Socialism

[nonconformist]

You're all bloody Brits in denial anyway.

 

[say1988]

Honesty a person born in go knows where, who moved to the US as an infant has no reason to be viewed as less loyal than anyone born in America. If they are a serious threat to the country, that is what the election process is for, to select the best person from the pool of eligible candidates.
In fact in some cases they may be more committed to the US and its freedoms as they might have more knowledge of what it is like living without them.

 

[nokmirt]

Honesty a person born in go knows where, who moved to the US as an infant has no reason to be viewed as less loyal than anyone born in America. If they are a serious threat to the country, that is what the election process is for, to select the best person from the pool of eligible candidates.
In fact in some cases they may be more committed to the US and its freedoms as they might have more knowledge of what it is like living without them.

I see your point.

 

[nokmirt]

You're all bloody Brits in denial anyway.

Yes isn't that the truth. Today its raining like it usually is in London.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

How very British, talking about the weather.

It's been a heat wave today in Liverpool anyway.

 

[nonconformist]

Down here too, come to think of it.

 

[AngryZealot]

 

[Bill3000]

"Cut taxes, not defense"?

 

[nokmirt]

How very British, talking about the weather.

It's been a heat wave today in Liverpool anyway.

Your lucky but you can always count on rain

 

[Huayna Capac357]

You're all bloody Brits in denial anyway.

Haha pretty much

But anyway, we've already discussed socialism and what it is, so the OP has been answered. So why is this still here?

 

[GoodGame]

That's pretty good.

 

[Cutlass]

Ok, believe what you want. and I hope your right. And no I do not speak any Kenyan dialects, but have you ever considered that you could be wrong. Of course not, I am sure you have'nt, but you did get excited enough to misspell proof. I was wondering could I borrow your crystal ball for awhile. And its credentials, please my friend use a spell checker.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

On the contrary - I've been taught to work very hard and to better myself, so that I can provide a better life for myself, and for my family. (And also, so that I can help others)

But why have you been taught to work hard? Is it because you will be promoted and get more money, and thus your family will live more comfortably and have a better life?

The problem isn't that I've been taught to be lazy, the problem is that under the system you're proposing, there's no reason for me not to be lazy.

For people making sustenance, there isn't much reason either, except for more material gain. I think that a lot of that "gain" has to do with being able to afford things like better health coverage and sending your kids to college (the last one is a biggie with a lot of people). So think, what if you didn't have to worry about these things, because they're "all-included," so to speak, by virtue of being a working citizen? Are you saying that people will just automatically be lazy, because there's not as much of a need for them to work hard, because of above reasons? I don't think so. I think hard working people work hard because they believe it behooves themselves to do an honest days' work, or a good, complete job, or simply because they can. Think about all those volunteer organizations, from PTA to fire departments to a great deal of Red Cross things to who knows what else I can't think of right now, all these are run primarily by people in their free time with little or no material gain to come from their leadership roles. But why do they assume those roles, when they could just be a helper like everyone else? Because someone's got to do it. Its the fulfillment of one's duty. Or maybe they just like that sort of position, maybe they're good at it. Who knows, but the fact remains that the drive is quite obviously there, as displayed by these volunteer organizations, to assume more responsibility without any material reason for doing so.

Saying that you're going to teach people to be better is all well and good - but I don't think human nature is as malleable as you think it is. I don't think people are the perfectly rational consumers often thought of in more capitalistic thought, but neither do I think we are the altruistic beings more commonly thought of in communistic or socialistic thought.

People are what you make them to be. If we can convince people that Jews are evil and ought to be slain en masse (Hearts is already broken, so shut up ), or that Christ is the son of God, or that Mohammad received the word of God, or that the White Man is greater than the Black man and the latter deserves to be enslaved, or that the French or British or Germans or whomever are devils and our eternal enemy, or hell, that communism is an evil taboo and shouldn't be a part of American politics; there are myriad things we "teach" people and that they come to "know," simply because it has been taught to them. I mean, look at the impact that parents can have on their childrens' lives, how many adopt the politics of their parents? How many follow lives similar to their parents? Sure, there are exceptions, there are always exceptions, but as a general rule, yes, you can teach most people anything, provided you have the time and resources to do so. Sometimes it takes a generation for that sort of thing to really take effect, since children are more malleable than adults. In some ways, yes, I'm talking about making a "New American Man," but I don't think my goals are so far-fetched.

