Who's Afraid of Socialism?

I guess it depends on how you define capital. Regardless, someone has to decide how we organize labor and allocate resources. In a free market the people do this collaboratively and voluntarily. How would it happen under socialism?
Which institution do "the people" use to organize labor and allocate resources? In capitalism a few very rich people make these decisions that affect millions of stakeholders.

Socialism expands the pool of decision makers far beyond the boardroom; do you actually believe the richest members of society are entitled to decide what to produce, who to produce for, and where to produce?
Which institution do "the people" use to organize labor and allocate resources?
The market informs the capitalists how to use their resources. In essence we are all part of the decision in a capitalist system. That really wouldn't change under a socialist system of production.

Democracy at work is a wonderful step forward and should help to alleviate some of the social issues caused by capitalism. :)
Bringing democracy to the workplace would solve many of our problems:

Most adults spend at least half their waking lives in the workplace, yet capitalism requires them to suspend their democratic ideals in return for a regular paycheck.
e6ceb6f6-4cb0-41c0-99c3-52b329d19e8c.png

There Is An Alternative.
Democratizing the Workplace through “Worker Self-Directed Enterprises”



DERP

{
“Well, there was something that happened at that plant where I worked for twenty years. It was when the old man died and his heirs took over. There were three of them, two sons and a daughter, and they brought a new plan to run the factory. They let us vote on it, too, and everybody—almost everybody—voted for it. We didn’t know. We thought it was good. No, that’s not true, either. We thought that we were supposed to think it was good. The plan was that everybody in the factory would work according to his ability, but would be paid according to his need.

“We voted for that plan at a big meeting, with all of us present, six thousand of us, everybody that worked in the factory. The Starnes heirs made long speeches about it, and it wasn’t too clear, but nobody asked any questions. None of us knew just how the plan would work, but every one of us thought that the next fellow knew it. And if anybody had doubts, he felt guilty and kept his mouth shut—because they made it sound like anyone who’d oppose the plan was a child-killer at heart and less than a human being. They told us that this plan would achieve a noble ideal. Well, how were we to know otherwise? Hadn’t we heard it all our lives—from our parents and our schoolteachers and our ministers, and in every newspaper we ever read and every movie and every public speech? Hadn’t we always been told that this was righteous and just? Well, maybe there’s some excuse for what we did at that meeting. Still, we voted for the plan—and what we got, we had it coming to us. You know, ma’am, we are marked men, in a way, those of us who lived through the four years of that plan in the Twentieth Century factory. What is it that hell is supposed to be? Evil—plain, naked, smirking evil, isn’t it? Well, that’s what we saw and helped to make—and I think we’re damned, every one of us, and maybe we’ll never be forgiven …

“Do you know how it worked, that plan, and what it did to people? Try pouring water into a tank where there’s a pipe at the bottom draining it out faster than you pour it, and each bucket you bring breaks that pipe an inch wider, and the harder you work the more is demanded of you, and you stand slinging buckets forty hours a week, then forty-eight, then fifty-six—for your neighbor’s supper—for his wife’s operation—for his child’s measles—for his mother’s wheel chair—for his uncle’s shirt—for his nephew’s schooling—for the baby next door—for the baby to be born—for anyone anywhere around you—it’s theirs to receive, from diapers to dentures—and yours to work, from sunup to sundown, month after month, year after year, with nothing to show for it but your sweat, with nothing in sight for you but their pleasure, for the whole of your life, without rest, without hope, without end … From each according to his ability, to each according to his need …

“We’re all one big family, they told us, we’re all in this together. But you don’t all stand working an acetylene torch ten hours a day—together, and you don’t all get a bellyache—together. What’s whose ability and which of whose needs comes first? When it’s all one pot, you can’t let any man decide what his own needs are, can you? If you did, he might claim that he needs a yacht—and if his feelings are all you have to go by, he might prove it, too. Why not? If it’s not right for me to own a car until I’ve worked myself into a hospital ward, earning a car for every loafer and every naked savage on earth – why can’t he demand a yacht from me, too, if I still have the ability not to have collapsed? No? He can’t? Then why can he demand that I go without cream for my coffee until he’s replastered his living room? … Oh well … Well, anyway, it was decided that nobody had the right to judge his own need or ability. We voted on it. Yes, ma’am, we voted on it in a public meeting twice a year. How else could it be done? Do you care to think what would happen at such a meeting? It took us just one meeting to discover that we had become beggars—rotten, whining, sniveling beggars, all of us, because no man could claim his pay as his rightful earning, he had no rights and no earnings, his work didn’t belong to him, it belonged to ‘the family’, and they owed him nothing in return, and the only claim he had on them was his ‘need’—so he had to beg in public for relief from his needs, like any lousy moocher, listing all his troubles and miseries, down to his patched drawers and his wife’s head colds, hoping that ‘the family’ would throw him the alms. He had to claim miseries, because it’s miseries, not work, that had become the coin of the realm—so it turned into a contest between six thousand panhandlers, each claiming that his need was worse than his brother’s. How else could it be done? Do you care to guess what happened, what sort of men kept quiet, feeling shame, and what sort got away with the jackpot?

“But that wasn’t all. There was something else that we discovered at the same meeting. The factory’s production had fallen by forty percent, in that first half year, so it was decided that somebody hadn’t delivered ‘according to his ability.’ Who? How would you tell it? ‘The family’ voted on that, too. We voted which men were the best, and these men were sentenced to work overtime each night for the next six months. Overtime without pay—because you weren’t paid by time and you weren’t paid by work, only by need.

“Do I have to tell you what happened after that—and into what sort of creatures we all started turning, we who had once been humans? We began to hide whatever ability we had, to slow down and watch like hawks that we never worked any faster or better than the next fellow. What else could we do, when we knew that if we did our best for ‘the family,’ it’s not thanks or rewards that we’d get, but punishment? We knew that for every stinker who’d ruin a batch of motors and cost the company money—either through his sloppiness, because he didn’t have to care, or through plain incompetence—it’s we who’d have to pay with our nights and our Sundays. So we did our best to be no good.

“There was one young boy who started out, full of fire for the noble ideal, a bright kid without any schooling, but with a wonderful head on his shoulders. The first year, he figured out a work process that saved us thousands of man-hours. He gave it to ‘the family,’ didn’t ask anything for it, either, couldn’t ask, but that was all right with him. It was for the ideal, he said. But when he found himself voted as one of our ablest and sentenced to night work, because we hadn’t gotten enough from him, he shut his mouth and his brain. You can bet he didn’t come up with any ideas, the second year.

“What was it they’d always told us about the vicious competition of the profit system, where men had to compete for who’d do a better job than his fellows? Vicious, wasn’t it? Well, they should have seen what it was like when we all had to compete with one another for who’d do the worst job possible. There’s no surer way to destroy a man than to force him into a spot where he has to aim at not doing his best, where he has to struggle to do a bad job, day after day. That will finish him quicker than drink or idleness or pulling stick-ups for a living. But there was nothing else for us to do except to fake unfitness. The one accusation we feared was to be suspected of ability. Ability was like a mortgage on you that you could never pay off. And what was there to work for? You knew that your basic pittance would be given to you anyway, whether you worked or not—your ‘housing and feeding allowance,’ it was called—and above that pittance, you had no chance to get anything, no matter how hard you tried. You couldn’t count on buying a new suit of clothes next year—they might give you a ‘clothing allowance’ or they might not, according to whether nobody broke a leg, needed an operation or gave birth to more babies. And if there wasn’t enough money for new suits for everybody, then you couldn’t get yours, either.

“There was one man who’d worked hard all his life, because he’d always wanted to send his son through college. Well, the boy graduated from high school in the second year of the plan—but ‘the family’ wouldn’t give the father any ‘allowance’ for the college. They said his son couldn’t go to college, until we had enough to send everybody’s sons to college—and that we first had to send everybody’s children through high school, and we didn’t even have enough for that. The father died the following year, in a knife fight with somebody in a saloon, a fight over nothing in particular—such fights were beginning to happen among us all the time.

“Then there was an old guy, a widower with no family, who had one hobby: phonograph records. I guess that was all he ever got out of life. In the old days, he used to skip lunch just to buy himself some new recording of classical music. Well, they didn’t give him any ‘allowance’ for records—‘personal luxury’ they called it. But at the same meeting, Millie Bush, somebody’s daughter, a mean, ugly little eight year old, was voted a pair of gold braces for her buck teeth—this was ‘medical need’ because the staff psychologist had said that the poor girl would get an inferiority complex if her teeth weren’t straightened out. The old guy who loved music, turned to drink, instead. He got so you never saw him fully conscious any more. But it seems like there was one thing he couldn’t forget. One night, he came staggering down the street, saw Millie Bush, swung his fist and knocked all her teeth out. Every one of them.

“Drink, of course, was what we all turned to, some more, some less. Don’t ask how we got the money for it. When all the decent pleasures are forbidden, there’s always ways to get the rotten ones. You don’t break into grocery stores after dark and you don’t pick your fellow’s pockets to buy classical symphonies or fishing tackle, but if it’s to get stinking drunk and forget—you do. Fishing tackle? Hunting guns? Snapshot cameras? Hobbies? There wasn’t any ‘amusement allowance’ for anybody. ‘Amusement’ was the first thing they dropped. Aren’t you supposed to be ashamed to object when anybody asks you to give up anything, if it’s something that gave you pleasure? Even our ‘tobacco allowance’ was cut to where we got two packs of cigarettes a month—and this, they told us, was because the money had to go into the babies’ milk fund. Babies was the only item of production that didn’t fall, but rose and kept on rising—because people had nothing else to do, I guess, and because they didn’t have to care, the baby wasn’t their burden, it was ‘the family’s.’ In fact, the best chance you had of getting a raise and breathing easier for a while was a ‘baby allowance.’ Either that or a major disease.

“It didn’t take us long to see how it all worked out. Any man who tried to play straight, had to refuse himself everything. He lost his taste for any pleasure, he hated to smoke a nickel’s worth of tobacco or chew a stick of gum, worrying whether somebody had more need for that nickel. He felt ashamed of every mouthful of food he swallowed, wondering whose weary nights of overtime had paid for it, knowing that his food was not his by right, miserably wishing to be cheated rather than to cheat, to be a sucker, but not a blood-sucker. He wouldn’t marry, he wouldn’t help his folks back home, he wouldn’t put an extra burden on ‘the family.’ Besides, if he still had some sort of sense of responsibility, he couldn’t marry or bring children into the world, when he could plan nothing, promise nothing, count on nothing. But the shiftless and irresponsible had a field day of it. They bred babies, they got girls into trouble, they dragged in every worthless relative they had from all over the country, every unmarried pregnant sister, for an extra ‘disability allowance,’ they got more sicknesses than any doctor could disprove, they ruined their clothing, their furniture, their homes—what the hell, ‘the family’ was paying for it! They found more ways of getting in ‘need’ than the rest of us could ever imagine—they developed a special skill for it, which was the only ability they showed.} - Atlas Shrugged
 
As in the dictatorship of the proletariat, for example?

