On "Solidarity in Marginality" Politics

[elam]

retarded crap*

Nothing in this pile of excrement has anything to do with the absurd claim (invented by marx and repeated by you) that only workers create wealth. Take your meds.

Your invention and falsification of responses to reply to evidences you are dishonest & totally untrustworthy. Your inability to respond intelligently to anyone's arguments demonstrates you are lacking an elementary education. In short you are completely ignorable!

It is a recognised fact of Capitalism that "only workers create wealth" - without them there is no means of production.

As I noted earlier Henry Ford and like industrailist recognised this most elementary fact. As a means of increasing production he doubled his employees salaries, invented the five day working week, reduced the workers working week to 40 hours and established training, education and health care facilities for his workers.

Henry Ford, Bill Gates, Google etc etc easily demonstrate your inability to understand how markets actually work.

Get an education!!!

[Mountain Man]

The problem is that "democracy" back then had a much more narrow definition than it does in modern day use. So yes, they had a lot of negative things to say about democracy, but the "democracy" they refer to is not the modern term because words can change meaning over the course of several centuries. The kind of country they wanted was, by the modern usage of democracy, a democracy.

You'll have to be more specific. What did it mean then versus what does it mean now, and what makes you certain our Founding Fathers would have embraced even our modern notions of democracy?

[Darth Executor]

Your invention and falsification of responses to reply to evidences you are dishonest & totally untrustworthy. Your inability to respond intelligently to anyone's arguments demonstrates you are lacking an elementary education. In short you are completely ignorable!

You haven't made a single coherent reply so there was nothing to reply to.

It is a recognised fact of Capitalism that "only workers create wealth" - without them there is no means of production.

Wrong, idiot. Ignoring the fact that there are also robots now directly producing wealth, the workers are not enough to produce the large quantity and qualify of wealth we have available. Research and superior leadership are responsible for the bulk of the wealth. There are workers everywhere on the planet, but wealth production differs radically depending on who's in charge, what technology they produce and have access to, etc. What you claim is a "recognized fact of Capitalism" is in fact a well known Marxist canard, which you would know if you weren't a complete amateur.

BTW awkwardly quoting Plato in a context that makes no sense is pretty typical behavior of some neophyte who thinks reading one of his most famous works suddenly makes him intelligent and educated. It's actually cringeworthy and embarassing, expecially when you also stupidly repeat a KARL MARX claim as "a recognized fact of Capitalism".

As I noted earlier Henry Ford and like industrailist recognised this most elementary fact. As a means of increasing production he doubled his employees salaries, invented the five day working week, reduced the workers working week to 40 hours and established training, education and health care facilities for his workers.

Henry Ford, Bill Gates, Google etc etc easily demonstrate your inability to understand how markets actually work.

Did Henry Ford give ALL his money to his workers? Does Bill Gates? No? Then I guess he didn't believe only workers create wealth after all. Thanks for the own goal, doofus.

[elam]

...Ignoring the fact that there are also robots now directly producing wealth

Have you not a TV? Have you not seen the doco-show MegaFactories? In car manufacturing there is still a need for people to do the intricate work. Robots currently don't have the dexterity to do some relatively simple tasks.

...the workers are not enough to produce the large quantity and qualify of "wealth" we have available.

By wealth I presume you mean "things", much of which we can live without. One obvious defect in your fantasy is who is going to buy "the large quantity and qualify" of "things produced. Robots don't need things, they are not consumers of "things" per se. On the other hand, Workers are consumers, they spend their wages on things.

Wealth is produced by the mechanism of the money cycle. Workers produce, workers purchase what they or other workers produce at a mark-up. The entrepreneur pockets the mark-up without the need for personal exertion.

Henry Ford recognised this and his intention in doubling his workers salaries was to ensure they had enough disposable income to buy the things he manufactured (he had his fingers in other ventures besides cars).

Research and superior leadership are responsible for the bulk of the wealth.

To a limited extent. Most research never recoups its cost. The successful Research projects that lead to commercialisation have to cover the cost of the failures as well...

Leadership, I can't think of anyone especially at the moment, most leaders employ someone with the appropriate skills to manage their enterprises. However, intuition & innovation do create wealth - I'm thinking Branson, as a particular type of leader...

There are workers everywhere on the planet, but wealth production differs radically depending on who's in charge, what technology they produce and have access to, etc

Workers have different skill & education levels. Their value to an entrepreneur depends on what the worker can contribute to an enterprise. Wealth production is not dependent on administration but on how enterprising workers actually are. As you have suggested, productivity is dependent on what tools are available to the Workers.

What you claim is a "recognized fact of Capitalism" is in fact a well known Marxist canard, which you would know if you weren't a complete amateur.

Curiously, what I've suggested is core to an MBA and standard practice in modern business. If you pursued some form of education in Economics you would quickly realise your errors...

BTW awkwardly quoting Plato in a context that makes no sense is pretty typical behavior of some neophyte who thinks reading one of his most famous works suddenly makes him intelligent and educated. It's actually cringeworthy and embarassing, expecially when you also stupidly repeat a KARL MARX claim as "a recognized fact of Capitalism".

In your self absorption you missed Plato's moral "There are those who mistake appearance for reality. Such think the things they see outwardly are the reality; they would know nothing of the real causes".

As for Marx, he believed that workers, under the capitalist system of government, sold their labor and that this labor became a commodity. This commodity, or "labor power" translated into surplus value for the capitalist, but not for the worker. Such was true in the beginning of the industrial age. Workers were overworked and under paid. However, as complexity increased in the industrial process simple skills like being able to read and write attracted a premium and better working conditions. Acquiring skills in demand had a multiplier effect - like any other commodity as shortages occur the cost of supply increases. Thus as time has well proved for skill sets in demand with short supply, it it a sellers market,,,Economics 101...

Did Henry Ford give ALL his money to his workers?

Why would he? But he did ensure that they had a higher enough standard of living and thus discretionary, surplus income to buy his and other industrialists' wares.

Did Henry Ford give ALL his money to his workers? Does Bill Gates? No?

Actually, most Microsoft workers are paid extraordinary wages. Bill & his wife are in the process of giving most of their wealth away.

Then I guess he didn't believe only workers create wealth after all. Thanks for the own goal, doofus.

I can only assume that in your hallucinations you exist in Neverland with Peter Pan & Tinker Bell...

Why did Henry Ford double his workers wages? Why does Microsoft pay above average wages to their skilled employees. In fact why is it that the most successful enterprises as a general rule pay their employees above average salaries.?

The answer: because it is they they create the wealth!!!

[Darth Executor]

Wealth is produced by the mechanism of the money cycle.

I thought wealth was produced by the workers? When realizing your error, the honorable thing to do is admit it, not double down. Especially when dealing with someone who has no heart like I do.

Why did Henry Ford double his workers wages? Why does Microsoft pay above average wages to their skilled employees. In fact why is it that the most successful enterprises as a general rule pay their employees above average salaries.?

The answer: because it is they they create the wealth!!!

If they create the wealth why do they even need Henry Ford or Bill gates to pay them in the first place? And what does Bill giving his wealth away to charity have to do with his workers? Why aren't they giving them ALL the money since according to you Henry Ford and Bill Gates don't believe that they themselves create any wealth? I noticed you keep refusing to answer this question.

The workers get paid they're part of the wealth creation process. Giving them money in no way signifies that they create all the wealth.

This is what happens when you try to pretend that you're smart even though you're obviously not (and reading Plato won't save you).

[Darth Ovious]

It is remarkable that the top 10 nations that survived the GFC were Socialist Democracies or Socialist Republics.

[i]"Australia takes the top spot followed by China with India and Singapore in equal third place. Qatar is the only gulf nation that figures in this "relatively" recession-proof list...The [top 12] countries perceived to be surviving the economic crisis the best, as voted by international business people are:" 1. Australia, 2. China, 3. India & Singapore, 4. Hong Kong, 5. Canada, 6. Japan & Qatar, 7. New Zealand, 8. Malaysia, Sweden & Vietnam..."

Seeing Sweden on your list here makes me doubt this. Sweden is projected to become a third world nation in the next 20-30 years.

[Terraceth]

You'll have to be more specific. What did it mean then versus what does it mean now, and what makes you certain our Founding Fathers would have embraced even our modern notions of democracy?

What the founding fathers were critical of was what we now think of as direct democracy; that is, decisions are made by the general populace directly voting on things. Basically, if every issue was decided by referendum. They correctly observed that such a thing is just a more civilized version of mob rule. So when they criticize "democracy," that's what they're referring to.

But the term "democracy" nowadays has expanded to include systems where people, rather than voting on issues directly, instead elect representatives who do that. Let's take a look at some definitions of democracy from several dictionaries. And as the distinction between democracy and republic was brought up, let's look at the definitions for republic too. (first definition listed is democracy, second is republic)

"a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives"
"a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch"
(New Oxford American Dictionary)

"a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections"
"a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law"
(Merriam-Webster)

"government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system."
"a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them"
(dictionary.com)

"the belief in freedom and equality between people, or a system of government based on this belief, in which power is either held by elected representatives or directly by the people themselves"
"a country that is governed by elected representatives and an elected leader"
(Cambridge Dictionary)

I don't see how the United States fails to qualify as a democracy under these definitions (I suppose a cynic could claim that it's disqualified from #2 and #3 because the "true" power is in the donors rather than the voters, but it's still the voters who do the actual electing). I do not see how the founding fathers would have been averse to the idea of creating a government that falls under those definitions on the basis that... well, they did create such a government.

This brings us to the original question as to the distinction between a democracy and a republic. As we can see, in modern usage, far from being mutually exclusive, a republic is a specific kind of a democracy (note especially how similar the phrasing itself for #2 and #3 are). The "democracy" definitions allow for direct OR elected rule whereas the "republic" definitions specify further that it's elected rule. However, as essentially all democracies in the modern world are republics as well, the two terms are functionally synonyms when referring to modern-day governments.