Do Socialists hate making money?

[EEL123]

Money replaced the barter system bc it didnt work well (people can never agree on a proper chicken exchange rate i guess) so we would be taking a great developmental step backwards if we went there. Centrally distributing resources never really works well, see Soviet Union, Maoist China for blatant examples. Collective ownership also never works well on a large scale for obvious reasons. Plus, in most communist societies collective ownership is usually forced and forced communities generally dont work.

I hope that you are sufficiently well-acquainted with my opinions to realise that I don't support any of these things. What I was saying was that they were possible ways of getting rid of money. They are possible in the same sense that it is possible to crawl from New York to San Francisco - you can do it, but you probably shouldn't.

[EEL123]

They note that, under modern capitalism, workers are manipulated out of the true value of their labour

That is, in many cases, factually untrue. In Australia, for example, many industries are dying as a result of excessive labour costs. Also, their labour has no intrinsic value. The value of anything is determined through the interaction of supply and demand. I also note that the only situation in which a transaction occurs in a free market is it is mutually beneficial (otherwise, why would they make that transaction?), so the outcome cannot possibly be worse for the worker.

economic power is disproportionately concentrated in the hands of a wealthy elite who largely own and control the means of production

This is not consistent with the fact that, in many economies, a majority of people are employed at small businesses (which have very limited bargaining power) or run their own. The amount of money controlled by wealthy people is irrelevant as the majority of workers simply don't need to interact with them to get a job.

Never forget how many miserable millionaires there are out there.

Lots of very wealthy people (say, bankers or senior politicians) are placed in positions of extreme stress and responsibility. The money is there to compensate them for their suffering (and also to pay them for their services); it is not the cause of their suffering. If they were in that position, and they were paid less because millionaires can still be miserable, I suspect that they would be more miserable. To draw an analogy, it's like saying, "schools get lots of government funding; some pupils still under-perform; therefore schools should not be funded".

Capitalism produces ever-increasing inequalities in wealth and opportunity.

There is nothing wrong with an unequal distribution of wealth, because different people produce goods and services of different value (as perceived by other participants in the market) and should be compensated accordingly. As for opportunity, there are many ways to redress the possibility that opportunity might be restricted without doing anything remotely socialistic, and furthermore, given that socialist economies tend to fare poorly, it is, when worst comes to worst, better to have unequal opportunity than hardly any at all.

economic activity is undertaken along more co-operative and humane lines, where everybody is offered rewarding, creative work which offers them the opportunity to achieve their potential

Where the most efficient outcome is obtained through competition, that will tend to characterise the set-up of an institution (the market, for example, is one such institution). Where the most efficient outcome is obtained through co-operation, then the tendency will be towards co-operation. If you make people co-operate where it is better to compete, then you get inefficient outcomes. And don't treat efficiency as some hyper-rationalist bogey-man - it simply means getting resources to people who most need them in the most timely, cost-effective way.

Also, if someone better serves the welfare of others through doing work that is not creative or particularly rewarding, then what is wrong with that? If the market determines that someone should do that sort of work, clearly the obvious conclusion is that people derive the greatest benefit from them doing that (which is why they would pay more for it, which is why people would most want to give that sort of work to the person in question). The market is essentially a vehicle through which people's wants are satisfied to the greatest extent possible with a limited set of resources (that sounds like the definition of economics); if you think that a certain job doesn't pay you enough or that you want a different job, and that desire cannot be fulfilled through market means, doesn't that mean that you are essentially compromising the interests of others by ensuring that resources are being used less efficiency, hence reducing the number of needs that can be satisfied? Isn't this also a form of greed?

Nevertheless, as a guiding moral principle it is a good one

Morals are by definition things that you choose to believe are right (or wrong), not things imposed on you. I don't mind people having certain moral principles, but it is their attempt to enforce it one others that is insidious (and obviously socialism is unlikely to come about voluntarily, although if it did, I actually wouldn't complain).

I personally believe that when social and economic arrangements become fairer individuals tend to become more altruistic in the management of their personal affairs

Is that really the case? A lot of the time when co-operation instead of competition becomes the norm, it is because of some crisis, and I would think that having your community flooded by a hurricane or destroyed by an earthquake is not a fair outcome, given that you probably have not done anything to a fault line meriting its retribution. If you object to the lack of a human element, what about cases like the Blitz? Is a social (war is a type of social interaction, is it not?) arrangement where some genocidal madman decides to dump a tonne of TNT on your house from ten thousand feet a fair social arrangement? I think not. This may seem a little silly and beside-the-point, but my point is that solidarity more often emanates from injustice than anything else (not that I would advocate injustice on that basis).