Fascist franco doesn't know what that means.
Neither does dblack.

It's true. I find most marxist slogans bewildering. It doesn't help the every advocate has their own pet vision that bears little resemblance to the others. Look at this thread. You, franco and george have completely different ideas of what socialism means. There's some commonality, notably a disdain for personal freedom and blind faith in democracy, but outside that you guys can't seem to get on the same page. And I sure as hell have no interest in helping you sort it out.
 
As in the dictatorship of the proletariat, for example?

Fascist franco doesn't know what that means.
Neither does dblack.

It's true. I find most marxist slogans bewildering. It doesn't help the every advocate has their own pet vision that bears little resemblance to the others. Look at this thread. You, franco and george have completely different ideas of what socialism means. There's some commonality, notably a disdain for personal freedom and blind faith in democracy, but outside that you guys can't seem to get on the same page. And I sure as hell have no interest in helping you sort it out.
We are all individuals with different ideas. It is hardly different than you and bripat offering up different ideas about what capital is. The very foundation of the system that you both celebrate and that we participate in daily.
 
I guess it depends on how you define capital. Regardless, someone has to decide how we organize labor and allocate resources. In a free market the people do this collaboratively and voluntarily. How would it happen under socialism?
Which institution do "the people" use to organize labor and allocate resources? In capitalism a few very rich people make these decisions that affect millions of stakeholders.

Socialism expands the pool of decision makers far beyond the boardroom; do you actually believe the richest members of society are entitled to decide what to produce, who to produce for, and where to produce?
Which institution do "the people" use to organize labor and allocate resources?
The market informs the capitalists how to use their resources. In essence we are all part of the decision in a capitalist system. That really wouldn't change under a socialist system of production.

Democracy at work is a wonderful step forward and should help to alleviate some of the social issues caused by capitalism. :)
The problem with democratic socialism is the many dictating the policy for the few. Even in the countries with the best ran socialized medicine, it works fine and dandy when whatever ailment you have can be treated by a family practicioner, but you best hope to not need a specialist. Not only are their specialists sub par compared to the likes of the average US and Swiss specialist with way less options for treatment that are outdated, you’re going to be waiting for months to get that treatment. Hopefully your specialized ailment isn’t urgent or a deteriorating condition. If so, you best hope you have the money to afford treatment in Switzerland or the US. Perfect examples of this that went global were the Charlie guard and the most recent case a few months ago where the child was allowed to receive treatment elsewhere (after a long legal battle) and was able to saved (despite the NHS basically declaring him already dead).

Another issue with socialism is if government is offering positive rights to people, then you can’t say shit to me when I abuse those rights. If healthcare is a right, then you can’t say shit to me if I live off of a diet of pixie sticks, butter, soda, alcohol, and cigs. It’s a right, therefore paying for my health is not my responsibility, it’s societies. At least that’s philosophically the way it’s supposed to be in practice, but it isn’t. No, the government cannot let you be a drain on the system so it’s going to put into place policies to pressure you to stay healthy like sin taxes (which don’t work and are just taxes on the poor). Or they just say that’s it for you, there’s no more we can do, just like with Charlie guard.
 
I guess it depends on how you define capital. Regardless, someone has to decide how we organize labor and allocate resources. In a free market the people do this collaboratively and voluntarily. How would it happen under socialism?
Which institution do "the people" use to organize labor and allocate resources? In capitalism a few very rich people make these decisions that affect millions of stakeholders.

Socialism expands the pool of decision makers far beyond the boardroom; do you actually believe the richest members of society are entitled to decide what to produce, who to produce for, and where to produce?
Which institution do "the people" use to organize labor and allocate resources?
The market informs the capitalists how to use their resources. In essence we are all part of the decision in a capitalist system. That really wouldn't change under a socialist system of production.

Democracy at work is a wonderful step forward and should help to alleviate some of the social issues caused by capitalism. :)
The problem with democratic socialism is the many dictating the policy for the few. Even in the countries with the best ran socialized medicine, it works fine and dandy when whatever ailment you have can be treated by a family practicioner, but you best hope to not need a specialist. Not only are their specialists sub par compared to the likes of the average US and Swiss specialist with way less options for treatment that are outdated, you’re going to be waiting for months to get that treatment. Hopefully your specialized ailment isn’t urgent or a deteriorating condition. If so, you best hope you have the money to afford treatment in Switzerland or the US. Perfect examples of this that went global were the Charlie guard and the most recent case a few months ago where the child was allowed to receive treatment elsewhere (after a long legal battle) and was able to saved (despite the NHS basically declaring him already dead).

Another issue with socialism is if government is offering positive rights to people, then you can’t say shit to me when I abuse those rights. If healthcare is a right, then you can’t say shit to me if I live off of a diet of pixie sticks, butter, soda, alcohol, and cigs. It’s a right, therefore paying for my health is not my responsibility, it’s societies. At least that’s philosophically the way it’s supposed to be in practice, but it isn’t. No, the government cannot let you be a drain on the system so it’s going to put into place policies to pressure you to stay healthy like sin taxes (which don’t work and are just taxes on the poor). Or they just say that’s it for you, there’s no more we can do, just like with Charlie guard.
The problem with democratic socialism
I agree. :4_13_65:

I subscribe to the ideas found in scientific socialism, aka Marxism (communism).
 
I guess it depends on how you define capital. Regardless, someone has to decide how we organize labor and allocate resources. In a free market the people do this collaboratively and voluntarily. How would it happen under socialism?
Which institution do "the people" use to organize labor and allocate resources? In capitalism a few very rich people make these decisions that affect millions of stakeholders.

Socialism expands the pool of decision makers far beyond the boardroom; do you actually believe the richest members of society are entitled to decide what to produce, who to produce for, and where to produce?
Which institution do "the people" use to organize labor and allocate resources?
The market informs the capitalists how to use their resources. In essence we are all part of the decision in a capitalist system. That really wouldn't change under a socialist system of production.

Democracy at work is a wonderful step forward and should help to alleviate some of the social issues caused by capitalism. :)
The problem with democratic socialism is the many dictating the policy for the few. Even in the countries with the best ran socialized medicine, it works fine and dandy when whatever ailment you have can be treated by a family practicioner, but you best hope to not need a specialist. Not only are their specialists sub par compared to the likes of the average US and Swiss specialist with way less options for treatment that are outdated, you’re going to be waiting for months to get that treatment. Hopefully your specialized ailment isn’t urgent or a deteriorating condition. If so, you best hope you have the money to afford treatment in Switzerland or the US. Perfect examples of this that went global were the Charlie guard and the most recent case a few months ago where the child was allowed to receive treatment elsewhere (after a long legal battle) and was able to saved (despite the NHS basically declaring him already dead).

Another issue with socialism is if government is offering positive rights to people, then you can’t say shit to me when I abuse those rights. If healthcare is a right, then you can’t say shit to me if I live off of a diet of pixie sticks, butter, soda, alcohol, and cigs. It’s a right, therefore paying for my health is not my responsibility, it’s societies. At least that’s philosophically the way it’s supposed to be in practice, but it isn’t. No, the government cannot let you be a drain on the system so it’s going to put into place policies to pressure you to stay healthy like sin taxes (which don’t work and are just taxes on the poor). Or they just say that’s it for you, there’s no more we can do, just like with Charlie guard.
The problem with democratic socialism
I agree. :4_13_65:

I subscribe to the ideas found in scientific socialism, aka Marxism (communism).
Oh so non-democratically. How’s that gonna work? Glorious revolution? Capitalism is just a shadowy oligarchy right? So to fix it let’s just put in an actual oligarchy with absolute control. Do what needs to be done with the people that don’t want that. That’s a lot of re-education, for many they’ll need a bullet in the head to help jog their learning. With “science” approved by the glorious leader? The same social sciences that approve articles designed to expose them where they plaguerize Mien Kampf and replace the word Jew with “whiteness”? That type of “science”?

Really, how many more millions of people need to starve to death or be lethally re-educated because of Marxism before y’all finally admit that you’re all just envious narcissist? Oh and that Marxism really does not work, unless you believe in making all the trees even by cutting them all down to the same level...which is really really low. Apparently some 100 million isn’t enough.
 
I guess it depends on how you define capital. Regardless, someone has to decide how we organize labor and allocate resources. In a free market the people do this collaboratively and voluntarily. How would it happen under socialism?
Which institution do "the people" use to organize labor and allocate resources? In capitalism a few very rich people make these decisions that affect millions of stakeholders.

Socialism expands the pool of decision makers far beyond the boardroom; do you actually believe the richest members of society are entitled to decide what to produce, who to produce for, and where to produce?
Which institution do "the people" use to organize labor and allocate resources?
The market informs the capitalists how to use their resources. In essence we are all part of the decision in a capitalist system. That really wouldn't change under a socialist system of production.

Democracy at work is a wonderful step forward and should help to alleviate some of the social issues caused by capitalism. :)
The problem with democratic socialism is the many dictating the policy for the few. Even in the countries with the best ran socialized medicine, it works fine and dandy when whatever ailment you have can be treated by a family practicioner, but you best hope to not need a specialist. Not only are their specialists sub par compared to the likes of the average US and Swiss specialist with way less options for treatment that are outdated, you’re going to be waiting for months to get that treatment. Hopefully your specialized ailment isn’t urgent or a deteriorating condition. If so, you best hope you have the money to afford treatment in Switzerland or the US. Perfect examples of this that went global were the Charlie guard and the most recent case a few months ago where the child was allowed to receive treatment elsewhere (after a long legal battle) and was able to saved (despite the NHS basically declaring him already dead).

Another issue with socialism is if government is offering positive rights to people, then you can’t say shit to me when I abuse those rights. If healthcare is a right, then you can’t say shit to me if I live off of a diet of pixie sticks, butter, soda, alcohol, and cigs. It’s a right, therefore paying for my health is not my responsibility, it’s societies. At least that’s philosophically the way it’s supposed to be in practice, but it isn’t. No, the government cannot let you be a drain on the system so it’s going to put into place policies to pressure you to stay healthy like sin taxes (which don’t work and are just taxes on the poor). Or they just say that’s it for you, there’s no more we can do, just like with Charlie guard.
The problem with democratic socialism
I agree. :4_13_65:

I subscribe to the ideas found in scientific socialism, aka Marxism (communism).
Oh so non-democratically. How’s that gonna work? Glorious revolution? Capitalism is just a shadowy oligarchy right? So to fix it let’s just put in an actual oligarchy with absolute control. Do what needs to be done with the people that don’t want that. That’s a lot of re-education, for many they’ll need a bullet in the head to help jog their learning. With “science” approved by the glorious leader? The same social sciences that approve articles designed to expose them where they plaguerize Mien Kampf and replace the word Jew with “whiteness”? That type of “science”?

Really, how many more millions of people need to starve to death or be lethally re-educated because of Marxism before y’all finally admit that you’re all just envious narcissist? Oh and that Marxism really does not work, unless you believe in making all the trees even by cutting them all down to the same level...which is really really low. Apparently some 100 million isn’t enough.
My problem isn't with democracy. I think it is great and we need more of it.

I don't agree with the idea that we can build a socialist society on the back of capitalism. That seems to be the idea that is associated with democratic socialism and I don't believe it is feasible.

Scientific socialism (Marxism) is the study of human social development and economics using the Hegelian dialectic method. Marxism works great at interpreting the world. I think you have a lot of misconceptions about it.
 
This isn’t a correct characterization of large companies. They do distribute wealth. They do so to their many employees. To the contractors they hire. To the builders they hire. To the other companies and people they invest in. And to the thousands of shareholders that invest in them. That money doesn’t just stop there either, the secondary recipients just listed go on and spread wealth elsewhere. And yes even the few who do get rich in this scenario do pay taxes, the company pays taxes, and further they are hands down the largest contributors to charity.
Capitalism generates income and wealth more efficiently than any economic system before its arrival. However. it doesn't seem to do an equitable job of distributing the spoils:
Screen_Shot_2018_07_29_at_10.27.09_AM.png

What changes do you believe capitalism could make to change its natural tendency of concentrating wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation?

One chart that shows how much worse income inequality is in America than Europe

"One chart that shows how much worse income inequality is in America than Europe
The income share of the poorest half of Americans is declining while the richest have grabbed more. In Europe, it’s not happening.
By Emily Stewart Jul 29, 2018, 11:43am EDT"
No system does, it’s called the Pareto distribution, and it’s universal. Not just in human economics but also other things like human productivity (e.g. a small number of workers do 90% of the work), music production, scientific papers, etc. It’s also universal in nature, (e.g. a small portion of celestial bodies have 90% of the mass). You want the system that does it the best, and a system that fairly rewards the most productive, so they can continue to be productive. Now if someone is getting rich by providing a service or product at a price people are willing to pay, and doing so without cheating or gaming the system...what is wrong with that? You seem to have a problem with the fact that there are super rich people out there. In the past those people were just the ones in power. Now it’s mainly the people making lives better humanity somehow.

Another factor you may be overlooking is that in America, ones level of wealth is rarely static. You can look at a screen shot stat showing the haves and the have nots, but it isn’t the full story. Some 70% of Americans wind up in the top 10% at some point in their life (if I remember correctly). Sounds like a damn good system of distribution to me despite that stubborn Pareto distribution.
No system does, it’s called the Pareto distribution, and it’s universal. Not just in human economics but also other things like human productivity (e.g. a small number of workers do 90% of the work), music production, scientific papers, etc. It’s also universal in nature, (e.g. a small portion of celestial bodies have 90% of the mass). You want the system that does it the best, and a system that fairly rewards the most productive, so they can continue to be productive
Vilfredo Pareto revolutionized the study of economics and income distribution.

Vilfredo Pareto - Wikipedia

"He introduced the concept of Pareto efficiency and helped develop the field of microeconomics. He was also the first to discover that income follows a Pareto distribution, which is a power law probability distribution.

"The Pareto principle was named after him, and it was built on observations of his such as that 80% of the land in Italy was owned by about 20% of the population."

It seems to me like the richest 20% of Italians relied on "cheating or gaming the system" (if not worse) in order to amass their wealth?
2eZKkQ.jpg

Extending this principle to its logical end, you end up with the richest one percent owning most of the wealth, which seems inconsistent with a democratic/republic form of government.
But it’s not just power that determines wealth in capitalism. Power has little to do with wealth if the more economic freedom a nation has, it becomes more about merit. This is because capitalism is a system that rewards service to humanity at a price they are willing to pay. And in a healthy free market, old money doesn’t last all that long, 3 generations. That may sound long, but again someone was so successful at providing something to the masses that they were able to take care of their grandkids with the money. People who have a problem with that are the same who’d trade places with that person in a heartbeat. It’s one of the strongest natural instincts to provide for the coming generations.

There are those who get to the top and want to pull the ladder up from below them, and yes this needs to be guarded against. The best way for one to pull the ladder up is to get government to change the rules in your favor (which decreases market freedom). In a healthy free market (one that says away from cementing into place the powers that be) the big fall all the time, in fact it’s a necessity. Unless they adapt well to the changing landscape, which is rare.

Economic freedom gives the citizens more freedom overall since they can vote with their dollars what works for them, and have a wide array of options. For socialism to work, one needs to build a government with a lot of power. The more power they have, the more choices they are making on the behalf of the citizens. When government builds that sword to reign in the markets, citizens need to be wary of who wields the sword. Take Venezuela for example. Let’s pretend Chavez was a true believer and competent practitioner of socialism. The very next guy, Maduro, grabbed a hold of that sword and brutally turned it against the citizens. Even if (this is a huge if) the government was created and implemented with the best of intentions in a competent manner, it then becomes a powerful and tempting tool for the next guy. Operating in a competent manner is also a big if, since the only ideas for implementation are going to come from a small group of people, with their own agendas. And once a “solution” is implemented, it’s basically the only available to the citizens. What happens if that solution doesn’t work well? The answer isn’t usually go back to the drawing board, it’s throw more money at it. What happens if that solution doesn’t work for some a minority of citizens, but still works for the majority? Sorry minority, you’re SOL. With socialism, no matter what, you’re creating a false restriction of resources since the government only has a limited amount of resources, what it gathers in taxes. Socialism is a rigid, less adaptive, and dangerous system in the wrong hands. At the very best, it’s utilitarian, only if every thing is going right.
Everything you know about Venezuela is garbage propaganda. Their economy has been wrecked by sanctions and covert action and a Great Depression caused by the corrupt GOP. Maduro was elected. At any rate they are not a first world country and never have been, and have no lessons for country like the United States the richest country in the world. More garbage GOP propaganda, we have a mountain of it.
Utter horseshit. Everything you know about Venezuela is garbage. When the recession occurred, the price of oil was at a high point. Money was pouring into Venezuela. The idea that our recession caused Venezuela's economy to swirl down the toilet bowl doesn't pass the laugh test.

Maduro was no more elected than Saddam Hussein was elected. You can't have an honest election when the government controls all the media outlets. Despite that, Maduro's goons had to manufacture hundreds of thousands of votes to make him the winner.

Under capitalism, Venezuela had a GDP per capital rated 4th in the entire world. Under socialism, it's running almost dead last.
 
Do you want a large company creating billions in wealth for the whole country? Or a non-profit producing millions?

Why did all of Obamas health care co-ops all fail? Because in general for-profit companies do better.
First of all, large companies create billions in wealth, but they don't distribute that wealth to the whole country. They distribute the vast bulk of those billions to a fraction of the richest one percent of the whole country.

Obama's health care initiatives failed because he once again turned to capitalist whores like Liz Fowler to design his for-profit business interests.
"Obamacare architect leaves White House for pharmaceutical industry job
Glenn Greenwald...
fowler.png

Obamacare architect leaves White House for pharmaceutical industry job | Glenn Greenwald
This isn’t a correct characterization of large companies. They do distribute wealth. They do so to their many employees. To the contractors they hire. To the builders they hire. To the other companies and people they invest in. And to the thousands of shareholders that invest in them. That money doesn’t just stop there either, the secondary recipients just listed go on and spread wealth elsewhere. And yes even the few who do get rich in this scenario do pay taxes, the company pays taxes, and further they are hands down the largest contributors to charity.
Capitalism generates income and wealth more efficiently than any economic system before its arrival. However. it doesn't seem to do an equitable job of distributing the spoils:
Screen_Shot_2018_07_29_at_10.27.09_AM.png

What changes do you believe capitalism could make to change its natural tendency of concentrating wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation?

One chart that shows how much worse income inequality is in America than Europe

"One chart that shows how much worse income inequality is in America than Europe
The income share of the poorest half of Americans is declining while the richest have grabbed more. In Europe, it’s not happening.
By Emily Stewart Jul 29, 2018, 11:43am EDT"

First, that is actually not true. Europe is only more equal, because they have many wealthy countries, that have exceptionally low immigration. Fewer low-skill workers, naturally means more equal wealth.

Second, equality in distributing the 'spoils' of wealth generation is inherently immoral. Why should I have to share my $25K a year income, with someone who doesn't work? That is entirely immoral.

The moral position is that people should get to keep the income they earn. That means I have no problem with Warren Buffet keeping his millions, as long as I keep my $25K.

Second, equality in distributing the 'spoils' of wealth generation is inherently immoral. Why should I have to share my $25K a year income, with someone who doesn't work? That is entirely immoral.

The moral position is that people should get to keep the income they earn. That means I have no problem with Warren Buffet keeping his millions, as long as I keep my $25K.
I don't see any reason why someone earning $25,000 a year in the richest country in history should be required to pay state or federal income taxes. Do you?

They don't, moron. They pay zero income taxes.

I see many good reasons why someone "earning" $25,000 a month or week or a day should be taxed at levels sufficient to provide you and millions of other productive citizens with free health care and education?

You want to slaughter the goose that lays the golden eggs. You are proposing to tax away a huge chunk of the money that is invested in capital, stuff like factories and computers that we use to create wealth. You naively believe that the rich have all their wealth tied up in mansions, yachts and business jets. The fact is that most of it is invested. Otherwise they wouldn't stay rich very long.
 
Would you care to NOT dodge the question? What if people have a strong desire for goods or services the government doesn't want them to have?
The same thing that happens now.

No it doesn't. Government is not currently responsible for making these kinds of decisions. That's up to individuals in the free market. You're suggesting that government take over that responsibility.

So, getting back to the example, under your version of socialism, how would government bookstores respond to consumer demand for anti-socialist "propaganda"?
You're suggesting that government take over that responsibility.
No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that a free association of people decide what to produce and let the market decide if it is something worth producing. You keep inserting government into it.
Alright. I'm not going to chase you around trying to discover the secret truth about your very special version of socialism. I don't care that much. I am opposed to government controlling "the means of production".
They've tried capitalism without regulation, it's a mess where the workers and non Rich get screwed over. We're going back to that now. worst inequality and upward Mobility ever and in the modern world.

