Socialism is No Longer a Dirty Word

[XVZ]

That is not an example of anything but the failures of a capitalist economy.

No, the workers had a clear control in management. That is the ultimate reason for the failure, unless you want to insist that competition via capitalism led to the failure of the worker controlled mediocre companies in the US!

 

[Agnapostate]

It is an absolute impossibility for capitalism to fail...

On the contrary, the eventual failure of capitalism has always been an inevitability.

No, the workers had a clear control in management. That is the ultimate reason for the failure, unless you want to insist that competition via capitalism led to the failure of the worker controlled mediocre companies in the US!

The workers did not have a clear control in management unless such "management" was of a direct democratic nature espoused by theories of autogestion and anarcho-syndicalism. I will openly and fully claim that the failures of capitalism itself led to the failures of the auto industry.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

That is blatantly false. There would be no "authority to undermine" because there would be no hierarchical authority and no state.

Then there is no SOCIALISM... as there can BE NO SOCIALISM ABSENT CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT. You're describing the mythical absurdity of Anarchy; it's pure unadulterated idiocy... it claims to have no government, but the instant we begin the discussion and the simple concept of civil order is breeched, the theory of a government-less culture flies out the window, as the community organizes to defend itself from those who feel they're entitled to forcefully separate the community from that which they've produced absent due compensation...

You continue to ignore the examples of the Spanish Revolution, the Free Territory, etc. that I have cited, ignorancewhich provides a fertile ground for your baseless assertions.

Hey Skippy, we've all read Hemmingway and sure.. the bell tolls for thee. But the Spanish Revolution did NOT produce a capital-free Anarchist culture... it did not produce a governmentless society where 'the people' controlled the means of production...

The simple fact is, that such is a human impossibility... and it is such because of the nature of humanity; a nature which religion is designed to channel and religion is that which, you, the radical left REJECTS... thus you promote and encourage the very nature which makes your professed dreams impossible and you reject that which stands as the ONLY potential path to that which you profess. Which is the basis for my constantly heralded position that you people lack the means to reason; thus should NEVER be given ANY say, in any form. regarding cultural thresholds.

 

[XVZ]

The workers did not have a clear control in management unless such "management" was of a direct democratic nature espoused by theories of autogestion and anarcho-syndicalism. I will openly and fully claim that the failures of capitalism itself led to the failures of the auto industry.

Yes they did, they wouldn't work unless they got more money and there was nothing the company could do because their right to have such control is protected.

Any "failures" of capitalism are not to blame for their failure. The "successes" of capitalism are to blame because they were horrible business models with too much control given to idiots. And naturally, other - better companies rose up.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

On the contrary, the eventual failure of capitalism has always been an inevitability.



The workers did not have a clear control in management unless such "management" was of a direct democratic nature espoused by theories of autogestion and anarcho-syndicalism. I will openly and fully claim that the failures of capitalism itself led to the failures of the auto industry.

You have posted most excellent learned and well thought out arguments in this thread .. but as I said when I created it, it's not a matter of if America will adapt MORE socialist concepts, it's only a matter of when and what policies. That is true BECAUSE of the inevitable failure of capitalism.

It doesn't matter whether one agrees with nationalized healthcare, or even if it fits ones belief in the Constitution .. universal healthcare WILL be adapted in the US BECAUSE of the failure of our current system of healthcare.

If US automakers are allowed to fail, 3 million jobs will be gone overnight and the US economy sinks into depression. Few things accelerate the need for socialism than depression. At that point the entire country becomes a ward of the state.

I'm just sitting back reading the comments and smiling as I work.

 

[Agnapostate]

Then there is no SOCIALISM... as there can BE NO SOCIALISM ABSENT CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT. You're describing the mythical absurdity of Anarchy; it's pure unadulterated idiocy... it claims to have no government, but the instant we begin the discussion and the simple concept of civil order is breeched, the theory of a government-less culture flies out the window, as the community organizes to defend itself from those who feel they're entitled to forcefully separate the community from that which they've produced absent due compensation...

