:)

Dialectics made easy:
http://home.igc.org/~venceremos/
http://www.marxists.org/subject/dialectics/index.htm

Should people be free to choose how hard they work?

freediver wrote on Oct 6^th, 2008 at 10:25am:

Should people be free to choose how hard they work?

Lenin said "an equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor"
Marx said "From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need."

So yes, people can work as hard or as little as they like.

If you want to get into an in depth discussion about socialism/communism join REVLEFT forum that I linked you to, I'm certain there will plenty of people willing to discuss it there with you.

Lenin's quote appears to contradict that. It appears to imply that everyone does an equal amount of labour. Marx's quote also contradicts that. He doesn't say 'from each according to his will', but rather 'from each according to his ability'.

Do you see the choice between socialism and capitalism as binary?

They don't contradict one another, it means you will receive an equal amount of *insert whatever here* for an equal amount of labor. Not like how things work in capitalism, for example in capitalism one works 40 hours for a weeks work yet he only receives a fraction of his labor value as a wage. The employer keeps the other fraction as profit, this is called surplus value...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_value.

The choice between socialism and capitalism is an easy one, either you want the system to be for and controlled by, and benefit, the majority or you are happy being exploited by the minority.

The way things are now is we, the majority, work, and in working we make the minority, those with the means of production, wealthy off of our labor, we are not receiving the full value from our labor.

In light of all the facts, I suggest you read some of the links I've provided, socialism is an easy choice to make considering we are being robbed of our rightful wages from our labor. Unless you are bourgeois socialism should appeal to everyone providing you have a correct understanding of socialism and not a capitalist propaganda view of it.


A good book to read is the two volume set of MARX & ENGELS "Selected Works" you can find it on abe books for under $20 for the set if you look around.

So socialism is based on an equal hourly pay rate, not an equal total salary?

The choice between socialism and capitalism is an easy one

Are you saying that you do see it as a binary choice?

What exactly do you mean by "binary", I've only ever heard that used to refer to numbers? Theres numerous meanings for binary and I'm uncertain which you mean.


Quote:

So socialism is based on an equal hourly pay rate, not an equal total salary?

It is when the worker gets his labor value. Socialism is only a means to an end by the way, the end being communism.

queer wrote on Oct 6^th, 2008 at 11:00am:

What exactly do you mean by "binary", I've only ever heard that used to refer to numbers? Theres numerous meanings for binary and I'm uncertain which you mean.

Either or - choice between two things. Yes no. Black and white.

In that case yes, its either socialism or capitalism, you cant blend the two to please whatever ideology you may have. Both are opposed to each other like - & +.

It is when the worker gets his labor value.

How do you decide what that value is?

In that case yes, its either socialism or capitalism, you cant blend the two to please whatever ideology you may have. Both are opposed to each other like - & +.

Yet all modern, nominally capitalist states use elements of both. There are no 'true' or 'pure' capitalist systems in operation.

Does this mean your whole argument is based on a strawman? Are you arguing in favour of scoialsim to replace a system that isn't actually used?

freediver wrote on Oct 6^th, 2008 at 11:22am:

It is when the worker gets his labor value. How do you decide what that value is? In that case yes, its either socialism or capitalism, you cant blend the two to please whatever ideology you may have. Both are opposed to each other like - & +. Yet all modern, nominally capitalist states use elements of both. There are no 'true' or 'pure' capitalist systems in operation. Does this mean your whole argument is based on a strawman? Are you arguing in favour of scoialsim to replace a system that isn't actually used?

This is why I didn't want to get into this discussion here on this forum, theres enough of that with all the cappies on RefLeft, its an endless offense/defense game that goes around in circles.

BTW, todays capitalism is nothing like a socialist state would be, if you really want to discuss this go to REVLEFT cause I ain't in the mood to play "my ideology is better than yours" games or "convert" anyone over the interwebz.

No offense intended.

