Socialism, the tiny little detail.

[gendoikari]

Okay guys it's time to start getting the tiny little details of what socialistic society is going to be like ironed out. Why? well capitalism is about to come crashing down, probably on it's own. I don't mean broad how the working class will take control. I mean the little itty bity details. How someone with an idea for a new device will get it manufactured, How everything will be logistically managed and so on and so forth.

you know how things work on an individual basis. We don't want to have the revolution and THEN start working all this crap out now do we? No we want it in place day 1.

[Caj]

We don't want to have the revolution and THEN start working all this crap out now do we?

Yes, we do. The workings of human societies are far too complicated to work out all the details beyond a broad, abstact outline. The only way we can figure out how to build future socialist societies in detail is through trial-and-error.

[gendoikari]

Yes, we do. The workings of human societies are far too complicated to work out all the details beyond a broad, abstact outline. The only way we can figure out how to build future socialist societies in detail is through trial-and-error.

yeah but.... we need to have something ready to try for that trial and error.

[deLarge]

M-L.

[gendoikari]

M-L.

I've seen this everywhere here just to make sure, that means Marxist-Leninist. as in we'd do things soviet style? (as in the soviet unions soviets, not the soviet union itself)

[Rooster]

M-L.

Such a profound framework for creating socialism!

Marx never mentioned how a socialist society would operate in any great detail because that's utopian talk of the highest order.

[gendoikari]

Such a profound framework for creating socialism!

Marx never mentioned how a socialist society would operate in any great detail because that's utopian talk of the highest order.
What we can't believe and hope for a better future?

[Luc]

What we can't believe and hope for a better future?

Yes we can hope and believe in a better future but, Utopian refers the the tendency of Utopians to plan and control in detail the formation and function of the new society.

The future Communist society will be determined as social, technological, geographical, etc. conditions change. Which is why we can't get into specifics because it varies; not only over land, but also time.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Agree with the above post.

Moreover, i'd add that it is not up to us currently educated lot to decide what society the people of tomorrow live in. That is dynasticism.

Socialist democracy dictates that, within a certain framework, mainly of collective, worker ownership of the means of production, democracy is hegemony.

A planned society is not a Socialistic democratic one.

[Kotze]

Charles Fourier was a utopian socialist. He made very detailled claims about several hundred human character types and all the types of jobs in his scheme and how many people you would need exactly for each task.

I'm sure what gendoikari meant by "tiny litte details" is something much more abstract than that (like procedural rules for a legislative body as opposed to predicting all the decisions that body comes up with), and yelling UTOPIANISM is a cop-out.

[Tim Cornelis]

How someone with an idea for a new device will get it manufactured

It depends on what kind of system. But basically he will go to the commune saying "yo, I be making cool machine yo".

Logistics will function the same as now, I suppose. Input-output. Material balance sheet.

[gendoikari]

Charles Fourier was a utopian socialist. He made very detailled claims about several hundred human character types and all the types of jobs in his scheme and how many people you would need exactly for each task.

I'm sure what gendoikari meant by "tiny litte details" is something much more abstract than that (like procedural rules for a legislative body as opposed to predicting all the decisions that body comes up with), and yelling UTOPIANISM is a cop-out.

Exactly what I meant.


It depends on what kind of system. But basically he will go to the commune saying "yo, I be making cool machine yo".

Logistics will function the same as now, I suppose. Input-output. Material balance sheet.

I actually imagine it a bit differently. Inventors/engineers working for communes that specialize in a specific type of technology, TV's, Cars, Airplanes, ect., ect. and them just creating all day long, and basically the upper management would work like the patent office, if something of good potential comes up, they send it on to a dedicated test type facility and if it shows value for replacing a current model that models factory would ramp up for replacement, and if it's new a new sub section of the commune would be formed to produce it. Best part about this is that after the take over of the corporations, a lot of these collective communes would already be in place. we'd just kick out the thieves (I can't in good conscience call them owners), and replace them. then when that's been done all over the nation we'd tear wall street down.

[deLarge]

Such a profound framework for creating socialism!

Marx never mentioned how a socialist society would operate in any great detail because that's utopian talk of the highest order.

I'll just go smash a couple shop windows until the state collapses and global capitalism is replaced by a functioning socialist system, without any prior planning. Which is not utopian in the slightest.

[Tim Finnegan]

I'll just go smash a couple shop windows until the state collapses and global capitalism is replaced by a functioning socialist system, without any prior planning. Which is not utopian in the slightest.
Well, no, it isn't. "Utopian" isn't just a fancy word for "stupid".

[Kronsteen]

We don't want to have the revolution and THEN start working all this crap out now do we?

Do you have faith in people? Do you believe that, given the chance, they have the intelligence and knowledge to solve their own problems, as and when they arise, reasonably well and without relying on people like us to tell them what to do?

If the answer's yes, you're probably a marxist.

If the answer's no, you're probably a leninist.

[Geiseric]

Let's go break stuff in that small store that's struggling against a monopoly buisness! It'll bring down capitalism! Is that even anarchism? it seems just testosterone packed vandalism... FFS go to wal mart for your preacious riot. And evacuate the shoppers while you're at it...

[Pretty Flaco]

A planned society is not a Socialistic democratic one.

Why could a planned economy not be democratic? I'm not speaking of specifically a soviet style planned economy, but any kind of economy which plans production, distribution, etc.

[$lim_$weezy]

It seems like a cop-out to say we can't know any way the society would function. What we should have are ways it could function that are feasible or make sense. Whether or not they will be adopted later we of course cannot know. But knowing ways things could work gives one a little more hope in the socialist project. If we can't articulate at least a possible theoretical explanation of post-revolutionary society, we will not be likely to convince many people...

[Rooster]

I think the idea of a planned economy is slightly more rigorous then it should be. I'm pretty sure the main idea is to produce for use-value instead of exchange-value. That is the main plan. The problems of distribution would eventually sort themselves out.


It seems like a cop-out to say we can't know any way the society would function. What we should have are ways it could function that are feasible or make sense. Whether or not they will be adopted later we of course cannot know. But knowing ways things could work gives one a little more hope in the socialist project. If we can't articulate at least a possible theoretical explanation of post-revolutionary society, we will not be likely to convince many people...

Why? When it comes to this sort of thing it has always been a failure; "let's take this program to the factories!". The myth that you can plan anything like this in great detail is a disarming one. I'm sure it's against the spirit of Marx. If he thought it was important or necessary then I'm sure there would be more writing on the subject. We all know pretty much what capitalism is so we know what we don't want.


Let us finally imagine, for a change, an association of free men, working with the means of production held in common, and expending their many different forms of labour-power in full self-awareness as one single labour force.

[gendoikari]

Do you have faith in people? Do you believe that, given the chance, they have the intelligence and knowledge to solve their own problems, as and when they arise, reasonably well and without relying on people like us to tell them what to do?

If the answer's yes, you're probably a marxist.

If the answer's no, you're probably a leninist.

What if the answer is more complicated than a simple yes or no.

[$lim_$weezy]

Rooster: I think it is utopian to simply expect everything to work itself out, rather than attempting to rationalize a possible solution. The slogan about use-value is a nice idea, and a good principle, but what could it translate to in reality? That is what I think we should attempt to discover. Without a viable socio-economic framework, attempts to bring about socialism would likely cause frustration and even, in the event of abject failure, counterrevolution and the reinstatement of capitalism or some other terrible system.
Like I said, we obviously can't know what will end up happening, but we can at least attempt to come up with a feasible explanation. Past failures should drive us to fix the inconsistencies in our thinking and try again.

I'm not sure what to say about my alleged disagreement with Marx. So be it, I guess.

[Rafiq]

Our goal isn't so much about achieving socialism, it's more about abolishing capitalism and allowing the workers to achieve class dictatorship (Anarchists believe the same whether they like it or not)

[$lim_$weezy]

Regardless, if they were without a viable economic framework, production levels could plummet and the standard of living would drop for most people. Trial-and-error would probably be necessary, but I think we can all agree that the less error, the better. I don't see how theorizing a way to "make socialism work", as it were, is undesirable.

[gendoikari]

I'm not sure what to say about my alleged disagreement with Marx. So be it, I guess.

Karl marx said to not even try to envision what a future socialist society was to look like. Mostly because of the "utopian" socialists whom had embarrassed the movement. But reguardless marx himself was not infallable, nor is any man for that matter.

[Kronsteen]

Do you have faith in people? Do you believe that, given the chance, they have the intelligence and knowledge to solve their own problems, as and when they arise, reasonably well and without relying on people like us to tell them what to do?
What if the answer is more complicated than a simple yes or no.

Then you're intoducing needless complexity. Do you think that most people, given the removal of the state and the old economic order, are capable of solving the problems involved in surviving and building a new system - one that's fair and rational - without letting petty jealousies, greed, prejudice, arrogance or gang loyalty get in the way?

Do they have the native wit? Can they be grown-up enough? Can people stop being jerks and assholes? Can the mass of humanity be noble?

[Luc]

Regardless, if they were without a viable economic framework, production levels could plummet and the standard of living would drop for most people. Trial-and-error would probably be necessary, but I think we can all agree that the less error, the better. I don't see how theorizing a way to "make socialism work", as it were, is undesirable.

That's correct, literally. We can only build a framework and nothing more. Who Marx called Utopian tried to add the furniture, insulation, pipping, etc. and plan the new society down to the last detail.

One of the problems is that it ends up being an elite planning this rather than the community; the actual workers themselves. Not to mention they try and create little utopias, Islands of Socialism in a sea of Capitalism as I think somone put it but I don't know (Lenin maybe?).

Another problem and the biggest one is that by the time they may be able to implement it, "the times have changed" as they say, new technology, and other conditions that may render the plan obsolete therefore, there is no use formulating a detailed plan in 2011 for a society in 2030 (in example).

Of course there is nothing wrong (or "undespirable" as you put it) with thinking about our future so when people ask "what should we do?" we will have suggestions but there are no all-encompasing plans/theories etc.

I should probably add that "Utopian" is by no means a term to discredit and disregard something, it is simply a tradition/tendency pioneered by Robert Owen and (I think) Saint-Simon among others.:)

[Delenda Carthago]

Okay guys it's time to start getting the tiny little details of what socialistic society is going to be like ironed out. Why? well capitalism is about to come crashing down, probably on it's own. I don't mean broad how the working class will take control. I mean the little itty bity details. How someone with an idea for a new device will get it manufactured, How everything will be logistically managed and so on and so forth.


Capitalism dont crush. Capitalism is been overcomed. Other than that, the details can never be predicted, or its not communism, its dictatorship. the details are a matter of society itself. We can only fight for what WE believe in.

[CAleftist]

Easy now, the war ain't over yet. Capitalism may be injured, it may be dying, but it is going to take us with it unless we come up with a clear, objective way of going forward from here. We can't plan every detail, because we're at Point A and we can't even see Point Z from here.

We'll get there when we get there. In the meantime, we oughta get back to work on what is currently happening.

[Rooster]

Rooster: I think it is utopian to simply expect everything to work itself out, rather than attempting to rationalize a possible solution. The slogan about use-value is a nice idea, and a good principle, but what could it translate to in reality? That is what I think we should attempt to discover. Without a viable socio-economic framework, attempts to bring about socialism would likely cause frustration and even, in the event of abject failure, counterrevolution and the reinstatement of capitalism or some other terrible system.
Like I said, we obviously can't know what will end up happening, but we can at least attempt to come up with a feasible explanation. Past failures should drive us to fix the inconsistencies in our thinking and try again.

I'm not sure what to say about my alleged disagreement with Marx. So be it, I guess.

We have a viable socio-economic framework. It's called holding the means of production in common.

The main issue I have with planning is: what happens when someone disagrees with that plan? What happens with something unexpected happens like a change in production, in fashion, in culture, in tastes, in science? Having a detailed plan is pointless. We know what we have to do to change capitalism to socialism.

[$lim_$weezy]

I guess the problem is deciding the degree to which we should "think about our future". I think that deciding how many tables should be put in each house is kind of crazy. However, more general planning, especially in how the economy would work, would be nice. Can we not even agree on that?

Obviously, we all support democracy (at least I'd like to think so). If people don't want to follow a certain plan then so be it. But at least give them the option! If no one can come up with anything, how can there be anything to try?