nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Practical test of democratic Socialism

Gary L

Could a small group of individuals test socialist philosophy by joining together financially?
Let’s say for instance if they formed a business and pooled all their income into it.

Now the sole responsibility of the business is to provide for their basic needs, meaning a good standard of living. With the rest of the money they provide the next desired luxury or invest in say a newsagents. Now the newsagents is being owned and operated by this democratic council. The shop won’t have a blind ambition of profit maximization. The business will be run according to what is best for the community (business). The profit from the shop is taken into the communal fund and the benefit is spread among all.
The business may invest in new members.

Say they set up housing, essential services, food, and every luxury afforded to them and offer it to someone in exchange for their pooling their income into the community fund. They could offer this to the employees of the newsagents.

In theory, they could offer this to everyone as long as a job existed that could cover their basic living expenses. Expansion of the community could be done in phases with continual reinvestment of the joint fund in new factors of production which would perpetually increase the wealth of the society. At this point the group would be operating as a large investment co-operative in its interactions with the external capitalist system.

Internally it will function as a democratic socialist community. In this community, the workforce will receive the full value of their labour. Wealth won’t slowly shift away from the working class towards a much smaller group of owners. This increase in a normal person’s affluence would be huge. The money would be more than enough to perpetually increase the size of the community, as any job in a capitalist system creates more wealth than the value of the workers wages.

The organization could be run just like government, the only difference being that the government controls all the factors of production within the community. This would be an extension of democracy. To avoid bureaucracy, the government obviously would delegate responsibility for each area down along through its workforce. Businesses would be run by their workers. As the community develops the ability to satisfy many of the 'wants' as well as 'needs' of its populous, Money would be redistributed back individually but equally. It wouldn't be possible for individuals to use this money to make more money, only to accumulate personal goods.

This is of course a loss of a 'freedom' but in reality would it be so bad relatively speaking? All your basic needs guaranteed to be covered, much better public services and the financial ability to buy at least as much luxury goods than you do now. The top richest people in our current system would slowly lose their excess but would hardly starve. They'd enjoy at a minimum the same standard of living as everyone else.

Back to the original principle of investment as opposed to increased luxury. Eventually everyone who wants to be in is in, and everyone is on a very good standard of living. At this point all the excess wealth of society can be devoted to;

· Increasing technology based production and eliminating human labour.
(This couldn't happen in a capitalist system because without paid workers the system doesn't function.)

· Investing as much as is needed in renewable energy.

· Funding education, research and the arts

Essentially the wealth of society would be used to continually better society, based on a democratic decision making process. It would be nice if it worked. Would it?

Regarding the loss of innovation, competition would still exist on luxury goods and let it not be said that a profit motive is needed for scientific research.

Regarding the loss of motivation, Jobs would still be allocated on a merit basis and the natural desire for status would lead people to strive for promotion and to enter professional fields. Also a goal of government would be to reduce the need for labour as much as possible, focusing instead as much as possible on education and research.

I've never heard a proper argument as to why democratic socialism wouldn't work. Anyone agree that this is something we should strive for?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

potlatch

rjb80 wrote: »

Very interesting thread, however, the fatal flaw is that it is absolutely necessary for certain people to be rewarded better than others;

I've dealt with a lot of accountants and no way on earth would they study for 7-10 years to be an accountant and spend their life working 9 in the morning till 10 at night looking at spreadsheets all day just to be paid the same as a cleaner.

There are a lot of professions out there that pay high wages so that enough people will chose that career to fill demand and the high pay is the only motiation for them.

You're confusing levels/categories of analysis, or at least cause and effect (though Marx would call the relationship 'dialectical')

One is about value. As a society, how to we put a value one one kind of work as distinct from another? One can view things your way, or one can view things another way. Namely that being an accountant and being a cleaner involve different kinds of work - accountancy is a more cognitive profession, cleaning is a physical profession. As Marx noted, there is 'concrete labour' (the specific activity) and 'abstract labour' (measured in 'universal labour time'). In other words, looking at it abstractly, an accountant and a cleaner may work 7 hours a day performing qualitiatively different duties. Thus, the issue is how each profession is 'valued' and 'priced'. Looking coldly at your example of accountancy versus cleaning, it's clear that in spite of identical hours worked, the accountant is better off than the cleaner. If this dynamic is transposed to the whole of society, the consequence is economic and social inequality. Morally (and even Adam Smith believed capitalism must be tempered by 'moral sentiments'), this is not 'fair'.

