Ship of Fools: Is there a future for Social Democracy?

Thread: Is there a future for Social Democracy? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026465

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Most Western Social Democratic parties have abandoned the idea of nationalized industry and finance. Although many are still keen on advancing various forms of equality (especially equality of opportunity and gender/racial/ethnic/LGBT equality), and managing/defending/making sutainable the social safety net, I don't see much of an idea of what the "end goal" of Social Democracy is anymore. Marx's labor theory of value doesn't hold much weight with economists anymore, and New Keynesian economics (ie, the idea that Keynes was partly wrong about unemployment and low demand not solving themselves but that price stickiness means that Keynesian policies can be effective in the short to medium run -(espoused by some of the successors of classical Social Democratic parties) is just an attempt to keep captialism from undermining itself. SD parties also tend to espouse environmentalism and a concern for multilaterialism and global human rights - but there are plenty of other parties in support of those things.

So what kind of future do today's Social Democrats hope for that makes them different from other political movements? And what are the key ideas and goals that motivate their policies?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I've been thinking about this recently in relation to the Labour Party (UK). I don't know much about other European SD parties, but I think Labour is now a centre-right party, which is a kind of echo of the Conservatives.

My wife keeps telling me that there is still some oomph in the Labour brand, but I can't see it.

Politics today is really a quarrel over who can run capitalism better, although I'm not sure if they have much control over it.

But maybe some new political strand/brand will emerge?

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Rather ask "What is social democracy" becuase I think you'll find there are many different ideas of what SD is, some completely at variance with others.

IMO while there is a presumption that social democracy = support for the Labour Party or LibDems there cannot be any meaningful debate about SD, what it should be and how to achieve it.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

L'Organist:

That is exactly what I am trying to get at. Now that Nationalization is a thing of the past, what does Social Democracy mean?

The definitions I have seen include some kind of support for increasing the relative equality of people's economic outcomes for equality's own sake and not as a means towards some other end (such as because economic inequality is bad for the economy, or for the functioning of a democracy, etc). You could add support for Labor Unionism, worker's rights, and the social welfare state (I know in some cases the Social Democratic party is to the right of other major parties on these issues, as with New Labour and a significant part of the Lib Dems).

This does not seem like a satisfactory definition of Social Democracy to me. I thought Social Democracy was supposed to offer some kind of alternative vision for society other than a. a completely free market (which does not exist and probably could not exist anywhere, in my opinion), or b. a sustainable version of the modern welfare state (good luck there) in an otherwise free market. I am not a Marxist or a Fabian, but I would like to see a platform for some kind of vision for society other than the (small-l) liberal ideal of individual social and economic freedom and other than far-right populism.

I'm not convinced by Green politics either. A lot of it seems motivated by a "not in my backyard" conservative opposition to any change to the status quo, even if it would benefit people outside the immediate community. Environmentalism is great, and so are participatory politics, nonviolence, gender equality, and the principle of solving problems at the most local level possible, but I do not think that is enough to build a whole vision for society upon.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

I don't know about the situation everywhere, but the tendencies to (1) See gov't as less efficient and business-like when running things, from railways to power generation have been promoted so thoroughly by the neo-con/libs that it has taken on the aura of truth.

(2) Corporate taxes have plumented since the 1980s, with the same agenda as touted in (1) above.

(3) Corporations now set government policy. From deciding which public service to sponsor (hospitals, swimming pools, parks, lunch programs for kids), corporations are themselves the agents of social democracy.

(4) they've only just begun.

Obiwan Kenobe you are our only hope. --We need to slay the inaccuracies of this Darth Corporationism. Governments and government controlled companies (Crown Corporations), owned by the citizens are more efficient and business-like than private for profit companies. And they keep the profits to assist with public projects the priorities of which will be decided by the people, not the companies. -- I think my conjecture is on a solid footing as the corporations being more efficient view is.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I think another, and profitable, line to explore would be the difference between today's very rich and the very rich of, say, 100-150 years ago.

