What's with all the speculation? None of this is destined to happen - you're just speculating over something you know nothing about.Quote by: BobbyO
What? Why wouldn't they have a source of knowledge? So you think under socialism no one would have any idea how to do their job. That shows how little you know.In order to make a "democratic" decision. there has to be a source of knowledge upon which the workers are debating to make their "democratic" decision.
Unless your conception of a functioning socialist community is one where everyone agrees all the time, it must be concluded that there will be disagreements and debate. So how are these settled? Democratically- and unless your conception of a functioning democratic community is one where everyone agrees on a course of action- there will always be people who lost a vote, are in a minority, will not get what they think is correct. The people in the majority will call the shots.What's with all the speculation? None of this is destined to happen - you're just speculating over something you know nothing about.
There is no way around this.
Then the question becomes are these majority population, after a hard day of work doing whatever their job entails, going to spend still further hours debating over minutia? Its highly unreasonable (since one of the objectives of socialism is to increase leisure) and unlikely. So what will happen? Easy. People who will make their jobs debating over minutia and mastering minutia, will be elected to do just that. Ergo, your vanguard- the one you dislike.
Because presumably a socialist community would ban capitalism and that which supports it. But maybe I am wrong.What? Why wouldn't they have a source of knowledge?
The problem is that present jobs are designed to function within a capitalist community. Would coal workers forget how to extract coal in a socialist community? No. But the way the job is structured right now won't be the same- the rationale's, motivations, justifications, for that job will change.So you think under socialism no one would have any idea how to do their job.
Thanks for stating an obvious fact. So by this logic, shouldn't the entire system of liberal government be trashed as well?
Oh, boo hoo, people will have to sacrifice one day a month to discuss business issues. To be honest I think most workers would rather do that than have someone boss them around.Then the question becomes are these majority population, after a hard day of work doing whatever their job entails, going to spend still further hours debating over minutia? Its highly unreasonable (since one of the objectives of socialism is to increase leisure) and unlikely. So what will happen? Easy. People who will make their jobs debating over minutia and mastering minutia, will be elected to do just that. Ergo, your vanguard- the one you dislike.
Yeah, so? Not every expert is a capitalist.Because presumably a socialist community would ban capitalism and that which supports it. But maybe I am wrong.
Obviously those things would change. This isn't a bad thing, and it's necessary.The problem is that present jobs are designed to function within a capitalist community. Would coal workers forget how to extract coal in a socialist community? No. But the way the job is structured right now won't be the same- the rationale's, motivations, justifications, for that job will change.
It's not your fault. You're not a coal miner. One day a month for business issues is why committee run society's fail. Such a slow paced recommendation of meeting frequency is not productive. You are interested in production, eh? Do you think you can improve production by instituting a socialist structure on coal miners? I wanna be there to see that cluster.
Say what job do you think you'd like at a mine. Something that you'd be better at, or could be better at, given your present skills. What are you good at?
How does any of the other workers know and show you that they respect you for that skill? You are going to have as many problems, more so, by democratic decisions than be the system you have now. Why? Because socialism, as you envision it, has a mistaken concept of human nature. Should not the system match the inherent nature, even if diverse, of humanity? If it has any chance of being acceptable by the proletariat it better. I don't think it does have the most viable concept of human nature. You've said that humans would have to change to make the system work if memory serves me. Why would they change? I haven't seen it.
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
It is you, not I, claiming there are no "bosses" in a socialist system. But now that you have retracted that claim, we can move on.Thanks for stating an obvious fact. So by this logic, shouldn't the entire system of liberal government be trashed as well?
As above- the majority will "boss" them around.Oh, boo hoo, people will have to sacrifice one day a month to discuss business issues. To be honest I think most workers would rather do that than have someone boss them around.
And administration cannot be a monthly event- it has to be daily.
Yes, a socialist system would need experts for production and distribution in that system. So what is the knowledge these "experts" will have and use? Obviously, it cannot be the knowledge which capitalism would bring to the table- that stuff is kaput.Yeah, so? Not every expert is a capitalist.
Obviously those things would change. This isn't a bad thing, and it's necessary.
I never retracted it. I said that it's obvious that there would be disagreements.
Alright. What's the alternative? Have a mini-dictator like in today's business world? Also, considering there are no wages, I'm not sure why someone would feel "bossed around" for having a minority opinion. Decisions would not effect the individual in a way that they would in capitalism.As above- the majority will "boss" them around.
Where does it say this?And administration cannot be a monthly event- it has to be daily.