The wealth of the United States grew at a faster rate under that system than any other country in the world. That's when we became a superpower. The standard of living of the non-rich grew to unprecedented levels.

You're brain is packed with propaganda and bullshit.
 
Read a history book, you have no idea what you're talking about. I was a teacher stupid. Lenin was the most democratic ever? This is totally ridiculous.

:lmao:

You really are the most historically illiterate person on the planet.

You promote Marxism and Leninism but literally don't know even the first thing about them. Do you know what a "Soviet" is you fucking illiterate? A soviet is a council to govern. The early USSR established soviets all the way to the neighborhood level. One had to be a proletarian to serve on a soviet, the middle class was forbidden, But beyond that the soviets had all power, including having people shot or sent to Gulags. The soviets assigned housing, and as I already state, but you're too fucking stupid and dishonest to grasp, they also refused housing to middle class people. The soviets assigned what work one would do. Doctors and lawyers were sent to work in mines and farm labor placed in charge of factories, all a system of revenge for the middle class doing better.

{Socialism has to be democratic and cannot exist until the overwhelming majority of the worlds workers understands the concept and wants to organise for its inception . Democracy is nothing more than government of the people , by the people , for the people this in effect would mean and end to government as every individual the world over would be able to take part in the control of social arrangements if they so wish .} - Vladimir Lenin

https://www.quora.com/Lenin-said-th...-Sanders-and-his-goal-of-democratic-socialism

Learn some history, you ignorant moron
Note the line stolen from Lincoln: "government of the people , by the people , for the people."
 
I guess it depends on how you define capital. Regardless, someone has to decide how we organize labor and allocate resources. In a free market the people do this collaboratively and voluntarily. How would it happen under socialism?
Which institution do "the people" use to organize labor and allocate resources? In capitalism a few very rich people make these decisions that affect millions of stakeholders.

Socialism expands the pool of decision makers far beyond the boardroom; do you actually believe the richest members of society are entitled to decide what to produce, who to produce for, and where to produce?
Which institution do "the people" use to organize labor and allocate resources?
The market informs the capitalists how to use their resources. In essence we are all part of the decision in a capitalist system. That really wouldn't change under a socialist system of production.

Democracy at work is a wonderful step forward and should help to alleviate some of the social issues caused by capitalism. :)
Bringing democracy to the workplace would solve many of our problems:

Most adults spend at least half their waking lives in the workplace, yet capitalism requires them to suspend their democratic ideals in return for a regular paycheck.
e6ceb6f6-4cb0-41c0-99c3-52b329d19e8c.png

There Is An Alternative.
Democratizing the Workplace through “Worker Self-Directed Enterprises”

I do enjoy Wolff's regular Economic Updates on youtube.


The term "Marxian economist" is an oxymoron.
 
I guess it depends on how you define capital. Regardless, someone has to decide how we organize labor and allocate resources. In a free market the people do this collaboratively and voluntarily. How would it happen under socialism?
Which institution do "the people" use to organize labor and allocate resources? In capitalism a few very rich people make these decisions that affect millions of stakeholders.

Socialism expands the pool of decision makers far beyond the boardroom; do you actually believe the richest members of society are entitled to decide what to produce, who to produce for, and where to produce?
Which institution do "the people" use to organize labor and allocate resources?
The market informs the capitalists how to use their resources. In essence we are all part of the decision in a capitalist system. That really wouldn't change under a socialist system of production.

Democracy at work is a wonderful step forward and should help to alleviate some of the social issues caused by capitalism. :)
Bringing democracy to the workplace would solve many of our problems:

Most adults spend at least half their waking lives in the workplace, yet capitalism requires them to suspend their democratic ideals in return for a regular paycheck.
e6ceb6f6-4cb0-41c0-99c3-52b329d19e8c.png

There Is An Alternative.
Democratizing the Workplace through “Worker Self-Directed Enterprises”



DERP

{
“Well, there was something that happened at that plant where I worked for twenty years. It was when the old man died and his heirs took over. There were three of them, two sons and a daughter, and they brought a new plan to run the factory. They let us vote on it, too, and everybody—almost everybody—voted for it. We didn’t know. We thought it was good. No, that’s not true, either. We thought that we were supposed to think it was good. The plan was that everybody in the factory would work according to his ability, but would be paid according to his need.

“We voted for that plan at a big meeting, with all of us present, six thousand of us, everybody that worked in the factory. The Starnes heirs made long speeches about it, and it wasn’t too clear, but nobody asked any questions. None of us knew just how the plan would work, but every one of us thought that the next fellow knew it. And if anybody had doubts, he felt guilty and kept his mouth shut—because they made it sound like anyone who’d oppose the plan was a child-killer at heart and less than a human being. They told us that this plan would achieve a noble ideal. Well, how were we to know otherwise? Hadn’t we heard it all our lives—from our parents and our schoolteachers and our ministers, and in every newspaper we ever read and every movie and every public speech? Hadn’t we always been told that this was righteous and just? Well, maybe there’s some excuse for what we did at that meeting. Still, we voted for the plan—and what we got, we had it coming to us. You know, ma’am, we are marked men, in a way, those of us who lived through the four years of that plan in the Twentieth Century factory. What is it that hell is supposed to be? Evil—plain, naked, smirking evil, isn’t it? Well, that’s what we saw and helped to make—and I think we’re damned, every one of us, and maybe we’ll never be forgiven …

“Do you know how it worked, that plan, and what it did to people? Try pouring water into a tank where there’s a pipe at the bottom draining it out faster than you pour it, and each bucket you bring breaks that pipe an inch wider, and the harder you work the more is demanded of you, and you stand slinging buckets forty hours a week, then forty-eight, then fifty-six—for your neighbor’s supper—for his wife’s operation—for his child’s measles—for his mother’s wheel chair—for his uncle’s shirt—for his nephew’s schooling—for the baby next door—for the baby to be born—for anyone anywhere around you—it’s theirs to receive, from diapers to dentures—and yours to work, from sunup to sundown, month after month, year after year, with nothing to show for it but your sweat, with nothing in sight for you but their pleasure, for the whole of your life, without rest, without hope, without end … From each according to his ability, to each according to his need …

“We’re all one big family, they told us, we’re all in this together. But you don’t all stand working an acetylene torch ten hours a day—together, and you don’t all get a bellyache—together. What’s whose ability and which of whose needs comes first? When it’s all one pot, you can’t let any man decide what his own needs are, can you? If you did, he might claim that he needs a yacht—and if his feelings are all you have to go by, he might prove it, too. Why not? If it’s not right for me to own a car until I’ve worked myself into a hospital ward, earning a car for every loafer and every naked savage on earth – why can’t he demand a yacht from me, too, if I still have the ability not to have collapsed? No? He can’t? Then why can he demand that I go without cream for my coffee until he’s replastered his living room? … Oh well … Well, anyway, it was decided that nobody had the right to judge his own need or ability. We voted on it. Yes, ma’am, we voted on it in a public meeting twice a year. How else could it be done? Do you care to think what would happen at such a meeting? It took us just one meeting to discover that we had become beggars—rotten, whining, sniveling beggars, all of us, because no man could claim his pay as his rightful earning, he had no rights and no earnings, his work didn’t belong to him, it belonged to ‘the family’, and they owed him nothing in return, and the only claim he had on them was his ‘need’—so he had to beg in public for relief from his needs, like any lousy moocher, listing all his troubles and miseries, down to his patched drawers and his wife’s head colds, hoping that ‘the family’ would throw him the alms. He had to claim miseries, because it’s miseries, not work, that had become the coin of the realm—so it turned into a contest between six thousand panhandlers, each claiming that his need was worse than his brother’s. How else could it be done? Do you care to guess what happened, what sort of men kept quiet, feeling shame, and what sort got away with the jackpot?

“But that wasn’t all. There was something else that we discovered at the same meeting. The factory’s production had fallen by forty percent, in that first half year, so it was decided that somebody hadn’t delivered ‘according to his ability.’ Who? How would you tell it? ‘The family’ voted on that, too. We voted which men were the best, and these men were sentenced to work overtime each night for the next six months. Overtime without pay—because you weren’t paid by time and you weren’t paid by work, only by need.

“Do I have to tell you what happened after that—and into what sort of creatures we all started turning, we who had once been humans? We began to hide whatever ability we had, to slow down and watch like hawks that we never worked any faster or better than the next fellow. What else could we do, when we knew that if we did our best for ‘the family,’ it’s not thanks or rewards that we’d get, but punishment? We knew that for every stinker who’d ruin a batch of motors and cost the company money—either through his sloppiness, because he didn’t have to care, or through plain incompetence—it’s we who’d have to pay with our nights and our Sundays. So we did our best to be no good.

“There was one young boy who started out, full of fire for the noble ideal, a bright kid without any schooling, but with a wonderful head on his shoulders. The first year, he figured out a work process that saved us thousands of man-hours. He gave it to ‘the family,’ didn’t ask anything for it, either, couldn’t ask, but that was all right with him. It was for the ideal, he said. But when he found himself voted as one of our ablest and sentenced to night work, because we hadn’t gotten enough from him, he shut his mouth and his brain. You can bet he didn’t come up with any ideas, the second year.

“What was it they’d always told us about the vicious competition of the profit system, where men had to compete for who’d do a better job than his fellows? Vicious, wasn’t it? Well, they should have seen what it was like when we all had to compete with one another for who’d do the worst job possible. There’s no surer way to destroy a man than to force him into a spot where he has to aim at not doing his best, where he has to struggle to do a bad job, day after day. That will finish him quicker than drink or idleness or pulling stick-ups for a living. But there was nothing else for us to do except to fake unfitness. The one accusation we feared was to be suspected of ability. Ability was like a mortgage on you that you could never pay off. And what was there to work for? You knew that your basic pittance would be given to you anyway, whether you worked or not—your ‘housing and feeding allowance,’ it was called—and above that pittance, you had no chance to get anything, no matter how hard you tried. You couldn’t count on buying a new suit of clothes next year—they might give you a ‘clothing allowance’ or they might not, according to whether nobody broke a leg, needed an operation or gave birth to more babies. And if there wasn’t enough money for new suits for everybody, then you couldn’t get yours, either.

