Socialism 101

[Victus Mortuum]

Socialism is fundamentally a mode of production based on democratic rather than despotic control of the productive processes.

Workers councils ("worker self-management", “participatory workplace democracy”, “soviets”) are the fundamental underpinning of socialism. The workers democratically control production locally and then more broadly through federations and such. Any leftist who hasn't bought into the right's rhetoric about capitalism being a mode of distribution (the "market") rather than a mode of production recognizes this.

Now, once this “federation of workers’ councils” (or “soviet union” or whatever you want to call it) has been formed, several questions arise:

A) What should the mechanism be that each workplace uses to determine how much to produce?
B) What should the mechanism be that society uses to determine how much of what workplaces to expand (“investment”)?
C) What should the mechanism be that each individual uses to determine how much and of what kind to work?
D) What should the mechanism be that each individual uses to determine how much to consume?

A) There are several proposed "modes of productive distribution" (i.e. ways to decide what each individual workplace should produce). There are three dominant mechanisms proposed to do this:

1) The Market – Each individual workplace should still work to maximize its ‘profits’ (or total income per worker given that the boss/capitalist has been transcended) as the means to plan.

2) Communal-Democracy – Community councils/bodies determine what industries they want to utilize and how much in order to maximize the benefits for the community as a whole and then proceed to coordinate their efforts with other communities.

3) Centralized-Democracy – State or central planning boards/mechanisms determine what industries need to be utilized and how much in order to maximize the benefits for society as a whole.

B) There are several proposed "growth/investment mechanisms" (i.e. ways to decide what industries will expand and how much). There are three dominant mechanisms proposed to do this:

1) Community/State Banks - Banks that are owned by either the community or the larger state hold all of the savings and latent currency of the society it stands over and, according to consultation with democratic (communal or state, respectively) bodies, determines where to invest the currency.

2) Communal-Democracy - Community councils/bodies determine what industries will have excess means of production (or new innovations in that industry) produced in order to grow and better that industry in the community (generally this would be the same community councils or bodies as above).

3) Centralized-Democracy - State/central planning boards/mechanisms determine what industries will have excess means of production (or new innovations in that industry) produced in order to grow and better that industry in the society (generally this would be the same boards or mechanisms as above).

C) There are several proposed "labor distribution mechanisms" (i.e. ways to decide what work each individual needs to do). There are three dominant mechanisms proposed to do this:

1) Voluntary or Market - You can choose to work as little or as much as you want, meaning that undesired unemployment would not be eliminated (which may or may not be a problem depending on the “mode of consumptive distribution”).

2) Communal-Democracy - The community council/body determine how many labor hours the community needs to have spent and divides it up among the individuals of the community who wish to be part of the community consumption framework and may or may not determine what type of labor each individual will do (generally this would be the same community councils or bodies as above).

3) Centralized-Democracy - The state or central planning body determines how many labor hours society needs to have spent and divides it up among the individuals of society who want to be part of the social consumption framework and may or may not determine what type of labor each individual will do (generally this would be the same boards or mechanisms as above).

D) There are several proposed "modes of consumptive distribution” (i.e. ways to decide what each individual gets to consume). There are four dominant mechanisms proposed to do this:

1) Money – A consumption system where workers are still paid in wages according to the basic dynamics of supply and demand and on the dynamics of market fluctuations and ‘profit’-needs (if not capitalist profit, individual workplace “profit”).

2) Labor Vouchers - A distribution system where wages would be transformed into labor vouchers representing the number of hours worked, regardless of the type of work. Goods and services would be priced in terms of the cumulative labor required to produce them.

3) Communal-Democracy - A distribution system where local community councils/bodies would determine the rules and basic regulations of how goods and services would be distributed to individuals (generally this would be the same community councils or bodies as above).

4) Central-Democracy - A distribution system where the state or a central board or system determines the rules and basic regulations of how goods and services would be distributed to individuals (generally this would be the same boards or mechanisms as above).

5) Gift Consumption - A distribution system where consumption is open and unregulated.

As you can tell from the above there are three main trends in socialist thought (examples are provided for any interested readers):
1) A“non-capitalist market” trend – Market Socialism and Mutualism
2) A decentralized coordination trend – Libertarian Communism and Participatory Economics
3) A centralized planning trend – Centralized Communism and State Socialism

Obviously, the decision of how exactly to organize production would be up to these federations of workers, these worker’s unions, these “soviet unions”. Perhaps it would be decided that different communities or different industries should be organized on different principles. Perhaps each system would have a community or workplace opt-in option. Perhaps not. What particular means of socialism will be realized will be decided on the day that capitalism is abolished by the workers themselves. This is why socialists usually talk of “leaving the details for the day after the revolution”.

