Communism is NOT the way to go

[John Cuthber]

If I name one, you will say, that you never heard about company..

 

How about two:

Gdansk Shipyard, Gdynia Shipyard..

 

 

What on Earth are you talking about?

 

and unions obviously refuse to do such restructurization, which ends up in bankruptcy of the whole company years later.

Unions here even make strikes just because they don't want government to sell company to private investor!

 

 

Management, owners, could not freely do restructurization.

Which resulted in total collapse.

 

Want more examples of companies which were destroyed by unions?

Search google for companies that had unions and bankrupted (then search about strikes in these companies prior bankruptcy).. You will have your own country companies examples.

Employment should be accordingly to production. If employed is more people than needed, money are wasted on salary for them, and it's straight route to economic problems in the future years.

OK,

If I name one, you will say, that you never heard about company..

Well, that's possibly true- but hardly relevant.

Give me the name of a company that folded because of a Union.

"

How about two:

Gdansk Shipyard, Gdynia Shipyard"

Those were hardly "companies" in the usual sense of the word since they were State sponsored entities.

You seem to be comparing the success of an state entity that logically couldn't fail- regardless of it's abilities with a pseudo-private entity. Is that the best you can do?

 

 

OK so, as far as I can tell the second of those was doing well enough to buy the first of them in 1998

The Gdansk yard is still going, and is making ships.

It's not making so many as it was- but that's not unusual.

 

Re.

"What on Earth are you talking about?"

Did the links not work?

You seemed to imply that UK coal production had gone down because there were lots of union staff involved.

But actually , it went down even though fewer union staff were involved.

 

"I am talking about companies in bad economic situation, which need restructurization (which often means firing people from parts of company that are not absolutely necessary, or selling them. Long before final bankruptcy!),"

Yes you are talking about such companies.

But you seem unable to actually give meaningful instances (citing one that happened in the former USSR is a bit ironic).

 

"and unions obviously refuse to do such restructurization"

I have news for you.

The Trade Union movement is not about stopping change.

The Tolpuddle martyrs did not campaign to retain the status quo.

(You might also want to stop inventing words like "restructurization")

Unions are usually keen to be involved in restructuring.

I can say that because I'm a union representative- I have actual evidence.

Do you actually have any evidence for your point of view, or is it just based on what Fox news told you?

 

"Unions here even make strikes just because they don't want government to sell company to private investor!"

Where is "here"? Is it cloud cuckoo land?

Also, is there a valid reason to sell public assets to a private investor?

If not then perhaps the Union i actually doing the right thing.

Do you have evidence that they are not?

 

 

" Drop of mined coal in UK is result of shutting down, bankruptcy, of coal mines."

​No, that's simply you regurgitating a lie told by the Right wing.

Do better or give up.

The mines closed for a number of reasons. one is geology- it is more expensive to mine deep coal than near-surface coal.

The big one is that the government made the political decision to close down the mining industry because it was a powerful force in favour of workers, rather then the owners.

It's likely that there will be a belated enquiry into that action.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Orgreave

 

I presume that you were simply ignorant of that fact.

There's also the fact that the UK government- unlike the others in Europe- actually followed the legislation and did not subsidise the industry.

The effect of that was to make UK produced coal even more expensive. So it broke the industry and put a lot of people out of work.

That was Right wing government decision- not anything decided by the Unions.

 

"Want more examples of companies which were destroyed by unions?"

How can you say "more"When you have yet to show any?

"Search google for companies that had unions and bankrupted (then search about strikes in these companies prior bankruptcy).. You will have your own country companies examples."

Actually, you amy ahve missed it, but this is a science site.

if you make an assertion, and someone questions it, the responsibility for justifying your claim is yours.

It is not my job to show that your claim is false; it is your role to show that it is true.

You made the claim, I asked for evidence,and the best you could do was show that a couple of weird plant run by a Communist government fell over whan communism collapsed. That's nothing to do with Unions (well arguably it is, but in the opposite direction you are claiming)

 

"Employment should be accordingly to production. If employed is more people than needed, money are wasted on salary for them, and it's straight route to economic problems in the future years."

And...?

Are you aware that Unions are significantly involved in training - and retraining- workers ot get jobs in other industries when opportunities shrink in the ones where they currently work?

 

 

Does that sound as if I'm opposed to labor unions ?

 

Sometimes they are needed, just as Socialist policies are needed to ensure a 'just' society.

Sometimes they are NOT needed. And that is the basis of my comparison to Communism..