It seems to me that your idea of socialism is just an extreme version of what we already have, just as pure capitalism is also. You are promoting your extremism as being better than the opposite extremism, while ignoring what we actually have.

freediver wrote on Oct 6^th, 2008 at 11:30am:

It seems to me that your idea of socialism is just an extreme version of what we already have, just as pure capitalism is also. You are promoting your extremism as being better than the opposite extremism, while ignoring what we actually have.

Socialism isn't extreme, its a fair system where everyone is treated as equals and receives equal payment for their labor. Its a system that doesn't discriminate against minority communities. Its a system where a doctor and a street cleaner are treated the same and given the same opportunities in life. Theres no barriers or walls between classes like there is in capitalism as capitalism in inherently a system of class division.

It is extreme in the sense that it lies at one end of a spetrum of what people tend to actually choose, and can only be justified by creating a false dichotomy between it and the other extreme.

It is when the worker gets his labor value.

How do you decide what that value is?

In a socialist state the state (people) would decide what it is, it would be a fair rate, fair for the employer (state owned) and the employee, not like today where the employer can pay you just about whatever they want to. Generally, its accepted that, workers today only receive about half  or even less of their labor value.

queer - hahahhaahhaha
and we will all be coffee coloured people, nooone will need locks or jails, all will live in total harmony, singing in tune all their lovely lives.

In a socialist state the state (people) would decide what it is

How so? There are a lot of jobs out there. I don't want to go through each one and try to choose a value for it. I might get it wrong.

The people also decide what value a job has in a capitalist system. It's just the mechanism that is different.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 6^th, 2008 at 11:58am:

queer - hahahhaahhaha and we will all be coffee coloured people, nooone will need locks or jails, all will live in total harmony, singing in tune all their lovely lives.

You're thinking of communism interpreted by the capitalist that doesn't know anything about it.




Quote:

The people also decide what value a job has in a capitalist system. It's just the mechanism that is different.

Read a few books by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels and then come back and discuss socialism, you will likely have a different opinion on it, if not, ya just cant teach some people what equality is.

queer wrote on Oct 6^th, 2008 at 11:41am:

In a socialist state the state

Socialism will be free or it will not be at all - Rudolph Rocker

So I have to read a few books before I can talk to you? If it takes a few books to explain it, then it is far too complicated to work. Either that, or they deliberately make it so long winded to hide it's flaws.

Do all communists attribute disagreement to ignorance on the other's part?

I'm on Queer's side here to a certain extent.

I think socialism can be really good if kept to a minimum.


'Socialism' meaning... Government ownership vs private ownership. 'Slight' wage equality. Free education. Free health. Etc etc.


However, I believe that socialism needs to kept to a minimum when it comes to more ideological/extreme things, such as open boarders, anti-wacism, complete wage equality for everyone and the intentional destruction of the upper classes.

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Oct 6^th, 2008 at 6:05pm:

I'm on Queer's side here to a certain extent. I think socialism can be really good if kept to a minimum. 'Socialism' meaning... Government ownership vs private ownership. 'Slight' wage equality. Free education. Free health. Etc etc. However, I believe that socialism needs to kept to a minimum when it comes to more ideological/extreme things, such as open boarders, anti-wacism, complete wage equality for everyone and the intentional destruction of the upper classes.

Umm socialisms core is open borders, the eradication of the wage system and a classless society... so... you are in favour of current inequality... I guess thats why you are Donald Trump

freediver wrote on Oct 6^th, 2008 at 1:48pm:

Do all communists attribute disagreement to ignorance on the other's part?

queer certainly does..

queer -
Quote:

In a socialist state the state (people) would decide what it is, it would be a fair rate, fair for the employer (state owned) and the employee, not like today where the employer can pay you just about whatever they want to. Generally, its accepted that, workers today only receive about half  or even less of their labor value.

So in the queer state, all workers would get a 100% pay rise ?
And entrepreneurs, business owners wold have their rewards decided for them ??
Any other ideas on how to stamp out original ideas and deliver an unworkable society ???

