How Can Socialism Work?

[PoliticalNightmare]

Please don't take this thread the wrong way, I merely require clarification on certain points. Please correct me if I have made any incorrect assumptions in the following statements:

A socialist believes that means of poducts should be owned by the workers who produce that means of product rather than being privatised and owned by a capitalist individual who is likely to exploit his workers. There would be social democracy and the workers would be able to vote for their supervisers and national and international representives for the company.

I have no quarms with the workers having the choice over who is going to be their representatives; this policy can only work in their best interests. However surely by voting for their own superviser they are likely to choose someone who is perhaps too lenient? On a national or international basis, this type of social democracy could have a huge impact on global economy.

A socialist also believes in equal redistribution of wealth. A maximum wage would be introduced or lowered. The rich would be more heavily taxed and would benefit the poor by means of social security, council housing, benefits, free healthcare, more openly accessible education, etc., etc.

My only problem with this is the resistance that would be put up by capitalist individuals who effectively controls the media, big businesses, etc. They would keep finding loopholes in the law, for instance, non-domicile Britons do not have to pay tax. Their influence over the media also instils an irrational fear of socialism over the general public who do not have the education or other means of uncovering the myths presented by the media. Thank goodness the BBC news channel is nowhere near as biased as certain other news channels.

[Broletariat]

Please don't take this thread the wrong way, I merely require clarification on certain points. Please correct me if I have made any incorrect assumptions in the following statements:

A socialist believes that means of poducts should be owned by the workers who produce that means of product rather than being privatised and owned by a capitalist individual who is likely to exploit his workers. There would be social democracy and the workers would be able to vote for their supervisers and national and international representives for the company.

Depends on how we're defining "superviser", for the most part, workers won't even need "superviser'"


I have no quarms with the workers having the choice over who is going to be their representatives; this policy can only work in their best interests. However surely by voting for their own superviser they are likely to choose someone who is perhaps too lenient? On a national or international basis, this type of social democracy could have a huge impact on global economy. You're using words that are kind of confusing me when used in the same context. You're calling the people that the workers elect "supervisers" I take that to mean in some sort of work environment someone over sees production in some way. Then you call them "representatives" which I typically use to mean in a political sense where someone is ... well represented a group. What do you mean by "too lenient"?

Are you afraid that the workers won't work hard enough and not get enough production accomplished? This seems to be the "workers are lazy" argument in a different form.


A socialist also believes in equal redistribution of wealth. A maximum wage would be introduced or lowered. The rich would be more heavily taxed and would benefit the poor by means of social security, council housing, benefits, free healthcare, more openly accessible education, etc., etc.This sounds more like transitional politics than end-goal type of thing


My only problem with this is the resistance that would be put up by capitalist individuals who effectively controls the media, big businesses, etc. They would keep finding loopholes in the law, for instance, non-domicile Britons do not have to pay tax. Their influence over the media also instils an irrational fear of socialism over the general public who do not have the education or other means of uncovering the myths presented by the media. Thank goodness the BBC news channel is nowhere near as biased as certain other news channels.Yea, we're revolutionaries here, not reformists. We don't believe you can fix a broken system by using that same broken system... it's broken. You scrap the broken system for parts and build a new one.

[PoliticalNightmare]

Depends on how we're defining "superviser", for the most part, workers won't even need "superviser'"

You're using words that are kind of confusing me when used in the same context. You're calling the people that the workers elect "supervisers" I take that to mean in some sort of work environment someone over sees production in some way. Then you call them "representatives" which I typically use to mean in a political sense where someone is ... well represented a group.

No I mean two seperate things: the supervisers, i.e. the bosses, and the representatives, who represent the company on a national and innternational basis to the media.

What do you mean by "too lenient"?

Are you afraid that the workers won't work hard enough and not get enough production accomplished? This seems to be the "workers are lazy" argument in a different form.

...Well, yes. But that doesn't mean I think workers should have to be worked into the ground while their supervisers smoke a cigar. Somewhere in between would be good.

This sounds more like transitional politics than end-goal type of thing

Yea, we're revolutionaries here, not reformists. We don't believe you can fix a broken system by using that same broken system... it's broken. You scrap the broken system for parts and build a new one.

