Thread: The problems facing modern Socialists

And WTF does "divides the rewards more equally among those who earn them." mean?

I think it means that the employee who turned up many years after the company struggled into existence should be entitled to a huge share of the company profit because it is their labour that helps create it.
Is it any wonder that unions scream for huge unnecessary pay rises whilst watching as more and more jobs go east!?

I though the problem facing modern socialists, was finding a polical and economic system that actually worked.

Surely a middle-way combining the best bits of capitalism and socialism is more likely to work than trying to ram round bricks into square holes with either on their own?

Originally Posted by Balleh

Ah, now I get it.

As the author of this topic you consider that those who disagree with you should shut up.

It’s not a particularly attractive attitude but it is at least consistent with the authoritarian implications of your comment “We (the "We" being generic) need a socio-political system that mirrors our individual hopes, aspirations and dreams on a realistic basis.�.

Obviously you don’t “get� it. You’ll notice that just about everybody on the thread disagrees with me to a greater or lesser extent. If your assumption was correct, we’d never have got a thread some 17 pages long.

What I object to is somebody coming on the thread and asking pseudo-intellectual questions that have no direct connection to the subject and indeed could be phrased in exactly the same way for any political system. Why should I go to the trouble of responding to them, when you're not the slightest bit interested in the answers? The sole purpose of your questions was to engender the impression that you’ve “thought deeply� on the subject and to underline your intellectual gravitas.

However, after so many pages, this was a bit of a shock:

Originally Posted by drain_sniffer

Originally Posted by Balleh

Ah, now I get it.

As the author of this topic you consider that those who disagree with you should shut up.

It’s not a particularly attractive attitude but it is at least consistent with the authoritarian implications of your comment “We (the "We" being generic) need a socio-political system that mirrors our individual hopes, aspirations and dreams on a realistic basis.�.

No, Bugsy is just displaying the classic socialist mantra - I am right, I know whats good for everybody, and if you dont agree you will be sent of to the salt mines. Its like throwing shiit at the moon - good fun but totaly pointless.

Quite apart from the doubtful punctuation and orthography, I find the resilience of folks like Drain_sniffer amazing.

He writes of a “classic Socialist mantra�. I've been an active Socialist for 45 years and I've yet to see such a mantra, be it classic or whatever. What I construe that to mean is that your man STILL confuses Socialism with State Capitalism, to which such a "mantra" would indeed apply.

However, that means that he’s failed to absorb the simple fact, repeated frequently in this thread, that Socialism is NOT what was practised in the former and present so-called Socialist/Communist countries. It appears he’s also not alone in that respect.

Thus this discussion has, again, been reduced to comparing Capitalism with the barbaric political systems in the former USSR, East Germany etc. Nobody in her/his right mind wants anything like that, but it makes the discussion more difficult because true Socialism is being imbued with properties and qualities that it simply doesn’t have.

Socialism doesn’t restrict individuality. It doesn't restrict freedom of expression or freedom of choice. In fact, it's a lot less restrictive than the present Capitalist system because it actually encourages these things.

What would be different in a Socialist world is that, among other things, there’d be no stock exchange dealings as we know it. Shares could only be purchased by or allotted to folks who actually work in the relevant companies. Much of the pain borne by employees is caused by shareholders demanding ever higher dividends, thus forcing management to only plan from one year to the next, instead of long-term. This restriction would necessarily limit the extent of trading on the stock exchanges and would, with time, mean that companies over time would revert to ownership on a semi-private basis. However, this would stabilise production and income and prevent company owners from cynically using employees to balance their books by sacking them, or re-employing them at a moment’s notice. In short, the societal element in employment, that was evident in the late 18th and early 19th Century would again emerge.

Any thought on that?

MsG

Originally Posted by Speedy

I think it means that the employee who turned up many years after the company struggled into existence should be entitled to a huge share of the company profit because it is their labour that helps create it.

But, Speedy, you say this company has been "struggling" with the group who have set up the company. The company searched for and (I trust) carefully selected this new employee. S/he has been chosen for what s/he might bring to the company in order that all those involved in the company may be more productive/fulfilled. Should not ALL those valued, well-trained workers within the company be entitled to a fair share of the fruits of their labour?

Originally Posted by Bugsy

However, that means that he’s failed to absorb the simple fact, repeated frequently in this thread, that Socialism is NOT what was practised in the former and present so-called Socialist/Communist countries.

And you keep avoiding a few very simple questions: how is this "true socialism" to be established/formed/developed? Why hasn't it been the socio-political sytem of choice if it's such a viable (almost natural) alternative to capitalism?

I read a lot of waffling about how it apparently would benefit us all. But no practical solutions have been presented so far. As I said before; what you write reminds me of Sayyed Qutb's work. Presenting an endstate without any clue as how to get there.

Originally Posted by Speedy

And WTF does "divides the rewards more equally among those who earn them." mean?

I think it means that the employee who turned up many years after the company struggled into existence should be entitled to a huge share of the company profit because it is their labour that helps create it.
Is it any wonder that unions scream for huge unnecessary pay rises whilst watching as more and more jobs go east!?

By that I take it you mean a manager, who turns up many years after the company struggled into existence, runs it into the ground by his incompetence, then walks away with a £2 million golden handshake on top of the £10 million he made just before bankruptcy on an inside deal. Is that the employee you're thinking of?

MsG

Originally Posted by bovvy

Should not ALL those valued, well-trained workers within the company be entitled to a fair share of the fruits of their labour?

It's called a wage, and if the employee doesn't like it they can fuck off to some place else, they have that freedom. If indeed the employer desires to retain that employee, then they are also free to provide additional compensation in the form of; stock grants/options, bonuses, raises or any other means, that is the employers freedom.

Reading this I am not sure if we are discussing the problems facing old communists in a modern world, or modern socialists.

Assuming we are discussing socialism, nobody has yet mentioned the economic calculation problem. In the 90 years since Mises and Hayek first challenged socialists with it, the best answer is a zero growth economy. Which equals reproduction, which leads to "glorious soviet tractor factory" mentality and ultimately to communism.

Problems with no socialist/communist answers:

1. The economic calculation problem - how to plan the distribution of resources efficiently in an economy.

2. Financial markets - without which how can anyone efficiently manage capital investment in an economy.

No answers in 90 years, not going to be any here either.

Originally Posted by Alsacien

Reading this I am not sure if we are discussing the problems facing old communists in a modern world, or modern socialists.

Assuming we are discussing socialism, nobody has yet mentioned the economic calculation problem. In the 90 years since Mises and Hayek first challenged socialists with it, the best answer is a zero growth economy. Which equals reproduction, which leads to "glorious soviet tractor factory" mentality and ultimately to communism.

Problems with no socialist/communist answers:

1. The economic calculation problem - how to plan the distribution of resources efficiently in an economy.

2. Financial markets - without which how can anyone efficiently manage capital investment in an economy.

No answers in 90 years, not going to be any here either.

That’s actually being a bit disingenuous there, Alsacien. Both Mises and Hayek only enlarged on the work already done by Knut Wicksell, and while they offered some answers, they didn’t come up with as complete a solution as Keynes. Furthermore, Hayek stayed a little bit stranded in his theory, while Keynes dynamically evolved his to take changing circumstances into account.

Alex Callinicos also went into the subject in some depth in his 2002 book "Against the Third Way", while Maynard C. Krueger tackled the same theme in his 1934 book "Inflation: Who Wins and Who Loses?". The latter book being particularly interesting due to it encompassing the Great Depression.

So it’s not strictly true that there have been no alternatives offered, it’s just that they’re not acceptable by Capitalists, since they all champion a radical redistribution of wealth and a curtailment of long-range distribution in favour of improved localisation.

MsG

If you'd like a good read

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economi...lation_problem

Originally Posted by Bugsy

Originally Posted by Alsacien

Reading this I am not sure if we are discussing the problems facing old communists in a modern world, or modern socialists.

Assuming we are discussing socialism, nobody has yet mentioned the economic calculation problem. In the 90 years since Mises and Hayek first challenged socialists with it, the best answer is a zero growth economy. Which equals reproduction, which leads to "glorious soviet tractor factory" mentality and ultimately to communism.

Problems with no socialist/communist answers:

1. The economic calculation problem - how to plan the distribution of resources efficiently in an economy.

2. Financial markets - without which how can anyone efficiently manage capital investment in an economy.

No answers in 90 years, not going to be any here either.

That’s actually being a bit disingenuous there, Alsacien. Both Mises and Hayek only enlarged on the work already done by Knut Wicksell, and while they offered some answers, they didn’t come up with as complete a solution as Keynes. Furthermore, Hayek stayed a little bit stranded in his theory, while Keynes dynamically evolved his to take changing circumstances into account.

Alex Callinicos also went into the subject in some depth in his 2002 book "Against the Third Way", while Maynard C. Krueger tackled the same theme in his 1934 book "Inflation: Who Wins and Who Loses?". The latter book being particularly interesting due to it encompassing the Great Depression.

So it’s not strictly true that there have been no alternatives offered, it’s just that they’re not acceptable by Capitalists, since they all champion a radical redistribution of wealth and a curtailment of long-range distribution in favour of improved localisation.

MsG

Like I stated - nobody including you can answer those two questions

Modern socialists problems include a shortage of champagne...

"curtailment of long-range distribution in favour of improved localisation. "

So if I want to buy a PC I can't as 99% of it's bits are made on the other side of the world?

To be honest, that bit sounds more like management jargon than any meaningfull phrase.

Originally Posted by Bugsy

Originally Posted by Speedy

And WTF does "divides the rewards more equally among those who earn them." mean?

I think it means that the employee who turned up many years after the company struggled into existence should be entitled to a huge share of the company profit because it is their labour that helps create it.
Is it any wonder that unions scream for huge unnecessary pay rises whilst watching as more and more jobs go east!?

By that I take it you mean a manager, who turns up many years after the company struggled into existence, runs it into the ground by his incompetence, then walks away with a £2 million golden handshake on top of the £10 million he made just before bankruptcy on an inside deal. Is that the employee you're thinking of?

MsG

That's called management.

"What would be different in a Socialist world is that, among other things, there’d be no stock exchange dealings as we know it. Shares could only be purchased by or allotted to folks who actually work in the relevant companies. ........... However, this would stabilise production and income and prevent company owners from cynically using employees to balance their books by sacking them, or re-employing them at a moment’s notice. In short, the societal element in employment, that was evident in the late 18th and early 19th Century would again emerge. "

2 Points. Learn some history. Employers having been laying off staff and taking on staff since the begining of time. Umemployed piece workers have been a feature of Government worries about rioting public since the the 15th Century.

Companies sell shares to raise money to invest in things, like new machines, new producation lines, new products, new research. Where the f**k would Companies find the cash to do this? Can't exactly tunr round to their own satff and say "Cough up half a million, we want to create a new product that will allow us to employ another 100 people" can they?