That's not quite the topic. Regardless, to pursue it: workers aren't being paid a decent wage, in reality. And the reason they're not is partly determined by these OP questions -- namely, how profits are distributed and who makes the decisions. The decisions certainly aren't being made by workers.

But let's assume they are being paid a decent wage. They get enough to eat and live and have healthcare. Is that it? They deserve only that? What if they're the ones doing the lion's share of the work? Don't they deserve more than simply a "decent living wage"? — Mikie

This is rather curious. I am not making a judgment here, and I am not taking sides. I am merely noticing that throughout this thread you
1. Advocate the reversal of global warming by suppressing those activities that contribute to global warming.
2. Advocate that the workers be paid more than what's enough to eat, pay for healthcare and live. (Live?). This means that workers should have a bigger carbon footprint. Which accelerates global warming.

I don't recall Marx claiming that shareholders care solely about profit at the expense of everything else?
...
To be clear: in my view, a shareholder cares more than simply profit above all else. — Mikie

I think so too: Namely, the “class” of owners. The capitalists, really. Today that’s mostly owners of particular property, like stocks. — Mikie

I disagree.

It's not the owners who decide, in this more general sense. It's the property relationships themselves which form an environment that motivates the collective to behave in a particular pattern. So, seeing as there's an over and an under class -- as Marx said, "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles" -- the "decision" is made between two competing factions which, depending on how well they are organized, will set the price-point in a labor market.

Whether a particular shareholder cares more about profit is irrelevant to the effects that the state-enforced property relation which creates an environment which we creatures operate within with enough predictability to say "yeah, that company pretty much just wants to make money, and the laborers they employ pretty much just want as many benefits for as little as possible".

And why wouldn't you want more for less, after all? Doesn't that sound like a rational, self-interested desire?

Basically, I'd say that the structure of property over-rides any commitment a shareholder may have. They may look like they have power, but I'd say it's ephemeral.

In all kinds of cases. — ssu

No— not the parts I quoted.

Millions of businesses are not incorporated and don’t issue shares. I’m not sure where the confusion lies here but my statement isn’t controversial. If you think it is, you’re misunderstanding.

f this is truly the state of things, the question becomes: is it just? Has it always been this way?
— Mikie
I think you are confusing two things here. — ssu

I’m talking about multinational corporations and how they allocate profits. I’m not sure what you’re talking about now.

I think possibly the counterargument being made here is that the distribution of profits doesn't have a moral component - in other words, there's no answer to "how ought the profits be distributed?" — Isaac

Why? It’s like arguing there’s no answer to how we cut a pie. It depends on many things, and there’s not one ultimate answer that applies in all cases, but there are answers to be had.

I’ll be clearer: I don’t think distributing 90% of profits to shareholders is fair, and I don’t think the undemocratic decision making process that leads to that distribution is fair either.

Basically, I'd say that the structure of property over-rides any commitment a shareholder may have. They may look like they have power, but I'd say it's ephemeral. — Moliere

So you’re placing most of the responsibility on the state, yes?

I am merely noticing that throughout this thread you
1. Advocate the reversal of global warming by suppressing those activities that contribute to global warming.
2. Advocate that the workers be paid more than what's enough to eat, pay for healthcare and live. — god must be atheist

I haven’t advocated for either on this thread.

I think I'm resistant to the notion of responsibility really applying.

In a particular case sometimes we can figure out, through political analysis, who is the most likely person to be able to influence a particular decision.

Responsibility is with all of us, in the sense that this is how we live with one another.

think I'm resistant to the notion of responsibility really applying. — Moliere

Well choose a better word then. If the blame cannot be placed on the board of directors of multinational corporations, because our governments structure how business is conducted, then the state is ultimately the culprit.

I don’t completely agree with this picture, but if this isn’t what you’re saying I really don’t see what your point is.

“We’re all responsible” isn’t saying much, however true that may be. Can’t we say that about any problem whatsoever? The war in Iraq…we all share blame. The Challenger explosion? We all share some responsibility. Etc. Fine — but let’s narrow it down a bit.

The advocation of global warming by you was indeed not in this thread. So if you think you are not an advocate of reversing global warming then please state it here.

[you, Mikie] Advocate that the workers be paid more than what's enough to eat, pay for healthcare and live. — god must be atheist

I haven’t advocated for either on this thread. — Mikie

Oh, c'mon.