---------------

There are different philosophical reasons that individuals may be drawn to and advocate socialism. The two most dominant strains of socialist philosophy are Marxism and Anarchism.
Marxism tends to be a scientific analysis of the material history of the world and argues that the most important conclusion to be drawn is the eventual abolition of all class relationships and the creation of a classless society.
Anarchism tends to be an ethical analysis of authority, hierarchy, exploitation, and oppression that argues that these things should be eliminated in all their forms – including but not limited to the economic forms.

The two philosophies/attitudes toward socialism are not necessarily incompatible. There is certainly great value in the history of thought in both of these ideological systems. From Proudhon to Kropotkin to Marx to Trotsky. Obviously everything these individuals said is not correct and is up for criticism. Neither should we be quick to ignore them simply because of their tendency compared to ours.

---------------

The fundamental question was, and remains to be, how the working class can bring about such a radically different mode of production and how can we accelerate that process and ensure most effectively that our class keeps its "eye on the prize" so to speak. Some people advocate merely entering into existing organizations and trying to persuade them to focus on the long term goal of a mass worker’s democracy (indeed this is what many of the early socialists like Marx and Bakunin did). Others advocate the creation of new or specific models of organization that will be the means to usher in the revolution (this is the strategy of those in the legacy of Kautsky and Lenin, for example – this would also include groups like the platformists).

There are three dominant organizations/organizational models that are followed by those urging particular structures:

1) Political Parties – Organizations that push for change through the state that should allow or should bring about or in some cases even should be the revolution via labor rights, social reforms, and sometimes revolutionary restructurings.

2) Syndicalist Unions – Organizations that push for particular desires of the workers in the short term, but that could be used to put in place democratic structures to realize their long-terms desires, and which could eventually establish worker’s councils.

3) Community Movements – Organizations that push for the reestablishment of the community relationships that have been ‘torn asunder’ by capitalism and seek to build community means of organizing change and eventually moving toward establishing a commune or a municipal federation of communes.

Perhaps the best approach is to accept that each of these has its place in the revolutionary struggle and that anything that raises the awareness of the workers (raising class consciousness) should be accepted and perhaps even supported. But perhaps not. This is here to inform you of what basics exist in the socialist field today, not which particular ideas are best.


Lastly, there is the issue of historical revolutions which have divided revolutionaries in the most angry of disputes. The details of any of these revolutions will not be delved into here (as the complexity of a single revolution would take a book to understand fully). Suffice to say that there were truly socialist trends at some point in most historical revolutions that claim to be socialist (regardless of where the ended up). There were real socialist trends in the Russian Revolution, the Spanish Revolution, and the Mexican Revolution, just to name a few. New revolutions are springing up around the world in Greece, Egypt, and elsewhere. Let us encourage the socialist elements in these revolutions and not forget that the time has come to prepare ourselves for revolutions of our own. Go, revolutionary socialist! Educate, Agitate, and Organize!

- Victus Mortuum

[ZeroNowhere]

Perhaps try: Socialism is fundamentally a mode of production based upon social despotism and the rejection of autonomous workplace democracy.

[Victus Mortuum]

That would be inaccurate, though. That may be the position of your tendency, but it excludes a large set of tendencies. Please try to avoid being divisive.

The target audience isn't revleft socialists anyway, it's workers and others who have been heavily subject to modern propaganda about 'socialism'.

I'm trying to pass this around to people in my area who are democrats and progressives to get them to start to thinking about being a little more radical.

[Zanthorus]

Please try to avoid being divisive.

Except it's hard to not be 'divisive' when you've put forward a definition of socialism which was rejected historically by many socialists as a cover for retaining capitalism under 'workers' control'. I apologise if you aren't a Communist, but many of us here are for the social appropriation of the productive process rather than retaining production on the basis of individual enterprise units. I don't see any point really in trying to not be 'divisive' about these issues, claiming that we shouldn't be 'divisive' about people we would consider to be disguised supporters of capitalism is hardly different from saying that we shouldn't be 'divisive' abour social-democrats, left-liberals etc. Further, these attempts to combine divergent tendencies under one banner usually end up promoting one group above another, as is evident from the fact that in this piece you're promoting the idea that socialism is about 'participatory workplace democracy' and ignoring socialists who would reject market mechanisms as being anything to do with 'socialism'.

[Victus Mortuum]

What the hell are you talking about? You clearly ignored what I said and just inserted your default response. If you took the time to read what I wrote, rather than just making false assumptions, you may actually find you agree with my document.

The document includes Market Socialism and Mutualism as within one of the three trends of practical socialist thought - which they are. That is indisputable and to argue that they don't exist as a type of socialism is to just be ignorant.

Yes, most of us find a society of autonomous workers councils as disagreeable (or in my case, just something that would immediately cause a coordinated federation of councils to exist if the former ever happened independently), but that doesn't mean that such a proposition isn't included within the broad category of socialism. Market socialism certainly isn't a type of communism, and I clarify and distinguish them in the document as well.

This document isn't intended as an organizational document (as would be clear to anyone who actually read it before they responded to it), but rather as an educational tool.

Please try to take the time to read a post before you respond. It would prevent you from posting ignorant things.

[Zanthorus]

What the hell are you talking about?

Er, exactly what I said in my last post? I reject your definition of 'socialism' as being about 'participatory workplace democracy' or 'workers' control', and despite attempting to not be 'divisive' you don't discuss the fact that alternative schools of socialism would reject the 'socialist' credentials of 'market socialists'. It just seems like a ridiculous attempt to pretend that all socialist trends agree with one another when we really, really don't.


which they are.

Not for those of us who accept Marx's critique of political economy.

[Victus Mortuum]

You don't get to re-define a word just because you don't agree with some people who fit within the most common and most historical definition of that word. You can advocate people not agree with that trend, but to try to, as a small subsection of that group of people, re-define the word in an even more narrow sense is just childish.

1) What Marx said was or wasn't the preferable or inevitable type of socialism has no bearing on how the word is defined (in fact he accepted a more broad definition of the word socialism than you do (albeit one that matched the use of the word in his time period).

2) Marx is not a divine authority on how words are defined today. To say such is to be ahistorical and it would be quite an odd thing to advocate.

[Savage]

You don't get to re-define a word just because you don't agree with some people who fit within the most common and most historical definition of that word. You can advocate people not agree with that trend, but to try to, as a small subsection of that group of people, re-define the word in an even more narrow sense is just childish.

Your opponents on this thread support the original definition of a word socialism, as a stage succeeding capitalism, therefore also succeeding workers control due to the absence of class. We're not re-defining the word, we advocate it in its original context, and in the most valid context.

[Victus Mortuum]

Your opponents on this thread support the original definition of a word socialism, as a stage succeeding capitalism, therefore also succeeding workers control due to the absence of class. We're not re-defining the word, we advocate it in its original context, and in the most valid context.

The word socialism indicates a MODE OF PRODUCTION (which in Marxism is that which follows the MODE OF PRODUCTION (literally a way of producing) that is capitalism - there are still workers, they just cease to be proletarians subjected to the bourgeoisie). The abolition of the proletarians as a subjected class doesn't mean the abolition of workers or abolishing their democratic control of production. Socialism is a mode of production where the producers control production instead of some other non-producing class.

[Savage]

The word socialism indicates a MODE OF PRODUCTION (which in Marxism is that which follows the MODE OF PRODUCTION (literally a way of producing) that is capitalism - there are still workers, they just cease to be proletarians subjected to the bourgeoisie). The abolition of the proletarians as a subjected class doesn't mean the abolition of workers or abolishing their democratic control of production. Socialism is a mode of production where the producers control production instead of some other non-producing class.
The division of labor is a capitalist phenomenon, it would not continue into socialism/communism. There would be no workers because everyone would be a worker, it would become a completely useless term. The DOTP is a stage preceding socialism, it exists as long as capitalism does, and at this time the term 'worker' is still valid.

[Victus Mortuum]

There would be no workers because everyone would be a worker

I'm gonna let you have the last word with that. I think that all that needs to be said has been said.

[Savage]

I'm gonna let you have the last word with that. I think that all that needs to be said has been said.
What I meant was that there would be no distinctive (working) part of society operating the means of production as it is common property. The term 'workers control' is only valid in the process of dismantling capitalism, of course democratic control over production would continue into socialism, but the terminology changes as the society changes.

[ZeroNowhere]

Your opponents on this thread support the original definition of a word socialism, as a stage succeeding capitalism, therefore also succeeding workers control due to the absence of class. We're not re-defining the word, we advocate it in its original context, and in the most valid context.
There would be no workers because everyone would be a workerIf Warren Buffet and such all worked along with owning stock, then there would be no 'workers'? There would not only be workers, but there would still be a working class due to production still taking capitalistic forms.

Class exists in the production process, and is in no sense independent of it. Certainly, it doesn't exist in consumption, or in ownership except inasmuch as it is relevant to relations of production. If everybody produces capitalistically (with co-operation in labour without directly social labour), then there is still a working class because there is still capitalism. Really, you're wrong not because you disagree with Victus, but because you agree with him that a society in which everybody is a worker is necessarily one without a working class. I'm not sure why he's cannibalizing his kind.

[Savage]

That second quote of mine is referring to socialism/communism, not to capitalism in which like you said, workers must exist. That quote was poor on my behalf, It didn't convey what I meant, I corrected myself in my next comment. My main point was always that workers don't exist in a classless society, I'm sorry if I implied otherwise.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I think the Marxists have a good argument that their theory is the most internally consistent and fully developed notion of socialism out there. But i don't know if Communist theorists ever had a monopoly on the term. For instance, in the manifesto, marx talks about bourgeoise, feudal, and idealistic socialism aside from communist socialism. Marx himself argued against notions of socialism which he thought of as less internally consistent. But he still referred to them as "socialism", just "bad" socialism. I don't remember him saying that they weren't socialist, just that they were imperfect formulations of socialism and therefore needed to be critiqued by communist socialists (in his mind, the fullest formed and most theoretically adept type).

Also, not to be nitpicky, but isn't socialism the state that precedes communism, and that communism is the state with no workers just the "new man"? This is why Lenin's "Socialist State" was happy to pursue NEP, or Deng Xaioping even more reactionary economic theories. It's still socialism, just bourgeoise and degenerate socialism (and it is the socialist element that constantly has western analysts angry with China's "slow rate of reform)"

[ZeroNowhere]

But i don't know if Communist theorists ever had a monopoly on the term. For instance, in the manifesto, marx talks about bourgeoise, feudal, and idealistic socialism aside from communist socialism. Marx himself argued against notions of socialism which he thought of as less internally consistent. But he still referred to them as "socialism", just "bad" socialism. I don't remember him saying that they weren't socialist, just that they were imperfect formulations of socialism and therefore needed to be critiqued by communist socialists (in his mind, the fullest formed and most theoretically adept type).In fact, Engels explicitly referred to them as "so-called 'socialists'," from Principles of Communism to his later days, where he comments, for example, that when "like Marx and myself, one has fought harder all one's life long against the alleged Socialists than against anyone else," one cannot grieve struggles within workers' movements.


Also, not to be nitpicky, but isn't socialism the state that precedes communism, and that communism is the state with no workers just the "new man"?No, not really. That seems to be a misinterpretation of Lenin's misinterpretation of Marx.


This is why Lenin's "Socialist State" was happy to pursue NEP, or Deng Xaioping even more reactionary economic theories.Lenin didn't think of the NEP as socialist, but rather state capitalist, and as such declared that the task was still to create socialism.

[Victus Mortuum]

I think the Marxists have a good argument that their theory is the most internally consistent and fully developed notion of socialism out there. But i don't know if Communist theorists ever had a monopoly on the term. For instance, in the manifesto, marx talks about bourgeoise, feudal, and idealistic socialism aside from communist socialism. Marx himself argued against notions of socialism which he thought of as less internally consistent. But he still referred to them as "socialism", just "bad" socialism. I don't remember him saying that they weren't socialist, just that they were imperfect formulations of socialism and therefore needed to be critiqued by communist socialists (in his mind, the fullest formed and most theoretically adept type).

In modern socialism, both Marxists and Anarchists have well developed and very consistent philosophical approaches to socialism. But yes, in the time of Marx and Proudhon there were a number of 'model-based' approaches to achieving socialism with no movement-based aspects to them.


Also, not to be nitpicky, but isn't socialism the state that precedes communism, and that communism is the state with no workers just the "new man"? This is why Lenin's "Socialist State" was happy to pursue NEP, or Deng Xaioping even more reactionary economic theories. It's still socialism, just bourgeoise and degenerate socialism (and it is the socialist element that constantly has western analysts angry with China's "slow rate of reform)"

Well, to Leninists this is a secondary definition of the word socialism (after the definition used above). The problem is that that use of the term only applies to them (it doesn't match the way non-Leninist Marxists or Anarchists use the term) so I figured I'd avoid that for the purposes of this piece. But yes, in a discussion between or with Leninists it would be important to be aware of their distinct use of the term.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

In fact, Engels explicitly referred to them as "so-called 'socialists'," from Principles of Communism to his later days, where he comments, for example, that when "like Marx and myself, one has fought harder all one's life long against the alleged Socialists than against anyone else," one cannot grieve struggles within workers' movements.


But is he just being rhetorical here, or making a philosophical point (ie that they represent the "most essential" socialism)? Nietzsche said "There was only one true Christian, and he died on the cross". Even if that is the case, he still referred to Christians as "Christian", at least colloquially.



No, not really. That seems to be a misinterpretation of Lenin's misinterpretation of Marx.


Explain. The civic system laid out in the Communist Manifesto clearly has elements which aren't yet "Communist" (ie, statized banks ... under "communism" money economy would be obsolete as there is no exchange economy, therefore banks become obsolete).



Lenin didn't think of the NEP as socialist, but rather state capitalist, and as such declared that the task was still to create socialism.

This makes sense. I should check marxist.org on leninist arguments over nep.


In modern socialism, both Marxists and Anarchists have well developed and very consistent philosophical approaches to socialism. But yes, in the time of Marx and Proudhon there were a number of 'model-based' approaches to achieving socialism with no movement-based aspects to them.


I think because I read the Kapital/Gundrisse, I can't take Proudhon seriously (plus, wasn't he a rabid racist and anti-semite?).

Anyway, you are correct that there were other theorists, including proudhon, but I dont know if any of them made an argument which was as fully fleshed out as the Communists.

[ZeroNowhere]

Explain. The civic system laid out in the Communist Manifesto clearly has elements which aren't yet "Communist" (ie, statized banks ... under "communism" money economy would be obsolete as there is no exchange economy, therefore banks become obsolete).That's not a system. In fact, Engels' view was that, as a system of capitalism, it was actually reactionary compared to free trade and such. Marx and Engels were not reformist system-builders, their primary concern was working class struggle. Under capitalism, because there is no working class after capitalism. Marx and Engels used 'socialism' interchangeably with 'communist society', generally (in fact, this was Marx's original usage even back in the 1844 manuscripts).

[Victus Mortuum]

I think because I read the Kapital/Gundrisse, I can't take Proudhon seriously (plus, wasn't he a rabid racist and anti-semite?).

Anyway, you are correct that there were other theorists, including proudhon, but I dont know if any of them made an argument which was as fully fleshed out as the Communists.

You should consider reading his What is Property?. It's a foundational piece of anarchist literature, which would be important for marxists to be aware of. And from what I can tell, those accusations seem to be slanders...

Proudhon had a pretty fleshed out proposal in General Idea of the Revolution if I'm not mistaken.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

That would be inaccurate, though. That may be the position of your tendency, but it excludes a large set of tendencies. Please try to avoid being divisive.

The target audience isn't revleft socialists anyway, it's workers and others who have been heavily subject to modern propaganda about 'socialism'.

I'm trying to pass this around to people in my area who are democrats and progressives to get them to start to thinking about being a little more radical.

Mabye you should look at what the daily life of a worker would be like under your socialism?

Is there anything fundamentally differnet that he would do? He'd still get up, go to work, be reliant on that work for his money, buy stuff with the money and so on. He'd get a share of the "profits" but I don't think anything fundamentally change about the process of life for the average working person. Sure conditions might improve, and he'd get some profit from his shares. But surely improved conditions and a more equal distribution of profit don't make capitalism in the 20th century any different from capitalism in the 19th?

[Victus Mortuum]

MY socialism?!?

Fuck, if you're gonna comment on this thread, then please actually read my post that this is about.

Jesus, you all jump on a bandwagon faster than a circus band.

[#FF0000]

Socialism's a broad term and I think OP is just trying to acknowledge that.

Socialism isn't always Marxist.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

MY socialism?!?

Fuck, if you're gonna comment on this thread, then please actually read my post that this is about.

Jesus, you all jump on a bandwagon faster than a circus band.

Sorry? I should of said "the "socialism" you are defending agaisnt zeronowhere and zanthorus."

I don't think anyone is jumping on a bandwagon, it is just the sort of "socialism as economic democracy" question comes up quite a bit, and a few people think it is important to oppose such a conception of socialism.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Socialism's a broad term and I think OP is just trying to acknowledge that.

Socialism isn't always Marxist.


Socialism can mean whatever you want it too mean.

But I think one should be clear that, even if they both use the same word to describe it, the society envisaged by some socialists in this thread is as fundamentally differnet to the "socialism as economic democracy" stuff as it is to capitalism. Note here that the OP did not give any voice to this idea, but simply talked about his conception of "socialism." I think this gives people who also call themselves socialists, but with an entirely different goal, the right to voice their objections, don't you?

[Kuppo Shakur]

Man it's like invasion of the left-coms in here.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Man it's like invasion of the left-coms in here.

Well, there posters manage to put forth some good arguments, without being susumed in the bullshit that is probably best displayed in the latest round of stalin vs trotsky threads. Giant teenage ego fest.

[MarxistMan]

The stage between the collapse of capitalism and the begining of anarchist-communism would be the dictatorship of the workers. So that would be the phase where the working-class rule the government and on the economic management ownership side, the working-class will be the owners of all corporations.

So socialism is workers-control and a workers-government. Of course the next more utopian stage, which would be a lot further into the future will be the communist-anarchist phase

A Marxist Professor from the website Allexperts.com told me that each political system lasts around 500 years, but maybe the socialist stage will be shorter, since it will be a temporary transition stage between capitalism and communist anarchism. So I suspect that anarchist communism might happen around the year 2200 or earlier than that

.

.

.



Your opponents on this thread support the original definition of a word socialism, as a stage succeeding capitalism, therefore also succeeding workers control due to the absence of class. We're not re-defining the word, we advocate it in its original context, and in the most valid context.

[ar734]

Mabye you should look at what the daily life of a worker would be like under your socialism?

Is there anything fundamentally differnet that he would do? He'd still get up, go to work, be reliant on that work for his money, buy stuff with the money and so on. He'd get a share of the "profits" but I don't think anything fundamentally change about the process of life for the average working person. Sure conditions might improve, and he'd get some profit from his shares. But surely improved conditions and a more equal distribution of profit don't make capitalism in the 20th century any different from capitalism in the 19th?

Well, there's no child labor, free public (quality) education for workers' children, no racist, sexist qualifications for work, free quality health care (not actually free, but paid for by workers for all) good pensions for old people, ample vacation, workplace safety, etc., etc. It obviously is not the communist ideal, but it is better than having your 8 yr. old daughter working in a coal mine, or selling your 8 yr old daughter into prostitution.

[MarxistMan]

You forgot nationalization of corporations that provide entertainment, sports and pleasures, like direct-tv, dish-network, GNCs, Golds Gyms. Damn in this system what poor young guy can even think about joining one of those very expensive weight training gyms for yuppies?

Oh, and by the way nationalization of vacation cruise ship corporations like Royal Caribbean, Carnival Cruises. And nationalization of Disney World for children. Damn man Disney World entrance fees are just too expensive, not to mention the food.

thanx

.



Well, there's no child labor, free public (quality) education for workers' children, no racist, sexist qualifications for work, free quality health care (not actually free, but paid for by workers for all) good pensions for old people, ample vacation, workplace safety, etc., etc. It obviously is not the communist ideal, but it is better than having your 8 yr. old daughter working in a coal mine, or selling your 8 yr old daughter into prostitution.

[Victus Mortuum]

Sorry? I should of said "the "socialism" you are defending agaisnt zeronowhere and zanthorus."

I don't think anyone is jumping on a bandwagon, it is just the sort of "socialism as economic democracy" question comes up quite a bit, and a few people think it is important to oppose such a conception of socialism.

Ugh. Quite honestly I find your semantic bullshit argument rather boring. It's a word that needs defined. No one has a 'claim' on the word - the word is defined by society, not by you. I offered what I consider to be the most accurate definition and following description of the denotation and connotation of the word.

How, may I ask, do you define socialism? What does it mean?

And secondly, what do you support as the objective here? If it's not within what I discussed in my original post, can you explain it?

[ar734]

You forgot nationalization of corporations that provide entertainment, sports and pleasures, like direct-tv, dish-network, GNCs, Golds Gyms. Damn in this system what poor young guy can even think about joining one of those very expensive weight training gyms for yuppies?

