So are we pinning this post or what?
Done
Right-wingers have has convinced their flock that anything the government does that isn’t pay-as-you-go is “socialism”.
Come on now! China is totally communist! After all when Marx envisioned his ideal state is was an authoritarian police state with billionaires, massive wealth disparities, stock markets and an investor class, right?
I think that in order to have a socialist nation you first need a nation.
And you’re not going to get that without being a power hungry lunatic.
We’re still a serfdom ruled by kings, and no amount of window dressing has changed that. At best we decide what colour hat the king will wear every four years.
Was the Darma Initiative socialist?
Define “collectively own”.
Ownership generally means two things:
- The owner gets to make decisions about the thing being owned.
- The fruits of the thing are directed to the benefit of the owner.
(I’m intentionally omitting the third implication of getting a share when the thing is being sold, because that requires the concept of selling a means of production which brings us deep into the realms of capitalism)
These things are pretty much clear-cut when it comes to individual ownership, but what do they mean in the context of collective ownership?
- Decision Making
- Does every decision have to unanimously supported by all the workers?
- Or is it enough for all the workers to get a vote in every single decision regarding the thing? Note that in this case there has to be a process where decisions are brought to vote, and whoever controls that process has the real power, but let’s not get into that.
- Or is it enough for all the workers to elect someone to make these decisions every X years?
- Or maybe it is enough for that someone makes all the decisions as long as they insist really hard that they are representing the workers?
- Fruit Enjoyment
- Does the product of said means of production have to be distributed directly among all the workers who own it?
- Or is it enough to sell the product (a process which require some concepts from capitalism, but let’s not go there) for some commodity and split that commodity among all the workers?
- Or maybe it’s enough for the product can be put toward projects that are supposed to benefit all the workers?
I think we’re mixing up socialism and communism here.
Socialism is an economic system in which major industries are owned by workers rather than by private businesses. It is different from capitalism, where private actors, like business owners and shareholders, can own the means of production.
ok, then what’s communism?
Communism seeks to completely abolish private property by distributing goods based on needs. Socialism is just the workers owning the means of production.
Communism (from Latin communis, ‘common, universal’)[1][2] is a sociopolitical, philosophical, and economic ideology within the socialist movement,[1] whose goal is the creation of a communist society, a socioeconomic order centered around common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products to everyone in society based on need.
– Socialism, the workers aren’t exploited, they get all the money they make because they own the business they work for, they collectively hire and fire. Workers keep the money they make.
– Communism a social order in which the entire populace communually ‘owns’ all business and all resources are divided up as needed.
Communism is in the Socialism wheelhouse, but it’s not a necessary part of Socialism. Socialism can maintain a consumerism corporate society in theory. Also democracy and republics can be socialist as Socialism doesn’t need an authoritarian police state to make it work, just people owning their own labor.
Yeah I was under the impression that socialism was a collective redistribution of wealth, “from those that are most able to those that are most in need.” While Communism is where capital is publicly owned, like a commune, “Seize the means of production”.
Socialism is seizing the means of production alone. Communism is a ‘Socialist’ socio economic system were the means of production are owned by the state and all product and labor is divided according to needs. Socialism redistributes nothing on its own. It is simply the means of production owned by the laborers, so a trade union type of system that can exist without authoritarian police state, there are worker owned businesses in the US right now, it’s not illegal to create or operate a business this way, so it exists where people create it and favor it with or without effort from anyone else.
It’s when you don’t shave or bathe and spend all your time wearing army-surplus jackets in coffee shops trying to pick up hippy chicks.
Sign me up!
Ya that’s what I thought too.
Genuinely curious about the standard by which you evaluate whether the means of production are collectively owned. For example, one person might say that it looks like a government, representing all workers on a national scale and making decisions based on votes or elected representatives, owning all the means of production. Another person might say it looks like each industry being controlled by a union representing the workers in said industry. A third could say that it means anytime a person operates a machine, they own it and can decide what to do with it, until they stop using it.