Honestly Cheezy - if your boss offered you a promotion, with more hours a week, but no increase in absolute pay - so you'd actually be working for less on a per hour basis - would you do it, out of the goodness of your heart?

Assuming I didn't have to worry about paying for crap which I would normally need a higher pay grade for, like the things I mentioned above, yeah, I'd be cool with it. Who knows, I might like it more than my present position. And if I don't, its not like I can't go back.

How do you force someone to do something without coercing them?

Well it depends on your definition of "coerce." Peer pressure can be very powerful. How would you feel if everyone wanted you to be in charge, but you refused them? Maybe like you were letting them down?

And what do you do if substantial portions of the population refuse to do anything beyond the bare minimum - do you turn to negative incentives instead of positive ones?

Substantial portions of the population will be doing that, most positions aren't leadership roles, El.

("Take this unpaid promotion, or we send you to the gulag!") If you do that, I don't see how you can pretend to be genuinely protecting freedom - unless it's the freedom to do what the government expects us to do.

Again, I'm not talking about a coup to install these things, I'm talking about a popular revolution. We wouldn't do anything without the consent of large parts of The People. Because, as you have observed, its not freedom if its simply what the government tells us to do upon pain of death.

That's not true at all. I think there are plenty of other things that motivate people. I just don't think people, by and large, will be motivated to work harder than they have to without a sufficient reason. And I don't think those other reasons - like personal fulfillment, religious duty, a desire for fame or power, and so on - will generally motivate people. They might motivate people to take jobs helping the poor in Africa for low pay, because that seems noble and spiritually fulfilling - but managing the local McDonalds for no extra pay? Being disliked, having to work extra hours, for no benefit but the nebulous ideal of "someone has to do it" or "it's for the greater good"? I suspect that you'll run out of volunteers rather quickly.

I don't. And I suspect I've dealt with a larger cross-section of society than you have.

That does make a great deal more sense than what you were suggesting earlier. I still suspect that you'd have serious problems attracting good leadership, but I think it'd be at least a little better than paying everyone exactly the same.

Given the history of the United States, I think such an option would be far more viable, and an event far more likely to happen. What worries me is that other socialists might be more intransigent to the idea. But we must keep an open mind.

I have another question: what do you do about people who start their own businesses? Do they have to share their profits equally with their employees? Le me give you an example: Let's say that I, in a moment of culinary brilliance, make a new sort of sandwich that pretty much everyone loves, and will pay $20 apiece for. If I work by myself, I can make 20 per hour, because I'm awesome at it - but any random person I hire can only make 10 per hour. If I work by myself, I'll get $400 an hour (minus business expenses). If I hire one other person to help make delicious sandwiches, we can make 30 sandwiches an hour, which we can sell for $600. But if we split our profits equally, then I only make $300 an hour, instead of $400, even though it's still my idea, and I'm still doing the same amount of work. (And it goes down with each employee, assuming they make fewer sandwiches per hour than I do - at the rate of 10 per hour, with two other employees my hourly profit is $266) Thus, it's in my economic self interest to not hire ANYONE, which deprives other people of good jobs, and delicious sandwiches.

Well see, you wouldn't "own" the business yourself. It would be owned by you and your coworkers. if you aren't going to make more money by hiring more people, then you shouldn't do it. That's just smart business practice. What you have to remember is that, sure, you could hire a few people to help you, and pay them crap, which would increase your personal profits, but it would be at their expense, since they'll be paid less. Sure, they'll be employed, but making complete crap for money. Unless you expect to have some sort of welfare system in place to supplement their income, you're asking people to live on the very edge of sustenance, and the frustration with that sort of injustice is precisely what communist revolutions are made of. The idea of more equal pay is that we want to work ourselves away from the need for a welfare system. So long as people are getting paid crap for money, as happens with most people at the bottom of the capitalist ladder, a welfare system must exist to maintain some semblance of humanity.

