Political Change

[Eda Mrcoch 0]

Quote[/b] ]As a person living in postcommunistic state, surrounded by people who had lived through that shit for most of their lives I do find some of the posts (namely Spokesperson's) utterly Martian.

Sorry for being personal, but where are you from?

I'm an internationalist, and as such it doesn't matter where I'm from. The question you should ask is which class do you belong to?

If you say you're from a postcommunistic state and got the internet and play this game then you're likely no good representative of the people that live in your area. You're probably bourgeois and share their values/view on history.

So it is really Mars.

[Sertorius 0]

Quote[/b] ]So it is really Mars.

More like an entire alternate universe.

Quote[/b] ]Still, this usually class unconscious part of the lower class gets privileges by the upper class and share their opinions as long as they think they gain from it.

Out of curiosity, how exactly do the "upper class" hand out these privileges? Is there some sort of knighting ceremony where some randomly selected people are appointed to the bourgeoisie?

Excluding the "Paris Hilton" (Spoiled brat who inherits cash) and "J.K. Rowling" (Person who comes up with an idea that goes big time) extremes, don't most people with good incomes do it the Old Fashioned Way (I.e. Earn it, through years of hard work and/or years of intense studying)? Sure, not millions, but a quarter million or so per year is nothing to sneeze at. Hell, I've seen guys who make much more than that in various trades, even when they're dumb as rocks and only have a high-school diploma. All they do is learn a trade and start their own small company. Sure, the work is tough, and working long stretches of 16-hour days can be grueling, but these guys have enough money to comfortably retire by their 40s. Nobody said it's easy to make a large sum of money, but I don't see it as a matter of pure luck.

Quote[/b] ]I support all ideologies that lead to socialism and then communism, may it be marxism-leninism, left-wing radicalism. Real social democracy etc.

Hmmm. Well, Wikipedia defines communism as "...an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production." Unless this definition is incorrect, communism doesn't sound particularly appealing (Unless, of course, you end up in control of a communist country. Then you can have fun dictatoring away). What the hell does the commonly owned production do, besides produce vital necessities? What does it make? Certainly not luxury goods, as those are nasty relics of capitalism and make people greedy and competitive. Work-related equipment? Fine, but eventually it's got to produce something to keep the people entertained, as manual labor and manufacturing jobs only seem entertaining to the people who've never done them for a living. So maybe the whole system is created to make vaguely fun, yet not luxurious, things: You know, like bubble gum, titty magazines, or bicycles.

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]Out of curiosity, how exactly do the "upper class" hand out these privileges? Is there some sort of knighting ceremony where some randomly selected people are appointed to the bourgeoisie?

By paying them more than the rest. Look at CEOs (who often are employed by the owners, the upper class), foremen, engineers, doctors, economists, officers, priests etc.

Quote[/b] ]Unless this definition is incorrect, communism doesn't sound particularly appealing (Unless, of course, you end up in control of a communist country. Then you can have fun dictatoring away). What the hell does the commonly owned production do, besides produce vital necessities? What does it make? Certainly not luxury goods, as those are nasty relics of capitalism and make people greedy and competitive. Work-related equipment? Fine, but eventually it's got to produce something to keep the people entertained, as manual labor and manufacturing jobs only seem entertaining to the people who've never done them for a living. So maybe the whole system is created to make vaguely fun, yet not luxurious, things: You know, like bubble gum, titty magazines, or bicycles

It's not supposed to be appealing to everyone. Especially not to members of the bourgeoisie as it will remove them from power. There are no dictators in a communist society (stateless, you even mention it yourself). You're basing your arguments on liberal propaganda about "dictatorship" and other nonsense. Common ownership will produce exactly what the owners want to, just as in any other kind of ownership. If they want luxuries then such will be produced. You seem to be concerned with that a minority won't be able to decide what luxuries are to be produced anymore. Diamonds for you instead of bread for thousands maybe?

Under common ownership the citizens of a country will decide and plan the production rather than a wealthy minority. That's an important part of real democracy. Don't make the mistake, like most before you, to think that history has ended.

[Necromancer- 0]

Quote[/b] ]By paying them more than the rest. Look at CEOs (who often are employed by the owners, the upper class), foremen, engineers, doctors, economists, officers, priests etc.

Well what will motivate people with little money to start their own company? If a large portion of the workers decide that most of the profit go in their own pockets, there will be less money for the company to invest in itself. That company will go bankrupt.

And how will it be controlled? Through democracy? There are too many different personal characteristics that will make an individuals decision, thus creating far more idea's in pursuing the company to vote for. That will make a company uncontrollable.

Quote[/b] ]Under common ownership the citizens of a country will decide and plan the production rather than a wealthy minority. That's an important part of real democracy. Don't make the mistake, like most before you, to think that history has ended.

Oh there is a democratic system alright. It's just that people make a system corrupt, the system itself is not.

[Spokesperson 0]

In socialism there are no private companies. Workers can control their own workplaces by voting (there are many examples of this in Argentina for example (See the documentary "The Take")). The capitalist didn't get enough profit from the factory, didn't pay the workers and left. The workers then occupied the factory and kept it running. Without any capitalist parasite they managed to make the factory profitable again. Some cooperatives have CEOs that are elected by their workers. Wages are also voted upon.

Quote[/b] ]Oh there is a democratic system alright. It's just that people make a system corrupt, the system itself is not.

The system is not corrupt. It's how it works. It's no democracy, even though people get to vote. For democracy there has to be both economic and political democracy.

[Sertorius 0]

Quote[/b] ]By paying them more than the rest. Look at CEOs (who often are employed by the owners, the upper class), foremen, engineers, doctors, economists, officers, priests etc.

Maybe, just maybe, these people are paid more because their labor is more valuable. Though I should point out that you continue to ignore entrepreneurs, small business owners, skilled self-employed tradesmen, and other people who make plenty of money despite having no "boss".

Quote[/b] ]There are no dictators in a communist society (stateless, you even mention it yourself).

A leaderless group of humans is a rather hideous, though fortunately short-lived spectacle. There must be leaders of some form, even in communal societies, and strangely enough, most of the countries that have tried to push towards communism seem to end up with dictators in charge.

Quote[/b] ]You seem to be concerned with that a minority won't be able to decide what luxuries are to be produced anymore.

Gads. Today's business owners don't "decide" what to produce in some Godlike sense. They simply cater to public demand, though they can influence what specific products people buy through advertising. Pepsi and Coke may try to control their segment of the market (The market for darkish, caramel-flavored soft drinks), but they can only do so because lots of people like caramel flavored soft drinks. If nobody liked these, then Coke and Pepsi would not sell. If a company attempted to sell a product that nobody wanted, then that company would crash and burn, simple as that.

Quote[/b] ]Under common ownership the citizens of a country will decide and plan the production rather than a wealthy minority. That's an important part of real democracy. Don't make the mistake, like most before you, to think that history has ended.

So if 51% of the population decides that they want to only manufacture sedans, the other 49% are fucked out of getting the vehicles that they want? Interesting. At least under capitalism, even if all of the car companies decided to produce one type of vehicle, another company would quickly spring up to address the desire for other vehicles.

And I don't think history has "ended". Indeed, people in the Ivory Towers will continue to think up Big Ideas that cost millions of lives when states attempt to implement these ideas . You know, "some eggs must be broken to make an omelet" and all that BS. Strange how everyone wants to be the chef and nobody volunteers to be an egg.

[Spokesperson 0]

Of course their labor is usually more valueable because the supply of that kind of people is less. Still, it doesn't contradict that they are privileged. A whole economy can't be based on self employed.

The leaders in a communist society would be the people themselves when attending meetings and voting. The countries that have pushed towards communism have been socialist. The socialist way to communism means that you have some sort of leadership. Usually the working class rules instead of the bourgeoisie for instance. There's a proletarian dictatorship instead of a bourgeois.

Of course company owners decide what to produce. Flats for students that don't give much profit or houses for the elite? Diamonds or bread? And certainly the market and consumers influence these decisions. But you forget that not all consumers got an equal amount of money to spend. One dollar is one vote (on what to produce). That's not democratic.

Your 51% solution is pretty stupid. Again you seem to base your conclusions on limited wishful thinking. Tell me why they couldn't produce 51% sedans and 49% other cars? In your world it seems like they must produce 100% sedans because 51% think so. Shows something is wrong. You've listened too much to liberal bias.

[-Snafu- 77]

Of course their labor is usually more valueable because the supply of that kind of people is less. Still, it doesn't contradict that they are privileged. A whole economy can't be based on self employed.

The leaders in a communist society would be the people themselves when attending meetings and voting. The countries that have pushed towards communism have been socialist. The socialist way to communism means that you have some sort of leadership. Usually the working class rules instead of the bourgeoisie for instance. There's a proletarian dictatorship instead of a bourgeois.

Of course company owners decide what to produce. Flats for students that don't give much profit or houses for the elite? Diamonds or bread? And certainly the market and consumers influence these decisions. But you forget that not all consumers got an equal amount of money to spend. One dollar is one vote (on what to produce). That's not democratic.

Your 51% solution is pretty stupid. Again you seem to base your conclusions on limited wishful thinking. Tell me why they couldn't produce 51% sedans and 49% other cars? In your world it seems like they must produce 100% sedans because 51% think so. Shows something is wrong. You've listened too much to liberal bias.

Huh? In Britain student flats are everywhere as well as students. At Aberdeen University there are 14000 registered students (my town only has a pop. of about 10000) with a big chunk in student flats. Companies and the University make plenty of money that way. Don't know where this houses for the elite is coming from, this isn't early 1900's Tsarist Russia.

Also a lot of bread here as well. Lots more than diamonds.

Oh and when you said that your an "internationalist". Rubbish, nationalism always plays a part. A big weakness of Marxist theory is that it largely ignores everything bar the economy and that is a prime example.

[Spokesperson 0]

I don't know the situaiton in Britain but in other countries it's a big problem. It's more profitable to build other kinds of buildings than student flats. So few student flats are being built. Even if just this case doesn't apply in your country it's the logics of the market and I'm sure there are many other cases the same kind of reasoning applies.

The elite are those who can afford 500000€ flats/houses, those are the only ones being built.

Do you pay for your education in the UK?

The only country I like is internationalist Cuba. And I'm no cuban. The rest is just capitalist rubbish. Nationalism is a disease just like religion. Economy is the base of most actions and decisions in society. Society at a high level can be generalized to a multitude of rational economical decisions. Sure there's love and other things, but such fenomena doesn't affect the big picture. Their contributions are negligable compared to the one of economy.

[-Snafu- 77]

I don't know the situaiton in Britain but in other countries it's a big problem. It's more profitable to build other kinds of buildings than student flats. So few student flats are being built. Even if just this case doesn't apply in your country it's the logics of the market and I'm sure there are many other cases the same kind of reasoning applies.

The elite are those who can afford 500000€ flats/houses, those are the only ones being built.

Do you pay for your education in the UK?

The only country I like is internationalist Cuba. And I'm no cuban. The rest is just capitalist rubbish. Nationalism is a disease just like religion. Economy is the base of most actions and decisions in society. Society at a high level can be generalized to a multitude of rational economical decisions. Sure there's love and other things, but such fenomena doesn't affect the big picture. Their contributions are negligable compared to the one of economy.

I doubt it's only flats that are being built for the 'elite'. Anyway if these mysterious people are so powerful why would they want a flat? You would think these people you are describing live in castles, stopping production of bread and enabling production of diamonds.

Actually no I do not pay for my education. The Scottish Government does. Primary, Secondary and University.

McWrong, nationalism does matter as does religion etc. Saying that it doesn't is utter nonsense. Again, economy is not the only thing that matters. History has taught us these things.

Edit:

Oh yeah Cuba is such a welcoming and friendly nation. How nice of them to kick people out of their country, put them on un-seaworthy boats in rough ocean and send them 90 miles to Florida.

[Sertorius 0]

Quote[/b] ]Of course company owners decide what to produce. Flats for students that don't give much profit or houses for the elite? Diamonds or bread? And certainly the market and consumers influence these decisions. But you forget that not all consumers got an equal amount of money to spend. One dollar is one vote (on what to produce). That's not democratic.

And both flats and big houses generate profits, ergo both are constructed.

"One dollar, one vote" ends up working, as the massed dollars of people with small wallets ends up being quite powerful. It's not like pickup trucks are toys of the rich, yet thousands of ever-better models are produced due to demand from blue collar consumers. And it's not as if "everyone gets the same amount of power" is a better idea. Giving the same amount of power to a productive citizen and a lazy wastrel hardly seems like a good idea for creating a stable society. After all, if you can be lazy and still have the same amount of power as a hard worker, then why not be lazy?

Quote[/b] ]Your 51% solution is pretty stupid. Again you seem to base your conclusions on limited wishful thinking. Tell me why they couldn't produce 51% sedans and 49% other cars? In your world it seems like they must produce 100% sedans because 51% think so. Shows something is wrong. You've listened too much to liberal bias.

Hardly. If the entire economy is focused on producing sedans, then all of the creative energy will be focused on them, resulting in superior sedans. It would only make sense for the 51% majority to vote for entirely focusing the means of production on sedans. They might throw in some lousy other kinds of cars, but in our mythical communist state the people are going to vote to spend the most time/effort/creativity developing the most popular vehicle: The sedan.

Quote[/b] ]The only country I like is internationalist Cuba. And I'm no cuban.

It shows.

Quote[/b] ]Society at a high level can be generalized to a multitude of rational economical decisions.

And societies can also act upon grossly irrational instincts. Witness that most favorite of examples, the Holocaust, where thousands of skilled German military personnel were diverted from fighting a war to engaging in eugenics gone berserk.

Also, if society can be generalized to a series of rational economic decisions, then wouldn't it be fair to say the society has rationally decided on capitalism?

Quote[/b] ]The elite are those who can afford 500000€ flats/houses, those are the only ones being built.

This is becoming self-parody on your part. What, do you live in a neighborhood composed of bazillion dollar houses and so you feel justified in saying that "only expensive homes are built"? That would place you dangerously close to being a stereotypical Rich Kid Rebelling Against His Well-Off Daddy.

As for the actual idea that only huge homes are built, that's almost to silly to contemplate. For starters, there's still profit in building small homes, so of course they're built. Strangely enough, they're often built by self-employed contractors who contract work from other self-employed tradesmen.

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]I doubt it's only flats that are being built for the 'elite'. Anyway if these mysterious people are so powerful why the feck would they want a flat? You would think these people you are describing live in castles, stopping production of bread and enabling production of diamonds.

It's true. And they are not mysterious, they look and talk just like you and me. There are many reasons why one would like a flat more. Say you get a flat in the middle of a big city. (where there are no houses, because flats generate more income per m^2). Yet another rational economic decision. Companies employ mathematicians just for these purposes.

Quote[/b] ]Actually no I do not pay for my education. The Scottish Government does. Primary, Secondary and University.

But there are places where you have to pay? Besides the scottish government is more socialist than the London government.

Quote[/b] ]McWrong, nationalism does matter as does religion etc. Saying that it doesn't is utter nonsense. Again, economy is not the only thing that matters. History has taught us these things.

Well, naturally it does. But the reasons behind nationalism and (organized) religion are of a purely economic basis. History has taught us that economy is the base of everything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism

as opposed to idealism.

Quote[/b] ]And both flats and big houses generate profits, ergo both are constructed.

