Nice little revealing insight , the inner workings of the management god complexTman wrote: More irony? The average worker can't decide between cheese or ham in his roll let alone make decisions of any long-term importance.
Breathtaking in it's banality. To think someone actually penned that......
says it all really Errr.... how you explain Yugoslavia after the split with the USSR then? Or how about the Modragon Coporation in Spain? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag%C3 ... orporation A huge coporation and yet run very successfully by the workers involved.Tman wrote:More irony? The average worker can't decide between cheese or ham in his roll let alone make decisions of any long-term importance.in a Socialist Society, workers will be in a position to decide which kind of investments are required to promote the social well-being of the majority.
They were all state capitalist. How comes the same people running Russia in the 80s are running it now? How comes they are playing the same style power games with the USA/Europe and there is talk of a new cold war?Funnily enough I was chatting to a Romanian last night in the pub, and he was only too happy to give his opinion on the Communist Bloc, Socialism, Communism and the state of his country, and none of it was complimentary.
State capitalism is finished but even then, I wouldn't say it failed. It arguably did its job for many states and is still doing it now. Russia went from the most backward country in Europe in 1917 to possibly being ahead of the USA by the 1960s. That is some extraordinary growth right there.Anyway, this is academic. Where it's been tried it's failed; it's a Utopian dream (for some idealists who haven't suffered it) but is now discredited as a non-workable system.
Really? That is interesting given the man started out on the right of the Labour Party. Have you got anything to back this up with? I'm not saying you're wrong, I honestly don't know and it would be rather surprising given how much Benn bangs on now about how terrible the USSR was.there wasn't much in the 1940s and 50s when the idiotic inbreed Tony Benn praised the old USSR
Don't see the connection...Errr.... how you explain Yugoslavia after the split with the USSR then?
It may be (although Wiki is a notoriously unreliable source) but where does it say, (or do you really believe) that the average Jose who loads machines/cleans the bogs/sweeps the floor has any real input? Co-op it may be, but there's still those who can and do have to make the decisions, and the rest.Or how about the Modragon Coporation in Spain? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag%C3 ... orporation A huge coporation and yet run very successfully by the workers involved.
Again, I don't see the connection...They were all state capitalist. How comes the same people running Russia in the 80s are running it now? How comes they are playing the same style power games with the USA/Europe and there is talk of a new cold war?
Such as?State capitalism is finished but even then, I wouldn't say it failed. It arguably did its job for many states and is still doing it now.
What, Russia was behind say, Portugal? Albania? Ireland? Don't think so, and hardly ahead of the USA by the 1960s either.Russia went from the most backward country in Europe in 1917 to possibly being ahead of the USA by the 1960s. That is some extraordinary growth right there.
The benefit of hind-sight, maybe? Even he wasn't dumb enough to continue saying how wonderful that particular worker's paradise was after the Wall came down, and showed even the most die-hard Wolfie what a wretched Third World existence the workers really had.Really? That is interesting given the man started out on the right of the Labour Party. Have you got anything to back this up with? I'm not saying you're wrong, I honestly don't know and it would be rather surprising given how much Benn bangs on now about how terrible the USSR was.
you purposely miss the point and cannot differentiate between State Capitalism as Pmn mentions and Socialism . no one is saying it was nice to live in Russia, Romania etc under Stalin and there- after. .obviously you know this but you continue to compare Socialism with State Capitalism. this is from Stalin himself---- Stalin summed up Lenin's views on the building of socialism thus:Tman wrote:More irony? The average worker can't decide between cheese or ham in his roll let alone make decisions of any long-term importance.in a Socialist Society, workers will be in a position to decide which kind of investments are required to promote the social well-being of the majority.
Funnily enough I was chatting to a Romanian last night in the pub, and he was only too happy to give his opinion on the Communist Bloc, Socialism, Communism and the state of his country, and none of it was complimentary. As he said, Communism is great in theory, but doesn't work in practice, and his homeland's been ruined by 60-odd years of suffering it.
Anyway, this is academic. Where it's been tried it's failed; it's a Utopian dream (for some idealists who haven't suffered it) but is now discredited as a non-workable system.
Post endless cut'n'paste articles from obscure sources if you wish, but ultimately nothing will change. There's no appetite for such extreme Left Wing politics; there wasn't much in the 1940s and 50s when the idiotic inbreed Tony Benn praised the old USSR (and he wasn't alone in that) but there's none at all now.
Tried and failed, and consigned to the dustbin of history, never to return.
Nearly missed this little nugget---
Breathtaking in it's banality. To think someone actually penned that......At the outset some individuals, because of historical conditions, own the productive forces of society - the tools, machines, buildings, etc. that are required to produce articles that will satisfy society's needs - but the majority of society's members do not own them and are consequently forced to seek employment from those who do.
I thought he just disliked, disparaged or demeaned 1 group of workers namely Postal Workers, but in this one line, politics put aside, it appears as though TMan has given an insight into his character. Its not "Paper Boys" he dislikes but all workers whatever their political beliefs and skills.Tman wrote:More irony? The average worker can't decide between cheese or ham in his roll let alone make decisions of any long-term importance.
impossible to have ----- "Capitalism with Socialist responsibilities so that not only the rich and powerful get the most gains, but that it is shared by all section of society as fairly as possible", surely a conflict of interests ....TrueBlueTerrier wrote:I thought he just disliked, disparaged or demeaned 1 group of workers namely Postal Workers, but in this one line, politics put aside, it appears as though TMan has given an insight into his character. Its not "Paper Boys" he dislikes but all workers whatever their political beliefs and skills.Tman wrote:More irony? The average worker can't decide between cheese or ham in his roll let alone make decisions of any long-term importance.
