NationStates Jolt Archive

so, any corporate apologists/vulgar 'libertarians' want to complain about this?


http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=31797
Wildcat Strikes Pay Off

Aaron Glantz and Ngoc Nguyen

HO CHI MINH CITY , Jan 17 (IPS) - More than a dozen strikes by more than 40,000 workers in Ho Chi Minh City's export processing zones have forced the Vietnamese government to raise the country's minimum wage by nearly 40 percent .

The hikes -- up to 55 US dollars a month in Vietnam's two biggest cities, 50 dollars in mid-sized cities, and 45 dollars in the rest of the country -- show increased frustration among workers who are only allowed to affiliate with a single, government-run trade union.

Two dozen workers at Ho Chi Minh City's Danu Vina factory enjoy beers and a beef hot pot after a hard days work. But even with the wage increase, they'll still earn less than two dollars a day making stuffed animals which are sold in the U.S. by Hallmark, Disney, and Starbucks.

''In everyday life all things go up in price," says Minh, who has packaged toys for two years. ''Everything that you use, food and drink become more expensive and we find that we're struggling to live. We're protesting to have a better quality of life."


Before this recent wave of strikes, the Vietnamese government had not raised the minimum wage in six years. During that time, the Dong had lost almost 15 percent of its value against the U.S. dollar. At the same time, inflation totalled 28 percent.

The strikes, running for more than month now, worsened after an 18,000-strong walk-out by workers at Freetrend, a Taiwanese company whose factory makes shoes for brands like Nike and Addidas.

Huong, 23, has worked for Freetrend for five years. She makes more than the minimum wage but says that is barely enough to pay for her boarding house bed near the factory.

She says low wages aren't the only thing making workers unhappy. ''The work is very tiring," she says. "The food the company serves us is not enough. It's not cooked well and does not taste good so the workers do not have enough energy to work."

Many of the strikes have occurred in foreign companies, with workers citing communication problems with non-Vietnamese managers -- among other things.

Huong is critical of her bosses. ''We're always on guard at work," she says. ''The officials yell and swear at us and mistreat workers."

While lLabour action is not new in Vietnam, workers have become more militant in recent years, according to Long Nguyen who manages security guards in Ho Chi Minh City's export processing zones.

''There are people who sit and people who stand," he says, ''And those who just mill around without any organisation. At other sites, people sit down in an organised fashion and they select a representative to speak with management. There are a number of protesters who are aggressive. They throw things and they kick and destroy property."

Faced with this new growing grassroots pressure, the government finds itself in a tough spot and the Communist Party has chosen not to react to wildcat strikes showing the effect that the newly opened economy has on getting authorities to respond to the needs of civil society.

On the other hand, the government will have to keep in mind the competitive nature of foreign investment and Taiwanese companies affected by the strikes and the minimum wage hikes have threatened to move elsewhere.

Taiwanese manufacturers accounted for more than 1,408 direct investment projects in Vietnam worth 7.93 billion dollars by the end of Dec. 2005, according to government statistics.

''China has low wages, Vietnam has to keep wages at a similar level in order to be competitive," says Carey Zesiger, who monitors labour conditions in Vietnam's export factories for the consulting firm Global Standards.

But the minimum wage in China is 63 dollars a month, 13 percent higher than Vietnam's new level.

Vietnam's government, Zesiger says, is "trying to balance the interests of their citizens who work in the factories and the standard of living of the workers against that of foreign investors who they need to attract to create jobs and develop the country.."

On paper, at least, Vietnam has some of the strongest labor laws in the world. Under the Communist system, workers in every factory are required be represented by the official government union within a few months of opening.

But observers note that since the influx of private companies started a few years ago, enforcement of the policy has been lax. This, they say, has led to worker frustration and wild-cat strikes.

''When foreign investors enter Vietnam, they must follow the country's labour rules," says security manager Long Nguyen. ''If they don't, the Vietnamese government has the responsibility to enforce the law or expel the company. The government has to protect the worker. The unions that represent workers in factories of foreign and joint-stock companies are weak. They don't have the strength to stand up to the management."

But this latest wave of strikes has led to one victory. The new minimum wage will take effect from the beginning of February, the quickest labour settlement in a time longer than anyone can remember.

I see nothing wrong, people are demanding a pay rise, and they're getting it - nothing wrong with negotiation, be it with 40,000 people screaming with one voice.

I'm guessing your sarcastic in your dissagreement. In which case what is the point of this thread.:confused: If you aren't then your just a dipshit.

One would think that the first hint of the whole system being out of whack is when you have a government union.

I'm guessing your sarcastic in your dissagreement. In which case what is the point of this thread.:confused: If you aren't then your just a dipshit.

Babe, it would be nice to know who you're replying to.

How about using that fabulous 'reply with quote' button - its there for just that reason.

One would think that the first hint of the whole system being out of whack is when you have a government union.

you are aware that this is in vietnam, yes?

anyway, it's been said that the only union walmart has ever approved of is the chinese state-run union. but events like this may scare them away from even that bit. hooray for wildcat strikes!

so, any corporate apologists/vulgar 'libertarians' want to complain about this?

