Practical test of democratic Socialism

S-Murph

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No, im saying people will have access to everything, except that which requires planning.

You seem to be saying that in a capitalist society, I will work hard, so that I can buy a BMW, so that I can enjoy the higher self-esteem associated with owning and driving a BMW. But in a socialist society, everyone will drive a BMW? Where will all these BMWs come from?

No, im saying that because there is the possibility that everyone can access a BMW, the symbolic value associated to such a car would not exist. People would desire it for its utility value, of which BMW models at present far exceed any useful utility - high speeds, for example.

Since there is nothing for gold corresponding to the Hall-Héroult process for extracting aluminium from ore, gold remains rare, and thus precious. Admittedly, if gold were as abundant as aluminium, it would not be as highly prized—but it isn't. Do you think gold would have no value in a socialist society?

I think gold would be one of those things which may require planning, particularly its allocation in production. But at the same time, its quite possible that if it were 'freed up' there would be no symbolic value attached to it. Its common use as a fashion accessory would be diminished or not exist.

How can you be so sure of that? If I can get as much of everything I want, what's to stop me from living in a luxurious mansion, with 6 cars in the garage and flat-screen TVs in every room?

I cant be sure of it. Both of us are open to being wrong.

I dont think a person living in a socialist society would need the utility value of six cars. I also dont see how having six cars could have some symbolic value, when everyone could do the same.

Do you really think people attach much "symbolic value" to lawn mowers? Personally, I don't like lending out my lawn mower because I find that people have a rather lackadaisical attitude toward returning such things—and they often come back damaged or broken.

No but people attach economic value to them. Lending them out when youv paid for them might end in it breaking and you losing an asset, or part of your wealth.

Historically, goods manufactured under societies calling themselves "socialist" have not exactly been of top-notch quality. How would you guarantee that socialist factories can attain the superior manufacturing quality needed to make goods last for a long time?

I think the opposite would be a problem in socialism. There might be too much resources, quality and time put into an object since there would be no price mechanism.

I think it would be in the interest of producers to produce products that consumers are happy with. Thats why I think quality would be increased. There would also not be an economic imperative to create a short lifecycle for a product.

Are you referring to Adam Smith's invisible hand of the market? How would that function without a price mechanism?

Society would function upon a 'subjective' market. All values are subjective as it is, and the capitalist consumer market works based upon these subjective values. Removing the price mechanism would not remove the subjective values people place upon items.

For example, the subjective value a poor person places on a rolex watch would be far higher than a rich person who owns 20 rolex watches. Decisions are based upon these subjective values.

And what would those planning bureaus do? They might intervene to ensure greater supplies of leather, but there might be unanticipated knock-on effects: farmers might be ordered to move into cattle production, but only at the cost of moving tillage land into pasture, which might in turn create scarcities of wheat and shortages of bread. How can you predict all this?

No, farmers wouldnt be "ordered" to move into tillage. Planning could work in two ways. By either organising greater production of leather (you would have plenty of people who want to apply their labour for greater reward) which is the market solution, or, through the rational allocation of the shoes already produced.

If I read that correctly, my reward for engaging in labour is my contribution to society. What do you propose to do about the freeloaders? What about the people who don't want to contribute?

I think such people would be few and far between. In socialism, work is the means to obtain that which is gained through material wealth in capitalism. Self worth, social status, social acceptance etc.

If people dont want to contribute, then thats up to them.

But I don't need capitalism or socialism to interact with others—I can sit on my backside down at the pub all day long, chatting away to all my friends, if I want. What's the incentive to work?

I have already explained. The incentive is the same as under capitalism.

In capitalism, people dont work for money, for bmw's or for nice clothes. They work for the social and symbolic value attached to these, framed and defined by the society in which they live.

Since little social and symbolic value can be obtained from material objects in socialism - what people seek - social value - would be obtained from what benefits society - labour.

The medium to obtain social value would not be through the medium of material wealth, but through direct participation in labour.

Valmont

Iwasfrozen wrote:

Socialism has never even been tried ?

Iwasfrozen wrote:

Marx and Engles never intended a socialist society to exist side by side with a free market world. Indeed Engles wrote in "The Principles of Communism": "Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone? No.

Iwasfrozen wrote:

You used Cuba and the Soviet Union as examples in your post, neither of which are actually socialist and never were. Because they diverged from Marx's idea of a world wide revolution. Got it ?

