[Spaz Man]

Communism is an absolutely ridiculous ideology. The heart is in the right place but the policies are atrocious.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by ForKicks)
No, because that someone else wouldn't have the opportunity to create anything in that company without something already existing.

You could apply that logic to just about anything. For example, they might not have had the opportunity if the business owner didn't live where they did, but no-one says the guy who sold him the house deserves a share of the profits.

Value produced by machines goes beyond mere cost. There would be no point buying the machine otherwise.

Firstly, I say again, machines do not produce value. They are means of production.

Secondly, that's circular reasoning ('Profit is OK because it comes from capital's share of revenue, not labour. And capital's share has to exceed the cost of capital because otherwise where would we get profit come from?').

I am just saying that risk exists in all business and that any success is reliant on it. Actually, it is often the case that high strategic risks yield most reward.

Nonsense. A man who invests his life savings (suppose it's £50,000) in something takes a far greater risk than a billionaire who invests the same amount, yet if we were to change no other factors the expected outcome would be the same.

Not all business is production. What about pretty much every service industry?

That's still production. Production doesn't have to mean physical goods.

The value added by workers is comparable to a services contractor who is paid a fixed arranged amount before their value realised.

You're going back to being descriptive again. OK, that's what the workers do. However they're still not getting all the value they produce and the system they are in permits that to happen.

You seem to avoid the point that a worker can set up on their own if they want to realise their own value!!

Most workers realitically can't, it's not a viable option.

Why should they leach of another's resources when they can do as you propose.

They're not leeching off anything. Assuming they pay the upkeep costs, it makes no difference to anyone except the worker whether a worker is using machinery and keeping what he creates or if no-one is using it. Would you say that the owner is being leeched off if no-one is using the machinery to produce?

Oh, so because something ISN'T EASY means that it should not happen at all? Boo hoo.

Fine, resort to strawmen even though you know perfectly well what I mean. If they can do it, great. But in a capitalist system the situation will invariably be stacked against them (as they would require capital, and the very nature of capitalism is that workers don't have enough capital, which is why they must seek employment).

Everyone already does have the right to the product of their labour, providing they use their own capital or that of an investors.

The product of their labour is the same regardless of who owns the capital they happend to be using.

Small workers associations. Hmm, something tells me that our defence, exports, and all heavy industry would go then.

Well, I guess if something tells you that, it must be true, right?

Associations could federate btw.

We would all be living communally and be ****ed over by the rest of the world. I also suppose you don't want any foreign investors or imports, because that's what would happen.

Who said anything about living communally?

Haha, you think people have to work for less than they produce to survive?! Ever heard of benefits? They don't have to work at all to survive.

If you want to factor in heavy state intervention like benefits then just about everything you've said in this debate can be discounted because state intervention will inevitably mean that's not how it really works.

Firstly, you are focussed on manufacturing industries. The value of anyone else is impossible to determine.

I'll assume you mean anything else because otherwise it doesn't really seem to make sense.

True, you can't exactly quantify the value, but that doesn't refute that it is labour that creates it. Just like you don't have to know how good a book is to know who wrote it.

Secondly, you constantly forget business expansion and the need for big business.

That need being?

And as I said above, if they need something on a larger scale, associations can federate.

Finally, you assume that the UK is a closed country, forgetting we are reliant on foreign investment and capital for jobs. You want to get rid of the financial industry? How would capital to create business come about, because the government sure can't afford it with debts to pay back. Don't suggest the whole world will change, it won't.

The transition to liberated workers and production can't be expected to be instantaneous. Inevitably there'll be compromises during that transition.

One final thing. Until you realise that everyone in this country already has the tools for complete economic freedom, you will never be free or happy.

If you genuinely believe that what we currently live in is 'economic freedom', then you must live in a different universe to the rest of humanity. Even ardent pro-capitalists agree that what we have at the moment is far from freedom.

You delude yourself into believing you are a victim and get stuck in a rut for the rest of your life, where you do nothing but mutter and hope for the glorious revolution. It is a political version of holding out for that winning lottery ticket. You have 2 options ahead. Victimise yourself and never live a free or happy life, or just get on with it and realise your potential. I don't care if you say that I am the voice of oppression or blah blah, it doesn't escape the fact that there is one life and you DO have the chance to make the most of it.

Sorry, I wasn't aware you knew anything whatsoever about my life, but go ahead and assert nonsense about how I live if it makes you feel better about yourself. Why on earth do you think that because I believe the world we live in is unjust, that I don't try to make the best out of it?

[anarchism101]

(Original post by snozzle)
Worker-owned enterprises are quite possible within our current judico-political system.

Possible =/= a realistic option for most workers.

[snozzle]

(Original post by anarchism101)
Possible =/= a realistic option for most workers.

