bigdog5994
Lady Day
i think a company ran by its employees would be a lot like California
Socialism
- Thread starter aelf
- Start date
amadeus
Apply directly to the forehead
Run in what sense?
Huayna Capac357
Deity
Capitalism is the system where the means of production are owned by the companies and left to do as they please. Socialism is the system where the means of production are owned by the government or by the people. Communism is achieved through socialism and is a classless, government-less, army-less, police-less, perfectly equal society. It has never been achieved. Capitalism was started in the Renaissance in Italy as the first corporations arose. It became divided, broadly, into two camps: Keynesians, led by Keynes, Galbraith, and others, and Friedmanites, led by Friedman, Hayek, Mises, and Rand. The idea of socialism and communism was first started by utopians such as Fourier, but wasn't really a mass (or viable) movement until the 1848 publication of the Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels. Marxism became divided into many groups in the 20th century, such as Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, and Trotskyism. The vast majority of Americans today are capitalists, but there are socialist and communist parties in the US today, and Marxist Eugene V. Debs received 900,000 votes in the 1912 election.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Well I should hope we would continue the present judicial and legislative systems.Because, left uninhibited, corporations will grow too powerful for governments (or anyone) to control, and then who will defend us from them?
You see, the primary purpose of any capitalist company is to make profit. That's why most people in the company don't make a whole lot of money, but the owner and the higher-ups do. The less you pay someone, the more profit you have, since the money to pay them comes from selling products for a higher price than it cost you to build them. Since companies are owned and run by only one or a few people, they naturally squeeze as much profit out as they can. That's not very good for the vast majority of us not at the top of the chain, now is it? Its unjust. The company couldn't make the money it does if the people at the bottom weren't there to make the product the company sells, just as there would be no materials or organization to make the products if there weren't other people in the company to order it, organize it, and generally make sense of things. Everyone works together to make the company work, but not everyone gets an equal share of the results of that effort: the profit. Most of it goes to the owner. That's not fair. Its also essentially a dictatorship within the company. Just as we got rid of kings and emperors because its not right to dictate to other people how things are going to be, and rule over them without their consent, so is it wrong that the owner of a company should be able to dictate to his employees how things will be, like prices, hiring and firings, or even what the company is going to do. Companies should be run by the people who work in them, just as nations should be run by the people who live in them, not just a guy or a few guys at the very top.
Because of this tendency to concentrate money (which is called "capital" when it is collected to be re-invested) in the hands of a few people ( the company owners, or "capitalists" ), power also concentrates in the hands of those people. In the 19th century, this became a serious problem, so the government passed laws that limited such things as monopolies (they said a company could only become so big, and only control so much of the market of the goods it produced), so that companies could not get too big and threaten the security or integrity of the nation itself. But the laws are not nearly tight enough, and the owners and higher-ups of companies still hold way too much sway over how things work in Washington. This trend is dangerous, as these capitalists, in their pursuit of more and more money, attempt to drive the nation to do things that will give them more money. This is one way imperialism works: companies require new markets for their products, so they get their country invades another one (think about Europe in Africa and India in the 19th and 20th centuries) or coerces it into letting the companies in (usually as a "trade agreement"). The US is particularly fond of the latter of these, and has strong-armed many nations into marching to the United States' drumbeat simply by refusing to trade with it.
But I digress. While companies compete with each other, the consumer benefits. Each company is trying to provide the best quality product (theoretically) for the lowest price, and shut out his competitors from the market. While many companies are selling the same or similar products or services, that's all great. But when one gets an unfair share of the market, as all companies hope to, then they don't have to compete as much with other companies, and can charge whatever outrageous prices they want; since people have no alternative and they want or need those products, how can they argue? All that "freedom of choice" is gone when the capitalists finally win their game.
Can you see why allowing privately-owned corporations to grow so strong is dangerous?
But then who would choose to take on the additional responsibility of managing the place?
