newmercman:
And that situation was similar to today’s, but now instead of taking a big chunk off a few, they take a medium sized chunk off us all
Wages haven’t kept up with inflation, you can cite supply and demand as the cause, but that’s ■■■■■■■■ really as the whole supply and demand thing is only benefiting the banks and corporations as that’s how capitalism works, the rich get richer…
Socialist policies don’t work either as the only money that goes in the pot comes from the workers, as soon as they run out of our money they just take more
The answer? I don’t know, but a good start would be a larger share for the working man, this would also benefit the banks and corporations as we would have more money to spend and would therefore invest more and buy more stuff, however they’re too greedy to realise this
That’s an accurate view of the situation.While the last paragraph is exactly the point which I’ve made regarding the difference between a Fordist economy as opposed to the ‘wrong type’ of Capitalism or Socialism/Communism.That wrong type of Capitalism effectively being the same thing as Communism anyway.The ironic thing is that the Fordist agenda was hijacked by both the ‘wrong type’ of Capitalism in the case of the bankers and employers side and by Socialism/Communism on the workers’/unions’ side with the bankers being bright enough to realise that they could take advantage of that confusion on the workers’ side of the equation for their own advantage.Hence American and British jobs being given to Chinese and East European workers while the unions here are still wondering what hit them.
Apart from those of us on the union side who understood the scam saw it all coming.Hoffa being one.
newmercman:
And that situation was similar to today’s, but now instead of taking a big chunk off a few, they take a medium sized chunk off us all
Wages haven’t kept up with inflation, you can cite supply and demand as the cause, but that’s ■■■■■■■■ really as the whole supply and demand thing is only benefiting the banks and corporations as that’s how capitalism works, the rich get richer…
Socialist policies don’t work either as the only money that goes in the pot comes from the workers, as soon as they run out of our money they just take more
The answer? I don’t know, but a good start would be a larger share for the working man, this would also benefit the banks and corporations as we would have more money to spend and would therefore invest more and buy more stuff, however they’re too greedy to realise this
That’s an accurate view of the situation.While the last paragraph is exactly the point which I’ve made regarding the difference between a Fordist economy as opposed to the ‘wrong type’ of Capitalism or Socialism/Communism.That wrong type of Capitalism effectively being the same thing as Communism anyway.The ironic thing is that the Fordist agenda was hijacked by both the ‘wrong type’ of Capitalism in the case of the bankers and employers side and by Socialism/Communism on the workers’/unions’ side with the bankers being bright enough to realise that they could take advantage of that confusion on the workers’ side of the equation for their own advantage.Hence American and British jobs being given to Chinese and East European workers while the unions here are still wondering what hit them.
Apart from those of us on the union side who understood the scam saw it all coming.Hoffa being one.
@newmercman - This simply isn’t true. Money not only comes from the workers but also from the profit produced by the workers. In a true socialist system/economy, profit (or excess value as we call it) is put back into the system. Where Capitalism fails the working people is that this excess value created by the workers is “creamed off” out of the system/economy and into the pockets and the offshore bank accounts of the Capitalist ruling elite, who effectively remove the excess value and thus starve the economy of the necessary continuous money cycle needed to support and grow the economy.
@Carryfast - I actually find myself agreeing with a lot of your analysis and argument - even though I think we come from different idealogical/political standpoints. My one complaint is your constant use of “socialism” and “communism” as failed ideoligies/political systems when in fact you are using the experiences of Russia (or more likely U.S.S.R.) and China (and the like) as examples of where “socialism” and “communism” have failed the workers. This is a trick often used by Western Capitalists as a means to demean or belittle “socialist” or “communist” arguments/ideals.
The USSR and China are prime examples of STATE CAPITALISM i.e. NOT examples of Socialism or Communism at work - Yes, they may have started out as socialist/communist revoluitions but the principal tenet of Marxist Socialism (and was the Labour Party Clause 4 until they ditched it in the 80’s to become a Neoliberal Capitalist party) is that “THE WORKERS OWN THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION” i.e. NOT THE STATE!! The Russian socialist revolution as carried out by Lenin was hijacked by Stalin and any hint of a Socialist or Communist revolution was quickly destroyed and the workers were effectively back where they started, except this time living under a ruthless dictator (not unlike Hitler) instead of an imperialist Zsar. A similar course of events took place in China.
The world is a very different place today than it was at the time of the Russian and Chinese revolutions. I believe (perhaps naiively) that people would be able to spot a Stalin a mile off and we would not allow the same mistakes to happen again as happened in the Russian revolution. Yeah, you may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one.
Then again, maybe people are even more stupid and gullible and ill-informed than they were then and they’d quite happily all march off behind Peter Andre or Katie Price demanding cosmetic surgery and ■■■■ jobs should be free on the NHS.
Anyway, that’s all I will say on the matter, you carry on Carryfast, keep up the good work (just don’t blame everything on Socialism/Communism) and please don’t suggest that New Labour are remotely socialist, as those shysters couldn’t even spell Socialism let alone know what the hell it actually is. We need a New Worker’s Party!!!
sonofjamie: @newmercman - This simply isn’t true. Money not only comes from the workers but also from the profit produced by the workers. In a true socialist system/economy, profit (or excess value as we call it) is put back into the system. Where Capitalism fails the working people is that this excess value created by the workers is “creamed off” out of the system/economy and into the pockets and the offshore bank accounts of the Capitalist ruling elite, who effectively remove the excess value and thus starve the economy of the necessary continuous money cycle needed to support and grow the economy.
@Carryfast - I actually find myself agreeing with a lot of your analysis and argument - even though I think we come from different idealogical/political standpoints. My one complaint is your constant use of “socialism” and “communism” as failed ideoligies/political systems when in fact you are using the experiences of Russia (or more likely U.S.S.R.) and China (and the like) as examples of where “socialism” and “communism” have failed the workers. This is a trick often used by Western Capitalists as a means to demean or belittle “socialist” or “communist” arguments/ideals.
The USSR and China are prime examples of STATE CAPITALISM i.e. NOT examples of Socialism or Communism at work - Yes, they may have started out as socialist/communist revoluitions but the principal tenet of Marxist Socialism (and was the Labour Party Clause 4 until they ditched it in the 80’s to become a Neoliberal Capitalist party) is that “THE WORKERS OWN THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION” i.e. NOT THE STATE!! The Russian socialist revolution as carried out by Lenin was hijacked by Stalin and any hint of a Socialist or Communist revolution was quickly destroyed and the workers were effectively back where they started, except this time living under a ruthless dictator (not unlike Hitler) instead of an imperialist Zsar. A similar course of events took place in China.
The world is a very different place today than it was at the time of the Russian and Chinese revolutions. I believe (perhaps naiively) that people would be able to spot a Stalin a mile off and we would not allow the same mistakes to happen again as happened in the Russian revolution. Yeah, you may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one.
Then again, maybe people are even more stupid and gullible and ill-informed than they were then and they’d quite happily all march off behind Peter Andre or Katie Price demanding cosmetic surgery and ■■■■ jobs should be free on the NHS.
Anyway, that’s all I will say on the matter, you carry on Carryfast, keep up the good work (just don’t blame everything on Socialism/Communism) and please don’t suggest that New Labour are remotely socialist, as those shysters couldn’t even spell Socialism let alone know what the hell it actually is. We need a New Worker’s Party!!!
When I said they run out of money, I mean the money the banks and corporations don’t cream off the top, so we’re talking about the same thing, but as I was typing on my phone (which is a PITA) I was not as articulate as I could’ve been, but you got my point anyway
sonofjamie: @Carryfast - I actually find myself agreeing with a lot of your analysis and argument - even though I think we come from different idealogical/political standpoints. My one complaint is your constant use of “socialism” and “communism” as failed ideoligies/political systems when in fact you are using the experiences of Russia (or more likely U.S.S.R.) and China (and the like) as examples of where “socialism” and “communism” have failed the workers. This is a trick often used by Western Capitalists as a means to demean or belittle “socialist” or “communist” arguments/ideals.
The USSR and China are prime examples of STATE CAPITALISM i.e. NOT examples of Socialism or Communism at work - Yes, they may have started out as socialist/communist revoluitions but the principal tenet of Marxist Socialism (and was the Labour Party Clause 4 until they ditched it in the 80’s to become a Neoliberal Capitalist party) is that “THE WORKERS OWN THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION” i.e. NOT THE STATE!! The Russian socialist revolution as carried out by Lenin was hijacked by Stalin and any hint of a Socialist or Communist revolution was quickly destroyed and the workers were effectively back where they started, except this time living under a ruthless dictator (not unlike Hitler) instead of an imperialist Zsar. A similar course of events took place in China.
The world is a very different place today than it was at the time of the Russian and Chinese revolutions. I believe (perhaps naiively) that people would be able to spot a Stalin a mile off and we would not allow the same mistakes to happen again as happened in the Russian revolution. Yeah, you may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one.
Then again, maybe people are even more stupid and gullible and ill-informed than they were then and they’d quite happily all march off behind Peter Andre or Katie Price demanding cosmetic surgery and ■■■■ jobs should be free on the NHS.
