Policy Proposals

[Vilhelmo]

Dear Fellow Members of RevLeft,

I'm interested in hearing the various policies supported by any member of the board.
I would also like to learn the reasoning behind each policy.

Respectfully,

Vilhelmo.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

What sort of "policies"? I imagine most of us support short-term reforms such as an increase in the minimum wage, repeal of anti-union laws etc., some of us support nationalizations or wages for housework, etc., but I would imagine no member wants the government to enact a specific set of laws to manage capitalism in a more "efficient" manner (which is what most "economic policy" comes down to).

[cyu]

If you can eliminate poverty using policies I never heard of, I would be happy enough.

http://www.lushquotes.com/quote-pictures/3/i-am-for-violence-if-non-violence-quote-by-malcolm-x.jpg

http://quotes.lifehack.org/media/quotes/quote-Malcolm-X-nonviolence-is-fine-as-long-as-it-25356.png

[Sabot Cat]

Something like this:

"Dear workers of the world (or "the proletariat" in your parlance),

We herein renounce all proprietary claims, and formally transfer the management of assets we once thought of as ours to autonomous democratic assemblies of workers and the consortium of recallabe delegates from therein.

Love,

The Bourgeoisie
XOXOXO"

[Skyhilist]

I'd like there to be a policy where you get deported to Antarctica if you're a politician.

[PhoenixAsh]

Did you mean tendency?

[Blake's Baby]

I think what they're after is... you know, the specifics of what we all, with our different competing manifestos that we democratically lay before the working class, want to introduce the day after the revolution, when we form a new government.

I think.

[Vilhelmo]

What sort of "policies"? I imagine most of us support short-term reforms such as an...

The policies that I was referring to include reforms that could be implementing today, those that require revolution or drastic structural & institutional change to implement & those policies to get us from here to there.

If anyone would like to describe their ideal economic system, its institutions, values, norms, etc. or Economic/Political Platform, I would be more than interested.


but I would imagine no member wants the government to enact a specific set of laws to manage capitalism in a more "efficient" manner (which is what most "economic policy" comes down to).

Why?
Socialists/leftists have always advocated for various economic reform platforms to essentially "manage capitalism".
Take a look at the The 1928 Socialist Party Platform (http://butnowyouknow.net/those-who-fail-to-learn-from-history/the-1928-socialist-party-platform/).

[Blake's Baby]

The point is not for 'leftists' to manage capitalism for the working class, but for the working class to destroy capitalism for everyone.

If you think there's a big social-democratic movement here, you'd be wrong. In fact, I think social-democrats are restricted to 'Opposing Ideologies'. This is RevLeft - the revolutionary leftist forum. Not DemLeft or BourgeLeft or RefLeft.

[Vilhelmo]

If you think there's a big social-democratic movement here, you'd be wrong. In fact, I think social-democrats are restricted to 'Opposing Ideologies'. This is RevLeft - the revolutionary leftist forum. Not DemLeft or BourgeLeft or RefLeft.

I realize this.
Just because the end goal is the distruction of "Capitalism" & the implementation of a new economic system doesn't mean one can't support reforms.

Also of interest:
How is the destruction of Capitalism to be achieved & what does it entail.
What is the alternative?
How do we get from here to there?

[cyu]

The point of not discussing reformist policies in this section of the forum is that it's a waste of time for those that consider themselves "revolutionary leftists". It might as well be trolling and spam. You are certainly welcome to discuss reformist policies, but this is not the proper section for it. Please keep it to Opposing Ideologies.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I support the gimme da loot initiative, granting personhood to great apes and other non-human animals, animal liberation, assassination, counterfeiting, alternative energy, general strikes, insurrection, pillaging, mayhem, dancing, you know general shit like that.

[Queen Mab]

How is the destruction of Capitalism to be achieved & what does it entail.

We kill the rich and take their stuff. Duh.

[Vilhelmo]

The point of not discussing reformist policies in this section of the forum is that it's a waste of time for those that consider themselves "revolutionary leftists".

I find it hard to believe that this view is held universally.
I know many people that consider themselves "revolutionary leftists" who do not share this view.

Many see reforms as a path leading closer to "revolution" & socialist society.


It might as well be trolling and spam. You are certainly welcome to discuss reformist policies, but this is not the proper section for it. Please keep it to Opposing Ideologies.

On the contrary, the description of the parent section, Theory, reads:

A place for indepth discussions on Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Leninism, anarchism, and other politically theoretical topics.
Discussion of "Reformist" policies seem to fall within these bounds.
It seems reasonable to infer that this is indeed the appropriate section for such discussions.

If this is not the case, I will gladly refrain from reformist comments in this section.

[Vilhelmo]

We kill the rich and take their stuff. Duh.

Wouldn't that just make you a Capitalist?
Merely killing the rich & taking their stuff doesn't destroy Capitalism, it only changes the Capitalists.
The question is what will you do with their stuff? How will you distribute it & other wealth, define ownership, etc?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Wouldn't that just make you a Capitalist?
Merely killing the rich & taking their stuff doesn't destroy Capitalism, it only changes the Capitalists.
The question is what will you do with their stuff? How will you distribute it & other wealth, define ownership, etc?

Here (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expropriative_anarchism) is something that explains it better (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_reprise_individuelle).

[Blake's Baby]

... the end goal is the distruction of "Capitalism" & the implementation of a new economic system ...

No it isn't. It's the desruction of 'economy' along with capitalism. Capitalism is the last 'economy' as it's also the last class society.



[some stuff] doesn't mean one can't support reforms...

Yeah, it does. Reforming capitalism - trying to make it 'better' - is not a step to destroying it.



...
How is the destruction of Capitalism to be achieved & what does it entail...?

The working class collectivising property and administering society.



...
What is the alternative?
...

Capitalism destroying us.


...
How do we get from here to there?

Assuming you mean 'how do we get to the destruction of capitalism' then the collectivisation of all property and its use to fulfill human needs instead of economic imperatives should do the trick.


We kill the rich and take their stuff. Duh.

Wouldn't that just make you a Capitalist?
Merely killing the rich & taking their stuff doesn't destroy Capitalism, it only changes the Capitalists.
The question is what will you do with their stuff? How will you distribute it & other wealth, define ownership, etc?

Well, if we kill the rich and take their stuff, and then act as capitalists, then we'd be capitalists, though the 'we' there is 'the working class' and if the working class all became capitalists, then it's difficult to see where the new working class would come from and then we're in a logically absurd position where capitalism can survive without workers. So no, the working class expropriating the capitalists cannot logically create a new capitalist class.

'Ownership' is the key point. Everything humanity has produced has been produced socially, and as such should be regarded as part of a common treasury. The notion of 'ownership' is quite literally an anti-human perversion of creativity and solidarity. Anyone claiming special rights to anything above the fact that they're using it is attempting to defraud everyone else by turning natural collective property into 'private' property - this is where the idea 'property is theft' comes from.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Why?
Socialists/leftists have always advocated for various economic reform platforms to essentially "manage capitalism".
Take a look at the The 1928 Socialist Party Platform (http://butnowyouknow.net/those-who-fail-to-learn-from-history/the-1928-socialist-party-platform/).

The Socialist Party of America, after 1919 at least, was a reformist, social-democratic organization.


The policies that I was referring to include reforms that could be implementing today, those that require revolution or drastic structural & institutional change to implement & those policies to get us from here to there.

The problem is, these policies (I dislike the term since it sounds as if we're petitioning the government for a return to the gold standard or something loopy like that) depend on concrete circumstances - these demands arise from the concrete material situation of the proletariat and the oppressed groups, they aren't born fully-armored from the foreheads of theoreticians.

Take the demand of wages for housework, for example. Whether this demand should be raised and in what form depends on numerous factors - the percentage of women in the workforce, their general level of consciousness, the material status of women, how this demand could be implemented etc. etc.

