What is Socialism?

[SocialistPunk]

I seem to recall a link to a very interesting essay I read several years ago on this forum. It suggested that through increased mechanisation of the production process and the removal of pointless employment, a socialist society would have little actual work to share among the current 7.4 billion people living on this planet today.The essay went on to suggest a form of compulsory work of perhaps 2 years would be expected from most people to make sure the necessary human work served the needs of the global community. Every person could choose when in their life time to do such service. When not performing such service, people would be free to pursue their interests.What makes such an idea so exciting and plausible is that there is talk today of technology replacing, I think, up to a third of all jobs.[edit] If anyone knows of the essay I'm referring to could they please provide the link, if possible. Cheers.

[Anonymous]

An interesting article in the Guardian today, describing how "the idle rich" sometimes feel disaffected and lost, in spite of their massive wealth.  It is written by a totor to the super-rich:"Once, a grammar lesson almost resulted in an existential crisis. I asked my student – a Russian woman in Mayfair – to list her daily duties. I started her off: “I have to make my breakfast, I have to reply to emails …” She remained silent. “With five kids you must have a lot to do!” I suggested. She reflected that she didn’t “have to” look after her children, she didn’t “have to” shop for food, she didn’t “have to” send emails. She didn’t even “have to” learn English – she has two PAs. She looked miserable. I asked her how she might like to fill her days – future conditional tense. Although she struggled to think outside her current box, in the end she admitted she’d always wanted to train as a doctor, and be around more people. We discussed how she could make that happen."http://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/2016/feb/04/confessions-tutor-super-rich-arent-faceless-symbols-injustice

[james19]

When material conditions change so to do social relationships, we've had the former not the latter.The productive forces are out of sync with social relationships. Every time too much of anything is produced, capitalism goes into 'crisis'. Too many houses, too much food, while people starve, or many cars. Get rid 

[Dave B]

What was communism and socialism?A dump1844 Letter from Engels to Marx in Paris  The Teutons are all still very muddled about the practicability of communism; to dispose of this absurdity I intend to write a short pamphlet showing that communism has already been put into practice and describing in popular terms how this is at present being done in England and America. [12]The thing will take me three days or so, and should prove very enlightening for these fellows. I’ve already observed this when talking to people here.  http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/letters/44_10_01.htm#n12 Eg.  Frederick Engels  Description of Recently Founded Communist Colonies Still in Existence; Written: in mid-October 1844    Amongst these people no one is obliged to work against his will, and no one seeks work in vain. They have no poor-houses and infirmaries, having not a single person poor and destitute, nor any abandoned widows and orphans; all their needs are met and they need fear no want. In their ten towns there is not a single gendarme or police officer, no judge, lawyer or soldier, no prison or penitentiary; and yet there is proper order in all their affairs. The laws of the land are not for them and as far as they are concerned could just as well be abolished and nobody would notice any difference for they are the most peaceable citizens and have never yielded a single criminal for the prisons. They enjoy, as we said, the most absolute community of goods and have no trade and no money among themselves.  http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/10/15.htm    And from Lenin;V. I. Lenin, From the Destruction of the Old Social System, To the Creation of the New   Communist labour in the narrower and stricter sense of the term is labour performed gratis for the benefit of society, labour performed not as a definite duty, not for the purpose of obtaining a right to certain products, not according to previously established and legally fixed quotas, but voluntary labour, irrespective of quotas;  it is labour performed without expectation of reward, without reward as a condition, labour performed because it has become a habit to work for the common good, and because of a conscious realisation (that has become a habit) of the necessity of working for the common good—labour as the requirement of a healthy organism. It must be clear to everybody that we, i.e., our society, our social system, are still a very long way from the application of thisform of labour on a broad, really mass scale.  But the very fact that this question has been raised, and raised both by the whole of the advanced proletariat (the Communist Party and the trade unions) and by the state authorities, is a step in this direction.  http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/apr/11.htm Trotsky; Leon Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed,  Chapter 3, Socialism and the State   The material premise of communism should be so high a development of the economic powers of man that productive labor, having ceased to be a burden, will not require any goad, and the distribution of life’s goods, existing in continual abundance, will not demand – as it does not now in any well-off family or “decent” boarding-house – any control except that of education, habit and social opinion. Speaking frankly, I think it would be pretty dull-witted to consider such a really modest perspective “utopian.”  http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch03.htm Trotsky’s Terrorism and Communism     The Mensheviks are against this. This is quite comprehensible, because in reality they are against the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is to this, in the long run, that the whole question is reduced. The Kautskians are against the dictatorship of the proletariat, and are thereby against all its consequences. Both economic and political compulsion are only forms of the expression of the dictatorship of the working class in two closely connected regions. True, Abramovich demonstrated to us most learnedly that under Socialism there will be no compulsion, that the principle of compulsion contradicts Socialism, that under Socialism we shall be moved by the feeling of duty, the habit of working, the attractiveness of labor, etc., etc. This is unquestionable. Only this unquestionable truth must be a little extended. In point of fact, under Socialism there will not exist the apparatus of compulsion itself, namely, the State: for it will have melted away entirely into a producing and consuming commune. None the less, the road to Socialism lies through a period of the highest possible intensification of the principle of the State. And you and I are just passing through that period. Just as a lamp, before going out, shoots up in a brilliant flame, so the State, before disappearing, assumes the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the most ruthless form of State, which embraces the life of the citizens authoritatively in every direction. Now just that insignificant little fact – that historical step of the State dictatorship – Abramovich, and in his person the whole of Menshevism, did not notice; and consequently, he has fallen over it. http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1920/terrcomm/ch08.htm  Karl Kautsky IV. THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE FUTURE 9. Division of Products in the FutureState. We can conceive a time when science shall have raised industry to such a high level if productivity that everything wanted by man will be produced in great abundance. In such a case, the formula, “To each according to his needs,” would be applied as a matter of course and without difficulty. On the other hand, not even the profoundest conviction of the justice of this formula would be able to put it into practice if the productivity of labor remained so low that the proceeds of the most excessive toil could produce only the bare necessities………..http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1892/erfurt/ch04a.htm   Kuatsky;Karl Kautsky The Labour Revolution III. The Economic Revolution X. MONEY  Besides this rigid allocation of an equal measure of the necessaries and enjoyments of life to each individual, another form of Socialism without money is conceivable, the Leninite interpretation of what Marx described as the second phase of communism: each to produce of his own accord as much as he can, the productivity of labour being so high and the quantity and variety of products so immense that everyone may be trusted to take what he needs. For this purpose money would not be needed. We have not yet progressed so far as this. At present we are unable to divine whether we shall ever reach this state. But that Socialism with which we are alone concerned to-day, whose features we can discern with some precision from the indications that already exist, will unfortunately not have this enviable freedom and abundance at its disposal, and will therefore not be able to do without money. http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1924/labour/ch03_j.htm#sb  Hyndman; Henry Mayers Hyndman The Record of an Adventurous LifeChapter XV Start of Social Democracy  “A much more serious objection to Kropotkin and other Anarchists is their wholly unscrupulous habit of reiterating statements that have been repeatedly proved to be incorrect, and even outrageous, by the men and women to whom they are attributed. Time after time I have told Kropotkin, time after time has he read it in print, that Social-Democrats work for the complete overthrow of the wages system. He has admitted this to be so. But a month or so afterwards the same old oft-refuted misrepresentation appears in the same old authoritative fashion, as if no refutation of the calumny, that we wish to maintain wage-slavery, had ever been made.”   http://www.marxists.org/archive/hyndman/1911/adventure/chap15.html  Peter Kropotkin 1920The Wage System http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/kropotkin-peter/1920/wage.htm   J. V. Stalin  ANARCHISM or SOCIALISM? 