mat.gopack wrote:Was the economy controlled by the workers? No - it was made up of mostly private property owners (eg - investors). So no, it wouldn't be socialist.
It was controlled by the workers. Haha! Unions. Supposedly.
mat.gopack wrote:Was the economy controlled by the workers? No - it was made up of mostly private property owners (eg - investors). So no, it wouldn't be socialist.
GPD wrote:mat.gopack wrote:Was the economy controlled by the workers? No - it was made up of mostly private property owners (eg - investors). So no, it wouldn't be socialist.
It was controlled by the workers. Haha! Unions. Supposedly.
mat.gopack wrote:GPD wrote:A closed centrally based economy. I didn't say it was successful. But that is true of most socialism.
Well, that's the problem then. That is not the normal definition of it, which is supposed to be "worker control of the means of production."
The form that takes depends - most of those that claimed to be socialist (eg - the Soviet Union) ended up more authoritarian - because they saw the state as the way that the workers could collectively control the means of production. There's also elements of other thought (vanguard party, etc) and just plain old authoritarianism thrown in.
But there are other types of socialist thought that's very different. Catalonia during the spanish civil war was socialist, but was much more anarchist. Same with the Ukrainian free territory during the russian civil war (aka Makhnovia). Neither of those would have had a centrally based economy.
Anyways, the Nazis didn't care about worker control, or even for central basis of the economy. They had many of the wealthy industrial elite/business owners supporting them, and gave them big kickbacks - they even privatized many industries! However, as I understand it, they did direct a lot of the economy with their military and wartime spending/control. But they were not trying to control the entire economy in the way your definition seems to imply.V wrote:Lol. The Autobahns were not primarily intended for the use of workers driving their yet to be built VW’s. They were for Hitler’s tanks & military vehicles! Germany always feared a two front war & the need for troop mobility was learnt by some very hard WW1 lessons. The primary reason Hitler wanted Autobahns was in preparation for war. However many jobs were accidentally created.
Well yes, massive work projects would create jobs, but that was being done in many western countries, even in the Weimar Republic. I wouldn't use that as an example of the nazis being pro-worker...
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Example sentencesSynonyms
1.1 Policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
Example sentencesSynonyms
1.2 (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.
Théorie visant à transformer l'organisation sociale dans un but de justice entre les hommes au plan du travail, de la rétribution, de l'éducation, du logement, etc.
Formation économique et sociale telle qu'elle existe dans les États dirigés par des gouvernements qui se réfèrent au marxisme-léninisme et caractérisée par la suppression de l'essentiel de la propriété privée des moyens de production et d'échange.
Ensemble des courants politiques socialistes ou sociaux-démocrates.
1.(nach Karl Marx die dem Kommunismus vorausgehende) Entwicklungsstufe, die auf gesellschaftlichen oder staatlichen Besitz der Produktionsmittel und eine gerechte Verteilung der Güter an alle Mitglieder der Gemeinschaft hinzielt
2. politische Richtung, Bewegung, die den gesellschaftlichen Besitz der Produktionsmittel und die Kontrolle der Warenproduktion und -verteilung verficht
V wrote:Seeing as this thread has swung happily in all directions, I’m going to risk it heading in another by asking for opinions on something that I found unbearably irritating as a teenager (but now 60+ I don’t care much). If willing, do confess to age group when responding, it might prove an interesting factor.
Zosimus used the word “Collectivism” & a shiver ran up my spine!
My family was full of teachers when I was a teenager (1970’s) both my elder siblings & both their spouses. Can you imagine Family Christmas with 4 teachers in the same room (not always pretty).
They often discussed pay & I used to ask questions (I now see to be unbelievably naive) such as why it didn’t depend how good they were at teaching? Made sense to a 15 year old, but no. I learned about, Trade Unions, collective bargaining & pay rates based on seniority.
Not how good, not how dedicated or diligent, not on great pupil results, nope, on how long you’d been around!
At 19 I joined an NHS laboratory as a technician. Same story. Technicians were graded on seniority. At first hand, I encountered great technicians, unbelievable instructors, hopeless twits, dedicated saints, lazy bastards, forward thinking creative individuals, stuck in the stone age fools, every flavour & type you can imagine. Collective bargaining meant no excellence was rewarded & few sins punished (unless unforgivable incompetence). Only way to earn more, was stick around or get promoted (better get in line for that too).
I went to University, graduated & many of the management jobs I applied for involved training in industrial relations negotiation techniques, with Trade Unions collective bargaining! I ran a mile. In fact I ran 6,000 miles to anywhere in the World I might escape this madness. Why would I as a young man, tolerate some ageing fool of a shop steward negotiate & agree my pay/rewards/conditions? Alternatively spend my time debating it as management, with self same shop steward?
That was my job in life, to demonstrate excellence, talk to my employer, get paid what I deserved, or quit! There was always going to be someone else offering fair reward (as long as there wasn’t a bloody trade union involved).
I’ve mellowed, but I remember the anger at 19 & determination not to let the bastards win. They didn’t.
So Collectivism. You know my views, how about yours? Repelled? Relieved? Ambivalent? Disciple? As I said as a young man it was intolerable, but now (40+ years later) I see it as irrelevant.
Have at it...
GPD wrote:V wrote:Seeing as this thread has swung happily in all directions, I’m going to risk it heading in another by asking for opinions on something that I found unbearably irritating as a teenager (but now 60+ I don’t care much). If willing, do confess to age group when responding, it might prove an interesting factor.
Zosimus used the word “Collectivism” & a shiver ran up my spine!
My family was full of teachers when I was a teenager (1970’s) both my elder siblings & both their spouses. Can you imagine Family Christmas with 4 teachers in the same room (not always pretty).
They often discussed pay & I used to ask questions (I now see to be unbelievably naive) such as why it didn’t depend how good they were at teaching? Made sense to a 15 year old, but no. I learned about, Trade Unions, collective bargaining & pay rates based on seniority.
Not how good, not how dedicated or diligent, not on great pupil results, nope, on how long you’d been around!
At 19 I joined an NHS laboratory as a technician. Same story. Technicians were graded on seniority. At first hand, I encountered great technicians, unbelievable instructors, hopeless twits, dedicated saints, lazy bastards, forward thinking creative individuals, stuck in the stone age fools, every flavour & type you can imagine. Collective bargaining meant no excellence was rewarded & few sins punished (unless unforgivable incompetence). Only way to earn more, was stick around or get promoted (better get in line for that too).
I went to University, graduated & many of the management jobs I applied for involved training in industrial relations negotiation techniques, with Trade Unions collective bargaining! I ran a mile. In fact I ran 6,000 miles to anywhere in the World I might escape this madness. Why would I as a young man, tolerate some ageing fool of a shop steward negotiate & agree my pay/rewards/conditions? Alternatively spend my time debating it as management, with self same shop steward?
That was my job in life, to demonstrate excellence, talk to my employer, get paid what I deserved, or quit! There was always going to be someone else offering fair reward (as long as there wasn’t a bloody trade union involved).
I’ve mellowed, but I remember the anger at 19 & determination not to let the bastards win. They didn’t.
So Collectivism. You know my views, how about yours? Repelled? Relieved? Ambivalent? Disciple? As I said as a young man it was intolerable, but now (40+ years later) I see it as irrelevant.
Have at it...
As with everything, there are good ways and bad ways to do everything. I was a union negotiator for a while. I tried to do it the right way, whatever that is. I found that without union negotiators, everybody would get nothing if the management side could get away with it. Our group tried to be progressive on rewarding for performance. The real sticking point on that was that there wasn't a fair way of doing it. Basically, everything came down to "Blue Eyed Boys", as we used to call it. Favourites, or whatever you know it as. Actually measuring a person's performance is difficult. Almost impossible in some environments. I was in an office environment. And even if you could set fair targets etc, then everybody would have different ones, and the argument then came down to equal opportunity to shine. In the end it just came down to trying to get something for everyone. I also disliked that the "lazy bastards" got the same as everybody else, but our view was that this was the lesser of two weevles.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests