I was prompted to create this thread by something pldennison said in the thread about libertarianism. Not to pick on you, others have done it too.
America is in no way socialist. It is the perfect example of capitalism.
Socialism is workers control of production. Socialism is a system in which private property doesn’t exist. America is as much Socialist as it is Feudal. Sure, it has some characteristics that you would find in the other governments. Under socialism you would have public education. Under feudalsim church’s didn’t pay property tax. That doesn’t make America either.
THIS is capitalism - prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market -
I also refer you to the communist manifesto. … the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
When that happens, America can be called socialist. Not before. It’s not moving toward socialism slowly, the government isn’t doing anything to further socialism in the US. In short: stop making this claim
…state more of the obvious
Though FTR, it is worth noting that a state does not have to be all the way to abolishing private property to be socialist. Marx said that socialism was a transition state on teh way to communism. As such, it is–at least in theory–short lived; the state will either continue to progress towards full communism or begin to revert back. But whatever.
Hey. Being able to grasp and state the obvious is a highly valuable skill. And I’ll bet we still get some people disagreeing with me. It’s funny how many people disagree, even when the truth is obvious. ah well…
Hey, scratch? You might wanna check out this thread–it was a couple months ago, but it covers essentially the same ground. Oh, and the author of the OP is brilliant, dashing, and incisive. grin
Thanks gad. I forgot about that one. It was going on while I was in and out of the hospital. But, I think it could be restarted. It quickly degenerated into a thread on Libertarianism. Damn libertarian hijackers. grumble grumble grumble.
I think England in the early days of the Industrial Revolution would be closer to pure capitalism.
Certain parts of U.S. industry at one time or another might have approached pure capitalism…but then things like the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire would occur and the government would step in.
Can you name one that’s not? The workers have no say in managerial decisions. Sure they can strike, but union power has been on the decline for decades. At this point, a strike often results in very little gain for the workers–assuming they even get to keep their jobs. Moreover, the union leaders manipulate the membership and are practically in bed with the owners. So when management says jump, they don’t have any choice but to say “how high”.
But you wanted an example, air traffic controllers (and yes they are producing–they are producing a safer and more efficient plane ride that consumers consume). I seem to remember a rather famous episode involving 11,000 of them and Ronald Reagan. And that’s just one…
I meant that to be a double negative; can you name one that’s not not controlled by the workers (i.e. one that is)?
Well not the controllers obviously, because when they tried to strike for better working conditions, the President himself fired 11,000 of them. That doesn’t sound like control to me…
But, I still wouldn’t call that socialist in the boogeyman sense. The absolute monarchies of the 1800’s had some schemes like this. People at that time warned that they were bourgeoise or capitalist.
First of all, the fact that they don’t have total control doesn’t mean that they don’t have any control. President Reagen didn’t just fire them for no reason. He fired them because of a decision they made. I really don’t see how they can complain. I mean, they tell their employers “We won’t work for you because you aren’t doing what we want you to do”, and then they’re told “Okay, then, you won’t work us”. Furthermore, part of what is being produced by the aircraft control industry is money. And each aircraft controller got several tens of thousands of dollars of that money every year to do whatever they wanted with it. That sure sounds like control to me.
Second of all, even if one group of workers does not control production, that hardly establishes your claim (actually, oldscratch’s, but you seem to be defending it) that no worker or group of workers controls it.
Getting fired for striking doesn’t sound like control. What you’re saying is that they had two choices–just live with the conditions they were working in or get fired. Boy, that sounds like control to me :rolleyes:
And in case you’re wondering, many many barbers are actuially employees of a store–especially in the case of the large hair-care chains . Sure it’s more of a locally owned business than most, but it’s still a business, with workers that don’t have control.
How does this equate to control at all? If you’re saying that the ATC could just walk into his boss’ office, slam down $30, and say “I want to work under decent conditions”, I’m going to have to laugh for a long time. Getting paid for your time doesn’t equate to control.
Now to adress the larger issue; employers control the means of production. That should be fairly obvious–when’s the last time you saw any factory workers operating as a group to decide their working hours? There are some companies that are using partial employee ownership, which seems to be a move in the right direction, though something about it seems kinda bizarre…
Yes. Although there could be exceptions to this. I’m sure I can think of something. I’m not sure what this has to do with anything though? I didn’t speak of workers not owning anything under socialism.
The phone companies, agriculture, the government, steel, automotive, chicken production, breweries, needle trades, on and on.
And The Ryan, barbers is not a form of production. They are independent owner/operaters of small shops. The petite-bourgeoise as Marx called them.
Does “Abolition of private property” mean something else on Planet Socialism? If it doesn’t mean that the workers don’t own anything, I can’t imagine what it does mean.
Well. It seems pretty self explanatory to me… I really must confess ignorance as to what point you are trying to make.
Let me fathom a guess. Abolition of private property, refers to the abolition of privately held means of production. It’s not talking about personal property, we aren’t going to make you share your toothbrush. It means that the working class will democraticly control the means of production. If that means that the working class in some sense owns the means of production so be it. But, that’s just a quible over words.
Look at it this way, if the means of production are held by all, then you can say one of two things with equal accuracy:
Everybody owns it.
Nobody owns it.
At the point of true socialism, there really isn’t a distinction between these. If everybody owns it, then nobody owns it (in the sense that no one person/small groups of people control it).
If you don’t understand how money equates to power, you either have never lived in a capitalist country, or else you are incredibly unobservant.
That’s a silly thing to say. Of course $30 won’t buy you decent working conditions. It also won’t buy you a house or a car. That doesn’t mean that money can’t be used to buy a house or car; it just means that $30 isn’t enough. If you really don’t think that your job affords you a decent working environment, there’s a very easy way to use money to improve the situation: quit. You will then be trading your salary for a better situation. Either the control that your salary affords you is greater than the control your job takes away (in which you must be getting a lot of control in the form of money), or else you’re qorking for no reason.
The claim that employers control the means of production and the claim that workers don’t control production are two completely different claims.