-- snip --
The hikes -- up to 55 US dollars a month in Vietnam's two biggest cities, 50 dollars in mid-sized cities, and 45 dollars in the rest of the country -- show increased frustration among workers who are only allowed to affiliate with a single, government-run trade union.


Many of the strikes have occurred in foreign companies, with workers citing communication problems with non-Vietnamese managers -- among other things.

"...The unions that represent workers in factories of foreign and joint-stock companies are weak. They don't have the strength to stand up to the management."

Let's see - neither the government monopoly union nor the other (and presumably illegal) unions have done their jobs.

Sounds like both that government monopoly labor union and the weak unions need the good boost of capitalist competion provided by the wildcaters. (Nice to see you supporting capitalistic competion for a change, even if you don't think that's what you are doing.)

Of course, if they price themselves out of the international labor market, they'll either be SOofL...

Can't say I feel any need to bitch about it.
If the workers wish to exercise their RIGHT to bargain for higher wages, or else stop working.... more power to them!

I see nothing wrong, people are demanding a pay rise, and they're getting it - nothing wrong with negotiation, be it with 40,000 people screaming with one voice.

It's not negotiation. Minimum wage means that employers are compelled by law to pay whatever the government says.

If employer X wants to hire someone for peanuts to do something easy like sort paper or answer the phone and s/he's not allowed to pay them peanuts, nobody comes out better off. S/he will not pay the extortionate wage, just do the work h(is/er)self. The employee will be sad because s/he will be out of work, and the employer will be sad because s/he has to do more work. Nobody wants to do more work, but nobody wants to be unemployed either. Not "bad" unemployed where you have no money. Everyone wants to be "good" unemployed.

By the way, I'm not just saying this, I'm saying it because it's true. I'm no textbook libertarian. I support super-high taxes for the rich and universal healthcare for all.

Sounds like both that government monopoly labor union and the weak unions need the good boost of capitalist competion provided by the wildcaters. (Nice to see you supporting capitalistic competion for a change, even if you don't think that's what you are doing.)

That's rich (no pun intended). Capitalists trying to appropriate the concept of working class self-help and resistance to exploitation.

Technically, Vietnam is a Communist state.

It's illegal to have a union outside of the Communist Party.

Bet this has the Communist Party's panties in a bind. Now they're the oppressor.

Technically, Vietnam is a Communist state.

Technically, there's no such thing as a "Communist state".

That's rich (no pun intended). Capitalists trying to appropriate the concept of working class self-help and resistance to exploitation.

If you can't see that competition is what capitalism is about, I can't help you. The reason the system is out of whack is that the government took control of one of the sides of the equation. The labor side of the forces isn't being allowed to work freely and compete the same way the corporations are. Unions are not communist, governments aiding unions (or aiding corporations) are the problem. In the US if the government wasn't in the habit of protecting a lack of competition in both the corporate market AND the labor market, you'd likely not see so much bitching about it.

One would think that the first hint of the whole system being out of whack is when you have a government union.
No kidding!

... it's been said that the only union walmart has ever approved of is the chinese state-run union.
Which brings up an interesting question: why have WalMart's "oppressed workers" not organized?

Technically, there's no such thing as a "Communist state".
If they say they're Communist, and they have a "Communist" Party, then it's Communist.

Which brings up an interesting question: why have WalMart's "oppressed workers" not organized?

Because Wal-mart goes to incredible lengths to bust up unions. They have actually closed stores to prevent unions from forming at them.

If they say they're Communist, and they have a "Communist" Party, then it's Communist.

And if I say I'm a marlin, I guess that makes me a marlin.

Of course, if they price themselves out of the international labor market, they'll either be SOofL...

Oh my fucking GOD, that is the most horrible piece of shit propaganda i've ever HEARD. Pricing yourself out of the market? A market where the "price" is less than ten dollars a day, much less an hour? No one can adequately LIVE on that. The "price" is set by greedy corporations who have a cavalier attitude toward human life and human rights.

Fuck anyone who whispers about "pricing yourself out" of any "market" when it comes to LIVING. Fuck. Anyone.

Because Wal-mart goes to incredible lengths to bust up unions. They have actually closed stores to prevent unions from forming at them.
Last time I checked, businesses still had the right to close their doors. I strongly suspect that if WalMart employees were sufficiently pissed about wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment, they would find some way to unionize. The Molly McGuires spring to mind. They were the early stages of the union movement and stood the risk of being killed by company goons. I don't think WalMart's "union busting" tactics go quite to that length.

Oh my fucking GOD, that is the most horrible piece of shit propaganda i've ever HEARD. Pricing yourself out of the market? A market where the "price" is less than ten dollars a day, much less an hour? No one can adequately LIVE on that. The "price" is set by greedy corporations who have a cavalier attitude toward human life and human rights.

Fuck anyone who whispers about "pricing yourself out" of any "market" when it comes to LIVING. Fuck. Anyone.

*hands you a cookie*

Oh my fucking GOD, that is the most horrible piece of shit propaganda i've ever HEARD. Pricing yourself out of the market? A market where the "price" is less than ten dollars a day, much less an hour? No one can adequately LIVE on that. The "price" is set by greedy corporations who have a cavalier attitude toward human life and human rights.

