Socialism?

[NorwegianCommunist]

Is a country socialist ONLY when the workers control the means of productions.
Or is it socialist when there is a reduction of rascism, class differnces.
And when there is free healthcare and education.

Can someone tell me more about how it is when the workers control the means of production.
What does that really mean?

[NorwegianCommunist]

Sorry for the basic questions, but I want your opinions on the matter.

[daft punk]

Socialism is when the workers own and control the means of production and distribution on a democratic basis.

some quotes here

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/o.htm#socialism

Socialism
"The organisation of society in such a manner that any individual, man or woman, finds at birth equal means for the development of their respective faculties and the utilisation of their labour. The organisation of society in such a manner that the exploitation by one person of the labour of his neighbour would be impossible, and where everyone will be allowed to enjoy the social wealth only to the extent of their contribution to the production of that wealth."
August Bebel (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/b/e.htm#august-bebel)
Die Frau und der Sozialismus
"Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lie not in the immediate result, but in the ever expanding union of the workers. This union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by Modern Industry, and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another. It was just this contact that was needed to centralize the numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle between classes.
[...]
"The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage labor. Wage labor rests exclusively on competition between the laborers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the laborers, due to competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers.
[...]
"And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.
("These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be generally applicable.")
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels
The Communist Manifesto (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm)
Chapter 1 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm) and Chapter 2 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm)
"The question then arises: What transformation will the state undergo in communist society? In other words, what social functions will remain in existence there that are analogous to present state functions?
"Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
Karl Marx
Critique of the Gotah Programme (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/index.htm)
Part IV: On Democracy (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm)
"The dictatorship of a single class is necessary not only for every class society in general, not only for the proletariat which has overthrown the bourgeoisie, but also for the entire historical period which separates capitalism from "classless society", from communism. Bourgeois states are most varied in form, but their essence is the same: all these states, whatever their form, in the final analysis are inevitably the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The transition from capitalism to communism is certainly bound to yield a tremendous abundance and variety of political forms, but the essence will inevitably be the same: the dictatorship of the proletariat (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/d/i.htm#dictatorship-proletariat).
Vladimir Lenin
The State and Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htm)
Chpt 2. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch02.htm#s3)
"What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges.
"Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it..."
"But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement...
"Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance... one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal."
Karl Marx
Critique of the Gotha Programme (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/index.htm)
Part 1 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm)
"The first phase of communism, therefore, cannot yet provide justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences in wealth will still persist, but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible because it will be impossible to seize the means of production – the factories, machines, land, etc. – and make them private property.... Marx shows the course of development of communist society....which [firstly] consists in the distribution of consumer goods "according to the amount of labor performed" (and not [yet] according to needs)."
"But the scientific distinction between socialism and communism is clear. What is usually called socialism was termed by marx the "first", or lower, phase of communist society. Insofar as the means of production becomes common property, the word "communism" is also applicable here, providing we do not forget that this is not complete communism."
Vladimir Lenin
The State and Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htm)
Chpt. 5: The first phase of Communist Society (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s3)
See also: Communism (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/o.htm#communism) and Proletarian Democracy (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/r.htm#proletarian-democracy).

[NorwegianCommunist]

Thanks Mr daft punk.
I am going to read quotes a bit later.

But can I say that "socialism is when a labour party has been democraticly chosen by the poeple. "

Is it socialist when a party controls the means of production?
Does that mean that the workers controls the means of production when a party is in government control?

[NorwegianCommunist]

Sorry if a express myself bad, but I am in a bit of hurry right now :p

[daft punk]

Thanks Mr daft punk.
I am going to read quotes a bit later.

But can I say that "socialism is when a labour party has been democraticly chosen by the poeple. "

No



Is it socialist when a party controls the means of production?

No



Does that mean that the workers controls the means of production when a party is in government control?
Can you rephrase this? I can't be sure of what it means.

To have socialism, the workers must be in control. It might have a party involved, but that would not be socialism if it was any kind of dictatorship.

Think about the end goal. The final destination - no money, no countries, no state, no government, everyone is equal, everyone is part time worker, part time planner.

To have socialism you have to be definitely on the road to this end goal. So, any dictatorship must be temporary and have ended. The party will be more or less meaningless by this stage. There is no chance of capitalist restoration or a bureaucratic elite taking over. Workers democracy is insurmountable.

[NorwegianCommunist]

I was just wrong with that quote, but I though that it was socialism when a socialist party was in control.
But how can 'workers' control the means of production.?
I can't imaginate it in my head.
Can you explain to me PLEASE? :D

[NorwegianCommunist]

How does workers control the means of production?
I can't picture it and I don't understand as well as I want to.

Please explain Mr Daft Punk =)


My quote was just wrong. Nevermind the quote :p

[Tim Cornelis]

Workers' control of the means of production means that workplaces are democratically managed and administrated by a workers' council (in which all workers have a seat). The workers control the workplaces (means of production) by means of voting in equality.

A 'country' is only socialist when it has a socialist mode of production. This means that introducing socialism requires a social transformation of, primarily, the relations of production. Thus, we would transform (or abolish) wage labour--where workers sell their labour power to an employer--in favour of what is sometimes called "associated labour" where workers join an association of producers, instead of selling their labour power to an employer (as is the case in wage labour).

