whats so great about the workers - should utopia be for the

[jon doe]

G'day

if the workers are just another class then implementing workers control of the government would just put a new class into power. Shouldn't we be for all the people rather than just the workers. In this age of anti-globilisation perhaps this the time to help all oppressed people not just the workers (or the workers and the peasents depending on your dogma). The workers are no better or worse than any other class.

[BOZG]

The workers refers to the proleteriat, those that have to work for their living and those that are exploited under the ruling class and those that control the factories, the businesses, the government etc. The working class refers to the mass of the people. The workers controlling the companies does not mean a new ruling class it just means that businesses are run by the people who work there rather than by some big businessman who sits around playing with his money all day. The idea is that it creates a society of equals where there is no exploitation for all people.

[deimos]

It should be for all people,workers,academics,people who work in the service sector........

[antieverything]

Everyone is a "worker" if they don't use the labor of others as their sole source of income. The only adults that aren't workers are the capitalists and the unemployed.

[peaccenicked]

The sole reason that socialists 'fixate' on workers is that they happen to be the majority. If the majority was Irish
lesbian single mothers, socialists would worry about their democratic rights and their right to rule.
That is not to be dismissive of any oppression. Socialists also tend to say that being concerned about the oppression of the working class is central to the liberation of all.

[vox]

I think we also need to look at the position of the proletariat. The workers do, of course, the actual work. Nothing is created without the workers. It is the socially necessary labor power of the proletariat that creates and sustains the world in which we live, and nothing else. The proletariat is the vital class, producing the very commodities that are then sold back to them at a profit.

Also, the proletariat, as Marx pointed out, has nothing to lose but its chains. We can never expect the ruling elite, whose position in civil society is maintained by the very work of the proletariat through the incredibly unequal distribution of wealth that capitalism, by its very nature, demands, to effect any real change on its own and threaten the status quo which treats it so well.

It should be remembered, however, that the proletariat is a creation of capitalism, and once capitalism is gone, so too will the proletariat be gone! The socialist goal is not to set up yet another system of exploitation that is the history of the world (a history of class warfare) but to elliminate all social classes and thereby free all people from the limiting, anti-human influence that capitalism creates.

vox

[jon doe]

G'day again

The way you blokes are talking it seems like you want everyone to become workers. Whats to say the people who have skills at making things have skills at running a buisness let alone a whole economy? The two main problems with the world as i see it are lack of basic necessity's (no that does not include computers or the newest trendy clothes) and people doing jobs they dont want to do (yes im sure some garbo's love thier jobs but a lot don't) making everyone work the same amount in jobs none of them like would not help, it would just share the misery around equally. Perhaps it is everyone's obsession with material belongings above those which are necessary that causes both of the problems. although if we did not work for the majority of our lives im not sure what we would do with the spare time...... the effect on culture would be profound (and then there is the question of weather or not having all your dreams come true is a bad thing. how will you know you have the good life if you havent tasted the bad (eg. people in 1st world countries where people think they have problems because they cant afford a car).


and besides form that, these economic soloutions dont change many of the fundamental problems facing mankind such as desiese, pestalence, anger, desire, rage, jealousy, hate, depression, etc. perhaps a more holeistic aproach is needed for such complex issues, a revolution and a workers state isnt going to fix everything (eg. cuba- they may have great social services etc. but that doesnt mean bad shite doesn't happen in there life too)



and responding to someone elses question of why che haters come on this board, i would just like to point out that i am a great admirer of che, i esp. admire his open mindness and his refusal to except moscow's line. The only thing i take issue with che on is his distrust of freedom of speech, i find it disapointing that this forum while saying it is pro-che are more fond of che's distrust of freedom of speech than of che's open mindness and dislike of official dogma.



*apoligies for my spelling*


-thanks

[BOZG]

Whats to say the people who have skills at making things have skills at running a buisness let alone a whole economy?

You keep assuming that the workers only refers to people who work in factories. That is not what we mean. By worker we mean anyone who sells his skills and as antieverything said, people who don't use the labour of others as their income, ie those that are exploited by their bosses.

