Liberty in Socialism?

[florelius]

[quote]The Mage wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

many biased thinkers has disproved his models. but still you dont aknowledge that there is a difference beetwen a guy that owns a factory and a guy that dont. the who dont has to sell hes labour to survive. the who do own a factory, dont need to sell his labour, he lives off the profit of the factory. you should be able to see the difference.

adam smith is ok. what did he say?[/quote]

You really need to read the book Rich Dad Poor Dad. He talks about this exact thing. He mentions the whole idea of passive income, the factory owner you mention. He tells people to get into that passive income, and they will be better off.

Again, instead of complaining about that guy, you can become that guy. We all can.

He didn’t just wake up one day owning the fucking factory. He worked his ass of building that factory, or making the money to buy that factory.[/quote]

so are you saying that if everyone just worked hard, everyone would own there one working place? and there would be no class society?

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]The Mage wrote:

in 2008, over 60% of Americans owned stock. That meant 60% of Americans were part owners of “The Means of Production.” And of the remaining 40%, many if not most still owned something. They just chose something other then stocks. They could have chosen to be owners also, but they decided not to. Now we can get into the stock market crash, but that only hurt the owners, not the workers.

are you saying that no one got fired under the crisis, really?

95% of the people in America who have a net worth above $1M (American) made it on their own. They did not inherit it, and it was not given to them. And by an interesting twist of fate they are more likely to be first or second generation immigrants to this country. And the study done by the authors of The Millionaire Next Door found that financial assistance from parents actually made it less likely to get into that wealthy group.

Did you know there are business owners who have employees that make more then they do? They actually pay one or more employee more then they make themselves. Then there are some business owners who are not making any profit, and in fact are taking a loss solely to keep from putting their employees out of work.

The Socialist sits around blaming everybody else for their problems, and waits for the government to help them. The Capitalist accepts responsibility for his situation, and goes about working to improve that situation.

I dont blame any one for my problems! I am not socialist from a egoistic point of wiew. I am a socialist because I think it is the most humanist society. its a question about integrity for my part, to see politics from a bigger wiew than myself.
[/quote]

Yes it is good to give of yourself what is in excess, but to take from someone is not humane.

[The_Mage]

[quote]florelius wrote:

are you saying that no one got fired under the crisis, really?
[/quote]

I was expecting this response from you. Shows you don’t know anything about the economy. The market responded to what was happened. it didn’t cause the loss of jobs.

Unemployment started inching up in June 2007, and the crash didn’t happen until Sept. 2008.

In October 1987 there was a crash, and after that the unemployment rate actually decreased.

Around the dot com bust there really was no real change in unemployment.

[The_Mage]

[quote]florelius wrote:

so are you saying that if everyone just worked hard, everyone would own there one working place? and there would be no class society?[/quote]

Nope. You need to work smart. You also need to properly manage your finances. It doesn’t just happen by magic, it does take effort. It also probably means you can’t be the guy who spends his week working, and his weekend getting drunk.

You know how many people I have worked with that spend 9 days every 2 weeks asking to get off early, and 1 day asking why their check is so low? There is a connection.

[florelius]

[quote]The Mage wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

are you saying that no one got fired under the crisis, really?
[/quote]

I was expecting this response from you. Shows you don’t know anything about the economy. The market responded to what was happened. it didn’t cause the loss of jobs.

Unemployment started inching up in June 2007, and the crash didn’t happen until Sept. 2008.

In October 1987 there was a crash, and after that the unemployment rate actually decreased.

Around the dot com bust there really was no real change in unemployment.[/quote]

hm I remember that under the crisis people stood in line in front of the employment office. this was in norway, but norway was the country that came best out of the crisis compared to the rest of europa. so unemployment increased in europa. maybe it was different in us.

[florelius]

[quote]The Mage wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

so are you saying that if everyone just worked hard, everyone would own there one working place? and there would be no class society?[/quote]

Nope. You need to work smart. You also need to properly manage your finances. It doesn’t just happen by magic, it does take effort. It also probably means you can’t be the guy who spends his week working, and his weekend getting drunk.

You know how many people I have worked with that spend 9 days every 2 weeks asking to get off early, and 1 day asking why their check is so low? There is a connection.[/quote]

so are you saying that it is impossble for everyone to own a bussines in our current system?

[The_Mage]

[quote]florelius wrote:

hm I remember that under the crisis people stood in line in front of the employment office. this was in norway, but norway was the country that came best out of the crisis compared to the rest of europa. so unemployment increased in europa. maybe it was different in us. [/quote]

I didn’t try to look around locally to see what had happened. I used the government statistics. If I looked around locally, other then the stock market, we were not hit that hard here. The single biggest thing that happened was that people were told there was a crisis, so they quit spending money.

But my hours did go down at work, but interestingly enough I had paid off enough debt that I actually was doing better on less hours then before the crisis. My response was to get an HD television, and a blue ray player.

[The_Mage]

[quote]florelius wrote:

so are you saying that it is impossble for everyone to own a bussines in our current system?
[/quote]

Are you actually reading my posts? No I am saying it is possible for everyone to own a business, or at least a part of a business here. And only if they want to. Some people don’t want to.

[florelius]

[quote]The Mage wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

so are you saying that it is impossble for everyone to own a bussines in our current system?
[/quote]

Are you actually reading my posts? No I am saying it is possible for everyone to own a business, or at least a part of a business here. And only if they want to. Some people don’t want to.[/quote]

I did not meen “own” as your wife does and still are a employee, but own as in owning a bussines and being nobodys employee. is that possible for everyone at once if everyone worked hard.

[The_Mage]

[quote]florelius wrote:

I did not meen “own” as your wife does and still are a employee, but own as in owning a bussines and being nobodys employee. is that possible for everyone at once if everyone worked hard. [/quote]

Is it possible for everyone to own a business and not work? Yes. But the question is what will happen if there were no employees, and that is the problem. Automation would have to be ramped up like crazy.

But that will not be the problem because so few people are willing to build that business, and there are still people who actually want to be employees, or are doing just fine as employees. If a lot of employees switched over to self employed, the unemployment rate would drop, and corresponding pay for employees would have to increase.

[florelius]

[quote]The Mage wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

I did not meen “own” as your wife does and still are a employee, but own as in owning a bussines and being nobodys employee. is that possible for everyone at once if everyone worked hard. [/quote]

Is it possible for everyone to own a business and not work? Yes. But the question is what will happen if there were no employees, and that is the problem. Automation would have to be ramped up like crazy.

But that will not be the problem because so few people are willing to build that business, and there are still people who actually want to be employees, or are doing just fine as employees. If a lot of employees switched over to self employed, the unemployment rate would drop, and corresponding pay for employees would have to increase.[/quote]

ok, so it possible then to pursue the classless society if all the workers made there own business.

[The_Mage]

Well we actually do have a classless society right now. The class distinctions are artificially created, and do not mean what they used to mean historically, or in other places. I know that India is working on it right now.

In a class society people are born into their class, and pretty much you couldn’t do anything about that. But here a person could be born into poverty, and end up the CEO of a corporation, or the owner of a giant company.

Also when the distinctions of upper, middle, and lower class are listed, nowhere does it say it is the same people in each class as it was 10 years ago. The higher the distinction, the more fluid it generally is. There are many who were at the top who are now at the bottom.

[The_Mage]

I mentioned India above. There are people in India called Rat Eaters. They are considered about as low a class as it gets there. It is their job to catch the rats, and part of their culture is to eat the rats. (They love the taste.) But they were not allowed to change their distinction, until recently.

[florelius]

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Well we actually do have a classless society right now. The class distinctions are artificially created, and do not mean what they used to mean historically, or in other places. I know that India is working on it right now.

In a class society people are born into their class, and pretty much you couldn’t do anything about that. But here a person could be born into poverty, and end up the CEO of a corporation, or the owner of a giant company.

Also when the distinctions of upper, middle, and lower class are listed, nowhere does it say it is the same people in each class as it was 10 years ago. The higher the distinction, the more fluid it generally is. There are many who were at the top who are now at the bottom.[/quote]

we most definitely have classes to day, but yes not like in the feudal system.

In the feudalsystem we had something called that in norwegian is called “stand”. class is called “klasse” in norwegian. To be general you had to types of “stand” in feudalisme: they where aristocracy and common people. the aristocracy consisted of 2 sub groups: nobility and glergy. the commoners consisted of 2 sub groups ( burgeois and tenants ). This class system was constitutet trough law. Under the burgeois revolutions in the 1700s and 1800s This system was removed trough that everyone was equal above the law. So the “stand” system was abolished, but a new class system took over. basicly between man with property ( burgeois ) and people without ( proletarians ). This is the class system of today. but its not constituted in the law like “stand” or trough religion like “cast” as in India. This makes it a bit more flexible than the “stand” system. A burgeois can become a proletarian, and a proletarian can become a burgeois. but trough out history its much more common that a burgeois becomes a proeletarian than the opposit.

[The_Mage]

We have more and more people owning property here, and it is encouraged. That is actually one of the problems. People need to be at a certain level financially to be able to buy a house. If you are not at that level, you should not buy a house.

It is fairly simple to figure out if you are at that level though. If you don’t qualify for a regular mortgage, then you probably should not buy a house. Nobody should be using the secondary market.

And to clarify things, I do not own property right now, and am waiting until I am in the right financial position to purchase a home for myself. I know a few years back there is no way I would have qualified for a regular mortgage, but now I might. I won’t even worry about that for at least a year.

[florelius]

[quote]The Mage wrote:
We have more and more people owning property here, and it is encouraged. That is actually one of the problems. People need to be at a certain level financially to be able to buy a house. If you are not at that level, you should not buy a house.

It is fairly simple to figure out if you are at that level though. If you don’t qualify for a regular mortgage, then you probably should not buy a house. Nobody should be using the secondary market.

And to clarify things, I do not own property right now, and am waiting until I am in the right financial position to purchase a home for myself. I know a few years back there is no way I would have qualified for a regular mortgage, but now I might. I won’t even worry about that for at least a year.[/quote]

well today owning one house/apartment dont qualify for being burgeois. If you owned a bussines with employe`s you would be a part of the burgeois class, but if it was a small one you would be a part of the lower portions - middleclass.

[orion]

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]The Mage wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

so are you saying that it is impossble for everyone to own a bussines in our current system?
[/quote]

Are you actually reading my posts? No I am saying it is possible for everyone to own a business, or at least a part of a business here. And only if they want to. Some people don’t want to.[/quote]

I did not meen “own” as your wife does and still are a employee, but own as in owning a bussines and being nobodys employee. is that possible for everyone at once if everyone worked hard. [/quote]

I am still waiting for a response to my point that some people are better at running companies than others.

I am not interested in whether that is “elitist” or “autjoritarian” or not, but I would like an answer to the question whether that is true or not.

Because even inconveniant facts have consequences.

[florelius]

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]The Mage wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

so are you saying that it is impossble for everyone to own a bussines in our current system?
[/quote]

Are you actually reading my posts? No I am saying it is possible for everyone to own a business, or at least a part of a business here. And only if they want to. Some people don’t want to.[/quote]

I did not meen “own” as your wife does and still are a employee, but own as in owning a bussines and being nobodys employee. is that possible for everyone at once if everyone worked hard. [/quote]

I am still waiting for a response to my point that some people are better at running companies than others.

I am not interested in whether that is “elitist” or “autjoritarian” or not, but I would like an answer to the question whether that is true or not.

Because even inconveniant facts have consequences.
[/quote]

yes some are better at paperwork, and others are better at operating machins, but its not an argument against workercontroled companies. the guys doing paperwork are also hired labour. even doe you are god at paperwork doesnt meen you should take decisisons regarding all of the workers, would you not call that autoritarian, that someone else makes decisions for you without you have any thing to say about it.

let us turn it around: are some people better at running the state than others?

