Step towards Socialism

[RyeN]

This discussion is intended to provide ideas that will promote socialism within their respected area's.
People need to see socialism in a broader platform. In Ontario the gouvernment is involved in profitable organizations. The beer store, the lotteries commision, hydro electricty, the bank, and the LCBO... These organizations take money away from possible capitolist ventures. Sure its hard to get a 24 after 11but the money goes back to the comunity, instead of some weathy gadabout. There are many more benifits to a socialist state than a capitolist one.

For example the auto insurance industry here is so corupt that the gouvernmet is steping in and legislating it. They have proposed a new brand of ontario gouvernment insurance, with realistic rates. The capitolists will be forced to compete with the gouvernments rates or face losing clients. The auto inssurance industry openly discriminates against people based on thier age and gender. Practices like this should not be allowed in mondern society.

I propose that we urge our current gouvernment to expand into more lucrative vetures and employe more citizens. Imagine a store like walmart, where you could aquire all your shoping needs but the money went back to things like health care and education. You woulnt need to pay taxes on them either because the money already went to the gouvernment. This is just one example but there are countless ways our gouvernment could branch out and start making a profit.

The fact that we have a huge debt to a world bank shows that our system is ineffcient. Capitolism leaves little for the people and its time we started taking back what we can. I think its time to introduce legislature that will creat a system capable of sustaing itself and the people. I dont think that this will work every where. Example america. I would want to limit that countries gouvernment access to capitol.

Do you think a system like this is feasible?

[sc4r]

I'm going to watch this thread with interest (hehehe).

I pretty much agree with the gist of what you are suggesting. I've said so in the past. Thats what supposedly got me labelled a 'bourgeoise sympathiser' and a 'reformist' by a common aquaintance. In point of fact the mechanism I suggested for achieving the same sort of thing was not nearly so explictly connected to reforming state involvement ; and did explictly state that this was a means to a very definite end, rather than an end itself.

I wonder if you are going to be labelled? My bet is not. Why?

[redstar2000]

Do you think a system like this is feasible?

It might be hypothetically "feasible", at least for a while. The general history of such projects in the advanced capitalist countries is for state-owned enterprises to be unprofitable...if they start to become profitable, the cry for privatization goes up at once. Bourgeois democracy being what it is, that cry is generally heard and responded to quickly.

But it's important to understand what the source of that profit actually is. It doesn't have anything directly to do with the usual bourgeois definition of profit (buy or make for less, sell for more).

When a state-owned enterprise hires workers to provide a good or service at a profit, it is extracting surplus value from those workers just like any capitalist enterprise.

The use of that surplus value is irrelevant...whether it is reinvested in additional fixed capital, used for bonuses to management, or diverted to "social projects" does not matter.

That's why communists, if they are consistent, are indifferent to such schemes as warm the hearts of many socialists...if the exploitation continues, then nothing has been gained.

Even if all the profits go back in some form to the workers (minus administrative "costs" of course), it is simply a device for taking money from some workers (those that produce the good or service) and giving it to other workers (those who purchase the good or service at a lower price than they would otherwise pay a private company).

The rearrangement of exploitation is not the point of communism.

That's the theoretical argument. The practical argument is that it is probably no longer possible to secure such changes in late capitalism. The trend appears to be one of "private enterprise" taking over nearly all functions of government, traditional and modern.

Thus efforts in this direction are apt to be "a waste of time and energy" even for those who think they are a "step" in the "right" direction.

Which won't stop some from trying, of course.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[crazy comie]

the reasson why england's public services are shit is becuse so many of them are privatised.
so i think having thease things controld bye the goverment is a good idea

[RyeN]

Not only is it hypotheticaly feasible, It actualy works. Here we have programs with state-owned enterprise. I have however seen this cry for privatization before. Dont people see that its better for the gouvernment to get the syurplus value than the cappies. Privatization usualy results in even larger cost to the general consumer and no surplus going to social programs.