Fuck anyone who whispers about "pricing yourself out" of any "market" when it comes to LIVING. Fuck. Anyone.
No need to go ballistic.

It's not "propaganda." It's how things work. Either work to change reality or get over it.

If you can't see that competition is what capitalism is about, I can't help you. The reason the system is out of whack is that the government took control of one of the sides of the equation. The labor side of the forces isn't being allowed to work freely and compete the same way the corporations are. Unions are not communist, governments aiding unions (or aiding corporations) are the problem. In the US if the government wasn't in the habit of protecting a lack of competition in both the corporate market AND the labor market, you'd likely not see so much bitching about it.

Don't even try to paint working class self-defense as capitalist. Capitalism is no more about working class resistance than feudalism is about serfs opposing their lords. Capitalists don't like unions precisely because they interfere with capitalism and force them to rein in their excesses.

Well, I see a couple problems here. First, the union of the Vietnamese workers clearly isn't doing its job. If it were doing its job there would be no need for the government to even bother with the minimum wage, because the Vietnamese workers would be able to set a price for their labor, and Hallmark would either have to pay that price or pick up their capital and go elsewhere.

But as this is Vietnam and it is a communist country (STFU about the theoretical technicalities, communist is an efficient label as per the fact that the Vietnamese government makes use of it) the party is considered to be the sole voice of the people, and therefore they should feel no need to form separate unions. Sound similar to another situation? Yeah, the reasons behind Polish Solidarity in the eighties.

In this situation, in the short term I'd advocate loosening of government restrictions on the workers, espescially in creating external unions that actually work for them instead of some bullshit government union, and from a long term perspective, going for strong educational programs to make Vietnam a paragon of an efficient high-technology economy.

Don't even try to paint working class self-defense as capitalist. Capitalism is no more about working class resistance than feudalism is about serfs opposing their lords. Capitalists don't like unions precisely because they interfere with capitalism and force them to rein in their excesses.
[ Stands aghast at the big, bad, evil Capitalist Overlords!] All of them? There are no capitalists with "redeeming social value?" All of them delight in oppressing their employess? OMG! :rolleyes:

[ Stands aghast at the big, bad, evil Capitalist Overlords!] All of them? There are no capitalists with "redeeming social value?" All of them delight in oppressing their employess? OMG! :rolleyes:

When a good-hearted capitalist comes along, the others eat him. :)

Don't even try to paint working class self-defense as capitalist. Capitalism is no more about working class resistance than feudalism is about serfs opposing their lords. Capitalists don't like unions precisely because they interfere with capitalism and force them to rein in their excesses.
Actually, unionization is a special type of corporation more than anything else. Instead of providing a good, they provide a service in the form of labor. They seek to make money, just like a corporate boss seeks to make money, they just have a different organizational structure.

In fact, they've got some unique monopolistic tendencies that many economists find very interesting, very tight controls on supply, are an important key to many unions. They work with the supply and demand mechanism just like anyone else.

Don't be blinded by your prejudices against capitalism, because you seem to show an utter lack of understanding of the system, just as you will say many conservatives and libertarians will show an utter lack and understanding of communism.

Well, I see a couple problems here. First, the union of the Vietnamese workers clearly isn't doing its job. If it were doing its job there would be no need for the government to even bother with the minimum wage, because the Vietnamese workers would be able to set a price for their labor, and Hallmark would either have to pay that price or pick up their capital and go elsewhere.

Eh? The government of Vietnam is a hardline one. It's not the union's fault that workers are paid such petty wages. It's the government, and that's that.

But as this is Vietnam and it is a communist country (STFU about the theoretical technicalities, communist is an efficient label as per the fact that the Vietnamese government makes use of it) the party is considered to be the sole voice of the people, and therefore they should feel no need to form separate unions. Sound similar to another situation? Yeah, the reasons behind Polish Solidarity in the eighties.

1: Vietnam labels itself Communist. A label is meaningless if it can't be backed.

2: It doesn't make use of the term "Communist" whatsoever. In Communism, there is no state. Everything belongs to the people, and in Vietnam, everything belongs to the ruling party.

3: See above.

In this situation, in the short term I'd advocate loosening of government restrictions on the workers, espescially in creating external unions that actually work for them instead of some bullshit government union, and from a long term perspective, going for strong educational programs to make Vietnam a paragon of an efficient high-technology economy.

I agree with this, for the most part. I don't agree with the "efficient" part. Along with that label comes the bullshit "deadweight loss" terminology, which is little more than a reason to slash jobs for excess profit.

Yeah, efficiency can be good. However, if it's used just to increase profits, no way. Efficiency for the benefit of people? Yes. Efficiency for the benefit of corporations? No.

Eh? The government of Vietnam is a hardline one. It's not the union's fault that workers are paid such petty wages. It's the government, and that's that.
The Union is part of the government, as such they both get the blame in my book.



1: Vietnam labels itself Communist. A label is meaningless if it can't be backed.

