[Tainari88]

I wanted to put in a short video on Chomsky talking about socialism and how socialism has been seen by both sides--the pro socialists and the ones against socialism.

[youtube]K4Tq4VE8eHQ[/youtube]

For me socialism should be about people who work for a living controlling their working conditions, their work and their labor for themselves. A socialist government should be about working people's interests. Not the elite's. That is a fairly straight forward way of looking at socialism. I think it is quite logical. If you work and sweat in a work environment you should have some control of what goes on there. In a group. And not have a small elite group making top down decisions with no input from the working members of the enterprise. In a sense it is the truest form of democracy for economics.

I find it funny that the USA bills itself as a very inclusive representative democracy but in practice practices extremely undemocratic practices within their work environments. It is very much a cause for concern. At the same time, nothing corrupts quite so thoroughly as power. I think that power needs to be diffused and not concentrated in limited hands. It becomes something fairly destructive and corruptible if it does. Some argue that it is efficient for power to be in limited hands. That was done in monarchies. And some reigns were good if the power was in the hands of excellent monarchs. But if the power rested in bad ones? The whole society paid the price. All that capriciousness in the hands of monarchs and their handlers....was not efficient at all really.

What do you think should happen? Do you think workers who are educated and who are reliable and dependable and people of good values make better bosses over their own life's labor than distant bosses with little identity in those endeavors? Yes or no. And why?

[Phred]

I wanted to put in a short video on Chomsky talking about socialism...

Five minutes of Chomsky blathering on is far from short. It is in fact an eternity.

For me socialism should be about people who work for a living controlling their working conditions, their work and their labor for themselves.

If it's their own business they are working for, sure. If it's someone else's business, then no... they don't get to call the shots.

A socialist government should be about working people's interests. Not the elite's.

What does it take to turn a business owner into a member of the elite?

If you work and sweat in a work environment you should have some control of what goes on there. In a group.

Why?

And not have a small elite group...

What rational people call "owners".

...making top down decisions with no input from the working members of the enterprise. In a sense it is the truest form of democracy for economics.

Democracy in economic ventures results in failed economic ventures.

I find it funny that the USA bills itself as a very inclusive representative democracy but in practice practices extremely undemocratic practices within their work environments.

That's because the Founding Fathers believed in a separation of the state from the way in which people traded with each other, just as they believed in a separation of the state from the way people worshipped their gods.

It is very much a cause for concern.

On the contrary... it is one of the many things the Founding Fathers got right.

Do you think workers who are educated and who are reliable and dependable and people of good values make better bosses over their own life's labor than distant bosses with little identity in those endeavors?

That's not the question to ask. The question to ask is, "Do you think workers who are educated and who are reliable and dependable and people of good values should be allowed to make decisions which could easily lead to the loss of the owner's business?"

I say if these people are so educated and reliable and dependable and possess good values, they should have no difficulty persuading others to join them in forming a business where they get to make whatever decisions over their own life's labor they want to.



Phred

[Suska]

Chomsky makes a great deal of sense.

Do you think workers who are educated and who are reliable and dependable and people of good values make better bosses over their own life's labor than distant bosses with little identity in those endeavors? Yes or no.

Absolutely.

And why?

That's a good question. Hierarchies and competitions are false and inefficient.

[Daktoria]

Do you think workers who are educated and who are reliable and dependable and people of good values make better bosses over their own life's labor than distant bosses with little identity in those endeavors? Yes or no. And why?

Most workers are not independent. They're results oriented brutes who emotionally relish in the moment and have little to no capacity for thinking ahead.

If anything, workers despise education. It makes you seem sophisticated which workers deliberately go out of their way to make fun of you for. They take it as a sign of weakness, as a sign of dependency.

Regarding values, most workers are terribly lacking in that area as well. Some workers will be funny and obedient just to get attention, but they sell everything out and blame everything in sight when things fail despite how they were following historical plans.

Workers can't adapt. They need management for instruction despite how they hate it so much.

That said, freelancers are always nice to have around. They actually understand what it takes to be creative, and you can delegate tasks to them without having to watch over every little thing to make sure they don't slack off or cheat the system.

My ideal leadership role is as a supporter rather than a dictator, so that's probably why I like freelancers so much. They're easier to hang out with too since they know how to relax instead of always being on your case.

[Negotiator]

To me socialism is any economic system without dependency and exploitation.

The best way to do it seems to be to simply make the economy democratic.

For example:
- The workers get information about their company, such as the balance sheet.
- The workers democratically decide about the rules controlling the company.
- The workers vote for their leadership structure.
- The workers vote for the salaries they get.
- The workers cannot be unemployed except if there is a majority vote for it

[Rei Murasame]

Chomsky is overlooking the fact that all movements are warped in their expression at first by the stresses and rigours of being placed under pressure by rival powers and the geopolitical situation at the time.

For him to say that the USSR was not trying to build socialism would almost be like saying that Italy was not trying to build fascism. That's ridiculous.

There's a difference between trying to build it and failing, versus just not building it at all. He's accusing them of the latter, but that doesn't seem to make sense to me.