Capitalism itself doesn't bring this knowledge out. It's done through education - however that is done.Yes, a socialist system would need experts for production and distribution in that system. So what is the knowledge these "experts" will have and use? Obviously, it cannot be the knowledge which capitalism would bring to the table- that stuff is kaput.
Yes. Thus ends the "vanguard."I never retracted it. I said that it's obvious that there would be disagreements.
Beats me. I was simply objecting to your description of socialism as a world devoid of bosses.Alright. What's the alternative?
Nobody is being bossed around because they have a minority opinion, the bossing around is telling them what they need to do.Also, considering there are no wages, I'm not sure why someone would feel "bossed around" for having a minority opinion.
Absolutely.Decisions would not effect the individual in a way that they would in capitalism.
Because things change. The world is no static.Where does it say this?
When production is based upon capitalist modes of production, then yes, capitalism brings out this knowledge. When production is based upon socialist modes of production, then yes, socialism brings out this knowledge. So what is the knowledge the latter brings out?Capitalism itself doesn't bring this knowledge out. It's done through education - however that is done.
Oh please....
The traditional sense of a "boss" is an individual that decides on wages, conditions, etc. Most people would not refer to the Republican majority in the US House as a "boss".Beats me. I was simply objecting to your description of socialism as a world devoid of bosses.
You people should really start reading some communist books - might help.
Last edited by Dan74; 2nd June 2012 at 10:51 PM.
What chapter and page of which book has the part on changing human nature?
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
Yes, because most people most of the time do not have daily upfront dealing with their actions, or lack thereof.
But in a job setting...? I am still curious why when the majority votes to set work conditions, work responsibilities ect. for all, why the minority is not being "bossed" in any sort of "traditional" sense?
But in any event, there is a misunderstanding of "boss" in the capitalist sense- the "boss" merely responds to market pressures and the need to turn a profit. That is what sets wages, work conditions, ect in a capitalist system. The irony is that in a socialist system, the false description by socialists of the "boss" in a capitalist world, is in fact reality in a socialist world-or at least attempted to be- since in any event the producers dictating the terms of production is an absurdity in any rational economy.
Hey.. the purpose of a vanguard is to keep the "revolution" on the straight and narrow- to keep it focused on the direction its adherents is the true path to socialism. By its very nature, it can't be all things to all people. It certainly cannot tolerate much in the way of dissent. Otherwise, what is is its point? I' m sorry, but the "vanguard" is hostile to "Traditional" understandings of freedom and liberty.
It's not socialist at all, but there's Frans De Wall's Age of Empathy - Amazon.com: The Age of Empathy: Nature's Lessons for a Kinder Society (9780307407764): Frans de Waal: Books
If you want socialist views on it, you can read almost any of Marx's works. However, since you're probably not going to do that, I'll give you a quote from Lenin that addresses it pretty well:
"Just as Darwin put an end to the view of animal and plant species being unconnected, fortuitous, ‘created by God’ and immutable, and was the first to put biology on an absolutely scientific basis by establishing the mutability and the succession of species, so Marx put an end to the view of society being a mechanical aggregation of individuals which allows for all sorts of modification at the will of the authorities (or, if you like, at the will of society and the government) and which emerges and changes casually, and was the first to put sociology on a scientific basis by establishing the concept of the economic formation of society as the sum-total of given production relations, by establishing the fact that the development of such formations is a process of natural history."
Because it's basic democracy. I'm guessing you're sympathetic to the Republican Party, so tell me this - There's a Republican majority in the House of Representatives right now. Do you feel that they are "bossing around" the Democrats in the House? I doubt most people would see it that way. There can still be compromises and respectful discussion just like there is in any democratic institution. In fact, having it on such a small scale would make it so that there is less "bossing around".
There - I underlined the answer for you. The boss is not going to decide conditions based solely on how much needs to be produced. He's going to put his paycheck into consideration.But in any event, there is a misunderstanding of "boss" in the capitalist sense- the "boss" merely responds to market pressures and the need to turn a profit. That is what sets wages, work conditions, ect in a capitalist system. The irony is that in a socialist system, the false description by socialists of the "boss" in a capitalist world, is in fact reality in a socialist world-or at least attempted to be- since in any event the producers dictating the terms of production is an absurdity in any rational economy.
Indeed it is. If socialism is to truly be built then capitalist dissidence must be suppressed. Anyone that wishes to build socialism democratically is delusional. Ironically, these are usually the first people to suppress any revolutionary activity during their times. I have no problem with class warfare, so long as it's necessary.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks