Facts About Socialism

Originally posted by eboyd
Socialism is workers' control over the means of production.

Pure insanity. The tools (means) should by owned by those who create them, not by the collective.

Here is a scenario that I am actually putting together (brain storming) so this thread may help me. BTW I am really enjoying the discussion.

My company is a management firm. It hires out expertise and makes a profit from that. It has no other product. There is nothing wrong with making a profit, it is how that profit is shared out I disagree with.

A little background many will be familiar with. We have had below inflation increases in pay for 3 years despite the company reporting increased profits year on year and large bonus payouts for all directors. We are soon to enter the next pay talks and I have no doubt the offer will be the same again.

They make efficiency savings that we have to work harder to achieve and the only reward once the target is reached is a new target set. We have received no share in those saving on the contrary we have had a pay cut in real terms year on year and told we should be happy to have a job.

This coming year will be one in which this company tenders for the renewal of the existing contract. So I have been trying to think out of the box to combat the, 'We need to be competitive to win the contract, you should be happy to keep your jobs' spiel.

Well to me all they have is the contract, the workforce has the know how that allows them to fulfil that contract. Its our hard work that reaches the targets set.

I am thinking they need us but we do not need them. We should put in a bid ourselves then any profit is shared equally across the board and any savings made by efficiency is also passed on to all the work force equally.

I welcome your comments.

Originally posted by eboyd

Originally posted by rom12345Would you propose suspending property rights, for a private company

i am opposed to corporate personhood, and in that sense i would propose suspending property rights for a private company, but i do not propose legally suspending property rights to private individuals for the purpose of running a business, though i would like to see workers attain control of the means of production.

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.

edit on 9-2-2012 by rom12345 because: (no reason given)

when referring to worker cooperatives i am referring to a specific business model where the people are fully aware upon entering the business that every worker-owner is entering on equal footing in the business. my vision of a socialist economy starts with these types of businesses becoming the standard business model.

So Let me get this straight,
Person X, who is gifted, invents a revolutionary new technology or product and seeks to go into production.
With his savings he gets the machinery in order and designs the production technique.
Next thing he needs are various people to operate the machines, to pack boxes, and to clean the floor.
You propose the Person X, foregoes the significance of his investment, for the benefit of providing equal share to person who cleans the factory floor.

Sorry mate, this is the most insane perspective of what is just and equitable ever conceived of. It is fundamentally un-natural and is an inherently unstable system.

Supposing in your workers cooperative, there are some who contribute more than others, Do you not think they will become resentful and complacent of not given greater equity in the business ?

From what I have observed about history, it is not the collective of average Jos (like me) that has a significant effect on the world. It is just handful of exceptional men and women.

If a system is not designed to encourage this dynamic it will reach the maximum of it's potential and then die.

reply to post by eboyd


I'm not a proponent of socialism, though I was in my younger, more impressionable (i:e-naive) days.

That doesn't mean that I'm against socialism though.

I'm glad you started this thread though.

I see that socialism has been reduced to a label or insult and most people who throw it around in response to something they oppose are people who have been listening too much to the MSM, especially Faux Noise.

reply to post by The Sword


Yes, I think this thread so far has been very good, as far as explaining socialist ideas. I have learned quite a bit, but so far, I am still sticking to my own personal philosophy when it comes to these ideas. I used to be fascinated with socialism, but I decided it was not the "solution" for various reasons.

I think that if people have never even considered socialist ideas, they should, there is a lot to take into consideration, but for me any "ism" be it capitalism, Socialism, communism....are all structured ideologies, which I just don't vibe well with, but I do think that socialist ideas can be used in society in certain contexts, and are therefore valuable to learn and understand.

Originally posted by eboyd
this thread has really opened my eyes to why so many people have no clue what socialism is. it is not improper education, but rather a lot of people don't like reading more than a paragraph and so they skip the explanation and just throw out insults like a chimpanzee throwing its own feces at people at a zoo.

I'm simply exerting myself as a member of the proletariat.

We will need people with the conceit inherent in the desire to plan the lives of others and to wield the force necessary to impose that plan on the unwilling subjects.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by eboyd
Socialism is workers' control over the means of production.

Pure insanity. The tools (means) should by owned by those who create them, not by the collective.

how is that against socialism?? there's nothing in "workers' control" that implies it is only collective ownership. mutualism, for example, which is a form of socialism that predates Marxism (Marx was even influenced largely by Proudhon who came up with mutualism by he eventually began coming to different conclusions which culminated in his response to Proudhon's book The Philosophy of Poverty which he titled The Poverty of Philosophy) is an ideology based on workers, whether individually or collectively, would control their own means of production. here's a brief description of mutualism from the wikipedia page about it:

"Mutualism is an anarchist school of thought that originates in the writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who envisioned a society where each person might possess a means of production, either individually or collectively, with trade representing equivalent amounts of labor in the free market."

en.wikipedia.org...

