Rethinking Labor and Capital

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

It should be pointed out that a lot of these things are because unions are kind of concerned about y'know... Accidents and such.

No, they're not. There are almost always specific Articles of a CBA dealing with safety, including the establishment of safety committees, etc. Those aren't the problem, except to the extent they're really just another effort to give some members of the union time off from real work with pay. The problem is the ton of other provisions that have nothing at all do with safety. And in terms of injuries, those are covered by workers comp anyway.

Out of curiousity, how many different U.S. collective bargaining agreements have you actually read, or seen administered? Or are you just making this up?

[KazigluBey]

The only argument would be where the funding comes from. FD, PD, or Military is hardly a distribution of wealth, merely a group of neighbors banding together to pay for a service that will protect them all in the long run, much like insurance. In a community that is connected by fields, houses, woods, the speed of fire is a great fear. Better to pay into the pot so that the neighbors house will be put out than have it spread to your domicile.

The Military argument is just fucking stupid. We need an armed force to protect our assists. Plain and simple. The movement is dependent on the monies created by the business that prosper in it's boundaries. It's beneficial for all involved to have an armed branch to protect those business interests both domestically and abroad.

So because something is beneficial to everyone it's no longer socialism? It doesn't have anything to do with everyone in society paying the government for a service? Ok, buddy.

[Artas]

Pfft. That's just the swedish model rebranded, and has been used since the 40's.

Variants of the polder model exist all over northwest Europe, I imagine, with positive results in many countries. I'm not familiar enough with the socio-economic history of Sweden to judge how similar their strategy is. I've always understood the polder model to be a Dutch invention, as the name implies.

[mor2]

So because something is beneficial to everyone it's no longer socialism? It doesn't have anything to do with everyone in society paying the government for a service? Ok, buddy.

This has nothing todo with socialism, it's stupid rhetoric used in the USA where some people believe that socialism is inherently evil. those are essential services that are needed in every society, as we need to enforce the laws and provide safety, socialist, capitalism or otherwise.

Socialism is about collective ownership of the means of production. which I consider as a slippery slope in the name of "equality" and "fairness", a system in which the more some people work the more entitled become others who dont. for example quick googling showed me that the poverty line, that as you may well know is not about starving families, is right now on average "defined" as someone who dont have "air conditioning, a personal computer, Internet access, a computer printer, a ceiling fan, a cell phone or phones, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker". what next? everyone should have 360 out of my pocket so they could have fun while I work?

[Shryke]

FD, PD, or Military is hardly a distribution of wealth, merely a group of neighbors banding together to pay for a service that will protect them all in the long run

Pooling resources for mutual benefit? Holy shit, it's just like every other proposal in the US that gets labeled "socialism!".

Americans are plenty dumb and ignorant, on many an issue. This just isn't one of them.

How isn't it? It's the same as any other issue in american politics.

[Nukelavee]

Sure they can. They can go uninvited to the homes of employees any time they choose. Sometimes, 5-6 will show up late at night and suggest to the employee that it would be in his/her best interest to support the union. Sometimes they'll make repeat visits if the employee is not sufficiently convinced. If the employee has the temerity to speak against the union during the campaign, he might find his car has developed some additional key marks.

How long did it take you to come up with that pointless comment, FLOW? seriously, like, i don't even...Union Gestopo Goons?

'Sides, I said workplace, not home.

[Horza]

I miss the days when socialism meant collective ownership of the means of production. I suppose that's as good an indicator as any of just how much ground the left have given up over the last thirty years.

ETA:

I don't even think it's just the US though. In the UK for example, last year each of the potential Labour party leaders were asked "do you consider yourself a socialist?" They all answered yes. Do they all support nationalising the energy companies, the banks, the manufacturers, the mines? Hell no. They just have this kind of idea that socialism means, to them, the government helping you out more than the other guys. And most people probably wouldn't know or care about the difference.

