Socialist Worker - any good?

[thugler]

Welcome to Marxism 101. For the record I am not a Marxist myself, although this part of Marx's theory isn't one I have any major objections too. Socialist theory considers the state a part of the capitalist super-structure. This is to say, the state is paid for out of the surplus labour of the working people, dont worry I'll explain what that means in a bit. The state works on behalf of the property owning classes, wether they're aristocracy or self-made entrepeneurs, to enforce private property rights and protects those who own the economy. Therefore the state is the main obstacle to achieving a socialist state. As Marx predicted, once the propertlyless working-classes refuse to give their labour to the property owners and take control of the means of production for themselves, the contemporary capitalist state would wither and die, being relegated to the "dustbin of history" along with feudal barons and slave owners.

I'm well aware of what Marxism is. This is both entirely unnecessary and completely avoids the points I've already made. But I'll ignore that for now and try to point out the problems in what you are saying here. I disagree that the state acts solely on behalf of the 'property owning classes'. Oh and yes, capitalism is exactly the same as slavery...

The main objective of socialism is the abolition of class based exploitation and to establish an equal society in its place. The greatest obstacle to achieving this is the state, which enforces and legitimizes the rights of one class to own property. Therefore any truly socialist system must have as its principle policy a method of getting rid of the state. Socialism and the state are not compatable. Look to Soviet Russia if you want proof of this.

To suggest that socialism requires a state more than capitalism shows to me that you have a limited understanding of socialist theory and you are basing your opinions on misconcieved notions of what socialism actually is. The idea's you expressing are prevelant, they are nothing more than smear attacks by those with vested interests against and ideology that poses them more threat than any other. Hence you you so mistakenly equate socialism with fascism and use it as a loaded, pejorative term in so many of your posts.

I've already stated and explained how the idea of an 'equal society' is unworkable and not as nice as it sounds. You really expect socialism to occur without a state at all? nonsense.

I have plenty understanding of socialist theory and Marxism. I don't believe I ever said that socialism requires more of a state than capitalism. As for socialism posing a threat? absolute piffle. I only equate socialism and facism due to them both being completely unworkable terrible systems, which have resulted in utter disaster in the past. They are both dangerous ideas.

By the way, the term class is used in this context to describe your relationship with the economy, it has nothing to do with if you like sugar in your tea or if you went to a private school.

As for the value of labour, I'll have to be brief, I'm off out. People in industrial jobs are automatically paid less than the value of their labour. A very weak example of this is the carpenter. A carpenter, working for Comfy Chair.inc, gets paid £40 to produce a fine chair. That chair has a market value of £80. The employer maks £40 profit by virtue of the fact he owns the means of production alone, even though the employer contributes nothing in terms of labour or skill to its creation. The worker creates something worth £80 and gets paid half of its "market value". Or the consumer buys something worth £40 for twice it's "labour value".

This assumes that Comfy Chair.inc does nothing at all in this process, which means you are completely missing the point. The carpenter is unable to distribute, deliver, package, market and sell the chairs on his own to the extent that Comfy Chair.inc is. Thats why they are able to make more profit off it. Thats why the carpenter doesn't sell it himself unsurprisingly. That's a complete misunderstanding of basic economics.

Socialists generally want to create a society that has a labour theory of value, where the carpenter is paid the £40 for his chair by the consumer and where the employer is cut out of the transaction completely. The employer's only contribution is that he owns the means of production, he has the property rights over the economy and therefore in order to produce anything they have to dance to his tune and make money in his behald. This is a form of exploitation, and the only way to stop the exploitation is to get rid of the employer. The only way this can be possible is by the carpenter to forcibly seize control of Comfy Chair.inc, so he can own the means of production collectively with his fellow employee's (or comrades) and where there is no obligation to provide a dividend to shareholders or any form of profit. However, because the property rights are protected by the state, the iniquity of the private ownership system is protected from this fate. Which is why socialists object to the state on principle.

Theres nothing stopping the carpenter doing this in the first place, oh except he needs Comfy Chair's ability to sell and distribute the product amongst other things.

It's only exploitation if the carpenter is paid less than the product is worth to the company.

[Famous Mortimer]

What I said about Callinicos was fairly tongue in cheek – glad to see it got precisely the reaction I'd hoped for though.

What, someone defending him? Congratulations on wasting my time and yours.

Entrism, or whatever you call it, can work.

No it can't. It has been tried, by a large group of committed socialists (Militant, some of whom are now the Socialist Party) and it failed.

[Marvin]

No it can't. It has been tried, by a large group of committed socialists (Militant, some of whom are now the Socialist Party) and it failed.

Yes, this. Even those involved in try to be entryist within Labour when it was a lot less centrist than it is now gave up on it and are very much against the idea now.

[Sovereign]

Regarding "entryism" I dont think that it would ever be in succesful in changing the Labour party leadership, and I certainly wouldn't expect it to provide a total overhaul of the party. I just think that a very important element of the traditional structure of the labour party, a committed socialist economic group within the party, has been purged and the party, aswell as the current Labour government and the whole country, is suffering as a result. Trying to restore that to the Labour party is something that could make a practcal impact on policy in the UK, something neither the Socialist Party or the SWP are doing at the moment. Labour comes from a diverse range of places, such as the non-conformist methodist christian tradition, the fabian society, left-wing academia, and nearly the entire Trade Union movement. One of those groups has always been a hard-line, marx influenced, democratic socialism, which has been wiped out. I believe that one of the reasons the current labour government is so horrifically right-wing is because this section of the party's structure has been wiped out.

If it would help counter-balance the current Labour party leadership, and help safeguard public and non-profit institutions, encouraging socialists to joing the party would be good move. I'm not an expert on Militant and what they did wrong in their attempts to influence the labour party, but I'm quite sure that The Socialist Party have had precisely fuck all impact on the governance of this country.

As for the other stuff I've written to Famous Mortimer opps, Thugler, I'll get round to that in proper detail later, but for now I'll just say that I think socialism is inherently anti-state, and almost by definition the state cannot exist in a socialist society. At its very core, there is a belief in socialism that the state helps maintains an unequal social order, and needs to be abolished to achieve equality and an end to class antagonism. Marxism is 100% anti-state, although not all the interpretations of it have been.

There are socialists in the past who have proposed using the state as a means of establishing a socialist society in the future. For instance the Bolsheviks wanted to use the state as a tool of revolution, use the state's apparatus to re-distribute wealth and rid Russia of its capitalist classes, thus establishing socialism. This was of course only a "transitional" period where the benign, educated communists could dismantle the state from within on behalf of the grateful proleteriat, paving the way for socialist utopia. Putting this much authority into the state, and that much centralisation, destroyed any realistic hope of socialism in Russia. I think history has proved that sort of communist, marxism-leninism a failure. Luckily such perverted types of socialism are rarely succesful in western europe.

Social Democracy in Europe wanted to use the state as a means of creating a fairer society. Taking an evolutionary path toward socialism, legislating property rights into the dustbin of history, legally abolishing private profit and inequality. Although it wanted to retain a basic level of state authority, it was nothing like as authoritarian as orthodox communism and also maintained hopes that in time the state would wither away and die. I personally dont agree that socialism can be achieved through parliament, although social justice and the NHS will do for the time being. Ralph Miliband's Parliamentary Socialism is definitive on that topic, and to add extra weight to his argument his sons have gone about proving his theory right in the current labour government.

There's a fundamental objection to the social contract within all socialist beliefs. Because socialists generally have an optimistic view on human nature, and place so much emphasis on brotherhood, equality and community, they tend to object to the concept that our nature requires us to have a sovereign authority to protect us from ourselves. Life without leviathan would not be nasty brutal and short, because our nature is to get on with each other and live collectively. Class antagonisms are a perversion of human nature caused by manipulation of economics, which has resulted in the state, capitalism and other institutions which hold people in chains. This might be a more anarchistic, Bakunin-inspired interpretation of socialism than some would accept. However I would argue that the authoritarin, top-down socialist movements of the 19th and 20th Centuries are a responce to the highly regimented structure of industrial society. A regimented and disclipined socialist movement with more authoritarian tendencies was more suited to the structure of industrial capitalism at the time.


There is always some level of exploitation involved wherever labour is used by an employer to make a profit. No matter how involved the property-owner is on an organisational/managerial level, he is profiting off the labour of another. There is always a discrepency between what someone's labour is worth on the market, and what they get paid for it. In that context, relations are always one of master and slave. The same property owning classes own the means of distribution aswell, so independent merchants are never in a position to sell their products directly, and get full reward for the labour. If we could move toward a society that would allow this to take place more often then we'd be edging toward socialism, however the nature of capitalism and the efforts of the state to prevent this type of economic system prevent it. It is the state's job to protect the captains of industry and masters of the economy from those type of threat's. The tendency of capitalism has been to consistently prevent economic independence, instead promoting merger and monopoly, putting control of masses of wealth in the hands of an elite.

[sirhenry]

The carpenter is unable to distribute, deliver, package, market and sell the chairs on his own to the extent that Comfy Chair.inc is. Thats why they are able to make more profit off it. Thats why the carpenter doesn't sell it himself unsurprisingly. That's a complete misunderstanding of basic economics.

Everyone knows that craftsmen can't drive, lift, wrap, advertise or deal with money. Only management types have the genetic capabilities to run a business. What were you thinking Sov?

[George Oscar Bluth II]

The problem with Labour isn't ideology, there have always been right wing members of the party (Robert Kilroy-Silk was a Labour MP, was he not?) and as Sov says, it's never been a fully socialist party it's that they no longer even pretend to represent the people who they were formed to represent. The removal of the 10p tax band is a case in point, punishing the poor to make Middle England slightly more comfortable, outrageous. Their other ideas too, massive casinos in deprived areas as an aid for regeneration? WHAT? John Hutton's speech the other week, where he essentially shouted "greed is good" over and over again, Gordon Brown's annual craven performances in front of the CBI while Chancellor, the appointment of Digby FUCKING Jones to the government and so on.

Not so much the party that business can do business with, but the party that will happily put businesses cock in it's mouth, and swallow.

[Sovereign]

the appointment of Digby FUCKING Jones to the government and so on.

Thats unforgivable. Thats like Maggie Thatcher giving Arthur Scargill a job in the cabinet.

[George Oscar Bluth II]

And here's the thing my Dad was a member of the Labour party from the minute he was old enough until 1994 when they scrapped clause 4, he fumes about Iraq, supercasinos, PFIs and every other shitty thing they do, he hated Tony Blair from the moment he met him in the mid 80s, but he will never, ever, ever consider voting for anyone else.

And that's what the Labour party know, and that's what the Conservative party know. Some people are so stuck with their alliegences that they'll never change, which means you can be openly contemptous of your base and they'll still vote for you. Which is why you have a Tory party who sound more left wing than the Labour party, it's astonishing.

[Sovereign]

And here's the thing my Dad was a member of the Labour party from the minute he was old enough until 1994 when they scrapped clause 4, he fumes about Iraq, supercasinos, PFIs and every other shitty thing they do, he hated Tony Blair from the moment he met him in the mid 80s, but he will never, ever, ever consider voting for anyone else.

And that's what the Labour party know, and that's what the Conservative party know. Some people are so stuck with their alliegences that they'll never change, which means you can be openly contemptous of your base and they'll still vote for you. Which is why you have a Tory party who sound more left wing than the Labour party, it's astonishing.

Its the same for my dad, nearly word for word. To that generation i believe keeping the tories out is possibly more important than making sure labour stay in. Even the worst labour government, which surely this is, is better than the best tory one. So they'll always vote labour, as if bound by law to do so.

I cannot bring myself to vote for labour, and I've voted Green, Lib Dem and SWP in the past rather than labour. On principle I cant vote for a pro-imperialist party thats destroying civil liberties by the day. I'm lucky enough to live in a safe labour seat though, I imagine I'd think twice if the tories stood a realistic chance of getting in.

[rupert pupkin]

What, someone defending him? Congratulations on wasting my time and yours.

No, the dreary humourlessness I've come to expect from every Swappie I've ever met.

[rudi]

Boo-hoo you fuckin prick.

Really helpful there, Sov.

No it's because I think they are two sides of the same idiotic coin.

In which case I'm afraid you don't really know what you're talking about.

[biggytitbo]

And here's the thing my Dad was a member of the Labour party from the minute he was old enough until 1994 when they scrapped clause 4, he fumes about Iraq, supercasinos, PFIs and every other shitty thing they do, he hated Tony Blair from the moment he met him in the mid 80s, but he will never, ever, ever consider voting for anyone else.

And that's what the Labour party know, and that's what the Conservative party know. Some people are so stuck with their alliegences that they'll never change, which means you can be openly contemptous of your base and they'll still vote for you. Which is why you have a Tory party who sound more left wing than the Labour party, it's astonishing.

That's the left/right brainwashing. Generations have been tricked into this futile left right battle - they spend their political lives squabbling amongst themselves when in reality their interests are exactly the same. The gentleman's clubs that run the world don't have left/right, because they know how utterly irrelevant it is. Only the plebs, with their misguided sense of what's responsible for their problems thinks its the man on the other side of the street's faults or the people below them. There is no tory/labour, no left/right there's only us and them. The workers and the bankers. The poor and the rich. The savers and the speculators. That's the only battle there is and the sooner people stropped fighting each other and started looking upward at the true source of the problem the better.

[Pinball]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/fromtrotskytorespect/pip/8xxy5/

From Trotsky to Respect
Listen again to this programme
Wednesday 9 April 2008 20:45-21:00 (Radio 4 FM)

Geoffrey Wall looks at the history of the Socialist Workers Party.

He talks to members past and present and asks how well a party whose philosophy is rooted in Marxism is surviving in the 21st century.

[gloria]

There is no tory/labour, no left/right there's only us and them. The workers and the bankers. The poor and the rich. The savers and the speculators. That's the only battle there is and the sooner people stropped fighting each other and started looking upward at the true source of the problem the better.

Do you seriously believe that life is this dualistic?  That people are either simply "rich" or "poor"?  And by whose judgement, btw?  Depending on which determiner of wealth you use - guess what - different people will come out labelled as rich and poor.  Sure, someone starving in the gutter is poor compared to a CEO living in a penthouse - but what of the majority of people who exist in between?  Is it OK to 'fight' someone who earns £35K but not someone who earns, say, £23k?  A person living on minimum state benefits in Britain still has access to free healthcare,  education, social services...to say nothing of easy access to clean water.  Compared to the rest of the world, would you say that makes them rich or poor?

"Us and them"......gaaaah.  It's such a blinkered, closed-minded, chip-on-the-shoulder, willfully ignorant way of perceiving the world.  It's the language of pseudo-religious Marxist dickheads spoiling for a fight.

[biggytitbo]

Do you seriously believe that life is this dualistic?  That people are either simply "rich" or "poor"?  And by whose judgement, btw?  Depending on which determiner of wealth you use - guess what - different people will come out labelled as rich and poor.  Sure, someone starving in the gutter is poor compared to a CEO living in a penthouse - but what of the majority of people who exist in between?  Is it OK to 'fight' someone who earns £35K but not someone who earns, say, £23k?  A person living on minimum state benefits in Britain still has access to free healthcare,  education, social services...to say nothing of easy access to clean water.  Compared to the rest of the world, would you say that makes them rich or poor?

"Us and them"......gaaaah.  It's such a blinkered, closed-minded, chip-on-the-shoulder, willfully ignorant way of perceiving the world.  It's the language of pseudo-religious Marxist dickheads spoiling for a fight.

I'm talking about a tiny minority of multi generational oligarchs who own a disproportionate amount of the worlds wealth, and that's been the case for many hundreds if not thousands of years. The rest of us have to make do with the scraps that are left over. That's the only issue - them and us. Always has been and always will be. Sadly, the masses are perpetually divided over petty differences, left/right, socialism/captilism  or whatever the latest wheeze is that results in them squabbling amongst themselves or dumping on those below them rather than making the obvious realisation that they're in the same boat and they're interests are exactly the same. If only people could cast aside these superficial differences and take a look at the real cause of their problems - the rampant inequalities represented by such facts as less than 1% of the people owning 70% of the land or a banking system that transfers wealth from the poor to the rich. But they won't, they'll just keep squabbling amongst themselves and falling for the lie that there's any material difference between labour and tory.

[gloria]

a disproportionate amount of the worlds wealth

This is the key phrase in your entire post.  How are you to determine what is a correct amount of the world's wealth for someone to own - and how would you enforce that they own no more?

[Hank_Kingsley]

Huey Long had the right idea:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey_Long#Share_Our_Wealth

KINGFISH!

[its not cool to be weird]

Famous thanks, maybe I'll buy a copy. Sounds like you're quite involved with it.

No there wasn't - people gave their standard opinions on both sides and nobody changed their mind on anything or came out with any great revelations. Like most politics threads then. Don't be so fucking arrogant.

You should've provided a link here Marv, because you are of course correct. No one ever changes their mind. Sadly, as a socialist that's more your problem than mine.

I think socialism is inherently anti-state, and almost by definition the state cannot exist in a socialist society. At its very core, there is a belief in socialism that the state helps maintains an unequal social order, and needs to be abolished to achieve equality and an end to class antagonism. Marxism is 100% anti-state, although not all the interpretations of it have been.

Well you say this but then go on to outline two cases of socialists using the state to impose socialism. Wouldn't it be more accurate to simply say Stalinism was a different interpretation of socialism. I don't think that need necessarily weaken your position. Is it not in fact fair to say that Stalinism was a demonstration of how difficult it can be to impose socialism on an unwilling populace, and what it really illustrates is the necessity that socialism have an overwhelming popular base so that it can naturally come into being, rather than be imposed.

Life without leviathan would not be nasty brutal and short, because our nature is to get on with each other and live collectively. Class antagonisms are a perversion of human nature caused by manipulation of economics, which has resulted in the state, capitalism and other institutions which hold people in chains.

I don't understand what evidence you can have to base this on. Everything I see about people says they are quite capable of being both cooperative and selfish in equal measure, as well as the fact that some people are just bastards by nature. And in fact, nature is competative, why do you believe man should be any different? You must have some evidence, statement of belief isn't enough as this is the point over which I suspect most people who are skeptical of socialism are stuck.

Also, you say class antagonisms are unnatural, and imposed as a result of manipulation of the economy by the wealthy interested class in question, but this situation hasn't been imposed on us by some outside force, its just how humanity has evolved, how people tend to behave toward each other when money is involved. Isn't that evidence enough in itself of a natural propensity toward selfishness in people?

In fact, is it not really a psychological issue. To get the world they want socialists will have to change the way people think and behave, rather than an institutional one. I can't see how abolishing private property and the state would change the way people behave.

If we could move toward a society that would allow this to take place more often then we'd be edging toward socialism, however the nature of capitalism and the efforts of the state to prevent this type of economic system prevent it. It is the state's job to protect the captains of industry and masters of the economy from those type of threat's. The tendency of capitalism has been to consistently prevent economic independence, instead promoting merger and monopoly, putting control of masses of wealth in the hands of an elite.

Capitalism isn't a political theory or system or belief, it has no founding theorist, since the days of Marx it has changed beyond recognition. Aren't these problems both a result of man's natural selfishness (and saying that doesn't mean I think all people are always selfish, its just a bit of both) and better solved by institutional reform and a general rise in wealth and opportunity?

There, more rhetorical questions than Mein Kamph. It'd be nice to get a fairly detailed reply but if all I'm going to get is 'read Marx' that'll do.

[sirhenry]

Capitalism isn't a political theory or system or belief, it has no founding theorist, since the days of Marx it has changed beyond recognition. Aren't these problems both a result of man's natural selfishness (and saying that doesn't mean I think all people are always selfish, its just a bit of both) and better solved by institutional reform and a general rise in wealth and opportunity?

You really ought to get hold of The Power of Nightmares, a 3 part serial about (among other things) the simplification of politics and the promotion of selfishness to create more predictable behaviour. It was broadcast in 2004 on BBC2 and the first one is here
here, along with parts 2(The Phantom Victory) and particularly part3(The Trap) here.

[its not cool to be weird]

Cheers, I haven't watched all that yet, just the two intros. I'm not sure how they are all that relevant to my criticisms of socialism. What I assume you're doing is providing a critique of our politico-economic system as it currently exists, well I've plenty of criticisms of that. But it isn't 'capitalism', it is just more evidence of how shitty human beings can be.

With regard to the videos:

I, and BTB as well I believe, quite agree with the point made in the first video that politicians have no ideology beyond self-preservation in the style to which they have become accustomed, and that the scaremongering over terrorism is a part of their many attempts to justify their continued existance and wages to the public, along with the nanny state, much of which is enthusiastically swallowed by a naive and complaicent population.

Radical Islamists[...] were born out of the failure of the liberal dream to build a better world

Absolute bullshit! All the analysis of the ME situation was simplistic and told from an entirely Western perspective.

In the second video, the problem is that bureaucracy hasn't gone, it has simply been renamed. The new managerial class and the abstract targets are the new bureaucracy, every bit as damaging to society as the former. This also needs to go.

And the idea that people are naturally selfish is far older than the Cold War, going at least as far back as Hobbes. The idea that its some kind of creation of that era is bizarre. Likewise governments of all political stamps have been using fear to gain legitimacy and support for at least a century.

I'm surprised that's BBC, there seemed to be a strong line of left-wing conspiracy running underneath it all that I thought the corporation distanced itself from these days. Ill watch the rest tomorrow but I don't really see the point of it, maybe I'm missing it? And as I said I find several of its points peculiar and insular. I suspect its mainly a bit of Thatcher bashing with some Iraq war stuff thrown in to make it more relevant and get some support. The shadowy references to unnamed persons (cue dark pics of Bush, Blair and Thatch with moody music) 'promoting selfishness'... Does it continue to provide actual facts and evidence that mean anything?

[sirhenry]

I'm surprised that's BBC, there seemed to be a strong line of left-wing conspiracy running underneath it all that I thought the corporation distanced itself from these days. Ill watch the rest tomorrow but I don't really see the point of it, maybe I'm missing it? And as I said I find several of its points peculiar and insular. I suspect its mainly a bit of Thatcher bashing with some Iraq war stuff thrown in to make it more relevant and get some support. The shadowy references to unnamed persons (cue dark pics of Bush, Blair and Thatch with moody music) 'promoting selfishness'... Does it continue to provide actual facts and evidence that mean anything?

It's the final film (The Trap) that is relevant here. As the film goes on to explain, these theories have been used for social modelling since the late 50's, long before the current (or even previous) crop of politicians. And they were developed specifically to improve the workings of 'free-market' economies.
This was intended to shed some light on the question of theories of capitalism and the way that people's natural unselfishness and co-operation is actually undermining the theory. Of course it could all be blamed on the BBC's 'left-wing' bias, but that does sound like a self-limiting view.

[rudi]

I don't understand. Are you critiquing the videos before watching them...?

Apologies if I've misunderstood here.

[thugler]

Everyone knows that craftsmen can't drive, lift, wrap, advertise or deal with money. Only management types have the genetic capabilities to run a business. What were you thinking Sov?

Theres nothing to stop him/her doing just that, and competing with whoever he wishes to. Except obviously a big business can do it better than a single person could.

As for the other stuff I've written to Famous Mortimer opps, Thugler, I'll get round to that in proper detail later, but for now I'll just say that I think socialism is inherently anti-state, and almost by definition the state cannot exist in a socialist society. At its very core, there is a belief in socialism that the state helps maintains an unequal social order, and needs to be abolished to achieve equality and an end to class antagonism. Marxism is 100% anti-state, although not all the interpretations of it have been.

But that makes it all the more ridiculous. Not only do you expect people to give up any possibility of achieving and progressing and improving their own lives as well as the lives of those they care about, but also for this to happen with a state to govern society. It's pretty obvious that left to their own devices humanity always ends up with some form of hierarchy, getting rid of that is a dream so unlikely as to be ridiculous. And personally I want to live in a world where it matters where I can own stuff and improve my life. And isn't it true that the poor are generally better off in capitalist societies? . I'd rather be dirt poor in a society where the possibility of progress and reward for effort and hard work is there.

There are some really fundamental problems here which I've yet to see answered by any socialist. In a socialist society, what is the point in becoming, say, a doctor, rather than sitting on your arse? Does a doctor not deserve rewarding for this? Also, how do you expect technology and achievement to progress without competition?

There's a fundamental objection to the social contract within all socialist beliefs. Because socialists generally have an optimistic view on human nature, and place so much emphasis on brotherhood, equality and community,

If you think that humanity not caring about their worth in society  impacting on their lives is an optimistic view of society, rather than a dim view.

There is always some level of exploitation involved wherever labour is used by an employer to make a profit. No matter how involved the property-owner is on an organisational/managerial level, he is profiting off the labour of another. There is always a discrepency between what someone's labour is worth on the market, and what they get paid for it. In that context, relations are always one of master and slave. The same property owning classes own the means of distribution aswell, so independent merchants are never in a position to sell their products directly, and get full reward for the labour. If we could move toward a society that would allow this to take place more often then we'd be edging toward socialism, however the nature of capitalism and the efforts of the state to prevent this type of economic system prevent it. It is the state's job to protect the captains of industry and masters of the economy from those type of threat's. The tendency of capitalism has been to consistently prevent economic independence, instead promoting merger and monopoly, putting control of masses of wealth in the hands of an elite.

Once again, you are completely ignoring any effect the employer has on the value of the product, as well as what the employer is capable of doing with it their workers are not. It just happens that actually owning the factory where stuff is produced, being able to organise distribution, marketing etc. on a large scale is more valuable than packing boxes/crafting a chair. The difference between what the worker is paid for the product and the price of it on the market is the value of all the stuff that worker had no part in. You also have to remember that not all employers are fat cats sitting in the top floor of a huge tower covered in gold smoking cigars. Most of them are workers too. Just because they don't do the very bottom level jobs doesn't mean their work is not worth anything.

I imagine I'd think twice if the tories stood a realistic chance of getting in.

To be quite honest I see barely any different between labour and the tories. I don't get all this 'keeping the tories out is more important than anything'. I'd never vote for either, but I don't see how the distinction can be made so easily.

In which case I'm afraid you don't really know what you're talking about.

Well I'll elaborate a bit. I find them both unworkable, as well as being societies I would hate to live in. They have both resulted in similar autocratic and disastrous governments, which, supposedly diametrically opposed politically, have achieved their goals in similar ways.

The tendency of capitalism has been to consistently prevent economic independence, instead promoting merger and monopoly, putting control of masses of wealth in the hands of an elite.

Unlike socialism, in which there would be loads of competition..

Bollocks.

[its not cool to be weird]

It's the final film (The Trap) that is relevant here. As the film goes on to explain, these theories have been used for social modelling since the late 50's, long before the current (or even previous) crop of politicians. And they were developed specifically to improve the workings of 'free-market' economies.
This was intended to shed some light on the question of theories of capitalism and the way that people's natural unselfishness and co-operation is actually undermining the theory. Of course it could all be blamed on the BBC's 'left-wing' bias, but that does sound like a self-limiting view.

Ok, we'll see. I don't really believe in a 'theory of capitalism'. Capitalism of the 50s, 60s and 70s was quite different to that of the 80s til now. But yeah Ill check it out for sure.

I don't understand. Are you critiquing the videos before watching them...?

Apologies if I've misunderstood here.

I was commenting on what I'd seen so far, the intros, and trying to grasp more clearly why Sir Henry recommended the programme without actually watching it, since I had to go to bed.

So bite me.