"One dollar, one vote" ends up working, as the massed dollars of people with small wallets ends up being quite powerful. It's not like pickup trucks are toys of the rich, yet thousands of ever-better models are produced due to demand from blue collar consumers. And it's not as if "everyone gets the same amount of power" is a better idea. Giving the same amount of power to a productive citizen and a lazy wastrel hardly seems like a good idea for creating a stable society. After all, if you can be lazy and still have the same amount of power as a hard worker, then why not be lazy?

Sure, student flats generate profits. But, houses for the elite generate _more_ profit. So if you were to decide you pick the most profitable option.

Of course "one dollar, one vote" works, slavery works too, but it limits the freedom for those who don't have money. Without money you got no power and no freedom, what's democracy without freedom? And you seem to think that there's some kind of fair distribution of wages. That people who work less deserve less. In reality people who don't work, are those who earn most. They live on interests, on incomes from shares and so on. They live on other peoples work with the help of the bourgeois law and state and its oppression apparatus.

Quote[/b] ]Hardly. If the entire economy is focused on producing sedans, then all of the creative energy will be focused on them, resulting in superior sedans. It would only make sense for the 51% majority to vote for entirely focusing the means of production on sedans. They might throw in some lousy other kinds of cars, but in our mythical communist state the people are going to vote to spend the most time/effort/creativity developing the most popular vehicle: The sedan.

No, when is any economy focused on producing sedans? Who says that? "Creative energy" how does that work? Like astrology? You've got some obsessive-compulsive thinking about communism that people are going to demand 100% sedans because 51% want them. Nothing says that the factories would produce 49% other cars and 51% sedans. That would meet the demand 100% and is the optimum solution. Furthermore, you don't seem to understand the definition of communism. A "communist state" is a contradiction.

Quote[/b] ]And societies can also act upon grossly irrational instincts. Witness that most favorite of examples, the Holocaust, where thousands of skilled German military personnel were diverted from fighting a war to engaging in eugenics gone berserk.

Also, if society can be generalized to a series of rational economic decisions, then wouldn't it be fair to say the society has rationally decided on capitalism?

Everything has a reason. There's always one rational explanation to something. The probability that people will think of that explanation is pretty high compared to the billions of irrational explanations people might come up with. Capitalism is rational. And it's rational that we have it now. If you look at history society has developed in the same way independently in many locations. From hunter-gatherer, slavery, feodalism and now capitalism. The next rational step in history is socialism. The Holocaust was also rational because it was what the nazis promised. Especially when it looked like the germans were winning.

Quote[/b] ]This is becoming self-parody on your part. What, do you live in a neighborhood composed of bazillion dollar houses and so you feel justified in saying that "only expensive homes are built"? That would place you dangerously close to being a stereotypical Rich Kid Rebelling Against His Well-Off Daddy.

As for the actual idea that only huge homes are built, that's almost to silly to contemplate. For starters, there's still profit in building small homes, so of course they're built. Strangely enough, they're often built by self-employed contractors who contract work from other self-employed tradesmen.

There's still profit in building student flats, but not enough. Companies who stay in Europe still profit, but they can profit more in other places. So they move. They maximize profit that way, which is the goal of any company. That's how capitalism works. The needs of the masses are set aside for the needs and wants of a rich minority (who got unproportionally many votes in the "one dollar vote" system.

[-Snafu- 77]

Quote[/b] ]I doubt it's only flats that are being built for the 'elite'. Anyway if these mysterious people are so powerful why the feck would they want a flat? You would think these people you are describing live in castles, stopping production of bread and enabling production of diamonds.

It's true. And they are not mysterious, they look and talk just like you and me. There are many reasons why one would like a flat more. Say you get a flat in the middle of a big city. (where there are no houses, because flats generate more income per m^2). Yet another rational economic decision. Companies employ mathematicians just for these purposes.

Quote[/b] ]Actually no I do not pay for my education. The Scottish Government does. Primary, Secondary and University.

But there are places where you have to pay? Besides the scottish government is more socialist than the London government.

Quote[/b] ]McWrong, nationalism does matter as does religion etc. Saying that it doesn't is utter nonsense. Again, economy is not the only thing that matters. History has taught us these things.

Well, naturally it does. But the reasons behind nationalism and (organized) religion are of a purely economic basis. History has taught us that economy is the base of everything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism

as opposed to idealism.

But the reasons flats are built is that there is not enough room in a city to build houses. That is why houses are situated on the outskirts.

What do you mean by places where you have to pay? In Scotland there is an government organisation called SAAS that judges if you are eligible for other things to get paid for ie student flats. And believe me, student flats are big bucks.  Moreover the Scottish gov. is only a bit more socialist in some aspects, most parties remain largely similar.

But it is stupid place a huge amount of emphasis on economic factors. The view that this economic infrastructure determines the superstructure is oversimplifying and mis-understanding the influence of other aspects of society such as gender, ethnicity and nationalism. History has not taught us that the economy is the basis of everything.  For example WW1. There was no economic benefit to Britain at all for taking part in WW1. Britain was in a state of relative decline before the war and the war was simply a catlyst for this decline. Thus at the end of the war Britain had lost it's place of world economic power to the USA. It wasn't until the end of WW2 that Britain had largely lost it's place as the global superpower. In fact had Britain not participated in WW1 it may have kept it's world power status past 1945 which would have been no significant year.

Moreover the survival of capitalism suggests that many members of the proletariat, far from being ignorant of the system within which they exist, are fully aware, and have a well developed class consciousness; which had led them to recognise that the existing capitalist system may be to their benefit. Therefore in areas such as the education system, Marxism is criticised for ignoring the progress that has been made in overcoming social class divisions. For example the number of people gaining access to further education in Britain has risen from 8% in the '80's to well over 40% in the first decade of the 21st century.

Edit:

And how is it rational that Socialism is next? History and politics are not always rational. This isn't maths where 2+2 will always equal 4. If history really were rational/logical then most countries should be socilaist at this point in time. Moreover this idea that socitey will always change through conflict is another weakness of Marxism. Such a view underestimates the ability and freedom of people to take decisions which shape their own destiny.

[Sertorius 0]

Quote[/b] ]In reality people who don't work, are those who earn most. They live on interests, on incomes from shares and so on. They live on other peoples work with the help of the bourgeois law and state and its oppression apparatus.

And if you live off money from shares, then you must have a lot of money invested in the market, which means that your financial input gives companies more money that they can use to expand, which results in more jobs .

Quote[/b] ]Well, naturally it does. But the reasons behind nationalism and (organized) religion are of a purely economic basis. History has taught us that economy is the base of everything.

No, Marxist doctrine teaches you that economy is the base of everything.

Quote[/b] ]No, when is any economy focused on producing sedans? Who says that? "Creative energy" how does that work? Like astrology? You've got some obsessive-compulsive thinking about communism that people are going to demand 100% sedans because 51% want them. Nothing says that the factories would produce 49% other cars and 51% sedans. That would meet the demand 100% and is the optimum solution. Furthermore, you don't seem to understand the definition of communism. A "communist state" is a contradiction.

Creative energy being the time and effort of skilled, educated inventors (A rarity, in case you haven't noticed). There's only a finite amount of people who could proficiently design a car, ergo a smart majority would vote to have all of these proficient inventors focus their time and efforts on the invention and development of sedans.

As for "communist state" being a contradiction, well, we still live in a world composed of states. Not to mention, even if all of the workers go communist, what do you do about all of the business owners, self-employed, and other people who have no interest in communism? Exterminate them? It's either that or let them have their own state.

Quote[/b] ]The next rational step in history is socialism. The Holocaust was also rational because it was what the nazis promised. Especially when it looked like the germans were winning.

And what says that history is guaranteed to be progressive?

Not to mention, the Holocaust continued, and was accelerated, once Germany started to lose the war. Not to mention that the very idea of exterminating millions of potentially productive people makes no economic sense at all.