2: It doesn't make use of the term "Communist" whatsoever. In Communism, there is no state. Everything belongs to the people, and in Vietnam, everything belongs to the ruling party.

3: See above.
Fine I'll call them authoritarian socialists if that's preferable.

Actually, unionization is a special type of corporation more than anything else. Instead of providing a good, they provide a service in the form of labor. They seek to make money, just like a corporate boss seeks to make money, they just have a different organizational structure.

In fact, they've got some unique monopolistic tendencies that many economists find very interesting, very tight controls on supply, are an important key to many unions. They work with the supply and demand mechanism just like anyone else.

Don't be blinded by your prejudices against capitalism, because you seem to show an utter lack of understanding of the system, just as you will say many conservatives and libertarians will show an utter lack and understanding of communism.

1: Exactly. Though unions are necessary in the Capitalist system. Unions help improve working conditions and wages, among other things. Not desirable to business owners, but desirable to workers.

2: Yep. Some unions are even pretty strict, telling workers when to get haircuts, the "proper attire", and what have you. Doesn't seem very liberating to me.

3: Not all of us are blinded by any prejudices we may have. Most of us do know how the system works, and that's precisely why we dislike it.

The Union is part of the government, as such they both get the blame in my book.




Fine all call them authoritarian socialists if that's preferable.

1: Hm, yeah, seeing that said union is a part of the government, I'd say that they do deserve at least some of the blame. However, being part of the government doesn't mean that they're completely controlled by it, and as such, the government is still in the lead blame-wise.

2: Exactly what I was thinking of. Maoism, Stalinism... Hardline Socialism. Bad for all but the ruling party.

Don't even try to paint working class self-defense as capitalist. Capitalism is no more about working class resistance than feudalism is about serfs opposing their lords. Capitalists don't like unions precisely because they interfere with capitalism and force them to rein in their excesses.
Methinks you're confusing capitalists with corporatists. That said, there are few real capitalists in the US, we're actually full of corporatists that try to label themselves as "capitalists." No real capitalist would dislike the unions; they would recognize the universal right of people to gather together to sell a product or service, even when that service is labor.

And if I say I'm a marlin, I guess that makes me a marlin.

Analogy does not compute.

A communist, noun, is defined by the dictionary as:

n.

1.
1. A member of a Marxist-Leninist party.
2. A supporter of such a party or movement.
2. A Communard.
3. often communist A radical viewed as a subversive or revolutionary.


I would classify the Communist Party as a Marxist-Leninist party.

Communist, as an adjective, is defined as:

1. often communist Relating to, characteristic of, or held to resemble communism or Communists.
2. communist Supporting, advocating, or serving to further communism: communist propaganda.


In both of these cases we can clearly describe Vietnam as being communist. In fact, anyone who claims to support or advocate communism, or resembles (i.e card-carrying Communists) communists, is communist by definition.

On the other hand, a marlin is defined as:

large long-jawed oceanic sport fishes; related to sailfishes and spearfishes; not completely cold-blooded

So in this case, it doesn't matter if you claim to be a marlin. You can't just resemble, or claim to support, marlinism, to be a marlin. You have to be a large, long-jawed oceanic sport fish related to sailfishes and spearfishes.

So your analogy is flawed and as usual, an attempt to dissociate the acts of communists from the holy grail of Communism.

Methinks you're confusing capitalists with corporatists. That said, there are few real capitalists in the US, we're actually full of corporatists that try to label themselves as "capitalists." No real capitalist would dislike the unions; they would recognize the universal right of people to gather together to sell a product or service, even when that service is labor.

This is exactly right. It is also why I call myself a Socio-Capitalist rather than a communist or a pure Socialist.

For the true Capitalist, everyone making money is a GOOD THING. It adds to the entire pool of available capital and enriches everyone, therefore making each individual richer. THe true Capitalist also adheres personal liberty above everything else, and does not ascribe individual rights to nebulous non-persons such as corporations.

Let's see - neither the government monopoly union nor the other (and presumably illegal) unions have done their jobs.

i don't think there are any other unions - it's my understanding that all of this was just a bunch of wildcat strikes by people that are nominally part of the state-run union. and i'm pretty sure that the vietnamese state is also of the opinion that it's labor union didn't do its job, because it's job (like china's state union) is to undermine worker solidarity and power.

Sounds like both that government monopoly labor union and the weak unions need the good boost of capitalist competion provided by the wildcaters. (Nice to see you supporting capitalistic competion for a change, even if you don't think that's what you are doing.)

firstly, competition does not equal capitalism. abuses of language like that lead to games of volleyball being declared 'capitalism'.

i'm in favor of breaking the state-run union for impeccable anti-capitalist and anti-statist reasons. state-run unions are the only type of union that capitalists actively want in their enterprises.

Of course, if they price themselves out of the international labor market...

then we'll unionize the world and watch capitalism eat itself as it runs out of people to ruthlessly exploit.

No real capitalist would dislike the unions

"my cousin angus likes sugar with his porridge"
"yeah, well no true scotsman likes sugar with his porridge."