Well no business start up is every a sure thing.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by anarchism101)
Sorry, I wasn't aware you knew anything whatsoever about my life, but go ahead and assert nonsense about how I live if it makes you feel better about yourself. Why on earth do you think that because I believe the world we live in is unjust, that I don't try to make the best out of it?

True, for all I know you are ranting from some former Soviet Bloc about how good communism and extreme socialism are

How many successful radical left wingers are there in the UK? Hmmm

[anarchism101]

(Original post by ForKicks)
True, for all I know you are ranting from some former Soviet Bloc about how good communism and extreme socialism are

Yeah, I could be. I'm not, I'm from Britain, and it's your choice of where you want to think I'm from, but does it matter?

How many successful radical left wingers are there in the UK? Hmmm

Define success. Radicalism is the desire to change things hugely from the status quo. If those ideas became part of the status quo, they wouldn't exactly be seen as radical any more, would they? In their time, Attlee and Bevan were regarded as radical in their advocacy of the NHS, but that's fairly mainstream now, for example.

Though it is true that the UK has less of a radical tradition than some other countries.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by anarchism101)
Yeah, I could be. I'm not, I'm from Britain, and it's your choice of where you want to think I'm from, but does it matter?



Define success. Radicalism is the desire to change things hugely from the status quo. If those ideas became part of the status quo, they wouldn't exactly be seen as radical any more, would they? In their time, Attlee and Bevan were regarded as radical in their advocacy of the NHS, but that's fairly mainstream now, for example.

Though it is true that the UK has less of a radical tradition than some other countries.

I said for all I know. No need to get all defensive and serious about it

Your views are too radical to ever become the status quo. International pressure, society and history against you, etc.. Reforming the NHS is nowhere near as radical as what you propose. It would just never happen, especially in the UK. Even if it did, all the top (and anyone with decent skills) would move abroad, leaving the UK an international embarrassment.

Anyway, don't want to get back into that whole debate It's fun in the imagination, but I will only believe it when I see it (at which point I will be laughing from the other side of the world).

[anarchism101]

(Original post by ForKicks)
Your views are too radical to ever become the status quo. International pressure, society and history against you, etc..

And that's the case with all radical opinions through history. That's what people thought about anti-slavery campaigners, or the idea that universal suffrage should exist. What do you think the attitude would have been in Britain 200 years ago if you'd tried to talk about gay rights or gay marriage? Yet now gay marriage is seriously debated and there's a very good chance of its introduction.

Reforming the NHS is nowhere near as radical as what you propose.

I wasn't talking about reform, I'm talking about having it in the first place. No, it's not radical now, but it was once upon a time.

It would just never happen, especially in the UK. Even if it did, all the top (and anyone with decent skills) would move abroad, leaving the UK an international embarrassment.

'The top' can go for all I care. Revolutions are about overthrowing 'the top', that's kind of the point. Why would 'anyone with decent skills' leave?

[ForKicks]

(Original post by anarchism101)
And that's the case with all radical opinions through history. That's what people thought about anti-slavery campaigners, or the idea that universal suffrage should exist. What do you think the attitude would have been in Britain 200 years ago if you'd tried to talk about gay rights or gay marriage? Yet now gay marriage is seriously debated and there's a very good chance of its introduction.



I wasn't talking about reform, I'm talking about having it in the first place. No, it's not radical now, but it was once upon a time.



'The top' can go for all I care. Revolutions are about overthrowing 'the top', that's kind of the point. Why would 'anyone with decent skills' leave?

Brain drain. It would be inevitable.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by ForKicks)
Brain drain. It would be inevitable.

Why?

[ForKicks]

(Original post by anarchism101)
Why?

Lack of opportunities. Getting paid only the value of what you produce manually by yourself is not a good opportunity for the skilled. This is why strict socialist countries get brutal on freedom of movement when they realise that their best are leaving.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by ForKicks)
Lack of opportunities. Getting paid only the value of what you produce manually by yourself is not a good opportunity for the skilled.

And why do you assume there won't still be a demand for non-manual skill?

This is why strict socialist countries get brutal on freedom of movement when they realise that their best are leaving.

There are no 'socialist countries', if by 'countries' you mean states.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by anarchism101)
And why do you assume there won't still be a demand for non-manual skill?

People wouldn't be content with the crap pay packet.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by ForKicks)
People wouldn't be content with the crap pay packet.

And why do you assume it will be crap?

[ForKicks]

(Original post by anarchism101)
And why do you assume it will be crap?

Losing the additional value from delegating tasks would mean that mediocre is the best someone can achieve. No-one would earn more than 100k, you just need to look at GDP per capita. If you couldn't earn 6 figure salaries you would lose the best abroad.

I'm not just making it up, human capital flight is well documented in scenarios where earnings and opportunities are limited.

[ANARCHY__]

(Original post by anarchism101)
Well, if you want to count the Zapatistas it already has, but I can understand why you wouldn't given their size.

But yes, I do. Doesn't mean it will survive, because the state will inevitably try to crush it, but I'd hope it would survive.

