Facts About Socialism

reply to post by blueorder


The arrogance of the 'enlightened' and 'learned' methinks.

reply to post by eboyd


isnt the means of production Capital by definition? Are you are saying that Socialism is Capitalism in the control of the Workers? or Worker controlled Capital?

i know nothing.

reply to post by Mijamija
I see your point but as per the OP. If the ditch digger received and saw he recieved an equal share and saw fairness the likely outcome would be he would be the best ditch digger he could be.

If he was a very poor ditch digger I would make him a manager (joking. Probably)

I think the point is ALL workers need to play their part so why should they not share equally in the profit of that work?

After all. the three roles in this example are ALL workers. This also shows we dont need owners.

reply to post by colin42


Yup....

God, you cut to the heart of it so much more clearly than my brain was able to process it. Thanks....that was where I was trying to go!

reply to post by eboyd
But the founding principal of the NHS is that it is funded by the people for the betterment of those people.

The profit we share is better health for all and care of the sick whether poor or rich.

Where it fails is those that have and now control it want to see a profit. Which is why a nurse gets a pitance and a consultant drives a rolls. So yes the means of production is not in the hands ot the workers because we have allowed it to be stolen

Originally posted by blueorder
The examples you choose to give, without even looking at them closely to ascertain possible negative aspects, are too small to suggest it could work on any sort of large scale, in a world of nation states and cross national groupings.

Interesting reading though I think it is fair to say could do with some counterbalance

the Spanish Revolution was a movement that spanned the entire country. i think that's pretty large scale. the Free Territory in Ukraine was also quite large scale. sure, they didn't operate in a global economy like we have now, but Christiania, though it is a smaller example, does and there are businesses, such as Christiania Bikes, that operate in Christiania and compete outside of it. i'm not going to sit here and say that nothing bad happened in any of these examples. besides the fact that both the Spanish Revolution and the Free Territory were crushed by force and the Kibbutzim eventually evolved into a more capitalistic form, there are other aspects of each that have been criticized by detractors and proponents alike. for example, there were accounts in Ukraine that, while they called it anarchism, Nestor Makhno operated as the defacto leader. also, reports suggest a lot of the facts Makhno and his followers presented about the movement may have been a bit conflated. with the Spanish Revolution there are select reports of farmers and other business owners being forced by anarchist rebels to collectivize their businesses. i do not condone any of these, nor do i deny the possibility that this may have been the case in a few select places, but overall there are a lot of good things said of these movements that tremendously outweighs the bad. the reason i didn't mention any of this in the first post is because i only had a certain amount of room, and i wanted to fill the space i had with information that people could research on their own.

basically, i feel that there is enough evidence to suggest that socialism deserves a chance for us to see if it will work on a larger scale for a sustained period of time.

i also don't think it necessarily needs to work on a larger scale though either. to me, socialism is something that starts on a small scale (businesses, communities) but that would spread, not in terms of becoming a unified global movement, but rather as a bunch of spontaneous movements separate from each other and when there are enough of them (whether they be businesses or communities), they begin cooperating to help the entire world figure out that their principles are in their own best interest.

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by eboyd

 

But the founding principal of the NHS is that it is funded by the people for the betterment of those people.

The profit we share is better health for all and care of the sick whether poor or rich.

Where it fails is those that have and now control it want to see a profit. Which is why a nurse gets a pitance and a consultant drives a rolls. So yes the means of production is not in the hands ot the workers because we have allowed it to be stolen

i'm not saying that i disagree with the idea necessarily (i don't know enough about it to say that, but i am a supporter of some sort of universal health care system, i just haven't given it much thought), but regardless, we can't attribute such an idea to socialism. it simply isn't socialism. now, if it was a system that involved all of the health care workers owning and controlling their workplaces AND it was based on the principle that everyone that needs health care will receive it, THEN it would be communist. you get what i'm saying now?

Originally posted by rainbowbear
reply to post by eboyd

 

isnt the means of production Capital by definition? Are you are saying that Socialism is Capitalism in the control of the Workers? or Worker controlled Capital?

i know nothing.

yes, this is actually absolutely correct.

reply to post by eboyd
I've got to go to bed.

Yes I see what you are saying but dont fully agree.

The health care workers own the production (health care) those using it then have to pay at point of need. So those that can pay recieve medical attention those that cant pay, well dont.

I suppose looking at the bigger picture if we all shared equally in the profit of our labour then all would be able to pay. We dont, so to me the NHS is the next best thing.

reply to post by colin42


Hey Colin,

Just a funny and maybe not so funny thought.....seems like capitalism is one big pyramid scheme like the kind you hear about in those hokey conferences?? I don't know, just popped in my mind and reminded me of my uncle who fell for those things everytime, thinking he'd make the "big money" on his way up the pyramid....do ya know what I"m talking about?

Originally posted by Mijamija
reply to post by colin42

 

Colin, you bring up a interesting point....without the guy doing the "hard labor" the supervisor and manager would not have a job, they both need that guy out there doing the hard work.

If he wasn't doing his job, the whole project would fall apart.....and then the manager would find another ditch digger to do the job......maybe the new guy digs better, faster is more efficient....

