Is market socialism such a terrible idea? [Archive]

Jimmie Higgins

7th May 2012, 10:37

I've recently been reading some of David Schweickart's stuff on economic democracy and market socialism and he does appear to offer a reasonable alternative to capitalism and centrally planned "communism".

He basically advocates taking the market from over from capitalism as a means allocating resources. Democratic firms operate for a profit so people buy and sell much like today. The difference being there is no capitalist class, and people receive a wage dependent on the profits of the firm.

There's also his idea that all these firms would pay a flat-assets tax, with the funds generated directed to a series of public banks that control investment. He calls this 'social control of investment', hence a level of planning would be involved in the system. The money would also go to local councils who can invest in healthcare, parks, schools etc.

He calls himself a Marxist and a Socialist.

Does Revleft think this is a workable alternative or indeed desirable one?

I don't think this is workable because the basic contradictions of capitalism remain, just the organization of the induvidual worksites is organized more democratically. This means that there would still be economic competition, there would still be economic crisis of overproduction, there would still be artificial shortages in productions, overproduction, and so on. The competitive and capital-concentrating tendencies would result in firms going out of business and unemployment; if firms were really run democratically, like co-ops today, there'd still be exploitation, it would just come in the form of people sacrificing more of their own time or voting to cut their own wages in order to keep up with market competition. There's still be a ton of energy and resources wasted in market competition and commodity quality and usefulness would still be secondary to profits.

In short just like the capitalism we know now, this would be an unstable system and I think within short order a more familiar capitalism would re-emerge. Of course all this is moot because this form of system would require a revolution anyway because the powerful would never willingly give up the current system and the only market-socialists I've ever come across in real life see an electoral road to market-socialism.

fabian

7th May 2012, 13:53

I'm for statist mutualism, society using the state to abolish all unearned incomes- employing someone else and making profits by his "surplus labour", rent, interest; abolish private property and instute personal possession based on labor theory of property, and institute occupancy & use principle for property in land.

Also, besides Market socialism there's Arket socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_market).

Manic Impressive

7th May 2012, 14:03

can we restrict these people please they are not socialists

fabian

7th May 2012, 14:23

Neither are Leninists (and all their derivatives) - they're all state capitalist.

restrict all non-socialist

http://i.iflip.im/t/x-all-the-y.jpg

Manic Impressive

7th May 2012, 14:38

Neither are Leninists (and all their derivatives) - they're all state capitalist.

While I agree that Leninists are state capitalists at least they share the same end goal of a classless, stateless, moneyless society. They just have a different way to get there. You on the other hand want no such thing. You advocate a market system as your end goal, all you want is a nicer capitalism.

Is your name to do with the fabian society by any chance?

Jimmie Higgins

7th May 2012, 14:44

Neither are Leninists (and all their derivatives) - they're all state capitalist.Even the ones opposed to state-capitalism and the USSR?:rolleyes:

Someone with a screen-name of a famous society of champagne-socialists shouldn't throw around claims of other people not being real socialists :lol:.

Blake's Baby

7th May 2012, 15:34

Real socialists drink champagne Comrade Jimmie.

The Fabians however were the original 'state capitalists' - at least, that's the charge the SPGB levelled at them in 1908 or there abouts. The fabian society throughout the early 20th century embodied a belief in a paternalistic 'state socialism' that incidently was very popular with eugenicists and apologists for Stalinism.

Manic Impressive - I think you're being way too kind to the majority of 'Leninists', though if you include the Left Comms as Leninists (we do support that messy Russian Revolution business after all) then it's dificult to see how we're also state capitalists.

Unless by 'state capitalists' you mean 'everyone who doesn't think immediate communisation is possible'.

fabian

7th May 2012, 15:42

hile I agree that Leninists are state capitalists at least they share the same end goal of a classless, stateless, moneyless society
That's communism. Market socialist aren't communist, we're socialist, - that's why we call ourselves socialists, not communist.

Is your name to do with the fabian society by any chance?
Actually, with the ancient roman philosopher Papirius Fabianus, but there are similarities between my views and view of some founding members of the Fabian Society.

Even the ones opposed to state-capitalism and the USSR?
There are Leninist opposed to state-capitalism and the USSR? Anyways, Lenin was fighting for capitalism:

"The economic development of Russia, as of the whole world, proceeds from feudalism to capitalism, and through large-scale, machine, capitalist production to socialism."

And what about this:

"Marxists have repeatedly spoken about the importance of the free mobilisation (i.e., the buying, selling and mortgaging) of peasant land. This real and, practical problem affords a striking illustration of the petty-bourgeois and even positively reactionary character of our Narodniks."

(both quotes are from Left-Wing Narodism and Marxism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/jun/19.htm))

Almost all of the Market socialist accept the Labor theory of property (and bu that denying the legitimacy of all unearned incomes) and would thus never support any buying or selling of land, being that it is not the product of labour, and can only be owned under occupancy and use principle.

Railyon

7th May 2012, 16:26

fabian, why are you in favor of retaining markets? Genuine interest.

fabian

7th May 2012, 16:36

Basically, I see the freed market as a mechanism against the free rider problem.

Blake's Baby

7th May 2012, 17:31

There is no free-rider problem. There's an exclusivist propertarian problem, but that's all.

Tim Cornelis

7th May 2012, 17:40

Basically, I see the freed market as a mechanism against the free rider problem.

You don't need markets for that. Remuneration according to each' contribution within the context of a planned economy eliminates the free rider problem.

A communist society based on the idea that one has a right to consume according to needs from the total product, but that this right is based in the duty to contribute to the total product if you are able to contribute, also eliminates the free rider problem.

fabian

7th May 2012, 17:45

There is no free-rider problem.
Ascetics and virtue-oriented people would not slack in a gift economy society, but everyone else would one by one gradually work less and less and basically just obstruct the functioning of the society and parasitize on the hard-working people.

There's an exclusivist propertarian problem
If that was pointed against the existence of personal possessions based on the Labor theory of property, that's like saying there's an exclusivist anti-rape problem. Everyone has a property in himself, and thus a right to life, bodily integrity and liberty, and from that follows the right to the full product of one's labor.

You don't need markets for that. Remuneration according to each' contribution within the context of a planned economy eliminates the free rider problem.
I don't see how planned economy would work without nationalization, and nationalization is a (state) capitalist, and thus an exploitative mechanism.

A communist society based on the idea that one has a right to consume according to needs from the total product, but that this right is based in the duty to contribute to the total product if you are able to contribute, also eliminates the free rider problem.
And would society enforce that?

Blake's Baby

7th May 2012, 17:53

Ascetics and virtue-oriented people would not slack in a gift economy society, but everyone else would one by one gradually work less and less and basically just obstruct the functioning of the society and parasitize on the hard-working people.
...[quote]

If there are no hard working people that's hardly a problem is it? According to your therory none of us can be bothered to do anything other than live in shit. So if that's what we wanty to do that's what we do. Where's the problem?

[QUOTE=fabian;2439121]If that was pointed against the existence of personal possessions based on the Labor theory of property, that's like saying there's an exclusivist anti-rape problem...

No, really it isn't.

... Everyone has a property in himself, and thus a right to life, bodily integrity and liberty, and from that follows the right to the full product of one's labor.

How much rubbish is that? You have the right to your body, you don't have the right to anything you make, that's ridiculous.

All products are social products, yoy yourself are a social product and therefore (according to your logic) we have the right to decide what happens to you. You're using our language, our internet, our electricity, our food, our philosophy... so either 'give it back' or admit that you're part of society and your philosophy is junk.

Jimmie Higgins

7th May 2012, 18:07

There are Leninist opposed to state-capitalism and the USSR?Yup.

Anyways, Lenin was fighting for capitalism:Nope

"The economic development of Russia, as of the whole world, proceeds from feudalism to capitalism, and through large-scale, machine, capitalist production to socialism."

And what about this:

"Marxists have repeatedly spoken about the importance of the free mobilisation (i.e., the buying, selling and mortgaging) of peasant land. This real and, practical problem affords a striking illustration of the petty-bourgeois and even positively reactionary character of our Narodniks."

(both quotes are from Left-Wing Narodism and Marxism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/jun/19.htm))

Almost all of the Market socialist accept the Labor theory of property (and bu that denying the legitimacy of all unearned incomes) and would thus never support any buying or selling of land, being that it is not the product of labour, and can only be owned under occupancy and use principle."fighting for state-capitalism" has a shade of truth to it in the same way that a middle school kid can claim that he's slept with another student because he/she fell asleep next to that kid on a field trip bus ride.

As for these quotes in particular, the first one is orthodox marxism: you can not go from feudalism to socialism. Russia was modernizing, there was a mix of antiquated feudal and new capitalists relations - people reacted to the rise of capitalism in different ways and since it was a peasant-majority country and since the intellectuals had long-oriented around the idea of the peasantry and semi-peasantry (since serfdom had been abolished a generation before) often this took the form of wanting to "aviod" the horrors of industrial development that had already occoured in other places in Europe.

In this piece Lenin is arguing that while subjectively the peasantry is right to resent this development, but wrong to try and reach socialism while trying to stop capitalist modernization since it had already begun and created a small but powerful working class. Essentially he is criticizing them for trying to leapfrog from feudalism to socialism, something he attributes here to petty-bourgeois idealism.

He is not comparing capitalism to state-capitalism or capitalism to socialism, here he is stating the completely uncontroversial position of all Marxists at this time that Capitalism was objectively and historically progressive compared to Feudalism. Anyone who calls themselves a Marxist should agree with this point since it is a basic point of Marx/Engels.

As Lenin argues to illustrate the historical benefits TO TOILING PEOPLE of capitalism compared to feudalism:

The centuries of feudalism were centuries of torpor for the working people.

The decades of capitalism have roused millions of wage-workers.
Capitalism is progressive despite all it's horrors because unlike pesants, workers can revolt and create their own society.

There are far better quotes one can take out of context to try and show that Lenin was pro-State-Capitalism because this is the policy he advocated after the Revolution though it would still be mistaken to argue that this was his goal or what he was "fighting for" because he saw this and many of the post-revolution policies (such as bringing back bureaucrats, war-communism etc) as means to try and keep the revolution going during the civil war and famine and other difficulties faced. But again, you'd have to take these quotes and policies out of their historical context and read history backwards to say that state-capitalism was the goal of Lenin or the Bolsheviks at the time of the Revolution. It would be like arguing that someone trying to drive North was actually trying to drive South because they took a southern-facing route to get to a freeway that could take them north. I guess to take my silly analogy further: the revolution took a wrong turn somewhere and Stalinism then argued that we weren't lost but that north was actually found in the south.

fabian

7th May 2012, 18:12

If there are no hard working people that's hardly a problem is it?
Well if we're not talking about some futurist post-scarcity utopia, then if there aren't are hard-working people, the lazy people could satisfy only the need for food and shelter and nothing beyond that, and even the ability to satisfy that two is highly arguable.

You have the right to your body, you don't have the right to anything you make, that's ridiculous.
So, when you make or earn something, and I just come along and take it, and there's nothing wrong with that? If yes, first thing- that means there's nothing wrong with capitalism, second thing- where do you live?

All products are social products
If there's no thing such as the product of one's labor, that capitalism basically isn't exploitative.

yoy yourself are a social product and therefore (according to your logic) we have the right to decide what happens to you.
According to "my logic" which I said that bases on self-ownership? Seems like your brain isn't working.

You're using our language, our internet, our electricity, our food, our philosophy... so either 'give it back'
Every possessions and service I don't make, earn or pay for should be taken away from and denied to me. I'm against all parasitism- that includes both the capitalist one and the slacker/ free-rider one.

Prometeo liberado

7th May 2012, 18:19

How can one simultaneously advocate for market socialism and at the same time fight for a communist world, abolishing of capital. If you advocate a market economy then you solidify the capital market regardless of safeguards and good intentions. Kindler,gentler capitalism? Simply put you can not serve two masters. You people kill me, where is TrotskistMarx for clarification when you need him?

W1N5T0N

7th May 2012, 18:21

lol welcome to europe

Revolution starts with U

7th May 2012, 18:36

Well if we're not talking about some futurist post-scarcity utopia, then if there aren't are hard-working people, the lazy people could satisfy only the need for food and shelter and nothing beyond that, and even the ability to satisfy that two is highly arguable.

I think it's safe to say that without the exclusivity of the property principle, we already live in a post-scarcity "utopia." We produce enough food to feed 10b people (we're only approaching 8b total). We could provide electricity to nearly the whole world, if resources weren't being spent on giant mansions, yachts, and the factories to make such luxury items, and the trucks, ships, and planes, to carry them. The internet provides a means for universal education to the entire planet...
I would think it safe to say that property is really the only thing stopping us from achieving post-scarcity right now.

Not only the above, but socialism would provide the means to do this with shorter working hours, and less "employment' in the traditional sense. Are we going to force people to produce more for production's sake? If we can get all this done with less labor and more leisure... what's the problem? Where is the "free rider" problem?
I guess I just don't understand what the problem would be with a swami spending all his days in a cave, but still able to come into town and get fed for free, or even find a clean and warm place to stay for free, if we didn't need his labor time to produce that much.

So, when you make or earn something, and I just come along and take it, and there's nothing wrong with that? If yes, first thing- that means there's nothing wrong with capitalism, second thing- where do you live?

The problem is the "thief" in this scenario is still just personalizing social goods. Now, if you "make or earn" 50 apples and hoard them in front of 49 starving people, yes, we can and should just come along and take your apples.

You're still thinking in moralistic terms (theft is "bad," earning is "good"), and not in actual material situations surrounding incidents (stealing what when? earning what how?).

If there's no thing such as the product of one's labor, that capitalism basically isn't exploitative.

Explain plz.

fabian

7th May 2012, 19:38

you can not go from feudalism to socialism.
No reason why not, you can do whatever you want. Free Territory went from feudalism to some stateless classless communal socialism (almost communism).

As Lenin argues to illustrate the historical benefits TO TOILING PEOPLE of capitalism compared to feudalism:
I think there are nom. I see capitalism as a reformed fedualism, and feudalism as reformed slavery. Social-democracy is in a similar vein a reformed capitalism, although reformed in a lesser degree (state-capitalism is the proper analogy), and I see no benefits in reforming a system, I think that not only doesn't help in establishing a just and good system, but positively damages the fight for it, I agree with Chernyshevsky "the worse the better".

Capitalism is progressive despite all it's horrors because unlike pesants, workers can revolt and create their own society.
Peasants can revolt and did, serfs can revolt and did, slaves can revolt and did, and everythime they did revolt on a scale large enough they got deceived with the story of reforms and the "natural progression" you mention here.

You can establish socialism from slavery, and from feudalism, and from capitalism, including state-capitalism and social-democracy, but it the best IMO to be done in most regressive state, not in the "progressive" states of a corrupt system, because the more regressive the state of the system is, the more dissatisfaction there is among the productive memers of the society, and dissatistvation with the status quo is the basis of change.

you'd have to take these quotes and policies out of their historical context and read history backwards to say that state-capitalism was the goal of Lenin or the Bolsheviks at the time of the Revolution.
You wouldn't have to. The bolshevik were not compeled by historical circumstances to fight for capitalism instead of socialism, but their dogmatic adherence to marxism, the historical circumstances didn't stop the Ukrainians from establishing socialism on their territory.

How can one simultaneously advocate for market socialism and at the same time fight for a communist world, abolishing of capital.
I just advocate market socialism, I'm not for communism.

But it's interesting that the someone advocating market socialism and in the same time say that he fights for communism "kills you", yet someone advocating capitalism and/or state-capitalism and in the same time saying he fights for communism doesn't.

Jimmie Higgins

7th May 2012, 19:55

No reason why not, you can do whatever you want. Free Territory went from feudalism to some stateless classless communal socialism (almost communism).

I think there are nom. I see capitalism as a reformed fedualism, and feudalism as reformed slavery. Social-democracy is in a similar vein a reformed capitalism, although reformed in a lesser degree (state-capitalism is the proper analogy), and I see no benefits in reforming a system, I think that not only doesn't help in establishing a just and good system, but positively damages the fight for it, I agree with Chernyshevsky "the worse the better".

Peasants can revolt and did, serfs can revolt and did, slaves can revolt and did, and everythime they did revolt on a scale large enough they got deceived with the story of reforms and the "natural progression" you mention here.

You can establish socialism from slavery, and from feudalism, and from capitalism, including state-capitalism and social-democracy, but it the best IMO to be done in most regressive state, not in the "progressive" states of a corrupt system, because the more regressive the state of the system is, the more dissatisfaction there is among the productive memers of the society, and dissatistvation with the status quo is the basis of change.

You wouldn't have to. The bolshevik were not compeled by historical circumstances to fight for capitalism instead of socialism, but their dogmatic adherence to marxism, the historical circumstances didn't stop the Ukrainians from establishing socialism on their territory.

I just advocate market socialism, I'm not for communism.

But it's interesting that the someone advocating market socialism and in the same time say that he fights for communism "kills you", yet someone advocating capitalism and/or state-capitalism and in the same time saying he fights for communism doesn't.

Sorry, I thought you understood some of the basic concepts and jargon of Marxism. My mistake for using Marxist-specific terms and connotations. To throw some more terms out there: this is really a debate about idealism vs. materialism.

Valdyr

7th May 2012, 20:23

No reason why not, you can do whatever you want. Free Territory went from feudalism to some stateless classless communal socialism (almost communism).

All we need is a revolution in consciousness, maaaaaaaaan.

I think there are nom. I see capitalism as a reformed fedualism, and feudalism as reformed slavery.

Care to provide a reason for this? At least we Marxists have a detailed analysis of productive relations.

Social-democracy is in a similar vein a reformed capitalism, although reformed in a lesser degree (state-capitalism is the proper analogy), and I see no benefits in reforming a system, I think that not only doesn't help in establishing a just and good system, but positively damages the fight for it, I agree with Chernyshevsky "the worse the better".

The rest of your post as well as this are supremely idealist in the Marxist sense. This debate is either going to have to go philosophical/methodological or it isn't going to go anywhere.

Bostana

7th May 2012, 21:01

Yes, yes it is.

Ocean Seal

7th May 2012, 21:03

Getting rid of the exploiters without getting rid of the markets killing a bug without wiping it off the surface which you killed it on. It no longer pesters you for the moment, but pretty soon you'll be pissed off that you didn't wipe it off.

**We can't get rid of capitalism without it first reaching its crises caused by nihilistic production, and ultimately if we retain nihilistic production, even without capitalists we will still face the same problems that exist under capitalism.

Black Cross

7th May 2012, 21:11

The idea of "market socialism" collapses in on itself like a dying star.

Anyway, markets are shitsville. Why bog production down with silly things like money and speculation when we could use scientific methods to determine societal needs?

that's why we call ourselves socialists, not communist.

Is there a difference?

DinodudeEpic

8th May 2012, 00:06

You're all going to lump my ideas with Fabian's into the category of 'market socialism' even though we are practically different in every other way?

I advocate for the abolishment of capitalist relationships due to it practically being theft, by the capitalists, on the workers. Through an Economic Bill of Rights.

Ironically, I am for markets because they are the natural result of not having the government outright ban them, and they pretty much are a highly efficient and scientific way of distributing goods. It has this competitive drive for innovation, which is increased when not restrained by corporate meddling. While, Fabian is an open statist.

Railyon

8th May 2012, 09:23

[Markets] are a highly efficient and scientific way of distributing goods.

Efficient in what way? Is this efficiency even needed (meaning by that a need for a "fair" allocation)? I think that's the most interesting question.

One that fabian, as far as I'm aware, hasn't answered either. Why do we need a mechanism for allocation if productive capabilities have reached such a high level that the need for the people to enslave themselves to their own labor is redundant? (Looking at simple commodity production here - people can't produce everything they need themselves so they are compelled to engage in commodity production and trade, but this kind of alienation perpetuates the master-slave dialectic of labor over the laborer)

Your answer seems to be a competitive drive for innovation. Why not a cooperative drive for innovation?

fabian

8th May 2012, 09:30

this is really a debate about idealism vs. materialism.
I accept that, although I'd maybe say it's between realism and dogmatism. I'm not idealistic for thinking you can go from feudalism to socialism, as I mentioned, Ukranians went from feudalism to (almost) communism, they established a classless stateless society based on direct democracy (even the army was based on it), with communal ownership of the means of production, they only did last anough (irony being that the "communists" destroyed them) to abolish trade and money. So, people have allready proved in practice that it's possible to go from feudalism directly to socialism, and that's a fact, not daydreaming of an idealist.

Care to provide a reason for this? At least we Marxists have a detailed analysis of productive relations.
I focus primarily on the existence of the upper parasite and the lower productive classes of people.

Getting rid of the exploiters without getting rid of the markets killing a bug without wiping it off the surface which you killed it on. It no longer pesters you for the moment, but pretty soon you'll be pissed off that you didn't wipe it off.

**We can't get rid of capitalism without it first reaching its crises caused by nihilistic production, and ultimately if we retain nihilistic production, even without capitalists we will still face the same problems that exist under capitalism.
What problem concretely?

Why bog production down with silly things like money and speculation when we could use scientific methods to determine societal needs?
Yeah, that worked out nicely in the USSR. Anyways, let me google that for you (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Economic+calculation+problem).

Is there a difference?
To each according to his contribution vs. to each according to his needs.

Why do we need a mechanism for allocation if productive capabilities have reached such a high level that the need for the people to enslave themselves to their own labor is redundant?
I believe that to be a futurist utopia. Hard-work will not be reduntant any time soon.

but this kind of alienation perpetuates the master-slave dialectic of labor over the laborer
I abhor the anti-work idea, of seeing work as something bad, seeing labor as master and yourself a slave; I see the anti-work idea as the root of parasitism. The rotten systems subsist on that idea, when enough workers are brainwashed to believe that there is possibility for them to become a part of the parasitic class, if only they save enough money to buy their freedom, or their land, or invest (in slavery, feudalism, capitalism respectively), and if not them, then their children at least.

l'EnfermÃ©

8th May 2012, 09:33

Neither are Leninists (and all their derivatives) - they're all state capitalist.

restrict all non-socialist

http://i.iflip.im/t/x-all-the-y.jpg
Leninists don't exist. Leninism isn't disctinct from Marxism. Lenin was a Marxist through and through. If anything, Lenin was a Kautskyist, but I still don't see Kautsyism as something seperate from Marxism.

While I agree that Leninists are state capitalists at least they share the same end goal of a classless, stateless, moneyless society. They just have a different way to get there. You on the other hand want no such thing. You advocate a market system as your end goal, all you want is a nicer capitalism.

Is your name to do with the fabian society by any chance?
Those that adhere to Lenin's views are not State-Capitalists, nope.

That's communism. Market socialist aren't communist, we're socialist, - that's why we call ourselves socialists, not communist.

Actually, with the ancient roman philosopher Papirius Fabianus, but there are similarities between my views and view of some founding members of the Fabian Society.

There are Leninist opposed to state-capitalism and the USSR? Anyways, Lenin was fighting for capitalism:

"The economic development of Russia, as of the whole world, proceeds from feudalism to capitalism, and through large-scale, machine, capitalist production to socialism."

And what about this:

"Marxists have repeatedly spoken about the importance of the free mobilisation (i.e., the buying, selling and mortgaging) of peasant land. This real and, practical problem affords a striking illustration of the petty-bourgeois and even positively reactionary character of our Narodniks."

(both quotes are from Left-Wing Narodism and Marxism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/jun/19.htm))

Almost all of the Market socialist accept the Labor theory of property (and bu that denying the legitimacy of all unearned incomes) and would thus never support any buying or selling of land, being that it is not the product of labour, and can only be owned under occupancy and use principle.
Nope, "Leninists" are still not state-capitalists, the quotes you posted in no way paint Lenin as a state-capitalist.

No reason why not, you can do whatever you want. Free Territory went from feudalism to some stateless classless communal socialism (almost communism).

That's not exactly true. Makhno's personal fiefdom, the Free Territory, went from capitalism(after all it was one of the most economically developed parts of the Russian Empire, because of its coal) to an undemocratic military dictatorship under the leadership of a warlord. To call the Free Territory stateless and classless is insane.

You can establish socialism from slavery, and from feudalism, and from capitalism, including state-capitalism and social-democracy, but it the best IMO to be done in most regressive state, not in the "progressive" states of a corrupt system, because the more regressive the state of the system is, the more dissatisfaction there is among the productive memers of the society, and dissatistvation with the status quo is the basis of change.

You can't "establish" Socialism anywhere where the economic conditions are not developed enough, so no, Socialism can't be "established" in a slave or feudal society, only in an advanced capitalist society.

You wouldn't have to. The bolshevik were not compeled by historical circumstances to fight for capitalism instead of socialism, but their dogmatic adherence to marxism, the historical circumstances didn't stop the Ukrainians from establishing socialism on their territory.

The Makhnovites weren't trying to "establish" socialism on their territory, they weren't even Socialists, they were self-described Anarchists, where the hell is all that coming from? They did establish a pretty shitty military dictatorship in Makhno's fiefdom though, which was soon disestablished by the Red army, but I don't know what it has to do with socialism...

Railyon

8th May 2012, 09:42

Nope, "Leninists" are still not state-capitalists, the quotes you posted in no way paint Lenin as a state-capitalist.

State capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months’ time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become invincible in this country.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htm

The state capitalism, which is one of the principal aspects of the New Economic Policy, is, under Soviet power, a form of capitalism that is deliberately permitted and restricted by the working class. Our state capitalism differs essentially from the state capitalism in countries that have bourgeois governments in that the state with us is represented not by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat, who has succeeded in winning the full confidence of the peasantry.
Unfortunately, the introduction of state capitalism with us is not proceeding as quickly as we would like it. For example, so far we have not had a single important concession, and without foreign capital to help develop our economy, the latter’s quick rehabilitation is inconceivable.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/nov/14b.htm

Jimmie Higgins

8th May 2012, 09:52

I accept that, although I'd maybe say it's between realism and dogmatism. I'm not idealistic for thinking you can go from feudalism to socialism, as I mentioned, Ukranians went from feudalism to (almost) communism, they established a classless stateless society based on direct democracy (even the army was based on it), with communal ownership of the means of production, they only did last anough (irony being that the "communists" destroyed them) to abolish trade and money. So, people have allready proved in practice that it's possible to go from feudalism directly to socialism, and that's a fact, not daydreaming of an idealist.What is dogamtism? To me it would imply sticking to an idea irregardless of any material vindication or evidence. There have been plenty of dogmatic Marxists just as there are dogmatic scientists - but that doesn't mean science or marxism are dogmatic, just that people can be dogmatic about ideas. Considering the generations of different theories and arguments, I'd say marxism and anarchism are far from dogmatic. This dogmatism claim is left over from the shitty top-down anti-critical politics and policies of specific parties and tendencies from the cold war.

So it's not dogmatism I'm interested in, the opposite, what actually fits reality and I think the problem with arguing that socialism just takes the right thinking and ideas is that it doesn't fit material reality.

First the centuries of slavery and feudalism weren't simply "bad ideas" - it wasn't that 1000+ years of serfs never thought, gee, this isn't the best system. There were plenty of peasant revolts, but to actually destroy the feudal system requires a peasant army, but to have a peasant army, the peasants have to leave their land and become soldiers, then they can defeat the feudal rulers and put this peasant army in charge - and then they become the new feudal rulers - even if they are benign and pro-peasant feudal rulers. If they don't maintain a case of soldiers to protect the peasant commune, then some ambitious nearby Prince would just come in and take it. So there were plenty of revolts and in many places peasant revolutions, but they could only succeed in re-arranging and re-reacting feudal relations. To have a division of labor where some people don't have to be farming all the time but can patrol the commons or train as soldiers means that you end up with classes and so feudalism developed out of peasant commons and to think that people could just reverse this historical development is totally idealist.

Capitalism however, unlike slave and feudal systems, has created a surplus - we make more than enough for ourselves a clergy and nobles, we make more than enough to feed everyone, make clothes and shelter for everyone. The contradiction is that the way this production and society are organized actually prevent further development of production for use as well as the ability to use that surplus to feed and house everyone.

Capitalism is progressive compared to slavery and feudalism because it has opened up the material possibility for classes to be obsolete.

fabian

8th May 2012, 09:54

Leninists don't exist. Leninism isn't disctinct from Marxism. Lenin was a Marxist through and through.
Exactly why I'm not a Marxist, I see the story of the progression of economic systems not as criticism, but as an apology of capitalism. I think slavery, feudalism and capitalism are all tumors that should have never existed and should always be fought against, never for them, and I thing there is nothing good about them in any context.

If anything, Lenin was a Kautskyist
As far I know, they trashed eachother a bit, and disagreed about the Octobar revolution.

Those that adhere to Lenin's views are not State-Capitalists, nope.
Okay, drop the "state-".

Makhno's personal fiefdom, the Free Territory, went from capitalism(after all it was one of the most economically developed parts of the Russian Empire, because of its coal) to an undemocratic military dictatorship under the leadership of a warlord.
Yeah right, a democratic military, where the soldiers elected their leaders, and voted for all the policies efective in the army established a "undemocratic dictatorship". And I guess the bolshevik did the opposite?

You can't "establish" Socialism anywhere where the economic conditions are not developed enough
Yes you can, you take out parasitism out of the equation, an

The Makhnovites weren't trying to "establish" socialism on their territory, they weren't even Socialists, they were self-described Anarchists
They were communists, and communism is by definition anarchist (stateless), and ofcource they called themselves anarchist, they had to differentiate themselves from the other "communists" who fought for capitalism.

They did establish a pretty shitty military dictatorship in Makhno's fiefdom though
They established a classless stateless society based on direct democracy (even the army was based on it), with communal ownership of the means of production, they only did last anough (irony being that the "communists" destroyed them) to abolish trade and money.

What is dogamtism? To me it would imply sticking to an idea irregardless of any material vindication or evidence.
Exactly. Socialism, and one comming pretty close to communism, has been established from feudalism. You're saying that it's impossible, and yet it has been done. I'd call that dogmatic.

First the centuries of slavery and feudalism weren't simply "bad ideas" - it wasn't that 1000+ years of serfs never thought, gee, this isn't the best system. There were plenty of peasant revolts, but to actually destroy the feudal system requires a peasant army, but to have a peasant army, the peasants have to leave their land and become soldiers, then they can defeat the feudal rulers and put this peasant army in charge - and then they become the new feudal rulers
There's no connection there. The could put the peasant army in charge and not become new feudal rules, but put occupancy and use principle of land ownership, and thus no feudalists would exist.

If they don't maintain a case of soldiers to protect the peasant commune
They give army food and clothing and shelter to maintain it, if there are some princes around that could attact.

So there were plenty of revolts and in many places peasant revolutions, but they could only succeed in re-arranging and re-reacting feudal relations.
No, that's what they did, but that was not the only thing possible to do.

To have a division of labor where some people don't have to be farming all the time but can patrol the commons or train as soldiers means that you end up with classes
Professions aren't classes.

to think that people could just reverse this historical development is totally idealist.
I don't think there is a fixed historical development, I don't accept determinism.

Capitalism however, unlike slave and feudal systems, has created a surplus - we make more than enough for ourselves a clergy and nobles, we make more than enough to feed everyone, make clothes and shelter for everyone.
That suprlus came to existence along with agriculture.

Capitalism is progressive compared to slavery and feudalism because it has opened up the material possibility for classes to be obsolete.
Stoics for a classless society back in the slavery system. Many socialist-like and communist-like groups existed both during slavery and feudalism.

l'EnfermÃ©

8th May 2012, 10:05

State capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months’ time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become invincible in this country.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htm

The state capitalism, which is one of the principal aspects of the New Economic Policy, is, under Soviet power, a form of capitalism that is deliberately permitted and restricted by the working class. Our state capitalism differs essentially from the state capitalism in countries that have bourgeois governments in that the state with us is represented not by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat, who has succeeded in winning the full confidence of the peasantry.
Unfortunately, the introduction of state capitalism with us is not proceeding as quickly as we would like it. For example, so far we have not had a single important concession, and without foreign capital to help develop our economy, the latter’s quick rehabilitation is inconceivable.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/nov/14b.htm
Wait, wait...because I think that feudalism is an improvement over slavery, that makes me somehow pro-feudalism? What is wrong with Lenin's conclusion and how does it make him a state-capitalist? It's not even his conclusion, it's Engels'(the conclusion that State-Capitalism is the last stagest of capitalism and directly precedes Socialism, meaning that State-Capitalism is the most progressive order of things before Socialism)...the only issue, with the first quote, is that Lenin says that the Socialism's hold will become permanent if State-Capitalism is established, which contradicts the view of Lenin, and the rest of the Bolsheviks, a view they all held before and after Lenin wrote that, that successfull counter-revolution in Russia is a certain inevitability unless the the Socialist Revolution spreads to the core of the Capitalist world. A view in which Lenin was correct, although he didn't foresee that this counter-revolution would take the form of the Stalinist bureaucracy and would last until Gorbachev and Yeltsin finally dismantled the last remnants of the Soviet legacy.

Jimmie Higgins

8th May 2012, 10:07

Yeah right, a democratic military, where the soldiers elected their leaders, and voted for all the policies efective in the army established a "undemocratic dictatorship". And I guess the bolshevik did the opposite? The Bolsheviks were operating under bad material circumstances and so were the Makhnoists. They did not achieve communism they achieved a benign warlord zone on egalitarian principles - which then began to unravel during hardships (much like Russia in microcosm). Of course it took a revolution of workers soldiers and peasants (in a country where serfdom and the aristocracy had already been eliminated/weakened respectively and where capitalist relations had begun to take hold and in a Europe that was largely becoming capitalist) to open up the space for the Makhnovist area, so that kinda weakens your argument that any society at any time can create socialism (if only the have the will?).

The Makhnovists gained support against the bolsheviks by opposing conscription and grain requisitioning, but then this army turned around and conscripted people and took grain (all while claiming it was voluntary).

They established a classless stateless society based on direct democracy (even the army was based on it), with communal ownership of the means of production, they only did last anough (irony being that the "communists" destroyed them) to abolish trade and money.My understanding was that the peasants had individual ownership of the land they used, not communal ownership and socialist relations. But I've mostly only read about the army, not the organization of the area.

Workers-Control-Over-Prod

8th May 2012, 10:24

Well, why the fuck use markets if you're already at the stage of being able to abolish all class relations at the workplace?!? Markets are limited, they are in fact dying, capital is dying, money is losing its historical use: Look at all the crises facing humanity that will need logical investment, increasingly! Look at the low rate of Profit! Money, Capital-ism, markets are losing their historical use, they are becoming obstacles to human development, look at the third world, look at the monopolies and small companies that can't compete etc.
The Future is Communism
And we will see it come by workers' councils if not within the next twenty years, at the very least within this century, believe me, market socialism, state capitalism, markets, capital, money etc. all about to become obsolete. Everything is piling up: debt, economic internal contradictions, material reality and the productive forces versus the capablities of existing institutions, overproduction versus human capability to consume, potential for territorial expansion etc.; It is all rapidly making the existing institutions unable to deal with the developing present and coming future.

Jimmie Higgins

8th May 2012, 10:26

Exactly. Socialism, and one comming pretty close to communism, has been established from feudalism. You're saying that it's impossible, and yet it has been done. I'd call that dogmatic. First you say it was (almost) communism so that kinda invalidates your proof. Can anyone set up a commune? Sure, with the money or resources - and it's happened all throughout history. That's not communism, that's not a system or a different society, that's just a commune existing within a different system. There are co-opts today in many cities - that doesn't make them socialist or communist.

There's no connection there. The could put the peasant army in charge and not become new feudal rules, but put occupancy and use principle of land ownership, and thus no feudalists would exist.If only 1000s of years worth of people were as smart as you and me eh? No, that's like saying we just need a king to organize elections for us every 4 years and then we wouldn't have a monarchy. You are describing a kind of benign or enlightened feudalism, not some new system. If a CEO declares that policies will be voted on by workers in his shop, that's merely reorganizing a specific capitalist organization along egalitarian lines, not socialism in a fundamental systemic sense.

Professions aren't classes.No they aren't and soldiers do not have the same relationship to the means of production as peasants or proletarians, so a professional soldier in the feudal era (usually a peasant removed from the lands and then made the property of the army) does not have the same class interests as a peasant - unless he is returned to the land.

I don't think there is a fixed historical development, I don't accept determinism.
There is a deterministic "stagiest" theory shared by some social-dems and by most M-Ls that is deterministic. Analysing and recognizing the DEVELOPMENT of these systems in a materialist way is not deterministic. Capitalism arose out of feudalism and was historically progressive from the presepctive of freeing people from the land and allowing a greater degree (though systemically limited) of social mobility (compared to ridged castes). This is as deterministic as saying that the horse and buggy led to the automobile. In other words it's just an observation of history. And the other irony in your claim is that Lenin and Trotsky both developed arguments for why Russia didn't need to have bourgoise rule before moving to socialism, that the material conditions, because of the mixed nature of Russia and it's later capitalist development meant that the middle class wouldn't be able to lead a revolution and workers could achieve socialism because internationally capitalism had developed to allow this possibility even if Russia itself was a little behind. Their Marxism was dynamic, not dogmatic.

Railyon

8th May 2012, 10:33

Wait, wait...because I think that feudalism is an improvement over slavery, that makes me somehow pro-feudalism?

That's not what I'm saying, I'm just playing devil's advocate. :)

I just kind of see it as a stepping stone to all kinds of distortions and bullshit employed by the new bourgeoisie in the "socialist" countries to justify their rule. Like the conflation of state capitalism with socialism; they're not the same. I'd even go out on a limb and say they are not even necessarily deterministically related.

fabian

8th May 2012, 10:53

My understanding was that the peasants had individual ownership of the land they used, not communal ownership and socialist relations.
Actually, it was based on the traditional medieval russian concept of communal ownership on land within a village.

"Obshchina (Russian: о́бщина, literally: "commune") or Mir (Russian: мир, literally: "society" ) or Selskoye obshestvo (Russian: Cельское общество ("Rural community", official term in the 19th and 20th century) were peasant communities, as opposed to individual farmsteads, or khutors, in Imperial Russia. The term derives from the word о́бщий, obshchiy (common).

The vast majority of Russian peasants held their land in communal ownership within a mir community, which acted as a village government and a cooperative. Arable land was divided in sections based on soil quality and distance from the village. Each household had the right to claim one or more strips from each section depending on the number of adults in the household. The purpose of this allocation was not so much social (to each according to his needs) as it was practical (that each person pay his taxes). Strips were periodically re-allocated on the basis of a census, to ensure equitable share of the land."

First you say it was (almost) communism so that kinda invalidates your proof. Can anyone set up a commune?
It was almost communism, it just didn't abolish money, everything else that defines communism was established. Yeah, a commune of 7 million people. My country has less today.

that's like saying we just need a king to organize elections for us every 4 years and then we wouldn't have a monarchy.
If he's put there by elections, and can be revoked by elections, yes- that's not a monarchy.

If a CEO declares that policies will be voted on by workers in his shop, that's merely reorganizing a specific capitalist organization along egalitarian lines, not socialism in a fundamental systemic sense.
If the CEO is there by elections, his salary is democratically voted, and can be revoked in any time by the same people who put him in position, yes- that's socialism in a fundamental sense.