Also, who is to say what is fair? For example, if someone works hard and makes money, and then part of it is taxed away by the government to pay for, say, medical care for a sick person, is that fair (and don't go, "but the rich can afford it", because it's not just the rich that pay taxes)? Is the worker responsible for that person's illness? Some people would say that that's an unfair arrangement. I think that it's unfair (although necessity in this case trumps moralising; you simply can't have people dropping dead all over the place, fairly or otherwise), you probably think otherwise. But my point is, fairness is very subjective and cannot be enforced unless you presume to have a superior right to determine what fairness is.

[UniSocAll]

I will never accept or support Socialism, but I have to wonder, do Socialists actually hate the idea of making money or do they want to see EVERYBODY make the same amount of money, regardless of skills and other qualifications?

I will respond to this, and the other comment you stated where a clown is paid the same amount as brain surgeon.

Socialist don't hate the idea of making money, and they don't necessarily want to see everybody make the same amount of money. Some socialists would want to get rid of money altogether (more on that later).

The principal idea behind Socialism is the famous line: to each according to his need, from each according to his abilities. This does not mean equal (or equal pay), it merely means equal opportunities; i.e. everyone should get the opportunity to go to school and become the doctor, and not have to face burdens and fall to become clowns.

In a capitalist society (as the world currently is), some people in here stated that labour of someone is not undervalued and is actually overvalued in Australia, leading to dying industries. This, is of course, something completely irrelevant to socialism. The Australian costs are 'overvalued' because capitalism stimulates a company to make profit, and one of the easier way is to reduce costs. In our current world, labour movements and social justice efforts in the developed world are undercut, due to the terrible labour conditions, salaries and treatments internationally. Production and factories can be easily outsourced. In the end, this creates a system where the actual producers of value, the kid who sowed the shoes, gets a very low, inhumane salary, while the big capitalist companies and the elites, would sell that same shoes for $200 a pair. Of course, some would say 'why did the kid do the job? why accept it?'. It is because there is little other choice. These people are born in poverty, they get little opportunity to get out, and they have little choice. Either earn those 2 cents an hour or starve. That is not a choice, that is companies holding them ransom and hostage to their situation, and of course these companies would not hesitate to use such a situation to their advantage. This discrepancy is what socialism aims to target. But in a capitalist society, this discrepancy is good for business, and good for the prosperous few (and this includes most of, if not all, of us on this forum in the developed west, which only represents 1/7th of the world)

In a socialist system, there would be no cheaper way to a product; all workers would be paid and valued the same, and they all reap the same reward. They cooperatively own the entire means of production, and so the all benefit from it in a more or less equal way, definitely more equal than now.

This of course is only one part of the ideology. Socialism also promotes the idea of public goods: goods and services so vital to each other that it is actually more beneficial if we all co-owned them together. Education and healthcare should be free of charge, and accessible to everyone. Education, healthcare, food, power, water, housing, clean environment, etc. In the socialist system, doctors do good for the benefit of the populace. They of course get paid a fair wage, however there wouldn't be an opportunity where they can charge exorbitant amount. The socialist principle recognises that someone doesn't need millions upon millions of dollars sitting in the bank, while million others rot on the street. Socialists recognise the inherent redundancy of a system that has a bunch of empty houses while at the same time many people without a house. Socialist feel it completely incomprehensible that supermarkets are overstocking on food, and then throw them away when they don't sell, while there are people struggling to afford food.

And here comes the ideal society of many socialist: a society without currency. In this society, farmers would join and band together, and grow crops strategically, so as to not have an over-abundance of a current crop that would lead to some of it being thrown out. They recognise that they are experts in providing food, and so they provide food for everyone. Doctors would recognise that they are the healers, so they heal people when necessary, and aid with prevention. The designers will design for everyone, the steel workers will manufacture for everyone, the teacher will teach.

In this society, all of these people would band together in order to maximise their knowledge, and the efficiency of using resources. It is ridiculous that there are 25 supermarkets in a small areas, each selling 44 different brands of milk. In a socialist society, would have on milk dispensary that is able to supply a neighbourhood, or a city. No wasted resources, no competition that leads to lower salary and/or quality milk for those who can't afford it.

