Without further context "the work environment" refers to nothing that can be discussed. So, If the point was to tease out biases in the response, sure this is reasonable. But if the point was to discuss "the work environment" with anything approximating value or meaning, then this is a dead end thread.

The fact is the concept presented for discussion differs from case-to-case-to-case in such wildly intense degrees that this is not a coherent concept in and of itself. Not really apt to be discussed other than.... — AmadeusD

Yes, this was my reaction.

Maybe this is intended as a conversation about the ethics of Western capitalism.

What do you mean by unethical behaviour? I have rarely seen this, unless you mean capitalism itself, which many do consider to be wage slavery.

Ethics is not, at least in the way one might be encouraged to go all out philosophically on, part of the work environment. You are guaranteed a reasonably safe work environment free of unwarranted mental or physical burden based on protected factors that are listed in whatever Constitution is in place or effect at the time, unless the job requires it (ie. you can't sue a private 911 dispatchers office for becoming "burdened" or "traumatized" by listening to people get violently killed all day, for example).

You got people who are essentially gender-blind commenting on a new blouse you purposely purchased solely due to its aesthetic appearance being likened to that of a literal rapist in some cases. Not cool.

You should be at your station or location doing your job. If you don't like someone, don't talk to them, aside from work-related necessity. Harassment or actions that contribute to distraction or non-productivity or "actions not in line with company culture" (I love that phrase, let's you fire immoral people for any reason at all) should be reported to HR and if not addressed may constitute a legal grievance that could then continue on to a legal claim.

"People are people. Wherever you go, there you are. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree."

You can't "force people to be good". Believe me, I've tried. There's a job, there's clear and absolute procedures, there's policy. You sign a waiver agreeing that you understand all of the aforementioned and furthermore agree to abide by them and acknowledge you can otherwise be fired at anytime for any reason other than factors outside of one's control (race, gender, religion, etc.) as protected under the Law. If you are a person of sound mind and body, fully capable of being a civilized person, you get paid, and subsequently don't have to starve. It's that simple. Nobody is going to spoon feed you as an adult. It's not inhumane. Humanity has nothing to do with it. You could be the only person on Earth and you would still have to work, likely much harder, to eat and survive. At least in (most) modern work environments if someone makes a mistake that causes injury or death you could sue and never have to see your coworkers again. Not a bad state of affairs, eh? Progress. That some people unfortunately take for granted.

It’s out of Marx’s Das Kapital. — NOS4A2

:grin: :grin: :lol:

REALLY? YOU NOS4A2???

Let me get this straight. YOU take Karl Marx not as a political philosopher, one major political ideologue of 19th Century, but the most accurate economic historian in his most important ideological book, to represent the best what economic history can say about the industrialization? Who cares if he didn't have that historical hindsight we enjoy when looking at the age of industrialization.

Or is it a cynical remark or something? :razz:

Or has you account been cracked and occupied by someone and we're looking at identity theft?

I've never thought you were the tankist Marxist here, NOS4A2. :snicker:

I’m surprised you’ve never heard it, given your education. Is it your opinion that the enclosures movement had no effect?

Is it your opinion that the enclosures movement had no effect? — NOS4A2

The enclosure movement started when? In the middle Ages? What I remember is that this took a HUGE time in England, whereas the division of common lands for example here (when we were part of the Kingdom of Sweden) it all was done once in the Great Partition in the middle of the 18th Century. Whereas in the UK this was done it bits and small parcels individually extended through a long time, continuing to the 19th Century. (Or I don't know, is it still done somewhere?)

Had this a link to industrialization and the emergence of industry workers? In Sweden's case no. Industrialization happened basically hundred years later. A larger reason is that with modern medicine and global trade the population both here and in the UK started to grow. Babies lived to be adults and the advances in agriculture and global trade meant that there wouldn't come epic famines. Actually the last one's in poor places of Europe like Ireland and Finland.



For Marx to put this issue at the front, the enclosures movement, as a huge reason promotes his ideological views of the emergence of the proletariat as an act of the government.

It wasn’t until the 17th century that enclosures became acts of parliament in England.

So What did Marx write that was wrong? I’d be interested to hear a university-educated perspective.

That is reasonable!

First, let's look at what you said:

When the factory system came into being in England, an army of workers were readily available because the State had expropriated them from their land.

First, look at the graph above with the population of England.

Now, do you really think that the army of workers readily available happened a) because of the State had expropriated them from their land or b) because of population growth.

I think option b) is far more valid and shouldn't be dismissed.

