[Closed] not so Red Ed?

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.

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..............

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

Especially not my spelling...............

🙁

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.

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?"

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.

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 !

"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!)

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

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!

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

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.

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........

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.

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

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.

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!!!

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:

[img] [/img]

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.

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.

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 - 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)

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?

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.

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)?

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.

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 🙄

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.

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.

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

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.

If 'the workers' are issued shares...

Oh snap.

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...

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 !!!

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/tearing-away-the-veils-the-communist-manifesto
A rather well-written foreword to the Commie Manifesto.

Krona bunny, that's not entirely true. Lots of private firms have some form of share purchase plan for their workers that usually enables them to buy shares with a tax benefit. My company does this and every 5 yrs or so as a scheme matures you'll see an increase in nice new cars on the car park. And I'm not talking about the managers car park. Most large companies see significant benefit in such schemes and the employees being shareholders too.

konabunny-- thats a great article--shame that not many will see/read/ digest it !

Sadly the guy who wrote it just popped his clogs. Even if one doesn't care for Marx as a political theorist, that foreword is a good piece of journalism/literary criticism - zingy and wheeling, just like Marx the journalist could be on a good day.

Lots of private firms have some form of share purchase plan for their workers...

Again - thats a question of methods of allocation and distribution, if the workers retain the majority of shares then its still worker owned.

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.

Kona, thanks for the link. An interesting read over breakfast this morning. Berman shares the poetic style of his subject. He is correct to note Marx's admiration and criticism of capitalism and naked forms of communism at the same time. He is also correct to focus on the central theme of freedom to develop picked up libertarians after him. Which leads to his conclusion - the fact that at the start of the 20ceople were prepared to die for what was written in the Commuinist Manifesto whereas today they're are simple happy to live with it. Why is that? Perhaps because those who sought individual freedom in communism found that they were neither provided for "according to their ability nor there needs." 😉 They did not find individual freedom of development and the end of a major communist experiment was marked by a dramatic and extensive rejection. Marx's "inevitability" proved anything but. Voting with their feet, millions voted for an alternative to Communism as their path to personal development and freedom.

So we moved on (fortunately) and had alternative critiques of social justice. The rise of Rawls as core reading even at the Harvard Business School is a good example of this. A theory of Justice was written in 1971 but still seems alive today. Indeed Harvard's Michael Sandel is doing his best to keep his ideas fresh and to limit the power of markets on everyday life. (Sandel's latest book) IMO Rawls Liberty and Difference Principles combined with his debate with the likes of Nozick are better and more applicable reads for addressing modern inequality than the CM!

Konabunny, you're missing the point. The view that normal workers cannot benefit from company shares is not true. And though workers may not be able to benefit at the point of floatation, opportunities to enter into some form of share/investment programme will most likely be made available to the workers once the organisation is privatised. Many normal workers in the private sector benefit signficantly from such schemes which is an opportunity denied to public sector workers.

Yes you can 'opt out' of the union donation to the labour party thing, but the Unions still prop up labour financially and I don't want to contribute to that organisation, especially when all they seem to succeed in doing is driving british companies abroad, which I think is a great shame and significant failing of the Unions to be able to work with companies and help them find innovative ways to remain competitive in a very fast changing and dynamic global market. Can't they see and appreciate the global market that companies operate in and the fact that it is a case that if they're not competitive they go out of business? It is a reality completely and utterly lost and ignored by the Union representative i've ever spoken to. All they want to do is 'Stick it to the management' no matter what the cost. They're full of hate and jelousy.

wobbliscott - Member
Yes you can 'opt out' of the union donation to the labour party thing, but the Unions still prop up labour financially and I don't want to contribute to that organisation, especially when all they seem to succeed in doing is driving british companies abroad, which I think is a great shame and significant failing of the Unions to be able to work with companies and help them find innovative ways to remain competitive in a very fast changing and dynamic global market. Can't they see and appreciate the global market that companies operate in and the fact that it is a case that if they're not competitive they go out of business? It is a reality completely and utterly lost and ignored by the Union representative i've ever spoken to. All they want to do is 'Stick it to the management' no matter what the cost. They're full of hate and jelousy.

What's needed is an end to the confrontational way that Unions and Management work over here. Look at Codetermination in Germany where larger companies have workers' represantives as members of the board.

And if you opt out surely you aren't supporting Labour financially, which is the whole point of the opt-out?

And

especially when all they seem to succeed in doing is driving british companies abroad,

Absolutely. What the board of Virgin Rail needs is....

[img] [/img]

😆

Getting back to the original point, The devastatingly effective, fearless crusader for workers rights Mr Milliband. Can anyone fill me in on his bold statements regarding the [s]ridiculous, ill-thought-through mad rush[/s] realistic timescale to [s]hand over to their profiteering mates[/s] privatise the Royal Mail, and the call for large scale strike action it has provoked?

Somehow I seemed to have missed them

[img] [/img]

Binners, Ed is quiet because he had plans to do the same - albeit to limit the sale to a minority stake. So Labour is in a tricky position on this one. It left Chukka looking rather naked as a potential Business Secretary on BBC QT last night. He was left to argue (poorly) that since RM had delivered a £400m profit and was In recovery that it should stay in state ownership. Two problems with that. One, it is contrary to Labour's previous stance on the future of RM. Second, his analysis of the performance of RM - not just the one-offs in the £400m but the financing needs that it requires going forward - was desperately shallow for someone with his mandate as a (potential) representative of UK business.

I am not sure what was more ridiculous - Chukka on the RM or Justine Greening defending Cameron's performance on Syria.

The guy from the Tines was funny and accurate when asked whether GO had won the argument. H said he didn't know especially since he couldn't see any difference between what Conservatives and Labour were proposing as solutions!

I am surprised that the Greens didn't complain. Caroline? Was very interesting but more often than not left to the last person to speak. Poor show from DD.