Viewing 40 posts - 81 through 120 (of 132 total)
  • not so Red Ed?
  • teamhurtmore
    Free Member

    You had to feel for poor old Ed. So here was a momentous occassion in which he was going to lay out a new relationship between Labour and the Unions and the news carried the story after a Coronation Street actors acquittal! How odd.

    dannyh
    Free Member

    rudebwoy

    I actually agree with a lot of that last post.

    The ideals of marxism are to be applauded, truly, I am not taking the piss.

    The slight flaw in the plan (as Blackadder would say) is, was, and awlays will be, human nature. So long as you can reinvent humans into societal beings who do not favour their own race, gender, religion, family etc, then you can achieve utopian marxist nirvana.

    Unfortunately you can’t. Then all the utopian ideals become warped, very quickly, into potentially monstrous policies.

    Marx realised that for his doctrine to survive, it had to be exported globally, achieving a critical mass.

    During the Stalin years, it became apparent that this was not going to be possible. He then expressly forbade trying to export communism, using Comintern to subvert rather than ‘educate’ for want of a better word.

    Anyway, I won’t detain you any further. You’ve got nearly 7 billion people to convince…………..

    dazh
    Full Member

    I’m not detecting a clear distinction between that which you criticise and the current situation – except perhaps that the real horrors are kept at arms length and justified through some backwards logic of helping.

    Which brings me back to what I was saying earlier. My point being that you can’t defend the current system as better than ‘dictatorial communism’ when the end result is not much different.

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    bokonon
    Free Member

    The slight flaw in the plan (as Blackadder would say) is, was, and awlays will be, human nature. So long as you can reinvent humans into societal beings who do not favour their own race, gender, religion, family etc, then you can achieve utopian marxist nirvana.

    I think that’s a misrepresentation of socialism and communism. The real reason that socialism is a realisable goal is that it is fundamentally about self interest not the interests of others.

    Capitalism is about doing things in the interests of others – those who hold the capital – to the detriment of you and everyone like you.

    Socialists don’t support other people because they are nice, they do it because it is in their self interest – if other people are allowed to be persecuted then what is there to stop me being persecuted? If other people’s wages are slashed what is there to stop my wages being slashed – I fight to defend my wages, but I support other people fighting to save theirs as well – because I’ll be next, and it would be nice to get support. It’s not about some utopian Nirvana where everyone cares about everyone else – it’s about a functioning state of being where people look out for themselves, and not capital.

    dannyh
    Free Member

    bokonon.

    Is this solidarity at a global level or do you draw a line around your own country?

    If you are in the ‘developed’ world and you truly want equality across the whole population, you’d better brace yourself for a substantial fall in your living standards.

    grum
    Free Member

    If you are in the ‘developed’ world and you truly want equality across the whole population, you’d better brace yourself for a substantial fall in your living standards.

    If it meant genuine equality, I’d be up for it.

    Most people on here could certainly stand to sell a few bikes/Audis/coffee machines or go on a few less expensive holidays.

    dannyh
    Free Member

    If it meant genuine equality, I’d be up for it.

    Most people on here could certainly stand to sell a few bikes/Audis/coffee machines or go on a few less expensive holidays.

    Me too.

    The problem is that you can’t rely on everyone to do likewise.

    Back to the problem of human nature.

    Blah, blah, blah.

    Endless circular arguments about what is the best way to address inequality.

    Yes, I am a cynic. History is on my side.

    (Please appreciate my plagairism of a Khrushchev quote if nothing else)

    dannyh
    Free Member

    Especially not my spelling……………

    🙁

    dazh
    Full Member

    If you are in the ‘developed’ world and you truly want equality across the whole population, you’d better brace yourself for a substantial fall in your living standards.

    It needn’t be a race to the bottom. What you call ‘western living standards’ is really just pointless consumption of useless rubbish which does very little to enhance our lives. If you take all that away and actually concentrated on the real things, like security, housing, clean water, food, communications, rewarding work, clean environment etc then yes I think you could achieve some sort of global equality without it having to mean a massive drop in the quality of life of us rich westerners. The whole western quality of life thing is a myth.

    dannyh
    Free Member

    dazh.

    I feel a sort of uneasy group hug coming on.

    Unfortunately, the rest of the ‘western’ world is not as enlightened as you and I. A lot of people do consider TV, a new range of clothes every year, a new car every three years etc as ‘essential’.

    The question then is:

    “Do you implement a programme of enforced ‘enlightenment’ where consumer goods are requisitioned at the state’s behest? Perhaps at gunpoint?”

    cheekyboy
    Free Member

    If it meant genuine equality, I’d be up for it.