1906   Future society will be socialist society. This means also that, with the abolition of exploitation commodity production and buying and selling will also be abolished and, therefore, there will be no room for buyers and sellers of labour power, for employers and employed — there will be only free workers.Future society will be socialist society. This means, lastly, that in that society the abolition of wage-labour will be accompanied by the complete abolition of the private ownership of the instruments and means of production; there will be neither poor proletarians nor rich capitalists — there will be only workers who collectively own all the land and minerals, all the forests, all the factories and mills, all the railways, etc.  As you see, the main purpose of production in the future will be to satisfy the needs of society and not to produce goods for sale in order to increase the profits of the capitalists. Where there will be no room for commodity production, struggle for profits, etc. It is also clear that future production will be socialistically organised, highly developed production, which will take into account the needs of society and will produce as much as society needs. Here there will be no room whether for scattered production, competition, crises, or unemployment.Where there are no classes, where there are neither rich nor poor, there is no need for a state, there is nopage 337 need either for political power, which oppresses the poor and protects the rich. Consequently, in socialist society there will be no need for the existence of political power.  That is why Karl Marx said as far back as 1846:  "The working class in the course of its development Will substitute for the old bourgeois society an association which will exclude classes and their antagonism, and there will be no more political power properly so-called . . . " (see The Poverty of Philosophy).[89] That is why Engels said in 1884: "The state, then, has not existed from all eternity. There have been societies that did without it, that had no conception of the state and state power. At a certain stage of economic development, which was necessarily bound up with the cleavage of society into classes, the state became a necessity. . . . We are now rapidly approaching a stage in the development of production at which the existence of these classes not only will have ceased to be a necessity, but will become a positive hindrance to production. They will fall as inevitably as they arose at an earlier stage. Along with them the state will inevitably fall. The society that will organise production on the basis of a free and equal association of the producers will put the whole machinery of state where it will then belong: into the Museum of Antiquities, by the side of the spinning wheel and the bronze axe"  (see The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State).[ At the same time, it is self-evident that for the purpose of administering public affairs there will have to be in socialist society, in addition to local offices which page 338 will collect all sorts of information, a central statistical bureau, which will collect information about the needs of the whole of society, and then distribute the various kinds of work among the working people accordingly. It will also be necessary to hold conferences, and particularly congresses, the decisions of which will certainly be binding upon the comrades in the minority until the next congress is held.  Lastly, it is obvious that free and comradely labour should result in an equally comradely, and complete, satisfaction of all needs in the future socialist society This means that if future society demands from each of its members as much labour as he can perform, it, in its turn, must provide each member with all the products he needs. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! — such is the basis upon which the future collectivist system must be created. It goes without saying that in the firststage of socialism, when elements who have not yet grown accustomed to work are being drawn into the new way of life, when the productive forces also will not yet have been sufficiently developed and there will still be "dirty" and "clean" work to do, the application of the principle: "to each according to his needs," will undoubtelly be greatly hindered and, as a consequence, society will be obliged temporarilyto take some other path, a middle path. But it is also clear that when future society runs into its groove, when the survivals of capitalism will have been eradicated, the only principle that will conform to socialist society will be the one pointed out above.That is why Marx said in 1875:page 339 "In a higher phase of communist (i.e., socialist) society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labour, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labour, has vanished; after labour has become not only a means of livelihood but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-round development of the individual . . . only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois law be crossed in iis entirety and society inscribe on its banners: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'"(see Critique of the Gotha Programme).[91].  Such, in general, is the picture of future socialist society according to the theory of Marx. This is all very well. But is the achievement of socialism conceivable? Can we assume that man will rid himself of his "savage habits"? Or again: if everybody receives according to his needs, can we assume that the level of the productive forces of socialist society will be adequate for this?Socialist society presupposes an adequate development of productive forces and socialist consciousness among men, their socialist enlightenment. At the present time the development of productive forces is hindered by the existence of capitalist property, but if we bear in mind that this capitalist property will not exist in future society, it is self-evident that the productive forces will increase tenfold. Nor must it be forgotten that in future society the hundreds of thousands of present-day parasites, and also the unemployed, will set to work and augment the ranks of the working people; and this will greatly stimulate the development of the page 340 productive forces. As regards men's "savage" sentiments and opinions, these are not as eternal as some people imagine; there was a time, under primitive communism, when man did not recognise private property; there came a time, the time of individualistic production, when private property dominated the hearts and minds of men; a new time is coming, the time of socialist production — will it be surprising if the hearts and minds of men become imbued with socialist strivings? Does not being determine the "sentiments" and opinions of men?  http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/AS07.html#c3 Nikolai Bukharin Programme of the World RevolutionChapter XV The End of the Power of Money.