You also seem to assume that these people are naturally unintelligent for the sole reason that they do not have high incomes. If you look around you, many people cannot afford to go the college and get good jobs even if they are very intelligent. If an economy is run by a collective of people rather than a government it will always be more fair to others on the sole basis that you don't have just a few politicians looking to line their own pockets and not give a fuck about anyone else.



these economic soloutions dont change many of the fundamental problems facing mankind such as desiese, pestalence,

It doesn't solve these problems but it would be a huge advancement towards solving them. For example if you were to spend the world's military budget on trying to find cures for AIDS/HIV and other such diseases are you saying that this money wouldn't greatly contribute? Medicine is just another private industry owned by people out to make money rather than to save others. If the medicine industry was solely out to save others you would see major advancements.



anger, desire, rage, jealousy, hate, depression

These things are human flaws which at the time are uncurable by any means. Anger and rage if channeled correctly are necessary for humans. For one, without anger or rage people would just except their exploitation and the world would stay the same. Without anger or rage this board would have no users.
Depression is something cannot be cured unless we have a perfect world where no one can die, where everyone loves each other etc. But depression can be cut in an equal society. We live in a society where greed and image are very important and many cases of depression are beause of this. Because of being poor, because of being outcasted by society for who you are or how you dress.



find it disapointing that this forum while saying it is pro-che are more fond of che's distrust of freedom of speech than of che's open mindness and dislike of official dogma.

This board is for Che Admirers mainly. There are 2 forums open for others. The majority of "Che haters" who come on this board are only trolls who have no real argument and are just here to cause trouble. There are some people who don't like Che but they have a reasonable argument.

[jon doe]

G'day again



You keep assuming that the workers only refers to people who work in factories. That is not what we mean. By worker we mean anyone who sells his skills and as antieverything said, people who don't use the labour of others as their income, ie those that are exploited by their bosses.

okay so in a perfect workers state where everyone has the advantage of top notch education who is it who's going to do the garbage or work on an assembly line? those who have less genetic predisposition to intelligence will be stuck with the dud jobs, is that any better than those from lower class background (for the most part) taking the dud jobs, instead of an economic underclass we'll get an interlecual underclass.

You use boss in a very old fashioned sense, most bosses these days are employees too (although most jobs preformed by bosses could be done away with if there was a different culture than the current (because most tasks of a boss are beuracratic) ) the people who earn money with out any work are the stock holders (although per amount of work done bosses are paid dispropontionatly to the rest of the work force).


You also seem to assume that these people are naturally unintelligent for the sole reason that they do not have high incomes. If you look around you, many people cannot afford to go the college and get good jobs even if they are very intelligent.

two points, i do not in anyway assume that workers are stupid (the 2 most intelligent people i know are workers (one blue one white) what i am saying is why would someone have high level of skills in an area (economics) other than there own? (yes some will but a lot won't) also i would be willing to bet that on average workers(factory) have a lower IQ than average (no, before i am labled a fascist, ill clarify that it is due to lower education and that IQ is not anything like the most important atribute of a person (also speaking of fascists the way the word is over-used on this forum is very worrying (just think the boy who called wolf))).

Secondly i try to assume very little. i am not putting forward my own ideas but am questioning those of others. This is not because im cowardly and dont want to defend myself but because i do not have an ideology but believe that by debating certain issues then i may shed more light on the issue for myself and hopefully for others also. to know 'the truth' may give you a lot of strength but it can also be very restrictive and inflexable.


If an economy is run by a collective of people rather than a government it will always be more fair to others on the sole basis that you don't have just a few politicians looking to line their own pockets and not give a fuck about anyone else.

ALWAYS??????????? usally perhaps but i dont think you can be so definet



It doesn't solve these problems but it would be a huge advancement towards solving them. For example if you were to spend the world's military budget on trying to find cures for AIDS/HIV and other such diseases are you saying that this money wouldn't greatly contribute? Medicine is just another private industry owned by people out to make money rather than to save others. If the medicine industry was solely out to save others you would see major advancements.

yes i agree totally but all this could be done under a legislated form of capitialism. NO THAT IS NOT TO SAY THAT I AM A CAPITALIST BASTARD, i just dont think that that is an arguement against capitialism (just an augument against american gung-ho "free trade" capitalism.)


Depression is something cannot be cured unless we have a perfect world where no one can die

whats wrong with death, with out death there could be no life. death brings renewal. (the following is purely my opinion) it is just the western philosophy we have hammered into us that tells us that death is bad and is something to be scared of.
TIMES CHANGE, PEOPLE DIE, SHIT HAPPENS, LIVE WITH IT.


