The Offtopicgrad Soviet: A Place to Discuss All Things Red

[Tani Coyote]

What you market socialists fail to understand is that economic systems don't just produce, they reproduce. If you don't destroy the means of economic reproduction, then you can't destroy the system forever. Like failing to complete an antibiotic regimen, the infection will return. Markets are the means by which wealth is unequalized and private property is the means by which that division of wealth is maintained and passed to future generations. Both must be socialized along with production and distribution, if you are to actually destroy capitalism.

How can we know for sure that market socialism will slide back into capitalism, though, when there has been no market socialist economy? We certainly have cases social democracies that have slid back into capitalism, but social democracies do not remove the underlying threat of capitalist elites.

Let us compare a simple situation. In a social democracy, capitalists can easily lobby for anti-labor measures and undo any progress workers have made. On the other hand, in a market socialist setup, a boss trying the same can be thrown out of his office by his workers. The market socialist boss does not have the same independent power base a capitalist boss does, never mind a market socialist boss is likely to be from the ranks of the workers themselves, and more sympathetic to them by extension. He may own a larger home than the person on the assembly line, but he does not own the business and so cannot use it to gain any real edge over his employees; his pay and wealth are greater, but not to such an extent that he is untouchable.

I think the real issue we would see with market socialism is the allure of certain groups deeming themselves more deserving of others, as we see under market capitalism. A boss might be able to convince his workers to support crushing another industry, as we have seen under capitalism. Of course, we will see this in any democratic setup, because short of a hive mind, we will continue to have our own needs, wants, self-interests and prejudices. However, the more equitable outcome of a market socialist system provides a good check against this, as people become very close to actual political equality and can eek out compromises as a result.

Though to get back to the core issue in terms of equality, I don’t think it would be an easy task to convince people of total equality in pay and wealth. Especially considering that the scarcity of resources precludes elimination of rationing and prices, which in turn means that people will want a better chance of getting an item than “first come, first served.” The way to do this is to increase your pay so that you can more easily acquire goods. We could all play fair for that limited quantity item, but it comes off as much more appealing to increase one’s pay so as to beat out others for it. Again, short of a hive mind, I just don’t see support for complete equality materializing.

“I want more” is a very powerful, common sentiment. Market socialism allows for it to be exercised without the same destructive results as capitalism, because a person who wants too much can be swiftly reined in.

 

[Hygro]

What are we defining market socialism as, in terms of its mechanisms and structure, ELI5&or90 if you could for my sake?

 

[Lexicus]

That's some holy smokes handwaving with "easily enough". Humanity lucked onto a system that gave us enough abundance to even have the problem of insufficient distribution. That system works exceedingly well. The previous attempts resulted in a lack of abundance and a common threat of starvation. "Socialism" is one hell of a gambit given that we don't even know what socialism is. "That's for the future people to figure out". Cool, I'll stick to what's working: more and more people getting fed every year.


It is profitable to feed the hungry, because everyone's hungry and food is profitable. It's not profitable to feed all of the hungry, yet, but that's not the fault of the people already feeding everyone else.

If you think otherwise, you should grow and distribute some food... right?

Humanity did not 'luck into' capitalism and pre-capitalist social systems were not (and should not be seen) as "attempts" to combat the danger of starvation.

And actually, the strides in feeding everyone that have been made in the past few decades would certainly fit Marx's term "social production controlled by social foresight."

In any case, you are ignoring the fact that capitalism really does give us the abundance to feed everyone, pretty easily.

Your assurance that it is profitable to feed the hungry is simply laughable given the historical and contemporary reality of people going unfed because they lack the money to buy food (perhaps the most iconic example would be the Irish famines where the landlords exported food and let the natives starve, because that was what was profitable). At least Rashiminos acknowledges that and draws the market fundamentalist conclusion: that it's okay to let people starve to death if that's what the Market demands.

As Marx argued, capitalism creates huge possibilities but then capitalist relations themselves act as impediments to realizing those possibilities.

What are we defining market socialism as, in terms of its mechanisms and structure, ELI5&or90 if you could for my sake?