Kinda like how when people are not productive enough at their job they get the axe....

So is the value of work really equal? One guys digs super well, super fast--the other guy does not.

Again, I am just contemplating these things.....not comming to any sort of conclusions....

definitely a good point. i was having a similar discussion the other day with the lady i work for and one thing i criticize a lot of socialists for taking the idea of equality a bit too far. for example, if you have two construction workers, Worker A who is an 80 pound twig who has a lot of trouble putting on muscle and cannot carry very much, and Worker B who weighs 250 pounds, is in great shape, has huge muscles and can practically lift a truck by himself, if they are assigned the job of manually transporting 11 tons of bricks in a certain time frame and Worker A only transports 1 ton but Worker B transports 10 tons, then that means Worker B was 10 times as productive and should be paid accordingly. some socialists would suggest that they worked just as hard for the same duration and therefore deserve the same pay. i say no. i am all about equality, but seriously, some people have no business in certain careers. a funny example of this would be fat, ugly strippers why should a stripper who is in shape, that is producing a product that many more people are willing to purchase, receive the same pay that a fat, ugly stripper who no one desires gets? she's in the wrong profession, and the faster she and other people who are in the wrong professions realize that, the better off we will all be. this, of course, doesn't mean they can't get better. the skinny construction worker can lift weights for a long time and gain some muscle mass to become more efficient, just as the stripper can lose weight. a lot of times the people who are best at what they do are those who were told they couldn't so they worked at it until they were the best.

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by eboyd

 

I've got to go to bed.

Yes I see what you are saying but dont fully agree.

The health care workers own the production (health care) those using it then have to pay at point of need. So those that can pay recieve medical attention those that cant pay, well dont.

I suppose looking at the bigger picture if we all shared equally in the profit of our labour then all would be able to pay. We dont, so to me the NHS is the next best thing.

do the health care workers directly own the businesses at which they work? or are hospitals/doctors offices, as they are here, owned by someone else (ie: the CEO and other stock holders in the hospital, the doctors ONLY, etc.)? if the former, then yes, i would call that socialist, but if the latter, then i'd say we can definitively say it is not socialist.

Originally posted by blueorder
reply to post by purplemer

 

A third way you say, socialism for thr nation.....

No i never made myself clear. I am neither a socialist or capitalist. These are both outdated systems in my eyes. We need to find a third way if we want to try and avoid some of the problems of the previous century..

Originally posted by Mijamija
reply to post by colin42

 

Hey Colin,

Just a funny and maybe not so funny thought.....seems like capitalism is one big pyramid scheme like the kind you hear about in those hokey conferences?? I don't know, just popped in my mind and reminded me of my uncle who fell for those things everytime, thinking he'd make the "big money" on his way up the pyramid....do ya know what I"m talking about?

do you mean an MLM?

capitalism isn't one specific business model. basically, any business model based on private ownership of the means of production is capitalistic. in fact, one could even argue that worker cooperatives still fall into the idea behind capitalism, so socialism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive. but the economic system we have in this country, which is based on extreme greed beyond anything i can even blame capitalism for, is definitely analogous to an MLM.

Originally posted by purplemer

Originally posted by blueorder
reply to post by purplemer

 

A third way you say, socialism for thr nation.....

No i never made myself clear. I am neither a socialist or capitalist. These are both outdated systems in my eyes. We need to find a third way if we want to try and avoid some of the problems of the previous century..

Distributism?

If group A pooled their resources and labor and group B did the same, but group A had better resources and more capable labor then group A would churn out a better product, which would earn them a bigger profit than group B who had fewer resources and less efficent labor. People would not want the Group B product because it was shoddy, so group A would thrive and profit well, but group B would be left in the dust...

We see this all the time in captialism....the company with the best resources and workers churns out good products, the company without as many resources and inept workers tend to not produce as well.

Seems to me there would be issues because of this?

Originally posted by Mijamija
If group A pooled their resources and labor and group B did the same, but group A had better resources and more capable labor then group A would churn out a better product, which would earn them a bigger profit than group B who had fewer resources and less efficent labor. People would not want the Group B product because it was shoddy, so group A would thrive and profit well, but group B would be left in the dust...

We see this all the time in captialism....the company with the best resources and workers churns out good products, the company without as many resources and inept workers tend to not produce as well.

Seems to me there would be issues because of this?

i don't see an issue personally. i know some socialists would, but i disagree with them. the only other option i would see is that Group B could try to join Group A or cooperate with them to try to improve their business.

reply to post by eboyd


Yeah! That is what it is called! Man, my uncle was all about it bout it...he cracked me up! He would go to those conferences and just get so excited and in some sort of cult like frenzy thinking he had found his golden ticket...it was wild. I love him dearly, but I was always kinda disturbed that he got so emotional about it!

reply to post by eboyd


I like distributism so far, sounds pretty good at first glance, I am planning on researching more about it, what do you think of it?

Any one can purchase shares in a public company. This seams fair.
Would you propose suspending property rights, for a private company, and if so how could anyone own the means of production, except perhaps the state. In the case of public company, workers should get shares as part of their renumeration, this in effect would allow them to truly own something. It also promotes accountability.
It is fundamentally important to protect the right to own property.