Practical test of democratic Socialism

simplistic

Gary L wrote: »

Thank you for the clarity Soldie. Let me first say that I don’t study anything academically and I don’t read marx. We don’t have to pick sides on this stuff its too important. I’ve listened to current leading Socialist and Capitalist thinkers and objectively just thought about how we should run society.

I haven’t mentioned Marx once. In the original post I suggested that a small group of people form a tiny socialist collective and try to expand it. A new idea as far as I know. Is that possible? Could there be an epicentre? Just muse on it. Now we’ve moved on to the topic of a global system of production. This discussion isn’t a battle that will have a winner or a loser. We wont decide the fate of capitalism on boards.ie.

Our duty as citizens is to look inwardly and criticize our own beliefs. We must understand that there are no certainties. If a question has an answer we stop asking it! All we have are theories and models. We have to constantly probe the dark corners of our minds and ask why we believe in fact? We come into the world as a blank slate. Then the people around us tell us about the world. But its all systems and theories. None of it is fact. Its all fallible. And we are fallible. You can convince a child of anything! Having an open mind means asking why and not marrying yourself to an idea. Always avoid taking a side.

If you passionately believe in the ‘truth’ or ‘correctness’ of one side of an argument then you will be biased in your judgement and it will feel like a defeat if you change your mind. This is terrible because if you think about it, everyone does it. Objectivity is all important if we want to succeed as a species. It’s ok to make major ideological shifts. But how many people do it? Crazy that so many happen to agree with their parents.

Now that we’ve established that I’m not attacking your view, I’ll discuss my view.

1. I reject the science of Economics. It is narrow minded and sets fundamentals of capitalism as reality. How incredible a thing to measure human progress based on wealth produced? Misery and poverty and inequality are side effects. We should judge the success of society based on happiness. Did you know that 45% of Americans surveyed hated their lives?

Wealth should not come before human need. In my opinion this is a basic failing of economics. Lets discuss the idea of inefficiency. Socialism is likely to be inefficient in cost reduction and making maximum use of resources. Capitalism has utterly failed to satisfy human need. Who cares if socialism inefficiently distributes as long as it wisely and fairly distributes.

2. I reject the idea that I should have the answers to societies problems. All socialism is to me is the transfer of power from profit motive to public democracy. Its that switch that is the key. After that we can continue to solve our problems slowly and endlessly pursue perfection.

I will discuss Economic calculation though.

In Socialism goods have no intrinsic value they are produced according to need.

My criticism of the price mechanism is that the most necessary goods have the most ‘value’ and unless they are vastly overproduced they are overly profitable. Everyone should have a house. Everyone should have medical care. That’s possible and easy. They shouldn’t have a price they are basic human rights and as a society we can easily provide them to everyone for free.


If we turned to Socialism tomorrow morning, the government wouldn’t suddenly control everything, nor would it be suddenly be the sole operator of major corporations. Also, you’d still have to show up to work. We would throw away all our money though.

Lets consider how production would be regulated. Factories would be in public ownership and ultimately under the control of the general public but only in the oversight role of a shareholder and not bent on profit. institutions would have directors but would be operated democratically by their workers.

Democratically we could decide what basics had to be produced, and what we consider ‘basic’ would expand dramatically. We could cover Education, Health, Housing, transport, electricity, conservation, scientific research,
the arts, anything that we want as a society.

After that more varied and unique production is free to take place with construction and allocation of resources being allocated democratically from the bottom up and market forces would still apply. When everything has a price, demand is still judged by units sold. Take away the price and the system can still regulate supply.

Lets consider this; The factory makes products and sends them to every outlet that wants them. The outlet puts its variety of products out on the shelves free of charge. Anyone that wants one comes and takes one.
In a world where everything has a price, this is what we call looting.
But there is absolutely zero incentive to steal if everything is free, nor is there a reason to hoard ‘wealth’. Why would people take more than they need? Factories producing unwanted goods would still stop producing. That factory would then be used to satisfy demand for another good.

It could work Soldie at least admit its possible. And it would be amazing. It should take a lot of convincing before you abandon this as a possibility.

A more important point, why would people work? Firstly they wouldn’t have to. We can produce enough food, clothing and housing for everyone on the planet with only a tiny fraction of us engaged in the labour. After that life is what we make of it. We could all just become artists and we’d get along just fine. Production doesn’t have to constantly justify itself and seek to grow. We could work as much as we do now and consume all the same things if we wanted, we could do whatever we wanted. Its down to democracy. If none of us would do a days work without our life depending on it then yes Socialism would fail.
.