The market is an adjunct to social organization rather than the Sole Organizing Principle of society. Enterprise is organized democratically and governance is generally decentralized.

Not to suggest that market socialism is something society transitions to all at once. THe US already exhibits many aspects of market socialism, and I don't envision capitalism ever being fully supplanted or "destroyed" just as precapitalist institutions such as the family remain intact even after 200 years or so of capitalism.

 

[Hygro]

In any case, you are ignoring the fact that capitalism really does give us the abundance to feed everyone, pretty easily.

You really think that?

 

[Lexicus]

You really think that?

Of course I do, because it is manifestly true. It is just like industrial production in the developed world. First capitalism gets us the abundance, then socialism came along in the form of unions and re-distributive government policy and this allowed more and more people to actually enjoy the abundance.

It's clear that socialization of resources is the only thing that allows capitalism's plenty to be spread around.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-holt-gimenez/world-hunger_b_1463429.html

Hunger is caused by poverty and inequality, not scarcity. For the past two decades, the rate of global food production has increased faster than the rate of global population growth. The world already produces more than 1 ½ times enough food to feed everyone on the planet. That’s enough to feed 10 billion people, the population peak we expect by 2050. But the people making less than $2 a day — most of whom are resource-poor farmers cultivating unviably small plots of land — can’t afford to buy this food.

https://www.wfp.org/hunger/faqs

1 - Is there a food shortage in the world?

There is enough food in the world today for everyone to have the nourishment necessary for a healthy and productive life.

 

[Hygro]

I meant did you really think I was ignoring that the current system creates enough food for more than everyone?

 

[red_elk]

First capitalism gets us the abundance, then socialism came along in the form of unions and re-distributive government policy and this allowed more and more people to actually enjoy the abundance.

This sounds like if socialism was an addition to capitalism, not replacement of it.

 

[Hygro]

That's the dirty, dirty secret.

 

[Lexicus]

I meant did you really think I was ignoring that the current system creates enough food for more than everyone?

That's what it seemed to me you were doing.

This sounds like if socialism was an addition to capitalism, not replacement of it.

Good, because that is exactly my position.

 

[red_elk]

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems the current discussion is about welfare state policies, which shouldn't be confused with socialism.

 

[Lexicus]

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems the current discussion is about welfare state policies, which shouldn't be confused with socialism.

No, because it makes so much practical sense for people self-describing as socialists to define socialism as something remote and never-before-seen rather than to see it in something that tangibly improves people's lives on a daily basis. Welfare state policies are socialization of resources, the limitation in the scope of the market as the mode of social organization.

 

[Hygro]

It was in my second sentence.... Hell, it is my second sentence. I don't know what to say, I don't think you aren't really reading my posts.

That's your prerogative but it sucks because you know a lot of the same stuff I do so we could be talking about some dank ideas.

 

[red_elk]

No, because it makes so much practical sense for people self-describing as socialists to define socialism as something remote and never-before-seen rather than to see it in something that tangibly improves people's lives on a daily basis. Welfare state policies are socialization of resources, the limitation in the scope of the market as the mode of social organization.

Well, I guess in some cases the word "socialism" can be used in that sense as well, but for me it was confusing to read, because I'm more used to the traditional definition. And if you look at the thread title, you'll probably understand my confusion

 

[Lexicus]

It was in my second sentence.... Hell, it is my second sentence. I don't know what to say, I don't think you aren't really reading my posts.

That's your prerogative but it sucks because you know a lot of the same stuff I do so we could be talking about some dank ideas.

Yeah, you said that but then later you said

It is profitable to feed the hungry, because everyone's hungry and food is profitable. It's not profitable to feed all of the hungry, yet, but that's not the fault of the people already feeding everyone else.

Who's fault is it then? Or maybe the better question would be, who do you think are 'the people already feeding everyone else'?

EDIT: also you're clearly right, I'm not reading your posts carefully enough - I did read that, but it didn't quite click for some reason.

 

[Tahuti]

Of course I do, because it is manifestly true. It is just like industrial production in the developed world. First capitalism gets us the abundance, then socialism came along in the form of unions and re-distributive government policy and this allowed more and more people to actually enjoy the abundance.

State Socialism and Social Democracy are what have saved Capitalism from its own demise. In some ways, those are essentially short circuits to make sure power runs to the "device".

In many ways socialism is complementary to capitalism, even the Soviet Communist variety. Both are part of the same disease known as economism. While I do not advocate complete regression to a hunter-gatherer society, one has to note that the advantages of such compared to modern times is that you can directly access subsistence needs without having to recourse to such things as "money" and "work". Living the closest approximation of hunter-gatherer lifestyle in "Modern" society is however criminalised as "shoplifting".

 

[Lexicus]

State Socialism and Social Democracy are what have saved Capitalism from its own demise. In some ways, those are essentially short circuits to make sure power runs to the "device".

In many ways socialism is complementary to capitalism, even the Soviet Communist variety. Both are part of the same disease known as economism. While I do not advocate complete regression to a hunter-gatherer society, one has to note that the advantages of such compared to modern times is that you can directly access subsistence needs without having to recourse to such things as "money" and "work". Living the closest approximation of hunter-gatherer lifestyle in "Modern" society is however criminalised as "shoplifting".

Yeah, I agree with basically all of this. You sure know where my buttons are and how to push 'em

 

[Hygro]

Yeah, you said that but then later you said



Who's fault is it then? Or maybe the better question would be, who do you think are 'the people already feeding everyone else'?

"Fault" is an interesting word. I feel like we could get to the heart of this just discussing the choice to use "fault".

It's the people who choose to grow and raise food, the people who choose to prepare it, and the people who choose truck, barter, and trade it. Supporting roles to regulators, investors, institutions that feed, even voters, and simply, buyers.

Farmers are not obliged to farm, they can do what they want and sell to whomever the feel like, right? And so on down the product chain.

Noting your above definition of socialism, you might have meant "have the government buy out food stocks to directly distribute" or "provide food vouchers" or even "give everyone a basic income that adjusts to food price increases", which is in the scheme of things, "easily enough". I was originally responding to "socialism" as Cheezy's domain of socialism, an enticing but very incompletely defined system of social regulation.

A big problem I have with most assertions of socialism is an overcommitment to "the best!" without some kind of built in, tiered adoption, inherent editing in the system. In competition, early adopters of good ideas, who know what they are doing or willing to risk failure, get rewarded, later adopters catch up, and non-adopters lose volume or even get closed out for their mistake. In the 5 year plan, AIUI the moment there's an upgrade, you're supposed to adopt the to upgrade immediately—to not would be to betray your comrades in the revolution by providing substandard results! This is great until social pressure encourages you to adopt something that later turns out to be a bad idea and the whole industry suffers the consequence.

So something that would be "the best!" could be to look at an existing system, and say "the profit motive has not yet provided total food distribution, ergo it's not 'the best!' so we shall replace it with [x]". But it's as I was saying, and as you paraphrased Marx saying, the profit motive got us this far already, on its own, with its problems. Ditch the profit motive and in a vacuum you lose perhaps the driving force that allows for enough abundance to even think of ditching the profit motive. This is why when I see "socialism" and "simply enough" for something as complicated as a decentralized global distribution chain I say, not so fast.

At this point you and I probably arrive at a similar conclusion. Ban the trashing of unsold, unexpired food; have government buy it out for cheap, then distribute it bottom up. That's still capitalist at the core, for good or ill, even if it's state driven. You can also define it socialist in the way you have been.

State Socialism and Social Democracy are what have saved Capitalism from its own demise. In some ways, those are essentially short circuits to make sure power runs to the "device".

In many ways socialism is complementary to capitalism, even the Soviet Communist variety. Both are part of the same disease known as economism. While I do not advocate complete regression to a hunter-gatherer society, one has to note that the advantages of such compared to modern times is that you can directly access subsistence needs without having to recourse to such things as "money" and "work". Living the closest approximation of hunter-gatherer lifestyle in "Modern" society is however criminalised as "shoplifting".