Where is this even coming from? The closest thing that will come to this is increased taxation on the wealthy compared to the poor. There is no chance the US would institute a policy to restrict wealth.
The biggest problem is that people hear socialism and they immediately expect full nationalization of the economy. This isn't going to happen. We are talking about limited socialism, like most of the Western World. Even the United States has elements of socialism already in place.
The only industry likely to be nationalised are parts of the healthcare industry. And there are successful precedents, I doubt anyone wants to see the fire departments privatized, and I bet a lot of people were against it when it happened. And with healthcare, while Canadians universally . .. .. .. .. . about it, the vast majoirty of the population would be outraged at any attempts to privitize it.
There is no sense talking about the sudden implementation of complete socialism. This will never happen in a democratic country, at least unless it is over a very long period of time.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
The people who like/are good at that sort of thing. Or any courageous soul with a sense of duty willing to step up to the plate.
Not while the ruling classes run the government. That's why we should be prepared to act outside the realm of their control.
Nylan
Characters Welcome
A few questions.
1) Just how many people like that do you think there are?
2) How/why did they "get good at that sort of thing"?
3) Can this group of people really fill all those positions properly?
Because, left uninhibited, corporations will grow too powerful for governments (or anyone) to control, and then who will defend us from them?
You see, the primary purpose of any capitalist company is to make profit. That's why most people in the company don't make a whole lot of money, but the owner and the higher-ups do. The less you pay someone, the more profit you have, since the money to pay them comes from selling products for a higher price than it cost you to build them. Since companies are owned and run by only one or a few people, they naturally squeeze as much profit out as they can. That's not very good for the vast majority of us not at the top of the chain, now is it? Its unjust. The company couldn't make the money it does if the people at the bottom weren't there to make the product the company sells, just as there would be no materials or organization to make the products if there weren't other people in the company to order it, organize it, and generally make sense of things. Everyone works together to make the company work, but not everyone gets an equal share of the results of that effort: the profit. Most of it goes to the owner. That's not fair. Its also essentially a dictatorship within the company. Just as we got rid of kings and emperors because its not right to dictate to other people how things are going to be, and rule over them without their consent, so is it wrong that the owner of a company should be able to dictate to his employees how things will be, like prices, hiring and firings, or even what the company is going to do. Companies should be run by the people who work in them, just as nations should be run by the people who live in them, not just a guy or a few guys at the very top.
Because of this tendency to concentrate money (which is called "capital" when it is collected to be re-invested) in the hands of a few people ( the company owners, or "capitalists" ), power also concentrates in the hands of those people. In the 19th century, this became a serious problem, so the government passed laws that limited such things as monopolies (they said a company could only become so big, and only control so much of the market of the goods it produced), so that companies could not get too big and threaten the security or integrity of the nation itself. But the laws are not nearly tight enough, and the owners and higher-ups of companies still hold way too much sway over how things work in Washington. This trend is dangerous, as these capitalists, in their pursuit of more and more money, attempt to drive the nation to do things that will give them more money. This is one way imperialism works: companies require new markets for their products, so they get their country invades another one (think about Europe in Africa and India in the 19th and 20th centuries) or coerces it into letting the companies in (usually as a "trade agreement"). The US is particularly fond of the latter of these, and has strong-armed many nations into marching to the United States' drumbeat simply by refusing to trade with it.
But I digress. While companies compete with each other, the consumer benefits. Each company is trying to provide the best quality product (theoretically) for the lowest price, and shut out his competitors from the market. While many companies are selling the same or similar products or services, that's all great. But when one gets an unfair share of the market, as all companies hope to, then they don't have to compete as much with other companies, and can charge whatever outrageous prices they want; since people have no alternative and they want or need those products, how can they argue? All that "freedom of choice" is gone when the capitalists finally win their game.
Can you see why allowing privately-owned corporations to grow so strong is dangerous?