The point is there wouldn’t be a central plan. We wouldn’t have to read marx first. Someone suggests a product or service be produced, it goes to a vote and with enough support it happens. I believe materialism, greed and the corrupt view that we should live to work are things humanity could leave behind within a generation. We could definitely sort out world poverty. Don’t take that lightly. Socialism would end world poverty! That one fact is all that I think about. Why wont people see? Because they think they have answers but they only have questions.

Gary try and do it on a small scale with your friends or who you live with. Try and have a socialist household where everything brought into the household is
distributed based on need and give one member of the house the legal right to use force against anybody in the house.

Valmont

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" meaning that in a socialist society each person shall work according to their ability and recieve according to their needs.

And how would this be calculated? On a national scale? Also, please define need in this socialist context. How are luxuries allocated when goods are redistributed according to need?

Iwasfrozen

Valmont wrote: »

And how would this be calculated? On a national scale? Also, please define need in this socialist context. How are luxuries allocated when goods are redistributed according to need?

It is important when answering this question to make a distinction between Communist and Socialist. In communism goods are allocated by "From each according to his ability to each according to his need."

In a Socialist society as in the OP's post goods are allocated by "From each according to is ability To each according to his contribution."

Heres a good explaination of the term given by Wikipedia:
The term means simply that each worker in a socialist society receives wages and benefits according to the quantity and value of the labor that he or she contributed. This translates into workers of high productivity receiving more wages and benefits than workers of average productivity, and substantially more than workers of low productivity.

Valmont

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

In a Socialist society as in the OP's post goods are allocated by "From each according to is ability To each according to his contribution."

I wasn't aware of that distinction so I'll have to chew on it for a while. Thanks.

Iwasfrozen

Valmont wrote: »

I wasn't aware of that distinction so I'll have to chew on it for a while. Thanks.

No problem.

S-Murph

Iwasfrozen, this discussion is becoming tedious because you continuously ignore the question you are asked, and proceed to answer an unrelated question of your choosing. If I asked you to play spot the difference between Marxism and 20th century communism, your answer would be relevant. However, my question was to ask if you can "explain how the criticisms of socialist economic calculation are not applicable to "real" socialism" -- can you do this?

The economic calculation problem relates to centrally planned economies. Socialism can be a system of decentralised planning.

This article here is a criticism of the ecp: http://www.cvoice.org/cv3cox.htm

pagancornflake

simplistic wrote: »

Gary try and do it on a small scale with your friends or who you live with. Try and have a socialist household where everything brought into the household is
distributed based on need and give one member of the house the legal right to use force against anybody in the house (given sufficient reason to do so I presume, Simplistic).

Better yet, give the rest of the people in the house democratic control over the extent of the leader's powers, and the ability to dissolve and elect a different leader if the current one fails to use their power correctly.

Gary L

Despite disagreements about the feasibility of Socialist policy, who here agrees that its within the publics power to dismantle Capitalism in the short term?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Gary L

I dont mean the government I mean the entire population. How could it be beyond our ability? What would happen?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Iwasfrozen

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That makes no sense however because in a socialist system everybody will retain a stake in every system they work with.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Iwasfrozen

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

People don't relate to the publicly owned Phoenix Park because it doesn't relate to their lives. Workers will relate however to the stake that they control in their business because it is their form of income.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Joycey

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What about the steadily increasing rates of drug use of various kinds, including those prescribed for depression, in practically every Western capitalist state?

And BTW for the 78271th time the Soviet Union wasnt socialist in the terms fairly clearly specified in this thread

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Gary L

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Your not following me. I understand you think its a bad idea and also that you think people wouldn't want it. If we all decided that we did want it, unlikely though that may be, do you agree that we have the capacity to put that system in place and try it?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Joycey

Gary L wrote:

If we all decided that we did want it, unlikely though that may be, do you agree that we have the capacity to put that system in place and try it?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Correct.

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

And? I didnt ask about what your opinion about what happened in a totalitarian state capitalist dictatorship, I asked what you thought of the currently steadily increasing rate of drug abuse and prescription of anti-depressent medication in the foremost exponants of neoliberal economics/ideology.

Could you please give that opinion?

