[Dr House]

In other words, the Marxist goal only becomes possible once physical and creative work has become detached from the need to provide oneself with the necessities of life. Work will no longer be the unpleasant drudgery necessary to live, but will become the free expression of the individual's human and social potential. This means the end of wage slavery, and the end of the connection between contribution and compensation. It does not mean that the individual is seen as what he is within the ideology of bourgeois liberalism - one of a set of abstract, equal and interchangeable units within the economy - but will be seen as what he will be in the flowering of his human and social potential in a communist society: a unique and creative being who transforms his environment through his own free and unalienated labour power.

Ah, the unreachable pipe dream.

Most productive labor is boring and tedious, and part of the economic failure of modern liberalism is their insistence of molding a society where everyone does what they love for a living, productivity be damned. Thus, more and more people are going to college and coming out with useless degrees, and the industrial sector is being destroyed because no one wants to actually take up a real trade.

What I believe is that we should aim to create an economy where labor productivity is as high as possible, allowing for leisure time to be maximized and people to truly pursue their passions.

[Potemkin]

Most productive labor is boring and tedious, and part of the economic failure of modern liberalism is their insistence of molding a society where everyone does what they love for a living, productivity be damned. Thus, more and more people are going to college and coming out with useless degrees, and the industrial sector is being destroyed because no one wants to actually take up a real trade.

Did you skim-read the bit where Marx describes the end of the antithesis between mental and physical labour?

What I believe is that we should aim to create an economy where labor productivity is as high as possible, allowing for leisure time to be maximized and people to truly pursue their passions.

This is very close to the Marxist goal, but with the retention of wage slavery. This retention, however, will render your goal unattainable. It is you who have the unreachable pipe dream.

[Vladimir]

Potemkin we are not a "vanguard" at all, we are a progressive bourgeois party with socialist elements within it.

[Potemkin]

Potemkin we are not a "vanguard" at all, we are a progressive bourgeois party with socialist elements within it.

*Potemkin's dream crashes to the ground and shatters*

[Dr House]

Did you skim-read the bit where Marx describes the end of the antithesis between mental and physical labour?

How is this even possible?

This is very close to the Marxist goal, but with the retention of wage slavery. This retention, however, will render your goal unattainable. It is you who have the unreachable pipe dream.

The relationship between wages and capital is inexorably skewed in favor of wages as the economy becomes more capital-intensive, rendering the wage slavery narrative moot. The most important thing then is to create a political climate where capitalists cannot undermine labor productivity to maximize their own gains. State socialism can achieve this, but the abolition of the market economy and production for demand would tremendously undermine productivity.

[Vladimir]

The relationship between wages and capital is inexorably skewed in favor of wages as the economy becomes more capital-intensive

How so ?

[Dr House]

Adding capital into the economy increases the demand for labor, which initially tightens the labor market and then as full employment is reached causes wages to rise. Higher capital intensity also increases the output level per worker, which is necessary for wages to continue rising.

[Vladimir]

Deepening of capital reduces the demand for labour though - unless demand for goods grows too. And wages aren't determined by productivity, US productivity increased for the last 30 years while real ages decreased.

[Dr House]

Deepening of capital reduces the demand for labour though - unless demand for goods grows too.

Deepening capital increases the demand for capital goods, which increases the demand for the workers that produce it.

And wages aren't determined by productivity, US productivity increased for the last 30 years while real ages decreased.

US labor productivity declined in the past 30 years, as the American labor market has nearly tripled in size and industrial production has done nothing but decline. Economic growth was primarily driven by the financial sector, driving up demand for highly skilled white collar labor, as a result of which salaries (as opposed to wages) increased significantly.

[Vladimir]

Deepening capital increases the demand for capital goods, which increases the demand for the workers that produce it.

It certainly does, but that is a periodical temporary labour market hop. Capital good producing stock is also deepened, which would reduce the size of the hop with every renewal cycle.

US labor productivity declined in the past 30 years, as the American labor market has nearly tripled in size and industrial production has done nothing but decline. Economic growth was primarily driven by the financial sector, driving up demand for highly skilled white collar labor, as a result of which salaries (as opposed to wages) increased significantly.