These things are human flaws which at the time are uncurable by any means.

really? my youthjul idealism tells me otherwise but i guess this is purely a matter of opinion. i think on this point che was to some extent on my side (he believed in createing a new socialist culture and system of morals rather than just getting the economic gains out of socialism (another point i strongly agree with che on))


This board is for Che Admirers mainly. There are 2 forums open for others. The majority of "Che haters" who come on this board are only trolls who have no real argument and are just here to cause trouble. There are some people who don't like Che but they have a reasonable argument.

fair enough..... i dont agree, but i see your point



*apoligies for the spelling*


thanks
-r.

[BOZG]

First of all I understand where you're coming from so you don't need to point out that you're not a fascist, capitalist etc. You're just questioning what you see and without questioning we never learn anything. Another thing there's no need to apologise over a few spelling mistakes, we've had people a lot worse than you.



okay so in a perfect workers state where everyone has the advantage of top notch education who is it who's going to do the garbage or work on an assembly line? those who have less genetic predisposition to intelligence will be stuck with the dud jobs, is that any better than those from lower class background (for the most part) taking the dud jobs, instead of an economic underclass we'll get an interlecual underclass.

There are always going to be people who are less intelligent than others and unfortunately many of them will end up with "worse" jobs but some people don't mind doing things like that. You may disagree but its all about the mentality, if you keep believing that you are contributing to society it can help a little. I know that that in no way makes the job any better but being positive can help.
We already have an "intellectual underclass" as we do have an economical one at the moment but in a socialist society that would I change (I hope). There will always be people in more manual jobs but I wouldn't see them as an underclass and I hope no one else would either. Many people working in manual labour jobs in my opinion can contribute more to society than some scientists for example, I believe more in the effort that you put in rather than the intelligence you put in. For example, a scientist works at 20% of his ability and has an annual output of 400 compared to say a garbage man working at 90% of his ability with an output of 400 also. I would consider the garbage man a great contributor to society than the scientist because he puts so much more effort into what he does even if his job is not as beneficial to the humankind. I know its a very basic scale and idea.



You use boss in a very old fashioned sense, most bosses these days are employees too (although most jobs preformed by bosses could be done away with if there was a different culture than the current (because most tasks of a boss are beuracratic) ) the people who earn money with out any work are the stock holders (although per amount of work done bosses are paid dispropontionatly to the rest of the work force).

I wasn't very clear at all in this area. When I said boss I was referring to the owners of the company. Sorry about that.



what i am saying is why would someone have high level of skills in an area (economics) other than there own?

Many people are very interested in areas that they do not work in. I'm sure you'll find plenty of people interested and very able to run an economy on this site alone who work in an area that has nothing to do directly with economics.



Secondly i try to assume very little. i am not putting forward my own ideas but am questioning those of others. This is not because im cowardly and dont want to defend myself but because i do not have an ideology but believe that by debating certain issues then i may shed more light on the issue for myself and hopefully for others also. to know 'the truth' may give you a lot of strength but it can also be very restrictive and inflexable.

That is the greatest way to find out what you believe in. Don't put yourself under a single label. Make your own ideology about what you think is right.



ALWAYS??????????? usally perhaps but i dont think you can be so definet

When I said collective I meant in the sense of direct democracy where the world is run by people without any representative in between. Therefore why would the people be inequal to themselves? So in a society as such always in my opinion is the word to use.



yes i agree totally but all this could be done under a legislated form of capitialism.

That would be as much as the state running the medicine industry making it a public enterprise.



whats wrong with death, with out death there could be no life. death brings renewal. (the following is purely my opinion) it is just the western philosophy we have hammered into us that tells us that death is bad and is something to be scared of.
TIMES CHANGE, PEOPLE DIE, SHIT HAPPENS, LIVE WITH IT.

You have been mistaken on what I said there, probably my own fault. I meant that many people become depressed because of the death of someone close to them or even by the deaths of so many people throughout the world so depression can never be cured, only helped unless there is a world without death. That is a perfect society but it is something that we should never try to reach. A perfect society is one of almost conformity where nothing ever changes.



really? my youthjul idealism tells me otherwise but i guess this is purely a matter of opinion. i think on this point che was to some extent on my side (he believed in createing a new socialist culture and system of morals rather than just getting the economic gains out of socialism (another point i strongly agree with che on))

Could you explain who we would rid society or anger, hate, etc? Human beings are not perfect.

[jon doe]

G'day

In one of my previous posts i said that although some people who have manual jobs love them i know of some people who hate them but cant get/dont want anything else. --- something i heard somewhere from an semi-anarchist was that it is the very act of holding a job which is society's main problem. she pointed to the open source community to say that if everyone just did what they were interested in with out any material incentives then we would be freed of the problems of capitalism....... this of course would totaly change both our economy and our culture..... i quite like the idea but i still dont see many garbo's turning up for work (although this may prompt a new kind of society where people could see it as there civic duty to do manual work as well as what ever they are interested in) the whole thing sounds a bit fantasticaly utopian but i still like the idea.


i still have the problem with any utopian society that everything seems to be relative and that utopia wont be any better than now because humans will just asign greater importance to more trivial things. i didnt express that very well but hopefully you get the idea --- you dont know what youve got till its gone.


as to the solution of how to rid the world of problems such as sadness or anger, im not sure how i just feel it ought to be able to be done --- probably just youthful idealism though



thanks
-r.

[BOZG]

I understand what you're saying. A utopian society is very very delicate to maintain and to understand but we can only see whether it works or not until we try it.

Out of curiousity what age are you?

[Pinko]

Make everyone turn out for two weeks a year of community service. Then, at any one time you have 1 in every 26 of the people doing the unpopular jobs. Should be more than enough.

Edited to correct my basic lack of mathematical skills.

(Edited by Pinko at 4:13 pm on Sep. 6, 2002)

[BOZG]

That's a good idea but I don't believe in forcing people into things. Anyway I'm pretty sure they'd dodge doing it somehow. I guess you could offer some sort of incentive.

[Pinko]

Education is the key. Instill a strong sense of social responsibility into the up and comming generation, get them believing, make them want to take the rubbish to the tip. Make them want to keep the streets clean.
If we stop teaching our kids lies and empty values and start teaching them properly, then things will start to change.

[BOZG]

Wise words and a very good idea, the only problem is that children are born with one natural instinct, to survive, they must learn everything else which means that at the present time more and more children can easily be turned against us by using the same means.
After a revolution that would not be a problem but at this moment in time, it is a very real and very dangerous problem.

[Pinko]

Which is why we need to inform others, progress the movement so the snow-ball (that stands little chance in hell) starts to roll and grow, until it becomes an unstoppable avalanche.
Easier said than done, but to not try is to roll over and concede defeat.

[Conghaileach]

from BornOfZapatasGuns:
That's a good idea but I don't believe in forcing people into things. Anyway I'm pretty sure they'd dodge doing it somehow. I guess you could offer some sort of incentive.

Would the moral incentive of serving the commuity not suffice?

When talking about topics such as these, we should always discuss the idea of the New Man. People aren't born natural capitalists - a person who grows up in a socialist/anarchist/utopian (whatever) society, and who is taught the ideas of working for the betterment of society, would be more likely not to have a problem with these 'trivial' things, as someone who grows up in capitalist society and is only concerned with providing for themselves.

[BOZG]

Would the moral incentive of serving the commuity not suffice?

If only it worked like that. I say the same thing if someone asks me why would anyone want to become a doctor if they can just brush streets. It essentially comes down to what me and pinko were discussing, that you have to educate people to have that sense of thinking, to see morality and the contribution to society rather than material gain.

[Conghaileach]

That's what the second part of my post was about, if a person grows up in a society that believes in "from each according to his ability, to each accordig to his need" then they'd be happy to become a doctor to help their community. Of course, this point just seems to skip over all of the period where we have to work towards this society, and distributing the education that you were speaking(writing) of.

[guerrillaradio]

I also think that many leftist movements place over-emphasis on the "workers". I think that socialism should achieve equality, not worker power, which some people on here seem intent on...

[mentalbunny]

Quote: from guerrillaradio on 7:35 pm on Sep. 6, 2002
I also think that many leftist movements place over-emphasis on the "workers". I think that socialism should achieve equality, not worker power, which some people on here seem intent on...

I agree, all people, even though they are different, are equal in my eyes. We have to ignore opersonal opinions, etc when it comes to judging someone as part of a jury, that should be with all things, we must try to be objective. Wether someone is a worker or another member of society (i mean the population in general, not western society with all its pressures and criticisms) they (or even we) should be treated equaly.

[vox]

"The two main problems with the world as i see it are lack of basic necessity's (no that does not include computers or the newest trendy clothes) and people doing jobs they dont want to do (yes im sure some garbo's love thier jobs but a lot don't) making everyone work the same amount in jobs none of them like would not help, it would just share the misery around equally."

