Is this socialism?

[safeduck]

I have never been sure if this is socialism? I'll use a simple example I know to explain what I think Socialism is.

Lets say I work in a factory making engines (which is owned by the government). I produce 1 engine of average every day. I am payed about $10 an hour and work on average about 6 hours. So I make $60 a day. When my engine is complete, it is then sold on the market for $600. When the engine has been sold, the money goes to the government. The government then pay me my $60 for the day and they keep the $540 to spend on improving the living standards for you and everyone else.

Is this wrong? I just have the feeling that some parts of this are wrong. Thanks.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I have never been sure if this is socialism? I'll use a simple example I know to explain what I think Socialism is.

Lets say I work in a factory making engines. I produce 1 engine of average every day. I am payed about $10 an hour and work on average about 6 hours. So I make $60 a day. When my engine is complete, it is then sold on the market for $600. When the engine has been sold, the money goes to the government. The government then pay me my $60 for the day and they keep the $540 to spend on improving the living standards for you and everyone else.

Is this wrong? I just have the feeling that some parts of this are wrong. Thanks.

That's called state capitalism.

Socialism is when the working class is in control of political power and the means of production. Profit is not extracted from your labour. Things are produced based on need.

[tir1944]

Things are produced based on need.
Correct,things are produced based on social need.

[safeduck]

Could you take my explanation and replace the wrong parts with how it would really work under socialism? or is it so wrong it is beyond repair? Thanks.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Correct,things are produced based on social need.

I suggest you get cracking, and go post that in response to the hundreds upon hundreds of posts that lack the prefix "social".

[Tim Cornelis]

Correct,things are produced based on social need.

That may be your personal conviction but it certainly is not what is meant by "to each according to his needs", hint: his needs, which implies an individual rather than social needs.

---------------------------------------------------
As for OP, that doesn't sound like socialism at all.

First, your example only regards remuneration while socialism is an entire mode of production, so based on your example alone we cannot judge whether it's socialist.

The principle of socialism is usually regarded as "to each according to his contribution", while most of the workers' product goes not to him but to the government. And your example also implies circulation of capital, while Marxist socialism does not have this.

[tir1944]

To each according to his need describes communism,in socialism "to each according to his deed" is the motto.
"Social needs" refer to needs of the class as a whole.What's to be produced is determined by general social needs that find their expression in the (five year) plan.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

To each according to his need describes communism,in socialism "to each according to his deed" is the motto.
"Social needs" refer to needs of the class as a whole.What's to be produced is determined by general social needs that find their expression in the (five year) plan.

You are describing a revision of Marxism, here.

Socialism will always be based upon 'to each according to his need', whichever stage it is in. The difference being that in earlier stages, such a belief is being worked on and implemented, whereas in the later stage (i.e. communism), it has been achieved.

Ah, the good old 5 year plan. Good old throwbacks, that's sure to raise political consciousness. Let's go back to the plan, the gulags, the cult of the personality and the denial of individual liberty, and place it all under the red flag and declare 'Socialism'.

When are you gonna wake up and realise that this is 2011 and that such ideas are no longer relevant, in the slightest?

[Nox]

No it isn't Socialism, it's State Capitalism (which is a hell of alot better than free market capitalism, but still sucks)

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

To each according to his need describes communism,in socialism "to each according to his deed" is the motto.
"Social needs" refer to needs of the class as a whole.What's to be produced is determined by general social needs that find their expression in the (five year) plan.

Marx never made a distinction between "socialism" and "communism", that is a later revision which shifted socialism from being essentially a synonym to describing a transitional state of development, the usefulness of which is very limited and makes for confusion.

[safeduck]

So can you guys correct the paragraph I wrote to explain Socialism better? or is it so wrong its beyond repair? Thanks.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Replace "owned by the government" with "owned by the factory workers"

[TheGodlessUtopian]

As the others have said,it is State Capitalism.I would suggest reading some Marx and Lenin.