Then what is this:

But let's assume they [the workers] are being paid a decent wage. They get enough to eat and live and have healthcare. Is that it? They deserve only that? What if they're the ones doing the lion's share of the work? Don't they deserve more than simply a "decent living wage"? — Mikie

Why? It’s like arguing there’s no answer to how we cut a pie. It depends on many things, and there’s not one ultimate answer that applies in all cases, but there are answers to be had. — Mikie

I didn't say there was no answer, I said there was no moral weight to it. There's no way it ought to be done. There are, of course, multiple ways it can be done.

I don’t think distributing 90% of profits to shareholders is fair, and I don’t think the undemocratic decision making process that leads to that distribution is fair either. — Mikie

So why not?

We've established that some people might contribute more than others, right? So we'd not expect an equal distribution. But we can't determine a fair distribution objectively either because it relies on the value of scarcity and risk, and those evaluations are subjective. The rewards for those things depend on how much we want them. So any cooperative scheme which distributes its profits according to the values the members have for scarcity and risk is going to have to arrive at a mutual agreement among the members, there isn't an objective one.

The problem we have these days is not the fact that arrangements are worked out without an objectively judged framework, it's that people are not freely taking part, they don't have a fair say in those arrangements, they're coerced into accepting terms they wouldn't otherwise.

Now, we could fix that by enforcing an arrangement they would be happy with, if they were more free to set terms, but why do that when we can instead remove the coercion and allow them to decide for themselves what terms they're happy with?

Well choose a better word then. If the blame cannot be placed on the board of directors of multinational corporations, because our governments structure how business is conducted, then the state is ultimately the culprit.

I don’t completely agree with this picture, but if this isn’t what you’re saying I really don’t see what your point is. — Mikie

I think I'd prefer something like a causal nexus to highlight that there's more than one entity contributing to the overall pattern that we observe, and that the patterns of history aren't dependent upon something singular. To ignore the state would be silly, given how central it is to politics, but the patterns of capitalism aren't singularly dependent upon a state, either, because the state just sets up an environment.

So it's not a board of directors or stakeholders which are making decisions as much as there are a multitude of businesses which make many decisions, a lot of them fail, and through a simplified notion of natural selection we can see what kinds of patterns tend to survive the environmental set up. The organisms which survive and thrive in capitalism are the organisms which put profits first (which, due to the labor market being what it is, will mean sometimes having to pay more for labor than you want to, but labor is always a necessary expense in this set up).

But notice how it's not a fault of the board, then. It's just what it takes to have a business win the game.

And which ones happen to win at a given time is largely dependent upon things no one has any control over, so "winning" isn't even an attribute of acumen or skill. Rather, there are things one must do to survive, and then dependent upon what happens some of the organisms survive and some don't, and whatever does survive are the results of both making the right decisions and chance.

The causal nexus for this, now though, is an international economic organization. It's not just one state. It's a large international order.

So can you see why I might be hesitant to want to say "yes, it's the state for certain" ?

“We’re all responsible” isn’t saying much, however true that may be. Can’t we say that about any problem whatsoever? The war in Iraq…we all share blame. The Challenger explosion? We all share some responsibility. Etc. Fine — but let’s narrow it down a bit. — Mikie

I don't think we all share responsibility for any event, so no. I mean, I suppose one could say that but that's not the sort of culpability I was meaning-- I'm trying to highlight how there's a difference between capitalism and these particulars. Capitalism is the more general structure and environment within which actors -- be they corporations, states, individuals, or groups -- act. In the case of capitalism we're talking about something so giant it's not quite right to say that the state is the cause of capitalism. After all, there are states which are not capitalist, and there are lands without states which behave in accord with the giant world system that is capitalism, and socialist states do interact with capitalist states too.

Maybe, with the above picture in mind, the way I'd put it is -- I don't want a slice of pie, I want the bakery. Once I have a say in how the bakery operates, then the size of slice we all get becomes pertinent. As it is, since ought implies can and we cannot, there's no moral imperitive. People's hands really are tied, no matter which position they sit within the social dance that's capitalism.

It's really more like no one is in charge, and the beast just lives a life of its own, and we're along for the ride: strapped to a bull or a bear, ready to be thrown off and eaten at any moment.

Nevertheless, we've seen significant progress in environmental, health and safety standards, labour conditions, welfare, etc. under that restrictive framework. And that route has generally been through legislative action hence the importance of government and democratic participation.

Heh, I do not share this view of the world. I think it's naive.

What has changed governments -- and especially so-called democratic governments -- has been the power of the masses to organize and force it to change because of the dependency relationship I mentioned earlier. The uppers depend upon the lowers. So the lowers, if they are able to organize themselves, can demand what they want up to and including the bakery.

Rather than the liberal lie that democratic participation and dialogue and changing hearts or minds are the paths to change, the Marxist way is militant, organized action which forces concessions.

