The Workers Dream: Socialism and Communism

Originally posted by Druscilla

I mean, just listen to your own comment above about forcing small businesses to do ... whatever, forcing, taking, forcing, taking. It's such an entirely male aggressive rape-like attitude; take, force,take.

edit on 27-3-2013 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)

what a nasty little sexist attitude, as if women are incapable of "taking"


jeesh

Not to get all mouthy and foamy but if you had seen for yourself some of the cesspools that have been created and the deplorable human agony caused by such an endeavor,you wouldn't be so quick to speak its virtues.
What the hell is it lately with all the rah,rah, communists anyway?

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

Review my edit above.

And besides that, who needs adhere to some rigorous definition outlined by someone else as to what they think socialism is, or should be?

There's all kinds of socialism. I could care less about all the fear mongering over literal interpretations where pictures of private property seizure are painted in bold scary strokes, where totaltarian regimes clam down on anything and everything.

Certainly there's extremes, but, who wants extremes?

No, no there really are not all different kinds. Socialism is the the social ownership of all property - there is no private property, resources, industry, or anything.

And you're idealist attempt at rearranging politics wouldn't work because nobody worth a damn would volunteer to eat and sleep the same as the "least among us" because you're assuming that everyone wants to work. The lazy shouldn't be boosted by the ambitious just so we can all feel good.

It's counter-intuitive and ultimately removes the ambitious from the equation. Doubt me? Look at the US welfare state. It hasn't shrunk... ever. It just grows and grows - why work hard for something if you can get it for free...

Human nature.

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
Not to get all mouthy and foamy but if you had seen for yourself some of the cesspools that have been created and the deplorable human agony caused by such an endeavor,you wouldn't be so quick to speak its virtues.
What the hell is it lately with all the rah,rah, communists anyway?

They see their glorious leader in the WH for a second term and assume that looming financial collapse will usher in the same utopia they were taught in university like him.

Originally posted by Malynn
People who don't understand socialism (read: most of the people in this thread who get really indignant when anyone even brings it up) love to parrot the fallacy that "socialism has always failed."

No. It hasn't. While pure socialism has never been attempted, at least on a large scale, the places it is being used right now are doing just fine. Very prosperous, actually. I realize a lot of Americans operate under the bias that the planet revolves around them, however Finland, Sweden, Canada, Denmark, and The Netherlands are doing just fine. Higher standard of living than we do, better education, healthcare for all. They're also freer than we are.

Snap out of it. You were lied to and programmed to work against your own and everyone else's economic interest. Except the interests of those who use their wealth and power to amass more wealth and power for themselves and their wealthy and powerful friends. Unless of course those in this thread are a member of that sect, and then I understand, obviously.

Pure socialism has always failed. Is that better? None of those states run as a pure socialist nation. They have socialized aspects of their state, but they are not "socialist". North Korea... they are. So was the USSR.

Stark difference than what Canada is doing. Hell, by your definition, the US is already a socialist nation.

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by GreenGlassDoor

 

I have an idea: Name any national government and economic system, as is, on this planet you see as most ideal?

Ahh, questions to a question, typical maneuver for someone who's running off ideals and has no logic behind it.

But, I'll answer for him: 'MERICAH!

- Still the best

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by DarthMuerte

 

It gets boiled down to ME ME ME ME ME, and fear mongering over What is the government going to TAKE from ME ME ME ME now?

edit on 27-3-2013 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)

That's humanity baby, don't hate the player, hate the game.

People been killing each other for furs and women since the stone ages. You think we can change that with a social economic modle? That we will all blissfully change our instinctual and primal behaviors for the greater good?

Roll through the Ivory coast with that mantra and tell me 'bout it when you get back. Hell, we're "civil" here in the US. Try out some Mexican Cartels for that crap - you think they're down? How about the gang bangers shooting strangers for shoes in Chicago?

People want more, and they want power. Not all people, but some do - unless we find a way to snuff 'em out at birth, you simply can't eliminate "ME" from the vocab.