Of course, coming back to the clown and doctor, if there is currency, the doctor would earn less and the clown a bit more, but that is really only the issue if you are only fixated with money. In this society, the doctor would already have a good home, he would live in a neighbourhood were crimes are lower (reduction of inequality in income reduces crime is a scientifically proven fact), he would have a good car, food and water and power are public goods so it might be free or inexpensive, education and healthcare is easily accessible, the environment is clean and used sustainably and responsibly. Public transport would be of high quality that perhaps the doctor might not even want a car. And in this system, you will have the doctors, the scientists, the engineers, and you will also have the small group who want to do something different, be it art or music, and they also thrive in this society. As well, some socialists believe that in such an environment, science can thrive as the main 'belief system' and that would ultimately lead to a technological revolution where many jobs can be automated, leading to people doing stuff they actually want.

Of course, this is a dream world, where everyone would have to accept and give this theory a chance, where the elite and powerful would have the give up their social status, and where most people would actually be willing to do things for the greater good, and not be greedy or a slacker. This of course is the major hurdle. Along with humanistic tendencies to get corrupt with power in such a socialist situation.

I must say, that Stalin and Mao where two examples of authoritarian communism mixed with an aggressive military approach to keep the populace in line. While this is not socialism/communism in it's truest form, and I certainly do not condone the killing of millions, I can say that I see why they chose such an approach. As I stated previously, socialism can only work if everyone on Earth wants it. And it would almost always fail otherwise, and this is because the world depends on each other to work together to provide what they can provide for the betterment of everyone. And this fact has been exploited by the USA and the West to bring down Communism: propaganda to the citizens, and embargoes on communist countries immediately undermine any socialist/communist efforts. The USA starving out and leaving Cuba in the dark age, had they had elections, they most definitely would have thrown Castro out. And fame and glory promised to the intellectuals and skilled of Cuba got them to cross the sea. Cuba, as China and the Soviets did earlier, figured it be best if they used the military and ignore the call for open elections.

In the end, money is just a mean to get goods and services, and for socialists, this mean has gotten overvalued so much so that it is being hoarded by a few while the rest suffer without even getting a chance at prosperity.

So, for socialists, capitalism is a system where you are forced to work at a job you hate to be able to live and survive and thrive for yourself, while socialism is a system where you work and do what you love to better quality of life for everyone.

I can ask the same thing: do capitalists only love money?

[Amazeroth]

In other words, Brave New World really is the Socialist dream. But it's good that you mention Soviet Russia - they probably have gotten closest to try the second part of socialism you describe (with no money and everybody doing things for the greater good instead of personal gain), and they did a really good job at showing how well that works. It's also enlightening that you see democracy as an actual obstacle to socialism, so much that it becomes necessary to use military forces against the citizens.

Edit: I have to be fair and recognise, though, that almost all socialists I know don't think the second part even remotely possible, and consequently don't strive towards that. So this is less against what's called socialism today, then against some form of naive communism.

[UniSocAll]

In other words, Brave New World really is the Socialist dream. But it's good that you mention Soviet Russia - they probably have gotten closest to try the second part of socialism you describe (with no money and everybody doing things for the greater good instead of personal gain), and they did a really good job at showing how well that works. It's also enlightening that you see democracy as an actual obstacle to socialism, so much that it becomes necessary to use military forces against the citizens.

I fear I must have misrepresented a few things. Socialism doesn't work on a country-to-country basis. So that is why it's not attainable, not even with military force. I'm not saying that democracy is a hurdle to socialism; it's only a hurdle to individual countries trying to implement a socialist system. So while I can see that dictatorship and the military are useful in such situation if I were a narcissistic psychopathic dictator, I do not condone those actions and it is not true actions of a socialist.

Edit: I have to be fair and recognise, though, that almost all socialists I know don't think the second part even remotely possible, and consequently don't strive towards that. So this is less against what's called socialism today, then against some form of naive communism.

I suppose you mean a no-currency based society. No, it's not attainable, because humans have lived so long with it. Then again, modern socialism is many times a watered-down version, fit to work in modern day liberal democracy and a capitalist system.

[Captain-Socialist]

"You're working for the devil." This was my dad's response to the news that I'd found my first proper job at 21. My dad is not a religious man. He is a socialist. I had just got a job in marketing.

Of course, marketing isn't inherently bad. Like theatre, language and ritual, it's about communication and can be used to inspire us to think, feel and do all sorts of things. But as it's predominantly used by corporations to persuade us to consume more, as it fuels desire and debt, it's arguably capitalism's most powerful weapon.

