Capitalism Vs. Socialism in the UK

Something to consider: capitalism dominates. Capitalism is a well-established economic system that has spent many, many decades developing propaganda to shore itself up and to discourage alternatives. Even in the European "democratic socialist" nations capitalism hold sway. The right has many spokesmen and think tanks all defending capitalism. Their attacks on socialism and communism have been relentless and protracted with the USA leading the pack.

THEREFORE:

Consider that anything you think you know about socialism and communism is probably false. And when you honestly, fairly examine and research the truth, you always find everything you thought you knew is, indeed, false. In the USA, everybody is convinced that they know what socialism is, and yet they have no idea what it is. And about 3 minutes is enough to begin to see there are errors and falsehoods in one's thinking if one is willing to be honest and fair and to recognize propaganda when it pops into their head.

 

You noticed that too right?
So I don't really get down with people who want to overthrow anything they don't rule over.
I find them to be anti-social. The starters of wars if they can.
What is the economic benefit of a civil war? Erm... hmmm.
What new economic model are you offering that is so much better than any other economic model that it is worth me having my house burnt down and my family brutally murdered in the street for?

What a bloody good plan fundamental economic revolution sounds to me.

I don't really want a "fundamental economic change". I just want to avoid all those people who do.
And some really really really big guns so that they see their self interest in avoiding me right back.


Marx teaches us his political theory.
His vision of how the world could be.

Political theory.
An imaginary story.


Orwell teaches us what happened when Marx's vision was adhered to.

Historical satire.
A parable.



History offers a better understanding of human behaviour than ideology.

I'm not an apostle of Marx. I can't quote you his every word and interpret all his divine meanings for you. I know enough about it to stop revolutions and that's the important part.
We all get the basic idea. It isn't rocket science.

 

What you're telling me is that you have no idea at all what it is that I propose, yet you go off like this. Why are you so afraid to ask? Why are Americans so afraid to discuss this? Propaganda. That's why. This is the existing taboo against any discussion of this to which I've referred.

But one tiny part of that last sentence does ask a question. It asks "what new economic model are you offering"? The rest of the sentence is baseless assumption. But let me answer the question part.

I advocate better laws that simplify and incentivize the formation of worker-owned cooperatives and accompanying laws that provide a source of funding for such businesses to get going. We already have all kinds of cooperatives. Why not worker-owned cooperatives? Then workers would have more freedom of choice. You like choice, right? Workers could choose to either work for a traditional top-down privately owned business, or participate in a worker-owned, worker-controlled cooperative. And we would see which model does better. And you say what?

The rest of your post is just rant.

 

And I live in a country where there are a butt load of worker co-operatives already. I already have that model of economy.
I don't use it much. Not so many do.

It's not a new model or a revolutionary model it's in fact an existing and well established model.

America, (I'm a Brit) is a country choc-a-bloc with workers co-operatives. My cousin has one in San Francisco and I've been part of a few in the UK.

All the choices you want are already open to you in both this and that country already.
Workers here can and do choose between these things, and what you fail to be grasping is that most of them choose traditional top down employment if they can get it.





Economics.
Human behaviour evolved this way to meet a human need.

Top down. Any publicly traded company is available to be purchased by the workforce.
But you have to choose to do so. No one forces you.
But they don't just give it to you, you have to put something in yourself. You have to buy it.

Most workers in the country do. But they don't exclusively buy into just one company. They typically part own multiple companies in the form of their pension scheme.



Your preferred economic model is not being predominantly used in a countries where every one is free to pursue any model they like.
And the reason for this is not conspiracy or injustice. It's Darwinism.

 

So you know all about cooperatives. Can you tell me the different types and which are worker-owned, worker-controlled co-ops? There are about 60,000 co-ops in the U.S. but only a bit over 1,000 of them are worker-owned, worker-controlled. And the laws governing incorporation often make it very difficult or impossible to establish the conditions for a W-O, W-C (otherwise known as a "workers' self-directed enterprise" or a WSDE) depending on specific state laws. Often the laws governing the formation of an LLC serve the purpose best if not perfectly.

But it sounds like you wanted to oppose me based on an assumption that I wanted violent revolution at first, and now that you know that's not true you still want to oppose me on the basis that what I advocate "already exists". Is it the opposition that is more important to you rather than the politics?