Quote[/b] ]There's still profit in building student flats, but not enough. Companies who stay in Europe still profit, but they can profit more in other places. So they move. They maximize profit that way, which is the goal of any company.

And if there's still a potential profit, then new companies will spring up to take an advantage. Though it is possible to drive out companies producing product X through completely destroying the potential profits of producing product X. Enough pinheaded policies can make anything possible.

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]But the reasons flats are built is that there is not enough room in a city to build houses. That is why houses are situated on the outskirts.

No, if you can build new flats you could build new houses at that location instead. But it's less profitable.

Quote[/b] ]What do you mean by places where you have to pay? In Scotland there is an government organisation called SAAS that judges if you are eligible for other things to get paid for ie student flats. And believe me, student flats are big bucks. Moreover the Scottish gov. is only a bit more socialist in some aspects, most parties remain largely similar.

Haven't you got the SNP in charge? In european terms that party is pretty much left. By paying I mean, is all your education free? Student flats might be big bucks but usually there are things that generate more bucks. My point is that money rules, not people. Money doesn't represent the needs per capita (but sometimes it does reflect the needs of a majority). Student flats was just one thing I could come up because I read about it last week. It's a hot subject as the price of all kinds of houses are at record heights world wide at the moment.

Quote[/b] ]For example WW1. There was no economic benefit to Britain at all for taking part in WW1.

There was very much so. Britain had huge unemployment and an economic crisis more or less. The war created a demand for military equipment. Money was invested in the military industry. Loads of jobs were created. The economic crisis ended. Wars are profitable for some. There's a great Bob Dylan song about those "some" guy btw.

Quote[/b] ]Moreover the survival of capitalism suggests that many members of the proletariat, far from being ignorant of the system within which they exist, are fully aware, and have a well developed class consciousness; which had led them to recognise that the existing capitalist system may be to their benefit. Therefore in areas such as the education system, Marxism is criticised for ignoring the progress that has been made in overcoming social class divisions. For example the number of people gaining access to further education in Britain has risen from 8% in the '80's to well over 40% in the first decade of the 21st century.

Well, Marx hinted that capitalism would collapse eventually. Observations prove him right so far. There's a tendency of the rate of profit to fall for instance. The fall of capitalism will likely not depend on class consiousness but the creation of socialism will. Higher standards and education doesn't mean class divisions have been reduced. Class is not primarily about your standard of living. It's about power. About who's doing what in society.

Quote[/b] ]And how is it rational that Socialism is next? History and politics are not always rational. This isn't maths where 2+2 will always equal 4. If history really were rational/logical then most countries should be socilaist at this point in time. Moreover this idea that socitey will always change through conflict is another weakness of Marxism. Such a view underestimates the ability and freedom of people to take decisions which shape their own destiny.

Taken as a whole, it is very rational. There are trends and tendencies that depend on a lot of decision makers finding rational ways of doing things. Money is usually a measure of _economic_ rationality and it guides the way. Your reasoning about that we should've had socialism by now if history was rational, is irrational. Development takes time and is linear. One thing leads to another. There's a time and place for everything. So you can't just jump from slavery to capitalism. Or from feodalism to socialism. Capitalism and the bourgeoisie ended the era of feodalism. There's also a time for when socialism and the proletariat ends the era of capitalism. And one day the majority will be free and rule (that's the communist stage).

If you look at history conflict is the only thing that has changed the very structure of society. One class replaces another. There are always situations when those who got power don't want to give it to others. When interests conflict. That leads to violence and it's why there's so much violence.

Quote[/b] ]And if you live off money from shares, then you must have a lot of money invested in the market, which means that your financial input gives companies more money that they can use to expand, which results in more jobs .

Yes, that's how it works right now. Work is the only thing that creates values. The capitalist plays around with money/time that he took from others. If he earns money and doesn't work, he steals work from others. He's a parasite and isn't needed. In a socialist society there are no parasites. The socialist society is more rational.

Quote[/b] ]No, Marxist doctrine teaches you that economy is the base of everything.

And marxism is the only attempt at analyzing history from a scientific materialist and determinist way. If you're no materialist, then god might explain everything for you. If you're no determinist you don't believe in rationality and science. You're probably no determinists. Marxism says what the laws of history are. It still holds. Physics says what the laws of nature are. It still holds.

Quote[/b] ]Creative energy being the time and effort of skilled, educated inventors (A rarity, in case you haven't noticed). There's only a finite amount of people who could proficiently design a car, ergo a smart majority would vote to have all of these proficient inventors focus their time and efforts on the invention and development of sedans.

So you have to be educated to have an opinion? Turns out you're the one who's against democracy. Why would a "smart" majority make all those "inventors" design sedans? That's absurd. You're just assuming things out of thin air.

Quote[/b] ]As for "communist state" being a contradiction, well, we still live in a world composed of states. Not to mention, even if all of the workers go communist, what do you do about all of the business owners, self-employed, and other people who have no interest in communism? Exterminate them? It's either that or let them have their own state.

Communism requires a world socialist revolution. You can't have communism in a capitalist world. Communism is state- and borderless. The business owners can't steal money without their workers and police. They'll have to use what's left of their military and police forces to counter a communist revolution before it's too late. Or why not use media and school books?

To every revolution there's a reaction. It's more or less a law of history. (Compare: To every force there is always opposed an equal reaction force. Newton's third law). The french revolution was bloody because of the reaction. In the russian revolution the death toll was lower than the amount of dead in one day due to traffic accidents in New York. The reaction, the civil war, when western powers, landowners and barons waged war against the people, caused millions of deaths. In some countries the reaction shows its final stage as a coup. Look at Venezuela in 2002. Or Chile under Allende. Or Russia under Jeltsin. The coup in venezuela only took a handful of lives. Chavez and the people itself didn't kill anybody. It's the liberals/capitalists who do that when they lose influence and power in an attempt to regain it.

Self employement exists in Cuba and did in the USSR. Those are not exploiting other people. But sure kings and business owners can create their own country. There'll be a lot of people to employ.

Quote[/b] ]Not to mention, the Holocaust continued, and was accelerated, once Germany started to lose the war. Not to mention that the very idea of exterminating millions of potentially productive people makes no economic sense at all.

The nazis won the elections partly due to the impopularity of jews. (A completely irrelevant issue for the economic crisis. Just like nationalism, religion and so on). Those who got tricked into believing in nazi ideology (or their own lies) naturally wanted to finish their job.

Quote[/b] ]And if there's still a potential profit, then new companies will spring up to take an advantage. Though it is possible to drive out companies producing product X through completely destroying the potential profits of producing product X. Enough pinheaded policies can make anything possible.

They'll spring up and move if they don't want to lose the competition and go bankrupt. The market is rough.

[Baff1 0]

I'm an internationalist, and as such it doesn't matter where I'm from. The question you should ask is which class do you belong to?

Yes, it does matter where you are from.

How are we expected to judge whether you have an informed inside opinion about the social models you are describing or whether you just watched a 20 minute show on History Channel?

The credability of your arguments are lessened by your unwillingness to define your personal cultural bias. Are you speaking from experience or just pontificating?

That you are unwilling to say implies that you don't have any particular experience, that you have been unable to validate your impressions with real life experience; but it is rude to make this presumption.

Hence people have asked you for clarification, clarification that it would have been more polite to have offered from the outset.

The words you speak must be taken in context to provide insight and clear meaning.

If we have no idea of the political system you come from, we have no perspective to judge whether the changes you espose are an improvement or not.

I'm "borgoise".

From England.

Education here is free, although I was also educated privately.

I'd like to over-simplify an economic situation to give rise to a moral quandry.

I believe that there are two basic types of person.

Worker A and Worker B.

Worker A, works 9-5; drops by the pub on the way home, he goes to the Cinema once a week, eats out once a month, buys his lunch from the staff canteen. Worker A enjoys a few luxuries like his X box 360 and the latest DVD's.