What?? US labour productivity growth was almost constantly positive in 1971-2007:
3.8 2.7 2.6 -0.8 2.7 2.4 1.1 0.9 0.5 0 2.3 -0.5 2.6 2 1.8 2.2 0.6 1.1 0.7 1.7 1.2 3.2 0.3 0.9 0.1 2.4 1.6 2 2.5 2.3 2 2.9 3 2.4 1.4 0.9 1.3
http://webnet.oecd.org/wbos/Index.aspx? ... ode=PDYGTH
While real wages declined as you know. Does this not disprove that labour productivity in any way influences wages?

By salaries do you mean total compensation? That doesn't qualify as labour income.

[Dr House]

http://webnet.oecd.org/wbos/Index.aspx? ... ode=PDYGTH

Access denied.

How are they measuring labor productivity exactly?

[Vladimir]

Output per hour?
your dept of labour says the same:
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyO ... RS30006092

Access denied.

you can't access the page ?

[Dr House]

The economy has continued to grow during the 30-year period you're referencing to and working hours have declined (due to the migration of the labor force to less productive retail-sector jobs, which offer less hours), so naturally output per hour has increased and will continue to increase. This doesn't represent an increase in the productivity of blue-collar labor, as GDP growth has been primarily driven by the banking sector. Skilled workers within the financial sector have seen their productivity grow enormously, which is why salaries have increased and wages have declined.

you can't access the page ?

I can't access the dataset. I suspect you may have given me a bad link.

[Vladimir]

I can't access the dataset. I suspect you may have given me a bad link.

works for me

The economy has continued to grow during the 30-year period you're referencing to and working hours have declined (due to the migration of the labor force to less productive retail-sector jobs, which offer less hours), so naturally output per hour has increased and will continue to increase. This doesn't represent an increase in the productivity of blue-collar labor, as GDP growth has been primarily driven by the banking sector. Skilled workers within the financial sector have seen their productivity grow enormously, which is why salaries have increased and wages have declined.

But then the wages/compensations of skilled financial workers would be determined by a large demand and a catching up supply; I still don't see how productivity is a factor.
Also, do you have any stats for industrial "blue-collar" productivity ?

[MistyTiger]

I approve.

I think my party is trying its hardest to be reasonable and openminded.

[Dr House]

But then the wages/compensations of skilled financial workers would be determined by a large demand and a catching up supply; I still don't see how productivity is a factor.

Wages cannot be higher than productivity per worker. You could have full employment in the retail sector and wages would still not rise past $12 an hour, because that's their output per worker. Ergo, once full employment is achieved in a given sector productivity per worker will be the primary determinant of wages.

Also, do you have any stats for industrial "blue-collar" productivity ?

Unfortunately not, but I do know that industrial production has greatly diminished, which would have decreased its capital intensity by forcing workers to accept lower wages to cope with their diminishing demand. Additionally, many workers simply migrated to less productive sectors of the economy, such as retail, which caused them to increase in size relative to sectors with a higher output per worker and further diminished the overall capital intensity of the economy.

[Vladimir]

Wages cannot be higher than productivity per worker. You could have full employment in the retail sector and wages would still not rise past $12 an hour, because that's their output per worker. Ergo, once full employment is achieved in a given sector productivity per worker will be the primary determinant of wages.

The equilibrium wage rate is determined by productivity, as wages in a "perfect" environment would tend to the value labour power, however what makes you think that an equilibrium in the labour market is its normal condition?

Anyway, this is off topic if you want to continue reply through PM

[Dr House]

Replied.

[Doomhammer]

I am therefore willing to endorse this proposal, with the proviso that it is intended only as an interim measure to ease the transition of our nation from capitalism to communism, from the concept of bourgeois right to the concept of the social individual within the higher phase of communist society, when the abstract concept of 'human rights' will have become both unnecessary and limiting.

Your party is aiming for regime change. If this were Turkey, your party would have been dissolved by the constitutional court or the army.

Seriously not cool.



We should add provisions to the constitution to avoid any attacks against the parliamentary-democratic nature of this country. Oh wait, we can't because the bloody communists are in power. FFS.

[ingliz]

The regime is changing itself, 4/5 of the non communists have packed up and left, bored with government.