Even with a gouvernment run enterprise the workers are being exploited, but not nearly as bad if it were a private firm. Gouvernment workers have good shifts and are well paid with benifits. Also It does matter where the surplus value goes. Thats one of the main things we are complaining about. The uneven disrubution of surplus value.

The point of this isnt to rearange the exploitation, its to get people too see the values of a gouvermnet ran enterprise. The money that goes back to the workers, or the rest of the people in social programs. People want thier taxes to go down, and whats wrong with buying a commodity at a cost much closer than that of the actual production costs?

I do agree that in our capitolist country private enterprise is taking over the gouvernmet slowly, but the people are the basis of the gouvernment. We need to stop this before the world is raped clean buy capitolist societey. As to wether or not programs like these are a waste of time is up to you. I perfer to belive that taking posible capitol away from the cappies and back to the people in any form to be a good thing.

[marxstudent]

I think it can be done too. I think it wouldn't be able to work in America either because the majority of the people don't want change. They're happy watching stuff like MTV and seeing whether J Lo and Ben are going to marry or not. It would take a while for this kind of government to be set up, wouldn't it?

[redstar2000]

I do agree that in our capitalist country private enterprise is taking over the gouvernment slowly, but the people are the basis of the gouvernment.

Well, um...no, they're not, the "basis" of the government that is.

A common illusion of bourgeois democracy is that it "really is democratic". It's not.

To put it crudely, you would not be permitted to win the election and even if you were, you would not be permitted to "govern".

The difficulties of Mr. Chavez (who is not even a socialist, at least publicly) in Venezuela are a good illustration of what you would face.

The "genius" (if I may apply that word) of the modern bourgeois "democracy" is that it gives the appearance of popular sovereignty and the rule of law without ever for a second yielding a gram of substance. Not since the Asiatic despotisms of antiquity--when the ruler was "god"--has any ruling class pulled off such a brilliant display...and display is exactly the right word here.

It is all "smoke and mirrors", sham and deceit, lighting and makeup.

Lights! Cameras! Democracy!

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[sc4r]

Ther obviously is more than a gram of substance since it it an indisbutable truth that ordinary people are far better off than they were.

That does not mean that the degree of their 'power' is not overstated and that there is no deceipt, no illusion going on of course.

But simply crying out that 'it is all an illusion' wont actually help to dispel the power of the illusion makers to make the illusion still more convincing.

To do that you have to actually use what leverage you have to expose it. And a great deal of that leverage comes from the fact that in order to make the illusion work they have had to allow a limited amount of power and freedom of action to ordinary people. So we ought to use that limited amount of power to aquire more, and then more, and so on.

Complaining (particulary when it's an overstated complaint) rarely achieves much on its own. Use what you have. Which is essentially what Ryen is saying.

[RyeN]

Partisan politics are a grand illision indeed, but to deny that the people have no power what so every is wrong. The bourgeois poloticians are elected by the people, although they often dont speak for the people. However they count time and time again for the people to elect them. I think one of the main problems is the lack of control the common people have in the laws and running of the country. This is a totaly different step towards socialism alltogether but we need to make our gouvernments more accountable to the people. With the age of information technologie everyone should have a say in a vast majority of gouvernment issues. Let the poloticains disscuss and implement the laws and let the people decide wich rules and decisions to make.

Thats all besides the point. If we get our gouvernment to start seeing a larger picture of life on earth they will start to sway towards the logical choice of the future. Capitolism takes so much from our natural resources with little in return. Thier system is so inefficient and wasteful that its should be comon sense how bad this is. If the gouvernment is dedicated to the country they should want a firm foot hold in the future. Introducing a competitive gouvernment industry would revoultionize the economy. Being dedicated to providing the best solution for the people would provide more eco frindly ways of doing things too.

We could also produce better more effective products. When car shoping instead of paying 35,000$ for a new mid range you could go down to the gouvernmet car lot and pick up a sports car for 10,000$ still being exploited because the actual surplus value on a transaction like that would be around 5000$ but that money goes back to helping kids off drugs, or more teachers in the class rooms. Instead of a car that runs on gas you could have a hydrogen powered car or something electric. Maybee a gas car that has better efficiency or doesnt break down. The posibilities are endless.