Worker B has the same job as Worker A. He works 9-5; after work he goes straight home, on to night school or to his second job. He own's no Xbox, he does not go to the cinema. He does not own the latest DVD's. He makes his own lunch and takes it to work with him.

When they both retire, Worker A is working class he lives an house worth less than $500,000 and his children went to state school.

Worker A is working class.

Worker B retires to millionaires Mansion. His children were privately educated. The money he did not spend on immediate luxuries, he has invested wisely.

Worker B is borgoise.

He had the same job as Worker A, was born into the same economic circumstance, but is not working class.

What is wrong with being borgoise?  Becoming Borgoise, is not easy. To discriminate against someone for their achievements is positively wrong.

I applaud rich people. I think there should be more, not less. People should be encouraged to save and build for the future of their society.

To reward the "spunk it all now" mentality above the creation of wealth mentality is self defeating for any society.

In my opinion for every 4 Worker A's, there is only 1 Worker B.

It is easier for lazy, selfish Worker A to redistribute Worker B's wealth, than it is for Worker A to get off his arse for himself and make his own too.

Socialism is inherantly unjust. The rich are held blackamil to the poor, who's weight of numbers allow them to rob without recourse.

Because Worker A's outnumber Worker B's they are in a position to set societies moral codes. Making theft and ownership of property immoral. (As long as you own more than them).

I of course have over simplified. There are obviously plenty of examples through history where workers have been abused by bosses. Where rich people made their money through theft and abuse not hard work.

However I don't believe this is the norm. I believe it is the exception that proves the rule, not the rule itself.

Essentially the guy with more money than you did not just have more breaks in life than you. He is smarter and works harder. Now this isn't a 100% rule, but it is a 99% rule.

You choose to believe that rich people are ripping you offer, because it soothes you ego without forcing you to do anything about it. You can validate your coming in second to yourself, by invalidating those who have achieved more.

Paris Hilton still exists of course, but if you were smart, worked hard and had some luck, your daughter could be Paris Hilton too.

(In defence of Paris, she is smarter and better looking than me, and she earns more money from her Pron, TV and public appearances than I do in my work).

There is a time and place for communism. Societies in dire trouble, poverty or war for example, can greatly prosper under communist systems, Cuba, Russia and China for example have all done well under communism.

But unlike you, I don't believe it is an inherantly superior system. It depends where you are from, and what your current circumstances are.

Being an "internationalist" is a cop out. It's just a sloppy thinking. There is no one size fits all solution to life. No magic wand cure alls for humanity. We aren't all the same. What may be good for you almost certainly won't be good for many others.

I'm from Great Britain. There is too much socialism here. Social mobility is in decline. Poor people are not getting rich.

We have a new class system. Not Upper and Lower Class. Not Working Class and Borgoisee;

we have the Political Class, and all the rest.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]As a person living in postcommunistic state, surrounded by people who had lived through that shit for most of their lives I do find some of the posts (namely Spokesperson's) utterly Martian.

We have already determined and shown that the USSR was neither truely "communistic" nor "socialist." Therefore, your experiences in a post-USSR satillite are irrelevant...other than as living proof that the USSR form of government does not work.

Quote[/b] ]Unless this definition is incorrect, communism doesn't sound particularly appealing (Unless, of course, you end up in control of a communist country.

You are mixing the USSR with a true communist or socialist state (or lack there of).

Quote[/b] ]What does it make? Certainly not luxury goods, as those are nasty relics of capitalism and make people greedy and competitive.

What do you define as "luxury" and what do you define as "vital necessities." Some would say TV's are luxury items, yet the USSR (to draw from a BAD example) made those for citizens. What is your definition?

Regarding production, the people can make whatever they want to make. They are the owners after all.

My prefered socialist state would be a limited government providing the necessities (healthcare, education, etc), or whatever form of "payment" needed to keep them running at a local level.

Also, luxury items do not make people greedy and competitive per se. It is the desire and act of trying to acquire these items that make people greedy...not the actually possessing them. If local production (owned by the people) made the luxury items for the citizens, and citizens do not have to worry about saving some form of monetary exchange to acquire these items, how would this make them greedy?

Quote[/b] ]Well what will motivate people with little money to start their own company? If a large portion of the workers decide that most of the profit go in their own pockets, there will be less money for the company to invest in itself. That company will go bankrupt.

This also assumes money (a capitalist need) will be the primary form of "profit" or exchange...something not necessarily true on a local level.

Also, you assume that money is the only thing that motivates and drives people...another capitalist assumption. If this were true there would be no socialists right? The drive for money is a capitalist invented cultural phenomenon.

As in real life, people could start their own production (as opposed to "business") for the simple reason that they have an idea or service they would like to share or bring into the world.

While not being an private enterprise in the capitalist sense, it nevertheless can be considered a "small business". Local individual production can be the backbone of a socialist system.

Quote[/b] ]And how will it be controlled? Through democracy? There are too many different personal characteristics that will make an individuals decision, thus creating far more idea's in pursuing the company to vote for. That will make a company uncontrollable.

Regarding individual enterprise production, if someone gets workers that share a common vision, then that moot point yes? If say you have a design for clothes you want to make, you find people that share your idea or are excited for the idea . You don't get a worker that wants to make titty mags.

Workers have the power and right to work where they want, but there is nothing that says socialism will require production to employ all workers.

Quote[/b] ]Maybe, just maybe, these people are paid more because their labor is more valuable.

Having some knowledge of business, I can assure you that a CEO is NOT more important than the person that is actually MAKING the product.

Ken Lay was more important than plant workers? Only look at the last few years of corporate scandal to realize that is false.

Quote[/b] ]Though I should point out that you continue to ignore entrepreneurs, small business owners, skilled self-employed tradesmen, and other people who make plenty of money despite having no "boss".

I addressed "small business" however you are also failing to take into account that by definition, those that start a small business may have no "boss", but they have employees making that person the "boss" you speak of.

Quote[/b] ]There must be leaders of some form, even in communal societies, and strangely enough, most of the countries that have tried to push towards communism seem to end up with dictators in charge.

As we have said, there has yet to be a truly socialist or communist state. What has always emerged is a capitalist-socialist hybrid. Since you still retain some form of capitalist profitting, the inevitable greed as mentioned before comes in. This applies to dictatorial power as well.

Quote[/b] ]Today's business owners don't "decide" what to produce in some Godlike sense. They simply cater to public demand, though they can influence what specific products people buy through advertising.

Not entirely true. There are many examples of individuals creating a brand new product where no desire or demand for that product previously existed. The individual created the demand.

Snowboards are a good example of that.

Similiar situations could proliferate under a socialist non-monetary based society.

Quote[/b] ]So if 51% of the population decides that they want to only manufacture sedans, the other 49% are fucked out of getting the vehicles that they want?

A ridiculous statement, especially if local control is taken into account. One factory may want sedans, but another may want SUVs, or trucks, or any other form of vehicle.

It's socialism not the Borg.

Quote[/b] ]And it's not as if "everyone gets the same amount of power" is a better idea. Giving the same amount of power to a productive citizen and a lazy wastrel hardly seems like a good idea for creating a stable society. After all, if you can be lazy and still have the same amount of power as a hard worker, then why not be lazy?

A fallacy. Controls can be easily put in place, ie you work you vote...you don't work you don't vote. If you don't contribute to the greater good you have no say in that greater good.

But it also implies that people only work if they have to. While I'm sure there are people like that, it doesn't take into account people that work for work's sake of which there are plenty.

Quote[/b] ]It would only make sense for the 51% majority to vote for entirely focusing the means of production on sedans. They might throw in some lousy other kinds of cars, but in our mythical communist state the people are going to vote to spend the most time/effort/creativity developing the most popular vehicle: The sedan

Already addressed the fallacy of that argument.