Anyway, that’s all I will say on the matter, you carry on Carryfast, keep up the good work (just don’t blame everything on Socialism/Communism) and please don’t suggest that New Labour are remotely socialist, as those shysters couldn’t even spell Socialism let alone know what the hell it actually is. We need a New Worker’s Party!!!
In that idea of the unions having been hijacked by the Socialist/Communist system I’d already taken into account the fact that system had in itself been hijacked by the Stalinists and Maoists.
Realistically I think that the Fourth International was probably as good as the socialist system would have ever got.Ironically many of it’s aims were/are closer to those which nmm has discussed concerning a more moderate form of socialism with the ( eventual ) aim of the internationalisation of the workers’ cause.
As opposed to my own view which is keeping it all simple in the form of each country looking after it’s own with strong unions working within a Capitalist system based on Fordist economic principles.
The comparison of the logical conclusion of the respective ideologies would probably be like comparing a South American banana republic with 1960’s America.IE Trotskyism being at best an underperforming idealistic dream.
But as we all know both Hoffa and Trotsky met a similar fate much like the economies of the US and UK.In which case it’s anyone’s guess what the eventual ‘global free market economy’ based on Maoist/Reaganite/Thatcherite principles will end up as.
Carryfast:
As opposed to my own view which is keeping it all simple in the form of each country looking after it’s own with strong unions working within a Capitalist system based on Fordist economic principles.
For anybody who doesn’t know, “Fordism” is the philosophy of of Henry Ford, who believed that if he paid his assembly line workers more, then they would be able to buy the Ford motor cars they produced.
This proved to be a highly successful strategy, enriching both Henry Ford and his workers. Modern society seems to have lost grip with this idea altogether, seeming to favour very short-term gains for manufacturers with no consideration whatsoever of the future.
Carryfast:
As opposed to my own view which is keeping it all simple in the form of each country looking after it’s own with strong unions working within a Capitalist system based on Fordist economic principles.
My own view too, in a nutshell.
I agree with you both (which is a rare thing indeed ) however as imports and exports make up a large part of any economy, looking after your own interests is possibly not the best way, it still creates a gap for cheaper workers, either in their own country, or immigrants sending money home, which stimulates their own economies, but removes money from the economy of their country of work
Harry Monk:
Modern society seems to have lost grip with this idea altogether, seeming to favour very short-term gains for manufacturers with no consideration whatsoever of the future.
I think any large scale business does have a consideration of the future, its just maybe not the same one we have !!!
I suppose many of us want to sustain what we have (had), companies are looking for growth all the time. And if that means moving anywhere they’re ready to go. Most of us are sedentary.
Carryfast:
As opposed to my own view which is keeping it all simple in the form of each country looking after it’s own with strong unions working within a Capitalist system based on Fordist economic principles.
My own view too, in a nutshell.
I agree with you both (which is a rare thing indeed ) however as imports and exports make up a large part of any economy, looking after your own interests is possibly not the best way, it still creates a gap for cheaper workers, either in their own country, or immigrants sending money home, which stimulates their own economies, but removes money from the economy of their country of work
To my mind, the only solution is to vote for UKIP in the upcoming elections. Whatever their shortcomings, they are the only political party opposing “more of the same”. The Labour party is supposed to be the party of the working man, yet the Blair Government did more to harm the working man than Mrs Thatcher ever did.
Carryfast:
As opposed to my own view which is keeping it all simple in the form of each country looking after it’s own with strong unions working within a Capitalist system based on Fordist economic principles.
My own view too, in a nutshell.
I agree with you both (which is a rare thing indeed ) however as imports and exports make up a large part of any economy, looking after your own interests is possibly not the best way, it still creates a gap for cheaper workers, either in their own country, or immigrants sending money home, which stimulates their own economies, but removes money from the economy of their country of work
By ‘looking after our own’ I’m referring to an immigration and trade regime which reflects that.IE an immigration policy that isn’t based on keeping the labour supply artificially high to depress wage levels and trade barriers which at least keep us in trade balance in the case of anything which we can provide for ourselves.
I’ll post this again as an example of Fordism in action in which wage claims just added to the spending power in the economy.
Carryfast:
As opposed to my own view which is keeping it all simple in the form of each country looking after it’s own with strong unions working within a Capitalist system based on Fordist economic principles.
My own view too, in a nutshell.
I agree with you both (which is a rare thing indeed ) however as imports and exports make up a large part of any economy, looking after your own interests is possibly not the best way, it still creates a gap for cheaper workers, either in their own country, or immigrants sending money home, which stimulates their own economies, but removes money from the economy of their country of work
To my mind, the only solution is to vote for UKIP in the upcoming elections. Whatever their shortcomings, they are the only political party opposing “more of the same”. The Labour party is supposed to be the party of the working man, yet the Blair Government did more to harm the working man than Mrs Thatcher ever did.
