If the factory owners strike, the workers can take over the factories. This is good news. Not that it really matters, it's not like they're working in the first place.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
If the factory owners strike, the workers can take over the factories. This is good news. Not that it really matters, it's not like they're working in the first place.
Yes but without the businessmen buying the raw materials necessary for teh production of the manufactured goods and the middle and upper classes consuming these, the factories will stop working. To avoid teh rule of comrade Ivan, Liberals should join Conservatives (but not BNU who are as bad as Socialist as they desire to seek strong measures against free market) in a possible strike.
Hahahahaha!
Keep thinking that, my friends...
Welcome to politics, where everyone is your mortal enemy (at least publically), and the public is a dupe.
Funny, let's use the rights granted to us by socialist pressure in order to protest how much we hate everything they've done for us.
Because, of course, a Cockney factory hand has all the skills necessary to run a business employing over a thousand people.
... aside from literacy, numeracy, experience, any business acumen at all, any contacts, grasp of basic concepts of economics and business...
I'd like to see you capitalists try and run a factory without workers...
Um...that's not the point. The point is that it takes labourers, craftsmen, clerks, and capitalists to run a factory. Take any one of those groups out of the factory, and it won't run. The idea that the labourers and craftsmen can run the factory without clerks and capitalists is just as absurd as having the capitalists and clerks trying to run the factory without labourers and craftsmen.
The 'general strike' or lockout, as proposed by some members would be the closing of the factory to showcase how integral to industry the clerk and capitalist positions are. This closure will be defended with all the rights a property owner can bring to bear. The factory will not be allowed to re-open.
I think the plan was the workers would elect managers, who would get paid more than ordinary workers but not as much as the capis. If the capis lock the workers out, it would be A) electoral suicide and B) wouldn't work anyway, they'd just break down the door.
Actually, by default there is enough workers to be their own consumer base if they were only allowed to consume the things they make and make things they need, instead of making things designed for those living off of their labor.
And, technically speaking, you are dead wrong in implying that there is some sort of natural hierarchy to society - with access to good education and health, any working lad can grow up to be a clerk.
And that's what it takes, clerks and workers. A manager is just a clerk and really shouldn't be paid so much more than the other clerks.
If Labour couches their rhetoric in the idea of brute strength prevailing in industry, it's only because your siphoning of their resources prevents them from gaining higher education.
I would hope that future Labour governments will facilitate on-site education for employees who hope to transfer into clerkery or transition into technicians, and will provide for a robust public education system so the children of the working class can grow up to be qualified to do any work there is to do.
The ideal Labour vision of Britain would be, I imagine, one where everyone has the comforts and amenities we would currently associate with the middle class - meaning everyone would be skilled labor and capable of keeping up with industrial improvements, aswell as being literate and capable therefore of improving themselves further. The factory hands would elect their floor bosses from among themselves and the clerks would elect the lead accountants and so forth among themselves and all together they would elect the management from their own ranks.
But the first step is the 8 hour day, as with 8 hours for recreation the worker can have access to time for self-improvement, education, or simply mental rest from the mind-destroying repetitious activities of their daily toil.
And, finally, I will be the second (I think) in pointing out that while Labour has sought to use the ballot and has downplayed the idea of winning political power through shutdowns of industry, you are pursuing that radical and very unconservative option.
And, technically speaking, you are dead wrong in implying that there is some sort of natural hierarchy to society - with access to good education and health, any working lad can grow up to be a clerk.
And that's what it takes, clerks and workers. A manager is just a clerk and really shouldn't be paid so much more than the other clerks.
If Labour couches their rhetoric in the idea of brute strength prevailing in industry, it's only because your siphoning of their resources prevents them from gaining higher education.
I would hope that future Labour governments will facilitate on-site education for employees who hope to transfer into clerkery or transition into technicians, and will provide for a robust public education system so the children of the working class can grow up to be qualified to do any work there is to do.
The ideal Labour vision of Britain would be, I imagine, one where everyone has the comforts and amenities we would currently associate with the middle class - meaning everyone would be skilled labor and capable of keeping up with industrial improvements, aswell as being literate and capable therefore of improving themselves further. The factory hands would elect their floor bosses from among themselves and the clerks would elect the lead accountants and so forth among themselves and all together they would elect the management from their own ranks.
But the first step is the 8 hour day, as with 8 hours for recreation the worker can have access to time for self-improvement, education, or simply mental rest from the mind-destroying repetitious activities of their daily toil.
And, finally, I will be the second (I think) in pointing out that while Labour has sought to use the ballot and has downplayed the idea of winning political power through shutdowns of industry, you are pursuing that radical and very unconservative option.
The theory goes that money needs to be injected to start up and get the factory on it's feet, but capitalists either used to be workers or their fathers did.
If Labour insists on getting violent and stealing property, then we really are talking about a communist government (which I don't think Labour is...not yet anyway). In that case, the appropriate response by the capitalist is to destroy the factory instead of locking it up.
Rogov said:
So, back to susbsistenance and barter...how is this a recipe for RAISING the standard of living of the poor?
Work WITH the clerks and capitalists, don't try to destroy them!
