The amount of guys here willing to believe Mr. Summers claim, despite the fact that the article explains that he himself admitted "these are things that need to be studied" and that a distinguished professor says that his statements were "things we had refuted in the first half of the day," is fairly disturbing, in a way.
Critical reading and reasoning skills still need to be applied even if the assertion strokes your ego, guys.
If it needs to be studied before it can be proven, he shouldn't be asserting it as fact.
One unconfirmed, uncontrolled example does not proof make. Period.
This is quite the comment on the state of our economy; although "Corporate loyalty" has always been an illusion, and, bluntly, the 1950's corporate ideal simply never existed, the petty bourgeoisie, like our poor Ivy Leauge grads discussed here, could count on a solid lifestyle and certain gauruntees in the economy. But as the economy weakens, they have the screws put to them, just as the screws are tightened yet farther on the average person.
This is just capitalism at work. To increase profit margins, or maintain them in periods of decline, it is demanded that they extort the most work for the minimum investment for it's workers, even ivy league management types.
I think sad times with exciting possibilities lie ahead for all of us.
Isn't unemploying someone, forcing them into a position where they could possibly starve, along with thier families, a supreme act of force? Capitalism has a lock using force to enforce it's goals, and make the rich yet richer,really. Open source even provides a hint of the answer; people, in the vast majority of cases will work because they are proud of the work they do and the society they are building. Yet another key will be that people will realize that thier well-being in a socialist economy depends on thier participation.
Trasparency and accountability are more that possible in a democratically controlled, centrally planned economy. As for competition... that harms an economy. Redunancy is ineffiecient, as is the basic nature of the competition; think of the trillion+ dollars a year spent on advertising that could be used for other tasks, like feeding the starving. Also look at the literally immeasurable costs of proprietary information restriction on scientific advancement.
Minimising capital accumulation is not the concern, or, genuinely, the final concern of any socialist; the concern is to end the exploitation of the masses by the minority that possesses capital.... which is, in the final view, all wage labor boils down to, and ending even the possibility of that ever occuring.
As for the effieciency of state control; I would argue that it is indeed more efficient that market anarchy, for the reasons listed above. Look at the rise of Russia from one of the most backward nations in history to the #2 superpower in the world in a limited amount of time, despite the attacks of 21 capitalist nations directly following the revolution and the absolute destruction of WW2. Or look at China's outstripping of India, right down to average lifespan, despite simillar starting circumstance and timeframes. These examples are easily varifiable; google will provide nessecary data. And highlights exactly why the capitalists became so hysterical over the "threat of communism." It is, simply, a better and more efficient economic system. It is also worth noting that capitalism is very, very inefficient at meeting the needs of *huge* tracts of the third world, and indeed, was brutal to the working class of the U.S. up until the mass labor struggles of the Great Depression, and even today it continues to try and strip those gains away from the working class.
However, central state control by a beauraucratic layer is not what is called for; workers democracy, on a wide scale and down to the smallest layer is. That is both utterly non-monopolistic in charecter, and would be even more effiecient.
As for the Marx quote; how does it debase the generators of value if everyone has all they need, and especially if the generators are in direct control of it? That exact issue is the crux of the problem with capitalism.
Excuse me, I mispoke about material and tool costs; it's quite early and I drew a blank for a moment.
These costs are already figured into the accounting; they are called expenses, and are already balanced against profit. Profit is above and beyond that, and remains, for all intents and purposes, the unpaid wages of the laborers.
My above point still stands for the idea of reinvestment, however.
Check out www.marxist.org if you are interested in more information; I recommends Marx's "Wage labor and Capital" as an accessible introduction to the topic, and like most of his economic works, it's devoid of his otherwise famous polemics.
That model is somewhat simplistic, especially since reproducing Das Kapital on slashdot isn't precisely feasible. However, you have made it overly so in your glancing analysis. By "laborer" can easily be seen all those involved in production and distribution; those who essentially add value to a product. The capitalist, who garners the immense share of this added value, still has done nothing.
