What is Socialism?

[ALB]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

But, lets try another tack: imagine if, tomorrow, it was made illegal to be an employer (to use terminology from British law, to be the Master in a contract of service).  That would render almost all capital worthless at a stroke, and the only way in which labour could be secured would be through voluntary co-operation, using the worthless tools to hand.

Or that all companies and corporations (which are only legal entities created and maintained by the state) were dissolved or that all stocks and shares, bills and bonds, etc were declared null and void. They'd then just be pieces of paper that could be used to make lampshades.Then no one and no legal entity will be able to exert enforceable property rights over means of production. They would belong to nobody or everybody (the same thing).

[SocialistPunk]

ALB wrote:

Ah, the penny's dropped. You weren't the sincere seeker after truth about socialism that you appeared to be but a defender of capitalism. No doubt some sort of mad marketeer. I'm sorry I wasted my time.

ALB, you haven't wasted your time. People like TheSpanishInquisition will likely never be swayed whatever you or any other member of the SPGB/WSM say, but they are not important. The important people are those who may be reading what you say and have the seed of a new idea planted in their thoughts, that someday may germinate.

[Anonymous]

TheSpanishInquisition wrote:

  Someone found it, realised "this makes a great fuel" then invested huge amounts of money into extracting it and making it available for use by the public.  

That 'someone' was more than likely a member of the working class and money did not extract the oil: Workers did, while the owners sat on their bums making money.    

[Anonymous]

SocialistPunk wrote:

People like TheSpanishInquisition will likely never be swayed whatever you or any other member of the SPGB/WSM say, but they are not important. The important people are those who may be reading what you say and have the seed of a new idea planted in their thoughts, that someday may germinate.

Exactly, which is why this discussion should be shared on social media as a propagand method. A very effective method of propagand. Three years ago I suggested we invite people to ask us questions and share the results on social media.This forum should be more than a members club if we wish to spread the wordShare this thread  

[ALB]

SocialistPunk wrote:

ALB, you haven't wasted your time. People like TheSpanishInquisition will likely never be swayed whatever you or any other member of the SPGB/WSM say, but they are not important. The important people are those who may be reading what you say and have the seed of a new idea planted in their thoughts, that someday may germinate.

I know. It was just that I thought he was genuine and had spent some time looking on the internet for suitable basic articles which I wouldn't have done if he'd been honest and stated from the start that he was opposed to socialism as he misunderstood it (government ownership and control). Of course we should still discuss with people like him, for the reason you give.

[TheSpanishInquisition]

I'd like to get something out of the way. I genuinely came into this as someone who knew very little about socialism. My opinions, analysises and criticisms here and completely derived from the information you all have given me.  OK so what all this boils down to is that you believe manual labour of the working classes is responsible for the wealth of the rich, which is true, to a certain extent. Unfortunately, you also believe that you don't need someone to orchestrate the movements of the working classes and that the working classes are perfectly capable of organising themselves efficienty, which is simply untrue. Do you honestly think that 40, 400 or 4000 people could all work together as equals? Of course not. In fact, there's a huge amount of market evidence about this kind of thing. Once you get to 7 people, you need a leader. Anything more than 7 people and there are too many disagreements in how to progress for the company to remain functional. Then, for every 7 extra people you employ, you need another leader. Once you have 7 leaders, you need a leader to lead those 7. This is a system that has been tried and tested since the dawn of humanity, and even before when groups of our ancestors had their elders and respected. Similarly, 1 king leading a nation with no barons and knights is also a terrible system, which is why kings had barons and knights – it was a much better way of working efficiently.  Now, those workers who drilled the oil. They didn't do it for fun. They did it because they were getting paid money, which is very useful for being able to buy things. I guaruntee if you go to an oil rig and ask the people working there "Why do you work for this capitalist when he's making all the money" they'll say "because we get paid money to be here." Do you have some kind of collective misconception in which workers don't get paid for work? Surely not since you knew to put "wage" before your "slavery" (which I find quite amusing, honestly. It gives the impression that once the capitalists have been overthrown, workers will somehow not be "slaves" anymore, even though they'll be doing exactly the same job). I also notice that not one of you managed to answer my question: If every company deemed a 'global resource' is owned by no one, then who pays the people working for the company? Will you just force the original owner to pay even though he no longer receives any benefit from doing so? Will the government subsidise the costs? Will you seek out private investors? Will this leaderless movement somehow pay every employee from its profits alone? If so, how will the amount each person earns be determined? What's to stop the more expendable workers complaining because the more important ones got paid more? 

