What you are talking about (moving to another country to sell products there) is actually for another reason. That was done in order to overcome socialist (protectionist) measures that were in place. For example, Japanese car companies opened up factories in Canada and USA in order to overcome the protectionist policies (in particular, massive tariffs placed on imported cars). That movement has nothing to do with what's happening now.
Obviously you have been misled by the true nature of capitalism. Capitalism calls for products to be produced by efficient countries. Efficiency, needless to say, is measured by price. If you can build something for $1, you are more efficent than me who can do it for $10. "Cheap slave labour" has been the motto of capitalists since Karl Marx started using the word capitalism. It's just that this is happening on a global scale now. In the past, it was between cities or provinces. For instance, companies would threaten to move to a cheaper part of country (usually some area that is poorer and has worse worker regulations) if the local government did not given them a massive tax break or offer lax financing (read free money) to them. Now it's happening on a global scale.
As a side note, what I described in the first paragraph is good for workers, while the latter is bad for workers. In contrast, the first is bad for capitalists and the wealthy while the latter is good for them. It is an eternal struggle between workers and the capitalists! There is no way around it*.
(* If you want to know why there is always a class conflict, think about it this way. Let's say workers=employees and capitalists=employers. An employee wants to work the least amount of hours and get paid the most. In contrast, an employer wants to make the worker work the most and pay the least. This is the essence of the problem. Only one side can win. Any compromise is temporary. Right now the employer side is winning).
That seems too simplistic... I don't find it insightful. In fact, it might even be a truism.
BTW, I find Moore's Law severely overrated. Also calling it a law is an insult to scientific laws (which are supposed to be true at all times...Moore's Law is simply an observation and has no basis in anything).
The article is bad...but for other reasons (eg. he fails to differentiate between design and programming).
Anyway, the author is NOT saying that foreigners are less innovative. In fact, his point isn't even anything technical. Instead, his argument is a business argument. His view is that by outsourcing, companies are losing their CORE COMPETENCY which creates their competitive advantage.
It's not so much that companies aren't being innovative per se; It's just that they are losing control of their own expertise.
Outsourcing is more an US-centric puroblem than a serious worldwide issue, IMHO.
I don't think so--although you are right in some respect. The reason outsourcing isn't a big deal in Europe, for example, is because they are more protectionist (socialist). Since capitalism is winning and capitalists rule the earth, I expect Europe to have problems with its protectionist policies very soon.
So-called outsourcing is a world issue because it is a key requirement for capitalism. Any capitalist could have predicted this 30 years ago (in fact, many sort of did). Outsourcing is nothing more than the creation of more free markets on the supply side.
I agree with your original point: that design is the most important and costly aspect of software. However, I disagree with your example.
The reason open-source works is not because the design is well known. Instead, it works because it is socialist. That is to say, large number of people contribute together to create something. Think religion. Large number of theists come together to build a church. Open-source works in a similar manner. I think if open-source lost its "manpower", it would lose.
...eventually society gets wise to the fact that corporations are re-selling the same zero-cost product over and over again, and somebody somewhere will get the idea into their head that there is an obviously better way: write it once and for all and then just give it away.
That is anti-capitalist and very few would bother doing it in a capitalist society.
That is most likely an arrogant perception (I'm not criticizing you; I'm just saying that you are overconfident). I highly doubt THAT will impact things as much as you perceive. I think it is too subtle for it to mean much... Besides, corporations everwhere are the same: they are just profit-maximizing entities.
That isn't going to work except under one scenario*. There is no way you can pay Americans what you can in some other countries. Apart from the lack of worker rights in those other countries, the COST OF LIVING is FAR HIGHER in USA (in this example). Someone in India or China is basically making a 1/3 or a 1/4 of an American. There is no way an American can live for a quarter of the wage (say $10,000 instead of $40,000). At $10,000, you would be below the poverty line in USA. Rent in USA alone will amount to $10,000 per year (assuming $1000/month as is the case in Toronto--for 2 bedroom in a decent area (I"m mixing up CAN$ and US$ and this is just rough)). The cost differences are just too large.