Todays very rich - the oligarchy, if you like - are totally unlike their counterparts of the last century in that, by-and-large, they don't put their money into "social" projects, rather they buy themselves expensive toys.

For example, the Cadbury and Lever families built Bourneville and Port Sunlight for their workers. Now, while it can be argued that this kept their labour-force tied to them and the company, it is fact that, for their time, these model villages provided the highest standard of accommodation and also afforded opportunities for recreation that were not standard at the time. Other very wealthy individuals, both in the UK and abroad, endowed universities, schools, hospitals, public libraries, etc. I don't think the actions of, say, Roman Abramovich in buying Chelsea FC can be compared with this.

Yes, there are wealthy individuals who are funding large-scale projects in the UK, but they are not the stonkingly rich, they are from the tier under that.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Well, Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett certainly do a lot of philanthropy, and even the (deservedly) much-maligned Koch brothers do quite a bit of charitable work with their money.

It is true through that a lot of today's young wealthy and quite a bit of the young upper middle class are raised in a world where poverty - and beyond that, inescapable negative consequences for one's life decisions - are invisible. Therefore, it is seems plausible to them that if people have a bad lot in life they must be really lazy or have some other major flaw of character, because look at how lazy and immoral many of them are and yet they still turn out ok! I myself am one of these sheltered privileged young people. I fell victim to bleeding-heart liberalism (liberal in the American sense) because of guilt issues, but otherwise I would probably be just as entitled and oblivious as lots of my peers. In fact, I should admit that the strain of leftism found among the upper middle class of my generation is dominated by pet projects like gay marriage, abortion rights, and opposition to fossil fuels more than it is by a general concern for the socioeconomically underprivileged. I am certainly guilty of the naievete and hubris of a latte-sipping limousine liberal.

That said, I think some kind of future world made up of strong cooperative communities, cooperative workplaces, a revolutionized system of intellectual property, land ownership, and patents that frees innovation and creativity and prevents the foritification of privilege, and a peaceful co-existence with all other communities and with the natural environment would be great. That, and a federal world govenment [Big Grin]

. So I'm a hippie. But I'd like a realistic way to get there that doesn't throw the justice baby out with the pipe-dream bathwater (mixed metaphor, check).

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I thought Social Democracy was supposed to offer some kind of alternative vision for society other than a. a completely free market (which does not exist and probably could not exist anywhere, in my opinion), or b. a sustainable version of the modern welfare state (good luck there) in an otherwise free market.

Given that most of the prosperous nations of the world are organized as "mixed economies" (free market systems with some kind of social safety net and regulatory enforcement) and that this kind of system seems much more durable than either centrally-planned economies or Gilded Age style capitalism (your option "a"), why do you posit that this type of arrangement is particularly unsustainable?

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Croesos: because increasing life spans, ever-raising expectations, an epidemic of gluttony, the elimination of positions for unskilled labor, globalization, and the formidable political power of seniors to protect their benefits all add up to a situation that I do not know how any government of a developed nation, right-or-left-wing, can fix. Laissez-faire and central planning would be catastrophic right now. A mixed economy is the only way to go for the foreseeable future. But at least in decades past people had some idea of what kind of society they wanted to work for, instead of merely trying to manage the decline of their current society.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
. . . b. a sustainable version of the modern welfare state (good luck there) in an otherwise free market.

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
A mixed economy is the only way to go for the foreseeable future.

I'm still not clear on how you can reconcile these two notions. If a mixed economy is unsustainable, how is it the only option "for the foreseeable future"? Either you're foreseeing the collapse of the mixed economy as a viable option, in which case it's not the way to go for the foreseeable future, or it can be sustained, contra your first statement.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I think another, and profitable, line to explore would be the difference between today's very rich and the very rich of, say, 100-150 years ago.

The main difference as I see it is the existence if a welfare state paid for by higher taxation. They don't have to worry about the welfare of their workers any more because the government takes care of that shit these days.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
. . . b. a sustainable version of the modern welfare state (good luck there) in an otherwise free market.