What if it just doesn't survive due to its own failings? The Spanish Anarchist movement failed spectacularly because of the people within it and the choices they made.

Depends how things pan out. An isolated bastion of capitalism couldn't survive for long I don't think.

So why would an isolated bastion of socialism/anarchism/communism survive?

Different from place to place. As much as I'd like to say otherwise, I'd expect violent revolution to be necessary more often than revolution by solely peaceful means.

Seems pretty hypocritical.

It won't. The state will be abolished. The state is the defender of private property.

It can be quite easily argued that the individual is the defender. The state is the arbiter. I think you are not viewing the situation of Western politics and democracy very clearly.

Good question that I've never thought about tbh. It's not something I'd advocate unless the home is actually needed for something (e.g. housing homeless people), but I doubt I'd condemn it if it did happen.

This is hypocrisy in its highest form. How can you on the one hand condemn a system for favouring a particular group and then suggest you have no problem with the one you support favouring or oppressing another?

The latter .

lol I hope you're joking.

'To each according to his need'. In short, it's a decision to be made locally.

What happens if the commune decides some deserve more resources than others? Or that members of the commune are the most deserving of the most rewarding because they perform a more important or greater role in society?

I wouldn't seize anything from him. He's a worker and sounds like he's made the best out of a bad situation. Good on him.

Would you seize anything from a corporate?

Yes, and yes. No state, I remind you.

Would this not pose a problem in times of war?

[anarchism101]

(Original post by ANARCHY__)
What if it just doesn't survive due to its own failings? The Spanish Anarchist movement failed spectacularly because of the people within it and the choices they made.

It could well have its own failings, mistakes could be made. What's your point?

And no, the Spanish Revolution collapsed because, as well as having to fight fascism, they had to fight the Stalinist PCE who continually tried to weaken them and cut off their resources, and eventually directly fought against them.

So why would an isolated bastion of socialism/anarchism/communism survive?

It would be weak, yes, the state would be trying to crush it. But if we followed your logic here then there'd never be any social or political change ever. Revolutions often spread.

Seems pretty hypocritical.

Why?

It can be quite easily argued that the individual is the defender. The state is the arbiter. I think you are not viewing the situation of Western politics and democracy very clearly.

It's the same thing essentially. The state provides the force necessary for the maintenance of private property.

This is hypocrisy in its highest form. How can you on the one hand condemn a system for favouring a particular group and then suggest you have no problem with the one you support favouring or oppressing another?

I did say it's not something I'd advocate. If nothing else, it's a waste of effort. But I don't expect a revolution to be perfect. Things that probably weren't the right thing to do will happen, unfortunately.

Though, the alternative argument is that it's not 'oppression', it's removing what was never rightfully theirs.

lol I hope you're joking.

Why? Why do you want to maintain the power of those who you yourself called the 'undeserving wealthy'.

What happens if the commune decides some deserve more resources than others? Or that members of the commune are the most deserving of the most rewarding because they perform a more important or greater role in society?

Only members of the commune can be subject to its rules and you don't have to be in it. The only universal rule is live and let live.

Would you seize anything from a corporate?

That's an impossibly vague question.

Would this not pose a problem in times of war?

You mean in regard to people potentially fleeing? Even in wars, most people don't just flee, even if they can.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by ForKicks)
Losing the additional value from delegating tasks would mean that mediocre is the best someone can achieve. No-one would earn more than 100k, you just need to look at GDP per capita. If you couldn't earn 6 figure salaries you would lose the best abroad.

If their income drop, that would indicate they were previously being overpaid. If they were worth the pay, then there would be demand for them to stay. Though personally I don't think they're that necessary; the Mondragon Corporation, a federation of co-operatives in Spain, is very successful, and has a high-low pay ratio of 4:1.

I'm not just making it up, human capital flight is well documented in scenarios where earnings and opportunities are limited.

Earnings and opportunities for the vast majority are being enhanced. The 'opportunities' you are referring to are the opportunities to exploit the wealth created by others.

[Lumos]

good questions (which I will answer at a later date...) but a few don't apply to democratic/liberal socialists such as myself. of course, you may argue this is not true socialism, but still.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by anarchism101)
If their income drop, that would indicate they were previously being overpaid. If they were worth the pay, then there would be demand for them to stay. Though personally I don't think they're that necessary; the Mondragon Corporation, a federation of co-operatives in Spain, is very successful, and has a high-low pay ratio of 4:1.



Earnings and opportunities for the vast majority are being enhanced. The 'opportunities' you are referring to are the opportunities to exploit the wealth created by others.

It doesn't matter whether you think they are highly paid or not, it is whether THEY think they can get an awful lot more elsewhere in the world!

The vast majority of people aren't highly skilled. Whether you like it or not, paying someone £100k to run an important corporation would leave you struggling to find any half decent candidates.