Oxfam says world's rich could end poverty

I thought wealth distribution was a great idea in high school, in my teens. It made so much sense until I had my first real job, and then reality set in. You can't change people, and every job I have ever had was the same old story. Five percent of the people there worked really hard, the rest, in varying degrees, not so much.

There is a reason why when most people win the lottery, they eventually end up broke. A large percentage of people have no clue how to manage money, and never will have the self control to make it work for them.

"Spreading the wealth" sounds like a great idea, but people get in the way.

Originally posted by 11235813213455
So explain this to me since Marx himself failed to do so in his writings. Tell me what the feedback mechanism looks like for the allocation of resources when the worker and not the product being produced is the value. How is demand and therefore market pricing conveyed in socialism?

Hint.. it's kind of why it doesn't work..

First off Marxism is not socialism. Marx did not invent socialism. All Marx did is comment on the capitalist system and was commissioned by the Communist League to finish the drought of the Communist Manifesto started by Engels. Marxism is a political path to socialism, it is not socialism itself. I am not a Marxist.

Socialism/communism was around before Marx even got into politics. Anarchists were also socialists who apposed the political path of Marxism, and wanted direct action to change from capitalist economy to a socialist economy. Socialism is ultimately anarchist. The state in Marxism was supposed to be temporary, but the anarchist didn't trust any state system.

In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense, free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, community of freely associated individuals) is a kind of relation between individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, in a society that has abolished the private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production so they can freely associate themselves (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their needs and desires.

Free association (communism and anarchism)

There is no 'market pricing' in socialism. Socialism is a needs based system, not a profit based system. Industry would be set up to support the community by making available the means to produce what is needed, and those that work would own the product they produce. Unlike capitalism where you have to produce more than you are paid for in order for the capitalist owner to make profit, or what is known as 'surplus value'.

Surplus Value

value created by the unpaid labor of wage workers, over and above the value of their labor power, and appropriated without compensation by the capitalist.

encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com...

Surplus value is why capitalism is considered exploitation.

"Politically we are anarchists, and economically, communists or socialists." Adolph Fischer, Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Scientific Basis as Defined by Some of its Apostles (1887)

H.1 Have anarchists always opposed state socialism?

Yes. Anarchists have always argued that real socialism cannot be created using a state. The basic core of the argument is simple. Socialism implies equality, yet the state signifies inequality - inequality in terms of power.

H.1 Have anarchists always opposed state socialism?

So state-socialism is an oxymoron, and should be correctly termed state-capitalism.

Just like Martin Luther King said, we will never have equality without economic equality.

Originally posted by Onewhoknowsjesus
I think they are a bunch of cowards.....the"rich",You want to know the funny thing if their wealth was stripped from them,and they were forced to go out and get a job like everyone else they wouldn't even know how to survive...except maybe Tony Stark....but let's be real..... Tony Stark is a comic book character, it's funny how only intelligent rich people exist only in the movies and comics.But any how the fact remains they're a bunch of weak minded, cold of heart, greedy, self serving butt pirates!And they are in truth responsible for the problems society faces as a whole.So bow down to the self-serving greed mongrels they hold the keys to our future.....lol sad development isn't people?:::::::::::::Shaking head in absolute disgust:::::::::::If there is a place of ultimate judgement and pain for being a greedy evil p.o.s. I hope 80% of the non-compassionate,heartless,mindless hate-breeding greed driver's choke on their own poo-poo.

I tend to agree with you. The wealthy & powerful have a different kind of integellience, as do computer geeks and financial geeks which goes hand in hand with a belief in their own superiority and infallability.

