NationStates

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 2:26 am**

Turbofolkia wrote:
Torrocca wrote:
If you've voluntarily entered into an agreement with both of these workers (as a worker yourself, because that's how things would be under Socialism), where you agree to have equal ownership over the means of production of your business and thus total ownership of the fruits of your collective labor, then yes, you three would earn the same from any profits that business makes. That's how Socialism works. And, hell, there's no reason to assume that the business's labor would be divided up so one person professionally surveys land and the other just staples papers together while you do... whatever role you're taking on in this model. Your paper stapler duder could easily take on multiple roles, and most likely would be, since regulating a single person to just the singular task of stapling papers together would be something pretty damn stupid that I'm sure even the paper stapler would agree with.

Workplace equality isn't going to be a one-way street under Socialism, and it shouldn't be seen as such.

Have you ever worked at a law firm or in any office setting? This will never happen for the simple reason that administrative assistants and the like do not make anywhere near as much money for a firm as solicitors do. Even if a lower-tier employee took on multiple roles they would never generate as much money from their labour as a solicitor would, let alone a barrister.

Naturally I think that administrative assistants are vital to a firm's success but no reasonable solicitor or barrister would ever enter into such an agreement.

And they do that under Capitalism. I'm talking about a hypothetical scenario occurring under Socialism.

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 2:32 am**

Torrocca wrote:And they do that under Capitalism. I'm talking about a hypothetical scenario occurring under Socialism.

I don't see how that's any different? No barrister or solicitor would partner up with an administrative assistant demanding a larger share than he's worth. I certainly wouldn't, I'd either join a different business/coop/whatever that better appreciated the value of different jobs or look for a more amenable administrative assistant. Ultimately, socialism or not, less-skilled jobs are going to earn less, and professionals more. It's only natural.

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 2:44 am**

Jack Thomas Lang wrote:
Torrocca wrote:And they do that under Capitalism. I'm talking about a hypothetical scenario occurring under Socialism.

I don't see how that's any different? No barrister or solicitor would partner up with an administrative assistant demanding a larger share than he's worth.

And they wouldn't be forced to, since, y'know, voluntary association is a concept that exists. Like I've said several times now, they would be free to enter into other types of business agreements with individuals. The point of Socialism, though, is to ensure that workers have choices like that and others in the first place, without necessarily having to rely on those kinds of arrangements as their only option. Right now, barring the seldom few worker cooperatives there are, workers are practically forced to sell the value of their labor for another person to use to make profits, which is the problem.

Ultimately, socialism or not, less-skilled jobs are going to earn less, and professionals more. It's only natural.

Not necessarily. Lawyers and the like could, of course, value their labor as higher than unskilled labor and thus sell the fruits of that labor at a higher cost, but unskilled workers in a cooperative environment could easily earn on-par with lawyers and the like depending on the circumstances of what they do.

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 2:58 am**

Torrocca wrote:And they wouldn't be forced to, since, y'know, voluntary association is a concept that exists. Like I've said several times now, they would be free to enter into other types of business agreements with individuals. The point of Socialism, though, is to ensure that workers have choices like that and others in the first place, without necessarily having to rely on those kinds of arrangements as their only option. Right now, barring the seldom few worker cooperatives there are, workers are practically forced to sell the value of their labor for another person to use to make profits, which is the problem.

It seems like you've conceded that your original point, being that these barristers only refuse equal or "equaller" pay under capitalism, is wrong. That is what I was responding to, I was not suggesting that they'd be forced to enter agreements against their will.

Regarding cooperatives, there's nothing inherently socialistic about promoting coops. The Nordic Model does it, and any country with a Social Democracy movement worth it's salt can easily do it within a capitalist framework.

Not necessarily. Lawyers and the like could, of course, value their labor as higher than unskilled labor and thus sell the fruits of that labor at a higher cost, but unskilled workers in a cooperative environment could easily earn on-par with lawyers and the like depending on the circumstances of what they do.

I'm skeptical. Can you prove that?

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 3:07 am**

Jack Thomas Lang wrote:
Torrocca wrote:And they wouldn't be forced to, since, y'know, voluntary association is a concept that exists. Like I've said several times now, they would be free to enter into other types of business agreements with individuals. The point of Socialism, though, is to ensure that workers have choices like that and others in the first place, without necessarily having to rely on those kinds of arrangements as their only option. Right now, barring the seldom few worker cooperatives there are, workers are practically forced to sell the value of their labor for another person to use to make profits, which is the problem.

It seems like you've conceded that your original point, being that these barristers only refuse equal or "equaller" pay under capitalism, is wrong. That is what I was responding to, I was not suggesting that they'd be forced to enter agreements against their will.

I never said that they only do that under Capitalism, though. Just that it happens under Capitalism, with the implication that that's the primary dynamic under Capitalism. I made that point to point out the differences in dynamic between a Capitalist business and a Socialist business; the former is almost always a hierarchy of owners controlling workers, whereas the latter would be a group of worker-owners working in union.

To put it on an individual micro level, it's the difference between a boss telling a worker, "this is how much I value your labor, and thus how much I will pay you," versus a working saying, "this is how much I value my labor, so this is the price which I sell my labor or the fruits of my labor at."

Regarding cooperatives, there's nothing inherently socialistic about promoting coops. The Nordic Model does it, and any country with a Social Democracy movement worth it's salt can easily do it within a capitalist framework.

There's nothing Socialistic about promoting coops, but worker cooperatives are inherently Socialist.

Not necessarily. Lawyers and the like could, of course, value their labor as higher than unskilled labor and thus sell the fruits of that labor at a higher cost, but unskilled workers in a cooperative environment could easily earn on-par with lawyers and the like depending on the circumstances of what they do.

I'm skeptical. Can you prove that?

It's simple enough to consider logically. Consider the usual rate of profit for any large, single business, and then consider how much the workers of such a business would earn if they shared ownership of the business and its resources and had an equitable distribution of earnings through the profit they make.

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 3:33 am**

Torrocca wrote:I never said that they only do that under Capitalism, though. Just that it happens under Capitalism, with the implication that that's the primary dynamic under Capitalism. I made that point to point out the differences in dynamic between a Capitalist business and a Socialist business; the former is almost always a hierarchy of owners controlling workers, whereas the latter would be a group of worker-owners working in union.

Perhaps. To me, "that happens under capitalism, I'm talking about socialism" seemed to imply that the two are mutually exclusive but nevermind.

To put it on an individual micro level, it's the difference between a boss telling a worker, "this is how much I value your labor, and thus how much I will pay you," versus a working saying, "this is how much I value my labor, so this is the price which I sell my labor or the fruits of my labor at."

They can do that anyway under a capitalist system. Workers can choose to start their own business or choose their employment.

There's nothing Socialistic about promoting coops, but worker cooperatives are inherently Socialist.

Not necessarily. Cooperatives are still businesses and companies owned by private members, namely the workers. While many coops give back to the community in some way or other, the community does not have any more say in the coop than a normal business.

It's simple enough to consider logically. Consider the usual rate of profit for any large, single business, and then consider how much the workers of such a business would earn if they shared ownership of the business and its resources and had an equitable distribution of earnings through the profit they make.

If this was true, any large coops should have a larger salary than comparable jobs in other businesses. They don't. A retail assistant manager in the Co-operative Group earns an average of £20,273 versus the average £23,121 for assistant managers. They might get more say and health benefits in a coop, but ultimately, there's no discernable difference.

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 3:43 am**

Jack Thomas Lang wrote:
Torrocca wrote:To put it on an individual micro level, it's the difference between a boss telling a worker, "this is how much I value your labor, and thus how much I will pay you," versus a working saying, "this is how much I value my labor, so this is the price which I sell my labor or the fruits of my labor at."

They can do that anyway under a capitalist system. Workers can choose to start their own business or choose their employment.

And for those that can, if they have the funds to do so and aren't enduring the ruthless realities of life under Capitalism, most end up screwed over from doing that, because it's ultimately not even a realistic option. Something like 90% of start-up businesses fail within a year's time. It's far more financially safer for a worker to take on a grueling wage job than it is to start up a business, because the former provides a guarantee of stable pay, as little as that might be.

There's nothing Socialistic about promoting coops, but worker cooperatives are inherently Socialist.

Not necessarily. Cooperatives are still businesses and companies owned by private members, namely the workers. While many coops give back to the community in some way or other, the community does not have any more say in the coop than a normal business.

But cooperatives are owned collectively by the people that work those businesses. They're still Socialist in nature by that metric alone.

It's simple enough to consider logically. Consider the usual rate of profit for any large, single business, and then consider how much the workers of such a business would earn if they shared ownership of the business and its resources and had an equitable distribution of earnings through the profit they make.

If this was true, any large coops should have a larger salary than comparable jobs in other businesses. They don't. A retail assistant manager in the Co-operative Group earns an average of £20,273 versus the average £23,121 for assistant managers. They might get more say and health benefits in a coop, but ultimately, there's no discernable difference.

But that's just for a managerial position, which would naturally have a slightly smaller earnings rate than one in a Capitalist model.