If I'm unionized, and I can never earn more money, get more time off, or receive better benefits than my fellow employees, what is the incentive for me to do a 'better' job ?

Simply adequate will do. And that is why I say both unions and Communism tend to breed the lowest common denominator.

And why I believe Communism and Capitalism need to be in balance.

The weak and needy need protection and a hand-up. But they also have a need to strive for something 'better'.

 

I'm glad I gave you the opportunity to get some information 'out there'.

And I hope I answered your questions to your satisfaction ( but I suggest you could have done that yourself by re-reading my post )

"Does that sound as if I'm opposed to labor unions ?"

Well, this does.

 

 

Communism is a lot like labor unions, they both tend to produce the lowest common denominator.

 

And I'd like to see you provide some evidence to show that your statement is actually true, rather than libellous.

Get back to us when you can show that unions " produce the lowest common denominator."

"If I'm unionized, and I can never earn more money, get more time off, or receive better benefits than my fellow employees, "

Well, I'm in a Union, in a unionised job- and I can.

So- join a better union -or change the one you have.

Don't blame the TU movement for the inadequacy of a system that you are in a position to change while the TU movement per se is not.

"And I hope I answered your questions to your satisfaction"

I'm still waiting for evidence for evidence of your claim that "Communism is a lot like labor unions, they both tend to produce the lowest common denominator."

In particular, I'd like to see you provide evidence that overturns that provided by others- but any evidence of the truth of your assertion would be a step forward.

Edited May 20, 2016 by John Cuthber

[MigL]

So now Phi and Delta are criticizing me for my phrasing, and John thinks that because there's a quality concerning Communism and unions that I don't particularly like, I must be opposed to them.

I have stated numerous times that they are necessary.

Maybe if you read people's posts you won't have to constantly demand answers !

 

And yes John, I was in a unionized workforce for approx. 15 yrs.

At my current employment I've been a non-unionized, salaried employee for 13 yrs, but our management team was recently brought in from the Southern US, and made life miserable for some. So much so that this past December we unionized.

 

As for evidence, not that anyone else has provided any to the contrary despite your assertions, I submit the productivity of American Auto plants, with their unionized labor force vs the productivity of Japanese and Korean Auto plants.

You tell me which are unionized and which employees are treated with more respect.

[CharonY]

 

 

As for evidence, not that anyone else has provided any to the contrary despite your assertions, I submit the productivity of American Auto plants, with their unionized labor force vs the productivity of Japanese and Korean Auto plants.

You tell me which are unionized and which employees are treated with more respect.

 

Uh, you are aware that automobile worker unions exist in all three countries? How would you assess the productivity in these countries?

[Delta1212]

So now Phi and Delta are criticizing me for my phrasing, and John thinks that because there's a quality concerning Communism and unions that I don't particularly like, I must be opposed to them.

I have stated numerous times that they are necessary.

Maybe if you read people's posts you won't have to constantly demand answers !

 

And yes John, I was in a unionized workforce for approx. 15 yrs.

At my current employment I've been a non-unionized, salaried employee for 13 yrs, but our management team was recently brought in from the Southern US, and made life miserable for some. So much so that this past December we unionized.

 

As for evidence, not that anyone else has provided any to the contrary despite your assertions, I submit the productivity of American Auto plants, with their unionized labor force vs the productivity of Japanese and Korean Auto plants.

You tell me which are unionized and which employees are treated with more respect.

Actually, sorry about that. Your comment triggered the thought but I didn't entirely mean to dump that all on your doorstep. It's more about a consistent pattern that I've noticed, but as with any pattern one notices as it applies to people, what it means for any single individual is rather up in the air.

[MigL]

Of course, CharonY.

I probably wasn't clear enough, but both Honda and Toyota have Auto manufacturing plants here in Canada which are not unionized, ( and the Koreans had a plant in Quebec which has since closed ) as opposed to GM, Ford and FCA, which are all unionized.

And you're right, I don't know how you'd assess productivity, but I do know their employees are very loyal.

I do seem to remember reading that even where Toyota and Honda have unionized workforces, they tend to work with the company in a non-adversarial manner. Which seems to differ from the North American style of doing things.

 

But none of this changes the fact that I've never said I'm against unions. Nor Communism.

[John Cuthber]

...John thinks that because there's a quality concerning Communism and unions that I don't particularly like, I must be opposed to them.

 

No, I think that you are misrepresenting them- and that behaviour opposes them.

It is more difficult for unions to do their jobs while people are making up bad things about them and saying stuff like "Communism is a lot like labor unions, they both tend to produce the lowest common denominator.".