I refer you to Karen Ho's "Liquidated: An Ethnography of Wall Street"

Book Description
Publication Date: July 13, 2009 | Series: a John Hope Franklin Center Book
Financial collapses—whether of the junk bond market, the Internet bubble, or the highly leveraged housing market—are often explained as the inevitable result of market cycles: What goes up must come down. In Liquidated, Karen Ho punctures the aura of the abstract, all-powerful market to show how financial markets, and particularly booms and busts, are constructed. Through an in-depth investigation into the everyday experiences and ideologies of Wall Street investment bankers, Ho describes how a financially dominant but highly unstable market system is understood, justified, and produced through the restructuring of corporations and the larger economy.
Ho, who worked at an investment bank herself, argues that bankers’ approaches to financial markets and corporate America are inseparable from the structures and strategies of their workplaces. Her ethnographic analysis of those workplaces is filled with the voices of stressed first-year associates, overworked and alienated analysts, undergraduates eager to be hired, and seasoned managing directors. Recruited from elite universities as “the best and the brightest,” investment bankers are socialized into a world of high risk and high reward. They are paid handsomely, with the understanding that they may be let go at any time. Their workplace culture and networks of privilege create the perception that job insecurity builds character, and employee liquidity results in smart, efficient business. Based on this culture of liquidity and compensation practices tied to profligate deal-making, Wall Street investment bankers reshape corporate America in their own image. Their mission is the creation of shareholder value, but Ho demonstrates that their practices and assumptions often produce crises instead. By connecting the values and actions of investment bankers to the construction of markets and the restructuring of U.S. corporations, Liquidated reveals the particular culture of Wall Street often obscured by triumphalist readings of capitalist globalization.

Book Description from Amazon: www.amazon.com...

I do think her thesis is applicable to other rarified domains of power and wealth as well.

I remember how powerful, indestructable and certain of my own 'opinions' when I was a teen and young adult - in a sane environment, one outgrows that self-centered insanity and learns to listen to those with more experience and wisdom. Part of the problem is the narrow specialization of these people which reinforces this 'god' complex.

Originally posted by artnut
I thought wealth distribution was a great idea in high school, in my teens. It made so much sense until I had my first real job, and then reality set in. You can't change people, and every job I have ever had was the same old story. Five percent of the people there worked really hard, the rest, in varying degrees, not so much.

There is a reason why when most people win the lottery, they eventually end up broke. A large percentage of people have no clue how to manage money, and never will have the self control to make it work for them.

"Spreading the wealth" sounds like a great idea, but people get in the way.

You are right - you can't change people. However you can change yourself (I sound like an AA meeting ) and thereby the world.

Interesting side note to this concept is the Hawaiian Healing modality of 'Hoʻoponopono'.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by 11235813213455
So explain this to me since Marx himself failed to do so in his writings. Tell me what the feedback mechanism looks like for the allocation of resources when the worker and not the product being produced is the value. How is demand and therefore market pricing conveyed in socialism?

Hint.. it's kind of why it doesn't work..

First off Marxism is not socialism. Marx did not invent socialism. All Marx did is comment on the capitalist system and was commissioned by the Communist League to finish the drought of the Communist Manifesto started by Engels. Marxism is a political path to socialism, it is not socialism itself. I am not a Marxist.

Socialism/communism was around before Marx even got into politics. Anarchists were also socialists who apposed the political path of Marxism, and wanted direct action to change from capitalist economy to a socialist economy. Socialism is ultimately anarchist. The state in Marxism was supposed to be temporary, but the anarchist didn't trust any state system.

In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense, free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, community of freely associated individuals) is a kind of relation between individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, in a society that has abolished the private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production so they can freely associate themselves (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their needs and desires.

Free association (communism and anarchism)

There is no 'market pricing' in socialism. Socialism is a needs based system, not a profit based system. Industry would be set up to support the community by making available the means to produce what is needed, and those that work would own the product they produce. Unlike capitalism where you have to produce more than you are paid for in order for the capitalist owner to make profit, or what is known as 'surplus value'.

Surplus Value

value created by the unpaid labor of wage workers, over and above the value of their labor power, and appropriated without compensation by the capitalist.

encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com...

Surplus value is why capitalism is considered exploitation.

"Politically we are anarchists, and economically, communists or socialists." Adolph Fischer, Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Scientific Basis as Defined by Some of its Apostles (1887)

H.1 Have anarchists always opposed state socialism?

Yes. Anarchists have always argued that real socialism cannot be created using a state. The basic core of the argument is simple. Socialism implies equality, yet the state signifies inequality - inequality in terms of power.

H.1 Have anarchists always opposed state socialism?

