Capitalism vs. "crony capitalism" or "corporatism"

[Veovis]

I've noticed that a lot of people involved in the occupy movement (mostly right-wing libertarians and Paul-bots) like to present a sort of dichotomy between "pure, free market capitalism" and what exists in the United States today, i.e. "crony capitalism" or "corporatism" in which state interference somehow turns the system into something that's not truly capitalist.

Now, I don't really understand this so-called deviation from real capitalism and how it's anything different from the normal free-market variety extrapolated out to its logical conclusion. You'd think that since the employer class is in control of the state, they'd naturally direct it to look out for their own interests, but so many people don't realize this and think that somehow we can give state power to the people and keep capitalism without a new political elite rising up and starting the cycle all over again.

So what do you say to these people when they crop up?

[Garret]

The accumulation of wealth and power into the hand of a minority is the logical outcome of Capitalism. It hasn't been messed around with all that much, the tenants are still the same: Profits, Markets, Private Ownership. In fact, I've yet to see a detailed critique of these 'Corporatism' or 'Crony Capitalism' cop-outs. They're just buzzwords propertarians use for their purist ideal-Capitalism tainted by evil socialist government (Assuming government and Capitalists have conflicting interests - you gotta be pretty ignorant of History to believe that)

[Lynx]

They are code words for corruption, and are used by those who are intent on reforming the status quo.

[Tim Cornelis]

Not really an answer to your question, but they think corporatism means rule by corporations or something. But the US has the opposite of corporatism.

Corporatism = businesses are subordinate to the state.
US = state is subordinate to business.

But that's irrelevant.

[Judicator]

I've noticed that a lot of people involved in revleft (mostly left-wing libertarians and Marx-bots) like to present a sort of dichotomy between "pure socialism" and what existed in the USSR, i.e. "state socialism" or "statism" in which state interference somehow turns the system into something that's not truly socialist.

Now, I don't really understand this so-called deviation from real socialism and how it's anything different from the normal variety extrapolated out to its logical conclusion. You'd think that since the dictatorship of the proletariat is in control of the state, they'd naturally direct it to look out for their own interests, but so many people don't realize this and think that somehow we can give state power to the people and keep socialism without a new political elite rising up and starting the cycle all over again.

[Ocean Seal]

There's no difference. The capitalism that they claim to defend never existed. That's about it. Capitalism naturally devolves because the accumulation of capital allows you to influence government and as a class thus the capitalist class has a far greater ability to preside over the bourgeois democratic institutions and rule. More money = more influence = more media control = cultural hedgemony = control over the police (not by individuals but by the ruling class as a whole) = power to manipulate the state to your interests, and so on. Capitalism is intertwined with the state. The state is an organ or ruling class power.

[Veovis]

I've noticed that a lot of people involved in revleft (mostly left-wing libertarians and Marx-bots) like to present a sort of dichotomy between "pure socialism" and what existed in the USSR, i.e. "state socialism" or "statism" in which state interference somehow turns the system into something that's not truly socialist.

Now, I don't really understand this so-called deviation from real socialism and how it's anything different from the normal variety extrapolated out to its logical conclusion. You'd think that since the dictatorship of the proletariat is in control of the state, they'd naturally direct it to look out for their own interests, but so many people don't realize this and think that somehow we can give state power to the people and keep socialism without a new political elite rising up and starting the cycle all over again.

Allow me. I saw this coming a mile away. :P

Capitalism = private ownership and control of the means of production by a minority class. How is this not the case in either "pure capitalism" or "crony capitalism?"

Socialism = workers' control of the means of production. When did this happen in any country so far that professed itself to be socialist?

Your argument falls apart because you can't have socialism without worker's control, so the USSR and associated satellite states weren't socialist.

[Agnapostate]

The difference between "free market capitalism" and actually existing capitalism is that one is a utopian fantasy and the other is, well, actually existing. Pseudo-libertarians simply commit the same No True Scotsman fallacy on a regular basis.

While the same might seem true of socialism to the average anti-socialist, there aren't any socialist economists or theorists that claimed that socialism existed in their time, whose ideas are adhered to by modern proponents that claim that socialism never existed.

By contrast, Ludwig von Mises refers to capitalism by its name in his book Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis.


"[C]apitalism is still very vigorous in the Western Hemisphere. Capitalist production has made very remarkable progress even in these last years. Methods of production were greatly improved. Consumers have been supplied with better and cheaper goods and with many new articles unheard of a short time ago. Many countries have expanded the size and improved the quality of their manufacturing. In spite of the anti-capitalistic policies of all governments and of almost all political parties, the capitalist mode of production is in many countries still fulfilling its social function in supplying the consumers with more, better, and cheaper goods.

It is certainly not a merit of governments, politicians, and labor union officers that the standard of living is improving in the countries committed to the principle of private ownership of the means of production. Not offices and bureaucrats, but big business deserved credit for the fact that most of the families in the United States own a motor car and a radio set. The increase in per capita consumption in America as compared with conditions a quarter of a century ago is not an achievement of laws and executive orders. It is an accomplishment of business men who enlarged the size of their factories or built new ones.

Lew Rockwell concurs with Mises's analysis, and argues the same theme in his article Everything You Love You Owe to Capitalism (http://mises.org/daily/2982).


You are surrounded by the blessings of capitalism. The buffet table, which you and your lunch partners only had to walk in a building to find, has a greater variety of food at a cheaper price than that which was available to any living person — king, lord, duke, plutocrat, or pope — in almost all of the history of the world. Not even fifty years ago would this have been imaginable.

All of history has been defined by the struggle for food. And yet that struggle has been abolished, not just for the rich but for everyone living in developed economies. The ancients, peering into this scene, might have assumed it to be Elysium. Medieval man conjured up such scenes only in visions of Utopia. Even in the late 19th century, the most gilded palace of the richest industrialist required a vast staff and immense trouble to come anywhere near approximating it.

We owe this scene to capitalism. To put it differently, we owe this scene to centuries of capital accumulation at the hands of free people who have put capital to work on behalf of economic innovations, at once competing with others for profit and cooperating with millions upon millions of people in an ever-expanding global network of the division of labor. The savings, investments, risks, and work of hundreds of years and uncountable numbers of free people have gone into making this scene possible, thanks to the ever-remarkable capacity for a society developing under conditions of liberty to achieve the highest aspirations of the society's members.

Pseudo-libertarians seem to refer to "capitalism" when it comes to any "benefits" that were produced by that system (which are not actually benefits because there are opportunity costs generated by the absence of socialism), and then to "corporatism" when its various defects are analyzed.

[Dunk]

I've noticed that a lot of people involved in revleft (mostly left-wing libertarians and Marx-bots) like to present a sort of dichotomy between "pure socialism" and what existed in the USSR, i.e. "state socialism" or "statism" in which state interference somehow turns the system into something that's not truly socialist.

Now, I don't really understand this so-called deviation from real socialism and how it's anything different from the normal variety extrapolated out to its logical conclusion. You'd think that since the dictatorship of the proletariat is in control of the state, they'd naturally direct it to look out for their own interests, but so many people don't realize this and think that somehow we can give state power to the people and keep socialism without a new political elite rising up and starting the cycle all over again.

Let's relax with the false equivalency.

Capitalism is a mode of production in which productive assets are privately owned and production occurs for exchange in a market to fetch a profit. Socialism is a mode of production in which productive assets are commonly owned and production occurs for use. Common ownership cannot be realized without common control, and common control by producers necessitates democratic control. The democratic control of production by producers doesn't really meet the examples of the tiny, unelected minority of bosses with red hats controlling production.

Anyway, to the OP, I've been running into this, too. The idea that they seem to have ingrained is that the state is some kind of alien, sinister other, which exists for its own sake, rather than as a means to protect private property, settle disputes among the owners of property, and further the interests of the ruling class abroad.

I don't like the idea of evangelizing for socialism; I think it's idealist to think we need to. I also don't think apologetics for something which doesn't exist is necessary, although I do find myself doing it anyway in conversation with Paulistas.

However, if you're trying to engage these people in debate, the only tack you have to follow is to show that the owners and controllers of capital exercise the greatest degree of influence over the state. That it is in their self-interest to use the state to further their interests. That multinational corporations do not find origin in the state, that these now often subsidized corporations were once smaller firms in the past. That even if they wanted to simply end "corporate personhood," that they would have to use state power to break them up, and use state regulation to keep successful firms and the owners of capital from lobbying the government for the return of their conception of what corporations are, and why should the wealthiest people, in their opinion, be barred from using their wealth to lobby the government, as is their right in this system?

Their position is one of extreme reaction. The truth is that their idealized conception of mom and pop, laissez faire capitalism is in the past, if it ever existed at all. There is no return to it.

[Judicator]

Allow me. I saw this coming a mile away. :P

Capitalism = private ownership and control of the means of production by a minority class. How is this not the case in either "pure capitalism" or "crony capitalism?"

Socialism = workers' control of the means of production. When did this happen in any country so far that professed itself to be socialist?

Your argument falls apart because you can't have socialism without worker's control, so the USSR and associated satellite states weren't socialist.

I know, it really was too hard to resist :D

Capitalism = private ownership and control of the means of production by a minority class AND competitive markets.

Socialism = common/collective/cooperative control of MOP. The USSR had a whole lot of collectivism.

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

Just buzz words and no true Scotsmen. They fail to see that the state and big business have always been in bed together, playing a massive roll in the primitive accumulation of capital and the protection of current property relations.

Kevin Carson has written a rathe awesome essay on this very subject: 'the iron fist behind the invisible hand'

[Veovis]

I know, it really was too hard to resist :D

Capitalism = private ownership and control of the means of production by a minority class AND competitive markets.

And the most successful firms usurp state power to make laws that favor their interests. So this "crony capitalism" is simply the logical extension of capitalism in general.


Socialism = common/collective/cooperative control of MOP. The USSR had a whole lot of collectivism.

The only "collective" in control of the means of production in the USSR was the minority bureaucrat class. State control only counts as socialism when the state is under the control of the working class in the same way it is under the control of the employing class today.

[Dean]

I've noticed that a lot of people involved in the occupy movement (mostly right-wing libertarians and Paul-bots) like to present a sort of dichotomy between "pure, free market capitalism" and what exists in the United States today, i.e. "crony capitalism" or "corporatism" in which state interference somehow turns the system into something that's not truly capitalist.

Now, I don't really understand this so-called deviation from real capitalism and how it's anything different from the normal free-market variety extrapolated out to its logical conclusion. You'd think that since the employer class is in control of the state, they'd naturally direct it to look out for their own interests, but so many people don't realize this and think that somehow we can give state power to the people and keep capitalism without a new political elite rising up and starting the cycle all over again.

So what do you say to these people when they crop up?

Some idiot talked about social capitalism when I was at OWS. The imminently liberal, hipster feel of the place was too much for me.

I'm not interested in participating it making the left more and more wishy-washy like these capitalist idealists.