Being raised in a socialist household, brought up on benefits and considering myself a good, green, ethical person, my career choice caused me quite a bit of internal conflict. For the 10 years I worked as a brand consultant I attempted to resolve this by working for people and projects I respected – such as the Co-operative Bank (back then), Eurostar and the Guardian – and relieved my guilt by working for some good biscuit brands. But I found it difficult to align my personal principles to my professional life until one conversation helped me to clarify things.

I'd been helping Tony Benn with a personal project – a "seatcase" that he'd invented – and so we were talking about his innovation and how to market it. Given both our backgrounds and our current pre-occupation, I asked him how he was able to align his socialist principles with his entrepreneurial spirit. Just like me working in marketing, wasn't there an inherent conflict between socialism and selling?

As always, his answer was simple and direct: "Nonsense."

"One of the most common mistakes made about socialists is that because they are suspicious of multinational corporations, they also somehow dislike enterprise."

He made it clear that while we socialists should of course object to global corporations that are unaccountable to their customers, exploit cheap labour, dodge taxes, blacklist union members, bully small businesses and have more wealth and power than entire countries, we should support any enterprise that offers a useful product or service, provides decent jobs, respects labour laws and workers' rights, and pays back into society via a system of taxation.

Benn said there was only one thing he had ever agreed with Margaret Thatcher on – that we should be proud to be a "nation of shopkeepers". After all, it's the hardworking small business owners up and down the country who serve our needs and support our communities every day.

We talked a lot about UK entrepreneurs and how hard it is to compete, on and offline, with the might of the multinational. Benn pointed out that small businesses not only need all the marketing help they can get, but also need the support of the government, banks and consumers.

While socialists support public ownership of essential national services such as energy, water, health, education and transport so that they can be run in the interests of the people, not for profit, Benn argued that private enterprise is important for a healthy economy.

"We just need to recognise that profit is the primary motive and ensure we keep them in check." He ended, as he always did, with a series of simple questions we should always ask of any business: "Who's running things? In whose interests? How do we hold them to account?"

This conversation changed things for me. It helped me choose the companies I worked for and the ones I didn't. And it also helped when I started my own business last year.

Patchwork Present is a website that lets friends come together to collectively fund one big gift. As my nan has helpfully pointed out, "It's not a new idea. It's a whip-round", and she's right. It's just that our digital version is more secure, personal and fun than throwing some cash in a hat.

The thing I've loved about launching the site is that it fits perfectly with my principles. It's about being collective, creative and resourceful. We don't sell anyone anything. We just allow people to collect money globally to spend locally on the one thing they really want, and at the same time help keep unwanted gifts out of landfill.

My company is not a social enterprise. It's a for-profit business. But as a socialist entrepreneur I've been clear about my ideals and ambition from day one. My initial investment pitch consisted of a presentation about the business idea and these two posters:

It's fair to say my investment pitch was pretty polarising. But we got the funding we needed from like-minded investors, and now our posters hang in our studio as a daily reminder of where we've come from and where we're going.

"From each according to their means, to each according to their needs" is the simple socialist principle. And as a socialist entrepreneur my plan is to interpret this literally. To build a profitable business and pay my tax on those profits to support the welfare state of which I am a proud product.

Of course, we don't have to worry about this now. We've only been going for six months. But if there's one thing history has taught us it's that money and power corrupt. So it makes sense to put stuff in place to protect our principles from our potentially messed-up future selves.

As a socialist entrepreneur I want to make a profit but not at any price. I want to make a profit by offering a product that has genuine use and value, a service that is personal and helpful, and by creating a company that is honest, open and accountable. I want to make a profit while paying people fairly, respecting labour laws and the British tax system. I want to prove that it's possible to have principles and make a profit.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... principles

[Aquinas]

I enjoyed your post, UniSocAll. You've broadly discussed theory. Could you say some more about what you believe would be a practical and desirable political programme for countries in today's world? Can Socialism Lite work?

[Amazeroth]

In other words, Brave New World really is the Socialist dream. But it's good that you mention Soviet Russia - they probably have gotten closest to try the second part of socialism you describe (with no money and everybody doing things for the greater good instead of personal gain), and they did a really good job at showing how well that works. It's also enlightening that you see democracy as an actual obstacle to socialism, so much that it becomes necessary to use military forces against the citizens.

