If you want to advocate socialism, please tell me how it works...

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by CB328
In European countries, the state generally controls, at least partially, large industries right? I always understood that was why European countries are socialist.


No, industries are privately owned just like the US. There used to be a lot of government owned in the UK, public transport etc., but most of it was sold to private companies. I believe public transport in the US is still ran by the government right?

Government health care is not socialism.

State control is not socialism. Once again socialism is the WORKERS ownership of the means of production.
It has nothing to do with the state, simply because it is an ECONOMIC system, and it can be libertarian (anarchist).

Even in state-socialism, Marxism, the workers own and control their own labour, not the state. The state is just a temporary way of centrally controlling the production and distribution of the products, until production can be increased to overcome the artificial scarcity caused by capitalism. It is the artificial scarcity of resources that causes the wide division in wealth we have, and poverty of those at the bottom. Once resources are readily available to all the state would be unnecessary, and communism would be the next step, no state and resources freely distributed according to the needs of the community.

It is a needs based system, rather than greed based. Once everyone's needs are met most of the social ills we go through would be history.

edit on 3/25/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
This is the easiest question to answer

Pick anything you can think of

Bread, meat, computer, tv's, cars, bicycles, socks, underwear, radio's, books (the ones not deemed bad for x), medicine, doctors appointments, shoes, clothes, condoms, ectra... anything...

Then go stand in line like at the DMV to get on a waiting list... hopefully you will be approved to get it


Unless you are the ones who advocated the system, then set it up... they get theirs first because they deserve it more then you do....

socialism for the beginners...

The trick in this government is to be one of the ones to help set it up... the goal of socialism is to establish a new 1%, the rest get to enjoy the lines....



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ripcontrol
 


That is complete nonsense.

If the workers owned the means of production there is nothing stopping us producing for our needs. Lines are caused by the artificial scarcity that is a part of capitalism.

It might help you to read through the thread before you comment.


Technological capacity to produce enough to satisfy everyone's needs already exists globally and has done so for many decades. Yet needs continue to remain unmet on a massive scale. Why? Quite simply because scarcity is a functional requirement of capitalism itself.

www.worldsocialism.org...



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by RussHaywood
 





All ideas are tools. Capitalism is a tool. Socialism is a tool. And communism is a tool. It all depends on the means and context of their use—and no one conceptual tool will apply equally well to every situation. The right tool for the right job, that’s the wise mission of any good theorist or policy maker.


I think this is perhaps the most important comment I have read in this thread and probably on the subject in a long time....

"the right tool for the right job."

Far too often what I see happening is Capitalists maintaining that the Free Market is a panacea for everything...
Far too often I see, accused and self proclaimed, Socialists being told that they want the government to run everything by Capitalists who want everything run by the Free Market.

Nothing in this life is absolute and, as you say, we must choose the right tool to get the job done...

Which opens up a secondary question....are there, simply, socialist and capitalist values/morals?

Perhaps part of the problem is that we speak different languages, metaphorically speaking....



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Capitalism, socialism etc., are not really tools, they are just descriptive terms of economic systems.

A tool is something used to do a specific job, neither capitalism nor socialism really do anything at all. They are not things that can be used to do a specific job. They vary depending on other factors.

Neither can they both work together in any way as they a polar opposites, private vs worker ownership. Socialism can not fully work while there is still private ownership. Private ownership will always have more power than worker ownership to control and influence the economy because of the centralization of the wealth.

For example a private company has 40,000 employees, it makes $400,000 per month in profit. The workers are paid $10 an hour, costing $160,000. That leaves $240,000, taking in account overheads. Even if half of that is overheads, that is a lot of money going to the private owner. Which makes them financially powerful, that allows them to manipulate the state to their benefit.

Now, a worker owned company with the same employees, and making the same profit, instead of $10 an hour the workers would share in the profit of $240,000 + 160,000 - overheads, you do the math. This raises the standard of living for everyone, and it doesn't allow a minority to become so much more wealthy they have the power to control the state through economic power.

edit on 3/25/2012 by ANOK because: it's a commie takeover Harry



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


before we have this conversation we have to answer a few questions

Who is a worker and who is not?


