Socialist Party of Canada
- Thread starter Jroc
- Start date
You keep saying that it has never been tried. Look around a bit, and yes it has, and yes it does, on a small scale. Hutterites can carve out productive farm colonies in the middle of the desert lands between Medicine Hat, Lethbridge and Calgary. They have the newest shiniest grain trucks and other modern equipment you can imagine. They own everything collectively but own nothing personally, they are normally very successful. They have no money of their own. Funny thing though, one fellow who was assigned to drive the fuel truck liked his booze, (verboten). He used to sell a bit of fuel to the father of a co-worker of mine on a regular basis for cash to feed his habit.
Yeah, I know how socialism works, I know how it can and does go off the rails, it is human nature, you can't change that. It is the ideal and persuit of socialism that causes much grief and human suffering. You are inviting the devil into your home my friend.
Не делайте зтого Товарищ
До свидания
The example you cite is very good. The interesting element is that the Hutterite's form of socialism depends on trade/commerce with an outside source in order to generate the funds needed to secure the equipment, land, etc they require to operate those farms.
Get rid of the rich, and what would be the incentive? The world would become dormant subject to the will of ??
Lawyers ok :lol:
No thanx, Canada has already had a brush with a socialist. Whose sons should take up skiing like their brother, or flying like JFK Jr.
I am basing my assessment of preneolithic humanity off of the work of 150 years of anthropology. The socialstructure of premodern human is not really debated and argued, to a large extent, there is a pretty general consensus among acedemia. Anthropologists and archeologists look at societies that live today under the same conditions as humans did back then, as well studying the material culture archeologists find to determine what kind of lifeways predominated.
I did not prepose that we develope public policy around the social structure of pre neolithic humans. Rather, I was countering the argument that it is human nature to be greedy, selfish, and agressive.
Hunter gatherer societies do not have social hierachies like you think. They may place more value on elders, but the division of labour, as well as the distribution of wealth is pretty evenly spread amongs all people.
Yes you are correct, someone does need to have ownership over the means of production. That is not the question. The question is what group of people does it make more sense to have ownership and control. The capitalist class, who do not produce any of wealth at all, or the working class, who produce all of the wealth. This idea is not that crazy when you really think about it. All I am saying is that the people who make the wealth (workers) should have ownership over it.
As a society, we need to produce things to survive. I do not understand how you cannot agree with me here. You said all we need to do is survive. How do we do that without producing the things necessary for life? Yes necessity is the mother of all invention. You just backed my thesis up with that statement.
As for the idea that someone needs to provide the capital in order for things to be produced, where does capital come from? Where does the capitalist get the money to be able to invest in something?
Jroc: It wasn't so much the loggers that brought socialism to B.C. but millworkers and miners. Loggers were always too spread out and too busy trying to earn a living to be a political force. In fact it was Robert Dunsmuir that pretty well single handedly brought unions upon us and it served him right. We have been fighting their control ever since. I realize there is a great difference between unionism and socialism but a great number of the socialists behind the union movement came from England and thought that they were still fighting the British class system here. Many of them still think that.
Your version of socialism might work if the world was to shed 3 or 4 BILLION people. Are you willing to make that sacrifice to prove a theory?
Our government practices a kind of reverse socialism or reverse robin hood where it takes from the poor(productive workers) and gives to the rich(government employees) who produce no wealth but keep lots for themselves and squander most of what is left.
Now I am not big on rampant capitalism where a few have it all but I am a firm supporter of free enterprise which is diametrically opposed to socialism. I work long hours and am paid well for it and rightly so. The lazy person that has to put in 8 hours and whines when he/she actually has to do some work for their paycheck annoy the rest of us and do not deserve to make the same money. Your system would effectively penalize me for having ambition and/or reward the lazy.
Your version of socialism might work if the world was to shed 3 or 4 BILLION people. Are you willing to make that sacrifice to prove a theory?
Our government practices a kind of reverse socialism or reverse robin hood where it takes from the poor(productive workers) and gives to the rich(government employees) who produce no wealth but keep lots for themselves and squander most of what is left.
