Socialism: Dead and Buried?

Production = F(labour, capital, technology)

You are being misleading by isolating labour like that as a unit of production.

Technology and capital are the means of production. However, labour is not. It is not an object that is disconnected from the person that wields it. For example, in order for that equation to work, the worker would have to put forth a unit of labour, as if it were any other raw material. However, it is not - it is a separate thing entirely. The means of production (capital, technology) turn raw material into product. However, labour has to power the means of production (i.e., the farm, or the factory), and can be put in in varying levels to achieve the same product end. Thus, it is a different unit entirely from capital and technology.

If this equation were truly applicable, then Sales would have to be over 200% of Costs otherwise the distribution to workers would be a negative figure!

How did you arrive at that figure?

Think about it. If Costs were 100, and Sales were 100, Sales = Costs. Any Sales figure above 100 is Profit.

So, if Profit - Costs = amount going to workers

Then Sales would have to be at least 200 to avoid giving the workers a negative return

Correct. In the capitalist system, the capitalist burdens the weight of that (or, by killing jobs, times and wages, forces the workers into shouldering it); however, I'd like to alter that, so the workers also burden the costs.

You really shot yourself in the foot that time!

Not really, as that equation is still applicable to the capitalist system. There are still profits and there are still costs.

So explain to me why they should be paid surplus value to their wages which was included in the cost of production.

They shouldn't. But the cost of their labour is not included in the cost of production. The cost of their labour is given to them from the profit, rather than prior to the means of production being powered. You can't seem to comprehend this.

THEY ALREADY WERE PAID!!!

But they shouldn't be! They should be paid according to how much profit they generate! And kindly stop shouting, you'll give yourself a heart attack.

WHY DO THEY DESERVE EXTRA MONEY. THEY DIDN'T CONCEIVE OF THE PRODUCT, THEIR JOB IS JUST TO ASSIST IN IT'S PRODUCTION.

Stop being idiotic. If you're going to keep shouting, then at least let me be blunt. Their labour is not 'extra money' - their labour is not a cost prior to the making of the product. They put that labour in, the product is created, and the company receives profit. Then that profit goes to pay for the workers.

YOU ARE DEVOID OF ANY REASONABLE LOGIC!!!!

You don't know what you're talking about, bucko.

What about CAPITAL and TECHNOLOGY?

They are part of the means of production! Coming up with new technology is just bettering the means of production!

Absolutely untrue. I can produce anything I like. But that doesn't mean that it is going to sell..

It doesn't HAVE to! But my point; if it DOES, then the profit should be given fairly to the workers. If it does NOT, then they burden the costs.

And if I don't sell the product, then I don't make a dime, do I?

No. But if you do, in a capitalist system, you get an unfair proportion of the profit (generally lower than deserved).

SO HOW DOES LABOUR PRODUCE PROFIT. YOU NEED TO SELL TO PRODUCE PROFIT.

There is also negative profit, which it produces, which in turn is burdened by the workers.

And don't quote that stupid equation of yours, I have already proved it is bogus/irrelevant/obtuse.

No you haven't. You have blabbered on about it, but proved nothing. You fail to understand it, yet you think you've conquered it. What is more stupid?

MY logic is flawed?

Yes.

Still, I have not clarified my point fully.

Be my guest.

that proves that capitalism can work much better than communsim/socialism.

It can. It can produce more wealth than communism/socialism. However

 

Let me conclude this by saying that socialism and communism is possible but highly improbable.

First of all, if you have no regulating authority you will have absolute chaos on your hands - communities run by local militias? Only a complete philistine would concede that it could work.

However, total free market capitalism would not work either, under the current conditions. But within the context of modern society, it is the more likely to evolve into this form from the mixed economy of government and free market than it is to outright communism.

Capitalism also can lead to a sort of socialistic outcome; if people are taught to invest and everyone has shares from whence there born then you will have a much more level playing field. This can be achieved through education and govt. intervention.

It's all a process of evolution - and soon I think we will live in a sort of neo-socialist capitalism where knowledge and innovation is the key drive rather than labour and capital..

Furthermore, no one has to worry that society will lose govt. and socialistic outcomes that govt. provides because as longs as we have democracy; politicians will always bow to public pressure whatever their political ideology. So democracy in a sense breeds socialism..

And it will be a long time before govt. will be dismantled to a more flexible system that will undoubtedly support the future outcome of society..

 

Sadly, IMO, Socialism (or Communism) will never work because people are innately greedy and will eventually (in a socialist state) start looking out for their own interests, rather than other people's. Lenin and his like did this, Mao did this, Castro did this, and all attempts at socialism will eventually fall victim to man's greed.

Socialism is a great ideal, and many parts of it should be implemented (free health care and education for all, for example, are already part of many countries), but in the end, capitalism just works better.

 

Socialism (or Communism) will never work because people are innately greedy and will eventually (in a socialist state) start looking out for their own interests, rather than other people's.

That is true, and that is why socialism and communism don't work.

People with more skill and responsibility will look to be compensated more, and rightly so - or they make their living on their own by the businesses which they run. These people are motivated not just by greed, but also by success and personal satisfaction of attaining goals. Government, in a free society, should stay out of the way of the entrepeneur and businessman unless he or she is monopolizing or racially discriminating.

 

Marx's folly was his prediction that the working class would outgrow the size of the middle class in evolving capitalist-democracies.

But, that didn't happen. Middle-class majorities can be found in all modern democracies. It wasn't that way in Russia, which is one reason for Leninism-Marxism's initial success there.

Third-world nations are a different story also.
Marxism has had more success in nations devoid of liberal democracy yet having a crony-capitalist class.

However, if one examines Marx's own agenda at the end of the Manifesto, you will find many things already a part of modern capitalistic countries. His points plan did have some success, but not his move towards abolition of private property and proletarian revolution.

 

Third-world nations are a different story also.
Marxism has had more success in nations devoid of liberal democracy yet having a crony-capitalist class.


It's hardly a surprise that communism has gained more support in countries where no reasonable democratic system exists. In countries where extreme right-wing dictatorships have prevented the majority of the people seeing the benefits of capitalism it is hardly surprising that the people there are more likely to support communism over capitalism. Cuba in the 1950's is a good example. In liberal democracies where a majority enjoy the benefits of capitalism they are obvious going to be less likely to oppose capitalism.

Marx's folly was his prediction that the working class would outgrow the size of the middle class in evolving capitalist-democracies.

This was one of Marx's great mistakes. He misunderstood and/or underestimated capitalism. He failed to envisage that in many countries that capitalism would result in an expanded middle or lower/middle class in comparison to the working class.