Socialism and nationalization

[Robocommie]

I've seen a lot of debate and argumentation over whether state ownership of the economy, and full scale nationalization of all domestic industry as seen in the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China before Deng's reforms, Cuba and so forth can be a viable form of socialism. A lot of people call it state capitalism. I'm personally intrigued by the idea but don't wish to conjecture too much on it's viability.

I'm curious to see how many people feel one way or the other on this issue, and how many people see it as non-essential but viable. Can a centrally planned command economy, where the state is technically in control of all industries, be socialist?

[Nolan]

One could have a completely or nearly completely state owned economy that is not socialist in any way. Modern Belarus is one example, Iran could be another.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

Of course it can be Socialist. A centrally planned, state-ruled economy is the very basis of any Socialist society.

[Nolan]

Of course it can be Socialist. A centrally planned, state-ruled economy is the very basis of any Socialist society.

I wouldn't say it's the basis of anything. It's the only practical method of the working class administering socialism, yes, but the state isn't a theoretical necessity. I'm uneasy about complete command economies, and most things should be handled on a local/factory/cooperative level.

[Robocommie]

Of course it can be Socialist. A centrally planned, state-ruled economy is the very basis of any Socialist society.

What about syndicalism?

[Zanthorus]

Of course it can be Socialist. A centrally planned, state-ruled economy is the very basis of any Socialist society.

There are plenty of socialists that would disagree with this statement, Karl Marx for one.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

I only considere nationalized indutry to be socialism if their is some way of control over the production by the people "on the floor" so to speak and that the economy is planed to provide the people with their basic needs and besides that, whatever they want. To take the Soviet Union as an example, there was never any real control over the production by the workers themselves they just got orders according to the five year plans and had to follow it, whatever it said like if there was a shortadge of shuffles but the order was to use the steel to make moore nails, because the plan said so, that for me is staecapitalism. In this case I think we have moore the learn by the spanish revolution.

[Uppercut]

To take the Soviet Union as an example, there was never any real control over the production by the workers themselves they just got orders according to the five year plans and had to follow it, whatever it said

Actually, the the unions had a pretty big say in the workplace, as well as operating many public and cultural institutions for the workers.

"Trade unions play a most important role in both the social and economic scheme of the Soviet Union. Membership is entirely voluntary. Trade union officers are elected directly by the members and are directly responsible to them. There are twenty-three large central trade unions in the U.S.S.R. These are united in the Central Council of Trade Unions.
The trade unions, through their factory committees, have organized special production committees in State factories and enterprises. There are over 50,000 of these production committees. Collaborating with engineers and specialists in the industries, the committees have a splendid record of accomplishment in increasing the output of the individual worker, facilitating inventions and bringing about better organization of work and higher rationalization of industry.
The cultural-educational work of the trade unions has brought equally impressive results and has been a mighty factor in the work of stamping out illiteracy. This work is an organic part of every department of the labor organization. The educational program includes the formation of clubs, libraries, schools, discussion circles of all kinds, the production of newspapers and other literature. The trade unions now maintain about 4,000 clubs and nearly 10,000 libraries."


http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/1928/sufds/ch17.htm

The section on Trade Unions are down towards the bottom of the article, followed by a chart showing the growth of union membership.

[which doctor]

The important thing to know about the state is that it is not a thing-unto-itself regardless of who's in charge or what the economic conditions are, something that anarchists often forget. The state apparatus as we know it today is a unique product of industrial capitalism, and in this way it differs greatly from feudal 'states.' Anxiety over the Russian Revolution and the ensuing Stalinism has led to something called 'anti-state Marxism,' which would argue the proletariat does not achieve socialism by conquering state power, and that the state is inherently evil. However, more traditional Marxists would say that by the proletariat conquering state power and heralding a dictatorship of the proletariat, and nationalizing the means of production, then you have socialism.

So the question you ask really depends on what is meant by state, because you can have a bourgeois state or you can have a proletarian state, which is the dictatorship of the proletariat. Of course a bourgeois state that nationalizes the means of production is not socialist, because the state in this instance does not belong to the proletariat. But I think, if the proletariat captures state power and nationalizes the industry, that is socialism.

[Crusade]

Of course it can be Socialist. A centrally planned, state-ruled economy is the very basis of any Socialist society.

Where does democracy come in again?

[syndicat]

There can be no authentic socialism at all if the workers don't have the complete, direct power to manage the industries where they work. if there is a hierarchical state administration, that is a bureaucratic dominating class, and the working class will continue to be a subordinated, exploited class. this has been the situation in all the socalled "Communist" countries.

at the same time, the entire people must collectively "own" the means of production. but this "ownership" isn't as in capitalism, where it implies the right to appoint a managerial tyranny to rule over workers, modified by only whatever degree of collective resistance workers are able to mount against the bosses.

the word "socialism" is thus fatally ambiguous. it can refer to a proletarian ideology or to a bureaucratic class ideology.

[anticap]

As usual, I can't respond.

Advice for poll-creators: either keep the responses simple yes/no/maybe variety, or do your due diligence and try to imagine all the major reasons WHY someone might say yes or no.


Bad: "No, because <some reason you assume must be shared by anyone who answers No>"

Better: "No"

Good:
"No, because <one common reason>"
"No, because <another common reason>"
"No, because <some other potential reason>"
...


In other words, if your poll isn't granular enough that respondents will be comfortable with their response even though it may not fit them perfectly, then they'll either settle for a response that's way off but less way off than the others (in which case your results won't be worth much), or they'll simply abstain (in which case your results will be skewed toward those who more-or-less fit within the boundaries established by the wording of your poll.

Please don't think I mean to pick on you, Robocommie.

[FSL]

The options given aren't consistent. I went for the third since I blieve that a socialist economy can only be a centrally-planned one. But 2 can also be right. China's economy remains "centrally planned" or at leat it's the state that provides the guidelines. The state plays a huge role in Singapore's economy or it used to play a huge role in Japan's post WW2 economy. But these economies weren't socialist.

And people saying a centrally planned economy doesn't involve workers are just repeating the oh so common misconseptions. Every plan was discussed in soviets and ratified by them. What a socialist economy could never be is one where each workplace is run by the people working in that workplace. That creates conflicting interests. If you'd feel "opressed" in a centrally planned economy, you might as well drop the leftist facade and look for a chance to start your own company.

[ZeroNowhere]

Collaborating with engineers and specialists in the industries, the committees have a splendid record of accomplishment in increasing the output of the individual worker, facilitating inventions and bringing about better organization of work and higher rationalization of industry.That's pretty impressive; they're like Taylor, Stakhanovites and the AFL-CIO combined.

[Gravediggers]

Since when was the state considered to be a neutral institution? Socialism means a stateless society where the means of production and distribution are held in common under the democratic control of the whole community. There is no halfway house of state capitalism.

[robbo203]

Of course it can be Socialist. A centrally planned, state-ruled economy is the very basis of any Socialist society.

On the contrary, not only has it got nothing to do with socialism - since the very existence of the state implies the existence of a class system and hence a ruling class in whose interests this statist centrally planned economy would operate - I question to what extent it is even feasible.

To what extent, for example, was the state capitalist economy of the Soviet Union actually managed and directed by the plans handed down by GOSPLAN to state enterprises? In point of fact, far from directing the economy, the plans were constantly modified to fit in with the changing economic circumstances. Not a single plan was ever strictly speaking fulfilled. Often plans were not even made available until well into the planning period. A huge amount of decisionmaking had of sheer practical necessity to be decentralised The state capitalist economy of the Soviet Union was "centrally planned" really only in name. In reality like every other kind of capitalist economy, it was driven ultimately by the need to pursue profits and, though loss making state enterprises could be tolerated to a greater extent than in the West, even at this level , state enterprises will still required to make a profit. Without the extraction of surplus value, capital accumulation could not have proceeded and the whole bloated parasitic apparatus of the state administered and controlled by the nomenklatura capitalist class - the red bourgeoisie - could not have functioned.

[Rob Mackine]

It's impossible to say anything substantive about "socialism" until we know which of its many definitions we are referring to. In other words, if we are referring to Marx's use of the word socialism (as a synonym for communism), obviously not. If we are referring to Lenin's definition (the state of transition between capitalism and communism) then all socialist economies are centrally planned while not all centrally planned economies are socialist. If we're using a teabagger's definition of socialism than all socialist economies are centrally planned and vise versa.

I would personally define socialism as the absence of classes. Since power relationships and therefore classes are a pre-requisite for the state, by this definition the state and socialism are mutually exclusive and the answer is unequivocally no.

Again, it's useless to try to talk about things in any depth if the terms used are so incredibly ambiguous.

[CartCollector]

Socialism, in my opinion, means collective (social) ownership of the means of production, that is to say, production is coordinated by all who work. In my opinion, it has to subscribe to the participatory principle: people involved in a decision affect that decision only as much as that decision affects them. Neighborhoods make decisions that affect their neighborhood, cities make decisions that affect their city, countries make decisions that affect their country, and decisions that only affect one person are made by that person. So yes 'nationalization' is necessary to an extent- we wouldn't want decisions that affect the whole country to be made just by a few individual cities, the whole country must take part in the decision. But it is not necessary for everything.

[Endomorphian]

That's essentially the principle from which all humans not in power operate around. Problems arise when subjectivity is introduced into the equation.

[Rob Mackine]

Socialism, in my opinion, means collective (social) ownership of the means of production, that is to say, production is coordinated by all who work. In my opinion, it has to subscribe to the participatory principle: people involved in a decision affect that decision only as much as that decision affects them. Neighborhoods make decisions that affect their neighborhood, cities make decisions that affect their city, countries make decisions that affect their country, and decisions that only affect one person are made by that person. So yes 'nationalization' is necessary to an extent- we wouldn't want decisions that affect the whole country to be made just by a few individual cities, the whole country must take part in the decision. But it is not necessary for everything.What do you mean by nationalization? Democratic economic control does not necessarily require state control. By nationalization do you mean extending economic control to populations distant from the immediate physical implementation of decisions or the more common meaning of state ownership?