Quote[/b] ]Moreover the survival of capitalism suggests that many members of the proletariat, far from being ignorant of the system within which they exist, are fully aware, and have a well developed class consciousness; which had led them to recognise that the existing capitalist system may be to their benefit.

A problem for the required class revolution. They have become aware of their position in capitalism as evidence by labor unions (a socialist development required to amok capitalism), but have not become fully aware of their power within the system, nor have they truly become class conscious in relation to this power. This is somewhat of an American issue, as in general the American worker remains clouded by other capitalist concerns that do not benefit their class structure.

Quote[/b] ]Therefore in areas such as the education system, Marxism is criticised for ignoring the progress that has been made in overcoming social class divisions. For example the number of people gaining access to further education in Britain has risen from 8% in the '80's to well over 40% in the first decade of the 21st century.

Ah, but is it because of capitalist intentions that this progress has been made? Or because of social programs to open up opportunity to more people (particularly minorities and underprivileged?)

Quote[/b] ]And if you live off money from shares, then you must have a lot of money invested in the market, which means that your financial input gives companies more money that they can use to expand, which results in more jobs

An illogical assumption. More money to companies does not corrolate to business expansion necessarily. In most cases it results in higher pay for the executives and no benefit to the worker. Nor does expansion always correlate to more jobs. Often it means expansion with more work for the workers the company already has...again with no added benefit to those workers.

Quote[/b] ]Creative energy being the time and effort of skilled, educated inventors (A rarity, in case you haven't noticed). There's only a finite amount of people who could proficiently design a car, ergo a smart majority would vote to have all of these proficient inventors focus their time and efforts on the invention and development of sedans.

You seem to assume, as I said, that socialism is some kind of Borg-like hive.

You also seem to assume the socialist society would have no local or micro control...just some wierd kind of supergovernment.

Quote[/b] ]And what says that history is guaranteed to be progressive?

The same guarantee that capitalism will last.

[Baff1 0]

Having some knowledge of business, I can assure you that a CEO is NOT more important than the person that is actually MAKING the product.

Quote[/b] ]Therefore in areas such as the education system, Marxism is criticised for ignoring the progress that has been made in overcoming social class divisions. For example the number of people gaining access to further education in Britain has risen from 8% in the '80's to well over 40% in the first decade of the 21st century.

Ah, but is it because of capitalist intentions that this progress has been made? Or because of social programs to open up opportunity to more people (particularly minorities and underprivileged?)

Quote[/b] ]And if you live off money from shares, then you must have a lot of money invested in the market, which means that your financial input gives companies more money that they can use to expand, which results in more jobs

An illogical assumption. More money to companies does not corrolate to business expansion necessarily. In most cases it results in higher pay for the executives and no benefit to the worker. Nor does expansion always correlate to more jobs. Often it means expansion with more work for the workers the company already has...again with no added benefit to those workers.

A CEO is more important then the person operating the machine tool in factory.

One is easy to replace. One is not. One is a low skilled job, one is an exceptionally high skilled job. The CEO gets paid more because he is worth more.

He is more important.

Further education.

None of the self made millionares in my family stayed on in school past the age of 16. Most left at 15.

The political classes all went to futher education which is why they think it is so important. The "uneducated" members of my family, who pay their wages, would obviously disagree.

Speaking as someone who does live off his money from shares.......... executives are workers too.

The primary reason to float your company on the stock exchange is to gain money for expansion.

Capitalism works.

No one lends a company money just so it can pay it's employee's more. This is utter nonsense.

If a company executive asks me to borrow money simply for the purpose of giving himself a pay rise, neither I nor any other investor will be intrested.

I will be checking the accounts and as an owner of a company, I am able to sack the managment should they displease me.

If your company is unable to pay your staff from it's operating revenues, raising their wages is not the answer. Borrowing money at a commercial rate to increase their wages is doubly not the answer.

Creative energy is not stifled in communist societes. The Soviet Union was one of the greatest technological achieving societies of the 20th Century. The Chinese have hardly been slack.

Both Communism and Capitalism are effective social models.

The question is not which one is better, but which one is better for you.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]A CEO is more important then the person operating the machine tool in factory.

One is easy to replace. One is not. One is a low skilled job, one is an exceptionally high skilled job. The CEO gets paid more because he is worth more.

He is more important.

Spoken like a true capitalist.

Without the worker, the CEO has nothing to justify 1) his exhorbant pay, and 2) his very existence. Without the worker the company has no product at all. Without the CEO, the company has no mouthpiece.

A worker in a plant is not a low skilled job. Otherwise companies would not spend so much to train workers to maximize their work.

If CEO's are so hard to replace, how do you explain the massive turn over, especially in the last week or so?

Quote[/b] ]None of the self made millionares in my family stayed on in school past the age of 16. Most left at 15.

The political classes all went to futher education which is why they think it is so important. The "uneducated" members of my family, who pay their wages, would obviously disagree.

Again. That would be a viable argument if "wages" was the end all of human existance. But thankfully it is not.

Education is for far more than just maximizing wage potential. Like I said...if all I wanted to do was make a pile of paper notes with a socioeconomic importance placed on them, I guess like your family I wouldn't bother with educating myself. Thankfully I want more for myself and family than monetary exhange that will mean nothing after I'm gone.

And your "...paying their wages..." comment is exactly what we have been saying. Since you "pay their wage" in a capitalist economy, the workers should shut up and be happy with their existence?

Quote[/b] ]Speaking as someone who does live off his money from shares.......... executives are workers too.

The primary reason to float your company on the stock exchange is to gain money for expansion.

Capitalism works.

You are using capitalist actions to justify a capitalist result. That's like using the word you are trying to define in its definition.

As someone who lives off your shares you would of course think capitalism works. As some one who works hourly, I of course think its a crock. But then even beyond that I choose to believe that there is more to life than "floating my company on the stock exchange." I believe that advancing the human race, not my portfolio, is worthy of my energy.

Quote[/b] ]No one lends a company money just so it can pay it's employee's more. This is utter nonsense.

If a company executive asks me to borrow money simply for the purpose of giving himself a pay rise, neither I nor any other investor will be intrested.

I will be checking the accounts and as an owner of a company, I am able to sack the managment should they displease me.

If your company is unable to pay your staff from it's operating revenues, raising their wages is not the answer. Borrowing money at a commercial rate to increase their wages is doubly not the answer.

Not sure what that is in reply too, but we are well aware a company will do little to pay their base workers, but will be happy to dip into profits or "operating revenue" to pay executives a higher wage. There are plenty examples of this, particularly "severance packages."

Quote[/b] ]Creative energy is not stifled in communist societes. The Soviet Union was one of the greatest technological achieving societies of the 20th Century. The Chinese have hardly been slack.

Indeed. And China is also a good example of capitalism run amok. Irreversable environmental damage, sweat shops, low wages, worker dorms, child workers, etc.

Quote[/b] ]Both Communism and capitalism are effective methods of goverment.

The question is not which one is better, but which one is better for you.

That is why we are debating I suppose.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Socialism is inherantly unjust. The rich are held blackamil to the poor, who's weight of numbers allow them to rob without recourse.

Because Worker A's outnumber Worker B's they are in a position to set societies moral codes. Making theft and ownership of property immoral. (As long as you own more than them).

By your own example they both work the same job and the same amount. It is the economic system that has made Worker B retain more wealth, not his "spunk" or determination.

But your definition is colored by a capitalist view point. "I gathered and moused away all my stuff...why do I have to share it?"

Because society is there for all not just for you.

Capitalism by its very nature is unjust. It divideds and segments.