There exists an obvious hole in this logic, and I think I should expand on that a bit. Its quite possible for employees to be paid the same, but to all make crap for money and still be on the edge of sustenance. There are two things that can happen here. One, some of the workers be cut loose, that is, fired. Probably preferable if the business can't expand its market any more to raise everyone's wages. Second, it could motivate those people to work harder to expand their industry and raise their collective profits, which they all enjoy equally. But the possibility of such an event does exist.

I'll also acknowledge the inhibitor existent in such a system on expansion of small businesses. I see it as a rather pleasant side-effect, as it can prevent new corporations from arising out of the blue. It also has the effect, as you have also noticed (though perhaps not noticed that you've noticed ), of encouraging more people to become self-employed, because of that potential reduction of personal profit by hiring other people. I'm reminded of a long tradition in Greece of self-employment; everyone has their own shop, and things seem to work fine. This tradition of self-reliance is reflected in the Greek word δούλος (doulos), which means both slave and employee. It was, until recently, considered a breach of personal pride to work under someone else in a private business. Just some food for thought.

What would happen under your ideal socialist government, in this situation? Am I forced to hire more people against my will, thus forcibly lowering my profit? Am I allowed to sacrifice jobs for other people (And delicious sandwiches which more people could enjoy) for my own economic self interest? If I'm allowed to pay them lesser wages, doesn't that contradict the spirit of socialism, as you've put it forward? (And what do you do when I die, and I leave my business to my son? Does he have to split profits differently, or am I not allowed to pass on valuable property?)

I'm actually not going to answer this, for a variety of reasons. The first is that I answered most of it above, not seeing the second part of this. Second, I'm purposefully resisting commenting about every part of the society and government I'm advocating, because I don't want it to become one of those utopian ideals like Faurier's and Etienne Cabet's, their "perfect" societies formulated in advance, and then adding people to it to make it work, like a giant machine. It shouldn't be like that. There comes a point when the theorist's job ends and the will of the people begins, and I don't want to cross that line. We can only suggest how things could be, its up to them to decide how it will be. Unfortunately the two aren't always the same, and can be polar opposites.

Thanks. I'm interested in your answer.

Happy to be of help.

This is a thread about socialism, not Obama's evul afrikkan roots. Take it to another thread, guys.

Actually, it is. Aelf made the thread to divert the subject in question from further threadjacking of a WH thread.

That makes US the threadjackers!

So why did their very manifesto ask for:
" 1. Immediate new elections to the Soviets. The present Soviets no longer express the wishes of the workers and peasants. The new elections should be held by secret ballot, and should be preceded by free electoral propaganda.
2. Freedom of speech and of the press for workers and peasants, for the Anarchists, and for the Left Socialist parties.
3. The right of assembly, and freedom for trade union and peasant organisations.
4. The organisation, at the latest on 10 March 1921, of a Conference of non-Party workers, soldiers and sailors of Petrograd, Kronstadt and the Petrograd District.
5. The liberation of all political prisoners of the Socialist parties, and of all imprisoned workers and peasants, soldiers and sailors belonging to working class and peasant organisations.
6. The election of a commission to look into the dossiers of all those detained in prisons and concentration camps.
7. The abolition of all political sections in the armed forces. No political party should have privileges for the propagation of its ideas, or receive State subsidies to this end. In the place of the political sections various cultural groups should be set up, deriving resources from the State.
8. The immediate abolition of the militia detachments set up between towns and countryside.
9. The equalisation of rations for all workers, except those engaged in dangerous or unhealthy jobs.
10. The abolition of Party combat detachments in all military groups. The abolition of Party guards in factories and enterprises. If guards are required, they should be nominated, taking into account the views of the workers.
11. The granting to the peasants of freedom of action on their own soil, and of the right to own cattle, provided they look after them themselves and do not employ hired labour.
12. We request that all military units and officer trainee groups associate themselves with this resolution.
13. We demand that the Press give proper publicity to this resolution.
14. We demand the institution of mobile workers' control groups.
15. We demand that handicraft production be authorised provided it does not utilise wage labour.
"

Doesn't sound very anarchist...in fact it sounds like socialism.

Actually that sounds VERY anarchist.

It's not British socialism, you are aware Kronstadt is in Russia, yeah?

My point was Galbraith thought like you. His vision in "Industrial State" may have sounded good but GM, US Steel and AT&T didn't even come remotely close to his monopoly view.

I'll have to pick up this book and investigate!

