 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
DAVOUT
|
 |
AUERSTADT
Jun 2002
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Does anyone have arguements vs this, as compared to the Leninist and Maoist additions of politicallydriven vanaguards that could somehow kickstart the progress prior to the ful development of the productive forces of capitalism? |
Starting with a capitalist system running at the highest possible productivity, and shifting to an ideal communist system where a selection of *useless* products would be stopped in order to make room for social benefits, can be commented as follows :
- the decision that certain products are useless can not be made rationally, unless they are without customers, and in this case the suppression is already made by the capitalist system;
- could it be made rationally, nobody can anticipate the final direct and collateral effect of the decision; the overall productivity cannot be abstractly monitored, and there is a worrying risk that the decline exceeds by far what was expected;
- this is best illustrated by the tremendous positive effect of the competition (there is no exemple of one model car industry satisfying the needs of a population).
The social democracy try, with some success, to allocate to social needs a portion of the yearly increase of GNP; after some years, they have obtained significant results, and their main problem is not to go too far. Is not this a subtile way to apply, without revolution, Marx idea?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
DAVOUT
|
|
AUERSTADT
Jun 2002
time: 05:32
|
|
Oncle Boris,
I have spend 41 years in the business, in 6 firms, all in different industries (I hate to say that because it does not qualify positively my opinions - it is just a light on my testimony).
What I have seen and done does not coincide with your picture or the corporate world. The very bad exemples of the last ten years does not depict it either.
A corporation is not an abstract object, it is run by men; the good or bad results obtained are the direct consequences of their decisions. And these men have sometimes to stand up and say *I desagree, I suggest another way*.
Regarding the relations with the workers, and their unions, I used to tell them when we first met : There are two subjects on which the Company will always be in agreement with you, the safety at work, and the conditions of the work; on these two points we share the same interest.
About the salaries and fringes, I discovered that the main concern of the workers is to be fairly treated (they collectively dislike nepotism, me too). Therefore when there was not a clear system enforced, I established one.
And when I was given the order to prepare a layoff of 30% of the workforce, I came back with a plan showing that it was cheaper to use the normal turn over, associated with training and financial measure.
So, Oncle Boris, in my word the management is always prepared and willing to discuss problems.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
 |
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DAVOUT
Oncle Boris,
I have spend 41 years in the business, in 6 firms, all in different industries (I hate to say that because it does not qualify positively my opinions - it is just a light on my testimony).
What I have seen and done does not coincide with your picture or the corporate world. The very bad exemples of the last ten years does not depict it either.
A corporation is not an abstract object, it is run by men; the good or bad results obtained are the direct consequences of their decisions. And these men have sometimes to stand up and say *I desagree, I suggest another way*.
Regarding the relations with the workers, and their unions, I used to tell them when we first met : There are two subjects on which the Company will always be in agreement with you, the safety at work, and the conditions of the work; on these two points we share the same interest.
About the salaries and fringes, I discovered that the main concern of the workers is to be fairly treated (they collectively dislike nepotism, me too). Therefore when there was not a clear system enforced, I established one.
And when I was given the order to prepare a layoff of 30% of the workforce, I came back with a plan showing that it was cheaper to use the normal turn over, associated with training and financial measure.
So, Oncle Boris, in my word the management is always
prepared and willing to discuss problems. |
Of course, my picture was overdrawn, but I will continue to defend the 'aesthetic' reasoning behind it. First, I will assume that you have worked for European corporations, at a time when globalization had not kicked in with its full strength. I think the 'worsening' of the last 10 years is due in part to the opening of foreign, cheaper workforce, which has put a huge pressure on competitiveness- because if you don't find a way to reduce your costs, you can be sure someone else will be doing it and bring you to your knees.
I will agree that worker unions made huge progress in the 70s and the 80s, and have been succesful in obtaining fair conditions. I'm not saying that a CEO is necessarily a genocidic monster who would want to see his workers starve. Rather, the softening of their position is due to the fact they didn't have the choice anymore: many workers were unionized, protection laws were strong, and unemployment was low. Those industries, in the 90s, seeing the first opportunity to 'reclaim' their lost power, have started moving fabs in poorer countries and sub-contracting in India, etc.
Are companies willing to discuss? If you look at how unions are being treated in China and other poorer countries, I think discussion is only undertaken seriously when it is cheaper- i.e., your workforce is educated, has enough savings to afford a strike, and is protected by strong laws.
Now, that people like you have been moderate is a great thing. But I think it's also part of a culture that has been succesful in the social-democrat West, whose expansion has been not favored by the post-Cold War savage openings of the poorer countries' workforce.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
|
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DAVOUT
Oncle Boris,
I am unlucky, first a philosopher refused to discuss about economy, and now it is an artist who dismiss economic arguments because they do not fit his aesthetic.
Good luck (it is sarcastic, because I am totally convinced that MEN move the world, not systems).
BTW, Ford Motor Company is not a European corporation; that did not prevent it to smoothly adapt the multinational ruling to European conditions. |
Well, if you worked for Ford, then you must know this famous equation:
"Do we do a recall?
Hmmm... let's calculate."
Cost of recall > cost of possible lawsuits.
Ok, no recall.
BTW, I don't think your arguments against me were economic. You merely talked about a company that was willing to discuss. And if you don't like "metaphors", then I'll stop doing them. 
And about Ford conforming to regulations: well, wasn't my point "they need regulations to do it, or else they won't"?
It's funny, everytime I talk to someone with business experience about a Corporation's will to profit, they tell me, "no, that's not true". Strangely enough, they all drive BMWs and live in large mansions, and talk about how the unions are being detrimental to their profit. Bizarre.
Last edited by Oncle Boris on 05-01-2004 at 06:34
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
Skywalker:
A completely egalitarian socialism is not the one I want, because I think it is utopian and unrealistic. I believe that monetary reward is a strong way to motivate people. I think most socialists disagree with the egalitarian model you use as a premise too.
The main difference between capitalism and socialism is that capitalist companies follow the aims and decisions of the owners, whereas socialist companies follow the aims and decisions of the workers. When the ownership and decision-process belongs to something else than the workers, this is not exactly a socialist company.
Egalitarian wages, state ownership, lack of motivational factors are not the systematic corollaries of a socialist system.
As such, there is no need to punish strikers when they want to play the supply & demand in their favour. It is possible to accept their demands, it is possible to find a compromise, or it is possible to reject their demands and see how the power confrontation between the employer (the worker-owned company) and the employees (the striking ones) turns out. Just like in a democratic capitalist society. |
How is a company not run by its employees? Anyone employed by a company - such as a manager - is an employee. Now, not all the employees run the company, necessarily - but an employee doesn't have to take work in a company that isn't run that way if he or she doesn't want to. So all you are doing is restricting the freedom of the employees.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-01-2004 03:55
In fact, similar arguments have been used by our courts in the past to enforce better welfare laws, which were necessary to ensure the protection of human dignity as the highest goal of our state.
|