This is as deterministic as saying that the horse and buggy led to the automobile.
Want a proper analogy? It would be like saying that there had to first be a Stanhope before making a car, and that car could have never been made it there was first not the existence of a stanhope carriage as a condition. And with cars being made in other countries, and your county only having horse and buggies (but no stanhopes), you advocate not making cars, but you advocate first making Stanhope carriages, because "you have to do that first" before developing cars, and you also as a bonus destroy factories of those who started directly building cars, and not stanhopes.

Lenin and Trotsky both developed arguments for why Russia didn't need to have bourgoise rule before moving to socialism, that the material conditions, because of the mixed nature of Russia and it's later capitalist development meant that the middle class wouldn't be able to lead a revolution and workers could achieve socialism because internationally capitalism had developed to allow this possibility even if Russia itself was a little behind. Their Marxism was dynamic, not dogmatic.
Yet they established state capitalism.

Jimmie Higgins

8th May 2012, 11:50

Actually, it was based on the traditional medieval russian concept of communal ownership on land within a village.

"Obshchina (Russian: о́бщина, literally: "commune") or Mir (Russian: мир, literally: "society" ) or Selskoye obshestvo (Russian: Cельское общество ("Rural community", official term in the 19th and 20th century) were peasant communities, as opposed to individual farmsteads, or khutors, in Imperial Russia. The term derives from the word о́бщий, obshchiy (common).

The vast majority of Russian peasants held their land in communal ownership within a mir community, which acted as a village government and a cooperative. Arable land was divided in sections based on soil quality and distance from the village. Each household had the right to claim one or more strips from each section depending on the number of adults in the household. The purpose of this allocation was not so much social (to each according to his needs) as it was practical (that each person pay his taxes). Strips were periodically re-allocated on the basis of a census, to ensure equitable share of the land."

It was almost communism, it just didn't abolish money, everything else that defines communism was established. Yeah, a commune of 7 million people. My country has less today.

1. So this could have happened without the context of the Russian Revolution in your view? How is this a socialist society, rather than just a more egalitarian version of feudal relations?

2. Thanks for clearing up my question, but this position is more or less the same as the ones of the Narodnic-Intellectuals that Lenin was criticizing in the article you quoted from. The high-feudalism of kings and so on arose out of these kinds of communes but it wasn't because people were simply duped into giving up a more egalitarian arrangement for a ridged caste hierarchy, these features developed out of the feudal arrangements and so to think that we could return to a past arrangement just by wishing it to be so is pure idealism. The pressures that led the feudal system to develop as it did would remain so even if you could return to a past arrangement, these contradictions and pressures would cause some kind of similar development to eventually take place.

Wanting everyone to live in peasant communes would also not be feasible with present populations because the vast majority of society would have to return to farming the land and so some of the occupations and institutions possible now due to the increased surplus created by capitalist relations would no longer exist.

3. Pedant-production is individual production so I can see why you keep using this to try and illustrate how industrial production could be individually done rather than democratically socialized. From the class perspective of pesants, it make sense: you work the land (maybe with your family or some other close people) and then you keep what you make rather than having to give some to the lord etc. Industrial capitalism uses collective labor though - you can't separate the people who work manufacturing from the people who do distribution or the people who make the parts at another factory. All that has to be coordinated for the whole thing to work whereas you don't need coordination in a farming commune, it's helpful for tool-making and so on, but not essential. In capitalism, the market helps coordinate these efforts or the capitalist state does (Prussia/Germany, 1800s Japan, USSR, China etc) or a combination as most capitalist powers did in the 20th century.

A market system with worker-owned firms would undermine any potential for proletarian democracy because it would remove some of this coordination from the democratic decision-making process. The exchange value would be more important than use-value not to mention problems of some firms of workers screwing over other firms or communities of workers.

If he's put there by elections, and can be revoked by elections, yes- that's not a monarchy.No I mean a King that decided when we get to vote for elected representatives, not vote for a new King. I'm just saying having an enlightened monarchy that does the same things a representative democracy might do is not the same as a representative democracy.

Want a proper analogy? It would be like saying that there had to first be a Stanhope before making a car, and that car could have never been made it there was first not the existence of a stanhope carriage as a condition. And with cars being made in other countries, and your county only having horse and buggies (but no stanhopes), you advocate not making cars, but you advocate first making Stanhope carriages, because "you have to do that first" before developing cars, and you also as a bonus destroy factories of those who started directly building cars, and not stanhopes.Yet this is not what I'm saying - I'm not arguing that Russia first had to have some odd amount of time under proper bourgeois rule before socialism was possible, as was the deterministic interpretation of marxism at that time. When Marx talks about this or that being a historically progressive thing or describing the tendency in which societies have developed, it's an observation of what HAS ALREADY happened and how this opens up new realistic possibilities, not what needs to happen to get to some ideal.

Yet they established state capitalism.The revolution failed, no question - but was this their intention? If a plane engine catches on fire and the plane has to make a water-landing, would you say that the intention of the flight all along was to land in the water? After the revolution many of the steps that were taken were attempts at means to a socialist end: often just trying to preserve the possibility of a return to worker's power after things had already begun to fall apart. The difference between these early measures and the more formal state-capitalism of the USSR later was that it wasn't claimed that nationalizations and a party-run state was socialism itself.

fabian

8th May 2012, 12:24

1. So this could have happened without the context of the Russian Revolution in your view? How is this a socialist society, rather than just a more egalitarian version of feudal relations?
When you take the feudalist away, it's not a feudalist society.

Industrial capitalism uses collective labor though - you can't separate the people who work manufacturing from the people who do distribution or the people who make the parts at another factory.
You can, they all can be separate- different production, transport and sale cooperatives existing on a market. Sales cooperative would purchace stuff from the production cooperatives, and pay the trasport cooperative to bring it to them.
Or they can all just join together in a single worker cooperative, or sales could join with the transport, or transport with production, or production with sales or as I said- they could all remain separate cooperatives- people should have the liberty to do what they want to, as long as there's not harm or exploitation.

A market system with worker-owned firms would undermine any potential for proletarian democracy because it would remove some of this coordination from the democratic decision-making process.
A decentralized system is a democracy, too, there doesn't have to be any common decision-making process, every big, small group and individual should have the liberty to join together or not, and to make decisions they want (as long as there's not harming or exploiting anyone).

No I mean a King that decided when we get to vote for elected representatives, not vote for a new King.
Yes, that would be still just be a monarchy.

But to from analogies back to economic systems, I'm not advocating a system where there would be capitalists who would allow employees to vote for some representatives to sit on a board of directors, but the disappearance of capitalists and direct and total worker ownership and menagement of the firms and factories they work in. I don't see how that's a nicer, kinder, or any kind of capitalism.

When Marx talks about this or that being a historically progressive thing or describing the tendency in which societies have developed, it's an observation of what HAS ALREADY happened and how this opens up new realistic possibilities, not what needs to happen to get to some ideal.
Yet instead of saying- well, trough-out history we see in a majority of cases a progression from slavery to feudalism, and from feudalism to capitalism, some people keep saying- feudalism has to come from slavery, capitalism has to come from feudalism, socialism has to come from capitalism, and that's it. Americans establishem capitalism from slavery, Ukranians established socialism from feudalism, yet there are stil people who are saying that tribe > slavery > feudalism > capitalism > socialism is the only possible way for things to happen.

The revolution failed, no question - but was this their intention?
I think yes. Not the revolution to fail, but to espablish capitalism- yes, so, IMO, their intended revolution was somewhat a success. You had Esers fighting for socialisation of property, Black army who were for communization, and the Bolshevik who fought for nationalization; it's pretty clear for me who was for socialism, who for communism, and who was for state-capitalism.

Jimmie Higgins

8th May 2012, 14:12

When you take the feudalist away, it's not a feudalist society.Frankly I think you mistake surface waves for tidal patterns. Feudalism did not happen because some aristocracy was placed on top of a society that could otherwise be egalitarian. You can take away one noble or lord or their personal machinery for rule, but unless you can replace that kind of social organization that led to the development of an aristocracy in the first place, unless society can be organized around new relations of production (around a new set of class interests) the same fundamental contradictions will remain, the same pressures and conditions that led early communes to become the more developed feudal system will remain. It may not develop into a carbon-copy of the old regime, but it will be something similar. In China many of the Dynasties began as peasant revolts - a new kinder military leader would lead a peasant army and get rid of the corrupt old regime but then replace it with a nicer regime, pass land reforms, help peasants, but then in a generation or two (if that long) the new regime's class interests would lead them to making many of the same kinds of policies and decisions as the old one.

In fact I think a version of this is what happened in Russia. While the Bolsheviks made mistakes and ideas are important, they are secondary. Worker's power was not maintained and an isolated Russia didn't have the capacity to have socialism. So what began as emergency substitution and the re-introduction of old bureaucrats into important positions became, without a new class able to run society, a sort of analogue for a capitalist class. Their goal wasn't worker's power but modernization of Russia so that it would be able to hold off the European powers (and the bureaucrats could then hold their positions) - this meant rapid industrialization and a state-directed "primitive accumulation". What this looked like was a very condensed version of capitalist "primitive accumulation" with top-down reorganization of peasant life, forced-labor, and all the rest.

How would you guess that a market-socialist society could be achieved by the way? How does class play into this view? I am not that familiar with these arguments.

You can, they all can be separate- different production, transport and sale cooperatives existing on a market. Sales cooperative would purchace stuff from the production cooperatives, and pay the trasport cooperative to bring it to them.
Or they can all just join together in a single worker cooperative, or sales could join with the transport, or transport with production, or production with sales or as I said- they could all remain separate cooperatives- people should have the liberty to do what they want to, as long as there's not harm or exploitation.Even in capitalism there is a drive towards monopolization because in many ways it's more efficient and easier to coordinate (and screw over competitors) - wouldn't this harm the market and so workers would have to prevent this? What about unemployment? Would one firm be able to drive others out of business by under-cutting them? Wouldn't that mean that it would be in the interests of the worker-bosses to create a second tier of workers who they could exploit so that they could get more profits than the competing firms and then drive them out of business and take more of the market? Would workers have to regulate this to prevent monopolies or exploitation of labor? If so, isn't that a centralized democratic mechanism for organizing the economy, then where would the line be draw between what the specific workers controlled vs. what was the jurisdiction of the wider working class population? How would you distinguish between "free-riders" and the unemployed after firms monopolized or reduced their labor-force to increase profitability?

A decentralized system is a democracy, too, there doesn't have to be any common decision-making process, every big, small group and individual should have the liberty to join together or not, and to make decisions they want (as long as there's not harming or exploiting anyone).But if a market is setting prices and determining distribution and production needs, then it's not in anyone's hands right? If workers in one firm, let's say a lumber company, make decisions that effect the democratic decision of a community to build more housing, then it's not just induvidual decisions, but impacting a larger collective process.

To me this is the difference between petty-bourgeois artisans, peasant farming families and other individual producers and capitalist production. A pesant produces food in their field regardless of what else is going on in society because they at least need to produce food for themselves, but someone working in a widget factory or driving a truck to the ports or whatnot, is one small part of a much larger collective process of production - you can't isolate out individual components of this machine and have it function in the same way. A truck driver is nothing without the workers who produce what the driver ships and workers at distribution cites to sell the goods to the public or other stores.

But to from analogies back to economic systems, I'm not advocating a system where there would be capitalists who would allow employees to vote for some representatives to sit on a board of directors, but the disappearance of capitalists and direct and total worker ownership and management of the firms and factories they work in. I don't see how that's a nicer, kinder, or any kind of capitalism. It's capitalism but with a more egalitarian management system for production IMO. No doubt it would be a more enjoyable and kinder experience for individual workers than regular capitalism as we know it, but just like co-ops today it would just be a capitalist enterprise with a democratic system of management. The problem again, would be that the fundamental contradictions of the profit-system would be at work - and personally I think from what I understand of this idea, in short order we'd see a return to normal fully subservient labor because it's easier to make profits this way. Capitalists aren't evil induviduals or greedy induviduals, it's the market and profit-system which compel them to act this way or get left behind and fail. Not removing these fundamental drivers of the capitalist system would mean not ridding ourselves of the problems that stem from it.

Yet instead of saying- well, trough-out history we see in a majority of cases a progression from slavery to feudalism, and from feudalism to capitalism, some people keep saying- feudalism has to come from slavery, capitalism has to come from feudalism, socialism has to come from capitalism, and that's it. Americans establishem capitalism from slavery, Ukranians established socialism from feudalism, yet there are stil people who are saying that tribe > slavery > feudalism > capitalism > socialism is the only possible way for things to happen.While some marxists may formulate things this way, I think it's not really a marxist view of these changes. Marxism, to me, is not deterministic at all - it's not that socialism is the only thing that could develop from capitalism, it's that capitalism has changed things in a way that makes socialism and ultimately the end of classes possible. Feudal relations could not feed the world and so socialism under these conditions would be a sharing of poverty, capitalism produces more than we could consume potentially (to the point that it actually has to destroy overproduction to preserve profitability) and so socialism is possible because we already produce enough, but are held back by the nature of capitalism from producing more or distributing based on need.

I think yes. Not the revolution to fail, but to espablish capitalism- yes, so, IMO, their intended revolution was somewhat a success. You had Esers fighting for socialisation of property, Black army who were for communization, and the Bolshevik who fought for nationalization; it's pretty clear for me who was for socialism, who for communism, and who was for state-capitalism.If that was their goal, why did they resist alliances with capitalist forces, why didn't they just go into the parliament when they had majority support in the soviets, why did they keep pushing when capitalism had already begun in Russia and a capitalist government formed after the Tsar was overthrown?

Azraella

8th May 2012, 14:27

I can only view market socialism/mutualism as a potential method of transition to communism and nothing else. It's not badwrong and I suspect markets won't be abolished over night and it's possible that markets will exist in a vestigal state in a communist society.

And would society enforce that?

All societies enforce social controls every society since the beginning of time has had social controls.

gozai

8th May 2012, 15:32

can we restrict these people please they are not socialists
Not all socialists are communists, and you dont have to be a communist in order to be a socialist, as you seem to assume. I at least think this should't only be for communists, but for all revolutionary leftists.

fabian

8th May 2012, 16:20

You can take away one noble or lord or their personal machinery for rule, but unless you can replace that kind of social organization that led to the development
Again with the determinism.

unless society can be organized around new relations of production
Socialism can exists both in a rural community, and in a industrialised community.

In China many of the Dynasties began as peasant revolts - a new kinder military leader would lead a peasant army and get rid of the corrupt old regime but then replace it with a nicer regime, pass land reforms, help peasants, but then in a generation or two (if that long) the new regime's class interests would lead them to making many of the same kinds of policies and decisions as the old one.
That doesn't mean that it was conditioned by historical circumcenses to be that way. I cannot and will not accept they had no possibility to insitute socialism because their "historical circuncenses" resticted them, and that they instead instuted a different version of the old system because it "had to be that way". That's exactly like saying- it was predetermined to be that way, and I reject determinism, be it historical, pysicalist, or religious.

So what began as emergency substitution and the re-introduction of old bureaucrats into important positions became, without a new class able to run society, a sort of analogue for a capitalist class.
But that wasn't an "emergency substitution", the Bolshevik were for nationalization before the revolution began.

Their goal wasn't worker's power but modernization of Russia so that it would be able to hold off the European powers
Wasn't the idea not to go for worker's power, but modernization of Russia because modernizatio and capitalism were necessary precursors of socialism?

How would you guess that a market-socialist society could be achieved by the way?
Proudhon' view was by market and class consciousness- more and more workers' cooperatives working parallel with capitalist firms, and more and more workers becoming class conscious and boycotting capitalist business until they all collapse. I think that's a nice plan, but to be coupled with a party comming to power and banning by law all unearned incomes.

Even in capitalism there is a drive towards monopolization because in many ways it's more efficient and easier to coordinate (and screw over competitors) - wouldn't this harm the market and so workers would have to prevent this?
Monopolization happens with capitalist firms accumulating profit and buying smaller firms, in a freed market there would be no capitalists, but a market of equals so you would have to have wrokers of one cooperative that agree to ask another cooperative to merge under such-and-such conditions, and the workers of the other cooperative to agree to accept the merger with such-and-such conditions. That's one difficulty.

Another is that monopolization and oligopolization are inefficient not just in generating quality and availability, but also in managment, why would people want to have a bunch of bureaucrats in their firm?

What about unemployment?
I think that wouldn't be a problem. People could turn to agriculture, being that anyone could own only so much land as much as he is able to use and cultivate without hiring help. Cooperatives as they gain earnings, being that they have no capitalist owner to take profits, in the beginning all earning go to wages, but when earnings increace they go increace the wages and also the size of cooperative, so new jobs would open easier, because in a market, people would want more and more man power in their cooperative, as much as they can have without it making them ineffection in management. Aslo, people could easily start their own cooperatives by opening new factories and firms, because, being that interest would be abolished, banks would give only interest-free loans which a group of people could easily take and start their own business.

Wouldn't that mean that it would be in the interests of the worker-bosses to create a second tier of workers who they could exploit
All exploatation would be abolished.

If workers in one firm, let's say a lumber company, make decisions that effect the democratic decision of a community to build more housing
A lumbering cooperative cannot stop a community from building housing. The community will simply buy lumber from another cooperative, or start a lumber cooperative, or just go and make luber themselves.

A pesant produces food in their field regardless of what else is going on in society because they at least need to produce food for themselves, but someone working in a widget factory or driving a truck to the ports or whatnot, is one small part of a much larger collective process of production - you can't isolate out individual components of this machine and have it function in the same way. A truck driver is nothing without the workers who produce what the driver ships and workers at distribution cites to sell the goods to the public or other stores.
And his job will exists as long as there is a need for it. If cities and factories happen to disappear and only farms and artisan shops remain, then there isn't any point in being concerned about the truck drivers losing jobs- what are you gonna do- artifically mantain the truck driving profession by some central planning except just letting all truck drivers become peasants or artisans, when there's no need for truck driving. But we have cities, and factories, and not only farms and artisan shops, so there is a need for truck drivers, and thus there is work for them, without the need for any central planing to make the need for truck drivers.

It's capitalism but with a more egalitarian management system for production IMO.
How is it capitalism? Where is the capitalist? Where are the profits? Where is the suprlus/ unpaid labor? Where are the unearned incomes? Nowhere. Then it's not capitalism.

capitalist enterprise with a democratic system of management
That's a contradiction in terms, being that capitalism is by it's nature anti-democratic, because it is defined by the employer-employee ("from above") relationship, wereas in (free makret) socialism there wouldn't such a thing, and everything would be organized would be "from bellow".

short order we'd see a return to normal fully subservient labor
Yeah right, the natural consequence of abolishing of exploatation is the emergance of exploation.

Capitalists aren't evil induviduals or greedy induviduals, it's the market and profit-system which compel them to act this way or get left behind and fail.
I disagree, I think they are evil and greedy individuals.

While some marxists may formulate things this way, I think it's not really a marxist view of these changes. Marxism, to me, is not deterministic at all - it's not that socialism is the only thing that could develop from capitalism, it's that capitalism has changed things in a way that makes socialism and ultimately the end of classes possible.
The concrete questions is do you think that capitalism in a necessary precursor for socialism.

Feudal relations could not feed the world and so socialism
I disagree, people could feed the world from the emergance of agriculture. That's basicaly like saying that until capitalism an individual could not feed himself without exploiting someone, which is just false, because the exploited ones fed both themselves and their exploiters.

If that was their goal, why did they resist alliances with capitalist forces
I guess, because they wanted to be the bureaucrats that would rule, and didn't want to share their power with other rules and exploiters, idk.

why didn't they just go into the parliament when they had majority support in the soviets
They didn't, Esers had almost two time more support, both in the First All-Russian Congress of Soviets and the Russian Constituent Assembly election in 1917, that's why they needed to keep pushing and and fighting.

All societies enforce social controls every society since the beginning of time has had social controls.
Communism is defined as a stateless society, and one based on freely associated individuals. When I work my field and produce crops, if they're not considered mine, and I'm not free to keep them and do whatever I want with them, e.g. sell or barter them, then there's no freedom to talk about.

Azraella

8th May 2012, 16:45

That still doesn't mean that there wouldn't be any social controls. Taboos, religious ethics, and other things are used for social control. Individiualism is a completely puerile attitude to try to stick to how society works. Just because I fight for an abolishment of hierarchies like capitalism and the state does not mean there will be a lack of social controls. They will exist in some form.

Revolution starts with U

8th May 2012, 19:08

That doesn't mean that it was conditioned by historical circumcenses to be that way. I cannot and will not accept they had no possibility to insitute socialism because their "historical circuncenses" resticted them, and that they instead instuted a different version of the old system because it "had to be that way". That's exactly like saying- it was predetermined to be that way, and I reject determinism, be it historical, pysicalist, or religious.

Not really, it's just saying that feudal relations to production will lead to a feudal society. That's no more deterministic than saying having an overconsumption relation to food will lead to being fat.

Proudhon' view was by market and class consciousness- more and more workers' cooperatives working parallel with capitalist firms, and more and more workers becoming class conscious and boycotting capitalist business until they all collapse. I think that's a nice plan, but to be coupled with a party comming to power and banning by law all unearned incomes.

It is a "nice" plan. What happens when standing capitalist government dissolves your party and brings military force against your cooperatives?

Monopolization happens with capitalist firms accumulating profit and buying smaller firms, in a freed market there would be no capitalists, but a market of equals so you would have to have wrokers of one cooperative that agree to ask another cooperative to merge under such-and-such conditions, and the workers of the other cooperative to agree to accept the merger with such-and-such conditions. That's one difficulty.
So what you're saying is it wouldn't be a market of money, but of votes? (Hint; that's not a market).

Another is that monopolization and oligopolization are inefficient not just in generating quality and availability, but also in managment, why would people want to have a bunch of bureaucrats in their firm?

Why do they want them their right now?

I think that wouldn't be a problem. People could turn to agriculture, being that anyone could own only so much land as much as he is able to use and cultivate without hiring help. Cooperatives as they gain earnings, being that they have no capitalist owner to take profits, in the beginning all earning go to wages, but when earnings increace they go increace the wages and also the size of cooperative, so new jobs would open easier, because in a market, people would want more and more man power in their cooperative, as much as they can have without it making them ineffection in management.
Which isn't much, because as we all know, the easiest way to increase profitability is to cut wages and lay off workers.

Aslo, people could easily start their own cooperatives by opening new factories and firms, because, being that interest would be abolished, banks would give only interest-free loans which a group of people could easily take and start their own business.

If banks are still giving money loans, and now they are interest free, what interest do the banks have in giving money to anyone, ever? And if the banks still control the money supply, why do you think they wouldn't lend money more often to more traditotional capitalist firms which would be more profitable?

All exploatation would be abolished.

Except the worker-owner exploitation of part-time labor. Do you know anything about existing cooperatives?

How is it capitalism?
Private property, wage labor, and generalized commodity production.

Where is the capitalist?
In the banks, and with the worker-owners (mostly in the banks).

Where are the profits?
The worker-owners take them from their part-time labor.

Where is the suprlus/ unpaid labor?
In the part-time non owners.
Also... since we still have banks... would we still have a stock market?

Where are the unearned incomes? Nowhere. Then it's not capitalism.

I mean a slave driver is an owner of things who gains surplus labor and makes a profit. Is slavery capitalism now? A fief does the same. A king does the same.
You and Dinodude have something else in common, other than market socialism... you both think capitalism is the entirety of human civilization through history. There is not a historical system that doesn't match your definition of capitalism.
That's why it's "better" (easier) to define capitalism as generalized commodity production, private property, and wage labor. It differentiates capitalism from the systems prior to it.

That's a contradiction in terms, being that capitalism is by it's nature anti-democratic, because it is defined by the employer-employee ("from above") relationship, wereas in (free makret) socialism there wouldn't such a thing, and everything would be organized would be "from bellow".

The anti-democratic nature of capitalism largely stems from "voting with your dollars." The boss/worker relationship is largely undemocratic too, of course, but you've even said yourself that your system wouldn't necessarily get rid of bosses; if the workers vote for it.
No, your system will remain undemocratic because it will still work on a 1 person with potentially unlimited votes basis; ie, money.

Yeah right, the natural consequence of abolishing of exploatation is the emergance of exploation.

It all depends on how you do it. For example; slavery in the south was abolished only to lead into Jim Crow.

I disagree, I think they are evil and greedy individuals.

Some of them are. Bill Gates actually gives $7b/year to the B&MG Foundation. Carnegie set up schools and universities all over the states. Etc, etc. Shit, the guy who let my parents rent out his house (the first non-trailer we had lived in) was a really great guy.

The concrete questions is do you think that capitalism in a necessary precursor for socialism.

I'm actually not in that camp. I do, however, think it will be very difficult and take constant large scale vigilance to not "revert" to a more heirarchical system... in other words, I find it unlikely.

Revolution starts with U

8th May 2012, 19:09

Also "free" markets has never made sense to me... we either need to stop calling liberty "free" or stop calling goods/services that don't need paid for "free."

fabian

8th May 2012, 19:14

Again with the idiocies. Everything you post is already answered in the previous messages you respond to, it's just that your brain isn't turned on. I aint gonna feed you, troll.

Revolution starts with U

8th May 2012, 19:28

Guy who doesn't realize the study he posts is used by the Portugese government to show the success of their program, and also attacks the Portugese system while basically proposing the same thing... calls other people "idiots."

LOL....

Can someone show me where my questions were answered in his previous posts?

DinodudeEpic

8th May 2012, 21:39

It is a "nice" plan. What happens when standing capitalist government dissolves your party and brings military force against your cooperatives?

Which isn't much, because as we all know, the easiest way to increase profitability is to cut wages and lay off workers.

If banks are still giving money loans, and now they are interest free, what interest do the banks have in giving money to anyone, ever? And if the banks still control the money supply, why do you think they wouldn't lend money more often to more traditotional capitalist firms which would be more profitable?

Except the worker-owner exploitation of part-time labor. Do you know anything about existing cooperatives?

Private property, wage labor, and generalized commodity production.

In the banks, and with the worker-owners (mostly in the banks).

The worker-owners take them from their part-time labor.

In the part-time non owners.
Also... since we still have banks... would we still have a stock market?

I mean a slave driver is an owner of things who gains surplus labor and makes a profit. Is slavery capitalism now? A fief does the same. A king does the same.
You and Dinodude have something else in common, other than market socialism... you both think capitalism is the entirety of human civilization through history. There is not a historical system that doesn't match your definition of capitalism.
That's why it's "better" (easier) to define capitalism as generalized commodity production, private property, and wage labor. It differentiates capitalism from the systems prior to it.

The anti-democratic nature of capitalism largely stems from "voting with your dollars." The boss/worker relationship is largely undemocratic too, of course, but you've even said yourself that your system wouldn't necessarily get rid of bosses; if the workers vote for it.
No, your system will remain undemocratic because it will still work on a 1 person with potentially unlimited votes basis; ie, money.

Some of them are. Bill Gates actually gives $7b/year to the B&MG Foundation. Carnegie set up schools and universities all over the states. Etc, etc. Shit, the guy who let my parents rent out his house (the first non-trailer we had lived in) was a really great guy.

I'm actually not in that camp. I do, however, think it will be very difficult and take constant large scale vigilance to not "revert" to a more heirarchical system... in other words, I find it unlikely.

I propose that all workers within a company to be the owners, including part-time workers. They would also have to have equal compensation for all the workers, with innovation being encouraged by whatever reward programs that the cooperative has.

So, banks wouldn't be much a of a problem, and stocks wouldn't really exist. Instead, as long as you work within the company, part-time even, you are a worker-owner. Of course, this differs from present day cooperatives, and it does require some state-enforcement, mostly through an economic bill of rights.

Back in that thread, involving the shogunate and Ancient Egypt. What I meant was that Economic Aristocracy was different from Economic Plutocracy. So, I defined feudalism as 'Economic rule by birth' and capitalism as 'Economic rule by wealth'. Now, I admit that I doubt that Rome was capitalist, anyway. But, that is due to my sheer ignorance of Roman daily life. And, the definitions that I said above are broad, and they are not the exact definitions. Capitalism is plutocratic private economic organization (private property) combined with wage labor. Feudalism is aristocratic economic organization combined with forced labor.

As for money-vote basis, I want that an economic bill of rights enforce a 'one person-one vote' principle on all the cooperatives. Now, even the most laissez-faire of all free markets had government regulations, mostly on property rights. So, you can see this as protecting the property rights of workers against capitalist theft of said property.

I do not criticize capitalists as individuals, but rather I criticize the very capitalist system of giving economic power to the few as an "corrupting" influence, instead of blaming it on the market.

And, this is why anarcho-communism AND anarcho-mutualism are impossible-to-enforce systems. There will always be power-hungry individuals who are bent on "reverting" the system back to a more hierarchical one. Capitalists originally wanted private property to be a liberating thing to prevent feudalists from stealing it away through the state. Of course, they now worry about the workers taking away the property instead of aristocrats.

As for free markets, the word free means 'liberty from'. Of course, that would mean that capitalist "free" markets are really just markets controlled by capitalists. Please note that I'm not adovocating for a completely free market, but rather that I'm adovocating for a relatively free market where capitalist influence is non-existant and government-control is minimized to merely being a distant arbiter that protects workingmen's property rights. (No, arbiter does not only mean that particular character from the Halo series. Nor does the property rights that I talk about are in anyway related to capitalist property rights.)

DinodudeEpic

8th May 2012, 21:45

Efficient in what way? Is this efficiency even needed (meaning by that a need for a "fair" allocation)? I think that's the most interesting question.

One that fabian, as far as I'm aware, hasn't answered either. Why do we need a mechanism for allocation if productive capabilities have reached such a high level that the need for the people to enslave themselves to their own labor is redundant? (Looking at simple commodity production here - people can't produce everything they need themselves so they are compelled to engage in commodity production and trade, but this kind of alienation perpetuates the master-slave dialectic of labor over the laborer)

Your answer seems to be a competitive drive for innovation. Why not a cooperative drive for innovation?

Well, there is elements of both. Cooperative drive, with a slight hint of competition, on the local level, but competitive drive in the outward level.

I mean that markets are efficient in distributing goods, and by efficient, I mean that they can be distributed fairly to those who work. This way, we don't really have the problem of the lack of motive for working. After all, we still labor to PRODUCE those enormous levels of good, and I think that we can still labor. But, we should be laboring for ourselves! That is the difference. All association should be free and democratic. And, it has more emphasis on merit then capitalism could ever hope to have.

As for RSWU's remark on what to do if corporations start using the state to attack cooperatives and pro-cooperative parties. Then, that means violent revolution! A state that uses violence should expect violence to be thrown upon them.

Koba Junior

8th May 2012, 22:13

Wait, wait...because I think that feudalism is an improvement over slavery, that makes me somehow pro-feudalism? What is wrong with Lenin's conclusion and how does it make him a state-capitalist? It's not even his conclusion, it's Engels'(the conclusion that State-Capitalism is the last stagest of capitalism and directly precedes Socialism, meaning that State-Capitalism is the most progressive order of things before Socialism)...the only issue, with the first quote, is that Lenin says that the Socialism's hold will become permanent if State-Capitalism is established, which contradicts the view of Lenin, and the rest of the Bolsheviks, a view they all held before and after Lenin wrote that, that successfull counter-revolution in Russia is a certain inevitability unless the the Socialist Revolution spreads to the core of the Capitalist world. A view in which Lenin was correct, although he didn't foresee that this counter-revolution would take the form of the Stalinist bureaucracy and would last until Gorbachev and Yeltsin finally dismantled the last remnants of the Soviet legacy.

I'd be interested in seeing some direct quotes by Lenin regarding the passage I highlighted in bold.

Railyon

8th May 2012, 22:43

I mean that markets are efficient in distributing goods, and by efficient, I mean that they can be distributed fairly to those who work. This way, we don't really have the problem of the lack of motive for working. After all, we still labor to PRODUCE those enormous levels of good, and I think that we can still labor. But, we should be laboring for ourselves! That is the difference. All association should be free and democratic. And, it has more emphasis on merit then capitalism could ever hope to have.

Hmm. Lack of motive for working?

I guess it's time to look at socially necessary labor then. Let us suppose a non-market society, where there are no insurance companies, police and state apparatus, banks, etc, essential sectors of capitalist society that, as essential as they may be to capitalism, are confined to it as agents of value in its myriad forms, ie they are only useful to perpetuate the system and cease to be necessary in non-capitalist societies like (non-market) socialism.

Add to that the amount of people currently unemployed, and those current workers that would, given the same labor hours and labor intensity of the workers remaining in production, be superfluous to the production of our current material wealth, ie use values.

Why force competition on these people not belonging to the "essential proletariat" for the sake of a motive for working then? Wouldn't a reduction of working hours and the abolition of alienation of laborer from his products be enough incentive to "work", keeping in mind that the concept of work has then seen an essential upheaval towards the principles of each according to his ability, each according to his need, the very abolition of the concept of labor as we experience it under capitalism?

TL,DR: Do we need a motive for working if under current conditions only a relatively minor fraction of the world's population is engaging in essential production? Do we really need work for the sake of work?

Pretty Flaco

8th May 2012, 22:51

I like markets because where else would I buy fresh tomatoes?

DinodudeEpic

8th May 2012, 23:33

Essential production? That does not include consumer goods, luxury goods, and media. And, they do not include things like transportation, architecture, and a load of other things.

Never to mind that we are having a limit on some resources, and we need extensive expansion of renewable energy sources. (Which requires lots of labor.)

It is not work for the sake of working. Instead, it is work to produce goods that improve our lives, although they may not be 'essential'.

Yuppie Grinder

8th May 2012, 23:51

sure does smell liberal in here
i'm hankering for some restrictions

Revolution starts with U

9th May 2012, 00:11

If you feel restriction are in order (and according to the rules they probably are) you can go tell a mod. Please don't shit up the thread with meaningless othering.

Railyon

9th May 2012, 00:29

Essential production? That does not include consumer goods, luxury goods, and media. And, they do not include things like transportation, architecture, and a load of other things.
Yeah, I was a bit lax on what exactly constitutes socially necessary labor, I forgot to mention stuff like childcare, health services, communication, etc.

However, my point still stands, that there is a vast amount of people employed in areas that contribute nothing of value. You can't really expect all of them to start producing goods really? As that would kinda contradict your next claim:

Never to mind that we are having a limit on some resources, and we need extensive expansion of renewable energy sources. (Which requires lots of labor.)
The concept of post-scarcity is not the nonsensical notion of infinite resources, but that we have managed to develop productive capabilities to such a level that minimal waste and minimal labor input amount to an optimal output that meets social needs. Now, how are social needs defined? Well, at the most basic it's food, shelter, clothing, on which, and I think you'll agree with me there, we won't run out of resources anytime soon.

Actually now that I think about it, I can't think of a way that a market would be actually able to deal with scarce resources. They're not made useful according to some social plan but to the highest bidder, but the point of depletion still persists, and if capitalism is anything to go by, overproduction would actually lead to a waste of resources.

On the issue on energy I fail to see how a market society would deal with that any better than a non-market society. Again it's a winner-takes-it-all kind of deal where green energy is only allowed to those with enough greenback to buy it instead of a collective movement towards a social integration of environmentally friendly energy.

It is not work for the sake of working. Instead, it is work to produce goods that improve our lives, although they may not be 'essential'.
Like point 1, if the material need to produce is marginalized on an individual level because production and essential services are shared by all, why is a motive to work needed? Why does this motive need to be material and not social (like community pressure)? Would minimal marginal labor input not mean people are more ready to do what is asked of them than slaving away on a 9 to 5 job?

I fail to see how this motive to work must be integrated into a market society; non-market systems are, at least for communists, the optimal arrangement of "producing goods that improve our lives" - and not on an individual level, but on a social level. Less wasteful, less demanding on the individual, and lets not forget what consequences the abolition of alienation and competition would have on our social life.

EdgyandOriginal

11th May 2012, 00:09

A lot of what I’m saying here is taken from David Schweitckart’s works, since that’s what I’ve been reading and it’s his system I’m discussing.

The market invariably sees the production of commodities as a means to profit, rather than strictly to satisfy the needs of the consumer. But, the main problem with market socialism is that one has to ask oneself what vestiges of the capitalism are meant to persist into the construction of this kind of socialism.
From what I’ve read, it seems David Schweitckart’s vision of market socialism would in theory remove the core problems with capitalism i.e. inequality, alienation and instability.

A market is a very simple method for assessing people’s desires and making enough things in accordance to those desires, as expressed though purchases (so goes the old Mises.org argument). Problems arise when vast wealth inequality exists in society. The poorest can’t express their needs properly because they’re forced to buy in accordance with their insubstantial income.

Democratic firms and the common ownership of land would prevent individuals earning vast sums of money, which would result in equal purchasing power. A more equal society would also have implications for consumerism.

Markets, especially commodity markets (as would usually be the case under "market socialism") are chaotic systems where one resource is conserved; money, or it's equivalent, e,g, transferable labor tokens, just changes hands.

In a chaotic system wherein a given quantity is always conserved, this quantity will follow a gibbs-boltzmann distribution, which is a distribution where a small configuration space (i.e. "few people") will have the majority of the conserved quantity (i.e. money) in a very skewed-looking graph. This has been proven in the econophysical work of Victor Yakavenko, A. A. Dragulescu, and others.

In short, "markets" WILL always result in the formation of a class riding on the backs of a surplus generated by everyone else. Any market-like mechanisms in a socialist economy must have some major feature which causes them to no longer follow the above model, such as (among other things) labor tokens/credits which are non-transferable.
I’d have to read the research, but I doubt anyone has “proven” that all monetary market systems will eventually result in a steep income inequalities. Vast inequality can be primarily attributed a capitalist class controlling the means of production and extracting surplus labour from the workforce. This relationship wouldn’t exist if firms were run democratically and received the fruits of their labour minus a flat assets tax on all firms.

I don't think this is workable because the basic contradictions of capitalism remain, just the organization of the induvidual worksites is organized more democratically. This means that there would still be economic competition, there would still be economic crisis of overproduction, there would still be artificial shortages in productions, overproduction, and so on. The competitive and capital-concentrating tendencies would result in firms going out of business and unemployment; if firms were really run democratically, like co-ops today, there'd still be exploitation, it would just come in the form of people sacrificing more of their own time or voting to cut their own wages in order to keep up with market competition. There's still be a ton of energy and resources wasted in market competition and commodity quality and usefulness would still be secondary to profits.

In short just like the capitalism we know now, this would be an unstable system and I think within short order a more familiar capitalism would re-emerge. Of course all this is moot because this form of system would require a revolution anyway because the powerful would never willingly give up the current system and the only market-socialists I've ever come across in real life see an electoral road to market-socialism.
The capitalist crisis of overproduction is not the natural result of all markets; just ones in which the criteria for stable economic growth isn’t met. In capitalist societies there are a number of factors that can drive an economy into recession i.e. a lack of investment from capitalists into the real economy, non productive investments, a decrease in overall production, a lack of money available to workers to actually buy the increased produce and a lack of motivation of workers to buy the increased produce.

If investment was planned by public banks rather that the ‘animal spirits’ of private investors we wouldn’t see the rich losing confidence in the economy and saving their cash. Socialist protectionism would prevent the downward pressure on wages from imports coming from poorer countries. Finally, firms would be more reluctant to lay off workers, reducing any overproductive cycles.

The system theoretically allows for full employment but there would be people unemployed for a short while if a firm went bust. They would be supported by a system of benefits whilst they looked for a job.

can we restrict these people please they are not socialists
If socialism means the common ownership of the means of production, then a system that abolishes capitalist ownership of the firm is by definition socialist.

Revolution starts with U

11th May 2012, 00:20

From what I’ve read, it seems David Schweitckart’s vision of market socialism would in theory remove the core problems with capitalism i.e. inequality, alienation and instability.

How would it remove alienation?

If investment was planned by public banks rather that the ‘animal spirits’ of private investors we wouldn’t see the rich losing confidence in the economy and saving their cash. Socialist protectionism would prevent the downward pressure on wages from imports coming from poorer countries. Finally, firms would be more reluctant to lay off workers, reducing any overproductive cycles.

Excuse me? Could you elaborate?

If socialism means the common ownership of the means of production, then a system that abolishes capitalist ownership of the firm is by definition socialist.
1) Is that what socialism means?
2) (to the bolded) could they not abolish the capitalist ownership and institute feudal ownership? (this is mostly about strengthening your definition than critiquing your position.)

EdgyandOriginal

11th May 2012, 01:15

How would it remove alienation?
A democratic firm is vastly superior to a firm ran by capitalists. As argued by Marx, capitalist firms alienate the workers from the work they produce. They have no say in how a product is made or how a service they perform will be conducted (outside the brothel), nor how the firm is ran or what their wage or working conditions will be. A democratic firm would allow workers to debate and deliberate on how much they want to earn, in relation to how much they would have to work. The running of a firm would be incorporated into the workers life granting a greater connection between themselves and what they do.

Furthermore, in capitalist firms workers are pitted against each other and alienated from each other. Workers are in a constant battle with themselves to see who will work less hours, in harsher conditions for less money. Whereas in a democratic firm workers are encouraged to work together and cooperate for their own collective interest. The competition between firms would be akin to sporting competition, rather than an intrinsic dogfight within every firm.

Marx also talks about the alienation of the worker from working itself i.e. repetitive tasks offering no personal satisfaction. I don't think this can ever be fully rectified, although, the extra democratic dimension may offer a level of satisfaction for workers by giving them a sense of purpose to their work.

Which brings me onto my last point, work will never be perfect. I think people need incentives to work and to be productive in any functioning economy. Democratic firms allow this, without completely alienating the workforce.

Excuse me? Could you elaborate?
Yeah, guess I wasn't clear at all here. What I meant was that socialist protectionism would prevent the downward pressure on wages from the import of cheap labour from poor or low wage countries, which can be seen under "free trade" capitalism.

1) Is that what socialism means?
2) (to the bolded) could they not abolish the capitalist ownership and institute feudal ownership? (this is mostly about strengthening your definition than critiquing your position.)
OK, a system that abolishes capitalist ownership of the firm and replaces it with common ownership of the means of production is by definition socialist.

And that's how I've always defined socialism, I know many non-socialists like to obscurify the definition however I was under the impression that most folk around here would agree with me on this.

Rafiq

11th May 2012, 01:37

To call for the retention of Markets is to call for the retention of commodity production. Surly, it is much more coherent then the Utopian aims for, say, a gift economy, but none the less contradictory at best.

Jimmie Higgins

11th May 2012, 01:50

A democratic firm is vastly superior to a firm ran by capitalists. As argued by Marx, capitalist firms alienate the workers from the work they produce. They have no say in how a product is made or how a service they perform will be conducted (outside the brothel), nor how the firm is ran or what their wage or working conditions will be. A democratic firm would allow workers to debate and deliberate on how much they want to earn, in relation to how much they would have to work. The running of a firm would be incorporated into the workers life granting a greater connection between themselves and what they do.True it would be nicer on an induvidual way (if this ideal is possible, which I am not convinced it could be in the context of class society) but people would still be alienated. Workers would still be at the mercy of market forces in the production of what they need to keep their society going. Even for the capitalists, the market is a Faustian device which they manage and get all the perks from but can't control - otherwise there'd never be anything but growth for capitalists - they're at the whims of the market too.

Furthermore, in capitalist firms workers are pitted against each other and alienated from each other. Workers are in a constant battle with themselves to see who will work less hours, in harsher conditions for less money. Whereas in a democratic firm workers are encouraged to work together and cooperate for their own collective interest. The competition between firms would be akin to sporting competition, rather than an intrinsic dogfight within every firm. Why would it be a sporting event?! If anything it would make things worse because if a CEO's business goes under, they're doing ok personally, but if workers are going to loose their livelihoods because a competing company is under-cutting them then it's almost personal. Not to mention competition would still cause a race to the bottom for workers - it would be self-imposed, but if they were being under-cut by competition then they'd have to cut their own wages or increase their work-pace and hours. That could even lead to an incentive to drive competitors out of business (or join with them in a big monopoly) on purpose so that you can have more control over your own rate of exploitation. Of course, if the drive would be towards firms consolidating together through hostile takeovers or monopolies, why not just cut to the chase and have democratically organized industries and distribution all together - a democratically planned economy?

Marx also talks about the alienation of the worker from working itself i.e. repetitive tasks offering no personal satisfaction. I don't think this can ever be fully rectified, although, the extra democratic dimension may offer a level of satisfaction for workers by giving them a sense of purpose to their work.Yes it would be an enjoyable reform ideally. A worker-run firm in a market may have similar features compared to a worker-run work-site in a proletarian democracy, there would be qualitative differences. Just like in bourgoise-democracies and a hypothetical proletarian democracy there would be similar features like voting and maybe people who are empowered as representatives and so on - but fundamentally they would be different because even though we vote in bourgoise society, it's a vote for who can best manage capitalism. A worker-run firm in a market economy would still be just a more democratic way to handle our own exploitation.

Which brings me onto my last point, work will never be perfect. I think people need incentives to work and to be productive in any functioning economy. Democratic firms allow this, without completely alienating the workforce.Making a good life for yourself is not incentive enough? Is this why humans went extinct hundreds of thousands of years ago - since there were no market incentives?

OK, a system that abolishes capitalist ownership of the firm and replaces it with common ownership of the means of production is by definition socialist.But what you describe is not "common ownership of the means of production". It is cooperative management of atomized worker/owner firms. It would still be private control of the means of production, just a sort of democratic management of that private control.

Revolution starts with U

11th May 2012, 03:15

Edgyand;
Jimmie's response is good enough to suffice for my own, for you to respond.

That's the thing, market socialism is not a solidaritous system. (Ya, I made that word up). Workers do not control the means of production as a class,[B] rather they control it in atomized groups. It also retains banks and money, which would be a class that controls the economy through economic coercion.

fabian

11th May 2012, 13:30

Workers would still be at the mercy of market forces
Workers would constitute the market forces.

"A market economy is an economy in which decisions regarding production and distribution are based on supply and demand and the prices of goods and services are determined in a free price system."

I don't see what's bad there..

Blake's Baby

11th May 2012, 14:24

Why do there need to be prices?

The problem with capitalism is commodity production. What is the necessity to produce for a market when production could be for need instead?

fabian

11th May 2012, 14:28

Why do there need to be prices?
What's the alternative? Barter? Giving stuff for free?

The problem with capitalism is commodity production.
Why is that a problem?

What is the necessity to produce for a market when production could be for need instead?
Production for (a freed) market IS production for need. If there is no need (/demand) for something, there would cease to be suply, because it would not sell.

Blake's Baby

11th May 2012, 15:26

What's the alternative? Barter? Giving stuff for free?

No, yes.

...
Why is that a problem?

Because commodity production is production for profit, not need. The point of production in socialism is to fulfill needs. The point of production in capitalism is to provide profits for a capitalist.

...
Production for (a freed) market IS production for need. If there is no need (/demand) for something, there would cease to be suply, because it would not sell.

Ah, right, because people in the Third World don't 'need' fresh water, people in America don't 'need' healthcare, and the in the western world we 'need' more coca-Cola and Pokemon cards, is that what you're getting at?

You make a persuasive argument.

/sarcasm

fabian

11th May 2012, 15:37

No, yes.
I don't want to give my stuff for free. If I cultivate the soil and reap wheat, or if I take soil and make bricks, I don't want to give them for free.

Because commodity production is production for profit, not need.
I want my work to pay off. I want to work for myself, not for someone's need.

The point of production in capitalism is to provide profits for a capitalist.
The point of of production in market socialism is to provide earnings for the toilers.

Ah, right, because people in the Third World don't 'need' fresh water
I'm talking markets, you'r talking about international relations. Different topic.

Blake's Baby

11th May 2012, 15:43

I don't want to give my stuff for free. If I cultivate the soil and reap wheat, or if I take soil and make bricks, I don't want to give them for free...

Who says it's 'your' stuff? If you take society's tools and society's grain and works society's land, why do you think the product belongs to you? If you take my pencil sharpener and my pencil and use one to sharpen the other, does that mean it belongs to you?

...
I want my work to pay off. I want to work for myself, not for someone's need...

Yeah, well, you're a human being. Get over the fact that you live in a society where people have to inter-realate. Or go and live on some Robinson Crusoe island somewhere and do it all yourself.

...

The point of of production in market socialism is to provide earnings for the toilers...

The point of 'market socialsm' is to continue capitalism.

...
I'm talking markets, you'r talking about international relations. Different topic.

Not at all. Unless you can demonstrate that markets work for everyone in the world, you're just talking abstract, idealistic shit.

fabian

11th May 2012, 15:55

Who says it's 'your' stuff?
Self-ownership principle. Everyone is the owner oneself ( making slavery, kidnapping, attacking another's health or life illegitimate), and from that follows that everyone is the owner of his own labor and I should have the right to the full product of my labor (making capitalism, including state capitalism illegitimate, along with the kind of communism not based of free assossiation- where I HAVE TO give my stuff for free).

Yeah, well, you're a human being. Get over the fact that you live in a society where people have to inter-realate.
I'm an individual first, member of society second. Being inter-connected with other people doesn't mean that I shouldn't have the freedom to do what I want as long as I don't harm or exploit others, meaning I should have the freedom to do what I want with the product of my labor, including sell or barter it.

The point of 'market socialsm' is to continue capitalism.
Yeah, the point of a philosophy that finds unearned incomes (capitalist profits, rent, usury) illegitimate and a system where there are no parasited (and thus no capitalists) and no one is exploited - is to continue capitalism. Bravo.

Unless you can demonstrate that markets work for everyone in the world
They dont. Market is not a charity service, it a market.

Blake's Baby

11th May 2012, 16:12

Self-ownership principle. Everyone is the owner oneself ( making slavery, kidnapping, attacking another's health or life illegitimate), and from that follows that everyone is the owner of his own labor and I should have the right to the full product of my labor (making capitalism, including state capitalism illegitimate, along with the kind of communism not based of free assossiation- where I HAVE TO give my stuff for free)...

So you do think sharpening my pencil with my pencil sharpener means you own it.

It's not 'your' stuff. It's everybody's stuff.

...
I'm an individual first, member of society second...

No, without the rest of us you're quite literally nothing at all in that you 1-weren't born; 2-didn't grow (were never fed or clothed or housed); 3-know nothing because you were never educated in our language and philosophy and science; 4-are not communicating with us now (on our internet using our computers and our language)... etc etc.

One human being is not a viable unit of survival.

...Being inter-connected with other people doesn't mean that I shouldn't have the freedom to do what I want as long as I don't harm or exploit others, meaning I should have the freedom to do what I want with the product of my labor, including sell or barter it...

Non-sequiteur. As has already been demonstrated 'your' product is the result of our social labour. So according to your argument (were it you know, pursued logically as opposed to being a series of baseless assertions) your social product belongs to the rest of us. We made you; you are our social product.

...
Yeah, the point of a philosophy that finds unearned incomes (capitalist profits, rent, usury) illegitimate and a system where there are no parasited (and thus no capitalists) and no one is exploited - is to continue capitalism. Bravo...

'No one is exploited' - nice.

So, in your world, the old the sick and children die I take it?

...
They dont. Market is not a charity service, it a market.

They don't work, but you want them anyway?

Brilliant.

fabian

11th May 2012, 16:35

So you do think sharpening my pencil with my pencil sharpener means you own it.
Don't start with the half-witted strawmen. If I make a pencil, it's mine.

No, without the rest of us you're quite literally nothing at all in that you 1-weren't born; 2-didn't grow (were never fed or clothed or housed); 3-know nothing because you were never educated in our language and philosophy and science; 4-are not communicating with us now (on our internet using our computers and our language)... etc etc.

One human being is not a viable unit of survival.
Which doesn't mean that society is the owner of the individual. Communitarians have the correct facts (as do you here), but not the conclusions (or if you accept Hume's (is-ought) law, no conclusions at all could be drawn here, neither for individualism nor communitarianism). We individualists do not deny the facts, we just support individual freedom of all and opposse oppresion of any individual.

As has already been demonstrated 'your' product is the result of our social labour.
Not.

So, in your world, the old the sick and children die I take it?
And in your world they are immortal? :D

Anyways, those that can't take care of themselves have families, at least adoptive ones, they have neighbours, or there are groups of good-willed people that would help them, or there would be communal or nationalized services that would help them. It's not necesary to abolish individualism and turn a society in one big family in order for the sick, children, the elderly etc to be taken care of.

They don't work, but you want them anyway?
They don't work for what? For allowing people to receive the full product of their labor and the freedom to do what they want with it- for that they work.

Azraella

11th May 2012, 17:27

Revolution starts with U

11th May 2012, 19:04

And in your world they are immortal? :D

Anyways, those that can't take care of themselves have families, at least adoptive ones, they have neighbours, or there are groups of good-willed people that would help them, or there would be communal or nationalized services that would help them. It's not necesary to abolish individualism and turn a society in one big family in order for the sick, children, the elderly etc to be taken care of.

.

^ welfare capitalism

The problem with democratic propertarians (you know, the ones that call themselves market "socialists") is that they don't actually go and see how existing cooperatives work. Don't get me wrong, I fully support turning every business into a cooperative. But I make no illusions that this is still capitalism, cooperatives still exploit part-time and non-owner labor, and they still involve themselves with putting down worker class struggle. Not to mention they still want to keep private banking, which are arguably the most powerful capitalists right now.

It's reformed capitalism, without the manager/worker concept.

DinodudeEpic

11th May 2012, 20:20

Revolution starts with U

11th May 2012, 20:36

To clear things up, I do not support cooperatives oppressing any workers, regardless of it is part-time or an owner. Instead, I want cooperatives to include ALL of their workers as the owners.
As for markets, resources are better distributed if we know of their value, which requires money and therefore a market. It is rational, empirical, and grounded in reality.

There's a large difference between state capitalist central planning, and free access to the surplus. The "calculation problem" is a straw man.

And, I think workers should be paid for their labor with something that matches the value of said labor. Or else, they would be exploited. Thus, non-market/arket socialism is fundamentally self-exploitation. Workers not earning themselves anything, thus working without gaining the fruits of their labor.

Yes but relying on workers as individuals gaining the fruits of their labor, instead of workers as a class, you leave children, elderly, and infirm people up to the welfare of either the state, or private charities. Again, we could just offer reasonably free access to the surplus.

And, we honestly need SOMEONE to work. The difference is whether you want wage laborers in China or want workers that have democratic control over their rightful property.

I don't want anybody to have "rightful property." :lol: And I want workers in China to be liberated.

Also, credit unions make for a great replacement for corporate banks.

As a member of a credit union, I can easily say this is not true. Idk if CU's get into derivatives and all that, but I can tell you my CU takes $30 from me at least once a week, overdraft fees. And they do it sneakily. I'll deposit my checks then go get something to eat, and they charge the food before the check, so that they can claim I overdrafted.

Of course, these cooperatives are much unlike existing cooperatives. (Which are pressured by capitalism to abandon socialist principles.) And, that is why we need an economic bill of rights to preserve socialism from the tides of capitalist reaction.
The thing to keep in mind is that, in socialism (non market), the workplaces will still be cooperatives. They just won't exist in a market.

Azraella

11th May 2012, 20:42

And, I think workers should be paid for their labor with something that matches the value of said labor. Or else, they would be exploited. Thus, non-market/arket socialism is fundamentally self-exploitation. Workers not earning themselves anything, thus working without gaining the fruits of their labor.

This is frankly wrong. No communist supports the idea that no one should earn anything. A communist economy would be mutual aid at it's finest. , Your wages so to speak would be the various benefits of belonging to a community such as food, shelter, and clothing. This is hardly self-exploitation, it's payment in a more egalitarian way.

And, we honestly need SOMEONE to work

Markets don't encourage anyone to work. It's a distribution mechanism. A woefully ineffiecent one at that.

Revolution starts with U

11th May 2012, 20:54

*Posted from another thread*

War profiteers. Would it not be in the interests of a war material producing cooperative to encourage endless war?

DinodudeEpic

12th May 2012, 01:02

*Posted from another thread*

War profiteers. Would it not be in the interests of a war material producing cooperative to encourage endless war?

Would it not be in the interests of a power-hungry commune that has a megalomaniac majority to conquer their neighboring communes?

Of course, that can easily be solved by having direct democratic voting on whether to declare war. That way, a minority of war material cooperatives would just have to adapt to a peacetime environment if the people don't want war.

(As for the rest of your posts, I will answer them soon. But, I'm too busy to respond now.)

Edit: How about nationalistic communes that think their commune-nation is better then all the other communes? Or an alliance of expansionist collectives that fight for their nation. (Just not in nation state form.)

fabian

12th May 2012, 13:10

You can't own yourself because you are yourself.
Because I am myself I own myself, that is- it is illegitimate for anyone else to be my owner.

^ welfare capitalism
Why are you still trolling? It's not welfare capitalism, it's market socialism.

cooperatives still exploit part-time and non-owner labor
There would not be any non-owner labor in market socialism, and everyone making the same contibution per hour would earn the same hour-pay no matter if they worked for one hour a week or 48 hours a week.

Not to mention they still want to keep private banking, which are arguably the most powerful capitalists right now.
Loaning without interest is not capitalist.

Markets don't encourage anyone to work.
Getting according to contribution doesn't encourage work, but getting according to need does? Maybe if your a religious or a virtue-oriented hard-working person. Anyone else would just drop their productivity to the tolerated minimum required to get the right to take from the common storagehouse.

It's a distribution mechanism. A woefully ineffiecent one at that.
As opposed to central planning? Giving products away for free?

Искра

12th May 2012, 13:18

Fabian you are not just a mutualist, but you are pro-Milošević which is good enough for restirction... or ban.

fabian

12th May 2012, 13:25

Is being a mutualist forbidden? And where did you get that I'm pro-milosevic? I'm anti- any capitalist politician or party.

wsg1991

12th May 2012, 14:28

i knew this market socialism idea 5 month ago , good idea that sound realistic

wsg1991

12th May 2012, 20:30

interesting ideas . how an economy suppose to function without central planning never free market ? psychic power ??

Black Cross

12th May 2012, 22:52

To each according to his contribution vs. to each according to his needs.

Ha, did you just hijack socialism? Give it back bro.

Yeah, that worked out nicely in the USSR.

And markets are working so well for the USA. Your analogy lacks weight.

Anyways, let me google that for you (http://www.anonym.to/?http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Economic+calculation+problem).

WTF is google?

Blake's Baby

13th May 2012, 00:33

Don't start with the half-witted strawmen. If I make a pencil, it's mine...

Well, I'm confused.

Because, if I'm half-witted, it's because I haven't understood your argument (can't be because you're incoherent, oh no).

And yet, if I'm manufacturing strawmen, fallacious positions I can argue against, that means I have understood.

So you're claiming I both have and haven't understood?

(No, totally, it's not because you're incoherent, surely.)

So let's break this down.

If you 'make' a pencil it's yours.

But if you merely turn a blunt, unusable pencil (something that functionally isn't a pencil) into a working pencil (something that functionally is a pencil), it's not yours?

If you sharpen my blunt (unusable) pencil with my pencil shapener, you don't own it, am I right?

