|
||||||||
Why does society veer to the 'right'? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#76 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 35,814
|
Quote:
Really? [1]By what measure? Are you saying that for most companies profit outweighs staff costs? Don't think that's been true anywhere I've worked
[2] What means of production are being denied to the masses? You think we'd all be happily working at T'mill if it was just publicly owned? I bought my means of production on amazon 2, The means of production are not owned by the masses - it is the latter who are employed by the owners. If the MoP were owned by all we wouldn't have capitalism, would we? |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#77 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 10,733
|
Quote:
1. A worker is employed purely to make profit for his/her employer. It is they that create the bosses' profit, and are generally paid the lowest that the employer can get away with, whilst being able to retain the staff with the necessary skills they need.
2, The means of production are not owned by the masses - it is the latter who are employed by the owners. If the MoP were owned by all we wouldn't have capitalism, would we? |
|
|
|
|
|
#78 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 35,814
|
Quote:
[1]There are mutual obligations between an employer and employee. - these are far more than you do work and get paid. (since all contracts are like that).
[2]Love the jargon - in practice however this means little and the average worker has no more benefit from those industries which are 'socially' (state) owned than they did when they were privately owned. At one point it was the aristocracy that were the beneficiaries under the Feudal system - [3]then when the Agricultural Revolution it was the landed Gentry - the capitalists after the Industrial Revolution. [4]We are now on the cusp of another revolution and this will broaden those who benefit from the system so that most if not all can benefit, it is just that most choose not to. 2. You still can't get your head round the fact that social ownership doesn't automatically mean state ownership, can you? 3. The beginnings of capitalism in this country started before that - an early manifestation was the civil war of the 17th century, which laid the foundations for its subsequent growth. 4. What is this "choice" you speak of? Is this your notion that all can be capitalists? They can't. |
|
|
|
|
|
#79 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 35,814
|
Quote:
Where would the motivation be to invent something better be in a wonderful pure socialist world of the people? if we have a tractor that can do the job why look for anything better.
As for motivation, why is the private profit motive the only driver of man's aspiration for betterment? It only produces what makes a profit - often in the short term, with built in obsolescence. The idea that man won't want to improve the lot of society just because a minority of people aren't making vast sums of money is absurd. There's a hell of a lot of private tractor firms out there............... |
|
|
|
|
|
#80 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 24,736
|
Quote:
1. An employee has to work to live - many employers have the riches so they don't have to.
Quote:
2. You still can't get your head round the fact that social ownership doesn't automatically mean state ownership, can you?
I'm talking in practice, not in theoryQuote:
4. What is this "choice" you speak of? Is this your notion that all can be capitalists? They can't.
What is stopping them (other than a lack of desire).As I have said many times before - we are looking at a fundamental change in the way our economy is going to work - that is going to see a change in very many of the ways our current economy woks; including but not limited to tax, benefits, and employment practices. |
|
|
|
|
|
#81 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: GL51 0EX
Posts: 14,093
|
Quote:
1. A worker is employed purely to make profit for his/her employer. It is they that create the bosses' profit, and are generally paid the lowest that the employer can get away with, whilst being able to retain the staff with the necessary skills they need.
Quote:
2, The means of production are not owned by the masses - it is the latter who are employed by the owners. If the MoP were owned by all we wouldn't have capitalism, would we?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#82 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 35,814
|
Quote:
That may have been true when Marx wrote Das Kapital but most employers are not that cash rich.
[1] I'm talking in practice, not in theory [2]What is stopping them (other than a lack of desire). As I have said many times before - we are looking at a fundamental change in the way our economy is going to work - that is going to see a change in very many of the ways our current economy woks; including but not limited to tax, benefits, and employment practices. Nationalising a handful of major industries/infrastructure etc within a capitalist framework is not socialism. 2. Everybody can't become employers! Where are the people who are going to actually make the goods/harvest the crops/build the houses to come from? And how can capitalism "fundamentally change" when it is dependent on the profit motive and employing the labour of others? |
|
|
|
|
|
#83 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 35,814
|
Quote:
[1]Nope, I don't see how that relates to the employer benefiting the most
Again -[2] what means of production? 2. Sorry, are you saying you don't know what the means of production are? |
|
|
|
|
|
#84 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,295
|
Quote:
Society only veers to the right after it has veered too far to the left.
It's just a correction mechanism which works both ways and keeps us roughly on the centre path. You'll have to remind me when this country veered too far to the left in recent years. Centre politics is right wing and has been for some time, enabled by a pretty much wholly complicit media. I roll my eyes when I see idiots on this forum seeing being left wing or socialist as a bad thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
#85 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: GL51 0EX
Posts: 14,093
|
Quote:
1. Oh so what motivates a group of investors to set up a company then? Do you think they do it just to give some workers a job?
I've never denied the employers benefit - I'm just curious where you draw your stats from to conclude that they benefit more than their employees Quote:
2. Sorry, are you saying you don't know what the means of production are?
Last edited by platelet : 30-12-2016 at 19:18. Reason: typo |
|
|
|
|
|
#86 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,037
|
Quote:
With all due respect, total BS.
You'll have to remind me when this country veered too far to the left in recent years. Centre politics is right wing and has been for some time, enabled by a pretty much wholly complicit media. I roll my eyes when I see idiots on this forum seeing being left wing or socialist as a bad thing. ![]() Did you get your political knowledge from the same place as GGP, whereby everything is right wing, apart from the form of socialism that has only ever existed in the pages of das kapital ? |
|
|
|
|
|
#87 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 35,814
|
Quote:
You claimed "In most cases it is the employer who benefits the most from a worker's efforts." I was curious if you had any actual evidence that that was the case.
I've never denied the employers benefit - [1}I'm just curious where you draw your stats from to conclude that they benefit more than the employees [2] I have no idea what you are talking about, that's why I asked Anyway, due to the surplus value that a worker's labour adds to the productive process an employee will always lose out. 2. You originally asked what means of production are being denied to the masses. In a capitalist system only the few can own the MoP - if all owned them it wouldn't be capitalism. You then asked "What means of production", which threw me for a minute - hence my question asking you do you know what they are in the first place. If you do, could you clarify the meaning behind your question please? |
|
|
|
|
|
#88 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 35,814
|
Quote:
The centre ground by definition cannot be right wing, it's in the centre
![]() Did you get your political knowledge from the same place as GGP, whereby everything is right wing, apart from the form of socialism that has only ever existed in the pages of das kapital ? As for the comment about Marx, I haven't read him in any depth for about 45 years - and there are many interpretations of socialism. |
|
|
|
|
|
#89 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,772
|
Quote:
A friend who is a Socialist (he works for and sells the Socialist Worker) has often given me that scenario as an argument. He maintains that our natural instinct is to share what we have and not be selfish.
I don't hold Socialism "up as the source of all evil". I believe that the majority of people believe in Democratic Socialism, it's just how much of it we're prepared to accept at any given time. Socialism (or a form of it) will survive and evolve into the systems we use to organise society eventually, however, pretending it has all the answers is as folly as pretending that Capitalism has them too. It does seem though that Capitalism provides the means to create the wealth necessary to be able to provide Socialism. |
|
|
|
|
|
#90 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,295
|
Quote:
The centre ground by definition cannot be right wing, it's in the centre
![]() Did you get your political knowledge from the same place as GGP, whereby everything is right wing, apart from the form of socialism that has only ever existed in the pages of das kapital ? |
|
|
|
|
|
#91 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,037
|
Quote:
Nonsense. If the UK was dominated by the BNP and UKIP where would this centre ground be then?
As for the comment about Marx, I haven't read him in any depth for about 45 years - and there are many interpretations of socialism. New labour moved towards the centre, the centre didn't move across towards labour. Current political fads have no bearing on the centre ground, the BNP will always be far right (socially at least) and UKIP will always be right (unless they use their brains and move towards the centre). Many different interpretations of socialism ? Classic stuff
|
|
|
|
|
|
#92 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: GL51 0EX
Posts: 14,093
|
Quote:
1. Stats? Surely you aren't implying that the remuneration enjoyed by employers is on a par with that of the workers? Does Bill Gates earn a similar amount to a receptionist at one of his buildings?
Quote:
2. You originally asked what means of production are being denied to the masses. In a capitalist system only the few can own the MoP - if all owned them it wouldn't be capitalism.
You then asked "What means of production", which threw me for a minute - hence my question asking you do you know what they are in the first place. If you do, could you clarify the meaning behind your question please? I'll try it another way. If Bill's receptionist wants to start selling software how do you perceive they're being held back from doing so? |
|
|
|
|
|
#93 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 10,733
|
Quote:
I don't know what you mean by a "pure socialist world" - socialism is a transitory period between capitalism and communism.
As for motivation, why is the private profit motive the only driver of man's aspiration for betterment? It only produces what makes a profit - often in the short term, with built in obsolescence. The idea that man won't want to improve the lot of society just because a minority of people aren't making vast sums of money is absurd. There's a hell of a lot of private tractor firms out there............... But why would I as a tractor driver bother to probably have to spend the effort to the central command of the system that if they made the gear leaver 2 inches higher it could improve production by 5% as they'd know someone in the higher echelons would nick it and get the credit. and the word private with socialism thats surely like matter and anti-matter in theory as the production of the tractors would be done by the collective. |
|
|
|
|
|
#94 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 35,814
|
Quote:
It would be where it's always been - at the centre, between left and right.
New labour moved towards the centre, the centre didn't move across towards labour. Current political fads have no bearing on the centre ground, the BNP will always be far right (socially at least) and UKIP will always be right (unless they use their brains and move towards the centre). Many different interpretations of socialism ? Classic stuff ![]() "Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[5][14][15]" (Wiki) Aren't you aware that socialists often spend more time vehemently arguing amongst themselves regarding the right path to follow rather than arguing with their enemies? As for your version of the "centre" my point (which you don't seem to have grasped) is that if the whole political climate of a state moved to the right the "centre" would move too, wouldn't it? It wouldn't stay where it was before the shift! |
|
|
|
|
|
#95 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 35,814
|
Quote:
My apologies I mis-read your post as workers rather than worker's. Yes it's of course normal that an employer will be earning more than an individual employee. Bill's wage bill of course was for substantially more than one receptionist (hence my erroneous argument)
Still struggling to see what you are talking about with this one I'll try it another way. If Bill's receptionist wants to start selling software how do you perceive they're being held back from doing so? Would the receptionist build their own house, make their own clothes, grow their own food, maintain the roads etc etc? Where does the raw material come from for the receptionist's business ? Who makes their computer? And there would be no places like Amazon of course as there would be no workers available to them - they would all be off trying to be capitalists. In short, it wouldn't work. |
|
|
|
|
|
#96 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,037
|
Quote:
Of course! How can you not know that? For starters there's Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, syndicalism, libertarian socialism etc etc.
"Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[5][14][15]" (Wiki) Aren't you aware that socialists often spend more time vehemently arguing amongst themselves regarding the right path to follow rather than arguing with their enemies? As for your version of the "centre" my point (which you don't seem to have grasped) is that if the whole political climate of a state moved to the right the "centre" would move too, wouldn't it? It wouldn't stay where it was before the shift! The whole political spectrum will never completely move to the right or the left, there will always be the small hardcore of extremists banging their drums of the left and right. Just because popular opinion moves to the centre right or centre left means nothing. |
|
|
|
|
|
#97 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 35,814
|
Quote:
[1]So, just to be clear, are you finally admitting that the tens of millions of deaths caused by Stalin and Mao were just a side effect of socialism ?
[2] The whole political spectrum will never completely move to the right or the left, there will always be the small hardcore of extremists banging their drums of the left and right. Just because popular opinion moves to the centre right or centre left means nothing. 2. So what if the likes of Marine le Pen was elected as French president? Or the Dutch far Right become the major party? Are you saying the political centre would be in exacly the same place as it was before? |
|
|
|
|
|
#98 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 24,736
|
Quote:
My point is not everyone can become a capitalist. The system is dependent on workers to produce goods and supply services to make the profit for those capitalists.
In this particular case changes in technology and communications is such that many low level jobs are going to be replaced - and many business models will over turned (I can see the potentially large changes in the personal transport business - cars). Because so many low skilled jobs are going to be replaced it is going to mean that these people are going to need to find income sources that are not based on benefits or working for other people. That means creating something - and if it requires a large amount of money there are things like Funding Circle, Patreon, Indigogo and Kickstarter. Because as Simone Gertz says in this video - if something interests you - then it interests someone else - modern communications mean you can find those people - not only that but you can find those who can contribute there own skills to achieve what you want and you do not need a Venture Capitalist to do it. Low cost manufacturing is going to make that a lot easier. |
|
|
|
|
|
#99 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 35,814
|
Quote:
Those things will still be required under any other system. The point I have often tried to make to you is that we are on the cusp of a disruptive change - much as we did during the agricultural and industrial revolutions.
In this particular case changes in technology and communications is such that many low level jobs are going to be replaced - and many business models will over turned (I can see the potentially large changes in the personal transport business - cars). Because so many low skilled jobs are going to be replaced it is going to mean that these people are going to need to find income sources that are not based on benefits or working for other people. That means creating something - and if it requires a large amount of money there are things like Funding Circle, Patreon, Indigogo and Kickstarter. Because as Simone Gertz says in this video - if something interests you - then it interests someone else - modern communications mean you can find those people - not only that but you can find those who can contribute there own skills to achieve what you want and you do not need a Venture Capitalist to do it. Low cost manufacturing is going to make that a lot easier. It puts me in mind of some progressives at the end of the 19th century, men like Wells, who thought much the same then. It never happened and it won't happen now. Technology will merely create new ways for capitalism to operate - labour intensive industries will still be there, like farming, house building, road building/repairing etc. Happy New Year!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#100 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 24,736
|
Quote:
Yes, I know your views on the Brave New World that is about to dawn paul.
It puts me in mind of some progressives at the end of the 19th century, men like Wells, who thought much the same then. Quote:
It never happened and it won't happen now.
What we still live in Feudalism? If technology change broke down one system - there is no reason not to suspect it will not again.Quote:
Technology will merely create new ways for capitalism to operate - labour intensive industries will still be there, like farming, house building, road building/repairing etc.
In the last 250 years employment in Agriculture has gone from 99% of the population to 2%. Employment in manufacturing is somewhere around 10% having previously been the largest area of employment in this country.BMWs latest factory has a record low number of people working. Someone has already managed to 3d print a house! (See http://www.wired.co.uk/article/giant...-builds-houses). Change is happening - but you will not see the a socialist society - it just plain does not work. Nor is there any reason to suspect that this mythical socialist society will suddenly change to some enlightened communist society. Socialism despite the claims of it's supporters has never managed to make countries equal - not Marxism, Maoism, Stalinism or any other ism version of it. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 23:24.