[Rooster]

It would only be socialism if the factory was in common ownership. That's not the same as having the government own it.

[tir1944]

Just curious:did Marx ever speak of "state capitalism" and did Lenin ever use the term except for referring to NEP?


That's not the same as having the government own it.
Why? Isn't "government" the common "organ" of the working class.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Why? Isn't "government" the common "organ" of the working class.

Not necessarily, and if it can be at all is a matter of serious disagreement and doubt, because typically 'government' means something exactly like or similar to a bourgeoisie government', as well as implying a rule-over (it governs) rather than rule-by.

That of course kind of leads us into a semantic argument, but still- even if we accept that state-power can be utilised by the working class, it is not all that wise to use common conceptions of "government".

[Die Rote Fahne]

Why? Isn't "government" the common "organ" of the working class.No, it is not. It, in capitalism, is the organ of the ruling class. Just as it was in the USSR under Stalin. A key feature of socialism is the working class taking control of political power, hence Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Have you never read any marxist literature? If you actually believe that government is the common organ of the working class, then why don't you support the idea that we can elect and legislate socialism into being?

[tir1944]

It, in capitalism, is the organ of the ruling class.
Yes and in socialism it is the organ of which class?



Have you never read any marxist literature?
A little.


If you actually believe that government is the common organ of the working class, then you clearly do not support the idea that we cannot achieve socialism by electing politicians.
No,i was obviously talking about the dictatorship of the proletariat,the worker's state and its government....


Just as it was in the USSR under Stalin.
Correct,in Stalin's USSR it was the organ of the "ruling class":the working one that is.

[Q]

Just curious:did Marx ever speak of "state capitalism" [...]
He didn't in the sense Lenin was speaking of it, but in his days Marx did argue very strongly against Ferdinand Lassalle and his followers of state socialism, i.e. appeals to the state to nationalise everything and act in the interests of the working class. Marx, among other things, argued this had zero emancipatory value for the working class to become so dependent on the state, furthermore, it would create a huge bureaucratic machinery (as we saw in the 1950's to 1970's in the western welfare states) with their own petty tyrannies.


Yes and in socialism it is the organ of which class?
The capitalist state is always the organ of the capitalist class. It's top-down way of organisation is perfectly fitted for tiny elites. This is why Lenin argued the capitalist state must be smashed and replaced by a new one that was designed for the vast masses to participate. Lenin described this vision most clearly and extensively in State and revolution and equated this workers state with the soviet structure. Sadly, the soviet structure didn't work out and had issues of itself, which go beyond this topic to dig into too deeply.


Correct,in Stalin's USSR it was the organ of the "ruling class":the working one that is.
Ok bro. The working class was totally in power during Stalin's reign :rolleyes:

[Ocean Seal]

That's called state capitalism.

Socialism is when the working class is in control of political power and the means of production. Profit is not extracted from your labour. Things are produced based on need.
What he posted minus the government part, is basically just capitalism, distinct from what became known as state-capitalism.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Yes and in socialism it is the organ of which class?"It would only be socialism if the factory was in common ownership. That's not the same as having the government own it." - rooster

That was the quote you were referring to. The point of rooster's quote was that government ownership does =/= socialism. When the government is one which is controlled by the working class, then yes.


A little.
That's your problem. "A little". Try reading a bit more if you want to comprehend anything besides Stalin.


No,i was obviously talking about the dictatorship of the proletariat,the worker's state and its government....
Glad you cleared that up. It wasn't obvious at all, actually.


Correct,in Stalin's USSR it was the organ of the "ruling class":the working one that is.While Stalin and his bureaucrats may have worked, they were not the working class.

The working class did not hold political power in the USSR.

[Magón]

No it isn't Socialism, it's State Capitalism (which is a hell of alot better than free market capitalism, but still sucks)

No, no it's not, it's just as terrible.

[OhYesIdid]

say five hundred engines in your commune break down beyond repair, or five hundred people reach the age when they're entitled to a personal vehicle or maybe it's something much more practical like needing a new slew of bulldozers or other construction vehicles. the point is that factory output would be determined by both social and personal needs, and so quotas are lowered and raised accordingly. However, the big split in socialism comes when it comes to deciding how much work is needed. some socialists, such as myself, favor a democratic approach where workers as a whole discuss and decide how to divide labor and when to work. laziness shouldn't be a problem here, since they would be working in their own est interest (no bulldozers means no new homes means homelessness) and already comprehend why the work they do is important and to whom. other so-called socialists. in the interest of pragmatism, prefer a dictatorial method where a select few can quickly change the focus and shape of the economy. this ends up with decisions beig made faster, but, in order to work, the authority of these leaders must be unchallenged. this is why you see so many authoritarian wannabe Maos who write Human Rights between quotation marks.
as for the money of it, most socialists believe in something like a gift economy, where your reward would be to keep the economy working, and the point of making those five hundred new engines would be that somehow that will end up contributing to a cycle that puts food on your plate. I myself wonder if money itself will ever stop being useful, if not outright necessary.

DISCLAIMER: I realize there are many more splits in socialism, such as freedom of opposition, the peasantry, nationalism, and of course a hundred different interpretations of historical events.

[tir1944]

No, no it's not, it's just as terrible. Tell that to those in Russia who don't have food,heating or decent homes,not to mention luxuries such as healthcare and education anymore.
:rolleyes:

[robbo203]

To each according to his need describes communism,in socialism "to each according to his deed" is the motto.
"Social needs" refer to needs of the class as a whole.What's to be produced is determined by general social needs that find their expression in the (five year) plan.

Thats the Leninist version of socialism, not the Marxist one which basically held socialism and communiusm to mean the same thing

Suitably enough, Article Twelve of the Constitution of the Soviet Union of 1936 which states that "In the U.S.S.R. work is a duty and a matter of honor for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: "He who does not work, neither shall he eat, comes from St Pauls Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, in the New Testament which has those very words "He who does not work, neither shall he eat"

[Erratus]

I have never been sure if this is socialism? I'll use a simple example I know to explain what I think Socialism is.

Lets say I work in a factory making engines (which is owned by the government). I produce 1 engine of average every day. I am payed about $10 an hour and work on average about 6 hours. So I make $60 a day. When my engine is complete, it is then sold on the market for $600. When the engine has been sold, the money goes to the government. The government then pay me my $60 for the day and they keep the $540 to spend on improving the living standards for you and everyone else.

Is this wrong? I just have the feeling that some parts of this are wrong. Thanks.

From my understanding, it would be more like this:



Lets say I work in a factory making engines (which is owned by the people democratically). I produce 1 engine of average every day. I work on average about 6 hours. When my engine is complete, it is then sold on the market for $600. When the engine has been sold, the money goes to the government. The government then pay me my $600 for the day.


I think anyway. Socialism is the stepping stone to communism, so I have always felt that you cant really predict exactly how it would work, since the political climate would be hard to predict. And since socialism should be working to make itself communism, it will be changing as time passes by too. But the point of it all is to stop the extraction of surplus value. You produced $600 worth of labour. You have earned that $600 dollars. Everyone would be entitled to a job, and since the "government" (which, in Marx's original view, should be controlled by the workers) would be the employer (I picture it as more of a regulator between the producers and consumers).

Think of how much money CEOs and presidents take in when they do no labour. That would stop. That is the worker's money, and it will stay with the workers. Ideally, currency itself would end. You made an engine, ideally because you enjoy putting things together and working with your hands. Because this is a passion of your, you make quality engines. You do not get paid anything. The engines and distributed and put into needed machines. Your need are meet by others, like how you meet the need of engines for others. But that closer to communism.

[Rooster]

"It would only be socialism if the factory was in common ownership. That's not the same as having the government own it." - rooster

That was the quote you were referring to. The point of rooster's quote was that government ownership does =/= socialism. When the government is one which is controlled by the working class, then yes.