[DJP]

TheSpanishInquisition wrote:

who pays the people working for the company? Will you just force the original owner to pay even though he no longer receives any benefit from doing so? Will the government subsidise the costs? Will you seek out private investors? Will this leaderless movement somehow pay every employee from its profits alone? If so, how will the amount each person earns be determined? What's to stop the more expendable workers complaining because the more important ones got paid more? 

The fact that you are asking questions likes this indicates that you have absolutely no idea about what socialism is. Which is fair enough. But to explain properly would take up a lot of space on a discussion forum. So perhaps here is a good place to start:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/socialist-principles-explainedOr the various articles in our FAQ section.There doesn't seem much point discussing until you have some basic knowledge…

[TheSpanishInquisition]

Actually, it's just a reference to Monty Python. I needed a quick screen name. I suppose i have fulfilled the role appropriately, anyway, though. 

[alanjjohnstone]

"manual labour"And mental labour. Perhaps it has been wrongly emphasised by myself but it is labour both of the hand and the head that transforms nature into useful wealth.In regard to your leaders, Marx gives the example and talks of the conductor of an orchestra as being also vital to this process…so you and we do agree that there requires to be co-ordination and co-operation and in particular occasions someone is selected to administer affairs.  Engels also suggests that a captain of a ship is still going to be in charge and he no doubt would say a pilot of an aircraft is necessary to be the person with the final say. Even the anarchist Bakunin agrees to the competence of the cobbler to decide for him the best shoe. But are they leaders in the way you seek to explain? We say no. We are against the political power function of leadership, not against the acquired authority of those with special skills and learning being recognised as someone to heed the advice and knowledge of. Which of us would reject the surgeons expertise? But remember, these people have taken years to acquire the privilege of bestowing and sharing their talents, school, university, professional training…but tell me exactly where the University of Prime Ministers is? (i'm sure a wit would say Eton and then Oxbridge)…But anyone with a glib tongue and a sales-persons demeanour can be elected and then impose his or her will upon others, using force if necessary, which is legitimate and legal under the law.You discuss the dawn of time when it comes to organising…Simply look at how the American First Peoples organised for war…they followed someone they respected as a war chief…not as a political chief…if he proved successful they were with him…when he failed to bring victories, they deserted him…he could not impose his leadership upon his warriors by conscription or the draft only by accomplishments. It seems that you are blind to the website's extensive and elaborate content as DJP suggests. We are for the abolition of private property and the implementation of one of the oldest customs and traditions humanity has developed for its collective survival, the principle "from each according to ability, to each according to need." , an end of the exchange economy and the introduction of free access  this means the abolition of wage and money and those working in occupations related to commerce/capitalism transferring to socially productive work. And the emphasis is on socially productive and not simply shifting  money around to benefit a small minority of people , or speculatiing which is very basic…buying cheap and selling dear…yet ignoring the fact that the value of the object is in its manufacture , not its circulation. We stand for the free common wealth…or as another put it "Store-houses shall be built and appointed in all places, and be the common stock…And as every one works to advance the common stock, so every one shall have a free use of any commodity in the store-house, for his pleasure and comfortable livelihood without buying and selling or restraint from any." -Gerrard Winstanley in the 17th CI don't know why you dismiss the term "wage-slave" so easily…countless numbers of people follow their hobbies without payment because they enjoy it. People have their gardens and their allotments and happily tire themselves out working…but place that person on a farm and demand he or she exhaust himself for a wage by denying any other way to support him or herself and their family and that the fruits of this work is taken from him and the rewards of placing it on the market to be sold and bought then ask if that person is not a slave. Someone who well knew what it meant to be a chattel slave and a wage slave explains it thus " The difference between the white slave, and the black slave, is this: the latter belongs to ONE slave-holder, and the former belongs to ALL the slave-holders, collectively. The white slave has taken from his, by indirection, what the black slave had taken from him, directly, and without ceremony. Both are plundered, and by the same plunderers" – Frederick Douglass 19thCBut we are not unique in condemning wage slavery. Read this article by the IWW if you do not trust our own website as representing the ideas of socialism correctly. http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2006/09/what-does-iww-mean-by-abolition-of-wage.html

