Madvillain
Pro
The feels in this thread already 
The Official Socialism/Democratic Socialism/Communism/Marxism Thread
- Thread starter Type Username Here
- Start date
To me, this gets to the heart of Socialism. Even if you don't subscribe to the notion of authentic satisfaction, etc, which I don't myself, the fact is that Socialism, at heart, concerns the character of labor. Historically, the term has been used to describe theories of production, NOT theories of distribution (which is what Republicans here want you to believe- Socialism is just about redistribution of wealth, etc.) Distribution is part of the picture, sometimes, maybe even most of the time, but strictly speaking, it's not an essential element. As the great Socialist (even Hayek, of all people, calls him a "wise man") R.H. Tawney said, "What is important is not that all men should receive the same pecuniary income. It is that the surplus resources of society should be so husbanded and applied that it is a matter of minor significance whether they should receive it or not." Similarly, look at Marx's famous line from his Critique of the Gotha Program: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." A lot of clowns who want to slander Marx take this quote as a sign that Marx wants crushing, conformist equality where everyone is forced to be the same and rationed out the exact same resources, when, if you actually read it closely, the quote itself clearly assumes all manner of diversity and thus, forms of inequality, including in the case of resources. The kind of egalitarianism that Socialism is committed to is centrally a kind of baseline quality of life, and thus basic equality of opportunity. This is what separates Socialism from Capitalism.
Same goes for statism- once again, Republicans and the modern Right in general wants people to believe that Socialism is essentially about rampant government expansion and state control. This is simply not true. Historically, government regulation or oversight of industry was seen as a means, not an end- it only became seen as an end relatively recently, which is a big mistake. Some Socialists ended up becoming Statists due to the clear successes (and there were successes, which the Right loves to ignore) that came from nationalizing or regulating some industries, ignoring the failures elsewhere, which, despite being often overstated by the Right, do exist and can't be ignored. Once you see state control as means to a particular end- the transformation of labor- you're free to apply it where it works and reject it where it doesn't.
At bottom, the Socialist argument is that work should be functional, NOT acquisitive. Humans can be both incredibly greedy and incredibly altruistic. We aren't the utility-maximizing, perfectly rational, atomistic actors that free marketers and much of the Right wants us to be- we're homeostatic creatures who employ what Herbert Simon calls "satisficing reason." Whatever human nature we have, both history and modern science demonstrates it to neither be purely individualist and greedy, nor purely generous and communal, and thus not strongly tilted enough in the direction that makes ultra-capitalist arguments worthwhile.
The goal is to cultivate this altruism through public culture, again, not specifically or necessarily through State imposition, making work a form of public service and not primarily about seeking profit, and involving the recognition that even our most individualistic self-interest can only be served interdependently. That is what it all comes down to. It's not about eliminating all markets, enterprise, ambition, diversity of lifestyles, or even all inequality of resources. That's also where Socialism's historical focus on the conditions and dignity of work come from- the end of child labor, increased safety and comfort standards in the workplace, proper pay/vacation/etc, are all products of specifically Socialist thought (through unions,) and had to be fought for and taken from the capitalists.
@Type Username Here @Broke Wave @Broletariat @No_bammer_weed @VictorVonDoom
Some of you may be specifically interested in these ideas, whether you agree or not.
Last edited:
marleyg
drug
"That said, it was/is government, not capitalism that allowed slavery."
actually it was govt that abolished slavery
actually it was govt that abolished slavery
Its was govt that did both as always
That's the part that keep being missed on many issues. Govt. sets all the rules, chooses the field, refs the game, determines the prizes, and now apparently picks the winners and losers...
Yet somehow they can get progressives to blame the players in the game
Last edited:
marleyg
drug
if youre gonna say govt did both then im gonna say it was the conservative status quo folks who enabled slavery and the progressives who worked to end it
@The Real Can you give some examples of successful nationalized industries?
and socialism's end game is statism, intended or not.
Full nationalization is a risky proposition. When I talk about nationalizing I'm thinking of things like Norway's oil or even, if we're construing broadly, universal healthcare in some countries. We must also acknowledge, though, that we're operating under different value systems- your idea of success (in which I assume industry profit is central) isn't necessarily mine, as I suggest in my previous post, because I don't think the profit motive as a standard of success naturally guarantees the best possible distribution of services and resources.
