This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
SW-User
There are many types of socialism. Which one? Syndicalism? Democratic Socialism? The dictatorship of the Proletariat? Marxism-Leninism? Anarchism? Market Socialism?
I am of the belief that socialism cannot work in the boundaries of a nation. I believe that workers all around the world must control their workplaces democratically, and only then could we make socialism work. Until then, the best the U.S. could hope to achieve is market socialism, as i am no fan of marxism-leninism. I beleive market socialism would be a transition which the American people could imagine. As the u.s. isn't industrialized enough to support itself, it would need China for real socialism. However, I am a full supporter of anarchism, and would ultimately hope to achieve it.
I am of the belief that socialism cannot work in the boundaries of a nation. I believe that workers all around the world must control their workplaces democratically, and only then could we make socialism work. Until then, the best the U.S. could hope to achieve is market socialism, as i am no fan of marxism-leninism. I beleive market socialism would be a transition which the American people could imagine. As the u.s. isn't industrialized enough to support itself, it would need China for real socialism. However, I am a full supporter of anarchism, and would ultimately hope to achieve it.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@SW-User Anarchy means the destruction any government and inevitably, of society at large. Is that what you mean and want? That would help no-one at all.
That world-wide "democratic" (by whose definition?) workers' control of work-places was the old Marxist-Leninist dream; but was never achieved. The nations that claimed to follow those two people became ruthless dictatorships. And by the Party elite, not by any supposed "Proletariat".
By "Market Socialism" do you mean what most of the democratic, developed world uses in practice?
That is, a capitalist economy, high degree of individual freedom plus State-run education, health, pension and benefits systems. Those are "free" directly, or at least low-cost, for all; some services are free for the poorest on benefits.
They are paid for from taxes which do affect the better-paid more directly and indirectly. In the UK system, everyone in paid employment (by company or self) pays Income Tax and something called rather misleadingly, National Insurance. These are usually deducted from gross pay and paid to HM Revenue & Customs, by the employer. The NI is intended primarily for health and social services. Since IT and NI are by percentage of pay above a threshold protecting the lowest-paid, they are proportional to wage. Also the better-paid tend to buy costlier homes, cars, luxuries, hobbies etc., so pay higher indirect-tax totals whilst also supporting the trades involved.
I think other W. European countries use roughly similar systems, in principle at least. The most thorough but also most expensive (in taxes) version is or used to be Sweden's but most countries don't go quite that far.
An equivalent can work in the USA. Its [i]only[/i] obstacle is the wish and will to make it work, in a country that lets foreigners like me see it as very conservative (small 'c') and terrified that helping your fellow-citizens is somehow Marxist. MacArthy still about?
+++
Ironically, for the past few decades now, both Labour and Conservative governments in the UK have been chipping away at the nation's public-services in pursuance of two weak theories.
The first is that even reasonably high public spending is bad for the economy, summarised by "cost before value".
The second is a peculiar idea that anyone paid for by the State is somehow unqualified compared to his or her commercially-paid equivalent in the same work. They are not of course, but many are paid less.
I blame the second on politicians helped by a Press and Canary Wharf / Wall-Street spivs all of [i]Janet & John [/i]book technical-knowledge level, taking the glory when it works well, but blaming the businesses for failures or losses. The failures are very often from undue managerial interference, excessive profits-milking or simple investment-cuts by those politicians, rather than careful planning and due diligence.
In fact this sell-off-cheap ideology is proving over and over again more damaging in various ways. Principally, by drastic cost-cutting, loss of experienced staff, "micro-management". And very much too, because many utilities and former State-run organisations and their trading-profits are now owned by foreign equivalent companies or mere money-traders, or even countries!
At least Mr. Trump backed down from his State-visit expressed desire to get his grubby golfing-gloves on the National Health Service.
'
If anyone wonders how I know.... I worked in various companies for about 40 years in a country with both Left-wing Labour and Right-wing Conservative Governments.
Most were private and small; but for a while I was a laboratory-assistant in [i]a[/i] Government scientific organisation, so a very low-ranking Civil Servant. (Most Britons have no idea what a Civil Servant is or does, thinking only of the [i]Yes Minister[/i] and bowler-hatted "mandarin" nonsense.)
Then sold to the Stock Market in a very dodgy deal that made a lot of money in shares-issues for its two top Directors, and in middle-men rake-off by a shadowy foreign York money-trader. My work, pay and employment conditions did continue luckily, if only thanks to decent employees'-protection laws. Questions were Asked in Parliament about that privatising....
Oh, and I am State Pensioner whose had his arthritic knees replaced, at no charge to me. So I am very grateful for having paid about 40 years' worth of Income Tax and National Insurance even though these are not actually savings plans. I paid for others' pensions and medical treatments while working, then in my turn... I could not have afforded such operations in a "sink-or-swim" society and economy relying on the caprices and profits of insurance-companies.
And of course, almost by definition, an Anarchy would have no pensions, hospitals, schools etc. anyway, private or State-run.
That world-wide "democratic" (by whose definition?) workers' control of work-places was the old Marxist-Leninist dream; but was never achieved. The nations that claimed to follow those two people became ruthless dictatorships. And by the Party elite, not by any supposed "Proletariat".
By "Market Socialism" do you mean what most of the democratic, developed world uses in practice?
That is, a capitalist economy, high degree of individual freedom plus State-run education, health, pension and benefits systems. Those are "free" directly, or at least low-cost, for all; some services are free for the poorest on benefits.
They are paid for from taxes which do affect the better-paid more directly and indirectly. In the UK system, everyone in paid employment (by company or self) pays Income Tax and something called rather misleadingly, National Insurance. These are usually deducted from gross pay and paid to HM Revenue & Customs, by the employer. The NI is intended primarily for health and social services. Since IT and NI are by percentage of pay above a threshold protecting the lowest-paid, they are proportional to wage. Also the better-paid tend to buy costlier homes, cars, luxuries, hobbies etc., so pay higher indirect-tax totals whilst also supporting the trades involved.
I think other W. European countries use roughly similar systems, in principle at least. The most thorough but also most expensive (in taxes) version is or used to be Sweden's but most countries don't go quite that far.
An equivalent can work in the USA. Its [i]only[/i] obstacle is the wish and will to make it work, in a country that lets foreigners like me see it as very conservative (small 'c') and terrified that helping your fellow-citizens is somehow Marxist. MacArthy still about?
+++
Ironically, for the past few decades now, both Labour and Conservative governments in the UK have been chipping away at the nation's public-services in pursuance of two weak theories.
The first is that even reasonably high public spending is bad for the economy, summarised by "cost before value".
The second is a peculiar idea that anyone paid for by the State is somehow unqualified compared to his or her commercially-paid equivalent in the same work. They are not of course, but many are paid less.
I blame the second on politicians helped by a Press and Canary Wharf / Wall-Street spivs all of [i]Janet & John [/i]book technical-knowledge level, taking the glory when it works well, but blaming the businesses for failures or losses. The failures are very often from undue managerial interference, excessive profits-milking or simple investment-cuts by those politicians, rather than careful planning and due diligence.
In fact this sell-off-cheap ideology is proving over and over again more damaging in various ways. Principally, by drastic cost-cutting, loss of experienced staff, "micro-management". And very much too, because many utilities and former State-run organisations and their trading-profits are now owned by foreign equivalent companies or mere money-traders, or even countries!
At least Mr. Trump backed down from his State-visit expressed desire to get his grubby golfing-gloves on the National Health Service.
'
If anyone wonders how I know.... I worked in various companies for about 40 years in a country with both Left-wing Labour and Right-wing Conservative Governments.
Most were private and small; but for a while I was a laboratory-assistant in [i]a[/i] Government scientific organisation, so a very low-ranking Civil Servant. (Most Britons have no idea what a Civil Servant is or does, thinking only of the [i]Yes Minister[/i] and bowler-hatted "mandarin" nonsense.)
Then sold to the Stock Market in a very dodgy deal that made a lot of money in shares-issues for its two top Directors, and in middle-men rake-off by a shadowy foreign York money-trader. My work, pay and employment conditions did continue luckily, if only thanks to decent employees'-protection laws. Questions were Asked in Parliament about that privatising....
Oh, and I am State Pensioner whose had his arthritic knees replaced, at no charge to me. So I am very grateful for having paid about 40 years' worth of Income Tax and National Insurance even though these are not actually savings plans. I paid for others' pensions and medical treatments while working, then in my turn... I could not have afforded such operations in a "sink-or-swim" society and economy relying on the caprices and profits of insurance-companies.
And of course, almost by definition, an Anarchy would have no pensions, hospitals, schools etc. anyway, private or State-run.
SW-User
@ArishMell Mr Arish,
You have many misconceptions of what socialism is, I assume they probably derive from the cold war. Socialism is just what you said, worker's control of the means of production. I advocate for direct control, not an indirect control of workplaces through the state. That is a Marxist-Leninist idea. One they could have achieved but one they purposely crushed. Many died fighting the Soviet State, I would have been among them had I lived in that time and place. You are right, they became really authoritarian shortly after seizing the Petrograd Soviet, they seized the Duma and the civil-war followed thereafter. However, unlike you, those who fought the Soviet State had a different idea of what a socialist economy could look like. Some were syndicalists, some were democratic socialists, social democrats and others were anarchists.
Some socialists (not Marxist-Leninists) advocate for democracy in the workplace, run by workers, and because of it, a company where the majority of the benefits go towards the workers NOT the company elite or government. This would have meant that you, and every other lab technician, janitor, courier ect. would've had a vote, on the fate of the company. From beginning to end. You own it, not the government, not a small group of investors, you own it, period. That is socialism in it's purest essence. Now if you changed nothing, but put all the workers, professionals ect., in charge of their workplaces in Britain, and changed nothing else, then that would be market socialism. A place where the profits always end up with the workers, but an unchanged market economy.
Now on the contrary, if the company had not been sold to the market by the government, then that would have been more of a marxist-leninist tradition. Where the government owns the means of production and uses the profits, if any, for the good of the people. Now i am not a fan of this type of socialism, as I regard the government as inherently oppressive, just like corporations. Those who work for a living should receive the full fruit of the profits they helped make. Not CEO's and not the government.
Now the question of Anarchy and the government, what function should a socialist government have in a socialist economy? I am an advocate of anarchism you see, and when you boil down what I believe in, it comes down to this, [b]all power should be justified[/b]. If the power over an individual cannot be justified by the government or a company, then they shouldn't have it. There are reasonable things which the state needs to do to keep a modern economy running, however, there are also many abuses of power which are unnecessary. My goal is to fully democratize the government, end parliamentary democracy in exchange for direct democracy, and return many powers which the government held over the people to the locals. Now, I personally believe that to achieve anarchism we would need a real socialist economy, not market socialism. We would need not only workers in control of the means of production in Britain but all around the world. Using these resources we could, in fact, build and produce everything necessary for human existence.
You have many misconceptions of what socialism is, I assume they probably derive from the cold war. Socialism is just what you said, worker's control of the means of production. I advocate for direct control, not an indirect control of workplaces through the state. That is a Marxist-Leninist idea. One they could have achieved but one they purposely crushed. Many died fighting the Soviet State, I would have been among them had I lived in that time and place. You are right, they became really authoritarian shortly after seizing the Petrograd Soviet, they seized the Duma and the civil-war followed thereafter. However, unlike you, those who fought the Soviet State had a different idea of what a socialist economy could look like. Some were syndicalists, some were democratic socialists, social democrats and others were anarchists.
Some socialists (not Marxist-Leninists) advocate for democracy in the workplace, run by workers, and because of it, a company where the majority of the benefits go towards the workers NOT the company elite or government. This would have meant that you, and every other lab technician, janitor, courier ect. would've had a vote, on the fate of the company. From beginning to end. You own it, not the government, not a small group of investors, you own it, period. That is socialism in it's purest essence. Now if you changed nothing, but put all the workers, professionals ect., in charge of their workplaces in Britain, and changed nothing else, then that would be market socialism. A place where the profits always end up with the workers, but an unchanged market economy.
Now on the contrary, if the company had not been sold to the market by the government, then that would have been more of a marxist-leninist tradition. Where the government owns the means of production and uses the profits, if any, for the good of the people. Now i am not a fan of this type of socialism, as I regard the government as inherently oppressive, just like corporations. Those who work for a living should receive the full fruit of the profits they helped make. Not CEO's and not the government.
Now the question of Anarchy and the government, what function should a socialist government have in a socialist economy? I am an advocate of anarchism you see, and when you boil down what I believe in, it comes down to this, [b]all power should be justified[/b]. If the power over an individual cannot be justified by the government or a company, then they shouldn't have it. There are reasonable things which the state needs to do to keep a modern economy running, however, there are also many abuses of power which are unnecessary. My goal is to fully democratize the government, end parliamentary democracy in exchange for direct democracy, and return many powers which the government held over the people to the locals. Now, I personally believe that to achieve anarchism we would need a real socialist economy, not market socialism. We would need not only workers in control of the means of production in Britain but all around the world. Using these resources we could, in fact, build and produce everything necessary for human existence.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@SW-User
Thank you for explaining your views.
Unfortunately, despite any protestations to the contrary, those nations that called themselves "socialist" were anything but, by your definition.
The "means of production" (sales and all other services) were in the hands of the Government, and the employees had no more say in it than they do in a hard-line capitalist-owned company.
I think the nearest to this ideal is the "Employees' Representatives" or title meaning that, on company boards; but I think Germany is one of the few countries to establish that, and (presumably) make it work.