That is absolutely, egregiously false. You have a similarly inaccurate misunderstanding of anarchism. Anarchism is not based on a lack of organization as you apparently believe. On the contrary, anarchism is based on a highly organized society, merely one that is organized through non-hierarchical means.

As I have said elsewhere, anarchism focuses on the abolition of the state and capitalism, and its replacement with federations of decentralized, non-hierarchical collectives that practiced some form of socialism.

Hence, public control without a state would essentially function through a federation of voluntary communes and syndicates that are democratically managed through participatory committees and workers’ councils. This would mean placing emphasis on grassroots neighborhood committees, community assemblies and other direct democratic associations rather than the centralized state.

Instead of a “top-down,” centralized governance system, an anarchist society would function using a “bottom-up,” decentralized governance system.

Neighborhood assemblies would be open to the general public, and these assemblies will be the primary (and final) governors of public policy in their jurisdiction. Public policy would be determined by direct democratic means, and delegates would be assigned to deal with the task of public policy administration. These delegates would be recallable at any time by a direct democratic vote, as opposed to the current dictatorial political system.

Various sections and aspects of the Paris Commune are an illustrative example of this sort of direct democracy in action, though the Paris Commune was not strictly anarchist or libertarian socialist.

Workers’ councils would be specifically intended to address workers’ needs and concerns, and would determine workplace management and administration through direct democracy, again. Control of the means of production would be granted to both these democratically managed workers’ councils, as well as to the citizens of the locality, if some of the workers are not both. The community assemblies would primarily serve as complementary features of workers’ councils for citizens who do not perform conventional work (such as parents with small children, the elderly, the disabled, the sick, etc.)

If the community’s industrial aspects are properly and efficiently managed through direct democracy, this would result in increased benefits for the workers and surrounding community. The workers themselves would be able to distribute and delegate work tasks and administration evenly among themselves, and thus form a far more efficient workforce, resulting in increased production levels and benefits, as well as decreased work hours and shortages.

Soviets initially functioned this way, until the Bolsheviks began to forcefully collectivize land and resources, and delegated control of the means of production to high-level bureaucrats rather than workers.

Through community and industrial unionism, decisions regarding the means of production and public policy affecting the wider community could be made in an efficient, direct democratic manner.

Communes would function as free, voluntary associations that would not force citizens to work or govern. Participatory committees would be freely joined and democratically managed, as opposed to the current situation, when all are forced to either work or die, because of the system of wage slavery that exists. An ideal commune would grant the minimal means of life even to those who were able but not willing to work. They would not grant them nonessential public services, however, unless they chose to participate in the work and management of the commune. As for those who were unable to work, they would still be granted full public services, as well as be permitted to have some degree of participation through community assemblies.

In the workplace itself, hierarchical authority structures would be dismantled in favor of direct democratic management. Policy creation would be given to the workers’ councils, and specific delegates and workers would be assigned to manage specific policy administrations, as is the case with the community assemblies. No longer would a separation between labor and management exist. The laborers would be the managers. Separate groups of order-givers and order-takers would no longer exist, and positions that solely emphasized management would not exist, as they would be useless and unnecessary. Through these methods, the workplace would not only function more democratically, it would function more efficiently, as workers are more intimately familiar with the conditions of the workplace than distant, unassociated managers are, and would be better qualified and capable to manage it properly.

The neighborhood and community assemblies would be the other segment of participatory committees to manage society as a whole. Towns and cities would essentially be formed from smaller neighborhood assemblies, which in turn would be federated at the regional and national levels in order to provide collective benefits to all involved. (The participatory committees would remain autonomous, of course, and could secede from larger federations if its member saw fit.) The assemblies would primarily address governance at the local level, and would ensure that all community members were provided with sufficient public services such as food, housing, healthcare, transportation, communication, etc. If there were councils or delegates that managed these assemblies, they would not possess an executive or bureaucratic status, and would primarily be intended to address specific facets of policy administration that would be too cumbersome and inefficient for management by the wider assembly.