So state-socialism is an oxymoron, and should be correctly termed state-capitalism.

Just like Martin Luther King said, we will never have equality without economic equality.

edit on 1/20/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

Thank you for the history and terminology lesson. I have always had trouble getting my head around 'anarchy' - it is one of those ideas I can't imagine in practise. At my age I am just beginning to get a FEEL for it - but still can speak to it. I will explore the links you have shared.

This idea of 'free association' sounds very libertarian to me and what I know and ken of libertaianism scares me - being a product of society.

Any more links????

Originally posted by scottlpool2003
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

I'm not so sure on this one...

From an objective point of view taking this into account, if the less well off people earn a fraction more than they need to live on, they/we should give up a proportion of that extra money... I don't so I can't really agree/disagree with this.

I tend to think you are right - but it is tough. I always like to think that I give according to my means after having met my needs - but honestly do I really need and computer and internet - I can justify them for work, etc.

Using the term 'give up' puts it in a negative light - how about 'gifts' and rather then 'should', 'would'.

So conditioned to hang on to what we perceive is ours (for whatever reason).

Originally posted by FyreByrd
This idea of 'free association' sounds very libertarian to me and what I know and ken of libertaianism scares me - being a product of society.

Well the term 'libertarian' originally was an anarchist term, as in Libertarian Socialism. The term was appropriated by the right and has nothing to do with real anarchism. See my sig., and this...

This year, 2008, marks the 150th anniversary of the use of the word “libertarian” by anarchists.

As is well known, anarchists use the terms “libertarian”, “libertarian socialist” and “libertarian communist” as equivalent to “anarchist” and, similarly, “libertarian socialism” or “libertarian communism” as an alternative for “anarchism.” This is perfectly understandable, as the anarchist goal is freedom, liberty, and the ending of all hierarchical and authoritarian institutions and social relations.

150 years of Libertarian

I.1 Isn't libertarian socialism an oxymoron?

In a word, no. This question is often asked by those who have come across the so-called "libertarian" right. As discussed in section A.1.3 , the word libertarian has been used by anarchists for far longer than the pro-free market right have been using it. In fact, anarchists have been using it as a synonym for anarchist for over 150 years, since 1858. In comparison, widespread use of the term by the so-called "libertarian" right dates from the 1970s in America (with, from the 1940s onwards, limited use by a few individuals). Indeed, outside of North America libertarian is still essentially used as an equivalent of anarchist and as a shortened version of libertarian socialist. As Noam Chomsky notes:

"Let me just say regarding the terminology, since we happen to be in the United States, we have to be rather careful. Libertarian in the United States has a meaning which is almost the opposite of what it has in the rest of the world traditionally. Here, libertarian means ultra right-wing capitalist. In the European tradition, libertarian meant socialist. So, anarchism was sometimes called libertarian socialism, a large wing of anarchism, so we have to be a little careful about terminology." [Reluctant Icon]

I.1 Isn't libertarian socialism an oxymoron?

G.2 Why does individualist anarchism imply socialism?

Here we present a short summary of why individualist anarchism implies socialism and not capitalism. While it is true that people like Tucker and Warren placed "property" at the heart of their vision of anarchy, this does not make them supporters of capitalism. Unlike capitalists, the individualist anarchists identified "property" with simple "possession," or "occupancy and use" and considered profit, rent and interest as exploitation. Indeed, Tucker explicitly stated that "all property rests on a labour title, and no other property do I favour." [Instead of a Book, p. 400] Because of this and their explicit opposition to usury (profits, rent and interest) and capitalist property, they could and did consider themselves as part of the wider socialist movement, the libertarian wing as opposed to the statist Marxist wing.

www.spunk.org...

People in America have to realise that these terms came from Europe, not America. The American right has no right to redefine these terms for their own capitalist agenda.

Well duh, they have all the money lol

reply to post by ANOK


OK so to cut through all the other definitional babel you have there and get to the answer to the question I asked. Communism and Socialism don't work specifically because prices are arbitrarily set by central administrators that try as they might cannot and will not ever ever ever out think the market. More critically there no surplus compensation or PROFIT. Dumb.. Real dumb.