My definition of a "socialist country" is not only ex-Cold War. I know there are commentators in the US now who regard even an entity like the Labour Party in Britain or other European countries, as verging on Communist!
Now, some members of parties like Labour do still call for State ownership of industries like the railways* and utilities; but they have always called for a strong negotiating voice for the trades-unions, not for shop-floor staff to manage or own the company.
Their theory, or definition of "socialism", is that if it's State-owned it is axiomatically in the "workers' " hands, not directly but as citizens, i.e., members of the State as the collective population of that nation. However you define "worker": anyone who works for a living is a "worker".
Nowadays such parties usually welcome profit-sharing schemes and employee share-holdings, which do go some way to the staff owning the enterprise.
+++
I agree fully that power should be justified: I believe it was Lenin who once asked something like, "If you wish to know the purpose of a law, ask whom it benefits." If he'd have asked that in Stalin's day he'd have been whisked off the Gulag before you could "Ivan The Terrible".
More though, the power needs to be in the hands of those who actually know how to use it responsibly, and will do so.
++++
* Nationalised railways:
The UK's rail network is still State-owned but the services are run by commercial companies who lease the rolling-stock from middle-men firms.
Labour, and indeed a good many otherwise not especially political people, frequently called for the railways to be re-nationalised fully. They don't realise huge swathes of the goods and passenger services, and even managing the licencing of preserved steam-locomotives to haul "specials" on Network Rail routes, ARE nationalised... only the owning State is not the UK but Germany!
Thank you for explaining your views.
Unfortunately, despite any protestations to the contrary, those nations that called themselves "socialist" were anything but, by your definition.
The "means of production" (sales and all other services) were in the hands of the Government, and the employees had no more say in it than they do in a hard-line capitalist-owned company.
I think the nearest to this ideal is the "Employees' Representatives" or title meaning that, on company boards; but I think Germany is one of the few countries to establish that, and (presumably) make it work.
My definition of a "socialist country" is not only ex-Cold War. I know there are commentators in the US now who regard even an entity like the Labour Party in Britain or other European countries, as verging on Communist!
Now, some members of parties like Labour do still call for State ownership of industries like the railways* and utilities; but they have always called for a strong negotiating voice for the trades-unions, not for shop-floor staff to manage or own the company.
Their theory, or definition of "socialism", is that if it's State-owned it is axiomatically in the "workers' " hands, not directly but as citizens, i.e., members of the State as the collective population of that nation. However you define "worker": anyone who works for a living is a "worker".
Nowadays such parties usually welcome profit-sharing schemes and employee share-holdings, which do go some way to the staff owning the enterprise.
+++
I agree fully that power should be justified: I believe it was Lenin who once asked something like, "If you wish to know the purpose of a law, ask whom it benefits." If he'd have asked that in Stalin's day he'd have been whisked off the Gulag before you could "Ivan The Terrible".
More though, the power needs to be in the hands of those who actually know how to use it responsibly, and will do so.
++++
* Nationalised railways:
The UK's rail network is still State-owned but the services are run by commercial companies who lease the rolling-stock from middle-men firms.
Labour, and indeed a good many otherwise not especially political people, frequently called for the railways to be re-nationalised fully. They don't realise huge swathes of the goods and passenger services, and even managing the licencing of preserved steam-locomotives to haul "specials" on Network Rail routes, ARE nationalised... only the owning State is not the UK but Germany!
SW-User
@ArishMell
Profit-sharing schemes and employee share-holdings were implemented off of research showing that when workers owned a part or all of the company, they worked harder and more efficiently. They brought out more ideas, they were more motivated, because it was their company. It's simple really, when you own something, you are more likely to care for it and work hard to maintain it. Our belief is that if workers fully owned their workplaces, they would stop polluting in rivers, stop polluting the skies and shift the company towards benefitting their own pockets, rather than the pockets of the CEO. If for example, you owned a company which polluted a lot, would you pollute your own community in exchange for a slightly higher profit margin? A handful of rich investors just might, they won't be affected, but a worker who works in those conditions and who has a family in that community might feel differently. He might invest more money into ensuring that his community might remain clean. And well, with more money in the hands of regular people, rather than an investor or CEO, the economy of the local community would be better off. This market socialism is something a lot of people could imagine without fear of it. Because like you said, we already have some forms of it.
It is indeed quite frustrating that many nations who claimed to be of a socialist nature didn't give their workers the means of production. It has always been a struggle, and it will continue to be for those of us who want the workers to own the means of production.