[redstar2000]

Basically, you echo the sentiments of early 19th century "utopian socialists".

The core of their appeal was that "socialism is the rational alternative".

They thought that all that was necessary was to "convince" people--particularly powerful wealthy people, particularly capitalists--that this was true and the ruling class would voluntarily take the necessary measures to bring it into existence.

All the "endless possibilities" that you list are "rational"...and the capitalist class is utterly indifferent to them--except for fake public relations campaigns.

They have a different definition of what is "rational"...that which is most profitable is "rational" in their eyes.

Thus you may appeal and appeal until your voice is but a croak...and it will do you absolutely no good whatsoever.

They can't hear on the wave-length that you're using.

As to the "power" of the electorate to select among competing bourgeois politicians, of course that exists. No one denies that. You have the same power to select among competing movie stars, competing pop musicians, competing televangelists, competing psychic hot lines, or any other competing commodities.

"Hey, it's all about choice."

Except, of course, for the fact that beneath the packaging, they are all the same.

Lots of folks have gone into bourgeois politics thinking "they would be different".

But they weren't. After a while--and usually not a very long while either--they were just as corrupt, just as unprincipled, and just as disgusting.

And in the end, just as murderous.

Do you imagine that I paint too bleak a picture?

Consider the Social Democratic parties of the 2nd International--the "heirs of Marx and Engels", as they liked to flatter themselves--standing up in their respective parliaments voting in favor of World War I.

Is that just some dim tale from the past? We have a "socialist" on this board who supported U.S. and British imperialism in Iraq.
And still does!

I wonder if you'll find these ideas very convincing. People who have an "itch" for a seat in parliament or congress (or even on the town council of Shit Creek, Arkansas) are not particularly receptive to revolutionary ideas. That's just the way it goes.

But as we used to say back in the 60s, you can work "within" the system to "change" it or you can work outside the system to smash it.

And that's a real choice.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[crazy comie]

In bourgeoisie democracy (dicktatorship of the bourgeosie) you need quit alot of money to have a chance of winning elections so you needed to have wealthy suporters.

[Bradyman]

Education, education, education.

And not the stuff you read about in american history where all the actions taken by the USA was for the good of "freedom" Che said it best in that to make socialism you have to build a new man. The only way to do that is teach the world. Send teachers to the corners of the earth, mainly in the places where exploitation is rampant (sweatshops). When the masses understand the masses will unite and overthrow just as Marx and Engels believed in.

[sc4r]

Ryen. I completely agree with you. Unprecedented I know, but there you are, I thought I'd say it since it is true.

The only thing I think you underestimate is the difficulty of achieving genuine and significant economic progress without first achieving major political change. I'd say that it is highly implausible that such radical improvement as you suggest would come about without first totally redefining laws to obliterate liberal property rights. If that were done of course the limitations on benefit which you mention would not apply anyway.

Which means First get a genuinely socialist (marxist Socialist) government in (by any means provided it has popular support); second institute direct democracy (as you suggest); third revoke liberal property rights; fourth all else follows (including cheaper cars if desired)

Stages 1 and 2 can, of course proceed in parrallel to an extent. Stage 3 definitely wont happen unless stage 1 is achieved and stage 4 seems (to me) far less important since it defines a specific benefit which we can have or not have as we see fit if 2 and 3 are achieved and wont (in my view) happen unles we do anyway.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2003, 09:37 AM
Education, education, education.

And not the stuff you read about in american history where all the actions taken by the USA was for the good of "freedom" Che said it best in that to make socialism you have to build a new man. The only way to do that is teach the world. Send teachers to the corners of the earth, mainly in the places where exploitation is rampant (sweatshops). When the masses understand the masses will unite and overthrow just as Marx and Engels believed in.
Education is the key. Members of this board complain about how religion is corrupting the minds of the youth, well why don't you do something about it! You can't ban relgion in todays society you just have to show that there are better (in your mind) alternatives and let the people make up their own mind! That is why freedom of speech is so important (all speech, including hate etc).