“State Finances” and Financial Economy in the SovietRepublicWe have seen, on the other hand, that when production and distribution are thoroughly organised, money will play no part whatever, and as a matter of course no kind of money dues will be demanded from anyone. Money will have generallybecome unnecessary. finance will become extinct.  We repeat that that time is a long way off yet. There can be no talk of it in the near future. For the present we must findmeans for public finance. But we are already taking steps leading to the abolition of the money system. Society is being transformed into one huge labour organisation or company to produce and distribute what is already produced without the agency of gold coinage or paper money. The end of the power of money is imminent.  http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1918/worldrev/ch15.html 20 Distribution in the communist systemThe communist method of production presupposes in addition that production is not for the market, but for use. Under communism, it is no longer the individual manufacturer or the individual peasant who produces; the work of production is effected by the gigantic cooperative as a whole. In consequence of this change, we no longer have commodities, but only products. These products are not exchanged one for another; they are neither bought nor sold. They are simply stored in the communal warehouses, and are subsequently delivered to those who need them. In such conditions, money will no longer be required. 'How can that be?' some of you will ask. 'In that case one person will get too much and another too little. What sense is there in such a method of distribution?' The answer is as follows. At first, doubtless, and perhaps for twenty or thirty years, it will be necessary to have various regulations. Maybe certain products will only be supplied to those persons who have a special entry in their work-book or on their work-card. Subsequently, when communist society has been consolidated and fully developed, no such regulations will be needed. There will be an ample quantity of all products, our present wounds will long since have been healed, and everyone will be able to get just as much as he needs. 'But will not people find it to their interest to take more than they need?' Certainly not. Today, for example, no one thinks it worth while when he wants one seat in a tram, to take three tickets and keep two places empty. It will be just the same in the case of all products. A person will take from the communal storehouse precisely as much as he needs, no more. No one will have any interest in taking more than he wants in order to sell the surplus to others, since all these others can satisfy their needs whenever they please. Money will then have no value. Our meaning is that at the outset, in the first days of communist society, products will probably be distributed in accordance with the amount of work done by the applicant; at a later stage, however, they will simply be supplied according to the needs of the comrades.It has often been contended that in the future society everyone will have the right to the full product of his labour. 'What you have made by your labour, that you will receive.' This is false. It would never be possible to realize it fully. Why not? For this reason, that if everyone were to receive the full product of his labour, there would never be any possibility of developing, expanding, and improving production.  Part of the work done must always be devoted to the development and improvement of production. If we had to consume and to use up everything we have produced, then we could never produce machines, for these cannot be eaten or worn. But it is obvious that the bettering of life will go hand in hand with the extension and improvement of machinery. It is plain that more and more machines must continually be produced. Now this implies that part of the labour which has been incorporated in the machines will not be returned to the person who has done the work. It implies that no one can ever receive the full product of his labour. But nothing of the kind is necessary. With the aid of good machinery, production will be so arranged that all needs will be satisfied.  To sum up, at the outset products will be distributed in proportion to the work done (which does not mean that the worker will receive 'the full product of his labour'); subsequently, products will be distributed according to need, for there will be an abundance of everything.§ 21 Administration in the communist system In a communist society there will be no classes. But if there will be no classes, this implies that in communist society there will likewise be no State.We have previously seen that the State is a class organization of the rulers. The State is always directed by one class against the other. A bourgeois State  http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1920/abc/03.htm  The words Socialism and Communism have the same meaning. They indicate a condition of society in which the wealth of the community: the land and the means of production, distribution and transport are held in common, production being for use and not for profit.Socialism being an ideal towards which we are working, it is natural that there should be some differences of opinion in that future society. Since we are living under Capitalism it is natural that many people’s ideas of Socialism should be coloured by their experiences of life under the present system. We must not be surprised that some who recognise the present system is bad should yet lack the imagination to realise the possibility of abolishing all the institutions of Capitalist society. Nevertheless there can be no real advantage in setting up a half-way-house to socialism. A combination of Socialism and Capitalism would produce all sorts of injustice, difficulty and waste. Those who happen to suffer under the anomalies would continually struggle for a return to the old system.Full and complete Socialism entails the total abolition of money, buying and selling, and the wages system.It means the community must set itself the task of providing rather more than the people can use of all the things that the people need and desire, and of supplying these when and as the people require them.  http://www.marxists.org/archive/pankhurst-sylvia/1923/future-society.htm  mp.