    Most people on here could certainly stand to sell a few bikes/Audis/coffee machines or go on a few less expensive holidays

    But they won`t and if you try to make them you will have conflict, death and war and eventually less equality than you started with.

    Capitalism will always win, its a horrible nasty and grossly unequal world, thats why the poor will always look to religion.

    rudebwoy
    Free Member

    danny h -‘human nature’– if you have read enough marxist material , you would know as a social construct– its not fixed in stone fella– its used by many as a get out clause for any argument/discussion that backs em in a corner– its false and not at all helpful– think about it !

    dazh
    Full Member

    “Do you implement a programme of enforced ‘enlightenment’ where consumer goods are requisitioned at the state’s behest? Perhaps at gunpoint?”

    No you just make it more expensive. Most luxury goods don’t really reflect their true cost (cars are a great example). If you factor in *all* the externalities then most of the pointless rubbish people buy and then throw away would be so expensive it wouldn’t even be manufactured. Then combine this with an abandonment of endless economic growth as an indicator of success, and concentrate on providing the things I mentioned above, we could all work less, play more and live happy, carefree and peaceful lives 😀

    And I’m not buying the human nature thing. Human ‘nature’ is a product of education, collective behaviour and societal trends. That’s the thing with us humans, we have the ability to see beyond instinct and use rational thought instead. (although you wouldn’t think this on a Saturday night in most English city centres!)

    rudebwoy
    Free Member

    I am optimistic, have faith in humanity to win through in the long run….

    ninfan
    Free Member

    And I’m not buying the human nature thing. Human ‘nature’ is a product of education, collective behaviour and societal trends.

    But you have to agree that so far the history of attempts at reeducating have been somewhat clumsy to say the least… Russia, Cambodia and China of course all having relied on ‘reeducation through labour’ 🙁

    Here’s a challenging thought for you – privatisation through public floatation is the purest and truest form of socialism as it places the means of production in the direct ownership of the workers, whether through personal share ownership or alternatively through control and ownership of the capital as part of a pension investment – whereas nationalisation places it in the hands and control of the state rather than truly in the hands of the people!

    rudebwoy
    Free Member

    ninfan– you have a misunderstanding of ownership/power/control — the human nature is a misnomer– its just conditioning through cultural norms….

    MSP
    Full Member

    Here’s a challenging thought for you – privatisation through public floatation is the purest and truest form of socialism as it places the means of production in the direct ownership of the workers, whether through personal share ownership or alternatively through control and ownership of the capital as part of a pension investment – whereas nationalisation places it in the hands and control of the state rather than truly in the hands of the people!

    No it places the means of production in the hands of those rich enough to invest. I take it you are just perpetuating the myth that the majority of shares are owned by pensions. At the end of 2010 just 5.1% of the UK stock market was owned by pension funds according to ONS figures.

    dannyh
    Free Member

    But you have to agree that so far the history of attempts at reeducating have been somewhat clumsy to say the least… Russia, Cambodia and China of course all having relied on ‘reeducation through labour’

    Correct.

    What I’d be interested in is what would rudebwoy and others do if they could not convince enough people to their point of view for them to assume power democratically?

    I’m assuming we haven’t forgotten the proclamation yesterday about being ‘ruthless’ towards middle-class lackeys once in power, so how does that translate into actually gaining power.

    I feel (finally) like we are approaching the core issue here……..

    dazh
    Full Member

    Here’s a challenging thought for you – privatisation through public floatation is the purest and truest form of socialism as it places the means of production in the direct ownership of the workers

    Here’s an even more challenging thought – Remove all shareholders from private and public companies and place them under the ownership and control of the employees in a cooperative structure. The cooperative members can then set whatever employment and remuneration policies it wants as long as the profits are shared out equally or re-invested in the company. Companies would still compete openly, but the beneficiaries of success would be the workers, not private shareholders. Combine this with rigorous employment rights and protections, along with a realistic living wage and you’re getting somewhere towards combining the best principles of socialism and capitalism.

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    privatisation through public floatation is the purest and truest form of socialism as it places the means of production in the direct ownership of the workers

    That is just factually incorrect, in fact its gibberish

    bokonon
    Free Member

    The closest which we can get to viewing what happens when a democratically elected marxist government is elected is to look to September 11th 1973 – the forces of capital stormed La Moneda in Santiago and overthrew Salavador Allende, ending 48 years of democracy in Chile, and starting the rule of one of histories more brutal dictators…supported by the US and UK governments including, very significantly, Thatcher.