For sure, but it says something about UK politics that all the leadership candidates of a major political party can say that without hesitation, while the only US politician to so identify is an independent senator from Vermont (who means it in the same terms you outlined abve). When you can't start to make a case for social insurance, public ownership of assets and the like without first reaffirming your Americaness and allegiance to Capital then you've got a seriously Liberal Right-skewed discourse.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

How long did it take you to come up with that pointless comment, FLOW? seriously, like, i don't even...Union Gestopo Goons?

Heh -- you don't think that happens? Shit, the last 4 representation campaigns I've seen have had those "late night home visits". And the only reason we find out about them is that people complain.

'Sides, I said workplace, not home.

In the vast majority of cases, union representatives who are not employees of the employer can't enter the premises anyway, even if "invited" in by some employees.

[sologdin]

That their relationship should not be considered parasitic but symbiotic and synergistic?

that's mussolini, aye?

Labor needs capital investment and will not be able to function without businesses providing jobs

labor needs no private investment.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Sologdin,

How many unions in the US have started businesses? As to the Mussolini quip are you suggesting that because he had the same idea I'm a fascist?

[The Kassi (mark two)]

This has nothing todo with socialism, it's stupid rhetoric used in the USA where some people believe that socialism is inherently evil

Out of general curiosity, how is it that calling something viewed as beneficial to everyone 'socialist' equating socialism and evil.

If someone defines socialism as "Any government service paid for via taxation." then, assuming they are not an anarchist, are they not establishing that socialism is in fact not inherently evil? If anything, it seems to me the 'socialism is evil' crowd would have a vested interest in countering efforts to classify popular government services as socialism.

[Shryke]

It's the other way around. "Socialism" has been a big American boogeyman since the Cold War.

Calling something "Socialism" is trying to make something look bad.

[The Kassi (mark two)]

In what way did KazigluBey do this when he called social security, medicare, medicaid, firemen, police, freeways, utilities, and the military socialist?

I would argue the claim that many Americans like to omit the aspects of our lives that have been completely socialized when they rant against socialism is extremely accurate. Publicly funded education on the level we provide it is a fantastic example of an aspect of socialism that has been adopted by our country.

There are many aspects of American society that are plucked from a socialist, as opposed to capitalist, worldview. Many of these things are viewed favorably, and as things people have a right to expect from their government. If someone argues that the services considered far too important to entrust to a free market are by definition socialist, I do not see anyway such a position would warrant reactions like “Only in America could these things be considered socialism.”

If anything, I would expect the logical reaction to be something akin to “Only in America would a person believe a service taken over by the government and funded via taxation is magically not socialist simply because it is almost universally viewed as beneficial to everyone.” when the above claim was shot down.

Abolish public schools, and America will riot. Seems to me quality evidence for the claim that Americans demand some level of socialism, which makes claims that socialism is inherently evil obtuse or hypocritical.

I mean take Glen Beck. (Please?) Even he loves public libraries.

[Lummel]

In what way did KazigluBey do this when he called social security, medicare, medicaid, firemen, police, freeways, utilities, and the military socialist?

I would argue the claim that many Americans like to omit the aspects of our lives that have been completely socialized when they rant against socialism is extremely accurate. Publicly funded education on the level we provide it is a fantastic example of an aspect of socialism that has been adopted by our country.

There are many aspects of American society that are plucked from a socialist, as opposed to capitalist, worldview. Many of these things are viewed favorably, and as things people have a right to expect from their government. If someone argues that the services considered far too important to entrust to a free market are by definition socialist, I do not see anyway such a position would warrant reactions like “Only in America could these things be considered socialism.”

If anything, I would expect the logical reaction to be something akin to “Only in America would a person believe a service taken over by the government and funded via taxation is magically not socialist simply because it is almost universally viewed as beneficial to everyone.” when the above claim was shot down...

Because there is a difference between Socialism and socialised benefits or just have some social benefit.