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
A mixed economy is the only way to go for the foreseeable future.
I'm still not clear on how you can reconcile these two notions. If a mixed economy is unsustainable, how is it the only option "for the foreseeable future"? Either you're foreseeing the collapse of the mixed economy as a viable option, in which case it's not the way to go for the foreseeable future, or it can be sustained, contra your first statement.

I think my point is that a mixed economy is the only realistic option for the near future, but in the long run, unless there are some major upheavals in society, it is not sustainable. That suggests that maybe a different kind of society should be the long-term goal. I am wondering, from a 21st-Century social democratic perspective, what that kind of society that would or should be.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I think another, and profitable, line to explore would be the difference between today's very rich and the very rich of, say, 100-150 years ago.
The main difference as I see it is the existence if a welfare state paid for by higher taxation. They don't have to worry about the welfare of their workers any more because the government takes care of that shit these days.

Except all that I have seen personally since the late 1970s is the erosion of the services of the welfare state. With the nonsensicial and ideological crap about the "nanny state" and "government is wasteful", which simply isn't true, motivating the business types who now run government by virtue of their MBAs and related pseudo professional credentials. The middle class has shrunk, the rich are richer and there are less of them with more, and the poor are increasing. At least that's the view from western Canada.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I think another, and profitable, line to explore would be the difference between today's very rich and the very rich of, say, 100-150 years ago.
The main difference as I see it is the existence if a welfare state paid for by higher taxation. They don't have to worry about the welfare of their workers any more because the government takes care of that shit these days.

So that greater concern that the rich had for their workers 100-150 years ago - how would you say that manifested itself?

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I think another, and profitable, line to explore would be the difference between today's very rich and the very rich of, say, 100-150 years ago.

Todays very rich - the oligarchy, if you like - are totally unlike their counterparts of the last century in that, by-and-large, they don't put their money into "social" projects, rather they buy themselves expensive toys.

I don't see much difference. The Philanthropic Projects have endured and are publically known while the expensive toys are forgotten. Take a stroll among the Gilded Age summer mansions of Newport Rhode Island or the yachts of the period. The difference is that the luxury of the private estates of the super rich is largely hidden from view. San Simeon, Kykuit, Biltmore or El Mirasol are expensive toys as was the habit, shown in Downton Abbey of marrying into British Peerage.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The main difference as I see it is the existence if a welfare state paid for by higher taxation. They don't have to worry about the welfare of their workers any more because the government takes care of that shit these days.
So that greater concern that the rich had for their workers 100-150 years ago - how would you say that manifested itself?

Not all rich people, of course, but L'organist has already given the examples of Cadbury and Lever building Bournville and Port Sunlight for their workers. I could add Austin building Longbridge for his workers as well. Others founded hospitals or schools.

ISTM that there was a mindset back then that if you wanted healthy, educated workers for your company then you were going to have to take care of their welfare and education yourself - nobody else was going to do it for you. Since the introduction of state welfare and universal public education that paradigm has shifted, and now captains of industry are no longer in the mindset of having to house and educate their workforce by themselves - they can just let the government do it, keep more of the profit for themselves, and still have a sufficiently educated and healthy workforce.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
ISTM that there was a mindset back then that if you wanted healthy, educated workers for your company then you were going to have to take care of their welfare and education yourself - nobody else was going to do it for you.

That's a pretty big "if". The overall history of company towns is far less benign, with workers being required to live in company-owned property as a condition of employment and often being paid in scrip that was only redeemable at the company store. Needless to say, being not only the paymaster but also the landlord and merchant to your workforce gives you a lot of leverage. And that's not even getting into that other nineteenth century arrangement where the bosses were responsible for all their workers' needs.

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Since the introduction of state welfare and universal public education that paradigm has shifted, and now captains of industry are no longer in the mindset of having to house and educate their workforce by themselves - they can just let the government do it, keep more of the profit for themselves, and still have a sufficiently educated and healthy workforce.