I fear I must have misrepresented a few things. Socialism doesn't work on a country-to-country basis. So that is why it's not attainable, not even with military force. I'm not saying that democracy is a hurdle to socialism; it's only a hurdle to individual countries trying to implement a socialist system. So while I can see that dictatorship and the military are useful in such situation if I were a narcissistic psychopathic dictator, I do not condone those actions and it is not true actions of a socialist.

But if this kind of socialism can only be attained if countries cease to exist, and everyone wants a system where they don't get what they think they deserve for their work (as their wages will now be paid in kind, and what they receive is no longer up to them), in other words, if that kind of socialism needs a utopia to be able to come into existence in the first place - how is it a good idea to follow that ideology?

Edit: I have to be fair and recognise, though, that almost all socialists I know don't think the second part even remotely possible, and consequently don't strive towards that. So this is less against what's called socialism today, then against some form of naive communism.

I suppose you mean a no-currency based society. No, it's not attainable, because humans have lived so long with it. Then again, modern socialism is many times a watered-down version, fit to work in modern day liberal democracy and a capitalist system.

It's not only about having no common currency anymore (after all, barter societies still usually don't have any of the perks you described that a no-currency society would have according to this kind of socialist ideology). It's true that there was a time before currency, but I don't think there ever was a time without the concept of being wealthy, or of luxury. I mean what makes people rich is usually not money, it's the possibility to buy things with money (and it's usually more than money - it's enterprises). And this possibility will just be transferred to natural goods, if money is taken away.


Captain-Socialist - that is a nice article, but it's more about someone getting that commerce is a good thing, not really about Socialism anymore (other than, perhaps, the sentiment that he wants to pay taxes thinking of the welfare state, but even that notion really isn't exclusively socialist). Especially the last paragraph has nothing to do with socialism - he could have said "ethnical" instead of "socialist", or anything from "Christian" (or any other religious denomination) to "conservative" and even to "neo-liberal". Pretty much every ideology out there values making a profit but not at any price.

[Aquinas]

Captain-Socialist - that is a nice article, but it's more about someone getting that commerce is a good thing, not really about Socialism anymore (other than, perhaps, the sentiment that he wants to pay taxes thinking of the welfare state, but even that notion really isn't exclusively socialist). Especially the last paragraph has nothing to do with socialism - he could have said "ethnical" instead of "socialist", or anything from "Christian" (or any other religious denomination) to "conservative" and even to "neo-liberal". Pretty much every ideology out there values making a profit but not at any price.

I agree it was a nice article, and in my view a good counter to what I thought was an implied (although not directly stated) assumption in the original post - namely, that socialism is opposed to innovation and being productive. You are right, of course, that socialists do not have a monopoly on the "profit but not at any price" principle; a Christian, conservative or neo-liberal would usually say the same thing. Nevertheless, it is worth emphasising just how important this is to the socialist perspective, by which I mean that humans are social beings with co-operative, altruistic instincts, not just individualistic individuals slugging it out in the harsh, "survival of the fittest" game of life. In short, that article tells me a fair bit about socialist values - and even more about how socialist values are so often misconceived or misrepresented by their critics. It also tells me about how a socialist can try to live his socialist values whilst operating within an overwhelmingly free market capitalist system.

[Amazeroth]

Captain-Socialist - that is a nice article, but it's more about someone getting that commerce is a good thing, not really about Socialism anymore (other than, perhaps, the sentiment that he wants to pay taxes thinking of the welfare state, but even that notion really isn't exclusively socialist). Especially the last paragraph has nothing to do with socialism - he could have said "ethnical" instead of "socialist", or anything from "Christian" (or any other religious denomination) to "conservative" and even to "neo-liberal". Pretty much every ideology out there values making a profit but not at any price.

I agree it was a nice article, and in my view a good counter to what I thought was an implied (although not directly stated) assumption in the original post - namely, that socialism is opposed to innovation and being productive. You are right, of course, that socialists do not have a monopoly on the "profit but not at any price" principle; a Christian, conservative or neo-liberal would usually say the same thing. Nevertheless, it is worth emphasising just how important this is to the socialist perspective, by which I mean that humans are social beings with co-operative, altruistic instincts, not just individualistic individuals slugging it out in the harsh, "survival of the fittest" game of life. In short, that article tells me a fair bit about socialist values - and even more about how socialist values are so often misconceived or misrepresented by their critics. It also tells me about how a socialist can try to live his socialist values whilst operating within an overwhelmingly free market capitalist system.

True, as a reply to the original post this is pretty good.