[Judicator]

And the most successful firms usurp state power to make laws that favor their interests. So this "crony capitalism" is simply the logical extension of capitalism in general.

And the most successful states makes laws to prevent that, but so what? By "logical extension," you mean "usually what happens?"


The only "collective" in control of the means of production in the USSR was the minority bureaucrat class. State control only counts as socialism when the state is under the control of the working class in the same way it is under the control of the employing class today.

State socialism only counts as socialism when....no true Scotsman.

[Veovis]

"No true Scotsman" doesn't apply when the basic definition of a thing is contradicted.

Socialism = workers' control, not state control or bureaucratic control.

I could say I'm a Scotsman, but since I've never even been to Scotland and have no Scottish family, does that mean I'm a Scotsman just because I say so?

[RGacky3]

I know, it really was too hard to resist http://www.revleft.com/vb/capitalism-vs-crony-t163703/revleft/smilies/biggrin.gif

Capitalism = private ownership and control of the means of production by a minority class AND competitive markets.

Socialism = common/collective/cooperative control of MOP. The USSR had a whole lot of collectivism.

Competitive markets are the assumed outcome of free markets, if free markets don't give you that its still capitalism.

The USSR had almost no collectivism, there was little pockets of it at different times, but then again, there are tons of pockets of it in Capitalis countries as well. Theres more cooperative industries in Northern Italy, Denmark and sillcone valley than there was in the USSR.


State socialism only counts as socialism when....no true Scotsman.

Not at all, if you a democratic economy or workers contorl of industry you have socialism, even if you have a good amount of it, I'd say the system they were building in the hungarian revolt against the USSR was socialism.

Corporate Capitalism, crony capitalism and so on are the logical outcome of capitalism, as marxist predicted from the begining.

[Rafiq]

This is why I refrain from critically analyzing definitions of what the USSR or it's friends were. I will call them Communist or Socialist whine I like. That is what they are known as and that is what they will be known as. This should be instead called 20th century communism, since, it was usually almost always the same thing, and usually a puppet state for the USSR.

[Conscript]

It's not a no true scotsman fallacy when nationalization =/= socialization. Mere state property does not translate into commonly owned property, thus you can make an objective case for state capitalism in the USSR, that socialism was never achieved.

You cannot however prove todays capitalism is anything more than a natural outcome, or that it is somehow not capitalism, 'crony capitalism' is merely a deflection.

[ZeroNowhere]

This is why I refrain from critically analyzing definitions of what the USSR or it's friends were. I will call them Communist or Socialist whine I like.
You're wrong, though.

[Drosophila]

It's such bullshit. All forms of capitalism are bad.

[Judicator]

"No true Scotsman" doesn't apply when the basic definition of a thing is contradicted.

Socialism = workers' control, not state control or bureaucratic control.

I could say I'm a Scotsman, but since I've never even been to Scotland and have no Scottish family, does that mean I'm a Scotsman just because I say so?

"No true Scotsman" only applies when there's clarity on what the basic definition is. For example:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

[Lynx]

No denying that revisionists and reformists can come up with all kinds of terms that may or may not stand up to scrutiny.

[Rafiq]

You're wrong, though.

Yes, but it does not matter.

Communism will always be affiliated with those countries. You do not argue by saying "No they were not rly communizt!", you argue by stating why they failed and why different forms of communism are possible.

But deep down I know that it isn't really Communism, but I am talking about using it as a technique if you were, say, the leader of some Party or a person giving a speech. Zizek does it quite often and he makes it blend easy, too.

[Revolution starts with U]

I actually, amazingly, agree with Rafiq. Tho it is obvious they were not socialist, it appears as a cop-out to the average person. There is no reason we cannot say "yes it was an attempt at socialism, of the authoritarian variety. But it is not the socialism I, nor the founders of modern socialism, support."

It's an obvious logical fallacy if they try to respond "that's how it will always work out."

[RGacky3]

: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods


Except thats not what most socialists believed nor have they EVER believed, before or after the USSR.

So even if your arguing against THAT, your not arguing against what people here fight for ... so its kind of a waste of time, if you rdemanding on that definition then we just have to use another word, like economic democracy or something.

[Jose Gracchus]

No shit the wealthy intelligentsia who write dictionaries think Karl Kautsky wrote the definitive word on the definition of socialism. He did, after all, scab for them.

[RGacky3]

How did he scab for the wealthy intelligentsia?

[Jose Gracchus]

Karl Kautsky refused to do anything that could endanger the hallowed SPD, had no problem leading it down the road of capitalism and class-collaboration that that entailed, and ended up standing on the wrong side of the German and Russian Revolutions.

[Judicator]

Except thats not what most socialists believed nor have they EVER believed, before or after the USSR.

So even if your arguing against THAT, your not arguing against what people here fight for ... so its kind of a waste of time, if you rdemanding on that definition then we just have to use another word, like economic democracy or something.

I'm asking that words be defined as they are in most English language dictionaries. Is that too much to ask of you, RGacky?

[Veovis]

I'm asking that words be defined as they are in most English language dictionaries. Is that too much to ask of you, RGacky?

Believe it or not, most dictionaries aren't good sources for definitions.

Here's Random House's definition of theory (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory) via dictionary.com

The first two definitions contradict each other. :laugh:

Creationists like definition #2 of theory, because it allows them to say that the theory of evolution is "just a theory," despite being supported by reams of scientific evidence and testing.

Capitalist shills like the "government ownership" definition of socialism because it allows them to say "Neener-neener! Socialism is authoritarian!"

