basically a machine, that adds no extra benefit outside his mechanism.



You're *glorifying* the purported 'leadership' role of the employer, because *many* products that routinely sell *every day* are *not* novel products -- the daily economy consists of many *routine*, well-established commodities that people simply *need* for regular modern life and living, like food, housing, utilities, health care, education, transportation, etc.

The laborer is the one who is *providing* these goods and services, yet the 'owner' / employer takes the lion's share of the revenue for merely 'directing' workers on how to do their own jobs.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Why shouldn't the workers enjoy a proportion of the profits from the sale of the products of their labor?



Oxymoron wrote:
They should then open their own company, and produce things themselves. Like many artisans, and skilled laborers can do.
Also the labor part is a very tiny part of what it takes to make a profit. Actually it is one of the least important parts.



The making of motor vehicles, for example, is done by *autoworkers*, on assembly lines, and *not* by the company's owners or executives.

Why shouldn't the owners and executives *leave*, so that the workers at the plant can simply run the factory / assembly-line they way they know best, since *they're* the ones *on* it -- ?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Actually, those functions are *executive*, for competition in the industry's *markets*, versus business *competitors*, which have nothing to do with the actual *production* of the goods or services *themselves*, by the wage-laborers.



Oxymoron wrote:
Yet they have everything to do with maximizing the amount of money you can sell a product for.



You haven't contradicted anything I just said -- again, your only concern is with post-production market *exchange values*, which have nothing to do with *labor value*, and *surplus* labor value.

My position is that workers should be allowed to *retain* their own surplus labor value, instead of the *employer* keeping it.



Marx's solution was to distinguish between labor-time worked and labor power. A worker who is sufficiently productive can produce an output value greater than what it costs to hire him. Although his wage seems to be based on hours worked, in an economic sense this wage does not reflect the full value of what the worker produces. Effectively it is not labour which the worker sells, but his capacity to work.


Imagine a worker who is hired for an hour and paid $10 per hour. Once in the capitalist's employ, the capitalist can have him operate a boot-making machine with which the worker produces $10 worth of work every 15 minutes. Every hour, the capitalist receives $40 worth of work and only pays the worker $10, capturing the remaining $30 as gross revenue. Once the capitalist has deducted fixed and variable operating costs of (say) $20 (leather, depreciation of the machine, etc.), he is left with $10. Thus, for an outlay of capital of $30, the capitalist obtains a surplus value of $10; his capital has not only been replaced by the operation, but also has increased by $10.

The worker cannot capture this benefit directly because he has no claim to the means of production (e.g. the boot-making machine) or to its products, and his capacity to bargain over wages is restricted by laws and the supply/demand for wage labour.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_value#Theory



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're only addressing matters of market *pricing*, and fluctuations, and you're *not* addressing the economics of the production of the *commodities* in the first place.



Oxymoron wrote:
economics of production are a very small part of what creates commodities. Like i said before they are pretty much equal to raw goods.



Raw goods cost money, and *wage labor* costs money:


Components of Social Production

Spoiler: show
Image



[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

Spoiler: show
Image



---


Oxymoron wrote:
As far as wages going up, like I said a good company will try to maintain a consistent work force with lower turnover rates.



Or the *opposite*, known as 'churn', since:


Oxymoron wrote:
One laborer is the same as any other laborer.



And:


Oxymoron wrote:
The laborer is basically a machine,



---


Oxymoron wrote:
This could be either through increase in salary, or other benefits. As a company owner that concern is of importance but not top priority. when talking about other members of the company team including sales, logistics and marketing those need to be of prime importance when talking about compensation and keeping them on your staff.
#15139163
ckaihatsu wrote:---


Okay, so you're implicitly *acknowledging* that commodities can't be produced without the labor-power from wage workers.

You seem to think, though, that profits are sourced from *battle* in commerce, like spoils from war. If a company uses *zero* marketing or advertising, though, and pays wage labor to produce something that's sold for a profit, where did that profit value *come from* -- ?

---
---

Please refrain from strawmen arguments....
I am acknowledging labor has a role, and that role is compensated based on the overall value it brings. Just like raw materials are required, and also have a specific price based on abundance and availability of the materials needed to create a product.
Profits are sourced by putting together all the parts required to put a product on the market, including labor, materials and figuring out the correct price and adjusting that price based on what the market responds with. Labor is a part of the equation, but a very small part.


You're *glorifying* the purported 'leadership' role of the employer, because *many* products that routinely sell *every day* are *not* novel products -- the daily economy consists of many *routine*, well-established commodities that people simply *need* for regular modern life and living, like food, housing, utilities, health care, education, transportation, etc.

The laborer is the one who is *providing* these goods and services, yet the 'owner' / employer takes the lion's share of the revenue for merely 'directing' workers on how to do their own jobs.



I am not glorifying, I am simply stating how companies operate and why. What is sold everyday at one point was novel, and even though today it is a common product companies still add value to it or they lose market share to someone who does. This is what drives improvements, and variations.
And the worker cannot work if he is not fed, the wife who cooks the meals should get the lion share of the profits! :lol:


The making of motor vehicles, for example, is done by *autoworkers*, on assembly lines, and *not* by the company's owners or executives.

Why shouldn't the owners and executives *leave*, so that the workers at the plant can simply run the factory / assembly-line they way they know best, since *they're* the ones *on* it -- ?


Good example, and as the assembly line becomes automated more and more the worker better learn to sing :lol: .



You haven't contradicted anything I just said -- again, your only concern is with post-production market *exchange values*, which have nothing to do with *labor value*, and *surplus* labor value.

My position is that workers should be allowed to *retain* their own surplus labor value, instead of the *employer* keeping it.


Demonstrate that the worker creates more value and you have a point, your argument is childish otherwise. But but he is the one who puts the tire on.... well tire assembler supreme take your valuable 50 coworkers come together and open a plant, why you need the employer?
#15139172
Oxymoron wrote:
Please refrain from strawmen arguments....



I *wasn't* -- you stated that:


Oxymoron wrote:
Since the laborer in most cases contributes zero to the marketing of the product, he has no business benefiting for the profits they entail.



So I likened the arena of commerce as being like a *battlefield* of commerce, alluding to the executive arsenal of marketing and advertising as being like *weapons* of warfare. That's *not* a strawman argument since I was simply extrapolating from *your* premise.


Oxymoron wrote:
I am acknowledging labor has a role, and that role is compensated based on the overall value it brings.



Okay, then how do you *measure* the value that labor brings to the company?


Oxymoron wrote:
Just like raw materials are required, and also have a specific price based on abundance and availability of the materials needed to create a product.
Profits are sourced by putting together all the parts required to put a product on the market, including labor, materials and figuring out the correct price and adjusting that price based on what the market responds with. Labor is a part of the equation, but a very small part.



Can you confirm the truthfulness or falsity of my previous statement, then?


ckaihatsu wrote:
[C]ommodities can't be produced without the labor-power from wage workers.



---


Oxymoron wrote:
I am not glorifying, I am simply stating how companies operate and why. What is sold everyday at one point was novel, and even though today it is a common product companies still add value to it or they lose market share to someone who does. This is what drives improvements, and variations.



You're *more* than glorifying, you're *fetishizing* the nominal 'innovation' role of ownership, because that quality shouldn't even be *mentioned*, if what the system goes by boils down to *market share*, or market *dominance*, by innovative edge -- the results would be *apparent*, yet I've seen no 'innovation' in how *electricity* works, yet it's still being sold as-is, by various companies, and people still *pay* for it, despite its utter lack of 'innovation' over time.

Routine commodities like vegetables and bus rides may not have much 'innovation' to them yet they're still valued by the consumer, leaving the value-added portion of the 'innovative' company owner as being close to *nothing*, and benefitting solely from the *exploitation* of surplus labor value, from the workers / wage-slaves doing the actual work to *produce* those commodities, like electricity, food, and transportation.


