Socialism

[aelf]

here here I think I am going to like this thread. Aelf, we might not see eye to eye on movies, that's a small matter. Socialism in our midst, is a large matter, and it must be eliminated.

Yes, all the politicking must be eliminated

That's true only if you understand business and the economy on a first grade level.

Well, you're wrong. What about it isn't true? All the wealth in the world originated from someone's labour. Who dug up the raw materials from the earth? Who tilled the land? Maybe all this wealth existed before and without needing anyone's effort, just like how some of these laws that people obey in the market are perfectly "natural"

---

That cartoon is very good because it encapsulates some of the fundamentals of Marxist ideas, which no doubt serve as the spring board for, if not the foundation of, socialism. So keeping it in mind, I shall offer my own take on what socialism is about. Most of it is based on my study of Marx's Capital, which is a key text in Marxist thought, and very probably the Communist Manifesto (I just haven't read it in a while).

Marxism is a critique of political economy, and it is a radical one because it demonstrates ad hominem, i.e. directed towards the human being, in Marx's understanding:

Theory is capable of gripping the masses as soon as it demonstrates ad hominem, and it demonstrates ad hominem as soon as it becomes radical. To be radical is to grasp the root of the matter. But, for man, the root is man himself.

Marx argued that the world of political economy is a topsy-turvy world, where economic categories and laws, which are created by man, have enslaved man and replaced him as the foci of social (economic) activity. And instead of the actual use that we have for the things we produce (i.e. focusing on our needs), we are much more concerned by how much they are valued relative to other things (i.e. focusing on the market and its laws), things that are different in properties and nature, and as such incommensurable in terms of their use values.

This is commodification of things. Next comes the commodification of labour. Labour has a use - its use is to produce commodities. It is bought and sold in the market. The value by which it goes (the wage) is not the same as the use value that the capitalist who buys it gets. The commodities that worker produces is usually worth more in the market than the wage that the worker earns for his efforts. This creates surplus value or profit, which the capitalist enjoys.

Now, there are many reasons why this happens, and they are well covered by economics. But I contend that the Marxist critique still holds truth today. We are very focused on the intricate workings of the market, on the value of things when we exchange them, and we often lose sight of the thing behind it all - the man, who has needs, whose labour makes the commodities that are sold in the market, without whom nothing at all would matter because we cease to exist (since he is either ourselves or the one without whom all the economic activity in the world wouldn't occur in the first place).

As I see it, the major contention is then on whether the capitalist plays a necessary role in economic activity. But even if we disagree on that issue, I think there is enough reason to pay attention to the rights of the labourer. What is the human world about (I'm not referring to the planet here) but human beings? And the vast majority of human beings are not really capitalists - they still have to sell their labour to earn wages for a living. And in this large group of people to consider we must include those who do not even earn wages but who play important roles in human society (mothers/fathers, stay-home wives/husbands, unpaid social workers, young people not yet in the workforce, etc.).

Another question is whether capitalism gives more than it takes. No doubt the world has gotten wealthier because of capitalism despite the economic busts. But that is only to speak of the aggregate amount of wealth. Many people pay a heavy price each time the economy takes a hit due to man-made risks that they didn't personally take or have any control over. I think one of the things capitalism is about is rewarding risk-taking in the name of growth and development, but it should at least be balanced with the price that common people pay should things go awry. If risks must be taken, then there must be something adequate for people to fall back on. Don't forget the man.

I think that is the fundamental principle of socialism - the return to man. And this is why things such as universal healthcare, free or affordable education and minimum wage laws are socialist. Anything that violates or ignores this principle can hardly be called socialist. Things that are not necessarily based on this principle are not necessarily socialist. As such,

• Regulation is not necessarily socialist

And, by extension, neither is big government. Plenty of Marxists are libertarian in that they see government and bureaucracy as the instruments of the entrenchment of the wealthy minority. They believe in the socialist principle, of course, but they are very wary of a vast and powerful governing apparatus that can be appropriated by certain interests and that presents a strong resistance to social change.

Regulation also features in capitalism, and especially in non-socialist systems that emphasizes control, such as Fascism.

• Taxes are not necessarily socialist.

All sane people don't mind paying taxes. If you do, go join the anarcho-capitalist crowd in their Neverland - Somalia.

• High tax rates are not necessarily socialist.

Any system can introduce high tax rates or plenty of taxes. What was one of the big issues about feudalistic monarchies?

• Labour unions are not necessarily socialist.

Labour unions are a very socialist idea, yes, but they can and have been hijacked by vested interests. The funniest ones are those whose leaders are appointed by the businesses whose interests they are supposed to counterbalance with the workers'.

• Obama is not socialist.

Because his focus is on Hope and Change. It's not that clear who has the hope or what change is in order.

I'm sure there are many more, but this short list will have to do for now.