ETA: Hell, the word atheist (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism) used to be listed as a synonym of "wicked" until recently. Just goes to show.

[Lynx]

state capitalism
noun
Definition of STATE CAPITALISM
: an economic system in which private capitalism is modified by a varying degree of government ownership and control

State capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism)


Marxist literature typically defines state capitalism as a social system combining capitalism—the wage system of producing and appropriating surplus value—with ownership or control by a state. By that definition, a state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single huge corporation, extracting the surplus value from the workforce in order to invest it in further production.[3] Friedrich Engels, in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, argues that state capitalism would be the final stage of capitalism consisting of ownership and management of large-scale production and communication by the bourgeois state.[4]
Until the appropriation and distribution of surplus value is under the control of workers you don't have socialism.

[Veovis]

So even if your arguing against THAT, your not arguing against what people here fight for ... so its kind of a waste of time, if you rdemanding on that definition then we just have to use another word, like economic democracy or something.

I actually do use that phrase a lot when talking with people about the subject. Whether we like it or not, most people associate "communism" with bread lines and the KGB. I've found people are a lot more receptive to the concept of economic democracy than they are to socialism/communism, even though they're the exact same thing. :p

[Lynx]

I actually do use that phrase a lot when talking with people about the subject. Whether we like it or not, most people associate "communism" with bread lines and the KGB. I've found people are a lot more receptive to the concept of economic democracy than they are to socialism/communism, even though they're the exact same thing. :p
What is your opinion of "direct democracy"? Is it equivalent to socialism?

[Veovis]

What is your opinion of "direct democracy"? Is it equivalent to socialism?

Not equivalent, but an important aspect.

[RGacky3]

I'm asking that words be defined as they are in most English language dictionaries. Is that too much to ask of you, RGacky?

Ok, so are we going to discuss what I and most other poeple here ACTUALLY believe in? Or do you want to argue something we dont' believe in ....

I don't give a shit what you call it, argue agaisnt what we actually believe in.

If you want to argue with people that believe in your Dictionary version of what communism is then find those people and argue with them, (I think thats why Bud loves Raqif, because he fits his old 1950s idea of the left), but for the rest of us you have to argue with what we actually believe in.

[Bud Struggle]

If you want to argue with people that believe in your Dictionary version of what communism is then find those people and argue with them, (I think thats why Bud loves Raqif, because he fits his old 1950s idea of the left), but for the rest of us you have to argue with what we actually believe in.

I tend not to argue about things that never existed. :)

[Thirsty Crow]

Socialism = common/collective/cooperative control of MOP. The USSR had a whole lot of collectivism.
Not quite. For example, Soviet enterprises functioned as separate, autonomous units of production, just as enterprises in other capitalist countries do, and produced commodities which were sold in the market. Though, what is crucial here is their relationship to the state - whose workings were crucial in reaping the profits and distributing them, something which the "normal" capitalist state does not perform in an explicit way. Even at the level of the immediate relations at the workplace, Russian "socialism" did not differ much from the historical practices of capitalist enterprises, and here I'd refer you to the issue of one-man management (basically, the organization of the workplace was not democratic in that it didn't leave room for direct workers' control)

Also, the dictionary is a very poor source when it comes to determining the content of a political doctrine. You'd have to ask yourself - who did determine the definition and by what means (since it's entirely erroneous to assume that dictionaries just "naturally" flesh out the meaning of words). If you arrive at the criterion of common usage (as a means of detemrining the meaning of lexical items), then you've got a serious problem, since that would presuppose a false identification of the most common understanding of a term with its correct understanding (and here you should also ask yourself about the influence of power structures and apologist ideology on human cognition and understanding, especially in an are so riddeld with conflict and opposition of interest as politics).


I tend not to argue about things that never existed. :)
That's sad, you must be suffering from a terrible lack of imagination then.

[Bud Struggle]

That's sad, you must be suffering from a terrible lack of imagination then.

I must say I do marvel at your creativness. I always said said RevLeft was half cosplay and half historical reenactment. :)

[ComradeMan]

I must say I do marvel at your creativness. I always said said RevLeft was half cosplay and half historical reenactment. :)

No you didn't you schmuck you stole that last part from me....! :huh:
:lol:

[Bud Struggle]

No you didn't you schmuck you stole that last part from me....! :huh:
:lol:

I'm a Capitalist.


That's what we do.

:tt2::tt2::tt2:

[#FF0000]

I'm asking that words be defined as they are in most English language dictionaries. Is that too much to ask of you, RGacky?

Yeah because Marxist analysis uses definitions that are not the commonly-accepted English language dictionary ones. Just like in science and philosophy, dawg.


I've noticed that a lot of people involved in revleft (mostly left-wing libertarians and Marx-bots) like to present a sort of dichotomy between "pure socialism" and what existed in the USSR, i.e. "state socialism" or "statism" in which state interference somehow turns the system into something that's not truly socialist.

They call the USSR "state capitalism". Anarchists use the phrase "state socialism" but I think that's a misnomer most of the time.


Now, I don't really understand this so-called deviation from real socialism and how it's anything different from the normal variety extrapolated out to its logical conclusion. You'd think that since the dictatorship of the proletariat is in control of the state, they'd naturally direct it to look out for their own interests

That didn't happen though. The thing by which workers were supposed to run shit -- the soviets/workers councils -- were p. much entirely decimated by the end of the war with the Whites.

So yeah that's kind of where it happened. Socialism was dead in Russia by 1918.

[Judicator]

Believe it or not, most dictionaries aren't good sources for definitions.

Here's Random House's definition of theory (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory) via dictionary.com

The first two definitions contradict each other. :laugh:

Creationists like definition #2 of theory, because it allows them to say that the theory of evolution is "just a theory," despite being supported by reams of scientific evidence and testing.

Capitalist shills like the "government ownership" definition of socialism because it allows them to say "Neener-neener! Socialism is authoritarian!"

Yeah unfortunately OED is pay only, I agree dictionary.com can sometimes be questionable.




Not quite. For example, Soviet enterprises functioned as separate, autonomous units of production, just as enterprises in other capitalist countries do, and produced commodities which were sold in the market. Though, what is crucial here is their relationship to the state - whose workings were crucial in reaping the profits and distributing them, something which the "normal" capitalist state does not perform in an explicit way. Even at the level of the immediate relations at the workplace, Russian "socialism" did not differ much from the historical practices of capitalist enterprises, and here I'd refer you to the issue of one-man management (basically, the organization of the workplace was not democratic in that it didn't leave room for direct workers' control)


They were collective in the sense that no one person owned it, it was (ostensibly) operated in the public interest. I think the socialism/capitalism distinction is simply public/private control of MOP. If you're going to say "anything that has a few attributes similar to capitalism is capitalism" you're stretching the definition a lot.



Also, the dictionary is a very poor source when it comes to determining the content of a political doctrine. You'd have to ask yourself - who did determine the definition and by what means (since it's entirely erroneous to assume that dictionaries just "naturally" flesh out the meaning of words). If you arrive at the criterion of common usage (as a means of detemrining the meaning of lexical items), then you've got a serious problem, since that would presuppose a false identification of the most common understanding of a term with its correct understanding (and here you should also ask yourself about the influence of power structures and apologist ideology on human cognition and understanding, especially in an are so riddeld with conflict and opposition of interest as politics).


It's an obvious starting point for debating the meanings of words. I think common usage definitions are be included, but not necessarily at the expense of expert/ivory-tower definitions.

[Comrade Hill]

Isn't it a bit redundant to call capitalism "crony?"

Rewarding people for greed is the logical outcome of capitalism. Capitalism has to be "crony" in order for it to survive.

[Thirsty Crow]

They were collective in the sense that no one person owned it, it was (ostensibly) operated in the public interest. I think the socialism/capitalism distinction is simply public/private control of MOP. If you're going to say "anything that has a few attributes similar to capitalism is capitalism" you're stretching the definition a lot.Your take on the dichotomy between private and social ownership is faulty. The entirety of the Soviety economy was operated in the interest of capital accumulation, and the issue of ownership doesn't come down to the legal status of the appropriator (though, in fact, Soviet enterprises were practically legal entities, and they were the agents who hired wage labour, and not the state).
And it's not a matter of attributes similar to capitalism - it's a matter of basic laws of operation, which can be and are modified in particular regimes of accumulation.


It's an obvious starting point for debating the meanings of words. I think common usage definitions are be included, but not necessarily at the expense of expert/ivory-tower definitions.
In fact, dictionaries are totally reliant on common usage since common usage is the criterion of establishing meaning (outside actual speech, there is no meaning; in other words, use is the meaning), but there is a distinct problem of social power structures as agents of mediation when it comes to political terminology, so it would be best to always keep in mind the complexities of political theory when discussing the content of a political doctrine.

Or we might end up concluding that Obama is a socialist.

[RGacky3]

I tend not to argue about things that never existed. :)

ok then stop wasting your time here, leave.

I'm not gonna bother with examples of socialist policies and societies that I and most people here supported, because you are not interested in a discussion of what we actually believe obviously.


I must say I do marvel at your creativness. I always said said RevLeft was half cosplay and half historical reenactment. :)

Your on an internet forum dumbass, but obviously you don't understand analysis and discussion, anyway, if its a waste of time, fuck off.


They were collective in the sense that no one person owned it, it was (ostensibly) operated in the public interest. I think the socialism/capitalism distinction is simply public/private control of MOP. If you're going to say "anything that has a few attributes similar to capitalism is capitalism" you're stretching the definition a lot.


Wait what? doest that make all partnerships and all corporations "collective?" Thats stretching the term.

Also if it was public interest you'd need some mechanism to have that, i.e. a democratic process, your right that socialism is generally public control of the MOP, and most socialists generally agree with that, we are arguing that it was'nt public control because there was no mechanism for that, it was private in the hands of the state which was not accountable to the public enough to call it controlled by the public.

[Bud Struggle]

Your on an internet forum dumbass, but obviously you don't understand analysis and discussion, anyway, if its a waste of time, fuck off.


Gack, you are a hoot. :D :D :D

[Robert]

The first two definitions contradict each other. :laugh:

You don't really think that that's a deficiency of the dictionary, do you?

"Bad" means bad in some contexts, "good" in others.

"Sick" means "ill," but it also means "way cool," I think.

Both definitions of both those words should be included in the dictionary.

[Veovis]

You don't really think that that's a deficiency of the dictionary, do you?

"Bad" means bad in some contexts, "good" in others.

"Sick" means "ill," but it also means "way cool," I think.

Both definitions of both those words should be included in the dictionary.

Precisely. There's a difference between accepted standard usage, and slang or colloquial usage which has no place in rational debate.

Bad can mean what it usually does, namely a negative adjective, or it can be used colloquially, as in "bad-ass" meaning impressive. Similarly:

"Theory" as a guess or hypothesis = slang
"Theory" as a tested scientific concept = correct usage

"Socialism" as government control of economy = slang
"Socialism" as workers' control of economy = correct usage

[Judicator]

Your take on the dichotomy between private and social ownership is faulty. The entirety of the Soviety economy was operated in the interest of capital accumulation, and the issue of ownership doesn't come down to the legal status of the appropriator (though, in fact, Soviet enterprises were practically legal entities, and they were the agents who hired wage labour, and not the state).
And it's not a matter of attributes similar to capitalism - it's a matter of basic laws of operation, which can be and are modified in particular regimes of accumulation.


If they operated in the sole interest of capital accumulation, they would have been capitalists :lol:. They had some wacky ideas about worker collectives + government planning being more effective than private property and they were disastrously wrong.

Plus, presumably socialists need to accumulate capital too.



In fact, dictionaries are totally reliant on common usage since common usage is the criterion of establishing meaning (outside actual speech, there is no meaning; in other words, use is the meaning), but there is a distinct problem of social power structures as agents of mediation when it comes to political terminology, so it would be best to always keep in mind the complexities of political theory when discussing the content of a political doctrine.


If by "common" you mean "a critical mass of people" then we agree. However the "common" usages listed in a comprehensive dictionary can be quite rare.

Why are social power structures such a huge problem? Are the 171,000 words of the English insufficient to express your ideas? I mean sometimes you get awkward hyphenated words (like "labor-power") but I don't know if this is necessary or just to be pretentious.

[Robert]

There's a difference between accepted standard usage, and slang or colloquial usage which has no place in rational debate.

Honestly man, I don't know how you're going to ever dislodge the "governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" definition of socialism.

If that's what you're trying to do.

It's been around a long, long time. And it's not slang or colloquial.

[Die Neue Zeit]

No shit the wealthy intelligentsia who write dictionaries think Karl Kautsky wrote the definitive word on the definition of socialism. He did, after all, scab for them.

You know, this thread really isn't the right thread to make one-line cheap shots against the bending of sticks - and what a "statist" bending of sticks was "the transformation of the capitalist private ownership of the means of production [...] into social property and the transformation of the production of goods into socialist production carried on by and for society" - against the likes of Cooperativism, Mutualism, Guild Socialism, and raw Syndicalism. :glare:


Karl Kautsky refused to do anything that could endanger the hallowed SPD, had no problem leading it down the road of capitalism and class-collaboration that that entailed, and ended up standing on the wrong side of the German and Russian Revolutions.

That has nothing to do with the quote I presented. :)

[RGacky3]

Honestly man, I don't know how you're going to ever dislodge the "governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" definition of socialism.

If that's what you're trying to do.

It's been around a long, long time. And it's not slang or colloquial.

All right lets use another word then, economic democracy.

[Conscript]

Whether its used often or not doesn't make it any less of an epithet, which is reason enough to disregard that definition. Now if the democrats/keynesians start calling themselves socialists, it stops being an epithet and more of statement.

Until then, who gives a fuck?

[Thirsty Crow]

If they operated in the sole interest of capital accumulation, they would have been capitalists :lol:. They had some wacky ideas about worker collectives + government planning being more effective than private property and they were disastrously wrong.

Plus, presumably socialists need to accumulate capital too.Exactly. They were de facto capitalist.
And it's wrong to counterpose state planning and "private property" - what should be counterposed are the degrees of the "!deformation", modification of relations of market exchange imposed by specific capitalist states.

And yes, it's very much true that Russian socialists found themselves in a situation where they were forced to preside over a specific kind of capital accumulation.



Why are social power structures such a huge problem? Are the 171,000 words of the English insufficient to express your ideas? I mean sometimes you get awkward hyphenated words (like "labor-power") but I don't know if this is necessary or just to be pretentious.
They are a problem because of the struggle for hegemony in ideas and their articulation. But no, I agree with you, revolutionaries should be able to express their ideas in common language. And this specific notion of labour power you invoke is in fact an important theoretical notion which Marxists do uphold. But the hyphen is not necessary.

[Judicator]

Exactly. They were de facto capitalist.


No the point there was only that capitalism is much better at creating wealth than planned economies.



And it's wrong to counterpose state planning and "private property" - what should be counterposed are the degrees of the "!deformation", modification of relations of market exchange imposed by specific capitalist states.


When you're comparing productivity, planned economy vs. market economy, evidence comes down heavily in favor of market economies.

Planned economies don't use market pricing, so I don't know that I'd call them capitalist. They are socialist in the sense that a public entity (the government) is running the show.



And yes, it's very much true that Russian socialists found themselves in a situation where they were forced to preside over a specific kind of capital accumulation.


Elaborate?



They are a problem because of the struggle for hegemony in ideas and their articulation. But no, I agree with you, revolutionaries should be able to express their ideas in common language. And this specific notion of labour power you invoke is in fact an important theoretical notion which Marxists do uphold. But the hyphen is not necessary.


:cool:

[ComradeMan]

No the point there was only that capitalism is much better at creating wealth than planned economies.

Wealth for whom? Or fatter crumbs under the table? It's not about creating more wealth- there's enough damn wealth already- it's about how that wealth is shared.

I hate economism.

[RGacky3]

No the point there was only that capitalism is much better at creating wealth than planned economies.


Thats a bullshit argument, the USSR grew rediculously much dispite all their setbacks, as did Cuba (compared to the rest of latin America), and China, especially with a controlled form of capitalism.

Also purpetual growth is not the measure of an economy, how well people live is.


Planned economies don't use market pricing, so I don't know that I'd call them capitalist. They are socialist in the sense that a public entity (the government) is running the show.


