We are turning communist

[Bozo]

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6048449.html?tag=zdfd.newsfeed


Bozo :mrgrn:

 

[ddrueding]

What does any of that have to do with communism? Totalitarian big-brotherism perhaps, certainly police-state material, but nothing to do with the commies. I hate communism/socialism because it's stupid. I hate this crap because it's evil. That's a whole nother level of bad

 

[Howell]

What's wrong with socialism?

 

[Stereodude]

What's wrong with socialism?

Give me a bunch of what you make so we both have the same amount of money, and then I'll tell you.

 

[LiamC]

Give me a bunch of what you make so we both have the same amount of money, and then I'll tell you.

That's Communism, not socialism.

 

[MaxBurn]

Stolen from dictionary.com:
Socialism:
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Basically on the road to Communism. Anyway whatever happened to absolute power corrupts absolutely? I don't think it works and I'm only willing to trust someone else so far with my well being. I am not really equipped to argue this point but I can't think of any areas where a socialist society works.

Back to the original article: This is a little hard to believe but when I went into my current job I had to sign a non compete agreement stating if I left this job I had to stay away from this specific product for a year before I could resume with say a third party company. It sounds like this is a similar situation and the company is just trying to find some hard evidence for a conviction. Another case of the media not telling the whole story I suspect.

So don't go looking at porn or do work outside of your job on corporate machines is the lesson learned here.

 

[LiamC]

Stolen from dictionary.com:
Socialism:

A narrow view of a concept that does not pigeonhole very well.

IMO, such a narrow view (the definition quoted)could be used to interpret Charities and their works as socialist, as well as viewing Government funded schemes such as Welfare and Medicare/MedicAid as "socialist". Personally, I don't. I view those things as part of humane society. But if you do, that's your opinion too, to which you are entitled. These concepts are debateable, but cannot be "won" or "proven".

 

[Sol]

such a narrow view (the definition quoted)could be used to interpret Charities and their works as socialist, as well as viewing Government funded schemes such as Welfare and Medicare/MedicAid as "socialist". Personally, I don't.

Why not? I have no problems with that. Socialism and communism were an attempt to design a social and governmental structure based very much on those type of aspects of a "humane society". The fact that socialism and communism don't actually work very well and the fact that they have been used to set up harsh totalitarian regimes doesn't take away thier essentially altrustic intentions. And if anything good can be constructed from inherently flawed social theories then that's great.

I think people have attached far too much of a stigma to socialist and communist philosophies. I'm not saying we should embrace communism but we should recognise that it's not some sort of political boogyman to be feared and avoided but never understood.

Afterall there are no good forms of government we just have to go with the least terrible one we can come up with.

 

[ddrueding]

And this is what I get for OC'ing beyond reason. I start a flame and than aren't here to watch it!

Yes. Socialism, communism, welfare, and most charities are all things I dissaprove of. Charities, of course, I don't mind at all because they are optional. Taking my money from me and using it not for any purpose that benefits me is BS.

I know this is an unpopular view, and I don't really wish to debate it, as neither side is "right". Just putting my cold-hearted views out here

 

[Howell]

I know this is an unpopular view, and I don't really wish to debate it, as neither side is "right". Just putting my cold-hearted views out here

That's actually a pretty anti-social way to look at the world.

You really shouldn't hide behind the cloak of "no body is right" just to maintain a comfortable position. Although there may not be one "right" in this case are are definately some "wrongs".

 

[LiamC]

Flame? I see no fire. You say that your viewpoint may be unpopular. It may be. I made no comment one way or another, and this is important, nor did I imply one. If you think I did imply something, read my sig. People are entitled to their views. The Thought Police/Psi Corps are not yet in control.

MaxBurn did post a definition that may or may not be his/her viewpoint—to which I commented upon the posited dictionary definition of Socialism.

 

[Howell]

Liam, David was blaming himself for starting something he was not prepared to finish.

No harm no foul.

 

[LiamC]

Howell, I don't think he did any harm. David has an opinion, and as far as I am concerned, he is entitled to it. I was just commenting on Davids use of "flame". I would never class his post as a flame—I've seen far worse. I'm a little gun shy after having a couple of my posts misconstrued, and was just clarifying that I was not offended, nor was I offering offence.

