Can always count on you for the rosy outlook Lib.
as for The Ryan’s comment
How so?
and
You don’t seem to be understanding what we are talking about, when we speak of controlling the means of production. A slave also had some control over their work environment, they can kill themselves and no longer work. Yet only a fool would equate that to some control.
Actually that’s a pretty fair description of my job as it is now.
So,oldscratch, another Socialist thread makes its appearance. OK - let’s see what’s been thrown up so far! 
Au contraire. Marx explicitly states that private property re: the means of production must be abolished completely in order for socialism to be built. It’s one of the necessary conditions.
Allow me to tack on… oh, everything to oldscratch’s list. Yes, the workers run and maintain the machinery and tools used in production, but they do not determine what is made, how much of it to make, how it is made, or generally the conditions under which they work. This is what we mean by control of the means of production - not just flipping the switched and pressing the buttons, but actually making the decisions behind production as well.
England in the early days of the Industrial Revolution is “early” capitalism, not “pure”. Any view that sees government interference in the workings of the market as dangerous or “socialist” completely misunderstands the role of the state in modern capitalism.
Marx: “The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggle”. Every society up until and including this one has had classes, and there has always been a conflict of interest between them. Hence production and society must be organized in order to smooth over those differences and reduce the potential of serious social conflict. So we get the state. It’s always been the case that the state generally runs things in the interests of those who hold the most economic power, but are forced occasionally to throw a crumb or two to the lower classes in order to quell dissent and keep things running smoothly for the real rulers. Capitalism needs the state in order to safeguard its drive for profits because they’re not big enough or numerous enough to do it by themselves.
Hate to disillusion you, but it’s not. Money is being produced in the form of added value, but the majority of that money goes to the bosses. Any money received by workers is wages, a portion of the total value produced. They may be able to control what they do with some of the money they receive (after bills and such) but they have little control over the conditions at the job from which they receive it.
Say what?! If you have two groups of people concerned with the same assembly line, and one group makes the decisions about what to make, how to make it, etc. (as stated above) and the other group, in order to earn wages to live, has to do what the first group demands of it, it’s pretty clear that one group controls production and the other group doesn’t. They’re not different claims at all; they’re two sides of the same coin.
That’s assuming there is a better-paying, job with better conditions nearby there for the immediate taking. Big assumption to make. Millions of people in America don’t make enough to feed their families and make ends meet while working full time, and up and quitting in the hopes something better will show up is tantamount to a slow, painful suicide. Here we get into what Marx calls economic compulsion. Since a worker is completely separated from the means of production and can only work with them by means of a job, he has nothing to sell but his ability to work, aka labor power. He has only his labor power to sell, and if he doesn’t he starves. He’s compelled to find a job and more often than not hope for the best. Quitting is not often an option.
[quote]
It is some control.
[quote]
Over what? You’re out of a job and you pretty much gotta find another one fast before what savings you may have run out. Scrambling madly to get back on your feet before you’re ruined is not control.
Well, that takes care of my 2¢ for now. Yeah, I guess I’m back in the debate on this one. 
You know, I’m glad that some people here can just quit their job and find a better on; it’s good to know that somebody is that financially secure. Guess what? A lot of people aren’t. Most people are familiar with the job that you can’t leave–or if you do, you’ll just deplete any savings you have and end up in another one just as bad. There’s no control there.
Sure, and ATC can go work in a steel mill, but they’ve trained to be an ATC, and they’re not going to be better off elsewhere. And somebody else leaving the mill will take the ATC’s job. The employers have no incentive to change their behavior; the workers suffer. Even in this so called “economic boom” when the labor market is tight, the average worker cannot really get by. There was an interesting article about a year ago in Harper’s magazine, by a writer who decided to live as a minimum wage worker for a while. Even giving herself advantages that most people don’t have (like a $2000 or so fallback fund) she was quickly falling behind in payments despite working two jobs–one full time, one PT. But she could go back to her middle class lifestyle; lots of people can’t. Somehow, this doesn’t sound like any kind of control to me. Think about the * Grapes of Wrath; * sure things aren’t that bad for most of us now, but for many Americans, it’s not too far off.
oldscratch:
Having the “working class” control production and having workers control production are two different thigs. No matter how democratic a political system is, there is absolutely no way for the will of many people to be perfectly translated into the will of the government.
The employers almost certainly have contributed some labor to the process of production, and therefore are workers.
Just because you don’t control the process doesn’t mean that you don’t control the product
How is that not control? Do you think that the prospect of having their slaves commit suicide has never influence a slaveowner’s decisions?
Myrr21
Yes, of course. There’s absoutely no way that one group of people could monopolize control of the government, and thus monopolize control of production. That could neeever happen :rolleyes:.
Olentzero
No, it’s not assuming anything. An unemployed person has a certain amount of control over his life. An employed person has another level of control. If the latter is greater than the former, then the worker is gaining control from the job. Since the former is clearly positive, for the latter to be greater than the former, it must be even more positive; that is, the worker must have some amount of control. If the latter is less than the former, then any person that works is being irrational, and should quit complaining and start acting rationally. The fact remains that one of two situations must exist for all workers:
either quitting his job would improve his situation
or his job benefits him.
Marx was right about the existence of compulsion, but not its cause. Its cause is not capitalism, but life. It is a fact of life that everyone, with very rare exceptions, must perform labor in order to survive. This has always been the case; capitilism didn’t create this concept. You seem to be saying “Even if the worker were to increase the amount of control they have by working, that control is still necessary for life”. Well, the fact that it’s necessary for life does not make it any less of control. If Person A uses a twenty dollar bill to buy food, and Person B uses one to buy a movie, Person A’s money isn’t any less money just because it’s being used for a necessity. Just because one person “needs” control more than another does not make him deserve it any more.
You seem to be completely unfamiliar with the concept of “control”. “Control” means that you have several options to choose from. Just because you don’t like one of the options doesn’t make it not an option. The President can’t use the country’s nuclear weapons against Russia without having the US be obliterated in retaliation, a situation which the President (hopefully) really doesn’t find acceptable. But just because the President can’t use the nukes without dire consequences doesn’t mean that he doesn’t control them.
BTW: oldscratch, you mentioned that you think that decisions regarding the control of means of production should be democratically decided by the workers. What if they decide that they’d rather have a capitalist country? What happens then?
No. If the workers, and by this I mean those who are directly involved in the process of production, totally control the means of production, then the working class controls production. You cannot have worker-controlled means of production existing alongside capitalist-controlled means of production.
Wrong. The employers had nothing to do with manufacturing or installing the machinery, or operating or maintaining it (except in a strike). They are concerned solely with the administration of production, setting hours and wages and overseeing the conditions in which workers engage in production. They add no value to the finished product. Moreover, their jobs could be done more simply and more efficiently under socialism by workers who are engaged in production. Ultimately employers are superfluous and unnecessary.
Again wrong. The factory and the machines within it are owned either by an individual or a company run by a few individuals; the products are their property and they decide what to do with it. If it cannot be sold, it is not used and the workers have nothing to say about it. A prime example is surplus grain and crops being dumped at sea either because it can’t be sold or to keep prices up.
Slaves were property and regarded as such. Owners had power of life or death over their slaves and could kill them with impunity. Given that, I sincerely doubt slaveowners were all that concerned over whether their property wanted to kill themselves.
Absolutely not. The labor market, like all markets, is subject to recessions and depressions of both a local and a global character. We all know of, or have worked, jobs that don’t pay well, have no additional benefits such as health insurance for the worker and/or his family, paid vacation, sick leave, overtime, and such. People work in jobs like that and don’t have much option to leave it simply because there aren’t better jobs around. The take it/leave it option isn’t as simple as you imagine it to be.
Yes, but only capitalism forces someone to perform paid labor to survive, and makes it the sole means of survival for the absolute majority of people on the planet. Ultimately, however, socialism aims for the creation of a permanent surplus of goods that can be drawn upon on an as-needed basis so that the compulsion to work for survival becomes obviated.
Your example of the President and nuclear weapons sharply illustrates the actual lack of control most people have over their lives. One man can make a decision that would result in the incineration of millions, if not billions, of us, and we don’t have a freakin’ thing to say about it if he decides the price is worth the point he wants to make. We just have 45 minutes to an hour to kiss our loved ones and our own asses goodbye.
Earning a wage is not having control over one’s life. Having a job is not having control over one’s life. Being unemployed is most assuredly not having control over one’s life. Control is not just having options, it is the ability to set your path in life so that you can make your own options to choose from. Billions of people around the world do not have that power. Socialism aims to give them that power.
Oh, finally this gem:
What a lame dodge! :rolleyes: If/when socialism comes about, it will be a result of the organized working class physically overthrowing capitalism because they finally realize and understand it’s a system that doesn’t benefit them and that doesn’t work for them. The workers are not stupid enough to decide to go back to something they dispensed with in the first place.
Well Olentzero already answered most of this pretty well. I just wanted to add a point or two.
**
True. But, it can be done a lot better than it is now. Under the Roman empire the will of the people was distorted and somewhat transformed into the will of the government. Capitalist Democracy was obviously a huge improvement on this. Socialism is a huge improvement upon that.
**
Well no they haven’t contributed anything to production. And even if they did, that doesn’t make them workers. They still have final say over what goes on in the business. They still have power over the workers. If I work in a restuarant, and the owner works beside me as a manager, that doesn’t make him a fellow worker. He is still the owner.
**
As I stated earlier. “Yet only a fool would equate that to some control.” I don’t want my goldfish killing itself either, but only a simpleton would try and argue that it had control over me.
and as for this
**
I must second the cry of lame dodge.
Hey Spartacus, what if we revolt and everyone decides that they want to go back to slavery? What then?
Hey Washington, what if we revolt and everyone decides they prefer british rule? What then?
While having the workers control production implies that the worker class controls production, the converse is not true.
Why not?
Of course they do.
Is this not labor?
Oh, really? Then why don’t the employees get together and make stuff without the employer’s help?
Their jobs can be done by anyone? Okay, let’s see you start a multi-billion dollar company.
But they have to, in essence, buy a portion of the product from the employees. Suppose we have a shoe factory, and each pair of shoes cost $100. Now, the company could just give 300 pairs of shoes to each worker each year. But what use could the employees find for 300 pairs of shoes? So instead the company gives them $30,000, the worth of the shoes. If the employees insisted on actually having his share of the production, I’m sure that the company would be more than happy to give him 300 pairs of shoes instead of $30,000. The employee would then control 300 pairs of the shoes, to do with whatever he wants. If the worker takes $30,000 instead of the shoes, then he must consider the money to be giving him even more control than the shoes.
How is this an example of workers not controlling production? Surplus crops are destroyed because of a socialist program administered by the government which is in turn controlled by the workers. This seems to be an indictment of socialism, not of capitalism.
Owners could kill their slaves any time they wanted, therefore they weren’t concerned about them dying? What idiotic logic. You have the legal right to destroy your car. Does that mean you don’t care if it destroys itself?
How does any of that counter my point?
I don’t see the importance of the distinction. Money is just a representation of goods. How is working for pieces of paper that represent food any worse than working for food itself?
It would be possible to have a system in which some people do not have to work, but you would always need the majority of people to work. You therefore have two choices: have everyone work (in which case, what’s so great about it?), or have some people work and others not work (in which case how are the non-workers not a privilidged class?).
Again, this is a property of life, not capitalism. The workers in the USSR had no more control over nuclear weapons than workers in the US. In fact, they had less.
Really? Then why does the government use prison as a punishment? After all, no one has control over their lives, right? No one gets to choose where they live, where or what they eat, with whom they associate, or how they want to spend their lives, right? We are all forced to do whatever our emploeyers tell us to do, 24 hours a day. How is prison a punishment, when it’s no worse than daily life? What a horrible country we live in! :wally
If you really expect socialism to allow everyone to do whatver they want, you’re an idiot.
Huh? “Dodge”??!!! What, exactly, am I dodging? Am I not allowed to ask questions?
Why? If democractic decision making is so great, why not just vote in a socialist government?
If anyone’s dodging, it’s you. Just because you wouldn’t like something, that doesn’t mean it’s impossible. Plenty of Communist counties had had the people try to overthrow the government; Hungary, Poland, etc.
Are you trying to impress me with non sequitors? Can anyone explain (in a logically coherent manner!) how the owners are not workers?
Hmm. I didn’t agree with you last time, and I don’t agree with you now. But maybe if you repeat yourself a few more times I’ll change my mind :rolleyes:.
If the fact that you don’t want your goldfish killing itself affects your actions, then obviously it has some control over you. I’m not saying that you’re going to organize your life around keeping the goldfish alive; I’m just saying that you’re going to do things that you would not otherwise do.
This is admittedly an extremely small sample, but based upon the two of you I get the impression that socialists are rather irrational. I ask a valid question about something which I am curious about, and you guys act as if I have tried to pull off some horrible trick. Is everything Capitalist subterfuge to you guys?
Essentially, you’re saying “all the workers are the working class, but the working class is not all the workers”. So there are people who are part of the working class, but not workers. Who are these people?
Because the driving force of capitalism is profits, and the driving force of socialism is the meeting of human needs. The drive for profits requires organization of production in a manner incompatible with a socialist society. Any country or bloc trying to build socialism alongside countries that remain capitalist will inevitably resort to capitalist methods of production with the accompanying decay of workers’ democracy and control of production. As the foremost example, I give you Russia after 1928.
Oh, you really convinced me with that one. :rolleyes: You gonna back up your assertion or just let it sit there?
Not productive labor. It doesn’t make anything useful. It doesn’t benefit society as a whole, it just ensures in some measure the generation of profits for the company.
The best encapsulation of socialism I’ve seen yet. What say you, oldscratch?
Apples and oranges, friend. It may take someone with a certain set of skills to manage a company that generates profit, but the skills required to coordinate production alone, without regard to profits, costs, wages, etc. can be learned by anyone.
They buy nothing from the employees except their ability to perform labor. The owners supply the raw materials, the machines, the place in which they work. The employees can at no time claim ownership to the product - the existence of laws against company theft speak clearly to that.
And which country are you talking about? The U.S. dumps surplus grain into the sea, and we’re certainly not a socialist government controlled by the workers. But of course this is the OP, and the thrust of the debate.
Not with the current level of technology, and the adoption of some programs of food distribution such as that used in the Netherlands. As technology advances, more and more jobs can be automated, releasing larger numbers of people from the necessity of work for survival.
I do, so go stick a sock in it, you fat bastard.
Of course you’re allowed to ask questions. That’s what this board is for. But the question you asked was designed to redirect the discussion into an abstract area with an unrealistic supposition at its heart. In short, a dodge. Usually used when you can’t think of a decent counter-argument to someone’s assertions.
Workers in many countries have learned, often at the price of their lives, that socialism cannot come through the ballot box. Example: the Weimar Republic in Germany.
If they were Communist, where was the revolution in those countries? I refer you back to my answer to “Why not?” earlier in this post.