They are capitalist in the sense that they have a capitalist/worker production system.

The USSR had markets, it had private property, it had state property, and it had the capitalist mode of production. Calling the state a "public" entity, is, although officially true, in practice not true, its funtionally only a public entity if it is accountable to the public.


And yes, it's very much true that Russian socialists found themselves in a situation where they were forced to preside over a specific kind of capital accumulation.


You know I don't buy this, theres no evidence that capitalist style capital accumulation was the only option, nor is there evidence than an autocratic state was the only option.


Wealth for whom? Or fatter crumbs under the table? It's not about creating more wealth- there's enough damn wealth already- it's about how that wealth is shared.

I hate economism.

What do you mean by economism?

Distrubtion is as much a part of economics as is production.

[Robert]

All right lets use another word then, economic democracy.


It's a fine word, 2 words actually.

What do they mean in actual practice?

[Bud Struggle]

It's a fine word, 2 words actually.

What do they mean in actual practice?

Here it is in another two words: never happened.

[Robert]

I honestly don't know if he means we should start saying "economic democracy" instead of "socialism," because socialism to too many means "government control of means of production," or what he means.

And what about "communism"? Are we abandoning that word too due to its baggage?

Well, at least we know what capitalism means: mo' money in your pocket!

[Judicator]

Wealth for whom? Or fatter crumbs under the table? It's not about creating more wealth- there's enough damn wealth already- it's about how that wealth is shared.

I hate economism.

Tell the people in Ethiopia that they have "enough damn wealth already." The country has to be wealthy for any significant fraction of the population to be well off.

By a "fatter crumb under the table" you then are conceding that the poor DO get richer, just not as fast as the rich?

[RGacky3]

It's a fine word, 2 words actually.

What do they mean in actual practice?

It can mean many different things, cooperatives, democratically accountably national industries, you have plently of examples of economic democracy in the real world within capitalism, and examples such as anarchist spain, Hungry and so on outside capitalism.


I honestly don't know if he means we should start saying "economic democracy" instead of "socialism," because socialism to too many means "government control of means of production," or what he means.

And what about "communism"? Are we abandoning that word too due to its baggage?

Well, at least we know what capitalism means: mo' money in your pocket!

Heres what I mean, stop *****ing about semantics and definitions, it does'nt matter.


Tell the people in Ethiopia that they have "enough damn wealth already." The country has to be wealthy for any significant fraction of the population to be well off.

By a "fatter crumb under the table" you then are conceding that the poor DO get richer, just not as fast as the rich?

Right now under Capitalism you need over 4% or so growth for anyone beyond the wealthy to have any increase in living standards, whereas when the economy crashes the poor and working class are the first to suffer. Thats a system that is not sustainable AT ALL, and will end up screwing most of the population over time.

A system where growth is shared when the economy goes up is a much better system.

[Judicator]

Right now under Capitalism you need over 4% or so growth for anyone beyond the wealthy to have any increase in living standards, whereas when the economy crashes the poor and working class are the first to suffer. Thats a system that is not sustainable AT ALL, and will end up screwing most of the population over time.

A system where growth is shared when the economy goes up is a much better system.

You just pulled those growth numbers out of your ass.

I don't really see how the poor are the "first to suffer..." if they're poor then by definition they don't have much to lose.

[RGacky3]

You just pulled those growth numbers out of your ass.


Those are Joseph Stiglitz numbers.


I don't really see how the poor are the "first to suffer..." if they're poor then by definition they don't have much to lose.

Through Job cuts and austerity.

(Btw being wealthy and loosing 1/4 of your wealth is bad, being poor and loosing 1/4 of your wealth is devistating.)

[Judicator]

Those are Joseph Stiglitz numbers.

The quote i found was 4% growth to get out of the jobs deficit (in the US, under current economic conditions). Unless you're thinking of something else, then congratulations, you've committed the fallacy of faulty generalization :lol:


Through Job cuts and austerity.

(Btw being wealthy and loosing 1/4 of your wealth is bad, being poor and loosing 1/4 of your wealth is devistating.)

Most rich people work too. Austerity only punishes people who were original beneficiaries of government largesse.

I'd rather lose $10k than $2.5 million.

[Klaatu]

"Capitalism" is bullshit.

Study history: considering the vast land grants given by the King of England to (certain) American
Colonists, plus their ownership of slaves, lack of education of the masses (no one really knew what
was really going on in 18th-century American politics), it is no surprise that these fortunate few
were 99% on their way to being filthy rich anyway.

This coupled with the fact that these rich families passed their vast wealth on down from generation
to generation, especially in the American South... Add to this the fact that American Railroads
received vast land grants (land stolen from settlers and the Indians), one begins to see a bigger
picture here... Capitalism cannot, nor ever did, survive on it's own, sans massive government support.

A weak and dependant system, Capitalism is. Seems like Von Mises "forgot" all about these facts

[Burkland]

I'd say that "crony" capitalism is the result of capitalism. So, all capitalism is crony :laugh:

[Marxaveli]

I'd say that "crony" capitalism is the result of capitalism. So, all capitalism is crony :laugh:

:D Exactly what I was thinking when I saw the title of this thread. Corporatism, capitalism, crony capitalism, global capitalism....all the same shit said by different assholes.

[RGacky3]

Most rich people work too. Austerity only punishes people who were original beneficiaries of government largesse.

I'd rather lose $10k than $2.5 million.

Your last sentance totally ignores what I was saying, loosing 10k when you have a million and loosing 2.5k when you have 5k are HUGELY different.