It would seem that, according to your stringent definition, instituting a pure socialist system would have to involve the entire world trying it at the same time. Considering that there is no possible way that this could ever happen, why bother? Why push this shifting, equivocal, abstract notion of a collectivist utopia at all? It is simply naive to think that everyone in the world could agree to another socialist experiment.

Iwasfrozen wrote:

According to Marx Socialism must precede communism just as capitalism must precede socialism

This is the crux of it for me; socialism needs the productive capacities of a capitalist society in order to get things going which is ironic because the first step is to dismantle them piece by piece. That reminds me of this: "...They expect, when they find themselves in a world of bloody ruins and concentration camps, to escape moral responsibility by wailing: 'But I didn't mean this!" Ayn Rand, 1946.

S-Murph

Valmont wrote: »

It would seem that, according to your stringent definition, instituting a pure socialist system would have to involve the entire world trying it at the same time. Considering that there is no possible way that this could ever happen, why bother? Why push this shifting, equivocal, abstract notion of a collectivist utopia at all? It is simply naive to think that everyone in the world could agree to another socialist experiment.

That would be the case for communism, as communism requires the entire world to have a revolution at some point, but not necessarily at the same time. Socialism could exist without it being global, for socialism is a stage where a state, or forms of defence are established to protect the social system from external and internal aggression. This, to me, is what distinguishes socialism from communism in both a Marxist and anarchist sense.

This is the crux of it for me; socialism needs the productive capacities of a capitalist society in order to get things going which is ironic because the first step is to dismantle them piece by piece. That reminds me of this: "...They expect, when they find themselves in a world of bloody ruins and concentration camps, to escape moral responsibility by wailing: 'But I didn't mean this!" Ayn Rand, 1946.

Dismantle what?

Changing ownership of a factory does not require the factories destruction.

silverharp

S-Murph wrote: »

That would be the case for communism, as communism requires the entire world to have a revolution at some point, but not necessarily at the same time. Socialism could exist without it being global, for socialism is a stage where a state, or forms of defence are established to protect the social system from external and internal aggression. This, to me, is what distinguishes socialism from communism in both a Marxist and anarchist sense.

ok , take Ireland as an example, we need to import all our oil and most of our gas among other things, who will sell these types of products to Ireland when there is no converable currency? Also most if not all multinationals will write off their investments so your Microsoft employee will be sitting in an office with nothing to do and not being paid yet he will have a right to fill up at the empty petrol station and go to the now empty supermarket to get his food.
Would the economy not collapse and revert to a tyrannical dictatorship "in the national interest". Honestly, I cant see the logical steps that get you from mixed economy to socialist model you have laid out without a collapse in living standards and a reversion to subsistance agriculture.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Gary L

There is no intelligent discussion to be had here. Again and again you paint this picture of a control hungry nanny state that restricts or plans production. You actually have a bias against an idea. Its pathetic. Your coming at this discussion like it's a battle and your on team capitalism.

Try to be objective please. Democratic Socialism is a legitimate model for human society and I feel throughout this thread I've demonstrated that. Go back over and read the thread and see if you can bring your cave man brain to think about the idea without attacking it with questions that it has already answered.

Joe1919

Gary L wrote: »

Bound heart, free spirit - If one binds ones heart firmly and imprisons it one can allow ones spirit many liberties: I have said that before. But no one believes it if he does not already know it. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Nietzsche also said '. . Whom do I hate most heartily among the rabbles of today? The rabble of Socialists, the apostles to the Chandala, who undermine the workingman's instincts, his pleasure, his feeling of contentment with his petty existence--who make him envious and teach him revenge. . . . Wrong never lies in unequal rights; it lies in the assertion of "equal" rights. . . . What is bad? But I have already answered: all that proceeds from weakness, from envy, from revenge....'
(The Antichrist 57)

I think I would leave Nietzsche out of this argument if I was you.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Iwasfrozen

Valmont wrote: »

It would seem that, according to your stringent definition, instituting a pure socialist system would have to involve the entire world trying it at the same time. Considering that there is no possible way that this could ever happen, why bother? Why push this shifting, equivocal, abstract notion of a collectivist utopia at all? It is simply naive to think that everyone in the world could agree to another socialist experiment.

Why bother ? Why bother persuing a utopian dream ? Surely that question is answerable in itself. Capitalists are always very quick in using Human nature to point out the compatibility of their own system. But they fail to see the true virtue of Marxism, that is that everybody is equal.
All human beings are born equal it is our society what babies get a better chance in life.

As for whether this is possible, according to Marx's theory of human history the replacement of Capitalism by Socialism is inevitable. Just as the replacement of Feudalism by Capitalism was.

Valmont wrote: »

This is the crux of it for me; socialism needs the productive capacities of a capitalist society in order to get things going which is ironic because the first step is to dismantle them piece by piece. That reminds me of this: "...They expect, when they find themselves in a world of bloody ruins and concentration camps, to escape moral responsibility by wailing: 'But I didn't mean this!" Ayn Rand, 1946.

It's not ironic at all, Capitalism is a stage in human development, the Fourth Stage in the sequence to be precise. Socialism cannot follow Feudalism just as Capitalism cannot follow a Slave society.

silverharp

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why bother ? Why bother persuing a utopian dream ? Surely that question is answerable in itself. Capitalists are always very quick in using Human nature to point out the compatibility of their own system. But they fail to see the true virtue of Marxism, that is that everybody is equal.
All human beings are born equal it is our society what babies get a better chance in life.

can you define what you mean by equal? what significance or implication do you think it has?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

As for whether this is possible, according to Marx's theory of human history the replacement of Capitalism by Socialism is inevitable. Just as the replacement of Feudalism by Capitalism was.

it dosnt ring true. I'd prefer to see it that there is a cyclical shift in power between the state and the individual. I can see no logical reason why or how the socialist model would end up carrying the torch for humanity

Iwasfrozen

Silverharp2 wrote: »

can you define what you mean by equal?

As in we are all born naked, wet and screaming. Prince or pauper, there is no difference upon birth.

Silverharp2 wrote: »

what significance or implication do you think it has?

Capitalism is by it's nature unfair, it favours those with more money.

Silverharp2 wrote: »

it dosnt ring true. I'd prefer to see it that there is a cyclical shift in power between the state and the individual. I can see no logical reason why or how the socialist model would end up carrying the torch for humanity

Acoording to Marx each progressive society will fail because each stage or epoch will create a new class or invention that will lead to its eventual downfall. In the case of capitalism the working class, to which the capitalist class gave birth in order to produce commodities and profits, is the "grave digger" of capitalism. The worker is not paid the full value of what he or she produces. The rest is surplus value - the capitalist's profit, which Marx calls the "unpaid labour of the working class." The capitalists are forced by competition to attempt to drive down the wages of the working class to increase their profits, and this creates conflict between the classes, and gives rise to the development of class consciousness in the working class. The working class, through trade union and other struggles, becomes conscious of itself as an exploited class.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx's_theory_of_history#Capitalism

silverharp

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

As in we are all born naked, wet and screaming. Prince or pauper, there is no difference upon birth.

so a mother should just go into the nursury and pick up the 1st baby at hand to bring home? your statement doesnt convey any meaning accept as part of a dictionary definition of what happens at birth.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Capitalism is by it's nature unfair, it favours those with more money.

If capitalism is defined simply as spontaneous order via a price mechanism then it cant be unfair that one person contributes more and rightly receives more. it would be unfair if the lazy farmer was paid the same as the productive farmer no?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Acoording to Marx each progressive society will fail because each stage or epoch will create a new class or invention that will lead to its eventual downfall. In the case of capitalism the working class, to which the capitalist class gave birth in order to produce commodities and profits, is the "grave digger" of capitalism.

I dunno , capital is free to move around the planet. Unions might have been able to shake down the factory owner in the past and charge an economic rent for their work eg GM and Ford in the US circa 1970. but I doubt Marx had in mind the freedom with which platform companies can move around the globe today.

Iwasfrozen

Silverharp2 wrote: »

so a mother should just go into the nursury and pick up the 1st baby at hand to bring home? your statement doesnt convey any meaning accept as part of a dictionary definition of what happens at birth.

No a mother should not go into the nursury and pick up the 1st baby at hand. Where you got that stupid idea we'll never know.
My point is that all babies are born equal but once they leave the hospital thay are brought home to families of varying levels of income. Those brought into families of higher income are more likely to succed. That isn't fair.

Silverharp2 wrote: »

If capitalism is defined simply as spontaneous order via a price mechanism then it cant be unfair that one person contributes more and rightly receives more. it would be unfair if the lazy farmer was paid the same as the productive farmer no?

That would be true, if people succeded only by working hard but the thing is luck also plays a huge part. And having one person succede over another because he was more lucky is not fair.

Silverharp2 wrote: »

I dunno , capital is free to move around the planet. Unions might have been able to shake down the factory owner in the past and charge an economic rent for their work eg GM and Ford in the US circa 1970. but I doubt Marx had in mind the freedom with which platform companies can move around the globe today.

I don't see what the movement of capital has to do with Socialism.

Valmont

Iwasfrozen, you did not actually respond to any of the points I made even though you quoted them. Also, you will have to do better than "because Marx said so".

Iwasfrozen

Valmont wrote: »

Iwasfrozen, you did not actually respond to any of the points I made even though you quoted them. Also, you will have to do better than "because Marx said so".

That's the thing. I did respond to your points.

Valmont

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That's the thing. I did respond to your points.

I suppose you did if you want to label some throwbacks to something Marx said a response...

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

As for whether this is possible, according to Marx's theory of human history the replacement of Capitalism by Socialism is inevitable. Just as the replacement of Feudalism by Capitalism was.

Iwasfrozen

Valmont wrote: »

I suppose you did if you want to label some throwbacks to something Marx said a response...

When you state somehting like this, I don't seehow I can give a better answer.

Valmont wrote:

Considering that there is no possible way that this could ever happen, why bother?

You said that socialism isn't workable because a revolution cannot happen. I responded by saying according to Marxian tought the revolution is inevitable. What more do you want ?

Soldie

:pac:

Iwasfrozen

Soldie wrote: »

Gary L

I already dealt with Ludwig. This is ridiculous. You have valid points but your not directly debating my responses. Your arguments fit against the classroom definitions of Socialism but they don't hold when compared to the theory itself. Honestly I think it's bias.

Joe1919

One of my past interests (in political philosophy) was in comparing the US attitude to redistribution of wealth to the European attitude.
Anyhow, (afaik) there is no hard empirical evidence as to the superiority of the American liberal democracy type system to the more social democracy type system as found in Sweden.
Furthermore, it has been argued by some economists (Alesina & others) that the reason for the reluctance of Americans to redistribute wealth is down to politics and racism, 'American redistribution makes it quite clear that hostility to welfare comes in part from the fact that welfare spending in the US goes disproportionately to minorities.'(p.61).

I have posted a link to the paper below.
http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/423__0332-Alesina11.pdf

simplistic2

The Welfare State and Absolute Poverty Welfare state supporters typically contend that social-welfare programs reduce poverty. Critics argue that, over time, such programs instead may increase pov-erty by inhibiting growth of economic output and/or employment. A number of recent cross-country empirical studies have found that welfare state generosity is strongly associated with low relative poverty, but there has been virtually no cross-national analysis of welfare state effects on absolute poverty, which is at the heart of the critics' argument.

This paper uses Luxembourg Income Study data to examine the relationship between welfare states and absolute poverty for working-age households in Sweden, Germany, the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s. Consistent with the critics' charge, there is an association across these five countries between wel-fare state generosity and rising pretax-pretransfer absolute poverty. Yet the larg-est decline in posttax-posttransfer absolute poverty during this period, and the lowest level as of the mid-1990s, were found in Sweden, the country with by far the most generous welfare state.


Canada's superior performance relative to the United States also suggests that social-welfare policies can help to reduce abso-lute poverty. To most supporters of the welfare state, one of its chief benefits is poverty reduction (Goodin et al. 1999). By redistributing income from the well-off to the poor, social-welfare programs help to raise the incomes of some households above the poverty line. In contrast, many welfare state critics (Alesina and Perotti 1997; Friedman and Friedman 1979; Lindbeck 1995; Murray 1984; Tullock 1997) and even some sup-porters (Arrow 1979; Okun 1975) contend that, over time, generous social-welfare programs reduce the growth of economic output and/or employment. As a result, the welfare state may increase poverty rather than reduce it. To a large extent, proponents of these two views talk past one another.


http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/0/8/1/0/pages108101/p108101-2.php