Why is better for the State to own the Means of production

[tradeunionsupporter]

Why is better for the State to own the Means of production rather than under Democratic Socialism were the Workers own the Means of production by voting for their supervisors company policy and industry representatives.

http://www.slp.org/what_is.htm

[Kwisatz Haderach]

All the problems of capitalism come from private property over the means of production - in other words, from the fact that some people own the means of production and others don't.

Therefore, if socialism is to solve the problems of capitalism, socialism must ensure that all people own an equal share in the means of production. We must not create another situation where some people own means of production and others don't. We must not create another situation where some people own more means of production than others.

So, how can we make it so that all people own an equal share in the means of production? We must take all the means of production, put them together under the control of a single institution, and give every person a vote in deciding who gets to run this institution and what policies they should have.

It is usually proposed that the state should be this single democratic institution that controls the means of production. And that's why most socialists support state ownership. But it is also possible to have a different, non-state institution control the means of production. It doesn't have to be the state - it just has to be a single institution, whose decisions are subject to a democratic vote.

This arrangement is compatible with a large degree of autonomy for the workers in each workplace (for example, they could vote for their own supervisors and organize their workplace any way they see fit - the only thing that the central institution will require from them is to produce a certain amount of stuff in a certain amount of time). But it is not compatible with absolute independence for each workplace, or with any kind of market economy. If the workers in each workplace (or each industry) could make decisions without taking into consideration the wishes of workers in other industries, then we would return to a situation where the means of production are controlled by a minority of people (for example, the steel industry would be controlled by steel workers alone, who are a minority of the population). This would create many of the same problems as capitalism.

[mikelepore]

I distinguish between the state and industrial management. When people decided to pass a law against murder, that's the state. When people decide to manufacture cars, that's industrial management. Notice the two separate domains.

The state and the management have to link together at the point where the socialist revolution uses the political process. This is so because the law that says the capitalists are the legal owners, and if the workers try to run the plants they would be trespassers, has to be repealed, and replaced with a new law that will say that the workers are the legal owners, and if the capitalists try to run the plants they would be trespassers.

In this way, the state has to authorize the socialist reconstruction. However, the state should not be permitted to become the new industrial management.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

In this way, the state has to authorize the socialist reconstruction. However, the state should not be permitted to become the new industrial management.
Why not?

And, on another note: As I explained in my post, I agree that it's not particularly important for the state to become the new industrial management. However, it is absolutely vital that the new industrial management must be a single, united organization that engages in economic planning - and not a collection of independent enterprises that trade with each other in a market. Do you agree with this?

[mikelepore]

Yes, I agree completely with that.

But I'm using such terms as "state" or "government" for that part of social administration that regulates human behavior, mainly enacting and enforcing laws. If the people elect certain representatives for their skill in handling murderers, and the people also elect certain representatives for their skill in handling the manufacture of goods, these cannot be the same representatives and still have them selected for their skills. The chance is negligible that the most capable available person in one area would be the most capable available person in another area.

The present political system mixes many functions in politicians. The governor of New York State is the boss of the state police, the prisons, the public schools, the department of motor vehicles, maintenance of bridges, the doctors and nurses who care for institutionalized mentally ill people, forestry and wildlife, and more departments. That's what I see the Soviet Union as, but taken further -- the politicians were also the bosses of the factories, mines and farms.

This mixture of responsibilities should be avoided. Rather, the transportation workers should elect the best available transportation experts to be the planners of transportation, etc. One area of specialization, one delegation.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Ok, in that case, we are in agreement. I also believe that we must separate the political authority from the economic planning board (or whatever it will be called).

There is, however, one detail on which I disagree with you:


the transportation workers should elect the best available transportation experts to be the planners of transportation, etc.
The working class as a whole should elect the best available transportation experts to be the planners of transportation. Not just one section of the working class. There is a very simple reason for this: the transportation workers don't have a material interest in providing the best transportation to everyone else. They have a material interest in getting better working conditions for themselves. Which is a perfectly fine goal, but that's the job of unions, not the job of economic planners.

The economic planners must represent the interests of the population as a whole. Sections of the working class may form unions to negotiate with the planners for more favourable plan targets and better working conditions, if they wish.