That's true. Human behavior first developed slave society to get things done with strict top-down control. Then the organization of society evolved into feudalism in order to develop the ability to feed the people and improve living conditions with somewhat less strict top-down control. Next, it evolved into guilds and manufactories that led to privately owned profitable businesses (capitalism) to develop the ability to provide other goods and still better living conditions once food supplies were much better and closer to being adequate. And now, with our ability to produce and provide a huge variety of other goods using more advanced technology and with superior living conditions today, it is evolving to greater democracy with people owning and running production in WSDEs and improving living conditions by making them more democratic and beneficial to the whole society. So yes, economics evolved each step of the way.

That is a false theory in defense of capitalism and not reflective of actual reality. In reality the corporate elite retain control via ownership of the majority of voting shares, or at least enough that with the standard percentage of public votes that comply with corporate wishes, the control is maintained. Recent statistics show that about 70% of all stock shares are owned by about 1% of the population. So public control of a corporation by owning shares of stock is a pipe dream designed to trick the people into subservience.

 

Capitalism Vs. Socialism in the UK

Burger King V's Mcdonalds in the UK - slightly different variations of the same, basic, low grade, sh!te.

 

Never mind me, I do this face whenever I judge someone for saying ***** instead of ****.
Whoever says the S word with an E at the end... I reserve the right to judge them.

 

The only free society is one where anyone can opt out and start their own society.

 

I feel that I live in such a society.

I look at America and I see the Amish.
I see the Gypo's here and the punks and hippies.
I see the Muslims and the Jews. The Catholic and the Protestants, the black the white and the yellow. The straight and the gay.

It's free here and I aim to keep it so.

There will be no enforced workers co-ops.


@ Kode, I've heard it all before mate.
I have had zero problems starting co-ops in the UK.
It's no harder than finding a group of friends and agreeing it, then doing it.

What's ****ing hard however is finding anyone to pay for it.
So yeah, most companies aren't worker owned.
Every worker is willing to buy into the company... until it's time to put any money down.

Because most workers aren't willing to chip in.
And it makes no difference if you offer them a co-operative share or a publicly traded share.
The economics will be the same. Most people won't chip in.
They will often moan that they deserve a higher cut of the proceeds, however.



Economics 101.
Most people don't put their money where their mouth is.

A socialists game is to make you put your money where his mouth is. Avoid him.

 

Do the people who use Orwell to say that socialism is completely bad actually realize that Orwell was a socialist who literally fought for socialism?

 

Anyway,

I'm familiar with the Socialist Party since I have to work with their German section to some extent. I have no idea what the "Capitalist Party" is supposed to be, however. They seem like a really irrelevant sect to me, based on their silly name, their broken website and their manifesto consisting of only three sentences.

The Socialist Party is basically an orthodox Trotskyist party that is somewhat sectarian and wants to smash the current system via a revolution and install a workers' democracy. They are generally positive on planned economy under Stalin and would probably like to install a somewhat similar system in the UK (albeit without the bureaucracy and nationalism).

I personally think that socialism is the only thing that can take the U.K. forward, since capitalism has proven to be a failing system and on the brink of another economic crisis. Same thing here in Germany - we have economic growth on paper, but stagnating real wages and a growing gap between the "rich" and the "poor". Basically the average German citizen can buy less for their monthly wage than they could 20 years ago - despite economic growth. The same thing can be seen in all other countries of the imperialist centre. This means, that capital is so highly centralized that economic growth harms working class people instead of benefiting them even the tiniest bit. That is quite an absurd situation and it gets even more absurd when you look at the hysteria surrounding automization and the fear that a lot of jobs will be lost due to advancing technologies. Capitalism just can't keep up with technological progress anymore and is no longer a useful system for anyone.

 

Sorry to take so long to get back on this one, I wanted to give it some more thought.

I agree that if you get 51% of the shares you have control over everyone else's money.
But it's not complete control because I can usually sell my shares. But nonetheless I completely agree with you assessment of the dangers of it.
So, I want the 51% and I don't want any one else to get the 51%.

No one is allowed to have that much power over me. And that is true even if it means I have to take power over everyone else to prevent it.

Have your goal posts moved from ownership, to control?
What are you after, power or fair share of the proceeds?