Okay, I clearly understand everything you are saying. But let's say that the government takes over the role of corporations for producing goods. It's fair to assume that there will be 1 brand (government) for each type of good, correct? Where in this lies the competition to produce cheaper and better quality goods? As I see it, we would only be able to consume whatever quality good the government decides to give us, right?
I doubt there would be very many people willing to accept the position. It isn't like they get much power or other gains, but face extra responsibilities.
I believe that each individual should be given what they need. Beyond that they should be rewarded for their ability (a person doing the bare minimum at a low quality gets what they require, while the person doing more work, bearing more responsibilities and/or performing at a higher quality should recieve extra compensation).
If they're hiring and you need a job, absolutely you will. I understand that you are still young, and not accustomed to having to find a job or go hungry. You don't always get the job you want when you want it.
Nazi Germany has what to do with this?
And even if the USSR was authoritarian, what does it have to do with this? No one is suggesting we recreate Stalinist Russia in the US. The Soviet Union was not in any way a true demonstration of what socialism should or would be; for us to properly begin socialism, we must first have gone through the capitalist stage, in order to properly develop the economy into an organ capable of properly meeting the needs and wants of the population. But the problem is that, though the capability to provide those things to everyone exists, it is not being properly applied, and only provides those things to a certain percentage of the population. Russia was far behind the rest of Europe, and still very feudal by the early 20th century, when capitalism was flourishing in Western Europe and the US. The communists saw the need to create socialism in Russia, but when they did so they effectively skipped that capitalist stage and went directly from feudalism to socialism. Because of this, and the need to compete with the West, who was far, far ahead of it and expanding exponentially, the USSR had to rush through development to simulate what would have happened had they waited 100 or 200 years for capitalists to build the things necessary to provide for a modern society, and thus their economy came out very flawed and not nearly as well suited as it should have been. That's why they failed.
But we don't need to rush through anything like that; we're already there. Capitalism has run its full course in the United States and Western Europe, so there's no need to do anything like what they did in the USSR. No one is suggesting a vanguard party, no one is pondering a dictatorship, no one is planning to create a secret police or checkpoints on roads between states, no one is talking about censoring the media, and no one wants to end democracy or any of those things that define the American Republic. The Constitution isn't going anywhere, the Bill of Rights isn't going anywhere. You can stop worrying about these things and being so afraid of socialism and socialists.
I do suggest you sharpen your argument a bit, though, homey.
Just wonderful a futuristic Communism, Communism with a modern economy attached to it. Let me be number 57926-35216 the prosperous burger flipper!
This is what I have to say to that
nonconformist
Miserable
Cheezy does not represent the majority of socialists, and as a minority I doubt he represents anything other than a small splinter of them to be honest,
ArneHD
Just a little bit mad
Just wonderful a futuristic Communism, Communism with a modern economy attached to it. Let me be number 57926-35216 the prosperous burger flipper!
This is what I have to say to that
You think you will be anything else under capitalism? A corporation doesn't even have to pretend that they care about you
Just wonderful a futuristic Communism, Communism with a modern economy attached to it. Let me be number 57926-35216 the prosperous burger flipper!
This is what I have to say to that
What are you right now? You think anyone cares about you? They could fire you for not obeying them to the strictest letter (think dictatorship USSR), and replace you in a heartbeat... and then forget you ever existed.
And what will you do then? Sell yourself to another company. You need the money for shelter and food. You don't have a choice. You don't have freedom. And in that other company, you shall do the same as you should have done in the first: obey.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
More than there are people who perform those jobs now, probably. After all, I'm not saying the people who already do them aren't qualified, merely that the economic relationship between them and their co-workers is unjust.
How does anyone get good at anything?
And are you suggesting that the people who perform them now are maximally qualified?
Why wouldn't they?
