So are we pinning this post or what?
Done
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
i mean, lenin era USSR might be socialist probably closer to communism though, but it was most definitely NOT socialist under stalin or communist.
Lenin’s ‘war communism’ was little more than state-sponsored looting (which, to be fair, is far from unusual in times of crisis; it is not, however, much of an innovation or a path to socialism); while the NEP was the exact social democratic reformism that the Bolsheviks were supposedly against, only without the pesky ‘democracy’ bit the SRs liked.
the biggest difference was the war
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
Owning the means of production is a means, not an end in itself. I’d argue the social democratic welfare state comes impressively close to achieving the ends.
Not really.
Which is the better embodiment of socialism:
- Means of production are collectively owned, but the the moneyed elite is somehow still accumulating power and wealth while the working class suffers
- Means of production are not collectively owned, but the moneyed elite is somehow gone, and wealth and power are in the hands of the workers, who ensure that the creation of wealth benefits all
Not saying a welfare state is #2, but I’m interested to hear if #1 is a better socialist state.
I would say that at the core of it, option 2 is contradictory. Power is not in the hands of the workers for so-long as as the means of production are not in the hands of the workers; without economic power, which is what ownership of the means of production is, all other forms of power are vulnerable to whoever the owners of the means of production are.
That being said, of the two, I would say #1 is the more socialist state, but #2 is the more desirable state if the inherent contradiction was able to be resolved in some permanent and stable way.
I generally regard myself as an anti-capitalist first and foremost, and a socialist only by default; I’m not married to the idea that workers owning the means of production is the only way forward, or the only moral formulation of society.
At the same time, I also can’t think of any immediately applicable alternatives, so I’m all-in on backing socialism in practical terms.
only if you are strictly comparing it with full-force no-brakes capitalism
If we’re working in the purely abstract, the welfare state is not necessarily ideal, but is there another currently implemented state ideology which serves its workers better? I.e. what would you compare it with which defeats it?
have you seen how most chinese are living rn? talk to some of them.
As in they’re living better than in a welfare state? Or that they’re living in a “welfare state” and having a worse time than i.e. Americans?
My reference of a successful welfare state would be Scandinavia.
i’m not sure about scandinavia’s system specifically, but a lot of these northern european countries regarded as very good still rely on hard exploiting the third world for their comfort. finland is a particularly good example of this.
china engages in unequal trade but its not even a contest, they even sometimes strike good deals with countries they partner with. and yes, id say they definetly live better than americans from the us on average.
