Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That was forced cooperative industrialization turning farmers into steel makers with a central state giving down production orders.
Much more like capitalism where labor is controlled, rather than based on personal volunteerism.
That is about what I expected you to say. So how in America would your form of government actually take over? Via an election where of the party you support wins the presidency and majorities in congress? Or is the only way through revolution?
The problem that China no doubt faced was it was impossible change things through volunteerism. A large percentage of people will say no. How do you tell the millions of small business owners and other successful people that they need to sacrifice what they have for the common good. And at the same time poor people with nothing, including drug addicts will benefit greatly and are sacrificing nothing. What happens if millions of people just say no? Perhaps this is a good thing for you personally but people that have a good easy life with everything will lose all of it.
I was talking to someone today who when younger got into trouble. He straightened himself out worked two jobs and bought his first house, then a rental house and now another. Nothing was handed to him. He even gives free rentals to people that were like him because he is trying to improve their lives. He earned it all. But in your system that will all be taken away from him. Is that fair?
That is about what I expected you to say. So how in America would your form of government actually take over? Via an election where of the party you support wins the presidency and majorities in congress? Or is the only way through revolution?
The problem that China no doubt faced was it was impossible change things through volunteerism. A large percentage of people will say no. How do you tell the millions of small business owners and other successful people that they need to sacrifice what they have for the common good. And at the same time poor people with nothing, including drug addicts will benefit greatly and are sacrificing nothing. What happens if millions of people just say no? Perhaps this is a good thing for you personally but people that have a good easy life with everything will lose all of it.
I was talking to someone today who when younger got into trouble. He straightened himself out worked two jobs and bought his first house, then a rental house and now another. Nothing was handed to him. He even gives free rentals to people that were like him because he is trying to improve their lives. He earned it all. But in your system that will all be taken away from him. Is that fair?
You have a lot of misunderstanding both of my system and yours.
Mine is a type of organization of the workers that leads to workplaces being controlled through direct democracy, and eventually decentralized federations would be set up depending on the unions involved. Once the economy is self managed, products (or goods) would become publicly available in excess and the need for a distributive power (either the central government or the corporation) will become null and void.
As for your second part, excess control of capital isn’t earning something. If a person wants to let someone room with him, then that is their prerogative. Personal property is different from private property.
And your claim about China is false, the difference is more than voluntarism being as every worker has a say in communal production (which is how modern day business function by the way), the difference is also that the form of production won’t be ordered from above.
Mine is a type of organization of the workers that leads to workplaces being controlled through direct democracy, and eventually decentralized federations would be set up depending on the unions involved. Once the economy is self managed, products (or goods) would become publicly available in excess and the need for a distributive power (either the central government or the corporation) will become null and void.
As for your second part, excess control of capital isn’t earning something. If a person wants to let someone room with him, then that is their prerogative. Personal property is different from private property.
And your claim about China is false, the difference is more than voluntarism being as every worker has a say in communal production (which is how modern day business function by the way), the difference is also that the form of production won’t be ordered from above.
Industrialization is a choice, not an order.
I don't agree. You sort of bypassed my questions. How would your ideology take over? And how would they deal with people who disagree?
I don't agree. You sort of bypassed my questions. How would your ideology take over? And how would they deal with people who disagree?
Read the link, direct action.
First worker cooperatives are formed, unions are supported, workers organize across different unions until the majority of production is worker managed. At such a point corporations (which exist off of wage slavery) would be no more and the monopoly on the means of production (protected with force by the state) would break.
As for your latter question, I don’t understand, people are free to live as they will, as long as they don’t restrict the freedoms of others. That means all organizations are handled through direct democracy, and if you want to find a way to control other people’s labor, then you’ll have to convince workers to listen to your orders (voluntarily).
Excess production that can’t be controlled is for public usage, these are all natural laws. If you want to know more, read: Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution.
And socialism isn’t the USSRor Cuba, actually read the history of socialism if you want to learn what it is.
Its a good thing that USSR didn't stand for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or anything, boy would they have been embarrassed! And Cuba, they must be confused too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
1. Like I said, there’d be no incentive. Personal wealth won’t be a reasonable objective due to human limitations, assuming you could get a bunch of bad people together, they could only act on personal needs, as group theft won’t be sustainable on a large scale.
So in this utopia, where is the incentive for anyone to work? If people don't personally benefit from the work they do, as in being paid money to use as they see fit, there is no motivation to work or invent anything new, because their standard of living wont improve so why bother? Besides, they can just steal what they need.
First worker cooperatives are formed, unions are supported, workers organize across different unions until the majority of production is worker managed. At such a point corporations (which exist off of wage slavery) would be no more and the monopoly on the means of production (protected with force by the state) would break.
As for your latter question, I don’t understand, people are free to live as they will, as long as they don’t restrict the freedoms of others. That means all organizations are handled through direct democracy, and if you want to find a way to control other people’s labor, then you’ll have to convince workers to listen to your orders (voluntarily).
Excess production that can’t be controlled is for public usage, these are all natural laws. If you want to know more, read: Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution.
Direct democracy is the essence of tyranny and oppression. So your utopian paradise fails upon formation.
We committed worse acts to the natives than the holocaust, and we continue to commit atrocities to this day. We only stopped experimenting on native school children in the 90s, and we still keep them in excessive poverty. Now we want to destroy what is left.
Every American president should face an international tribunal for these acts and be sentenced to death.
When do I get my restitution?
I should be owning a bunch of land in North Florida and Southern Georgia, right now. But, NOOOOOOOO!
`ol Andrew Jackson had better ideas for my land.
The guy was right about a centralized bank and the Cherokee and especially the Comanche, would be an on-going Terrorist Tribe, and would have become extinct, via Smoke Pole.
First worker cooperatives are formed, unions are supported, workers organize across different unions until the majority of production is worker managed. At such a point corporations (which exist off of wage slavery) would be no more and the monopoly on the means of production (protected with force by the state) would break.
As for your latter question, I don’t understand, people are free to live as they will, as long as they don’t restrict the freedoms of others. That means all organizations are handled through direct democracy, and if you want to find a way to control other people’s labor, then you’ll have to convince workers to listen to your orders (voluntarily).
Excess production that can’t be controlled is for public usage, these are all natural laws. If you want to know more, read: Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution.
People would not be much freer than an inmate or a slave. They would have freedom to go where they want but essentially they are working for free. And they are dependent on others to work hard or their standard of living will not change and might get worse.
I have an ex spouse who worked a union job with L.A. County. The welfare department. When she got the job she was very happy and put in a great deal of effort. She got pulled aside by some long term union employees. They told her to slow down. She was making them look bad. Just work hard enough so you don't get in trouble but never harder than that. I have heard similar stories from lots of people over the years. That is your world. Mediocre. You want more out of life? Trade in the inevitable black market that will exist.
I have made a pretty good living understanding human nature. And most of it has nothing to do with capitalism just the inner motivation of people and how to tap into that. I know you have read a lot of books from people hypothesizing about how they think this world will play out and people would all eventually comply. But people are not ants we question our role and what they are getting out of it and finding shortcuts to getting there. I had my basic needs covered long ago. I don't buy the latest and greatest things or try to impress others. My whole point now of making money, making deals, etc is because it is so much fun and I am good at it. There are millions like me. To just be an ant and find some crumb to bring back for the common good and be satisfied with that would never work. For others knowing that there are thousands of ants doing the exact same thing and they will never be hungry is comforting. The people not complying would be a big problem in your society. As would the ones who will simply steal from the others or be lazy and do less than is what is expected. Like I said I understand people. I don't think many of the authors of books you believe in understand people very well.
So what happens to rentiers? The economic structure is much more complicated than just people producing things.
Last edited by Oklazona Bound; 09-15-2018 at 07:50 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