Exotic Cheese wrote on Oct 6^th, 2008 at 6:13pm:

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Oct 6th, 2008 at 6:05pm: I'm on Queer's side here to a certain extent. I think socialism can be really good if kept to a minimum. 'Socialism' meaning... Government ownership vs private ownership. 'Slight' wage equality. Free education. Free health. Etc etc. However, I believe that socialism needs to kept to a minimum when it comes to more ideological/extreme things, such as open boarders, anti-wacism, complete wage equality for everyone and the intentional destruction of the upper classes. Umm socialisms core is open borders, the eradication of the wage system and a classless society... so... you are in favour of current inequality... I guess thats why you are Donald Trump

Um... actually, extreme socialism (aka communism) is open borders and a classless society. 'Socialism' in actual fact is just a mild form of communism.

What I'm saying simply is that I favour 'some' aspects of socialism. Not all. I'm in no way a communist or do I believe that socialism will evolve into full-blown communism and then into a utopia.

There are nor pure socialist or capitalist states. So here you go... reality is the answer.

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Oct 6^th, 2008 at 7:08pm:

Exotic Cheese wrote on Oct 6th, 2008 at 6:13pm: ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Oct 6th, 2008 at 6:05pm: I'm on Queer's side here to a certain extent. I think socialism can be really good if kept to a minimum. 'Socialism' meaning... Government ownership vs private ownership. 'Slight' wage equality. Free education. Free health. Etc etc. However, I believe that socialism needs to kept to a minimum when it comes to more ideological/extreme things, such as open boarders, anti-wacism, complete wage equality for everyone and the intentional destruction of the upper classes. Umm socialisms core is open borders, the eradication of the wage system and a classless society... so... you are in favour of current inequality... I guess thats why you are Donald Trump Um... actually, extreme socialism (aka communism) is open borders and a classless society. 'Socialism' in actual fact is just a mild form of communism.

No regular socialisms core ideals are a classless society and open borders.


tallowood wrote on Oct 6^th, 2008 at 7:14pm:

There are nor pure socialist or capitalist states. So here you go... reality is the answer.

The reality is that states don't work very well

Exotic Cheese wrote on Oct 6^th, 2008 at 7:58pm:

No regular socialisms core ideals are a classless society and open borders.

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and ex socialist countries of Eastern Europe had closed borders. Cuba, China, NK have close borders. Sweden while practising socialism irregularly had as open borders as any capitalist state. That makes it many:1



Exotic Cheese wrote on Oct 6^th, 2008 at 7:58pm:

tallowood wrote on Oct 6th, 2008 at 7:14pm: There are nor pure socialist or capitalist states. So here you go... reality is the answer. The reality is that states don't work very well

Anything better in real history?

Does Australia have open borders?

freediver wrote on Oct 6^th, 2008 at 9:54pm:

Does Australia have open borders?

To civilised people, no.

To uncivilised, useless third-worlders (Africans and Middle-Easterners), pretty much.  :)

Quote:

Tallowood wrote: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and ex socialist countries of Eastern Europe had closed borders. Cuba, China, NK have close borders. Sweden while practising socialism irregularly had as open borders as any capitalist state. That makes it many:1

The USSR, China and North Korea are not/never were socialist! They may have had a Marxist ideology but they were dictatorships and not truly socialist. China is a capitalist country and is communist in name only. North Korea is an evil dictatorship to this day. Cuba is socialist.

Communism has never existed in any country!

Socialism, as a principle, is fine, and in many ways, far more benevolent than Capitalism, but both are subject to the abuses that flow from individual greed and corruption, ultimately it all boils down to "POWER", and who gets it, and how much they are allowed.

Capitalism, with good governance, is probably the more likely way to achieve a fair and decent society, but the critical factor is the good governance, without that we see the unfettered exploitation of the powerless.

The particularly worrying aspect of our current global economic crisis is the open subjugation of good governance, in return for money.

Individuals, and Corporations, with more money and power, than Nations, sees them wield the power to set the needs of the Nation, behind the needs of the company.