Assemblies would be summoned on a regular basis, as often as required or necessitated by communal interests and issues, upon the request of the communal council or the consensus of the inhabitants of the local community. Local inhabitants would deliberate and address local issues and problems, and implement direct democratic management techniques in order to address them, possibly appointing additional councils or delegates in order to address them.

Lower levels of assemblies would maintain control over higher levels, thus reversing the unjust infliction of hierarchical, top-down authority structures.

Hence, anarchism is not synonymous with "chaos" or "disorder" as you inaccurately believe, and examples of non-hierarchical societies and organizations have existed in the past, though you have blatantly ignored their existence.

Hey Skippy, we've all read Hemmingway and sure.. the bell tolls for thee. But the Spanish Revolution did NOT produce a capital-free Anarchist culture... it did not produce a governmentless society where 'the people' controlled the means of production...

That falsehood reveals your blatant ignorance of historical fact.

Merely consider the words of the anti-authoritarian and anti-totalitarian author George Orwell, who wrote novels characterizing the brutality of authoritarian socialism. (i.e. state capitalism).

In his Homage to Catalonia, he acknowledged the existence of a society characterized by free, libertarian socialism, which he as a libertarian socialist and anarchist sympathizer recognized the progressive value of.

I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life--snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.--had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master."This was in late December 1936, less than seven months ago as I write, and yet it is a period that has already receded into enormous distance. Later events have obliterated it much more completely than they have obliterated 1935, or 1905, for that matter. I had come to Spain with some notion of writing newspaper articles, but I had joined the militia almost immediately, because at that time and in that atmosphere it seemed the only conceivable thing to do. The Anarchists were still in virtual control of Catalonia and the revolution was still in full swing. To anyone who had been there since the beginning it probably seemed even in December or January that the revolutionary period was ending; but when one came straight from England the aspect of Barcelona was something startling and overwhelming. It was the first time that I had ever been in a town where the working class was in the saddle. Practically every building of any size had been seized by the workers and was draped with red flags and with the red and black flag of the Anarchists; every wall was scrawled with the hammer and sickle and with the initials of the revolutionary parties; almost every church had been gutted and its images burnt. Churches here and there were being systematically demolished by gangs of workmen. Every shop and cafe had an inscription saying that it had been collectivized; even the bootblacks had been collectivized and their boxes painted red and black. Waiters and shop-walkers looked you in the face and treated you as an equal. Servile and even ceremonial forms of speech had temporarily disappeared. Nobody said 'Senor' or 'Don' or even 'Ústed'; everyone called everyone else 'Comrade' or 'Thou', and said 'Salud!' instead of 'Buenos días'. Tipping had been forbidden by law since the time of Primo de Rivera; almost my first experience was receiving a lecture from a hotel manager for trying to tip a lift-boy. There were no private motor-cars, they had all been commandeered, and the trams and taxis and much of the other transport were painted red and black. The revolutionary posters were everywhere, flaming from the walls in clean reds and blues that made the few remaining advertisements look like daubs of mud. Down the Ramblas, the wide central artery of the town where crowds of people streamed constantly to and fro, the loud-speakers were bellowing revolutionary songs all day and far into the night. And it was the aspect of the crowds that was the queerest thing of all. In outward appearance it was a town in which the wealthy classes had practically ceased to exist. Except for a small number of women and foreigners there were no 'well-dressed' people at all. Practically everyone wore rough working-class clothes, or blue overalls or some variant of militia uniform. All this was queer and moving. There was much in this that I did not understand, in some ways I did not even like it, but I recognized it immediately as a state of affairs worth fighting for.

I would advise you to familiarize yourself with reality before spewing nonsense.

The simple fact is, that such is a human impossibility... and it is such because of the nature of humanity; a nature which religion is designed to channel and religion is that which, you, the radical left REJECTS... thus you promote and encourage the very nature which makes your professed dreams impossible and you reject that which stands as the ONLY potential path to that which you profess. Which is the basis for my constantly heralded position that you people lack the means to reason; thus should NEVER be given ANY say, in any form. regarding cultural thresholds.