But what does a revolution imply? Completely overthrowing the current political system and starting a new one? Would violence/military force be required? If so, is a revolution really in the best interests of everyone? Would it not result in political turmoil and civil unrest in favour of starting a new 'socialist economy' that may or may not be fully implemented (for instance, when Lenin rose to power in Russia).

[Broletariat]

But what does a revolution imply? Completely overthrowing the current political system and starting a new one? Would violence/military force be required? If so, is a revolution really in the best interests of everyone? Would it not result in political turmoil and civil unrest in favour of starting a new 'socialist economy' that may or may not be fully implemented (for instance, when Lenin rose to power in Russia).
Revolution merely implied working outside of the given system. If you grow your own food you're working outside the given system of Capitalism.

Violence is to be avoided unless necessary, but will mostly not be needed because our power comes from our numbers and our social powers due to our relation to the means of production. Even if violence is used, it would be in the best interests of the working class, the working class gets drafted to fight wars for the bourgeoisie all the time, fighting for itself couldn't hurt the class any worse than Capitalism is.

Yea political turmoil would arise, but that's the point, scrap the system and use the parts to build a better one. you've got to have a plan ahead of time for how you're going to change things once the wheel of revolution starts spinning.

[NecroCommie]

October revolution, like all communist revolutions, was actually relatively bloodless. It was only after the white army mobilized later on that the killings started. Force is required exactly due to this reason. Capitalists will defend their very existence with violence, even if the communism comes out peacefully. Venezuela and the coup attempt is a living proof of this.

[ed miliband]

But what does a revolution imply? Completely overthrowing the current political system and starting a new one? Would violence/military force be required? If so, is a revolution really in the best interests of everyone? Would it not result in political turmoil and civil unrest in favour of starting a new 'socialist economy' that may or may not be fully implemented (for instance, when Lenin rose to power in Russia).


In the occurrence of revolution, one class would be very likely to use violence precisely because the revolution would not be in their interest.

[Joesky]

Thank goodness the BBC news channel is nowhere near as biased as certain other news channels.

The ideas of the ruling class are suppose to be seen as the norm; they are seen as universal ideologies, perceived to benefit everyone whilst only really benefiting the ruling class and the BBC continues to perpetuate ruling class ideology.
They are the
Bourgeois Broadcasting Corporation

[ed miliband]

The ideas of the ruling class are suppose to be seen as the norm; they are seen as universal ideologies, perceived to benefit everyone whilst only really benefiting the ruling class and the BBC continues to perpetuate ruling class ideology.
They are the
Bourgeois Broadcasting Corporation

You've got it twisted mate, stuff is only biased if Rupert Murdoch owns it.

[PoliticalNightmare]

The ideas of the ruling class are suppose to be seen as the norm; they are seen as universal ideologies, perceived to benefit everyone whilst only really benefiting the ruling class and the BBC continues to perpetuate ruling class ideology.
They are the
Bourgeois Broadcasting Corporation

Well, still at least it doesn't broadcast this kind of rubbish to an entire generation of youths;

(see Glenn Beck interviewing communist party leader on Fox News - youtube. Or just anything by Glenn Beck.)

[Broletariat]

Well, still at least it doesn't broadcast this kind of rubbish to an entire generation of youths;

(see Glenn Beck interviewing communist party leader on Fox News - youtube. Or just anything by Glenn Beck.)
Yea, but I'd still rather get my news from somewhere like www.wsws.org or www.alternet.org or www.counterpunch.org or revleft.

[AK]

A socialist believes that means of poducts should be owned by the workers who produce that means of product rather than being privatised and owned by a capitalist individual who is likely to exploit his workers. There would be social democracy and the workers would be able to vote for their supervisers and national and international representives for the company.
Companies and corporations are the physical and legal manifestations of private property. A company/corporation is an empire of private property which is owned by a capitalist (usually with many small shareholders who do not own a large enough part of the business to live off the dividends or to have a say in the actions of the business). No companies in a socialist/communist/anarchist society. And I'm sorry but I oppose the idea of an imposed bureaucratic structure managing the workers. Self-management for the working class. No managers, no supervisors.


I have no quarms with the workers having the choice over who is going to be their representatives; this policy can only work in their best interests. However surely by voting for their own superviser they are likely to choose someone who is perhaps too lenient? On a national or international basis, this type of social democracy could have a huge impact on global economy.
Again, self-management and self-governement. Autogestion and autonomy.


A socialist also believes in equal redistribution of wealth. A maximum wage would be introduced or lowered. The rich would be more heavily taxed and would benefit the poor by means of social security, council housing, benefits, free healthcare, more openly accessible education, etc., etc.
All Marxists and Anarchists are in favour of the abolition of the monetary system (as a monetary system is a feature that is strictly unique to a market economy; i.e., you put your products on the market and sell it at a price that will outweigh production costs (resources and labour) and still deliver a sizable profit). However, most Marxists and Anarchists differ from each other in that some favour a system of "labour credits" (in which you are given a sort of ration card/note that is equal to the amount of labour you put in. I, myself, consider it to be not that different from the monetary system at all - but others would disagree. Now is not the time to start a debate about it.) and others favour a system of open access goods and resources (a gift economy. The idea is seen as easily susceptible to corruption. I.e., some individuals may not work but still take items from a store). Each has it's benefits and drawbacks, but ultimately it's up to you to decide what you favour.

When it comes to "wealth", many socialists refer to wealth not as income or money, but rather private property (warehouses, factories, shops) and assets (houses, cars). When it comes to the redistribution of such, though, I doubt there would be many socialists that call for cars to be redistributed.

Either way, there can be no rich in a society that uses labour credits or operates in a gift economy. "Richness" (I find "wealth" to be a confusing term in the current context) is a measure - mostly - of income and money.


My only problem with this is the resistance that would be put up by capitalist individuals who effectively controls the media, big businesses, etc. They would keep finding loopholes in the law, for instance, non-domicile Britons do not have to pay tax. Their influence over the media also instils an irrational fear of socialism over the general public who do not have the education or other means of uncovering the myths presented by the media. Thank goodness the BBC news channel is nowhere near as biased as certain other news channels.
What the hell are the bourgeoisie doing in Britain post-revolution? They'd either be workers, or in exile overseas (busily plotting, I assume).

[AK]

You've got it twisted mate, stuff is only biased if Rupert Murdoch owns it.
Laughable. All bourgeois media is biased. Some media outlets' biased rubbish is just less noticeable and obvious than others'.

[ContrarianLemming]

I have no quarms with the workers having the choice over who is going to be their representatives; this policy can only work in their best interests. However surely by voting for their own superviser they are likely to choose someone who is perhaps too lenient? On a national or international basis, this type of social democracy could have a huge impact on global economy.

I doubt there would be supervisors, supervisors are part of the bureaucratic class. There would be delegates and workers, that's it :)


My only problem with this is the resistance that would be put up by capitalist individuals who effectively controls the media, big businesses, etc. They would keep finding loopholes in the law, for instance, non-domicile Britons do not have to pay tax. Their influence over the media also instils an irrational fear of socialism over the general public who do not have the education or other means of uncovering the myths presented by the media. Thank goodness the BBC news channel is nowhere near as biased as certain other news channels.

you forget that we are revolutionaries, you assume evolution here.


But what does a revolution imply? Completely overthrowing the current political system and starting a new one? Would violence/military force be required? If so, is a revolution really in the best interests of everyone? Would it not result in political turmoil and civil unrest in favour of starting a new 'socialist economy' that may or may not be fully implemented (for instance, when Lenin rose to power in Russia).

It could be bloodless or bloody, violence should be used in self defence only, or pre emptive defence. If theres a revolution, that it is almost certainly in the interests of the majority, otherwise there wouldn't be enough support for a revolution. If theres a revolution which is not in the interests of the majority we call it a "coup" :lol:

[PoliticalNightmare]

Companies and corporations are the physical and legal manifestations of private property. A company/corporation is an empire of private property which is owned by a capitalist (usually with many small shareholders who do not own a large enough part of the business to live off the dividends or to have a say in the actions of the business). No companies in a socialist/communist/anarchist society. And I'm sorry but I oppose the idea of an imposed bureaucratic structure managing the workers. Self-management for the working class. No managers, no supervisors.

I admit that the system isn't nice but if their were no bosses, etc., who would pay the workers? With no bosses to fire them, how would it be ensured that they productivity was maximised (i.e. they were working hard enough). Also management requires particular skills and whereas workers may be very highly skilled in a particular trade who is to say that they would have the skills between them to manage the business dealings, etc. of a company.

From wikipedia; 'In Argentina's recovered factories movement, workers took over control of the factories in which they had worked, commonly after bankruptcy, or after a factory occupation to circumvent a lockout.'

So I take it, that in this circumstance, the workers wanted it to work when they took control over the means of production. But will this always be the case with autogestion? I mean autogestion for all business will only be the result of pure, 100% socialism and if it wasn't the case in each situation that this was what the workers wanted, will it necessarily work?

I presume, then, that after a revolution, assuming that this will cause the collapse of big businesses, workers will retake over their factories. However, in regards to other issues, such as the environment, what is to say that nationalised trade would be greener than privatised trade?

Please do not mistake my ignorance for skepticism as at the moment I only know very little about socialism or political ideologies in general and have not yet read Marx or the like (since he deals with complex economic terminology, I feel I need to discover more first).

All Marxists and Anarchists are in favour of the abolition of the monetary system (as a monetary system is a feature that is strictly unique to a market economy; i.e., you put your products on the market and sell it at a price that will outweigh production costs (resources and labour) and still deliver a sizable profit). However, most Marxists and Anarchists differ from each other in that some favour a system of "labour credits" (in which you are given a sort of ration card/note that is equal to the amount of labour you put in. I, myself, consider it to be not that different from the monetary system at all - but others would disagree. Now is not the time to start a debate about it.) and others favour a system of open access goods and resources (a gift economy. The idea is seen as easily susceptible to corruption. I.e., some individuals may not work but still take items from a store). Each has it's benefits and drawbacks, but ultimately it's up to you to decide what you favour.
Again, I don't mean to be skeptical but to me both of those systems seem to be fairly similar to the current monetary system. In fact the latter gift economy was how the monetary system evolved because the a person would provide his labour for the trade of a few crops which could then be used for food, for instance. This system worked on a smaller basis but how can it work on a larger basis? Also it is still possible for a person accumulate 'wealth' in this respect, e.g. the man in the village with the most land, largest house or the most food for instance. Also, for a monetary system to be changed, the whole world would have to agree to it at the same time otherwise an individual countries' trade links would suffer.

If we were to abandon currency altogether, then how would society operate? By exchanging favours?

[PoliticalNightmare]

Also in regards to a revolution; it seems unlikely unless there is some major market collapse or the capitalists take things one step too far, resulting in a revolution. If you take western society, the living standards are not great for everyone but on the whole they are not really bad enough for people to want change. I am positive this would have to change for a revolution to take place. And who is to say it would be a socialist revolution? If you look at when Lenin held a revolution, he was able to use slogans, such as 'free bread and wine for the masses', etc. but the capitalists have long since adopted these strategies for mobilising the working class. Also Lenin did not fully implement socialism and what happened after him was Stalin's supposed 'communist' reign which was thoroughly brutal. Again mistake me if I have made any errors; this was the reason I decided to post in this particular forum.

Another thing, I was unsure about was the role of the state in people's lives. Does socialism really believe in 'big government', and if so, what would this imply? In the absence of government and laws, how would society operate? Thanks.

[PoliticalNightmare]

If theres a revolution, that it is almost certainly in the interests of the majority, otherwise there wouldn't be enough support for a revolution.

But are the end results of the revolution necessarily in the interests of the majority?

[Broletariat]

I admit that the system isn't nice but if their were no bosses, etc., who would pay the workers? With no bosses to fire them, how would it be ensured that they productivity was maximised (i.e. they were working hard enough). Also management requires particular skills and whereas workers may be very highly skilled in a particular trade who is to say that they would have the skills between them to manage the business dealings, etc. of a company.The worker's don't need to be paid, there's no currency. People take what they need and work as they can. You seem to be reiterating the "workers are lazy" argument in different shapes, maybe I should actually address it with a quote from Kropotkin on the matter


The objection is known. "If the existence of each is guaranteed, and if the necessity of earning wages does not compel men to work, nobody will work. Every man will lay the burden of his work on another if he is not forced to do it himself." Let us first remark the incredible levity with which this objection is raised, without taking into consideration that the question is in reality merely to know, on the one hand, whether you effectively obtain by wage-work the results you aim at; and, on the other hand, whether voluntary work is not already more productive to-day than work stimulated by wages....

What is most striking in this levity is that even in capitalist Political Economy you already find a few writers compelled by facts to doubt the axiom put forth by the founders of their science, that the threat of hunger is man's best stimulant for productive work. ....

They fear that without compulsion the masses will not work.

But during our own lifetime have we not heard the same fears expressed twice? By the anti-abolitionists in America before Negro emancipation, and by the Russian nobility before the liberation of the serfs? "Without the whip the Negro will not work," said the anti-abolitionist. "Free from their master's supervision the serfs will leave the fields uncultivated," said the Russian serf-owners. It was the refrain of the French noblemen in 1789, the refrain of the Middle Ages, a refrain as old as the world, and we shall hear it every time there is a question of sweeping away an injustice. And each time actual facts give it the lie. The liberated peasant of 1792 ploughed with a wild energy unknown to his ancestors, the emancipated Negro works more than his fathers, and the Russian peasant, after having honoured the honeymoon of his emancipation by celebrating Fridays as well as Sundays, has taken up work with as much eagerness as his liberation was the more complete. There, where the soil is his, he works desperately; that is the exact word for it. The anti-abolitionist refrain can be of value to slave-owners; as to the slaves themselves, they know what it is worth, as they know its motive.

Moreover, Who but economists taught us that if a wage-earner's work is but indifferent, an intense and productive work is only obtained from a man who sees his wealth increase in proportion to his efforts? All hymns sung in honour of private property can be reduced to this axiom.

For it is remarkable that when economists, wishing to celebrate the blessings of property, show us how an unproductive, marshy, or stony soil is clothed with rich harvests when cultivated by the peasant proprietor, they in nowise prove their thesis in favour of private property. By admitting: that the only guarantee not to be robbed of the fruits of your labour is to possess the instruments of labour--which is true--the economists only prove that man really produces most when he works in freedom, when he has a certain choice in his occupations, when he has no overseer to impede him, and lastly, when he sees his work bringing in a profit to him and to others who work like him, but bringing in nothing to idlers. This is all we can deduct from their argumentation, and we maintain the same ourselves.

I feel this quote accurately addresses your concern that with no fear of being fired (starvation) workers won't work hard enough.

What's there to manage? You need to make products, factory A makes piece 1, factory B makes piece 2 which requires piece 1, factory B tells factory A how many piece 1's it shall need to complete its social obligation. Doesn't seem all that complicated to me.


So I take it, that in this circumstance, the workers wanted it to work when they took control over the means of production. But will this always be the case with autogestion? I mean autogestion for all business will only be the result of pure, 100% socialism and if it wasn't the case in each situation that this was what the workers wanted, will it necessarily work?

It is always in the workers' material interests to take over the means of production, some of them do not realise this though, they lack class-consciousness which is what the goal of a socialist is, to raise class-consciousness (along with other things). But you are correct in assuming that without enough class-consciousness things like this can't work which is why we must raise class-consciousness.


I presume, then, that after a revolution, assuming that this will cause the collapse of big businesses, workers will retake over their factories. However, in regards to other issues, such as the environment, what is to say that nationalised trade would be greener than privatised trade?

Our method of trade and production would be much more green because we would be forced to take into consideration environmental impacts. Currently businesses literally write off environmental costs as external costs that they don't even need to look at. Considering our society will uphold the right to live in a relatively clean environment, it would be in our material interests to make things more "Green"


Please do not mistake my ignorance for skepticism as at the moment I only know very little about socialism or political ideologies in general and have not yet read Marx or the like (since he deals with complex economic terminology, I feel I need to discover more first).