[TheSpanishInquisition]

Vin wrote:

TheSpanishInquisition wrote:

 So in your ideal world, everyone would do only things that interested them? Well that's a mighty shame because I don't know anyone who actually enjoys having to tend colossal crop fields or battery farms more than their proper hobbies, so I guess we're all going to be starving to death. Or perhaps, you're going to force people who know how to run farms to run farms? That sounds very much like being a wage slave to me, except you know, without the wage part. 

 Do you realise how silly you sound? Humans starving to death and letting their children starve to death because they would rather play golf. My 7 year old would laugh at that.More rediculous than that, in today's society the producers of wealth give all the wealth they produce to the 1% while many of them starve and remain homeless. My 7 year old cant comprehend the stupidity of such an action.The workers don't need 'profit' and we don't get any in capitalism, we get rations in the form of a wage packet. So we can do without a society based on profit.As john Lennon once said 'You better free your mind yourself' my friend because at the moment your thinking is confused. You are blinded by the bullshit of the 1%

Let me just remind you that you're the ones trying to implement this system, not me. I'm just criticising it. Go ahead though, I've given you the opportunity. Respond. Answer my question, instead of attacking me personally. Or are you admitting that you can't? My statement is simple. I have said that you have no way to incentivise people to do unpleasant jobs. Counter my statement. Oppose it. Tell me why I'm wrong; explain to me why in your world, people will still do unpleasant work, despite gaining nothing from doing it. If you can't do that, then you need to re-analyse your beliefs because you have a problem. 

[Bijou Drains]

Perhaps I can relate this to my Current Work. I spend a great deal of my work time teaching and training Foster carers. The work of Foster Carers is incredibly complex and complicated, Most of the foster carers I work with, and in this country there are something like 60,000 foster carers, receive less in expenses than they spend on the children. Despite this they are often fantastically well motivated, work incredibly hard and many of them seek out in their own time professional qualifications. This, is in my opinion, a fantastic example of a high number of people who carry out extremely difficult work, motivated entirely by the need to meet the needs of society and others.Sadly, other elements of my work illustrate the ridiculous waste that capitalism produces. Because much of the training I deliver is publicly funded, I would estimate that up to 30% of my work is not teaching foster carers, which I love and enjoy, but rather dealing with the administration of the finance. Not only that but the funding bodies employ literally 1,000s of staff managing the finance and the payments. The funding guidance runs to hundreds of pages and the amount of time staff spend debating various aspects of the funding guidance runs into 1,000 of hours..Given a Socialist society, I would be delighted to spend my life teaching those working with troubled children what ever I can to do their work more effectively, and I'm sure the vast majority of the 60,000 foster cares I work with would be delighted to get on with their chosen work, without the extra task of filling in expenses claims, mileage sheets, tax returns, etc.etc. etc, Supporters of capitalism often cite the efficiency of this capitalism, like much of the horse shit they come up with, this is just another lie.

[TheSpanishInquisition]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

if a machine can't do it will be shared out amongst the community, not imposed upon a person as a livliehood for the rest of his or her life.

But what if I said 'no'? What if I was told "It's your turn to do the road works" and I said 'no'? I weighed up my options, looked at all the things I could be doing instead of roadworks, and went "no, I don't want to do roadworks. I'm going to bake a pie and read a book instead, because it's more enjoyable." Then what? Will you force me to do it? That goes against the idea of voluntary work. Will you tell someone else to do it for me? What if they say no? I think you put far too much faith in humans. Yes, there are people that do voluntary placements already, but they're in the minority, and they're also not doing it for fun. Of all the people I personally know who do volunteer work (even including the aforementioned socialist friends), only one is in it to actually help people. All the rest are doing it because it counts as work experience for employability checks. I do agree though, once routine jobs have been replaced with machinery, socialism will be a much more attractive concept. I think though, you need to wait until we have these machines before you properly try to implement the idea. For starters, why waste your own time and resource and risk failure when you could just wait 10 years and have the capitalists do it for you? There's no denying companies seek to save money to maximise profit, and replacing workers with machines as much as possible is a very good way to save money, so they'll do it willingly. 

alanjjohnstone wrote:

But the demand for luxuries will diminish because when everything is available to everyone, there can no longer be excuses for conspicuous consumption…to prove your status by showing of your possessions. Certain things may well be shared as in the example of car-pools and time- share apartments…We'll book our weekend on the yacht and wait our turn. Look in your shed at all those tools which are only used occasionally. Even in capitlaism, hire-companies recognise we don't need to own every thing.

