Is the ideal society socialistic?

Then how will anyone get anything? If we can't have a massive government that controls all means of production and we also can't have an absolute libertarian society where there's no restriction on the market, how will we get stuff to survive?

The point is to promote people getting rich (or at least, well-off) by their own labor.

Which means no stealing, and no giving yourself a six-figure salary from a multi-thousand minimum-wage employee corporation.

edited 27th Dec '11 5:38:36 AM by Medinoc

To each worker the full and undivided fruit of his/her labor. If the company gets two million bucks a year in revenues, they don't belong to the businessowner: They're rightfully the property of the collective of the company's workers. It's actually that simple: Once we seize everything from the capitalists and put it under direct, democratic worker control, most economic problems will vanish.

Bingo! Until we can achieve a post-scarcity society (the end goal) the only just arrangement is to put the means of production under the control and ownership of the workers, so that they reap the benefits of their labor without leeches in suits gettin' rich off their backs.

edited 27th Dec '11 5:43:32 AM by SavageHeathen

Then what happens if the workers do exactly the same as the old bosses? What happens if the workers can't decide anything? Break the company up?

Do that to whom? To the very same workers that elected them and can revoke their mandate at a whim?

Yep. Exactly that.

And what happens if a company goes out of business? And anyway, can't the workers be manipulated to basically leave running the company to a few people (especially if they don't want to run themselves)?

edited 27th Dec '11 6:17:51 AM by Greenmantle

If the workers can sack you during the span of a few hours, there's a lot of stuff you can't do:

• Lowering wages or working conditions.
• Raising your own wages while letting those of the non-admin workers stagnate.
• Imposing harsher discipline.
• Bossing them around in a degrading or arrogant way.

Any of those things will get you sacked during the day: They'll call for a meeting and vote to have you relieved from command and fired from the cooperative. Other people might be screwed over by worker's self-management, but it sure ain't the workers.

If a coop goes out of business and isn't absorbed into a bigger coop, its assets are liquidated: Pending wages and benefits are paid first, creditors second... If there's a remnant, it's split among the worker-owners.

edited 27th Dec '11 6:34:13 AM by SavageHeathen

Maybe, maybe not Savage. Some people just aren't that interested in running their company — it's just a means of earning money.

edited 27th Dec '11 6:36:14 AM by Greenmantle

If the workers can revoke their elected leaders at a whim, with a mere flash vote, actions that antagonize the working man will become impossible to take... Not because the workers are conscientous and interested on the workings of the company, but because they can be relied on to say no to any change that's not on their interests if they can get away with it.

Some examples:

• There will be drug testing on this company from now on: Fuck that, you're dismissed.
• Y'all are going to take a 10% pay cut: Fuck that, you're dismissed.
• We're in a tough spot: Longer hours for no extra pay are needed to keep this afloat: Fuck that, you're dismissed..

That's the beauty of workplace democracy: Instead of the shareholders having control over the guys that direct the work, the workers will have control over the guys that direct the work: It makes sure that the only decisions taken will be those that the workers want/don't care about. Granted, all sorts of graft and corruption could (and probably would) happen, as long as it doesn't antagonize the workers directly... But it's still a step up from having the workers live and labor under someone else's authority.

If you're a working-class guy, ask yourself how much of the bullshit you've got to deal with in your working life is your bosses' fault. Now imagine that the workers could depose and sack the bosses at will: Would the overall bullshit level go down or up? I'd wager it'd get through the floor!

edited 27th Dec '11 6:54:09 AM by SavageHeathen

The ideal society certainly isn't a self-destructive capitalist one, I'll say that much.

A socialist society would be far better.

edited 27th Dec '11 7:07:46 AM by AllanAssiduity

I'm a (middle-class) Graduate working in a minimum-wage job right now (which I'll get out of as soon as I have somewhere better to go to). A fair amount of it is the boss' fault — just the level above the store manager (and he's had a go at him too — the boss can do almost everything everyone else can). It would drop, yes, apart from the crap created by the customers, which is quite frankly a lot more common...

Then again, I'd like a co-operative like the John Lewis Partnership. It's just something like what you're planning might not work everywhere.

edited 27th Dec '11 7:21:19 AM by Greenmantle

This also.

Capitalist societies that resist reform often go under.

edited 27th Dec '11 7:50:30 AM by stripesthezebra

I think we have to consider what we mean by ideal; some posts might be misunderstanding Earth Sheep's point about being idealistic. In an ideal society, people would be altruistic. It's not about individuals doing the best they can (capitalist model of competition) anymore. Altruism, where you care about others' well being and the good of the society, is codified and understood to be the norm, not merely a favor.

We wouldn't need capitalism's ideal advantage, competitive opportunity for everyone to be responsible, because people will uphold sense of responsibility anyway. We also would not be distrustful of the government because the government is perfect and civic duty is also perfect.

In that sense, socialism would qualify quite well. The reason we don't have that is because we can't trust people do be this idealistic.

A 100% rate of altruism would make any economic model effective though.

That's the thing though. We have to hear from the OP to see whether it's about more than just the economy.

If everyone was totally altruistic, virtually every model would be great. It's not like anyone's economic or political ideal was designed to fail.

Which would be the best?

Huh. I'd have to say socialism, since it's willing to help and provide on the largest scale.

Totally altruistic? I'm not sure about that. I've been thinking over the problem of pure altruism, and here's why it wouldn't work. We'd all be appealing to each other's nonexistent self-interest. One person would give everything they had to help another, and the other person would refuse because they wouldn't be able to stand the thought of anyone suffering for their sake. Nobody would be happy. It'd be just as much of a Crapsack World as if everyone were completely selfish.

I'm not condoning It's All About Me attitudes. I'm saying that we should be considerate of others, share what we have and spread happiness, but also look out for ourselves to an extent. And yes, I'm a socialist, because I believe in social equality and helping others. I know it's not a perfect system, but it's the best for helping as many people as possible.

edited 27th Dec '11 3:21:06 PM by Xandriel

How is Altruism ideal? Seems selfish to me.

Altruism is supposed to be the opposite of selfishness.

Well, it depends on why you're being altruistic, but that's a discussion for another thread.

But anyway, for a society to work, you need to balance altruism with keeping in mind the things you and your family need to survive. The ideal society has the people not taking much more than what they need. So I guess there would be some socialistic ideals in an ideal society.

Or a creepy hive mind. Whichever.

Did we ever get a definition of "ideal" in this thread?

I believe he meant the sociological (or at least, that's how I learned it) definition of "ideal," which is basically "perfect or exemplary form of something." So, you can have an ideal criminal, for example, in the sense that they perform their crime perfectly or in an exemplary manner.

In this case, it's a very subjective answer, because whether or not a perfectly socialistic system is an ideal system depends on what your end goal is for society at large...

The ideal society... society... social... socialish... socialistic...

Isn't "socialistic" just a word that means "bearing the trapping of society" then, at least as long as we're talking about platonic forms?

Seems like an etymology problem to me~

Well, if you'd like, you could replace "socialistic" with "communistic" in the question and the end results would be generally similar, if we're going by what Marx envisioned.

I generally dismiss whatever Marx had to say. I arrive at my views on socialism without having ever read anything off his.

Good way to avoid being tainted, methinks.