Written By: - Date published: 10:17 am, November 7th, 2008 - 44 comments
Categories: Deep stuff, election 2008, workers' rights -
Tags:
The fundamental question of politics is how the wealth of society should be divided among the members of society. We live in a capitalist society. That means it is the people who own the capital (businesses, factories, farms) who own the things that are made and get to choose how to divide the wealth between themselves and the people who work in their businesses and factories, and on the farms. Governments can change this balance by giving workers more rights or fewer rights, rising or lowering the minimum wage, taking wealth off those who get most and using it to provide public service free for everyone.
These graphs show the economy, the annual amount of wealth produced by our society. It is divided into the amount that is paid to workers in wages and salaries (in red) and the part kept by the owners of capital (in blue). Notice how the portion going to workers fell when National from when National started governing in 1991 to 2000 when Labour came to power and how the workers’ share has grown since then.
Fundamentally, that’s the choice between Labour and National.
National was founded by and continues to be run and backed by the owners of capital – businessmen and farmers. In their natural self-interest, they have a political party that makes sure they get a bigger share of the wealth by not placing restrictions on the use of capital for the individual gain of the owners, lowering taxes and cutting public services, and weakening the power of workers to demand a larger share.
Labour was established by and continues to be run and backed by people from the workers’ rights movement. In their natural self-interest, they have a political party that makes sure they get a bigger share of the wealth by restricting capital so that it acts in the broader interest of society, redistribution of wealth to poorer workers through taxation and public services, and strengthening the power of workers to demand a larger share.
When National says it wants ‘change’ it is actually saying it wants to restore a time when the balance was more in favour of the owners of capital. When Labour says it offers ‘stability’ it is actually saying it offers to continue a gradual evolution of the balance in favour of those who do the work.
The size of the circle grows over the years as the economy grows. One fundamental of National-type parties is to promise to make the economy grow faster to make up for the fact that those who do the work, most people, get a smaller share of the economy when they govern. However, Labour also wants to grow the economy as the easiest way to increase workers’ wealth without facing resistance from the capitalist class. When you compare their records, it has been Labour that has grown the economy faster while also growing the share that goes to workers.
The Greens argue (and Labour agrees to an extent) that, while giving a fairer share to workers is important, we must also make sure that in growing our wealth we don’t destroy the foundations of that wealth, our environment. If we abuse our natural resources, the amount of wealth we have will start to decrease. Moreover, they argue we shouldn’t be so obsessed with creating more ‘stuff’ in the first place.
The Maori Party argues that, while giving a fairer share to workers is important, the capitalist/worker divide is not he only one in society. They argue that as well as not getting a fair share as workers, Maori don’t get a fair share because they are Maori and deserve a fairer share.
ACT argues the market is the only fair way. The Progressives basically agree with Labour. United Future does what’s best for Peter Dunne’s pay packet.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Labour has grown the economy by pushing housing prices out of reach of ordinary New Zealanders, including the workers you cite in your commentary.
Example 2: MS Windows
Why does “Windows compatibility” matter? Linuxheads don’t give a toss.
I work at an MS site. We use Windows because it is streets ahead of anything else out there. It is massively well supported and is a lot simpler to install and maintain than anything in the Linux world so far.
“[NZ out grew Aussie, the Uk, Japan, and US under Labour, it was behind them under National see this link ]
Inflation in NZ under Labour has outstripped National. The cost of housing has skyrocketed, the cost of electricity, For you low income “red” slice those are big chunks of their weekly income. Meanwhile Labour takes the hundreds of millions out of Meridian, the biggest power SOE to pay for Kiwirail and other election promises.
Also the Labour Party lied when they said doctors’ fees have been cut. Mine haven’t gone down at all.
Swampy electricity prices can’t have skyrocketed, Max Bradford told me they would come down under competition ??
Nah, the fundamental question is why would National be so keen to repeal the EFA IF they win?
Could it perhaps be that they will have to show the identity of all their donors thereby revealing just who actually backs them?
Tis a crying shame that no ones really done any further investigation into why they’re incredible keen to repeal it, whereas the greens want it to go even further.
Re the Maori Party – everything about them I fundamentally disagree with. Your point that “They argue that as well as not getting a fair share as workers, Maori don?t get a fair share because they are Maori and deserve a fairer share.” you also forgot to mention that if it weren’t for colonialism Maori would have
Turiana Turia makes me sick with her racial and divisive politics. If Maori really want to get a fairer share, howsabout the majority actually do something
swamp it is not labours fault that you have to se your psychonalyst 5 times a week
get a grip man
harden up
Also the Labour Party lied when they said doctors’ fees have been cut. Mine haven’t gone down at all.
funny mine has gone from $50 to $16 hmmmm
perhaps you should shop around
tsmithfield: Your argument is kind of simple and very anecdotal. Do you think it should be easy to own and operate your own business? It completely goes against the concept of capitalism.
Capitalism in it’s basic format relies on workers and the market can only survive if the people in it are buying goods. The people who own the factories, farms, etc want people to work for them so that the people will buy their goods and ensure there is little competition in the marketplace. This is basic Fordist philosophy and is still very much in use today.
If it were easy to start up a business, pay staff and get rich; then everyone would do it – which means there would be a very large amount of competition and a saturated market. True capitalism is difficult for the capitalists (the people owning the business), and easier for the worker. This encourages people to work instead of creating more competition.
This is easily highlighted in anecdotal story after anecdotal story (JK being one of them) where a poor kid with nous and intellect struggled through adversity to become a very rich person. It requires lots of luck, skill, passion and above all risk.
So, your argument therefore is flawed! You want a growing labour-force with higher incomes for those labourers because it will ensure the market-rate for staff is kept competitive and also ensures there is less competition in the market for your business. It also will encourage more buying of products and goods, which helps keep an economy ticking well.
Then again – if you can’t handle the jandal – get off the beach if you know what I mean.
tsmithfield “Tell me, have you ever tried to run your own business? I would be interested to know.”
Yep, I have been involved in a few businesses over the years. I’ve also been an employee, a contractor, unemployed, and I’m currently self-employed.
It’s irrelevant to this discussion. And my point has been eloquently made by many people above.
You’re dreaming if you think a National government will do a THING for small business, mate. They’re all about their big, multi-national mates.