The idea of sending teachers to the sweatshops is a great idea. Send them to factories and to the shops. Have them educate the masses. Engage the public in debate.

That is how reforming will work, first you educate and you show the alternatives, then you offer the best alternative.

And don't say crap that they don't understand, start with concepts that and one can understand. Then build on that solid (better make it solid to) foundation.

Start young, talk to the children encourage them to read. Talk to your class mates (if your still at school) engage them in debate. But don't be patronizing. Talk to you teachers, explain why you think what you think.

You won't bring about revolution through talking about it on a message board.

[sc4r]

Nor regretablly will you bring about a change in public opinion merely by sending missionaries into workplaces.

First off you wont actually be allowed to do this unopposed anyway.

Secondly You'll be competing with vastly better funded and better supported counter education.

Education about Socialism tells people what they can expect IF they were to support it. But in order to get them to listen in the first place they'd have to be persuaded of three things :

1. That there actually is a socialist message not the 101 diferent socialist messages that they would currently recieve from people who are at times at each others throats.

2. That this message makes real solid sense.

3. That there is some sort of visible focus for progress (otherwise they'll say 'yeah nice if, but so what').

And this means in todays advanced societies a political party as a bare minimum. That such a party could also serve to demonstrate that there really is a movement not just a load of people talking what could be crapola would be a massive secondary benefit. That such a party would inevitably generate news coverage (a means of re-infocing education) is a third.

Be honest what 'education' could most self avowed Socialists or Communists really provide? 90% dont have a clue about economics or organisation and they ahve (by virtue of not being in any position of power) zero startiing credibility. They could attempt to indoctrinate, not to educate. And that flat wont work, because the indoctrination from the opposition is very much better organised and is already deeply instilled.

If we are to achieve anything we first need to educate ourselves about what is actually required. and distance ourselves from those preaching lahdy dah messages of a never never land of perfect harmony. Get tougher, look tougher, and look like we mean actual business. Get professional, and show it. Show the benefits, show the costs, show we are doing something about moving forwards and accumulate support rather than hope it suddenly all arrives without us ever having to do any more than preach about it.

In short socialists have to get real, and find a way to support ourselves while we are not in power. This means aquiring Businesses and a party and a party line. Education is what you do to support a movement, not what you do to create one, and at the moment we dont really have one.

[redstar2000]

Send teachers to the corners of the earth, mainly in the places where exploitation is rampant (sweatshops).

I don't know about that one; it has a "missionary" tone to it...westerners off to the wilds of darkest "someplace" to bring "enlightenment" to the "heathen savages".

I think we westerners should stay at home and teach other westerners; those folks in far away countries are perfectly capable of developing their own teachers when the time is ripe for them.


Members of this board complain about how religion is corrupting the minds of the youth, well why don't you do something about it!

I and others here have typed lengthy and informed posts on the subject until our fingers feel like they're about to fall off!

And we'll continue our efforts.

But it's a tough job. When people have been conditioned as children to believe in superstitious nonsense, they are often very reluctant to abandon it...even in the face of evidence that it's all crap.

We do the best we can...to educate.


You won't bring about revolution through talking about it on a message board.

I think it's probably too soon to make that judgment. There is really no precedent, with the possible exception of the invention of printing, for a technological innovation that enables ordinary people to communicate with each other more or less instantly and at an affordable price.

The anti-globalization/anti-war movements have already used the internet extensively with surprising "real-world" effectiveness.

Perhaps the internet will have the same utility to the proletarian revolution as the newspaper did for the bourgeois revolution.

In any event, the internet seems to be an educational "tool" of exceptional utility. Look at all the threads on this board that begin by someone asking a question.

When people are asking questions, who can say where it will end...

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas