What, exactly, is socialism? Again this discussion seems necessary.

Can you show that this idea that socialism is not necessarily a national socio-economic system, but rather can be a localized, business-centered activity, is more than just your own personal and contrived opinion?

 

"A national system paid for by the government"? Really? That's not what you've been saying.

"A society in which the MoP, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community as a whole...."? Really? THAT is not what you've been saying either.

 

I have not been using those same words, no, of course not, but I have stated the same philosophy and concepts within terms of who plays [Capitalism's owners or some GOVT] living lovely with huge profits vs who plays [the workers OR Socialist society] trying to take from/get back from/secure profits from the [employer or GOVT] which will be disbursed among [the workers OR we the people]. With respect to Labor Unions = Socialism


By which securing Profits, being securing those $$$ which go beyond 1)the [Employer's disbursing] the agreed upon basic pay rate for fueling the workforce or 2)the [GOVT disbursing] the agreed upon basic funds/services for any social imperatives which uplift We The People.

Socialism is at work.


And for micro example like which you referred to (localized, business-centered activity) versus the macro examples I have given so far, just check out the Culinary Union in Las Vegas, Local 226, and how they defeated the mighty Trump Towers' policies. And they did it during the time Trump was successfully campaigning for President.

He beat Hillary, but he couldn't beat lil' ol' Local 226

 

You're still claiming that "socialism" need not be a national system, and that "socialism" is not a system in which the workers own and run the productive forces (businesses), which conflicts with every Marxist source. And so you can't cite one authoritative Marxist source that agrees with you. IOW it's your own private personal opinion and worth as much.

And secondly, you are exchanging posts with people who claim to be socialists and Marxists, who obviously know a significant amount of what Marx wrote and can produce Marxist sources to support anything we say, and yet you presume to argue with us rather than inquiring and learning about these things.

 

You're incorrect, that I am claiming "socialism" need not be a national system and you're correct that I'm claiming "socialism" is not a system in which the workers own the productive forces.

Workers do not need to "own the production force/own the employer" itself in order to dictate or control, whatever the owners do with the production frontier. That is a fundamental reality you need to get cognizant of.

We see that success, everyday, within the fact that America's largest most-successful corporations do also have to face the biggest and most-powerful Labor Unions ---the unions which create the happiest workers. And workers are happiest when they are dictating/helping to dictate, whichever direction the owners go in with the profits and the production frontier. Socialist societies are happiest whenever We The People are dictating/helping to dictate how GOVT delves out the resources to uplift the society's frontier.

These facts cannot be overridden, nope, not even by colossal Marxism. So I did not see a need to cite any Marxist source.

 

Then you are making up your own personal "definition" of socialism. But I already knew that.

 

Nope. I already featured many examples including your own video, as an exhibit, to show how I am using the exact same definition which you use.


You cannot keep using only your, emotions, to claim you are disproving me.

Capitalistic-Democracy's brain = Democracy's treacherous lawmaking system. Capitalistic-Democracy's right hand = employers and business owners. Capitalistic-Democracy's left hand = Labor Unions = Socialism.

 

I showed that your "examples" were either false, or you misstated what they actually said. All-in-all it doesn't add up to honesty, and if you won't discuss this honestly, I'll just check out altogether. Start with my comments on your statements on the video.

 

I have no control over your hallucinations.

I also have no confidence in your ability to disprove the fact that Labor Unions = Socialism. I laid out ironclad scholarship here, and there is nothing you can do to change that reality.


Peace

 

Democracy's treacherous lawmaking system allows owners to "physically" destroy society's natural resources and also poison humans. This colossal power, is why Capitalism's Democracies combine to be the leader of the free world. As proven by NATO's existence.

The machine operates perfectly, thanks to the Socialism which Labor Unions use against Capitalism's owners and employers. Which is why the largest Labor Unions create the happiest worker. The happiest workers create Capitalism's largest, most-successful Corporations.

 

labor unions, are by definition, not socialism.

 

You are correct, by definition Labor Unions are not called Socialism, they are called Labor Unions.



Nonetheless Labor Unions, by definition, do the exact same thing as Socialism does. Labor Unions do to Capitalism, exactly the same thing that Socialist populations do to GOVT.


Lay out your fav definition of Socialism here and I will show you how Labor Unions unequivocally operate in the same way onto Capitalism.

 

Rahl, you might like to know about this: http://www.thwink.org/sustain/articles/017_PowellMemo/index.htm

Be sure to click on the link to the PDF, too.

Oh heck, here it is: http://www.thwink.org/sustain/articles/017_PowellMemo/PowellMemoCommentary.pdf

 

Unions are collectivist, but do they produce anything? I think they do--services for workers, including bargaining with employers, but also representing them in enforcing the contract.

No, they exist to advance the interests of their members. Can anyone make a case there's social justice involved in auto workers making far in excess of the median wage for low-skill work? They make high wages because their employer produces products in uncompetitive markets. The employer pays high wages and benefits to avoid labor disruptions.

Unions are socialist for the reasons I suggested, but the employer isn't. An odd situation... unions themselves organized by office workers' unions.

What is a rightwing unionist?

 

Collective ownership isn't necessarily worker ownership.

Collective ownership has proven largely unworkable because it doesn't efficiently deploy the factors of production (land, labor, capital) and workers have an interest in not taking control of the productive assets.

 

The empirical evidence confirms that worker ownership is associated with higher productivity.

Ironically, the libertarians offer an explanation with their critique of economic planning. Traditional firms adopt hierarchy as a means to protect profit. This hinders the diffusion of information, intensifying the risk of managerial error.

 

Yes, in industries where worker ownership doesn't get in the way of effectively deploying the means of production (land, labor, capital). Not so in industries where a tremendous amount of startup capital per employee is required--oil refineries, for example. There are problems, too, in industries where automation will mean a lot less labor is required.

Some "traditional firms" (those owned by shareholders) act as you suggest, others not.

I ran an auto repair firm years ago where owners got all the profits up to an amount, profits were split 50-50 with workers up to an another amount, and workers got all the profit above that second amount. We always operated well into the area where workers got everything. You can bet information was shared. My ears are still larger from getting input.

 

Given the evidence isn't specific to any industry, there isn't much insight there. You could refer to overemployment concerns, but of course that would lead to a prediction of lower productivity...

The majority of large enterprises use hierarchy. It makes sense for them as it's part of the profit maximization process (though it's about rent and therefore inefficiency).

Certainly the case that profit related compensation can be used to get around specific problems (e.g. an alternative to efficiency wages where such systems can be used to avoid moral hazard problems such as shirking). It's also the case that firm organisation systems are critical (e.g. a matrix form would operate differently to a m form organisational structure). However, rent seeking and hierarchy go hand in hand capitalism. It dominates labour relations.

 

I'd like to see your evidence. Worker-owned companies of any size are rare indeed, and those of any size are typically buyouts of largely failed enterprises.

 

Purchase one of Logue and Yates books. Notice that if they are 'buyouts', their superior productivity is even more impressive.

 

That's right. And your point?

If the workers do not actually, in fact, own and control the means of production, it isn't socialism.

 

Capitalism didn't begin with entrepreneurs starting a car or railroad manufacturing business either. All things begin small.

 

i see a lot of loose assumptions about collective ownership and worker ownership being interchangeable. Millions of American public school teachers have unionized to deal with the collectively owned school system.

Public schools aren't socialist?

 

Education is either a merit good or a public good. There is no necessary link with socialism. Socialists do tend to be more educated mind you...

 

socialism:

• noun; left progs mommy
• adjective; left progs mommy
• verb; left progs mommy