[TheSpanishInquisition]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

In regard to your leaders, Marx gives the example and talks of the conductor of an orchestra as being also vital to this process…so you and we do agree that there requires to be co-ordination and co-operation and in particular occasions someone is selected to administer affairs. 

You mean, like a CEO? Which every company already has and is often the 'rich capitalist' everyone hates. The CEO is someone who is actually employed solely to coordinate the other workers (and to advertise, in smaller companies).

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 Engels also suggests that a captain of a ship is still going to be in charge and he no doubt would say a pilot of an aircraft is necessary to be the person with the final say. Even the anarchist Bakunin agrees to the competence of the cobbler to decide for him the best shoe. But are they leaders in the way you seek to explain? We say no. We are against the political power function of leadership, not against the acquired authority of those with special skills and learning being recognised as someone to heed the advice and knowledge of. Which of us would reject the surgeons expertise? But remember, these people have taken years to acquire the privilege of bestowing and sharing their talents, school, university, professional training…but tell me exactly where the University of Prime Ministers is? (i'm sure a wit would say Eton and then Oxbridge)…But anyone with a glib tongue and a sales-persons demeanour can be elected and then impose his or her will upon others, using force if necessary, which is legitimate and legal under the law.You discuss the dawn of time when it comes to organising…Simply look at how the American First Peoples organised for war…they followed someone they respected as a war chief…not as a political chief…if he proved successful they were with him…when he failed to bring victories, they deserted him…he could not impose his leadership upon his warriors by conscription or the draft only by accomplishments. 

Politicians work in exactly the same way as the Native American war chiefs, just, since we're in a larger and more complex society, the process is a little more complex to match. Politicians don't just 'become politicians'. They have to be voted in. Every person over the age of 18 (arguably too young, but that's a different discussion) gets a say in who represents them, thus they have the chance to elect someone they respect just as the Native Americans elect their respected war chief. The desertion works the same too. If your prime minister screws up, or your representative, just don't vote for him next time! 

Quote:

It seems that you are blind to the website's extensive and elaborate content as DJP suggests. We are for the abolition of private property and the implementation of one of the oldest customs and traditions humanity has developed for its collective survival, the principle "from each according to ability, to each according to need." , an end of the exchange economy and the introduction of free access  this means the abolition of wage and money and those working in occupations related to commerce/capitalism transferring to socially productive work. And the emphasis is on socially productive and not simply shifting  money around to benefit a small minority of people , or speculatiing which is very basic…buying cheap and selling dear…yet ignoring the fact that the value of the object is in its manufacture , not its circulation. We stand for the free common wealth…or as another put it "Store-houses shall be built and appointed in all places, and be the common stock…And as every one works to advance the common stock, so every one shall have a free use of any commodity in the store-house, for his pleasure and comfortable livelihood without buying and selling or restraint from any." -Gerrard Winstanley in the 17th C

OK, so you're actually against money completely. That simplifies things. Well, what if I wanted to own a relatively obscure product that's too unimportant to be part of the general production line? How would I go about getting that if there was no money? Just ask the person who made it nicely if I could please have one? For free? So what incentive does this person have to continue making their product if they get no reward for making it? Just the knowledge that they've done something nice? In a world with no profit, many of the products we all enjoy simply wouldn't exist because it would make no sense to produce them. "Well, I could create this robot for everyone to play with, but since I'll get the same access to food and entertainment for not making it, I guess I'll just go watch TV." is something that would go through many people's minds. Yes, making robots could be his hobby, but no one's hobby is mass producing robots; they need an incentive to do that. 