Oxymoron wrote:
And the worker cannot work if he is not fed, the wife who cooks the meals should get the lion share of the profits! :lol:



Food and domesticity is an overhead *cost* to labor. It's through the selling of *labor power* that the worker has a claim to some proportion of the company's resulting *revenue*, and I would argue the worker should have a claim to some proportion of the company's resulting *profits* as well.


Oxymoron wrote:
Good example, and as the assembly line becomes automated more and more the worker better learn to sing :lol: .



Automation is going to increase, *regardless*, which only serves to emphasize the *political* point that the bosses aren't doing anything related to *production*, then or now, at *any* extent of automation.


Oxymoron wrote:
Demonstrate that the worker creates more value and you have a point, your argument is childish otherwise. But but he is the one who puts the tire on.... well tire assembler supreme take your valuable 50 coworkers come together and open a plant, why you need the employer?



One could say there's a historical precedent in the *French Revolution* since the monarchy and nobility weren't needed by that point, either, though I myself prefer the historical example of the *Bolshevik Revolution*, since starting a business requires *capital*. (Maybe the monarchies of the *feudal* era used to say 'Go start your own country.')
#15139175
Oxymoron wrote:
It seems this is going in a circle you are using strawmen arguments, and nonsensical childish appeals.



You're not addressing any actual *content* here -- even if you had some objections with whatever *style* issues of mine you claim I have, you'd still be able to respond to the *substance* of what I'm saying, 'style' aside.
#15139177
ckaihatsu wrote:You're not addressing any actual *content* here -- even if you had some objections with whatever *style* issues of mine you claim I have, you'd still be able to respond to the *substance* of what I'm saying, 'style' aside.


You are putting words in my mouth and misrepresenting what I say. Your content is very primitive, and lacks anything outside of a child crying it isn't fair that papa doesn't give you an extra ice cream.
#15139180
Oxymoron wrote:
You are putting words in my mouth and misrepresenting what I say. Your content is very primitive, and lacks anything outside of a child crying it isn't fair that papa doesn't give you an extra ice cream.



Your characterization of my presentation is utter *bullshit*, and I formally resent your digression away from the subject matter.

That said, argue with *this*:


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

Image
#15139188
Oxymoron wrote:
I am not arguing using Marxist pseudo economics.



You're being *prejudiced*, and sidestepping the *subject matter* in front of you.

If you have any *objections* to any of the material or arguments I'm presenting, you can *raise* those objections on *factual* / empirical grounds, but you're not doing that.
#15139189
ckaihatsu wrote:You're being *prejudiced*, and sidestepping the *subject matter* in front of you.

If you have any *objections* to any of the material or arguments I'm presenting, you can *raise* those objections on *factual* / empirical grounds, but you're not doing that.


I am not side stepping anything, when you actually make a sound argument I will take you seriously.
#15139200
Oxymoron wrote:People have no value, unless they create value.

In nature's eyes, humans "create value" just by living their lives instinctively.

You have decided that other people have no value unless they create value "for you." (or for some other controlling entity)

I'm sure slave-traders had the same mentality: "These people have no value unless they create it for me."

If you are the one determining what "value" is, then you have appointed yourself slave-master demi-god.

And yet you're just another schmoe like me or anyone else, so this is self-defeating as well.

(On the other hand, if you're trying to underscore the importance of everyone doing labor, I agree. But this isn't the same thing as demanding ever increasing value production from other people that takes consumption beyond satisfying the physical needs of everyone.

Usually, when basic needs are the objective, coercion isn't necessary to get people to participate.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 10
Now reading

Reading The Emperor's Exile , by Simon Scarrow. R[…]

Transition to low carbon energy

Lazard is a really useful resource but it's also i[…]

Is USA a Plutocracy?

As Lacan said of the French students in May '68[…]

What is God?

The concept of God always was a silly idea. If G[…]