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by DarthMuerte

 

I mean, just listen to your own comment above about forcing small businesses to do ... whatever, forcing, taking, forcing, taking. It's such an entirely male aggressive rape-like attitude; take, force,take.

"Is a rose by another name still not a rose..."

Call it what you'd like, use whatever words you want, taking something from someone against their will is still the same.

Originally posted by Druscilla
Certainly. I don't disagree. Every society will have its misfits.
You're not exampling anything that isn't endemic in any system.

edit on 27-3-2013 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)

your comments indicate a "want" for totalitarianism, "misfits", you demand conformity, not individuality- down that route tyranny, INEVITABLY, lies

perhaps the "misfits" could be packed off to re education camps (gulags)

The interesting thing here is that it point's out there have never actually been any communist country's as every so called communist country was in fact a totalitarian regime propped up by a radical militantism and military police state, however the Pre-Stalin period under Lenin can be argued to have been a true progressive socialist state that was crushed by Stalin and the closest model I can see that may have worked on a small scale would have to be the Jewish Kibutze's were shared work was made for shared benefit.

It remains' a sad truth that under uncontrolled capitalism the rich will always exploit the poor but I beliece that Social Democracy such as the OLD british labour party whose goal was to represent the working class was the best form, though now we have a Capatist right wing government whom are hoodwinking the british electorate and preparing the finalise the sell off of our social housing to private land lord's by a method of implementing a stealth tax on the poorest thereby pricing them out of there home's in a method reminiscent of the land clearance's of the 1800's but with the sole intention of creating more ready accommodation for the wave's of migrant's coming into the already overcrowded UK to work on national minimum wage's and drive the wage's down overall.

Despite the irreparable damage this is doing to both the UK economy and society those in power are going to reap large personal financial reward's as they are turning the UK employment market into a minimum wage slave labour society and that is there true intention, as well as intending to suspend the European charter on human right's they are cancelling benefits for migrant's but have no intention of stopping there supply of cheap labour whom are helping them to crush the British working and middle class.

But the pendulum of swing's and it will swing to the left no matter what these corporate stooge's do.

reply to post by Phoenix267


You have explained the different movements for socialism, but you really haven't explained what socialism actually is.

Socialism is simply the workers ownership of the means of production. Communism is another word for socialism, which causes a lot of confusion.

The confusion has come from different organisations taking those terms, and people using what those organisations do to define the terms they use. Also from the misinterpretation of Marx. Marxism is not state-socialism, as a lot of people believe including anarchists, it is ultimately state-free. Marxism was a political path to socialism, that advocates temporary nationalism (state controlled economy on behalf of the people) as a way to move the economy to worker owned. Once the workers own the means of production the state would become unnecessary, and be dismantled. Also it would not be the same state we have now, it would be a worker ran and controlled state, what Marx called the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' in opposition to the dictatorship of private owners. Anarchists were socialists who apposed the political path to socialism and wanted direct action.

In the early days Marx used the term communism because other groups were appropriating the term socialism to mean something other than worker ownership, such as liberal organisations that were not for worker ownership.

You also have to understand when anarchists talk about communism they can be referring to communist organisations, rather than communism as an economic system. For example anarchists would heckle socialists at political rallies, even thought the anarchists were themselves socialists. The difference in all socialist organisations is the path to socialism, Marxism being a political path, anarchism being a direct action path. But the final goal was the same, free association.

Free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, a community of freely associated individuals) is a relationship among individuals where there is no state, social class or authority and private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production enabling them to freely associate (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their individual and creative needs and desires. The term is used by anarchists and Marxists and is often one considered a defining feature of a fully developed communist society.

en.wikipedia.org...

Marx and Engels used the terms Communism and Socialism to mean precisely the same thing. They used “Communism” in the early years up to about 1875, and after that date mainly used the term “Socialism.” There was a reason for this. In the early days, about 1847-1850, Marx and Engels chose the name “Communism” in order to distinguish their ideas from Utopian, reactionary or disreputable movements then in existence, which called themselves “Socialist.” Later on, when these movements disappeared or went into obscurity, and when, from 1870 onwards, parties were being formed in many countries under the name Social-Democratic Party or Socialist Party, Marx and Engels reverted to the words Socialist and Socialism. Thus when Marx in 1875 (as mentioned by Lenin) wanted to make the distinction referred to by the Daily Worker, he spoke of the “first phase of Communist society” and “a higher phase of Communist society.” Engels, writing in the same year, used the term Socialism, not Communism, and habitually did so afterwards. Marx also fell, more or less closely, into line with this change of names and terms, using sometimes the one, sometimes the other, without any distinction of meaning.

www.marxists.org...