“There was one man who’d worked hard all his life, because he’d always wanted to send his son through college. Well, the boy graduated from high school in the second year of the plan—but ‘the family’ wouldn’t give the father any ‘allowance’ for the college. They said his son couldn’t go to college, until we had enough to send everybody’s sons to college—and that we first had to send everybody’s children through high school, and we didn’t even have enough for that. The father died the following year, in a knife fight with somebody in a saloon, a fight over nothing in particular—such fights were beginning to happen among us all the time.

“Then there was an old guy, a widower with no family, who had one hobby: phonograph records. I guess that was all he ever got out of life. In the old days, he used to skip lunch just to buy himself some new recording of classical music. Well, they didn’t give him any ‘allowance’ for records—‘personal luxury’ they called it. But at the same meeting, Millie Bush, somebody’s daughter, a mean, ugly little eight year old, was voted a pair of gold braces for her buck teeth—this was ‘medical need’ because the staff psychologist had said that the poor girl would get an inferiority complex if her teeth weren’t straightened out. The old guy who loved music, turned to drink, instead. He got so you never saw him fully conscious any more. But it seems like there was one thing he couldn’t forget. One night, he came staggering down the street, saw Millie Bush, swung his fist and knocked all her teeth out. Every one of them.

“Drink, of course, was what we all turned to, some more, some less. Don’t ask how we got the money for it. When all the decent pleasures are forbidden, there’s always ways to get the rotten ones. You don’t break into grocery stores after dark and you don’t pick your fellow’s pockets to buy classical symphonies or fishing tackle, but if it’s to get stinking drunk and forget—you do. Fishing tackle? Hunting guns? Snapshot cameras? Hobbies? There wasn’t any ‘amusement allowance’ for anybody. ‘Amusement’ was the first thing they dropped. Aren’t you supposed to be ashamed to object when anybody asks you to give up anything, if it’s something that gave you pleasure? Even our ‘tobacco allowance’ was cut to where we got two packs of cigarettes a month—and this, they told us, was because the money had to go into the babies’ milk fund. Babies was the only item of production that didn’t fall, but rose and kept on rising—because people had nothing else to do, I guess, and because they didn’t have to care, the baby wasn’t their burden, it was ‘the family’s.’ In fact, the best chance you had of getting a raise and breathing easier for a while was a ‘baby allowance.’ Either that or a major disease.

“It didn’t take us long to see how it all worked out. Any man who tried to play straight, had to refuse himself everything. He lost his taste for any pleasure, he hated to smoke a nickel’s worth of tobacco or chew a stick of gum, worrying whether somebody had more need for that nickel. He felt ashamed of every mouthful of food he swallowed, wondering whose weary nights of overtime had paid for it, knowing that his food was not his by right, miserably wishing to be cheated rather than to cheat, to be a sucker, but not a blood-sucker. He wouldn’t marry, he wouldn’t help his folks back home, he wouldn’t put an extra burden on ‘the family.’ Besides, if he still had some sort of sense of responsibility, he couldn’t marry or bring children into the world, when he could plan nothing, promise nothing, count on nothing. But the shiftless and irresponsible had a field day of it. They bred babies, they got girls into trouble, they dragged in every worthless relative they had from all over the country, every unmarried pregnant sister, for an extra ‘disability allowance,’ they got more sicknesses than any doctor could disprove, they ruined their clothing, their furniture, their homes—what the hell, ‘the family’ was paying for it! They found more ways of getting in ‘need’ than the rest of us could ever imagine—they developed a special skill for it, which was the only ability they showed.} - Atlas Shrugged

1352606591214.jpg

/lit/ - Literature - Search:
 
I guess it depends on how you define capital. Regardless, someone has to decide how we organize labor and allocate resources. In a free market the people do this collaboratively and voluntarily. How would it happen under socialism?
Which institution do "the people" use to organize labor and allocate resources? In capitalism a few very rich people make these decisions that affect millions of stakeholders.

Socialism expands the pool of decision makers far beyond the boardroom; do you actually believe the richest members of society are entitled to decide what to produce, who to produce for, and where to produce?
Which institution do "the people" use to organize labor and allocate resources?
The market informs the capitalists how to use their resources. In essence we are all part of the decision in a capitalist system. That really wouldn't change under a socialist system of production.

Democracy at work is a wonderful step forward and should help to alleviate some of the social issues caused by capitalism. :)
It sure as hell would change. The market doesn't exist under socialism because the government owns all productive enterprises. There's no competition, no buying and selling, no market.
 
I guess it depends on how you define capital. Regardless, someone has to decide how we organize labor and allocate resources. In a free market the people do this collaboratively and voluntarily. How would it happen under socialism?
Which institution do "the people" use to organize labor and allocate resources? In capitalism a few very rich people make these decisions that affect millions of stakeholders.

Socialism expands the pool of decision makers far beyond the boardroom; do you actually believe the richest members of society are entitled to decide what to produce, who to produce for, and where to produce?
Which institution do "the people" use to organize labor and allocate resources?
The market informs the capitalists how to use their resources. In essence we are all part of the decision in a capitalist system. That really wouldn't change under a socialist system of production.

Democracy at work is a wonderful step forward and should help to alleviate some of the social issues caused by capitalism. :)
Bringing democracy to the workplace would solve many of our problems:

Most adults spend at least half their waking lives in the workplace, yet capitalism requires them to suspend their democratic ideals in return for a regular paycheck.
e6ceb6f6-4cb0-41c0-99c3-52b329d19e8c.png

There Is An Alternative.
Democratizing the Workplace through “Worker Self-Directed Enterprises”



DERP

{
“Well, there was something that happened at that plant where I worked for twenty years. It was when the old man died and his heirs took over. There were three of them, two sons and a daughter, and they brought a new plan to run the factory. They let us vote on it, too, and everybody—almost everybody—voted for it. We didn’t know. We thought it was good. No, that’s not true, either. We thought that we were supposed to think it was good. The plan was that everybody in the factory would work according to his ability, but would be paid according to his need.

“We voted for that plan at a big meeting, with all of us present, six thousand of us, everybody that worked in the factory. The Starnes heirs made long speeches about it, and it wasn’t too clear, but nobody asked any questions. None of us knew just how the plan would work, but every one of us thought that the next fellow knew it. And if anybody had doubts, he felt guilty and kept his mouth shut—because they made it sound like anyone who’d oppose the plan was a child-killer at heart and less than a human being. They told us that this plan would achieve a noble ideal. Well, how were we to know otherwise? Hadn’t we heard it all our lives—from our parents and our schoolteachers and our ministers, and in every newspaper we ever read and every movie and every public speech? Hadn’t we always been told that this was righteous and just? Well, maybe there’s some excuse for what we did at that meeting. Still, we voted for the plan—and what we got, we had it coming to us. You know, ma’am, we are marked men, in a way, those of us who lived through the four years of that plan in the Twentieth Century factory. What is it that hell is supposed to be? Evil—plain, naked, smirking evil, isn’t it? Well, that’s what we saw and helped to make—and I think we’re damned, every one of us, and maybe we’ll never be forgiven …

“Do you know how it worked, that plan, and what it did to people? Try pouring water into a tank where there’s a pipe at the bottom draining it out faster than you pour it, and each bucket you bring breaks that pipe an inch wider, and the harder you work the more is demanded of you, and you stand slinging buckets forty hours a week, then forty-eight, then fifty-six—for your neighbor’s supper—for his wife’s operation—for his child’s measles—for his mother’s wheel chair—for his uncle’s shirt—for his nephew’s schooling—for the baby next door—for the baby to be born—for anyone anywhere around you—it’s theirs to receive, from diapers to dentures—and yours to work, from sunup to sundown, month after month, year after year, with nothing to show for it but your sweat, with nothing in sight for you but their pleasure, for the whole of your life, without rest, without hope, without end … From each according to his ability, to each according to his need …

“We’re all one big family, they told us, we’re all in this together. But you don’t all stand working an acetylene torch ten hours a day—together, and you don’t all get a bellyache—together. What’s whose ability and which of whose needs comes first? When it’s all one pot, you can’t let any man decide what his own needs are, can you? If you did, he might claim that he needs a yacht—and if his feelings are all you have to go by, he might prove it, too. Why not? If it’s not right for me to own a car until I’ve worked myself into a hospital ward, earning a car for every loafer and every naked savage on earth – why can’t he demand a yacht from me, too, if I still have the ability not to have collapsed? No? He can’t? Then why can he demand that I go without cream for my coffee until he’s replastered his living room? … Oh well … Well, anyway, it was decided that nobody had the right to judge his own need or ability. We voted on it. Yes, ma’am, we voted on it in a public meeting twice a year. How else could it be done? Do you care to think what would happen at such a meeting? It took us just one meeting to discover that we had become beggars—rotten, whining, sniveling beggars, all of us, because no man could claim his pay as his rightful earning, he had no rights and no earnings, his work didn’t belong to him, it belonged to ‘the family’, and they owed him nothing in return, and the only claim he had on them was his ‘need’—so he had to beg in public for relief from his needs, like any lousy moocher, listing all his troubles and miseries, down to his patched drawers and his wife’s head colds, hoping that ‘the family’ would throw him the alms. He had to claim miseries, because it’s miseries, not work, that had become the coin of the realm—so it turned into a contest between six thousand panhandlers, each claiming that his need was worse than his brother’s. How else could it be done? Do you care to guess what happened, what sort of men kept quiet, feeling shame, and what sort got away with the jackpot?

“But that wasn’t all. There was something else that we discovered at the same meeting. The factory’s production had fallen by forty percent, in that first half year, so it was decided that somebody hadn’t delivered ‘according to his ability.’ Who? How would you tell it? ‘The family’ voted on that, too. We voted which men were the best, and these men were sentenced to work overtime each night for the next six months. Overtime without pay—because you weren’t paid by time and you weren’t paid by work, only by need.

“Do I have to tell you what happened after that—and into what sort of creatures we all started turning, we who had once been humans? We began to hide whatever ability we had, to slow down and watch like hawks that we never worked any faster or better than the next fellow. What else could we do, when we knew that if we did our best for ‘the family,’ it’s not thanks or rewards that we’d get, but punishment? We knew that for every stinker who’d ruin a batch of motors and cost the company money—either through his sloppiness, because he didn’t have to care, or through plain incompetence—it’s we who’d have to pay with our nights and our Sundays. So we did our best to be no good.

“There was one young boy who started out, full of fire for the noble ideal, a bright kid without any schooling, but with a wonderful head on his shoulders. The first year, he figured out a work process that saved us thousands of man-hours. He gave it to ‘the family,’ didn’t ask anything for it, either, couldn’t ask, but that was all right with him. It was for the ideal, he said. But when he found himself voted as one of our ablest and sentenced to night work, because we hadn’t gotten enough from him, he shut his mouth and his brain. You can bet he didn’t come up with any ideas, the second year.

“What was it they’d always told us about the vicious competition of the profit system, where men had to compete for who’d do a better job than his fellows? Vicious, wasn’t it? Well, they should have seen what it was like when we all had to compete with one another for who’d do the worst job possible. There’s no surer way to destroy a man than to force him into a spot where he has to aim at not doing his best, where he has to struggle to do a bad job, day after day. That will finish him quicker than drink or idleness or pulling stick-ups for a living. But there was nothing else for us to do except to fake unfitness. The one accusation we feared was to be suspected of ability. Ability was like a mortgage on you that you could never pay off. And what was there to work for? You knew that your basic pittance would be given to you anyway, whether you worked or not—your ‘housing and feeding allowance,’ it was called—and above that pittance, you had no chance to get anything, no matter how hard you tried. You couldn’t count on buying a new suit of clothes next year—they might give you a ‘clothing allowance’ or they might not, according to whether nobody broke a leg, needed an operation or gave birth to more babies. And if there wasn’t enough money for new suits for everybody, then you couldn’t get yours, either.

“There was one man who’d worked hard all his life, because he’d always wanted to send his son through college. Well, the boy graduated from high school in the second year of the plan—but ‘the family’ wouldn’t give the father any ‘allowance’ for the college. They said his son couldn’t go to college, until we had enough to send everybody’s sons to college—and that we first had to send everybody’s children through high school, and we didn’t even have enough for that. The father died the following year, in a knife fight with somebody in a saloon, a fight over nothing in particular—such fights were beginning to happen among us all the time.

“Then there was an old guy, a widower with no family, who had one hobby: phonograph records. I guess that was all he ever got out of life. In the old days, he used to skip lunch just to buy himself some new recording of classical music. Well, they didn’t give him any ‘allowance’ for records—‘personal luxury’ they called it. But at the same meeting, Millie Bush, somebody’s daughter, a mean, ugly little eight year old, was voted a pair of gold braces for her buck teeth—this was ‘medical need’ because the staff psychologist had said that the poor girl would get an inferiority complex if her teeth weren’t straightened out. The old guy who loved music, turned to drink, instead. He got so you never saw him fully conscious any more. But it seems like there was one thing he couldn’t forget. One night, he came staggering down the street, saw Millie Bush, swung his fist and knocked all her teeth out. Every one of them.

“Drink, of course, was what we all turned to, some more, some less. Don’t ask how we got the money for it. When all the decent pleasures are forbidden, there’s always ways to get the rotten ones. You don’t break into grocery stores after dark and you don’t pick your fellow’s pockets to buy classical symphonies or fishing tackle, but if it’s to get stinking drunk and forget—you do. Fishing tackle? Hunting guns? Snapshot cameras? Hobbies? There wasn’t any ‘amusement allowance’ for anybody. ‘Amusement’ was the first thing they dropped. Aren’t you supposed to be ashamed to object when anybody asks you to give up anything, if it’s something that gave you pleasure? Even our ‘tobacco allowance’ was cut to where we got two packs of cigarettes a month—and this, they told us, was because the money had to go into the babies’ milk fund. Babies was the only item of production that didn’t fall, but rose and kept on rising—because people had nothing else to do, I guess, and because they didn’t have to care, the baby wasn’t their burden, it was ‘the family’s.’ In fact, the best chance you had of getting a raise and breathing easier for a while was a ‘baby allowance.’ Either that or a major disease.

“It didn’t take us long to see how it all worked out. Any man who tried to play straight, had to refuse himself everything. He lost his taste for any pleasure, he hated to smoke a nickel’s worth of tobacco or chew a stick of gum, worrying whether somebody had more need for that nickel. He felt ashamed of every mouthful of food he swallowed, wondering whose weary nights of overtime had paid for it, knowing that his food was not his by right, miserably wishing to be cheated rather than to cheat, to be a sucker, but not a blood-sucker. He wouldn’t marry, he wouldn’t help his folks back home, he wouldn’t put an extra burden on ‘the family.’ Besides, if he still had some sort of sense of responsibility, he couldn’t marry or bring children into the world, when he could plan nothing, promise nothing, count on nothing. But the shiftless and irresponsible had a field day of it. They bred babies, they got girls into trouble, they dragged in every worthless relative they had from all over the country, every unmarried pregnant sister, for an extra ‘disability allowance,’ they got more sicknesses than any doctor could disprove, they ruined their clothing, their furniture, their homes—what the hell, ‘the family’ was paying for it! They found more ways of getting in ‘need’ than the rest of us could ever imagine—they developed a special skill for it, which was the only ability they showed.} - Atlas Shrugged

1352606591214.jpg

/lit/ - Literature - Search:

There has never been a bigger prick than Karl Marx. nor con artist, nor hater of humanity.
 
I guess it depends on how you define capital. Regardless, someone has to decide how we organize labor and allocate resources. In a free market the people do this collaboratively and voluntarily. How would it happen under socialism?
Which institution do "the people" use to organize labor and allocate resources? In capitalism a few very rich people make these decisions that affect millions of stakeholders.

Socialism expands the pool of decision makers far beyond the boardroom; do you actually believe the richest members of society are entitled to decide what to produce, who to produce for, and where to produce?
Which institution do "the people" use to organize labor and allocate resources?
The market informs the capitalists how to use their resources. In essence we are all part of the decision in a capitalist system. That really wouldn't change under a socialist system of production.

Democracy at work is a wonderful step forward and should help to alleviate some of the social issues caused by capitalism. :)
Bringing democracy to the workplace would solve many of our problems:

Most adults spend at least half their waking lives in the workplace, yet capitalism requires them to suspend their democratic ideals in return for a regular paycheck.
e6ceb6f6-4cb0-41c0-99c3-52b329d19e8c.png

There Is An Alternative.
Democratizing the Workplace through “Worker Self-Directed Enterprises”

I do enjoy Wolff's regular Economic Updates on youtube.


The term "Marxian economist" is an oxymoron.

Richard D. Wolff - Wikipedia

"Richard David Wolff
(born April 1, 1942) is an American Marxian economist, well known for his work on Marxian economics, economic methodology, and class analysis.

"He is Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and currently a Visiting Professor in the Graduate Program in International Affairs of the New School University in New York.

"Wolff has also taught economics at Yale University, City University of New York, University of Utah, University of Paris I (Sorbonne), and The Brecht Forum in New York City..."

"Wolff earned a BA magna cum laude in history from Harvard in 1963 and moved on to Stanford—he attained an MA in economics in 1964—to study with Paul A. Baran.

"Baran died prematurely from a heart attack in 1964 and Wolff transferred to Yale University, where he received an MA in economics in 1966, MA in history in 1967, and a PhD in economics in 1969.

"As a graduate student at Yale, Wolff worked as an instructor.[1] His dissertation, 'Economic Aspects of British Colonialism in Kenya, 1895–1930',[10] was eventually published in book form in 1974.[11]"
 
I guess it depends on how you define capital. Regardless, someone has to decide how we organize labor and allocate resources. In a free market the people do this collaboratively and voluntarily. How would it happen under socialism?
Which institution do "the people" use to organize labor and allocate resources? In capitalism a few very rich people make these decisions that affect millions of stakeholders.

Socialism expands the pool of decision makers far beyond the boardroom; do you actually believe the richest members of society are entitled to decide what to produce, who to produce for, and where to produce?
Which institution do "the people" use to organize labor and allocate resources?
The market informs the capitalists how to use their resources. In essence we are all part of the decision in a capitalist system. That really wouldn't change under a socialist system of production.

Democracy at work is a wonderful step forward and should help to alleviate some of the social issues caused by capitalism. :)
Bringing democracy to the workplace would solve many of our problems:

Most adults spend at least half their waking lives in the workplace, yet capitalism requires them to suspend their democratic ideals in return for a regular paycheck.
e6ceb6f6-4cb0-41c0-99c3-52b329d19e8c.png

There Is An Alternative.
Democratizing the Workplace through “Worker Self-Directed Enterprises”



DERP

{
“Well, there was something that happened at that plant where I worked for twenty years. It was when the old man died and his heirs took over. There were three of them, two sons and a daughter, and they brought a new plan to run the factory. They let us vote on it, too, and everybody—almost everybody—voted for it. We didn’t know. We thought it was good. No, that’s not true, either. We thought that we were supposed to think it was good. The plan was that everybody in the factory would work according to his ability, but would be paid according to his need.

“We voted for that plan at a big meeting, with all of us present, six thousand of us, everybody that worked in the factory. The Starnes heirs made long speeches about it, and it wasn’t too clear, but nobody asked any questions. None of us knew just how the plan would work, but every one of us thought that the next fellow knew it. And if anybody had doubts, he felt guilty and kept his mouth shut—because they made it sound like anyone who’d oppose the plan was a child-killer at heart and less than a human being. They told us that this plan would achieve a noble ideal. Well, how were we to know otherwise? Hadn’t we heard it all our lives—from our parents and our schoolteachers and our ministers, and in every newspaper we ever read and every movie and every public speech? Hadn’t we always been told that this was righteous and just? Well, maybe there’s some excuse for what we did at that meeting. Still, we voted for the plan—and what we got, we had it coming to us. You know, ma’am, we are marked men, in a way, those of us who lived through the four years of that plan in the Twentieth Century factory. What is it that hell is supposed to be? Evil—plain, naked, smirking evil, isn’t it? Well, that’s what we saw and helped to make—and I think we’re damned, every one of us, and maybe we’ll never be forgiven …

“Do you know how it worked, that plan, and what it did to people? Try pouring water into a tank where there’s a pipe at the bottom draining it out faster than you pour it, and each bucket you bring breaks that pipe an inch wider, and the harder you work the more is demanded of you, and you stand slinging buckets forty hours a week, then forty-eight, then fifty-six—for your neighbor’s supper—for his wife’s operation—for his child’s measles—for his mother’s wheel chair—for his uncle’s shirt—for his nephew’s schooling—for the baby next door—for the baby to be born—for anyone anywhere around you—it’s theirs to receive, from diapers to dentures—and yours to work, from sunup to sundown, month after month, year after year, with nothing to show for it but your sweat, with nothing in sight for you but their pleasure, for the whole of your life, without rest, without hope, without end … From each according to his ability, to each according to his need …

“We’re all one big family, they told us, we’re all in this together. But you don’t all stand working an acetylene torch ten hours a day—together, and you don’t all get a bellyache—together. What’s whose ability and which of whose needs comes first? When it’s all one pot, you can’t let any man decide what his own needs are, can you? If you did, he might claim that he needs a yacht—and if his feelings are all you have to go by, he might prove it, too. Why not? If it’s not right for me to own a car until I’ve worked myself into a hospital ward, earning a car for every loafer and every naked savage on earth – why can’t he demand a yacht from me, too, if I still have the ability not to have collapsed? No? He can’t? Then why can he demand that I go without cream for my coffee until he’s replastered his living room? … Oh well … Well, anyway, it was decided that nobody had the right to judge his own need or ability. We voted on it. Yes, ma’am, we voted on it in a public meeting twice a year. How else could it be done? Do you care to think what would happen at such a meeting? It took us just one meeting to discover that we had become beggars—rotten, whining, sniveling beggars, all of us, because no man could claim his pay as his rightful earning, he had no rights and no earnings, his work didn’t belong to him, it belonged to ‘the family’, and they owed him nothing in return, and the only claim he had on them was his ‘need’—so he had to beg in public for relief from his needs, like any lousy moocher, listing all his troubles and miseries, down to his patched drawers and his wife’s head colds, hoping that ‘the family’ would throw him the alms. He had to claim miseries, because it’s miseries, not work, that had become the coin of the realm—so it turned into a contest between six thousand panhandlers, each claiming that his need was worse than his brother’s. How else could it be done? Do you care to guess what happened, what sort of men kept quiet, feeling shame, and what sort got away with the jackpot?

