|
||||||||
Is the Future Socialist? |
![]() |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: It's Grim
Posts: 24,412
|
Is the Future Socialist?
Just looking at the rise of Artificial Intelligence to replace people in many "middle-class" job areas.
Companies will no doubt do this as the technology becomes available, just as they did with "working class" jobs. Which political mantra will resonate with the public? |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: It's Grim
Posts: 24,412
|
I'm no history buff, but it seems that The Labour Party became increasingly irrelevant because there were not enough "exploited masses" to vote for them.
Artificial Intelligence/Robotics seems likely to change all that. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 24,737
|
Quote:
Just looking at the rise of Artificial Intelligence to replace people in many "middle-class" job areas.
Companies will no doubt do this as the technology becomes available, just as they did with "working class" jobs. Which political mantra will resonate with the public? The movement if anything is away from centralisation, to more bottom up decentralised system. Indeed take energy generation - I suspect what we will see is micro-generation becoming a large part of people's energy consumption with the excess sold to the grid. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 35,818
|
Quote:
I'm no history buff, but it seems that The Labour Party became increasingly irrelevant because there were not enough "exploited masses" to vote for them.
Artificial Intelligence/Robotics seems likely to change all that. The typical exploited worker today probably works in an office of some description. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: North London, UK
Posts: 28,064
|
Quote:
A large number of those who don't regard themselves as exploited are. They seem to think it is only the blue collar, manual workers who can be so.
The typical exploited worker today probably works in an office of some description. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 8,267
|
Quote:
Am I exploited?
![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 35,818
|
Quote:
Am I exploited?
Many in banking are, of course. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 35,818
|
Quote:
Do you as a worker own the means of production? if not your exploited
![]() ![]() Most self-employed people earn very little for instance, and suffer the same travails as employees on a low wage. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,055
|
Ideally it likely would be some sort of utopian society, who knows what will happen in reality
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: North London, UK
Posts: 28,064
|
Quote:
Couldn't tell you - I don't know what position you hold.
Many in banking are, of course. What are the "means of production" in a Bank? Am I exploited? |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 6,853
|
Quote:
Ideally it likely would be some sort of utopian society, who knows what will happen in reality
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 35,818
|
Quote:
What by you mean by position? I am not the CEO, but a reasonably well-paid employee.
What are the "means of production" in a Bank? Am I exploited? Exploitation is not just dependent on lack of ownership of the MoP (their boss may not own them either), but a person on £50k could be seen as being exploited if their company makes £10m a year out of them in my view. |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 6,853
|
Quote:
I would have thought that is a simple question - all people have positions in a company.
Exploitation is not just dependent on lack of ownership of the MoP (their boss may not own them either), but a person on £50k could be seen as being exploited if their company makes £10m a year out of them in my view. The employee a resource exploited by the capitalist to make profit. |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: North London, UK
Posts: 28,064
|
Quote:
I would have thought that is a simple question - all people have positions in a company.
Quote:
Exploitation is not just dependent on lack of ownership of the MoP (their boss may not own them either), but a person on £50k could be seen as being exploited if their company makes £10m a year out of them in my view.
![]() Many people in a company are just in a cost centre rather than a profit centre so it's not possible to assign revenue from let's say a finance function so how will that work? |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: North London, UK
Posts: 28,064
|
Quote:
Is not all waged labour employed to make a profit exploitation?
The employee a resource exploited by the capitalist to make profit. |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 35
|
Socialism is failed experiment, just look at state of health care in Easterern Europe. Freedom of movement has ment the qualified doctors are leaving and not being replaced. All
thanks to socialists in the EU. |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 2,482
|
Socialism is inevitable and has to happen in the event of mass unemployment due to the development of robotics and AI.
Guaranteed basic income, low working hours, and more time spent on leisure and hobbies, are the only alternative the public will support when the capitalist alternative would force mass unemployment, starvation and homelessness across the populace. If half the population is unemployed the only way to support the populace is to raise taxes on businesses, or take businesses into public ownership and reduce the prices to the level the lower earning population can afford to pay. Cost of production would be low enough to provide goods and services at those low prices due to the lower levels of staffing required to provide them, and businesses not in public ownership could afford to pay those extra taxes, and still make suitable profits. |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 61
|
Quote:
Socialism is failed experiment, just look at state of health care in Easterern Europe. Freedom of movement has ment the qualified doctors are leaving and not being replaced. All
thanks to socialists in the EU. Oh, and the only reason that socialism has failed is the economic warfare that the dominant capitalists have waged against it. |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 24,737
|
Quote:
I would have thought that is a simple question - all people have positions in a company.
Exploitation is not just dependent on lack of ownership of the MoP (their boss may not own them either), but a person on £50k could be seen as being exploited if their company makes £10m a year out of them in my view. Clearly exploitation happens - the cockleshell pickers who were made to work for a pittance in dangerous conditions and no thought to there safety - they are exploited. But for many people they are not - employment is a tacit agreement between the worker and the employer. We have rules which will alleviate some of the excesses of capitalism, and workers have the right to withdraw labour should that agreement fall down. But as for socialism being the future - poppycock! There is not a single attempt at socialism which has created an equal society, nor one which has avoided shortages and poverty. These are the very things promised of it and none have delivered. The only way you can make life better for people is from the bottom up - where individuals are free to create and sell goods with only enough control to ensure that too much power is not centred on a few. 150 years ago this was not the case as much of the finance was held by a few - now most people (at least in the Liberal West) have access to sufficient capital, that they are not always reliant upon a few. Even in areas of extreme poverty - giving people the freedom to control their lives creates more opportunities than the controlling centralisation typical of attempts at socialism. That is what has happened with things like Funding Circle and it has made a material difference to people's lives for the better - they may not be as wealthy as the poorest in the West, but these people are better off. The future may be uncertain and change the fastest it has ever been, we are going to see change - I can see fundamental changes in the tax and benefit system since the assumptions underpinning it are no longer true but Marxist/Leninist socialism is not the answer - it was a possible answer to the problems of 19th Century England, not of the 21st century. |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 35,818
|
Quote:
But why does it make any difference if I am a head of a department, deputy head, manager or staff member? Which positions in a company are "exploited"?