[Comrade Anarchist]

It isnt. The state is unnessescary and harmful to human growth. When it controls the means of production then it is no better than the capitalists. The means of production should be controlled by local voluntary councils of workers that make decisions about production. Any authority over person should be abolished in the revolution and if that state continues after the revolution then it will compromise the revolution and harm everyone under it just like it does now.

[mikelepore]

Kwisatz,
I see reasons for some parts of industrial management to be public representatives and other parts to respresent only the given sector of industry, depending on their exact responsibilities. To decide publicly meaningful issues, such as availability and schedules, we want someone responsible to the general public. For purely technical issues that mean something only to the workers in that field, say, procedures to balance the workload among the shifts, get replacement parts, improve computer features, or regulate the electrical power, the workers know who among themselves are the experts.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Comrades Mike and Kwisatz, why are you still insisting on the aristocratic and not democratic mechanism of elections?

[Die Rote Fahne]

State owning the means of production is bullshit. A small entity of officials cannot "represent" the workers. They can help fight for the workers, they can lead the workers, but they cannot, after a revolution, represent the workers. The workers are given that responsibility. They can do so through unionization.

[mikelepore]

Jacob, whats the matter with my idea of elected representatives?

[gorillafuck]

It isnt. The state is unnessescary and harmful to human growth.
Explain that....

[danyboy27]

Explain that....

beccause of the coercion and control it have over peoples.

We are not robots, every region is so differents, you cant just take a blueprint with a set of rules and restrictions for everyone, force everybody to respect them and then expect all that to work fine.

The state is probably one of the most incompatible thing with the left anyway.
Beccause the more you give the state power, the more the people rulling it want to control you, and this little game dosnt have a end.

in a leftist
perspective a state is totally inaceptable, even more precisely beccause we want services, social help and to get all that inside a state you need to give it tremendous amount of control.

a state cant be efficient from a leftist perspective, beccause you ask to a frail structure to manage so much all alone for so many people , its just bound to fail.

[ComradeMan]

Why is better for the State to own the Means of production rather than under Democratic Socialism were the Workers own the Means of production by voting for their supervisors company policy and industry representatives.

http://www.slp.org/what_is.htm

It isn't if you are an anarchist! :D

[Havet]

It isn't if you are an anarchist! :D

Seconded

[Green Dragon]

The working class as a whole should elect the best available transportation experts to be the planners of transportation. Not just one section of the working class. There is a very simple reason for this: the transportation workers don't have a material interest in providing the best transportation to everyone else. They have a material interest in getting better working conditions for themselves. Which is a perfectly fine goal, but that's the job of unions, not the job of economic planners.


This is a good explanation as to the folly of the WORKERS controlling the means of production. The workers, whether in transportation or anywhere, are first and foremost interested in THEIR conditions, not society at large. The economic planners are the folks who will have to be prepared to overrule the decisions on the local level, if neccessary (and it probably usually will be). Of course, the logical conclusions of such a stance does call into question the entire edifice of socialism (how can the workers be said to rule in any meaningful way if their decision can be overturned by some non-worker?). Yet denying the problem results in what was mentioned above.

The capitalists, and their defenders, understand that the CONSUMERS, not the producers (ie capitalists or the working class) control production. Its the only rational way to organise a society. These "economic planners" mentioned above have to organise production according to the best interests of the consumers, which as mentioned above, are not always the same as those of the workers (ie producers).

In other words, even as defined by the socialist, applying socialism does not solve the problem of production.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Why is better for the State to own the Means of production rather than under Democratic Socialism were the Workers own the Means of production by voting for their supervisors company policy and industry representatives.

http://www.slp.org/what_is.htm

I don't quite understand your conception of Democratic Socialism in the above quote. So workers own the means of production by voting for their supervisers... but the company is still run for profit in competition with other companies? Like market-socialism?

And for the first part - what state? A state created by workers for their own coordination and self-organization after a revolution? I would want there to be state-ownership in this scenario. A state of bureaucrats (elected or appointed) ruling on "behalf" of workers - no, this would not be good because there is no workers power. A capitalist state - no, obviously.

