Politics So I guess when the shit hits the fan, everyone's a socialist

[Gralin]

Fitting then that liberal capitalism is what is going to destroy the entire planet I reckon

 

[Big Papa Ted]

Socialism is when the workers own the means of production.

Not society as a whole - that’s headed more at communism.

Theres many schools of thought in socialism

Under a socialist society that worker owned whatever would still be expected to contribute via taxation to a social safety net and also be expected to do so without dodging tax like multinationals do.

I'm sure there's one specific form of socialism theory where that's the case, but given this topic is on the overarching concept of socialism; the most accepted/common model is societal ownership.

 

[kranky al]

From your own link.

In Australia, right now, a group of people could form a co-op, live on communal land, and pool resources, for the mutual benefit of all.

That might resemble socialism (and feel free to call it socialism), but absent control and ownership of that property and co-op by the State, it's not socialism.

It's the same way as if the same group of people were subject to the whims and orders of a single person at that commune who has absolute authority to lead and make decisions for that commune, without any consultation from others at the commune. While that system would resemble a dictatorship (and you could call it a dictatorship) it's not actually a dictatorship.

You are trying to pigeon hole something that has a lot of different forms.

The scandinavian countries have democratic socialism.

 

[kranky al]

I'm sure there's one specific form of socialism theory where that's the case, but given this topic is on the overarching concept of socialism; the most accepted/common model is societal ownership.

Scandinavian countries and democratic socialism say otherwise.

 

[Big Papa Ted]

Scandinavian countries and democratic socialism say otherwise.

So if we're talking theoretical socialism (which is this topic), how many models are worker owned vs. socially owned?

Also I think we'll disagree Ref Scandinavian countries

 

[kranky al]

From your own link.

In Australia, right now, a group of people could form a co-op, live on communal land, and pool resources, for the mutual benefit of all.

That might resemble socialism (and feel free to call it socialism), but absent control and ownership of that property and co-op by the State, it's not socialism.

It's the same way as if the same group of people were subject to the whims and orders of a single person at that commune who has absolute authority to lead and make decisions for that commune, without any consultation from others at the commune. While that system would resemble a dictatorship (and you could call it a dictatorship) it's not actually a dictatorship.

You are trying to pigeon hole something that has a lot of different forms.

The scandinavian countries have democratic socialism

If you're curious, my issue (as a liberal) with socialism (control of the means of production by the State) is this:

1) In a Capitalist (liberal) State, there is literally nothing stopping people from forming a co-op, sharing wealth equally, having communal property, and living (for all intents and purposes) in a socialist manner.

2) In a Socialist State, the opposite is not true. There are laws that stop people from plying their trade for profit. The State tells you what to do, what you can (and cannot) own, what you can (or cannot) earn for a living. It controls every aspect of your life.

Hand control of the means of production over to the State, and the State becomes a single party tyranny. It's happened literally every, single, time.

which is why id never advocate for statist socialism but im pretty keen on trying coops etc.

But theres a lot of weight and momentum going against that. Getting finance isnt going to be easy.

Im actually surprised more corporations dont give shares as bonuses instead of bonuses themselves.

 

[kranky al]

Early modern socialism (1800-1830s)

Utopian socialism The first modern socialists were early 19th-century Western European social critics. In this period socialism emerged from a diverse array of doctrines and social experiments associated primarily with British and French thinkers—especially Thomas Spence, Charles Fourier, Saint-Simon, Robert Owen. Outlining principles for the reorganisation of society along collectivist lines, Saint-Simon, Fourier, and Owens served as the primary advocates for what later became known as Utopian Socialism. The views of these original utopian socialist thinkers were not identical. For example, Saint-Simon and Fourier saw no need to abolish private property or adopt democratic principles, while Owen supported both democracy and collective ownership of property.

Followers of the radical English labor agitator Thomas Spence, the Spenceans, were notable figures in the early British labor movement. While Fourier and Owen sought to build socialism on the foundations of small, planned, utopian communities, Saint-Simon desired to enact change through a large scale initiative that put industrialists and experts in charge of society.

Early-19th-century followers of the utopian theories of such thinkers as Owen, Saint-Simon and Fourier could use the terms co-operative, mutualist, associationist, societarian, phalansterian, agrarianist, and radical to describe their beliefs along with the later term socialist. [30] The English word "socialist" in its modern sense relates to Owenite thought and dates from at least 1822. Robert Owen was considered the founder of socialism in England.