Is there any concievable physical reality in which it would be impossible to reasonably argue that the workers do not collectively control the means of production, because of a disagreement on which means of production should be owned by which workers and in what form? It seems like a very vague definition when you start looking beyond slogans into what it actually looks like.
For example, one person might say that it looks like a government, representing all workers on a national scale and making decisions based on votes or elected representatives, owning all the means of production.
That might be relevant if the USSR was actually democratic.
Is there any physical reality in which it would be impossible to reasonably argue that the workers do not collectively control the means of production, because of a disagreement on which means of production should be owned by which workers? It seems like a very vague definition when you start looking beyond slogans into what it actually looks like.
"Does socialism really MEAN anything?
"Really showing the libs, I see.
That might be relevant if the USSR was actually democratic.
Are bourgeoisie liberal states democratic? Curious your thoughts.
Are bourgeoisie liberal states democratic? Curious your thoughts.
To varying degrees. Certainly more than the USSR. Not really sure why anyone thinks “You can vote for the Party Approved candidate or not vote” is a real vote, other than a deep desire to throat authoritarian boots.
“You can vote for the Party Approved candidate or not vote”
I don’t really think its functionally different in the USA (or other liberal states). Democrats and Republicans are quite literally “Party Approved Candidates”. The presence of independents is incidental, and the USSR had independents in its parliament as well. This is why I view both the USA and USSR as “democratic”, but I would view neither as socialist.
The difference is the state does not choose who their opposition is and you are actually allowed to replace the governing system as a whole in liberal states which was not permitted in the USSR.
The difference is the state does not choose who their opposition is
Are you sure about that?
and you are actually allowed to replace the governing system as a whole in liberal states which was not permitted in the USSR.
What does “replacing the governing system as a whole”, look like, in practice, exactly? How is this different from the USSR?
I don’t really think its functionally different in the USA (or other liberal states). Democrats and Republicans are quite literally “Party Approved Candidates”.
Independents run in the US all the time. Democrats and Republicans both have party primaries, in which the ‘party-approved’ candidates are voted for and ran. I don’t even remember the last time there was an uncontested national election.
The presence of independents is incidental,
Why? Because it’s inconvenient to the point?
and the USSR had independents in its parliament as well.
The ‘independents’ were party-approved, and almost always elected uncontested as well. Contested elections, to my memory, were not even allowed between independents and Communist candidates until 8 fucking 9.
This is why I view both the USA and USSR as “democratic”, but I would view neither as socialist.
Neither the US nor the USSR are socialist, but the USA is much more democratic than the USSR. Fuck’s sake, 19th century Britain was more democratic than the USSR, and 19th century Britain was not very fucking democratic.
I’m a little out of the loop, why is a social democratic welfare state not socialism?
Because a welfare state is irrelevant to worker controlled/owned means of production and worker ownership is the defining characteristic of socialism.
A welfare state is just a welfare state.
But a welfare state is an indication that the state is owned by the people who work in it therefor worker ownership of means of production.
But a welfare state is an indication that the state is owned by the people who work in it
The first modern welfare state was implemented by Bismarck.
Don’t exactly know that Bismarck is indicative of a worker’s state.
States often implement good initiatives for a population not because they’re controlled by the population, but because they want to control the discontent of a population.
Social democratic welfare states re-distribute some of the surplus value extracted from the labor of workers back to them, but the fundamental functioning of the economy remains decision-making in firms owned and run by capitalist investors rather than workers.
That’s fair, but if the workers regulate the companies, control supply via subsidies and taxation, and cap the wealth of the investors then doesn’t it have the exact same effect as if a government office made all the business decisions while also allotting the freedom of the workers to create or retire businesses?
Pretty big but, though, I admit it would be asking a lot to accomplish that from the perspective of the world we live in.
No it’s not the same, it’s a totally different system as long as the labor doesn’t own the business they work for. Ten thousand different mechanisms to circumvent the ownership by private capital is still ownership by private capital and as America has demonstrated again and again, no battle is won by a vague circumventing of the major problem of exploitation, because all those mechanisms are quickly and easily removed by private capital the second they buy enough power to do so. Our entire economy is monopolizing at an alarming rate, this was illegal just a few decades ago, it’s now legal to hand politicians millions of dollars to do what they are told, this was illegal before Citizens United decision, also legal to bribe then to do your bidding openly as long as you only give them the money after they accomplish your task, and now unions are difficult to start and maintain this was a legally protected activity a few decades ago, all the circumventing is temporary and inefficient.
If we’re moving on from hypotheticals then it seems like welfare state approaches were far more effective when put into practice than things like the USSR.
Yeah for a while the work tax credit and child tax credit was my main income It paid more than my job, and a lot of corporate stock trade types like Warren Buffet advocated that was the solution to the capitalist problem of long term income stagnation and inequality, but it’s not around anyone, I can’t expect it to work after any election, and it is easy to lose it every four years. It doesn’t work not because of the factual outcome, it doesn’t work because it’s temporary and under constant attack. Unless we get laws that can’t be ended or argued without a very high majority of the legislator AND the states, can’t be thrown out by a renegade supreme court, or hand waved by executive orders, then it’s not worth the paper it’s printed on.
Every solution is always going to be under constant attack.
You might be right. I just wish my civil rights and functional economy weren’t debatable
That’s fair, but if the workers regulate the companies, control supply via subsidies and taxation, and cap the wealth of the investors then doesn’t it have the exact same effect as if a government office made all the business decisions while also allotting the freedom of the workers to create or retire businesses?
Not really - I feel like I should address this in parts, though it’s all one statement and I feel like it needed to be denied as a whole statement first.
That’s fair, but if the workers regulate the companies, control supply via subsidies and taxation, and cap the wealth of the investors
This is the ideal functioning of a social democratic welfare state. We… do not really have a fully ideally functioning social democratic welfare state right now (speaking even outside of the US, because we’re pretty fucked here), but this is a fundamentally good, or at least better, goal to aim for than our current situation.
then doesn’t it have the exact same effect as if a government office made all the business decisions
No, it does not. What you’ve proposed, as a social democratic welfare state, results in a government which restricts and encourages economic decisions which it believes will be in the best interest of the workers. The final decision-making power resides with independent firms mostly run by capitalist investors, even if their decisions are restricted by regulations, and invariably, the decision made within those restrictions will be the one which most benefits (or which the investors perceive as most-benefitting) the capitalist investors, not the workers, and not the firm.
What you describe is probably most comparable to French dirigisme
while also allotting the freedom of the workers to create or retire businesses?
This is a common misconception about socialism, or at least many forms of socialism. Under socialism, a worker running a business is not necessarily restricted - what is restricted is who, beyond the worker, can create or retire a business.
Under the loosest definition of socialism, or, if one prefers the more stringent definition of socialism as beyond simply modernist anti-capitalism, under generally anti-capitalist ideals, there is nothing preventing a worker from starting a business and selling their labor.
Where things get fuzzy is ownership of capital. The strictest socialists would say that all ownership of capital is anti-socialist - down to tools being communally shared. This is an extreme position, however. Most socialists accept that some amount of workers owning the tools they themselves use (or, for some who are insistent about ownership being verboten, workers having ‘exclusive rights to dictate the usage of their tools as long as the tools are in use by them’) is acceptable - what is important is that capital is not a tool to leverage control over others, but a tool to enable one’s own labor.
At its absolute loosest, a generalized anti-capitalism, a worker would be able to run a business, hire workers, buy and sell capital on behalf of the firm, etc, in a mostly recognizable way, even if his work was done on what we might regard as an executive level. The difference would be that the capital would belong to the firm he ran - the worker could not simply cash out and leave the other workers high and dry because it’s ‘his’ business. Nor would there be outside non-worker investors.
This is considered by many socialists to be insufficient to qualify as socialism, and many would insist further that a firm must include workers as a fundamental and major part of the decision-making process to be socialists - but even then, again, nothing in most of these conceptions stops a worker from starting a business and hiring workers. It’s simply that once other workers are involved, they must be involved in decision-making, in some form - whether by electing who runs the firm, or by worker-investor schemes, or by votes on major decisions.
There are a lot of conceptions of socialism out there, and a lot of different proposals for what we should be working for. About the only point of agreement is that capitalism is not the way forward - that investor-driven market economies have results which follow the iron law of institutions - decisions benefit the decision-makers, not the firms, and certainly not the workers.
This is a common misconception about socialism, or at least many forms of socialism. Under socialism, a worker running a business is not necessarily restricted - what is restricted is who, beyond the worker, can create or retire a business.
That statement doesn’t really parse. They’re either able to create a business or they are not. They’re either able to put goods onto an exchange market or fill requests even beyond or far below requested amounts, or they’re not. You will absolutely have people who start a business and make others do the work so long as the government does not directly manage the business, unless you completely disregard human nature which was already stretched pretty thin in the assumption that a worker owned government and by extension means of production were incorruptible.
That statement doesn’t really parse. They’re either able to create a business or they are not. They’re either able to put goods onto an exchange market or fill requests even beyond or far below requested amounts, or they’re not.
I think you’re misreading the statement. The statement is trying to say that workers can create businesses. In start-up businesses, there very often (though not always) is no difference between the founders and the workers - and management work is work, mind you.
You will absolutely have people who start a business and make others do the work so long as the government does not directly manage the business,
That’s just the thing - as mentioned here, the two, broadly speaking, ways that socialism addresses this would be either:
-
The worker who started the firm does not have private ownership of the firm’s capital (and there are no outside investors which have ownership or part-ownership of the firm’s capital); if he is the only worker, the difference is purely formal, but if he is not the only worker, he does not have the right to, say, sell everything the firm has and take the proceeds to his bank account, the way a modern private company could. The worker who started the firm, in this case, would be in a position akin to a public corporation in which the executive(s) must answer to shareholders for financial decisions - only instead of shareholders, it’s the firm’s workers. Even if he sold the firm’s capital, the firm itself would still own the proceeds of the sales, and he could not simply regard it as ‘his’ and write it down on his personal income tax form as liquidation of capital gains.
-
The worker who started the firm does not have exclusive executive control over the firm unless he is the only worker in the firm.
unless you completely disregard human nature which was already stretched pretty thin in the assumption that a worker owned government were incorruptible.
It’s not about corruption. Corruption isn’t even in the conversation here.
-
Similarly:
Is every good or service-providing entity privately owned? No? Then it’s not capitalism.
Is the fire department part of the government (i.e. worker-owned), or is it a private entity? Do you have pinkertons or police? Are there soldiers, or are the armed forces entirely mercenaries? Are roads privately owned? When people get old and need some kind of regular monthly payment, does that payment come exclusively from private insurance policies and/or investments, or are the payments provided by fellow workers in the form of a government benefit?
Every modern economy is a mixed system involving some capitalist elements and some socialist elements.
That’s ot what the word capitalism means. Like, not even close.
Socialism is generally considered to be the workers owning the means of production.
Welfare, infrastrucutre, and public services are not means of production, even if you think that the government is a workers’ state (and I can think of no major current governments which are legitimately workers’ states).
Socialism is not simply when the government or community does or owns things in general, but the core means of generating economic output.
You seem to misunderstand what the “means of production” entails.
Why don’t you explain why a private firefighting company isn’t actually capitalist?
Why don’t you explain why a private firefighting company isn’t actually capitalist?
I didn’t say a private firefighting company isn’t capitalist; I said a public firefighting company isn’t socialist.
How so?
Capitalism is, by the loosest definition, private ownership of firms; by a stricter, more academic definition, the implementation of limited liability corporations and joint stock companies in firms in a market system. A private firefighter company certainly fits the former, and potentially fits the latter.
Socialism is still worker ownership of the means of production. A private firefighting firm is capitalist, but that does not make a public firefighting firm socialist. Socialism, as an idea, is based around the thought that economic power dictates social power; that workers must gain the power from their economic output to have true control over their social and political future.
The Roman Empire running the public firefighting service in Rome was not socialist simply because it was a public utility. Nor are modern firefighting services socialist when a socialist party is in power. At best, public firefighting services run by their firefighters would be an example of mutual aid, which is generally regarded well (and often essential) by socialists (and especially anarchists), but is not, itself, socialism.
You state it’s not socialist, but you don’t say why. What’s your argument?
I’ve said it multiple times now.
worker ownership of the means of production
that workers must gain the power from their economic output to have true control over their social and political future.
The meme said, “the means of production.” It did not say, “every, single means of production.”
The OP could have meant anything from workers electing their CEOs in 51% of the steel mills, smelteries, oil rigs, cinemas, restaurants, etc. all the way up to 100% like you decided to assume.
But honestly, it makes very little sense to read 100% into this, especially with your wording of “good or service-providing entity”.
A hell of a lot of “good or service-providing entities” are sole proprietorships, which are in a blurry gray area between private ownership and cooperative ownership. On the one hand, many capitalists started out as sole proprietors. On the other hand, by owning one’s own means of production, a sole proprietor is both worker and owner, fitting perfectly in the definition of socialism. In fact, I would argue that the sole proprietor doesn’t really become a socialist or a capitalist until another worker joins the business and it becomes a cooperative or a private company. Until then, the distinction is meaningless.
It is private in case you didnt know (police) It is just not on paper
No True Scotsman
No True Scotsman
I love how people use the term to mean “Words cannot have definitions”, which isn’t what the fallacy means at all.
But I bet it makes them feel real smart for a few seconds when they incorrectly use the term.
Come on, this is Lemmy where every person is a self-enlightened “intellectual” and any argument that they don’t like or don’t have a response for is a fallacy of one of the 2-3 that they can remember at the moment (always strawman and no true Scotsman) and of course then the opposing always completely invalid with no counter argument. (Even that this in itself is the fallacy fallacy lol)
Every metaphor, simile, or analogy is a strawman,every definition is a no true Scotsman, and every history book, report, research, or scientific studies is an appeal to authority 😉
The way people misinterpret appeal to authority really disappoints me. It’s not an appeal to authority to say that you have studied a topic for years in collage and probably are more informed than the average person.
Lol yeah. No True Scotsman is against shifting/arbitrary definitions, but your definition of socialism here is rigid and clear.
What does it even mean to own the means of production? How are decisions made? Big decisions can go to a vote, but what about small ones? I don’t see how any organization can function without some kind of hierarchy. But the way you describe socialism implies that hierarchy can’t coexist with socialism.
Maybe the pirate ship system would work well.
Every man got the same share except the captain (2x) and quartermaster (1.5x) and the doctor (1.5x) any of that position can be replaced anytime by a vote
Aye, this be a fittin’ trajectory for ye politics
Maybe the base pay the same for everyone but and only do a multiplies on profit sharing.
The socialist democratically owned company would still elect a CEO or something like it to make those kinds of decisions, and if they don’t make good decisions they can be recalled by the employees to be replaced with someone else. The way I look at it it would be like how companies are currently but with all employees owning shares of the company rather then outside investors or the owner of the company. Atleast that’s how I interpret it but there’s probably a million different ways you could set it up while still having it be much more democratic then the modern structure.
True, and actually these companies already exist, at least in name. Not sure how well they function or how closely they follow what you describe.
That is capitalism
“Capitalism is when there’s management”?
Many of the contradictions and crises of Capitalism are still present even under worker coop models in a market economy. Surplus value is still extracted, that money must be reinvested in the business to remain competitive. Meaning the Tendency of The Rate of Profit to Fall Remains, meaning capitalist crises remain. Imperialist incentives remain, and a worker coop nation-state would be equally imperialist as one with private corporations.
Profit falling leading to imperialism seems like its because of profit/expansion driven leadership which isn’t impossible under a coop model but seems fairly unlikely and is more or less a certainty under a more undemocratic and authoritarian hierarchy under capitalist enterprises.
In fact, one of worker coop’s “weaknesses” is that they have a tendency to not grow at all, which has been suggested as a major reasons why they don’t dominate our economy despite tending to be more resilient than conventional firms.
Profit falling leading to imperialism seems like its because of profit/expansion driven leadership
Leadership is irrelevant. Firms MUST reinvest some surplus value back into the firm. This will lead to the increase of capital in the business, and lead to overaccumlation crises. Firms must find new markets for their goods, or face certain economic despair.
Many of the contradictions and crises of Capitalism are still present even under worker coop models in a market economy. Surplus value is still extracted, that money must be reinvested in the business to remain competitive.
Other than the end-state of communism, a stateless, moneyless society, I’m curious as to what you think counts as ‘not capitalist’?
Tendency of The Rate of Profit to Fall
Lord.
You run an explicitly anti-capitalist community and don’t believe in the TRPF?
Other than the end-state of communism, a stateless, moneyless society, I’m curious as to what you think counts as ‘not capitalist’?
I think socialism requires an explicitly anti-nationalist character and the elimination of the commodity form. This looks like production with quotas (use-value), probably labor vouchers (but its not a requirement) and some form of worker ownership, like workers councils.
You run an explicitly anti-capitalist community and don’t believe in the TRPF?
Marx himself regard the tendency of the rate of profit to fall as an incomplete aspect of his theories. It’s highly contested, and ultimately, while important to ‘scientific socialism’ conceptions of why capitalism must fall, is neither explanation nor justification for those of us who believe that capitalism should fall, but will not necessarily do so of its own inherent contradictions.
Marx was a brilliant theorist, and we are all deeply indebted to his contributions to socialist thought - that’s not the same as thinking that every idea he put forward, with the limited evidence available to him, and him operating as a positive trailblazer in the 19th century as an exile in a deeply hostile society, was absolutely incontrovertibly correct.
I think socialism requires an explicitly anti-nationalist character and the elimination of the commodity form. This looks like production with quotas (use-value), probably labor vouchers (but its not a requirement) and some form of worker ownership, like workers-councils.
I mean, again, though, that looks to me more like the end-state of communism. If that’s all you’re willing to accept as non-capitalist, that’s fine, I suppose, but that’s a very high bar to clear, and many want clearer intermediate steps which will create the conditions to implement that.
Upvoted for having a reasonable conversation, btw, this is what left discourse is for
The workers do not need to control the means of production when Pooh Bear Xi knows what’s best for them before they do.
Socialism is when capitalism
Ah, you mean the elite, wealthy, oligarch class, Xi Jinping.
Whoa buddy you a fed? Got any sources? My xi would never.
The DPRK is, I’d argue, more or less an absolute monarchy that just uses different words to describe itself than traditional for that kind of system.
The People’s™ Absolute monarchy
Seriously it’s insane how people can unironically lie to themselves. Thy literally said “socialism is not for the workers” lmfaoo
Removed by mod
Oh come on. Y’all have a whole Instance to bootlick in, why do you have to spread that shit around?
If socialism were bad, law firms wouldn’t be structured as partnerships.
Law firms are so so so not socialist.
Partnerships only involve a few select attorneys at a firm, associate attorneys, paralegals, legal assistants, and every other role is not part of the partnership, and has no stake other than their vested interest in getting their paycheck (the same as any employee).
“Big Law” firms have thousands of employees excluded from any partnerships including billable (associates, paralegals) and non billable (legal assistants, HR, IT) staff, the partnership is more of a private ownership club where people are accepted mostly on vibes and sometimes, rarely, on merit.
The partnership structure is pretty antithetical to socialism, since it’s structured in a way to exclude people deemed not worthy of receiving profits (But still somehow needed to make the profits??).
TL;DR: a small group of owner operators within a larger company is decidedly capitalist.
karl marx only invented socialism for rich people, read theory shitlib