Austerity is ALWAYS taking away government beneficiaries that are poor, you don't see tax brakes being cut, you don't get rid of corporate protections and so on.


The quote i found was 4% growth to get out of the jobs deficit (in the US, under current economic conditions). Unless you're thinking of something else, then congratulations, you've committed the fallacy of faulty generalization :lol:


To raise employment its 4%, to maintain I suspect its slightly lower.

[Judicator]

Your last sentance totally ignores what I was saying, loosing 10k when you have a million and loosing 2.5k when you have 5k are HUGELY different.


How would I have come up with the 10k vs 2.5mil figure if I didn't see what you said?



Austerity is ALWAYS taking away government beneficiaries that are poor, you don't see tax brakes being cut, you don't get rid of corporate protections and so on.


The super committee is going to cut military spending (Defense Contractors :( ) unless something else gets done...so we'll see what happens there. Again...austerity can only hurt those who government spending was helping in the first place. There's no reason to suppose austerity will only focus on a particular area of the budget...



To raise employment its 4%, to maintain I suspect its slightly lower.


Okay, this is completely different from your original claim. Try not to make up facts and commit logical fallacies! :)

[RGacky3]

How would I have come up with the 10k vs 2.5mil figure if I didn't see what you said?

You seam to totally not understand proportion.


There's no reason to suppose austerity will only focus on a particular area of the budget...


Yes there is ... history.


Okay, this is completely different from your original claim. Try not to make up facts and commit logical fallacies! :)

The point is, you need a significant amount of growth to keep an economy running.

[Judicator]

You seam to totally not understand proportion.


Proportion? As in, "the rich pay for a disproportionate share of the federal budget?"



Yes there is ... history.


History? Tell me about this bygone era where all of government spending was directed towards the poor, only to be eroded by centuries of austerity programs...

Plus, the government giveth, and the government taketh away.



The point is, you need a significant amount of growth to keep an economy running.


No, that's not the point at all.

[RGacky3]

Proportion? As in, "the rich pay for a disproportionate share of the federal budget?"


Actually no they don't (compared to their income), but you obviously don't understand the difference between a poor person loosing 1k, and a rich person loosing 1k.


History? Tell me about this bygone era where all of government spending was directed towards the poor, only to be eroded by centuries of austerity programs...

Plus, the government giveth, and the government taketh away.


Compare the 40s-70s in the US to the 80s-Now, and the 90s for parts of europe.

Also the government does'nt giveth and taketh away, because a democratic government does what the people want. (if it is democratic, which the US is not).


No, that's not the point at all.

That was my point.

[Judicator]

Actually no they don't (compared to their income)






Compare the 40s-70s in the US to the 80s-Now, and the 90s for parts of europe.

Also the government does'nt giveth and taketh away, because a democratic government does what the people want. (if it is democratic, which the US is not).


In the 1940s? No widespread social security disability, far less medicaid/medicare spending, etc.

A government which allows the mob to violate anyone's rights isn't "democratic."



That was my point.


One you made up, not the point of the claim you made vague reference to.

[RGacky3]

A government which allows the mob to violate anyone's rights isn't "democratic."


Thats just meaningless bullshit.


One you made up, not the point of the claim you made vague reference to.

My point was you need growth to keep a Capitalist economy going, argue against THAT point if you want to argue.


In the 1940s? No widespread social security disability, far less medicaid/medicare spending, etc.


Less medicare/medicaid spending went way up with medicare part D, which every leftist was against, also the drug companies riasing prices.

Social security started in the 30s.

In the 1940s you had a top tax rate of 90% and a large part of the labor force employed by the state (not talking about the military).

[Judicator]

Thats just meaningless bullshit.


With lazy responses like this....



My point was you need growth to keep a Capitalist economy going, argue against THAT point if you want to argue.


Thats just meaningless bullshit.



Less medicare/medicaid spending went way up with medicare part D, which every leftist was against, also the drug companies riasing prices.

Social security started in the 30s.

In the 1940s you had a top tax rate of 90% and a large part of the labor force employed by the state (not talking about the military).


Thats just meaningless bullshit.

[RGacky3]

Thats just meaningless bullshit.


Is it? I think its pretty damn meaningful that you need constant growth for capitalism to work.


Thats just meaningless bullshit.

Not really, re-read it.

[Marcist]

I've noticed that a lot of people involved in revleft (mostly left-wing libertarians and Marx-bots) like to present a sort of dichotomy between "pure socialism" and what existed in the USSR, i.e. "state socialism" or "statism" in which state interference somehow turns the system into something that's not truly socialist.

Now, I don't really understand this so-called deviation from real socialism and how it's anything different from the normal variety extrapolated out to its logical conclusion. You'd think that since the dictatorship of the proletariat is in control of the state, they'd naturally direct it to look out for their own interests, but so many people don't realize this and think that somehow we can give state power to the people and keep socialism without a new political elite rising up and starting the cycle all over again.

Key to revolution: Do it three times.

[Marcist]

The accumulation of wealth and power into the hand of a minority is the logical outcome of Capitalism. It hasn't been messed around with all that much, the tenants are still the same: Profits, Markets, Private Ownership. In fact, I've yet to see a detailed critique of these 'Corporatism' or 'Crony Capitalism' cop-outs. They're just buzzwords propertarians use for their purist ideal-Capitalism tainted by evil socialist government (Assuming government and Capitalists have conflicting interests - you gotta be pretty ignorant of History to believe that)

Capitalism reinvents itself to save itself during crisis and depression.