And so just as a capitalist exploiter seeks to take control over a larger investment by getting control of 51% of a company, a Marxist wishes to get control of the entire ****ing country by getting control of a critical amount of the economy. (The means of production).

Which makes him a threat.
Not a company that I don't have to trade with if I don't like it. But an army and a police force and men with guns that will require that I trade with them on their terms. That will bloody well enslave me if history is any judge.

No thank you socialists, I'll pass. And you will respect that I am doing so.

 

I agree with the symptoms, but disagree with the your causes and feel no especial sympathy for the plight of the German poor.
Thanks for your guilt, but no thanks. I am as poor as the next man.

But I can tell you a story of two men. Brothers and business partners. They worked in the exact same job every day of their lives and both earnt the exact same pay. One died in bungalow, one died in a mansion.
What growing gap between rich and poor?

I'm not seeing it. The poor have never been richer.
In exceptional circumstances our poor = 5%ers world wide. So cry me a river for the poor.
Been there seen it done it.

Automization, a load of Polish people lose their jobs. And Instead of working the line next to them getting strain injuries every day for peanuts, I could be maintaining, installing and programming robots for a decent wage.
So good and bad really.

Economic growth.
Negative economic growth. Debt.
Is not "growth" at all. It is the opposite of growth.

The more we do it, the more things cost.


What difference does it make to you if capitalists have wealth?
It's not your wealth they have.

That something exists, doesn't magically imply your part ownership of it. Jog on socialism.

So the basic problem of socialism is that all the flaws inherent in capitalism are still inherent in socialism. Only more so because more power has been centralised at the top.
It's like an anti-cure.

The cure is worse than the disease.
You don't adopt socialism to get rid of corruption.

It is in fact way more commonly associated with highly corrupt government, not to mention deeply oppressed populaces and economically failing and physically starving countries.

 

WHOA!! HOLD IT!! Wait a minute there sparky. What do you have against a business that is owned by the workers who work there and who bought it and reconstituted it as an "LLC-type" corporation but with the following rules established by the Articles of Incorporation:
Shares of its stock may only be owned by its member-workers.
Each member-worker may own no more than one share of stock.
Each stock share gives the person one vote.
No one but member-workers may own shares.
Shares are not marketable to the public.
All business decisions are decided by worker vote.
Top executives and the Board members are hired and fired by vote.
No top executive may be paid more than 6, 7, or 8 times the lowest paid worker in the company and that amount may be changed only by workers' votes.
Workers decide collectively what to do with the profits.

And you say what?

 

Hi DK. I haven't seen you here before. Welcome.

I'd like to mention that, as you no doubt know considering your "name", Marx said correctly that the economic system is the foundation of any society from which all else springs, including its politics, laws, culture, and all else. And this is only logical since it is the economy that is the basis of all activity. And since that is true, then seizing state power by force is and has been disastrous since upon taking power there is an urgent need to get the system functioning, feed starving people, enforce law and order, put people into jobs to earn a livelihood, keep the postal services going, and on and on and on. So what has happened is that the state, in its diverse and urgent efforts, took over management of key industries with the rest of the businesses continuing much as they were. NOTE: this change nothing about the relationship of workers to those who directed the work and ran the businesses. The private ownership merely shifted to the state. Workers still worked for "someone" and had no greater say in their work life. Decisions of what to produce, how to produce it, where to produce it, and what to do with the profits were still made by someone else and they had to live with it. That is not socialism. Marx said workers would "throw off their chains" and end their role as "wage slaves" by taking ownership of industry. That didn't happen. So they got "state capitalism" instead, and it was then used by the government managers to benefit the government managers until it finally reverted to straight, common capitalism.

Read my post to Crawdadr right above this one. I went into the alternative. You might like it.

 

Shares are not marketable to the public = dodgy. I wouldn't see that as a plus.
Shares open to the public = easy to find a buyer when you want to move on. Shares only sold between you and your mates= you never getting paid. Because they are skint this week and can't buy them off you, you understand.

Otherwise, go for it.
Each to his own.

 

The economy is not the basis of all activity.

There is much more to life than money and indeed some people have been known to be self sufficient.
Live quite in the absence of any economy.


Love is the basis of all my activity.
Economy my arse.

 

You might actually try thinking about it and how to do it, and how it would be done. In reality the buying and selling of one's membership by buying and selling a share of company stock has worked very well in many worker co-ops and has presented problems in none. The share is bought from, or sold to, the business as treasury stock. Problem solved. Look up "treasury stock".

 

Then try detailing that idea!! The economy is our lifeblood. It is the cause and basis for livelihood, for lifestyle, for social structure, for progress, for technological development, ... for life itself. It is the cause and designer of culture. (Hence our culture is different from that of other countries and most different from that of other types of economy, like Russia and China, etc.) Economy fuels everything, so it is a top priority and government knows it. That is their job: to know it and to protect and advance it.

So in all societies, the economy is the foundation from which everything else springs like quality of soil determines what grows and how well. And always the government and the body of law is necessarily "slaved" to the needs of the economy. No politician or lawmaker intentionally or negligently acts in a way that diminishes or undermines the form of economy in operation. Some laws may rein-in excesses to keep the peace, but there is no on-going effort to destroy the economy by politicians or lawmakers.

To say "there is much more to life than money" presents a shallow naïveté that is breathtaking when there is so much more to the statement that "the economy is the basis of all activity." No national progress happens apart from the economy.

 

Realities differ.
It has presented problems in at least two that I've been involved with. In fact I'll go further, I would consider such difficulties to be the norm.

 

There is more to life than "national progress" too.

A whole lot more.
A whole, whole, whole lot more.

"National progress"? Progress towards what exactly?
Don't think so mate.
I'll progress on my own if that's alright with you. And even if it's not.

 

Can you link me to comments/stories about any such cases? I'd like to read them.

 

Then why is it you don't list some of those "whole lot mores"? You mean like problems with deciding what's for dinner? Selecting the best socks to go with your attire? Selecting a program on TV? Deciding whether to mow the lawn today or do it tomorrow? That sort of "lots more"?

Wow. I really need to spoon-feed you. Light rail. Laws covering the needs or presence of homeless. Healthcare needs. The minimum wage. Making college affordable. Whether letting corporations move overseas is good or not. Mitigation of racial tensions. Militarization of the police. Improved access to safe, potable water. How to best address serious natural disasters.

Ok, so you would prefer your nation do nothing about any of those things. Got it. But then you don't fit in a society in which people care about each other and seeing things improve as the nation makes progress on them. That is called "sociopathic" and "anti-social" thinking.

 

The reason why I advocate smashing the bourgeois state isn't that I think it will create a socialist utopia right away. The bourgeois state will try to suppress any attempt at dismantling private property and the capitalist mode of production - so you either have to smash the bourgeois state or take control of it, if you plan on dismantling capitalism. The latter one will not work, because the bourgeois state structurally relies on ongoing capital accumulation, which is why reformist attempts at creating a socialist society have usually ended up just managing capitalism.

The question about what happens after a successful revolution is a very interesting one. I don't think the state has to neccessarily take control of managing even key industries, and this is also not really what happened in the young Soviet Union. You had the Troika, consisting of a workers' committee, a technical manager and a party cell. It was still state capitalist, because the state still relied on capital accumulation to provide for key industries and services, but consumption wasn't yet fully subordinated to capital accumulation as it later was under Stalin and his five-year-plans. I think state capitalism is a neccessary transitional stage towards socialism, since you need to transform the economy in a way to suit the needs of a socialist society first. However, the state in question needs to be a democratic workers' state and capital accumulation needs to always be subordinated to consumption and human needs.

 

That's right, I'm not really interested in any of your concerns.
I don't think you offer any solutions to them, and I'm not worried about them in the first place. I don't feel you offer any progress actually. I don't think you seek to advance this nation at all. I don't think you would know what progress was if it jumped up and bit you.

I care about people, clearly you don't.

You don't care that every single person in this nation has an entirely different idea of what progress looks like.
You think, your idea of progress is "national" progress.
It isn't. It's just your personal progress.

And I'm not interested in your personal progress at the expense of mine or anybody else's.
So go help the homeless. Go disarm the police. Go build yourself a railway. Whatever. Leave me out of it.
Call me silly names if my rejection of your political ideology hurts you so badly. Boo hoo hoo.



Whole lot more to life.
My short list.
My friends and family.
My long list, beautiful things. Sunrises, flowers that sort of thing. Traditions, heritage etc.
Yes to all the things you listed. And yes to so very much more.