Well the USSR had a command economy (that is, a planned economy, where the government "owned" most of the companies) because it had to plan everything out because it didn't have the luxury of letting them do whatever and hope it worked out in time. They genuinely feared for the security of their nation, and that's why they had to compete with the West so much. They also practiced a different kind of socialism, one bent primarily towards collectivization, where everyone owns everything. I'm not suggesting that, and it wouldn't be right for the US. Plus, we don't need to plan our economy, as we aren't in such a dire situation. Also, we know that letting the market work is better than a planned economy. Hell, even when the USSR first started off, they had a market economy of sorts (Lenin's New Economic Policy, if you're curious), it was only later that Stalin decided things weren't progressing fast enough and changed it into what we think of as the classic Soviet economy. So I'm not proposing we nationalize everything and make one government company to give us everything; the only things that should be nationalized are those things essential to our modern survival: health care and insurance, electricity, banks, and waste management, plus what is already run by the government (postal service, social security, defense, etc etc). Remember, its not the free market that's evil, its the capitalist system.
But to really "answer" your question, the difference would be that a government founded by a peoples' revolution would answer to the people first and have their needs first, and not exist to maximize profit, so it wouldn't be a strangling, dangerous monopoly like its capitalist counterpart. But again, I'm not arguing for a government monopoly for the vast, vast majority of things.
Just wonderful a futuristic Communism, Communism with a modern economy attached to it. Let me be number 57926-35216 the prosperous burger flipper!
This is what I have to say to that
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
We're not all Marxist-Leninists, you know. I have my ideas that are original, but much of it is also orthodox Marxism or things I've picked up from other socialists or communists like Eugene Debs or Leon Trotsky.
But even if you were right, it would mean nothing. Even Lenin commanded a rather small minority until mid-1917.
nonconformist
Miserable
Yes, but most socialists don't agree with a lot of what you said; in fact, most are inf avour of a mixed economy. Your ideas of a volunteer corporate leadership are completely unfeasable, and would never work.
In fact, it would very soon return to the old soviet status quo; "we pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us", except they actually do pay you.
Also, the one thing the Capitalists have over the left is they know how to advertise themselves; the majority of the left seems obsessed with explaining even what shopuld be the most simple concepts in huge, rambing diatribes and theses, explaining every facet of their theoretical ideal system, whereas an equivalent capitalist can generally put in in five sentences or less, in snappy soundbites.
The latter will always win, when it comes to politics.
In fact, it would very soon return to the old soviet status quo; "we pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us", except they actually do pay you.
Also, the one thing the Capitalists have over the left is they know how to advertise themselves; the majority of the left seems obsessed with explaining even what shopuld be the most simple concepts in huge, rambing diatribes and theses, explaining every facet of their theoretical ideal system, whereas an equivalent capitalist can generally put in in five sentences or less, in snappy soundbites.
The latter will always win, when it comes to politics.
Excuse me Feld Marshall, but I could go back to school and attain goals for my future plans. Like I am doing.
Then why would you be a burger flipper in a communist society? And what makes you think you won't have a boss with the career you're going for?
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
That's because you're including social democrats in your "socialist" count. They aren't socialists, as they still want to keep the capitalist order around. They've been "tamed" by the system by thinking they should operate inside it. You should really read One-Dimensional Man sometime.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. Its negotiable. The primary concern is abolishing private company ownership in favor of employee ownership, where we go from there is secondary.
Whatever.
Again, it worked for Lenin. "Patiently explain," he told his party members, "and in time we will have our majority." He meant majority in the Soviet, but the principle remains the same.
And there's no reason why couldn't do similar things, simplify our positions, our ideals, into simple phrases or soundbites. It wouldn't be fun, but it could be done.
But how do you think capitalism came around in the first place? Or are you one of those "it evolved naturally because its the most natural thing for humans to do!" people? A few guys envisioned it, wrote about it, and it slowly spread. It took centuries, but it happened. Socialism is much younger, but it is spreading. Even the social democrats in parliaments are a great progression over a century ago. Give it time, and we will have our way, our majority.
Which is why we won't engage them on the same front, we won't play their game.
Similar threads