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

The title of this thread is called "democratic socialism". Correct?

The OP clearly laid out a scenario whereby the workers in a given workplace had democratic control of decision making, and the society which he then talks about later which may follow from this would hold this basic democratic control of workplaces at the very minimum, in place. Now how does that relate in any way to whatever BS you care to spout in relation to Soviet Russia/Cuba/China/Zimabwe etc etc etc etc?

I remember saying somewhere in another thread and receiving an infraction for it that you (the impersonal 'you' of course, like 'one') look like an idiot when you blatently argue against straw men. Reflect on it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

S-Murph

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Socialism:

"a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole" - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism

Can you explain how this definition matches the regimes you call socialist?

Gary L

It would be nice if you could all stop mud slinging its possible to disagree without getting agitated. I outlined my thoughts on economic calculation earlier to Soldie but never got a response. Post #59.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

S-Murph

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The primary issue for socialism is the allocation of scarce and limited resources. These would need to be planned. How exactly, I dont know.

But for most other goods and consumables, socialism assumes that there would be a change in people's consumption.

To answer your general question. Decisions of that sort, I believe, would be made in a similar way to how they are made now. If people like a particular style of shoe, then the 'firm' which produces them will increase its production based upon that styles 'takeup' in what could otherwise be described as a market, except without 'price'.

How are shoes produced now? - the owner of a firm see's it in his interest to produce shoes and make a profit.

In socialism, the producer(s) see's it in their interest to make shoes which benefits them in a similar way to how profit benefits a person in capitalism.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

S-Murph

Can you be more specific about how people's consumption patterns would change, and why?

Consumption would change for a number of reasons.

Firstly, goods would be freely available. In capitalism, goods are restricted. Restricting goods creates various effects, in my view.

It necessarily means some people in society have them, or can afford them, while others cannot. A symbolic value is therefore attached to the goods which moves beyond the goods utility value. With a symbolic value attached, material consumption and accumilation becomes the measure of success and of status. Access to the restricted becomes a constant drive and desire to improve self worth and esteem. Having goods freely available removes much of the symbolic value attached to material goods. Nothing can be gained through their accumilation when everyone can have equal possibility of accumilating them. A very simple, but extreme example is gold. An entire culture has evolved around this commodity, and people desire it because of its limited availability/high market price. Symbolic value is attached to having it. One look at the history of aluminium will show how making it 'available' removes any of the symbolic value attached. Aluminium is now considered junk/scrap.

Secondly, since socialism is a non-consumerist society, where products do not, for the most part, seek to improve peoples 'self worth' and happiness, people will consume less. All that is consumed to improve self worth presently would not be consumed. That accounts for a significantly large proportion of goods.

Thirdly, as symbolic value is not attached to goods, and where goods are used for their utility value, and are freely available, I believe people would be more likely to share. A lawn mower would not be something someone would necessarily want to 'hold on to'. Its utility value could be shared.

Fourthly, many of the goods produced under capitalism are created to fail after a period of time. Consumption is greater than what it could be if goods were manufactured better.

Fifthly, there would not be an economic imperative for growth and consumption. For example, introducing the car scrappage scheme is designed to keep people employed, maintain production, sustain the car industry and their profits. However, it means perfectly drivable cars are scrapped in the name of consumption.

Increasing production is easier said than done. In order to make more shoes, the firm needs more leather. How will you ensure that the leather is available?

For the reasons above, there would be less consumption of shoes in the first place. As with capitalism, it would be in someones interest to turn to cattle production to supply the shoe manufacturers. The 'hidden hand' would solve it. If there is still a shortage of leather, structures of planning resources would need to be formed.

So what exactly is the analogous reward to the producer for making shoes?

The reward, or motivation, would be the same as it is in capitalism - except, rather than symbolic value taking the form of material wealth, it would would be replaced with others in the the form of your contribution and willingness to undertake that which society needs, labour.

Either way, in capitalism or in socialism, people are motivated by their interaction with other people.

Think of it as Bourdieu's forms of capital without economic capital.

Edit, just adding point 5.

Gary L

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No central planning of any kind, except on basics which are given to everybody. Again your just re-asking questions that I feel I've fully dealt with. Do you not see the bias you have on this? This insatiable cynicism is a symptom of your lack of objectivity.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Gary L

Your trying to picture how life as we live it now could function without Capitalism. This is why your so confused.