Worker Ownership For the 21st Century?

[Dodds]

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.

So they are not responsible for where they were raised and how they were raised and the lessons taught to them during this period, yet they are responsible for the outcomes of these teachings and environment afterwards? Do you realize just how silly this assertion is?

If you're not responsible for yourself, then who is?

Society is responsible. Everything from your job to your outlook in life is a product of the environment you are in. You are a prime example of this if your story of working at MacDonalds to pay your way through school is true. You would not have done that in another country.

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

No I don't. I feel that the most talented people in whatever field should get the greater rewards. When society feels like this then the most talented will pay for it through taxation. Do you understand this?

[Dieval]

So they are not responsible for where they were raised and how they were raised and the lessons taught to them during this period, yet they are responsible for the outcomes of these teachings and environment afterwards? Do you realize just how silly this assertion is?

Not at all. You are responsible for where you take your life. Your parents are responsible for you while you're growing up, but after that everyone takes responsibility for themselves. Why is that hard to understand?

Society is responsible. Everything from your job to your outlook in life is a product of the environment you are in. You are a prime example of this if your story of working at MacDonalds to pay your way through school is true. You would not have done that in another country.

Society is not responsible for the choices you make as an adult. Sorry. I chose to work at McDonalds. I chose to improve my situation in life and further my education. I chose my jobs afterwards.
Everyone is different, but you can't blame society for everything that goes wrong in someones life. Sorry, but that's a cop out.

No I don't. I feel that the most talented people in whatever field should get the greater rewards.

Are you saying they don't?

When society feels like this then the most talented will pay for it through taxation. Do you understand this?

Actually, I don't. What do you mean - "the most talented will pay for it through taxation"?

[Dodds]

Not at all. You are responsible for where you take your life. Your parents are responsible for you while you're growing up, but after that everyone takes responsibility for themselves. Why is that hard to understand?

What makes you think I don't understand your position? I just know its based in a fantasy world.

Society is not responsible for the choices you make as an adult. Sorry. I chose to work at McDonalds. I chose to improve my situation in life and further my education. I chose my jobs afterwards.
Everyone is different, but you can't blame society for everything that goes wrong in someones life. Sorry, but that's a cop out.

You "chose" those did you? Why can't you grasp the concept of that was expected of you because of where you are and what kind of society you were brought up in?

Are you saying they don't?

That is exactly what I am saying, depending on the country of course.

Actually, I don't. What do you mean - "the most talented will pay for it through taxation"?

Seriously? Right a person who goes to uni has a higher level of income. Therefore they profit more from the program. Therefore they should pay a higher rate of taxation to give those opportunities to others. I cant make it any simpler.

[Chris the Chees]

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 see that you dodged the arguments in my post and instead tried to make this about me. Fine, I'll play along one post more. But next post I expect to see you respond to my points regarding education, social mobility and the role of the state/individual in achieving that; after all, that is what we are supposed to be debating. As opposed to making comments about me - or your contributions to this thread will be superfulous.

The reason I could afford to go to university was firstly because when I went it was heavily subsidised by the state and the majority (paying for about 85% of the tuition fees), and a comprehensive loan system is in place for individuals entering school at my age. While there is still a loan system, which is primarily geared at individuals entering university at 18, it is considerably harder to obtain student loans for very long term part time degrees by mature students - and the cost to the student is approximately 600% higher because state subsidy has now been axed.

[truthreality]

i see that you dodged the arguments in my post and instead tried to make this about me. Fine, I'll play along one post more. But next post I expect to see you respond to my points regarding education, social mobility and the role of the state/individual in achieving that; after all, that is what we are supposed to be debating. As opposed to making comments about me - or your contributions to this thread will be superfulous.

The reason I could afford to go to university was firstly because when I went it was heavily subsidised by the state and the majority (paying for about 85% of the tuition fees), and a comprehensive loan system is in place for individuals entering school at my age. While there is still a loan system, which is primarily geared at individuals entering university at 18, it is considerably harder to obtain student loans for very long term part time degrees by mature students - and the cost to the student is approximately 600% higher because state subsidy has now been axed.

Yes talk to any college student. The tuition prices are ridiculously high by everyone's standards. Also this idea that college students should be working multiple jobs to pay for their education is horrible. Most college students want to be full time students. They want to dedicate their concentration and focus to their studies which is more beneficial then working minimum wage jobs which provides absolutely no useful capital for future college graduates.

Take a Pre-Medical student. Instead of being able to concentrate on his studies to get the competitive GPA to get admissions to medical school instead he has to focus on busting his ass 40 hours a week for minimum wage. This is counterproductive as we desperately need more doctors and McDonald's doesn't provide any real benefit in terms of skills that can be applied to the medical field. It's just manual labor that pays cheap.

[BobbyO]

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.

Aside from the fact that production for profit is production for use, you would need to explain how such transactions occur in a socialist community.

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.

First you call for a "revolution", then you call for an "evolution." Do you think maybe this sort of confusion amongst socialists themselves, is cause some of the problems for socialism in geneal?

[truthreality]

Aside from the fact that production for profit is production for use, you would need to explain how such transactions occur in a socialist community.

I cited open software as an example of a product that is produced for use without profit in mind. Monetary capital is really just the middle man. There is no rule that what is produced for use has to be sold for profit. This idea is strictly capitalist.

First you call for a "revolution", then you call for an "evolution." Do you think maybe this sort of confusion amongst socialists themselves, is cause some of the problems for socialism in geneal?

Do you not understand that revolution and evolution are completely compatible concepts? A revolution is a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time. An evolution can mean any gradual directional change. In order for a revolution to occur the people's mindsets have to change from an individualistic mentality to a collectivistic mentality. This will only happen gradually. Once this has happened a revolution can occur. The best type of revolution happens after an evolution.

[BobbyO]

There is no rule that what is produced for use has to be sold for profit. This idea is strictly capitalist.

What I said was that production for profit is by definition production for use, since profits can only come about if people purchase the product.

True- one doesn't have to produce for profit. But that production has to be based upon profit made previously (as in "open software") or upon profits made elsewhere. The community can afford such luxuries at that point.

Do you not understand that revolution and evolution are completely compatible concepts? A revolution is a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time. An evolution can mean any gradual directional change. In order for a revolution to occur the people's mindsets have to change from an individualistic mentality to a collectivistic mentality. This will only happen gradually. Once this has happened a revolution can occur. The best type of revolution happens after an evolution.

Ahhh... evolution to revolution. got it.
So then how do you propose to "evolve" mankind's individualistic nature to a more suitable for socialism collectivist nature?

[truthreality]

What I said was that production for profit is by definition production for use, since profits can only come about if people purchase the product.

True- one doesn't have to produce for profit. But that production has to be based upon profit made previously (as in "open software") or upon profits made elsewhere. The community can afford such luxuries at that point.

Except that under a socialist economy everyone is strictly providing services to meet economic demands and human needs. Profit is not even a variable in the socialist economy.

I agree open software is an incomplete example since it exists under a capitalistic economy. Under a socialistic economy everyone is providing services to meet the needs of the economy. This means that Intel will provide programmers with the hardware necessary for them to install their open source software. Internet companies will provide the open source programmers with networks to share the information with other users. You see it's a economic system in which everyone understands each others needs and works for the greater good.

As Kennedy said: "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country"

Ahhh... evolution to revolution. got it.
So then how do you propose to "evolve" mankind's individualistic nature to a more suitable for socialism collectivist nature?

This is a tremendous question. I wish I had the answer. If I did I would give an "I have a dream" speech just like Martin Luther King Jr. Look at China. China is a booming economy and the U.S.'s only main threat and it is a collectivist country. Quite frankly I feel that socialism caters to man's natural quality as a social beings. Animals work together for the greater good of the group without any thought of capital as a reward.

All I am saying is lets consider it. Ultimately, in a society, whether we are driven by profit or not, we are completely dependent on each other for services and goods. Profit is more of a motivating factor. It's a bit idealistic but I am an optimist.

As the brilliant John Nash discovered. The best result comes when we do whats best for the group not our selfish needs. Sort of like game theory and cooperation among st prisoners.

[BobbyO]

Except that under a socialist economy everyone is strictly providing services to meet economic demands and human needs.

A capitalist can hardly function if it does not do te same.

Profit is not even a variable in the socialist economy.

I don't think that's true- but ok.

Under a socialistic economy everyone is providing services to meet the needs of the economy. This means that Intel will provide programmers with the hardware necessary for them to install their open source software. Internet companies will provide the open source programmers with networks to share the information with other users. You see it's a economic system in which everyone understands each others needs and works for the greater good.

And how Intel choose which programmers to send its information? And what about its suppliers? Why should they supply INTEL and not somebody else?

Profit is more of a motivating factor.

Profit is more than a motivating factor. Its also a tool to help measure whether in fact "everyone understands each others needs" and a way to measure whether work actually "works for the greater good."

[Dan74]

Profit is more than a motivating factor. Its also a tool to help measure whether in fact "everyone understands each others needs" and a way to measure whether work actually "works for the greater good."

Really??? There are plenty of companies and people out there making serious profits that I would not consider to be working for the "Greater good".

[BobbyO]

Really??? There are plenty of companies and people out there making serious profits that I would not consider to be working for the "Greater good".

And why is your consideration the fulcrum...?