* The other other scenario is if USA devalues their currency. Let's put it this way: Americans (and for that matters others like Canadians, etc) are overconsume. USA just cannot compete with others. USA may have to do this with another few rounds of free trade agreeements. I think if GAPS(??) is signed, USA will be under enormous pressure and might have to devalue (GAPS, if I remember it correctly, is the trade agreement that covers education. Under it, governments cannot subsidize public education (like universities). They have to treat all educational institutions, including private ones, as the same. I suspect this will have the biggest impact on USA. Having said that, this agreement will take 10+ years to sign. Right now, countries can't even agree on trade, investment and agriculture. Agreeinging on education is even more problematic given that schools, almost by definition, are socialist institutions.
The 64bit CPUs will have higher clock speeds than the 32bit. So automatically they will be faster if EVERYTHING ELSE WAS THE SAME (which isn't). In theory, 64bit should be better than 32bit (that goes without saying). The real answer will depend on the applications. It will take some time for developers to write applications that use 64bit. Since nearly all applications are 32bit right now, developers won't change overnight and you probably wouldn't notice a difference for a while. So 32bit is probably good enough for 3 years I would say.
BTW, general office tasks may not seem much improvement but games definitely will. Games are one of the most tasking activities for a computer. Games can easily use up all your CPU power (although often, you are video-card-limited rather than CPU-limited--depends on game though).
I haven't read the article. Sorry about that. Having said that, I'll inject my thoughts:)
I think what the thread proposes is MUCH HARDER than people think. If the proposal is correct, how come the thousands of small business stores that sell clone PCs aren't doing it? I'm sure one of these stores would have tried it. I mean, there are probably 300 PC stores in Toronto. I would imagine some of them would have tried it.
I see several potential problems. First of all, margins in the PC industry are VERY LOW. You are literally making nothing. This might sound good to a small business since they can accept lower margins than large corporations. That's true in some cases but not here. The large corporations simply will have higher ECONOMIES OF SCALE. They will also be able to get better prices from their suppliers. Someone who ships 10,000 PCs has greater clout and can get lower prices than someone who ships 10. Companies like Dell won (in the 90's) because they competed with others like IBM, etc who had higher costs. Unfortunately for you, you'll be competing with Dell's present day low margins. I'm not sure you can win against that. Sure, you have lower advertising costs, are more flexible, can possibly ship lower cost software (eg. GNU/linux), but I don't know...
I think it'll end up being similar to the small farmer vs agribusiness issue. The small farmer loses all the time (unless some socialist ideal is used to save the farmer eg. subsidies, heavy restrictions on how big a farm and how many farms a large corporation may own, etc).
Having said all that, I don't want to discourage any of you. If you like it, do a market study and if it seems viable, go for it. It's just that I don't see it working out--but then again I'm a loser:( I personally would rather attempt to start a small business that INNOVATES and introduces something new.
Everything I say is from a theoretical point of view. Someone with experience correct/add to my thoughts...
The whole point is not to have any inventory--not just by the retailer but also the supplier. So the supplier is supposed to have some JIT system with their supplier, and their supplier is supposed to be using JIT with theirs and so on. It is difficult to implement but once done it is almost seemless. Computerized systems ensure that you don't run into too many problems. All the companies along the supply line are connected together. If someone places an order for a product, everyone in the system will know that an order was placed. So your supplier doesn't have to wait for YOU to give them the order, and your supplier's supplier doesn't have to wait for them to give the order, and so forth.
The motivation behind JIT has to do with inventory costs. Generally inventory has a HUGE cost. In many industries it is one the most costly elements of a business that you can control (as a side note, the most expensive component of many industries are wages--hence the capitalist attempt to lower wages all the time). The cost includes more than just storage costs. You also have to account for things like insurance, spoilage, obsolescence, and so forth. I guess for the tech industry, obsolescence is the primary cost of inventory. You have a small window to sell your product and if you don't, it is worth ZERO. No one wants last year's video card, any more than they want last year's CPU. JIT systems will minimize these inventory costs.
The downside to JIT systems are its initial costs, and the unpredictability during economic swings. Setting up a JIT system is quite expensive. You need computer networks that connect with each other, pass customer information and so forth. Large companies can afford them but for medium sized businesses this could be a big one-time cost. However, large corporations implementing JIT systems force their suppliers to implement them. You either implment it or you lose business--simple as that. During bad economic times (like recessions), someone usually ends up paying for the decreased demand. In the past, the large retailers often lost money. Nowadays, the suppliers (usually medium-sized) end up paying for the decrease in demand during recessions.
Just for reference the best example of JIT systems are car manufacturers. Unlike the old days, cars manufactured today are built as you order. Computer systems by Dell and Compaq are supposed to be like that too (although I am not familiar with them).
I don't know anything about laptops but do keep in mind that modern 2 button wheel mouse often have the wheel as a 3rd button. That's how my desktop PC is right now. Two buttons in appearance but the wheel can be clicked and so is really a three button mouse.
There are unions or syndicates controlling everything in China. And the syndicates care a lot more about the status and wealth of their peers than the people they exploit. It's all very equitable at the syndicate stage, but that doesn't preclude them from fucking others, specifically the people who are doing the work.
I don't think you can count the "unions" in China, for example, as real unions. Same thing with USSR. Technically EVERYONE was a member of the union in USSR. But the reality is anything but. The Communist Party in USSR (as well as China) are not true parties. They are vanguard parties. No one seriously considers vanguard parties as realy parties. You can't even "join" the Communist party in China (for example). If the workers have no control over their "unions" or "syndicates" that's not a union/syndicate. Whether you agree with him or not, Trotsky made the correct observation that Stalin's USSR was not a socialist state. Rather, it was a bureacratic state.
I think the only time USSR was socialist was during the early days of the October Revolution. Once the Socialist Revolutionaries (who were socialists) were killed because the Communist Party didn't agree with them, that was the beginning of the end of any attempts at socialism.
Vis-a-vis whether the USSR or China were ever socialist, they quite cleary were, given the State control and direction of the economy.
Unlike capitalism, communism requires economy+politics. On the economic front, there was some progress. But since the political side did not resemble anything to do with communism, I would argue it is not communism, socialism, trotskyism, or marxism (the big 4). The workers simply did not have control of USSR, or China. I don't see how you can claim these countries are socialist when that key conditition is not satisfied.
(And, for the record, a "union" or "co-operative" isn't necessarily an intrinsicly good thing. Most fruit is grown by co-operatives... of plantation owners, who routinely take advantage of the fruit pickers, who's own union is fairly ineffective.)
The fault here is not the ideology. Instead, it is the union or the co-op. If the co-op is ineffective the problem is with the co-op. You can't go around claiming the co-op isn't good when it is a problem with the implementation of it. However, if ALL (or a majority of) co-ops were like that, then yes, you can claim it is a fault with the whole notion of a co-op.
Relying on what people call themselves is foolish. What matters is their actions and principles. If USSR is socialist, is (Nazi) Germany socialist too? Is the Democratic Republic of Korea really democratic? Do you vote for the US Democratic Party because they are democratic? Do you vote for the US Republican Party because only they are republicans?
No doubt--the abuse and control of government power by elites is a horrible outcome.
My theory is that free markets will lead to oligopolies and monopolies. If that is true, which I believe it to be, control of government by elites will necessarily be true under capitalism.
But invoking the terminology "pure free market capitalism" and following it with a description of the mercantilism pervalent today only obscures the fact that the market isn't free and limits our discussion of alternatives.
That's funny. You criticize socialists for claiming that true socialism hasn't been tried. But then turn around and claim that USA is practicing merchantilism and not capitalism.
Don't the hundreds of failed of attempts to do such, from commune to Soviet level, do as much to indict Marxism as a failed practical ideology as the failed examples of China and USSR do?
Not really. If someone actually follwed the principles and failed, it is one thing. But if they don't, it isn't very reflective of the reality. Besides, there isn't one theory of socialism. There are many different ones.
With your reasoning we should have abandoned democracy a long time ago. After all, it was tried many times and failed. In fact, the French Revolution failed within 10 years. Yet it was the most important thing that has happened in the last few hundread years.
And if you are wondering what my criteria is for deciding that the examples have failed, it is that none have sustained net voluntary positive migration for any period of time. Not without force at least.
Population migration? Why do you use that as a criteria? Politics impacts immigration more than anything so that is not a very good criteria.
Or is it just that a socialist society can't function or develop with capitalism all around it?
That's contradictory. You can't have socialism with capitalism. They will contradict when it comes to economics. You might get away with politics (since capitalism has nothing to do with politics; it is purely an economic system). But economics will conflict. For instance, redistribution of wealth is perfectly ok to socialism but is actually an evil to capitalism.
It seems more true that trading with open market economies, taking price data from capitalist commodoties markets, and relying on technology developed by profit-motivated corporations has been the only way that socialist societies have even managed to last more than a few years.
Those societies (I imagine you are referring to Europe) is not socialist. They have SOME socialist IDEALS but they have nothing to do with socialism. Just because some society uses some ideals from a particular econopolitical system does it make it so--especially when the key requirements aren't satisfied.
I don't buy the trickle down theory or any supplier-side arguments. Even if the trickle down theory was true, I wouldn't support it. It is elitist and I'm an egalitarian...
But the workers movements were the only lever against very large companies
The problems workers faced in the past were not against large companies only. The problems were present in companies of all sizes and sorts. A medium sized business was doing the same thing the large companies were. The only difference, of course, is the scope. When a large company does something bad it is noticeable and has greater impact. The same is true now. The abuse workers face does not emnate from large corporations alone. It's just that you have never heard of the problems with smaller companies (because it impacts fewere people, and hence doesn't make the news).
I don't know man... the first guy implied that the capitalists and their "markets" were responsible for it. Maybe I'm wrong but his statement "I'd hedge my bets on the latter" implies that he thought it was the capitalists that were responsible.
I don't think I should argue with a liberatarian-conservatives. You won't agree with any of my ideologies but anyway...
Is that why most service based or manufacturing based companies take a big hit in stock price when a union decides to strike?
You can only strike against companies with workers in the region. We are talking about a situation where the majority of the workers are NOT in our region. Striking in such a case is not very effective. I'm not saying unions and strikes have become totally obsolete. All I'm saying is that as the world shifts towards pure capitalism, unions will lose their power. Yes there are strikes and stuff, but they are getting weaker and there are fewer. Since governments are more capitalist now than ever, governments are actually making it worse. For instance, there are many levels of government in Canada which have made strikes illegal in some industries. It wouldn't surprise me if this spreads.
Don't like a company? Don't work for it, and don't buy from it. If enough people see things your way, it will go out of buisness. (And if enough people don't agree with you, it will stay in buisness - such is life in a dollar-vote based system.)
You have as much control of the dollar-vote system as you have with so-called democratic governments. That is to say, not much. Yes one can resist but it is difficult. You would have to mount a consumer movement and that is not very easy to do. As far as not working for it, that's almost impossible. You won't believe any of my views since I'm a leftist but my view is that you cannot compete with capitalism. Capitalists can always undercut you. Just like how one can go and find a prostitute to rape in a poor country under a "free-market" system, you can always find some poor impoverished worker. Some people are always more desperate than others. Without government intervention, simply not working isn't good enough.
I don't think workes in country A care too much about workers in country B. They just want their own benefits anyway they can.
It's a collective thing. What is good for the worker in one country is good for the worker in another country. Workers need to be unified. Just pretending you live in one sphere of influence away from another doesn't accomplish anything.
wow... you must be the first person I've encountered who uses the tv simply for watching movies. No cable? No satellite? No tv? Consider your family unique:)
Slashdot Mirror
What you are talking about (moving to another country to sell products there) is actually for another reason. That was done in order to overcome socialist (protectionist) measures that were in place. For example, Japanese car companies opened up factories in Canada and USA in order to overcome the protectionist policies (in particular, massive tariffs placed on imported cars). That movement has nothing to do with what's happening now.