Your blathering about human nature is sheer nonsense, as you know nothing of human nature. You are blatantly unfamiliar with human nature. You also know nothing of the expansiveness of religion, and the manner in which Christian libertarian socialists like Leo Tolstoy, Ivan Illich, Adin Ballou, Léonce Crenier, and Dorothy Day, exemplified true Christian values so much more than grotesque clowns like Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, and Pat Robertson do.

And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need.

Have you heard the good Dr. Dobson advocate that recently?

You are similarly incorrect in implying that all forms of socialism are contrary to human nature. You obviously possess possess the inaccurate belief that socialism is based on some sense of altruism or charity, while maintaining that capitalism is more "natural" because it relies on economic self-interest. You likely also regard competition as the chief manifestation of "human nature." This belief ignores the ways in which cooperation, rather than competition, can serve in the self-interest of beings involved.

Consider the Prisoner's Dilemma. Suppose, for instance, that you had been falsely accused of a crime, along with another person. You are told that if you simply confess that the other person committed the crime, you will be released and he will be sentenced to thirty years in prison. However, he has been offered the exact same deal against you, and if you both accuse the other, you will both be spending fifteen years in prison. If neither one of you accuses the other, there will be no case against either one of you, and you will only be detained for a few months, and then released. This is an illustrative case regarding the merits of cooperation as opposed to competition.

The anarcho-communist Peter Kropotkin wrote a book entitled Mutual Aid regarding the nature of cooperation rather than competition in natural circumstances, based on his observations during his time in Siberia.

The full text is available here.

The validity of Kropotkin's work on this topic was affirmed by no less an authority than the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould.

The central logic of Kropotkin’s argument is simple, straightforward, and largely cogent...I would hold that Kropotkin’s basic argument is correct.

Stephen Jay Gould. Kropotkin Was No Crackpot, 1997 (Note: Kropotkin was not a Marxist himself; neither am I.)

Yes they did, they wouldn't work unless they got more money and there was nothing the company could do because their right to have such control is protected.

Any "failures" of capitalism are not to blame for their failure. The "successes" of capitalism are to blame because they were horrible business models with too much control given to idiots. And naturally, other - better companies rose up.

There were no "controls" given to idiots, and as autogestion was not implemented in the companies that you speak of, their failure cannot be regarded as a failure of autogestion. Conversely, autogestion was implemented in the 200 worker managed workplaces in Argentina, which involve more than 15,000 workers. Yet, you have blatantly ignored these examples and continue to do so.

 

[DiamondDave]

There is no "need" for socialism... there is only a call for it by those who cannot accept that there is a possibility for failure in a free society where it is your personal responsibility to take care of yourself... and a call for it by those who wish to be in the ruling elite over the masses...

And you will always have those that yearn for freedom, to fight against those who yearn to usurp thru socialism...

 

[Agnapostate]

There is no "need" for socialism... there is only a call for it by those who cannot accept that there is a possibility for failure in a free society where it is your personal responsibility to take care of yourself... and a call for it by those who wish to be in the ruling elite over the masses...

And you will always have those that yearn for freedom, to fight against those who yearn to usurp thru socialism...

The fact that so many yearn for freedom is likely why so many calls for socialism continue to exist.

 

[DiamondDave]

To think that humans will exist in a society or group without hierarchies... truly laughable..

this "anarchist" is about as much of a pipedreamer as the hippie "communists" who believed in the communes, love ins, etc

truly laughable

We're not identical robots.. we're individuals with different abilities, different goals, different accomplishments, different effort.... and there will always be those that can and will lead in various areas, and those who will follow, and those that will fail... including production, governance, etc... there is equality in the rights and freedoms given, not equality in accomplishment and earning

 

[DiamondDave]

The fact that so many yearn for freedom is likely why so many calls for socialism continue to exist.

calls for socialism exist precisely for the reasons I gave...

Ones that cannot deal with the consequences of their choices, actions, etc and wish to take from others because of a feeling of entitlement

And ones that wish to be part of the ruling elite over the masses

And don't forget those who already have succeeded, and have a guilt complex about it.... but not just willing to give of themselves, but forcibly ensure that they are generous with the earnings and accomplishments of others

 

[Agnapostate]

To think that humans will exist in a society or group without hierarchies... truly laughable..

this "anarchist" is about as much of a pipedreamer as the hippie "communists" who believed in the communes, love ins, etc

truly laughable

We're not identical robots.. we're individuals with different abilities, different goals, different accomplishments, different effort.... and there will always be those that can and will lead in various areas, and those who will follow, and those that will fail... including production, governance, etc... there is equality in the rights and freedoms given, not equality in accomplishment and earning

Of course we're not identical robots...which is precisely why the abolition of hierarchical establishments would permit a wide array of individuals to thrive. Many thanks for ignoring the numerous instances of anarchist and libertarian socialist societies that I mentioned, though. Wholly inadequate, just as capitalism is.

calls for socialism exist precisely for the reasons I gave...

Ones that cannot deal with the consequences of their choices, actions, etc and wish to take from others because of a feeling of entitlement

And ones that wish to be part of the ruling elite over the masses

And don't forget those who already have succeeded, and have a guilt complex about it.... but not just willing to give of themselves, but forcibly ensure that they are generous with the earnings and accomplishments of others

These are not sufficient responses to the thorough and detailed explanations that I provided. Even communists do not desire for everyone to possess exactly the same products, but would engage in an egalitarian assignment of labor, products, and services based on abilities and needs.

What evidence do you have that real forms of socialism and communism "reward mediocrity"? If a person were able to work in an anarcho-socialist society but not willing to do so, he would be denied certain public services and would possibly not be considered part of the collective.

 

[XVZ]

There were no "controls" given to idiots, and as autogestion was not implemented in the companies that you speak of, their failure cannot be regarded as a failure of autogestion. Conversely, autogestion was implemented in the 200 worker managed workplaces in Argentina, which involve more than 15,000 workers. Yet, you have blatantly ignored these examples and continue to do so.

Of course you don't want to own up to the failure that comes when idiots have a say in how a company is to be operated. Instead you want to reference businesses that would be pretty damn hard to fuck up, such as a single hotel, as successes of socialistic management

 

[Agnapostate]

Of course you don't want to own up to the failure that comes when idiots have a say in how a company is to be operated. Instead you want to reference businesses that would be pretty damn hard to fuck up, such as a single hotel, as successes of socialistic management

Are you a complete moron? "Single hotel"? I already explicitly mentioned that over 200 workplaces were being democratically managed by their workers, who number about 15,000.

 

[Diuretic]

I see Agna's in fine form as usual

Just a tip for Agna's opponents - the usual deflections and dodges won't work, you actually have to engage the argument

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

You know there's no linkage between tyranny and socialism don't you?

Sure there is. People like me advocate leaving people alone, so long as they don't violate other people's property. Let them do what they want.

Socialism is the opposite--tell people what to do. Now at this point, it depends on how much of a perfectionist you are. Are you content with mild western-european socialism, a mixed system? Then you will not have to open up gulags, that's true. But you will be arresting people for consensual transactions.

If you're more of a purist, and really serious about forcing socialism at all levels of the economy, then yes you will need a police state.

I read a few sources. Interesting. But socialism didn't do it. I'll give you an alternative - it was a mix of ignorance, religious fatalism and negligence. Since neither socialism nor capitalism were invented when the Plymouth Plantation was in existence then neither can be the cause. Is that reasonable?

It was communal ownership of the means of production. ie, collectivism, or socialism, or communism. Nobody wanted to put in the extra effort to produce surplus food. This is a classic "Tragedy of the Commons" problem seen when there are no property rights. It's the same thing that keeps 3rd world countries impoverished today.

Of course there will have to be the American model that fits our unique idiosyncracies .. but I believe without a doubt that intelligence can make it work.