Well The Ryan, it’s obvious you’ve never read anything that Olentzero or I have written on socialism, or else you wouldn’t be wasting my time here. Do me a favor go read this, , and [url="http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=23061 "]this, oh and this one isn’t bad either. If you’ve already read them, it’s obvious you forgot. You could use a refresher. I’m not saying all your comments are without merit, I’m just saying there are enough stupid ones that you really should go back and read up.
**
Sorry if it was confusing. Wasn’t meant to be. If you notice I didn’t say the owner didn’t work, I simply said he wasn’t a fellow worker. For example a slave owner may work, that doesn’t make them a slave. It might be better if we seperated the terms out of common English usage and applied the original terminology. Just because the bourgeoise works, it is not a memeber of the proletariat? That’s what I was aiming for. Make more sense?
**
That’s ok at this point I’m really not interested in trying to convince you otherwise. Just as I have no interest in convincing FoG to give up fideism. The fact that you would equate the control a goldfish has over me to workers control over society, and use that to make an argument that workers do control society, therefore we live in a socialist society. Well, that convinces me that it’s not worth debating. I might as well be debating someone who claimed we live in a goldfish controlled society, oh wait, you do.
**
This from the man who claims we live in a society controlled in part by Goldfish. 
Sorry, it was the way you asked it. As you noticed I did give an answer, albeit a semi-rude one. I noticed you didn’t comment on it. Let me give you a better one.
The question you asked is analagous to asking the founding fathers what would happen if the americans wanted to go back to British rule. What happens then? Well, I really wouldn’t know what would happen then as it’s a rather silly question (no insult intended). Again, it’s like asking slaves to go back to their chains. I suppose if they wanted it they could have it. Go for it. If the majority wanted it that would be their descision. I just can’t see it happening. The reason I can’t see it happening is that a revolution, for me to support it, would have to contain the majority of people. Now, your question would apply if the revolution were carried out by a minority in the “supposed interests of the majority”. Then you could very realisticly have an instance like you suggested. An example of this happening is Cuba. In other words a repressive regime cutting back on personal freedoms. Same thing happens in countries where people want socialism and the government doesn’t. Chile for example. Is that clearer?
Yes, they can, and we have a word for businesses run by such people: “Bankrupt.” Or, if you prefer, “Insolvent.”
Man, this is like watching mummies argue over Egyptian politics.
Has anyone inserted any thoughts around basic psychology or economics into the discussion? I have difficulty believing some people still beleive in socialist utopias, and yet this thread seems to be dealing with exactly that.
So we get rid of the profit system and this problem goes away. Simple enough.
Go read the threads oldscratch pointed out in his latest post, then come back if you want to discuss something. If all you want to say is “you two idiots are discussing stuff that’s old, outdated, and irrelevant” take a number and have a seat. We’ll get to you when we’re done discussing with people who have something to contribute or we feel like it, whichever comes first.
I’m sorry, but no. I don’t care what system you’re operating under, things have costs, regardless of profits. If they do not have a direct cash cost, they have an opportunity cost, in that the time you spend doing/producing/distributing one thing is time you cannot spend doing/producing/distributing another. Costs are built in to the very nature of exchanging things between human beings.
“Profit” is only a dirty word, frankly, to the unambitious. It’s a rather petulant way of pointing out that someone makes more money than someone else does.
pldennison:
I’m glad you know me so well. In case you’re wondering, I have plenty of ambition. I plan to carve out a comfortable existance for myself, and work on contributing what I can to the field of chemistry. Hell, I want to work on HIV protease inhibitors and optical memory and protein folding all sorts of other revolutionary developments–only time will tell how much I’m able to contribute. And guess what? I have no profit motive. If I was interested in profit, I’d study computers instead. If I was interested in profit, I wouldn’t plan on teaching in an academic institution–should I have the chance. See, for some of us, there is a thing as enough profit. I only need so much to live comfortably. Think of the vast majority of teachers out there–a teaching salary is far below what could be earned in industry (I know; two of them are barely paying half my tuition). Millions of people are willing to work for very little is their needs are taken care of. And there’s millions more who would be happy to work for nothing if it meant that they were housed, clothed, fed, given medical attention, and their children educated for free.