In both of these cases we can clearly describe Vietnam as being communist. In fact, anyone who claims to support or advocate communism, or resembles (i.e card-carrying Communists) communists, is communist by definition.

and what are we to make of that whole joining the wto thing?

If they say they're Communist...then it's Communist.

well there you go then, since we are in fact talking about the socialist republic of vietnam.

This is just anti-capitlist propaganda. Capitalism works very well thank you. The top 10 capitalists earned more than $125 000 000 000 in 2005 alone. That's not the poor vietnamese and their 2 dollars a day. If they are poor that's because they don't try hard enough and that's their own fault. Instead of working in factories they should buy the factories and make top dollars to invest in the financial market but it seems that they are too stupid or that they lack the entrepreneur skills required. They only get what they deserve. The chinese are starting to get it and they will buy vietnam soon.

The workers are getting screwed, that's why they shouldn't take it. There's a huge difference between striking to get $65 dollars an hour to mow the lawn at an auto plant and striking to get decent food, working conditions, and pay. What is happening in Vietnam is exactly what unions were meant for when they were founded, and anything that strikes against their repressive regime is a good thing.

and what are we to make of that whole joining the wto thing?

Absolutely nothing. They're communists who joined the WTO, is all.

well there you go then, since we are in fact talking about the socialist republic of vietnam.

Ruled by the Communist Party consisting of Communists who espouse the idealogy of Communism. They're communists who merely admit they haven't *achieved true communism yet*, but that doesn't mean they're not communists. By definition they are.

Ruled by the Communist Party consisting of Communists who espouse the idealogy of Communism. They're communists who merely admit they haven't *achieved true communism yet*, but that doesn't mean they're not communists. By definition they are.
There are several definitions.
Many people have a problem with the definition of communism because communists are "teh enemy". They just don't want to be associated with them and that's understandable. On the other hand, you have a lot of "OMG communists are murderers" people who think communism is "teh enemy" by any definition.

Many people have a problem with the definition of communism because communists are "teh enemy". They just don't want to be associated with them and that's understandable. On the other hand, you have a lot of "OMG communists are murderers" people who think communism is "teh enemy" by any definition.

They did 50 years ago. Most people today don't think of communism as anything nearly as serious.

If they are poor that's because they don't try hard enough and that's their own fault. Instead of working in factories they should buy the factories and make top dollars to invest in the financial market

yeah! lazy bastards!

Communard? Aren't those what are between Lenin's Commulegs?

well there you go then, since we are in fact talking about the socialist republic of vietnam.
And they have a "Communist Party".

And they have a "Communist Party".

that's nice

If they say they're Communist, and they have a "Communist" Party, then it's Communist.

Actually, Vietnam calls itself socialist, not communist.

Second, even if it did call itself communist without being so, that wouldn't make it communist. Communism is stateless. North Korea calls itself a Democratic People's Republic. By your logic, does that make North Korea a democracy?

In any case, Vietnam isn't even socialist. It's become almost as capitalist as China.

If they say they're Communist, and they have a "Communist" Party, then it's Communist.
No, the people may be Communists in that they aspire to bringabout Communism. However the point Pot is trying to make is that the state has not achieved Communism )which it can't anyway, Communism being a stateless, classless society.

i don't think there are any other unions - it's my understanding that all of this was just a bunch of wildcat strikes by people that are nominally part of the state-run union. and i'm pretty sure that the vietnamese state is also of the opinion that it's labor union didn't do its job, because it's job (like china's state union) is to undermine worker solidarity and power.

The article said "...The unions that represent workers in factories of foreign and joint-stock companies are weak. They don't have the strength to stand up to the management." That implies the unions are not the state union.


firstly, competition does not equal capitalism. abuses of language like that lead to games of volleyball being declared 'capitalism'.

Which is why I specified capitalist competition.

i'm in favor of breaking the state-run union for impeccable anti-capitalist and anti-statist reasons. state-run unions are the only type of union that capitalists actively want in their enterprises.

Are you really sure about that last bit? Because you're completely wrong.

then we'll unionize the world and watch capitalism eat itself as it runs out of people to ruthlessly exploit.

Good luck with that.

That's rich (no pun intended). Capitalists trying to appropriate the concept of working class self-help and resistance to exploitation.

This points out what I see as a big problem in discussing unions. The distinction between labor and capitalists is a false dicotomy. The workers are capitalists. Anyone who sells anything, which includes labor, is a capitalist.

Power to the Vietnamese worker!!

Oh my fucking GOD, that is the most horrible piece of shit propaganda i've ever HEARD. Pricing yourself out of the market? A market where the "price" is less than ten dollars a day, much less an hour? No one can adequately LIVE on that. The "price" is set by greedy corporations who have a cavalier attitude toward human life and human rights.

Fuck anyone who whispers about "pricing yourself out" of any "market" when it comes to LIVING. Fuck. Anyone.

Obviously no one can live on 10 dollars a day. That's why all the workers making that wage are now dead. :rolleyes:

This points out what I see as a big problem in discussing unions. The distinction between labor and capitalists is a false dicotomy. The workers are capitalists. Anyone who sells anything, which includes labor, is a capitalist.
That's a strange definition of a capiatlist.
In my dictionary, capitalists were the ones owning the means of production.

That's a strange definition of a capiatlist.
In my dictionary, capitalists were the ones owning the means of production.
In my dictionary, everyone I don't like is a communist. It seems our dictionaries both came from less than reliable sources, eh?

The article said "...The unions that represent workers in factories of foreign and joint-stock companies are weak. They don't have the strength to stand up to the management." That implies the unions are not the state union.

but just before that it said,

"On paper, at least, Vietnam has some of the strongest labor laws in the world. Under the Communist system, workers in every factory are required be represented by the official government union within a few months of opening.

But observers note that since the influx of private companies started a few years ago, enforcement of the policy has been lax. This, they say, has led to worker frustration and wild-cat strikes."

i think that person was using the plural to describe the shop-level union organization. every shop's workers are represented by the official state union, but in the new foreign-owned shops the state-run union hasn't had it's shop-level units make much of a stand at all (almost certainly as an official government policy).


Are you really sure about that last bit? Because you're completely wrong.

well, obviously it depends on the state's labor policies - state-capitalist unions typically good these days, fascist unions acceptable compared to the imagined alternative, some sort of autocratic state's union that actually was pro-worker would be truly bad.

but by and large, capitalists avoid independent unions like the plague unless they are forced on them (or there is the realistic probablitity that the union drive will cost them a lot of money and the union would win anyway, even in the face of a dedicated union busting campaign). there are, of course, a few outliers who want their workers unionized. but they are rather widely condemned in the business press and punished by their stockholders for hurting their profits.

In my dictionary, everyone I don't like is a communist. It seems our dictionaries both came from less than reliable sources, eh?
How should we call the ones owning the means of production then?

Actually, unionization is a special type of corporation more than anything else. Instead of providing a good, they provide a service in the form of labor. They seek to make money, just like a corporate boss seeks to make money, they just have a different organizational structure.

In fact, they've got some unique monopolistic tendencies that many economists find very interesting, very tight controls on supply, are an important key to many unions. They work with the supply and demand mechanism just like anyone else.

Don't be blinded by your prejudices against capitalism, because you seem to show an utter lack of understanding of the system, just as you will say many conservatives and libertarians will show an utter lack and understanding of communism.

And we have a bingo.

i think that person was using the plural to describe the shop-level union organization. every shop's workers are represented by the official state union, but in the new foreign-owned shops the state-run union hasn't had it's shop-level units make much of a stand at all (almost certainly as an official government policy).
Which means that the government is intervening to help business put the worker down, definitely not a libertarian, or capitalist, thing to do.

This points out what I see as a big problem in discussing unions. The distinction between labor and capitalists is a false dicotomy. The workers are capitalists. Anyone who sells anything, which includes labor, is a capitalist.
The distinction is between those who work and those who own. We wall them workers and capitalists. You can call them any way you want.

This points out what I see as a big problem in discussing unions. The distinction between labor and capitalists is a false dicotomy. The workers are capitalists. Anyone who sells anything, which includes labor, is a capitalist.

You ignore the obvious class distinctions that give some significantly more power than others. It is an unfortunate fact that workers must essentially participate in their own exploitation to survive, but that does not make them capitalists. Workers (especially looking worldwide rather than just in the first world) own significantly less of the means of production than true capitalists. That is what drives capitalism.

How should we call the ones owning the means of production then?
Call them Bourgeoisie, plutocrats, corporate fat fucks, there are a lot of words that could apply without bringing more confusion into the definitions of an already confused thread.

The distinction between labor and capitalists is a false dicotomy. The workers are capitalists. Anyone who sells anything, which includes labor, is a capitalist.

incorrect usage of the term.

and how could a distinction between those who have to sell their labor to make a living and those who do the buying of that labor be a false dicotomy?

Which means that the government is intervening to help business put the worker down, definitely not...capitalist thing to do.

check your history. shit, check your recent history. capitalists have always favored that course of action.

Call them Bourgeoisie, plutocrats, corporate fat fucks, there are a lot of words that could apply without bringing more confusion into the definitions of an already confused thread.
It looks like you don't like that anymore than we do. That's fine with me. I'll call them corporate fat fucks, that describes them very well.

Call them Bourgeoisie, plutocrats, corporate fat fucks, there are a lot of words that could apply without bringing more confusion into the definitions of an already confused thread.

except we aren't the ones confused. 'capitalist' means precisely 'one who owns capital', and more specifically 'one who makes their living through the ownership of capital'. that is what the word means.

the oed has this to say:

capitalist

One who has accumulated capital; one who has capital available for employment in financial or industrial enterprises.

check your history. shit, check your recent history. capitalists have always favored that course of action.
A capitalist, one who favours a system of Capitalism, wouldn't seek government intervention in the market, as that makes the market non-Free which defies the premise of private ownership. Further, applying pressure of some sort to the workers via government entirely circumvents supply and demand. Not capitalist, not "vulgar libertarian."

check your history. shit, check your recent history. capitalists have always favored that course of action.
He calls workers capitalists. I think he agrees with you on the facts. He just uses a completely different language. Communists are capitalists and capitalists are workers.

A capitalist, one who favours a system of Capitalism, wouldn't seek government intervention in the market, as that makes the market non-Free which defies the premise of private ownership. Further, applying pressure of some sort to the workers via government entirely circumvents supply and demand. Not capitalist, not "vulgar libertarian."
I wouldn't trust the corporate fat bucks to keep the market free either.

That's a strange definition of a capiatlist.
In my dictionary, capitalists were the ones owning the means of production.

Labor is a means of production. That was my whole point. Those who sell their labor can sell it because they own it.

A capitalist, one who favours a system of Capitalism, wouldn't seek government intervention in the market, as that makes the market non-Free which defies the premise of private ownership. Further, applying pressure of some sort to the workers via government entirely circumvents supply and demand. Not capitalist, not "vulgar libertarian."

Capitalism is about profit, not principles. If government intervention increases profits, capitalists would support it. Capitalism requires at least some intervention, anyway, to enforce property ownership.

Labor is a means of production. That was my whole point. Those who sell their labor can sell it because they own it.
I see what you mean, but I think we are not on the same page. We were not talking about that when talking about capitalists. What we were talking about were the corporate fat fucks.

Capitalism is about profit, not principles. If government intervention increases profits, capitalists would support it. Capitalism requires at least some intervention, anyway, to enforce property ownership.
Enforcing property ownership only requires intervention after someone else has intervened to disrupt proper ownership, and while someone who owns capital may be ruthless, someone who believes (hence, "-ist") in the free use of it as supreme wouldn't start bringing governments in.
And this situation isn't about capitalism anymore than it is about communism. It is about totalitarian government power being used under the guise of helping the people so that some corrupt beaurocrats and businessmen can further line their pockets.

Capitalism is about profit, not principles.

Well, duh. Its an economic system. Just like communism.

Or, you can look at it as profit being one of the principals.

If government intervention increases profits, capitalists would support it.

Not neccissereily. The people who benefit would support it (for the most part) just like every other government program. I know many people who consider themselves libretarians and conservatives and capitalists that say they don't like subsidies for bussinesses and such.

I'm pretty sure you applaude anything that urthers your goals.

Capitalism requires at least some intervention, anyway, to enforce property ownership.

Not really. Private security has been around since the dawn of civilization.

well hey that's what happens when the government runs your life

then we'll unionize the world and watch capitalism eat itself as it runs out of people to ruthlessly exploit.

Whatever. Where I live in Canada the unions are just about toast. For example, Finning (a manufacturer and retailer of heavy earth moving equipment), is a unionized company. They were on strike, and what happened was the strikers realized it was easier to get better working conditions and wages by simply getting new jobs.

This left Finning without any employees, and the union without local members. The last I heard in the paper was that the manager said (paraphrased)"unions are basically dead in Alberta" and that he was leaving for a new job too. I dont know the fate of Finning(maybe i should drive by there), but i am guessing that the union dissolved and they hired new people.

This is prime example of business providing better conditions that unions can nogotiate; there is so much work here, people leave jobs at the drop of a hat. I just did. There is a huge wage disparity, and employers are having trouble filling lower waged jobs.

The senior-most employee at my last job was there for two years. The next closest was 6 months, followed by 3 months. I stayed 1 month 3 weeks. I had 60 hours work in a week, and they refused to pay me 20 hours overtime wage, so.... bye bye.

You can see the effects of wage disparity in North america by walking into Wal-mart or any similar place. the Current trend is to self checkouts, customers helping them selves; mechanized convenience stores; Becaue employers are not able to fully staff such positions are a profitable wage(here on Christmas eve they only had 7 of about 20 cashiers open)), they are forced to be creative, which is why you see those scanner check outs at wally world.

The business model that Walmart follows requires them to cut profit margins( and buy costs) each year, and when a supplier is unable to meet their required rate, Wal-mart drops them for someone cheaper. This doesnt allow for much room when it comes to raising wages across the board.

The trend in the next 20 years in north america will be the fall of the big box stores and the return of smaller businesses. As baby boomers retire, the work force is not being replaced due to smaller birth rates. Wages will sky rocket, selection will diversify into limited production runs and/or unique or rare hand assembled product. Boomers wil continue to drive the market, and now desire all the unique toys.

Actually the trend in north america is foreign out-sourcing.
They will move the workers to the third world while keeping the corporate fat fucks and their closest servants safe from the workers at home. The general north american demography will be less and less workers and more and more corporate fat fucks. They will maintain an oversized military machine at the border to filter the corporate fat asses from the workers and no worker will enter the holy land. The corporate fat asses will have to show their bucks to enter. They will import everything and give nothing back. At the same time they will give lessons to the third world. Those lessons will look like : look we are rich and you are poor, you should do like us : open your market for our corporate fat fucks. And for the stubborn who insist on keeping their financial market closed to big dollars, they will call them dictators and send their smart bomb until they open it.