What is the definition of production?


How we answer these questions, determine how this conversation proceeds. Good sir, also remember I never insulted you.

Please give a definition of non-sense?


All these definitions are of the upmost importance for this conversation. I am trying to make sure I can see you world view....

Also which form of socialism are you advocating...?



So far the answer I gave is historically accurate.... Before we continue, out of respect for ATS we must deny ignorance and simply place these definitions into view...

Thank you sir



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ripcontrol
reply to post by ANOK
 


before we have this conversation we have to answer a few questions

Who is a worker and who is not?


A worker is someone who only has their labour to sell, as apposed to a capitalist who owns capital and hires labour. Unless you make your living from other peoples labour using you capital, you are a worker, by socialist definition.

"Worker
A person engaged in the production of goods or services for the satisfaction of human wants, and who does not privately own the means of production involved." From "An Encyclopedic dictionary of Marxism, Socialism, and Communism by Jozef Wilczynski


What is the definition of production?


Whatever you produce, be it a clean floor or an engineering marvel.


How we answer these questions, determine how this conversation proceeds.


I agree, it will determine whether I bother to reply to you again.


Good sir, also remember I never insulted you.


I never said you did. Did I insult you? If I did it was not my attention sir.


Please give a definition of non-sense?


Not true.


All these definitions are of the upmost importance for this conversation. I am trying to make sure I can see you world view....


I agree, and is the point of all my posts on this. It is not my world view, it is historical fact.


Also which form of socialism are you advocating...?


Personally 'libertarian socialism' would be the ideal, but I would also accept Marxist socialism.

I consider all form of socialism to be superior to capitalism.


So far the answer I gave is historically accurate.... Before we continue, out of respect for ATS we must deny ignorance and simply place these definitions into view...


Not sure what answer you're talking about. If it's your post I replied to then no it's not historically accurate.

I agree you need to understand the terms as we, socialists, use them, which is not the same way the mainstream uses them. The mainstream uses propagandized version of these term.

I already know where you're going with this, next you'll start talking about the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea etc., but they were/are socialist/communist by name only. Nothing to do with what socialists want.

edit on 3/25/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Thank you sir. I had to relearn a lesson on definitions the other day, So I have decided the establishment of definitions is important for decent people to get along...

You have stated that the means of production should be worker owned, or are you referring to worker controlled

Which workers should own and which workers should control production?

Which workers have the experience and wisdom to own or manage?

I want to make sure I understand how the definition of worker applies... So I am feeding back what you have said... if the feedback does not match please inform me...

A worker is a person who produces a product or a service..

The next issue is who qualifies as a service and who doesnt...

Providing capital is not a service, by your definition and/or comments?


Is management a worker?

A set of individualized skills requiring training and education to operate and perform the work...


Is a banker a worker?


I understand what you are saying on your definitions. The definition of non-sense we have to disagree on... I have found its applied use to be one of insulting and a magic wave of the hand by those in power (or attempting to gain power)in a meta-gaming attempt to dismiss those that disagree with them...

I have found that success is usually in those non-sense parts, the rest of society dismisses..


After I read your post in response to mine I realized I had to recalibrate a little more so I could communicate better with you and the other socialist here...

Definitions we forgot to agree on that are part of this --

Exploitation

Hypocrisy

Service

Intellectual Property

Training

Experience

Qualifications


Again thank you for your patience in answering a few of these questions....



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ripcontrol

Thank you sir. I had to relearn a lesson on definitions the other day, So I have decided the establishment of definitions is important for decent people to get along...


Yes I agree. Especially when it comes to politics and economics, because the terms have been so propagandised..


You have stated that the means of production should be worker owned, or are you referring to worker controlled. Which workers should own and which workers should control production? Which workers have the experience and wisdom to own or manage?


Yes worker owned and controlled. They are called worker cooperatives, or collectives. All workers have a say in the running of the business. A lot of coops the workers will rotate through all the jobs, they will all learn to do the production, and management, of the business. You are not stuck doing one dead end job, you become a full part of the running of the business just like you own it, because you do. But it's up to the workers themselves, how they want to run and control their business.


I want to make sure I understand how the definition of worker applies... So I am feeding back what you have said... if the feedback does not match please inform me...

A worker is a person who produces a product or a service...


Again a worker is ANYONE who does not make their living from their capital, and only have their labour as their capital. If you are an engineer and work for a private company you are a worker.


The next issue is who qualifies as a service and who doesnt...

Providing capital is not a service, by your definition and/or comments? Is management a worker?

A set of individualized skills requiring training and education to operate and perform the work...

Is a banker a worker?


Again if they don't own the means of production involved in what they are working on they are workers.
So yes management are workers, bank tellers are workers.


I understand what you are saying on your definitions. The definition of non-sense we have to disagree on... I have found its applied use to be one of insulting and a magic wave of the hand by those in power (or attempting to gain power)in a meta-gaming attempt to dismiss those that disagree with them...


Well sorry, but that is not what I meant when I used the term nonsense. I didn't mean it as an insult.

I simply meant your idea that socialism means standing in lines is nonsense, not true.

I am English I may use terms differently to you.


After I read your post in response to mine I realized I had to recalibrate a little more so I could communicate better with you and the other socialist here...

Definitions we forgot to agree on that are part of this --

Exploitation

Hypocrisy

Service

Intellectual Property

Training

Experience

Qualifications

Again thank you for your patience in answering a few of these questions....


I don't have time to define all those terms but I will explain why capitalism is exploitation again. Workers are required to produce more than they are paid for in order for the capitalist to make profit. Socialists believe that profit should belong to the worker, the producer, and capitalists use their privilege of ownership of capital to control and manipulate society and politics to their advantage using their exploited financial gains.

It is only luck that some own capital and others don't, its not that they worked any harder than anyone else. That is a capitalist myth. The majority of capital is passed down from generation to generation. That is why we still have the same ultra rich families for centuries. The royal family of England for example, the Rockefellers.

If working hard was the only way to 'success', then slaves would be the capitalists. Capitalists simply take advantage of others weakness. The only reason America, and the UK etc., is so wealthy now is the exploitation of third world countries for the last 300 years.



edit on 3/26/2012 by ANOK because: it's a commie takeover Harry



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ARandomAfflictionOfSense
reply to post by ProgressiveSlayer
 

One problem with your Ideal 1776 costitution is Capitalism was in it's true infancy with the industrial revolution just beginning.The 1776 constitution was suitable for an agrarian society i.e it was saddly already outdated.You ask how socialism would work?I say you already see glimpses everyday eg you mow the council land strip no? .You might see more obvious cases after disasters though when everyone just moves to help everyone else and government moves in,not to help but to maintian control because workers would just operate the factories ,stores ect. ie perform services and produce.You see we arent ment to be this way scraping and scratching in a world of plenty.we labour to produce all but share so little.


The American Constitution is the singularly most perfect Constitution written by Humans period. I can't help it people don't understand it, and are totally uncreative in regards to it. That said though, what does the opinion of a serf matter?

Socialism is a mechanism of mob looting. It props up groups within society that wouldn't be able to progress without it. For example in the UK:Cad's(in America "players", "thugs" would be the equivalent if I am using the term correctly).

In a limited Government, capitalistic system they would either a) grow up or b) expelled from town under penalty of death. But they are allowed to flourish due to socialism(same could be said of single mothers and promiscuous people in general).

Socialism is about forcing others to endure and prop up the lower psychopathic elements in a society. Similar to how fascism props up wealthy psychopaths.

The easiest way to tell a psychopath is if they support socialism or communism, but give fuzzy examples. As psychopaths have no moral inhibitions in stealing others labor.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by rbnhd76
It's kinda funny to me that most people don't realize that socialism has destroyed our capitalism.

Social Security, Welfare. It breeds a dependent, not a person that would try to do for himself and family.

Why should they work, if the rest will provide for them? And in turn be plunged into having nothing.

I will not work to be broke. I can sit at home and be broke.