 

[Sol]

I think part of Liams post was aimed at my implication that he his comments were unjustifiably anti-socialist. Which is a position I would pretty much stick with... Despite sig I think that stating that Welfare etc are not socialist because they are part of a humane society does imply that socialism is idealogically wrong by suggesting that a humane society shouldn't have to resort to it even in cases where it works quite well.

Of course as pointed out everyone is entirely entitled to thier own opinion, and I don't necasarily think that that one is yours, but our opinions are coloured by social pressures more than most of us would like to admit and I would be interested to know why you feel that Welfare and the like should not be clasified as socialist.

Of course if you weren't commenting about my earlier post just ignore this one... :wink:

 

[ddrueding]

I guess flame was the wrong word. I certainly didn't intend to flame anyone, but I certainly provided some unlit fuel

That's something I try to avoid most of the time.

 

[mubs]

While I've slowed down in the last 6 months, you'll notice most of my P&B posts are controverisal in nature. That's because I feel strongly about those subjects, and also because I want a healthy debate on the issues. I don't do this because I'm a troll (which I ain't), but because issues need to be aired, opinions expressed and clarified; a healthy debate is good (so long as it doesn't degenerate into flames, of course). And there's a good many "thinkers" on this forum. You'll have to admit that it's hard to find any topic here on which there's total unanimity. And much of the disagreement is quite civil. That's why this is the only place I hang out. So DD, don't try to be "meh" bland. Let 'er rip!

 

[LiamC]

...Despite sig I think that stating that Welfare etc are not socialist because they are part of a humane society does imply that socialism is idealogically wrong by suggesting that a humane society shouldn't have to resort to it even in cases where it works quite well.

~~Snip

Of course if you weren't commenting about my earlier post just ignore this one... :wink:

Ah no, I was not commenting on your post at all, even if you don't believe that because of my sig...

My signature block is there for a purpose. If you think I'm being snide/underhanded/duplicitous, ask me.

Those that know me in the flesh would however, laugh at such a suggestion. The usual descriptor applied to me is blunt. Truthful, but blunt.

"Does my bum look fat in this?"

"Yep!"

(Actually, I think this is the correct answer for that question in any circumstance—because, after a while, it will stop being asked.)

...but I certainly provided some unlit fuel

Nothing wrong with healthy debate.

 

[LiamC]

This is not directed at anyone O.K. It is just my opinion on the idea of debate.
You may not agree—that's fine too.

Nothing wrong with healthy debate.

Forgot to add. It's when debate gets down to the "You're fscked!", "You Nazi/child molester/scat lover/descriptor of choice" level that the whole thing becomes pointless.

Address the arguments, don't attack the poster. And remember, you may think that you have constructed the perfect, no comeback argument, but the other posters may still not be swayed. That is fine. They may be just pig-headed, or[/or] you may not be as clever as you think you are.

 

[Tannin]

The main thing we can learn from anyone who thinks that the guiding idea behind socialism is taking money away from the people who actually earn it is that this particular person hasn't got the faintest idea of what he is talking about and can, for the remainder of this particular conversation, safely be ignored.

 

[sechs]

Taking my money from me and using it not for any purpose that benefits me is BS.

I take it that you're an anarchist, then. It's not possible for any government to take money from everyone and then turn around and spend it such that each person gets the benefit of his own money. (Wouldn't such a government be communist? Anyway....)

Government exists for the good of society, not the individual.

 

[ddrueding]

Forgot to add. It's when debate gets down to the...

...hasn't got the faintest idea of what he is talking about and can, for the remainder of this particular conversation, safely be ignored.

...level that the whole thing becomes pointless.

That didn't take long at all, did it. :roll:



Debates that I've taken part in can be quite informative. If you go into a debate believing that you and everyone else involved already know all there is to know about an issue, and that you still maintain your current stance, what's the friggin' point?

 

[ddrueding]

Taking my money from me and using it not for any purpose that benefits me is BS.

I take it that you're an anarchist, then. It's not possible for any government to take money from everyone and then turn around and spend it such that each person gets the benefit of his own money. (Wouldn't such a government be communist? Anyway....)

Government exists for the good of society, not the individual.

Not an anarchist, but certainly a financial conservative bordering on libertarian. Sure, I'll pay taxes to cover the fire/police/roads/schools, but what are they going to do with the rest of the money they take? (I could rant right here about the inefficacy/inefficiency of leaving the latter two of these in the public sector, but that wouldn't follow the thread.)

I don't believe it's the responsibility of the government to assure that everyone lives forever. I don't believe it's the responsibility of the government to provide for those who have removed themselves from self-sufficiency. Life isn't fair, and it isn't a padded room. This should be each one of us doing what we can to better the lives of those we choose. The government should be doing what is can to facilitate this.

 

[jtr1962]

I share many of David's views although my problem isn't so much that I'm against the idea of the government helping those less fortunate but rather against the very high taxes that always seem to come with a multitude of government programs. I don't feel anybody, including the very rich, should have to pay more than about 15% of their earnings to the government, and in fact I'm fundamentally opposed to the very idea of an income tax. The average working person should pay no more than 5% in total taxes, and this should be entirely in the form of sales taxes on non-necessary goods.

If government can help within the framework of this low-tax structure, I'm all for it. I just don't like the current situation where the government acts as an enabler for dysfunctional people who might otherwise at least partially support themselves without government assistance. Even more, I don't like the fact that an average working stiff pays upwards of 25% in income and sales taxes in part to fund these massive government programs. I also don't like the sacred cow nature and lack of accountability of many so-called social safety net programs. If a program fails to do what it was designed to, it should be scrapped. If those on public assistance are physically and mentally capable of at least partially supporting themselves, they should be made to. Futhermore, it's not up to the government to protect people from bad lifestyle choices. It's one thing is you become injured, lose your job, or contract an illness by chance. No civilized society would fail to provide for such people. It's quite another if you decide to abuse alcohol or drugs, or contract sexually-transmitted diseases. You made the decision to take the substances or to have sex with a questionable partner. You alone should bear the burden of that decision.

 

[Howell]

The main thing we can learn from anyone who thinks that the guiding idea behind socialism is taking money away from the people who actually earn it is that this particular person hasn't got the faintest idea of what he is talking about and can, for the remainder of this particular conversation, safely be ignored.

Exactly the kind of arrogant and unhelpful statement we didn't need. Although it is much easier to throw stones than to educate.

 

[Howell]

Debates that I've taken part in can be quite informative. If you go into a debate believing that you and everyone else involved already know all there is to know about an issue, and that you still maintain your current stance, what's the friggin' point?

The chance that you might not know all there is to know? You can still be a humble expert.

 

[Howell]

It's quite another if you decide to abuse alcohol or drugs, or contract sexually-transmitted diseases. You made the decision to take the substances or to have sex with a questionable partner. You alone should bear the burden of that decision.

It is one thing to own the responsibility for poor decisions. It is quite another to have to bear the burden alone. Many people can become productive members of society if given a short reprieve from the consequences of their actions. No one is irredeemable.

While I'm not for mandatory charity; I very much think it should be encouraged. We are all connected and when we dissmiss those in poorer circumstances we lose pieces of ourselves.

 

[mubs]

It is one thing to own the responsibility for poor decisions. It is quite another to have to bear the burden alone. Many people can become productive members of society if given a short reprieve from the consequences of their actions. No one is irredeemable.

While I'm not for mandatory charity; I very much think it should be encouraged. We are all connected and when we dissmiss those in poorer circumstances we lose pieces of ourselves.

Well said, Howell (except for the "No one is irredeemable" part; I'm not sure about that ).

 

[ddrueding]

It is one thing to own the responsibility for poor decisions. It is quite another to have to bear the burden alone. Many people can become productive members of society if given a short reprieve from the consequences of their actions. No one is irredeemable.

While I'm not for mandatory charity; I very much think it should be encouraged. We are all connected and when we dissmiss those in poorer circumstances we lose pieces of ourselves.

Well said, Howell (except for the "No one is irredeemable" part; I'm not sure about that ).

I'll second mubs and howell here. I support the tax-deductible nature of charities, but not the tax-based mandatory spending imposed by welfare.

 

[Sol]

I'm all for tax deductible charities but not for tax deductible religions. This gets to be a problem when many, if not most, charities have religious affiliations.

As far as I'm concerned religious groups should not be intrinsically grouped with not for profit organisations (especially since many of them are for profit) and a lot of the affiliated charities seem to have stealth religious componants which are not advertised when requesting donations (i.e. money spent on converting people instead of just feeding, clothing and assisting with infrastructure as advertised).

People seem very ready to jump all over corporations who's charitable contributions have ulterior motives (and rightly so) but many shy away from applying the same standard to religious groups.

I don't know that I would completely abandon a welfare type system. But I don't know of one which efficiently acomplishes what it set out to do. In Australia Centerlink helps a lot of people whilst they find jobs, but probably spends at least as much tax payer money helping some people to never have to find a job... I'm broadly in favor of any such system which could be made to work efficiently though.

 

[Tannin]

The main thing we can learn from anyone who thinks that the guiding idea behind socialism is taking money away from the people who actually earn it is that this particular person hasn't got the faintest idea of what he is talking about ...

Exactly the kind of arrogant and unhelpful statement we didn't need ...

Nonsense. I spoke the plain truth mate. If the truth hurts, then perhaps there is a lesson in there. There is no point in pondering issues of this nature if one or more of the parties to the discussion doesn't even understand what the topic is about.

Anyone with even a vague knowledge of the origins and history of the socialist movement, of the guiding ideas that shaped it in the first place, knows that socialism at root is all about distribution of rewards is proportion to productive effort. The socialist movement was born and grew strong as a direct reaction to changes in economic systems that resulted, amongst other things, in massive transfers of wealth from the people who produced the wealth to other people who, by and large, did not produce anything.

The popular-amongst-the-very-ignorant notion of socialism as a sort of bleeding-heart liberalism gone mad is a curious one, all the more curious because it is so common, particularly in the United States and countries heavily influenced by the US such as Australia. It has, however, practically nothing to do with the facts at hand.

 

[ddrueding]

Tannin,

I appreciate your latest post. The second paragraph of which has me most interested.

...socialism at root is all about distribution of rewards is proportion to productive effort.

"Productive effort" determined how? Pure hours of labor? Hours of education required to perform the task? Shortage of workers available to perform the task? 'Cause, that sounds a whole lot like unregulated capitalism...you now have my full attention

 

[jtr1962]

"Productive effort" determined how? Pure hours of labor? Hours of education required to perform the task? Shortage of workers available to perform the task? 'Cause, that sounds a whole lot like unregulated capitalism...you now have my full attention

Actually, with unregulated capitalism the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. We're seeing a lot of this right now with fewer and fewer regulations on capitalism. This is because the rich can set things up so that most of the wealth stays in their hands, and only pay workers enough to barely get by (thus preventing them or their decendants from ever becoming wealthy). Another example is that the rich control housing. Out of control housing costs are a big reason many working people nowadays are losing ground. I'm normally not a conspiracy theorist but it sounds suspiciously to me like indentured servitude when you have high housing costs combined with low wages.

If socialism is really about distributing wealth to those who create it, rather than those who happen to be in charge, then it's a much fairer, better system than capitalism. I've long thought workers is some (not all) jobs should be much better compensated than they are. A big thing preventing that is that many companies sell stock. Therefore, they need to siphon some (even most) of the profits to the investors rather than giving it back to the workers who created them in the first place. And many people who invest in stocks are already fairly well off. In essence, this is yet another example of people keeping wealth they had no part in creating. Any the whole stock market itself is yet another great example. People become filthy rich simply manipulating money while not actually creating anything of value to society.

 

[ddrueding]

This is a nifty idea, though I can't think of a way to make it work without doing the thing I hate most: Support laziness and sloth. And eventually, reverse evolution? Just thinking of the stereotypical fat woman living in the south having kid after kid while on unemployment/social security/medicare /medicaid is enough to drive me to homicide. If we can find a way to identify those that are leeching off the system and cut them off (or proactively kill them off), while providing for those on temporary hard times, I'm all for it. I'd just rather err on the fiscal conservative side of things.

 

[Stereodude]

Actually, with unregulated capitalism the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

This has nothing to do with capitalism. This has to do with the mentality of a poor person vs. the mentality of a rich person. If I give a poor person $10k, and give a rich person $10k, the poor person will piss the money away on beer, women, lotto tickets, a new big screen TV, and chrome rims for their car. The rich person on the other hand will invest the money. This is why the poor get poorer, and the rich get richer. Until you've got a way to change human nature, lets keep all the socialist talk on ice.

In reality socialism doesn't work because it fails to account for human nature. It doesn't account for, or understand that people are both inherently lazy, and inherently greedy. As ddrueling keeps pointing out, this is why socialism doesn't work. The net effect is that it eliminates any incentive for people to excel, and breeds laziness.

If the guy next door goes to work late, and does a piss poor job at factory X, and you go in early, and do a great job at factory X, but you both get the same amount of money, how long will it take before you do as poor of a job as the guy next door?

 

[jtr1962]

If I give a poor person $10k, and give a rich person $10k, the poor person will piss the money away on beer, women, lotto tickets, a new big screen TV, and chrome rims for their car. The rich person on the other hand will invest the money. This is why the poor get poorer, and the rich get richer.

Guess I'm rich then and I didn't even know it since I tend to save >50% of my albeit meager earnings. :wink: Truth is the poor aren't always poor because they can't manage money. You need a certain amount of income coming in to even consider saving. Nowadays many people make so little that after paying for housing, food, clothing, and taxes there is literally nothing left to save. And the reason for this is precisely because the rich want to limit the upward mobility in our society. Since they control housing costs, energy costs, food costs, etc. they can price these things so most people barely get by. Consider if every working person made enough to put aside 25% of their pay while living as they do now. They would likely leave a substantial inheritance to their kids, who would also save and leave a yet larger inheritance to their kids, etc. In three or four generations the descendents of the original working class people would have enough investment income to live a decent middle class lifestyle, and wouldn't have to consider working. Better yet, they wouldn't even need to touch the principal so no future generations would need to work, either. I think you see why this makes the rich nervous. In a few generations they just won't have anyone to do their dirty work for them. Moral is not every poor person is poor because they are lazy or spend all their money on stupid things. Quite a few work their behinds off their entire lives and end up with little to show for it.

Until you've got a way to change human nature, lets keep all the socialist talk on ice.

Read Tannin's post about the true nature of socialism. It's about giving the wealth to those who help create it in the first place, not those who through accident of birth happen to be the ruling caste. Under a true socialist system your stereotypical lazy worker would die of starvation because they wouldn't be producing anything of value to society. And BTW, this is one reason I despise labor unions since everyone gets paid the same under most contracts. They tend to encourage the very laziness you speak of. Under my system I'd likely pay people by the piece, or some other valid measure of productivity. Paying by the hour is yet another stupid thing which simply rewards physically being there.

 

[sechs]

People do love to confuse socialism with Marxism/Leninism (which isn't even true communism).

It's also amusing how some feel that being a "fiscal conservative" makes it impossible to be a "social liberal." Noting that "fiscal conservatism" is economic liberalism, it is obvious that free markets do not necessarily limit social programs, such as social security, Medicare, and welfare.

Being against a government program because it is not perfect is ridiculous. You might as well be against the border patrol because people still enter the country illegally, or the defense department because they spend enourmous sums and soldiers still die.

 

[bahngeist]

My, this is turning into one of the most interesting threads I have read in long time anywhere

Idealistically I am pulled towards the concept of Bakunin-style arnarchism (particularly his concepts of responsibility); realistically I am a Social Democrat. Socialism is not necessarily an alternate term for the latter, and it is possible for the concepts of capitalism and social democracy to function in a complementary fashion.

Capitalism (particularly the lassaiz-faire', market driven variety) in reality often mirrors the concept of a zero sum game, meaning that for there to be a 'winner' there must be a 'loser'. Markets themselves tend to fluctuate naturally, and in the downturn can become saturated and force operators out of the game due to no fault of their own. Of course if too many operators (who themselves are consumers) are forced out, the market may shrink further and the economy may well spiral down into a full-blown depression. Conversely, even in the upturn a market can become saturated, leaving no viable place for new entrants or ones weakened by circumstance. Economists have long recognized that a certain degree of unemployment is necessary for a healthy market even in the best of times -- so what then happens to the surplus?

Well, some societies leave the temporary unfortunate to fend for themselves; others tend to be a more 'humane society' and have a social safety net in place to ease people through misfortune and/or market transitions. Social democracies generally recognize that imbalances are natural to an economy, and that society bears a responsibility to those who have taken a 'hit' due to the very structure of its economy. And are such programmes open to abuse? well yes, but this tends to be more the exception than the norm. And which is more costly in terms of finances and human dignity, temporary social assistance or a large prison population and/or significant number of economically disenfranchised people?

I would never deny that we are individually responsible for our own welfare; but we are also in this together and as a whole have a responsiblity to each other as well. Society does not necessarily need to be a zero sum game.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

I hope Tannin does not mind me butting in to his argument.

For all those who don't see what Tannin is refering to, download and read this http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/3608 book.

It explains the real roots of Socialism, and how it works in society. Although it was written before WWI, you can so easily see our society in the story. The lessons are much the same, and the people who unjustice affects the most are just as blind, almost proud to be trodden on by their 'betters'.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

The Money Trick

`Money is the cause of poverty because it is the device by which those
who are too lazy to work are enabled to rob the workers of the fruits
of their labours.'

`Prove it,' said Crass.

Owen slowly folded up the piece of newspaper he had been reading and
put it into his pocket.

`All right,' he replied. `I'll show you how the Great Money Trick is
worked.'

Owen opened his dinner basket and took from it two slices of bread but
as these were not sufficient, he requested that anyone who had some
bread left would give it to him. They gave him several pieces, which
he placed in a heap on a clean piece of paper, and, having borrowed
the pocket knives they used to cut and eat their dinners with from
Easton, Harlow and Philpot, he addressed them as follows:

`These pieces of bread represent the raw materials which exist
naturally in and on the earth for the use of mankind; they were not
made by any human being, but were created by the Great Spirit for the
benefit and sustenance of all, the same as were the air and the light
of the sun.'

`You're about as fair-speakin' a man as I've met for some time,' said
Harlow, winking at the others.

`Yes, mate,' said Philpot. `Anyone would agree to that much! It's as
clear as mud.'

`Now,' continued Owen, `I am a capitalist; or, rather, I represent the
landlord and capitalist class. That is to say, all these raw
materials belong to me. It does not matter for our present argument
how I obtained possession of them, or whether I have any real right to
them; the only thing that matters now is the admitted fact that all
the raw materials which are necessary for the production of the
necessaries of life are now the property of the Landlord and
Capitalist class. I am that class: all these raw materials belong to
me.'

`Good enough!' agreed Philpot.

`Now you three represent the Working class: you have nothing - and for
my part, although I have all these raw materials, they are of no use
to me - what need is - the things that can be made out of these raw
materials by Work: but as I am too lazy to work myself, I have
invented the Money Trick to make you work FOR me. But first I must
explain that I possess something else beside the raw materials. These
three knives represent - all the machinery of production; the
factories, tools, railways, and so forth, without which the
necessaries of life cannot be produced in abundance. And these three
coins' - taking three halfpennies from his pocket - `represent my
Money Capital.'

`But before we go any further,' said Owen, interrupting himself, `it
is most important that you remember that I am not supposed to be
merely "a" capitalist. I represent the whole Capitalist Class. You
are not supposed to be just three workers - you represent the whole
Working Class.'

`All right, all right,' said Crass, impatiently, `we all understand
that. Git on with it.'

Owen proceeded to cut up one of the slices of bread into a number of
little square blocks.

`These represent the things which are produced by labour, aided by
machinery, from the raw materials. We will suppose that three of
these blocks represent - a week's work. We will suppose that a week's
work is worth - one pound: and we will suppose that each of these
ha'pennies is a sovereign. We'd be able to do the trick better if we
had real sovereigns, but I forgot to bring any with me.'

`I'd lend you some,' said Philpot, regretfully, `but I left me purse
on our grand pianner.'

As by a strange coincidence nobody happened to have any gold with
them, it was decided to make shift with the halfpence.

`Now this is the way the trick works -'

`Before you goes on with it,' interrupted Philpot, apprehensively,
`don't you think we'd better 'ave someone to keep watch at the gate in
case a Slop comes along? We don't want to get runned in, you know.'

`I don' think there's any need for that,' replied Owen, `there's only
one slop who'd interfere with us for playing this game, and that's
Police Constable Socialism.'

`Never mind about Socialism,' said Crass, irritably. `Get along with
the bloody trick.'

Owen now addressed himself to the working classes as represented by
Philpot, Harlow and Easton.

`You say that you are all in need of employment, and as I am the
kind-hearted capitalist class I am going to invest all my money in
various industries, so as to give you Plenty of Work. I shall pay
each of you one pound per week, and a week's work is - you must each
produce three of these square blocks. For doing this work you will
each receive your wages; the money will be your own, to do as you like
with, and the things you produce will of course be mine, to do as I
like with. You will each take one of these machines and as soon as
you have done a week's work, you shall have your money.'

The Working Classes accordingly set to work, and the Capitalist class
sat down and watched them. As soon as they had finished, they passed
the nine little blocks to Owen, who placed them on a piece of paper by
his side and paid the workers their wages.

`These blocks represent the necessaries of life. You can't live
without some of these things, but as they belong to me, you will have
to buy them from me: my price for these blocks is - one pound each.'

As the working classes were in need of the necessaries of life and as
they could not eat, drink or wear the useless money, they were
compelled to agree to the kind Capitalist's terms. They each bought
back and at once consumed one-third of the produce of their labour.
The capitalist class also devoured two of the square blocks, and so
the net result of the week's work was that the kind capitalist had
consumed two pounds worth of the things produced by the labour of the
others, and reckoning the squares at their market value of one pound
each, he had more than doubled his capital, for he still possessed the
three pounds in money and in addition four pounds worth of goods. As
for the working classes, Philpot, Harlow and Easton, having each
consumed the pound's worth of necessaries they had bought with their
wages, they were again in precisely the same condition as when they
started work - they had nothing.

This process was repeated several times: for each week's work the
producers were paid their wages. They kept on working and spending
all their earnings. The kind-hearted capitalist consumed twice as
much as any one of them and his pile of wealth continually increased.
In a little while - reckoning the little squares at their market value
of one pound each - he was worth about one hundred pounds, and the
working classes were still in the same condition as when they began,
and were still tearing into their work as if their lives depended upon
it.

After a while the rest of the crowd began to laugh, and their
merriment increased when the kind-hearted capitalist, just after
having sold a pound's worth of necessaries to each of his workers,
suddenly took their tools - the Machinery of Production - the knives
away from them, and informed them that as owing to Over Production all
his store-houses were glutted with the necessaries of life, he had
decided to close down the works.

`Well, and wot the bloody 'ell are we to do now?' demanded Philpot.

`That's not my business,' replied the kind-hearted capitalist. `I've
paid you your wages, and provided you with Plenty of Work for a long
time past. I have no more work for you to do at present. Come round
again in a few months' time and I'll see what I can do for you.'

`But what about the necessaries of life?' demanded Harlow. `We must
have something to eat.'

`Of course you must,' replied the capitalist, affably; `and I shall be
very pleased to sell you some.'

`But we ain't got no bloody money!'

`Well, you can't expect me to give you my goods for nothing! You
didn't work for me for nothing, you know. I paid you for your work
and you should have saved something: you should have been thrifty like
me. Look how I have got on by being thrifty!'

The unemployed looked blankly at each other, but the rest of the crowd
only laughed; and then the three unemployed began to abuse the
kind-hearted Capitalist, demanding that he should give them some of
the necessaries of life that he had piled up in his warehouses, or to
be allowed to work and produce some more for their own needs; and even
threatened to take some of the things by force if he did not comply
with their demands. But the kind-hearted Capitalist told them not to
be insolent, and spoke to them about honesty, and said if they were
not careful he would have their faces battered in for them by the
police, or if necessary he would call out the military and have them
shot down like dogs, the same as he had done before at Featherstone
and Belfast.

`Of course,' continued the kind-hearted capitalist, `if it were not
for foreign competition I should be able to sell these things that you
have made, and then I should be able to give you Plenty of Work again:
but until I have sold them to somebody or other, or until I have used
them myself, you will have to remain idle.'

`Well, this takes the bloody biskit, don't it?' said Harlow.

`The only thing as I can see for it,' said Philpot mournfully, `is to
'ave a unemployed procession.'

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

They have monopolized everything that it is possible to monopolize; they have
got the whole earth, the minerals in the earth and the streams that
water the earth. The only reason they have not monopolized the
daylight and the air is that it is not possible to do it. If it were
possible to construct huge gasometers and to draw together and
compress within them the whole of the atmosphere, it would have been
done long ago, and we should have been compelled to work for them in
order to get money to buy air to breathe. And if that seemingly
impossible thing were accomplished tomorrow, you would see thousands
of people dying for want of air - or of the money to buy it - even as
now thousands are dying for want of the other necessities of life.
You would see people going about gasping for breath, and telling each
other that the likes of them could not expect to have air to breathe
unless the had the money to pay for it.