And as I stated, in Sweden they did the land reform of dividing common lands far earlier than industrialization happened in one act. Unlike in the UK. And BEFORE the population boom of the 19th Century. It didn't result in an "army of workers". The population growth in the 19th Century created the situation that many had to go to the cities to look for jobs.

Misleading people in the workplace against policy or not presenting policy for employees. Essentially tying into capitalism although I’m not very informed with this concept.

https://www.britannica.com/question/What-are-some-criticisms-of-capitalism

Here we have shortage of teachers too. Basically, most of the people don't want this job because it has a low income and the environment (as it is pointed out by the OP) is quite horrible. My generation has lost the basic sense of ethics and civism, and the classrooms are full of bullying, thugs, and stupid teenagers who think they are over of the teacher's authority.

Honestly, I think the worst environments nowadays are high-schools and even universities. — javi2541997

That's not at all like where I teach at and I teach in a very rough area. Where are you at?

You’ve convinced me, ssu. It clearly happened because of population growth, which would have followed rather than proceeded the rise in industrial employment and opportunity. Though I still think the enclosures acts were an injustice, and the evicted peasantry were left off with not much else, it cannot be said these acts immediately provided an army of laborers for the factory.

Though I still think the enclosures acts were an injustice, and the evicted peasantry were left off with not much else, it cannot be said these acts provided an army of laborers for the factory. — NOS4A2

As I thought you were a proponent of capitalism and individualism, I think it's strange that here you go with Marx.

Of course everything has to do with the question who exactly gets the common land. Marx definately gives one answer in his theories, but historically it hasn't always gone that way.

In Sweden there aristocracy was never dominant, they had to take into account the strong position of the peasants, who were independent. You can notice this from the fact that the Swedish peasantry have never revolted. The only occasion is when Sweden got it's independence from Denmark and when Finnish peasants sided with the wrong brother in a feud for the crown (hence not a traditional peasant revolt). Hence in Sweden those common lands were divided basically between the peasants. This in fact meant that a numerous size of landowners emerged in Sweden (and thus Finland). Hence there wasn't the kind of feudalism we see somewhere else with few ultrarich landowners and a poor majority.

This actually was even more important in the 19th Century when suddenly because of the paper industry, the forests became valuable, not just as places to get firewood. This made the countryside prosperous, because the ownership of the forests was so common and the peasants, still being subsistence farmers, started to earn money from selling wood. Even today out of 5,1 million Finns 600 000 own forests, so landownership is quite common with 50% to 60% of the forests being in ownership of private citizens.

In the Third World, things aren't so... and teachings of Marx are quite popular!

That's not at all like where I teach at and I teach in a very rough area. Where are you at? — RogueAI

Spain.

I hope you realize one needn’t agree with everything an author believes in order to agree on a few points. I thought Marx’s along with Hobsbawm’s account of Encosures was well cited and accurate, though I refute the theory that capitalism (which I find a stupid term) was somehow the cause. And though I find your point valid and agreeable, I’m not sure the debate is entirely settled.

Undoubtedly, the Swedish account you describe is more preferable, morally and economically.

I hope you realize one needn’t agree with everything an author believes in order to agree on a few points. — NOS4A2

That's a very good point.

And though I find your point valid and agreeable, I’m not sure the debate is entirely settled.

Undoubtedly, the Swedish account you describe is more preferable, morally and economically. — NOS4A2

The Swedish account just shows how things like land reform have a lot more nuances as usually is portrayed. And so is with capitalism, and coming back to the topic of this thread, with the work place and workers movement (which is the historical viewpoint of the OP).

I don't know where exactly the quote was, but Marx himself has said that things might not go as he anticipated and the proletariat may end up simply ask for higher wages. So there's no revolution!

Well, that's basically what has happened in Germany and the UK and in Western Europe. In the end what the workers movement did succeed in was higher wages, better working conditions and more focus on worksafety. And of course even the paid time off from work. The age old question about income distribution was dealt and and indeed the workers and their families got more prosperous through hire wages. Capitalism didn't collapse as Marx anticipated.

Yet the debate will surely not be settled. There is an irresistible lure for the Marxist narrative or in more simple terms the populist narrative of where the evil selfish rich oppress the ordinary people. For any problems or grievances found in our society those simple narratives are so tempting that they will not die out however many times it's shown that the World isn't so black and white.

In Sweden there aristocracy was never dominant, they had to take into account the strong position of the peasants, who were independent. You can notice this from the fact that the Swedish peasantry have never revolted. — ssu

3/4 of the population owned very small lots, so one might have reason to suspect that these peasants were simply too poor to revolt against the ruling nobility, church, and monarchy.