God that is such a sad perspective you have of other people, really is, shallow
and vapid.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by korathin

Originally posted by ARandomAfflictionOfSense
reply to post by ProgressiveSlayer
 

One problem with your Ideal 1776 costitution is Capitalism was in it's true infancy with the industrial revolution just beginning.The 1776 constitution was suitable for an agrarian society i.e it was saddly already outdated.You ask how socialism would work?I say you already see glimpses everyday eg you mow the council land strip no? .You might see more obvious cases after disasters though when everyone just moves to help everyone else and government moves in,not to help but to maintian control because workers would just operate the factories ,stores ect. ie perform services and produce.You see we arent ment to be this way scraping and scratching in a world of plenty.we labour to produce all but share so little.


The American Constitution is the singularly most perfect Constitution written by Humans period. I can't help it people don't understand it, and are totally uncreative in regards to it. That said though, what does the opinion of a serf matter?

Socialism is a mechanism of mob looting. It props up groups within society that wouldn't be able to progress without it. For example in the UK:Cad's(in America "players", "thugs" would be the equivalent if I am using the term correctly).

In a limited Government, capitalistic system they would either a) grow up or b) expelled from town under penalty of death. But they are allowed to flourish due to socialism(same could be said of single mothers and promiscuous people in general).

Socialism is about forcing others to endure and prop up the lower psychopathic elements in a society. Similar to how fascism props up wealthy psychopaths.

The easiest way to tell a psychopath is if they support socialism or communism, but give fuzzy examples. As psychopaths have no moral inhibitions in stealing others labor.


"you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him understand and properly use economic terms such as 'socialism' and 'capitalism' ".... er, or something like that....



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by korathin
Socialism is a mechanism of mob looting. It props up groups within society that wouldn't be able to progress without it. For example in the UK:Cad's(in America "players", "thugs" would be the equivalent if I am using the term correctly).

Socialism is about forcing others to endure and prop up the lower psychopathic elements in a society. Similar to how fascism props up wealthy psychopaths.

The easiest way to tell a psychopath is if they support socialism or communism, but give fuzzy examples. As psychopaths have no moral inhibitions in stealing others labor.


You are just making things up based on misunderstandings. You should read through the thread.

Socialism is not about forcing anyone to do anything. It in fact does the opposite of that. It also props up no one, as it is a needs based system, but you have to participate. There is no welfare under socialism because there is no artificial scarcity of 'jobs', the means to produce not kept artificially scarce.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", Louis Blanc, 1839 "The organization of work".

That simply means each person should earn the full worth of their contribution, and their contribution should meet their needs. There is no unemployment when the means to produce are available. All who want to work can work, those that wish to not work do not get anything. Social programs are a part of capitalism, because of its unfair distribution of resources. Under capitalism we are robbed because for the private owner to make profit the worker must produce more than they are paid for. The means to produce are taken away when it doesn't make the private owner profit. Resources are kept artificially scarce in order to maintain profits. Private owners seek profit, we the people seek resources, there is a conflict of interest.

Socialism is simply the workers ownership of the means of production, it can be completely libertarian (no state/no government).

So what you claim is like saying a hammer is evil because it could be used to bash heads instead of bashing nails. Should we demonize and dismiss hammers because someone might use one for evil instead of good?
Isn't a hammer a very important tool that helped us to grow our society? We have managed to keep hammers doing the right thing mostly.

I fail to understand your point about stealing others labour, as capitalism does that.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   
For new contributors a reminder...

Socialism is not government handouts.

Socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production. It can be libertarian, anarchist...

"Anarchism is stateless socialism", Mikhail Bakunin.

Socialists might demand government handouts while in a capitalist system in an attempt to balance some of the inequalities caused by capitalism. That doesn't mean that is what they want as an economic system.

Once the workers own the means of production then they can produce for their needs. There will be no artificial scarcity of resources in order to make profit, so production can increase to meet everyone's needs, including those who can't work. There will be no need for government handouts.

It has been estimated for everyone to have all they need we only have to work 3 hours a day. The more people producing the less hours you have to contribute. The rest of the time is yours, and with no artificial restrictions caused by economic disparity life will be far more interesting.





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join