In short if the organisation is not in support of worker ownership, then it is not socialist or communist. Socialism is not social programs implimented by the state, that is modern liberalism, a capitalist economy with a state system that provides a social safety net. A lot of socialists did become liberals, and have given up on the idea of worker ownership. But liberalism did not come from the working class labour movement, it came from the middle and upper classes who saw it as a way to appease the workers and keep them working.

Liberalism is not socialism and never will be - Winston Churchill, as the Liberal Party candidate for Dundee, 1908

One more quick point; when socialists talk about 'private property' they mean 'economic private property' (capital), not your personal private property. You own what is yours under socialism, you can own a factory if you want, but if the workers own the means of production then owning a factory would be a waste of time because no one would work for you. When the government talks about private property they are also referring to economic private property, not your personal property.

Property rights (economics)

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]

the right to use the good
the right to earn income from the good
the right to transfer the good to others
the right to enforcement of property rights.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
Not to get all mouthy and foamy but if you had seen for yourself some of the cesspools that have been created and the deplorable human agony caused by such an endeavor,you wouldn't be so quick to speak its virtues.
What the hell is it lately with all the rah,rah, communists anyway?

But the problem is the so-called cesspools had nothing to do with socialism.

There have been no socialists economies in any country. Socialism is not government control, and it is not government hand-outs.

Take the USSR for example. The Bolsheviks were not communists. They only took the name communist in order to convince the population to support them. Once in power they did nothing to change the economy to worker owned, they simply did it to take state power for themselves, and created a state-capitalist economy (sometimes incorrectly called state-socialism). The real left-wing was apposed to the Bolsheviks.

The left-wing uprisings against the Bolsheviks were a series of rebellions and uprisings against the Bolsheviks in the aftermath of the 1917 Russian Revolution that were led or supported by left-wing groups such as 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 during and after the Russian Civil War until around 1924. The Bolsheviks increasingly abandoned attempts to invite these groups to join the government and instead suppressed them with force.

en.wikipedia.org...

Of course your state system has convinced you that the USSR etc., actually were communist in order to demonise the term communism, and socialism, so that you don't realise the truth of it, and support worker ownership. The last thing the capitalist state wants is worker ownership, not a totalitarian system which would be to the states benefit.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
How would you implement Socialism amongst 300 million people? Would you just decree that their property is no longer their own, but rather the State's? What if people resist? I am honestly curious to hear how you would implement such.

You are confused, as explained in my post above socialism does not take away your private property. It only changes economic private property to the workers common ownership of economic property, property used to make profit.

You have to realise that the workers do the work, we don't need the private owner in order to produce. Private ownership puts profits into private bank accounts, that make them far more wealthy than the majority. When a class of people became far more wealthy than another class, it leads to an authoritarian system whereby the private owners have the economic power to control the workers. It creates a society where only those with economic power are free.

Socialism can be implemented in many ways, from direct revolution (anarchists) to political (Marxists) to simple education.

Socialism is also not state ownership, it is worker ownership. Socialism requires no state system, otherwise there would not be anarchism, also known as Libertarian Socialism.

Why "Libertarian"?
It is recognized that there are authoritarian systems and behavior, distinct from libertarian, or non-authoritarian ones. Since capitalism's early beginnings in Europe, and it's authoritarian trend of wage-slavery for the majority of people (working class) by a smaller, elite group (a ruling, or, capitalist class) who own the "means of production": machines, land, factories, there was a liberatory movement in response to capitalism known as "Socialism". In almost every case, the socialist movement has been divided along authoritarian, and libertarian lines. The anarchists on the libertarian side, and the Jacobins, Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists, and reformist state-socialists on the authoritarian side. (And liberals more or less split down the middle.) ....