That's the problem with socialism and central planning, it is too centralized. Nobody is smart enough to manage something as nightmarishly complicated as an economy. The collective wisdom of individuals acting freely is vastly more knowledgeable about shortages and managing resources and so forth than government bureaucrats. All the other countries that tried it had smart people too but they will never be smart enough.



edit: when I say "socialism" above, I mean in the conventional way that the average man on the street understands it. Not in the pure marxian sense of "workplaces are owned ONLY by their employees and no one else, including the government".

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

As I have said elsewhere, anarchism focuses on the abolition of the state and capitalism, and its replacement with federations of decentralized, non-hierarchical collectives that practiced some form of socialism.

Hence, public control without a state would essentially function through a federation of voluntary communes and syndicates that are democratically managed through participatory committees and workers’ councils. This would mean placing emphasis on grassroots neighborhood committees, community assemblies and other direct democratic associations rather than the centralized state.

Instead of a “top-down,” centralized governance system, an anarchist society would function using a “bottom-up,” decentralized governance system.

So...there's still a government then? Albeit a far more decentralized one?

If so, let's say that a group of workers doesn't like the way things are running. Maybe they prefer to leave this system and work in a capitalist arrangement for some guy that owns his own shop. Will they face violent consequences from the government (or collective, or whoever) if they leave the collective and join the capitalist?

I have no problem with voluntary arrangements where workers own the shop. It works well sometimes, and it's certainly permissible under my ideal which is to simpy leave people alone and respect their property as long as they respect yours. If they want to form a co-op that's fine; if they want to go trade their labors to a capitalist, that's fine too. The key word here of course is "voluntary".

 

[Agnapostate]

Sure there is. People like me advocate leaving people alone, so long as they don't violate other people's property. Let them do what they want.

Socialism is the opposite--tell people what to do. Now at this point, it depends on how much of a perfectionist you are. Are you content with mild western-european socialism, a mixed system? Then you will not have to open up gulags, that's true. But you will be arresting people for consensual transactions.

If you're more of a purist, and really serious about forcing socialism at all levels of the economy, then yes you will need a police state.

The European socialism that you speak of leans far more toward social democracy, a leftist form of mixed-market capitalism, than it does legitimate socialism and collective ownership of the means of production.

Nonetheless, it is my contention that libertarian socialism does not need to be "forced" on people, unless you regard expropriation of wealth from the super-rich as wealth. I regard it as an alleviation of suffering, since that excess wealth would grant basic necessities and utilities to the poor while not depriving the rich of anything of comparable moral significance.

Anarchism especially does not "tell you what to do" since it involves the abolition of hierarchical authority in favor of direct democracy.

It was communal ownership of the means of production. ie, collectivism, or socialism, or communism. Nobody wanted to put in the extra effort to produce surplus food. This is a classic "Tragedy of the Commons" problem seen when there are no property rights. It's the same thing that keeps 3rd world countries impoverished today.

Just as the Anarchist FAQ does, I shall post a short quote from Allan Engler demonstrating that consolidating the means of production in private hands rather than democratic hands itself ravages it.

upporters of capitalism cite what they call the tragedy of the commons to explain the wanton plundering of forests, fish and waterways, but common property is not the problem. When property was held in common by tribes, clans and villages, people took no more than their share and respected the rights of others. They cared for common property and when necessary acted together to protect it against those who would damage it. Under capitalism, there is no common property. (Public property is a form of private property, property owned by the government as a corporate person.) Capitalism recognises only private property and free-for-all property. Nobody is responsible for free-for-all property until someone claims it as his own. He then has a right to do as he pleases with it, a right that is uniquely capitalist. Unlike common or personal property, capitalist property is not valued for itself or for its utility. It is valued for the revenue it produces for its owner. If the capitalist owner can maximise his revenue by liquidating it, he has the right to do that.