Your other confusion is about the effects of the social relation of productions (capitalism, the status quo) on one's life choices. A great many people make decisions about employment due to demands of the capitalist labour market. Others go with the flow, others have no choice. In many respects, it is the logic of capitalism that generates those attitudes of people towards employment - it is the internalisation of the demands of employers, not necessarily people. We all know people who are deeply unhappy because they chose professions due to market demand and/or remuneration rather than satisfaction.

Soldie

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Well this is akward, you didn't understand my post yet I can't explain it because if I did I would be going off topic. contradictory, eh ?

All I'm saying is that, as I'm sure you can accept, this thread is about socialism; so discussing free markets is off topic.

Again you mentioned communism when you said there would be the absence of a price mechanism. Socialism has a price Mechanism.

I see I'm going to have to explain it even simpler:
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 ?

If you read carefully the post where I mentioned the Soviet Union and Cuba, you'll find that immediately afterwards I said that "efore the howls of 'that's not socialism!' begin, the point is that the means of production were collectivised, and whether they're collectivised under a dictatorsip or a hippie commune is irrelevant". In a society whereby the means of production are collectively owned--be it under communism, socialism, or whatever else, the point is still the same--it is impossible to allocate resources efficiently. Video or reading, take your pick.

Nevertheless, can you tell me more about the socialist price mechanism?

No I'm not, because the point is frickin huge, if you can pick out areas of the concept you don't understand I can engage with that.
Short of writing a thesis there is no way I could cover all the points of Marxian economics.

I did pick out an area -- economic calculation.

InReality

Amish society might approximate some aspects of this.
Also israeli kibbutz.

rjb80

magma69 wrote: »

More skilled workers who bear more responsibility in society would naturally make a larger wage. Employers just would not be able to exploit employees.

Fair enough, Iwasfrozen, I take back my comment on you being naive but you did ask to be called it!

However, magma, in the example that the OP provided, who decides how much of a larger wage the skilled workers should receive? Is there a formula that Marx provided (which I think potlatch was suggesting) or would the people decide what is fair?

Either way do you think this would satisfy everyone or lead people to becoming disgruntled?

Iwasfrozen

Soldie wrote: »

, the point is that the means of production were collectivised, and whether they're collectivised under a dictatorsip or a hippie commune is irrelevant". In a society whereby the means of production are collectively owned.

The point is not the same, another area where the Soviet Union and Cuba diverged from Marxist tought is on industrial build up. According to Marx, a society must first be Capitalist in order to build up infrastructure.
Neither Cuba nor the Soviet Union where ever Capitalist in the real sence, so they cannot be considered Socialist.
If they where not Marxist then I don't know why you are using them as examples to attack Marxism.

Soldie wrote: »

Nevertheless, can you tell me more about the socialist price mechanism?

I linked you to an entire wikipedia article.

Soldie wrote: »

I did pick out an area -- economic calculation.

Which I linked you to. And told you that I couldn't summerise on an internet message board.

Soldie

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The point is not the same, another area where the Soviet Union and Cuba diverged from Marxist tought is on industrial build up. According to Marx, a society must first be Capitalist in order to build up infrastructure.
Neither Cuba nor the Soviet Union where ever Capitalist in the real sence, so they cannot be considered Socialist.
If they where not Marxist then I don't know why you are using them as examples to attack Marxism.

Please read my posts more carefully. I am not arguing that Cuba and the Soviet Union are/were socialist in the orthodox Marxist sense, so your point about industrial build up is utterly irrelevant; I am pointing out that the means of production are/were under public ownership in both countries -- albeit under a dictatorship. Are you denying this?

I linked you to an entire wikipedia article.

That is not an acceptable form of debate. You claimed that a socialist price mechanism exists -- can you substantiate this claim? This is a discussion forum, after all.

Which I linked you to. And told you that I couldn't summerise on an internet message board.

I didn't ask you to summarise the entire article you linked, and I have no idea why you linked it. My guess is that you didn't understand the question, and you thought that linking a wikipedia article was an acceptable rebuttal.

Iwasfrozen

Soldie wrote: »

Please read my posts more carefully. I am not arguing that Cuba and the Soviet Union are/were socialist in the orthodox Marxist sense, so your point about industrial build up is utterly irrelevant; I am pointing out that the means of production are/were under public ownership in both countries -- albeit under a dictatorship. Are you denying this?