I can’t help on that one but they would get my vote for sure, it’s not a solution, but it is a step in the right direction. The trifecta of Lab/Con/Lib has helped create the mess, a new broom is needed to sweep it up
It was mentioned earlier I know, but the true definition of insanity is to repeat an exercise and expect a different result and the perfect example of that is voting for one of the big three
Carryfast:
As opposed to my own view which is keeping it all simple in the form of each country looking after it’s own with strong unions working within a Capitalist system based on Fordist economic principles.
My own view too, in a nutshell.
I agree with you both (which is a rare thing indeed ) however as imports and exports make up a large part of any economy, looking after your own interests is possibly not the best way, it still creates a gap for cheaper workers, either in their own country, or immigrants sending money home, which stimulates their own economies, but removes money from the economy of their country of work
To my mind, the only solution is to vote for UKIP in the upcoming elections. Whatever their shortcomings, they are the only political party opposing “more of the same”. The Labour party is supposed to be the party of the working man, yet the Blair Government did more to harm the working man than Mrs Thatcher ever did.
I can’t help on that one but they would get my vote for sure, it’s not a solution, but it is a step in the right direction. The trifecta of Lab/Con/Lib has helped create the mess, a new broom is needed to sweep it up
It was mentioned earlier I know, but the true definition of insanity is to repeat an exercise and expect a different result and the perfect example of that is voting for one of the big three
mac12:
Think virgin drivers now get £61000, freight company looking for drivers this week paying £51000 but it takes up to 18 months to train them against 2 weeks for class 1
My Brother drives for Virgin out of Preston, he is on 53 grand plus extra for weekends of course. He was telling me today that they now have several ex Stobart drivers who have retrained as train drivers and they like the job, it is a new experience for them getting under bridges safely…
Ive noticed in recent months how the mainstream media are whipping up the anti ukip fever comparing them to the rise of the nazis etc. Dont agree with a some of there stuff and some of there people are barking but its got to be worth a vote even if it just shakes things up.
mac12:
Think virgin drivers now get £61000, freight company looking for drivers this week paying £51000 but it takes up to 18 months to train them against 2 weeks for class 1
My Brother drives for Virgin out of Preston, he is on 53 grand plus extra for weekends of course. He was telling me today that they now have several ex Stobart drivers who have retrained as train drivers and they like the job, it is a new experience for them getting under bridges safely…
Being of the "old school"like many others I can remember the time when the promise of a new Scanny was on offer it created what was or is termed as the “10 bob and a bucket brigade”.They where the one`s who had a bucket hanging on the front bumper and spent their nights out washing & polishing their cabs in their own time,instead of driving an older motor for 50% more and making the most of their rest time.
The same still happens today,only now for some its a part in a TV program as well as a new motor.
lee27:
I’ve just turned 30 and been driving hgv for 6 years.
Had a string a [zb] jobs the first few years after leaving school. Now find myself earning over 30k, course I’m away all week but the main thing for me is I enjoy my job, enjoy driving lorries and been out an about,work for a good company and can see myself been here for years to come.
I’m earning double what I ever did before I started driving trucks. People may think we should be earning more but as said in a previous post,it’s not a hard job anymore. I personally am happy with what I earn
£30k sounds reasonable BUT your not saying how many hours your putting in each week to get it,perhaps when you break it down its not so hot
we run a business in a country location that is not ideal for 44t vehicles.We have a delivery each month of 26 pallets some drivers do it with no problems others are like cry babies,i have to go down the lane and drive in front of them in case they meet another vehicle and then when they are asked to back out on their blindside they almost start crying! The best drivers are the old hands but my point is why should they be paid the same? good drivers should be paid more than the ones that the average ones. I have been a driver for 34 years and have had my own business for the last 14 years and take it from me driving is a doddle,£600 per week,holiday pay ,sick pay, if the wagon breaks own so what? rant over
bluecheq27:
we run a business in a country location that is not ideal for 44t vehicles.We have a delivery each month of 26 pallets some drivers do it with no problems others are like cry babies,i have to go down the lane and drive in front of them in case they meet another vehicle and then when they are asked to back out on their blindside they almost start crying! The best drivers are the old hands but my point is why should they be paid the same? good drivers should be paid more than the ones that the average ones. I have been a driver for 34 years and have had my own business for the last 14 years and take it from me driving is a doddle,£600 per week,holiday pay ,sick pay, if the wagon breaks own so what? rant over
£600 p.w have you not learned anything from t/ nets financial experts ,all that matters is p.h,if you speak of p.w,p.a your only trying to dress up a poor wage