S'all good mang, gotta start somewhere. I wouldn't recommend starting with Marx to be frank. Read some Kropotkin, specifically The Conquest of Bread follow that up with Marx's Wage Labour and Capital and you'll have yourself a pretty strong economic foundation. Also reading over the AFAQ will probably be very helpful http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html I forget if anyone posted it already.


Again, I don't mean to be skeptical but to me both of those systems seem to be fairly similar to the current monetary system. In fact the latter gift economy was how the monetary system evolved because the a person would provide his labour for the trade of a few crops which could then be used for food, for instance. This system worked on a smaller basis but how can it work on a larger basis? Also it is still possible for a person accumulate 'wealth' in this respect, e.g. the man in the village with the most land, largest house or the most food for instance. Also, for a monetary system to be changed, the whole world would have to agree to it at the same time otherwise an individual countries' trade links would suffer.

These systems are different from the current monetary system in that they do not allow you to accumulate wealth and thus create a material inequality.

The gift economy you refer to sounds like it's more based on private property, ours would not be.

Economies of scale would allow us to do this because as we make factories larger and more efficient more products would be freely available to be shipped wherever to demand was.

Again you seem to be assuming private property here, there will be no single villager who owns more land than anyone. They all work the land in common.

Yes, this is why Communism is a global system.


If we were to abandon currency altogether, then how would society operate? By exchanging favours?

Sort of? You'd have a "job" (work would be viewed very differently in a communist world) which you would work and then whenever you needed something you could get it from the pool of resources.


Also in regards to a revolution; it seems unlikely unless there is some major market collapse or the capitalists take things one step too far, resulting in a revolution. If you take western society, the living standards are not great for everyone but on the whole they are not really bad enough for people to want change. I am positive this would have to change for a revolution to take place. And who is to say it would be a socialist revolution? If you look at when Lenin held a revolution, he was able to use slogans, such as 'free bread and wine for the masses', etc. but the capitalists have long since adopted these strategies for mobilising the working class. Also Lenin did not fully implement socialism and what happened after him was Stalin's supposed 'communist' reign which was thoroughly brutal. Again mistake me if I have made any errors; this was the reason I decided to post in this particular forum.

Goddamn son you've got a lot of questions:lol:

That's not true at all actually, you're assuming Capital needs to be in crisis mode for revolution to happen, but that could go either way. Once when Capital was in a crisis Hitler rose to power. Revolution can happen at any time so long as class-consciousness runs high enough.

Yes, living standards are usually higher in Western countries. But workers are still only one layoff or missed paycheck away from bankruptcy and living on the streets typically. The point we have to make clear is that living standards will be even HIGHER post-revolution.

Yes, those damn cappies have stolen such populist type slogans, you have to look at what it is people are actually doing though, does what they say match up with their actions? Where do their material interests lie?

I don't feel like I can address your concerns about Lenin et. all being an Anarchist


Another thing, I was unsure about was the role of the state in people's lives. Does socialism really believe in 'big government', and if so, what would this imply? In the absence of government and laws, how would society operate? Thanks.

This sort of depends on what kind of Socialist you are, Marxist or Anarchist. We both have the same end-game of a classless society in mind, so in the end there is no government. Marxist theory says we should have a transitional stage of Socialism before Communism though where the worker's take over the State to aid in the dissolution of Capitalism and defend the workers' well-deserved gains from imperialism.

I assume in your query on the absence of laws you are concerned with crime. Keep in mind a Communist society will have eliminated the chief cause of crime, poverty. On top of that we'll also have a system of socialisation that emphasises Mutual Aid instead of greed, that could help with the elimination of crimes that depend on exploitation of another. All that said, there won't be an absence of laws, though there would probably only be one law "Do not infringe on another's liberty" Liberty here being defined as the ability to act as you please without harming anyone else.


But are the end results of the revolution necessarily in the interests of the majority?

If we're assuming this is a genuine Socialist revolution then yes.