That doesn't sound like a very nice world to live in, I'll be honest. It's lovely to own things. Even if you're not owning them for bragging rights, it's still a really good feeling to work towards something then actually own it. I mean, if you can afford it, why would you wait in line for a weekend on a yacht when you could buy the yacht and use it whenever you feel like it? The same applies to every possession. Why would you wait in line to use a computer, to play a game, to read a book, when you could buy the item and use it whenever you liked? I think this is a good place to bring in a quote from Churchill which I found a couple of days ago. "[socialism]'s inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." This seems to be very accurate, based on what you've said so far. 

alanjjohnstone wrote:

i think we have to be honest with you, socialism will not work if no-body works, society would fall apart. Part of our case is that socialism cannot be imposed but that people have to democratically decide they want socialism and are prepared to help make it work. This pre-supposes that it cannot be led by a minority but come into existence only via a mass movement who have a profound change in outlook so it is our belief that it is inconceivable that with this desire for socialist change on such a large scale it would not influence the way people behave. Ask yourself this, would having struggled so determinedly to bring socialism about, would people be so ready to jeopardise the new society they helped to create by sabotaging it?

You're right, I find it hard to believe socialists would ignore their own idea once they got it into power. I think though, Socialism is doomed to fail unless 95% of the country, or possibly more, has actively decided they want it, and I think that's a very long way off because of how successful capitalism is as an economic model. Honestly, the only way capitalism fails is if you're jealous of the idea of some people earning more than you. Accept that more important people earn more money and suddenly there's very little wrong with capitalism, which is why it's brought us so far since the idea of money was first developed. There are many chances it's had to fail, but it always pulled through. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank everyone for a relatively civil conversation thus far. Not often one of those happens on the internet! I hope we can continue to discuss pleasantly like this. 

[TheSpanishInquisition]

There was supposed to be more to the previous post, including quotes. Is this a common issue on this forum, or erratic?Fixed, bbcode mistyped. 

[Bijou Drains]

Oh by the way, another example. On Christmas Day this year I was involved with a project to provide a Christmas Day event for people in our community who were lonely and isolated on Christmas Day. We were inundated with people who wanted to volunteer to undertake "unpleasant tasks", including preparing food prior to the day, giving up their day to provide transport, wash dishes, take out the rubbish, etc. etc. etc. We used a local community centre, run by volunteers. We actually had to turn down further volunteers in mid October, because we had nothing left for them to do. This is just one example, there are thousands of others, trades union workers, Allotment Societies, Community Centres, WRVS, St John's, the Red Cross, the response of people in the recent floods, etc. etc. I would suggest that even you , "the Spanish Inquisition" are giving your time free to whatever political movement you really align yourself to, not on the basis of personal gain, but rather in the belief (in my view, mistaken) that what you do is in the common good.Your presence here actually proves our point, you're are not here on the basis of self interest, but in the interest of what you genuinely believe is the common good!!!! I would suggest that a good move forward for you would be to be to really "think outside of the box" set aside your assumptions about society, set aside your limited perspectives. I say this not in the spirit of antagonism, but rather from the point of view of another human who is genuinely interested in how we make ensure the best for ourselves and the rest of humanity. Give it some genuine thought, you may surprise yourself, you say that you are at University, part of the process of University is rethinking the viewpoints you have held and thinking anew. I hope you have the intellectual curiosity and honesty to consider our views and that you might join us in the real Socialist movement in our work that can set free the real creative resources of humanity.Yours for Socialism Tim

[TheSpanishInquisition]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Perhaps I can relate this to my Current Work. I spend a great deal of my work time teaching and training Foster carers. The work of Foster Carers is incredibly complex and complicated, Most of the foster carers I work with, and in this country there are something like 60,000 foster carers, receive less in expenses than they spend on the children. Despite this they are often fantastically well motivated, work incredibly hard and many of them seek out in their own time professional qualifications. This, is in my opinion, a fantastic example of a high number of people who carry out extremely difficult work, motivated entirely by the need to meet the needs of society and others.Sadly, other elements of my work illustrate the ridiculous waste that capitalism produces. Because much of the training I deliver is publicly funded, I would estimate that up to 30% of my work is not teaching foster carers, which I love and enjoy, but rather dealing with the administration of the finance. Not only that but the funding bodies employ literally 1,000s of staff managing the finance and the payments. The funding guidance runs to hundreds of pages and the amount of time staff spend debating various aspects of the funding guidance runs into 1,000 of hours..Given a Socialist society, I would be delighted to spend my life teaching those working with troubled children what ever I can to do their work more effectively, and I'm sure the vast majority of the 60,000 foster cares I work with would be delighted to get on with their chosen work, without the extra task of filling in expenses claims, mileage sheets, tax returns, etc.etc. etc, Supporters of capitalism often cite the efficiency of this capitalism, like much of the horse shit they come up with, this is just another lie.