A more fundamental point is that the presence of a state indicates a class society which implies a division of labour, which implies that it isn't a socialist/communist society. In this example, this means that it is still capitalist. Would the British Coal Board owned mines be socialist? No, and for this very reason. It is a state owned enterprise in a world of capitalist relations operating within capitalist relations.

[Rooster]

Why? Isn't "government" the common "organ" of the working class.

No. Government is a power structure that endeavours to be outside of the public sphere of control. For example, when the state is under threat, the main priority of the government is to keep the government intact (for the good of the people).

[Magón]

Tell that to those in Russia who don't have food,heating or decent homes,not to mention luxuries such as healthcare and education anymore.
:rolleyes:

*Yawn* Go play with your Stalin plush toy or whatever, I stand by what I said.

[tir1944]

Go play with your Stalin plush toy or whatever, I stand by what I said.
Yep,and what you said is a dumb lie.
Even Brezhnev's Russia was 10x better than Putin's one,at least it had a future...

[Magón]

Yep,and what you said is a dumb lie.
Even Brezhnev's Russia was 10x better than Putin's one,at least it had a future...

Neither one is good for the Working Class, that's the whole point. In either case, the Workers are exploited and forced into labor that they probably wouldn't want to do, but have to because they're just another piece of the exploiting system.

[tir1944]

Neither one is good for the Working Class, that's the whole point.
And who are you to judge? Those who actually lived to the USSR say a different story,and i'm sure as hell more inclined to trust them over you.Besides,the objective evidence is a few clicks away anyway.
And please don't be dishonest,you clearly said" No, no it's not, it's just as terrible."
So yeah...

[Thirsty Crow]

To each according to his need describes communism,in socialism "to each according to his deed" is the motto.
"Social needs" refer to needs of the class as a whole.What's to be produced is determined by general social needs that find their expression in the (five year) plan.
This is a monstruously distorted view of the concept of social needs.
First of all, it is logically poaradoxical to claim that social needs are determined by a definite group within society - which would imply that only that group is the society, and all human beings who do not participate in that group are somehow outside that society. In fact, it perfectly resonates with the community of interests as witnessed by the history of the USSR.

Secondly, this is also a distortion of the way that human needs are historically formed. Namely, there cannot be a need for a product for whose production specific productive powers are lacking. Therefore, human needs ("social human needs" would in fact be a tautology) are formed as correlates of the development of productive powers of mankind, which accounts for them being social.


And who are you to judge?
Oh noez, foreigners shouldn't judge a socio-economic formation - they didn't live there after all!




Lets say I work in a factory making engines (which is owned by the government). I produce 1 engine of average every day. I am payed about $10 an hour and work on average about 6 hours. So I make $60 a day. When my engine is complete, it is then sold on the market for $600. When the engine has been sold, the money goes to the government. The government then pay me my $60 for the day and they keep the $540 to spend on improving the living standards for you and everyone else.

Is this wrong? I just have the feeling that some parts of this are wrong. Thanks.Not some parts - pretty much the whole of your approach to socialism is wrong.
First of all, socialism presupposes the aboltion of separate enterprises as autonomous economic units (this is the condition for the production of value, of commodities - which is the "core" of the capitalist mode of production).
Secondly, socialism does not amount to government ownership (by that I assume that you're using the term "government" as synonymous with the current state forms in capitalism - be they liberal democratic or dictatorial). Even if you were to assume that socialism means government ownership - in the sense of an entirely different government fro the ones we are confronted nowadays, you'd still be wrong if you'd conceptualize this government as a definite, easily discernable complex of institutions of political rule and economic administration (which implies that necessarily there are people who are excluded from these), a "workers' state". In socialism, the ownership is social, not state ownership - to effectively enable social ownership, it is necessary to work out mechanisms of diffuse planning which would include inputs of all of the members of a society. Planning by state agencies is insufficient, and indicative of all sorts of class distinctions as real and still in operation.

