G
GEddie
Guest
Actually, no, he’s not advocating anarchy. Since he wants “the workers” to “seize” everything, and this requires violence, this is a priori the dictatorship of the proletariat. CCCP 2.0.
ICXC NIKA
- Status
ICXC NIKA
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
Capital will still exist under socialism, just not in private hands.
Well the computer would be made where computers are produced now. I suppose there would have to be some kind of communication between the workers running the place that needs the computers and the workers producing them. There could be a system where the workers councils of the individual workplaces elect delegates to represent the industrial sector as a whole, and they can make their demands through this.
You wouldn’t be selling potatoes. There would be distribution places that you could work in (like supermarkets, I’d imagine) where labour vouchers would be exchanged for food and other items, and you would be paid in labour vouchers for the work you do there. These would be new labour vouchers that are assigned to you for your work, though, and would not be the ones you are collecting from people who want to get items.
Yeah, and the workers in one factory will be protected from the violence of the workers in the other factory. I don’t think your scenario would ever take place, though. There would be no reason to attack another workplace. There would be nothing to gain from it.
I don’t think it necessarily will, but I’m not proposing socialism as some kind of great act of social engineering that should take place. I think it will come from the working class themselves, eventually.
Well your question seems a little odd. What do you mean when you say “the same means of production as Harvard?” I think universities will get better access to resources, if that’s what you mean.
I’m not an anarchist and I am advocating for a dictatorship of the proletariat, I suppose. Anarchists do want the working class to seize the means of production through a violent revolution as well, though.
It wouldn’t be the CCCP 2.0.
G
GEddie
Guest
The only real beef I have with anarchists is that the future they long for requires violence to bring about. Violence is, to me, the only unforgivable transgression. And no, I am **not ** interested in debating just-wars, self defense or WW2.
I don’t know why anybody would want a dictatorship of any kind unless they got to be dictator.
Maybe they do, I am not fluent in anarchism. From what little I do know however, 21st century anarchism isn’t tied to a class struggle.
Well yes it would. CCCP 1.0 began as a DOTP that, under the pressure of war and privation, morphed into a dictatorship of the classical type. It would happen again.
ICXC NIKA
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
Will there be more capital under socialism or less?
How long will it take for workers to get these computers under this process. Under capitalism, if I need a computer, I can get one tomorrow. Will things happen that quickly with workers councils? I don’t think so.
So the only way to get potatoes is to work in a place that produces potatoes? How does a computer programmer get potatoes? Or do they have to do without?
If they have nicer stuff, why not attack them?
In other words, this has never worked, you have no idea how it would work, but you are convinced that it would work.
I mean will we have fancy offices like them. Supercomputers like them, multimillion volume libraries like Harvard? Or do we have to seize their means of production?
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
Fair enough. I think any kind of violence that took place in the effort to bring about a socialist society would be just, though. I mean it would only really be done in self-defense.
Well this is a bit of a misconception. When Marx used the term dictatorship, he did not mean a society in which one person holds power. It just means a society in which the proletariat (the working class) are in power. Marx would say we are currently living in the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, but obviously he was not implying it’s a literal dictatorship.I don’t know why anybody would want a dictatorship of any kind unless they got to be dictator.
All of the anarchists I’ve met believed in class struggle. I’m not sure what you mean by 21st century anarchists. Anarcho-capitalists are now a thing, but they only really exist on the internet. Most anarchists are still some kind of socialist.
Yeah, but as you yourself note in your post, the USSR was influenced by unique material and social conditions. Things certainly wouldn’t be the same if socialism were to ever be built in a First World 21st century country. Socialism has to be democratic, I think that’s an important part of it.
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
More. We would be able to increase the means of production to an extent that we can’t under capitalism. Under capitalism, the capitalist is limited by what the market can purchase. They can’t produce more than they can sell, and this is particularly problematic as the rate of profit tends to fall over time. As such, capitalism enforces a sort of artificial scarcity, that would not exist under socialism.
Well there is a difference between you buying a personal computer and a workplace wanting to get computers in bulk. You would not have to go through a workers council to get a personal computer.
I don’t really know how you read that from my comment, but I guess I’m not expressing myself very well.
Anyone could get potatoes from the buildings that distribute food and other goods, if they wanted them. Imagine a supermarket.
Well, I mean, that applies under capitalism too surely. Besides, under socialism there will be no material inequality so this wouldn’t be much of an issue.
I think you misunderstand what I mean when I say that workers will own their workplace. It will be a workers’ state, a workers’ society. The means of production will be owned in common by all. You will have as much access to the goods produced by a factory that you don’t work at as those who work there. It’s just that those who work there will have a democratic say in how their place of work is run.