Obviously you have been misled by the true nature of capitalism. Capitalism calls for products to be produced by efficient countries. Efficiency, needless to say, is measured by price. If you can build something for $1, you are more efficent than me who can do it for $10. "Cheap slave labour" has been the motto of capitalists since Karl Marx started using the word capitalism. It's just that this is happening on a global scale now. In the past, it was between cities or provinces. For instance, companies would threaten to move to a cheaper part of country (usually some area that is poorer and has worse worker regulations) if the local government did not given them a massive tax break or offer lax financing (read free money) to them. Now it's happening on a global scale.
As a side note, what I described in the first paragraph is good for workers, while the latter is bad for workers. In contrast, the first is bad for capitalists and the wealthy while the latter is good for them. It is an eternal struggle between workers and the capitalists! There is no way around it*.
(* If you want to know why there is always a class conflict, think about it this way. Let's say workers=employees and capitalists=employers. An employee wants to work the least amount of hours and get paid the most. In contrast, an employer wants to make the worker work the most and pay the least. This is the essence of the problem. Only one side can win. Any compromise is temporary. Right now the employer side is winning).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Capitalism calls for severely reducing the size of the government. When that day comes (I say within 15 years), you'll be out of a job...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
That seems too simplistic... I don't find it insightful. In fact, it might even be a truism.
BTW, I find Moore's Law severely overrated. Also calling it a law is an insult to scientific laws (which are supposed to be true at all times...Moore's Law is simply an observation and has no basis in anything).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
So.. what school of economics do you subscribe to? I'm guessing some form of nihilist ecnonomics :)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The article is bad...but for other reasons (eg. he fails to differentiate between design and programming).
Anyway, the author is NOT saying that foreigners are less innovative. In fact, his point isn't even anything technical. Instead, his argument is a business argument. His view is that by outsourcing, companies are losing their CORE COMPETENCY which creates their competitive advantage.
It's not so much that companies aren't being innovative per se; It's just that they are losing control of their own expertise.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The world will find a natural balance all right...after the class war!
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Outsourcing is more an US-centric puroblem than a serious worldwide issue, IMHO.
I don't think so--although you are right in some respect. The reason outsourcing isn't a big deal in Europe, for example, is because they are more protectionist (socialist). Since capitalism is winning and capitalists rule the earth, I expect Europe to have problems with its protectionist policies very soon.
So-called outsourcing is a world issue because it is a key requirement for capitalism. Any capitalist could have predicted this 30 years ago (in fact, many sort of did). Outsourcing is nothing more than the creation of more free markets on the supply side.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I agree with your original point: that design is the most important and costly aspect of software. However, I disagree with your example.
...eventually society gets wise to the fact that corporations are re-selling the same zero-cost product over and over again, and somebody somewhere will get the idea into their head that there is an obviously better way: write it once and for all and then just give it away.
The reason open-source works is not because the design is well known. Instead, it works because it is socialist. That is to say, large number of people contribute together to create something. Think religion. Large number of theists come together to build a church. Open-source works in a similar manner. I think if open-source lost its "manpower", it would lose.
That is anti-capitalist and very few would bother doing it in a capitalist society.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
That is most likely an arrogant perception (I'm not criticizing you; I'm just saying that you are overconfident). I highly doubt THAT will impact things as much as you perceive. I think it is too subtle for it to mean much... Besides, corporations everwhere are the same: they are just profit-maximizing entities.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
That isn't going to work except under one scenario*. There is no way you can pay Americans what you can in some other countries. Apart from the lack of worker rights in those other countries, the COST OF LIVING is FAR HIGHER in USA (in this example). Someone in India or China is basically making a 1/3 or a 1/4 of an American. There is no way an American can live for a quarter of the wage (say $10,000 instead of $40,000). At $10,000, you would be below the poverty line in USA. Rent in USA alone will amount to $10,000 per year (assuming $1000/month as is the case in Toronto--for 2 bedroom in a decent area (I"m mixing up CAN$ and US$ and this is just rough)). The cost differences are just too large.
