Society/Culture Can a purely socialist society exist?

[AvantGardener]

The problem you've got is that by using rhetoric like this:

... you signal an implied attitude that sits diametrically at odds with a desire to fund aspects of the education system.

My problem is entirely that you want to have your cake - ask why it's Gina's responsibility to fund the life of Dazza, Shazza et al - and eat it - believe in commonwealth, state sponsored tertiary education. Either drop the rhetoric and you're free to paint the situation as luridly as you like, or deal with the fact that your rhetoric doesn't match you supposed beliefs and you're going to get lynched over the inconsistency.

I can reconcile for the greater good it gets done. This does not mean it should be their responsibility or is fair, but it does fall to their hands. There is nothing inconsistent about it. You can believe in (or accept something needs to be done a certain way) but still see the negatives with that solution.

Train headed for 5 people on a track. You can divert to another track where only 1 person is.
Sure as shit aint fair on that 1 person but for the greater good I am rediverting.

 

[Malifice]

And who do you think is the parent company in control of Amazon Australia is? And where is that parent company from?

Whats your point exactly? You think its fair that Pty Ltd corporations incorporated in Australia should pay less than 1 percent tax like Amazon Australia Pty Ltd did?

It doesn't matter what somebody earns.

You literally said above that it totally matters what people earn because poor Australians (Shazza and Dazza) should not be able to rely on taxes paid by the wealthy (Pratt and Rhineheart).

Fairness is paying the same price for the same goods and services. You are buying the exact same product when buying goods with GST on them. Fairness is being treated equal rather than being treated with discrimination because your circumstances (income) is different. Imagine paying for someone elses dinner and instead of a thanks you get told you should have paid for even more peoples dinner.

By that logic it would be 'fair' if everyone in Australia was charged a flat amount annually for taxation, regardless of how much money they have.

Everyone pays a fixed sum of 25,000 per year, whether they can afford it or not, including You, Shazza, Dazza and Billionaires like Pratt. If you dont pay, its tax evasion, and you go to prison.

Does that sound fair to you? Everyone paying the exact same amount?

How does the above 'equality for everyone' rule affect you, Shazza and Dazza as opposed to Pratt and Rineheart?

 

[Malifice]

the greater good

Every shit thing done ever was done for the greater good.

Train headed for 5 people on a track. You can divert to another track where only 1 person is.

Yet here you are arguing a handful of billionaires shouldn't fund the welfare of thousands of poor people.

'Wont someone please think of the billionaires'.

 

[btdg]

I think the argument for taxation on billionaires is that everything they have: their wealth, status, their companies, etc - is dependent on the protection and stability of our society.

Despite arguments from some liberal philosophers, we aren't all independent agents out to seek what is best for ourselves. We're all part of a set of complex connections and networks that intrinsicly link us with millions (if not billions) of other humans.

Gina, Twiggy, et al - they enjoy tremendous wealth, but that wealth:

• was generated through the work thousands of employees, whose surplus labour they are 'entitled' to in our current system
• was generated at the expense of common resources; in the case of mining companies, their depletion of mineral or coal deposits means that resource is gone... permanently. For other companies it is via pollution, or traffic, or the opportunity cost of the resources that they use...
• was generated using a range of public resources; from public roads, to electricity and water infrastructure built by the government, to the engineers and workers trained by public education systems, to... hundreds of other things.
• is protected by our legal system and enforced by the police, courts, public service, and political system. The enjoy the benefit of property rights, land rights, industrial relations laws, banking and financial services, and countless other little things are all part of a political and legal system they inhabit.
• exists only as long as society does. If the dollar inflates out of control or ceases to exist, their cash holdings disappear. If the stock market is dissolved, their stocks disappear. If government protection of them ends, nothing stops the masses from storming their house and stealing everything in there.

In short, the rich are the biggest beneficiaries of a political, legal and economic system that has set up everything they have for them. It is therefore just and fair that they are taxed at the highest rate, with the goal of that taxation being multi-fold:

• it helps perpetuate the system - ensuring that infrastructure, education, health resources are available to keep them rich in the future - they have a STAKE in paying their fair share.
• it helps reduce inequality; we make a deliberate choice to tax the rich more, and redistribute this to the less fortunate, because we believe that to varying extents: a) all people should have a dignified standard of living and equal opportunity, and b) society functions better, and is more stable, when there is less inequality (and particularly, when there is less extreme poverty). This also provides them with a STAKE in paying their fare share.
• it is politically valid. All of those public benefits come from being part of a liberal democracy, and frankly, the voters of our democracy think billionaires should pay more tax. The price of democracy is actively engaging with the system to perpetuate that democracy and ensure it remains authentic and valid... lest it be replaced by something less friendly (we are seeing this in the USA, sadly, where a set of billionaires seem to have forgotten this and started trying to undermine the legitimacy of the democratic system for personal gain. History says that won't end well, one way or another). Again, billionaires have a STAKE in paying the piper, so to speak.