Socialists want to be good, but has a very hard time with the tenth commandment ....

You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”

Not really socialistic ... kinda exposing to them ...

Greedy bastard that want what their fellow man has, but without the work ....

Ideology of thieves ...

Originally posted by rom12345
So Let me get this straight,
Person X, who is gifted, invents a revolutionary new technology or product and seeks to go into production.
With his savings he gets the machinery in order and designs the production technique.
Next thing he needs are various people to operate the machines, to pack boxes, and to clean the floor.
You propose the Person X, foregoes the significance of his investment, for the benefit of providing equal share to person who cleans the factory floor.

for one, how often does this scenario happen?? most people who make "revolutionary inventions" end up getting a patent and selling that patent for far less then it ends up being worth in the long run to a company that already exists and has the means to mass produce it because, while they may be educated in their specific field of expertise, they don't normally trust their business savvy. in other cases, such as with the company 3M, they employ a lot of inventive minds who come up with remarkable new inventions on the job that end up being lucrative industries (the post-it note comes to mind here) and so 3M has it in their contract what sorts of bonuses these people make (but of course the company pockets most of the money and the bonus given is miniscule in comparison to the money the company makes off of that product), and you'd better believe that if an employee of theirs tries to start up a business based on one of their own inventions that just so happened to be made on 3M premises that they will sue to ensure they get properly compensated.

for another, the form socialism would take in the current economic model would be simply that of a particular business model. it is my contention that if more people knew about worker cooperatives and barriers to entry didn't prevent worker coops from cropping up more often we would see a lot more of them and people would desire to work in them over traditional firms. from there, if Person X didn't present his workers with a deal that is similar or better than what worker cooperatives offer, he would go out of business or his production would remain relatively small.

Supposing in your workers cooperative, there are some who contribute more than others, Do you not think they will become resentful and complacent of not given greater equity in the business ?

who said all worker cooperatives pay all workers equally? in general, just as with capitalist firms, harder/superior work is rewarded and laziness/poor work is penalized.

From what I have observed about history, it is not the collective of average Jos (like me) that has a significant effect on the world. It is just handful of exceptional men and women.

If a system is not designed to encourage this dynamic it will reach the maximum of it's potential and then die.

edit on 10-2-2012 by rom12345 because: (no reason given)

then you haven't been paying attention well. behind every exceptional human being is a workforce that made his or her vision a reality.

Originally posted by METACOMET

Originally posted by eboyd
this thread has really opened my eyes to why so many people have no clue what socialism is. it is not improper education, but rather a lot of people don't like reading more than a paragraph and so they skip the explanation and just throw out insults like a chimpanzee throwing its own feces at people at a zoo.

I'm simply exerting myself as a member of the proletariat.

We will need people with the conceit inherent in the desire to plan the lives of others and to wield the force necessary to impose that plan on the unwilling subjects.

trolling?

Originally posted by eboyd
who said all worker cooperatives pay all workers equally? in general, just as with capitalist firms, harder/superior work is rewarded and laziness/poor work is penalized.

I would demote, move or slack anyone that wouldn't do their job right and everyone would have the same power if the majority agrees. How many times have we've been stuck with people that can't work properly, that we KNOW he should have been slacked or moved.

"If you can't do the job, we do not want you in our team."

When the majority of the workers think it's time to demote someone, well it would be their right.
Co-workers should have a say if a colleague of any level deserves a raise or not. Someone with higher education/experience/talent should always be payed more but should loose salary or be demoted if he noticeably lazy.

The way things our now, I bet 80% of workers that want a higher position isn't because they would be better at it, it's because of the higher pay check and, for some, the power.

beware the true believers, the enlightened and the fanatics of any creed, always a good motto

well, look. I must be bias or something. OP, you are either a Russian spy, spreading Communist propaganda, or you have not thoroughly researched Eurasian (soviet)political history.

Granted, Im not a "writer". Im an independent researcher--and there is much much much more to know, than I do know, now. But comrade, are you aware of the "Illumunati" involvement in the Bolsheviks Revolution? What about Perestroika? The proponents of Socialism are clear and obvious! Lenin and Stalin and Gorbi have written books about it---and you know what they say?

Socialism VS Capitalism is really just a propaganda tool for western minds-its based in Hegel's Dialect..