Oh, and by the way nationalization of vacation cruise ship corporations like Royal Caribbean, Carnival Cruises. And nationalization of Disney World for children. Damn man Disney World entrance fees are just too expensive, not to mention the food.

thanx

.

Obviously some workers and their kids enjoy going to Disney World. Not, of course us high-falutin intelleckuhls. Entrance fees are, economically speaking, the true costs of the commodity sold. In other words, labor costs + non-labor costs + profit = entrance fee. The profit is derived from the total social capital in a society (although individual profits come from Disney workers producing more value than they are paid for; but that's another story.)

In a truly socialist society, I think, this total social profit, or capital, would be
organized rationally. If workers wanted to take their kids to a fantasy land (and they do) the price of admission could be based on the income of the family, number of kids, how far they traveled, maybe health of the kid (ones with cancer, etc.) The price would not be appropriated by an individual or class of capitalists.

As far as the Gold's Gym and the yuppies, by the time the world socialist revolution comes about I doubt that yuppies would even exist as a sub-sub-bourgeois class. However, if people wanted to use part of their income for high-end gyms rather than plain vanilla places to work out, then its their money. However, they're not going to be paid for not working, like the yuppie scum do today.

From each according to his ability (I think this also means one is paid for the experience, skill, value of his work) and to each according to his need. First society takes care of the needs of children, poor people, sick, etc. Then, as wealth explodes, which it will under socialism (contrary to popular belief) there will be enough wealth for people to use their income for stainless steel health clubs, golf courses (environmentally friendly) and World Soccer Cups and the Super Bowl (teams owned by the community--like the Green Bay Packers and players represented by unions.)

[Zanthorus]

Man it's like invasion of the left-coms in here.

More like invasion of the Marx purists :D


the word is defined by society, not by you.

Most of society believes that 'socialism' means the nationalisation of a few more industries than at present, so why did you not use that one? It's clear that only a minority would define socialism as 'workers' self-management', and since you believe words are defined by the majority definition (Or at least, this is implied. Of course, you could claim that this is an unusual case since Gangsterio is only one poster on a message board, but since no less a figure than Karl Marx would also disagree with you and agree with us, I'd say we also have a fair bit of historical precedent on our side) to be consistent you must abandon the definition you are using at present.

In reality, it is not just a case of using words however we want as long as the majority agrees, since the varying definitions of socialism are not merely definitional games but usually involve more serious theoretical disagreements about the nature of capitalism and of socialism. In this case, you believe that capitalism is a system of personal domination, the domination of one group of people over another. Consistently with this, you believe socialism is the absence of managerial hierarchies within the workplace. I can't speak for either Gangsterio or ZeroNowhere (Although I'm fairly sure that ZeroNowhere is on the same wavelength as me here), but I understand capitalism as a system where humans are materially dominated by their own productive forces which appear as a power alien to them. Consistently with this, I claim that the abolition of capitalism does not involve the abolition of managerial structures, but of the market itself and the individual enterprise unit to be replaced with the social appropriation of the production process by the associated producers.

So I think here the basic thing you need to do to convince me/us is:

1) Show us why Marx's critique of political economy, his analysis of capitalist social relations and the production and reproduction of those relations is wrong and
2) Give us a cogent alternative explaining capitalist social relations and their production/reproduction on the basis of your implicitly stated understanding of capital as a management structure.

[Jose Gracchus]

Personally, I think this is academic. Empirical experience shows clearly that capital reasserts itself through the market even in cooperatives, and recreates enterprise hierarchy, labor markets, and all the trappings of market capitalism. In practice, capital would recreate all the ancillary hierarchical trappings of capitalist society and erode the limited gains of cooperativization. If you examine Schwiekart, Mondragon, and Titoism, it comes through clear as day. In the first example, its even imposed itself in ideology and theory.

In practice there is very little distinction. The associated producers are not really associated if they 'elect' managers to manage them in market capitalism.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

More like invasion of the Marx purists :D



Most of society believes that 'socialism' means the nationalisation of a few more industries than at present, so why did you not use that one? It's clear that only a minority would define socialism as 'workers' self-management', and since you believe words are defined by the majority definition (Or at least, this is implied. Of course, you could claim that this is an unusual case since Gangsterio is only one poster on a message board, but since no less a figure than Karl Marx would also disagree with you and agree with us, I'd say we also have a fair bit of historical precedent on our side) to be consistent you must abandon the definition you are using at present.

In reality, it is not just a case of using words however we want as long as the majority agrees, since the varying definitions of socialism are not merely definitional games but usually involve more serious theoretical disagreements about the nature of capitalism and of socialism. In this case, you believe that capitalism is a system of personal domination, the domination of one group of people over another. Consistently with this, you believe socialism is the absence of managerial hierarchies within the workplace. I can't speak for either Gangsterio or ZeroNowhere (Although I'm fairly sure that ZeroNowhere is on the same wavelength as me here), but I understand capitalism as a system where humans are materially dominated by their own productive forces which appear as a power alien to them. Consistently with this, I claim that the abolition of capitalism does not involve the abolition of managerial structures, but of the market itself and the individual enterprise unit to be replaced with the social appropriation of the production process by the associated producers.

So I think here the basic thing you need to do to convince me/us is:

1) Show us why Marx's critique of political economy, his analysis of capitalist social relations and the production and reproduction of those relations is wrong and
2) Give us a cogent alternative explaining capitalist social relations and their production/reproduction on the basis of your implicitly stated understanding of capital as a management structure.

And this obviously is not just "bullshit semantics." :)

[Rowan Duffy]

In practice, capital would recreate all the ancillary hierarchical trappings of capitalist society and erode the limited gains of cooperativization. If you examine Schwiekart, Mondragon, and Titoism, it comes through clear as day. In the first example, its even imposed itself in ideology and theory.

This is probably true if the movement stagnates and does not push beyond market socialism. If you're not going forward, you're going backward. However, it seems to me that a cooperative movement can serve as a base for pushing forward especially if it was politically interlinked as was the syndicalist movement. Attempting to make it a-political is likely going to be a disaster.

I also don't think it comes through "clear as day". Working in a cooperative with wage differentials of 3-5 is much different than working in a standard capitalist enterprise, even if 3-5 is far too much.

Instead we need a plan of pushing beyond simple cooperatives towards free associations of producers, of finding ways to distribute labour and product internally, towards seeing mergers - especially along the supply chain- as potentially beneficial. The movement would also require a ruthless approach towards accumulation of investment capital (which capitalists normal take as profit) rather than simply raising wages, in order to reinvest in the strategy, otherwise it's a non-runner and will be marginalised. In order to do that is going to take a fair bit of ideological and political education and direction.


In practice there is very little distinction. The associated producers are not really associated if they 'elect' managers to manage them in market capitalism.

We do not elect our managers, our managers are not accountable, and the profit margins with respect to wage ratios are not ours to control at all. It is in fact, totally different. It's not communism, but it's also not the same as selling wage labour to a capitalist. Saying it's all the same is like saying republicanism is just like monarchism.

The tendency to collapse everything through the unitary analysis of "not communist" doesn't leave much room for progress or process. Communalisation will not be a singularity, even if it takes place with rupture and punctuated events. Feudalism did not fall in an instant but was a painful labour, as by birth. There was the point when the head came out, but we would do well to remember that the head coming out was proceeded by the transition.

[Rodolfo]

Is there anything fundamentally differnet that he would do? He'd still get up, go to work, be reliant on that work for his money, buy stuff with the money and so on. He'd get a share of the "profits" but I don't think anything fundamentally change about the process of life for the average working person. Sure conditions might improve, and he'd get some profit from his shares. But surely improved conditions and a more equal distribution of profit don't make capitalism in the 20th century any different from capitalism in the 19th?

What exactly would you expect? For people to no longer work, no longer save, no longer purchase? The abolition of money? Worker-control of the means of production would change absolutely everything. A bourgeois state would become impossible. There would be no corporations that would buy political candidates. There would be no imperialist foreign policy. The workers' state would be susceptible to the demands of voters. We could have a single payer-health care system which would save innumerable lives, more spent on education, less on military and corporate giveaways. A democratic society is the end goal of socialism and it can only come about through the extension of democracy into the economic realm. What about the market? The market is simply a natural product of scarcity. You can't get rid of it until you've overcome scarcity. Until then you've have to have either a market or an inefficient system of central planning. I basically foresee - in the earliest stages of socialism - a mixed economy. Large and middle sized co-ops would compete in a market. Entitlements and programs that cannot be left to the market would be administered by the state. And small businesses would remain private (unless someone wants to drive the petit-bourgeois into the arms of fascism by forcibly taking over the ice cream shop across the street). If the workers' council is not the central organ of socialist organization then we're just exchanging one tyranny for another.