Likewise, we can't predict the situation after any concrete revolution. So, while for example I would favor - and I think all communists would - the immediate socialization of all agricultural land, material and tools, with no compensation and with the peasants becoming workers in socially-owned agricultural trusts, this demand would be impossible to fulfill if the balance of forces between the workers and the military of the proletarian dictatorship on one side and the peasants on the other was unfavorable.


If anyone would like to describe their ideal economic system, its institutions, values, norms, etc. or Economic/Political Platform, I would be more than interested.

Ideally, as Blake's Baby said, there would be no economic system. To me, this impies that material objects would be produced in a completely socialized, moneyless system, centralized and centrally-planned with democratic input from the workers at every level and partial automation and cybernetization. Services would be given for free, since work will have become, not a burden, but the point of life. Class would have been smashed, and the repressive apparatus of the community would not be a separate body of armed men distinct from the general population. Government over men would have been abolished, precluding any sort of law or social norm against things that are considered "moral problems" in today's society, from homosexuality to drug use. Consumption would, to a large extent, be communized. And so on, and so on.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I find it hard to believe that this view is held universally.
I know many people that consider themselves "revolutionary leftists" who do not share this view.

Many see reforms as a path leading closer to "revolution" & socialist society.While under capitalism I do support some reforms and think people do need to defend some legal rights and whatnot, but I do not share this "path" view which would be a reformist understanding of reforms. I think the difference is that "policies" under capitalism do not matter, but class forces do. In my view, if workers fight around winning economic or social demands then they are taking concessions from the ruling class and organizing themselves and learning how to fight cooperatively from their bases of power (the most fundamental being the power at the point of production). It's the initial aspect of becoming a class for itself: not accepting the options given by the rest of society, but beginning to demand things and organize together on the basis of shared class interests that are different from the ruling classes.

So the question of what policies or reforms I support is too abstract for me to answer usefully because I don't think the reforms themselves are the point, the reforms matter in terms of the relationship class movements.

[Ember Catching]

Just because the end goal is the distruction of "Capitalism" & the implementation of a new economic system doesn't mean one can't support reforms.
Communist praxis must align itself solely with the proletarian historical mission: within the confines of the political arena ordained by the bourgeois order, we must only support action which aids a communist transformation of all labor's social efforts into the unified overarching struggle for proletarian revolution.

There must be no discord between communist "means and ends, tactics and principles, and immediate and ultimate objectives": the instant a mode of action forestalls the armed struggle for revolutionary dictatorship is the instant such a practice must be superseded.

[Vilhelmo]

The point of not discussing reformist policies in this section of the forum is that it's a waste of time for those that consider themselves "revolutionary leftists".

Mitigating people's pain & suffering, feeding empty bellies, providing healthcare are never a waste of time.



8 hour work day
Abolition of child labour
Universal Healthcare
Old Age Pensions
Workers Compensation
Umemployment Insurance
etc

If people listened to you none of these things would have been achieved.


You sound like a middle class dilettante more concerned about being cool than about alleviating the sufferings of the multitudes.
You obviously don't care about helping people at all.
You wear the banner of a Revolutionary as if were the latest fashion trend only to be discarded once its no longer in style or "cool".

You need the courage to fail for what is right.

[Vilhelmo]

No it isn't. It's the desruction of 'economy' along with capitalism. Capitalism is the last 'economy' as it's also the last class society.

What?
Every society has an economy.
You sound like a primitivist nut.


The working class collectivising property and administering society.

Well, that involves an economy.


Assuming you mean 'how do we get to the destruction of capitalism' then the collectivisation of all property and its use to fulfill human needs instead of economic imperatives should do the trick.

What will this economy look like, its institutions, norms, etc?

[QUOTE=Blake's Baby;2718367]The notion of 'ownership' is quite literally an anti-human perversion of creativity and solidarity.

Nonsense.
Every human society has a System of Property Rights.

[motion denied]

Well, I do support a bigger minimum wage and broader social programs (such as the Bolsa Família, etc) as well as the statization of private universities.

No, I don't have any illusions about these things. Nor do I think it brings us any closer to socialism. But then again, if you don't support poor people going to public universities/eating three times a day, you might as well go fuck yourself.

[Blake's Baby]

What?
Every society has an economy.
You sound like a primitivist nut...

I don't think you know what you're talking about I'm afraid.




The notion of 'ownership' is quite literally an anti-human perversion of creativity and solidarity...


...
Nonsense.
Every human society has a System of Property Rights.

Nonsense. Many societies have no such thing. Such a fact is fundamental to the notion of communism. Production is social, control is social. Simple as.

[cyu]

You obviously don't care about helping people at all.



Lol, is this all you got after so many days of strategizing with your handlers?

Let's say a factory was shutting down, and the employees were getting ready to arm themselves and occupy it. Would you be urging them to wait and see what program the Democrats have for them instead? Maybe the Democrats can give them loans for college.

When capitalists fear their systems are collapsing (pretty obvious considering what's going on in financial markets today), they shift their support away from openly pro-capitalist policies over to lukewarm "liberal" policies, in an attempt to save what they can of capitalism, hoping to blunt any potential social revolt.

If a family is starving, what actions would you recommend they take? Would you support them if they walked into a grocery store and started eating food without paying? Would you support others if they walked into grocery stores and took food for the hungry?

[Vilhelmo]

I don't think you know what you're talking about I'm afraid.

That may be true but I'd like to know what society doesn't have an economy.
Even hunter-gather tribes have an economy.


Nonsense. Many societies have no such thing.

I'd like to hear what society lacks some system of Property Rights. Anthropologists, to my knowledge, have never found such a society.


Such a fact is fundamental to the notion of communism. Production is social, control is social. Simple as.

Utter ignorance.
That production is social implies a System of Property Rights.

[Vilhelmo]

Lol, is this all you got after so many days of strategizing with your handlers?

Ya, my blind dog gives good advice.
I doubt you know what it feels like to be hungry & poor.

[cyu]

what society lacks some system of Property Rights


Depends what you mean by "property rights" - if all you mean is who gets to control what economic resources, one could easily claim that communist societies have "property rights" - so who controls econmic resources in a communist society? Not capitalists.

Such sad trolling. I'm going to have to think up some real content to prevent the signal from being overwhelmed by the noise here.

Let's say we had a principle like the following: Anybody who is closer to starvation has more of a claim on the control of economic resources than someone who is far from death. Does that count as a "system of property rights"?

[Vilhelmo]

If a family is starving, what actions would you recommend they take?

If you really cared about starving families you wouldn't dismiss those actions that have had the greatest effect at reducing poverty & hunger, particularly among the elderly, namely policy reforms.

Is a School Lunch Program that provides food for hungry children "a waste of time for those that consider themselves "revolutionary leftists"?
Is a Food Stamp Program that feeds hungry families "a waste of time for those that consider themselves "revolutionary leftists"?

[cyu]

No, reformist programs are not a waste of time, but if it came down to waiting for the possibility of reformist programs, while risking death now, then those who believe in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_action would not encourage waiting for possible pending legislation, but to take action immediately to solve their immediate problems.

[Vilhelmo]

No, reformist programs are not a waste of time, but if it came down to waiting for the possibility of reformist programs, while risking death now, then those who believe in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_action would not encourage waiting for possible pending legislation, but to take action immediately to solve their immediate problems.

I agree.
I support such actions.
Although anyone seeking my support, standing as I do in quicksand, is more likely to sink down than stand tall.

[Vilhelmo]

Depends what you mean by "property rights" Property Rights determine what is owned, how it is owed, the rights & obligations of owning, who can own what, what can own (individual, family, tribe, nation), who can produce, who can buy/sell, what can be bought/sold, is transfer temporary or permanent, etc. The variation between differing Systems of Property Rights is extreme.
Such sad trolling. I'm going to have to think up some real content to prevent the signal from being overwhelmed by the noise here. That you consider statements of fact to be "trolling" says more about you than it does me.
Let's say we had a principle like the following: Anybody who is closer to starvation has more of a claim on the control of economic resources than someone who is far from death. Does that count as a "system of property rights"? That is a possible characteristic of some System of Property Rights. The ancient right of the peasant to "clean the grain" is a particularly salient example of this.