* The other other scenario is if USA devalues their currency. Let's put it this way: Americans (and for that matters others like Canadians, etc) are overconsume. USA just cannot compete with others. USA may have to do this with another few rounds of free trade agreeements. I think if GAPS(??) is signed, USA will be under enormous pressure and might have to devalue (GAPS, if I remember it correctly, is the trade agreement that covers education. Under it, governments cannot subsidize public education (like universities). They have to treat all educational institutions, including private ones, as the same. I suspect this will have the biggest impact on USA. Having said that, this agreement will take 10+ years to sign. Right now, countries can't even agree on trade, investment and agriculture. Agreeinging on education is even more problematic given that schools, almost by definition, are socialist institutions.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The 64bit CPUs will have higher clock speeds than the 32bit. So automatically they will be faster if EVERYTHING ELSE WAS THE SAME (which isn't). In theory, 64bit should be better than 32bit (that goes without saying). The real answer will depend on the applications. It will take some time for developers to write applications that use 64bit. Since nearly all applications are 32bit right now, developers won't change overnight and you probably wouldn't notice a difference for a while. So 32bit is probably good enough for 3 years I would say.
BTW, general office tasks may not seem much improvement but games definitely will. Games are one of the most tasking activities for a computer. Games can easily use up all your CPU power (although often, you are video-card-limited rather than CPU-limited--depends on game though).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I haven't read the article. Sorry about that. Having said that, I'll inject my thoughts :)
:( I personally would rather attempt to start a small business that INNOVATES and introduces something new.
I think what the thread proposes is MUCH HARDER than people think. If the proposal is correct, how come the thousands of small business stores that sell clone PCs aren't doing it? I'm sure one of these stores would have tried it. I mean, there are probably 300 PC stores in Toronto. I would imagine some of them would have tried it.
I see several potential problems. First of all, margins in the PC industry are VERY LOW. You are literally making nothing. This might sound good to a small business since they can accept lower margins than large corporations. That's true in some cases but not here. The large corporations simply will have higher ECONOMIES OF SCALE. They will also be able to get better prices from their suppliers. Someone who ships 10,000 PCs has greater clout and can get lower prices than someone who ships 10. Companies like Dell won (in the 90's) because they competed with others like IBM, etc who had higher costs. Unfortunately for you, you'll be competing with Dell's present day low margins. I'm not sure you can win against that. Sure, you have lower advertising costs, are more flexible, can possibly ship lower cost software (eg. GNU/linux), but I don't know...
I think it'll end up being similar to the small farmer vs agribusiness issue. The small farmer loses all the time (unless some socialist ideal is used to save the farmer eg. subsidies, heavy restrictions on how big a farm and how many farms a large corporation may own, etc).
Having said all that, I don't want to discourage any of you. If you like it, do a market study and if it seems viable, go for it. It's just that I don't see it working out--but then again I'm a loser
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Everything I say is from a theoretical point of view. Someone with experience correct/add to my thoughts...
The whole point is not to have any inventory--not just by the retailer but also the supplier. So the supplier is supposed to have some JIT system with their supplier, and their supplier is supposed to be using JIT with theirs and so on. It is difficult to implement but once done it is almost seemless. Computerized systems ensure that you don't run into too many problems. All the companies along the supply line are connected together. If someone places an order for a product, everyone in the system will know that an order was placed. So your supplier doesn't have to wait for YOU to give them the order, and your supplier's supplier doesn't have to wait for them to give the order, and so forth.
The motivation behind JIT has to do with inventory costs. Generally inventory has a HUGE cost. In many industries it is one the most costly elements of a business that you can control (as a side note, the most expensive component of many industries are wages--hence the capitalist attempt to lower wages all the time). The cost includes more than just storage costs. You also have to account for things like insurance, spoilage, obsolescence, and so forth. I guess for the tech industry, obsolescence is the primary cost of inventory. You have a small window to sell your product and if you don't, it is worth ZERO. No one wants last year's video card, any more than they want last year's CPU. JIT systems will minimize these inventory costs.
