Prove Socialism

[ZX3]

Often the Revlefters make very nice, sometimes eloquent, condemnations of capitalism.

But even if every criticism was true, even if their analysis of the nature of capitalism is accurate, what does that say about socialism? It seems to me it says- nothing. A criticism of capitalism is not a proof that socialism will be better, or that it has the answers, and will function in the fashion socialists say it will.

[Demogorgon]

And what do you want us to do to prove it?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Well the criticism of capitalism is that it is prone to crisis.

The crisis comes out of the competition between capitalists.

Because socialism is about rational planning, its production is based on human want/need not maximisation of profits.

So, socialism will not be prone to the crisis that capitalism suffers from.

You really need to read some introductory books on Marxism because its quite a complicated idea. I personally have trouble explaining it. But, if its explained well, supplied with evidence, then it gets much easier.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 09:27 pm
Well the criticism of capitalism is that it is prone to crisis.

The crisis comes out of the competition between capitalists.

Because socialism is about rational planning, its production is based on human want/need not maximisation of profits.

So, socialism will not be prone to the crisis that capitalism suffers from.

You really need to read some introductory books on Marxism because its quite a complicated idea. I personally have trouble explaining it. But, if its explained well, supplied with evidence, then it gets much easier.
It would seem that profits can only accrue if human wants/needs are met. Why is that bad?

[EwokUtopia]

Well, it is my belief that true socialism (and true democracy, for that matter, though the two can often be seen as synonymous) can only exist on a local, small scale level, with no monolithic powers threatening its freedom and existance. What I mean by this is have all the community's of the world given almost full autonomy, with provincial and world governments only function to be preventing any one of these being hostile, aggressive to any others, or from getting to much power, as well as to keep the routes of equal trade open and well lubricated, so to say.

But think about it, they call the US and Canada "democracy's"...but what democratic power does one really have if all the power you weild is marking down a little card once every 4 years for who you want to lead you, alongside with 200 million other voters? You really only have the power of a 1/2,000,000 say in the choosing of a limited selection of potential leaders. In small communities, every member of the society could directly take part in the legeslation and executive power of their respective community. If your community is not well-suited to your individual tastes, simply move to another one (the benefits of alter-globalism) that is more akin to your way of thought. There wouldnt really be any leaders, as the society would be small enough for everyone to be a mmember of parliament (so to say) in the community, and to have actual power.

This is not some idealistic fantasy, this form of government currently exists in a large number of communes within nations (so unfortunately not given full autonomy), and in history. One good example of this is the Tribal Democracies which existed in North America (Turtle Island) before the arrival of the European Imperialists. These societies, like the Iroqouis Confederacy or the Aniishanabe peoples, produced some of the most stable societies to ever exist on the face of the Earth. If you look at the structures of pre-colonial indigenous societies, you will find much of the same. With Modern Technology, they can be adapted to giving 9 billion people a stable and equal existance on this small planet.

The problem with this system is that it is fragile, and needs a global confederacy with limited power to keep it in existance and check any greedy powers which may rise. How this is to be done is through a parliament, mediated on the sub-global level by Provincial "governments", whose only service wil be to bridge the Communal Level with the Global level on a completely democratic level (the people of the Commune will decide on a Provincial representitive, who will in turn help choose the Global representitives for terms no longer than a year and a half). This process, and the unison between all people of the world has never been more easy. The internet and high speed travel has made the world much smaller, so choosing a community has never been easier. Trade between the communities, on a fair and equal basis, will bring wealth to all. Those who do not have resources will be given funds for clean industry by the provincial or global levels.






Such a system, adapted globally, has never been done, so it can not be prooven to be possible, but neither can any aspect of the future.

If you disagree, proove to me that Capitalism, which has only really existed for 2 centuries, is stable enough to make its tricentenial.


For more information on the structure of a Libertarian Socialist world, read Bakunin's Revolutionary Catechism (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bakunin/catechism.html)

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 09:27 pm
Because socialism is about rational planning, its production is based on human want/need not maximisation of profits.

So, socialism will not be prone to the crisis that capitalism suffers from.
there is the fatal assumption of the socialists, that the masses are capable of "rational planning".

[which doctor]

Socialism isn't something that can be "proved." Neither can capitalism, feminism, nor feudalism, be "proved."

They're ideas, not math equations.