[argeiphontes]

To answer the OP, I would like to create government supports (like interest free loans and provisioning of expertise) to enable people to start democratic coops. Also, either nationalization of banks or creation of a parallel banking system that integrates cooperative enterprises and provides capital for them. Last, moving the tax system away from income, sales, VAT, and to a system of taxing capital assets only. These steps are transitional to market socialism or mutualism. Also a maximum earnings discrepancy in capitalist firms.

Obviously I support food stamps and other social-democratic type programs, depending on their need. Some kind of minimum mandated income or something might be in order.

[Vilhelmo]

Last, moving the tax system away from income, sales, VAT, and to a system of taxing capital assets only. I completely agree with your proposal to shift taxes off income, sales & VAT taxes. But I disagree that capital assets, should themselves, be the subject of taxation. Instead, I favour the taxation of Economic Rents (land rents, resource rents, rents from credit creation, monopoly rents, etc), the "free lunch" that landlords "earn" in their sleep. Whereas all other taxes add to prices, an Economic Rent Tax lowers prices, bringing them inline with the cost of production. It is the most efficient form of taxation that doesn't distort markets or deter production.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

I completely agree with your proposal to shift taxes off income, sales & VAT taxes. But I disagree that capital assets, should themselves, be the subject of taxation. Instead, I favour the taxation of Economic Rents (land rents, resource rents, rents from credit creation, monopoly rents, etc), the "free lunch" that landlords "earn" in their sleep. Whereas all other taxes add to prices, an Economic Rent Tax lowers prices, bringing them inline with the cost of production. It is the most efficient form of taxation that doesn't distort markets or deter production.

And why should communists be concerned with market distortion? Communists aim to abolish markets, not manage them in an "efficient" manner (economic efficiency is efficiency for the bourgeoisie after all).

[Vilhelmo]

And why should communists be concerned with market distortion? Communists aim to abolish markets, not manage them in an "efficient" manner (economic efficiency is efficiency for the bourgeoisie after all).

The commenter was talking about Market Socialism.

Do all communists aim to abolish markets?

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

The commenter was talking about Market Socialism.

I know. That's the problem, isn't it? Market "socialism" is merely a way of managing - or mangling - capitalism. Revolutionary leftists want to abolish capitalism.

What do you want, personally?


Do all communists aim to abolish markets?

Well, yes. It's pretty much one of the central parts of communism - since markets are a bourgeois distribution mechanism, and are liable to economic crises in any case.

[Vilhelmo]

I know. That's the problem, isn't it? Market "socialism" is merely a way of managing - or mangling - capitalism.

That depends.

Some visions of Market Socialism do feature private ownership of the means of production but many do not.
As those without private ownership do not have Capitalists, I do not see how they could be described as mere mangling or managing of Capitalism.
Kinda hard to have Capitalism without Capitalists.


What do you want, personally?

As I've said before, my long run ideal economic system is Participatory Economics.
But I see no way to achieve such a society within my lifetime.

[cyu]

I see no way to achieve such a society within my lifetime


Do you believe that wealth disparities result in misallocation of economic resources? Why or why not?

[Blake's Baby]

That depends.

Some visions of Market Socialism do feature private ownership of the means of production but many do not.
As those without private ownership do not have Capitalists, I do not see how they could be described as mere mangling or managing of Capitalism.
Kinda hard to have Capitalism without Capitalists...

This is totally putting the cart before the horse. Capitalism produces capitalists not the other way around.

Wage labour and commodity production produce capitalists, capitalists don't produce wage labour and commodity production.

Capitalism is a behaviour. It's a set of relationships human groups engage in, and it in turn affects the actors who take part in it. It isn't something that just occurs as a result of some kind of 'essential' capitalist, it's not a leakage or a byproduct. People are 'workers' or 'capitalists' because of their role in social production, they don't occupy those roles because they 'are' workers or capitalists. Change the roles and people change from one to the other.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

That depends.

Some visions of Market Socialism do feature private ownership of the means of production but many do not.
As those without private ownership do not have Capitalists, I do not see how they could be described as mere mangling or managing of Capitalism.
Kinda hard to have Capitalism without Capitalists.

All forms of market "socialism" feature commodity production and private ownership. Property does not become social by being shared by a limited group of "workers"-entrepreneurs, otherwise every joint-stock company would be an example of social ownership.

Advocates of petty commodity production masquerading as socialism have to rely on some very obvious sleights of hand: cooperatives are sort of collectivist, socialism is sort of collectivist, therefore cooperatives are socialism, they claim - but socialist collectivism is not the same kind of collectivism as the collectivism of competing, market-based cooperatives.

Socialism implies social ownership - that is, society as a group exercising control over the means of production. What market "socialists" want is not even remotely similar; they want the workers of Leyland and Avro to elect the Leyland and Avro board of governors.


As I've said before, my long run ideal economic system is Participatory Economics.
But I see no way to achieve such a society within my lifetime.

Ha, well, there's no accounting for taste. But the question wasn't what your ideal economic system would be. I would find it ideal if the state were to supply me with chocolate-covered opium for the rest of my life. But that's neither here nor there. What do you fight for? What do you think should be the immediate tasks of the workers' movement - if you even think the workers' movement is the primary agent of change.

[argeiphontes]

I completely agree with your proposal to shift taxes off income, sales & VAT taxes. But I disagree that capital assets, should themselves, be the subject of taxation. Instead, I favour the taxation of Economic Rents (land rents, resource rents, rents from credit creation, monopoly rents, etc), the "free lunch" that landlords "earn" in their sleep. Whereas all other taxes add to prices, an Economic Rent Tax lowers prices, bringing them inline with the cost of production. It is the most efficient form of taxation that doesn't distort markets or deter production.

I see. I was thinking of a transitional program to implement the Capital Tax Schweickart proposed in his version of Market Socialism. edit: I don't see any problem with taxing rents. Tax them! Eventually I'd like to see them eliminated, but until then, tax them.


The commenter was talking about Market Socialism.


Indeed I was. There's little understanding of that here. Thank you.


This is totally putting the cart before the horse. Capitalism produces capitalists not the other way around.

Wage labour and commodity production produce capitalists, capitalists don't produce wage labour and commodity production.

Capitalism is a behaviour. It's a set of relationships human groups engage in


Exactly. That's why market socialism is socialism. It eliminates the capitalist relations of wage labor, private ownership of the means of production, and accumulation of the surplus by an alien class.



, and it in turn affects the actors who take part in it. It isn't something that just occurs as a result of some kind of 'essential' capitalist, it's not a leakage or a byproduct. People are 'workers' or 'capitalists' because of their role in social production, they don't occupy those roles because they 'are' workers or capitalists. Change the roles and people change from one to the other.Exactly, thank you. It seems you truly understand your Marx, Blake's Baby.

[argeiphontes]

and private ownership. Property does not become social by being shared by a limited group of "workers"-entrepreneurs, otherwise every joint-stock company would be an example of social ownership.


That's right. If a joint stock company was owned exclusively by the workers, and managed by them democratically, then it would be a market socialist enterprise. You seem to be mistaking socialism for communism, which I'm afraid will become more and more common as you spend more time on this board. :(

In socialism, the workers own the means of production themselves, but not necessarily communally. There's an easy-to-understand article on social ownership (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_ownership). The relevant parts are here, though:



More broadly, socialization has also been used in reference to social ownership, an umbrella term encompassing all the various models of resource and enterprise ownership proposed for socialist economies. Usually it refers to various types of employee-ownership, cooperatives or public ownership; but in some instances it refers to a form distinct from employee-owned cooperatives, public ownership and private ownership. Economists such as John Roemer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roemer) and Pat Devine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Devine) have advocated for socially owned enterprises as a major component for hypothetical socialist economies, defining social ownership as ownership of an enterprise by those affected by the use of the assets involved.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_ownership#cite_note-gesd.free.fr-2) In contrast, Alec Nove (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alec_Nove) defines social ownership as a form of autonomous public ownership (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_ownership).[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_ownership#cite_note-The_Economics_of_Feasible_Socialism_Revisted.2C_19 91._P.212-13-3) Social ownership is usually contrasted with state ownership, and was used in this way to refer to the model of cooperative enterprise (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative) established in Yugoslavia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Republic_of_Yugoslavia).

Please don't mistake socialism for communism, which has common (community, whatever) ownership of the means of production, as you like to say, by the entire class. There's a separate article about common ownership here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_ownership). Communists seem to believe in some overarching world-wide collective, that is an abstract end-in-itself, which I certainly do not. Neckbeards like me have seen enough Star Trek episodes about the Borg to be wary of anything like that. ;)

You should read up on Anarchism, too. Maybe some Proudhon or Benjamin Tucker. Actually, my avatar Shawn P. Wilbur just gave an awesome Mutualist AMA on Reddit (http://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnarchism/comments/1xd4m9/i_am_a_neoproudhonian_anarchistmutualist_ama/) that people who are interested should check out. Market socialists and Mutualists seem to be natural allies, just like Communists and Anarcho-communists.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

That's right. If a joint stock company was owned exclusively by the workers, and managed by them democratically, then it would be a market socialist enterprise. You seem to be mistaking socialism for communism, which I'm afraid will become more and more common as you spend more time on this board. :(

In socialism, the workers own the means of production themselves, but not necessarily communally. There's an easy-to-understand article on social ownership (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_ownership). The relevant parts are here, though:

[...]

Please don't mistake socialism for communism, which has common (community, whatever) ownership of the means of production, as you like to say, by the entire class. There's a separate article about common ownership here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_ownership). Communists seem to believe in some overarching world-wide collective, that is an abstract end-in-itself, which I certainly do not. Neckbeards like me have seen enough Star Trek episodes about the Borg to be wary of anything like that. ;)

You should read up on Anarchism, too. Maybe some Proudhon or Benjamin Tucker. Actually, my avatar Shawn P. Wilbur just gave an awesome Mutualist AMA on Reddit (http://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnarchism/comments/1xd4m9/i_am_a_neoproudhonian_anarchistmutualist_ama/) that people who are interested should check out. Market socialists and Mutualists seem to be natural allies, just like Communists and Anarcho-communists.

You're not a neckbeard, you're a fedora-wearer. Communists use "socialism" and "communism" synonymously - or, at most, to refer to distinct phases of the same social order. This distinction between communism and a kind of "socialism" that encompasses mutualists, the Carlist pretender in Spain, Ben Bella and such people is something that was invented by bourgeois thinkers who wanted to be socialists without committing themselves to social ownership (as the phrase is used by communists, not by some anonymous editor on Wikipedia) of the means of production. We do not consider these people to be socialists.

[argeiphontes]

You're not a neckbeard, you're a fedora-wearer. Communists use "socialism" and "communism" synonymously - or, at most, to refer to distinct phases of the same social order. This distinction between communism and a kind of "socialism" that encompasses mutualists, the Carlist pretender in Spain, Ben Bella and such people is something that was invented by bourgeois thinkers who wanted to be socialists without committing themselves to social ownership (as the phrase is used by communists, not by some anonymous editor on Wikipedia) of the means of production. We do not consider these people to be socialists.

That's nice. We don't consider you to be an authority. In fact, I'm going to add you to my ignore list.

[Blake's Baby]

Criminalize Heterosexuality's still right. We don't consider you to be a socialist. For all post-Marxian socialists except for tiny fringe utopian minorities (and 'utopian' here can be taken as a polite way of saying 'hopelessly wrong'), socialism=communism; and any form of 'socialism' which doesn't have as its goal the destruction of capitalism and the building of a society without money, borders, classes, commodity prouction and markets is not 'socialism' at all. 'Market socialism' is not socialism, because socialism precludes any form of market.

[Brotto Rühle]

Free Puppies for everyone. Mandatory.