Garrett Hardin's "tragedy of the commons" argument has been largely rebutted by Edward Palmer Thompson, but just to give a quick overview, the "tragedy of the commons" argument ignores the prospect of regulation through democratic management. It conflates essentially unmanaged "common" resources with resources that have been legitimately managed and commonly owned in the past.

I think you ought to look into the possibility that individuals may be more likely to cooperate through democratic management than to ravage a common resource through greed: Hardin's Myth of the Commons: The Tragedy of Conceptual Confusions

That's the problem with socialism and central planning, it is too centralized. Nobody is smart enough to manage something as nightmarishly complicated as an economy. The collective wisdom of individuals acting freely is vastly more knowledgeable about shortages and managing resources and so forth than government bureaucrats. All the other countries that tried it had smart people too but they will never be smart enough.

This seems to be a variation of the "economic calculation" issue laid out by Ludwig Von Mises. There are answers to this within the realms of both centralized and decentralized socialism, although I would obviously favor the decentralized answer. A Pareto efficient socialist economic model had already been set out years before Von Mises made his argument by Enrico Barone. Von Mises apparently chose to ignore this. Oskar Lange and Fred Taylor then set out another socialist economic model in response to Von Mises's challenge. Unable to offer a rational criticism of their model, he did not discuss

Those who have encountered me elsewhere will be familiar with my defense of libertarian socialism from the economic calculation argument, but it bears repetition. Even if we accept von Mises's argument in relation to centralized socialism, it is flawe when dealing with libertarin socialism in that it only addresses authoritarian “socialism” and central planning, and not libertarian forms of planning. However valid von Mises’s objection may be in relation to Marxism, Leninism and other forms of centrally planned “socialism,” (and that is debatable, considering that he could not respond to Lange's critique sufficiently), it lacks validity when applied to libertarian socialism. Incidentally, both you and von Mises are gravely mistaken when assuming that a centralized command system is a feature of true socialism.

As a utilitarian, I apply notions of the value of utility to socialism and communism as well, (and most anarcho-communists do also, for that matter.) A democratic network between producers and consumers can foster appropriation of use value depending on the amount of resources used in production, the labor value of the production, and the amount of benefits (or utility) that the finished product provides. Use value can easily be determined in a decentralized system through the estimates of direct consumers, whose input would actually matter, as direct democracy would be the system in place. Obviously, central planners are not the actual consumers and cannot make similar estimates. Von Mises’s argument fails to apply to libertarian socialism in this way. Cost is too often confused with price because of the interference of the market and the wage system. Actual cost can be estimated based on the material resources used in production, the labor value of the production, (since beneficial social effects rather than strict remuneration is essential) and the utility of the finished product, as I mentioned above.

The market system is not superior to libertarian forms of communism. I disagree with both capitalists and market socialists on the superiority of a market system. The true cost of a product is not approximated well by the market; price inflations intended to maximize profit rather than utility routinely serve as a form of extortion amongst consumers. Without the insertion of true utility costs in a market system, social costs cannot be approximated either. The market also fails to discriminate between individual and collective utility, and in fact often favors the benefits of a few isolated individuals. (And I might add that the benefits that they receive, such as commodities and luxuries are of no particular moral significance when compared with the benefits that the collective and majority of individuals would receive, such as necessities and essential utilities.)

 

[Agnapostate]

So...there's still a government then? Albeit a far more decentralized one?

If so, let's say that a group of workers doesn't like the way things are running. Maybe they prefer to leave this system and work in a capitalist arrangement for some guy that owns his own shop. Will they face violent consequences from the government (or collective, or whoever) if they leave the collective and join the capitalist?

I have no problem with voluntary arrangements where workers own the shop. It works well sometimes, and it's certainly permissible under my ideal which is to simpy leave people alone and respect their property as long as they respect yours. If they want to form a co-op that's fine; if they want to go trade their labors to a capitalist, that's fine too. The key word here of course is "voluntary".

As I've said in the past, for people to attempt to implement capitalism in a libertarian socialist society is akin to an untalented entrepreneur going to a public park and attempting to sell water next to a drinking fountain. No sane person would be willing to work in the wage system when they could freely access resources without entering into the wage system. That is why it would not be necessary to "ban" capitalism; people would be free to attempt it if they wanted to.