Now I am not big on rampant capitalism where a few have it all but I am a firm supporter of free enterprise which is diametrically opposed to socialism. I work long hours and am paid well for it and rightly so. The lazy person that has to put in 8 hours and whines when he/she actually has to do some work for their paycheck annoy the rest of us and do not deserve to make the same money. Your system would effectively penalize me for having ambition and/or reward the lazy.
At risk of getting off the subject slightly, your post demonstrates exactly why I have mostly contempt for unions after belonging to one for about 30 years. Unions only take into account one attribute of an employee (in my mind the only one they have the brains to measure) seniority. Knowledge, ability, work ethic, integrity, effectiveness, leadership ability, means little or nothing to Unions. Having been a low level manager, I found that the most time wasted was over issues with the Union over the least productive employees.
My sentiments too. This is why I mostly avoided big companies. Too much confusion having two bosses. I spent the winter after high school working in the Powell River mill and several times was told by the shop stewart to slow down as I was making the others look bad.
Seniority should be the last reason for promotion and contrary to how the government works sex or race should not even be a factor.
Also a good reason for rejecting socialism. It is a race to the bottom.
Funny you should mention that, I heard the same thing. :lol:
You have that right, the ability to do the job should be the ONLY factor in awarding positions.
It seems that what you are saying is that ideas are worthless, the only thing with value is physical work.
Because in my experience, the 'capitalist class' are the people with the ideas to make things happen, to build things, to sell things. So, you're saying that if you are an 'ideas' person, you should not be allowed to have ownership or control.
A race to the bottom is what you're aiming for.
I am not saying that the only this with value is labour, I am saying the only thing that GIVES or TRANSFERS value is labour. Labour is the source of all wealth in society. Included in the definition of labour, is intellectual labour. The value of a thing, i.e., its monetary worth, is the embodiment of labour, both physical and mental, contained within it. Through the process of production, labour adds value to the thing being produced, and in this way, profit is created.
For example, lets say I am a capitalist and have $100 to invest something, for a return of 10%. The way this works is as follows;
From the 100 dollars lets suppose 80 of it goes to cover capital costs such as rent, electricity, equipment, and raw resources and other supplies. All of these things suck up a portion of my initial investment without adding any value to it. Now with the leftover $20 I am going to pay the wages of the workers needed to utilize the tools I have supplied for production. It is this portion of my investment, the $20, which adds value to the thing being produced. When the process is all done, and my $100 dollars has been eaten up, I am left with a finished product that is worth $110 dollars. Where did this extra $10 come from? It is the value of labour, transferred into the thing being produced. Now what am I going to do with my $110? Reinvest it of course! And the cycle continues.
So there you have it, a very basic explanation showing how value, and wealth is created through labour. This being the case, the working class, through their labour, is making the rich, richer. The capitalist 'steals' the extra value created from the worker. It is akin to working part of the day to reproduce the value of your wage, while in another portion of the day, working for free to create profit.
The problem with these anti-Socialist arguments is that the people stating them clearly lack an understanding of what Socialism is. Relating it to the state-Capitalist regimes of Russia and Cuba is a common mistake. I agree in full with Jroc.
The fallacy in your arguments is clear, you seem to believe that ''human nature'' prevents Socialism. Can you explain to me, what exactly ''human nature'' is? One comment which caught my eye was the mention of greed. Greed cannot exist in Socialism. Why? Greed is the result of the capacity of the system to allow it. In Capitalism, it is encouraged. In Capitalism, money is the paramount. In Capitalism, labour is a commodity. Since when was the capability to work a thing that could be bought and sold? Oh, right... Before slavery was abolished.
Jroc rightly states that the value of a workers labour should be the value they receive. However, it is not quite so simple. "From each according to ability, to each according to need." being the fundamental principle of Socialism, quite clearly insinuates that everyone does not receive exactly the same amount they produce. If someone can contribute their ability to say, teach, they do so. In return for their efforts, they receive food, as well as whatever other necessities said person requires. In turn, a farmer produces food, provides it to said teacher, in return for said farmer's child being educated. Obviously, this is an exemplified and overtly direct situation, but it is used to illustrate a point. Money is a tool, no? It is used to say "I have done this much work, I deserve this much stuff (food, etc.)" Unfourtunately, Capitalism allows the *parasitic* Capitalist class to say "This much of the value of your work is ours, because we are the ones who gave you the work to do." Does that seem right? If someone tells you to do something, saying you will receive the value of your work in return, and then they turn around and take half of the product for their own gain... Do you really believe that this is the right way?
