Worker Ownership For the 21st Century?

[truthreality]

So let's apply the capital. One person has some seed to grow food. Another has control of arable land. Another has skills for farming. Another can build the necessary equipment to plow the fields, and dozens more are excellent laborers, especially at harvest.

What do they all eat while they wait for the harvest? How do they provide shelter and amenities? What level of sophistication of society do you plan on achieving and maintaining? Will there be electrical power to each dwelling?

Before we can actually discuss the efficacy of one economic structure to provide, we need to identify what is to be provided

There is really no difference in this type of transaction between socialism and capitalism. The only difference is that instead of providing goods and services for profit people provide goods and services for the benefit of others and society. As long as the selfish mentality of the right wingers exists socialism is not plausible. A revolution has to happen in the mindsets of the people. This culture is far to individualistic for socialism to thrive. Once the country realizes that collectivism is the way to go socialism will be a viable option.

[Dieval]

Yes, and we've seen how wonderfuly that ended. Suffice to say, they don't anymore.



The issue isn't necessarily 'fucking around', rather it is the issue of intellectual maturation, substandard teaching, high classes sizes and undiagnosed learning difficulties.



So your notion of 'personal responsibility' is in fact living off charity of others. I see. Well, funnily enough, not everybody is in the position to enjoy such generosity. I note you also suggested that these people could take advantage of grants - well, where do you suppose the money for that comes from? It comes from the universities, who set a little money aside and from the State coffers. So really, you clearly don't actually believe the horse shit you are trying to shovel here about 'personal responsibility', and instead are advocating joint responsbility - on three different levels, no less, including the level of the family/education establishments/the state - in increasing adult education.



So, your next solution to progressing beyond the minimum wage is, in fact, living on the minimum wage - doing back breaking labour for, say, 50 hours a week for about a decade, trying to save up the money to pay tuition fees. Do you genuinely believe that this is a practical to achieving greater social mobility? I think we have the full flavour of your contradictory notion of common sense. I do, however, partially agree with you. I would suggest that a better system would be the complete state funding of adult education.



Yes, because you manifestly do not comprehend the subject upon which you are labouring.



I worked in a university department offering programmes with the aim of widening participation and making the university more socially inclusive. Thus I understand the problems, policies, and moreover, lack of serious funding that hinders progress.



They are, the problem however, for mature students wishing to return to education, is that the vast bulk of work and funding typically dedicated to widening access is spent on encouraging teenagers - not wouldbe mature students.



I guess impersonal discussion is challenging for you. I don't insult you as an individual, why do you not extend the same, as it happens rule mandated, curtesy?

And, actually, I didn't get fired. Rather I moved sideways. I left the position because I prioritised the writing of my PhD thesis and because I had the opportunity to gain more teaching experience.

Wait wait wait....people can't get loans or grants for school, they obviously can't pay for it themselves, yet some how you managed to make it through school? Maybe you should enlighten the rest of us to your secret so we can help people out!

[Dieval]

This is priceless. I have asked you several times to back up your assertion that people are responsible for their situation in life due to accident of birth.

I never made this "accident of birth" claim, so why would I back up an assertion I didn't make?

You failed to do so. Also I can't explain my position any clearer. I am now questioning your story that you paid yourself through college as it seems from this exchange that you can't comprehend simple basic English.

I asked you for relatively simple information about your position so I could try and understand where you were coming from. You refused. End of story.

[truthreality]

Wait wait wait....people can't get loans or grants for school, they obviously can't pay for it themselves, yet some how you managed to make it through school? Maybe you should enlighten the rest of us to your secret so we can help people out!

There is a tremendous difference between loans and grants. Grants aren't required to be paid back. Loans are and are generally provided by a bank. In this economy loans are incredibly impractical. Most loans are required to be paid off within 6 months yet fresh college graduates are struggling to find jobs.

[keywish]

If you think America is a socialist society then you have no idea what socialism is.



Laziness and refusal to work are merely products of the capitalist system.

In a collectivist society, people understand that their labor is for the good of all. In an objectivist society, people work to enrich themselves. The latter creates exploitation, as bosses are created and wage slavery dominates society.



I don't believe in wage slavery.

I'm not sure why you don't know what practically means. It means we are very close to being sucked into a socialist government. The federal government has so much dictate over every aspect of production and the distribution of capital that we are practically a socialist government.

And how did laziness and refusal to work become by products of the capitalist system. In a true Laissez-faire capitalist economy if you don't work then you are at the mercy of those who do work to provide you with charity. We have not been in a system like that for much more than 100 years. If you were lazy you went with less and if you just didn't want to work then you would starve if some one didn't give you charity. there was no benefit to being lazy like there is today.

This BS of how you dream a collective society would work is insane. It goes against all the history that has been established from collective societies. If coal miner in the soviet union didn't work they went to the gulag. If the miner was ill they would send him to the gulag just to make certain he wasn't faking and usually the only proof excepted of the workers illness was that he died. Mao's socialist cultural revolution killed 40 million chinese ( and thats the conservative estimate) before they even considered the revolution wasn't working. that happened after he had won the battle and gained supreme power. The great socialist reorganization under pol pot had 30 percent of the population starving to death in an area that had never even know starvation before.

There are no working socialist governments in the world. even france which was controlled by a socialist government in the 70's had to abandon most of the socialist doctrine because their work force shrank so fast. even when times were good globally they had 7% unemployment. That was abled bodied workers looking for work and didn't count people who just lived off of some one else. It certainly didn't count the truly disabled and non disabled who collected disability.

Maybe you are thinking of the greek system. that seems to be working out very well.

In a full on socialist or "collective society" if you don't work someone puts the whip to you.

Or perhaps you may favor a fabian approach with some nice eugenics to make certain non of the poorer stock or excess population harms the outcome of the collectives work.

I seriously doubt you have any idea what your truly advocating.

[Dan74]

And without capital, how do you obtain the required materials, land, employees to start a business?

Remember, thread deals with the 21st Century. Thus you cannot magically institute a new economy without dealing with the existing one

This thread also deals with worker ownership. Materials and land would be seized from the current owners.

I'm not sure why you don't know what practically means. It means we are very close to being sucked into a socialist government. The federal government has so much dictate over every aspect of production and the distribution of capital that we are practically a socialist government.

Just because the state is involved in economic matters doesn't indicate socialism at all. Also, you contradicted yourself by saying that distribution of capital = socialism. Don't you know that socialism and capitalism oppose each other?

And how did laziness and refusal to work become by products of the capitalist system. In a true Laissez-faire capitalist economy if you don't work then you are at the mercy of those who do work to provide you with charity. We have not been in a system like that for much more than 100 years. If you were lazy you went with less and if you just didn't want to work then you would starve if some one didn't give you charity. there was no benefit to being lazy like there is today.

But what about working in minimum wage jobs? Surely factory workers and other minimum-wage earners work hard, no?

Laziness is a product of the capitalist system because people know that they will not be rewarded for how hard they work.

This BS of how you dream a collective society would work is insane. It goes against all the history that has been established from collective societies. If coal miner in the soviet union didn't work they went to the gulag. If the miner was ill they would send him to the gulag just to make certain he wasn't faking and usually the only proof excepted of the workers illness was that he died. Mao's socialist cultural revolution killed 40 million chinese ( and thats the conservative estimate) before they even considered the revolution wasn't working. that happened after he had won the battle and gained supreme power. The great socialist reorganization under pol pot had 30 percent of the population starving to death in an area that had never even know starvation before.

The USSR was trying to industrialize, as was China. Surely you have a better argument against socialism than using 20th century third-world examples. Also, many people argue that the Soviet Union and China were never socialist. Surely you know of the "Trotsky Tragedy".

There are no working socialist governments in the world. even france which was controlled by a socialist government in the 70's had to abandon most of the socialist doctrine because their work force shrank so fast. even when times were good globally they had 7% unemployment. That was abled bodied workers looking for work and didn't count people who just lived off of some one else. It certainly didn't count the truly disabled and non disabled who collected disability.

France's majority party and president are of the Socialist Party, yes. That does not make them socialists (with a lowercase 's').

Maybe you are thinking of the greek system. that seems to be working out very well.

What?

In a full on socialist or "collective society" if you don't work someone puts the whip to you.

What?

Or perhaps you may favor a fabian approach with some nice eugenics to make certain non of the poorer stock or excess population harms the outcome of the collectives work.

I don't.

I seriously doubt you have any idea what your truly advocating.

You don't even know what I'm advocating. Who are you to criticize?

[truthreality]

You don't even know what I'm advocating. Who are you to criticize?

Don't worry. People criticize as a defense mechanism to compensate for shortcomings. He has nothing substantial to say so he substitutes insult.

Theoretically socialism is far superior to capitalism. Capitalism is only practical because of the negatives of humans (greed, selfishness, etc.).

[Dan74]

Theoretically socialism is far superior to capitalism. Capitalism is only practical because of the negatives of humans (greed, selfishness, etc.).

I don't agree with this, but I suppose that's an argument for a whole different thread.

[truthreality]

I don't agree with this, but I suppose that's an argument for a whole different thread.

What don't you agree with?

[Dodds]

I never made this "accident of birth" claim, so why would I back up an assertion I didn't make?

I am afraid you did. You claimed that people are responsible for their position in life. When questioned on it you refused to prove your assertion. End of story.

I asked you for relatively simple information about your position so I could try and understand where you were coming from. You refused. End of story.

You mean the information in the previous post I made? Then you have said information. The state should provide higher education based on someones educational ability, not their ability to pay. Do you understand this?

[Dodds]

Wait wait wait....people can't get loans or grants for school, they obviously can't pay for it themselves, yet some how you managed to make it through school? Maybe you should enlighten the rest of us to your secret so we can help people out!

I do not want to second guess the age of Chris here but I am fairly sure that state funding played a huge part in it.

[Dieval]

I am afraid you did. You claimed that people are responsible for their position in life. When questioned on it you refused to prove your assertion. End of story.

I said that people are responsible for themselves and their lives...Obviously they're not responsible for themselves at birth, but once they reach a certain age and maturity, they're responsible for themselves. If you're not responsible for yourself, then who is?

You mean the information in the previous post I made? Then you have said information. The state should provide higher education based on someones educational ability, not their ability to pay. Do you understand this?

No. The state provides a baseline education for everyone. If you want more, become responsible and pay for it yourself. Do you understand this?