Quote:

I don't know why you dismiss the term "wage-slave" so easily…countless numbers of people follow their hobbies without payment because they enjoy it. People have their gardens and their allotments and happily tire themselves out working…but place that person on a farm and demand he or she exhaust himself for a wage by denying any other way to support him or herself and their family and that the fruits of this work is taken from him and the rewards of placing it on the market to be sold and bought then ask if that person is not a slave. Someone who well knew what it meant to be a chattel slave and a wage slave explains it thushttp://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2006/09/what-does-iww-mean-by-abolition-of-wage.html

So in your ideal world, everyone would do only things that interested them? Well that's a mighty shame because I don't know anyone who actually enjoys having to tend colossal crop fields or battery farms more than their proper hobbies, so I guess we're all going to be starving to death. Or perhaps, you're going to force people who know how to run farms to run farms? That sounds very much like being a wage slave to me, except you know, without the wage part. 

[alanjjohnstone]

Well as i said in the beginning, the screen-name certainly does you justice.Can you tell me a CEO who was elected by his or her work-force rather than being appointed by a board of directors acting on behalf of investors? No, they are not comparable but yes it is debatable that some CEOs may well be technically the same as wage-slaves bound by golden chains, in the sense that they can be hired and fired. However, most CEOs, the vast majority, are in the  capitalist class themselves, a large proportion of their salary being in the form of stocks and shares along with their enormous basic salaries where they can afford to invest elsewhere. Politicians are appointed and political influence and power is bought. They are part of a political party machine, who are vetted by a committee to ensure they are "suitable" candidates where upon a whole campaign is financed to get them elected with much of the cash coming from donors in various ways, some very opaque such as financing a members supposed researchers. Even i don't need to tell you that prime ministers go cap in hand and touching their forelock to such people as Rupert Murdoch for their endorsement. (as an aside, your throwaway remark that 18 is too young to vote has been exposed as a fallacy when Scotland had a vote on the most important question of independence and lowered the age to 16)  A politician is not a delegate but a representative. He is not elected to carry out your instructions but to act on behalf for you as he thinks fit.  Your next two questions over-lap and imho seem to reveal that you hold your fellow men and women in low esteem, that the only thing that motivates people is pecuniary self-interest. People behave differently when they are in different situations…there is nothing innate about behaviour, we change when the world around us changes. Most inventors, artists have usually died in poverty. Or they are now part of a R and D team, paid a salary and have no intellectual ownership over a new device or application. The company benefits. Have you thought of the numbers of people who do voluntary work, from the little old lady in your local charity shop to those on gap-years helping out abroad on aid work. For sure, they receive something in return… self-esteem and respect from peers but what is usually lacking is any cash reward. Work and employment are not synonymous terms and i tried to explain that with reference to hobbies. I could have used the example of those who achieve job satisfaction over pay-scales or and the self-employed who enjoy being their own boss. When we talk of working conditions in socialism we are not equating it with capitalist working conditions. We will see a great reduction in the working week, the introduction of automation and relationships within the factory or office changing to one of equality. Work will for the first time in history become voluntary. We do possess the technology even today to provide for practically all the needs of every person on the planet. We can even carry the burden of the idle and lazy. Unpleasant social tasks, the 3-D, dirty dangerous and demeaning, if a machine can't do it will be shared out amongst the community, not imposed upon a person as a livliehood for the rest of his or her life. But the demand for luxuries will diminish because when everything is available to everyone, there can no longer be excuses for conspicuous consumption…to prove your status by showing of your possessions. Certain things may well be shared as in the example of car-pools and time- share apartments…We'll book our weekend on the yacht and wait our turn. Look in your shed at all those tools which are only used occasionally. Even in capitlaism, hire-companies recognise we don't need to own every thing.i think we have to be honest with you, socialism will not work if no-body works, society would fall apart. Part of our case is that socialism cannot be imposed but that people have to democratically decide they want socialism and are prepared to help make it work. This pre-supposes that it cannot be led by a minority but come into existence only via a mass movement who have a profound change in outlook so it is our belief that it is inconceivable that with this desire for socialist change on such a large scale it would not influence the way people behave. Ask yourself this, would having struggled so determinedly to bring socialism about, would people be so ready to jeopardise the new society they helped to create by sabotaging it?  

