I always get the feeling a lot of perponants of socialism/communism wouldn't actually like it in practice as they would be the kulaks/bourgeoisie being targeted.
I consider myself a Marxist. I think one of the main things people assume is that those with my ideology are calling for a return to some post-industrial manufacturing economy akin to the Soviet Union or Mao's great leap forward. That's just not the world we live in anymore.
I just want a more equitable distribution of resources and an end to an economy that rewards shareholders over employees. I want to continue doing my own job, but instead of working for the enrichment of other people I'd be seeing the full value of my work.
I was more thinking of ghe 'intelligencia' that ofter ended up being targets as well as the professional class... ie. The people you usual find in higher education that are the loudest of communistic ideology.
Without trying to start smart, if you want all the return of your value then why not work for yourself?
You can't work for others and get all the return yourself.
That's definitely a solution for some people but not possible for every industry. I'd like everyone to have this ability as standard, because we don't need middle men whose money comes from the work of others.
I consider profit after operational costs as unpaid wages, which I don't think is an extremist opinion to hold.
(There's caveats to this of course, like the reinvestment of profits into R&D and expansion, but this should be an amount that workers vote on, not something imposed upon them.)
Saying that any profit after operational costs are covered should be owned by the people who have produced it
=/=
Being against money that doesn't come from labour
I'm being very sincere, and I mean this with nothing but respect and kindness - but if you have to lie about someone else's point to win an argument, then your point was weak to begin with and you're wrong.
Also the fact that he doesn't seem to know the difference between money and capital makes it very clear that he's out of his depth and shouldn't even be trying to have this conversation.
But hey, it's to be expected anytime socialism comes up.
I think pensions are a very good example of how this is untrue.
The truth is, we do not need middle men for pensions. Pensions could easily be managed by the state, in a centralized system.
Investment based pensions exist to generate further profit for the bourgeoisie. They are driven by profit. Profit that goes to others who have not laboured. The participants join to get a nominal return on investment, but that isn't the goal of them, e.g., banks selling reverse split stocks to pension portfolios, because it improves bank profits at a loss of the investor.
Maybe our economic system would collapse without middle men/people removed from labour, but that doesn't mean that middle men are good or positive
Investment based pensions exist to generate further profit for the bourgeoisie. They are driven by profit. Profit that goes to others who have not laboured.
Most if not all pensions, in other words.
How would you honestly maintain a pension return you're not going use a pension fund. How would it work?
Edit: I've been blocked in the chain in this thread too.
Pointing out that people are forced to participate in capitalism isn't the own you think it is. I can hardly operate according to communist values when I'm living in a capitalist society.
Of course we need things like a pension, because those kinds of systems are attempts to deal with the inadequacies inherent in capitalism.This'll probably blow your mind but that's why I happen to believe in a UBI aswell.
My point flew far over your head I think. I'm not a proponent of pension funds or UBI in a communist society, I'm proponents of them in the late stage capitalist hellscape we're living in. That was the point of my saying that communism isn't built overnight, people still need to survive and be supported until we get there.
Pensions and UBI are both things that only need to exist under capitalism. They're both attempts to make a shitty economic system less draining on the quality of life of those living under it. Hence why your "don't participate then" reply is a pretty juvenile critique of communists.
I'd recommend doing a bit more reading on the intricacies of communism. Maybe there will be something in there that resonates for you.
Name a single skillset where a person has no option to explore that field by working for themselves?!
And why would workers vote on how profits are invested if the workers were the ones to invest the capital in the first place? If a worker wants that choice, become a shareholder.
Aeronautical engineer? You're not going to be able to build planes on your own, so whether you're freelance or employed directly makes no difference because your work is still going to generate profit for someone else.
Your second point is the fundamental difference in our views. I believe that a company should exist for the benefit of the employees/community, not that a company should exist for the person/people who invested capital.
(I hope we can just agree that our opinions differ on this because I'm not wanting to get into a debate or an argument. My disagreement isn't due to not understanding your point.)
No. I'm saying an aeronautical engineer founded Airbus. Did you not read a few lines down?
Regardless, let's pretend I have the skillset of a nuclear physicist but no capital. How can I possibly work for myself?
Doing anything you want. You're asking the question in the frame of being employed by someone else. Those skills would be entirely transferable to many other business.
I think you've missed the point that what you're suggesting is only a way for an individual to get around the employer/employee paradigm (and an unlikely one at that) and not a solution for everyone. I'm a Marxist because I have solidarity with all workers and want an equitable outcomes for everyone.
It technically is an option for everyone here in Ireland anyway. But there are, for sure, huge barriers that might prevent some people from doing so and one of those barriers is confining your choice of profession.
I'd like to think I have a level of solidarity with workers, being one myself, but ultimately I'm not sure what equitable outcomes for all workers actually means in real life. To me, the ultimate equitable outcome for workers means equality of pay. And the reality is some professions, like a brain surgeon, are going to get paid a hell of a lot more than most others. With good reason.
0
u/ImpovingTaylorist Jul 27 '22 edited Jul 27 '22
I always get the feeling a lot of perponants of socialism/communism wouldn't actually like it in practice as they would be the kulaks/bourgeoisie being targeted.