The idea that "the state" exists as some sort of golem of society and exists outside of classes and has its own "state" interests is the mirror image of the liberal conception of the modern (capitalist) state and an independent arbiter of fairness between groups in society.

States are tools of class rule and in class society, are "good" or "bad" depending on whose interests the state is set up in. Think of it as a gun: if you are in conflict and the person opposing you has the gun, it is bad and forces you to obey the person wielding the gun. If you have the gun, you can use it to protect yourself. Once the conflict is over, the gun is unnecessary and can be gotten rid of.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

This is a good explanation as to the folly of the WORKERS controlling the means of production. The workers, whether in transportation or anywhere, are first and foremost interested in THEIR conditions, not society at large.
Er, the members of any group of people - such as a group of consumers, for example - are first and foremost interested in their conditions, not society at large. There's nothing special about workers that makes them more interested in their own welfare. Consumers are also mainly interested in what they can personally consume - not what is available for society at large to consume.

And that is precisely why the economy must be planned by a group of people who represent society as a whole, and who must answer to society as a whole - not to some subset of society - for all their actions and decisions.


The economic planners are the folks who will have to be prepared to overrule the decisions on the local level, if neccessary (and it probably usually will be). Of course, the logical conclusions of such a stance does call into question the entire edifice of socialism (how can the workers be said to rule in any meaningful way if their decision can be overturned by some non-worker?).
Have you ever heard of the concept of federalism? It applies here. Some decisions will be taken by local workers' councils, and other decisions will be taken by central planners. But the central planners will be workers themselves, and they will be responsible to the working class just as much as the local councils are responsible to the working class. So I really don't see how any of this "calls into question the entire edifice of socialism."


These "economic planners" mentioned above have to organise production according to the best interests of the consumers, which as mentioned above, are not always the same as those of the workers (ie producers).
Actually, all workers are also consumers, and the vast majority of consumers are either current workers, or past workers or future workers. There is no contradiction between the interests of workers and the interests of consumers, because they are the same people.

[Skooma Addict]

Actually, all workers are also consumers, and the vast majority of consumers are either current workers, or past workers or future workers. There is no contradiction between the interests of workers and the interests of consumers, because they are the same people.

There is often times a conflict of interest between workers and consumers. For example, the adaptation of a new technology helps the consumers at the expense of the workers who now work to produce obsolete products. I assume nobody would be dumb enough to maintain that these workers should be allowed to stay in the same lines of production in a socialist society. So the planners would effectively side with the consumers even though the workers would have preferred to keep their old jobs.

[Drace]

For example, the adaptation of a new technology helps the consumers at the expense of the workers who now work to produce obsolete products. How does working to produce obsolete products hurts the workers? They do their job regardless.
It hurts rather the consumers because labor power is being used to produce obsolete products.

[Skooma Addict]

The workers will be producing obsolete products, so they will lose their jobs. The new technology will be produced to the benefit of the consumers.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

There is often times a conflict of interest between workers and consumers. For example, the adaptation of a new technology helps the consumers at the expense of the workers who now work to produce obsolete products. I assume nobody would be dumb enough to maintain that these workers should be allowed to stay in the same lines of production in a socialist society. So the planners would effectively side with the consumers even though the workers would have preferred to keep their old jobs.
Actually, it depends. The new technology will provide some utility to consumers, but that must be balanced against the disutility to workers of having to change jobs (there is no unemployment in socialism, so the workers would only have to change jobs, as opposed to "losing their jobs").

It is conceivable that some new technologies that would benefit consumers will nevertheless remain unused because they will hurt too many workers. This is as it should be. People do not live only to consume. Your work takes up 1/3 of your adult life.

[Robert]

The new technology will provide some utility to consumers, but that must be balanced against the disutility to workers of having to change jobs (there is no unemployment in socialism, so the workers would only have to change jobs, as opposed to "losing their jobs").

They would "have to change" in order to ... what? To eat? Escape societal censure?

Something about that "no unemployment" promise makes me shiver a little.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

They would "have to change" in order to ... what? To eat? Escape societal censure?
In order to receive an income, of course.


Something about that "no unemployment" promise makes me shiver a little.
Then I would guess that you've never been unemployed.

[Robert]

Then I would guess that you've never been unemployed.

KH, I refuse to believe that you cannot see a serious threat to liberty lurking in your "no unemployment" world view.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

KH, I refuse to believe that you cannot see a serious threat to liberty lurking in your "no unemployment" world view.
*sigh*

Look, under capitalism, a person without a job is entirely powerless, entirely at the mercy of others. There is no "threat to liberty" greater than that.

And, if I may generalize a bit, the best way to empower people and promote liberty is to give them a stake and a voice in a powerful entity - such as the state - not to leave them at the mercy of fate. Order is liberating; chaos and uncertainty is oppressive.

[Skooma Addict]

Actually, it depends. The new technology will provide some utility to consumers, but that must be balanced against the disutility to workers of having to change jobs (there is no unemployment in socialism, so the workers would only have to change jobs, as opposed to "losing their jobs").

It is conceivable that some new technologies that would benefit consumers will nevertheless remain unused because they will hurt too many workers. This is as it should be. People do not live only to consume. Your work takes up 1/3 of your adult life.Well I am not sure what standard you would use besides your own subjective judgment to weigh the utility of consumers against the disutility of the workers. Also, to the extent that you side with workers providing products which are clearly obsolete, you are lowing the general standard of living. There are cases such as the automobile where the best course of action is clearly to eliminate entire lines of work. But the point is that I gave an example of a conflict of interests between the workers and consumers which would exist under socialism.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Well I am not sure what standard you would use besides your own subjective judgment to weigh the utility of consumers against the disutility of the workers.
I would ask people to vote on whether they wish the new technology to be used. One person, one vote. Note that this would produce results on the side of the consumers in the vast majority of cases.

Note also that capitalism does not take into account the disutility of the workers at all.


Also, to the extent that you side with workers providing products which are clearly obsolete, you are lowing the general standard of living.
Not necessarily, because working conditions are also part of the standard of living. A new technology that provides better products at the expense of much worse working conditions may in fact be lowering the general standard of living.


But the point is that I gave an example of a conflict of interests between the workers and consumers which would exist under socialism.
Not really. You gave an example of a conflict of interests between two groups of people, A and B. For the sake of convenience we are labeling one group as "workers" and the other as "consumers", although in reality the people in both groups are working and consuming.

[mikelepore]

KH, I refuse to believe that you cannot see a serious threat to liberty lurking in your "no unemployment" world view.

I'm most familiar with socialist literature saying "there will be no involuntary unemployment." I think the adjective makes a difference.

[Skooma Addict]

I would ask people to vote on whether they wish the new technology to be used. One person, one vote. Note that this would produce results on the side of the consumers in the vast majority of cases.

Note also that capitalism does not take into account the disutility of the workers at all.

Your method seems very cumbersome. Under capitalism, employers need to take working conditions into account in order to bid for the best labor.


Not really. You gave an example of a conflict of interests between two groups of people, A and B. For the sake of convenience we are labeling one group as "workers" and the other as "consumers", although in reality the people in both groups are working and consuming.

Yes, A were the consumers, and B were the workers of a certain line of production. These two groups had interests which were in direct conflict with one another. I wasn't trying to compare all the workers with all the consumers.

[Drace]

The workers will be producing obsolete products, so they will lose their jobs. The new technology will be produced to the benefit of the consumers.

That's more of a problem between the workers and the capitalists. The consumers do not have a cause-and-effect relationship in this.
It is the capitalists who will have to buy the new technology to compete and in turn fire their workers.

But it is not the workers who go opposition to the consumers since the capitalists rule the production.

[Skooma Addict]

That's more of a problem between the workers and the capitalists. The consumers do not have a cause-and-effect relationship in this.
It is the capitalists who will have to buy the new technology to compete and in turn fire their workers.

But it is not the workers who go opposition to the consumers since the capitalists rule the production.

This would still be a problem under socialism. A new technology renders a line of production obsolete. These workers loved their jobs, yet they produce products which are clearly obsolete. The workers want to keep their jobs, and the consumers would like it if the workers moved to a different line of production.

[Drace]

This would still be a problem under socialism. A new technology renders a line of production obsolete. These workers loved their jobs, yet they produce products which are clearly obsolete. The workers want to keep their jobs, and the consumers would like it if the workers moved to a different line of production.Keep in mind, technology change to the extent that it will have to replace jobs does not happen often, so even if it is a problem, it is a minor one.

What worker loves a specific manufacturing job? What will be so traumatizing to a worker to work on the newly introduced technology instead?

[RGacky3]

This would still be a problem under socialism. A new technology renders a line of production obsolete. These workers loved their jobs, yet they produce products which are clearly obsolete. The workers want to keep their jobs, and the consumers would like it if the workers moved to a different line of production.

I don't see how that would be a problem, if the workers have to work less ... great ... Whats the problem, if technology allows them to work less, their lively hood is not challenged, because the production is still publicly held, when you take away the idea of wage labor and profits production becomes much more efficient, there IS no class conflict because there is no class.

[trivas7]

[...] But it is also possible to have a different, non-state institution control the means of production. It doesn't have to be the state - it just has to be a single institution, whose decisions are subject to a democratic vote.

Any institution that distributes the social product becomes de facto the state.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Any institution that distributes the social product becomes de facto the state.

So any organization that protects private property is statist?

Glad you agree with us, then.

[Dean]

Any institution that distributes the social product becomes de facto the state.

So you would admit that corporate entities operate no differently than states?

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=Kwisatz Haderach;1642130]I would ask people to vote on whether they wish the new technology to be used. One person, one vote. Note that this would produce results on the side of the consumers in the vast majority of cases.


Why? I can easily see scenarios where the typewriter workers, and their sympathisers, would vote against the introduction of computers...



Note also that capitalism does not take into account the disutility of the workers at all.


The purpose of a job is to provide a needed service. If that service is no longer needed, why would the socialist community continue to allocate labor to it?



Not necessarily, because working conditions are also part of the standard of living. A new technology that provides better products at the expense of much worse working conditions may in fact be lowering the general standard of living.


I suppose you would cite the spinning jenny vs the factory. Yet does anyone today deny such progress as needed and beneficial?

[Green Dragon]

I don't see how that would be a problem, if the workers have to work less ... great ... Whats the problem, if technology allows them to work less, their lively hood is not challenged, because the production is still publicly held, when you take away the idea of wage labor and profits production becomes much more efficient, there IS no class conflict because there is no class.

Its not a question of making LESS of an obsolete product, but rather the CESSATION of making obsolete products.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=Drace;1642507]Keep in mind, technology change to the extent that it will have to replace jobs does not happen often, so even if it is a problem, it is a minor one.


It happens ALL the time- daily in fact.



What worker loves a specific manufacturing job? What will be so traumatizing to a worker to work on the newly introduced technology instead?


maybe. maybe not. In any event, the problem exists.

[Green Dragon]

That's more of a problem between the workers and the capitalists. The consumers do not have a cause-and-effect relationship in this.
It is the capitalists who will have to buy the new technology to compete and in turn fire their workers.

But it is not the workers who go opposition to the consumers since the capitalists rule the production.

The new technology delivers the product to the consumer in a better, more efficient way. perhaps its an entire new product. The consmer ABSOLUTELY has a cause and effect in this. For what reason is anything, anywhere, anytime, being produced??

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Why? I can easily see scenarios where the typewriter workers, and their sympathisers, would vote against the introduction of computers...
Yes. IF the typewriter workers can persuade the majority of the workers that computers should not be produced, then computers should not be produced. I don't see any problem with this.


The purpose of a job is to provide a needed service. If that service is no longer needed, why would the socialist community continue to allocate labor to it?
You are changing the subject. We were not talking about unneeded jobs. We were talking about obsolete jobs - that is to say, jobs which do provide a useful and needed product, but whose product is not the best that we could be making. These jobs are not useless. They are merely less-than-optimal.

The socialist community may decide to continue allocating labour to less-than-optimal uses if it deems that the optimal use of labour is not worth the human cost. In other words, like I said before, good working conditions are just as important as good consumer products. People spend a third of their adult lives at work.


I suppose you would cite the spinning jenny vs the factory. Yet does anyone today deny such progress as needed and beneficial?
Was it ultimately beneficial? Yes. Was it the best that could be done for society at the time? No. Just because a certain course of action was good does not mean that we could not have adopted an even better course of action.

Such as, for example, designing less productive but more humane factories. Or adopting an entirely different production technology that was neither spinning jenny nor textile factory.

[Skooma Addict]

Yes. IF the typewriter workers can persuade the majority of the workers that computers should not be produced, then computers should not be produced. I don't see any problem with this

Wow that would suck. It also appears that there would be a lot of class conflict if this plan were adopted. Conflict between the consumers who want a better standard of living and the worker lobbyists who want to keep producing obsolete products.


You are changing the subject. We were not talking about unneeded jobs. We were talking about obsolete jobs - that is to say, jobs which do provide a useful and needed product, but whose product is not the best that we could be making. These jobs are not useless. They are merely less-than-optimal.

The socialist community may decide to continue allocating labour to less-than-optimal uses if it deems that the optimal use of labour is not worth the human cost. In other words, like I said before, good working conditions are just as important as good consumer products. People spend a third of their adult lives at work.

This would be a complete disaster. Does the entire community make these decisions, or is that up to the planners?



Was it ultimately beneficial? Yes. Was it the best that could be done for society at the time? No. Just because a certain course of action was good does not mean that we could not have adopted an even better course of action.

Such as, for example, designing less productive but more humane factories. Or adopting an entirely different production technology that was neither spinning jenny nor textile factory.


You can design less productive factories if you want. You will just lower the living standard of the general population in order to help the workers who are the best at lobbying (not the most productive workers). Not only will workers be producing products that nobody wants using production methods that are obsolete, but they also have no incentive whatsoever to work hard.

[danyboy27]

Yes. IF the typewriter workers can persuade the majority of the workers that computers should not be produced, then computers should not be produced. I don't see any problem with this.

IF computer are avaliable, easy to produce, then the typewritewr worker should receive a formation and use it. We are talking about a major technological achievement that would allow the factory to be more productive, something that would allow shorter working hour and better productivity.

Even in a stateless society, some sort of standardisation of equipement would be required.

If some typewritter whine about it, then an arrengement to accomodate them to the new technology should be done, but staying behind is definitively not an option.

[Green Dragon]

Yes. IF the typewriter workers can persuade the majority of the workers that computers should not be produced, then computers should not be produced. I don't see any problem with this.


One of the objections to the USSR by the OIers hereabouts has been the technological backwardness when compared to their capitalist enemies. The defenders hereabouts have tended to say either: The technological gap was not as bad as portrayed OR the gap was a result of embargoes, aggression ect. by the capitalists.

Yet here you are suggesting that an anti-technological, anti-progressive, bias is built into the socialist system. Perhaps following through on this "known" versus "unknown" bias more accounts to the technological backwardness of the socialist systems, and there is no reason to suppose things would be any differerent if applied in the manner of your choosing.



You are changing the subject. We were not talking about unneeded jobs. We were talking about obsolete jobs - that is to say, jobs which do provide a useful and needed product, but whose product is not the best that we could be making. These jobs are not useless. They are merely less-than-optimal.


An obsolete job ought shortly be an unneeded job.


The socialist community may decide to continue allocating labour to less-than-optimal uses if it deems that the optimal use of labour is not worth the human cost.

Well yes. So does the capitalist. However the capitalist has objective methods which helps him make that determination. Thus far, I have yet to see the socialist methods which helps the MAJORITY makes its decisions. to



Was it ultimately beneficial? Yes. Was it the best that could be done for society at the time? No. Just because a certain course of action was good does not mean that we could not have adopted an even better course of action.

Yes, but then we encounter the issue of "cost."



Such as, for example, designing less productive but more humane factories. Or adopting an entirely different production technology that was neither spinning jenny nor textile factory.


As above.

[Green Dragon]

If some typewritter whine about it, then an arrengement to accomodate them to the new technology should be done, but staying behind is definitively not an option.

if the typewritter workers were able to marshall their whining into a popular crusade, then staying behind is not only an an option, but an entirely legitimate one.