The higher tax bill is also offset by a range of factors:

• in our society, the wealthy have far more available routes to generate income and wealth passively; allowing them to easily replace the 'lost' income. Billionaires can pay huge tax bills, spend on everything they could ever desire, and still build their net wealth through investments and savings, generating every higher incomes in the future. Wage slaves have no capacity to do this. In practice: most billionaires could pay triple their current tax bill and still see zero impact on their living standards or that of their family; now and in perpetuity.
• in our society, the wealthy have far more ways of legally avoiding taxation. This isn't just the 'morally grey' kind of tax avoidance (ie: using offshore accounts or negatively gearing 3000 properties), although that is part of it. But the wealthy can also choose not to spend money, and thus avoid GST. They can afford new electric cars and can thus afford petrol tax. Again, there's countless examples of this.

I think that probably sums it up... there's probably more though if I really think about it

 

[AvantGardener]

I think the argument for taxation on billionaires is that everything they have: their wealth, status, their companies, etc - is dependent on the protection and stability of our society.

Despite arguments from some liberal philosophers, we aren't all independent agents out to seek what is best for ourselves. We're all part of a set of complex connections and networks that intrinsicly link us with millions (if not billions) of other humans.

Gina, Twiggy, et al - they enjoy tremendous wealth, but that wealth:

• was generated through the work thousands of employees, whose surplus labour they are 'entitled' to in our current system
• was generated at the expense of common resources; in the case of mining companies, their depletion of mineral or coal deposits means that resource is gone... permanently. For other companies it is via pollution, or traffic, or the opportunity cost of the resources that they use...
• was generated using a range of public resources; from public roads, to electricity and water infrastructure built by the government, to the engineers and workers trained by public education systems, to... hundreds of other things.
• is protected by our legal system and enforced by the police, courts, public service, and political system. The enjoy the benefit of property rights, land rights, industrial relations laws, banking and financial services, and countless other little things are all part of a political and legal system they inhabit.
• exists only as long as society does. If the dollar inflates out of control or ceases to exist, their cash holdings disappear. If the stock market is dissolved, their stocks disappear. If government protection of them ends, nothing stops the masses from storming their house and stealing everything in there.

In short, the rich are the biggest beneficiaries of a political, legal and economic system that has set up everything they have for them. It is therefore just and fair that they are taxed at the highest rate, with the goal of that taxation being multi-fold:

• it helps perpetuate the system - ensuring that infrastructure, education, health resources are available to keep them rich in the future - they have a STAKE in paying their fair share.
• it helps reduce inequality; we make a deliberate choice to tax the rich more, and redistribute this to the less fortunate, because we believe that to varying extents: a) all people should have a dignified standard of living and equal opportunity, and b) society functions better, and is more stable, when there is less inequality (and particularly, when there is less extreme poverty). This also provides them with a STAKE in paying their fare share.
• it is politically valid. All of those public benefits come from being part of a liberal democracy, and frankly, the voters of our democracy think billionaires should pay more tax. The price of democracy is actively engaging with the system to perpetuate that democracy and ensure it remains authentic and valid... lest it be replaced by something less friendly (we are seeing this in the USA, sadly, where a set of billionaires seem to have forgotten this and started trying to undermine the legitimacy of the democratic system for personal gain. History says that won't end well, one way or another). Again, billionaires have a STAKE in paying the piper, so to speak.

The higher tax bill is also offset by a range of factors:

• in our society, the wealthy have far more available routes to generate income and wealth passively; allowing them to easily replace the 'lost' income. Billionaires can pay huge tax bills, spend on everything they could ever desire, and still build their net wealth through investments and savings, generating every higher incomes in the future. Wage slaves have no capacity to do this. In practice: most billionaires could pay triple their current tax bill and still see zero impact on their living standards or that of their family; now and in perpetuity.
• in our society, the wealthy have far more ways of legally avoiding taxation. This isn't just the 'morally grey' kind of tax avoidance (ie: using offshore accounts or negatively gearing 3000 properties), although that is part of it. But the wealthy can also choose not to spend money, and thus avoid GST. They can afford new electric cars and can thus afford petrol tax. Again, there's countless examples of this.

I think that probably sums it up... there's probably more though if I really think about it

Its getting late but I just wanted to quickly say that this actually has been a really good post for addressing my point re fairness. I disagree on a few things still and towards the end it probably takes a different tact but theres definitely some food for thought that maybe public roads are providing greater benefit, legal system and ownership laws are providing more benefit etc.

 

[kranky al]

Socialism is not 'democratization of the economic sphere'. Under socialism, the economic sphere is controlled (or owned, or both) by the State. The economy is not democratic, it becomes tyrannical.

The most democratic form of economics is the free market.



You're partially correct here. But you're characterizing Mills strong support for Liberal checks and balances on the free market (prohibitions on cartels, price fixing etc) as some kind of wink and a nod towards socialism.

To characterize the Wealth of Nations (or Mill generally) as in any way advocating for Socialist economics is a bridge too far.

Im not one of those libertarian fools who tries to position Mill as arguing for an economic system totally free from Government regulation. Mill expressly argued for a regulated (by the State) free market, as he quite clearly saw the inevitability and the problems that cartels, monopolies etc (and other nefarious trade practices) could create (by weakening or removing the benefits of the invisible hand).




Mill and Marx were polar opposites in what they advocated for. Marx may have been prepared to accept some good in Capitalism, but that doesnt mean he was a supporter of it.