“But that wasn’t all. There was something else that we discovered at the same meeting. The factory’s production had fallen by forty percent, in that first half year, so it was decided that somebody hadn’t delivered ‘according to his ability.’ Who? How would you tell it? ‘The family’ voted on that, too. We voted which men were the best, and these men were sentenced to work overtime each night for the next six months. Overtime without pay—because you weren’t paid by time and you weren’t paid by work, only by need.

“Do I have to tell you what happened after that—and into what sort of creatures we all started turning, we who had once been humans? We began to hide whatever ability we had, to slow down and watch like hawks that we never worked any faster or better than the next fellow. What else could we do, when we knew that if we did our best for ‘the family,’ it’s not thanks or rewards that we’d get, but punishment? We knew that for every stinker who’d ruin a batch of motors and cost the company money—either through his sloppiness, because he didn’t have to care, or through plain incompetence—it’s we who’d have to pay with our nights and our Sundays. So we did our best to be no good.

“There was one young boy who started out, full of fire for the noble ideal, a bright kid without any schooling, but with a wonderful head on his shoulders. The first year, he figured out a work process that saved us thousands of man-hours. He gave it to ‘the family,’ didn’t ask anything for it, either, couldn’t ask, but that was all right with him. It was for the ideal, he said. But when he found himself voted as one of our ablest and sentenced to night work, because we hadn’t gotten enough from him, he shut his mouth and his brain. You can bet he didn’t come up with any ideas, the second year.

“What was it they’d always told us about the vicious competition of the profit system, where men had to compete for who’d do a better job than his fellows? Vicious, wasn’t it? Well, they should have seen what it was like when we all had to compete with one another for who’d do the worst job possible. There’s no surer way to destroy a man than to force him into a spot where he has to aim at not doing his best, where he has to struggle to do a bad job, day after day. That will finish him quicker than drink or idleness or pulling stick-ups for a living. But there was nothing else for us to do except to fake unfitness. The one accusation we feared was to be suspected of ability. Ability was like a mortgage on you that you could never pay off. And what was there to work for? You knew that your basic pittance would be given to you anyway, whether you worked or not—your ‘housing and feeding allowance,’ it was called—and above that pittance, you had no chance to get anything, no matter how hard you tried. You couldn’t count on buying a new suit of clothes next year—they might give you a ‘clothing allowance’ or they might not, according to whether nobody broke a leg, needed an operation or gave birth to more babies. And if there wasn’t enough money for new suits for everybody, then you couldn’t get yours, either.

“There was one man who’d worked hard all his life, because he’d always wanted to send his son through college. Well, the boy graduated from high school in the second year of the plan—but ‘the family’ wouldn’t give the father any ‘allowance’ for the college. They said his son couldn’t go to college, until we had enough to send everybody’s sons to college—and that we first had to send everybody’s children through high school, and we didn’t even have enough for that. The father died the following year, in a knife fight with somebody in a saloon, a fight over nothing in particular—such fights were beginning to happen among us all the time.

“Then there was an old guy, a widower with no family, who had one hobby: phonograph records. I guess that was all he ever got out of life. In the old days, he used to skip lunch just to buy himself some new recording of classical music. Well, they didn’t give him any ‘allowance’ for records—‘personal luxury’ they called it. But at the same meeting, Millie Bush, somebody’s daughter, a mean, ugly little eight year old, was voted a pair of gold braces for her buck teeth—this was ‘medical need’ because the staff psychologist had said that the poor girl would get an inferiority complex if her teeth weren’t straightened out. The old guy who loved music, turned to drink, instead. He got so you never saw him fully conscious any more. But it seems like there was one thing he couldn’t forget. One night, he came staggering down the street, saw Millie Bush, swung his fist and knocked all her teeth out. Every one of them.

“Drink, of course, was what we all turned to, some more, some less. Don’t ask how we got the money for it. When all the decent pleasures are forbidden, there’s always ways to get the rotten ones. You don’t break into grocery stores after dark and you don’t pick your fellow’s pockets to buy classical symphonies or fishing tackle, but if it’s to get stinking drunk and forget—you do. Fishing tackle? Hunting guns? Snapshot cameras? Hobbies? There wasn’t any ‘amusement allowance’ for anybody. ‘Amusement’ was the first thing they dropped. Aren’t you supposed to be ashamed to object when anybody asks you to give up anything, if it’s something that gave you pleasure? Even our ‘tobacco allowance’ was cut to where we got two packs of cigarettes a month—and this, they told us, was because the money had to go into the babies’ milk fund. Babies was the only item of production that didn’t fall, but rose and kept on rising—because people had nothing else to do, I guess, and because they didn’t have to care, the baby wasn’t their burden, it was ‘the family’s.’ In fact, the best chance you had of getting a raise and breathing easier for a while was a ‘baby allowance.’ Either that or a major disease.

“It didn’t take us long to see how it all worked out. Any man who tried to play straight, had to refuse himself everything. He lost his taste for any pleasure, he hated to smoke a nickel’s worth of tobacco or chew a stick of gum, worrying whether somebody had more need for that nickel. He felt ashamed of every mouthful of food he swallowed, wondering whose weary nights of overtime had paid for it, knowing that his food was not his by right, miserably wishing to be cheated rather than to cheat, to be a sucker, but not a blood-sucker. He wouldn’t marry, he wouldn’t help his folks back home, he wouldn’t put an extra burden on ‘the family.’ Besides, if he still had some sort of sense of responsibility, he couldn’t marry or bring children into the world, when he could plan nothing, promise nothing, count on nothing. But the shiftless and irresponsible had a field day of it. They bred babies, they got girls into trouble, they dragged in every worthless relative they had from all over the country, every unmarried pregnant sister, for an extra ‘disability allowance,’ they got more sicknesses than any doctor could disprove, they ruined their clothing, their furniture, their homes—what the hell, ‘the family’ was paying for it! They found more ways of getting in ‘need’ than the rest of us could ever imagine—they developed a special skill for it, which was the only ability they showed.} - Atlas Shrugged

Notice how George positively loathes the woman who wrote that.
 
As in the dictatorship of the proletariat, for example?

Fascist franco doesn't know what that means.
Neither does dblack.

It's true. I find most marxist slogans bewildering. It doesn't help the every advocate has their own pet vision that bears little resemblance to the others. Look at this thread. You, franco and george have completely different ideas of what socialism means. There's some commonality, notably a disdain for personal freedom and blind faith in democracy, but outside that you guys can't seem to get on the same page. And I sure as hell have no interest in helping you sort it out.
We are all individuals with different ideas. It is hardly different than you and bripat offering up different ideas about what capital is. The very foundation of the system that you both celebrate and that we participate in daily.
I offer up facts, not ideas. You dwell in fantasies.
 
Which institution do "the people" use to organize labor and allocate resources? In capitalism a few very rich people make these decisions that affect millions of stakeholders.

Socialism expands the pool of decision makers far beyond the boardroom; do you actually believe the richest members of society are entitled to decide what to produce, who to produce for, and where to produce?
Which institution do "the people" use to organize labor and allocate resources?
The market informs the capitalists how to use their resources. In essence we are all part of the decision in a capitalist system. That really wouldn't change under a socialist system of production.

Democracy at work is a wonderful step forward and should help to alleviate some of the social issues caused by capitalism. :)
Bringing democracy to the workplace would solve many of our problems:

Most adults spend at least half their waking lives in the workplace, yet capitalism requires them to suspend their democratic ideals in return for a regular paycheck.
e6ceb6f6-4cb0-41c0-99c3-52b329d19e8c.png

There Is An Alternative.
Democratizing the Workplace through “Worker Self-Directed Enterprises”

I do enjoy Wolff's regular Economic Updates on youtube.


The term "Marxian economist" is an oxymoron.

Richard D. Wolff - Wikipedia

"Richard David Wolff
(born April 1, 1942) is an American Marxian economist, well known for his work on Marxian economics, economic methodology, and class analysis.

"He is Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and currently a Visiting Professor in the Graduate Program in International Affairs of the New School University in New York.

"Wolff has also taught economics at Yale University, City University of New York, University of Utah, University of Paris I (Sorbonne), and The Brecht Forum in New York City..."

"Wolff earned a BA magna cum laude in history from Harvard in 1963 and moved on to Stanford—he attained an MA in economics in 1964—to study with Paul A. Baran.

"Baran died prematurely from a heart attack in 1964 and Wolff transferred to Yale University, where he received an MA in economics in 1966, MA in history in 1967, and a PhD in economics in 1969.

"As a graduate student at Yale, Wolff worked as an instructor.[1] His dissertation, 'Economic Aspects of British Colonialism in Kenya, 1895–1930',[10] was eventually published in book form in 1974.[11]"

Your point? He's a con man. So-called "Marxian economics" is a hoax.
 
I guess it depends on how you define capital. Regardless, someone has to decide how we organize labor and allocate resources. In a free market the people do this collaboratively and voluntarily. How would it happen under socialism?
Which institution do "the people" use to organize labor and allocate resources? In capitalism a few very rich people make these decisions that affect millions of stakeholders.

Socialism expands the pool of decision makers far beyond the boardroom; do you actually believe the richest members of society are entitled to decide what to produce, who to produce for, and where to produce?
Which institution do "the people" use to organize labor and allocate resources?
The market informs the capitalists how to use their resources. In essence we are all part of the decision in a capitalist system. That really wouldn't change under a socialist system of production.