Since you have not yet withdrawn that assertion in spite of the evidence, you are deliberately misrepresenting them.

You are deliberately undermining the TU movement.

 

So, either you are opposed to them, or you are an idiot- and we know you aren't an idiot.

[Endy0816]

Different forms of communal living, working together, have worked out fine.

 

The big country wide ones had other issues though. Many tried to buck the market or establish autarky on top.

 

Market forces wull oppose either, utilizing smuggling, blackmarkets, graft and corruption in the process.

[MigL]

Since my previous post informed you that the techs where I work decided this past December to have a union represent us, you know that I'm NOT opposed to them. What conclusion should I draw from that, John ?

 

And what is it they say about people who resort to name calling in an attempt to win an argument ?

 

Look, I think unions are necessary, and will continue to be. People will always try to take advantage of other people. Its human nature ( and this was already discussed in the first page of this thread ). And also because of human nature unions TEND ( i.e. they have a forcing towards ) the 'lowest common denominator', because people tend towards the path of least resistance ( read as 'quite a few of us are lazy' ).

But if I was an engineer ( and earned less salary ) at my place of employment, and chose to put in long hours of dedicated problem solving, I could advance to Ops Manager or Facility Manager. Alas, my current position as a unionized employee doesn't allow for those kinds of goals. In effect, unionizing took away some of the incentive to better myself. Like Communism does.

 

And that is why I have and continue to maintain ( as others have also ) that Communism/Socialism must be balanced with some Capitalism.

 

Now perhaps you'd care to explain why I'm an idiot for thinking this way.

 

BY the way John, I love cherries but really dislike the pits in them.

According to you, I must dislike cherries, or be an idiot.

( who thinks like that ??? )

Edited May 21, 2016 by MigL

[Phi for All]

Anyway, since just about everyone agreed that Fidel Castro and Joseph Stalin were some bad examples of communism, and while they did accomplish some good, they mostly did bad, unless you want to argue? Your kind of good at missing the big picture.

 

I see what you did there, poking fun at yourself for missing the big picture by accusing me of it. Good one!

 

Of course, we both know the big picture is that you can't judge people in such broad strokes as "good" and "bad", not if you want to discuss anything meaningful about them. You certainly can't claim any single ideology is good or bad. Modern societies are heavily nuanced with many layers of complexity. These ideologies are tools to be used wisely, knowing they're capable of great harm as well as good.

 

I would argue that the US has too much Capitalist influence, and has for the last 50 years. We're unbalanced because of it, and we need to be smart about how we fix that. The problem is bad, it's caused a lot of wealth disparity, and it's clear to many that this is the time for more socialistic and even communistic strategies. Whenever we've been strongest as a nation (the last time under Eisenhower), the balance between these ideologies has been much better. We can't afford to let any single one get the upper hand, otherwise we know, we know for sure it will turn out bad for us.

[dimreepr]

Every governmental system has to overcome corruption to be successful; democracy seems to provide the best chance.

 

Unfortunately the corrupt have fear as ‘a weapon of mass destruction’; maybe that destructive power will create a populace that’s less fearful which evolves, hopefully, into a communistic democracy.

[Phi for All]

Unfortunately the corrupt have fear as ‘a weapon of mass destruction’; maybe that destructive power will create a populace that’s less fearful which evolves, hopefully, into a communistic democracy.

 

I think having the State handle education, energy, the military, and healthcare is enough. I don't think we could implement much else until our society starts believing that we're all worth it. Right now, there are too many discriminators who want to judge who is worthy and get rid of the rest somehow.

[dimreepr]

Right now, there are too many discriminators who want to judge who is worthy and get rid of the rest somehow.

 

 

Tell them the Earth needs to be evacuated, put them on a spaceship and wave goodbye, although that may go wrong.

[John Cuthber]

And also because of human nature unions TEND ( i.e. they have a forcing towards ) the 'lowest common denominator', because people tend towards the path of least resistance ( read as 'quite a few of us are lazy' ).

 

Meanwhile, the actual evidence shows that assertion not to be true- no matter how often you say it.

[Raider5678]

Of course, we both know the big picture is that you can't judge people in such broad strokes as "good" and "bad", not if you want to discuss anything meaningful about them. You certainly can't claim any single ideology is good or bad. Modern societies are heavily nuanced with many layers of complexity. These ideologies are tools to be used wisely, knowing they're capable of great harm as well as good.