[Zero]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+February 25, 2007 02:42 am--> (colonelguppy @ February 25, 2007 02:42 am)
[email protected] 24, 2007 09:27 pm
Because socialism is about rational planning, its production is based on human want/need not maximisation of profits.

So, socialism will not be prone to the crisis that capitalism suffers from.
there is the fatal assumption of the socialists, that the masses are capable of "rational planning". [/b]
There is also the fatal assumption of the Capitalists that if you try to keep people dumb they won't teach themselves.

[BobKKKindle$]

In response to ZX3 : The goods that are produced under Capitalism reflect the demands of those that command the greatest purchasing power, because Capitalism is a system of commodity production in which goods and services are produced for the purpose of exchange so as to yield a profit for the Capitalist. Given the inequality in the distribution of income that exists, these demands do not represent the needs of society as a whole but only the preferences of a small group. So your point does not stand - and I have given this criticism before by the way, and you have never responded to it.

It is unfair for you to demand that we describe every aspect of Socialist society in advance. Historically, the new forms of political and economic organisation that have been formed have always reflected the historical conditions and material requirements of each country in turn.

There has been a tendency on these boards as of late for Socialism to be considered something that can be objectively shown to be a preferred system of social organisation. This is, for me, an absurd way of thinking, There is no need for us to 'prove' Socialism to the ruling class. Socialism is an ideology like any other - an economic and political system that will benefit the working class at the expense of the bourgeoisie.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Zero+February 25, 2007 01:17 am--> (Zero @ February 25, 2007 01:17 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 02:42 am

[email protected] 24, 2007 09:27 pm
Because socialism is about rational planning, its production is based on human want/need not maximisation of profits.

So, socialism will not be prone to the crisis that capitalism suffers from.
there is the fatal assumption of the socialists, that the masses are capable of "rational planning".
There is also the fatal assumption of the Capitalists that if you try to keep people dumb they won't teach themselves. [/b]
what?

[RebelDog]

It would seem that profits can only accrue if human wants/needs are met. Why is that bad?

And with billions of people in want of the most basic of human needs your thinking is proved rubbish. So after our welfare is looked after, it is then the capitalist makes a wee bit on the side for himself?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 09:54 pm
Socialism isn't something that can be "proved." Neither can capitalism, feminism, nor feudalism, be "proved."

They're ideas, not math equations.

Socialism is, mainly, ecomomocs. So it is indeed often a math equation.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Zero+February 25, 2007 01:17 am--> (Zero @ February 25, 2007 01:17 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 02:42 am

[email protected] 24, 2007 09:27 pm
Because socialism is about rational planning, its production is based on human want/need not maximisation of profits.

So, socialism will not be prone to the crisis that capitalism suffers from.
there is the fatal assumption of the socialists, that the masses are capable of "rational planning".
There is also the fatal assumption of the Capitalists that if you try to keep people dumb they won't teach themselves. [/b]
Teach themselves to do what? What exactly will socialism "teach" people to do, which is in opposite as to what capitalists would teach people to do?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 03:27 am
In response to ZX3 : The goods that are produced under Capitalism reflect the demands of those that command the greatest purchasing power, because Capitalism is a system of commodity production in which goods and services are produced for the purpose of exchange so as to yield a profit for the Capitalist. Given the inequality in the distribution of income that exists, these demands do not represent the needs of society as a whole but only the preferences of a small group. So your point does not stand - and I have given this criticism before by the way, and you have never responded to it.

It is unfair for you to demand that we describe every aspect of Socialist society in advance. Historically, the new forms of political and economic organisation that have been formed have always reflected the historical conditions and material requirements of each country in turn.

There has been a tendency on these boards as of late for Socialism to be considered something that can be objectively shown to be a preferred system of social organisation. This is, for me, an absurd way of thinking, There is no need for us to 'prove' Socialism to the ruling class. Socialism is an ideology like any other - an economic and political system that will benefit the working class at the expense of the bourgeoisie.

Asserting that socialism will benefit the working class does not make it so.
The history of the 20th century what with socialist regimes plunging their countries into wars, repression does not seem to be something which the working class can claim to have benefited by. Naturally, socialists will deny that previous regimes which claimed to be socialist were in fact socialist. Its the classic "out" of socialism, which in such circusmstances begin to resemble a religion rather than some scientific or scholarly movement.

It is false your characterisation of capitalism, in which I did indeed respond to in the past. The claim is that capitalism produces for only people who have money. Certainly there are capitalists who do this. But only a small minority. After all, not everyone is rich.

I have never asked for socialists to describe each aspect of socialism as it advances. But what i have asked, as well as others, is a general sort of statement. If socialism will produce enough items for all, show how that could be done. If there is no distribution issue, show how it would be the case. Certainly, there will be regional differences. But unless those differences will include relabeling capitalist economic principles as "socialist" they will largely be similiar in design and execution.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 25, 2007 03:34 am

It would seem that profits can only accrue if human wants/needs are met. Why is that bad?

And with billions of people in want of the most basic of human needs your thinking is proved rubbish. So after our welfare is looked after, it is then the capitalist makes a wee bit on the side for himself?
As I indicated earlier, a critique of capitalism is not a proof of socialism.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Socialism is, mainly, ecomomocs. So it is indeed often a math equation.
Fail. Socialism is an economic system or ideology, not an assertion, or singular mathematical equation (incidentally very few, if any, branches of economics can be represented by one singular mathematical formula that can be proved or disproved).

[BobKKKindle$]

Your 'response' to my point is fallacious because it mischaracterises what I was saying. Obviously I am not saying that all economic resources under Capitalism are used in the production of goods for the ruling class. As you rightly point out, even those that command purchasing power represent an oppurtunity for a profitable investement, and in any case, it is necessary for the working class to have access to the minimum requirements of survival in order to ensure a supply of labour of suitable quantity and quality for the Capitalist to continue production. Rather, I was making a point that Capitalism has the tendency to use resources to produce goods that are demanded by a small proportion of the population who command great purchasing power. This is a point of concern because an oppurtunity cost is involved. The scarce resources of which I speak - which are not just limited to monetary or material non-human resources but also include time and labour - could have been used to produce goods that are more urgently required by a larger number of people.

This can be judged to be preferable to the maldistribution of resources that occurs under Capitalism because it is accepted that economic systems are judged on the basis of utilitarianism - we are to seek those outcomes and structures that achieve the greatest sum of satisfactions for society at large. It should be clear, through the situation described above, that Capitalism fails to do this - and thus is allocatively inefficient (to use bourgeois economic theory and terminology)

[KC]

Asserting that socialism will benefit the working class does not make it so.
The history of the 20th century what with socialist regimes plunging their countries into wars, repression does not seem to be something which the working class can claim to have benefited by. Naturally, socialists will deny that previous regimes which claimed to be socialist were in fact socialist. Its the classic "out" of socialism, which in such circusmstances begin to resemble a religion rather than some scientific or scholarly movement.


Yeah, because whoever claims to be socialist really is. :rolleyes:

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 08:26 pm

Socialism is, mainly, ecomomocs. So it is indeed often a math equation.
Fail. Socialism is an economic system or ideology, not an assertion, or singular mathematical equation (incidentally very few, if any, branches of economics can be represented by one singular mathematical formula that can be proved or disproved).
Socialism is indeed a system which ought to be proved, not asserted. Hence, the thread.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Socialism is indeed a system which ought to be proved, not asserted. Hence, the thread.
Socialism is not being asserted, because Socialism is not an assertion. Hence my post.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 06:18 am
Your 'response' to my point is fallacious because it mischaracterises what I was saying. Obviously I am not saying that all economic resources under Capitalism are used in the production of goods for the ruling class. As you rightly point out, even those that command purchasing power represent an oppurtunity for a profitable investement, and in any case, it is necessary for the working class to have access to the minimum requirements of survival in order to ensure a supply of labour of suitable quantity and quality for the Capitalist to continue production. Rather, I was making a point that Capitalism has the tendency to use resources to produce goods that are demanded by a small proportion of the population who command great purchasing power. This is a point of concern because an oppurtunity cost is involved. The scarce resources of which I speak - which are not just limited to monetary or material non-human resources but also include time and labour - could have been used to produce goods that are more urgently required by a larger number of people.

This can be judged to be preferable to the maldistribution of resources that occurs under Capitalism because it is accepted that economic systems are judged on the basis of utilitarianism - we are to seek those outcomes and structures that achieve the greatest sum of satisfactions for society at large. It should be clear, through the situation described above, that Capitalism fails to do this - and thus is allocatively inefficient (to use bourgeois economic theory and terminology)
I understood what you were saying ("Why build yachts when the plastic used could instead be diverted to the production of syringes or IV bags for medical clinics?").
The response is that I think that that criticism shows that socialism views an economy as a static entity. The pie is only so large, so needs to be cut fairer. But this omits that the pie grows, or should grow.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Zampanò@February 26, 2007 12:26 pm


Asserting that socialism will benefit the working class does not make it so.
The history of the 20th century what with socialist regimes plunging their countries into wars, repression does not seem to be something which the working class can claim to have benefited by. Naturally, socialists will deny that previous regimes which claimed to be socialist were in fact socialist. Its the classic "out" of socialism, which in such circusmstances begin to resemble a religion rather than some scientific or scholarly movement.


Yeah, because whoever claims to be socialist really is. :rolleyes:
Should one person claiming to be a socialist, denies that the other person who cliaming to be a socialist, is not a socialist, why should a non-socialist choose one side or the other?

[wtfm8lol]

Socialism may not be a mathematical equation and therefore cannot be proved like one. However, it is based on a series of assumptions about humans and the way they make decisions, such as the assumption that humans either want to produce for the good of society or that they can be manipulated to want to produce for the good of society. Proving socialism would involve listing all of these assumptions, proving that all of these assumptions are valid where they need to be, and then logically showing that these assumptions lead to or allow the egalitarian beneficial society that exists in your minds.

[RNK]

Rather than asking us, why the fuck don't you pick up a few Marxist books and articles and find out for yourself?! I'm sick and tired of lazy-ass capitalists expecting us to quote 150 years of Communist literature for them simply so they can waste our time and not understand any of it.

www.Marxists.org

Learn for yourselves.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 02:09 am
Often the Revlefters make very nice, sometimes eloquent, condemnations of capitalism.

But even if every criticism was true, even if their analysis of the nature of capitalism is accurate, what does that say about socialism? It seems to me it says- nothing. A criticism of capitalism is not a proof that socialism will be better, or that it has the answers, and will function in the fashion socialists say it will.
The proof is in the pudding. THe thing which amazes me about reactionaries in general who criticise marxist philosophy are usually the ones who know least about it. In any case though, the point is capitalism is unsustainable. It relies on industrialisation; the continued use of unrenewable resources, as well as the poverty in the third world to mantain the profits of the international financial institutions. The race to destruction is stark: capitalism vs man. The argument shouldnt be about which ideaology is better, but which one is best suited to save the continuation of the species. That argument should be obvious.

[Roy Batty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 02:09 am
Often the Revlefters make very nice, sometimes eloquent, condemnations of capitalism.

But even if every criticism was true, even if their analysis of the nature of capitalism is accurate, what does that say about socialism? It seems to me it says- nothing. A criticism of capitalism is not a proof that socialism will be better, or that it has the answers, and will function in the fashion socialists say it will.

That's exactly where almost all of them will stumble. In other words, systems fall, movements cease, and the vision fades. Remeber 1959? Just a little reminder. They scream freedom, then open up the prison cells. They scream equality...that means standard issue happy cogwheel....equal enough if you ask me. They scream justice, then purge with a firing squad. They scream modernize, then leave their tools to rust away in some filed. B r a v o ! Now that's progress. Shit slingers rule the world. What can you do?

[RGacky3]

When you say prove socialism, it comes off as a very strage request, its like Saying Prove Democracy? Prove Socialism what? Prove that Socialism does what? What is it exactly that you want us to prove? That socialism works better? For who? And what do you mean by Works better? Society is'nt as simple as a Mathematical equation. Its like asking Prove democracy, basically the exact same concept.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 09:14 pm
When you say prove socialism, it comes off as a very strage request, its like Saying Prove Democracy? Prove Socialism what? Prove that Socialism does what? What is it exactly that you want us to prove? That socialism works better? For who? And what do you mean by Works better? Society is'nt as simple as a Mathematical equation. Its like asking Prove democracy, basically the exact same concept.
I mean prove assertions made. For example, we hear the claim that capitlsim relies upon "industrialisation" (and socialism does not?), or that there will be greater automatation with robots and such (it just sort of happens, apparently). Socialists do not really do this. They make claims as to what a socialist community will be like, but rarely make any effort to demonstrate how this will be.