Your example's are all swell in a closed sterile environment, but life is not closed. There are just as many people who work their asses off and get no where because of the economic system. Because of predatory practices of corporations. Because of the color of their skin or gender or sexuality. Plenty of small businesses with viable, workable, and beneficial products driven out of business by large corporations with more market share, and resources so that they can hold on to that market share. Of local businesses catering to a local need, only to be driven out of business by large corporations that have more resources and can keep the all important costs down by not offering health insurance to workers or allowing them to unionize. Of environmentally sensitive areas destoryed, to never be seen again, because it costs too much on the bottom line to run a clean operation and a government run by capitalists for capitalists could give a flying flip. It colonizes and enslaves native people. It exploits less powerful or developed countries for their resources. It drives people to rob and murder. It produces ghettos and crime.

Socialism protects the majority from a minority of explotionists. Socialism protects those that can not protect themselves. Socialism directs human energy away from the "me" to the betterment of "us."

Your view and everything about it revolves around "your money" and "your things" and that is the exact attitude that gets humans no where. It has started wars and killed millions.

THAT is how your "capitalism works."

Quote[/b] ]Where rich people made their money through theft and abuse not hard work.

However I don't believe this is the norm. I believe it is the exception that proves the rule, not the rule itself.

Don't delude yourself. How many examples in the last 5 years have there been of corporate scandals? Workers thrown out on the street with no protection at all while CEOs and executives jet off to some sunny isle?

Just this month, Nova, the largest language corporation in Japan, went bankrupt leaving 2000+ foreign workers with no where to live and no wage. Many were evicted from their apartments because though the company was still docking rent from checks, the company wasn't bothering to pay that rent. The executive, just prior to the company folding, sold his shares and jetted off to the Caribbean.

THAT is how your capitalism works.

Quote[/b] ]You choose to believe that rich people are ripping you offer, because it soothes you ego without forcing you to do anything about it. You can validate your coming in second to yourself, by invalidating those who have achieved more.

That might have stung if I judge my existence by how much wealth I accumulate, what car I drive, or how many people I can boss around.

Thankfully I don't.

Quote[/b] ]Poor people are not getting rich.

Not sure how many times it can be said.

Socialism isn't about distributing wealth to the poor. It isn't about taking your precious stuff away from you.

EDIT: Just added a tinsy bit.

EDIT2: Something I failed to address. I'm aware that executives are workers as well. However, socialism ensures that no one is exploited for the profit and gain of another. There are far more instances of corporations exploiting workers or citizens, and not enough of corporations voluntarily helping workers or citizens.

[Eda Mrcoch 0]

Quote[/b] ]As a person living in postcommunistic state, surrounded by people who had lived through that shit for most of their lives I do find some of the posts (namely Spokesperson's) utterly Martian.

We have already determined and shown that the USSR was neither truely "communistic" nor "socialist." Therefore, your experiences in a post-USSR satillite are irrelevant...other than as living proof that the USSR form of government does not work.

My post was aimed at Spokesperson who have stated that life in the whatcha-want-to-call-it-istic Soviet bloc was better than in the West.

Quote[/b] ]Just because the Soviet Union and DDR had cheap cars all citizens could afford (that's better than in the west) it doesn't mean future socialist societies must have the same quality.

Quote[/b] ]Well, yea your parents ordered one when you were born. You got it when you turned 18. That's better than in the west.

Quote[/b] ] The fact that the eastern bloc was catching up on west shows that the economic system was a success. Up till 1971 it looked like the USSR would get ahead of the US one day. But the Cold War grew more intense and more had to be spent on the defence.

You, in the contrary say, that the theory is right, it was just badly executed. I strongly disagree with that and do think the theory itself is perverse, but at least there is possibility to discuss it with you. I see no point to try to do it with Spokesperson as his opinions do not correlate with reality as I perceive it.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]You, in the contrary say, that the theory is right, it was just badly executed. I strongly disagree with that and do think the theory itself is perverse, but at least there is possibility to discuss it with you. I see no point to try to do it with Spokesperson as his opinions do not correlate with reality as I perceive it.

I'm going to assume this was aimed at me...

It might help if I make clear what my political ideology is, so that it can be a basis for discussion.

For one, as I'm sure you guessed, I am a socialist (however you wish to define that). I am anti-capitalist (the system...not persons). I hold many beliefs that other socialist do but a lot they don't.

1) I think that human society should be based on equality, no class divisions, no castes, and certainly no discrimination.

2) I believe in a form of democratic socialism, though a form that does not exist today (or at least that I am aware of).

3) I think there should be a weak central government, mainly for foreign affairs, diplomacy, etc run by community representatives, not career politicans. Lobbying should be outlawed as well as any form of contributions to candidates. The government should be responsible for production only so much as necessities are concerned. Education, health care, defense if deemed needed, infrastructure, etc. Local communities will hold the rights to the rest of production as they determine fit (as illustrated in my posts).

4) Representatives will be directly elected by communities to be sent to execute government business. Term limits apply and representatives must be community workers.

5) Individuals my begin production of their ideas with some government assistance (means with which to begin and continue production) while it will be the individuals job to gain and retain workers among other things.

6) Internally and ideally, a non-monetary economy. The central government would be responsible for exchange on the international level.

7) Unlike other socialists movements, I recognize the inate need for some people to believe in religion or spirtuality (I am a Buddhist). No abridgement of religion would be allowed, however it also would not be allowed to govern community or state policy, at least not where it effects others who do not follow or agree.

That is a rough outline so make of it what you will and feel free to ask for further clarification.

[baddo 0]

Having some knowledge of business, I can assure you that a CEO is NOT more important than the person that is actually MAKING the product.

This is just complete rubbish! Wake up!

A little bit about my background. I worked many years as a blue-collar factory worker. I enjoyed it up to the point when I realized that I was restrained too much, I could not affect my own work enough. I also reached a point in my job that I felt that there was little more to learn. I was at the top of the game, as so to speak. So I also felt that I hit the roof regarding how much I can develop myself in that job. I had to choose either to get over it or to do something about it. So I went to educate myself to do something about it. This meant that I was willing to give up lots of income during the time I spend in the educational institute. The people who are same age as me and who stayed in the factory as blue-collar workers, have actually earned a lot more money than I have to this date. Now I have also worked as a white-collar worker. So I know both sides, the side in which I take instructions as a blue-collar worker, and the side in which I give instructions to the blue-collar workers.

The factory in which I worked as a blue-collar worker was founded soon after the Soviet Union had collapsed. There was an old factory in that same spot. That company went bankcrupt, partly because the sales to the Soviet Union ceased to exist. Difficult times in this country, definitely. But most people of that factory were unemployed only for a very short amount of time, max. a couple of months for most. Do you want to know why? Because there was one highly-educated and fearless person who was willing to take a huge personal risk: he founded a brand new company into the ruins of the old one! And notice that this happened in the middle of a bad economical depression! The whole country was in big financial problems and future was very uncertain. But this one man wasn't afraid. So, he put up a company, selected one good product and got the factory to produce that product. Then what? Marketing! Guess who did the marketing? That's right! This very same man! He travelled around the World and sold his product where ever he saw a possibility to do so. As he is capable of speaking many languages (unlike most of his blue-collar workers), it wasn't a problem for him to do the marketing abroad. Exporting the product was a necessity for the company's success, as our local economy was in depression, and also the demand for the product isn't high enough in our relatively small market to let such a company grow into a profitable business.

So, are you saying that I should not give this man a higher status in the company than the blue-collar workers? That is absolutely ridiculous! The company would not exist today if this man had not stepped forward. In the middle of a depression it was very, very important that there are people like him, who can actually start a succesful business when things otherwise look very bad. This is the kind of people we need. To be honest with you, among those many blue-collar workers I worked with, are not a single individual who could have done the same thing. Number one reason is that they lack the education to do so. How do you run such a company without speaking languages or without knowing how to calculate all the financial calculations a CEO has to know from the top of his head? How? How do you gain the status of a world-wide leader in your product segment if all you have is uneducated people, many of them stopped studying after finishing elementary school...