 

I would argue that the US has too much Capitalist influence, and has for the last 50 years. We're unbalanced because of it, and we need to be smart about how we fix that. The problem is bad, it's caused a lot of wealth disparity, and it's clear to many that this is the time for more socialistic and even communistic strategies. Whenever we've been strongest as a nation (the last time under Eisenhower), the balance between these ideologies has been much better. We can't afford to let any single one get the upper hand, otherwise we know, we know for sure it will turn out bad for us.

This, I agree with. Though I think Capitalist influence is slightly better then the 1900s, with child labor laws having to be passed, labor laws, some good laws were passed in my opinion, though I think we are a a fairly decently balanced point currently. The corrupt political problem on the other hand..... Not really doing the best. People with more money tend to have more say. Do you agree?

Every governmental system has to overcome corruption to be successful; democracy seems to provide the best chance.

 

Unfortunately the corrupt have fear as ‘a weapon of mass destruction’; maybe that destructive power will create a populace that’s less fearful which evolves, hopefully, into a communistic democracy.

A communistic democracy...... I'm not liking that idea very much, but I guess its better then a dictatorship.

 

 

I think having the State handle education, energy, the military, and healthcare is enough. I don't think we could implement much else until our society starts believing that we're all worth it. Right now, there are too many discriminators who want to judge who is worthy and get rid of the rest somehow.

Education, energy, military, and healthcare. Thats about all imo.

[dimreepr]

A communistic democracy...... I'm not liking that idea very much, but I guess its better then a dictatorship.

 

 

Of course, we both know the big picture is that you can't judge people in such broad strokes as "good" and "bad", not if you want to discuss anything meaningful about them. You certainly can't claim any single ideology is good or bad. Modern societies are heavily nuanced with many layers of complexity. These ideologies are tools to be used wisely, knowing they're capable of great harm as well as good.

I would argue that the US has too much Capitalist influence, and has for the last 50 years. We're unbalanced because of it, and we need to be smart about how we fix that. The problem is bad, it's caused a lot of wealth disparity, and it's clear to many that this is the time for more socialistic and even communistic strategies. Whenever we've been strongest as a nation (the last time under Eisenhower), the balance between these ideologies has been much better. We can't afford to let any single one get the upper hand, otherwise we know, we know for sure it will turn out bad for us.

 

 

 

Yet this you agree with?

[Phi for All]

This, I agree with. Though I think Capitalist influence is slightly better then the 1900s, with child labor laws having to be passed, labor laws, some good laws were passed in my opinion, though I think we are a a fairly decently balanced point currently. The corrupt political problem on the other hand..... Not really doing the best. People with more money tend to have more say. Do you agree?

I've already said I think we're unbalanced now, that Capitalism has been given too much control and that has resulted in the corruption in our political process, as well as the wealth inequality that was unfairly engineered over the last half century. I can't agree about the decent balance point at all.

 

If we'd been dropped in this pot with the water on full boil, we wouldn't have stood for it and we would've hopped out. As it is, we've been sitting here in the pot, letting Big Business slowly turn up the heat incrementally, wages creeping away from their traditional ties to productivity. Middle class frogs.

 

A communistic democracy...... I'm not liking that idea very much, but I guess its better then a dictatorship.

Given what you've hopefully learned about Communism and our current situation, what about this blend of ideologies do you not like? We already use all three of the ones we've discussed, so why isn't it WAY better than a dictatorship?

 

Education, energy, military, and healthcare. Thats about all imo.

See there? You're already a card-carrying Socialist Communist Capitalist! Welcome to New America!

[MigL]

Have you actually read the Metcalf study that CharonY spoke about, John ?

The conclusion it draws are that management/labour relations are extremely important in determining the effect on productivity.

Good relations, such as in Japan and Germany, may lead to increases in productivity, depending on other factors such as competition, investment, etc

Bad relations, such as in the US and England, lead to worse productivity ( but things are changing for the better )

[StringJunky]

The path to political enlightenment, as in most things, is the middle way.

[Raider5678]

I've already said I think we're unbalanced now, that Capitalism has been given too much control and that has resulted in the corruption in our political process, as well as the wealth inequality that was unfairly engineered over the last half century. I can't agree about the decent balance point at all.

 

If we'd been dropped in this pot with the water on full boil, we wouldn't have stood for it and we would've hopped out. As it is, we've been sitting here in the pot, letting Big Business slowly turn up the heat incrementally, wages creeping away from their traditional ties to productivity. Middle class frogs.

