Socialism is No Longer a Dirty Word

[BaronVonBigmeat]

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.

I don't understand this assumption. A capitalist may very well be able to offer more than the collective, IF the collective is poorly run. And democratic arrangements can quite often turn out badly. Any of us who had to do group projects in high school or college can attest to that. Or anyone who's witnessed a company go downhill due to mediocre products that were "designed by committee".

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.

States should never protect monopolies of course, but I have to ask: why would a hypothetical proto-capitalist (perhaps a disgruntled commune worker who feels he's not being compensated in line with his superstar talent) not be able to acquire a pool of resources by simply saving? Or getting a loan?

Aside from that, there is some grain of truth in your argument I think. In third world countries, the common thread is, no formal property rights recognized by the state. Not for the common man, anyhow. If they exist, they require hundreds of bureaus and hundreds of bribes.

The point of all this is: do anarcho-socialists recognize extreme layers of regulation as being a stealthy means of protecting monopolies and/or big corporations, or at least tilting the playing field heavily in their favor? I bring this up because it seems to be a blind spot amongst the left generally.

Case in point: You want to open a farmer's co-op. Well, you can't. There are minimum building codes, food regulations, parking lot requirements, ADA restroom requirements, etc. You can't deal with all the paperwork and cost, but Wal-Mart sure can.

Likewise, in Mexico there may be over a hundred steps taken to simply register a piece of land, much less build on it. It can take years. But Coca-Cola has a full-time compliance officer to deal with this, so they can get their factory built. They can also offer shit wages because hey, where else are you going to work?

This wouldn't fly quite as much in the US simply because so many would laugh at the shit wage offered and go into business for themselves (which is probably the most common "marxist" arrangement, I suppose). Companies have to offer more because there are more options for labor.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

PubliusInfinitu

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

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

[/QUOTE]

Capitalism is the natural order of commerce... it cannot fail, period. It is patently impossible for capitalism to fail. When one person trades his labor for a place to sleep, THAT is capitalism; when a person trades a cow for 10 pigs... capitalism; when a person trades a TV for a set of tires... CAPITALISM! Capitalism is little more than the free exchange of goods and services to the mutual benefit of both parties... it cannot fail.

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.

Greed on the part of the collective workforce killed the US Auto industry, just as it killed the US textile and steel industries... Leftism kills everything it comes into contact with...

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

Why not mention virginal promiscuity or sober inebriation?

They work about as well

Take another puff off the bong and go to sleep in mommy's basement on the couch... have some more pipe dreams

 

[Diuretic]

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

Capitalism is the natural order of commerce... it cannot fail, period. It is patently impossible for capitalism to fail. When one person trades his labor for a place to sleep, THAT is capitalism; when a person trades a cow for 10 pigs... capitalism; when a person trades a TV for a set of tires... CAPITALISM! Capitalism is little more than the free exchange of goods and services to the mutual benefit of both parties... it cannot fail.

.........[/QUOTE]

That's not capitalism ya dill, that's bartering!

 

[editec]

If you look at the things you said should be quasi-socialist, there is one thing that is different than the others -- Health care.

ACtually I agree. I should not have included Health care in that semi-socialist system.

HC, if we're going to socialize it at all, should be FULLY socialized.

Why is it different? Because the government does not control the cost. I as the individual can demand services that you as the government must provide, thereby increasing cost.

Exactly right, but there's even more that makes HC unlike all other purchases.

The PROVIDERS determine the demand, not the consumers

You go to your MD and he'll tell you what you need. That's completely different than the way we buy most stuff, isn't it?

This is one of the primary reasons our current health care system is broken. Replacing an insurance company payer with a Government payer is just shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic.

Yup. Sorry my error is making you write this, since I totally agree so far.

Sure, you might get universal coverage, but the system is ultimately doomed to failure. Government can choose how it will fail though. Most government have chosen the shitty care for people option. Keep costs down by regulating the provision care, especially tests and related equipment. They could choose to bankrupt the system instead though. Then, they would provide quality care in a timely manner, but couldn't charge enough in taxes to pay for it.

Yes, single payer universal health care will not work, I agree.

Either socialize HC entirely, or accept that the poor and middle class will NOT have health care.

The solution is to ensure the health care user has some skin in the game. For instance in France, they almost have it right. The government pays for 60 - 70% of insurance and provides a safety net. Universal coverage. Then you contract for insurance to provide the balance. This is either through and employer or otherwise.

We're not France. That won't work here because we reward businesses for going offshore to avoid paying for workers' health care.