Couple of points here:
1) Cuba and Soviet Union were not socialist.
2) The means of Production are/were under public ownersip.
3) You are trying to use that fact to claim that the socialist means of production is flawed.
4) Socialism is not designed to exist alonside Capitalism.
5) These countries were not socialist so their means of production was not the socialist means of production.

Soldie wrote: »

That is not an acceptable form of debate. You claimed that a socialist price mechanism exists -- can you substantiate this claim? This is a discussion forum, after all.

Yes I did claim it existed, and then I gave you a link to a wikipedia article on it. I'm sorry If you think it is un-acceptable, but as I've said short of writing a thesis on the subject there is no way I can outline the socialist price mechanism on a discussion forum.
If you want to discuss socialism then you are expected to have a certain knowledge of it before hand.

Soldie

1) Cuba and Soviet Union were not socialist.

Non sequitur.

2) The means of Production are/were under public ownersip.

Okay, so my example was valid. Any economy in which the means of production are collectivised cannot allocate resources efficiently because there is no market exchange and thus no price mechanism. Any "exchanges" in such systems are merely internal transfers. This is true both in theory--as was shown in the 1920s--and in practice -- as my examples have shown.

3) You are trying to use that fact to claim that the socialist means of production is flawed.

Non sequitur.

4) Socialism is not designed to exist alonside Capitalism.

Non sequitur.

5) These countries were not socialist so their means of production was not the socialist means of production.

Non sequitur.

Yes I did claim it existed, and then I gave you a link to a wikipedia article on it. I'm sorry If you think it is un-acceptable, but as I've said short of writing a thesis on the subject there is no way I can outline the socialist price mechanism on a discussion forum.
If you want to discuss socialism then you are expected to have a certain knowledge of it before hand.

You can't outline it because it doesn't exist. Nevertheless, I'm sure you can type up one or two lines explaining your interpretation of it. potlatch is interested, too, so let's hear it!

Iwasfrozen

Soldie wrote: »

Non sequitur.

Alright, you are getting on my nerves now, you keep at me to condense something so large that it has taken many people smarter then us life times of work to develop yet you won't engage any of my points ?
I gave you that link so you could do some reading, become informed and then come back to me so we could have a decent discussion.
Go read the link I gave you, acquire some knowedge of Marxian economics, not alot but enough to hold a discussion about it and then come back to me. Because I'm getting very tired of writing down my points only to have you dismiss them.

Soldie wrote: »

Okay, so my example was valid. Any economy in which the means of production are collectivised cannot allocate resources efficiently because there is no market exchange and thus no price mechanism. Any "exchanges" in such systems are merely internal transfers. This is true both in theory--as was shown in the 1920s--and in practice -- as my examples have shown.

Your examples where not valid because they were not Marxist. I have given you numerous reasons as to why they weren't Marxist, which of course to my annoyence you dismissed.

Soldie wrote: »

You can't outline it because it doesn't exist. Nevertheless, I'm sure you can type up one or two lines explaining your interpretation of it. potlatch is interested, too, so let's hear it!

See first reply.

Soldie

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Alright, you are getting on my nerves now, you keep at me to condense something so large that it has taken many people smarter then us life times of work to develop yet you won't engage any of my points ?
I gave you that link so you could do some reading, become informed and then come back to me so we could have a decent discussion.
Go read the link I gave you, acquire some knowedge of Marxian economics, not alot but enough to hold a discussion about it and then come back to me. Because I'm getting very tired of writing down my points only to have you dismiss them.

Non sequitur: a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said

You keep doing this, all the time. In your last post you said that "Cuba and [the] Soviet Union were not socialist", that I'm "claim[ing] that the socialist means of production is flawed", that "ocialism is not designed to exist alonside [c]apitalism", and that "[Cuba and the Soviet Union] were not socialist so their means of production was not the socialist means of production". In the post before that you said that "[a]ccording to Marx, a society must first be Capitalist in order to build up infrastructure". Absolutely none of those things are in any way relevant to this discussion. Even your first post in this thread was a non sequitur.

Please don't insult my intelligence by saying that I could "do some reading" and "become informed"; your linking of the entire Marxian economics wiki was nothing short of a shameful cop-out. I appear to know more about Marxian economics than you do in that you seem to think that there exists a socialist price mechanism. If everything is collectively owned then there is no exchange -- one cannot exchange with themself, after all. As a result, there are no market prices and what follows is the inability to measure revenues and costs. In trying to change the topic with each passing post, and asking me to "engage" with said topic-changes, you have repeatedly shown that you do not grasp the concept of economic calculation.