 

 

Given what you've hopefully learned about Communism and our current situation, what about this blend of ideologies do you not like? We already use all three of the ones we've discussed, so why isn't it WAY better than a dictatorship?

 

 

See there? You're already a card-carrying Socialist Communist Capitalist! Welcome to New America!

Our ideas of a good balance may differ, but we agree that there should at least a mix of all 3.

In my own opinion, I like voting for presidents rather then letting a dictator rule in my opinion, by if you don't agree, I don't think theres much of an argument either of us could make to oppose each other. Though from reason your post it seems like your asking me why I changed my mind when I never did. Read that quote. I said its better then a dictatorship and you are asking me why its not better then a dictatorship....

 

And while we both agree that all governments eventually get corrupted, why does it matter if it slowly got more corrupted? All governments eventually get here if they live long enough, so its not like its better then communism.

 

And as a final point before I back out of this political discussion, I think the best ideals for a government would be mostly capatilist, some communism and a tiny bit of socialism.

[Phi for All]

a tiny bit of socialism.

 

What's wrong with Socialism? We have more of that than Communism, currently in the US.

[dimreepr]

And while we both agree that all governments eventually get corrupted, why does it matter if it slowly got more corrupted? All governments eventually get here if they live long enough, so its not like its better then communism.

 

 

With that reasoning, why bother?

[Delta1212]

I think we've certainly got better regulation than the gilded age, but a lot of those regulations and worker protections were put in following the Great Depression, and they've been eroded and repealed in a fashion over the last several decades such that we've been backsliding economically.

 

Wages have been stagnant for twenty years while the wealthy have seen unprecedented growth in their wealth, the middle class is rapidly vanishing with the median income in the US currently being well and firmly in the "lower class" bracket, and repeated studies finding that how popular a policy is among the general population has almost no correlation with legislative action on the issue, which is consistently much more strongly related to the views of the wealthiest citizens and business elites.

 

We're at a point where Congressmen spend more time fundraising than doing legislative work. That is not hyperbole, that is based on an actual breakdown of how representatives in Congress spend the hours in their workday, and that is not an historically normal average.

[MigL]

But isn't that Politics, and not Government, Delta1212 ?

 

Politicians will always be just marginally better than lawyers in some people's eyes ( no matter how hard they try ).

But is the government getting better or worse ?

 

I realise it will always focus on the US, so lets discuss the government of the US.

Is it getting more compassionate, or is it getting worse ? Are we looking out for our fellow population by increasing Socialsm, or is it every man for himself by increasing Capitalism ?

On the one hand wealth is being concentrated at the top percentage of the population, but on the other, social programs have improved to the point where very few are destitute and hungry.

What is the general consensus. Is America on the way up, or down ?

( or does that depend on how far D Trump gets in the election ? )

[Delta1212]

I don't think talking about an overall up or down trend is very useful. Something have improved markedly and some things have gotten worse. We have better protections and improved rights surrounding sexual orientation, but we have more money influencing politics than the recent historical average. We have more people insured, but weakened consumer protections.

 

Focusing on an overall trend across all issues can mask areas of improvement in the case of a negative trend or overshadow issues that clearly still need work in the case of a positive trend. It's best to celebrate what is good and focus on what needs improvement on an issue by issue basis.

 

I also think that ascribing some of those issues, especially the issues surrounding money in politics, as merely being politics and not an issue of government is misguided. The problems in our political sphere are not just because that is what politicians decide to do, but because that is what the regulations around how politics are conducted allow for or encourage. And how politics is regulated is very much a government issue.

[Phi for All]

Here's the way I see it. Capitalism is great for growth and making profits, but it needs to be regulated to make sure it meets its obligations to the People who give it charter and maintain practices that protect us. Communism recognizes that the State (meaning the People) should control certain sectors where profit and growth aren't the priority, but it needs to be regulated so it doesn't continue to nationalize past the point of sound efficiency. Socialism should ensure that all the People get a fair shot at health and happiness through overall prosperity, but it also needs to be regulated to make sure it benefits those who need it most.

 

Big Business has been able to arrange far too much in their favor in the US by deregulating the normal processes that would keep them in check. It's one reason why there are so many conflicting conservative views, because they're all skewed by money motives and profit agendas. Small government that minds its own business + control of embryos + fair free market practices + mega-corp subsidies = something rotten in Denver.

 

The will of the People is not being represented, period. We know this but keep electing the same folks who promised to represent us last time but didn't. The money and its influence is THAT POWERFUL, and we need to stop pretending it isn't, that it doesn't manipulate us into being the very problems we bitch about.