And you can't argue that JS Mill advocated in any way for State ownership and control of the means of production (beyond that which is required of the liberal State, to protect people from harm). His central thesis was freedom from State ownership and control (beyond that which was liberal) was what allows for the invisible hand to operate, which advances society, and provides the greater good for all (or at least for most).


Yet under socialism the members of the society itself are forbidden from benefitting from trade.

Your whole position here is:

1. You agree with the obvious, that trade is beneficial.
2. You simultaneously argue for socialism (a system that literally holds that people should be forbidden from trading their goods and services to others for benefit).

Let me give you an example of how crazy this is.

take Mikhail Kalashnikov. Soviet designer and inventor of the AK-47 Rifle.

Of the estimated 500 million firearms that exist worldwide, approximately 100 million belong to the Kalashnikov family, three-quarters of which are AK-47s. The Soviet Union (and Russia) exported tens of millions, making billions of dollars from the sale of those weapons.

Guess how much money Mikhail got for his invention?

Mikhail didnt get a ****ing penny. His invention was taken from him by the Soviet State, and they made money off it. Soviet apparatchiks got rich off Mikhails labor and hard work.

Acknowledging the benefit of trade, while forbidding people from trading is just hypocrisy of the highest order.



Which has always been the purported intent under every single socialist society, but in practice literally never actually happens in every single socialist society so far, with apparatchiks getting wealthy and the people getting shot at dawn, sent to the camps, or starving to death by the millions.

Socialism is like the mythical 'benevolent dictatorship'. The problem being the truism of 'power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely'. You give the State that level of power, and you're going to wind up with a tyranny.

We liberals have been telling everyone this for centuries. It's why we have term limits on politicians, an open and free press, a separation of the powers between the legislature, executive, and the judiciary, a constitution, adherence to the Rule of Law, and the Liberal threshold test for laws being made in the first place.



Capitalism has existed for thousands of years. The first person to trade a thing or service to another person for a thing or service of value in return was demonstrating capitalism.

The system has been dulled down or abrogated by certain other systems (feudalism, socialism, slavery from the position of the slaves) but yeah, if you were lucky enough to be a Freeman baker (and not a Serf) in 8th century England, you were a capitalist, selling your goods for a profit.



Firstly, if the Corporation bakes better bread, for a lower price than the towns bakers, it's still the (thousands of people of the town) who benefit. They're getting dirt cheap tasty bread.

You're missing the point of the example I gave. The benefit provided by the invisible hand of competition is provided to the townsfolk, not the bakers. The bakers compete with each other (attempting to provide the best bread for the lowest price) which benefits society as a whole (who get the tastiest possible bread, for the lowest possible price).

And secondly, yes, monopolies are bad (because they extinguish the benefit to society provided by the invisible hand). I (and JS Mill) agree with you on this point. We both argue strongly that business will attempt to create monopolies (removing competition makes life easier for you after all) and that a Liberal State has an obligation to legislate to stop monopolies, cartels and price fixing.

That's the whole purpose of a liberal State. It's why it exists. To protect people from harm.



Big difference being that Capitalist States rarely murder their own citizens and send them off to the Gulags by the millions like Socialist States like Cambodia, the USSR, China, Cuba and others tend to do.

Heck you could lump Germany in that category as well under National Socialism, who despite nationalizing a ton of stuff in Germany never went 'full blown Socialist' because Hitler didnt want to piss off German Industrial backers and Prussian Junkers who owned the factories and the land.

Rohm of course wanted to go 'full blown socialist' so Hitler had him shot at dawn.

Despite literally (and I mean literally) every single Socialist State going utterly **** up into a stagnant tyrannical shithole (every single time) you socialists like to blame 'bad luck and mismanagement'.

Dude, it's not bad luck and mismanagement. It's the inevitability of power corrupting at the top, and people lives stagnating down the bottom.

How many times do we have to try it, and for it to go the exact same way, before you acknowledge its glaring fatal flaws?

Just so you know, your definition of socialism differs from any credible political definition.

 

[Malifice]

Just so you know, your definition of socialism differs from any credible political definition.

https://www.google.com/search?q=soc...CDUyOTNqMGoxqAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Google it. I'm using the actual definition.

''Socialism is a political and economic system where the means of production are owned by the community or the state, instead of private individuals.''

 

[Seeds]

I think the argument for taxation on billionaires is that everything they have: their wealth, status, their companies, etc - is dependent on the protection and stability of our society.

Despite arguments from some liberal philosophers, we aren't all independent agents out to seek what is best for ourselves. We're all part of a set of complex connections and networks that intrinsicly link us with millions (if not billions) of other humans.

Gina, Twiggy, et al - they enjoy tremendous wealth, but that wealth:

• was generated through the work thousands of employees, whose surplus labour they are 'entitled' to in our current system
• was generated at the expense of common resources; in the case of mining companies, their depletion of mineral or coal deposits means that resource is gone... permanently. For other companies it is via pollution, or traffic, or the opportunity cost of the resources that they use...
• was generated using a range of public resources; from public roads, to electricity and water infrastructure built by the government, to the engineers and workers trained by public education systems, to... hundreds of other things.
• is protected by our legal system and enforced by the police, courts, public service, and political system. The enjoy the benefit of property rights, land rights, industrial relations laws, banking and financial services, and countless other little things are all part of a political and legal system they inhabit.
• exists only as long as society does. If the dollar inflates out of control or ceases to exist, their cash holdings disappear. If the stock market is dissolved, their stocks disappear. If government protection of them ends, nothing stops the masses from storming their house and stealing everything in there.

In short, the rich are the biggest beneficiaries of a political, legal and economic system that has set up everything they have for them. It is therefore just and fair that they are taxed at the highest rate, with the goal of that taxation being multi-fold:

• it helps perpetuate the system - ensuring that infrastructure, education, health resources are available to keep them rich in the future - they have a STAKE in paying their fair share.
• it helps reduce inequality; we make a deliberate choice to tax the rich more, and redistribute this to the less fortunate, because we believe that to varying extents: a) all people should have a dignified standard of living and equal opportunity, and b) society functions better, and is more stable, when there is less inequality (and particularly, when there is less extreme poverty). This also provides them with a STAKE in paying their fare share.
• it is politically valid. All of those public benefits come from being part of a liberal democracy, and frankly, the voters of our democracy think billionaires should pay more tax. The price of democracy is actively engaging with the system to perpetuate that democracy and ensure it remains authentic and valid... lest it be replaced by something less friendly (we are seeing this in the USA, sadly, where a set of billionaires seem to have forgotten this and started trying to undermine the legitimacy of the democratic system for personal gain. History says that won't end well, one way or another). Again, billionaires have a STAKE in paying the piper, so to speak.

The higher tax bill is also offset by a range of factors:

• in our society, the wealthy have far more available routes to generate income and wealth passively; allowing them to easily replace the 'lost' income. Billionaires can pay huge tax bills, spend on everything they could ever desire, and still build their net wealth through investments and savings, generating every higher incomes in the future. Wage slaves have no capacity to do this. In practice: most billionaires could pay triple their current tax bill and still see zero impact on their living standards or that of their family; now and in perpetuity.
• in our society, the wealthy have far more ways of legally avoiding taxation. This isn't just the 'morally grey' kind of tax avoidance (ie: using offshore accounts or negatively gearing 3000 properties), although that is part of it. But the wealthy can also choose not to spend money, and thus avoid GST. They can afford new electric cars and can thus afford petrol tax. Again, there's countless examples of this.

I think that probably sums it up... there's probably more though if I really think about it

Why do you assume that just because we are interconnected with others that we arent out to see whats best for ourselves? Biology has very much shown the living beings are driven by self interest and especially those that are conscious.

However, what is best for ourselves and best for others is often the same thing. We are happy when those around us are also happy. This, however does not mean we arent driven by self interest. The liberal philosophers have been proven right with time.

 

[Seeds]

Just so you know, your definition of socialism differs from any credible political definition.

How is it not? How exactly do you define socialism?

 

[kranky al]

How is it not? How exactly do you define socialism?

Listed the differences several times in this thread.

Malifice seems to be under the idea that they are the same thing - socialism is a pretty broad church where communism isn’t.

 

[Seeds]

Listed the differences several times in this thread.

Malifice seems to be under the idea that they are the same thing - socialism is a pretty broad church where communism isn’t.

As someome who studied politics and economics at university I also learnt socialism and communism are the same thing in reality.

Ps. If you google both words you get exactly the same defintion for both.

There is no distinction between a community and the state.

 

[Malifice]

There is no distinction between a community and the state.

This.

Marx was wrong. The State cannot (and never will) 'wither away'.

Or to be more correct, if the State does wither away, you're left with anarchy, and not with socialism.

 

[peetoo]

This.

Marx was wrong. The State cannot (and never will) 'wither away'.

Or to be more correct, if the State does wither away, you're left with anarchy, and not with socialism.

Maybe he theorised social media. Governments cannot control economics any more

 

[Malifice]

Maybe he theorised social media. Governments cannot control economics any more

r/wallstreetbets anyone?

 

[btdg]

This.

Marx was wrong. The State cannot (and never will) 'wither away'.

Or to be more correct, if the State does wither away, you're left with anarchy, and not with socialism.

Anarchism and Communism (at least as modern ideologies) have a lot of crossover, and arose at a similar time period (mid-late 1800s) in response to similar circumstances.

In particular, the rise of the powerful and centralised modern 'state', which only really became possible with the rise of modern industrial capitalism and associated liberal politics.

Neither are really socialism but Marx saw socialism as a transitionary state anyway and was deliberately non-specific about what would come next.

As someone who studied politics...

There is no distinction between a community and the state.

Come on, be honest... How many lectures in first year did you spend at the bar? No doubt plenty, and more power to you, but come on...

I mean, there are thousands of communities that aren't states. Bigfooty is a community. It's not a state by any definition. That's politics 101.

Could communities exist outside of state control? Absolutely.

 

[Malifice]

Anarchism and Communism (at least as modern ideologies) have a lot of crossover,

No, they dont.

Anarchism is the total lack of a State. There are no means of production for the State, because the State doesnt exist.

Socialism is the means of production of a society controlled (or owned) by the State.

See the important difference between the two? Because Marx didnt.

In particular, the rise of the powerful and centralised modern 'state', which only really became possible with the rise of modern industrial capitalism and associated liberal politics.

Nationalism came into being simultaneously with mercantilism and liberalism, but there were (and still are) plenty of States that are neither liberal nor capitalist (or both).

Neither are really socialism but Marx saw socialism as a transitionary state anyway and was deliberately non-specific about what would come next.

No, he expressly claimed that the State would 'wither away'.

And a group of people living without a State, is called an Anarchy. With no State you can't have Socialism (defined as: the means of production controlled or owned by a State)

So he was very specific about what would come next. It's either 'no State' (Anarchy) after the State 'withers away' or his entire theory is fatally flawed because he posits the existence of a Socialist State, without a State, which is a logical contradiction.

You can't have a Socialist State without a State.

I mean, there are thousands of communities that aren't states. Bigfooty is a community. It's not a state by any definition. That's politics 101.

Firstly, that's a false analogy. A State is defined as a 'political entity that governs a particular area' or 'a nation or territory considered an organized political community under one government'.

https://www.google.com/search?q=wha...CDE1NzFqMGo5qAIAsAIB&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Bigfooty is neither of those things.

Name a single group of people, anywhere in the world (or anywhere in time) that lack a central law or rule-making entity (replete with dispute settlement procedures) above them (Tribal leaders, Popes, Sultans, Kings, Dictators, Presidents, Lords, Prime Ministers, Thanes etc).

If you can name a single community without some form of governance, you're naming an Anarchy where everyone can do whatever the **** they want absent any social control.

 

[Seeds]

Anarchism and Communism (at least as modern ideologies) have a lot of crossover, and arose at a similar time period (mid-late 1800s) in response to similar circumstances.

In particular, the rise of the powerful and centralised modern 'state', which only really became possible with the rise of modern industrial capitalism and associated liberal politics.

Neither are really socialism but Marx saw socialism as a transitionary state anyway and was deliberately non-specific about what would come next.





Come on, be honest... How many lectures in first year did you spend at the bar? No doubt plenty, and more power to you, but come on...

I mean, there are thousands of communities that aren't states. Bigfooty is a community. It's not a state by any definition. That's politics 101.

Could communities exist outside of state control? Absolutely.

Communities outside the state are private actors. Most companies are owned by communities of tens of thousands of shareholders. If socialism is just groups of people owning capital rather then individuals are we not already mostly socialist? Or does socialism have other restrictions? And what are the implications of those other restrictions?

I.e. if you can only share ownership of an asset while you are a worker and must give up ownership once you stop working then I would argue that you dont actually own the asset. A shareholder is an owner because they can sell their share if they want or keep it for as long as they want regardless of what other actions they may take. A worker earning rent from the asset only while they work does not have that ability.

Plus if only workers of assets can earn the revenue from them then how do the assets great created in the first place? In order for them to get created the state must end up controlling what happens to resources. And thus the state becomes the controller of what happens with assets and not the community of workers as it pretends. The state may allow the workers of productive assets to keep their high capital rents and the workers of unproductive assets to make no rent at all but usually socialist state leaders eventually think thats unfair and redistribute the capital rent so everyone earns the same regardless of the asset they are working on. Thus the state now controls what happens with assets and what happpens to the rent earned by assets. The workers have no control at all.

This is why economists see socialism and authoritariansim as the same thing. As socialism in practise leads to an authoritarian state.

 

[Carringbush2010]

If you can name a single community without some form of governance, you're naming an Anarchy where everyone can do whatever the **** they want absent any social control.

Sounds like governance, hierarchy, leadership is a good thing then, regardless of the societal model.

Works best in liberal democracies imo, where there is the most freedom for the individual compared to other societal models.

Yes, even our free wheeling democracy has elements of restriction on those very free individuals (mechanisms to avoid anarchy).

Call it what you will, governance, hierarchy, leadership.......... etc.

 

[Malifice]

Sounds like governance, hierarchy, leadership is a good thing then, regardless of the societal model.

It's a necessary evil. Just like you cant have Socialism without a State, you cant have Liberalism without one either.

After liberal revolutions, liberals recognized the need for a State (even if we were wary of it becoming tyrannical).

Works best in liberal democracies imo, where there is the most freedom for the individual compared to other societal models.

No, you're making the assumption that the State (telling people what to do, via lawmaking) is a deviation from Liberalism.

Liberalism is 'the State only making such laws that are reasonably necessary to protect people from harm from others'.

A State making such laws (Road laws, Criminal codes, Trade practices laws etc etc) is simply liberalism in action.

If a liberal State makes an illiberal law (sentencing people to prison for criticizing the Government) it is exercising a tyranny outside of liberalism.

 

[Carringbush2010]

No, you're making the assumption that the State (telling people what to do, via lawmaking) is a deviation from Liberalism.

You're correct.

I googled the definition. This from wiki



Which is consistent with.............

'Liberalism is 'the State only making such laws that are reasonably necessary to protect people from harm from others'.

A State making such laws (Road laws, Criminal codes, Trade practices laws etc etc) is simply liberalism in action.'