[Suska]

It makes sense to me. Chomsky is coming from a time in which the claim was bold and he's right, it wasn't a fact. The history of the USSR is still a case study in reality meets socialism, but in retrospect it didn't achieve what it claimed to have achieved.

[Tainari88]

To me socialism is any economic system without dependency and exploitation.

The best way to do it seems to be to simply make the economy democratic.

For example:
- The workers get information about their company, such as the balance sheet.
- The workers democratically decide about the rules controlling the company.
- The workers vote for their leadership structure.
- The workers vote for the salaries they get.
- The workers cannot be unemployed except if there is a majority vote for it

Negotiator that is exactly what I think should happen. I find that adults who work and sacrifice for their work many years of their lives have proven maturity and know how to be responsible adults. They should be treated as such and allowed to be making decisions that affect their lives. In the end, it makes for good business as well.

One excellent example of how well a true worker controlled system works in a company is Alvarado Street Bakery. Read up on it here:

http://www.alvaradostreetbakery.com/about_us.html

Chomsky is overlooking the fact that all movements are warped in their expression at first by the stresses and rigours of being placed under pressure by rival powers and the geopolitical situation at the time.

Rei, the issue with true socialism stems from the fact that the majority of the world is NOT socialist. In order for a cooperative system to work on a global scale and function efficiently it needs to be embraced by the MAJORITY of the nations in the globe. It has not---because there is ferocious resistance to it due to capitalism and corporatism. Socialism definitely works extremely well in small businesses and in cooperatives. That is not in dispute at all. It doesn't work when you have large swaths of the middle class and the upper class and the tiny elite plutocrats against it. People basically fear change. They should not. But they do.

Somehow they think that the elite got there by superiority. They don't. They sometimes are incredibly incompetent. Just look at the those members of that failed Super Committee on the deficit---total failures. Yet, they retain their positions because they are backers of private ownership.

Change only comes sometimes with crisis. Socialism in its truest form is always about cooperative models. Not competitive models in which the vast majority of workers get shafted and only an elite---benefit from that. For me that is a tremendous waste. And it is an exploitative model that will lead to eventual social instability and unrest.

This society if allowed to go the neo-conservative route will attack even those institutions that have been the springboard for advancement based on a very basic cooperative model---such as free public education, and health care that is either free or affordable. If this society no longer educated people for free or keeps the underclass and working class from getting sick and dying without medical treatment? There will be class conflict, and violence and instability.

Socialism in its cooperative models must be a very systemic and widespread internationally applied model in order to function at its best. Competing with elite controlled international capitalism is going to be nearly impossible. The international capitalists exploit and due to their concentrated wealth and power in very small groups of owners and bosses can keep things stagnant and problematic for many years.

Eventually though these old and inefficient crash and burn capitalist things are going to reach no expansion and no give. It is inevitable. The flaw is already existent and it is not a flexible enough system to change drastically without some serious loss in profit and control. It has to change. The enigma is when the conditions for those changes will be brought about.

[Phred]

One excellent example of how well a true worker controlled system works in a company is Alvarado Street Bakery. Read up on it here:

http://www.alvaradostreetbakery.com/about_us.html

See... there's a perfect example of my earlier observation:

I say if these people are so educated and reliable and dependable and possess good values, they should have no difficulty persuading others to join them in forming a business where they get to make whatever decisions over their own life's labor they want to.

I salute the co-founders of Alvarado Street Bakery.



Phred

[HoniSoit]

Five minutes of Chomsky blathering on is far from short. It is in fact an eternity.

Wait until you see the full 3-hour interview of Chomsky, of which this clip is a tiny part.

As always, Chomsky makes good sense and typically knows far more about the topic he is discussing than any number of his critics. The way he puts his argument is almost always striking but once you think about it makes very good sense.

[CounterChaos]

I have a completely different view of socialism. To me all critical industries are owned by the entire nation with only non-critical industry's engaging in local coop based barter and trade. Agrarian at its base with uniform basic necessities provided cradle to grave. Congressional, Judicial and Military representation with no Senate or President. National issues resolved by majority electronic vote. No local police force (handled by rotating squads of national military regulars)

No parties - no ruling class - no communism - no capitalism - no banks - no bullshit

Uniform housing - uniform transportation - uniform vacation rights - uniform education.

Monthly allotment of digital credits that each individual can spend at local coop based trade outlets.

etc.etc.etc

My vision is very Utopian.

[Suska]

interesting

VP EDIT: Please refrain from one-line posts. Since this has generated some discussion, I will not delete it.

[CounterChaos]

interesting

Well, that is a little open-ended isn't it?... Is that interesting tell me more, or is that interesting ?

Inquiring minds need to know.......

[Suska]

Intriguing. I dunno, sounds nice. Interesting that you have it planned out. If you feel like expanding on it please do.

[CounterChaos]

Intriguing. I dunno, sounds nice. Interesting that you have it planned out. If you feel like expanding on it please do.

I'm still formulating it - it may be a few weeks though, I'm having sleep issues at the moment. When you are retired and addicted to Pofo - it is easy to get off track - when you're old that screws up everything ......


I think it will be fun though to put my dream down on paper........