- 05 Jan 2019 15:57
#14977651
You question that people don't want to be exploited?
People accept the system because there is no alternative today. If there was they wouldn't.
Socialism does not mean the end of work. And if anything it reduces overall responsibility, not enhances it. After all, why do you work in a capitalist society? To provide a means to survive. If the means of survival is provided then your only responsiblity is to work. Not pay bills.
If you eliminate the value of ownership people would not desire it. Simple. And people don't become owners under socialism. The means of production changes hands from the bourgeois and given to the state. So the only real difference to the worker is the surplus labor is a commodity for shared excess and not turned into profit for the land owner which creates a division is class FYI. Although it has to said I believe in democracy. If socialism is to be achieved I would prefer it to be done democratically. I do not believe revolution is the answer as it causes division and perhaps forces the culture to change rather than evolve naturally which in turn produces contradictions that can end the movement.
Nonetheless we have had welfare and acceleration in Capitalism discussed in other threads and they have relevance to this one. It needs to be said the only thing that has stopped capitalism from falling apart today is the welfare state. After all, someone needs to buy the products created by the factory and welfare gives money back into the hands of the poor who would have not have the means to buy the products they created without it. And as things progress with capitalism, the Capitalists are running out of ideas to solve the contractions they make for themselves. Solutions they have done so far is create easy access to credit and they have executed QE to subsides toxic loans. How many more crashes are needed before it all falls apart and there are no solutions left? And when they do, people will revolt and they will revolt against the bourgeois.
So it isnt a question of if but when socialism will raise from the ashes and the means of production returns to the state - as this is the only solution for a broken economy within a financial crash - and to also create new jobs BTW is by reverting to Keynesian method by starting new socialist projects.
One Degree wrote:First, I don’t agree that everyone wants the full value of their production.
You question that people don't want to be exploited?
People accept the system because there is no alternative today. If there was they wouldn't.
I have known too many people who believe the secret to a happy life is 8 hours of work to enjoy the other 16 hours plus weekends without any responsibility. They actually enjoy being the workers rather than the owners.
Socialism does not mean the end of work. And if anything it reduces overall responsibility, not enhances it. After all, why do you work in a capitalist society? To provide a means to survive. If the means of survival is provided then your only responsiblity is to work. Not pay bills.
The problem is when they attempt to make it larger than a community, which can only result in a contradiction to the very basis of socialism/communism. How can people be owners if it is dictated what their economy/government must be. It is a contradiction I fail to understand. It seems to me Socialists/communists are simultaneously claiming to have it all figured out while claiming it is social evolution that they don’t know the end result of. This makes no sense to me.
The morality part is this same contradiction. How can you claim to understand human morality as an absolute while claiming it is evolutionary? How can you claim ownership of the means of production leads to the greatest moral Good when there are people who don’t want to be owners.
It comes down to academics deciding there is a natural morality and they are smart enough to figure out what it is despite the evidence we are capable of no such thing. Why does it allow for societal evolution if they already claim to know the answers?
I am sure they may have answers for these questions, so take my post as a request for further information on how they justify what I see as contradictions. To me, it just seems another attempt to create a humanistic quality of sameness to humans which is a contradiction to our uniqueness.
If you eliminate the value of ownership people would not desire it. Simple. And people don't become owners under socialism. The means of production changes hands from the bourgeois and given to the state. So the only real difference to the worker is the surplus labor is a commodity for shared excess and not turned into profit for the land owner which creates a division is class FYI. Although it has to said I believe in democracy. If socialism is to be achieved I would prefer it to be done democratically. I do not believe revolution is the answer as it causes division and perhaps forces the culture to change rather than evolve naturally which in turn produces contradictions that can end the movement.
Nonetheless we have had welfare and acceleration in Capitalism discussed in other threads and they have relevance to this one. It needs to be said the only thing that has stopped capitalism from falling apart today is the welfare state. After all, someone needs to buy the products created by the factory and welfare gives money back into the hands of the poor who would have not have the means to buy the products they created without it. And as things progress with capitalism, the Capitalists are running out of ideas to solve the contractions they make for themselves. Solutions they have done so far is create easy access to credit and they have executed QE to subsides toxic loans. How many more crashes are needed before it all falls apart and there are no solutions left? And when they do, people will revolt and they will revolt against the bourgeois.
So it isnt a question of if but when socialism will raise from the ashes and the means of production returns to the state - as this is the only solution for a broken economy within a financial crash - and to also create new jobs BTW is by reverting to Keynesian method by starting new socialist projects.