The Working Poor

[Barry the Sprout]

Timber - read some rational choice theory, from what I understand of your views I think you'd like it anyway. But basically what it mostly says is that democracy only exists for people to put forward their various strategies for preference satisfaction. Through this equilibrium, as in a market, is found. Therefore the whole point of democracy is that people use it for their personal gain. In fact if you break down the terms in that senetence it becomes almost tautological. Check out Mancur Olson - The Logic of Collective Action. I disagree with it, but I disagree with everything! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Promethius - my point was that you had phrased something as fact when it was opinion. If you agree that was a mistake on your part then we're all fine. I did not put forward my own opinion as I don't have enough time and its quite a contraversial and long winded one. My degree is in Government and Economics, but I'm almost entirely studying political theory at present and I'm doing a Masters degree in Political philosophy next year. Basically that means studying the big texts (Plato to Nato, as we call it...), the big concepts (What is liberty, equality, etc), the application of economic models (game theory, rational choice theory, etc), and various views of the manner in which the public sector functions (public sector economics and models of bureaucracy). Its fun. No... really... hey guys come back! Its not that boring!

[promethius9594]

okay barry,

i dont appologize for voicing my opinion. i think its pretty clear around here that when people make an assertion they are really stating their opinion. assume, from now on, that every assertion i make is my opinion (because, in reality, i cant think of an assertion which is not opinion in some form) and realize that i will try to back that opinion with fact as much as possible (ie... providing the research i have seen).

still, i am interested in what OTHER functions you think the government is mandated to serve to the people.

[Barry the Sprout]

Simply put promethius I am a Communist so I think that the government is only a representation of the wishes of the ruling class. As such the issue of what it is mandated to do is moot as it neither represents or has any theoretical relevance to the working class. As the working class is the only progressive force in current society I therefore feel that the government should be overthrown and replaced by a system of workers representation committees which would in themselves gradually lose relevance over time as the political character of society eroded.

Thats just my opinion though. I believe I can support it well enough, but I don't want to phrase it as if its the only possible opinion held here. By that I don't mean that everyone else is equally as right as me - if I thought that I wouldn't spend so much time in trying to enact it! What I mean is that everyone has their own opinion, and the only way to change those is to constructively argue with them.

[shamrock_uk]

Well, i'm definitely not a communist, but in reply to promethius, whilst charity may be a virtue, forcing people to rely on it is not. The role of the government is best kept minimal, I would agree with you there, but a government also has some sort of obligation for social policies.

As to your comment about lowering taxes etc, generally speaking (and espcially this current bush administration) the tax breaks are directed towards those that do not need it - heavily subsidised US industry and large corporations.

Also, I would probably disagree with you about America and Britain being totally different animals. The two economies are much more similar than for example Britain and the European countries. And yes, whilst it's true that in its past industries were heavily nationalised, that is no longer the case so these industries are now pricing fairly near to cost anyway. (not sure whether that's good either, witness the energy crisis in the US caused by a lack of capacity and a worryingly similar trend in the UK) But we managed 'well' also in terms of economic indicators without a minimum wage - it was only introduced by the current labour government.

Whilst it's all going down the pan a bit now as spending and borrowing gets out of control, we cannot take away from the fact that the introduction of the minimum wage here has coincided with a near unprecedented stage of economic success (compare the growth of a UK with a brief recession in the US, and large recession in Europe) whilst at the same time lifting large numbers of people out of poverty.

We use quite an interesting system over here, it would be good to compare. Here we use a system of negative income tax to guarantee a certain income. As income increases, benefits decline proportionately in order to guarantee a basic income. By doing it like this, there is no disincentive to work (eg from immediately losing all benefits and being worse off) and most benefits are in terms of services. The actual monetary value is small, but the poor can expect free prescriptions, free higher education etc etc whilst obtaining benefits is contingent upon training and active jobseeking. This ensures that the poor can still obtain the same skills as the rich, regardless of wealth and this allows them to contribute to the economy in the future. It certainly seems to be a reasonable middle ground between left and right.

[ 04-27-2004, 07:42 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Stratos]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: Simply put promethius I am a Communist so I think that the government is only a representation of the wishes of the ruling class. As such the issue of what it is mandated to do is moot as it neither represents or has any theoretical relevance to the working class. As the working class is the only progressive force in current society I therefore feel that the government should be overthrown and replaced by a system of workers representation committees which would in themselves gradually lose relevance over time as the political character of society eroded.

Just wondering about a few things, Barry:

1. How are the working class the only progressive force today? What do you mean by that? Is the ruling class holding back progress?

2. How would workers representation comitees work? Would you elect representatives and thus have some form of representative democracy, or would it be a direct democracy where everyone could just voice they're opinion? If the representatives are elected, isn't there a risk that they cease to be 'progressive' and instead assume they role of the 'opressors' they just ousted. I'm thinking about George Orwell's "Animal Farm".

3. How would the political character of society erode? Is this automatic or would it require further revolutions?

Thanks in advance.

[ 04-27-2004, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: Stratos ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: But basically what it mostly says is that democracy only exists for people to put forward their various strategies for preference satisfaction. Through this equilibrium, as in a market, is found. Therefore the whole point of democracy is that people use it for their personal gain.

Yep - I'd considered that. Probably true, but I think there's still a problem with so many government employess and people "one the dole." I mean, if it isn't so bad, why not just have the government employ everyone? Anyway, I'm slowly sorting the theory out for myself.

My degree is in Government and Economics, but I'm almost entirely studying political theory at present and I'm doing a Masters degree in Political philosophy next year. Basically that means studying the big texts (Plato to Nato, as we call it...), the big concepts (What is liberty, equality, etc), the application of economic models (game theory, rational choice theory, etc), and various views of the manner in which the public sector functions (public sector economics and models of bureaucracy). Its fun. No... really... hey guys come back! Its not that boring!

You've had entirely enough time to study the world's problems -- no go fix them! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 04-27-2004, 10:17 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by Stratos: Just wondering about a few things, Barry: 1. How are the working class the only progressive force today? What do you mean by that? Is the ruling class holding back progress? 2. How would workers representation comitees work? Would you elect representatives and thus have some form of representative democracy, or would it be a direct democracy where everyone could just voice they're opinion? If the representatives are elected, isn't there a risk that they cease to be 'progressive' and instead assume they role of the 'opressors' they just ousted. I'm thinking about George Orwell's "Animal Farm". 3. How would the political character of society erode? Is this automatic or would it require further revolutions? Thanks in advance.

First off lets remember this is slightly off topic, so understand this is brief. Now on to the points:

1. The working class are the only progressive force as they are the only calss incapable of exploiting another for their own gain. By definition they cannot work (and hence be the working class) and exploit the workers, so only when they are put into power will exploitation cease. That what I mean by being progressive.

2. As to the workers rep committees I admit I don't know exactly how they'd work as most struggle is a reaction to the actions of the bourgoisie. In other words it would be different from case to case. As to your Animal Farm point, or the more general point of counter revolution, it seems to me that that is of course a danger. However that doesn't mean that revolution should be avoided, but instead that we should recognise it is not the end of the struggle. Also I feel the probability of this happening would be small as long as the revolution happened on a large scale across the globe. Its not happening tomorrow, lets put it that way!

3. The erosion of the political character of society is a direct consequence of the end of antagonistic class relations. As such it wouldn't require oppression or intervention but would instead be a natural process. Once again its hard to say exactly the time frame we're talking here, but to be honest thats not the issue. Its a transition from one progressive state to another and as such is important, but not particularly relevant at this minute.

Thats my opinion anyway. I'm sure any other Marxists around might want to have a go at their own version as well.

[Stratos]

Thanks, Barry. I just wanted to get a clearer picture of what you meant.

[Oblivion437]

Now Barry, there's a plant near where I live (less than 25 miles away) called Foster-Wheeler. It's totally abandoned, machinery and all, I and a few of my fellow enlightened friends have been considering reviving the plant and splitting the earnings evenly among the workers. It would just be a little venture of mine, but I'm sure it could work. In the Libertarian ideal of free opportunity, in a case like this, what I'd be doing is totally okay. No property claim in an area like this would be enough to get a number of factories going again, if people were assured of what to do...

[promethius9594]

barry, no offense, but your suggested plan sounds a bit like communism to me... or at least the same ideals.

whats so wrong about a bit of exploitation anyway? i think it builds character for people to go through a bit of hard work in order to build their way up.