Your examples where [sic] not valid because they were not Marxist. I have given you numerous reasons as to why they weren't Marxist, which of course to my annoyence [sic] you dismissed.

I never said they were Marxist, so why on earth are you trying to refute a claim that was never made?

Iwasfrozen

Soldie wrote: »

Non sequitur: a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said

Please do not insult my intelligence, I am well aware of what Non sequitur means.

Soldie wrote: »

You keep doing this, all the time. In your last post you said that "Cuba and [the] Soviet Union were not socialist", that I'm "claim[ing] that the socialist means of production is flawed", that "ocialism is not designed to exist alonside [c]apitalism", and that "[Cuba and the Soviet Union] were not socialist so their means of production was not the socialist means of production". In the post before that you said that "[a]ccording to Marx, a society must first be Capitalist in order to build up infrastructure". Absolutely none of those things are in any way relevant to this discussion. Even your first post in this thread was a non sequitur.

You continue to use Cuba and the Soviet Union as examples of a Maxian society, I have used a number of examples to show that they are not Maxian.

Soldie wrote: »

Please don't insult my intelligence by saying that I could "do some reading" and "become informed"; your linking of the entire Marxian economics wiki was nothing short of a shameful cop-out. I appear to know more about Marxian economics than you do in that you seem to think that there exists a socialist price mechanism. If everything is collectively owned then there is no exchange -- one cannot exchange with themself, after all. As a result, there are no market prices and what follows is the inability to measure revenues and costs. In trying to change the topic with each passing post, and asking me to "engage" with said topic-changes, you have repeatedly shown that you do not grasp the concept of economic calculation.

Alright I'm aslso tired of this.
Here is how the value of a product is discovered in Marxian economics, I read it on the same article I posted to you:

Value = MP + LT

Where:
Value = Value of the product.
MP = Value of the means of production.
LT = The labour time.

Calculation of value of a product:
If labour is performed directly on Nature and with instruments of negligible value, the value of the product is simply the labour time. If labour is performed on something that is itself the product of previous labour (that is, on a raw material), using instruments that have some value, the value of the product is the value of the raw material, plus depreciation on the instruments, plus the labour time. Depreciation may be figured simply by dividing the value of the instruments by their working life; eg. if a lathe worth £1,000 lasts in use 10 years it imparts value to the product at a rate of £100 per year.

Soldie wrote: »

I never said they were Marxist, so why on earth are you trying to refute a claim that was never made?

You made it when you tried to draw up a comparison between Cuba and the Soviet Union with a true Marxist society.

Soldie

Iwasfrozen wrote:

You continue to use Cuba and the Soviet Union as examples of a Maxian society, I have used a number of examples to show that they are not Maxian.

No, I don't. In fact, I've made it explicitly clear several times now that I'm not claiming either Cuba or the Soviet Union are/were Marxist. Very early on in the thread I pointed out that I wasn't interested in getting involved in a debate as to whether any of the 20th Century communist countries practiced "real" Marxism. Curiously, you ignore this and continue to claim that I'm labelling them as Marxist.

Alright I'm aslso tired of this.
Here is how the value of a product is discovered in Marxian economics, I read it on the same article I posted to you:

Value = MP + LT

Where:
Value = Value of the product.
MP = Value of the means of production.
LT = The labour time.

Calculation of value of a product:
If labour is performed directly on Nature and with instruments of negligible value, the value of the product is simply the labour time. If labour is performed on something that is itself the product of previous labour (that is, on a raw material), using instruments that have some value, the value of the product is the value of the raw material, plus depreciation on the instruments, plus the labour time. Depreciation may be figured simply by dividing the value of the instruments by their working life; eg. if a lathe worth £1,000 lasts in use 10 years it imparts value to the product at a rate of £100 per year.

The labour theory of value is not a price mechanism. It's a value theory -- the clue is in the name. It's embarassing that you tell me to educate myself on Marxian economics when you make such a grave error. At least this finally shows that you missed the point entirely.

You made it when you tried to draw up a comparison between Cuba and the Soviet Union with a true Marxist society.

The only similarity I drew upon was the public ownership of the means of production. You even agreed with me here when you said that "[t]he means of Production are/were under public ownersip [in Cuba and the Soviet Union]". In making that statement and also saying that it's not the same as in Marxism, you're implying that in a Marxist economy the means of production are not under public ownership, but that's not true. To make it really simple: the only thing I'm comparing is the ownership of the means of production, nothing more -- so kindly desist from falsely claming that I'm conflating Marxism with communism as practiced in the 20th Century.

potlatch

I also don't think that economic description of commodity value encapsulates the complexity of Marx's theory of value (see my previous post on the subject). I agree with Soldie that your post explains a value theory, not a price mechanism.

I had previously asked for a price mechanism under socialism/communism. Can we get one?

potlatch

Interesting, and educated, debate on marxian economics: http://www.irishleftreview.org/2010/01/04/marxist-economics/

Worth a read.

Gary L

We must move away from our obsession with facts. There are no sides in any argument, only the vain struggle for truth, weakened by the belief in fact.

I relate completely with your perception of the system as opposed to the individual. The more I think about global problems and solutions the more my view is pulled back and my perspective widened. I believe perception of reality is beyond us, yet it is the desire to perceive it that makes us unique. We must therefore strive to comprehend it as best we can.
In doing so we have to accept that there are no certainties and that all we can posit are theories and best guesses. This is the scientific ideal but such thinking needs to be applied to all our notions of truth and reality. Truth is a corruption, it doesn't exist. If we want to understand reality we have to embrace the fact that we will never understand it, we only have questions. Our hope is in searching for perspective, never boldly declaring that we have found answers.

Its an easy concept to apply to physics but we have to bring this mode of thought into the human perspective. It is the sole responsibility of the human individual to question every notion of truth that is suggested to it. It must never accept any system as an absolute and realize that all notions of reality are subject to change. It is precisely our curiosity and our ability to think in the abstract that makes us a special intelligence. To pose answers to great questions is to suggest that the work is done and that there can be no more improvement.
This is dangerous thinking when applied to our ideas about government, energy, language or even matter. I believe this is the reason why perception trails behind reality in human affairs. It is foolish to ever think 'this is the way its done'. When we can truly come to terms with our ignorance, we can start to strive for objectivity and then we can take off the blinkers and approach our problems with an open mind.

It is from here that I'd like to start our discussion on Socialism. Let us understand that the word Socialism has no meaning in and of itself, and its likely that we are each applying a different meaning to it. In my perception of Socialism there is no leader. I wholly reject the idea that any man should or even can have power over another. I also reject central planning.
Socialism from my perspective is simply the extension of democracy into every area of human production. Its is the rejection of the idea that production should only take place when it is profitable to an individual. The incredible production and engineering capacity of mankind should surely be used in the best interest of mankind. Production should be democratically controlled at every level, from factory to government.
Only then can we abandon solid notions of how best to run society and allow policy to change and grow freely at any level. Any other system of government could grow out of Socialism as there is no established institution or control mechanism that isn't entirely under public control.

Joycey

potlatch wrote: »

Interesting, and educated, debate on marxian economics: http://www.irishleftreview.org/2010/01/04/marxist-economics/

Worth a read.

Thanks for that. Great read, as you say. The debate between whoever wrote it and someone else after is actually pretty informative as well. They go into somewhat more depth about one or two of the points in the piece itself.

Iwasfrozen

Soldie wrote: »

No, I don't. In fact, I've made it explicitly clear several times now that I'm not claiming either Cuba or the Soviet Union are/were Marxist. Very early on in the thread I pointed out that I wasn't interested in getting involved in a debate as to whether any of the 20th Century communist countries practiced "real" Marxism. Curiously, you ignore this and continue to claim that I'm labelling them as Marxist.

You did say that however you continued to use them as examples, stating that the collectivization of production will not work because it didn't work in the Soviet Union of Cuba is like trying to study a pot using a potato.

Soldie wrote:

The labour theory of value is not a price mechanism. It's a value theory -- the clue is in the name. It's embarassing that you tell me to educate myself on Marxian economics when you make such a grave error. At least this finally shows that you missed the point entirely.

That's funny, I don't remember stating it was a price mechanism, again you added up two plus two and came up with five.

This is what I believe I wrote:
"Here is how the value of a product is discovered in Marxian economics."