    More concretely, the purest for of socialised ownership within a capitalist system (and Greg Shazer talks about the problems of that and it’s lack of potential to change the world in his book No Local, really interesting) would be large scale cooperatives – such as Mondragon in the Basque country – which includes bike manufacturer Orbea. It’s significantly more than just a small scale hobbyist cooperative project, and its internal democracy is significantly better than the Co-op in this country.

    teamhurtmore
    Free Member

    Dazh – interesting ideas. But in your mind who or what are shareholders? Why are most companies not owned by employees?

    The 5.1% figure is a little misleading IMO since that relates narrowly to pension funds and ignores rising individual share ownership, rising ownership by unit trusts etc. But that aside, point taken. But then what about the fact that the percentage of UK quoted shares held by foreigners (RoW) has increased very signifcantly. In other words, UK companies are able to attract more and more capital from overseas to invest in their companies. So much for the UK being a bad place to invest?

    And here is a radical example of socialism in a capitalist world based on a slightly loose definition of “socialism” in the sense of transferring money from the owners of the capital to the employees. The answer – banking! How many industries pay out 70% of revenues, yes revenues, in costs (largely staff wages in the case of banks)? The transfer of wealth to workers in this industry has been extraordinary and shows no sign of ending!!! And in the current environment, the shareholders and providers of capital are you and me!!! Hence the old adage – work for a bank, never own one!!!

    bokonon
    Free Member

    Staff costs of that order are don’t seem too outlandish in service industries.

    Transfer of wealth from the richest to the poorest is the definition of “progressive” as opposed to “regressive” (like taxation…) Socialism isn’t about wealth or value, it’s a theory of power structures:

    MSP
    Full Member

    The 5.1% figure is a little misleading IMO since that relates narrowly to pension funds and ignores rising individual share ownership, rising ownership by unit trusts etc

    For he average wage earner, their pension will be by far their biggest investment vehicle, so other investments would only account for perhaps a few more %. The biggest investors in unit trusts will still be the richest members of society.

    dannyh
    Free Member

    bokonon.

    I’m glad you said ‘more concretely’ after your first paragraph.

    Could you have given Hugo Chavez as a less emotional example? Admittedly not marxist, but still fairly radically socialist?

    Forty years to the day, by the way.

    The Chilean example is a classic of muddled, short-termist and deviousness on the part of ‘the west’.

    A CIA backed military coup that installed a brutal dictator. Who the British government then backed – ultimately in the strategic interest when it came to dealing with another right-wing military dictatorship in Argentina!

    Not to forget the Conservative government (and Barclays) financing of the apartheid regime in South Africa.

    ninfan
    Free Member

    That is just factually incorrect, in fact its gibberish

    Sorry, but the nationalisation of industry into state control is fundamentally opposite to the principles of revolutionary socialism – the worker-state was always envisaged as merely a transitory stage in the development of the revolution, the necessary abolition of the state being a prerequisite for a truly socialist society whereby the means of production was owned by the workers was clearly laid out in Marx and Engels early works!

    points taken on cooperatives, but the problem is that the formation of a cooperative that requires the provision of facilities still at some point requires investment of some form of capital, whether financial or in the form of material support, otherwise the workers (who may not have the means) would have to provide their own equipment at the start – this ‘capital investment’ still needs to be garnered from other workers in the absence of the state, and shares is a valid and equitable way of doing so.

    dazh
    Full Member

    Dazh – interesting ideas. But in your mind who or what are shareholders? Why are most companies not owned by employees?

    I presume you’re talking about finance here. Yes, shareholders provide finance, which employees wouldn’t be able to provide ordinarily (although I would think there are examples of employee buyouts which have provided adequate finance in some cases). I guess in the scenario of a cooperative based industrial structure, finance would have to be provided in another way. Perhaps a government backed investment bank, or simply through loans rather than shareholdings. It’s interesting you mention banks, I have no particular problem with the classical function of banks in provide finance via loans and other simple vehicles. In my scenario the banks themselves would also be coops, owned by their employees, and since shares wouldn’t exist, the exotic finance products and gambling culture which have caused so many problems wouldn’t exist.

    (I’m thinking off the top of my head here BTW, I’m not claiming any of this would work, it’s just an idea)

    dannyh
    Free Member

    Anyhow, I haven’t had an answer yet on what rudebwoy and others who favour marxism / communism / socialism would do if they couldn’t convince enough people to assume power democratically.

    I again refer you to the comment of yesterday for a potential indication of how this scenario would play out.

    there are people who have done very well out of free reign(rigged) markets– and those that get the crumbs off their table–some of whom pipe away on here –the status quo suits them fine–re distribution of wealth does not– me , i would be very ruthless with all those ruling class lackeys….