As for the labour party, though I do believe that there was a time when they were, in fact, socialist, that time is long past. They push for nationalization and short term fixes, but nothing really major. Yes, people love to label them as socialists and communists, and well, sometimes i find myself supporting some of their policies, but they are mostly temporary fixes or short term solutions. they do not advocate for socialism or communism. Though we socialists would love to see them back in fold, it will not happen anytime soon. Especially since the label, "socialism," is so deluded.
Profit-sharing schemes and employee share-holdings were implemented off of research showing that when workers owned a part or all of the company, they worked harder and more efficiently. They brought out more ideas, they were more motivated, because it was their company. It's simple really, when you own something, you are more likely to care for it and work hard to maintain it. Our belief is that if workers fully owned their workplaces, they would stop polluting in rivers, stop polluting the skies and shift the company towards benefitting their own pockets, rather than the pockets of the CEO. If for example, you owned a company which polluted a lot, would you pollute your own community in exchange for a slightly higher profit margin? A handful of rich investors just might, they won't be affected, but a worker who works in those conditions and who has a family in that community might feel differently. He might invest more money into ensuring that his community might remain clean. And well, with more money in the hands of regular people, rather than an investor or CEO, the economy of the local community would be better off. This market socialism is something a lot of people could imagine without fear of it. Because like you said, we already have some forms of it.
It is indeed quite frustrating that many nations who claimed to be of a socialist nature didn't give their workers the means of production. It has always been a struggle, and it will continue to be for those of us who want the workers to own the means of production.
As for the labour party, though I do believe that there was a time when they were, in fact, socialist, that time is long past. They push for nationalization and short term fixes, but nothing really major. Yes, people love to label them as socialists and communists, and well, sometimes i find myself supporting some of their policies, but they are mostly temporary fixes or short term solutions. they do not advocate for socialism or communism. Though we socialists would love to see them back in fold, it will not happen anytime soon. Especially since the label, "socialism," is so deluded.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@SW-User I think all the main parties now, at least in the UK, have lost whatever distinctive characteristics they used to have.
I have never heard of any large, successful company under any political system that is fully "worker owned" (a curious phrase suggesting anyone above shop-floor supervisor is excluded). If any do exist, I wonder if they are successful.
Industry used to need not worry too much about environmental responsibility, but this is becoming ever more important, irrespective of ownership. Whilst the main force is the Law, helped by the International Standards Organisation*, it's also becoming the concern of customers. So too, increasingly, is the way the supplier treats its employees.
As you say, the term "socialism" is so deluded, or at least very vague. That's true now of so many political labels, with meanings those of the speaker rather than the dictionary.
+++
*ISO
The ISO is perhaps most widely known for converting the originally-French Metric and physics units into the world-wide, mathematically-coherent "SI" series (while rightly keeping the proper, French, spellings ending in [i]~tre[/i]); but it goes much further than that.
It's also widely known for its longer-established ISO9000 management-control accreditation disingenuously sold as "quality control".
Recently it introduced an environmental-protection approvals system called ISO14000, accrediting companies that meet and maintain strict, minimum requirements on avoiding pollution and undue waste.
Many major, especially Governmental, clients will buy only from companies that not only obey the increasingly strict environmental and employment laws; but also hold relevant ISO accreditations. These are before considering the specialist approvals for particular products or services.
The ISO's own web-site shows virtually every country in the world to be a full member or a passive signatory. Almost the only exceptions are Greenland and several in Africa.
I have never heard of any large, successful company under any political system that is fully "worker owned" (a curious phrase suggesting anyone above shop-floor supervisor is excluded). If any do exist, I wonder if they are successful.
Industry used to need not worry too much about environmental responsibility, but this is becoming ever more important, irrespective of ownership. Whilst the main force is the Law, helped by the International Standards Organisation*, it's also becoming the concern of customers. So too, increasingly, is the way the supplier treats its employees.
As you say, the term "socialism" is so deluded, or at least very vague. That's true now of so many political labels, with meanings those of the speaker rather than the dictionary.
+++
*ISO
The ISO is perhaps most widely known for converting the originally-French Metric and physics units into the world-wide, mathematically-coherent "SI" series (while rightly keeping the proper, French, spellings ending in [i]~tre[/i]); but it goes much further than that.
It's also widely known for its longer-established ISO9000 management-control accreditation disingenuously sold as "quality control".
Recently it introduced an environmental-protection approvals system called ISO14000, accrediting companies that meet and maintain strict, minimum requirements on avoiding pollution and undue waste.
Many major, especially Governmental, clients will buy only from companies that not only obey the increasingly strict environmental and employment laws; but also hold relevant ISO accreditations. These are before considering the specialist approvals for particular products or services.
The ISO's own web-site shows virtually every country in the world to be a full member or a passive signatory. Almost the only exceptions are Greenland and several in Africa.