How about it they are on £50k but the company made a loss? Is the employee exploiting the company? ![]() Many people in a company are just in a cost centre rather than a profit centre so it's not possible to assign revenue from let's say a finance function so how will that work? The worker is a paid servant after all - they can only do what they are told. The worker in an area of a company not designed to directly produce a profit will still have their salary assessed - a call centre operative wouldn't be paid £100k, but would probably be hired on the basis that many employers utilise : being paid the least sum that guarantees the recruiting of the required standard of staff. |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 35,818
|
Quote:
Socialism is failed experiment, just look at state of health care in Easterern Europe. Freedom of movement has ment the qualified doctors are leaving and not being replaced. All
thanks to socialists in the EU. |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: North London, UK
Posts: 28,064
|
Quote:
The worker adds surplus value to the goods/ or the service they are supplying, out of which the employer makes his profit. If a manufacturer of convector heaters markets his goods solely in the tropics, and the the maker of ice making facilities targets the arctic communities how is it the fault of the workers that the company is likely not to make a profit?
The worker is a paid servant after all - they can only do what they are told. The worker in an area of a company not designed to directly produce a profit will still have their salary assessed - a call centre operative wouldn't be paid £100k, but would probably be hired on the basis that many employers utilise : being paid the least sum that guarantees the recruiting of the required standard of staff. But why does it make any difference if I am a head of a department, deputy head, manager or staff member? Which positions in a company are "exploited"? And what are the 'means of production' to own in Banking? |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 35,818
|
Quote:
According to Marx's theory, surplus value is equal to the new value created by workers in excess of their own labor-cost, which is appropriated by the capitalist as profit when products are sold - ergo these workers are 'exploited', and hence the problem you seem to have with 'profit' in the belief that this excess profit is rightly that of the workers.
Clearly exploitation happens - the cockleshell pickers who were made to work for a pittance in dangerous conditions and no thought to there safety - they are exploited. But for many people they are not - {1}employment is a tacit agreement between the worker and the employer. We have rules which will alleviate some of the excesses of capitalism, and workers have the right to withdraw labour should that agreement fall down. But as for socialism being the future - poppycock! There is not a single attempt at socialism which has created an equal society, nor one which has avoided shortages and poverty. These are the very things promised of it and none have delivered. The only way you can make life better for people is from the bottom up - where individuals are free to create and sell goods with only enough control to ensure that too much power is not centred on a few.[2] 150 years ago this was not the case as much of the finance was held by a few - now most people (at least in the Liberal West) have access to sufficient capital, that they are not always reliant upon a few. [3]Even in areas of extreme poverty - giving people the freedom to control their lives creates more opportunities than the controlling centralisation typical of attempts at socialism. That is what has happened with things like Funding Circle and it has made a material difference to people's lives for the better - they may not be as wealthy as the poorest in the West, but these people are better off. The future may be uncertain and change the fastest it has ever been, we are going to see change - I can see fundamental changes in the tax and benefit system since the assumptions underpinning it are no longer true but Marxist/Leninist socialism is not the answer - it was a possible answer to the problems of 19th Century England, not of the 21st century. 2. Poppycock! (To use your term). 150 years ago there were many one-man bands who operated, often at home, "doing their own thing", as they do today. Technically they had sufficient capital to buy a spinning wheel or a cobblers last and tools - it was hardly the herald of a bright new age as most lived in poverty or at least with a very small income, as many of their like do today. 3. Socialising the ownership of the means of production is not just about centralised state control! How many times? |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 35,818
|
Quote:
Can you please answer my main question:
But why does it make any difference if I am a head of a department, deputy head, manager or staff member? Which positions in a company are "exploited"? And what are the 'means of production' to own in Banking? I have already answered about exploitation with my £10m profit example - if they are an employee and they are paid £50k for making that then they are being exploited in my view. A bank lends capital that buys means of production amongst other things. Why? |
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 24,737
|
Quote:
1. The employer and worker are hardly equal partners.
Quote:
2. Poppycock! (To use your term). 150 years ago there were many one-man bands who operated, often at home, "doing their own thing", as they do today. Technically they had sufficient capital to buy a spinning wheel or a cobblers last and tools - it was hardly the herald of a bright new age as most lived in poverty or at least with a very small income, as many of their like do today.
But they did not have the communications technology we have, giving access to world wide markets, did not have the manufacturing tools we have.Further more and more business models allow for zero margin - meaning that as the cost is low, more people can gain access without resource to large funds. Quote:
3. Socialising the ownership of the means of production is not just about centralised state control! How many times?
I just said it centralisation was a feature at attempts of socialism to avoid the over production you have said is a feature of competition in a capitalist market you have to plan production and you cannot do that adequately without central control.Quote:
if they are an employee and they are paid £50k for making that then they are being exploited in my view
Many would disagree with that sentiment. That is not to say there are no employees that are exploited, but if I was completely honest only once as an employee have I felt exploited and then I walked.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:38.