In the late 1800s 1,5 million swedish peasants emigrated to the US to avoid starvation and the arrogance of the feudal aristocracy. Maybe the latter were not as dominant as white land owners in South Africa, but to claim that these peasants were independent seems a stretch. Voting rights were based on income, the church controlled education, and so on.

Sometimes violence comes knocking at your door before you realize your place.

These discussions aren't easy for me, but nevertheless important!

I'm reading your posts with curiosity and interest. Also with diligence and patience.

As if things will be alright and better.

I can't see that you're interacting with my claim.. Which is that 'the work environment' as a concept is literally a tool that appears in infinite forms. It is not a moral concept. It couldn't be, at this stage of analysis.

Whether a workplace is ethical/unethical obviously is apt. Every example of a work place has its ethical boundaries, and they are to be discussed in context. The concept is not moral or ethical unless you think 'work' is an ethical or moral proposition.

Maybe this is intended as a conversation about the ethics of Western capitalism. — Tom Storm

I tried to avoid assuming this because almost all comparators are very, very much worse, making a discussion without that being pointed out probably an unintended political argument.

It's the organization that's similar between jobs that make "working conditions" coherent. — Moliere

I reject your premise. That is not a catch-all description of all work places. That's my entire point, though, so I'll it there.

But, in most cases, the events didn't turn out as badly as I expected at the beginning. I thought I was very negative regarding facing confrontation, but after reading your post I am not feeling alone any more. — javi2541997

Yes, it is surprising what works out and what doesn't. It was a crapshoot. I went with my deepest feeling instead of always having to guard what I say to the detriment of my own principles.

3/4 of the population owned very small lots, so one might have reason to suspect that these peasants were simply too poor to revolt against the ruling nobility, church, and monarchy. — jkop

Do notice the extremely important thing: 3/4 of the population owned lots. Even if they were very small lots and had only a couple of cows and few patches of land, these people were land owners. The outcome of this you can see actually looking at map of countryside in Sweden or in Finland: the houses are separate and not in Medieval-type villages. This is the effect of the Great Partition.

Photo of Varmland, Sweden. Notice how separate the houses are next to their fields. They weren't so in the Middle Ages or earlier.


Hence the peasants were not in a similar position like serfdom the peasantry in Russia in the 19th Century or earlier, described so well for example in the book Dead Souls by Gogol.

Here I would disagree with you on the idea of "people being too poor to revolt" argument:

The poverty of peasants isn't at all a reason for there not to be peasant revolts, I'd say it's on the contrary! People that have nothing to lose can lose it. What would they lose if they have nothing to lose? Land ownership is something that makes people to take care of their property. Extreme poverty leads to a very shaky and violent society. And this is shown by how violent slave revolts are and how they have been an existential threat even to Ancient Rome, where slavery was very common. And slaves have it even worse, yet revolts like in Haiti happened.

What are others views on such topic from experience!? Can this actually be fixed or improved within organizations in a way that is justifiable? How can it be done so that it is fair and corresponds with everyone? — Born2Insights

I have worked for corporate America, and I would refer to a business as ethical if it adheres to the ethical standards within the system. That is, does it offer protections against rascim, sexism and violence in the workplace? Are the benefits promised (like vacation time, daily work schedule) honored? Do you receive credit where due and are you now blamed for things you did not do? Are you treated with respect and given honest feedback? That it what an ethical environment is to me.

If you're asking whether capitalism is inherently unfair and whether only through a Marxist reorganization can we acheive an ethical work environment, then I don't understand the word "anymore" attached to the OP. That is, if you think capitalism is inherently ethically flawed, then it always has been. I do think capitlistic systems grow more ethical over time, making life in a 21st century factory a more ethical work environment than one built when the industrial revolution was first underway.

That is, does it offer protections against rascim, sexism and violence in the workplace? Are the benefits promised (like vacation time, daily work schedule) honored? Do you receive credit where due and are you now blamed for things you did not do? Are you treated with respect and given honest feedback? That it what an ethical environment is to me. — Hanover

Ditto. My current work environment meets all of these criteria and more. My previous workplace met none of them. And that is why i left.

I do think capitlistic systems grow more ethical over time, making life in a 21st century factory a more ethical work environment than one built when the industrial revolution was first underway. — Hanover

This comes back to my point to Tom - If we speak about systems outside of Western Capitalism, absolutely not. The lack of ethical regulation is rife. Within Western Capitalism, it's a mixed bag but I do agree we're getting there. The problem is Western companies exploiting non western, non-capitalist economic systems for value. Which has, for some reason, been entirely missed by anti-Capitalist drivel. That said, they often exploit us right back (ME oil trade, for instance). Ironically, usery is a big no-no in the ME and compared to Capitalism, that's probably a plus on paper.

The poverty of peasants isn't at all a reason for there not to be peasant revolts, I'd say it's on the contrary! People that have nothing to lose can lose it. What would they lose if they have nothing to lose? Land ownership is something that makes people to take care of their property. Extreme poverty leads to a very shaky and violent society. — ssu

Being a land owner in rural Sweden in 1867 meant that regardless of how well you had taken care of your land you would starve to death unless you revolt or emigrate. 1,5 million chose the latter, and exchanged their land for a travel ticket. If emigration had not been an option, then revolt seems probable, at least if one considers the fact that these peasants had no political power, they were too poor to be allowed to vote, and thus easy to exploit by the feudal elite. I doubt that starvation in Sweden in 1867 was better than slavery in ancient Rome or in medieval Russia. Being a 'land owner' makes it sound better, and sure, ownership did have an effect on the landscape. By the way, nice photo of Värmland! I drove through there in January on my way from Sweden to Norway for a ski trip.

It's the organization that's similar between jobs that make "working conditions" coherent. — Moliere

I reject your premise. That is not a catch-all description of all work places. That's my entire point, though. I did point out that once you've got 'a workplace' of some kind (i.e, a particular) then you can start the ethical discussion based on what actually happens in that case. There is no universal relationship between employer and employee beyond the "fact of" (which doesn't, on it's face, involve any interaction or disposition at all). If there was a specific relationship that could be threaded through every single workplace in the metaphysical world, as it were, there would be no acceptable economic system given that 'work' is literally unavoidable within society.

As an example that defeats the premise there are many companies with a a flat structure where employees earn exactly what they bill for (some types of Law Firms have a 30/30/30 rule for every single employee based on their fee-earner's work.. which they are usually partly responsible for) entirely regardless of their position but decision making is obviously the arena of the owners of a company.

Shareholding might actually hold water for your point, though, as the relationship is one of pure exploitation (arguable, but I can't see it another way).

There is no universal relationship between employer and employee beyond the "fact of" (which doesn't, on it's face, involve any interaction or disposition at all) — AmadeusD

The relationship between employer and employee has no relationship beyond the fact that they have a relationship, and yet that relationship doesn't involve any interaction or disposition -- ever?

I give time for money. Unless you're talking something like feudalism or before then I think it holds: under capital it's a time-for-money system. That structure is what makes "working conditions" coherent.

Surely you're not going to claim to have no knowledge of what people who are employees want? "Less work for more money" sounds like a good reasonable guess to me.

The relationship between employer and employee has no relationship beyond the fact that they have a relationship, and yet that relationship doesn't involve any interaction or disposition -- ever? — Moliere

I can dispossess you of an erroneous take with this:

on it's face, — AmadeusD

which means.. You are leapfrogging over the discussion into one which I am not having. Though, I have very, VERY clearly stated that once there are details(i.e an example of), that discussion is apt and important. Unless you involve some specifics, there is nothing to discuss. "the workplace" doesn't even exist unless you are talking about a workplace. In that case, go for gold and I likely have as many, and similar critiques to yourself. But the concept itself means nothing but that there is a relationship. Not what it is, or that it requires any interaction.

So, you want to talk about specifics.
I'm saying, the concept doesn't hoild ethical water until you talk about specifics. I'm unsure that we disagree?

under capital it's a time-for-money system. — Moliere

This could be said, and It would be hard to argue against, but there are millions of examples within capitalism where this is not the exchange. Exploitative trade is very much a thing (and imo, a good thing) which doesn't involve any direct relationship with value per se, and instead, value per individual but is definition part of, if not intrinsic to the mechanics of modern capitalism (i would posit that this is marked by multiple hierarchies, rather than a single state-peaked hierarchy).

I give time for money. Unless you're talking something like feudalism or before then I think it holds: under capital it's a time-for-money system. That structure is what makes "working conditions" coherent. — Moliere

Right. This should be obvious. Of course, the merry-go-round will now require you to explain what money is.

The relationship between employer and employee has no relationship beyond the fact that they have a relationship, and yet that relationship doesn't involve any interaction or disposition -- ever? — Moliere

Occasionally it is very useful to pretend not to understand what the words "employer" and "employee" mean. :wink:

Is there some reason, other than avoidance, that you're replying to a reply, instead of hte points made in the comment being replied to?

I ask because both of your comments are made utterly redundant by my response before yours. Seems like you might be trying to avoid? I've directly addressed why your positions make no sense (though, in response to Moliere). I cannot help but have this thought...

Is there some reason [...] that you're replying to a reply... — AmadeusD

We're all replying to replies. I am agreeing with Moliere. I think his argument is approximately a million times better than yours.