Well I have some idea as I have been explaining for the last few days, and it has been applied in real life. The thing is, arguments like this reduce my position to something that it is not. I’m not just proposing a nicer society that I think we should all turn to, though I do think it will be better. I think it will eventually become necessary for this society to develop as a result of the inherent problems within capitalism. Socialism will come about as a result of capitalism. Capitalism is an incredibly unstable economic system.
I think there will be better access to educational materials overall, and I don’t think certain schools will get some kind of preferential treatment.
E
Exiled_Child
Guest
It’s interesting that McDonalds and other fast food corporations are often held up as examples of the fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage that’s supposedly coming in seven years, because now we’re hearing about Idiocracy-style self-service fast food kiosks. Which means that long before seven years from now, the minimum wage will effictively be zero dollars per hour. The days when capitalism was a de facto form of slavery will actually seem comparatively wonderful when robotization is the new norm for trucking and minimum wage jobs.
investors.com/politics/policy/wendys-serves-up-kiosks-as-wages-rise-hits-fast-food-group/
investors.com/politics/policy/wendys-serves-up-kiosks-as-wages-rise-hits-fast-food-group/
G
GEddie
Guest
Those kiosks are going to cost a ton, so I doubt they are coming universally anytime soon.
ICXC NIKA
O
o_mlly
Guest
Actually, yes. Unless the OP indicated that the workers first obtain the political power, change the rule of law allowing workers to seize private property, and then seize everything (now non-violently but by law), the method is revolution and the result anarchy. Did I miss a post?
T
Theo520
Guest
The kiosks are a simple touch screen computer, very cheap.
The programming isn’t hard and will be used in every restaurant, so the cost is distributed.
The employees they do have left will be in the back assembling the orders for pickup
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
People love fast food … because it is fast and it is cheap.
If you make it less cheap, then people won’t love it as much.
Innovation will help get the costs down.
Capitalism is not the problem.
Capitalism is the solution.
The PROBLEM is Socialism.
how-to-cure-millennials-love-of-socialism
nypost.com/2016/05/13/how-to-cure-millennials-love-of-socialism/
If you make it less cheap, then people won’t love it as much.
Innovation will help get the costs down.
Capitalism is not the problem.
Capitalism is the solution.
The PROBLEM is Socialism.
how-to-cure-millennials-love-of-socialism
nypost.com/2016/05/13/how-to-cure-millennials-love-of-socialism/
G
graciew
Guest
The problem is bad eating habits.
Move to healthier and more fruit trees and orchards and crops may be needed.
That may be " innovation" : learn to eating better.
I do not claim to know what millenials want,many just do not want to be like their parents. And it hits different ways .And as parents, we get our punches…as if we had received a " handbook" when they were born!!
E
Exiled_Child
Guest
Actually though, Wendy’s says these kiosks are going to be in all of their locations, more than 6,000 restaurants, sometime between June and December of this year. So who knows how many years this has been in the works, but obviously it must have been known and planned since way, way before the $15 minimum wage story made headlnes. And if they’re going to be inside every Wendy’s in the nation within months, then it seems pretty unlikely that McDonald’s, Carl’s Junior, Taco Bell, Burger King, etc. ban be very far behind. And I suppose that no matter how expensive these machines are, they’re far cheaper than paying humans fifteen bucks an hour to press buttons.
investors.com/politics/policy/wendys-serves-up-kiosks-as-wages-rise-hits-fast-food-group/
G
GEddie
Guest
The replacement of human labor by mechanization has now been 200 years in progress. This is not unjust per se, the problem is to make sure these people have somewhere to go.
ICXC NIKA
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
frontpagemag.com/fpm/262880/progressive-lust-power-bruce-thornton
progressive-lust-power
THE PROGRESSIVE LUST FOR POWER
The Left’s camouflage that hides its real motive.
excerpt:
More broadly, the progressives’ modus operandi has followed that of tyrants throughout history. The most dangerous enemies of the tyrant are all the associations and communities of people that lie beyond the power of the state, what Edmund Burke called the “little platoons,” and Alexis de Tocqueville recognized as one of the exceptional characteristic of the United States. Families, churches, PTAs, private schools and universities, clubs, think tanks, political parties, sports teams, businesses, charities––any venue in which people voluntarily gather together, interact with one another, and pursue their shared interests and aims, stands as a check on the power of the government. They create a social space in which people exercise their freedom without permission or oversight from government officials, and where their customs, traditions, and habits function as an alternative authority to the power of the state.
