|
Post by rickypaglais on Nov 16, 2017 14:20:53 GMT -5
Corbyn is on record (several times) praising the economics of Venezuela, buggest oil reserves in the world yet people are killing their pets for food and queuing up for toilet roll for days... Chile, same area on the map, same peope, minimal oil reserves but a success story of an ecomony in comparison to the former... North Korea - death, starvation, and misery for most of its inhabitants, Communist regime... South Korean - Capitalist, same area on the map, same people, yet they have Samsung, Hyundai, LG, a buoyant economy and astromonical living standards compared with NK... I could go on, i do sympathise with the Socialist view of the greed of Corporations and we need to work together to try and solve that issue.. A recent and very simple analogy of how some of the fundamentals of Socialism are flawed is that my girlfriends’ sister has just got a new job in a restaurant as a waitress, in this restaurant they share out the tips, yet the previous restaurant she worked in they didn’t and she is a hard worker by nature but worked even harder to earn tips for herself.... Now she is in a position where there are a couple of other staff members who are lazy, doing the bare minimum, and basically just tossing it off all their shift, yet they come out with the same amount of tips than the girl working her arse off all night, this can and will only lead to the hard workers themselves becoming as lazy thus making the service suffer, all due to the nature of incentivism being taken away... I'm sorry, mate, but you really don't understand what socialism is. I totally agree with you that NK, Venezuela, etc...are all stupid and horrific systems - but they're not socialist. Neither is shared wages. Socialism means only WORKER'S CONTROL OF PRODUCTION. Not state control, not equal wages, nothing but WORKER'S CONTROL OF PRODUCTION. Would tools/specialist equipment come under private or social property?
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Nov 16, 2017 14:20:55 GMT -5
Where would the land...come from? I really don't understand that question. If there was no land which could be built upon, you wouldn't be building a house...right? Can I ask where this is going? You can always see B&Q for hammer recommendations or something... As in, if it's socially owned, how would I get permission to build on a bit of land that takes my fancy? Well, which land was under social control would probably be decided democratically under each community. The land that was available for building would probably be used first for those who need it most (again, this would be decided democratically and you would have a say) but if there's land that you want to use that isn't socially owned you would be free to do what you want, or to start a project with other people on it. Also, if no-one needs the land more than you, you'd be able to build a house on it. The point is, all this is decided through democracy.
|
|
|
Post by rickypaglais on Nov 16, 2017 14:22:12 GMT -5
As in, if it's socially owned, how would I get permission to build on a bit of land that takes my fancy? Well, which land was under social control would probably be decided democratically under each community. The land that was available for building would probably be used first for those who need it most (again, this would be decided democratically and you would have a say) but if there's land that you want to use that isn't socially owned you would be free to do what you want, or to start a project with other people on it. Also, if no-one needs the land more than you, you'd be able to build a house on it. The point is, all this is decided through democracy. That sounds very flawed to me and an open invite to just as much corruption as now.
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Nov 16, 2017 14:23:04 GMT -5
I'm sorry, mate, but you really don't understand what socialism is. I totally agree with you that NK, Venezuela, etc...are all stupid and horrific systems - but they're not socialist. Neither is shared wages. Socialism means only WORKER'S CONTROL OF PRODUCTION. Not state control, not equal wages, nothing but WORKER'S CONTROL OF PRODUCTION. Would tools/specialist equipment come under private or social property? Depends if they were part of social production or not. So the tools in factory are private property, the tools in your shed are personal property. Of course, you would be able to use the ones in the factory if no-one needed them more and you agreed that they would be only be under your control as long as that is the case.
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Nov 16, 2017 14:23:31 GMT -5
Well, which land was under social control would probably be decided democratically under each community. The land that was available for building would probably be used first for those who need it most (again, this would be decided democratically and you would have a say) but if there's land that you want to use that isn't socially owned you would be free to do what you want, or to start a project with other people on it. Also, if no-one needs the land more than you, you'd be able to build a house on it. The point is, all this is decided through democracy. That sounds very flawed to me and an open invite to just as much corruption as now. How?
|
|
|
Post by johnnyb on Nov 16, 2017 14:23:59 GMT -5
Corbyn is on record (several times) praising the economics of Venezuela, buggest oil reserves in the world yet people are killing their pets for food and queuing up for toilet roll for days... Chile, same area on the map, same peope, minimal oil reserves but a success story of an ecomony in comparison to the former... North Korea - death, starvation, and misery for most of its inhabitants, Communist regime... South Korean - Capitalist, same area on the map, same people, yet they have Samsung, Hyundai, LG, a buoyant economy and astromonical living standards compared with NK... I could go on, i do sympathise with the Socialist view of the greed of Corporations and we need to work together to try and solve that issue.. A recent and very simple analogy of how some of the fundamentals of Socialism are flawed is that my girlfriends’ sister has just got a new job in a restaurant as a waitress, in this restaurant they share out the tips, yet the previous restaurant she worked in they didn’t and she is a hard worker by nature but worked even harder to earn tips for herself.... Now she is in a position where there are a couple of other staff members who are lazy, doing the bare minimum, and basically just tossing it off all their shift, yet they come out with the same amount of tips than the girl working her arse off all night, this can and will only lead to the hard workers themselves becoming as lazy thus making the service suffer, all due to the nature of incentivism being taken away... I think he appreciates that the government there put money in to public services not necessarily the method or outcome. I can't see how your analogy applies to a Corbyn led government. It applies because he wants to re-nationalise the railways, and when we had British Rail the inevitable crumbling of the quality of services came to fruition, the fares we are charged under the privatised system are sickening, but a fully re-nationalisation is not the answer.
|
|
|
Post by akaidleroses on Nov 16, 2017 14:24:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Nov 16, 2017 14:25:24 GMT -5
I think he appreciates that the government there put money in to public services not necessarily the method or outcome. I can't see how your analogy applies to a Corbyn led government. It applies because he wants to re-nationalise the railways, and when we had British Rail the inevitable crumbling of the quality of services came to fruition, the fares we are charged under the privatised system are sickening, but a fully re-nationalisation is not the answer. So it's state control you're opposed to, rather than socialism? We probably agree on being anti-state.
|
|
|
Post by rickypaglais on Nov 16, 2017 14:25:56 GMT -5
Would tools/specialist equipment come under private or social property? Depends if they were part of social production or not. So the tools in factory are private property, the tools in your shed are personal property. Of course, you would be able to use the ones in the factory if no-one needed them more and you agreed that they would be only be under your control as long as that is the case. What about a videographer with all his camera gear? When he is hired, it is always under the understanding that he will be using his own gear. Who would that belong to, should an ideal government come into power?
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Nov 16, 2017 14:27:50 GMT -5
Depends if they were part of social production or not. So the tools in factory are private property, the tools in your shed are personal property. Of course, you would be able to use the ones in the factory if no-one needed them more and you agreed that they would be only be under your control as long as that is the case. What about a videographer with all his camera gear? When he is hired, it is always under the understanding that he will be using his own gear. Who would that belong to, should an ideal government come into power? The first thing to say is that it's not a "government coming to power" - this is anarchism. It's power being decentralised into the public. You don't vote for anarchism. I don't really understand where you're going again. Yeah, they're his cameras. He's choosing to use them to help create something. What's the problem?
|
|
|
Post by tomlivesforever on Nov 16, 2017 14:28:21 GMT -5
I think he appreciates that the government there put money in to public services not necessarily the method or outcome. I can't see how your analogy applies to a Corbyn led government. It applies because he wants to re-nationalise the railways, and when we had British Rail the inevitable crumbling of the quality of services came to fruition, the fares we are charged under the privatised system are sickening, but a fully re-nationalisation is not the answer. How are southern rail getting on? Is that it though? The railways is your one sticking point? I would take a Corbyn government even if I disagreed with that which I don't.
|
|
|
Post by rickypaglais on Nov 16, 2017 14:29:48 GMT -5
What about a videographer with all his camera gear? When he is hired, it is always under the understanding that he will be using his own gear. Who would that belong to, should an ideal government come into power? The first thing to say is that it's not a "government coming to power" - this is anarchism. It's power being decentralised into the public. You don't vote in anarchism. I don't really understand where you're going again. Yeah, they're his cameras. He's choosing to use them to help create something. What's the problem? If it's anarchism, then how is it going to be democratic? The moment there is something to be voted on democratically, it isn't anarchism. The videographer is profiteering from the ownership of his cameras though. Thought that was a no-no?
|
|
|
Post by johnnyb on Nov 16, 2017 14:30:23 GMT -5
Corbyn is on record (several times) praising the economics of Venezuela, buggest oil reserves in the world yet people are killing their pets for food and queuing up for toilet roll for days... Chile, same area on the map, same peope, minimal oil reserves but a success story of an ecomony in comparison to the former... North Korea - death, starvation, and misery for most of its inhabitants, Communist regime... South Korean - Capitalist, same area on the map, same people, yet they have Samsung, Hyundai, LG, a buoyant economy and astromonical living standards compared with NK... I could go on, i do sympathise with the Socialist view of the greed of Corporations and we need to work together to try and solve that issue.. A recent and very simple analogy of how some of the fundamentals of Socialism are flawed is that my girlfriends’ sister has just got a new job in a restaurant as a waitress, in this restaurant they share out the tips, yet the previous restaurant she worked in they didn’t and she is a hard worker by nature but worked even harder to earn tips for herself.... Now she is in a position where there are a couple of other staff members who are lazy, doing the bare minimum, and basically just tossing it off all their shift, yet they come out with the same amount of tips than the girl working her arse off all night, this can and will only lead to the hard workers themselves becoming as lazy thus making the service suffer, all due to the nature of incentivism being taken away... I'm sorry, mate, but you really don't understand what socialism is. I totally agree with you that NK, Venezuela, etc...are all stupid and horrific systems - but they're not socialist. Neither is shared wages. Socialism means only WORKER'S CONTROL OF PRODUCTION. Not state control, not equal wages, nothing but WORKER'S CONTROL OF PRODUCTION. I used them examples because they are all downstream from each other, in a Socialists eyes Socialism is only Socialism until it stops working, then it’s “not real Socialism” which is what you are peddling here, and because of the hypnotic riddles they explain themselves in....well.....nobody knows what real Socialism is... Name me one place where it has been a success, and the free market Scandanavian countries don’t count...
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Nov 16, 2017 14:37:35 GMT -5
I'm sorry, mate, but you really don't understand what socialism is. I totally agree with you that NK, Venezuela, etc...are all stupid and horrific systems - but they're not socialist. Neither is shared wages. Socialism means only WORKER'S CONTROL OF PRODUCTION. Not state control, not equal wages, nothing but WORKER'S CONTROL OF PRODUCTION. I used them examples because they are all downstream from each other, in a Socialists eyes Socialism is only Socialism until it stops working, then it’s “not real Socialism” which is what you are peddling here, and because of the hypnotic riddles they explain themselves in....well.....nobody knows what real Socialism is... Name me one place where it has been a success, and the free market Scandanavian countries don’t count... Catalonia, Mahknovia, the Paris Commune...pretty much every time socialism is applied, it works. You don't get to not-know what socialism means, call countries like Venezuela socialist, and then when people go "that's not socialist", reply "A-ha! See! It's only socialism when it works!" Gonna say it again, mate, just so you understand: WORKER'S CONTROL OF PRODUCTION.
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Nov 16, 2017 14:38:37 GMT -5
The first thing to say is that it's not a "government coming to power" - this is anarchism. It's power being decentralised into the public. You don't vote in anarchism. I don't really understand where you're going again. Yeah, they're his cameras. He's choosing to use them to help create something. What's the problem? If it's anarchism, then how is it going to be democratic? The moment there is something to be voted on democratically, it isn't anarchism. The videographer is profiteering from the ownership of his cameras though. Thought that was a no-no? Gonna go out on a limb here and say you haven't read much about anarchism, have you? Anarchism is totally predicated on voting. Like, entirely. No, he's not. This is a planned economy.
|
|
|
Post by johnnyb on Nov 16, 2017 14:40:50 GMT -5
It applies because he wants to re-nationalise the railways, and when we had British Rail the inevitable crumbling of the quality of services came to fruition, the fares we are charged under the privatised system are sickening, but a fully re-nationalisation is not the answer. How are southern rail getting on? Is that it though? The railways is your one sticking point? I would take a Corbyn government even if I disagreed with that which I don't. It’s not my sticking point, you said you didn’t see how my analogy applies to Corbyn and i gave you an example. Let me ask you this - if we are talking about economics here, how do you square the fact that Corbyn has been on record many many times praising Chavez’s Socialist paradise that is Venezuela? Would that not worry you?
|
|
|
Post by rickypaglais on Nov 16, 2017 14:41:17 GMT -5
I used them examples because they are all downstream from each other, in a Socialists eyes Socialism is only Socialism until it stops working, then it’s “not real Socialism” which is what you are peddling here, and because of the hypnotic riddles they explain themselves in....well.....nobody knows what real Socialism is... Name me one place where it has been a success, and the free market Scandanavian countries don’t count... Catalonia, Mahknovia, the Paris Commune...pretty much every time socialism is applied, it works. You don't get to not-know what socialism means, call countries like Venezuela socialist, and then when people go "that's not socialist", reply "A-ha! See! It's only socialism when it works!" Gonna say it again, mate, just so you understand: WORKER'S CONTROL OF PRODUCTION. So good, that is hasn't existed for a hundred years and only comes up with 4,200 results on Google? What a success.
|
|
|
Post by ricardogce on Nov 16, 2017 14:43:49 GMT -5
Corbyn is on record (several times) praising the economics of Venezuela, buggest oil reserves in the world yet people are killing their pets for food and queuing up for toilet roll for days... Chile, same area on the map, same peope, minimal oil reserves but a success story of an ecomony in comparison to the former... North Korea - death, starvation, and misery for most of its inhabitants, Communist regime... South Korean - Capitalist, same area on the map, same people, yet they have Samsung, Hyundai, LG, a buoyant economy and astromonical living standards compared with NK... I could go on, i do sympathise with the Socialist view of the greed of Corporations and we need to work together to try and solve that issue.. A recent and very simple analogy of how some of the fundamentals of Socialism are flawed is that my girlfriends’ sister has just got a new job in a restaurant as a waitress, in this restaurant they share out the tips, yet the previous restaurant she worked in they didn’t and she is a hard worker by nature but worked even harder to earn tips for herself.... Now she is in a position where there are a couple of other staff members who are lazy, doing the bare minimum, and basically just tossing it off all their shift, yet they come out with the same amount of tips than the girl working her arse off all night, this can and will only lead to the hard workers themselves becoming as lazy thus making the service suffer, all due to the nature of incentivism being taken away... I'm sorry, mate, but you really don't understand what socialism is. I totally agree with you that NK, Venezuela, etc...are all stupid and horrific systems - but they're not socialist. Neither is shared wages. Socialism means only WORKER'S CONTROL OF PRODUCTION. Not state control, not equal wages, nothing but WORKER'S CONTROL OF PRODUCTION. I'm originally from Venezuela. I left to escape the "revolution" so many first-world socialists insist is not socialism. Which is the number one reason my normally very left-of-center self will never trust Corbyn any more than I trust May or Farage. Venezuela is what happens when you take all the lovely ideals of textbook socialism and attempt to impose them on a national scale. The members of the ruling elite change, but a ruling elite there is, always. Communal autonomy exists only as long as it sublimates itself to the elite's vision. Socialism doesn't work in practice, nor will it ever work. It requires both supreme trust from the individual and supreme selflessness from anyone holding any power. Socialism is a thought experiment people keep mistakenly thinking can work in the real world. The only real way forward is democratic socialism as practiced in Scandinavia. Neither pure market capitalism nor utopian socialism (which always, ALWAYS degenerates into autocratic despotism) are endlessly sustainable.
|
|
|
Post by rickypaglais on Nov 16, 2017 14:44:41 GMT -5
If it's anarchism, then how is it going to be democratic? The moment there is something to be voted on democratically, it isn't anarchism. The videographer is profiteering from the ownership of his cameras though. Thought that was a no-no? Gonna go out on a limb here and say you haven't read much about anarchism, have you? Anarchism is totally predicated on voting. Like, entirely. No, he's not. This is a planned economy. But it can't be. For true anarchy exist there cannot be an establishment of any kind to run any kind of voting in the first place. There may be a concept of Anarchism being a functioning thing, but as a philosophy it cannot exist more than a transitional period. In the video it linked me to, it had a Monopoly Man-type character charging people to use his scissors. What's the difference between that and someone charging for the use of their video equipment. Also, should this anarchy happen tomorrow, my family have owned a business for 30 years, which we have worked our bollocks off for, sometimes just to stay afloat. What would become of that?
|
|
|
Post by rickypaglais on Nov 16, 2017 14:46:50 GMT -5
I'm sorry, mate, but you really don't understand what socialism is. I totally agree with you that NK, Venezuela, etc...are all stupid and horrific systems - but they're not socialist. Neither is shared wages. Socialism means only WORKER'S CONTROL OF PRODUCTION. Not state control, not equal wages, nothing but WORKER'S CONTROL OF PRODUCTION. I'm originally from Venezuela. I left to escape the "revolution" so many first-world socialists insist is not socialism. Which is the number one reason my normally very left-of-center self will never trust Corbyn any more than I trust May or Farage. Venezuela is what happens when you take all the lovely ideals of textbook socialism and attempt to impose them on a national scale. The members of the ruling elite change, but a ruling elite there is, always. Communal autonomy exists only as long as it sublimates itself to the elite's vision. Socialism doesn't work in practice, nor will it ever work. It requires both supreme trust from the individual and supreme selflessness from anyone holding any power. Socialism is a thought experiment people keep mistakenly thinking can work in the real world. The only real way forward is democratic socialism as practiced in Scandinavia. Neither pure market capitalism nor utopian socialism (which always, ALWAYS degenerates into autocratic despotism) are endlessly sustainable. From the horse's mouth. You've said that better than I ever could.
|
|
|
Post by glider on Nov 16, 2017 14:48:31 GMT -5
I'm sorry, mate, but you really don't understand what socialism is. I totally agree with you that NK, Venezuela, etc...are all stupid and horrific systems - but they're not socialist. Neither is shared wages. Socialism means only WORKER'S CONTROL OF PRODUCTION. Not state control, not equal wages, nothing but WORKER'S CONTROL OF PRODUCTION. I'm originally from Venezuela. I left to escape the "revolution" so many first-world socialists insist is not socialism. Which is the number one reason my normally very left-of-center self will never trust Corbyn any more than I trust May or Farage. Venezuela is what happens when you take all the lovely ideals of textbook socialism and attempt to impose them on a national scale. The members of the ruling elite change, but a ruling elite there is, always. Communal autonomy exists only as long as it sublimates itself to the elite's vision. Socialism doesn't work in practice, nor will it ever work. It requires both supreme trust from the individual and supreme selflessness from anyone holding any power. Socialism is a thought experiment people keep mistakenly thinking can work in the real world. The only real way forward is democratic socialism as practiced in Scandinavia. Neither pure market capitalism nor utopian socialism (which always, ALWAYS degenerates into autocratic despotism) are endlessly sustainable. Best post so far. As long as the elite run the elections and their centralized bureaucracy exist, no one in power can be trusted.
|
|
|
Post by fenderlender on Nov 16, 2017 14:51:59 GMT -5
That's my opinion. What's the problem? Explain your opinion on private property please. I'm equally intrigued and disturbed by it. You're really gonna say young people can't vote because they haven't matured enough, and then describe the people you disagree with as "little wankers"? I mean, I don't recall Bakunin ever calling Marx a "little wanker" in their discussions. Basically, I think that property (NOT possessions such as beds or shoes or whatever) should be under democratic social control. If you aren't aware of what property means in a socialist context, it's land or infrastructure (the means of production) which capitalists privately own and hire labour in order to extract private profit from. I think this is wrong. I think these means of production should be owned socially. Check this out: Who would and how could you ever decide what 'the common good' is? The problems of Capitalism arise when the rich take advantage and exploit the poor, but at least they don't get to hide behind 'the common good'. At least with Capitalism we can keep the government at an arm's length. Systems like the one you're talking about will only end up giving full power to the government, who we should never let ourselves trust. Giving up private property rights is to allow the government control, far more than they should be allowed. We can't change the selfish, greedy nature of human beings and so I believe we should structure our political systems accordingly. As soon as they start being able to do things for 'the common good' it gets dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Nov 16, 2017 15:04:44 GMT -5
I'm sorry, mate, but you really don't understand what socialism is. I totally agree with you that NK, Venezuela, etc...are all stupid and horrific systems - but they're not socialist. Neither is shared wages. Socialism means only WORKER'S CONTROL OF PRODUCTION. Not state control, not equal wages, nothing but WORKER'S CONTROL OF PRODUCTION. I'm originally from Venezuela. I left to escape the "revolution" so many first-world socialists insist is not socialism. Which is the number one reason my normally very left-of-center self will never trust Corbyn any more than I trust May or Farage. Venezuela is what happens when you take all the lovely ideals of textbook socialism and attempt to impose them on a national scale. The members of the ruling elite change, but a ruling elite there is, always. Communal autonomy exists only as long as it sublimates itself to the elite's vision. Socialism doesn't work in practice, nor will it ever work. It requires both supreme trust from the individual and supreme selflessness from anyone holding any power. Socialism is a thought experiment people keep mistakenly thinking can work in the real world. The only real way forward is democratic socialism as practiced in Scandinavia. Neither pure market capitalism nor utopian socialism (which always, ALWAYS degenerates into autocratic despotism) are endlessly sustainable. It's not socialism. It's state-capitalism. Why is this hard to understand? Socialism = Worker's control of production. I agree that Venezuela is a terrible, corrupt place. The reason is because it's ran by state forces, not the people. This is NOT socialism. You're perfectly describing why state-capitalism (like the USSR and lots of China) doesn't work - it just replaces one ruling elite with another. I agree. But this is NOT socialism. Because socialism is worker's control of production. Scandinavia is also not socialist - why? Because the workers don't control production.
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Nov 16, 2017 15:06:04 GMT -5
Just so everyone can see: I agree that state control doesn't work. It never has, it never will. Didn't work in the USSR, didn't work in China, isn't working in Venezuela.
But socialism is NOT state control. It's WORKERS CONTROL OF PRODUCTION.
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Nov 16, 2017 15:09:27 GMT -5
Gonna go out on a limb here and say you haven't read much about anarchism, have you? Anarchism is totally predicated on voting. Like, entirely. No, he's not. This is a planned economy. But it can't be. For true anarchy exist there cannot be an establishment of any kind to run any kind of voting in the first place. There may be a concept of Anarchism being a functioning thing, but as a philosophy it cannot exist more than a transitional period. In the video it linked me to, it had a Monopoly Man-type character charging people to use his scissors. What's the difference between that and someone charging for the use of their video equipment. Also, should this anarchy happen tomorrow, my family have owned a business for 30 years, which we have worked our bollocks off for, sometimes just to stay afloat. What would become of that? What? Anarchism is just the preference of equality over centralised power. An organisation that counts votes is not a centralised power. Voting is a massive, massive part of anarchism. It decides practically every issue. Your business would be taken off you and put under social control. It's wrong that you own it, and it was built off the work of the proleteriats. It's fine if you disagree, but that's the socialist perspective. Private property is the reason you had to do it just to stay afloat, we're not judging you. We're just saying no-one has the right to private property.
|
|