And, besides that, you have to account for the fact that these are still worker cooperatives operating under a Capitalist market and competing with entrenched big businesses and all the other small businesses around; they're naturally going to have fewer profits compared to that.

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 10:19 am**

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:
Trotskylvania wrote:Capitalism is the mode production characterized by the existence of generalized commodity production. In other words, most labor is no longer private/subsistence based. Instead, goods are produced for their exchange value and sold in the market. Within the competitive market, this creates a drive to accumulate capital, to revolutionize production by employing more labor-power more efficiently.

Within this society there exists two primary classes: the bourgeoisie who have accumulated more capital than they could possibly effectively utilize with their own labor, and so must employ others, and the proletariat whose only possession of real value is their ability to labor, and thus must rent themselves out to others.

When I say that socialism is the negation of capitalism, I mean it in the totalility. Bourgeois society is made in the image of the bourgeoisie, its norms are reflected in the interests of the bourgeoisie. The proletariat, who are themselves the negation of the bourgeoisie, are reduced to commodities by this society.

It doesn't make much difference whether you call it socialism or communism. It is the real movement by workers to abolish the conditions that turn them into tools, and that requires the abolition of the class system that drives the commodification of labor. The dictatorship of the proletariat exists to abolish all classes, including itself.

I personally thought Capitalism was defined as private ownership of the means of production, and Socialism was defined as collective worker ownership of the means of production.

Isn't the drive of every economic model to be efficient? To have a low labour & resource to yield ratio?

Also, I really dislike the term "dictatorship of the proletariat." Because A, why are you calling what you want a dictatorship? And B, it seems to be a contradiction in terms. The proletariat are underdogs, and dictators are overdogs. So it's really either a ""dictatorship"" of the proletariat, or a dictatorship of the ""proletariat.""

Some people have defined capitalism that way. But it misses the central distinction between it and previous modes of production. Private property existed in feudalism, so mere private ownership of the means of production doesn't really distinguish the two. The real difference is that in feudalism, most labor is private, and most surpluses are directly appropriated by landlords-in-kind. Commodity production and exchange are an ephemeral layer on top of the economic base.

The problem with "worker ownership of the means of production" definitions is that it is too ambiguous. I suppose if you squinted, you could say that both worker cooperatives and the Marxian conception of socialism fit under that definition. But if you take a society where workers own the means of production as cooperatives, then you start running into the exact same problems as capitalism.

Cooperatives must still make a profit and accumulate capital. So it places workers in the impossible position of having competing interests as workers versus interests as owners. They don't abolish exploitation, they merely have self-managed exploitation. And that will entail all the evils of capitalism: the business cycle, crisis, the ratcheting upwards of exploitation, lay offs and business failures.

It is the word that was given to us almost two centuries ago, when "dictator" had the same connotation as "director". And like the Roman concept of dictatura, the dictatorship of the proletariat is a constitutional emergency government, not a permanent state of affairs. It is the working class taking and wielding power as a class, not substituted through some smaller clique, and its function ceases when the class war ceases.

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 10:21 am**

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:
Trotskylvania wrote:There's no money in socialism and anyone who says there is is just trying to put red paint on capitalism.

There's also no mediating layer between labor and society. Unlike in capitalism, where labor is indirectly social and mediated through the market, in socialism all labor is directly social. To put it in simple terms, everyone's labor is pooled in the social plan, and they receive from that pool whatever they want, at most mediated by rationing for need or labor-time contributed.

If there's no money in Socialism, what of market Socialism, and how do you prevent money from arising naturally in a Socialist society?

Market socialism isn't socialism, it's a form of managed capitalism.

Money doesn't arise naturally, it's a creature of the state. And it cannot exist without private property, which is also abolished.

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 10:25 am**

Trotskylvania wrote:
The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:If there's no money in Socialism, what of market Socialism, and how do you prevent money from arising naturally in a Socialist society?

Market socialism isn't socialism, it's a form of managed capitalism.

Money doesn't arise naturally, it's a creature of the state. And it cannot exist without private property, which is also abolished.

Thank you, been getting real tired of the market socialists itt.

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 10:59 am**

Kowani wrote:
Trotskylvania wrote:Socialism is the negation of capitalism. Trying to pretend that socialism is just some rearrangment in how private property and money is distributed is farcical.

People who believe that communism requires post-scarcity are idealist technology fetishists.

Trying to make a distinction between socialism and communism is silly, because everyone's version of "socialism" just then becomes some way of trying to mediate the contradictions of capitalist political economy by having unions run everything (syndicalism), redistributing surpluses (social democracy) or having the state engage in direct capitalist accumulation (Stalinism).

Or by being me and advocating post scarcity economics.

Thats because you're neither blackpilled nor indoctrinated.

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:03 am**

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:
Kubra wrote: Well, let me try to rephrase. If I could just go out and get shoes, I would not need to exchange money for it. Perhaps I need to work, sure, by some compulsion or other, but that work does not need to be predicated on the hope of payment: it can merely proceed irrespective of what I directly hope to get from it.
This is of course very general, but is nonetheless the overall concept. Work separates from needs, needs separate from work.

You can't "just go out and get" everything. There will always be rarities, collectors things, items of sentimental worth, etc, which cannot be accounted for by "from each according to their ability to each according to their needs." You need trade to account for those, and where there's trade, there will eventually arise currency.

sure, but it to hardly merits orienting the entirety of an economic structure to account for such minor things. If a token develops to trade in such trinkets, whatever, no harm done, it ain't in the big picture.

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:06 am**

Jack Thomas Lang wrote:
Torrocca wrote:And they do that under Capitalism. I'm talking about a hypothetical scenario occurring under Socialism.

I don't see how that's any different? No barrister or solicitor would partner up with an administrative assistant demanding a larger share than he's worth. I certainly wouldn't, I'd either join a different business/coop/whatever that better appreciated the value of different jobs or look for a more amenable administrative assistant. Ultimately, socialism or not, less-skilled jobs are going to earn less, and professionals more. It's only natural.

differential wages didn't save the soviets

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:19 am**

Nakena wrote:
Kowani wrote:Or by being me and advocating post scarcity economics.

Thats because you're neither blackpilled nor indoctrinated.

Thank you, Nak.

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:56 am**

United Muscovite Nations wrote:
Trotskylvania wrote:Market socialism isn't socialism, it's a form of managed capitalism.

Money doesn't arise naturally, it's a creature of the state. And it cannot exist without private property, which is also abolished.

Thank you, been getting real tired of the market socialists itt.

... I'm pretty sure we have precisely zero market socialists in this thread. I don't think I've ever even seen any on this site.

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:49 pm**

Torrocca wrote:
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Thank you, been getting real tired of the market socialists itt.

... I'm pretty sure we have precisely zero market socialists in this thread. I don't think I've ever even seen any on this site.

Helloooooo

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:50 pm**

Trotskylvania wrote:
The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:If there's no money in Socialism, what of market Socialism, and how do you prevent money from arising naturally in a Socialist society?

Market socialism isn't socialism, it's a form of managed capitalism.

Money doesn't arise naturally, it's a creature of the state. And it cannot exist without private property, which is also abolished.

Socialism is worker control over the means of production. Market socialism achieves that. The state, ultimately, answers to the interests of the market and to a lesser degree, voters. A socialist market means a socialist state, beholden to the lobbying of corporations under the control of their workers.

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:55 pm**

yet another inane nations states assumption, that a non-monetary economy would have to be either barter or planed or marxist.

no idea what this breadtube thing is supposed to be all about though.

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 2:38 pm**

Cameroi wrote:yet another inane nations states assumption, that a non-monetary economy would have to be either barter or planed or marxist.

no idea what this breadtube thing is supposed to be all about though.

It's about YouTubers who make baking videos.

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 6:00 pm**

Cekoviu wrote:
Cameroi wrote:yet another inane nations states assumption, that a non-monetary economy would have to be either barter or planed or marxist.

no idea what this breadtube thing is supposed to be all about though.

It's about YouTubers who make baking videos.

I was getting hungry…

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 7:28 pm**

Cekoviu wrote:
Cameroi wrote:yet another inane nations states assumption, that a non-monetary economy would have to be either barter or planed or marxist.

no idea what this breadtube thing is supposed to be all about though.

It's about YouTubers who make baking videos.

I prefer the wheat-farming tutorials.

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 7:39 pm**

United Muscovite Nations wrote:
Cekoviu wrote:It's about YouTubers who make baking videos.

I prefer the wheat-farming tutorials.

Don’t you know that’s what caused the Soviet Famines?

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:10 pm**

Kowani wrote:
United Muscovite Nations wrote:I prefer the wheat-farming tutorials.

Don’t you know that’s what caused the Soviet Famines?

I blame a mixture of kulaks, crop failure and regional drought.

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:11 pm**

Crysuko wrote:
Kowani wrote:Don’t you know that’s what caused the Soviet Famines?

I blame a mixture of kulaks, crop failure and regional drought.

And YouTubers.

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:36 pm**

Kowani wrote:
United Muscovite Nations wrote:I prefer the wheat-farming tutorials.

Don’t you know that’s what caused the Soviet Famines?

Obligatory

NationStates

LWDT 8: Hitting the Marx