 

[sdfc]

Fitting then that liberal capitalism is what is going to destroy the entire planet I reckon

More modern living standards than liberal capitalism.

 

[kranky al]

More modern living standards than liberal capitalism.

Mate they are constantly advertising with the most sophisticated psychology telling us we arent enough, our homes are drab and last decade, our furniture is superseded, our clothes are out of date etc etc.

Nothing is built to last more than a few years - its shit and it falls apart.

We havnt chosen that, i cant buy a tap adapter that goes from 1 tap to 4 that lasts more than a couple of years.

Companies deliberately make shit unrepairable so we have to back and consume consume consume.

I opted out of this bullshit some time ago and once you do and look at it from the outside you see its like a disease.

We had very well made wooden furniture made from recycled jarrah and other good hard woods, that’s it for us - that furniture will stay with me till i fall off.

I buy the best quality gear i can that’s designed to last from my truck to the smallest things.

Our lifestyle are a result of capitalism, not the other way around. Its capitalism throwing big money at taking the brakes off everything environmentally.

 

[sdfc]

Mate they are constantly advertising with the most sophisticated psychology telling us we arent enough, our homes are drab and last decade, our furniture is superseded, our clothes are out of date etc etc.

Just playing to the desire for status.

Nothing is built to last more than a few years - its s**t and it falls apart.

We havnt chosen that, i cant buy a tap adapter that goes from 1 tap to 4 that lasts more than a couple of years.

Companies deliberately make s**t unrepairable so we have to back and consume consume consume.

I opted out of this bullshit some time ago and once you do and look at it from the outside you see its like a disease.

We had very well made wooden furniture made from recycled jarrah and other good hard woods, that’s it for us - that furniture will stay with me till i fall off.

I buy the best quality gear i can that’s designed to last from my truck to the smallest things.

Completely disposable but cheap.

Our lifestyle are a result of capitalism, not the other way around. Its capitalism throwing big money at taking the brakes off everything environmentally.

So capitalism has delivered us the highest living standard in history. I agree. Socialist countries have been among the biggest polluters.

 

[Gralin]

More modern living standards than liberal capitalism.

No it's capitalism

 

[kranky al]

Just playing to the desire for status.

Completely disposable but cheap.

So capitalism has delivered us the highest living standard in history. I agree. Socialist countries have been among the biggest polluters

 

[sdfc]

View attachment 1672837View attachment 1672838

All that reflects is our higher living standard. The USSR was a huge polluter, as was Mao's PRC.

 

[sdfc]

No it's capitalism

Well capitalism has delivered us higher living standards.

 

[Gralin]

Well capitalism has delivered us higher living standards.

Yeah we have nice houses to cook in when the world burns, how convince

 

[sdfc]

Yeah we have nice houses to cook in when the world burns, how convince

Don't you see that sitting on a computer complaining that the affluent members of the globe are using too many resources is a contradiction?

 

[Gralin]

Don't you see that sitting on a computer complaining that the affluent members of the globe are using too many resources is a contradiction?

I'm not sitting on a computer though. That would be extremely uncomfortable

 

[Malifice]

Fitting then that liberal capitalism is what is going to destroy the entire planet I reckon

Liberal capitalism is not responsible for Putin or Trump. Neither are liberals.

 

[Malifice]

The scandinavian countries have democratic socialism.

And the Germans had National socialism. What's your point?

Neither country/ State were (or are) socialist (barring East Germany, post Soviet annexation of course). The Scandinavians and the Nazi regime had elements of socialism applied (State control of the means of some elements of production). But so do we (to a lesser extent), and so do literally every other nation in the world today.

It wasn't enough for the Nazis to be truly socialist, and it's not enough to categorize the Swedes, Norwegians or Danes as truly socialist either.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

But to me the distinction is fairly clear, are the means of production owned by society?

This is the fundamental disagreement we have. You believe socialism can only be when the surplus value of labour accrues to society as a whole. I believe it's when the surplus value of labour accrues to the worker that produced it, whether that's directly through worker ownership, or indirectly through state ownership on behalf of the worker. I don't believe in such a narrow definition of socialism, because there are many different types of socialism.

Lenin? The dude who literally directly advocated for a single party (proletariat) dictatorial State (the Soviets):

So what?

In chapter five of The State and Revolution (1917), Lenin describes the dictatorship of the proletariat as:

I notice there's nothing at all in there about worker co-operatives. You can parrot Wikipedia at me as much as you want, but please try to remain relevant to the topic at hand.

Leninism is literally founded, predicated and based on the creation and dominance of a Socialist State that controls the means of production (as opposed to private ownership of the same).

And he also said "the system of civilized cooperators is the system of socialism". That isn't in contradiction with the above. The problem is you're starting from the assumption that worker co-operatives are private ownership, when they're a third category entirely, separate from private ownership or state ownership. Let go of the assumption and then re-read everything, you'll see there is no contradiction.

By the way, Lenin also instituted the New Economic Policy, so even he didn't follow this absolutist concept of Leninism that you think he believed in.

That's its core thesis FFS!

Since you're very well-acquainted with theory, perhaps you can explain to me, what is the difference between market socialism and state capitalism?

 

[Big Papa Ted]

This is the fundamental disagreement we have. You believe socialism can only be when the surplus value of labour accrues to society as a whole. I believe it's when the surplus value of labour accrues to the worker that produced it, whether that's directly through worker ownership, or indirectly through state ownership on behalf of the worker. I don't believe in such a narrow definition of socialism, because there are many different types of socialism.

We'll have to agree to disagree then, to me the bolded is just capitalism with a different ownership structure.

 

[kranky al]

And the Germans had National socialism. What's your point?

Neither country/ State were (or are) socialist (barring East Germany, post Soviet annexation of course). The Scandinavians and the Nazi regime had elements of socialism applied (State control of the means of some elements of production). But so do we (to a lesser extent), and so do literally every other nation in the world today.

It wasn't enough for the Nazis to be truly socialist, and it's not enough to categorize the Swedes, Norwegians or Danes as truly socialist either.

The nazis had a socialist wing in the strassers - they were purged in the night of the long knives.

After that socialism had no place in the nazi party aside from the name.

The scandinavians have socialism as part of their governmental dna.

 

[kranky al]

All that reflects is our higher living standard. The USSR was a huge polluter, as was Mao's PRC.

So when capitalism pollutes its just living standards - when communists pollute - its evil.


I can see you are a critical thinker.

 

[kranky al]

And the Germans had National socialism. What's your point?

Neither country/ State were (or are) socialist (barring East Germany, post Soviet annexation of course). The Scandinavians and the Nazi regime had elements of socialism applied (State control of the means of some elements of production). But so do we (to a lesser extent), and so do literally every other nation in the world today.

It wasn't enough for the Nazis to be truly socialist, and it's not enough to categorize the Swedes, Norwegians or Danes as truly socialist either.

More succinctly you have the definition of capitalism:



But whats this, state capitalism?





But but….

Up till the 90’s Australia had a shit ton of state industries from banking to utilities.

Didnt mean Australia had forsaken capitalism.

 

[Malifice]

The nazis had a socialist wing in the strassers - they were purged in the night of the long knives.

After that socialism had no place in the nazi party aside from the name.

No, even after (and before) the internal purge of the more radical socialist wing of the party (Strasser and Rohm), the Nazis seized control of much of the means of production and nationalized - or exerted considerable State control over - many industries.

Hitler didnt want to go 'all the way' into full blown Leninism-Marxism by stripping land and wealth from the bourgeoise because he didnt want to piss off the wealthy landowners, Junkers (mainly old Prussians) and big business and industry. The bourgeoise were largely left alone.

Scholars have called it a mixed economy, somewhere between full blown Capitalism (like the USA) and the command economy of the USSR:

The Nazi economy has been described as dirigiste by several scholars.[11][12] Overall, according to historian Richard Overy, the Nazi war economy was a mixed economy that combined free markets with central planning; Overy describes it as being somewhere in between the command economy of the Soviet Union and the capitalist system of the United States.[13]

Economy of Nazi Germany - Wikipedia

The Nazi State still exercised considerable control over the means of production. Far more than the contemporary Swedes, Norwegians and Danes do, and many consider them to be a 'mixed socialist/ capitalist' State as well.