And yes with socialism and communism (really any economy of any type) artificial scarcity is needed (Kindof economic 101) but they take it an step further. Just ask the Ukrainians under Stalin. They'll use it as a weapon to crush dissent.

Again.... this stuff doesn't work. Hate on capitalism all you want but it's the clear winner and you just can't explain away the failure of socialism and communism.... just look at the 20th century.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by beezzer
The point is, then what?

Say all the worlds wealthy level the playing field with their "wealth".

Then what?

It won't stay static. What will happen when there are poor again, do we go after those who have just a little more?

The means of production would have to be owned in common, that is how you stop one group of people causing another to become poor. People become poor because someone else is taking more than they need. If everyone has access to the means to produce (land mostly) then there is no reason they would become poor other than by their own incompetence.

Meh, screw "owned in common". Far worse than the current system would be the Party determining who gets what and when.

What's needed is means of production owned INDIVIDUALLY. This is the promise of self-replicating 3D printing technology. At the moment it can only do plastics and metals and concrete, but the tech is developing all the time and soon enough will provide a means of production for each individual or household. That fact alone scares the bejesus out of capitalists AND socialists alike. You see, it telegraphs a brave new world where neither the left nor the right retain any relevancy. They'll try to suppress it or ridicule the tech for just this reason, but at the end of the day it'll be open sourced and you won't be able to stop it.

When the means of production is in the hands of the individual you can't control them - that's scary to those who seek power over you - like capitalists and communists. For the rest of us, it's true freedom.

reply to post by 11235813213455

If you actually read through the definitional babel you would also see that I explain what you are saying is not true. If you do not understand the terms then you will remain confused.

Once again the USSR, did not have a socialist economy. The Bolsheviks never set out to create a socialist economy, they wanted to take state power for themselves, not for the workers. They called themselves communist because at the time it was popular among the people, so the Bolsheviks pretended to give them what they wanted.
The people who were educated and understood what communism is were apposed to the Bolsheviks...

Left-wing uprisings against the Bolsheviks were a series of rebellions and uprisings against the Bolsheviks led or supported by left wing groups including Socialist Revolutionaries, Left Socialist Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, and anarchists. Some were in support of the White Movement while some tried to be an independent force. The uprisings started in 1918 and continued through the Russian Civil War and after until 1922. In response the Bolsheviks increasingly abandoned attempts to get these groups to join the government and suppressed them with force.

Left-wing uprisings against the Bolsheviks

The majority of the Russian peasants didn't understand what the Bolsheviks were really planning, just like most don't understand what is going on in politics now, so they either supported them or did nothing. This is why we must be really careful in our understanding of terms. Hitler did the same thing by convincing the people his party was a workers party, once in power he sent German workers out to war against other workers in Spain.

Socialists were apposed to WWI and WWII, conscientious objectors, because they refused to fight against other working class who they considered their 'brothers'. Man how the times have changed eh?

Meh, screw "owned in common". Far worse than the current system would be the Party determining who gets what and when.

What's needed is means of production owned INDIVIDUALLY. This is the promise of self-replicating 3D printing technology. At the moment it can only do plastics and metals and concrete, but the tech is developing all the time and soon enough will provide a means of production for each individual or household. That fact alone scares the bejesus out of capitalists AND socialists alike. You see, it telegraphs a brave new world where neither the left nor the right retain any relevancy. They'll try to suppress it or ridicule the tech for just this reason, but at the end of the day it'll be open sourced and you won't be able to stop it.

When the means of production is in the hands of the individual you can't control them - that's scary to those who seek power over you - like capitalists and communists. For the rest of us, it's true freedom.

Open Source - I'd like to see that.

I digress.

The concept of ownership is inherently flawed. Who owns the Planet we all live on, is there some galaxic landlord collecting rent from us (Hmmm - I may have something there and the rich are the rent collectors).

There is an anarchist (please correct me if I'm wrong, have no idea where is comes from and have only heard it on KPFK here in LA) that struck a real chord with me and that is, "Ownership is Theft". Anything you own is, in some way stolen from another. Real depressing, no?

The native americans and other indigenious peoples don't own the land they live on - they husband it - care for it and it cares for them. The concept of 'MINE' is very limited.

The bible doesn't talk about ownership - it talkes about stewardship.

Buddist monk can only claim six items for their own everything else they only have stewardship over.

If you are responsible for something that is not yours, don't you take special care of it? Maybe not - but that's a separate issue. I'm much more cavalier with my own possessions then I am with others - seems to be another declining value of our society.

Originally posted by nottelling
Meh, screw "owned in common". Far worse than the current system would be the Party determining who gets what and when.

Socialism requires no political party. Owned in common simply means it is not owned by any one class or group of people who monopolises it for themselves, at the detriment of everyone else. Owned in common means every one has common access, if it was a government determining who gets what it would not be common ownership.

The acknowledged aim of socialism is to take the means of production out of the hands of the capitalist class and place them into the hands of the workers. This aim is sometimes spoken of as public ownership, sometimes as common ownership of the production apparatus. There is, however, a marked and fundamental difference....

Public ownership is the ownership, i.e. the right of disposal, by a public body representing society, by government, state power or some other political body.

Common ownership is the right of disposal by the workers themselves; the working class itself — taken in the widest sense of all that partake in really productive work, including employees, farmers, scientists — is direct master of the production apparatus, managing, directing, and regulating the process of production which is, indeed, their common work.

Anton Pannekoek 1947 Public Ownership and Common Ownership

The workers already run everything, private owners just collect the profit.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by 11235813213455

 

Once again the USSR, did not have a socialist economy.

You are study in how one fools themselves into believing 2+2=5

I hate to break it to you but what the Union Of Soviet Socialist Republics had was what socialism leads to. Every.... Single..... Time....

I would not have as much of a problem with people having excessive amounts of money, except for the fact that when people like this gain more money, the lower classes lose money, on average and at an astounding rate imo. I definitely think there should be a much higher tax rate on the top 1% of Americans, considering how much damage they both inadvertently cause and purposely cause in doing their business. Being rich is one thing, but what we are talking about here really is excessive, to the point of being insane. It goes beyond "capitalism" when someone has billions of dollars sitting somewhere making them even more money, while they do nothing, and there are so many people dying from starvation and malnutrition every single day.

I will say this though. Those who seek power and money DO NOT care about everyone else, otherwise they would not have sought those selfish things in the first place. That is why they can screw so many people over yet still sleep like a baby at night. It is the same thing with politicians. I think there should be even more laws for people with excessive amounts of money, limiting what they can do with it. It is just so sickening to see the gross injustice that is being committed by those with this much wealth, considering that they have taken advantage of people to get it in the first place. Taking advantage how you ask? All kinds of ways. Mostly through crap like derivatives, and selling things that don't exist. Basically taking advantage of people.

There are all kinds of other ways, and I would be willing to bet that just about every single person in the top 1% should be in prison right now. They just have the money to "hide" their abuse.

Originally posted by FyreByrd
There is an anarchist (please correct me if I'm wrong, have no idea where is comes from and have only heard it on KPFK here in LA) that struck a real chord with me and that is, "Ownership is Theft". Anything you own is, in some way stolen from another. Real depressing, no?

You have it confused. It was Proudhon, the first socialist to call themselves an Anarchist, who said, "Property is Theft".

He didn't mean your personal property. He was talking about economic property, capital, property used to exploit labour. The right, given by the state, for a person to use property to hire and exploit labour.

It is theft because of 'surplus value', because the worker has to produce more than they are paid for. Socialists consider that surplus value to be theft, it should belong to the worker who produced it. That is what socialism is all about, worker ownership, workers earn the full fruits of their labour, what they produce is theirs. It is capitalists who take your personal property.

Property rights are a controversial, theoretical construct in economics for determining how a resource is used, and who owns that resource - government, collective bodies, or by individuals.[1] Property rights can be viewed as an attribute of an economic good. This attribute has four broad components[2] and is often referred to as a bundle of rights[3][4]:

Property rights (economics)

I keep saying this, but it is so important to understand what these terms mean instead of assuming, they hardly ever mean what you would first think they do.

Here’s where there is the most confusion about socialism. Those who really do benefit from capitalism will lie and tell you that under socialism you can’t have your own PERSONAL property. You can’t own your own home or your own boat, etc.

The truth is that your personal property—what you need to enjoy a secure and comfortable life—is a lot safer under socialism than under capitalism....

....What capitalism does protect big-time is capital—that is, the kind of private property that is used to exploit workers and create profits. That’s why the capitalist government was so quick to bail out the banks and corporations when they were facing bankruptcy. It has now spent trillions of the workers’ money to save the corporations and banks that exploit them.

Capitalism, socialism & personal property

Originally posted by 11235813213455

You are study in how one fools themselves into believing 2+2=5

I hate to break it to you but what the Union Of Soviet Socialist Republics had was what socialism leads to. Every.... Single..... Time....

No it isn't, you have nothing to base that claim on. The USSR never ever was socialist. There was no worker ownership. The state was not a worker ran state, the economy was state owned controlled, not worker owned and controlled.

It can be argued they were on a path to socialism in the Marxist sense, but even that wasn't the case. Again the Bolsheviks were not socialists, they simply wanted state power and found a way to achieve that goal.

You obviously don't like the Bolsheviks, so why would you trust anything they said, or called themselves? Why did the real left-wing appose the Bolsheviks? (read previous posts)

Many of the one percent do donate to the less fortunate and that's great and the nice noble thing to do. But I dont believe that they should have to be forced into giving their hard earned money away.

Much of the top one percent worked their way up to that point wihtout having anything given to them and I admire that. Why should people have to work hard to give others who chose not to work their hard earned money. We really have to stop begrudging others for what they have that we don't.

If I was rich I would never pass a starving child and not offer them a meal. But I also would never put money in the hands of the mom on welfare with 15 kid. If we don't stop raping the pockets of those who worked hard to get where they are then they will stop working hard, donations will stop, charities will come to an end.

I was kicked out at 18, I got a job at mcdonalds, slept in parks, did my laundry at the laundrymat and showered at friends houses. I did that straight for about six months until I had enough saved for an apartment. Not rich now, probably never will be but I dont begrudge anyone who is and I never will. Hard times happen to the best of us but there is also a lot of help out there available for people to get back on their feet.

It's not the one percent's job to fix anything whether it is the right thing to do or not. If you can help someone do so but please let this Robin Hood mentality go.

Originally posted by brandiwine14
It's not the one percent's job to fix anything whether it is the right thing to do or not. If you can help someone do so but please let this Robin Hood mentality go.

Socialism is not the rich giving to the poor. It is not a system of forced equality. It doesn't take from one to give to another.

It simply puts the means of production in the hands of us all, so we don't have to rely on a capitalist to give us a job in order to feed ourselves. It creates industry that is based on community needs, but the community has to do the work.

It can be worker ownership through cooperative work places, or it could be individuals working on their own plot of land. It's up to us to decide, not some bureaucrat politician who doesn't put your best interest at heart.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by 11235813213455

You are study in how one fools themselves into believing 2+2=5

I hate to break it to you but what the Union Of Soviet Socialist Republics had was what socialism leads to. Every.... Single..... Time....

No it isn't, you have nothing to base that claim on. The USSR never ever was socialist. There was no worker ownership. The state was not a worker ran state, the economy was state owned controlled, not worker owned and controlled.

It can be argued they were on a path to socialism in the Marxist sense, but even that wasn't the case. Again the Bolsheviks were not socialists, they simply wanted state power and found a way to achieve that goal.

You obviously don't like the Bolsheviks, so why would you trust anything they said, or called themselves? Why did the real left-wing appose the Bolsheviks? (read previous posts)

edit on 1/20/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

So predictable. You can't defend these systems of collectivisation, extraction and redistribution based upon what history shows and so you run to your comfort blanket of petty definitional technicalities and semantics in an effort to obfuscate and redirect the exchange.

The big difference between how you and I see it is you categorize them on their stated intention and I categorize them on their direction or rather, their end result. And when viewed from my standpoint there is very little daylight between any of them because their tendency is to drift toward tyrrany or totalitarianism.

So explain how the utopia we've all been waiting for will finally arrive as a result of implementing worker ownership of the means of production?