But if you take my wood and my graphite and my glue, and use my pencil-press to form a pencil, do you own it then?

How about if you take society's wood and society's glue and society's graphite, and use society's pencil-press? Do you own the pencil then?

How much labour do you have to put into something to 'own' it then?

...

Which doesn't mean that society is the owner of the individual...

You're the one that's hung up[ on people 'owning' things, not me. Just saying if labour entitles one to the product of that labour, the rest of us made you so we own you if you own a pencil (but then again, you don't own a pencil).

...Communitarians have the correct facts (as do you here), but not the conclusions (or if you accept Hume's (is-ought) law, no conclusions at all could be drawn here, neither for individualism nor communitarianism). We individualists do not deny the facts, we just support individual freedom of all and opposse oppresion of any individual...

If you mean here 'individuals should be able to steal from the collective' then all I can say is, no they shouldn't. Thhis isn't 'oppression' it's human decency. If you don't have human decency, maybe you should fuck off to a Robinson Crusoe island and live in splendid individual isolation.

...
Not.

And in your world they are immortal? :D

Anyways, those that can't take care of themselves have families, at least adoptive ones, they have neighbours, or there are groups of good-willed people that would help them, or there would be communal or nationalized services that would help them. It's not necesary to abolish individualism and turn a society in one big family in order for the sick, children, the elderly etc to be taken care of...

And the taxes (in whatever form they would be - that part of the social wealth put aside for consumption by non-producers) that would care for the sick, children (orphans?), the elderly - not to mention those people who have left 'family' behind (for being abusive maybe) or whose family are dead (are you really claiming we should rely on family? My god, is this the 19th century?) - all these taxes would be... voluntary. Because no-one has the 'right' to forcibly take away social wealth form the producers, that's right isn't it?

So yes, in answer to my question, which you flippantly dismissed with 'in your world they're immortal' boils down to 'I don't give a fuck about the sick, elderly or children, they can die or not it's not my business'.

Capitalism lets people die through neglect, socialism doesn't. That's what's so fucking 'social' about it.

...
They don't work for what? For allowing people to receive the full product of their labor and the freedom to do what they want with it- for that they work.

'Full product of their labour', don't talk shite.

Even when you used my pencil-press and my glue and my wood and my graphite to make 'your' pencil, more of my social labour went into it than yours (I mined the graphite, cut down a sapling I'd been coppicing for 20 years, sourced the ingredients for the glue myself and mixed it by hand, and built the pencil-press myself in my time off). So it's my pencil really, isn't it?

Added to which, the rest of us put an awful loit of effort into making you - we've spent quite a long time feeding and clothing you, tending to your medical complaints, supplying you with power water entertainment education, transporting you around and letting you lose on our internet.

Anything you produce has been produced by the rest of us through you. You are our product, you are as a socialised human being a product of society and whatever you produce is also a product of society - so we'll decide what happens to the products of our labour, thanks very much.

Blake's Baby

13th May 2012, 02:13

^ welfare capitalism...

I'm sorry RSWU, it's not even close to welfare capitalism. It's more like the 'rugged individualism' that the gay AnCap used to post in OI. What was his name? You know, the one with the butch pin-up as an avatar.

So, less pleasant than 'welfare capitalism' because in Fabian's world, there is only a voluntary safty net for those who can't produce. It's a long way away from 'welfare capitalism' which at least recognises that it's inefficient to have the dead cluttering the place up, and it might be useful if children could grow up. Just a particularly vile form of the pioneer mentality it seems to me - 'I want to go and live on a farm and wrestle things from the ground and you know what, fuck the lot of you' is I think about as coherent as it gets I'm afraid.

fabian

13th May 2012, 12:15

And markets are working so well for the USA. Your analogy lacks weight.
My analogy is perfect, it just seems it has to be drawn for you. Was USSR a command economy? Yes. Is USA market socialsm? No. So, it would seem it is you who have made the false analogy.

Well, I'm confused.

Because, if I'm half-witted, it's because I haven't understood your argument (can't be because you're incoherent, oh no).
Exactly. I have said that if I make something it's mine, and you go to saying that if I sharpen a pencil, it's mine, which basically plainly shows that either you don't understand something there, or you're talking nonsense on purpose.

If you 'make' a pencil it's yours.
Yes.

But if you merely turn a blunt, unusable pencil (something that functionally isn't a pencil) into a working pencil (something that functionally is a pencil), it's not yours?
Do you want to say that you don't see the difference between making a pencil and sharpening one?

But if you take my wood and my graphite and my glue, and use my pencil-press to form a pencil, do you own it then?
No, because I would be stealing your wood, graphite and glue. I could use them to make a pencil only if I would buy them from you, or if you would abandon them, and thus they wouldn't be yours, but mine when I took them.

But giving your wood, graphite and glue to me to make a pencil and then take that pencil as yours and giving me a wage- that's capitalism, bacause your taking the product of my labor. But if I don't make, but sharpen a pencil the pencil is not a product of my labor, because I have not produced the pencil, but given you a service, and here the "product of my labor" is the value I decided to charge for my service, and you, as a customer, agreed to pay.

How about if you take society's wood and society's glue and society's graphite
Wood, glue and graphite belong to those who harvest and make them, as long as he/they sell it or abandon it.

the rest of us made you so we own you
No you don't everyone is the owner of themselves.

but then again, you don't own a pencil
If I made it or bought it, I do.

And the taxes (in whatever form they would be - that part of the social wealth put aside for consumption by non-producers) that would care for the sick, children (orphans?), the elderly - not to mention those people who have left 'family' behind (for being abusive maybe) or whose family are dead (are you really

claiming we should rely on family? My god, is this the 19th century?)
Wtf is this? I love my family and we rely on each other in the 21th century, is there something wrong with that?

all these taxes would be... voluntary. Because no-one has the 'right' to forcibly take away social wealth form the producers, that's right isn't it?
The taxes would not be voluntary because the state is a necessary evil, and it needs to be mentained with taxes.

'I don't give a fuck about the sick, elderly or children, they can die or not it's not my business'.
I don't need to be striped of my rights to life, liberty and possessions for them to be taken care of.

Capitalism lets people die through neglect, socialism doesn't
Socialism =/= charity, socialism = worker's not being exploited (not being stripped of the full product of their labor).

Even when you used my pencil-press and my glue and my wood and my graphite to make 'your' pencil,
That would be impossible, cause capitalism would be abolished.

(I mined the graphite, cut down a sapling I'd been coppicing for 20 years, sourced the ingredients for the glue myself and mixed it by hand, and built the pencil-press myself in my time off). So it's my pencil really, isn't it?
If you make it, yes. If you sell that material to me, and I make the pencil, if has nothing to do with you. But if want to employ me to use your materials and make you a pencil for a wage, I'd say- go fuck yourself, you capitalist wonnabe.

Added to which, the rest of us put an awful loit of effort into making you - we've spent quite a long time feeding and clothing you, tending to your medical complaints, supplying you with power water entertainment education, transporting you around and letting you lose on our internet.

Anything you produce has been produced by the rest of us through you.
You don't seem to grasp the Self-ownership principle. Slavery is always illegitimate, whether the slaveowner is a slave-buyer, or parent, or a firm, or society.

Black Cross

14th May 2012, 18:06

My analogy is perfect, it just seems it has to be drawn for you. Was USSR a command economy? Yes. Is USA market socialsm? No. So, it would seem it is you who have made the false analogy.

You make me wanna cry. I was making fun of your analogy with my own satirical one since i can't take your reductionist style of debate seriously.

I did not advocate a command economy. You apparently assumed i did, i suppose because i used the word 'scientific', because obviously those two terms are interchangeable.

Revolution starts with U

14th May 2012, 19:20

No, because I would be stealing your wood, graphite and glue. I could use them to make a pencil only if I would buy them from you, or if you would abandon them, and thus they wouldn't be yours, but mine when I took them.

Back when I was a delinquent I never stole [/I] anything from those stores, I homesteaded things they had abandoned. :thumbup1:

Wood, glue and graphite belong to those who harvest and make them, as long as he/they sell it or abandon it.

In my view those things belong to the people who need them, but hey, I'm not an admitted idealist propertarian.

No you don't everyone is the owner of themselves.

So then we can sell ourselves into slavery?

Here's the problem, you cannot actually "sell yourself" anyway, so you cannot be your property. And I don't mean you can't sell yourself because we don't allow that anymore, you literally never could. You can sell your time. You cannot sell your "self."

I don't need to be striped of my rights to life, liberty and possessions for them to be taken care of.

Rights to what? Life for what? Liberty to what? Possessions of what?

I'm sure Hitler didn't want anyone infringing on his right to life, liberty to oppress, and possessions of jew-slaves. Idealism is so naive...

We need to do, as a society, whatever it is we need to do to create prosperity and stability. Whether that includes some far off ideal is only relevant to the actual situation in which those people find themselves.

Socialism =/= charity, socialism = worker's not being exploited (not being stripped of the full product of their labor).

Socialism is equal to the division of equality of charity? I don't understand what you're trying to say...

You don't seem to grasp the Self-ownership principle. Slavery is always illegitimate, whether the slaveowner is a slave-buyer, or parent, or a firm, or society.
So you're telling me I "own" something I can't sell? Sounds like I don't own it...

Fabian, ignore the rest of the post if you think I'm a troll (or need to say that so you can stave off criticism). Answer this; how do we get to your propertarian democracy? Who creates it, and how?

Doflamingo

18th May 2012, 05:44

Q: Is market socialism such a terrible idea?
A: Yes

fabian

18th May 2012, 10:37

Q: Is market socialism such a terrible idea?
A: Yes
Wow, your argumentation dazzles me.

Conscript

18th May 2012, 20:52

Wow, your argumentation dazzles me.

Capitalism is a terrible idea.

Prometeo liberado

18th May 2012, 22:42

But it's interesting that the someone advocating market socialism and in the same time say that he fights for communism "kills you", yet someone advocating capitalism and/or state-capitalism and in the same time saying he fights for communism doesn't.
One question fabian, who is fighting for State-Capitalism? My post clearly stated that my interpretation of communism was, or at least in part, the abolishing of capital. That would mean all capital. You advocate the kindler, gentler capitalism that fabian socialist would prefer their subjects to partake in. If you advocate reform, as a good fabian does, then come out and say the word.

DinodudeEpic

19th May 2012, 00:20

One question fabian, who is fighting for State-Capitalism? My post clearly stated that my interpretation of communism was, or at least in part, the abolishing of capital. That would mean all capital. You advocate the kindler, gentler capitalism that fabian socialist would prefer their subjects to partake in. If you advocate reform, as a good fabian does, then come out and say the word.

First of all, Communism is not Socialism. While Communism is a type of Socialism, Socialism is a broader movement. I am not a communism, but I am indeed a socialist.

Once again, you say that I advocate a better capitalism, even though you haven't really proven your point. You have to prove that I am not a socialist, since you made the claim that I am not a socialist.

All you had done was prove that market socialists are not communists. (Which was pretty obvious.)

Now, prove that we aren't Socialists.

You can still think that market socialism is a terrible idea, but I'm merely asking to consider at least myself to be a revolutionary socialist, even though you may disagree with me.

Conscript

19th May 2012, 00:54

You aren't socialists, you're liberals. Unfortunately the 20th century saw progressives/social democrats hijack the term.

For marxists there are no distinctions between 'socialist' and 'communist'.

DinodudeEpic

19th May 2012, 01:02

You aren't socialists, you're liberals. Unfortunately the 20th century saw progressives/social democrats hijack the term.

For marxists there are no distinctions between 'socialist' and 'communist'.

I am a liberal....socialist.

A liberal socialist.

I do agree, progressive really did hi-jack the term. But, what exactly is the problem with a revolutionary liberal? Wouldn't that be a revolutionary leftist. (Considering that liberals were the original leftists.)

Finally, I am not a Marxist. And, anarchists are not Marxists either. And, this is not a forum for only Marxists. This is a forum for revolutionary leftists in general. I am a revolutionary and I am a leftist. I am also a socialist. Simple as that.

Conscript

19th May 2012, 01:15

Anarchists are not marxists, but they are communists, they want communism. The same can't be said for 'revolutionary liberal socialists' who don't want to abolish capital but shift ownership of it around. That is not revolutionary.

Liberals haven't been revolutionary in at least a century. Marxism has its own means of evaluating what's revolutionary and what's not, which this forum adheres to in its restriction rulings.

Klaatu

19th May 2012, 02:18

The transition to a market socialism would have to be gradual, taking the course of years to successfully implement.

The very first thing to do is to reverse this so-called "Citizens-United" court decision, by totally eliminating all private
money from politics. Secondly, we gradually limit top incomes. As of now, there is no limit to what people can earn.
I propose an phased-in 99.99% income tax on billionaires (90% tax on millionaires) In time, any income made over
$100,000 will be taxed at a 100% rate. This will help advance the process of eliminating social class.

Thirdly, ownership of all private businesses, by law, will require that every employee of said business have an
ownership option (that is, no one single person would be allowed to profit off the exploitation of 'his workers')
and thus the workers effectively OWN said business. (workers own the means of production... a tenet of Socialism)

In time as the world gets accustomed to market socialism, at such time, a bona-fide Marxist Socialism can gradually
replace this transitional system I have outlined. We can progress from there.

Geiseric

19th May 2012, 04:58

The market is what makes capitalism capitalism, you can't fix it any more than you can turn a bull into a cow. There are no desirable features of a market economy, and the market economy is the first thing to be abolished as soon as a dotp is in effect.

The only reason this theory is in existance was Bukharin and his alliance with the Kulaks in the U.S.S.R. which was detrimental to the proletariat.

But for a market to be a market, you would need private property and that would mean that you would support extracting workers surplus labor and turning it into profit, because that's what a market is around to do.

Klaatu

19th May 2012, 05:24

Prometeo liberado

19th May 2012, 06:24

I am a liberal....socialist.

Like I keep saying, peddle that KINDER, GENTLER capitalism elsewhere. There are no takers here.

Now, prove that we aren't Socialists.

After you busted out the "liberal" tag on yourself I think the damage, and a shit load of laughing on my part, is done.

p.s. Most decent folk would be embarrassed to say the "L" word, just so you know.

LuÃs Henrique

19th May 2012, 11:13

You don't need markets for that. Remuneration according to each' contribution within the context of a planned economy eliminates the free rider problem.

How do you have "remuneration" without a labour market?

Luís Henrique

Blake's Baby

19th May 2012, 12:14

I am a liberal....socialist.

A liberal socialist.

I do agree, progressive really did hi-jack the term. But, what exactly is the problem with a revolutionary liberal? Wouldn't that be a revolutionary leftist. (Considering that liberals were the original leftists.)...

Where did you get this idea?

In the period of the establishment of capitalism, liberals (or whatever the local version is, eg the 'Whigs' in Britain) were the party of the bourgeoisie and the 'conservatives' (or whatever the local version of that is, 'party of order' or whatever) were the party of the landed aristocracy. 'Revolutionary liberals' were those fighting feudalism and for capitalism (which they regarded as being synonymous with 'liberty').

After the establishment of capitalism and the accord between the bourgeoisie and aristocracy (pretty much completed in Britain by about 1750, later in other places, eg about 1850 in Germany, 1880 in Russia) the Liberals became the new establishment. So a 'revolutionary liberal' is someone who thinks that it's still the 18th-19th century and wants to overthrow feudalism. That's what liberalism is rebelling against.

Since the mid-1800s, socialism has become the new revolutionary project because the working class (not the bourgeoisie) is the new revolutiuonary subject. We are revolutionary because we want to overthrow society in our interests, the interests of the emancipation of the workers (which will incidently free all of humanity as there are no classes left to exploit). We do not want to overthrow capitalism in the interests of the bourgeoisie; our society is already operating in the interests of the bourgeoisie. So to claim you are a 'revolutionary liberal' is to claim that you want to have a revolution in order to institute the society that we already have.

If you want to do that, I advise ignoring RevLeft and voting for something. Perhaps you could involve yourself in some protest campaign against monarchy (dunno where you live, if it's the UK or anywhere in the Commonwealth you could get involved in campaigning for a republic, if it's the USA you could identify some terrible illiberal injustice in the US system like the Electoral College and campaign for reform of that). Is that a Dutch flag? Maybe you could campaign for the disestablishment of Queen Beatrix and the restoration of the Dutch Republic.

But it's probably a bit late to campaign against the Ancien regime, Tsar, Kaiser, Emperor of Austra-Hungary, freedom of Greece from Ottoman Domination or the end of the Papal States (or any others of the classic 'revolutionary liberal' causes). Your 'revolutionary liberalism' is at least 120 years past its sell-by date.

DinodudeEpic

19th May 2012, 16:31

Where did you get this idea?

In the period of the establishment of capitalism, liberals (or whatever the local version is, eg the 'Whigs' in Britain) were the party of the bourgeoisie and the 'conservatives' (or whatever the local version of that is, 'party of order' or whatever) were the party of the landed aristocracy. 'Revolutionary liberals' were those fighting feudalism and for capitalism (which they regarded as being synonymous with 'liberty').

After the establishment of capitalism and the accord between the bourgeoisie and aristocracy (pretty much completed in Britain by about 1750, later in other places, eg about 1850 in Germany, 1880 in Russia) the Liberals became the new establishment. So a 'revolutionary liberal' is someone who thinks that it's still the 18th-19th century and wants to overthrow feudalism. That's what liberalism is rebelling against.

Since the mid-1800s, socialism has become the new revolutionary project because the working class (not the bourgeoisie) is the new revolutiuonary subject. We are revolutionary because we want to overthrow society in our interests, the interests of the emancipation of the workers (which will incidently free all of humanity as there are no classes left to exploit). We do not want to overthrow capitalism in the interests of the bourgeoisie; our society is already operating in the interests of the bourgeoisie. So to claim you are a 'revolutionary liberal' is to claim that you want to have a revolution in order to institute the society that we already have.

If you want to do that, I advise ignoring RevLeft and voting for something. Perhaps you could involve yourself in some protest campaign against monarchy (dunno where you live, if it's the UK or anywhere in the Commonwealth you could get involved in campaigning for a republic, if it's the USA you could identify some terrible illiberal injustice in the US system like the Electoral College and campaign for reform of that). Is that a Dutch flag? Maybe you could campaign for the disestablishment of Queen Beatrix and the restoration of the Dutch Republic.

But it's probably a bit late to campaign against the Ancien regime, Tsar, Kaiser, Emperor of Austra-Hungary, freedom of Greece from Ottoman Domination or the end of the Papal States (or any others of the classic 'revolutionary liberal' causes). Your 'revolutionary liberalism' is at least 120 years past its sell-by date.

Your entire post both ignores every single post that I had ever written before hand and absolutely is based on logical fallacies.

Liberalism is not Bourgeois rule. Instead, I meant by 'revolutionary liberalism' as in someone who campaigns for political revolution in favor of democracy and free market economics.

Of course, you seemed to have forgotten the socialist part of Liberal Socialism. Because, you can't see the entire idea, and instead you have to compartmentalize it.

Liberalism makes up the individualist, pro-political-democracy, and free market parts of liberal socialism.

Socialism is pretty much the economic democracy part of liberal socialism.

Now, I already know that feudalism and monarchy are dead, but 'revolutionary liberalism' does not mean a campaign against monarchy and feudalism. Or else, the Chinese Nationalists, Narodiks, and 19th century anarchists are all revolutionary liberals. (Although, we should definitely campaign against monarchy.)

Of course, I meant by 'revolutionary liberalism' (Which should be 'revolutionary liberal socialism') is a campaign against Liberal Capitalism in favor of Liberal Socialism, since Liberal Capitalism has anti-democratic elements that are against individual liberty. (To word it in the best way possible.)

Basically, Liberal Socialism is just revolutionary liberalism that realizes that capitalism is against liberty. It is not like the revolutionary liberalism of the past, instead I meant to use the word to mean that liberal socialism would take up the role of revolutionary liberalism before it.

Anyways, I can always just call myself something else if the word liberal is all so offensive to your overly sensitive self.

How about 'Libertarism'? It is based of libertarian socialism.

Anyways, I find farcical that you honestly thought that I was ONLY campaigning against monarchy and feudalism. (Which is absolutely ludicrous.) What I meant was that I wanted to campaign against representative democracy and capitalism in favor of direct democracy and free market socialism. (Of course, I do support removing the electoral college and abolishing monarchies. But, that is more of a side-note than a main goal.)

Of course, to actually think up of actual political ideas instead of steaming up utopian bullshit on economics is apparently a capitalist construct.

In total, it is delirious to characterize my ideas for only a part of them. (Whether economic, political, or philosophical.) You need to take a look at the bigger picture instead of just one part of society. Unfortunately, you have economic reductionism stuck to your head so much that you can't really think outside of that box.

As for my comment on liberals being the original leftists, you seem to forgot where the political spectrum came from. It came from the French Revolution where the liberals sat in the left side of the legislative assembly while the conservatives sat in the right side. In this sense, liberals ARE the original leftists. Of course, their program is out of date, but they are still the original leftists.

Finally, I am an American, and the flag is not a Dutch flag. (You have to be stupid to think so.) Note how the colors of the tricolor are flipped upside down. (Like in Yugoslavia.) Of course, a canton with the star-spangled banner seemed to be enough to distinguish it from Yugoslavia's flag.

Instead of spamming idiotic shit about the semantics of liberalism, please try to make some real arguments.

Also, political ideologies have no bearing on the politeness of a person. As shown by our local communists with a terribly rude attitude.

For the last time, please make real substantial arguments instead of ad hominum attacks, semantic arguing, and ideological dogmatism.

Revolution starts with U

20th May 2012, 12:28

Dino,

Property = "I reserve the right to allow you to starve right in front of me when I claim this granary as property."

T/F?

Doflamingo

20th May 2012, 17:34

Why does this capitalist liberal think he's a socialist again?

fabian

20th May 2012, 17:47

Because you don't know what capitalism and socialism are.

Doflamingo

20th May 2012, 17:49

Because you don't know what capitalism and socialism are.

Says the market socialist.

Blake's Baby

20th May 2012, 17:57

...
Liberalism is not Bourgeois rule. Instead, I meant by 'revolutionary liberalism' as in someone who campaigns for political revolution in favor of democracy and free market economics...

Um, yes, that's the revolutionary liberal programme of the early 19th century.

...Of course, you seemed to have forgotten the socialist part of Liberal Socialism. Because, you can't see the entire idea, and instead you have to compartmentalize it...

And you have forgotton the 'moronic' of 'oxymoronic'.

...

Liberalism makes up the individualist, pro-political-democracy, and free market parts of liberal socialism...

So, the politics of the revolutionary bourgeoisie, I get you.

...Socialism is pretty much the economic democracy part of liberal socialism...

Which makes no sense because one cannot believe in both socialism and a free market, as the ideas are mutually exclusive.

...Now, I already know that feudalism and monarchy are dead, but 'revolutionary liberalism' does not mean a campaign against monarchy and feudalism. Or else, the Chinese Nationalists, Narodiks, and 19th century anarchists are all revolutionary liberals. (Although, we should definitely campaign against monarchy.)...

Chinese nationalists, Narodniks and some 19th century 'anarchists' were indeed revolutionary liberals.

However, you're conducting a logical fallacy of your own; all revolutionary liberals oppose monarchy and fuedalism, not all opponents of monarchy and feudalism are revolutionary liberals. Much as every entity called 'Keith Jones' is human, but not every human is called 'Keith Jones'.

...Of course, I meant by 'revolutionary liberalism' (Which should be 'revolutionary liberal socialism') is a campaign against Liberal Capitalism in favor of Liberal Socialism, since Liberal Capitalism has anti-democratic elements that are against individual liberty. (To word it in the best way possible.)...

well, that's clear. By 'revolutionary liberalism' which is really 'revolutionary liberal socialism' you mean 'campigning for liberal socialism'. Congratualtions, you've managed to empty 'revolutionary', 'liberal' and 'socialism' of any meaning whatsoever.

...Basically, Liberal Socialism is just revolutionary liberalism that realizes that capitalism is against liberty. It is not like the revolutionary liberalism of the past, instead I meant to use the word to mean that liberal socialism would take up the role of revolutionary liberalism before it...

... the role of emancipating humanity? Yeah, that's what 'socialism' is for. You don't need to prefix it with 'liberal' because that implies that there is an 'illiberal' socialism, which, obviously, there isn't.

...Anyways, I can always just call myself something else if the word liberal is all so offensive to your overly sensitive self...

Call yourself a duck, doesn't mean you can fly. Words refer to real things; ideas, ideologies, histories. If you go around using words however you like, then squirrel marzipan fandango ladder fuckface.

...How about 'Libertarism'? It is based of libertarian socialism...

You can use whatever pre-existing or newly-coined word you like. You can't make anyone else accept your use of it though.

...
Anyways, I find farcical that you honestly thought that I was ONLY campaigning against monarchy and feudalism. (Which is absolutely ludicrous.) What I meant was that I wanted to campaign against representative democracy and capitalism in favor of direct democracy and free market socialism. (Of course, I do support removing the electoral college and abolishing monarchies. But, that is more of a side-note than a main goal.)...

If you want people to think you're not a bourgeois liberal, stop pretending to be a bourgeois liberal, is my advice.

You advocate 'market socialism' which is as much an oxymoron as 'liberal socialism'. So, as you're a capitalist, I don't accept you as any kind of socialist at all. How am I supposed to know what your interests are?

...Of course, to actually think up of actual political ideas instead of steaming up utopian bullshit on economics is apparently a capitalist construct...

I have no idea what 'steaming up utopian bullshit on economics' is supposed to mean, but I imagine it has a lot to do with being a revolutionary liberal socialist free-market individualist.

...In total, it is delirious to characterize my ideas for only a part of them. (Whether economic, political, or philosophical.) You need to take a look at the bigger picture instead of just one part of society. Unfortunately, you have economic reductionism stuck to your head so much that you can't really think outside of that box...

Do you mean a Marxist analysis of class society? In which case, guilty and proud of it. That's what makes me a socialist and not a liberal utopian.

...
As for my comment on liberals being the original leftists, you seem to forgot where the political spectrum came from. It came from the French Revolution where the liberals sat in the left side of the legislative assembly while the conservatives sat in the right side. In this sense, liberals ARE the original leftists. Of course, their program is out of date, but they are still the original leftists...

Sure. But you claim that's not why you are a liberal. So, are you an 18th-19th century liberal, or not? Do you subscribe to the programme of the bourgeois revolution? Are you that sort of liberal?

...Finally, I am an American, and the flag is not a Dutch flag. (You have to be stupid to think so.) Note how the colors of the tricolor are flipped upside down. (Like in Yugoslavia.) Of course, a canton with the star-spangled banner seemed to be enough to distinguish it from Yugoslavia's flag...

Perhaps I'm not as interested in vexillology as you. I don't remember whether the Dutch flag is red-white-blue or blue-white-red. And as the stars you are flying are the EU stars, the idea that the flag may be a European one is hardly an unwarranted leap. I knew it wasn't Luxemburg. If it's intended to resemble the Stars and Stripes... really it doesn't. Doesn't even look like it comes from the right continent.

...Instead of spamming idiotic shit about the semantics of liberalism, please try to make some real arguments...

Maybe when you're not restricted because you're pro-capitalist, you can come and see the rest of RevLeft. That's where the real arguments are.

...Also, political ideologies have no bearing on the politeness of a person. As shown by our local communists with a terribly rude attitude...

Not sure why you mention politeness, but I don't think I've been impolite to you, though you've terribly rude to me.

...
For the last time, please make real substantial arguments instead of ad hominum attacks, semantic arguing, and ideological dogmatism.

Most of my post was politely and helpfully giving you a history lesson about some words you didn't know the meaning of. Most of the rest was politely and helpfully making suggestions about things that you might find conducive to your political goals. Not my fault that you choose to describe your political philosophy in terms that you don't seem to think are appropriate. Nor that you have no theoretical grounding in your political beliefs. Other than not immediately recognizing the defaced flag of a country that doesn't exist makes one 'stupid'. Which isn't a lot to base a political philosophy on.

fabian

20th May 2012, 19:08

Says the market socialist.
Yeah, sorry, I forgot, you don't know what markets are either.

Doflamingo

20th May 2012, 19:20

Yeah, sorry, I forgot, you don't know what markets are either.

Well aren't you just the biggest badass in the world. Making assumptions without any prior evidence. :laugh:

P.S. as long as competition exists, it's not socialism.

fabian

20th May 2012, 19:29

Assumptions? Read a little and take notice of the statements like "even if you abolish all capitalists, you still have capitalism", "USSR was socialism" or something meaning "markets constitute capitalism", which are all simply false and stupid.

Blake's Baby

20th May 2012, 20:54

'Capitalism' is a relationship Fabian. Therefore, if you abolish all the capitalists (how?) you would still have capitalism, because 'capitalists' (ie people) cannot be abolished, and the socio-economic structures are more than just the individuals. Capitalism produces capitalists, not the other way around.

One does not need to wear a top-hat and a waiscoat and smoke a ciger to be a capitalist; one needs to stand in a particular relationship to the means of production; specifically, one must own the means of production.

The USSR did 'abolish the capitalists' but it was still capitalist (not socialist), because capitalism cannot be 'abolished' by transfering ownership from private individuals or corporations to the state. It's still capitalism if the working class works through wage labour to produce commodities. So your system (which owes a lot to syndicalism, it seems, as well as the co-operative movement) is still capitalism because wage labourers still produce commodities. The fact that they own their own means of production really doesn't matter if they're competing with other enterprises (who are also worker-owned) on the market - capitalist relations still apply. Honestly, the Rochdale Pioneers were onto a good thing in 1849 but it isn't 1849 any more. We can't just extend our way to socialism by turning all businesses into John Lewis.

Geiseric

21st May 2012, 06:06

Well what's the next step foward then if not to produce commodities with wage laborers who own their factory along with the public? What's the left communist solution? "Direct workers control," is meaningless, and pointless.

Blake's Baby

21st May 2012, 10:00

I'm not sure what you think you're saying here Brotsky. Are you arguing for the retention of capitalism after the Revolution?

The factories (and all other places of work) belong collectively to the working class, who organise them for the production of necessities. No 'commodities' because they don't trade on markets, the goods are not produced as speculation, they're produced to fulfill identified needs. The whole process is organised through the workers' councils and factory committees.

fabian

21st May 2012, 10:44

'Capitalism' is a relationship Fabian.
A relationship between employer and employee. Someone who parasitize and exploits, and the one who works. That relation would be abolished in socialism, and people would be able to earn only by labor, and there wouldn't be any ruling parasitic class neither feudalist, nor capitalist, nor bureaucrat.

stern l.

21st May 2012, 11:35

Does Revleft think this is a workable alternative or indeed desirable one?

I'm coming late to this discussion, but if you read carefully Bakunin's critic of marxism or at least the arguments of an austrian school of economy author like Ludwig Von Mises; you'll see that a central and totally controlled economy is closer to slavery and serfdom than feudalism.
An economy that lacks freedom and punish the ones that are creative and smart- with the purpose of wealth distribution- is an economy that tends towards stagnation, like Soviet Union during cold war.
The socialists advocating a social market economy in the classical form or the Freiburg school are not less socialists because of that, they only learnt by history and have a more scientific (fail, trial and experiment) than ideological or emotional approach to economy.

Revolution starts with U

21st May 2012, 16:27

I'm coming late to this discussion, but if you read carefully Bakunin's critic of marxism or at least the arguments of an austrian school of economy author like Ludwig Von Mises; you'll see that a central and totally controlled economy is closer to slavery and serfdom than feudalism.
An economy that lacks freedom and punish the ones that are creative and smart- with the purpose of wealth distribution- is an economy that tends towards stagnation, like Soviet Union during cold war.
The socialists advocating a social market economy in the classical form or the Freiburg school are not less socialists because of that, they only learnt by history and have a more scientific (fail, trial and experiment) than ideological or emotional approach to economy.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y132/Jesterangelo/9y6tjo9r13.jpg

This should be interesting....

@Fabian,
What happens when I leverage my money and just start buying out key co-ops, like in the protection of trade routes?

Conscript

21st May 2012, 17:10

A relationship between employer and employee. Someone who parasitize and exploits, and the one who works. That relation would be abolished in socialism, and people would be able to earn only by labor, and there wouldn't be any ruling parasitic class neither feudalist, nor capitalist, nor bureaucrat.

You don't need a formal white collared capitalist to have capital, or be a slave to it. See the petty bourgeoisie who frequently employ their own labor for reasons of accumulation.

In your market socialism the capital-labor relationship will remain, only some duties will be relegated around and aesthetics changed.

Dani Phantom

21st May 2012, 18:21

Azraella

21st May 2012, 21:17

I'm coming late to this discussion, but if you read carefully Bakunin's critic of marxism or at least the arguments of an austrian school of economy author like Ludwig Von Mises; you'll see that a central and totally controlled economy is closer to slavery and serfdom than feudalism.

The hilarious thing is that not all communists are favorable to a centralized economy. I'm certainly not.

An economy that lacks freedom and punish the ones that are creative and smart- with the purpose of wealth distribution- is an economy that tends towards stagnation, like Soviet Union during cold war.

Strawman. The idea of a communist economy is give equality of conditions. Not to merely distribute wealth and it certainly wouldn't crush creativity and intelligence.

The socialists advocating a social market economy in the classical form or the Freiburg school are not less socialists because of that, they only learnt by history and have a more scientific (fail, trial and experiment) than ideological or emotional approach to economy.

I don't call them non-socialists. I just think their ideas are flawed

l'EnfermÃ©

21st May 2012, 21:45

I'm coming late to this discussion, but if you read carefully Bakunin's critic of marxism or at least the arguments of an austrian school of economy author like Ludwig Von Mises; you'll see that a central and totally controlled economy is closer to slavery and serfdom than feudalism.
An economy that lacks freedom and punish the ones that are creative and smart- with the purpose of wealth distribution- is an economy that tends towards stagnation, like Soviet Union during cold war.
The socialists advocating a social market economy in the classical form or the Freiburg school are not less socialists because of that, they only learnt by history and have a more scientific (fail, trial and experiment) than ideological or emotional approach to economy.
Bakunin's criticism of Marx is, at best, an idiotic tirade about how Marxism is in reality a Jewish conspiracy to enslave Europe under the clutches of sinister Jewish Central Banks. There's also another part of his criticism of Marxism, where he basically takes all the opinions held by Marx and written by him in the Civil War in France, and lying tells us that the exact opposite of what Marx has written in the Civil War is in reality Marx's real opinion(especially Marx's opinions on the post-capitalist State)...Bakunin is a charlatan, and whoever takes his writings seriously isn't much better...

Azraella

21st May 2012, 22:00

Bakunin's criticism of Marx is, at best, an idiotic tirade about how Marxism is in reality a Jewish conspiracy to enslave Europe under the clutches of sinister Jewish Central Banks. There's also another part of his criticism of Marxism, where he basically takes all the opinions held by Marx and written by him in the Civil War in France, and lying tells us that the exact opposite of what Marx has written in the Civil War is in reality Marx's real opinion(especially Marx's opinions on the post-capitalist State)...Bakunin is a charlatan, and whoever takes his writings seriously isn't much better...

I agree with some of Bakunin's ideas in God and State but I mostly disregard him, preferring Kropotkin and Malatesta.

I do think your reading of Bakunin's criticisms of Marx is spot on actually.

fabian

22nd May 2012, 11:10

What happens when I leverage my money and just start buying out key co-ops
You couldn't buy a coop, because only those working in a factory or firm could own it. Because they would be in a system called SOCIALISM.

In your market socialism the capital-labor relationship will remain
Where? I want a concrete answer.

LuÃs Henrique

22nd May 2012, 11:56

P.S. as long as competition exists, it's not socialism.

So we won't have soccer games in socialism? Or will the soccer games necessarily have to end in a draw?

Luís Henrique

burujowa

22nd May 2012, 13:33

How is capital accumulation supposed to work in "market socialism"? How are new co-ops going to be created? By convincing a large number of people to save money, quit their existing jobs, then waste their own money on the MoP so that they can work some more with basically no benefit?

helot

22nd May 2012, 14:00

So we won't have soccer games in socialism? Or will the soccer games necessarily have to end in a draw?

Luís Henrique

There's a difference between competing in a game and competing for the means of life.

fabian

22nd May 2012, 15:28

How is capital accumulation supposed to work in "market socialism"?
There isn't going to be any.

How are new co-ops going to be created?
One option would be interest-free loans from a mutual bank that that could be taken for starting a business, or building something. The other would be community solidarity projects, something like the Amish do today, when the whole community participates in building something new. Another would be a mix with state capitalism, where the state would do such things. I guess there could be other options, or mixes of this ones.

competing for the means of life
Without anyone parasiting, and only workers existing, there would be much more goods for people then in capitalism (including state one)- being that people would work for themselves, and not for a boss (whether capitalist or bureaucrat) productivity would rise, and all that products would distribute among the workers themselves, being that, as I said- there would be no parasites.

Revolution starts with U

22nd May 2012, 19:27

You couldn't buy a coop, because only those working in a factory or firm could own it. Because they would be in a system called SOCIALISM.

Who is to stop me, if I have enough money and the workers want to do it? More importantly, who's to stop me from hiring mercenaries and just taking it?

fabian

23rd May 2012, 12:15

Who is to stop me, if I have enough money and the workers want to do it? More importantly, who's to stop me from hiring mercenaries and just taking it?
Me. I'd shoot you in a knee. Troll, there would either a state with police and army or there would a people's army (people would decide) that would perserve the socialist system.

Revolution starts with U

23rd May 2012, 15:03

Me. I'd shoot you in a knee. Troll, there would either a state with police and army or there would a people's army (people would decide) that would perserve the socialist system.

It's quite clear you don't understand why the state and the army exist.

(If I were a troll, I'd have given up on you long ago. I'm actually trying to engage you. Now grow up and stop being so paranoid.)

fabian

23rd May 2012, 15:37

Trolls don't give up, that's a part of their definition. They stubbornly "debate" you with stuping statements even when you have explained a point multiple times. That's the other part. You fit both.

It's quite clear you don't understand why the state and the army exist.
What do they exist for? To plant flowers? Perform mass gymnastic games? They're there to perserve the law / system, and in socialism they would also be there to among other thing also to stop anyone from exploiting someone.

Revolution starts with U

23rd May 2012, 16:03

The state does not preserve the law outside the interests of the ruling class. We rob a bank, we go to jail, true. Bankers rob all the banks and get paid for it.

The state exists to impose the will of its ruling class. Socialism is not (contrary to what some will say) working "class" rule, as the rule of the working class eliminates class. Socialism is the rule of classlessness. That's why it's a stateless society.

(Also, you explain your points terribly, and that's probably why you get asked the same questions over and over. You're basically just being like 'workers would do it because they are workers" while offering no concrete analysis of how they will be in a position to do so. Banks still exist, private property still exists; and yet the existence of the two foremost sugjugators of the proletariat doesn't entail the subjugation of the working class?)

Revolution starts with U

23rd May 2012, 16:04

Also, trolls "do it for the lolz." I've certainly not had many of those from you.

Baseball

23rd May 2012, 20:35

Rafiq

24th May 2012, 02:24

Socialism is indeed the dictatorship of the proletarian class... Though, in the process, to abolish itself.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

fabian

24th May 2012, 10:50

The state does not preserve the law outside the interests of the ruling class.
A socialist society is a classless one (not in the marxian sense though), so the state would preserve the interest of the entire people, that is- the socialist system.

Banks still exist, private property still exists; and yet the existence of the two foremost sugjugators
Bank(s) would give only interest-free loans for business-creating projects, and property would exist acconding the labor theory of property thus abolishing employment (anyone taking someone's surplus value), rent, interest, and investments. The bank would no longer be a subjugator, but a helper, and property would no longer be theft, but freedom.

Blake's Baby

24th May 2012, 11:52

A socialist society is a classless one (not in the marxian sense though), so the state would preserve the interest of the entire people, that is- the socialist system...

That 'not in a Marxian sense though' is a bit of a dozy because what you're doing there is redefining the concept of a state.

"Ah but because I've redefined the concept of a state to be able to be defined as something which doesn't have classes even though by your definition they are classes, then my state doesn't have classes so you should support it".

You're just playing with words. Your 'philosophy' has no basis in the real world.

Bank(s) would give only interest-free loans for business-creating projects, and property would exist acconding the labor theory of property thus abolishing employment (anyone taking someone's surplus value), rent, interest, and investments. The bank would no longer be a subjugator, but a helper, and property would no longer be theft, but freedom.

In which case they are no longer banks. What is 'an interest free loan' in this case? How do banks make money to employ people to do the economic calculations about whether or not openning a co-operative custard farm is a good idea? Or does every enterprise automatically get a loan? In which case why do they need it, or the bank to OK it? Why doesn't society say 'every enterprise can start but must pay a surcharge to the non-existant-but-real-state'? It doesn't seem like you've thought this through.

fabian

24th May 2012, 12:47

That 'not in a Marxian sense though' is a bit of a dozy because what you're doing there is redefining the concept of a state.
I wasn't talking about the state, but about classes.

In which case they are no longer banks.
They're banks. They lend money.

What is 'an interest free loan' in this case?
Loan without interest rate.

How do banks make money
By a fixed charge for mantaining their service, or if it's a national bank- by taxes.

to do the economic calculations about whether or not openning a co-operative custard farm is a good idea?
No need to do that.

Or does every enterprise automatically get a loan?
Yes.

In which case why do they need it
Yeah, why would you ever money to start a business?

Why doesn't society say 'every enterprise can start but must pay a surcharge
In order for it to start it would need a starting loan.

It doesn't seem like you've thought this through.
It doesn't seem like you have your brain turned on, as you can see- all your simple (minded) questions have very simple answers.

Blake's Baby

24th May 2012, 13:44

I wasn't talking about the state, but about classes...

There are no 'non-marxist classes' but there are Marxist classes? I suppose that means that the state really is a state, but the 'classless' bit of it falls for Marxists then?

So let's see...

You're in favour of wage labour, markets, the state and the continuing existence of classes (though not in a 'non-Marxist' sense). And you think this is 'socialism'?

...
They're banks. They lend money...

They lend... something. Maybe.

Does that 'something' need to exist? If all enterprises get a loan automatically, that is exactly the same as saying the decision to notify the 'bank' (read 'authority') triggers the release of some (how much - does every enterprise get whatever it asks for?) social capital. If the 'bank' has no means of refusing credit, if it's either a nominal start-up capital investment (sorry, 'not'-investment) or, alternatively, each 'loan' is of a certain amount based maybe on the number of workers in the co-operative (each member has a nominal allowance from the 'social fund'), then that amount must be paid back (how? If labourers are using the capital to expand reproduction to pay themselves back for their work plus pay back the bank but 'the market' determines what their labour is worth or labour is worth x-amount but that is not realised on the market, then how do the workers gain 'the full value of their labour'?); otherwise it's not a 'loan'.

But if it's automatic, then why do you need a bank? A single state employee with the power to press a button ('computer says yes... computer says yes... computer says yes... computer says yes...') would do just as well. All it means is that for the first five years (or whatever) new businesses have a lower wage cost (that's the cost of paying back the state for allowing the business to go ahead).

...Loan without interest rate...

Saying the same thing in a slightly different order is not answering the question. The same words, ordered differently, an answer to the question do not make. An ordering of the same words that is different doesn't answer the question. To answer the question, a different ordering of the worst doesn't suffice. It isn't answering the question if you say the same thing in a different order. A different order, of the same words, isn't answering the question.

...
By a fixed charge for mantaining their service, or if it's a national bank- by taxes...

A 'fixed charge'. So you effectively 'buy' the loan. 'Interest free... other surcharges apply'. How is this not exactly the same as fixed-rate interest?

Taxes... general taxes? Everyone has to pay a penny for this 'social fund'? Or specific taxes? Every co-operative has to fund its competitors?

...
No need to do that...

Yes, you've 'explained' (I use the word very loosely) why bank-that-isn't-a-bank is compelled to offer free-that-aren't-free loans-that-aren't-loans on a non-commercial-commercial basis.

So; I want to farm custard. I get my loan. Guess what? You can't farm custard, it's not a crop. My custard farm never makes any money. Why couldn't someone at the 'bank' (or ministry) have just stamped my application with a big 'FAIL' sign? Now I 'owe' some 'money' for a stupid project. Oh woe is me.

...
Yeah, why would you ever money to start a business?

Well, you need it in capitalism because there's a thing called 'property', but you don't need it in socialism because there isn't.

If society decided that something needed doing, it would organise doing it. No entrepreneurial custard-farmers need apply.

...
In order for it to start it would need a starting loan...

Doesn't follow. Just because 'starting loan' has the word 'starting' in it it doesn't necessarily mean that it's necessary for 'starting'. When I'm starting a race I need a starting pistol; when I'm starting my breakfast I need some orange juice. I only need a 'starting loan' for starting a business in capitalism.

...
It doesn't seem like you have your brain turned on, as you can see- all your simple (minded) questions have very simple answers.

Yeah... pity all your answers don't actually answer anything.

"What is the shortest difference between the main railway station in Lima, Peru, and the east end of St Paul's Cathedral, London?"

"A duck."

Not all answers are worth it, I'm afraid.

So, feel free to explain why:
1 - 'loans' of 'money' are required;
2 - how workers derive 'the full value of their labour' when they additionally have to pay back 'loans';
3 - how surcharging the loan system is not the same as interest (ie money over and above the loan value);
4 - why the 'bank' even needs to exist.

Hint - giving the same unsatisfactory answers in a slightly different order isn't good enough.

When you're done, you can explain how you've redefined the notion of 'class' to mean something other than groups standing in a particular relationship to the means of production.

I'd say I'm agog for your answers but to be honest that would just be doing what you do with words like 'socialism' and 'classes' - I'd be redefining 'agog' totally idiosyncratically to mean the opposite of what other people understand by it.

fabian

24th May 2012, 14:58

There are no 'non-marxist classes' but there are Marxist classes?
I said that socialism is a classless society- in Proudhonian/ Chernovian sense, but not in Marxist.

You're in favour of wage labour, markets, the state and the continuing existence of classes (though not in a 'non-Marxist' sense).
Man, you are an idiot. Wage labor would be abolished, because the employer- employee relationship would be abolished.

As for classes, there would be only working people, all making of unearned incomes would be abolished.

In Marxian sense, this socialist society would consist of two classes- peasants and the so called "petit bourgeousie", without anyone being bourgeous or proleter, whereas in Proudhonian/ Chernovian sense- this socialist society would consist of one class- working class, without anyone being a parasite.

If the 'bank' has no means of refusing credit
It has. If that group of people have taking a credit before. Because it would be "a starting loan".

then that amount must be paid back (how?
Making money and paying it back. Stop asking stupid questions.

Saying the same thing in a slightly different order is not answering the question.
The question refers to something that is self explenatory, and is therefore stupid. There's a loan, and there's no interest. I don't see how can that be confusing for anyone with an IQ higher then room temterature.

Taxes... general taxes? Everyone has to pay a penny for this 'social fund'? Or specific taxes? Every co-operative has to fund its competitors?
Would be decided democraticaly.

Yes, you've 'explained' (I use the word very loosely) why bank-that-isn't-a-bank is compelled to offer free-that-aren't-free loans-that-aren't-loans on a non-commercial-commercial basis.
No, it's bank that gives interest-free loans. Stop being an idiot.

So; I want to farm custard. I get my loan. Guess what? You can't farm custard, it's not a crop. My custard farm never makes any money. Why couldn't someone at the 'bank' (or ministry) have just stamped my application with a big 'FAIL' sign?
It would. Rationlity is presupposed. Making a point that that does away with that presupposition is by definition idiotic. Stop acting like an idiot.

Well, you need it in capitalism because there's a thing called 'property'
Capitalism isn't the only system that uses currency, and capitalist property is not the only possible concept of property.

but you don't need it in socialism because there isn't.
Socialism is in contradiction with capitalist- private property, not with property itself, centainly not with labor theory of property, on which the criticism of capitalism as an exploitative system subsists.

I only need a 'starting loan' for starting a business in capitalism.
You don't need it in state capitalism, because you can't start a business.

Also, you could need a starting loan in socialism (the system I'm describing all along), because socialism isn't communism where currency doesn't exist and everything is done collectively and owned by the collective.

1 - 'loans' of 'money' are required;
Don't know what 'loans' and 'money' are. Maybe loans and money. Try and ask a sensical question for a change.

how workers derive 'the full value of their labour' when they additionally have to pay back 'loans'
Workers get the full product of their labor. Fist thing- there is no such thing as a "natural price of a commodity". Second thing- getting the full product of one's labor doesnt imply keeping it in your possession for ever, you use it buy what you don't make but want to have- e.g. clothes or toys (same with services), or to pay what you must- like a loan you owe.

how surcharging the loan system is not the same as interest
Because the charge is always fixed, as opposed to fluctuating interest rate which rises over time, and fixed interest rate that's fixed only during the rate period of the loan. It is always fixed because it is not interest- a rent of money, but a charge of service.

why the 'bank' even needs to exist.
Supply and demand. It would exist because people would want to take loans. If they wouldn't, it wouldn't.

[quot]When you're done, you can explain how you've redefined the notion of 'class' to mean something other than groups standing in a particular relationship to the means of production.[/quote]
Not me, but Proudhon and Chernov. Class doesn't depend on the relationship to the means of prodution, but on the taking on "surplus value" or other unearned incomes. So there exist only two classes- the working class, and the parasitic class.

Revolution starts with U

24th May 2012, 15:10

The taking of surplus value can only be done through one's relation to the means of production.

A loan + a surcharge is interest.

A bank which can discriminate holds a great deal of power over the whole economy. Whether or not the first loan is freely given, it's not (according to you) after that. So after one loan, banks discriminate. Good thing Henry Ford didn't declare bankruptcy 7 times before getting the Ford Motor Co off the ground... oh wait..

The state, if we analyze the above paragraph, would find itself firmly on the side of the banks; this society's ruling class. Stupid people are going to continue to see themselves as humans, and so in seeing that the system is heavily weighted against them ever getting ahead. That alienation is basically the principle cause of class antagonism so...

I guess I'm just stupid for analyzing macro relations of society, instead of seeing everyone as atomized individuals.

fabian

24th May 2012, 15:47

The taking of surplus value can only be done through one's relation to the means of production.
But not the other way around. Workers are not people being exploited, workers are people who don't exploit (or steal), that is, live off their labor.

A loan + a surcharge is interest.
It is not, because interest is charging the rent of money.

The state, if we analyze the above paragraph, would find itself firmly on the side of the banks
Bank(s) and the state would be just instruments of the society.

I guess I'm just stupid
First smart thing you said.

Azraella

24th May 2012, 15:58

You don't need to be a dick.

fabian

24th May 2012, 16:23

As oppossed to everyone else here being nice and polite to me?

Don't get me wrong, I have no bad feelings about how other people act, or have bad feelins towards other people, I'm a student of stoicism, and don't practice negative emotions at all. I don't get insulted or annoyed, I don't do hate, contempt or spite. When I write something that seems insultive it is just a response to the deriding, condescending and trashing attitude directed towards me (or simply someone trolling me). Simple action and reaction, I don't know if I was ever the initiator of verbal violence, it's a matter of showing to the people wanting to trash someone (in this case me), that they should be prepared to be trashed themselves.

Revolution starts with U

24th May 2012, 18:07

But not the other way around. Workers are not people being exploited, workers are people who don't exploit (or steal), that is, live off their labor.

Workers are being exploited... unless of course you're now talking about future society and not this one... but who knows because you switch around so much. But wait... didn't you say workers are not exploited in capitalism, because they choose to work there?

You change your mind often...

It is not, because interest is charging the rent of money.

Semantics. They're paying for the loan + interest/rent/surcharge. They're still paying more for the loan then the loan is worth.
Check your patrician history to see what happens to a society that becomes dependent upon loans.

Bank(s) and the state would be just instruments of the society.

Utopic nonsense. The banks and the state are right now just instruments of society, class society. They will be in your society too.

First smart thing you said.
As opposed to the guy who has enough cognitive dissonance to say selling your labor as a commodity is not the commodification of labor?

You can act like you're just defending yourself, but look who is always reverting to calling people stupid, to who derided drug abusers are worthless junkies who deserve to die (if you don't think people identify with their friends and family, you're nuts), etc etc. You're a patronizing know-it-all who sits around wondering why nobody likes him.

EDIT: sort of like how Hatzel asked "what do you think about this" (banning cars because people get in accidents) and you flat out told him you weren't going to answer his question... then was surprised he called you a "fucking idiot." NAP idealists don't understand the first thing about ethics; which is fuck your ethics.

fabian

24th May 2012, 18:25

didn't you say workers are not exploited in capitalism, because they choose to work there?
No. That is your idiotic misinterpretation of my words. I have said over and over again that capitalism is explotative and should be abolished. People should helped out of exploation even against their will.

Semantics.
The charge would always be fixed, as opposed to fluctuating interest rate which rises over time, and fixed interest rate that's fixed only during the rate period of the loan. That pure praxis, nowhere near semantics.

The banks and the state are right now just instruments of society, class society.
This sentance is idiotic. If the banks and the state were the instruments of society- class society, that would mean that the bank and the state are instruments of all classes in that (class) society which they are not, but only of the rulling- parasitic class. It would seem that you cannot write a single sensical sentance.

As opposed to the guy who has enough cognitive dissonance to say selling your labor as a commodity
Another idiotic misinterpretation of my words. I have said over and over again that there would be no employment.

This last post of yours has been a beyond any doubt confirmation that you are either an utter idiot or a huge troll. Anyways, cheers, I'm as of now using the joys of the ignore list.

Revolution starts with U

24th May 2012, 22:21

No. That is your idiotic misinterpretation of my words. I have said over and over again that capitalism is explotative and should be abolished. People should helped out of exploation even against their will.
I'm sorry:

Because I'm not a reality-denying idiot such as yourself. No one points a gun a at you and forces you to work for him.
For thinking that workers freely choosing to work for a capitalist meant they weren't exploited. This is what I mean, your arguments are atrocious, and contain no cognitive consistency.
Then you said:

I did not, and they are not. I said that in a revolution if you shoot first, you're the aggressor- because there is no direct coercion towards you in capitalism, that's the difference between capitalism and slavery.
Which by the way, pretty much sums up why you should be restricted (if we're too restrict reactionaries).
I don't understand where, in your mind, this exploitation is happening if nobody forces me to work in capitalism, and me shooting first is aggression.

(This little excursion has been kind of funny seeing as you admitted to drinking wine and beer. Hypocrite)

You also said if someone threates me but I shoot first, I'm the aggressor (or that's the only conclusion I can see, because you didn't answer the question but to say "see you do know what coercion is."

You said:

To do something volutarily pressuposes deliberation, and deliberation means that one is able to think clearly

Whereas above you said workers voluntarily choose capitalism, which means they are thinking clearly. Thinking clearly (I guess) supposes being rational, and as such... guess what!... no mental revolution can happen because workers are already thinking clearly.
This is what I mean. You're illogical, captain.

The charge would always be fixed, as opposed to fluctuating interest rate which rises over time, and fixed interest rate that's fixed only during the rate period of the loan. That pure praxis, nowhere near semantics.

Oh, so because the charge doesn't increase after 5 years, it's not interest anymore :rolleyes:
Pure semantics number 1

An interest rate is the rate at which interest is paid by a borrower for the use of money that they borrow from a lender. For example, a small company borrows capital from a bank to buy new assets for their business, and in return the lender receives interest at a predetermined interest rate for deferring the use of funds and instead lending it to the borrower
No matter if it's fixed forever, for a period, or variable. If you have to pay the lender for the use of money it is an interest rate.

This sentance is idiotic. If the banks and the state were the instruments of society- class society, that would mean that the bank and the state are instruments of all classes in that (class) society which they are not, but only of the rulling- parasitic class. It would seem that you cannot write a single sensical sentance.

I'm sorry, but this is really the sentence that is not sensible. Are you saying the police are not an instrument of society because they don't go into poor black neighborhoods? Dumb.

Another idiotic misinterpretation of my words. I have said over and over again that there would be no employment.

You've said over and over that there would be 100% employment. You just like to say stuff like "there would be no apples! Instead there would be red, green, and yellow skinned balls of sweet tasting living tissue around a stem with seeds in the middle."
You have said that people would not be allowed to not work, as that is parasitism. Who would enforce this? The state. Ergo, the state is my employer; the guy who makes me work and takes a portion of the value of my labor for upkeep and his own pay.

Btw fabian;
In Marxian economics, exploitation refers to the subjection of producers (the proletariat) to work for passive owners (bourgeoisie) for less compensation than is equivalent to the actual amount of work done.
Note the bolded.

It's funny. I've never ignored someone just for arguing with me. Only people like Franz, who offer no arguments, just insults, have I ever ignored. I guess I'm not a coward and don't run away from arguments I think are stupid.

I am asking if someone can put this in their own post. Just copy and paste it. If you just quote me, he won't see it. I'll rep trade for it, if you want ;)

Azraella

24th May 2012, 22:23

For Fabian from RSWU

I'm sorry:

For thinking that workers freely choosing to work for a capitalist meant they weren't exploited. This is what I mean, your arguments are atrocious, and contain no cognitive consistency.
Then you said:

Which by the way, pretty much sums up why you should be restricted (if we're too restrict reactionaries).
I don't understand where, in your mind, this exploitation is happening if nobody forces me to work in capitalism, and me shooting first is aggression.

(This little excursion has been kind of funny seeing as you admitted to drinking wine and beer. Hypocrite)

You also said if someone threates me but I shoot first, I'm the aggressor (or that's the only conclusion I can see, because you didn't answer the question but to say "see you do know what coercion is."

You said:

Whereas above you said workers voluntarily choose capitalism, which means they are thinking clearly. Thinking clearly (I guess) supposes being rational, and as such... guess what!... no mental revolution can happen because workers are already thinking clearly.
This is what I mean. You're illogical, captain.

Oh, so because the charge doesn't increase after 5 years, it's not interest anymore :rolleyes:
Pure semantics number 1

No matter if it's fixed forever, for a period, or variable. If you have to pay the lender for the use of money it is an interest rate.

I'm sorry, but this is really the sentence that is not sensible. Are you saying the police are not an instrument of society because they don't go into poor black neighborhoods? Dumb.

You've said over and over that there would be 100% employment. You just like to say stuff like "there would be no apples! Instead there would be red, green, and yellow skinned balls of sweet tasting living tissue around a stem with seeds in the middle."
You have said that people would not be allowed to not work, as that is parasitism. Who would enforce this? The state. Ergo, the state is my employer; the guy who makes me work and takes a portion of the value of my labor for upkeep and his own pay.

Btw fabian;
Note the bolded.

It's funny. I've never ignored someone just for arguing with me. Only people like Franz, who offer no arguments, just insults, have I ever ignored. I guess I'm not a coward and don't run away from arguments I think are stupid.

I am asking if someone can put this in their own post. Just copy and paste it. If you just quote me, he won't see it. I'll rep trade for it, if you want