As you can see, this suffers from the same issue as we have. And, as you would expect, France has an "overuse" problem in their health care system. So, instead of using straight insurance, you use high deductible insurance. Plus medical savings accounts that can rollover for your whole life tax deferred. Basic wellness is covered first dollar no deductible. If you do anything else you have to cover it out of your Health Savings account up to $5,000-$10,000 or so....you pick a number.

Tax deferments or tax deductions won't work, either. Too many people don't make enough to pay taxes.

The point is that people will begin to act rationally in health care decisions like they do in every other aspect of their financial life.

People will NEVER act rationally in health care decisions. HC purchasing is nothing like most purchasings we do.

What is the substitute purchasing strategy for an apendectomy? Death?

Who will choose death if the cost of an apendectomy is too high?

Nobody

Price and quality competition then have meaning. Demand will be somewhat lower because people will choose to have their money rather than have frivolous trip to the doctor.

You, like most people, assume a huge amount of overuse. Some exists but. most HC dollars are really spend in the last year of life.

And FWIW, that's where most waste is, too.

There is still a safety net as in the French system for the indigent. But, with consumers having to "pay" (and I don't even care how you fund the HSA....make it a gift from Uncle Sam) something more than a trivial amount, they will reduce the demand. That won't fix everything, but it would be a good start.

I have written a lot about health care.

Basically we will either fully socialize it, or most people will not have meaningful health care coverage.

The semi-socialism system that I advocate for most things will NOT work with HC.

 

[Agnapostate]

I don't understand this assumption. A capitalist may very well be able to offer more than the collective, IF the collective is poorly run. And democratic arrangements can quite often turn out badly. Any of us who had to do group projects in high school or college can attest to that. Or anyone who's witnessed a company go downhill due to mediocre products that were "designed by committee".

That's true, but I don't consider mediocre products "designed by committees" to be an example of legitimate democratic management. I consider legitimate democracy in the workplace to come from a form of autogestion, or workers' self-management. Such examples come from the Spanish Revolution and the worker-managed workplaces of Argentina, which have thrived after they were taken over after the 2001 economic crisis. So while democratic forms of management can certainly fail, I don't consider them to be as apt to fail as capitalist forms of management.

And even beyond that, should one democratically managed collective fail, nothing really prevents workers from simply going to another one, which they would likely still prefer to a capitalist arrangement.

States should never protect monopolies of course, but I have to ask: why would a hypothetical proto-capitalist (perhaps a disgruntled commune worker who feels he's not being compensated in line with his superstar talent) not be able to acquire a pool of resources by simply saving? Or getting a loan?

Whatever pool of resources that he could acquire likely wouldn't be especially productive assets, as the means of production would remain in the direct democratic ownership of the collective as a whole rather than in the private ownership of an individual. If vouchers or some other monetary system were to remain in place, market exchanges would still exists, so I suppose this theoretical "capitalist" (though capitalism is more extensive than the mere existence of a market!) would be able to barter with others in an attempt to drive up the value of his own assets. But again, I would question the value of whatever assets he could develop, because they wouldn't be productive assets, as the means of production would continue to be democratically managed by the collective.

So even if he were to be able to build up the value of his own assets and establish a barter or market system with which to exchange those assets with others, this would not be an establishment of capitalism. I don't think your analysis factors in the existence of market socialism to a sufficient degree, and market socialism can still be a fixture of libertarian socialism, such as in an individualist, mutualist, or even collectivist economy. Not all forms of socialism are equivalent to communism. (Though even a communist society would likely retain some degree of exchange of personal possessions.)

Aside from that, there is some grain of truth in your argument I think. In third world countries, the common thread is, no formal property rights recognized by the state. Not for the common man, anyhow. If they exist, they require hundreds of bureaus and hundreds of bribes.

Perhaps so, but does this analysis factor in the distinction between private property and personal possession? That might not be related directly to the issue, but I simply wanted to make sure that all posters here were aware of the distinction.

The point of all this is: do anarcho-socialists recognize extreme layers of regulation as being a stealthy means of protecting monopolies and/or big corporations, or at least tilting the playing field heavily in their favor? I bring this up because it seems to be a blind spot amongst the left generally.

Case in point: You want to open a farmer's co-op. Well, you can't. There are minimum building codes, food regulations, parking lot requirements, ADA restroom requirements, etc. You can't deal with all the paperwork and cost, but Wal-Mart sure can.