That's one way of looking at it. Another is that bitter experience taught workers that relying on the voluntary benevolence of their employers for health care and their children's education is a very dangerous gamble and that it was more effective to take care of such matters themselves via their elected representatives.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

Getting the government to do it isn't "taking care of it yourself". But the question I was answering was "why aren't rich people as philanthropic as they were 150 years ago?", and the answer is "because they don't have to be".

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Marvin the Martian: Getting the government to do it isn't "taking care of it yourself". But the question I was answering was "why aren't rich people as philanthropic as they were 150 years ago?", and the answer is "because they don't have to be".

I don't see WalMart being overly concerned with having a well-fed, healthy work-force. If someone falls down, they just hire someone else.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But the question I was answering was "why aren't rich people as philanthropic as they were 150 years ago?", and the answer is "because they don't have to be".

I think you have an overly romantic view of Gilded Age Robber Barons.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Are the Scandinavian countries not social democracies?

Because we're essentially talking about the countries generally regarded as having the highest standard of living in the world. In which case, I'd say the future looks pretty damn good.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Someone should read some history. Maybe they could start with the Truck Acts. Or the Ludlow Massacre. Or the Preston Lockout. Or the Shirtwaist Fire. Or the whole history of health and safety legislation in just about every country in the world, and government intervention against child labour. Or why we have the Plimsoll Line. Or the origins of the great American oil companies and the railroad trusts Or South African mineworkers. Or casual labour in British dockyards. Or the thousands upon thousands of men who have dird in coal mines and whose families were thrown into destitution Or, God forgive us all, of slavery.

Or maybe just read some 19th century novels.

For every enlightened paternalistic Cadbury or Wedgewood there were dozens who screwed their workers for whatever they could get out of them. And probably hundreds of vaguely well-meaning unimaginitive bosses who went with the flow and did what everyone else seemed to be doing and helped a little here and there (as long as it didn't hurt their profits) and needed the power of organised labour and public opinion, sometimes backed up by legislation, to force them to do the right thing.

For every enlightened paternalistic

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Getting the government to do it isn't "taking care of it yourself". But the question I was answering was "why aren't rich people as philanthropic as they were 150 years ago?", and the answer is "because they don't have to be".

If they were providing shelter or education because they "had to" in order to get the workers they wanted, that's hardly philanthropy.

The company I work for puts money in my bank account every month, but it's not out of the kindness of the CEO's heart - it's because I wouldn't work for them otherwise.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

What Ken said.

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Getting the government to do it isn't "taking care of it yourself". But the question I was answering was "why aren't rich people as philanthropic as they were 150 years ago?", and the answer is "because they don't have to be".

Yes, up to a point. A cynic might argue that the 'Cadbury approach' was necessary in order to have a work-force and be able to make anything. I don't think that true. From what I understand the Cadbury family were genuinely interested in the welfare of their workforce and saw it as a moral duty to share the benefits of the wealth generated in this way.

One could reasonably argue that the modern rich don't see that need in the same way because governments do so much more. We do indeed have healthcare, education and a safety net.

However over the last 30 years there has been a big shift in the tax burden that pays for all these things.

I would argue that the social-democratic construct has not become unsustainable because of demographics (although that is indeed a significant pressure) but because of a shift in our economies. As productivity has continue to increase post-war, wages have flatlined. Up until around 1980, the benefits of economic growth were more broadly shared and now they're not.

I can see one of two medium-term futures: Either 1) The entrenched interests of the wealthy and the powerful will continue this trend and economic enslavement of the poorest will worsen.
or
2) There will be a popular backlash in the wake of 2008 and the demonstrable failure of neo-liberal economics and the social-democratic state will be rebuilt.

What's interesting is how I can see evidence of both happening. And whilst I remain a supporter of the Labour party (UK) they certainly are a long way from my position and seem to be adopting a Tory-lite approach. Which is my view is a hell of a lot better than what we have right now but so much less than it could be.

AFZ

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

This is a good visual demonstration of what I mean:
from Paul Krugman

AFZ

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But the question I was answering was "why aren't rich people as philanthropic as they were 150 years ago?", and the answer is "because they don't have to be".
I think you have an overly romantic view of Gilded Age Robber Barons.