Some links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_of_production
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers'_control
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers'_self-management

[NorwegianCommunist]

Workers' control of the means of production means that workplaces are democratically managed and administrated by a workers' council (in which all workers have a seat).

A 'country' is only socialist when it has a socialist mode of production. This means that introducing socialism requires a social transformation of, primarily, the relations of production. Thus, we would transform (or abolish) wage labour in favour of what is sometimes called "associated labour" where workers join an association of producers, instead of selling their labour power to an employer (wage labour).

Some links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_of_production
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers'_control
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers'_self-management

Thank you so much comrade!
That was basically the answar I wanted.
I will read Daft Punks quotes and the wikipedia links you put out a little bit later today.

BUT thanks to all of you! =)

[NorwegianCommunist]

Many call USSR socialist because they workers had meeting and decides things to do, but some people call it capitalist BECAUSE Stalin could do anything he wanted with factories/work places no matter what the workers decided.
Is that one of the reasons why people still call USSR capitalist/state capitalist?

[Tim Cornelis]

Many call USSR socialist because they workers had meeting and decides things to do, but some people call it capitalist BECAUSE Stalin could do anything he wanted with factories/work places no matter what the workers decided.
Is that one of the reasons why people still call USSR capitalist/state capitalist?

Marxist-Leninists say that the Soviet Union under Stalin was socialist because a vanguard party representing the working class controlled government. They also point out that workers could openly criticise factory representatives and there was supposedly a limited form of democratically electing factory bosses. As Marxist-Leninist Joseph Ball noted:


Pat Sloan and Sidney and Beatrice Webb, who travelled to the Soviet Union in the 1930s and observed the system of proletarian democracy that existed there. These accounts have been almost universally dismissed as dishonest or naïve by bourgeois historians. Yet, Thurston’s archival research corroborates them.
Thurston, Sloan and the Webbs all seem to agree on the nature and boundaries of Soviet proletarian democracy. The Soviet people were free to complain about their physical, working and living conditions and were free to make suggestions about how to improve them. Multiple candidates stood in elections to Soviets and factory committees. The electors were free to discuss their merits and choose which candidate they wished to see elected. Many of those elected were members of the Communist Party but a significant number were not. The Webbs and Sloan stress how candidates were given mandates by their electors indicating how they were expected to vote on specific policies and that these candidates could be recalled if they did not keep to their mandates. However, all these sources agree that a fundamental challenge to the system was not possible within this system of proletarian democracy.

This "proletarian democracy" was severely limited, however, the power of factory committees were subordinate to the decisions of those higher on the hierarchy (overall decisions were made by the top) and the decisions were limited in scope.

Moreover, beyond the workplaces there was no democracy at all. So, in my opinion, there was not really any form of proletarian democracy to speak of.

Critics say the USSR was not socialist as there was still wage labour. The usually also point out there was commodity production (but personally I don't see this as a requirement for socialism). This is why many call it state-capitalist.

[Rooster]

Thanks Mr daft punk.
I am going to read quotes a bit later.

But can I say that "socialism is when a labour party has been democraticly chosen by the poeple. "

Is it socialist when a party controls the means of production?
Does that mean that the workers controls the means of production when a party is in government control?

No. The means of production have to be held in common. That is, not in control by anyone. Much in the same way that forests were held in common during Medieval England as a means of subsistence for the peasantry and looked after by them. I think that it's pretty clear that "the means of production are to be held in common" is different from "the means of production are to be held by the party".


Many call USSR socialist because they workers had meeting and decides things to do, but some people call it capitalist BECAUSE Stalin could do anything he wanted with factories/work places no matter what the workers decided.
Is that one of the reasons why people still call USSR capitalist/state capitalist?

They can call it whatever they want but that doesn't make it true. For instance, if it was truly democratic and the workers collectively decided things, then how can you explain the harsh labour discipline that was enforced such as sending women to court for not being able to find child care, the introduction of education fees, the lack of consumer goods in favour of heavy industry, and so on? That's the traits of a top down structure that had no worker input.

People call it state capitalist because the state acted as a capitalist. The basis of the society was capitalist as it had generalised wage labour and generalised commodity production (labour power was a commodity). The state appeared in relation to the average worker as an employer, it directed production while at the same time was parasitic to it, with bureaucrats syphoning off surplus for themselves in the form of access to consumer goods that weren't general available and to nice summer dachas.

[daft punk]

Ok, the way I imagine it, in the workplace you would vote for you management. Decision making would be done at as low a level as possible. You dont need to ask permission to order in essential supplies or whatever.

Decision making at the national level would be done by elected boards. The board running the electricity for example would have workers from that industry, people from the government, and representatives from the public/consumers. All representatives would be on the average wage and subject to recall (the people who voted for you can reconvene and replace you at any time).

The ultimate aim is for everyone to play an equal role in work and administration. Ultimately there would be no countries, no government, no state, no politicians. There probably would be specialist planners, but everything they proposed to change would be subject to democratic control. Any innovation would be supervised by democratically controlled implementation and facilitation boards.