Help! High school socialist in Distress

[Marl Karx]

Hey everyone! So, for a high school student, I can confidently say I know a relatively respectable amount on these topics and economics in general, But I just have one major question: What am I?

Socialism and the revolutionary left has been broken up into so many sub-categories, it gets overwhelming. Not that I have a strong desire to group myself as something, but knowing where your ideologies most closely fall makes research and learning much easier. I guess I'll just list my most major concerns and beliefs.

I believe every person is entitled to the necessities of life, but no more. Every person, employed or unemployed deserves food, shelter, clothing. With the wealth and resources available today we could hypothetically do this efficiently. And with new generations growing up, knowing they have this safety net, they can pursue more fulfilling careers and do what they like. For example I'd be studying music right now, and playing soccer rather than paying 200k for an international relations/business degree. It would prove to stimulate our culture immensely IMO.

I believe people should be able to open their own businesses and do what they please, but operate only democratic workplaces, in which employees hold just as much stake in capital as the owner(s), therefore eliminating the employee employer relationship and labels. Profits are defined as the leftover gains that go to the owner/shareholders/etc., but with every person determining wages, distribution, and practice, there would be no true "owner" and therefore no profits per say. This would increase worker satisfaction, pay, and income equality.

Mainly I envision a society where wealth, doesn't equal power. One where you could live without money, but if you wanted to strive for it you could obtain wealth to buy more things. This wealth, however, with democratic workplaces and cooperatives would be more widespread, and not equal political power and other forms of systemic exploitation.

Just help a brother out and offer ideas, suggestions, criticisms. I've got years to refine my views! Thanks

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Revolutionary socialists stand for the abolition of the private ownership of the means of production, for the social control of and planned employment of the means of production, for the abolition of the market and money. What you describe seems to be some variant of social democracy.

[Wonton Carter]

A strain of market socialism/social democracy, perhaps? What you've described is...different, but not exactly revolutionary at all. If wealth of money still exists, and you WANT that, then I would not call you a socialist at all. Socialists strive for the ABOLITION of money and wealth.

[Left Voice]

To be fair, some of what you propose isn't a million miles away from what might exist in a socialist society. A greater focus on worker's cooperatives and the like, more democratic workplaces and a general horizontal approach to production.

However, don't forget that the main cause of inequality and class conflict is the existence of capital, or more specifically, the practice of selling one's labour as a commodity. Wage labour, in other words. In any true form of socialism, the aim is to eliminate this, create a context where selling one's labour for a wage is unnecessary because of the overwhelmingly democratic nature of society and a free access to the resources as one needs. In such a context, capital would become an anachronism. Personal property might still exist, but private property would no longer exist due to its inherently undemocratic nature.

Unless there is a true break from capital, then it would at best be a form of social democracy.

[Red Economist]

I'm just going to run through what you've already said and expand on it a little bit and will then add a few questions for you to think about.

Navigating the differences between various tendencies is an art form which comes with time. And most of the time, you'll only agree with some or most of what a tendency says not all of it, so it's not a big deal.


I believe every person is entitled to the necessities of life, but no more. Every person, employed or unemployed deserves food, shelter, clothing. With the wealth and resources available today we could hypothetically do this efficiently.

Accepting social and economic rights puts you in the left (good start:grin:). However, because you do not believe that equality of outcome as a goal this would most likely put you in the center-left as whilst each person has a right to certain basic needs, you assuming that they are not inherently equal and some inequalities do emerge over time, so they have 'equality of opportunity'.
Historically communists accepted income inequalities in the USSR etc but held equality of outcome as a desirable outcome in 'full communism' when abundance had been achieved. Equality of outcome causes problems because it could end up 'levelling down' to equally poor and opposed to growing the economy in the long term to 'level up' to being equally rich.

Q: Do individual differences necessarily lead to social and economic inequalities or is this simply a feature of a specific historical class structure- namely, capitalism?


And with new generations growing up, knowing they have this safety net, they can pursue more fulfilling careers and do what they like. For example I'd be studying music right now, and playing soccer rather than paying 200k for an international relations/business degree. It would prove to stimulate our culture immensely IMO.

Clearly here you think of 'freedom' less in terms of accumulating wealth as under capitalism, but as 'freedom' to pursue fulfillment in work. work, as a form of creative expression, (e.g music, soccer) is a form of freedom.

Q: do you believe man is more predisposed to making choices and accumulating things or producing/creating things?

[This is a variation on the human nature debate as 'decision making' means your more likely to be selfish as it's your decisions so therefore it's your right to own something, where as producing or creating things is more likely to predispose someone to sharing what they've created but is dependent on how much stuff is available for people to use].


I believe people should be able to open their own businesses and do what they please, but operate only democratic workplaces, in which employees hold just as much stake in capital as the owner(s), therefore eliminating the employee employer relationship and labels.

In saying people can 'open' their 'own' businesses, you clearly support some form of private property and 'do what you please' suggests you equate private property with individual liberty.

Q: Are you against state ownership because it would be an attack on economic liberty? or would you support some state ownership to provide essential services as in a mixed economy?



Having democratic workplaces is obviously an extension of this liberal economic attitude in the sense that workers are equal to their bosses in having control over property.

[I]Q: can the democratization of control in the workplace reconcile class differences and conflict between capitalists and workers?

.

Wanting to equalize the ownership of capital by sharing ownership between workers and capitalists is very social democratic as it implies you do not believe that class conflict is inevitable in a market economy (the latter would put you much deeper in the left). These are ideas that are quite common amongst liberals who want workers to have a 'share' in capitalism and benifit from it.

[I]Q: can capitalism work for everyone in creating more wealth in society or does it inherently favor the capitalist class through the appropriation of private profit?

[Again, this is about class antagonisms. If capitalism only works or mainly works for the capitalists- it will produce class conflict].



Profits are defined as the leftover gains that go to the owner/shareholders/etc., but with every person determining wages, distribution, and practice, there would be no true "owner" and therefore no profits per say. This would increase worker satisfaction, pay, and income equality.

Profit has stopped playing the role of an 'incentive' or 'activator' in this economic system. This is something that actually happened in the USSR when profits were reduced to a unit of account and production was measured largely in terms of physical output and is probably the most radical thing you've said as it implies that you do not accept that capitalists have ainherent right to make a profit or be motivated by profit.

Putting worker satisfaction, increased pay and increasing income inequality suggests again that you accept a market economy, but that moral incentives play a greater role than monetary ones.


Mainly I envision a society where wealth, doesn't equal power. One where you could live without money, but if you wanted to strive for it you could obtain wealth to buy more things. This wealth, however, with democratic workplaces and cooperatives would be more widespread, and not equal political power and other forms of systemic exploitation.

The fact you accept someone can obtain wealth strongly implies that you accept some measure on economic inequality based on a natural or innate predisposition of talents or motivation.
given that you've said you believe in 'profits' and that you have a belief in a market economy, by 'exploitation' you probably mean 'bad living and working conditions' as opposed to an inherently 'exploitative' relationship between workers and capitalists.

Q: Does inequality of wealth always lead to unequal power relations in a society?
.

So the label your looking for is 'Social Democratic' and whilst you recognize social tensions within a market economy, so far you haven't implied that this [I]inevitably will lead to a revolutionary confrontation and can be resolved by economic democracy and reduced income inequality.

[The Idler]

You're a 'democratic socialist' in the G. D. H. Cole tradition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._D._H._Cole).

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Revolutionary socialists stand for the abolition of the private ownership of the means of production, for the social control of and planned employment of the means of production, for the abolition of the market and money. What you describe seems to be some variant of social democracy.

Absolutely - although social democracy often has to function as a gateway drug to revolutionary socialism :P

[Црвена]

You sound like you want a Sweden-style country to me...probably a social democrat.