And yes, socialism entails the abolition of market exchange.


Everyone would be entitled to a job, and since the "government" (which, in Marx's original view, should be controlled by the workers) would be the employer (I picture it as more of a regulator between the producers and consumers).

Why would a government need to regulate the relations between one man and...himself? As he is a producer and a consumer?

[Tim Finnegan]

And who are you to judge? Those who actually lived to the USSR say a different story,and i'm sure as hell more inclined to trust them over you.
I didn't realise that two hundred million Soviet citizens all thought as a homogeneous bloc.

[Magón]

And who are you to judge? Those who actually lived to the USSR say a different story,and i'm sure as hell more inclined to trust them over you.Besides,the objective evidence is a few clicks away anyway.
And please don't be dishonest,you clearly said" No, no it's not, it's just as terrible."
So yeah...

Please point out to me, how was I dishonest? I said I stood by what I said about State Capitalism, so where the hell was I dishonest? State Capitalism is just as bad, and even if it might have some things better than Capitalism (US/UK), it's still exploitative and horrible/terrible for the Working Class.

It exploits labor of the Workers, just like US/UK Capitalism, and it still puts control of power into a select few rather than the many. What I want, is a society where it's the many calling the shots, not some bureaucratic assholes who think they can bend the rules so I have to work for them, rather than myself.

[tir1944]

which would imply that only that group is the society, and all human beings who do not participate in that group are somehow outside that societyThese fall in the category of anti-social elements.


herefore, human needs ("social human needs" would in fact be a tautology) are formed as correlates of the development of productive powers of mankind, which accounts for them being social. This correlation in not mechanistic.Otherwise how would have the industrialization of the first five plan year happened?


State Capitalism is just as bad, and even if it might have some things better than Capitalism (US/UK), it's still exploitative and horrible/terrible for the Working Class.You said that the contemporary free-market Russia is "just as bad for the working class" as Soviet "state capitalism" was.That's what you said,and that's false.

[Thirsty Crow]

These fall in the category of anti-social elements.Go back, and read, carefully and slowly, and again and yet again, the part to which you replied with this...non-issue.

Or to make it simple for you: your conception of social needs, their articulation, effectively places everyone outside the planning apparatus also outside society itself.

[SHORAS]

No it isn't Socialism, it's State Capitalism (which is a hell of alot better than free market capitalism, but still sucks)

Sadly, I don't think there is any truth in the brackets part. Besides we don't even exist under 'free market capitalism' but monopoly capitalism. With massive state intervention. Or did you mean a theoretical 'free market capitalism'?

Anyway, why do you think State Capitalism would be better than say what exists in France or Britain at this time and what would it mean?

[Rooster]

Yep,and what you said is a dumb lie.
Even Brezhnev's Russia was 10x better than Putin's one,at least it had a future...

Considering that Brezhnev's Russia lead to Putin's Russia, that's kinda a silly argument to make.

[Sputnik_1]

In my understanding we're aiming to a classless, stateless, moneyless society. You do what you're best at and what you like most doing (for example, baking pies) and you get what you need to leave comfortably but not in unnecessary luxury.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I have never been sure if this is socialism? I'll use a simple example I know to explain what I think Socialism is.

Lets say I work in a factory making engines (which is owned by the government). I produce 1 engine of average every day. I am payed about $10 an hour and work on average about 6 hours. So I make $60 a day. When my engine is complete, it is then sold on the market for $600. When the engine has been sold, the money goes to the government. The government then pay me my $60 for the day and they keep the $540 to spend on improving the living standards for you and everyone else.

Is this wrong? I just have the feeling that some parts of this are wrong. Thanks.

Lets say I work in a factory making engines, which is run collectivity by workers there. I produce 1 engine of average every day. At the end of the day, the surplus produced by me and my co-workers is about equal to $540 per worker. The workers hold meetings periodically and decide what the best use of that surplus is - increased technology to make work easier, less hours of labor if what is being produced is more than what is needed, more compensation for each worker.