Now, as for the materials and tools costs... yes, that is a valid point, except for the fact that "profit" that goes into the pockets of the capitalists, and traditionally a minority is reinvested into the business; this is part of the problem.
Now, at the end, you seem to be coming to socialist conclusions on your own. "A good system will select those activities which will provide the greatest benefit." I'd propose that a democratically planned economy, where the workers in the various industries have direct control of those industries would be a very good system.
Your last paragraph hits to the exact nature of the class struggle; capitalism, by it's very nature, always seeks to "debase earnings from the generators of wealth." That is the whole point of accumulation of capital in a small number of unaccountable hands, after all. Also, it always will follow this path, making society poorer, even less efficient in a view, and leading to mass economic problems and social strife, until socialism arises.
So, you don't buy into the class struggle. You think that capitalism is okay, as long as capital isn't garnered through shady means.
Would you define profit as not paying the worker the full value of his work? I think most reasonable people would. What is profit but the unpaid wages of the laborer who actually made the product? Capitalist profit of any kind is inherently shady, really.
And this is without mentioning the relativist stance this immediately forces on you; defining "shady" is gonna be tough. Are ten hour days okay? What about using kids to manufactur sneakers? Whose standards do you use, Sweden's, the United States, or Malaysia?
As for your greed point.... how does communism, when reinforced by workers democracy (Read some Lenin or Trotsky if you are unfamilliar with the confluence of these those concepts.) fail to appeal to greed? It's superiority is in the simple idea that all of society should have it's needs seen to before others can accumulate VAST hordes of wealth. To qoute something my father used to say at the dinner table: "Everyone gets one helping before anyone gets two."
Socialism is the only answer that makes sense and can even begin to end the exploitation of man by man.
Slashdot Mirror
The amount of guys here willing to believe Mr. Summers claim, despite the fact that the article explains that he himself admitted "these are things that need to be studied" and that a distinguished professor says that his statements were "things we had refuted in the first half of the day," is fairly disturbing, in a way.
Critical reading and reasoning skills still need to be applied even if the assertion strokes your ego, guys.
It's the variability that shoots him down though.
Exactly. That points to the fact that it's not an "innate" difference, but a societal one.
If it needs to be studied before it can be proven, he shouldn't be asserting it as fact. One unconfirmed, uncontrolled example does not proof make. Period.
This is quite the comment on the state of our economy; although "Corporate loyalty" has always been an illusion, and, bluntly, the 1950's corporate ideal simply never existed, the petty bourgeoisie, like our poor Ivy Leauge grads discussed here, could count on a solid lifestyle and certain gauruntees in the economy. But as the economy weakens, they have the screws put to them, just as the screws are tightened yet farther on the average person.
This is just capitalism at work. To increase profit margins, or maintain them in periods of decline, it is demanded that they extort the most work for the minimum investment for it's workers, even ivy league management types.
I think sad times with exciting possibilities lie ahead for all of us.
Is anyone reading slashdot really going to learn anything new from a review of firefox? Haven't we all been using it for years?
It's not about learning nything new; it's the fact the Firefox is finally getting some slightly intelligent mainstream press that is impressive here.
Isn't unemploying someone, forcing them into a position where they could possibly starve, along with thier families, a supreme act of force? Capitalism has a lock using force to enforce it's goals, and make the rich yet richer,really. Open source even provides a hint of the answer; people, in the vast majority of cases will work because they are proud of the work they do and the society they are building. Yet another key will be that people will realize that thier well-being in a socialist economy depends on thier participation.
Trasparency and accountability are more that possible in a democratically controlled, centrally planned economy. As for competition... that harms an economy. Redunancy is ineffiecient, as is the basic nature of the competition; think of the trillion+ dollars a year spent on advertising that could be used for other tasks, like feeding the starving. Also look at the literally immeasurable costs of proprietary information restriction on scientific advancement.
Minimising capital accumulation is not the concern, or, genuinely, the final concern of any socialist; the concern is to end the exploitation of the masses by the minority that possesses capital.... which is, in the final view, all wage labor boils down to, and ending even the possibility of that ever occuring.
As for the effieciency of state control; I would argue that it is indeed more efficient that market anarchy, for the reasons listed above. Look at the rise of Russia from one of the most backward nations in history to the #2 superpower in the world in a limited amount of time, despite the attacks of 21 capitalist nations directly following the revolution and the absolute destruction of WW2. Or look at China's outstripping of India, right down to average lifespan, despite simillar starting circumstance and timeframes. These examples are easily varifiable; google will provide nessecary data. And highlights exactly why the capitalists became so hysterical over the "threat of communism." It is, simply, a better and more efficient economic system. It is also worth noting that capitalism is very, very inefficient at meeting the needs of *huge* tracts of the third world, and indeed, was brutal to the working class of the U.S. up until the mass labor struggles of the Great Depression, and even today it continues to try and strip those gains away from the working class.
However, central state control by a beauraucratic layer is not what is called for; workers democracy, on a wide scale and down to the smallest layer is. That is both utterly non-monopolistic in charecter, and would be even more effiecient.
As for the Marx quote; how does it debase the generators of value if everyone has all they need, and especially if the generators are in direct control of it? That exact issue is the crux of the problem with capitalism.
Excuse me, I mispoke about material and tool costs; it's quite early and I drew a blank for a moment.
These costs are already figured into the accounting; they are called expenses, and are already balanced against profit. Profit is above and beyond that, and remains, for all intents and purposes, the unpaid wages of the laborers.
My above point still stands for the idea of reinvestment, however.
Check out www.marxist.org if you are interested in more information; I recommends Marx's "Wage labor and Capital" as an accessible introduction to the topic, and like most of his economic works, it's devoid of his otherwise famous polemics.
That model is somewhat simplistic, especially since reproducing Das Kapital on slashdot isn't precisely feasible. However, you have made it overly so in your glancing analysis. By "laborer" can easily be seen all those involved in production and distribution; those who essentially add value to a product. The capitalist, who garners the immense share of this added value, still has done nothing.
Now, as for the materials and tools costs... yes, that is a valid point, except for the fact that "profit" that goes into the pockets of the capitalists, and traditionally a minority is reinvested into the business; this is part of the problem.
Now, at the end, you seem to be coming to socialist conclusions on your own. "A good system will select those activities which will provide the greatest benefit." I'd propose that a democratically planned economy, where the workers in the various industries have direct control of those industries would be a very good system.
Your last paragraph hits to the exact nature of the class struggle; capitalism, by it's very nature, always seeks to "debase earnings from the generators of wealth." That is the whole point of accumulation of capital in a small number of unaccountable hands, after all. Also, it always will follow this path, making society poorer, even less efficient in a view, and leading to mass economic problems and social strife, until socialism arises.
So, you don't buy into the class struggle. You think that capitalism is okay, as long as capital isn't garnered through shady means. Would you define profit as not paying the worker the full value of his work? I think most reasonable people would. What is profit but the unpaid wages of the laborer who actually made the product? Capitalist profit of any kind is inherently shady, really. And this is without mentioning the relativist stance this immediately forces on you; defining "shady" is gonna be tough. Are ten hour days okay? What about using kids to manufactur sneakers? Whose standards do you use, Sweden's, the United States, or Malaysia? As for your greed point.... how does communism, when reinforced by workers democracy (Read some Lenin or Trotsky if you are unfamilliar with the confluence of these those concepts.) fail to appeal to greed? It's superiority is in the simple idea that all of society should have it's needs seen to before others can accumulate VAST hordes of wealth. To qoute something my father used to say at the dinner table: "Everyone gets one helping before anyone gets two." Socialism is the only answer that makes sense and can even begin to end the exploitation of man by man.