Socialism takes out the middle-man. It is a moneyless society, based upon common ownership. Socialism is saying "I have done my share of work, I deserve my share of the collective value of society's work." It is actively contributing; and actively extracting; value.
Your arguments are generally just repeating the propaganda that has been spoon-fed to you your entire life. Do you think we Socialists were taught to be so? No. We conducted our own research, logically deciding the most effective and efficient form of society. Whereas, the vast majority of Capitalists are either taught to be so, or are pressured to be so by media, government, and the private sector.
Maybe you should learn exactly what you are criticizing before you criticize it. Then, and only then, can this argument continue.
The fallacy in your arguments is clear, you seem to believe that ''human nature'' prevents Socialism. Can you explain to me, what exactly ''human nature'' is? One comment which caught my eye was the mention of greed. Greed cannot exist in Socialism. Why? Greed is the result of the capacity of the system to allow it. In Capitalism, it is encouraged. In Capitalism, money is the paramount. In Capitalism, labour is a commodity. Since when was the capability to work a thing that could be bought and sold? Oh, right... Before slavery was abolished.
Jroc rightly states that the value of a workers labour should be the value they receive. However, it is not quite so simple. "From each according to ability, to each according to need." being the fundamental principle of Socialism, quite clearly insinuates that everyone does not receive exactly the same amount they produce. If someone can contribute their ability to say, teach, they do so. In return for their efforts, they receive food, as well as whatever other necessities said person requires. In turn, a farmer produces food, provides it to said teacher, in return for said farmer's child being educated. Obviously, this is an exemplified and overtly direct situation, but it is used to illustrate a point. Money is a tool, no? It is used to say "I have done this much work, I deserve this much stuff (food, etc.)" Unfourtunately, Capitalism allows the *parasitic* Capitalist class to say "This much of the value of your work is ours, because we are the ones who gave you the work to do." Does that seem right? If someone tells you to do something, saying you will receive the value of your work in return, and then they turn around and take half of the product for their own gain... Do you really believe that this is the right way?
Socialism takes out the middle-man. It is a moneyless society, based upon common ownership. Socialism is saying "I have done my share of work, I deserve my share of the collective value of society's work." It is actively contributing; and actively extracting; value.
Your arguments are generally just repeating the propaganda that has been spoon-fed to you your entire life. Do you think we Socialists were taught to be so? No. We conducted our own research, logically deciding the most effective and efficient form of society. Whereas, the vast majority of Capitalists are either taught to be so, or are pressured to be so by media, government, and the private sector.
Maybe you should learn exactly what you are criticizing before you criticize it. Then, and only then, can this argument continue.
I haven'tread the entire thread, but my take on socialism is that it could work if it promoted true unity (i.e. not just among the workers against the owners, but rather between workers and owners together). The problem with that of course is that it then counters the very definition of socialism.
Any system that does not see the whole of society as one fully interrelated unit will fail. Pitting one group against another as socialism does resolves nothing.
Hmmm... maybe we need a corporatist party of Canada, or maybe even a social-corporatist party?
Corporatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Social corporatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm not necessarily saying I'm a corporatist myself, let alone a social corporatist. That said, I do recognize certain flaws in a purely capitalist system, while also recognizing the laws in a purely socialist system. A corporatist system of some kind, possibly a social-corporatist model of some kind, might find the right balance, whereby the government could actively encourage collaboration between labour and management.
Unlike capitalism, it would protect the most vulnerable from capitalist exploitation and usury, while unlike socialism it would still be a system similar to capitalism and so still encourage innovation. Essentially similar to capitalism while still taking the best socialism has to offer.
As for the corporatist party comment above, I am being tongue in cheek of course since I'm not for parties myself anyway. Then again, the party system itself might be part of the problem, as it is based on a confrontational system which naturally permeates the culture and society, including labour-management relations.
Perhaps a good example of a social corporatist system of sorts would be the one in Sweden, whereby most of the mean of production are in private hands (heck, they even have a school voucher programme, yet collaboration between labour and management is encouraged. We find this with Germany's co-determination laws too.