[Anonymous]

error

[Anonymous]

TheSpanishInquisition wrote:

 So in your ideal world, everyone would do only things that interested them? Well that's a mighty shame because I don't know anyone who actually enjoys having to tend colossal crop fields or battery farms more than their proper hobbies, so I guess we're all going to be starving to death. Or perhaps, you're going to force people who know how to run farms to run farms? That sounds very much like being a wage slave to me, except you know, without the wage part. 

 Do you realise how silly you sound? Humans starving to death and letting their children starve to death because they would rather play golf. My 7 year old would laugh at that.More rediculous than that, in today's society the producers of wealth give all the wealth they produce to the 1% while many of them starve and remain homeless. My 7 year old cant comprehend the stupidity of such an action.The workers don't need 'profit' and we don't get any in capitalism, we get rations in the form of a wage packet. So we can do without a society based on profit.As john Lennon once said 'You better free your mind yourself' my friend because at the moment your thinking is confused. You are blinded by the bullshit of the 1%

[Anonymous]

error

[Anonymous]

Most work today has to do with money and capitalism and will be unnecessary in socialism which will leave us with a lot more time on our hands and a lot less work to do. PRODUCTS CONCERNED WITH MONEYaccount books and computer filesarmoured vehiclesbank booksbank notesbank statementsbillsbillfoldsbooks on financecash cardscash pointscash registerschange machineschequescheque cardscoin boxesdeposit and withdrawal slipsexcise and duty stampsfootball couponsgambling machinesguaranteesinsurance certificatesinsurance policiesinvoiceslicences for:export & importmarriagemotor vehiclesselling alcohol firearmstobaccotelevision setsmeters for:electricitygasparkingtelephoneswatermoney orders and postal ordersmortgage agreementsnight safesoverdraftsovertime paymentsparking ticketspension bookspostage stampsraffle ticketsrates demandsreceiptsrents and rent bookssafessaving certificatesshare certificatesslot machinesstock marketsstrong roomstax returns: income tax corporationtax VATtickets for: cinemas, theatres, buses,  trains, etcticket officesticket machinestravellers' chequesturnstilesTV give-away showswages slipswalletsWillsMONEY OCCUPATIONS AND ORGANISATIONSaccountantsadvertising agenciesauctioneersauditorsbankingbailiffsbookkeepersbookmakersbuilding societiesbuyerscapitalistscashierscasinoscharitieschristmas clubsconsumer protectioncredit card agenciescredit worthiness investigatorsdebt collectorseconomistsestate agentsexcise officersfinancial advisersfinance housesfriendly societiesfootball poolsfundraisersgrant awarding trustshealth finance schemeshire purchase firmsholding companiesincome tax officersinspectors of weights and measuresinsurance brokersinsurance companiesinvestment consultantslicensing officersloan companiesluncheon voucher schemesmanagement consultantsmarket analystsmintsmoney lendersmortgage brokersnational health insurancepatents offices and copyrightenforcementpension fundspost officespublic relations officersrafflesrate-fixers for pieceworkrates offices receiversrent collectorssalesmen and saleswomensecurity firmssocial security officesstock brokers and jobbersstock exchangessuperannuation schemestax consultantsticket sellers, collectors and inspectorstotestrade unions treasurersunderwritersunemployment benefit officesunit trustsvaluerswages clerkswork study engineers

[Author]

Posts