The Ryan:
Boy can you be out of it; please go read * The Grapes of Wrath. * Perfect example of capitalism at its finest–crops destroyed while starving people watch–because jsut giving the surplus to them would cut into profits; soon everybody would be expecting free food.
But maybe you’ve read the book and see nothing wrong with what was done :rolleyes:
Ok Ok break it up. Actually, I have no problem with the arguments. Just a little reminder that the debate is over is America Socialist? Since neither pldennison or RickJay have commented on it, I can only assume you two agree that it is not.
No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that just because a group owns something, that doesn’t mean that individuals in that group own it. The working class is not simply all the workers put together; it is a different entity entirely.
And why will they resort to capityalism? Could it be that capitalism is better?
Seeing as how my comment was in response to one of your unsupported statements, I don’t see that you have any grounds for complaining. Earlier you claimed that owners controlled the means of production. Now you’re saying that they have nothing to do with the means of production. Do I really need to spell out for you why at least one of these statements must be false?
Having a company build cars isn’t useful? The main idea of capitalism is that no one should get any money unless they’re benefitting society. If, as you admit, this labor “ensures… profits for the company”, why is the company getting profits if it is not contributing to society? Do you think that people give money to corporations because they feel sorry for them? As a capitalist, the phrase “creates a profit” and the phrase “benefitting society as a whole” are nearly synomynous (I say nearly because there are exceptions, such as theft). Apparently you consider them to be completely different. So what is the difference you see?
You didn’t answer my question. If you don’t need anything from the owners, why do you need to involve them in your revolution? Why can’t you go off by yourselves and have your revolution by yourselves?
You aren’t listening to what I’m saying. No, they don’t have complete ownership in the products. And no, they can’t just take whatever they want. In a socialist society, would worker be able to take whatever they wanted? “Oooh, I want to take that 737 for a spin. And you can’t stop my, 'cause workers own the means of production, and the 737 is a means of production, and I’m a worker!” Stockholders have partial ownership of a corporation. Does that mean they can walk into the corporation’s office building and walk off with anything they want? Of course not!
While it may not be a socialist country, it is controlled by the worker class.
Are you saying that it is possible to have a society in which no one works?
Okaaay. I’m not sure where you got the idea that I am corpulant or of questionable parentage, or what releveance it would have if I were.
When your socialist revolution comes, I’d like to be able to fly. And ooh, ooh, I want x-ray vision, too.
No, it was designed to see if oldscratch was endorsing democracy on its own merits, or whether he would only support it when it gives the results he wants. And seeing as how the majority of Americans are against communism, I don’t consider it an “unrealistic supposition” to think about people voting for capitalism.
The US is not Weimar Germany. If you want to put a pro-socialist proposition on the California ballot, all you need is several thousand signatures. If you want to implement socialist policies nationwide, you just need to find a few hundred people that will support your agenda, and get them elected to Congress. The fact that this has not happened indicates that the will of the people is not with you.
Well, they were more attempted revolutions than actual revolutions (funny how a few hundred tanks can change people’s minds), and if you don’t remember them, you really should review your history.
It occurse to me that I used “profit” in two different senses in my previous post. Sorry; here’s what I meant:
I used profit to mean both all the money a person receives and the amount they receive beyond what is necessary to live a comfortable life. Hope this clears that up some.
And FTR: I have no problem living in a capitalistic society–as long as it conceeds certain points to the tenants of socialism and takes care of its people. I’ve actually seen this at work firsthand in Italy, and it was astounding. My GF at the time injured her arm, and th family we were staying with took her to the hospital and got her treated. For free. With no paperwork. They showed the receptionist a card saying they were citizens, and that was it. It was pretty damn impressive to see how a country so much less prosperous than ours can take care of its citizens so much better.