Any system that does not see the whole of society as one fully interrelated unit will fail. Pitting one group against another as socialism does resolves nothing.
Hmmm... maybe we need a corporatist party of Canada, or maybe even a social-corporatist party?
Corporatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Social corporatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm not necessarily saying I'm a corporatist myself, let alone a social corporatist. That said, I do recognize certain flaws in a purely capitalist system, while also recognizing the laws in a purely socialist system. A corporatist system of some kind, possibly a social-corporatist model of some kind, might find the right balance, whereby the government could actively encourage collaboration between labour and management.
Unlike capitalism, it would protect the most vulnerable from capitalist exploitation and usury, while unlike socialism it would still be a system similar to capitalism and so still encourage innovation. Essentially similar to capitalism while still taking the best socialism has to offer.
As for the corporatist party comment above, I am being tongue in cheek of course since I'm not for parties myself anyway. Then again, the party system itself might be part of the problem, as it is based on a confrontational system which naturally permeates the culture and society, including labour-management relations.
Perhaps a good example of a social corporatist system of sorts would be the one in Sweden, whereby most of the mean of production are in private hands (heck, they even have a school voucher programme, yet collaboration between labour and management is encouraged. We find this with Germany's co-determination laws too.
Ah, the old complex question fallacy. Human nature is the way people are, and if you don't know what that means then you have no idea what you're going on about. "Greed cannot exist in Socialism"? You actually expect any thinking person to buy that nonsense? Greed has nothing to do with socialism, or capitalism, or any other ism, it was identified millennia ago as one of the major failings of human nature (heard of the Seven Deadly Sins?) and no ism can change that. Nobody buys and sells the capability to work, what's bought and sold is the work itself, and that's not slavery, slaves don't get paid for their work. They get room and board maybe, but their labour is valued at zero, by definition. Like most of the idealistic left, your head's in the clouds and your feet are no closer to the ground. People just aren't the way you want them to be. "The greatest good for the greatest number" just doesn't resonate with most people, because the "greatest number" aren't people they know or care about.
Jroc
Capitalism....Socialism - same thing .
In capitalism people take advantage of other people and in socialism it's the other way around .
And therin lies the problem.
You're missing two common human traits: laziness and selfishness.
When socialists find a way to eliminate those two factors, socialism may have a chance to succeed.
What you fail to understand is that we just don't want to have anything to do with Socialism. Socialism is better for those needy clingy feely people who cannot survive on their own. What is mine is mine.
I do not think people are naturally lazy or selfish. Many people work harder at their hobby than they do at their actual jobs. Also, consider that all the great writers, artists and philosophers in history undertook their work without being motivated by financial gain. People feel good when the do work that they feel is meaningful. Unfortunately, many people have jobs that are menial and boring. Laziness is a result of people being unsatisfied with their work. If people were truly lazy then they would love menial factory jobs where their only task is to push buttons all day. Sounds like the perfect job for lazy humans. What we find is that people hate these kind of jobs because they are boring, meaningless, and under stimulating.
We understand very well that you don't want socialism. You have the same values and beliefs as your masters. Stockholm syndrome maybe?
(paraphrased)
"If you are not a communist at 18, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative at age 40, you have no brain"
Winston Churchill
And I walked that path........and let me explain to you a couple of things about socialism.......
First of all, it is not simply a political philosophy dedicated to the allieviation of society's ills, it is a humanist religion dedicated to the perfection of mankind. As such, it acquires some dangerous attributes. It requires faith, an unreasoning belief that will sustain the believer even when they are confronted with clear evidence of the reality of human nature........that the human animal behaves in a manner that does not support the socialist ideal.
Secondly, as a faith, a religion, socialism can brook no dissent, as that is heresy, sacriledge, it flies in the face of faith.........thus they great divisions among socialists, the vicious, violent battle between sects concerned with the most obscure philosophical points......the Maoists, the Trotskyists, the Leninists, the Marxists, etc etc etc........
Thirdly, the belief in the perfection of the human race is dangerous in the extreme..........it all comes down to the "sacrifices" necessary to realize the perfect Utopian society........in the 20th Century, that accounted for 100 million lives........
Not that I expect this to make the slightest impact upon a "true believer".....................faith trumps rationality every time.
I suspect you are both young, and well-educated.