Rogov said:
There is a natural hierarchy to society. Those who are worthy ought to have higher stations in life. There are many aristocrats who should be labourers, and many labourers who ought to be clerks and capitalists...but we will always have these distinctions (farmer, labourer, clerk, capitalist). The poor will always be with us. The idea is to set up a society that allows the worthy poor to rise.
Rogov said:
Clerks do not start factories, raise capital, or embark on new ventures. A world without capitalists would mean stagnant innovative growth.
Rogov said:
Labour couches their rhetoric in this way because a more subtle line would not win over the masses. However, their populist rhetoric does not make them friends in the rest of the community.
Rogov said:
I suspect that the Conservative Party can see that this ideal is wonderful. Sadly, it is only an ideal, and does nothing to fill the role of the capitalist. If everyone were clerks, how would you determine who the craftsmen should be...and why would anyone aspire to clerk level competence, if EVERYONE had clerk level compensation without the effort?
Labour's problem isn't that they don't care for the worker...it's that the worker, and by extension, the labour party doesn't have a clue how the world REALLY works.
THE POLLS ARE CLOSED!!!!!!
I'll be back in just a few moments with the final results and who the new government is.
I'll be back in just a few moments with the final results and who the new government is.
Total Votes: 55 (+1)
Labour: 24
Tories: 14
BNU: 10
Ind-Libs: 6
Co-Libs: 1
Seats
Labour: 218
Tories: 127
BNU: 91
IPP: 78
Ind-Libs: 55
Unionists: 22
Co-Libs: 9
The current Labour led coalition of Labour-IPP-Coalition Liberals stands. George Julius Harney remains Prime Minister.
However, the coalition’s majority has been reduced by 45 – their total share of Parliament has fallen from 350 seats to just 305.
Harney is only the second sitting Prime Minister to win an election (the only other being Earl Spencer who one the election of 1841) and is the first person to lead a party to two electoral victories. The current coalition government is also the first coalition to ever survive an election.
Labour: 24
Tories: 14
BNU: 10
Ind-Libs: 6
Co-Libs: 1
Seats
Labour: 218
Tories: 127
BNU: 91
IPP: 78
Ind-Libs: 55
Unionists: 22
Co-Libs: 9
The current Labour led coalition of Labour-IPP-Coalition Liberals stands. George Julius Harney remains Prime Minister.
However, the coalition’s majority has been reduced by 45 – their total share of Parliament has fallen from 350 seats to just 305.
Harney is only the second sitting Prime Minister to win an election (the only other being Earl Spencer who one the election of 1841) and is the first person to lead a party to two electoral victories. The current coalition government is also the first coalition to ever survive an election.
Can you stop being so reasonable? it makes you hard to argue with, and I like an argument, even if polls did just close!
So what you are saying is the capis will prove the fact they are invaluable to society by not giving the workers the chance to prove them wrong? Alright, the workers might not be able to manage, but they might be able to, and the only way capis can prove their worth is giving the workers a chance and failing. Otherwise, the lock-out will just be another battle in a pointless war.
He didn't mean go back to barter, he meant farmers working to produce grain should first get the grain they need and then sell the remainder, so workers get a fairer portion of their produce.
What did I say about being reasonable! As Rogov points out, the best thing would therefore be to introduce free compolsury schooling until the pupils can read, write, add up, subtract, multiply and divide. Once that is done it should be attempted to teach the child economics, if they show a basic grasp then continue teaching them, if not let them work. Those who learn economics shall become managers, those who don't become workers.
I got bored of quote-by-quote so I will now summarise: The basic reason the workers vote for Labour is because of the question that has been with us since the feudal system: If we (the workers) are as important to farm/factory/mine as them (the owners) why are they paid so much more than us.
The Executer said:
So what you are saying is the capis will prove the fact they are invaluable to society by not giving the workers the chance to prove them wrong? Alright, the workers might not be able to manage, but they might be able to, and the only way capis can prove their worth is giving the workers a chance and failing. Otherwise, the lock-out will just be another battle in a pointless war.
TheExecuter said:
He didn't mean go back to barter, he meant farmers working to produce grain should first get the grain they need and then sell the remainder, so workers get a fairer portion of their produce.
What did I say about being reasonable! As Rogov points out, the best thing would therefore be to introduce free compolsury schooling until the pupils can read, write, add up, subtract, multiply and divide. Once that is done it should be attempted to teach the child economics, if they show a basic grasp then continue teaching them, if not let them work. Those who learn economics shall become managers, those who don't become workers.
I got bored of quote-by-quote so I will now summarise: The basic reason the workers vote for Labour is because of the question that has been with us since the feudal system: If we (the workers) are as important to farm/factory/mine as them (the owners) why are they paid so much more than us.
The stat is quite amazing - parties tend to be one hit wonders here, apart fro m those with a clear support base. Anyhow, can we have Gladstone please?
ooh. One more little stat. With 218 seats after this election Labour have just broken the record for most seats held by a single party that was set by Disraeli's Conservatives in 1851 (they had 213).
Easy, as they invest much more on the functioning of the factories, it is reasonable they earn more.
- Status