As for Statism, I don't buy the Hayekian line of thinking- neither the organization of politics along the lines of centralized/regulated vs decentralized/unregulated (though, intriguingly, he was fine with some form of social safety net,) which is why I think his arguments can only provide a reasonable warning against some forms of state activity, not a serious, generalized teleology of governmental styles, not the negative freedom argument that people around your coordinates of the political grid tend to espouse. Both seem too simple and anti-empirical to me, same as hyper-Communists who want everything nationalized and all wealth redistributed precisely and a total command economy/universally large State.
I'm blaming govt. as a whole... the side you want to point the finger at is irrelevant.
either way, slavery wasn't the result of capitalism or any other economic system, never has been...
Last edited:
marleyg
drug
but it was born from cap it al ists
it was a cap it al ist endeavor
it was a cap it al ist endeavor
marleyg
drug
aka slavery was capitalism
In contrast to its failures you present foreign "successes", along with a specified definition of success to include those successes...?
Surely you have something less subjective and applied here in the U.S.?
"I don't think the profit motive as a standard of success naturally guarantees the best possible distribution of services and resources."
I don't think there are any "guarantees", but capitalism has been shown to produce the best combination of distribution and liberty. Along with the highest all around standard of living.
Last edited:
Slavery in general doesn't have to be the result of any economic system, but that doesn't change the fact that the rise of Capitalism in Europe is intimately connected to all the major events in the history of slavery from that same period. It also doesn't change the fact that the profit motive was a clear driving force in the emergence of the Transatlantic slave trade (which isn't to say that the profit motive entails slavery or anything like it.) Slavery can still be a result of capitalism, in other words. Furthermore, the government sanctioning slavery doesn't mean that the history begins there. The government only did so because slavery became seen as a necessary element in economic growth, and was thus argued for vociferously by early Capitalists. Both Fernand Braudel's epic 3-volume history of Capitalism and books like Eric Williams' Slavery and Capitalism do a good job of arguing these points.
In contrast to its failures you present foreign "successes", along with a specified definition of success to include those successes...?
Surely you have something less subjective and applied here in the U.S.?
"I don't think the profit motive as a standard of success naturally guarantees the best possible distribution of services and resources."
I don't think there are any "guarantees", but capitalism has been shown to produce the best combination of distribution and liberty. Along with the highest all around standard of living.
You need to clarify your first point. The fact that I have a specified definition of success is nothing special- you do, too. We value different things, plain and simple. Secondly, the US doesn't have a strong history of Socialism. The successes of Socialism here are limited to things like improving working conditions and plight of the average worker, and to some extent, the Civil Rights movement. Asking for examples of nationalization here makes no sense.
As for Norway, you'll have to explain why "success" is in quotes for you. I suspect it's tied to the fact that, once again, you don't share my value system, confirming my earlier point. As for failures, we already know there are many cases where nationalization has failed. That doesn't make the prospect useless unless you extrapolate needlessly.
Finally, on the point of distribution and liberty, there's no reason for me to accept that point whatsoever. The quality of life in countries with socialist policies isn't uniformly lower than ours. I also don't think it's debatable that universal healthcare is superior to our present system, for example. Furthermore, if we're talking historically, the only way your point would make sense is if you were able to divorce the history of colonialism, slavery, neoliberalism from Capitalism- but I don't see how that's possible. Capitalism in its purer forms entails and almost always results in inefficient oligopolies and stagnation, government collusion included, and thus unnecessary inequality of opportunity, and has done so since its Venetian origins with a consistency that can't be ignored. Once again, Braudel is the historian to read on this point.
On liberty, specifically, once again, we don't share beliefs. I don't think negative liberty is either realistic or desirable, so capitalism producing the most negative liberty (which I don't actually think it does, anyway) doesn't change my own position.
Finally, following Braudel, markets /= capitalism. That's Capitalist misunderstanding at work. The benefits of markets can't specifically be claimed by Capitalism.
Last edited:
marleyg
drug
marx' point of capitalism transitioning to socialism and then communism is that they will be better combos of distribution and liberty , and that is is a natural and [hopefully] inevitable change
are the highest standards of living not in scandinavia?
are the highest standards of living not in scandinavia?