[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [microsound] RE: McLabor
like i said,
contact me off list to continue this conversation: it's just too off topic.
david
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tad Turner" <tad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "microsound" <microsound@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 7.56pm
Subject: [microsound] RE: McLabor
> On 6/26/02 at 1:31 PM, David Miller <damille@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > yes, exploitation is entirely subjective:
> >
> > to say that it is exploitative 'when you consider' anything, is
> > 100% as a result of your perspective on a given situation.
> >
> > your definition of exploitation therefore, is subject to that
> > perspective: subjective.
>
> Actually, I think you've made my point. Anyone that believes in the
> right of owners to receive more compensation for their investment in an
> inert lump of steel (or whatever) would, of course, see a worker's
> demand for a more equal distribution of wealth as "subjective."
>
> What an owner sees as subjective, a worker sees as systematic. The owner
> enjoys their "rights" because they're in control, as Neil Jendon stated,
> and all a worker can do is withhold their labor, which is useless unless
> collectively organized.
>
> I don't recall anywhere in history that the laboring classes voting to
> permit owners to enjoy a greater share of the proceeds ("Aw, when it
> gets right down to it, they DESERVE it.") and I'd bet if you had a
> referendum right now in any country about how the profits of commerce
> should be distributed, the owning class would lose.
>
> Which is why these things get decided with guns. Rata-tat-tat!
>
> > and great, since the growth level of compensation hasn't
> > equalled the growth level of productivity, implying that this
> > is inherently wrong is misguided as well.
> >
> > technological growth alone [even aside from other factors] has
> > aided in the ability to increase production while maintaining a
> > lower-cost option for producers.
> >
> > in a free-market system, producers have that right. and it
> > works.
>
> I'm talking about "owners," not "producers." I'd consider myself a
> "producer" as would most folks who labor for a living.
>
> Owners sit around make their wealth increase: they could lend it to a
> bank, buy a controlling interest in WorldCom or own a company. They're
> really not interested in the thing in itself, just the return on
> investment. This is why money flees Asia or Argentina when things get
> dicey.
>
> Their are a group of highly paid (read "bought off") producers that do
> the owners bidding, maintain their owners' lower-cost options and
> generally act as cheerleaders for the status quo.
>
> But when it gets down to it, just how valuable is the TCP-IP protocol in
> comparison to all the sweaty bodies that dug millions of miles of
> trenches to wire up the Internet?
>
> As a "producer" (either of protocols or trenches) I think I'd be pissed
> to know that industrial productivity was increasing, while the rewards
> for my contribution to that increase were declining...
>
> > i get the sense that you are implying that companies have a
> > moral obligation or whatever to their employees to maintain a
> > certain level of compensation, relative to the growth of the
> > company.
>
> I'm interested in the restructing of ownership and control. What you're
> sensing is some sort of liberal foolishness that I don't support.
>
> > the underlying argument you are making here is one that
> > involves deep social change.
>
> Yes.
>
> > so let's follow that through.
>
> Your "follow through" assumes that I support a state planned economy as
> the single solution to Socialist development. I don't.
>
> Please also remember that "state planning" isn't unique to Socialism.
>
> > in closing, to return this somewhat to the subject of music,
> > let's talk prince, as you have suggested.
> >
> > when he signed the contract, he signed over the rights. it
> > really is as simple as the fact that noone forced him to do so:
> > he did so of his own free will. it then became the company's
> > product, and him the man behind the wrench. the company could
> > do with it what it wanted to.
>
> "He's so stupid he put his foot in the trap, he deserves to lose his
> leg."
>
> That's the kind of society I want to be part of!
>
> > that's the beauty of independent music companies. touch and go
> > records, for example, has consistently kept the profits 50/50
> > with the artist, i think with little fluctuation. it's been the
> > company's right to do so in the free-market system. and that's
> > the beauty that we all as independent musicians have access to:
> > company's that value the artist for artistic reasons and for
> > art's sake: not [fully] for dollar value.
>
> Interesting example, but explain to me what's intrinsically beautiful
> about independence, especially after Kim posting of earlier today?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> website: http://www.microsound.org
>
--Boundary_(ID_f03BoOUSBDxLuNA+Vc9Jlg)
Content-Type: message/rfc822; Name="Re: [microsound] RE: McLabor"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit