Capitalism and Socialism had been working togeather for decades...

reply to post by ANOK


Of course workers don't get all they produce for their companies. no matter who the owners are, be it the employees themselves or the traditional view of a capitalist company, if the employee took all that he produced, there wouldn't be a company!!

There would be nothing left to pay the expenses of running that company. Heat, light, taxes, etc. In the case of investors that financed that company or expansion, no return on their investment.

Profit or gain being the usual motivation for starting a company that employs people, without which there wouldn't be anywhere near the jobs there are now.

reply to post by ANOK


Sorry, the intent of the thread was to point out in this them vs us environment is there has been and are points of agreement where a balance is achieved and prosperity is available for the majority.

Rather than pointing out an obscure example is Spain in the time of Franco, I would cite the economic development in China, India and other south-east Asian countries where an improved standard of living, almost a middle class, is developing.

All via capitalism, not worker ownership.

Could prosperity continue via converting those companies into worker owned ones? My skepticism is high on that one. I don't believe that thievery is a good way to start things off. Thievery being the only way that conversion could occur.

I guess the thread was more directed to U.S. citizens in that the conservative view is far less understood by those outside the U.S. that the socialist-liberal one.

Supply and demand is the ultimate qualifier for an economic system no matter how much the supply and demand mechanism is abused or manipulated. The more it is "screwed with", the bigger the crash will be later on.

Most of the posts in reply have been addressed to what label to tack onto these mechanisms. Socialist, liberal, capitalist and so on. Definition is good in that's the only way a communication can occur with any results.

My view is any economic "ism" that precludes the existence of another ism is doomed in the long run.

Every country in the world has a mixture of all to some degree and that is sufficient proof for me that one should use any and all tools to achieve the goals of the nation or state.

My personal experience is that life in general was the most fulfilling when the balance was capitalism with a dose of socialism/social programs.

I really haven't seen any posts that implied that and I guess that's the reason I tossed it out there.

None have responded that I'm right. I therefore assume I must be wrong.

Where am I wrong on this?

Keep in mind that many "programs" that have a "Socialist" appearance (highways, etc) actually use private business contractors and multi-level (sometime unequal) paid labor.

I thought "Socialism" would use the "means of production" "owned" by all the people ?

Even welfare (Medicare, Food Stamps, etc) programs use outside private contractors.

So what do we call all THAT ?

And what would be the differences if private companies were all replaced by government bureaucrats ?

Wouldn't the same corruptions exist ?

Wouldn't many "insiders" get rich too ?

reply to post by xuenchen


Good points. I believe/think that the move to private contractors. at least non-military ones, are a way to circumvent the public union phenomena. Bottom line is it's cheaper.

I sure don't know how to label it either. LOL.

To restrict Socialism to a worker-owned labor is frankly long out of date, in my opinion. I'm sure Marxs never envisioned worker owned hospitals and mandated/restricted medical services either. Socialism has evolved past the simplistic worker-owned view and as a result is more pervasive than it's ever been.

At least the private sector unions have come to recognize the need for their company to survive financially. Not so the public sector unions.

The public sector unions have done as much to block any change to our current plight than any group of conspirators.

Originally posted by nwtrucker
Of course workers don't get all they produce for their companies. no matter who the owners are, be it the employees themselves or the traditional view of a capitalist company, if the employee took all that he produced, there wouldn't be a company!!

Again you misunderstand. If the workers owned the means of production the surplus value created would stay with the worker, or company, and not go to the bank account of the private owner. Surplus value is far higher than the taxes you pay.

There would be nothing left to pay the expenses of running that company. Heat, light, taxes, etc. In the case of investors that financed that company or expansion, no return on their investment.

Surplus value is the profit AFTER expenses.

Profit or gain being the usual motivation for starting a company that employs people, without which there wouldn't be anywhere near the jobs there are now.

That's the motivation to start a capitalist company. If the means of production are owned by the workers no one would have to employ anyone. The means to produce would be available to provide what your community needs, or wants without any restriction of having to make profit.

Before capitalism most people didn't live by being hired to work for someone. They lived autonomously because they were allowed to use land. Without land there is no freedom, and the land owners who became the capitalists made sure all the land was 'enclosed'. That is why we have to rely on them for employment. They are not giving us anything, they took it all away, and made us the producers of their wealth.

This is what started the economic system that replaced feudalism, capitalism, a term btw coined in 1840 by the French SOCIALIST, Louis Blank....

The Inclosure or Enclosure Acts were a series of United Kingdom Acts of Parliament which enclosed open fields and common land in the country. They removed previously existing rights of local people to carry out activities in these areas, such as cultivation, cutting hay, grazing animals,using other resources such as small timber, fish, and turf or sometimes even living on the land. "Inclosure" is an old or formal spelling of the word now more usually spelled "enclosure": both spellings are pronounced pron.: /ɨŋˈkloʊʒər/.

Inclosure Acts

It took about 150 years for all land in Britain to be inclosed, fenced off, private property no trespassing. Now you need a license to fish or hunt. All done to ensure that we were made reliant on the system the land owners created.

Because of that people were forced to take "jobs" in the land owners mills and factories, leading to the industrial revolution, and the class system we now have, working class and the capitalist class. It created the mass disparity in wealth required to rule over a population. Your government is just an extension of that authoritarian economic system, that denies us our true freedom, use of the land we were born on.

reply to post by ANOK


Well, obviously you see this ideal situation in a worker-owned world.

I don't. Honestly, I don't. I find it incomprehensible. No exaggeration. Literally.

It would require, as you say, a revolution. Which would require, in turn, a massive indoctrination and campaign years if not generations in advance.

That hasn't happened and it's unlikely to occur any time soon. Perhaps a economic collapse globally would set up regional versions you seem to support. Other than that, I don't see it happening.

First, it's all well and good to cite the origins of the landlord-laborer situation in England and it would work when talking farms and farming. One doesn't need a "owner" to grow food.

The same doesn't apply to modern industry from what I can see. Legal help I.T. types, accountants, on and on... all employee owned workers? The gov't staff? How about an employee owned military?

We'll get a couple of flight attendants , two pilots and a mechanic to buy a 747 and start an airline. Yea right.

Not to mention they'll have to pay for it up front because "banks" being evil capitalists don't exist anymore to invest or loan the necessary funds to even start up.

There goes growth, competition and therefore supply and demand.

I could go on, but I believe I've made my point.

BTW for those who are confused as to what liberalism is...

In the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, a group of British thinkers, known as the New Liberals, made a case against laissez-faire classical liberalism and argued in favor of state intervention in social, economic, and cultural life. The New Liberals, which included intellectuals like T.H. Green, L.T. Hobhouse, and John A. Hobson, saw individual liberty as something achievable only under favorable social and economic circumstances.[6] In their view, the poverty, squalor, and ignorance in which many people lived made it impossible for freedom and individuality to flourish. New Liberals believed that these conditions could be ameliorated only through collective action coordinated by a strong, welfare-oriented, and interventionist state.[/b'[16]

en.wikipedia.org...

That is modern liberalism. Capitalism with a social safety net, not socialism, not left-wing.

Socialism and Communism are outdated utopia ideologies kept alive by elites on both the left and the right to practice class warfare by keeping people debating these false ideologies.

Even the concept of capitalism is misleading.

The U.S. is no longer a capitalist country, because In our current situation in the U.S. the banks and other institutions practically own everything of value. This is not private ownership of property, it is institutional ownership of property, and these institutions act as defacto governments.

They have people obsessed with welfare ghettos, created by these institutions for that very purpose, while the banking corporations have quitely taken over our country.

At this time in history we live in a corporatocracy style government with a credit based economy.