If you are coming from a Socialist perspective you might start by saying that society is the result of the economic structures and by changing those economic structures (the workers control the means of production) you will achieve a balanced and equitable society (from each according to their means to each according to their needs).

Providing some measure of general benefit out of a common pot that people and organisations pay into that doesn't necessarily reflect means or needs is not Socialist, its just what groups of people, organisations and governments have done since time immemorial. A Socialist may well see in systems of public education a form of social control and of socialisation into a Capitalist economy and worldview. Systems of public education which reflect individual needs are a rarity - who gets the music lessons in your country, the musically gifted or interested pupils or the ones whose parents can afford the private tutition?

That's why I said that only in the USA could the military, the police, the fire service, the inter-state road network be described as Socialist. Everywhere else, from ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia onwards to public limited companies, providing some general benefits out of a common pot is considered the non-Socialist norm.

[The Kassi (mark two)]

If we are considering a time line that includes Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, the prevalence of state run firefighting services is a rather new development for much of Europe. The same can be said about a centralized military. Same is true in regards to the obsolescence of private police forces. Heck, if I remember right England shrugged it's road building responsibilities off for hundreds of years.

So yeah, it is true that government has been doing some of the examples offered for thousands of years. The idea that the government has a responsibility to extend such services to the average citizen, and that it is economically beneficial to do so? A rather new concept. In fact, I would argue that the idea that the lower class had a right to expect their government to provide reliable fire service, build and maintain roads that go right to their front door, provide safety and security via a robust police force, and maintain a monopoly on military might is the very same movement that developed into the ideal named socialism.

Perhaps I can pose the distinction differently. How is it intellectually honest to completely reject the ideals of socialism as evil while accepting the wisdom behind providing every citizen you can with things like an education and fire fighting services?

Final inquiry: If socialism is only defined as complete public control of the means of production, then capitalism would be the complete private control yes? Absent theory, where do such absolute concepts exist in western society?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Kassi,

By your definition having any State at all would be socialism.

[The Iceman of the North]

Ser Scot, I believe Kassi's argument is that everything is a mixture of socialism and capitalism, and that Americans tends to forget that, believing that they live in a 100% capitalist economy.

The usual definition of socialism is an economy based on state or commonly owned means of production. Means of production is again usually limited to the physical in-put in production. Since this includes infrastructure, any economy where the state provides infrastructure like roads, have elements of socialism. Not sure if I'd include a state monopoly on violence (police and army) as 'socialist' though, or the state providing certain services. But in the US there seems to be a sharp divide between the state providing fire services, and the state providing health services, that seems quite artificial to me.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Iceman,

I'm not denying that. My point is that any State action is by definition collective action. That's a very broad definition of socialism.

[mor2]

Ser Scot, I believe Kassi's argument is that everything is a mixture of socialism and capitalism, and that Americans tends to forget that, believing that they live in a 100% capitalist economy.

The usual definition of socialism is an economy based on state or commonly owned means of production. Means of production is again usually limited to the physical in-put in production. Since this includes infrastructure, any economy where the state provides infrastructure like roads, have elements of socialism. Not sure if I'd include a state monopoly on violence (police and army) as 'socialist' though, or the state providing certain services. But in the US there seems to be a sharp divide between the state providing fire services, and the state providing health services, that seems quite artificial to me.

It's not necessary true, the state provide those services because those are basics that the citezents cannot provide for themselves. we cannot maintain society and the laws if everyone would start their own police department, just the same I cant provide myself with a highway or train network, this requires planing and huge resource all. however I can provide myself with medical care.

Also It's true that in the usa some see socialism as inherently evil, but just the same many socialist see capitalism as amoral and the root of all evil.

[paddington]

Or you could say that the basic infustructe directly benifits the wealth of the capatlist. Ensuring that the workers are safe, and can transport themselves to the work place.

State run medical care wouldn't in-rich the capatlist. It would be unlikely that the capatlist would use state run medical services, perfering to pay for a better precived private health care. Where as he would still be liable for the taxes levied to supply the state one.