The Cold War went underground, and now there are spies in US Agencies that are guiding real intelligence to believe that Russia and China are NOT working together, and that the Cold War DID end. These are lies, of course.
you would be a fool to think otherwise.

the Socialism brought to us by Eurasia is based in HUMANISM. Thats the idea that Man is God. And also that some Godmen are more equal than other non godmen.

Pretty much, all the proponents of Socialism, or its more advanced form, Communism--preach hatred, genocide, and some really awful evil stuff. You have but to read their writings....

I did have a list of links to support my claims, but truly. OP seems pretty intelligent, and can probably do the info search with out being urged to.

Seriously, Socialism SUCKS! Its as far away from freedom as you can get, it is very un American. In America, you have a right to this blatheringly stupid endorsement of a NEW SOCIALIST WORLD ORDER. Just dont be surprised at being called a Communist.

Im sure the readers of this post will have the sand to understand this on their own. In fact, there are Spies afoot that seek to destroy lives and property in the name of Equality. the OP has shown his colors. Im firmly in the knowledge of the Greater Plan set forth centuries ago---and you speak their rhetoric-.

Smh. The uncritical acceptance of conspiracy and dogma, while unsurprising here, is sad for me to watch. It's as if every stitch of evidence I present is irrelevant because of my choice of words.

Look at it from this perspective: what if we dropped the word socialism? Do you oppose employee-owned and controlled businesses given them being opened in a free market?

reply to post by eboyd


yes, i do oppose this.

Because not everyone has the same work ethic. The ideal Utopia never seems to want to account for this fact. Even if its been shown to be true, time and time again. AND the fact that Socialism always comes in as some benign thing called "Reform", "Democracy", or "Equality", and ends up in mass genocide to the minority parties-- doesnt help either!

Fool us once--our bad. Fool us twice? Id rather not risk it.

Too many indians--not enough chiefs.

Originally posted by rainbowbear
reply to post by eboyd

 

yes, i do oppose this.

Because not everyone has the same work ethic. The ideal Utopia never seems to want to account for this fact. Even if its been shown to be true, time and time again. AND the fact that Socialism always comes in as some benign thing called "Reform", "Democracy", or "Equality", and ends up in mass genocide to the minority parties-- doesnt help either!

Fool us once--our bad. Fool us twice? Id rather not risk it.

Too many indians--not enough chiefs.

edit on 12-2-2012 by rainbowbear because: (no reason given)

what does peoples' work ethic have to do with whether or not a worker cooperative is viable??? as i have stated before, people are paid based on productivity in most of these firms, not equally. and let's try to be consistent here. you are, i assume, a proponent of the free market. by telling me you oppose worker cooperatives are you telling me that you oppose them coming up through traditional market channels and coming into existence, in the sense that, even if they do work and people desire to work in them, you would want them to be pushed out of business somehow? that doesn't sound very free market to me. if this isn't the case, what do you mean by saying you oppose them?

reply to post by rainbowbear


upon re-reading this comment i am noticing that you are literally not reading a word that has been posted on this thread beyond other peoples' responses to you.

worker cooperatives and other worker owned businesses ARE NOT THEORETICAL. they exist IN REALITY and are actual viable alternative business models for which evidence shows they are more productive, ensure better job and income security, and last longer than traditional firms. there are various reasons they are not as common as traditional firms, including barriers to entry imposed on them both by the government and occasionally by capitalist firms using predatory tactics, and a lack of public education about them.

so again, i ask, do you oppose these businesses, THAT ALREADY EXIST/ARE IN NO WAY MERELY A THEORY FLOATING AROUND IN MY HEAD, such as Mondragon, growing in numbers as long as it occurs naturally, according to the same rules every other firm has to abide by, within a free market system?

reply to post by eboyd


well, id say these co-ops have a place for sure. Hell, there is a place for everyone to prosper, no matter what you identify with--its writen in the Constitution. Its the FEDERAL TOP DOWN govt that gets in the way there....

Local govt first, be it social or --what ever...WE DECIDE. but no Govt to rule with an iron fist would be nice. And im not talking industrial revolution Capitalism--no need to go backwards.

Im ready for responsibility, now. Im ready to earn my way in life, and distribute the surplus as I see fit.

Im ready to get these greedy people out, even if they are people too.

Lets work!

reply to post by eboyd


I do support the co-op and agree with these firms operating out of the status quo.

SO--Is there still a reason to continue? These firms exist along side traditional companies, yes?

To each his own? Or do they ALL need to be standardized into the better form of worker owned means of production model?

reply to post by pilot70


In all fairness, there are plenty of politicians in the U.S that do not follow the tenth amendment.

Both Republican, Democrat and everything in between.