For workers to agree to subordinate themselves under a capitalist employer, he would have to provide greater benefits than the libertarian socialist collective would. Since the means of production would be collectivized and democratically managed, (and he would thus not have greater access to them than anyone else), he would not have a greater pool of resources to draw on than anyone else. Hence, if he were to attempt to provide greater benefits than the libertarian socialist collective could, his business would likely quickly become unprofitable, which ruins the entire purpose of capitalism.

Nor is there a tendency for capitalism to reappear in a libertarian socialist society. Robert Nozick alleged that it would, claiming "mall factories would spring up in a socialist society, unless forbidden. I melt some of my personal possessions and build a machine out of the material. I offer you and others a philosophy lecture once a week in exchange for yet other things, and so on . . . some persons might even want to leave their jobs in socialist industry and work full time in this private sector. . . [This is] how private property even in means of production would occur in a socialist society."

As I mentioned previously, since there would be no state to protect a capitalist monopoly over productive assets such as the means of production, he would not have a greater pool of resources to draw on than anyone else, and no one would be willing to subordinate him or herself under a capitalist employer when they could work in a collective that practiced direct democratic management.

Nozick also misunderstands the difference between "private property" and "personal possessions." Even in a libertarian socialist society, there would be ownership and use rights over personal possessions. But private property is not akin to personal possession; it is an establishment of a monopoly over an object not personally used by the individual or entity who "owns" the private property. Hence, although the cleaning materials used in Trump Towers are the "private property" of Donald Trump, they are not his "personal possessions" in the same way that they would be those of the janitor, who was using them.

 

[DiamondDave]

Of course we're not identical robots...which is precisely why the abolition of hierarchical establishments would permit a wide array of individuals to thrive. Many thanks for ignoring the numerous instances of anarchist and libertarian socialist societies that I mentioned, though. Wholly inadequate, just as capitalism is.



These are not sufficient responses to the thorough and detailed explanations that I provided. Even communists do not desire for everyone to possess exactly the same products, but would engage in an egalitarian assignment of labor, products, and services based on abilities and needs.

What evidence do you have that real forms of socialism and communism "reward mediocrity"? If a person were able to work in an anarcho-socialist society but not willing to do so, he would be denied certain public services and would possibly not be considered part of the collective.

"Of course we're not identical robots"... then you advocate control to ensure that we all behave under the control like identical robots...

Idiot

Communists desire equal compensation for any type of work performed.. the elimination of private property to be divided amongst the collective.. the elimination, by force, of any hierarchies (except the hierarchy of the ruling elite, where those policy makers like to sit and live by different rules than what they set forth for the populace)...

Rewarding mediocrity? Where is the benefit from one's own effort and success when the government, by policy or whim, is allowed to take for the support and benefit of others above your own will, need, and benefit? humans desire to live and thrive by the fruits of their labor... when those fruits are taken and split for the 'collective' the incentive to do extra is gone... high achievement ceases.. yet those at the bottom continue to 'need' and want at the expense of others... drawing the standard down... BRINGING FORTH MEDIOCRITY...
Even when those totalitarians advocate production, greatness, and advancement by force, the incentive is less.. because the controlling elite will still exert their control by force anyway, even when the extra is strove for.. so eventually those who CAN achieve great things finally get "what is the point?" and do less...

And as for being cast out of the collective... that would be a fucking blessing, not a punishment...

Hence why if I see someone trying to force me into some government collective in a socialist system.. they best be prepared for a set of crosshairs center mass or between their eyes... I'll take as many socialism promoters with me as I can, in the name of freedom.. freedom is what I swore to uphold and defend for this country and our constitution... and even though I am not active duty any more, that oath does not stop

 

[Agnapostate]

You moron.

There is no "forced" collectivization in a libertarian socialist society. It's based on voluntary association and federations.

Please learn what you're talking about before spewing forth this shit.