The trend in the next 20 years in north america will be the fall of the big box stores and the return of smaller businesses. As baby boomers retire, the work force is not being replaced due to smaller birth rates. Wages will sky rocket, selection will diversify into limited production runs and/or unique or rare hand assembled product. Boomers wil continue to drive the market, and now desire all the unique toys.

I think the big-box retailers will remain a force, simply because they fill a necessary product niche, but there's going to be another major expansion online that will be dominated by specialty stores.

Capitalism is about profit, not principles. If government intervention increases profits, capitalists would support it. Capitalism requires at least some intervention, anyway, to enforce property ownership.

Sounds like someone doesn't know a lick about economics.

What is capitalism?

Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights. The term capitalism is used here in the broader philosophical political sense, and not in the narrower economic sense, i.e. a free-market.

http://www.capitalism.org

Of course, if the government intervention increased profits it wouldn't be capitalism. And "enforcing" property rights is a terrible definition. Protecting property rights is what the government's purpose would be.

This is just anti-capitlist propaganda. Capitalism works very well thank you. The top 10 capitalists earned more than $125 000 000 000 in 2005 alone. That's not the poor vietnamese and their 2 dollars a day. If they are poor that's because they don't try hard enough and that's their own fault. Instead of working in factories they should buy the factories and make top dollars to invest in the financial market but it seems that they are too stupid or that they lack the entrepreneur skills required. They only get what they deserve. The chinese are starting to get it and they will buy vietnam soon.
I take that was a joke, if it was its not funny. If you are serious, what age are you? 12? Seriously go read some books or something (or even use the internet, theres a whole wealth of information on it.), then come back when you've discovered that poverty isnt just due to laziness and to back it up, Vietnam was actually quite well off as it had some valuable natural resources untill the Vietnam War when its country was almost literally poisoned by the Americans. Its called the Poverty Trap, its easier to make money when your rich then when your poor.

I take that was a joke, if it was its not funny. If you are serious, what age are you? 12? Seriously go read some books or something (or even use the internet, theres a whole wealth of information on it.), then come back when you've discovered that poverty isnt just due to laziness and to back it up, Vietnam was actually quite well off as it had some valuable natural resources untill the Vietnam War when its country was almost literally poisoned by the Americans. Its called the Poverty Trap, its easier to make money when your rich then when your poor.
I don't know what to say. Yes I was playing. It's nationstates. I was very sarcastic. But indeed that was not funny. It's easy to make joke behind my computer but things are more serious there.

What is capitalism?

Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights.

not really, no.

Actually the trend in north america is foreign out-sourcing.
They will move the workers to the third world while keeping the corporate fat fucks and their closest servants safe from the workers at home.


I smell a bit of Banality, and would hazard that you are making a joke. but anyway.... no.

There are lots of jobs that you can outsource, and this has been the trend; of coursed you can make shoes in taiwan. This has been the prevailant method of large corporations for 20 years or more already, and worked to ensure profits, but we are getting beyond that.

You just cannot outsource all the jobs. Somethings require human attention. If I need to go fuel up, I cannot be sold gasoline by someone in south america. Someone needs to be present at the station. It might be a card lock, but someone needs to be there at some point. Several people. A janitor, accountant, routine maintainance, someone to clear the snow in winter. Of these, only the accountant is a skilled position, the rest are what you call "workers". They CANNOT live in guam.

If I park my jeep on the street and dont pay the meter, someone needs to clip a little ticket under my windshield wiper; they cannot live in mexico and do this job. Likewise, someone needs to drive the tow truck, change the street lights now and then, put up festive season decorations.. These are all unskilled or low training positions, and are very much "workers".

How about the kid that washes and waxes the new gas guzzlers at the car dealership? Thing you can ship his job off to some little 3rd world country? Or the college student that does security at nights?

I'll list off a quick list of ten more jobs...
shoe salesperson
fast food worker
garbage man
receptionist/secretary
short order cook
waitress
groundskeeper
dog catcher
delivery person
filing clerk

Thats only ten, there are hundreds of little jobs that require people to stay right here in north america, and they have common traits; they are preformed with a minimal of training, and the pay sucks. Now you have a picture in your mind that "workers" are just little ants in a factory, but in reality, most people dont work in factories.

The employers for these jobs are facing difficulties in finding people to work at them; our infrastructure is wobbling at the supports. we have an aging population that will not, or cannot do these things, and no amount of outsourcing can cure that. Nor is the population growing at a sufficient rate to fill these positions.

As far as mass produced goods go, the baby boomers dont want them anyway; they want to live an opulent life style, and adorn themselves and their homes with chic(hate that word!), cutting edge styles. They want the tasty food, the luxury cars, and snappy(well to them) clothing. They have ran our economy since the second world war, and now that their kids are gone, they can afford nice stuff.

That vietnamese dining set? Its mass produced, cheap, sturdy, attractive, but just not special enough. They want those nifty LED lights embedded in their staircases, a groomed garden, someone to clean up the dog poop. That fancy saturn might be ok, but only once we slap a custom paint coat on it, and tune the stereo system to best play the Beatles.

Now how are we ever going to do all this with foreign workers?

The whole point is that we are not run by fat cat capitalists, we are run by fat cat consumers; the baby boomers.