This might be a fight against windmills. At least I can try to make you understand...

On personal level, I judge people mostly how I have seen them behave, and what have they done to my knowledge. I don't take a blue-collar worker and ridicule him just because he's a blue-collar worker. Definitely not. I appreciate such people, hey I was one of them not-so-long-ago. And I still enjoy getting my hands dirty. I know what their work is like. But for sure I am not so naive to think that the CEO of that company is not worth more than anyone of his blue-collar workers... because he is definitely worth much, much more, and there is no question about that. If he gets a better salary then I can say that he certainly deserves it. He deserved it in the beginning of the 1990's by saving lots of people from unemployment. He's a rich man today and he deserves to be rich, he has worked much much harder than anyone else in the company. I am not jealous, I have absolutely no reason to be, instead, I am proud of his achievements, and thankful for saving all the many people from financial disaster (among them my family).

The bottom line is, the man at the drill can easily be replaced with another man. But the man at the CEO's room is very hard to replace so that it doesn't lead into total disaster for the whole company.

Giving them an equal status is against rational, logical thinking. In front of my eyes, as human beings they get equal status as long as there is no reason to say otherwise. But as a company founder CEO (the man who made the company into very succesful business) and as a man at the drill, their status is not equal and should not be.

[Akira 0]

Ok...then let me try and help you to understand from MY point of view.

Good for this man for having a plan and putting work in. You seem to assume that I am saying CEO's don't work, which is not true as I said in my post about executives. However, I do not see him at all more important than the people that ARE ACTUALLY MAKING THE PRODUCT HE IS SELLING.

Let him fly around the world and speak his languages with no one at all to run the drill. These workers that are "easy to replace" are not so easy as you imagine. They hold the power of your company in their hands (even if for the most part they are unaware of it). Witness prolonged strikes and what it does to corporations. Witness the hubris of the executives with the demise of Eastern Airlines.

So no it is not rubbish. It is a simple fact of logic. With no one to make your product at all there is no need for a CEO nor a company. Or do you think that your CEO can market, audit, AND run the machinery for your company? The fallacy of the CEO as Supreme Being has been perpetuated by capitalist economies for the very purpose that you show. A misguided belief that somehow this person is worth more or works harder than the workers in the factory.

EDIT: I wanted to add something about education since you brought it up. I do believe an educated workforce is essential which is why I place such a high importance on it in my ideology. Your CEO did not know these "equations" since birth he learned them through education, and probably his knowledge of running a business. There is no reason to suppose that an educated blue-collar workforce can not run a company just as well as a educated white-collar CEO. Partly it is a matter of inate abilities as well. Perhaps your CEO is just naturally good at running a business. No reason to believe that it would be possible from a blue-collar worker as well.

[-Snafu- 77]

Quote[/b] ]But the reasons flats are built is that there is not enough room in a city to build houses. That is why houses are situated on the outskirts.

No, if you can build new flats you could build new houses at that location instead. But it's less profitable.

Quote[/b] ]What do you mean by places where you have to pay? In Scotland there is an government organisation called SAAS that judges if you are eligible for other things to get paid for ie student flats. And believe me, student flats are big bucks.  Moreover the Scottish gov. is only a bit more socialist in some aspects, most parties remain largely similar.

Haven't you got the SNP in charge? In european terms that party is pretty much left. By paying I mean, is all your education free? Student flats might be big bucks but usually there are things that generate more bucks. My point is that money rules, not people. Money doesn't represent the needs per capita (but sometimes it does reflect the needs of a majority). Student flats was just one thing I could come up because I read about it last week. It's a hot subject as the price of all kinds of houses are at record heights world wide at the moment.

Quote[/b] ]For example WW1. There was no economic benefit to Britain at all for taking part in WW1.

There was very much so. Britain had huge unemployment and an economic crisis more or less. The war created a demand for military equipment. Money was invested in the military industry. Loads of jobs were created. The economic crisis ended. Wars are profitable for some. There's a great Bob Dylan song about those "some" guy btw.

Quote[/b] ]Moreover the survival of capitalism suggests that many members of the proletariat, far from being ignorant of the system within which they exist, are fully aware, and have a well developed class consciousness; which had led them to recognise that the existing capitalist system may be to their benefit. Therefore in areas such as the education system, Marxism is criticised for ignoring the progress that has been made in overcoming social class divisions. For example the number of people gaining access to further education in Britain has risen from 8% in the '80's to well over 40% in the first decade of the 21st century.

Well, Marx hinted that capitalism would collapse eventually. Observations prove him right so far. There's a tendency of the rate of profit to fall for instance. The fall of capitalism will likely not depend on class consiousness but the creation of socialism will. Higher standards and education doesn't mean class divisions have been reduced. Class is not primarily about your standard of living. It's about power. About who's doing what in society.

Quote[/b] ]And how is it rational that Socialism is next? History and politics are not always rational. This isn't maths where 2+2 will always equal 4. If history really were rational/logical then most countries should be socilaist at this point in time. Moreover this idea that socitey will always change through conflict is another weakness of Marxism. Such a view underestimates the ability and freedom of people to take decisions which shape their own destiny.

Taken as a whole, it is very rational. There are trends and tendencies that depend on a lot of decision makers finding rational ways of doing things. Money is usually a measure of _economic_ rationality and it guides the way. Your reasoning about that we should've had socialism by now if history was rational, is irrational. Development takes time and is linear. One thing leads to another. There's a time and place for everything. So you can't just jump from slavery to capitalism. Or from feodalism to socialism. Capitalism and the bourgeoisie ended the era of feodalism. There's also a time for when socialism and the proletariat ends the era of capitalism. And one day the majority will be free and rule (that's the communist stage).

If you look at history conflict is the only thing that has changed the very structure of society. One class replaces another. There are always situations when those who got power don't want to give it to others. When interests conflict. That leads to violence and it's why there's so much violence.

Flats: Right so we just flatten an entire city block, move lots of people and businesses to another area and build some houses. lol. If you have not got enough room to build around you then build up.

The SNP is only one seat ahead of Labour, it is a minority but Salmond is First Minister though. I don't really understand your 'European terms' comment. They are only socialist in some aspects, I have a list of their policies in one of my Politics folders that proves this. Most parties are more or less the same, being of the left wing I thought you would have agreed with me on this one. Yes my education is free for primary, secondary and university. Student flats are profitable. A block of student flats, with 4-6 students to one flat, 70-100 pounds for each student and say about 200 students in one block and say about 15 blocks for one university (this is just an example do not take these figures for fact).

WW1: You seem to be talking about WW2 here when you mention 'huge unemployment' and 'economic crisis'. WW1 borught no economic benefit at all, Britain was in relative decline before the war and the war accelerated this. It would have made clear economic sense not to get involved in the war because a) They would keep their global superpower status and thus control of important parts of the world b) Countries that do not get involved in wars tend to do very well economically c) They would have kept all of their workers rather than have some of them dying in warfare. Moreover at the end of WW1 the economy of Britain was exhausted as was all the other countries that were involved bar the USA which did extremely well out of the war (and they did not want to get involved in the first place). Consequently it would have made economic sense for the entire country, businesses etc not to support the war. Therefore you are completely and utterly wrong in your argument here.

History and politics are not rational at all. Are all decisons rational? No. Was the reasons for WW1 rational? No, there are numerous reasons and they run very deep into the history of those countries and their socio-economic factors. The majority of things are not rational or logical or simple. It was not my reasoning that socialism should be next, thats yours. Oh and slavery and capitlaism are not comparable, they are two different things by the way. Moreover you cannot not possibly know if socialism will be 'next' some other system, ideology whatever may be developed. In addition your claim that the majority will eventually be free and rule does not make sense to me. I thought that earlier on you were talking about how the rule of the majority was bad.