    I haven’t heard anything yet to make me think there would be much respect for democratic due process in the assumption of power.

    Can someone please answer this?

    MSP
    Full Member

    Anyhow, I haven’t had an answer yet on what rudebwoy and others who favour marxism / communism / socialism would do if they couldn’t convince enough people to assume power democratically.

    Well that’s the current situation, so they would do as they currently do. Bit obvious really so pointless you keep harping on about.

    teamhurtmore
    Free Member

    Dazh – ninfan has already made reference to the answer. Yes shareholders are owners but they are also the providers of capital. And risky capital at that = where do equity shareholders stand in the event of a company going belly up? Hmm, suddenly being a shareholder becomes a less attractive proposition for some. But let’s take the case of a government backed investment bank. Where does the money come from for that? Governments don’t have money. They take if from you and me (tax) or they borrow it. So are you happy that the government takes your money and puts it at more risk than any other provider of capital and without you having any control? If they tax companies, where does that come from – profit? If they borrow, what do the lenders want in return….it all comes back to the same thing doesn’t it!

    Banks are balance sheet driven businesses. Their assets are risky – some people dont or cant pay the banks back. So you need capital (equity) to protect against those loses – and lots of it as recent events have shown! That capital is risky – in fact given the nature of banking it is very, very risky. Again the same question, who should be providing that capital? Are you happy for someone to do that on your behalf (Im not BTW)?

    dannyh
    Free Member

    MSP.

    I see you didn’t quote the comment from rudebwoy about the ruthless treatment he would dish out to the ruling class lackeys.

    Anyway, you say that they will just continue to do what they are doing now. Which, presumably is some activism and commenting on forums like this, as is their right?

    Fine, no problems there, then.

    And I won’t have to worry about a radical left-wing government in my lifetime, because without coercion, it just ain’t going to happen.

    Cheerio.

    MSP
    Full Member

    I see you didn’t quote the comment from rudebwoy about the ruthless treatment he would dish out to the ruling class lackeys.

    No, you did that in the post immediately before mine, as you have done several times just to try and get a rise, rather than make any contribution. Here it is again just for you.

    i would be very ruthless with all those ruling class lackeys.

    It is rather innocuous really, hardly worth constant repeating, not even the threat of death from a thousand papercuts 🙄

    dannyh
    Free Member

    Innocuous?

    Well, that would be your take on it.

    I would say it was ‘revealing’.

    Interesting how quotes become ‘innocuous’ when someone gets a bit over-zealous and shows a bit too much for comfort.

    dannyh
    Free Member

    Oh, and how is questioning what someone has written ‘trying to get a rise’?

    If you don’t want to be picked up on stuff you write, you really shouldn’t write it in the first place.

    konabunny
    Free Member

    Here’s a challenging thought for you – privatisation through public floatation is the purest and truest form of socialism as it places the means of production in the direct ownership of the workers

    That’s not challenging, it’s just pure arseburgers. The shares are acquired by those who have the capital to buy them, not to workers as workers.

    ninfan
    Free Member

    Thats a question of methods of allocation and distribution.

    If ‘the workers’ are issued shares, and are free to retain or trade their own shares with others and acquire shares in other companies directly from other ‘workers’, then ‘the workers’ still control the ownership of the company – citizen ownership of equity is a perfectly valid form of socialism, just a different one from state ownership.

    For example, you could float the post office tomorrow by giving every taxpayer an equal share since they paid for it and own it.

    konabunny
    Free Member

    If ‘the workers’ are issued shares…

    …it would be neither public nor a flotation.

    Lifer
    Free Member

    Oh snap.

    ransos
    Free Member

    Moving back to the unions, too many people have lapped up Miliband and the media’s spin without checking the facts. My union – representing over 1 million people – already requires its members to choose whether they pay into affiliated (i.e. to Labour) or independent campaigns.

    As a general point, I’m struggling to see why it’s a bad thing for unions to have a say over Labour party policy. They founded it…

    rudebwoy
    Free Member

    time has come , for the unions to abandon the so called labour party, just as they did with the liberal party over 100 years ago, since they long ago gave up any pretence of acting in the interests of the working class. It will happen, and like a pack of cards, probably pretty quickly once the process begins– let millipede and his cohorts fight it out with the liberals for middle england approval( mythical anyhow)– Proportional representation was muted by those slimy liberals as a pre requisite for supporting this viscous Govt– came to nowt– PR is standard throughout Europe, wonder what they are all afraid of !!!

Viewing 40 posts - 81 through 120 (of 132 total)

The topic ‘not so Red Ed?’ is closed to new replies.