Unions, for instance, were most powerful when they had more members and acted militantly. It's only as they became bureaucratized, making them a rational apparatus of the state, that they slowly lost power -- because a worker's power is not in treatises and laws and legislatures. It's at the point of production.

So, rather than the importance of democratic participation, I'd say I'd emphasize the importance of class power and organization.

So here's how it works. The profit the owner receives is based upon the scarcity and demand of the product he sells, which means it benefits him to sell something people need and can't produce themselves. He is therefore nothing more than a commodity owner and seller and can hardly demand a "fair" sales price for the sale of his goods if no one wants them (low demand) or if there are already plenty more in the market place (high supply).

That I might have slaved for hours digging rocks from the ground and you slaved for hours building homes doesn't mean we are both entitled to the same wage, as it's likely no one wants your rocks.

So, in this commodity based system, if a worker wants a higher percentage of the profits (i.e. a higher salary), and he doesn't want to be the owner of the commodity, but wishes to work in the production line for someone else, he shouldn't expect more money because he works harder or even just that his work is critical. He should expect more money if his type of labor is in short supply and in high demand. That's why it pays to stay in school.

If you want a higher percentage of the farmer's profits, you'll probably succeed if you're the chicken house engineer, the chicken house veterinarian, or the marketer of all things chicken. If you pluck chickens, you probably won't do as well.

The other idea is that we can collectivize the farms so that all the food belongs to society so that we can all share in the profits, but instead we all starve. I think that's how the great new communist society worked out, only much much worse.

All the same, if the chicken killers organize, and the farmer and the engineer and the veterinarian and the marketer aren't going to kill the chickens then there's a dependency relationship which can be utilized to drive the price of labor up.

The other idea is that we can collectivize the farms so that all the food belongs to society so that we can all share in the profits, but instead we all starve. — Hanover

American farms are pretty heavily subsidized, and we haven't starved. It actually doesn't make sense to pay CEO's the bizarre reimbursements they get.

That will change in the next big economic adjustment. We always lurch toward the left when the whole system starts breaking down, as during the Great Depression.

All the same, if the chicken killers organize, and the farmer and the engineer and the veterinarian and the marketer aren't going to kill the chickens then there's a dependency relationship which can be utilized to drive the price of labor up. — Moliere

Sure, and if the chicken owners organize, and refuse to sell chicken but for a fixed price, the price of chicken will rise too. So many ways to interfere with the free market there are.

But, when there are plenty of chicken owners who refuse to participate in the price fixing, and maybe even laws that interfere with that, you don't have that problem.

By the same token, when there are plenty of workers who refuse to unite, you can always find a chicken slaughterer. Until the revolution, I will dine on the cheap chicken, killed at the hands of the underpaid chicken house worker

There is no free market. At this point in development it's simply stupid to think that there is. There is an environment set up some degrees away from what economic actors do through the relationships between states and other economic actors.

As notes -- them chicken owners are plenty organized with how much state funding they get.

American farms are pretty heavily subsidized, and we haven't starved. It actually doesn't make sense to pay CEO's the bizarre reimbursements they get. — frank

The subsidization of farming is to protect a dysfunctional industry that society isn't willing to allow to adjust to true economic forces. The net result of ending subsidies would be the loss of many unprofitable farms, but that wouldn't result in a lack of food.

In any event, subsidies bear no resemblance to the forced collectivization of farming, which did in fact lead to starvation of 10s of millions of people.

That will change in the next big economic adjustment. We always lurch toward the left when the whole system starts breaking down, as during the Great Depression. — frank

I know. The revolution is at hand.

There is no free market. At this point in development it's simply stupid to think that there is. There is an environment set up some degrees away from what economic actors do through the relationships between states and other economic actors.

As ↪frank notes -- them chicken owners are plenty organized with how much state funding they get. — Moliere

Of course there is regulation. Such does not implicate Marxism though. Marxism becomes implicated when you speak of the great worker revolt and the reorganization of labor where the workers unite and control.

That the government pays milk farmers not to produce milk so as to reduce supply and increase price to increase profits means the government is trying to protect the industry, which includes workers, owners, and the economies of rural regions.

That's not Marxism. That's just democracy in action without concern for protecting a pure form a capitalism, and not something I find terribly offensive, and maybe a good idea for a while, although at some point the government won't continue to prop it up..

The subsidization of farming is to protect a dysfunctional industry that society isn't willing to allow to adjust to true economic forces. — Hanover

I think it's that rich farmers know how to lobby. I don't think the average American knows how much they're actually getting. In some cases they're being paid to withhold planting. It's state sponsored price fixing.