Honestly, that sounds pretty efficient to me. You know what paperwork you need to do, and you can do it. How long it takes is dependent upon factors within your control, or within the control of other employees. Any problems in that is a failure of those employees to do as they're instructed, not a failure of capitalism. And can you assure me that the paperwork would really be lower in a socialist society? Of course not. Socialism still needs just as much administration as anything else because you need to know if you're producing enough of things, if everyone's getting what they need, if anyone's being too greedy. If anything, I think the paperwork would become even worse because instead of just calculating money, which is arbitrary and can easily be worked with as such an arbitrary measure of value, you're working with non-valued items that would need to be dealt with on an individual basis. 

[TheSpanishInquisition]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Oh by the way, another example. On Christmas Day this year I was involved with a project to provide a Christmas Day event for people in our community who were lonely and isolated on Christmas Day. We were inundated with people who wanted to volunteer to undertake "unpleasant tasks", including preparing food prior to the day, giving up their day to provide transport, wash dishes, take out the rubbish, etc. etc. etc. We used a local community centre, run by volunteers. We actually had to turn down further volunteers in mid October, because we had nothing left for them to do. This is just one example, there are thousands of others, trades union workers, Allotment Societies, Community Centres, WRVS, St John's, the Red Cross, the response of people in the recent floods, etc. etc. I would suggest that even you , "the Spanish Inquisition" are giving your time free to whatever political movement you really align yourself to, not on the basis of personal gain, but rather in the belief (in my view, mistaken) that what you do is in the common good.Your presence here actually proves our point, you're are not here on the basis of self interest, but in the interest of what you genuinely believe is the common good!!!! I would suggest that a good move forward for you would be to be to really "think outside of the box" set aside your assumptions about society, set aside your limited perspectives. I say this not in the spirit of antagonism, but rather from the point of view of another human who is genuinely interested in how we make ensure the best for ourselves and the rest of humanity. Give it some genuine thought, you may surprise yourself, you say that you are at University, part of the process of University is rethinking the viewpoints you have held and thinking anew. I hope you have the intellectual curiosity and honesty to consider our views and that you might join us in the real Socialist movement in our work that can set free the real creative resources of humanity.Yours for Socialism Tim

It's good to hear cases like this. The vast majority of people I interact with and come into contact with are in it for personal gain. Unfortunately, these kind souls are still a very small number of people. For socialism to work, you would need 90-95% of your city's population trying to volunteer and I hate to break it to you but that's just not what people do. I think you should reduce your bias on this. You assume simply because I don't particularly like the idea of socialism, that I therefore cannot possibly be "thinking outside the box". Have you ever thought you may be the one thinking inside the box, so to speak? Probably not, and that's OK. It takes a very special person to actively think from every perspective about everything, and even people who think they do may be missing out a perspective they weren't even aware of. I admit I'm probably not fully capable of it myself, though I feel that given the thinking I have been doing on the subject, I'm not mistaken. Seems to me there's one real difference between socialism and capitalism. Socialism is an ideal that works in untested hypotheticals. Overall it's a nicer concept and I personally would love to be in a world where I had no responsibility and could live entirely on the work of others. Capitalism is an idea based on realism – it's built upon what currently is, and not on what could be, as socialism is, and I think until socialism realises it's unattainable and makes suitable adaptions and mid-way points in the slow process of conversion, it's not going to work. 

[Bijou Drains]

I think you are clutching at straws my friend. If that sounds efficient to you, perhaps you need to get out into the real world of work. what I have spoken about doesn't include the returns to Companies House, the hours spent with accountants, the tax returns, the audit trail for every penny spent, etc. etc. Not only that but as a small business time is spent by me and others on insurance, banking, invoicing, factoring, etc etc. All of those people could be freed to use their talents to do something useful. The current system of society wastes human and natural resources on an huge scale. Given those resources to add to the productive capacity we could easily meet the needs and desires of humanity.

[TheSpanishInquisition]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

I think you are clutching at straws my friend. If that sounds efficient to you, perhaps you need to get out into the real world of work. what I have spoken about doesn't include the returns to Companies House, the hours spent with accountants, the tax returns, the audit trail for every penny spent, etc. etc. Not only that but as a small business time is spent by me and others on insurance, banking, invoicing, factoring, etc etc. All of those people could be freed to use their talents to do something useful. The current system of society wastes human and natural resources on an huge scale. Given those resources to add to the productive capacity we could easily meet the needs and desires of humanity.

By definition, capitalism doesn't waste resources. The whole idea of capitalism is to reduce expenditure as much as possible. I think, really, you're the one doing the straw-clutching. I mean, we have hard evidence that capitalism works. On the other hand, socialism only works in a world where humans function exactly as these hyper-altruistic organisms you think they are, and you have no evidence towards this extent besides anecdotal. Unfortunately, that evidence is something you'll not be able to get except within a socialist community, and so the vicious recycle continues – it's too dangerous to implement socialism on the off-chance it might work, but the evidence to prove it does or doesn't cant be obtained until someone tries it. That being said, we do have a couple of examples. Let's take Greece. Y'know how it's got all of these problems? Well, that was under socialist government. You can't go socialist while the rest of the world is capitalist because you'll be outcompeted, but the world isn't going to go socialist until there's sufficient evidence it's a good idea. 

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

That doesn't sound like a very nice world to live in, I'll be honest. It's lovely to own things.

According to William Morris a socialist from the 19th C it is even more lovely to use your own two hands , some simple tools …and create your own lovely things. He was a person who took pride in the handicraft traditions of earlier ages rather than what we would do these days, buy a flat pack from IKEA…usean Allen key and think we built our book-case ourselves. I think we will always appreciate nice things and socialism is not about doing away with personal possessions. As you can see from this thread, there is no simple black and white yes or no answers to many of your questions. We have been brought up to accept the status quo as practically sacred…natural and something that has always been and will always be, but social systems change, peoples' ideas change, our concepts of how we want to live changes, our world-view changes, we acquirre more and more knowledge and gain more and more actual experience. Socialists are anti-capitalists but, believe me, we understand the benefits it has provieded society over its life, but we simply have come to understand that it is now out-lived its own usefulness and we should now proceed to the next level, a higher civilisation called socialism. Yes you have brought to the thread something we must never forget – explaining ourselves to those who have not really engaged with the idea of socialism, particularly our own interpretation. But it takes two to tango. We can do our best to answer your questions in our own individual ways but it is also down to you to follow up and educate yourself. We have already suggested exploring this website and the archives. But there are many others out there that express socialist ideas in their works. In my attempt, i have quoted from the past to suggest that we are not the sole proprietors of the socialist ideal but carrying on and taking forward what others have begun. Maybe we are dreamers as John Lennon and many others have said both for and against us but as Lennon also said, we are not the only ones and some day we hope you will join us.I'm sure your comment that

Quote:

But what if I said 'no'? What if I was told "It's your turn to do the road works" and I said 'no'? I weighed up my options, looked at all the things I could be doing instead of roadworks, and went "no, I don't want to do roadworks.

doesn't actually describe you as a person, a subborn obstinate obstructionist.But as i said in an earlier reply, we can support free-riders but a more positively turn  we don't need everybody to pitch in. We can let the poets and the painters, the writers and the musicians, all the arts in fact, have all the time they require to bring culture and their individual expression to to thie world…if they so wished. The pessimists think over-population is a problem but every person in the world is an extra pair of hands and an additional brain. If the pot-holes on the road is such a problem then i am sure you will bake your pie tomorrow. Or you can simply offer some pie to the road-workers for their lunch. As i said, we don't condemn you to a life on the road-gang as capitalism does. More and more division of labour will dissolve (not enttirely disappear, though i am guessing) Marx said a free person should be able to “hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.” He foresaw that the separation of town and country merging into one. On the forum it has been highlighted that plumbers have voluntarily installed water filters to mitigate the damage capitalist cost-cutting has done in the city of Flint.I know it is a bad example but recall in a war, how people are willing to sacrifice not just their standard of life but even their lives for something they believe in…So in the words of the Grateful Dead, Spanish Inquisition, Keep on Truckin' and keep on studying and learning…everybody on this forum is doing the same, none of us are sitting back believing we know it all…even if at times that seems to be how it seems. ..know-it-alls  

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

By definition, capitalism doesn't waste resources. The whole idea of capitalism is to reduce expenditure as much as possible.

Just a quick response. You are right, capitalism is all about cost-cutting as individual enterprises…by externalities  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExternalitySociety carries the cost-cutting that business impose upon others. It also expects society to subsidise its growth. 

[Author]

Posts