We call this civil society, and since ancient Greece, tyrants have known that it is their greatest enemy. Hence totalitarian regimes target these alternative authorities and try to destroy or delegitimize them. Progressives have similarly extended their reach into civil society, replacing private organizations with the bureaus, offices, and agencies of the government. Civil society is minimized, and society more and more comprises the mass of people overseen and regulated by a centralized technocratic power. This suits the tyrant, who knows the masses are easier to control when fragmented into private individual lives, either by violence, as in the past and in parts of the world today, or by redistributing wealth and taking over the management their lives, as our government does.
The latter method, what Tocqueville called “soft despotism,” is now our political reality, as Hillary’s and Bernie’s soothing promises of even more free stuff and more nanny-state tutelage show. More and more of our lives have been colonized by the federal government, which now controls and instructs us on everything from our diets and religious beliefs, to how to raise our children and understand sex identity. And if we disagree, government agencies will enforce their will, backed by the coercive power of the state. As a result, a government designed to check power and defend our freedom has now become one of concentrated power that diminishes our freedom.***
progressive-lust-power
THE PROGRESSIVE LUST FOR POWER
The Left’s camouflage that hides its real motive.
excerpt:
More broadly, the progressives’ modus operandi has followed that of tyrants throughout history. The most dangerous enemies of the tyrant are all the associations and communities of people that lie beyond the power of the state, what Edmund Burke called the “little platoons,” and Alexis de Tocqueville recognized as one of the exceptional characteristic of the United States. Families, churches, PTAs, private schools and universities, clubs, think tanks, political parties, sports teams, businesses, charities––any venue in which people voluntarily gather together, interact with one another, and pursue their shared interests and aims, stands as a check on the power of the government. They create a social space in which people exercise their freedom without permission or oversight from government officials, and where their customs, traditions, and habits function as an alternative authority to the power of the state.
We call this civil society, and since ancient Greece, tyrants have known that it is their greatest enemy. Hence totalitarian regimes target these alternative authorities and try to destroy or delegitimize them. Progressives have similarly extended their reach into civil society, replacing private organizations with the bureaus, offices, and agencies of the government. Civil society is minimized, and society more and more comprises the mass of people overseen and regulated by a centralized technocratic power. This suits the tyrant, who knows the masses are easier to control when fragmented into private individual lives, either by violence, as in the past and in parts of the world today, or by redistributing wealth and taking over the management their lives, as our government does.
The latter method, what Tocqueville called “soft despotism,” is now our political reality, as Hillary’s and Bernie’s soothing promises of even more free stuff and more nanny-state tutelage show. More and more of our lives have been colonized by the federal government, which now controls and instructs us on everything from our diets and religious beliefs, to how to raise our children and understand sex identity. And if we disagree, government agencies will enforce their will, backed by the coercive power of the state. As a result, a government designed to check power and defend our freedom has now become one of concentrated power that diminishes our freedom.***
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
Exploiting workers is a form of trafficking, Pope Francis says.
catholicnewsagency.com/news/exploiting-workers-is-a-form-of-trafficking-pope-francis-says-13169/
catholicnewsagency.com/news/exploiting-workers-is-a-form-of-trafficking-pope-francis-says-13169/
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Under socialism, “they pretend to pay us and we pretend to work.”
Experiments with socialism all fail.
ALL.
Just take a look at Venezuela today.
Intentions are how socialists want to be judged.
But when good intentions produce bad results, then the result is economic disaster AND physical disaster AND spiritual disaster.
Venezuela is a disaster.
Experiments with socialism all fail.
ALL.
Just take a look at Venezuela today.
Intentions are how socialists want to be judged.
But when good intentions produce bad results, then the result is economic disaster AND physical disaster AND spiritual disaster.
Venezuela is a disaster.
G
graciew
Guest
" pretend to work" may be applied to many persons under different systems.
It really sounds an excessive comment when persons undergoing disasters and bearing the burden daily work without seeing the light at the end of the tunnel and without even having chosen it.
So,out of respect for the suffering of the persons who are enduring it,it would be better to look at our own " pretending’ in a mirror.
Financial bicycle while playing Golf day in day out and becoming multimillionaire out of making money from vapour no matter what, while the rest around us scrape it to eat does sound like " pretending to work" is no systems " exclusive".
And all well with sports for me.
People are suffering already to have to endure they are " pretending " to work. It is like beating somebody already on the floor,and I have seen their pain.
Just slow down with picking our homes as you have been doing as examples of " disasters"…just improve your own. Nobody is so “perfect”.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
When multinational corporations take over the world, as they are bound to do given their rapid growth the past several decades, things will resemble socialism and it is bound to succeed!
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
The lesson is never learned because leftists insinuate themselves into education and media in order to rewrite the history and obscure the present. How to distract the people from leftist failures is the only thing that leftists have learned from history.
- Status