 

[Archbob]

China is communist, India and many other countries are socialist or social democrat. Half of the world is very left. As soon as the Republicans are a thing of the past, a social democrat party can be established in the US. You see, Obama is actually a rightist.

And America will proudly become as advanced as India and China. Hooray for socialism!

 

[holy king]

dumb and dumber at work...

 

[Fr8monkey]

And America will proudly become as advanced as India and China. Hooray for socialism!

And them maybe they will send us our jobs back.... YAY!!

 

[Archbob]

And them maybe they will send us our jobs back.... YAY!!

Hell yeah, I wants my $1/hour jobs.

 

[amadeus]

the fact that tasks have split as well as the profiteurs since marx doesnt change anything about the basic principle that still applies.

The strip implies that the boss doesn't supply anything of value. If that's actually the case, why do companies have so many executives and managers? If they're not doing anything for the company, the company doesn't have a reason to keep them on board.

Well, you're wrong. What about it isn't true?

Again, the strip implies that the boss doesn't produce anything of value. "Production" in this case does not necessarily mean a tangible good that can be used like a shirt or a chair, mind you.

That cartoon is very good because it encapsulates some of the fundamentals of Marxist ideas, which no doubt serve as the spring board for, if not the foundation of, socialism.

Then it goes to show you how silly of a system it really is if in order for it to be explained goes immediately to the lowest common denominator.

 

[Shadylookin]

The problem is the proletariat doesn't have enough bootstraps to pull themselves up by and I can't buy them for them because that would be socialist.

 

[aelf]

Again, the strip implies that the boss doesn't produce anything of value. "Production" in this case does not necessarily mean a tangible good that can be used like a shirt or a chair, mind you.

Then it goes to show you how silly of a system it really is if in order for it to be explained goes immediately to the lowest common denominator.

That's very funny indeed coming from you because instead of reading and replying with a good argument, you can only offer a snide comment with absolutely no content.

I guess we've seen the power of conservative intelligence at work

 

[Fr8monkey]

Hell yeah, I wants my $1/hour jobs.

Thanks to The Conservitive God, Reagan, we now send our jobs over to China and India where companies make $100 items (using $20 of labor in the US) for $50 (using $2 in labor over there) and then ship it back to the US and still charge $100 for the item. There is you Conservitive ideal in action.... grab as much money as you can and screw the US economy.

If you just keep the manufacturing jobs here, there would not be $1 an hour wages.

 

[amadeus]

That's very funny indeed coming from you because instead of reading and replying with a good argument, you can only offer a snide comment with absolutely no content.

I guess we've seen the power of conservative intelligence at work

I'm interested in the economics, not its underlying philosophy. Nor do I accept a philosophy where it is "greed" to keep what one has earned and "compassion" when it is taken from you and given to someone that did not work for it.

And I find it insulting that you're commenting on my intelligence when your entire philosophy is where the world is divided into two camps of "haves" and "have-nots" and a pithy cartoon for simpletons is somehow reflective of the way the world works.

 

[homeyg]

Socialism is a big bad word that many people use to scare people. The only people who need to be scared of socialism are the rich upper classes, of which the vast vast vast majority of people are not a part of. The vast vast vast majority of people have little if anything to lose to socialism, but the whole world to gain (figuratively speaking). It is lack of understanding of what the word means that demagogues play off of, for if people really knew what it meant, they wouldn't be afraid.

One of the main problems, I think, is that to really understand Marxism requires more than a little effort and education. When Hitler spoke, everyone "understood" him immediately. He appealed to the base instincts of Man. But Marxism appeals to the intellectual capabilities of Man, not what he is, but what he can be. It challenges mankind to use his gift of intelligence to reject those most base of instincts, to hoard for oneself and work for oneself, and to realize that the potential of collective work yields greater benefits than myriad individuals working for themselves at the expense of others. When Adam Smith envisioned capitalism, he saw it as a way to improve mankind by redefining the way we interacted, especially concerning money. It wasn't natural at the time, when mercantilism and remnants of feudalism still held sway, but enough people were inspired by what they saw humanity could become that they set out to change the world against all odds. And since then capitalism has brought us wonderful things, it has redefined what human cooperation means; just look at the corporation, at the conglomerate, are there more telling monuments to human cooperative work than them?

But Smith had a blind spot, the same as the rest of the liberal philosophers: men are not equally created, but rather equally entitled by virtue of being human, and thus deserve those fundamental rights we so often hear of. That lack of equality in capability is no different from other animals, and if man were just another animal like a tiger or a buffalo then letting Darwin‘s theory play out might very well be acceptable and correct. But there is something different about humans that separates them from all other animals on Earth: intelligence. Man is capable of envisioning something bigger than himself, but also capable of realizing that he is a unique individual, and is aware of both. That means that competing with each other for survival like other animals do is beneath us, all the more so when our survival is not threatened. To surrender to those animal instincts, as many social Darwinists would have us do, is insulting to mankind and this wonderful gift we have been given, no matter whether you believe that gift comes from God or Mother Nature. Millenia of philosophers, thinkers, and theorists have slowly tried to separate man from the beasts, to act “civilized” and to put his intellect to good use. Through them, we have progressed from our infantile thought processes, barely distinguishable from any other social animal, to the point we have reached today, the intellectual maturity we have endlessly sought. That is why we have to abandon this more primitive form of interaction, now that we can see past the blind spots of previous philosophers and social theorists, and live up to our responsibility as humans to make maximum use of that great gift of intelligence, and finally act together for everyone’s gain, rather than individually for the gain of a few.