Only the ones that did good things for their workforce, with a special focus (due to them being local to me) on Cadbury and Austin.

I'm under no illusions that every rich person back then was a philanthropist. But again, that's not the question I was answering. This is.

Posted by tomsk (# 15370) on :

I think nowadays you have a right wing economic consensus (although in the UK sacred cows of health and child education mean the state provision is still big). However, socially, the political consensus is much more left wing (much more so than in the immediate post-war period when the paternalistic welfare state was built).

There are some synergies with this. E.g. large scale migration into the UK satisfied both business desires for labour supply and left-wing ideals of diversity. The reduction in UK tax benefits of marriage satisfies state spending reductions and left-wing rejection of a patriarchal model of family/society.

So I think the overall picture is quite complex. Depressingly, I think we're heading back towards something more like the pre-war position of many people living rather precarious lives and reduced living standards.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Some questions:-

First, for Stonespring, are you confusing means and ends? Do you see Social Democracy as a good in itself that must be made more relevant to continue to win public support? If so, is that the right question? Shouldn't it be?

a. How would I like to see society working?

b. Do I think lots of people broadly think like me, or is my vision just an idiosyncratic one.

c. Is some sort of Social Democracy a reasonable approximation of that?

d. If so, in what ways could it be changed to be a better approximation?

e. If not, what sort of political philosophy would achieve that better?

Second, is nationalisation of the essence of Social Democracy? I'd have thought 'nationalisation of the means of production' is a more dogmatically socialist mantra. I'm not an expert on these things, but wouldn't the more conventional Social Democrat position be, 'nationalise those things that really are part of the State or best run by it; either leave the rest alone or regulate it where required'.

Third - this one again specifically for Stonespring - when you say 'Western Social Democratic parties', which countries and which parties are you including? Do you include the US in this? From outside, it doesn't appear to have a party that fits that description. Or are you silently expressing the wish that the US could acquire such a tradition from somewhere?

Fourth - a pet peeve of mine and slightly tangential - referring to the article Alienfromzog links to, I wish people would stop referring to 'pay' as 'compensation'. It isn't. Words matter and it's a euphemism that has serious power to encourage wholly wrong ways of thinking.

'Compensation' is what you claim when someone has done you an injury. 'Pay' is what you sell your time, effort and skills for. They aren't the same thing. To describe 'pay' as 'compensation' means either that your employer has done you an injury by getting you to work for him/her/it, or owns you.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Some questions:-

First, for Stonespring, are you confusing means and ends? Do you see Social Democracy as a good in itself that must be made more relevant to continue to win public support? If so, is that the right question? Shouldn't it be?

a. How would I like to see society working?

b. Do I think lots of people broadly think like me, or is my vision just an idiosyncratic one.

c. Is some sort of Social Democracy a reasonable approximation of that?

d. If so, in what ways could it be changed to be a better approximation?

e. If not, what sort of political philosophy would achieve that better?

Second, is nationalisation of the essence of Social Democracy? I'd have thought 'nationalisation of the means of production' is a more dogmatically socialist mantra. I'm not an expert on these things, but wouldn't the more conventional Social Democrat position be, 'nationalise those things that really are part of the State or best run by it; either leave the rest alone or regulate it where required'.

Third - this one again specifically for Stonespring - when you say 'Western Social Democratic parties', which countries and which parties are you including? Do you include the US in this? From outside, it doesn't appear to have a party that fits that description. Or are you silently expressing the wish that the US could acquire such a tradition from somewhere?

I do not think the term Social Democracy or any Social Democratic Party is a good in itself and that we just need to rebrand it for the 21st century. I think that Social Democracy, though, does mean something other than just the mid-20th century Western European welfare state. I think that quite a few Social Democrats up into the Thatcher Era thought that nationalization of private industry and the eventual replacement of a market based on private ownership of capital with something different was an essential part of Social Democracy. You could say, ah, that is Democratic Socialism - but the distinction between SD and DS is more something of the last few decades of the 20th Century as SD parties moved right and Communist parties embraced Eurocommunism.