Likewise, in Mexico there may be over a hundred steps taken to simply register a piece of land, much less build on it. It can take years. But Coca-Cola has a full-time compliance officer to deal with this, so they can get their factory built. They can also offer shit wages because hey, where else are you going to work?

This wouldn't fly quite as much in the US simply because so many would laugh at the shit wage offered and go into business for themselves (which is probably the most common "marxist" arrangement, I suppose). Companies have to offer more because there are more options for labor.

I think you're conflating our current mixed market with a libertarian socialist economy. For an entity such as Wal-Mart to exist, the means of production must be heavily privatized, so that productive assets may be consolidated in the hands of a relatively few elites rather than democratically managed. In a libertarian socialist economy, there would be no privatized means of production, and as a result, no heavy consolidation of productive assets, which would in turn eliminate extreme wealth consolidation and not put any one entity or individual in a better position to make investment decisions than any other. There's also the possibility that the market system may be abolished altogether, such as in the anarcho-communist society that I favor.

 

[Lycurgus]

"Socialism is No Longer a Dirty Word"

.........& that is not a good thing!

 

[Agnapostate]

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

Clearly wrong, as in the cases of the socioeconomic costs incurred under the neoliberal regimes of Reagan and Thatcher.

Capitalism is the natural order of commerce... it cannot fail, period. It is patently impossible for capitalism to fail. When one person trades his labor for a place to sleep, THAT is capitalism; when a person trades a cow for 10 pigs... capitalism; when a person trades a TV for a set of tires... CAPITALISM! Capitalism is little more than the free exchange of goods and services to the mutual benefit of both parties... it cannot fail.

Those forms of exchange hardly constitute capitalism, and you seem to have conflated the institution of use-rights and personal possession rather badly with the institution of private property with your mention of TV sets and tires. Your analysis also completely ignores the existence of market socialism.

Greed on the part of the collective workforce killed the US Auto industry, just as it killed the US textile and steel industries... Leftism kills everything it comes into contact with...

This "greed of the collective workforce" that you mention is not a legitimate example of socialistic management of the workplace. A legitimate example of that is found in the autogestion that rescued more than 200 workplaces now operated by about 15,000 workers in Argentina from the 2001 economic crisis caused by the neoliberal policies of the 1990's.

 

[editec]

So, Agnapostate,

How do you propose we migrate from the current poltical/economic managment systems which we currently "enjoy" to the anacho-socialism which you advocate?

Other than revolution, do you see any peaceful path from where we are, now, leading to that anachro-socialist system you describe?

The whole private property issue V the various forms of "public property" which is discussed here http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/archive/00002203/01/HARDIN.pdf seems to me to the the stumbling block to any peaceful transition to anachro-socialism.

The vested interests who are currently so well rewarded with the majority of society's wealth and power aren't likely, I think, to go down easy.

You only casually mentioned it, but the property you propose go under new management (and collective ownership) is mostly all privately owned properties.


So, short of violent revolution and nationalization of the means of production, how do you propose we reinvent our entire economy and way of life?


Let me give you an example of the problem...how many acres of trees does my collective get in Maine? How does my collective (as opposed to that collective from the next town) get that title to our collective resource?

How are these various collectives going to decide who get what?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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;

ROFLMNAO... damn you people are worthless. The cost of a product is a measure of supply and demand. PERIOD! And that isn't going to be changed BY ANY INFLUENCE, BE IT AUTHORITARIAN GOVERNMENT or mushy headed, feel-good, addle minded leftist hoping to spare the poor the cost of doing business; inevitably, where a produt or service is in high demand, the pressure of delivering that product to the public is going to come to bear: INEVITABLY. Now if a strong centralized government wants to subsidize that product's cost to the consumer, FINE; but that has absolutely NO EFFECT UPON THE ACTUAL COST of the product and inevitably such a government subsidy will inevitably be passed along to the consumer, one way or another.

price inflations intended to maximize profit rather than utility routinely serve as a form of extortion amongst consumers.

Profit is a function of survival, witless. It feeds INCENTIVE. Absent profit there is no basis in reasoning for anyone to invest their time towards delivering it.

Without the insertion of true utility costs in a market system, social costs cannot be approximated either.

Define your terms... 'true utility cost' what SPECIFICALLY are you speaking of?

The market also fails to discriminate between individual and collective utility, and in fact often favors the benefits of a few isolated individuals.