I really find that I enjoy reading about fictional situations where humans just change their natural instincts when the people writing about it aren't being big huge jerks.

 

[aelf]

I'm interested in the economics, not its underlying philosophy. Nor do I accept a philosophy where it is "greed" to keep what one has earned and "compassion" when it is taken from you and given to someone that did not work for it.

And I find it insulting that you're commenting on my intelligence when your entire philosophy is where the world is divided into two camps of "haves" and "have-nots" and a pithy cartoon for simpletons is somehow reflective of the way the world works.

So did you read my big post or not? Are you waiting for an invitation? Well, you can either post some meaningful replies or you can giiit out.

I really find that I enjoy reading about fictional situations where humans just change their natural instincts when the people writing about it aren't being big huge jerks.

So what are natural human instincts?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Sure, you can!

Who designs the product?
Who maintains the factory?
Who does the market research?
Who distributes it to retailers?
Who manages the employees and their benefits?
Who buys the raw materials?
Who takes care of the accounting?
Who provides the legal services?
Who does customer service?
Who makes sure the product meets safety standards?
Who manages all of the above people?

It isn't like A Christmas Carol where there are these one-room storehouses that have just a boss and his clerk... any businesses around these days that are like that are family businesses, and even then the boss still has to carry all of the above responsibilities; contracts, materials, financing, etc. don't just pop out of thin air, my good man!

No one is saying that we don't need bosses or any of those people who perform those jobs. The point is that both the workers and the managers contribute equally to the success of the company, because without the other, neither would make any money, because the company wouldn't exist. That's why they deserve equal shares of the profit of their combined labor.

 

[Nylan]

No one is saying that we don't need bosses or any of those people who perform those jobs. The point is that both the workers and the managers contribute equally to the success of the company, because without the other, neither would make any money, because the company wouldn't exist. That's why they deserve equal shares of the profit of their combined labor.

Well, where is the incentive to invest in leadership skills then? Or accounting?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Well, where is the incentive to invest in leadership skills then? Or accounting?

Somebody has to do them, and without them, the company wouldn't function, as Ama so kindly observed. Necessity still dictates the existence of these things, I don't know why you would think it otherwise.

 

[kulade]

No one is saying that we don't need bosses or any of those people who perform those jobs. The point is that both the workers and the managers contribute equally to the success of the company, because without the other, neither would make any money, because the company wouldn't exist. That's why they deserve equal shares of the profit of their combined labor.

The labor contributed is certainly not the sole determiner in wages, nor should it be. If employees and employers received the same wages, there would be little incentive for potential employers to go through education and training that would be necessary to run a firm, when they could simply earn the same sum working in lower-end labor. That's why education/experience required is always a greater determiner in wage than the sweat you sweat while doing the work.

Granted I don't reject what your saying at heart, employers tend to receive over-inflated wages, but to say that employees and employers should receive the same amount is quite silly.

 

[homeyg]

So what are natural human instincts?

The list includes selfishness, being intoxicated by power, lying, looking out for one's own life and well being (and the lives of loved ones)... Did I mention selfishness?

Socialism could literally work if the government was run by robots programmed to have none of these qualities, and if the only people who knew how to reprogram these robots were murdered.

 

[nokmirt]

No, I don't think it should be boiled down into a single word. Oversimplification is probably one of the biggest problems in the world today, as few really understand what anythingreally means any more.



Of course. I always cite when I take other people's stuff. I make myself out to be something of a historian, you know.

When you are concentrating your thoughts on five subjects at once...ha ha...yes one word will do. But still I see your point, so much is overlooked. Sadly most of it under our very nose.

 

[nokmirt]

And America will proudly become as advanced as India and China. Hooray for socialism!

Yes, and we all will be able to drive the same green three wheeled car. Hooray!

 

[homeyg]

No one is saying that we don't need bosses or any of those people who perform those jobs. The point is that both the workers and the managers contribute equally to the success of the company, because without the other, neither would make any money, because the company wouldn't exist. That's why they deserve equal shares of the profit of their combined labor.

That's not the problem. The problem lies in the way that money would be distributed between different types of jobs. The problem is that a doctor would be paid the same as a burger flipper at McDonalds. And that just don't fly. This is of course, if your definition of socialism is "equal sharing of goods and wealth."