- Capitalism and Alternatives -

You'll find...

Posted by: Red Deathy ( Socialist Party, UK ) on August 19, 1999 at 01:35:38:

In Reply to: workers need managers posted by Jason on August 18, 1999 at 00:29:41:

: Exactly! But those workers can't just create wealth by themselves... someone needs to organize them, manage the company, etc.

And that management is done by more workers, while the owners do precisely nothing, not needing to. Further, management does not *add* value to a commodity, only labour directly applied does that.

: The shareholders deserve the profits because they risked their own capital in the first place.

Unlike workers, who only risk their homes, their famillies, and often as not, their health and lives.

:In some cases, the shareholders are large enough to take a personal interest in the running of the company, or if the company is privately owned, but public corporations are owned by millions of people. There are over 50 million shareholders in the United States who may not earn more than $50,000 a year at their job, but are creating far more wealth for their future by investing.

And yet, if you'll just see This link, owning those shares don't mean all that much.

: If management is just downright STUPID, safety margins are cut! Intelligent management that looks at the long-term effect of things, knows that a quality company, trust, and reputation, and also success, do not come by cutting corners. Smart managers will make sure ALL safety precautions are met, or even exceeded.

Managers are not all seeing, some manage from a distance, blindly commanding far off holdings to cut budgets, others have little choice, as the race for competition forces them to decide between cutting corners, or going bust.

:Customers know who they can trust, and trust yield far more profits than increasing margins another 1%. The fact that there is a profit motive makes manager MORE ACCOUNTABLE for how the company is operated. This means safety becomes more important, not less.

The customers at Bhopal were not directly related to the safety, i.e. the safety of the product is the concern of consumers, not the safety of the work place. In fact, the drive for consumers to cut prices is part of the incentive to squeeze workplace safety.

: Under socialism/Communism, the government OWNS EVERYTHING. That's why we're talking about the government.
You want to abolish the government? Then why do you want more government to run every aspect of the peoples lives at the same time?

I don't, I want to abolish teh government, socialism means the *common* not state ownership of the means of production, and the co-operative, democratic and free control by teh entire population- 'from the Government of people to teh adminiustration of things', one old slogan goes. I'd rather see the community running the media, democratically and directly, neither government nor business. then we might start seeing a pro-human bias come out.

: You really think everybody out there is that concerned for society? Sorry to break it to ya, but this is Earth, halfway between heaven and hell, and humans have a reason to ask "what's in it for me?" We're not all selfish, but if there is no personal reward for all this labor, socialism/Communism can't work.

Socialism is predicated upon selfishness, the whole idea is that socialism meets the self interests that capitalism actively cannot (markets only cater for effective demand, socialism caters for *actual* demand). The idea of socialism as blessed benficince is crap put out by ideologues or christian socialists.

: Sounds like a bit of jealousy here... sorry if you don't live in the US, and if you do, maybe you need to open your eyes and ears. US citizens can say or write whatever is on our minds, no matter how much it offends the government or the President! Our government doesn't try to brainwash us with propaganda like what happened with the government owned and operated media in Bosnia.

Hmm, check out Chomsky and Herman's MANUFACTURING CONSENT, and you'll see that the media:
1:Is overly reliant on government hand outs for information.
2:Must comply with the manifesto's of corporate advertisers.
3:Is subject to flak and attack from propenant persons if it is not sufficiently in line with US policy.
4:That corporations own the media, and thus have a pro-business slant.
5:That citizens, whilst they can say as they want, are limitted in access and control over the mass media.
6:That promotion and patronage ensures loyalty of journalists.

Whilst you are *formally* free to speak your mind, the apparatus to allow you to do so on a public forum is severly limitted.

: Yes, I'm sure you have every reason to criticize the way our political system works also.

yes, formal democracy doesn't go far enough, but at least its democracy, and thats powerful.

: Neither will the government, so it's up to the press to find out... just like what the Washington Post recently did at the uranium enrichment plant here in Paducah, KY.

Should we have to rely on the press? What if we can't rely on teh press for above reasons?

: Smart management will come clean, but that is a difficult thing to do when you're the one responsible.

Especially when you have so much business to lose.

Business 1- Humans 0.

Follow Ups:


The Debating Room Post a Followup