Soldie wrote:

The only similarity I drew upon was the public ownership of the means of production. You even agreed with me here when you said that "[t]he means of Production are/were under public ownersip [in Cuba and the Soviet Union]". In making that statement and also saying that it's not the same as in Marxism, you're implying that in a Marxist economy the means of production are not under public ownership, but that's not true. To make it really simple: the only thing I'm comparing is the ownership of the means of production, nothing more -- so kindly desist from falsely claming that I'm conflating Marxism with communism as practiced in the 20th Century.

Again you fail to understand my post, I really think you're doing this on purpose now.

1) Yes, the Soviet Union and Cuba were not Marxist.
2) Yes, the production in the Soviet Union and Cuba were put under public ownership.
3) They were not marxist and thus their methods of production were not marxist.

I really don't understand how I can spell it out any clearer.

P.S OP, what way do you want to discussion to go ?

Soldie

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You did say that however you continued to use them as examples, stating that the collectivization of production will not work because it didn't work in the Soviet Union of Cuba is like trying to study a pot using a potato.

Since you're so adamant that this is not the case, can you explain how the criticisms of socialist economic calculation are not applicable to "real" socialism?

That's funny, I don't remember stating it was a price mechanism, again you added up two plus two and came up with five.

This is what I believe I wrote:
"Here is how the value of a product is discovered in Marxian economics."

That's quite a fine hole you're digging yourself there. I said that "you do not grasp the concept of economic calculation", and you responded by telling me about "[the] Calculation of value of a product [...] in Marxian economics". I was talking about a price mechanism, and you responded by talking about value theory. Either my claim is reasonable--that you do not grasp the concept of economic calculation--or you decided to tell me about the labour theory of value in response to a completely unrelated post, for no discernible reason whatsoever -- which is it?

Again you fail to understand my post, I really think you're doing this on purpose now.

1) Yes, the Soviet Union and Cuba were not Marxist.
2) Yes, the production in the Soviet Union and Cuba were put under public ownership.
3) They were not marxist and thus their methods of production were not marxist.

I really don't understand how I can spell it out any clearer.

P.S OP, what way do you want to discussion to go ?

I understand your post just fine. Incredibly, you're tirelessly pointing out that Cuba and the Soviet Union are/were not Marxist, despite me repeatedly saying that I never made such a claim.

Joycey

Something somewhat related to this thread, in that it diagnoses problems of the capitalist means of production/distribution, in terms that I feel I understand slightly better as a result of what ive read here. Just discovered your man today, makes house music that im not the biggest fan of but seems to be intelligent and a much more varied producer than I thought.

Il link to it anyway, I found it very informative
http://www.comatonse.com/writings/ipodisraping.html

Perhaps where it fits in to this thread is that the OP's proposal may serve as a counterpoint to such problems as Thaemlitz sees for producers and small labels. However it would be hard to imagine how it could grow out of the music scene to begin with, i.e. have the technical and personal knowhow to actually make an impact on the scene, and still have the initial capital to get going, and also how it could ever compete for advertising space/time with established distributors. I certainly dont know the ins and outs of the situation but discussion would be good, especially given that we now have an insight into the problems of capitalist production from a very concrete position.

Gary L

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

P.S OP, what way do you want to discussion to go ?

I'd like an objective discussion. Realize that all notions of nationality, economics, politics, class, justice, fairness or anything are ideas only and shouldn't form barriers that restrict your thinking. Its hard to have a meeting of the minds if you've both restricted your minds with the belief in absolutes and rules.

Neither you or Soldie are discussing this issue from a selfish perspective. Both are thinking up ways to better humanity based on the principles and ideas that you have built up throughout your lives. Try to start from a point of mutual respect and together come to an understanding of each others ideas.
Surely you can see the absurdity in that you both believe the other to be wrong. There is no right and wrong. Its not the point of intelligent debate to prove or to disprove but to find the best solution to our problems.

Iwasfrozen

Gary L wrote: »

I'd like an objective discussion. Realize that all notions of nationality, economics, politics, class, justice, fairness or anything are ideas only and shouldn't form barriers that restrict your thinking. Its hard to have a meeting of the minds if you've both restricted your minds with the belief in absolutes and rules.

Neither you or Soldie are discussing this issue from a selfish perspective. Both are thinking up ways to better humanity based on the principles and ideas that you have built up throughout your lives. Try to start from a point of mutual respect and together come to an understanding of each others ideas.
Surely you can see the absurdity in that you both believe the other to be wrong. There is no right and wrong. Its not the point of intelligent debate to prove or to disprove but to find the best solution to our problems.

I think I understand what you mean, altough if we are to have a meritable discussion we should start over by at least knowong each others stance on the issue.

Soldie, where do you stand on the political spectrum ?

Gary L wrote:

Since you're so adamant that this is not the case, can you explain how the criticisms of socialist economic calculation are not applicable to "real" socialism?

I didn't think it needed to be said why the comparisions between a socialist economy and a non-socialist economy where different.

But I suppose the biggest difference was that the Soviet Union traded with other countries, something that was not applicable to Marxian economics.

Soldie

Joycey wrote: »

Something somewhat related to this thread, in that it diagnoses problems of the capitalist means of production/distribution, in terms that I feel I understand slightly better as a result of what ive read here. Just discovered your man today, makes house music that im not the biggest fan of but seems to be intelligent and a much more varied producer than I thought.

Il link to it anyway, I found it very informative
http://www.comatonse.com/writings/ipodisraping.html

Perhaps where it fits in to this thread is that the OP's proposal may serve as a counterpoint to such problems as Thaemlitz sees for producers and small labels. However it would be hard to imagine how it could grow out of the music scene to begin with, i.e. have the technical and personal knowhow to actually make an impact on the scene, and still have the initial capital to get going, and also how it could ever compete for advertising space/time with established distributors. I certainly dont know the ins and outs of the situation but discussion would be good, especially given that we now have an insight into the problems of capitalist production from a very concrete position.

I'm not entirely sure what point the author is trying to make, or indeed if it "diagnoses problems of the capitalist means of production/distribution". The first three-quarters of the article details the relationship between record label, distributor, and the record store; and explains how companies are going out of business due to a collapse in demand for CDs. This much is true of the capitalist mode of production in that new innovations--in this case digitised audio--come about; older and more redundant technologies fall by the wayside. Earlier, more primitive examples of this include the redundancy of the ice deliveries when home fridges and freezers came about.

In the second last paragraph he talks about the labour theory of value and surplus value, which are terms I consider to be fallacies. Do you agree with objective value? That you are "not the biggest fan [of] house music" may suggest otherwise!

Nevertheless, I don't really see the relevance of the article; but perhaps I misinterpreted it.

pagancornflake

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I linked you to an entire wikipedia article.

Soldie wrote: »

That is not an acceptable form of debate. You claimed that a socialist price mechanism exists -- can you substantiate this claim? This is a discussion forum, after all.

Lets have a look at your history of employing the same tactic Soldie...

Soldie wrote: »

When I said that "there is a difference between voluntarily entering a contract and being coerced into paying taxes" you replied by stating that "the former provides no incentive basis for fidelity on its own". The implication you're making is that a contract is unenforceable without an arbitrary centralised central state and, as such, is redundant. There is abundant reading material available on polycentric law which proves that this is not the case.

pagancornflake wrote:

this is an argument, not a reading list. If there is reading to be done on poly centric law, then it must be done by you and paraphrased here if you are going to suggest it as a better alternative.

Soldie wrote:

I pointed to the possibility of polycentric law in response to your repeated implication that state arbitration and state infrastructure are necessary.

You claimed that objective enforcement of law can exist without the state. You did this by telling me to read about poly centric law. Not only are you objecting to Iwasfrozen doing this, you provided no sources in the similar case when Iwasfrozen did.

Soldie

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I think I understand what you mean, altough if we are to have a meritable discussion we should start over by at least knowong each others stance on the issue.

Soldie, where do you stand on the political spectrum ?

I don't see the relevance of this question. I responded to the original post by pointing out the fallacies within it, and our exchange has been about that all along. I'm aware that Gary L is looking for an honest debate, but I'm not being dogmatic. The criticisms I've made are what I consider to be some of the fatal errors of socialism.

I didn't think it needed to be said why the comparisions between a socialist economy and a non-socialist economy where different.

But I suppose the biggest difference was that the Soviet Union traded with other countries, something that was not applicable to Marxian economics.

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?

Joycey

Your argument seems to be about Soldie thinking that Marxism is not necessarily socialism, and hence a critique of socialism is not a critique of Marxism, leading to confusion when iwasfrozen defends Marxism and feels that he is justified in doing so. The thread is about (in part at least) "democratic socialism".

Wikipedia says that Marx and Engels came up with "the most influential of all socialist theories", which would support iwasfrozen. I would agree, Marxism=socialism. Socialism may not = Marxism, but nevertheless a discussion of one would seem to imply the other. I doubt there are any theories of socialist society which do not rely heavily on Marxist ideas.

Hence attacking "socialism" in Cuba/China would merit a response which accepts or denies an attribution of the term to those societies on the grounds that they do/not cohere with Marx's conception of what a socialist society would be.

They are not socialist because they are operate within the market system, people are still waged, democracy at every level of the production system is not operative, soviets are not existent, at least with any power (i think). Im sure others can point out more.

The only primary texts of Marx' ive read are the Paris Manuscripts, in which I was more concerned with his theory of alienation than anything else, and the Communist Manifesto, which I thought was pretty trashy, but thats because it was only supposed to be a propagandist pamphlet in the first place. Hence Im not really well versed enough to put forward a more comprehensive critique of China/Cuba along traditional Marxist lines. As far as Im concerned, the fact that they are totalitarian dictatorships means that they are not socialist societies, the two are mutually exclusive. If you are still not satisfied Soldie, hopefully someone else can come in with a more persuasive/better informed argument.

Soldie

Joycey wrote: »

Your argument seems to be about Soldie thinking that Marxism is not necessarily socialism, and hence a critique of socialism is not a critique of Marxism, leading to confusion when iwasfrozen defends Marxism and feels that he is justified in doing so. The thread is about (in part at least) "democratic socialism".

Wikipedia says that Marx and Engels came up with "the most influential of all socialist theories", which would support iwasfrozen. I would agree, Marxism=socialism. Socialism may not = Marxism, but nevertheless a discussion of one would seem to imply the other. I doubt there are any theories of socialist society which do not rely heavily on Marxist ideas.

Hence attacking "socialism" in Cuba/China would merit a response which accepts or denies an attribution of the term to those societies on the grounds that they do/not cohere with Marx's conception of what a socialist society would be.

Joycey, the point I am trying to make is that I am not interested in getting involved in a debate as to whether the Soviet Union or Cuba are examples of "real" socialism, and for that reason I have been careful not to label them as such. Having debated with socialists in the past I've noticed that any time the the 20th century communist countries are labelled as socialist, howls of "it wasn't real socialism!" follow soon after. Having said that, I'm also not saying that Cuba and the Soviet Union were not socialist; I'm simply not offering any opinion on them being socialist or not. Besides, it's not even relevant to the point I was making.

The reason Cuba and the Soviet Union were even mentioned is because I was drawing a similarity between the public ownership of the means of production as espoused by "real" Marxists, and by the aforementioned countries. To make myself crystal clear: I'm not saying that they are publicly owned in the same way--dictatorial centralisation versus democratic decentralisation--only that in both cases they are publicly owned. That is the only link I am making--that in both instances the means of production are collectively owned--nothing more; so repeatedly pointing out that those countries are/were not socialist is a non sequitur. The reason I made the above link is because it is a failure inherent in any political system in which the means of production are under public ownership -- be it socialism, communism, Marxism, or whatever else. This failure is inherent to any such system because there is no market exchange and, as such, no price mechanism. To reiterate a point I made earlier in this thread: this was shown to be the case back in the 1920s when the economic calculation debate was raging. If someone can show that the criticism is inapplicable then, by all means, do so.

Joycey

As I said earlier in the thread, im not sure how committed I am to the proposal suggested by the OP.

Heres a video (havent watched it in a while), that I think suggests a form of remuneration which would be differential, not everyone getting the same thing, but which at the same time does not rely on market valuation of labour. Argh, cant find it now. The theory is called parecon, "participatory economics". Il edit in a second with the link. Cant find the video itself, but heres a post from me outlining it badly
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61012544&postcount=11
There is a link in the quoted text to a wikipedia article on it

As to the commodity price thing, im not sure I have an answer. Im hoping to read more economics stuff after this year, too busy at the moment to study anything properly. I will be doing a Hegel and Marx course though, which I cant wait for

Gary L

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.

Berthram

Hi....
I'm just wondering would some forms of 'Communitarianism' fit in well here or would this 'water down' Gary's proposal.

Iwasfrozen

Berthram wrote: »

Hi....
I'm just wondering would some forms of 'Communitarianism' fit in well here or would this 'water down' Gary's proposal.

I don't think Communitarianism really fits into it at all.