The market is not concerned with your feel-good idiocy. The market exists for one purpose and one purpose ONLY... PROFIT! Now from those profits, people earn that on which THEY EAT and that on which they base their means to feed others... NO PROFIT=NO EATING. And his is without regard to the addle-minded notions of leftists; such as yourself.

(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.)

Where the rights of the individual are respected and protected the collective is taken care of. Where idiots seeks to cater to the needs of the collective, at the expense of the individual's rights, tyranny ensues and the collective suffers...

 

[Agnapostate]

Your entire critique is useless because it makes the incorrect assumption that socialism and communism do not possess a remunerative aspect.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

That is absolutely, egregiously false.

No Sis... it's 100% incontrovertibly TRUE.

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.

Anarchism is based upon the intellectual limitations of those that advocate for it. It is mental masterbation personified... A Highly organized Society can MEAN ANYTHING... Anarchism is an etheral farce promulgated by the weakest minds; those of children and those whose mind has not deveolped beyond that of a simple child.

As I have said elsewhere, anarchism focuses on the abolition of the state

Yet the 'State' is nothing more than a function of a highly organized society... which you have defined as Anarchism...



If there is no heirarchy... and you and the anarchial organization come to me with your grievance, I tell you to shove it up your collective... what happens next? That society organizes to take me down... Now when I'm taken down DUMBASS... THERE IN LIES A HEIRARCHY!

Check mate...

 

[Agnapostate]

No Sis... it's 100% incontrovertibly TRUE.

What a moron. You obviously need a few history lessons. Spanish Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anarchism is based upon the intellectual limitations of those that advocate for it. It is mental masterbation personified... A Highly organized Society can MEAN ANYTHING... Anarchism is an etheral farce promulgated by the weakest minds; those of children and those whose mind has not deveolped beyond that of a simple child.

That is possibly the most worthless reply that you've delivered in this thread, though I'm sure that it will soon have many competitors. If you want to ignore historical reality, that is your prerogative, though some of us may be more interested in what actually happened than your deluded little fantasies.

Yet the 'State' is nothing more than a function of a highly organized society...

Check mate...

Wrong. The state is the centralized, hierarchical entity that is the chief form of government in essentially every country, region, and province in the world today.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Your entire critique is useless because it makes the incorrect assumption that socialism and communism do not possess a remunerative aspect.

My position equates socialism and communism; rejects both on the whole and every other form of governance which does not recognize THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL AS BEING THE CORNER STONE OF FREEDOM. My posisition further openly rejects any discussion of left-think which does not recognize such as being geometrically opposed to, thus counter productive to those individual rights, thus the individual, thus the collective... thus such discussion are subversive to the freedom of all mankind; my position sets directly upon the immutable premise that where left-think prevails, freedom is lost and where freedom is lost, the collective suffers... where the collective suffers, the individual suffers and given that left-think is always touted as being the ideology which serves to protect the individual... Left-think is a lie, thus left-think serves evil... thus left-ISTS are the personification of evil.

 

[Agnapostate]

My position equates socialism and communism; rejects both on the whole and every other form of governance which does not recognize THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL AS BEING THE CORNER STONE OF FREEDOM. My posisition further openly rejects any discussion of left-think which does not recognize such as being geometrically opposed to, thus counter productive to those individual rights, thus the individual, thus the collective... thus such discussion are subversive to the freedom of all mankind; my position sets directly upon the immutable premise that where left-think prevails, freedom is lost and where freedom is lost, the collective suffers... where the collective suffers, the individual suffers and given that left-think is always touted as being the ideology which serves to protect the individual... Left-think is a lie, thus left-think serves evil... thus left-ISTS are the personification of evil.

And equating socialism and communism is precisely why your position fails in the first place. Socialism still retains the capacity to offer differentiating wages according to differentiating abilities, which communism does not. Your entire "position" seems to be blatantly ignorant of non-communistic forms of socialism, such as market socialism, mutualism, and collectivism. You also seem to suffer from the delusion that communism does not incorporate any variety of remuneration. While it is true that communism does not make remuneration differentiations according to skill differentiations, communism retains the capacity for remuneration differentiations according to labor input differentiations, in that an individual who is able but not willing to work would not be granted the same access to public services and resources as an individual who was both able and willing to work, and did so, would.

Your "position" also fails in that it immediately identifies collectivism as coercive while ignoring the possibility of voluntary, democratic collectivism. But if you used "collectivism" in its proper context, that of voluntary, democratic collectivism, many illusions surrounding it fade away. For instance, the attack that is made upon democratic communism or collectivism, as expressed by the individual anarchist John Henray MacKay, in a query to social anarchists, goes along these lines:

"'Would you [the social anarchist], in the system of society which you call 'free Communism' prevent individuals from exchanging their labour among themselves by means of their own medium of exchange? And further: Would you prevent them from occupying land for the purpose of personal use?' . . . [The] question was not to be escaped. If he answered 'Yes!' he admitted that society had the right of control over the individual and threw overboard the autonomy of the individual which he had always zealously defended; if on the other hand he answered 'No!' he admitted the right of private property which he had just denied so emphatically."

If this definition is used, it ignores the definition of "private property." Personal possessions would not be socialized or commonly owned in a libertarian socialist or communist society; they would be personally owned, as their name implies. Hence, if individuals wished to exchange personal possessions or the value of their individual labor gained through their personal possessions, they would be free to do so.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

What a moron. You obviously need a few history lessons. Spanish Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look sis, the Spanish Revolution did NOT create Anarchism... it did NOT PRODUCE A HIGHLY ORGANIZED STATE ABSENT HIERARCHY, it produced one of the weakest cultures on earth which is allowed to practice its fascist governance by virtue of the protection that is provided by the United States. Spain would have been a satellite of Nazi Germany if not for the power of capitalism which freed it, as brought to bear by the UNITED STATES. Spain would FURTHER be a satellite of the Soviet Union, AGAIN if not for the power created by capitalism, as demonstrated by the US economy... Much like little Canada, it is able to spend 1 cent of its dollar on defense and the rest on growing hydroponic pot BECAUSE THE US Military says no one will threaten Canada.

All of these nonsensical theoretical musings would be out the damn window absent the strength of capitalism and the means of the free world PROTECTED BY AMERICA, to freely exchange goods and services to the mutual benefit of each party... OKA: CAPITALISM.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

My position equates socialism and communism; rejects both on the whole and every other form of governance which does not recognize THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL AS BEING THE CORNER STONE OF FREEDOM. My posisition further openly rejects any discussion of left-think which does not recognize such as being geometrically opposed to, thus counter productive to those individual rights, thus the individual, thus the collective... thus such discussion are subversive to the freedom of all mankind; my position sets directly upon the immutable premise that where left-think prevails, freedom is lost and where freedom is lost, the collective suffers... where the collective suffers, the individual suffers and given that left-think is always touted as being the ideology which serves to protect the individual... Left-think is a lie, thus left-think serves evil... thus left-ISTS are the personification of evil.

And equating socialism and communism is precisely why your position fails in the first place. Socialism still retains the capacity to offer differentiating wages according to differentiating abilities, which communism does not.

Well only temporally... Socialism is little more than the transition to communism. Socialism discourages the production of wealth; wealth is required to sustain the promise of socialism; failure is thus inevitable; as failure closes in the state exponentially gathers more power towards a more centralized scope, until it is required to seize control of the means of production; strip the system of all traces of individual profit in order to maximize production... and PRESTO... Communism.

This is precisely how the US went from a free market capitalist society of the 19th century, to the progressive economy (read: fascist) of the 20th century and is now spiraling into Socialism... even as we speak the government is demanding greater and greater control to 'manage' the market... the same trend will simply continue, as the state's failure to control the market escalates, it will blame the market for the failure (as you're doing) and thus take more and more power to execute greater control, until it is said that to save the nation, it must determine who does what, when and for how much... AKA: COMMUNISM.

Again sis, this isn't a complex issue; it's simply beyond your intellectual means.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Again... Let the record reflect, 'Libertarian Socialism' is anoxymoron in the extreme... libertarianism is the very antithesis of socialism... this idiot has been so daftly indoctrinated that she is simply unable to recognize one concept from the next; even where the concepts are are diametric opposition. This is of course a function of being 'taught' by idiots; thus it serves reason; this without regard to just how freakin' sad it may be.

 

[Chris]

Again... Let the record reflect, 'Libertarian Socialism' is anoxymoron in the extreme... libertarianism is the very antithesis of socialism... this idiot has been so daftly indoctrinated that she is simply unable to recognize one concept from the next; even where the concepts are are diametric opposition. This is of course a function of being 'taught' by idiots; thus it serves reason; this without regard to just how freakin' sad it may be.

Ah, Publius.

I've missed your insane rantings.

 

[Lycurgus]

Ah, Publius.

I've missed your insane rantings.

What one is not capable of understanding, he considers to be the obscure.

Why?

It is the lazy mans way of substituting a term, for his lack of knowledge!