Fake money, created out of thin air, is a modern invention, and you don't have to be Nostradamus to predict a bad outcome from that scenario.

tallowood wrote on Oct 6^th, 2008 at 8:17pm:

Exotic Cheese wrote on Oct 6th, 2008 at 7:58pm: No regular socialisms core ideals are a classless society and open borders. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and ex socialist countries of Eastern Europe had closed borders. Cuba, China, NK have close borders. Sweden while practising socialism irregularly had as open borders as any capitalist state. That makes it many:1

None of those places were or are socialist/communist.


Quote:

Exotic Cheese wrote on Oct 6th, 2008 at 7:58pm: tallowood wrote on Oct 6th, 2008 at 7:14pm: There are nor pure socialist or capitalist states. So here you go... reality is the answer. The reality is that states don't work very well Anything better in real history?

Mutual agreement and free association work pretty well when they aren't crushed

Exotic Cheese wrote on Oct 7^th, 2008 at 3:47pm:

tallowood wrote on Oct 6th, 2008 at 8:17pm: Exotic Cheese wrote on Oct 6th, 2008 at 7:58pm: No regular socialisms core ideals are a classless society and open borders. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and ex socialist countries of Eastern Europe had closed borders. Cuba, China, NK have close borders. Sweden while practising socialism irregularly had as open borders as any capitalist state. That makes it many:1 None of those places were or are socialist/communist.

Yes they were.
For example the Soviet Union was proclaimed a "socialist state" in its 1936 Constitution and a subsequent 1977 one. Official state ideology was Marxism-Leninism with Marxist one party rule and dictatorship of proletarians. Their economy was fully run by state and distribution of wealth was "from each according the ability - to each according to work". Also private property was constitutionally prohibited and there were "free" education, health care etc.

If that is not classic socialism then socialism is just an empty meaningless word.



Exotic Cheese wrote on Oct 7^th, 2008 at 3:47pm:

Quote: Exotic Cheese wrote on Oct 6th, 2008 at 7:58pm: tallowood wrote on Oct 6th, 2008 at 7:14pm: There are nor pure socialist or capitalist states. So here you go... reality is the answer. The reality is that states don't work very well Anything better in real history? Mutual agreement and free association work pretty well when they aren't crushed

Any real historical example of such a state?

The USSR was only socialist in certain ways, it wasn't fully socialist, it was a dictatorship and a Stalinist state. I'm not interested in half socialism, only true socialism. Just because it calls itself socialist doesn't make it so, look at China today for example.

queer wrote on Oct 8^th, 2008 at 7:49am:

The USSR was only socialist in certain ways, it wasn't fully socialist, it was a dictatorship and a Stalinist state. I'm not interested in half socialism, only true socialism. Just because it calls itself socialist doesn't make it so, look at China today for example.

USSR was not a Stalinist state after the 20th Communist Party Congress in February 1956. The dictatorship is historical reality of majority of socialist states as dictatorship of proletarians were postulated by Karl Marx.

As for "true" socialism the absence of historical examples make socialism sound like a empty meaningless word unconnected to reality.

Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a whole lot different that a selfish dictatorship like was in the USSR.

Anyways, any self respecting socialist/communist knows the USSR wasn't truly socialist so I'm not going to argue with you about it.

queer wrote on Oct 8^th, 2008 at 8:45am:

Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a whole lot different that a selfish dictatorship like was in the USSR.

How? What is the difference?




queer wrote on Oct 8^th, 2008 at 8:45am:

Anyways, any self respecting socialist/communist knows the USSR wasn't truly socialist so I'm not going to argue with you about it.

So all those socialists and communists who ideologically and politically supported USSR prior to its disbandment were not respecting themselves? That makes a whole lot of socialists and communist look silly.

Don't argue because you're wrong.  ;)

I think Socialism is a better answer than Capitalism. But it should be Democratic as in Social Democracy. And secular is best.