As for Orfeo's mention of the Scandinavian economy, it is worth noting that although the Nordic welfare state is (or was historically) more expansive than just about anywhere else in the West, Nordic labor-management disputes have traditionally been settled without government intervention (that is, when government is not management) - and barring strikes that threaten the ability of the country to function. I don't think that makes Nordic countries more "free-market" (although they are often rated as more "competitive" economies than other countries considered less social democratic) but it means that they have a different historical paradigm of labor relations. Also, the Nordic system in terms of welfare state size and labor relations was greatly helped by being in countries with small and (until recently) largely homogeneous populations. In Norway, it is particularly helped by vast petroleum wealth that, luckily, was discovered after the country was relatively democratic.

By "Western Social Democratic" I mean Social Democracy as conceptualized in Western and Central Europe, North America, Australasia, and Japan (perhaps also including South Africa and parts of Latin America). I know that some of these countries and the US in particular have never had Social Democratic parties achieve great electoral success. But Social Democracy as an idea has been influential among political thinkers, scholars, and activists in all these countries.

Social Democracy has historically meant socialism (and all that that means, not just a welfare state) achieved through parliamentary and non-revolutionary means. That is why nationalization was historically so important. I personally am not a huge fan of state enterprises - but I think that socialism as an idea should not be silenced in the current political discourse and that nationalization as a means of achieving socialism should perhaps be replaced with something else. What then, is socialism, especially now that manufacturing is a relatively small part of the economy? A non-profit based economy. Other than that, I am asking you guys what that means for the present day.

I think Social Democracy means a reshaping of society (even if over centuries) where property, work, etc., begin to take on a meaning very different to that which has predominated in the West for last few hundred years. Granted, the construction of the welfare state has revolutionized (and greatly improved) life for workers in the West, and it was largely through the efforts of Social Democratic parties and sympathizers with Social Democracy in the center-left parties of countries like the US. However, the welfare state was a compromise worked out with the Center-Right to allow capitalism to continue to function and to fight the threat of despotism offered by Communist states.

Most Western European SD parties had pie in the sky ideas in their manifestos/constitutions, even if they were only there to satisfy the left wing of activists, until recently. More importantly, they also had plans to make new and sweeping state interventions in the economy if they gained a large enough majority.

So in short, I think that the decline of manufacturing, globalization, outsourcing, free movement of capital, etc., along with demographic shifts have made social democracy as traditionally conceived not that relevant to today's society. But that does not mean that in the long run socialism (in a more general, post-industrial revolution sense) is not a very good idea for society. What would this modern-day socialism look like and what democratic steps could we take in the present towards getting there?

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Fourth - a pet peeve of mine and slightly tangential - referring to the article Alienfromzog links to, I wish people would stop referring to 'pay' as 'compensation'. It isn't. Words matter and it's a euphemism that has serious power to encourage wholly wrong ways of thinking.

'Compensation' is what you claim when someone has done you an injury. 'Pay' is what you sell your time, effort and skills for. They aren't the same thing. To describe 'pay' as 'compensation' means either that your employer has done you an injury by getting you to work for him/her/it, or owns you.

I see your point but it's really a technical term - used correctly in this instance.

AFZ

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
To describe 'pay' as 'compensation' means either that your employer has done you an injury by getting you to work for him/her/it, or owns you.

Depends on what you mean by "done you an injury". I certainly think I'm entitled to compensation for all the hours of my life I've had to spend in that bloody office rather than out doing stuff I want to do.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Is there an economy and society different than the current one that the center-left to left wants to bring us to? What would that look like? How can the government help us get there?

It seems odd that it seems crazy now to think of a future where the companies are not basically the fiefs of proprietors or shareholders, where workers are not largely the serfs of their managers, where innovation, beautiful creation, and advancement of the common good are rewarded rather than "value creation." Pie-in-the-sky stuff and I'm not talking Marxism at all. What does the Left really want other than defense agaist the erosion of its past successes?

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0