Confessions of a socialist Entrepreneur? Are you one too? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

As either the transitional stage to communism or legitimate socio-economic ends in its own right.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14539046
Not really: Communism is Soviet Power plus robotics . In the next three decades, modern robotics will make most forms of human labor obsolete, which means that there'll be little need for human productivity. We just need to overthrow the propertied classes before that happens, otherwise we'll face the grim prospect of a bourgeoisie that can exist without the proletariat.


Without labor, the proletariat can not overthrow without becoming what they overthrow. You must become stockholders or cease to exist.
The solution lies in an equitable distribution of the stock. Corporate citystates is a method of accomplishing this. Locally owned means of production through the state rather than emphasis on international. International must always remain capitalist to insure incentive.
#14539050
The Gang of Four, I think, were uniquely responsible for that last point; they bought into that insane narrative and argued, fallaciously, that the new centre-ground was also anti-consensus. So, to the electorate, it looked like the left were stuck in the past because both those on the right and those in the centre were making similar arguments.

I essentially agree with your analysis, Cromwell, with the caveat that I think you place too much importance on the 'Gang of Four'. In fact, the SDP was always an irrelevance in British politics, from the moment it was founded to the moment it ignominiously expired. In the 1980s, British politics was polarised between left and right (and it had to be, given the objective conditions of the time). The 'centre ground' of British politics at that time was, in fact, merely a void, a metaphysical nothingness. Hence the vacuousness of Liberal Party and SDP politics, which inevitably led to a focus on the personalities of its political leadership. And what a bunch of mediocre pygmies they were....
#14557039
philiphos wrote:Hi everyone, as the title says it's about the confession of the socialist entrepreneur Tony Benn. For quite a long a time I've thought about this Dilema, which has proven to be a false dilema, Socialism-Entrepreneurship, I consider myself a socialist as it says on this article I believe that essential national services such as energy, water, health, education and transport should be public owned, and recently I've been wondering about a public owned larger bank industry, not because the state is the upmost friend of all people but because these things I mentioned should not be run for profit-making but in the interests of the people; However I believe private enterprise it's an important factor to economic growth, not in a savage capitalist way where you just have to make a profit no matter the consequences, but in a socialist way where workers have their rights and fair share of the "pie" which would result in a smaller gap between CEO's and workers.... After reading this article I've reached the "answer", in fact there is no contradiction by being a Socialist and entrepreneur in fact they have a lot more in common then it would appear, both want workers to get paid decently, both seek innovation and both seek to improve the world...
As a proud Socialist and an Entrepreneurship apprentice this article has just made my day and I hope every Socialist-Entrepreneur gets delighted with this article as well....

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... principles


Honesly sounds like Free Market Capitlaism..

Where private enterprise is able to make a profit, however with Goverment regulation ensure workers have their rights and fair share of the "pie"... thats Free Market Capitlaism and what your discribing.

What we have today is a market that isnt regulated as it should, and is by far a text book example of how a Free Market Capitlaism should look like.

And no the state is not the upmost friend of all people, the biggist user, oppressor and manipulater of the poeple if you look at all of human hisotry has been the state.. it doesnt matter if they were left or right, the state alway in the end users and abuses the people.
#14557045
The state is always a tool and protects certain ruling interests. The typical liberal 'anti-statist' would have us think states are nothing more than evil incarnate that just kicks puppies for fun, that it's out for itself and exists...just because. Also, insofar they use coercion they are socialist, or something.
#14572117
philiphos wrote:Hi everyone, as the title says it's about the confession of the socialist entrepreneur Tony Benn. For quite a long a time I've thought about this Dilema, which has proven to be a false dilema, Socialism-Entrepreneurship, I consider myself a socialist as it says on this article I believe that essential national services such as energy, water, health, education and transport should be public owned, and recently I've been wondering about a public owned larger bank industry, not because the state is the upmost friend of all people but because these things I mentioned should not be run for profit-making but in the interests of the people; However I believe private enterprise it's an important factor to economic growth, not in a savage capitalist way where you just have to make a profit no matter the consequences, but in a socialist way where workers have their rights and fair share of the "pie" which would result in a smaller gap between CEO's and workers.... After reading this article I've reached the "answer", in fact there is no contradiction by being a Socialist and entrepreneur in fact they have a lot more in common then it would appear, both want workers to get paid decently, both seek innovation and both seek to improve the world...

Socialization of the core economy combined with a peripheral free market is part of my preferred utopian ideal. Given current means of production and reasonable constraints on population growth, the core economy may be defined in terms of the capital and labor required to achieve a universally guaranteed standard of living for all individuals, corresponding to an average number of lifetime labor hours per individual contributed to that core economy. Included in the core economy is an allocation of resources to R&D aimed at increasing the efficiency of production (including with respect so-called "externalities"); hence, so long as the guaranteed standard of living increases slower than the efficiency of production, there is a tendency toward decreased number of (core) average labor hours. In other words, there would be an increase in leisure time, a decrease in the coercive pressure to exchange labor for income, an increase in what I'm tempted to call "economic freedom". Outside the protected domain of the core economy -- let people work and play, and buy and sell, and share and profit however they please. However, in order to protect the core economy as well as the liberty and prosperity of all, along with the very possibility of democracy and social justice -- there must be strong limits to the growth of private and transgenerational wealth.

I'm sure there are all sorts of technical objections to the ideal, and of course there are seemingly insurmountable obstacles to attaining the ideal.

So it goes.
#14572237
Marxists fetishize the ownership and control of capital, as if that were somehow the categorical distinction between what is capitalist and what is not capitalist. It is not. Capital still existed in Soviet state-run enterprises, and it still exists in the Chinese model of mixed State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) and private firms. They were never anything other than capitalist. All economic structures that exist within the debt/money + wage/work paradigm will necessarily default to capitalist mode, since this is the structure that enables capital formation. The Soviet Union and Chinese experiments were only nominally "communist". This is not to say its founders did not believe they were implementing communism, of course they did. But what they were trying to implement was a non-existent category; the functional demands of its debt/wage foundation guaranteed it would revert back to its essential capitalist mode.

The communist idea of worker control of capital is simply another reformist tactic, in the guise of radical change. If capital formation still occurs, then the logical imperatives of capitalism will eventually triumph. Is worker control of the means of production (to the extent it ever existed) better than ownership by the .001%? Of course it is, but it is not permanent for precisely the same reason that New Deal reforms were not permanent.

Communism as a radical (non-capitalist) category can only exist if the substrate that enables capital formation is extinguished at its source. Capitalism as a category will always rise back up to thwart your dreams, as long as the following conditions obtain:

*People work for wages.
*Money is charged for goods.
*Banks rent money
*Property rights extend beyond the personal.
#14572271
quetzalcoatl wrote:Marxists fetishize the ownership and control of capital, as if that were somehow the categorical distinction between what is capitalist and what is not capitalist. It is not. Capital still existed in Soviet state-run enterprises, and it still exists in the Chinese model of mixed State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) and private firms. They were never anything other than capitalist. All economic structures that exist within the debt/money + wage/work paradigm will necessarily default to capitalist mode, since this is the structure that enables capital formation. The Soviet Union and Chinese experiments were only nominally "communist". This is not to say its founders did not believe they were implementing communism, of course they did. But what they were trying to implement was a non-existent category; the functional demands of its debt/wage foundation guaranteed it would revert back to its essential capitalist mode.

The communist idea of worker control of capital is simply another reformist tactic, in the guise of radical change. If capital formation still occurs, then the logical imperatives of capitalism will eventually triumph. Is worker control of the means of production (to the extent it ever existed) better than ownership by the .001%? Of course it is, but it is not permanent for precisely the same reason that New Deal reforms were not permanent.

Communism as a radical (non-capitalist) category can only exist if the substrate that enables capital formation is extinguished at its source. Capitalism as a category will always rise back up to thwart your dreams, as long as the following conditions obtain:

*People work for wages.
*Money is charged for goods.
*Banks rent money
*Property rights extend beyond the personal.


It's like you took the left communist/cliffite trotskyist assessment of Stalinism and applied to all of 'communism' as it exists in popular memory.

Yes, everything you said was basically correct, but your prescription of communism is unnecessary. That's already exactly what it is.
#14575223
Engels more inherited a business which he turned almost completely to funding publication of Marx and himself as well as taking care of basically Marx's entire family. His usage of his business almost wholly to fund revolutionary activities is special I would say.

Decky has prole morals though so being an entrepreneur to him is inherently unsavory. Engles being bourgeoisie was able to use his station for revolution.
#14575304
quetzalcoatl wrote:Communism as a radical (non-capitalist) category can only exist if the substrate that enables capital formation is extinguished at its source. Capitalism as a category will always rise back up to thwart your dreams, as long as the following conditions obtain:

*People work for wages.
*Money is charged for goods.
*Banks rent money
*Property rights extend beyond the personal.


How does a modern industrial society function without wages and money? I can't even imagine how that would be feasible, outside of it existing in a post-scarcity vacuum.

Dagoth Ur wrote:Engels more inherited a business which he turned almost completely to funding publication of Marx and himself as well as taking care of basically Marx's entire family. His usage of his business almost wholly to fund revolutionary activities is special I would say.


He was still exploiting the labour of some to the benefit of others. How is that special without being completely hypocritical?
#14575359
Dagoth Ur wrote:Engels more inherited a business which he turned almost completely to funding publication of Marx and himself as well as taking care of basically Marx's entire family. His usage of his business almost wholly to fund revolutionary activities is special I would say.
Decky has prole morals though so being an entrepreneur to him is inherently unsavory. Engles being bourgeoisie was able to use his station for revolution.

How is that special to Engels?
Don't all "socialist entrepreneurs" support socialist activity in some way? Whether it's trying to incorporate socialist practices in the way they run their business (e.g. Robert Owen) or simply using their profits to finance socialist groups? Otherwise what's the point of calling them "socialist entrepreneurs"?

Heh, I feel like the Libertarianism forum now needs a "Confession of a libertarian welfare recipient? Are you one too?".
#14575368
Ornate Placebo wrote:How does a modern industrial society function without wages and money?


It can't at this stage of its development. I merely point out that the withering of this system is the pre-requisite for the establishment of communism, not its endpoint.
#14575376
A socialist or let's say a socialist sympathizer/Intellectual can belong to any class and should be welcomed. And yeah I agree with Gletkin, Engels is not "special" in this regard. But then its highly unlikely that Entrepreneur will want to join Socialist movement even if they do, their number is going to be too low for obvious reason. Saying that An entrepreneur must give control of his assets to workers first (turn his enterprise into a cooperative perhaps?) before joining/sympathizing with the movement is silly idealism. Capitalism is not going to be destroyed by "a few good" Capitalists. They can be better utilized in some other way.

But then, a certain level of decorum will be expected from these Entrepreneurs while making sure of certain things i.e. Party fund has not become dependent on these people.
#14576333
Full agreement with fuser. Socialism is a critique of a complex economic system, not of the lifestyles of particular individuals. The point is to organize workers and seize power, transcending capitalism and establishing a socialist system in its place, it is not to go out and moralize capitalists into changing their behavior. Since capitalism is the hegemonic system for the time being, of course many people are going to go out there and become entrepreneurs. That is the 'natural' and 'normal' thing to do for many. People are born in a particular time and place, they're of it, so yes, they're going to engage in the activities that are permitted and encouraged in that time and place. That should not automatically disqualify people from being useful to the socialist cause, or being socialists. If there are particular rich individuals willing to go along with our program and support the cause of the working classes, then I don't see any problem with accepting them, despite their position in contemporary capitalist society. Such people are going to be rare and exceptional though, since the rich are typically going to want to hold onto their privilege and wealth. In which case, it's off to the Gulag or a reeducation camp.
#14586901
philiphos wrote: I don't agree with you, there are kinds of socialism: authoritarian socialism, state socialism and redistributive socialism, I find myself in the last one the state should have a strong welfare state protecting private enterprise.....
Profit is not a sin if labour is paid decently and workers have their rights fulfilled...


Capitalism is the private ownership of business. You are a capitalist. There are different expressions of socialism in the world due to differences in national experience, cultures, etc. But socialism is worker control of industry.

Marx and Engels didn’t try to predict the future and what would happen to implement socialist ideas. They just advocated for workers running the workplace.

In the 1950s different people around the world were split on how to get it done. One group said capitalism came in bloody and violent and that is how socialism will have to come it too. They were the revolutionaries.

The other group cringed at that and said we would never win, so let’s form political parties and become parliamentarians and run for office. They were evolutionaries.

Both agreed that what was needed was to capture the state and use it to make the transition to a socialist economy. Thus the state is the means to get to socialism. Capturing it is not “socialism”. The state is the means by which to create and establish and preserve worker control and operation of industry. That worker control is “socialism”. Individual ownership is capitalism. And government ownership as happened in the Soviet Union is what Lenin warned about: state capitalism.

Hence, to say a socialist can be a entrepreneur and owner of a business under socialism, is a contradiction.
#14586929
quetzalcoatl wrote:Marxists fetishize the ownership and control of capital, as if that were somehow the categorical distinction between what is capitalist and what is not capitalist.
Succinctly put Quetz, that's bang on the nail. The thing is: take a British train driver, one of the favourite unions of the British left, the average train driver in Britain has weigh more Capital than many people that would be called Capitalists in the developing world. The same goes for many of the better off workers in the West. Even if they don't have Capital they could easily accumulate it. This is not to say there are no issues with inequality, but they can not be dealt with while the left prefers to deal in myths.

Confessions extracted under torture...seems legit.[…]

^ Wouldn't happen though, since the Israelis are n[…]

I was actually unaware :lol: Before he was […]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Every accusation is a confession Why sexual v[…]