Mind you, I have some grudging respect for someone who still firmly believes that Capitalism alone will solve the problems itself has caused and that the status quo should remain, that shows true faith. As I have said before Communism has failed but that does not mean that some of its ideas and principles should be dismissed out of hand.
IMHO, and again I have said it before, what we should have is a marriage of the two; Capitalism with Socialist responsibilities so that not only the rich and powerful get the most gains, but that it is shared by all section of society as fairly as possible. If we had such a thing in place would Royal Mail bosses still be awarding themselves contracted bonuses, perhaps counted in the millions, then turn round and say to ordinary workers that there is no chance of a pay rise.
Not to me:borders wrote:impossible to have ----- "Capitalism with Socialist responsibilities so that not only the rich and powerful get the most gains, but that it is shared by all section of society as fairly as possible", surely a conflict of interests ....TrueBlueTerrier wrote:I thought he just disliked, disparaged or demeaned 1 group of workers namely Postal Workers, but in this one line, politics put aside, it appears as though TMan has given an insight into his character. Its not "Paper Boys" he dislikes but all workers whatever their political beliefs and skills.Tman wrote:More irony? The average worker can't decide between cheese or ham in his roll let alone make decisions of any long-term importance.
Mind you, I have some grudging respect for someone who still firmly believes that Capitalism alone will solve the problems itself has caused and that the status quo should remain, that shows true faith. As I have said before Communism has failed but that does not mean that some of its ideas and principles should be dismissed out of hand.
IMHO, and again I have said it before, what we should have is a marriage of the two; Capitalism with Socialist responsibilities so that not only the rich and powerful get the most gains, but that it is shared by all section of society as fairly as possible. If we had such a thing in place would Royal Mail bosses still be awarding themselves contracted bonuses, perhaps counted in the millions, then turn round and say to ordinary workers that there is no chance of a pay rise.
What's to dislike? Where do you get that from? Incidentally, it's already been said above. That was the expected and usual cheap-shot, so what's your excuse this time?I thought he just disliked, disparaged or demeaned 1 group of workers namely Postal Workers, but in this one line, politics put aside, it appears as though TMan has given an insight into his character. Its not "Paper Boys" he dislikes but all workers whatever their political beliefs and skills.
So, back to the black-white, good-bad, yes or no argument? Check back, and I've never expressed and particular admiration for capitalism either, but if you care to think that pointing out faults with communism must mean I'm advocating capitalism, good luck to you.Mind you, I have some grudging respect for someone who still firmly believes that Capitalism alone will solve the problems itself has caused and that the status quo should remain, that shows true faith.
Communism has failed but that does not mean that some of its ideas and principles should be dismissed out of hand.
Sounds OK to me too. Pretty much what we've had in the UK since the 1950s, then....IMHO, and again I have said it before, what we should have is a marriage of the two; Capitalism with Socialist responsibilities so that not only the rich and powerful get the most gains, but that it is shared by all section of society as fairly as possible.
Because it had workers self-management for about half a century. If workers can barely make the a decision between a ham and cheese roll is rather extraordinary that they had a say in the running of a whole economy for about half a century.Tman wrote:
Don't see the connection...
The difference is that those who make the decisions are, at the very least, accountable to the workers in question. So yes, they do have a significant input. It is workers self-management - that doesn't mean workers directly have say in every single executive decision!It may be (although Wiki is a notoriously unreliable source) but where does it say, (or do you really believe) that the average Jose who loads machines/cleans the bogs/sweeps the floor has any real input? Co-op it may be, but there's still those who can and do have to make the decisions, and the rest.
Well, what exactly do you think socialism is then? The USSR had wages, profits, labour as commodity, bureaucratic structures etc. The same people are running the place under apparent socialism and now under capitialism. Doesn't that beg some questions? I don't even claim to be a socialist but I'm willing to defend the idea against the notion that the USSR had anything to do with it.Again, I don't see the connection...
Which? Doing its job for many states? If so, I've already talked about the rapid growth in the USSR post-1917. Where is it doing that now? China?Such as?
Comparable to any of those. Industrialisation had only just begun and was centred on Petrograd. About 3% of the population were working class. It was at the very least one of the most backward in Europe and a long way behind the likes of Britain, Germany and the USA. Part of what made the Bolsheviks so popular in the end was that the city was being starved during WWI 'cos the peasently weren't producing crops as they were fighting in the war. These aren't the signs of an advanced nation.What, Russia was behind say, Portugal? Albania? Ireland? Don't think so, and hardly ahead of the USA by the 1960s either.
Give some examples though.
Your own post copied below:Tman wrote:I thought he just disliked, disparaged or demeaned 1 group of workers namely Postal Workers, but in this one line, politics put aside, it appears as though TMan has given an insight into his character. Its not "Paper Boys" he dislikes but all workers whatever their political beliefs and skills.Tman wrote:What's to dislike? Where do you get that from? Incidentally, it's already been said above. That was the expected and usual cheap-shot, so what's your excuse this time?
Tman wrote:More irony? The average worker can't decide between cheese or ham in his roll let alone make decisions of any long-term importance.
Hello IMHO, and again I have said it before, what we should have is a marriage of the two; Capitalism with Socialist responsibilities so that not only the rich and powerful get the most gains, but that it is shared by all section of society as fairly as possible.
Yes, you're right, in a way. When the bankers were making profits, the profits were privatised... when they started making losses, the losses were socialised. How ironic these same people were the sort who were banging on for years about how the market was self-healing and how terrible socialism wasSounds OK to me too. Pretty much what we've had in the UK since the 1950s, then....