[PoliticalNightmare]

Thank you, that answers a lot of my questions, and has actually reduced some of my skepticism.


I assume in your query on the absence of laws you are concerned with crime.

Yes it was.

Keep in mind a Communist society will have eliminated the chief cause of crime, poverty.

I agree with this. However, people still comit crimes such as rape, torture, murder, etc. on the mere basis that they are sickos and having nothing to do with poverty.

On top of that we'll also have a system of socialisation that emphasises Mutual Aid instead of greed, that could help with the elimination of crimes that depend on exploitation of another.

All that said, there won't be an absence of laws, though there would probably only be one law "Do not infringe on another's liberty" Liberty here being defined as the ability to act as you please without harming anyone else.

I see. In which case my only problem with that would be that 'infringing on another's liberty' is open to individual perspective. Also the punishment for such a crime would also be open to individual perspective (for instance, I personally don't agree with capital punishment, but in a society that has been divided into communities that decide on such laws, the laws may become either too extreme, or conversely too lenient). The re-introduction of tarring and feathering could be eminent. Unless perhaps there were a few basic laws made regarding specific crimes which had specific punishment and a fair lawcourt in regards to crime. And of course, without capitilism, there would be far fewer types of crime (e.g. fraud, etc.).

If we're assuming this is a genuine Socialist revolution then yes.

My point was while it could appear to be a genuine socialist revolution, it may not be. In which case it would not be in everyone's interest.

[Broletariat]

Thank you, that answers a lot of my questions, and has actually reduced some of my skepticism.
That's what we're here for :cool:


In which case my only problem with that would be that 'infringing on another's liberty' is open to individual perspective. Also the punishment for such a crime would also be open to individual perspective (for instance, I personally don't agree with capital punishment, but in a society that has been divided into communities that decide on such laws, the laws may become either too extreme, or conversely too lenient). The re-introduction of tarring and feathering could be eminent. Unless perhaps there were a few basic laws made regarding specific crimes which had specific punishment and a fair lawcourt in regards to crime. And of course, without capitilism, there would be far fewer types of crime (e.g. fraud, etc.).

I suppose if the concern for individual perspective is so great, we could institute specific laws, but most people have the common sense to know punching someone in the face is infringing on liberty. I also think it's worth noting how this socialist society came to be. It was created by workers' seeking to end exploitation, I highly doubt they're going to just let exploitation re-manifest itself so quickly.

Repercussions for committing crimes would focus on rehabilitation not punishment.


My point was while it could appear to be a genuine socialist revolution, it may not be. In which case it would not be in everyone's interest.

Yea, but we don't support anything other than a genuine socialist revolution so I'm not sure how this is relevant. Unless you're concerned with the populace being disillusioned in which case it is our job as socialists to help dispell those myths.

[AK]

My point was while it could appear to be a genuine socialist revolution, it may not be. In which case it would not be in everyone's interest.
The revolutions we see today must not look anything like the Russian Revolution and subsequent Civil War. You can't take over the means of production and create a network of workers' councils (as the manifestation of direct democracy and self-management) by shooting people. Today and tomorrow's revolutions must have self-management and self-government as their major goals. The revolutions we will see will incorporate massive general strikes and factory and workplace occupations (to take over the means of production). We must create an alternative resistance government (a decentralised, fully democratic one) to rival the authority of the bourgeoisie.

A revolution which actually incorporates creating a direct democratic system of government and taking over the means of production will not fall to a party dictatorship.

[mikelepore]

Capitalism gives various tasks to the person who is often called the supervisor or department manager.

Some of these responsibilities are useful. In many workplaces the supervisor attends to various details. When the new machine arrives, will the necessary utility hookups be ready? Is the day that one department expects to deliver a part or some information the same day that another other department expects to receive it? Is each work station covered after each person signs up for a vacation schedule?

Under capitalism the supervisor also has a role that is useless and harmful. The supervisor harasses workers to make them work faster, tries to make them feel guilty for being out sick, and counts how many times they take trips to the bathroom and yells at the for going too often.

A classless society will need to retain the useful activity of coordinating the details of production, while discarding the oppressive activities.