These are two very different things. To deal with the first concern, we have to understand why some people lack basic necessities. Is it because there just isn't enough to go around? No. In fact there are crises of overproduction! So then the question becomes, if there is enough for everyone, why doesn't everyone have enough? To answer this we need to look at the distribution of wealth by analyzing the economic system in place. Happily, many folks have already done this for us, and the consensus is clear: capitalism is incredibly good at creating wealth and incredibly bad at distributing it. So what we have isn't a problem of scarcity but one of distribution. To change this, the economic system itself needs to be changed.

The other concern you mentioned is that people often don't like their jobs. True enough. Again, we have to find out why this is, and that can be a very confusing question, for there are as many reasons as there are people with jobs they don't like! However, we can look at a few things and try to draw some conclusions. For example, in the USA, people now work on average 160 more hours a years, that's four full work weeks, than they did just twenty years ago. Add to that the fact that the lower-middle and low sectors of wage-earners actually lost ground as the income gap widened. They were working longer and making less, adjusted for inflation. This does not a happy worker make, I think. We can also get into the idea of worker alienation, if you want, or decreased worker participation in the workplace. All of this is directly attributable to the system of captialist economics in place.

"and besides form that, these economic soloutions dont change many of the fundamental problems facing mankind such as desiese, pestalence, anger, desire, rage, jealousy, hate, depression, etc. perhaps a more holeistic aproach is needed for such complex issues, a revolution and a workers state isnt going to fix everything (eg. cuba- they may have great social services etc. but that doesnt mean bad shite doesn't happen in there life too)"

You're right, and I, personally, am not expecting Utopia. However, if we can make things better, I believe we should make things better. If someone waits for perfection, they may as well wait for the Messiah to come.

vox

[jon doe]

G'day

yes i agree that there is ample proof that capitalism is shite but your logic of saying that since capitialism is shite it follows that socailism is good doesn't hold. What i am asking i guess is - is a purely economic solution like socialsim going to truely change our society or will it just wipe out the excesses of extreame richness and extreame poverty? and is our society in need of any change other than economic anyway? should we aim at utopia? is utopia atanable? if utopia is unatanable should we try to reach for it anyway? if utopia is unatanable but it is still desirable to reach for then by reaching for it aren't we lying to ourselves and/or others?


the problems withall these questions as i see them is that they are too narrow, which is i guess my real point --- looking at just economic or social or political questions with out viewing them in a greater perspective is perhaps not very worthwhile. And yes before anyone points them out i do see the problems of this argument such as while we sit around pondering the meaning of life the universe and everything thousands of people die. and that any change for the better is good. but when (if?) the revolution comes we do want to have a definate answer to the question of of what will it be like after the revolution.


this brings me nicely to my next point *todays word SEGUE (pronounced segway) joining two ideas so that they flow together* is there a single best culture? would the post-revolution culture be better than todays(which one?)? most people here say they are in favour of multi-culturelism yet also in favour of anti-sexism and anti-rasism ---- what about cultures which are racist or sexist?


it seems to me the more one thinks the less one knows and im not sure if that is a bad thing or not.


the one thing i do know is that the present deffinetly needs changing


(oh and to bornofzapistasguns question i am in the last year of high school in sydney AUSTRALIA (in anyone else here from aus?) but i have read quite a bit on different political ideas and also quite a bit of philosophy)



thanks
-r.

[jon doe]

G'day again

i probably should have said this before...... if im just asking the same questions as have already been asked else where on this forum just point me to the post(s) and ill read them to save going over the same issues again and again.


thanks
-r.

[BOZG]

(oh and to bornofzapistasguns question i am in the last year of high school in sydney AUSTRALIA (in anyone else here from aus?) but i have read quite a bit on different political ideas and also quite a bit of philosophy

I wasn't questioning your intellect just wondering what age you are. You're older than me anyway. And I'm pretty sure there's quite a few Australians on the board.

[jon doe]

I wasn't questioning your intellect just wondering what age you are. You're older than me anyway.

Thats cool no offence taken or anything
your writing sounds at least uni age, i guess its good we're getting the younguns...... someother guy here was supposedly 11


-r.

[RGacky3]

You must remember in a Utopia every one is a worker unless one is phisically incapable of being one. So socialism is for the Workers and those who would be workers if they could.

[jon doe]

G'day


You must remember in a Utopia every one is a worker unless one is phisically incapable of being one. So socialism is for the Workers and those who would be workers if they could.

that is only refering to a socialist utopia, im more thinking of utopia's in general.


-r.