If a liberal State makes an illiberal law (sentencing people to prison for criticizing the Government) it is exercising a tyranny outside of liberalism.

I guess this is what I meant from as you put it, deviation.

 

[btdg]

No, they dont.

Anarchism is the total lack of a State. There are no means of production for the State, because the State doesnt exist.

Socialism is the means of production of a society controlled (or owned) by the State.

See the important difference between the two? Because Marx didnt.

You seem to be insisting on this idea that socialism = communism = complete state ownership. It actually makes any form of discussion impossible, because you're arguing a straw man at every post.

It's a bit like trying to discuss 'dogs vs cats' with someone who keeps insisting that all dogs are pitbulls.

No, they dont.

Anarchism is the total lack of a State. There are no means of production for the State, because the State doesnt exist.

Socialism is the means of production of a society controlled (or owned) by the State.




Nationalism came into being simultaneously with mercantilism and liberalism, but there were (and still are) plenty of States that are neither liberal nor capitalist (or both).



No, he expressly claimed that the State would 'wither away'.

And a group of people living without a State, is called an Anarchy. With no State you can't have Socialism (defined as: the means of production controlled or owned by a State)

So he was very specific about what would come next. It's either 'no State' (Anarchy) after the State 'withers away' or his entire theory is fatally flawed because he posits the existence of a Socialist State, without a State, which is a logical contradiction.

You can't have a Socialist State without a State.

Anarchism = no state, but private property rights remain.

Communism = no state, private property abolished - means of property collectively owned.

Quite similar in theory (and beyond a few hippies here and there only really contemplated in theory). Both emerged at the same time and there was initially a lot of overlap in, say, Russia (where the IWA split into Bakunin's anarchist faction and the Marxists)

Socialism = a social ownership. I can think of a bunch of different things that fit this description:

• state ownership and control
• state ownership but arms length (a la Australia Post)
• local community ownership (not the state)
• owned by a worker's trust or similar structure with a corporate board
• worker's cooperative
• partnership model (IE: a bit like a law firm, but with everyone signing some form of partnership agreement).
• communism (no one owns anything)

Socialism almost certainly has a state, but is not exclusively state production. A good model might be:
- a weaker state that provides public goods and welfare services; that controls natural monopolies (telecommunications, electricity etc) at arms length, and with increased democracy in relation to these

- more decentralisation of services to the local/community level? Community ownership of parks, etc, with more democratic involvement

- a market sphere that heavily favour firms that operate under a socialised model (worker's trusts, cooperatives, partnerships) and supports independent owners and sole traders with heavy market power protections

Would the state wither and die? Seems unlikely, but that would also be a very different world. We have seen the state 'wither and die' once before - when the Western Roman empire collapsed and left behind a much more decentralised system based on mutual obligations and ties (feudalism) that lasted 1000 years or so before a new type of central state emerged. Not saying that process is ideal... Just that it has happened...

 

[btdg]

Communities outside the state are private actors. Most companies are owned by communities of tens of thousands of shareholders. If socialism is just groups of people owning capital rather then individuals are we not already mostly socialist? Or does socialism have other restrictions? And what are the implications of those other restrictions?

I.e. if you can only share ownership of an asset while you are a worker and must give up ownership once you stop working then I would argue that you dont actually own the asset. A shareholder is an owner because they can sell their share if they want or keep it for as long as they want regardless of what other actions they may take. A worker earning rent from the asset only while they work does not have that ability.

Plus if only workers of assets can earn the revenue from them then how do the assets great created in the first place? In order for them to get created the state must end up controlling what happens to resources. And thus the state becomes the controller of what happens with assets and not the community of workers as it pretends. The state may allow the workers of productive assets to keep their high capital rents and the workers of unproductive assets to make no rent at all but usually socialist state leaders eventually think thats unfair and redistribute the capital rent so everyone earns the same regardless of the asset they are working on. Thus the state now controls what happens with assets and what happpens to the rent earned by assets. The workers have no control at all.

This is why economists see socialism and authoritariansim as the same thing. As socialism in practise leads to an authoritarian state.

I actually think you are close to the mark here... believe it or not, I don't think socialism is that big a stretch from what we have now.

'socialism is just groups of people owning capital... are we already not mostly socialist'?

The corporate model isn't a bad a starting point - it has been very good for the economy, and halfway there. But it has a fundamental 'flaw' in that it isn't 'groups of people owning capital', it creates a clear line between those who are workers and do the production (typically for a fixed wage), and those who own the firm (who do no work, but receive the surplus profits created). The workers also typically face the brunt of the 'risk' (if the firm fails, they face ruin) whereas shareholders are typically insulated (have diversified income streams and wealth to fall back on, etc).

There's an inherent class distinction built in there - two sets of people who want drastically different things. And thus capitalist societies can be inherently unstable... Business cycles, wars, even just general malaise and discontent even as material living standards rise (plus imperialism, environmental damage, etc)

Socialism looks at this and says, geez, that's certainly better than what we had before (feudalism), but:

• wouldn't it be even better if the workers had a share of the profits, and a say in how things are run?
• shouldn't those big natural monopolies (telecommunications, roads, electricity, public transport, etc) that we all depend on be run for the good of everyone, not just for profit?
• and more recently 'if we're THAT good at producing stuff, are we at the point yet where we can guarantee X for everyone' (where X = education / health / UBI / etc)

In terms of what that actually looks like, there's been plenty of models and we already have some ourselves:

- the state controlling everything is one model. I think we agree it is a bad model for a massive modern state. State control works for natural monopolies and public goods, but anything beyond that it is pretty bad.

- Snall business is an easy fix... we already have this. Sole traders with apprentices or junior partners below the owner operators, worker's collectives, and various extensions of these where you have a small number of owner-operators. Fills the heart of the economy well (bakeries, accountants, tradies, hairdressers, even pubs and restaurants). They just need a legal and economic model that protects them against firms with more market power and encourages their model (and competition) more.

- we have some models for big business too. Law firms with partnership models? Partners are owners, if they leave they sell their share, etc. that's one option. Tech startups issuing stock rather than wages? Again, these are rarely democratic or organisation wide but it is a glimpse of what could be... and these are some of our most profitable, innovative and efficient sectors. And weirdly, those tech companies have a bit of a habit of growing, innovating, then reaching a point where the system presents overwhelming advantages to moving to a publicly traded shareholder model, at which point they stagnate and flatline a bit. Hmmm.... again, a change in viewpoint and some new laws would work wonders here

- or just trusts? It's a private company, but owned by a trust; workers are the beneficiaries of the trust, there's an elected board that oversees it, etc.

- or something that is an extension of the superannuation model. It's weird in Australia - we have this system where ALL workers pay 10% of their income into a shared fund that then ends up controlling a pretty sizeable chunk of the Australian economy... I dunno, there's something there. At some point do we all end up (indirectly) owning a bit of, say, BHP Billiton, and then if that's the case, why isn't their management, objectives, and business more democratic?

All of this is feasible now to some extent but the deck is stacked heavily against those types of organisation. Laws work against social organisations (and favour capitalist enterprises), a lack of market power and lack of protection from bigger firms hurts them too. Hard to start a workers collective farm when Coles are screwing you over on pricing...

And it should be pointed out, that in capitalism the basics of life are tied to participation in the system. If you (as a basic worker) decide to start up a small cooperatively run grocery and take on Woolworths:

• you'll struggle to get loans, and won't get them on even terms,
• you'll find that key suppliers have been locked out by contracts with wooolies
• you'll find woolworths engage in predatory pricing and aggressively target you, using their size and power to absorb losses you can't
• if you don't make a profit, your creditors will foreclose - and unless you have also adopted a corporate structure you'll lose your house, your assets, and end up in poverty with a very minimal safety net (the dole - if you qualify, and a massively long wait for public housing).

So yeah, it's not that huge a leap, but does require thinking and small changes - to the legal system, to the way we think about work and stuff like that.

And alongside this, almost all socialist thinkers today (and in the Western world at least) advocate for more democracy as part of this, not less, and hopefully, a less intrusive state. At one level, that's giving a broader range of voices a platform in the economic sphere (as has happened politically). Worker ownership is part of this. But even the way we do democracy politically - if we're having more collective ownership, let's have more voices having a say in this.

 

[Malifice]

You seem to be insisting on this idea that socialism = communism = complete state ownership.

State ownership (or control) of the means of production, yes.

That's the definition of socialism. The State own (or control) the means of production.

Anarchism = no state, but private property rights remain.

No, there are no property rights without a State.

In an anarchy I can literally walk over to you, shoot you, and take your shit.

There are no courts to turn to, and no laws to enforce even if there were, because there is no State.

We're in the Zombie apocalypse (the collapse of a State, and a total anarchy). Who are you going to complain to?

Communism = no state, private property abolished - means of property collectively owned.

No, you can't have Communism (or Socialism) without a State. It's literally impossible.

Anarchy = no State.

Communism = totalitarian State that owns and controls the means of production (and usually a hell of a lot more than that).

Again, give me an example of a State-less community of human beings, either now, or at any other time in history.

Name a single ethnic, national or other population group of homo sapiens (now or at literally any time in history) that is (or was) not subject to the authority of a State.

When you realize you can't do the above, you'll then figure out the flaw with Marx's 'Stateless society'.

 

[btdg]

State ownership (or control) of the means of production, yes.

That's the definition of socialism. The State own (or control) the means of production.


No, there are no property rights without a State.

In an anarchy I can literally walk over to you, shoot you, and take your shit.

There are no courts to turn to, and no laws to enforce even if there were, because there is no State.

We're in the Zombie apocalypse (the collapse of a State, and a total anarchy). Who are you going to complain to?



No, you can't have Communism (or Socialism) without a State. It's literally impossible.

Anarchy = no State.

Communism = totalitarian State that owns and controls the means of production (and usually a hell of a lot more than that).

Again, give me an example of a State-less community of human beings, either now, or at any other time in history.

Name a single ethnic, national or other population group of homo sapiens (now or at literally any time in history) that is (or was) not subject to the authority of a State.

When you realize you can't do the above, you'll then figure out the flaw with Marx's 'Stateless society'.

All dogs are pitbulls. Give me an example of a dog that wasn't a Pitbull. You can't.