Democracy at work is a wonderful step forward and should help to alleviate some of the social issues caused by capitalism. :)
Bringing democracy to the workplace would solve many of our problems:

Most adults spend at least half their waking lives in the workplace, yet capitalism requires them to suspend their democratic ideals in return for a regular paycheck.
e6ceb6f6-4cb0-41c0-99c3-52b329d19e8c.png

There Is An Alternative.
Democratizing the Workplace through “Worker Self-Directed Enterprises”



DERP

{
“Well, there was something that happened at that plant where I worked for twenty years. It was when the old man died and his heirs took over. There were three of them, two sons and a daughter, and they brought a new plan to run the factory. They let us vote on it, too, and everybody—almost everybody—voted for it. We didn’t know. We thought it was good. No, that’s not true, either. We thought that we were supposed to think it was good. The plan was that everybody in the factory would work according to his ability, but would be paid according to his need.

“We voted for that plan at a big meeting, with all of us present, six thousand of us, everybody that worked in the factory. The Starnes heirs made long speeches about it, and it wasn’t too clear, but nobody asked any questions. None of us knew just how the plan would work, but every one of us thought that the next fellow knew it. And if anybody had doubts, he felt guilty and kept his mouth shut—because they made it sound like anyone who’d oppose the plan was a child-killer at heart and less than a human being. They told us that this plan would achieve a noble ideal. Well, how were we to know otherwise? Hadn’t we heard it all our lives—from our parents and our schoolteachers and our ministers, and in every newspaper we ever read and every movie and every public speech? Hadn’t we always been told that this was righteous and just? Well, maybe there’s some excuse for what we did at that meeting. Still, we voted for the plan—and what we got, we had it coming to us. You know, ma’am, we are marked men, in a way, those of us who lived through the four years of that plan in the Twentieth Century factory. What is it that hell is supposed to be? Evil—plain, naked, smirking evil, isn’t it? Well, that’s what we saw and helped to make—and I think we’re damned, every one of us, and maybe we’ll never be forgiven …

“Do you know how it worked, that plan, and what it did to people? Try pouring water into a tank where there’s a pipe at the bottom draining it out faster than you pour it, and each bucket you bring breaks that pipe an inch wider, and the harder you work the more is demanded of you, and you stand slinging buckets forty hours a week, then forty-eight, then fifty-six—for your neighbor’s supper—for his wife’s operation—for his child’s measles—for his mother’s wheel chair—for his uncle’s shirt—for his nephew’s schooling—for the baby next door—for the baby to be born—for anyone anywhere around you—it’s theirs to receive, from diapers to dentures—and yours to work, from sunup to sundown, month after month, year after year, with nothing to show for it but your sweat, with nothing in sight for you but their pleasure, for the whole of your life, without rest, without hope, without end … From each according to his ability, to each according to his need …

“We’re all one big family, they told us, we’re all in this together. But you don’t all stand working an acetylene torch ten hours a day—together, and you don’t all get a bellyache—together. What’s whose ability and which of whose needs comes first? When it’s all one pot, you can’t let any man decide what his own needs are, can you? If you did, he might claim that he needs a yacht—and if his feelings are all you have to go by, he might prove it, too. Why not? If it’s not right for me to own a car until I’ve worked myself into a hospital ward, earning a car for every loafer and every naked savage on earth – why can’t he demand a yacht from me, too, if I still have the ability not to have collapsed? No? He can’t? Then why can he demand that I go without cream for my coffee until he’s replastered his living room? … Oh well … Well, anyway, it was decided that nobody had the right to judge his own need or ability. We voted on it. Yes, ma’am, we voted on it in a public meeting twice a year. How else could it be done? Do you care to think what would happen at such a meeting? It took us just one meeting to discover that we had become beggars—rotten, whining, sniveling beggars, all of us, because no man could claim his pay as his rightful earning, he had no rights and no earnings, his work didn’t belong to him, it belonged to ‘the family’, and they owed him nothing in return, and the only claim he had on them was his ‘need’—so he had to beg in public for relief from his needs, like any lousy moocher, listing all his troubles and miseries, down to his patched drawers and his wife’s head colds, hoping that ‘the family’ would throw him the alms. He had to claim miseries, because it’s miseries, not work, that had become the coin of the realm—so it turned into a contest between six thousand panhandlers, each claiming that his need was worse than his brother’s. How else could it be done? Do you care to guess what happened, what sort of men kept quiet, feeling shame, and what sort got away with the jackpot?

“But that wasn’t all. There was something else that we discovered at the same meeting. The factory’s production had fallen by forty percent, in that first half year, so it was decided that somebody hadn’t delivered ‘according to his ability.’ Who? How would you tell it? ‘The family’ voted on that, too. We voted which men were the best, and these men were sentenced to work overtime each night for the next six months. Overtime without pay—because you weren’t paid by time and you weren’t paid by work, only by need.

“Do I have to tell you what happened after that—and into what sort of creatures we all started turning, we who had once been humans? We began to hide whatever ability we had, to slow down and watch like hawks that we never worked any faster or better than the next fellow. What else could we do, when we knew that if we did our best for ‘the family,’ it’s not thanks or rewards that we’d get, but punishment? We knew that for every stinker who’d ruin a batch of motors and cost the company money—either through his sloppiness, because he didn’t have to care, or through plain incompetence—it’s we who’d have to pay with our nights and our Sundays. So we did our best to be no good.

“There was one young boy who started out, full of fire for the noble ideal, a bright kid without any schooling, but with a wonderful head on his shoulders. The first year, he figured out a work process that saved us thousands of man-hours. He gave it to ‘the family,’ didn’t ask anything for it, either, couldn’t ask, but that was all right with him. It was for the ideal, he said. But when he found himself voted as one of our ablest and sentenced to night work, because we hadn’t gotten enough from him, he shut his mouth and his brain. You can bet he didn’t come up with any ideas, the second year.

“What was it they’d always told us about the vicious competition of the profit system, where men had to compete for who’d do a better job than his fellows? Vicious, wasn’t it? Well, they should have seen what it was like when we all had to compete with one another for who’d do the worst job possible. There’s no surer way to destroy a man than to force him into a spot where he has to aim at not doing his best, where he has to struggle to do a bad job, day after day. That will finish him quicker than drink or idleness or pulling stick-ups for a living. But there was nothing else for us to do except to fake unfitness. The one accusation we feared was to be suspected of ability. Ability was like a mortgage on you that you could never pay off. And what was there to work for? You knew that your basic pittance would be given to you anyway, whether you worked or not—your ‘housing and feeding allowance,’ it was called—and above that pittance, you had no chance to get anything, no matter how hard you tried. You couldn’t count on buying a new suit of clothes next year—they might give you a ‘clothing allowance’ or they might not, according to whether nobody broke a leg, needed an operation or gave birth to more babies. And if there wasn’t enough money for new suits for everybody, then you couldn’t get yours, either.

“There was one man who’d worked hard all his life, because he’d always wanted to send his son through college. Well, the boy graduated from high school in the second year of the plan—but ‘the family’ wouldn’t give the father any ‘allowance’ for the college. They said his son couldn’t go to college, until we had enough to send everybody’s sons to college—and that we first had to send everybody’s children through high school, and we didn’t even have enough for that. The father died the following year, in a knife fight with somebody in a saloon, a fight over nothing in particular—such fights were beginning to happen among us all the time.

“Then there was an old guy, a widower with no family, who had one hobby: phonograph records. I guess that was all he ever got out of life. In the old days, he used to skip lunch just to buy himself some new recording of classical music. Well, they didn’t give him any ‘allowance’ for records—‘personal luxury’ they called it. But at the same meeting, Millie Bush, somebody’s daughter, a mean, ugly little eight year old, was voted a pair of gold braces for her buck teeth—this was ‘medical need’ because the staff psychologist had said that the poor girl would get an inferiority complex if her teeth weren’t straightened out. The old guy who loved music, turned to drink, instead. He got so you never saw him fully conscious any more. But it seems like there was one thing he couldn’t forget. One night, he came staggering down the street, saw Millie Bush, swung his fist and knocked all her teeth out. Every one of them.

“Drink, of course, was what we all turned to, some more, some less. Don’t ask how we got the money for it. When all the decent pleasures are forbidden, there’s always ways to get the rotten ones. You don’t break into grocery stores after dark and you don’t pick your fellow’s pockets to buy classical symphonies or fishing tackle, but if it’s to get stinking drunk and forget—you do. Fishing tackle? Hunting guns? Snapshot cameras? Hobbies? There wasn’t any ‘amusement allowance’ for anybody. ‘Amusement’ was the first thing they dropped. Aren’t you supposed to be ashamed to object when anybody asks you to give up anything, if it’s something that gave you pleasure? Even our ‘tobacco allowance’ was cut to where we got two packs of cigarettes a month—and this, they told us, was because the money had to go into the babies’ milk fund. Babies was the only item of production that didn’t fall, but rose and kept on rising—because people had nothing else to do, I guess, and because they didn’t have to care, the baby wasn’t their burden, it was ‘the family’s.’ In fact, the best chance you had of getting a raise and breathing easier for a while was a ‘baby allowance.’ Either that or a major disease.

“It didn’t take us long to see how it all worked out. Any man who tried to play straight, had to refuse himself everything. He lost his taste for any pleasure, he hated to smoke a nickel’s worth of tobacco or chew a stick of gum, worrying whether somebody had more need for that nickel. He felt ashamed of every mouthful of food he swallowed, wondering whose weary nights of overtime had paid for it, knowing that his food was not his by right, miserably wishing to be cheated rather than to cheat, to be a sucker, but not a blood-sucker. He wouldn’t marry, he wouldn’t help his folks back home, he wouldn’t put an extra burden on ‘the family.’ Besides, if he still had some sort of sense of responsibility, he couldn’t marry or bring children into the world, when he could plan nothing, promise nothing, count on nothing. But the shiftless and irresponsible had a field day of it. They bred babies, they got girls into trouble, they dragged in every worthless relative they had from all over the country, every unmarried pregnant sister, for an extra ‘disability allowance,’ they got more sicknesses than any doctor could disprove, they ruined their clothing, their furniture, their homes—what the hell, ‘the family’ was paying for it! They found more ways of getting in ‘need’ than the rest of us could ever imagine—they developed a special skill for it, which was the only ability they showed.} - Atlas Shrugged

1352606591214.jpg

/lit/ - Literature - Search:


You can say that, but it doesn't change that what she wrote in Atlas Shrugged, has happened in real life. So you can say she is full of crap until you pass out.... doesn't change the fact that she has been proven right over and over again.
 

Forum List

Back
Top