All of that started as an attempt to help small farmers, but the wealthy quickly turned it to their own advantage. That's happened over and over, which is one reason to let the poor starve: if the state tries to help them, it just ends up making the rich more powerful.

I know. The revolution is at hand. — Hanover

It will happen eventually.

I think it's that rich farmers know how to lobby. I don't think the average American knows how much they're actually getting. In some cases they're being paid to withhold planting. It's state sponsored price fixing.

All of that started as an attempt to help small farmers, but the wealthy quickly turned it to their own advantage. That's happened over and over, which is one reason to let the poor starve: if the state tries to help them, it just ends up making the rich more powerful. — frank

Whether the government programs work to help anyone in need of help, I don't know. I don't equate any and every government regulation upon the economy with communism, and I'm in favor of plenty of regulation as I think the government can do good. This is just to say I'm not an anarchist and I do believe in democratic rule. That the workers haven't been given more power over the owners isn't all the result of powerful owners subjugating workers. That's Marxist talk. The reason owners get to be owners and maintain a higher percentage of profits is because it works better that way and people want it that way.

It will happen eventually. — frank

So last Great Depression it didn't happen here, but it did happen in Russian and millions died. So, sure, this time it will happen in the right way, or whatever Marxist thought says.

So last Great Depression it didn't happen here, but it did happen in Russian and millions died. So, sure, this time it will happen in the right way, or whatever Marxist thought says. — Hanover

This is just an imaginary of an imaginary.

We done killed our millions. Racking up bodies won't decide what's the better way to live, though it makes for good propaganda.

Either way -- the free market ain't real.

And you, too, just like the people that employ you, can manipulate it.

So, as I said, it comes down to how organized your class is. How much power you have, in your given class. Who butters your bread.

The reason owners get to be owners and maintain a higher percentage of profits is because it works better that way and people want it that way. — Hanover

It is very effective and efficient. It's also volatile and occasionally crashes, so a little of both sides of the spectrum is a good thing.

So last Great Depression it didn't happen here, but it did happen in Russian and millions died. So, sure, this time it will happen in the right way, or whatever Marxist thought says. — Hanover

I don't know if the next economic crash will take out the US government. I hope not. I just meant we'll probably renew socialist measures that were enacted during the Depression (and dispensed with starting with Reagan), and probably do further steps to the left.

But isn't that just "politics by other means"?

The subsidization of farming is to protect a dysfunctional industry that society isn't willing to allow to adjust to true economic forces. The net result of ending subsidies would be the loss of many unprofitable farms, but that wouldn't result in a lack of food.

In any event, subsidies bear no resemblance to the forced collectivization of farming, which did in fact lead to starvation of 10s of millions of people. — Hanover

Are they unprofitable or are they forced to price their goods lower than they would because of competition from counties that don't have all sorts of EHS and labour standards and you want to ensure a critical industry continues to exist in your county?

So last Great Depression it didn't happen here, but it did happen in Russian and millions died. So, sure, this time it will happen in the right way, or whatever Marxist thought says. — Hanover

Maybe read Marx instead of relying on the caricature US society has made of him?

Are they unprofitable or are they forced to price their goods lower than they would because of competition from counties that don't have all sorts of EHS and labour standards and you want to ensure a critical industry continues to exist in your county? — Benkei

Instead of the costumers paying higher prices for food in countries where the farming industry is subsidized, the cost of production plus profit is paid from where? From taxes. And who pays taxes? People and corporations. And where do the corporations get their income? From people and taxes.

You can't get away from profit and low prices. Somebody pays, and it always boils down to the customer.

So instead of allowing farms to make their money the proper way, we, yes, we, the fucking people, pay the government to regulate the prices of farm products, and then we, the fucking people, pay the government taxes to pay the missing money to the farmers.

It's a system. It's not a bad system. In the end everyone is at where they should be: Farms get their proper income, people pay the price for farm produce the same amount as they should, except in two different venues: they pay a little to the farmer, and they pay a little to the taxman, who transfers these monies to the farms.

It's not a directly-involving system, but the end result is precisely the same as without and as when people paid proper prices for locally produced farm products.

Of course there is regulation. Such does not implicate Marxism though. Marxism becomes implicated when you speak of the great worker revolt and the reorganization of labor where the workers unite and control — Hanover

Without the revolution, guns and slogans, we live in a Marxist society if you hold the truth that workers unite and control.

Who controls societies' decisions? The Parliament. Who elects the parliament? The people. What percentage of the People of voting age are workers in the United States of America? About 94%.

So America, unwittingly, by force of having a national body of electors of whom nearly all work, is a Marxist state.