You've been given countless examples of social ownership that aren't state ownership. It's silly and a waste of time to argue otherwise

Similarly, a state has a clear set of criteria established by international convention, that is:
1. A permanent population
2. A defined territory
3. A government
4. The capacity to conduct international relations.

By this definition, I would suggest that most hunter-gatherer, tribal and nomadic populations don't meet the definition of states on one or more of the above. Nomadic populations lack permanence. Tribal populations that rely on internal status (elders) and don't have permanent government, while also maintaining important but fluid connections to other tribes of the same cultural group don't meet the criteria.

I'd also argue that most of feudal Europe fails to meet the definition, with both the 'defined territory' and 'government' conditions not really met. How would you describe someone living in Normandy in 1070? Are they living in France or England? Their direct tithes and obligations, the rules and codes they are expected to follow likely flow to the personal rule of the Duke of Normandy, who is a subject of the King of France AND himself King of England. If you asked them 'who makes the rules', 'who do they pay taxes to', etc - they would say 'William' with an emphasis on William the PERSON, not the state.

Regardless of specific classifications, there's a difference between those systems of governance and the modern centralised state (both the Liberal and Authoritarian versions) with its mass systems of coercion, regulation and taxation, and huge legal systems and codes that regulate

That's what anarchists (and I'm not one) and communists (and I'm not one of those either) refer to when talking about a 'state-less' society - one where there is no longer a powerful, centralised, permanent and dominant state. The dissolution (likely to a local level) of the centralised modern state. You can read hundreds of different perspectives on what that looks like - most just think it would mean that people enter into free agreements to join communities at the local level, and then those communities elect authorities on their own terms, for their own purposes, on a temporary and democratic basis.

And both communists and anarchists see that as the 'goal' end-state, with the key difference being around how property rights are held (anarchists = held by individuals or corporations, communists = no private property, all property is communal).

 

[Malifice]

All dogs are pitbulls. Give me an example of a dog that wasn't a Pitbull. You can't.

Yeah. Exactly.

You've been given countless examples of social ownership that aren't state ownership. It's silly and a waste of time to argue otherwise

All of those examples of social ownership that aren't State ownership are freely available to you (and everyone else) now, here in Australia, or literally anywhere else in the world, including the USA.

And we (and the USA) are not socialist.

I don't care if you and your mates want to live in a commune in the woods, with collective ownership of all property.

If you're curious, you'll need a set of rules and regulations to live by and set out how everything is going to work on your farm, dispute management systems for what to do when things go **** up, and a body in charge to make decisions about things, and enforce those disputes, when those disputes arise.

For example, look at Amish people. Technically, despite being subjects of the State of the USA, they run their own micro State, with its own rules, regulations and methods of social control.

Similarly, a state has a clear set of criteria established by international convention, that is:
1. A permanent population
2. A defined territory
3. A government
4. The capacity to conduct international relations.

By this definition, I would suggest that most hunter-gatherer, tribal and nomadic populations don't meet the definition of states on one or more of the above.

If a nomadic group of hunter gatherers, answers to a Tribal chief or group of elders, with rules in place condoning or condemning certain behavior, with dispute management procedures in place and punishments meted out for infractions, they're living subject to a 'State'.

It doesnt fit the legal definition of a modern Nation State, but it's still the same thing.

It's the people in charge of your group, setting the rules, telling you what you can (and cannot) do, and enforcing those rules on you. They also organize collective defence, settle disputes and so forth.

If your group does not have someone in charge (it's the Zombie apocalypse, and its literally every man for himself) you're living in an Anarchy.

I'd also argue that most of feudal Europe fails to meet the definition.

Tell that to a Serf, working on a manor, owned by his liege Lord, to whom he owes tithes of wheat, in exchange for protection from raiders. Tell that to the same Serf when he is pressed into the militia to fight the Lords enemies, or pays the Lord taxes, or petitions the Lord to resolve a dispute according to the law of the land.



A 'State' is the dudes in charge, who set the rules for you to follow. It's the inherent organization of the society in which you live, under which you have your place, follow the rules, and are subject to its authority.

Im not using the definition of modern Nation State (they've only been around a few hundred years) in my use of the word 'State'.

That's what anarchists (and I'm not one) and communists (and I'm not one of those either) refer to when talking about a 'state-less' society - one where there is no longer a powerful, centralised, permanent and dominant state.

Firstly, name a single predominantly Socialist State (the USSR, Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, China, Cuba) that lacked a 'powerful, centralized, permanent and dominant state' forcing Socialism on everyone (usually at gunpoint).

Communism (and Socialism) is the opposite of Anarchism. They're mutually incompatible. One requires a State enforcing equality, the other wants to do away with the State entirely.

For example, if the State 'withers away' what's to stop me and my mates, ditching Socialism, acquiring some property, and having people work at our company, for our own profit?

Bang presto, we're now billionaires.

Tell me how your Socialist utopia works without either a 100 voluntary percent buy in from literally everyone (an impossibility, and even then, you still need a State to regulate everything, settle disputes etc), or alternatively without a totalitarian State dictating to me (a capitalist, who wants nothing to do with socialism) what I can and cannot do?