Yeah well shoes don't grow on trees, so it makes sense. If the popularity of some designer's shoe brand got that person's Maslow taken care of by virtue of people giving that designer some kind of props for the recognition of pwning the shoe game, then we could have a product gathering society.

I prefer "virus" to "disease"

 

[Lexicus]

"Fault" is an interesting word. I feel like we could get to the heart of this just discussing the choice to use "fault".

It's the people who choose to grow and raise food, the people who choose to prepare it, and the people who choose truck, barter, and trade it. Supporting roles to regulators, investors, institutions that feed, even voters, and simply, buyers.

Farmers are not obliged to farm, they can do what they want and sell to whomever the feel like, right? And so on down the product chain.

Noting your above definition of socialism, you might have meant "have the government buy out food stocks to directly distribute" or "provide food vouchers" or even "give everyone a basic income that adjusts to food price increases", which is in the scheme of things, "easily enough". I was originally responding to "socialism" as Cheezy's domain of socialism, an enticing but very incompletely defined system of social regulation.

A big problem I have with most assertions of socialism is an overcommitment to "the best!" without some kind of built in, tiered adoption, inherent editing in the system. In competition, early adopters of good ideas, who know what they are doing or willing to risk failure, get rewarded, later adopters catch up, and non-adopters lose volume or even get closed out for their mistake. In the 5 year plan, AIUI the moment there's an upgrade, you're supposed to adopt the to upgrade immediately—to not would be to betray your comrades in the revolution by providing substandard results! This is great until social pressure encourages you to adopt something that later turns out to be a bad idea and the whole industry suffers the consequence.

So something that would be "the best!" could be to look at an existing system, and say "the profit motive has not yet provided total food distribution, ergo it's not 'the best!' so we shall replace it with [x]". But it's as I was saying, and as you paraphrased Marx saying, the profit motive got us this far already, on its own, with its problems. Ditch the profit motive and in a vacuum you lose perhaps the driving force that allows for enough abundance to even think of ditching the profit motive. This is why when I see "socialism" and "simply enough" for something as complicated as a decentralized global distribution chain I say, not so fast.

At this point you and I probably arrive at a similar conclusion. Ban the trashing of unsold, unexpired food; have government buy it out for cheap, then distribute it bottom up. That's still capitalist at the core, for good or ill, even if it's state driven. You can also define it socialist in the way you have been.

I think the choice to use fault was yours, but I don't see it as anyone's fault, really (though certainly you can point to specific abuses), just a consequence of how the system works.

Also, the way I like to think about it, is that in something like 1500 AD, there wasn't a group of people sitting around plotting to unleash capitalism on the world. Why would we think anything similar about socialism? The attempts to establish socialism this way didn't turn out very well, at least in my opinion. But, as much as I think Marxist-Leninist regimes are bloodstains on history, they - like all the abuses of primitive accumulation - are also part of the 'bending of the arc of history toward justice', to paraphrase another prominent socialist

What you're envisioning here is indeed pretty much what I had in mind. And whether it's called capitalism or socialism is ultimately an esoteric semantic debate whose outcome is of little practical value (therefore, obviously, my favorite kind )

 

[Tani Coyote]

What are we defining market socialism as, in terms of its mechanisms and structure, ELI5&or90 if you could for my sake?

Well, the most basic definition (as I imagine you know) is a market system where the means/results of production are fully socialized.

The market socialist structure I speak of and advocate for is basically the same as what the United States has now, except the shareholders are the workers instead of private investors. Each worker would have equal say in the organization. There would still be competition, no price or wage controls, etc. We're not really changing anything other than who the shareholders are.

I don't want to imagine a "one size fits all" model for each company, but I would imagine that from there, the workers would choose at least the very top executives. How the company chooses middle management would be up to each company I presume (e.g. whether the elected executive appoints officers and managers, whether the workers appoint all management, whether there's a mixture, etc.).

I don't touch on the more broader things like radically changing the government structure, abolishing money, etc. Dismantling the primary means of how wealth and power are accumulated - private ownership of the means of production - is my focus.

 

[luiz]

And why would anyone start a new company if the boss of said company will be elected by the workers, and not by the guy who started it?