Why "Socialism"?
Socialism, in it's traditional and true definition, means "the workers democratic ownership and/or control of the means of production". Such a definition implies that rather than a government bureaucracy for managing such means, there is a focus on highly democratic organisation, education and awareness, and every individual is encouraged to become an active, rather than passive participant in that which effect their lives. Only the workers themselves bear the knowledge of what their own freedom and liberty means, and only they know what is best for themselves, ultimately....

Libertarian Socialism

People claim capitalism is freedom, but don't realise capitalism took away our freedom when they had the enclosure laws enacted, starting in the 1750's. The enclosure laws allowed land owners to fence off their land, and deny it's use to the commoners (none land owners). This forced the commoners off the land, and into the factories and mills of the land owners where they were exploited to make the land owners extremely wealthy.

Why did the land owners do that? Because the commoners were cooperating and creating an economy outside of the land owners control. They saw this as a threat to their power and control. The system they created became known as capitalism in the 1800's. Socialism came as a reaction to that.

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
To me "commuity incentives" means taxation used to redistribute wealth. So, explain to me how I am wrong here.

People always go on about taxes, but fail to realise that capitalism takes far more from you than the government does.

Have you ever looked at how much mark up there is on products you buy? Every person that touches a product before it goes to market adds their profit to the product. We end up paying way more than a product is really worth, due to the need to make profit. It wastes resources and time.

In a socialist economy the workers own what they produce, no one exploits them for profit, and production is based on our needs, not for making someone profit.

Capitalism exploits labour, because workers have to produce more than they are paid for, known as 'surplus value'.

Wal-Mart gives a prime example of the great polarization between these two classes. Wal-Mart employs around 1.4 million people in the U.S., and most employees make $7.50 an hour. If every employee worked 8 hours a day for five days a week, Wal-Mart would pay a little over $20 billion each year in wages.

In 2002, Wal-Mart sales totaled $217 billion and their costs were $207 billion (including the wages paid to workers), leaving an additional $10 billion. Where did that extra $10 billion come from? It came from the hard labor of the workers. Instead of going to the workers, it goes into the pockets of Wal-Mart's owners as profit. A basic principle of economics is that labor produces value....

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

In 2002, Wal-Mart sales totaled $217 billion and their costs were $207 billion (including the wages paid to workers), leaving an additional $10 billion. Where did that extra $10 billion come from? It came from the hard labor of the workers. Instead of going to the workers, it goes into the pockets of Wal-Mart's owners as profit. A basic principle of economics is that labor produces value....

Actually that is not true. Wal-Mart will use profits to expand their business, give out stock dividends, and invest in future growth.
Growth will cause the stock price to increase, which benefits the owners of Wal-Mart. It is important to note anyone can own a share or shares of Walmart!

The corporate executives at Walmart may have performance incentives that trigger bonuses, but they are no different than any other employee at Walmart in that their expenses fall under the wages paid to workers.

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

Politics would be rearranged such that a political career would no longer be a convenient path toward wealth and power, but a position of responsibility and accountability.
How so?
Every elected official would need live and conduct themselves in and under conditions similar to the least of those they represent.
Large population of homeless/unemployed and others? Mayor is sleeping in a tent on the mayor's residence lawn and eating soup kitchen fare, or what can get got on food stamps until housing, employment, and all those basic of basic needs are provided for.
From the bottom up, across the entire nation, there will be a change.
As the least common denominator rises, so to does the comfort and perks associated with the offices representing such, and so too does the rest of the nation profit and prosper.

You don't build a house from the attic down. You lay a foundation first.
Such a foundation need not remove private ownership of anything from anyone.
As the benchmark level of 'least' rises, the whole is floated upon its rise.

edit on 27-3-2013 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)

In this scenario, why would anyone work hard or work at all? They know they will be taken care of with entitlements and so the incentive to make a living is entirely wiped out. The politicians would all quit and anarchy would ensue.

In regards to healthcare systems there is a huge misnomer.

Take Switzerland for example. They have a "socialist" universal healthcare system in that every citizen is guaranteed access to basic health insurance. Every citizen is required to purchase basic health insurance (provided from private insurers that by law cannot make profit on the basic package) and if they don't they have to pay a penalty. Those who can't afford it, are subsidized by the government so that they can. This results in 99.5% of the population having health insurance.

Sounds great, right? The problem is Switzerland is by large a homogeneous population with a high standard of living. Only about 1/3 of the population are subsidized by the government to pay for healthcare.
Here in America, we have much more diversity, over 48M uninsured and over 49M receiving medicare/medicaid.

Implementing a similar system in America would mean that almost 100M Americans would have to buy the basic health insurance package and undoubtedly require government subsidies not to mention all the other Americans currently provided with employer insurance (slightly less than 50%) that would also need subsidies. This would require massive government spending to provide for the universal healthcare system in America. Not to mention the philosophical debate of if it's right to force people to buy something they don't want. Of course, forcing everyone to buy in eliminates the unhealthy purchaser bias It also forces the healthy to pay higher rates brought on by the costs of the unhealthy. The unhealthy receive lower premiums brought on by removing selection bias making the healthy indistinguishable.

I support the freedom of choice. You should be able to buy private health insurance if you so desire and you shouldn't be forced to support the poor and elderly via medicare/medicaid. Instead of forcibly taking money out of your paycheck, each individual should be responsible for savings/IRA to pay for their own medical care and future retirement expenses. I know this is providing way too much responsibility to the average person and would never actually happen. We cannot be trusted and need control and a central government to tell us how to spend our money.

Originally posted by bgold1212
Growth will cause the stock price to increase, which benefits the owners of Wal-Mart. It is important to note anyone can own a share or shares of Walmart!

Whether that quote is correct, or not, doesn't really matter, it was just an example of how most capitalist companies work.

But the share holders are essentially private owners, not the workers, who would never be able to afford enough shares to have any control.

Socialism is not just about having a share in the company, it is ownership of what you produce. A public owned company is not worker ownership. The workers, even if they have shares, do not have ownership and control over what they produce.

The corporate executives at Walmart may have performance incentives that trigger bonuses, but they are no different than any other employee at Walmart in that their expenses fall under the wages paid to workers.

OK.

Originally posted by bgold1212
In regards to healthcare systems there is a huge misnomer.

Take Switzerland for example. They have a "socialist" universal healthcare system in that every citizen is guaranteed access to basic health insurance.

Sorry but socialism is not social health care, nor any hand outs from the government.

That is modern liberalism, that the capitalist class has almost succeeded in replacing socialism with, but some of us still know the truth.

Socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production. It requires no government. Who would be doing the hand-outs in a libertarian socialist society? Think about that.

"Anarchism is stateless socialism" - Mikhail Bakunin

Socialism is worker ownership whether that is instituted through a centralised state, labour unions, or by individuals working their own plot of land. It is the idea that liberty can only come from having access to the means to produce for your needs. That means no land, or machinery, can be monopolised by a minority class in order to make themselves wealthy by exploiting those who only have their labour to sell.

If you have the means, and work for yourself, you own 100% of what you produce. If you have to work for someone else because you own nothing, and they are lucky enough to own property, then you do not own 100% of what you produce, as a large percentage of that is taken by the property owner for their profit.

The first and largest flaw in the system is the Federal Reserve itself.
Federal Reserve is no more "Federal" than Federal Express, the Federal Reserve is a privately owned central bank which has been given the authority by the US Congress to create money, something which under any other circumstances would be called counterfeiting.
What few Americans realize is that under the private central banking system, all currency enters circulation as a loan at interest from the central bank.
The money you are paid for work, the money you pay for food; all of it first entered the economy as a loan at interest form the Federal Reserve.
Loans to the US Government, loans to other banks, loans to businesses and loans to consumers.
As that money circulates, passing from hand to hand to hand to hand, it accrues interest on that loan, which must eventually be repaid through higher prices and increased taxation.
This all started in 1913.