[orion]

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]The Mage wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

so are you saying that it is impossble for everyone to own a bussines in our current system?
[/quote]

Are you actually reading my posts? No I am saying it is possible for everyone to own a business, or at least a part of a business here. And only if they want to. Some people don’t want to.[/quote]

I did not meen “own” as your wife does and still are a employee, but own as in owning a bussines and being nobodys employee. is that possible for everyone at once if everyone worked hard. [/quote]

I am still waiting for a response to my point that some people are better at running companies than others.

I am not interested in whether that is “elitist” or “autjoritarian” or not, but I would like an answer to the question whether that is true or not.

Because even inconveniant facts have consequences.
[/quote]

yes some are better at paperwork, and others are better at operating machins, but its not an argument against workercontroled companies. the guys doing paperwork are also hired labour. even doe you are god at paperwork doesnt meen you should take decisisons regarding all of the workers, would you not call that autoritarian, that someone else makes decisions for you without you have any thing to say about it.

let us turn it around: are some people better at running the state than others?

[/quote]

We are not quite done.

Those people doing the “paperwork” do make far ranging decisions, yes, because they have proved that they are better at it than others.

How would the situation improve if people who are far less qualified also have a say in the matter?

And who would you think would be hurt most if a company fails because those democratic decisions are bad decisions?

If what you are suggesting made any kind of sense, companies would have already adopted that model, as competitive as our systems are.

The whole democracy thing does not fly either, because those democratically elected leaders make very bad decisions all the time.

So yes, there are people who are better at running governments than others and a democratic decisions making system makes sure that they will never be elected.

[florelius]

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]The Mage wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

so are you saying that it is impossble for everyone to own a bussines in our current system?
[/quote]

Are you actually reading my posts? No I am saying it is possible for everyone to own a business, or at least a part of a business here. And only if they want to. Some people don’t want to.[/quote]

I did not meen “own” as your wife does and still are a employee, but own as in owning a bussines and being nobodys employee. is that possible for everyone at once if everyone worked hard. [/quote]

I am still waiting for a response to my point that some people are better at running companies than others.

I am not interested in whether that is “elitist” or “autjoritarian” or not, but I would like an answer to the question whether that is true or not.

Because even inconveniant facts have consequences.
[/quote]

yes some are better at paperwork, and others are better at operating machins, but its not an argument against workercontroled companies. the guys doing paperwork are also hired labour. even doe you are god at paperwork doesnt meen you should take decisisons regarding all of the workers, would you not call that autoritarian, that someone else makes decisions for you without you have any thing to say about it.

let us turn it around: are some people better at running the state than others?

[/quote]

We are not quite done.

Those people doing the “paperwork” do make far ranging decisions, yes, because they have proved that they are better at it than others.

How would the situation improve if people who are far less qualified also have a say in the matter?

And who would you think would be hurt most if a company fails because those democratic decisions are bad decisions?

If what you are suggesting made any kind of sense, companies would have already adopted that model, as competitive as our systems are.

The whole democracy thing does not fly either, because those democratically elected leaders make very bad decisions all the time.

So yes, there are people who are better at running governments than others and a democratic decisions making system makes sure that they will never be elected.
[/quote]

this reminds me of a socialdemocrat kid I discussed with. He was a against both capitalist control over companies and workerdemocracy in companies, he ment that a socialeconomist would be best qualified to run bussines for the state. and from his and your perspectiv it makes sense, from mine it doesnt. because a companys social purpose is to produce or provide a service. a farmer doesnt need a socialeconomist to help him grow grain, a socialeconomist cant learn a workforce in a factory to operate the machine. and so on and so on. so in socialisme, where companies dont need to push crap on people to spin a dime, workerdeamocracy are possible. In a capitalist economy on the other hand, a bussines is problably better off with and expert on markets and so on.