 

[Elrohir]

But why have you been taught to work hard? Is it because you will be promoted and get more money, and thus your family will live more comfortably and have a better life?

That's the general idea, yes.

People are what you make them to be. If we can convince people that Jews are evil and ought to be slain en masse (Hearts is already broken, so shut up ), or that Christ is the son of God, or that Mohammad received the word of God, or that the White Man is greater than the Black man and the latter deserves to be enslaved, or that the French or British or Germans or whomever are devils and our eternal enemy, or hell, that communism is an evil taboo and shouldn't be a part of American politics; there are myriad things we "teach" people and that they come to "know," simply because it has been taught to them. I mean, look at the impact that parents can have on their childrens' lives, how many adopt the politics of their parents? How many follow lives similar to their parents? Sure, there are exceptions, there are always exceptions, but as a general rule, yes, you can teach most people anything, provided you have the time and resources to do so. Sometimes it takes a generation for that sort of thing to really take effect, since children are more malleable than adults. In some ways, yes, I'm talking about making a "New American Man," but I don't think my goals are so far-fetched.

Yeah, but you basically do all those things by appealing to people's interests. Why do the Jews all need to be killed? Because they're Evil Bankers that are destroying Our Race. Why should you believe that Christ is the Son of God? Because it's true, and you'll go to Heaven and be happy forever. Why are the Germans devils? Because they refuse to get their Prussian boots off of the glorious province of Alsace-Lorraine, which properly belongs to France. Why is communism evil? Because it takes away your freedoms, and your money. etc.

These things all work by appealing to obvious, often tangible, interests. (Protection, salvation, money, freedom, and so on) I think you'll have a lot more trouble convincing people to work themselves a lot harder than they need to because it's their "duty."

We discussed all this in fiftychat a few days ago, so I don't want to spend too much time on this. So I'll just respond to a few other comments, then follow another line of thought.

Well it depends on your definition of "coerce." Peer pressure can be very powerful. How would you feel if everyone wanted you to be in charge, but you refused them? Maybe like you were letting them down?

That depends. Are we talking about fighting off zombies? Or increasing production of refrigerators? I'd be highly motivated to take the offer of leadership in the first instance, as I'm highly attached to the idea of not becoming a member of the shuffling undead. I'd be much less interested in the second proposition, because I'm not given any real reason to care as to why I should be asked to sacrifice a good amount of my life to increase refrigerator production. (Or some other similarly uninteresting task) Now, if I were getting paid....I'd have a reason to want to ship more fridges.

Substantial portions of the population will be doing that, most positions aren't leadership roles, El.

Again, I'm not talking about a coup to install these things, I'm talking about a popular revolution. We wouldn't do anything without the consent of large parts of The People. Because, as you have observed, its not freedom if its simply what the government tells us to do upon pain of death.

I think what you'll find is that most people are in favor of other people doing all the work, if that can fly. I suspect you might be able to get more people to get behind the proposition of "the boss gets paid the same" than you'll be able to get to volunteer to be that same boss. I also suspect that many of the people who will take that kind of job will be the sort who will take advantage of other benefit that being the boss brings, besides money: power.

Now, onto the hypothetical I put forward in my lastp ost:

Well see, you wouldn't "own" the business yourself. It would be owned by you and your coworkers. if you aren't going to make more money by hiring more people, then you shouldn't do it. That's just smart business practice. What you have to remember is that, sure, you could hire a few people to help you, and pay them crap, which would increase your personal profits, but it would be at their expense, since they'll be paid less. Sure, they'll be employed, but making complete crap for money. Unless you expect to have some sort of welfare system in place to supplement their income, you're asking people to live on the very edge of sustenance, and the frustration with that sort of injustice is precisely what communist revolutions are made of. The idea of more equal pay is that we want to work ourselves away from the need for a welfare system. So long as people are getting paid crap for money, as happens with most people at the bottom of the capitalist ladder, a welfare system must exist to maintain some semblance of humanity.

You're missing the point. I wouldn't have to pay them crap - in my hypothetical, I could pay high schoolers $50 an hour to make sandwiches, and I'd still increase my bottom line. They would be "exploited," I guess, in that they're earning less than they're creating - but realistically, they'd be benefiting enormously, because they'd be earning several times what they could working with the same experience at McDonalds or Arbys. If I were to pay them $50 an hour, I would make more money by hiring more people, and the people I hire would be better off than if they were not hired.

Now, unskilled labor can't usually produce $200 worth of goods an hour, so my hypothetical is a little absurd. But I do think it goes to show an important point: your system only superficially is looking out for everyone's best interest.

I'll also acknowledge the inhibitor existent in such a system on expansion of small businesses. I see it as a rather pleasant side-effect, as it can prevent new corporations from arising out of the blue. It also has the effect, as you have also noticed (though perhaps not noticed that you've noticed ), of encouraging more people to become self-employed, because of that potential reduction of personal profit by hiring other people. I'm reminded of a long tradition in Greece of self-employment; everyone has their own shop, and things seem to work fine. This tradition of self-reliance is reflected in the Greek word δούλος (doulos), which means both slave and employee. It was, until recently, considered a breach of personal pride to work under someone else in a private business. Just some food for thought.

I don't think you understand how negative an effect this would have. If every worker has an equal share in the business....if I hire three people to work in my sandwich shop, could they vote me out? It was my idea, and I worked hard and gave them good jobs, but I could conceivably be stabbed in the back by them, with no recourse. (If that's not possible under the situation you're suggesting, then please correct me)

Furthermore, this policy would basically annihilate most businesses, especially small ones. They'd be reduced to one or two man affairs, or often family businesses. You seem to think that this is a good thing, but it would have serious side affects that I don't think you're considering. For instance: People wouldn't be able to specialize as efficiently, so prices for goods and services would rise dramatically. (For instance: The plumber who sucks at math but is a genius at fixing things has to laboriously do all his accounts himself, instead of hiring a clerk. This reduces the amount of time he has to work, which means he'll have to charge more for the same services in order to stay above water)

You talk about how things worked in Ancient Greece - all well and good. But need I remind you, that the standard of living in Ancient Greece basically sucked? It was good for the time, sure - but compared to how the even moderately poor live now, it wasn't that great. Three out of four poor households in America own a car, 1/3 own 2, and "The average poor American has more living space than the average individual [Note: Individual, not individual below the poverty line] living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe." I'm not trying to prove that there aren't desperately poor people in the US, who need help - there certainly are - but even a lot of people who are "poor" by modern American standards are fairly well off by international standards, and downright wealthy by historical ones.

In short: saying things "worked fine" in the past with one system is disingenuous, when "working fine" included the vast majority of the population living illiterately in tiny homes, with not even the rich enjoying the comforts of life that we take for granted. I'm not saying that we would regress 2000 years if you had your way - but I think the average standard of living would take a rather substantial hit, because your economic system has serious inherent inefficiencies built into it. (I hate to say something that sounds like it comes out of an economics textbook, but I'm not sure how else to say it) Your ideas would probably pull up the desperately poor, but would also drag down not only the rich, but the middle class as well. Perhaps that's a reality you're comfortable with, but it doesn't sound all that fun to me.

I'm actually not going to answer this, for a variety of reasons. The first is that I answered most of it above, not seeing the second part of this. Second, I'm purposefully resisting commenting about every part of the society and government I'm advocating, because I don't want it to become one of those utopian ideals like Faurier's and Etienne Cabet's, their "perfect" societies formulated in advance, and then adding people to it to make it work, like a giant machine. It shouldn't be like that. There comes a point when the theorist's job ends and the will of the people begins, and I don't want to cross that line. We can only suggest how things could be, its up to them to decide how it will be. Unfortunately the two aren't always the same, and can be polar opposites.

Yes, but what would you like to happen? And realistically, what do you think would happen? I'm not asking you to say what must happen, or definitely will, or anything of the sort. Just your opinion on the subject.


Thanks again.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Ok, believe what you want. and I hope your right. And no I do not speak any Kenyan dialects, but have you ever considered that you could be wrong. Of course not, I am sure you have'nt, but you did get excited enough to misspell proof. I was wondering could I borrow your crystal ball for awhile. And its credentials, please my friend use a spell checker.

Want to say something: dialect =/= language. The languages of Kenya are manifold. They are not dialects of the same language. Luo is not the same as Gikuyu which is not the same as Maasai which is not the same as Swahili.