There should be no private education, no religious school network, no private health care, no tax exemption for religions, nationalisation of natural resourses, no private ownership of strategically important infrastructure such as telecommunications, and a more equitable pay system ie more wealth sharing but I also think that it is not unreasonable to expect those on unemployment benefits to contribute something. For instance if you are recieving unemployment benefits you might be required to do one day work and one day training .....something along those lines.

Better wealth sharing need not necessarily be in the form of higher worker wages but better services and retirement policy etc.

Entrepreneurialism should still be rewarded but maybe not to the degree that it currently can be. News media ownership should be far more diverse and public TV and radio should be better supported (Go Briz31)

While I believe in social justice and civil liberties, I think criminal behaviour should be dealt with far more harshly, particularly white collar crime. White collar criminals have had it far too easy. If some banker is convicted of fraud or criminal mismanagement than all assets associated with him are sold to retrieve as much of the debt as possible or become part of a public trust. If the $14 million house is in his wife's name or children's name it is sold and the wife/children are then able to purchase a house at mean value in an average suburb. They should not be on the street but should not be enjoying the exploits of criminal behaviour while waitin for dad to finish serving his 2 years  for ruining hundreds of peoples lives.

freediver wrote on Oct 6^th, 2008 at 11:36am:

How do you decide what that value is?

You don't decide. The economy does. In World terms, the economy becomes insignificant. You can't have your cake and eat it. If the country was totally self sufficient, then it wouldn't have to import goods from anywhere.  The result is that you get rampant gluts and shortages. Most of Eastern Europe was used to empty supermarket shelves. If you liked canned peaches, about 3 months salary would buy you a can.

It's a fair system - that is if you consider it fair on the proletariat to depress the economy.  In an ideal world everybody gets their fair share (of practically nothing). I've seen the after effects of Marxism in Guinea. That was a country that was laden with resources. It should have been at least as rich as countries like Gabon.  In the real world there was some limited trade with more powerful countries like Russia and China who basically screwed Guinea for what they could get. Guinea today has a GDP of about $US4.7 Billion, 15 years after the experiment with Marxism. Ghana by comparison is around $US11 Billion. It's a common theme around the world. There are some exceptions, such as most of the former Warsaw Block countries.

In a capitalist society, there is a mixture of rich, comfortable rich and poor. In a Marxist society, everybody is equal, but desperately poor.

It's an experiment that nobody wants to try again.  

tallowood wrote on Oct 8^th, 2008 at 9:01am:

queer wrote on Oct 8th, 2008 at 8:45am: Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a whole lot different that a selfish dictatorship like was in the USSR. How? What is the difference? queer wrote on Oct 8th, 2008 at 8:45am: Anyways, any self respecting socialist/communist knows the USSR wasn't truly socialist so I'm not going to argue with you about it. So all those socialists and communists who ideologically and politically supported USSR prior to its disbandment were not respecting themselves? That makes a whole lot of socialists and communist look silly. Don't argue because you're wrong.  ;)

Oh, of course, I'm wrong and socialism is bad, what was I thinking. ::)

queer wrote on Oct 8^th, 2008 at 9:06am:

tallowood wrote on Oct 8th, 2008 at 9:01am: queer wrote on Oct 8th, 2008 at 8:45am: Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a whole lot different that a selfish dictatorship like was in the USSR. How? What is the difference? queer wrote on Oct 8th, 2008 at 8:45am: Anyways, any self respecting socialist/communist knows the USSR wasn't truly socialist so I'm not going to argue with you about it. So all those socialists and communists who ideologically and politically supported USSR prior to its disbandment were not respecting themselves? That makes a whole lot of socialists and communist look silly. Don't argue because you're wrong.  ;) Oh, of course, I'm wrong and socialism is bad, what was I thinking. ::)

Yes, the reason have prevailed  :D

Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a whole lot different that a selfish dictatorship like was in the USSR.

So socialism requires some kind of benign dictatorship? Isn't that a bit naive? Do you think that just because only ideologues support socialism that self interested people would stay out of the dictatorship once it gained power?

There are hundreds of possible systems that would work fine if we could rely on a benign dictatorship that knows what's really best for the ignorant fools on the street. Unfortunately there's no such thing.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is not a dictatorship of any one man or woman, it is a combined dictatorship of the people, the proletarians as a whole. The USSR had a dictatorship of one man, Stalin.

it is a combined dictatorship of the people, the proletarians as a whole

That is not 'of the people'. That is 'of a minority with a severe superiority complex'. How would it work anyway? Would it be like a committee with 20000 people in it?

In a socialist state the state (people) would decide what it is

How so? There are a lot of jobs out there. I don't want to go through each one and try to choose a value for it. I might get it wrong.

The people also decide what value a job has in a capitalist system. It's just the mechanism that is different.

queer wrote on Oct 8^th, 2008 at 10:46am:

The dictatorship of the proletariat is not a dictatorship of any one man or woman, it is a combined dictatorship of the people, the proletarians as a whole. The USSR had a dictatorship of one man, Stalin.

There were whole lot of prols behind Stalin so it was the dictatorship of the proletarians.
Besides as I pointed out the historical fact is that Stalin was denounced by Kruschev in 1956 yet Union of Soviet Socialist Republics kept going.

freediver wrote on Oct 8^th, 2008 at 10:18am:

Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a whole lot different that a selfish dictatorship like was in the USSR. So socialism requires some kind of benign dictatorship? Isn't that a bit naive? Do you think that just because only ideologues support socialism that self interested people would stay out of the dictatorship once it gained power? There are hundreds of possible systems that would work fine if we could rely on a benign dictatorship that knows what's really best for the ignorant fools on the street. Unfortunately there's no such thing.

Actually Marx and Lenin recognised the reality and pointed out that any state requires dictatorship e.g. a "true" democratic state is dictatorship of majority, therefore any state has tools of enforcement e.g. police and/or army of sort.

Actually Marx and Lenin recognised the reality and pointed out that any state requires dictatorship e.g. a "true" democratic state is dictatorship of majority

Something tells me these guys had a strategy of just making up new words and changing the definition of old ones. That way instead of putting together a genuine argument, you just define reality out of existence and replace it with socialism.

freediver wrote on Oct 8^th, 2008 at 11:11am:

Actually Marx and Lenin recognised the reality and pointed out that any state requires dictatorship e.g. a "true" democratic state is dictatorship of majority Something tells me these guys had a strategy of just making up new words and changing the definition of old ones. That way instead of putting together a genuine argument, you just define reality out of existence and replace it with socialism.

There are historical examples of democracy as a rule of majority fallen to dictatorship of minority by reason of not able to defend itself.
For example Ancient Greece who coined the very word "democracy" as well as the word "despotism". The mechanism itself can be a putsch or a revolution. More modern examples are Franco of Spain or Bolsheviks of October revolution.

Ancient Greece did not 'fall' to minority rule. That's just all they had to begin with. Hitler, and a few African countries are genuine examples. You don't need a revolution. You just need to kill anyone who disagrees with your decision not to hold another election.

freediver wrote on Oct 8^th, 2008 at 12:00pm:

Ancient Greece did not 'fall' to minority rule. That's just all they had to begin with. Hitler, and a few African countries are genuine examples. You don't need a revolution. You just need to kill anyone who disagrees with your decision not to hold another election.

Ancient Greece was a conglomerate of different city states some of which never had democracy. Those who did like Athens now and then were loosing it to despots or oligarchs strong enough to take power by force.
Hitler came to power by democratic means but stayed by force.
Bolsheviks came to power by force and stayed by it.

No ancient Greek cities ever had what would be considered a democracy today. Basically, only rich white men were allowed to vote. They introduced a ruling class, rather than a traditional dictatorship. The mechanism by which that class made decisions was fairly unique for such a large group. But it was still a long way from the rule of the majority. Having only a small minorty voting allowed for a far more direct democracy than we have today. But it was more like a self appointed parliament passing bills rather than an elected parliament.

freediver wrote on Oct 8^th, 2008 at 12:21pm:

No ancient Greek cities ever had what would be considered a democracy today. Basically, only rich white men were allowed to vote. They introduced a ruling class, rather than a traditional dictatorship. The mechanism by which that class made decisions was fairly unique for such a large group. But it was still a long way from the rule of the majority. Having only a small minorty voting allowed for a far more direct democracy than we have today. But it was more like a self appointed parliament passing bills rather than an elected parliament.

Some say we still don't have a true democracy today as children are excluded and there are not enough parties to satisfy everyone etc. so that is not the point. This sub discussion is about dictatorship of majority of eligible voters and about means to protecting legitimate government against usurpation by minorities who can win by brutal force and/or superb organisation and control of resources.

Socialism to me means that the government -AKA the people- own everything. Land, businesses etc. People would still be paid extra if they had more qualifications than someone else or worked harder.

Who should decide how hard everybody works?

That'd probably be negotiated through a number of parties. Just like it is now.

Right now it is almost entirely between the employee and the employer. I wouldn't want a committee of bureaucrats setting my wage.

Are you suggesting everyone in an industry gets the same wage, like with current union agreements?

I reckon there should still be awards for wages, but companies and real estate would owned by the state.

So within an industry, wages should be fixed?

There should be awards but the awards would rise over time. Just like they do now.

So two plumbers, one who works his arse off, and the other who plods along doing half as much, having a nice chat and a cup of tea with each customer - they should get paid the same amount?

How would that be any different to now?

At the moment plumbers who work harder get paid paid more.

I'm not a plumber but I've worked in plenty of places where hard workers were on the same award as the bludgers. But they were allowed to act like martyrs.  

And you thought this was such a good thing that all plumbers should be forced onto the same scheme?

But the worker gets paid more for working longer hours. Plus, if the boss is ever going to sack someone, it's probably going to be the bludger and the worker is more likely to get promoted.  

So if the lazy worker spends 12 hours at the job, but ends up getting less done than the bloke who is only there for 6, he should get paid twice as much?

That's an issue under capitalism too. My main reason for favouring socialism is that the nation’s assets would stay in the hands of the people. Not the privileged few.

Are you familiar with the tragedy of the commons?

No.

Revenant wrote on Oct 18^th, 2008 at 10:06am:

That's an issue under capitalism too. My main reason for favouring socialism is that the nation’s assets would stay in the hands of the people. Not the privileged few.

The problem with equality in a real world socialist societies is that "some animals are more equal then others".

Who's talking about equality? I'm talking about the state taking control of the nation's assets.

Revenant wrote on Oct 18^th, 2008 at 11:36am:

Who's talking about equality? I'm talking about the state taking control of the nation's assets.

But a state is not the people, state bureaucrats are the privileged few.

Yeah. But in a democratic socialist society it would be in their interests to do the right thing by the people or they'd be voted out and control of the nation's assets would be handed over to a new government.

The tragedy of the commons is the textbook example of why most assets should be owned privately, and is used to refer to failures common in communal ownership.

The example usually given is that of communal land surrounding villages in England many centuries ago. Shepherds also had their own land, but while there was grass on the commons it was in their interest to graxe there instead. The end result was that the land was overgrazed, not looked after and not improved. The fundamental problem is that what is in the best interest of an individual decision maker is not in the best interest of the community as a whole, unless the land is privately owned. Once someone owns the land, they will figure out how to look after it and use it most efficiently, then put that plan into action.

This is part of a broader problem with socialism - that it fails to align the interest of the individual with the interest of the broader community. Capitalism does not make people selfish. Socialism does not make them generous. But capitalism does tend to do a far better job at matching the interest of the individual with the interests of the broader community.

Yeah. But in a democratic socialist society it would be in their interests to do the right thing by the people or they'd be voted out and control of the nation's assets would be handed over to a new government.

The problem is not that the government doesn't want to handle everything well. The problem is that the government is unable to. Voting in someone else who really wants to do the right thing will not make them any more capable.

Fabulous work