The downside to JIT systems are its initial costs, and the unpredictability during economic swings. Setting up a JIT system is quite expensive. You need computer networks that connect with each other, pass customer information and so forth. Large companies can afford them but for medium sized businesses this could be a big one-time cost. However, large corporations implementing JIT systems force their suppliers to implement them. You either implment it or you lose business--simple as that. During bad economic times (like recessions), someone usually ends up paying for the decreased demand. In the past, the large retailers often lost money. Nowadays, the suppliers (usually medium-sized) end up paying for the decrease in demand during recessions.
Just for reference the best example of JIT systems are car manufacturers. Unlike the old days, cars manufactured today are built as you order. Computer systems by Dell and Compaq are supposed to be like that too (although I am not familiar with them).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I don't know anything about laptops but do keep in mind that modern 2 button wheel mouse often have the wheel as a 3rd button. That's how my desktop PC is right now. Two buttons in appearance but the wheel can be clicked and so is really a three button mouse.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
And I'm saying that it doesn't matter what people call themselves; only their actions and ideals matter.
;)
Capitalists aren't dogs either. Although they might seem to be one at times, it remains to be proven
Sivaram Velauthapillai
There are unions or syndicates controlling everything in China. And the syndicates care a lot more about the status and wealth of their peers than the people they exploit. It's all very equitable at the syndicate stage, but that doesn't preclude them from fucking others, specifically the people who are doing the work.
I don't think you can count the "unions" in China, for example, as real unions. Same thing with USSR. Technically EVERYONE was a member of the union in USSR. But the reality is anything but. The Communist Party in USSR (as well as China) are not true parties. They are vanguard parties. No one seriously considers vanguard parties as realy parties. You can't even "join" the Communist party in China (for example). If the workers have no control over their "unions" or "syndicates" that's not a union/syndicate. Whether you agree with him or not, Trotsky made the correct observation that Stalin's USSR was not a socialist state. Rather, it was a bureacratic state.
I think the only time USSR was socialist was during the early days of the October Revolution. Once the Socialist Revolutionaries (who were socialists) were killed because the Communist Party didn't agree with them, that was the beginning of the end of any attempts at socialism.
Vis-a-vis whether the USSR or China were ever socialist, they quite cleary were, given the State control and direction of the economy.
Unlike capitalism, communism requires economy+politics. On the economic front, there was some progress. But since the political side did not resemble anything to do with communism, I would argue it is not communism, socialism, trotskyism, or marxism (the big 4). The workers simply did not have control of USSR, or China. I don't see how you can claim these countries are socialist when that key conditition is not satisfied.
(And, for the record, a "union" or "co-operative" isn't necessarily an intrinsicly good thing. Most fruit is grown by co-operatives... of plantation owners, who routinely take advantage of the fruit pickers, who's own union is fairly ineffective.)
The fault here is not the ideology. Instead, it is the union or the co-op. If the co-op is ineffective the problem is with the co-op. You can't go around claiming the co-op isn't good when it is a problem with the implementation of it. However, if ALL (or a majority of) co-ops were like that, then yes, you can claim it is a fault with the whole notion of a co-op.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Relying on what people call themselves is foolish. What matters is their actions and principles. If USSR is socialist, is (Nazi) Germany socialist too? Is the Democratic Republic of Korea really democratic? Do you vote for the US Democratic Party because they are democratic? Do you vote for the US Republican Party because only they are republicans?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
No doubt--the abuse and control of government power by elites is a horrible outcome.
My theory is that free markets will lead to oligopolies and monopolies. If that is true, which I believe it to be, control of government by elites will necessarily be true under capitalism.
But invoking the terminology "pure free market capitalism" and following it with a description of the mercantilism pervalent today only obscures the fact that the market isn't free and limits our discussion of alternatives.
That's funny. You criticize socialists for claiming that true socialism hasn't been tried. But then turn around and claim that USA is practicing merchantilism and not capitalism.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Don't the hundreds of failed of attempts to do such, from commune to Soviet level, do as much to indict Marxism as a failed practical ideology as the failed examples of China and USSR do?
Not really. If someone actually follwed the principles and failed, it is one thing. But if they don't, it isn't very reflective of the reality. Besides, there isn't one theory of socialism. There are many different ones.
With your reasoning we should have abandoned democracy a long time ago. After all, it was tried many times and failed. In fact, the French Revolution failed within 10 years. Yet it was the most important thing that has happened in the last few hundread years.
And if you are wondering what my criteria is for deciding that the examples have failed, it is that none have sustained net voluntary positive migration for any period of time. Not without force at least.
Population migration? Why do you use that as a criteria? Politics impacts immigration more than anything so that is not a very good criteria.
Or is it just that a socialist society can't function or develop with capitalism all around it?
That's contradictory. You can't have socialism with capitalism. They will contradict when it comes to economics. You might get away with politics (since capitalism has nothing to do with politics; it is purely an economic system). But economics will conflict. For instance, redistribution of wealth is perfectly ok to socialism but is actually an evil to capitalism.
It seems more true that trading with open market economies, taking price data from capitalist commodoties markets, and relying on technology developed by profit-motivated corporations has been the only way that socialist societies have even managed to last more than a few years.
Those societies (I imagine you are referring to Europe) is not socialist. They have SOME socialist IDEALS but they have nothing to do with socialism. Just because some society uses some ideals from a particular econopolitical system does it make it so--especially when the key requirements aren't satisfied.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I don't buy the trickle down theory or any supplier-side arguments. Even if the trickle down theory was true, I wouldn't support it. It is elitist and I'm an egalitarian...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
But the workers movements were the only lever against very large companies
The problems workers faced in the past were not against large companies only. The problems were present in companies of all sizes and sorts. A medium sized business was doing the same thing the large companies were. The only difference, of course, is the scope. When a large company does something bad it is noticeable and has greater impact. The same is true now. The abuse workers face does not emnate from large corporations alone. It's just that you have never heard of the problems with smaller companies (because it impacts fewere people, and hence doesn't make the news).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I don't know man... the first guy implied that the capitalists and their "markets" were responsible for it. Maybe I'm wrong but his statement "I'd hedge my bets on the latter" implies that he thought it was the capitalists that were responsible.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I don't think I should argue with a liberatarian-conservatives. You won't agree with any of my ideologies but anyway...
Is that why most service based or manufacturing based companies take a big hit in stock price when a union decides to strike?
You can only strike against companies with workers in the region. We are talking about a situation where the majority of the workers are NOT in our region. Striking in such a case is not very effective. I'm not saying unions and strikes have become totally obsolete. All I'm saying is that as the world shifts towards pure capitalism, unions will lose their power. Yes there are strikes and stuff, but they are getting weaker and there are fewer. Since governments are more capitalist now than ever, governments are actually making it worse. For instance, there are many levels of government in Canada which have made strikes illegal in some industries. It wouldn't surprise me if this spreads.
Don't like a company? Don't work for it, and don't buy from it. If enough people see things your way, it will go out of buisness. (And if enough people don't agree with you, it will stay in buisness - such is life in a dollar-vote based system.)
You have as much control of the dollar-vote system as you have with so-called democratic governments. That is to say, not much. Yes one can resist but it is difficult. You would have to mount a consumer movement and that is not very easy to do. As far as not working for it, that's almost impossible. You won't believe any of my views since I'm a leftist but my view is that you cannot compete with capitalism. Capitalists can always undercut you. Just like how one can go and find a prostitute to rape in a poor country under a "free-market" system, you can always find some poor impoverished worker. Some people are always more desperate than others. Without government intervention, simply not working isn't good enough.
I don't think workes in country A care too much about workers in country B. They just want their own benefits anyway they can.
It's a collective thing. What is good for the worker in one country is good for the worker in another country. Workers need to be unified. Just pretending you live in one sphere of influence away from another doesn't accomplish anything.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
lol I really wonder if slashdot moderators are even human... ;) How the hell can anyone mod a serious question as flamebait? lol
Sivaram Velauthapillai
wow... you must be the first person I've encountered who uses the tv simply for watching movies. No cable? No satellite? No tv? Consider your family unique :)
Sivaram Velauthapillai