Socialism is collective ownership of the means of production.
Collective ownership of the means of production is more efficient and free in every possible way, well except for the freedom to oppress.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Socialism is collective ownership of the means of production.
Collective ownership of the means of production is more efficient and free in every possible way, well except for the freedom to oppress.
Communism and Socialism do not mean the same thing. Communism is an extreme of socialism. In a socialist government the means of production would typically be controlled by the government. The idea with Communism is that there is no position of power because everybody is equal and therefore the means of production are collective.
Thanks for sharing that definition. Now that we have a working definition, under that definition, who decides what gets produced?
"who decides what gets produced?"
It really depends on what the society decides at that point. Sometimes it runs purely on a command economy, where what is needed or wanted is measure and produced. That has proven to work well in the past, I forgot the country but it was able to function on 10-20% of its trucks used for moving resources, when any other countries economy grinds to a halt at that point.
The specific person or group who decides really depends. In anarchist it takes longer to adjust for demand but there is more freedom. In a mlm economy it is run by councils between the areas involved in that production and those who need what is being produced.
How does 'society' decide? Who do I call when I need to speak to 'society'? How do you 'measure' what is needed? Oh, and please do reply when you remember that one country in which socialism worked
oh here we go, this is what I was looking for:
"2000: "I can list you a ton of successful, first-world countries that practice Capitalism. Can you list a single successful Socialist country?"
1900: "I can list you a ton of successful, first-world countries that practice Imperialism. Can you list a single successful non-Imperialist country?"
1800: "I can list you a ton of successful, first-world countries that practice slavery. Can you list a single successful free country?"
1700: "I can list you a ton of successful, first-world countries that practice Monarchy. Can you list a single successful Republican country?"
1600: "I can list you a ton of successful, first-world countries that practice Mercantilism. Can you list a single successful Capitalist country?
1500: "I can list you a ton of successful, first-world countries that practice Catholicism. Can you list a single successful Protestant country?
1400: "I can list you a ton of successful, first-world countries that practice Feudalism. Can you list a single successful non-Feudalist country?"
300: "I can list you a ton of successful, first-world countries that practice Paganism. Can you list a single successful Christian country?"
1200 BC: "I I can list you a ton of successful, first-world countries that practice bronze working. Can you list a single successful iron working country?"
3000 BC: "I can list you a ton of successful, first-world countries that practice stone working. Can you list a single successful bronze working country?""
Compelling. But I take that as an admission that we haven't witnessed, to date, a socialist society that is also free?
women went to college 20+ years before the US in the USSR. I don't have the links now but the majority of stuff in the USSR was done by small-scale local councils.
Anarchist ukraine is another example.
In fact it essentially is not socialism without democracy.
Now to return that back to you, whats so free about being forced to work for the rich at the minimum upkeep wage of life or starve to death?
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/
I have no doubt that's true - I believe that socialist/communist societies were always ahead of the 'West' in terms of liberation of women, in that specific sense. Now, I also believe they had more women in jail for saying the wrong things and being dissenters. But I guess it cuts both ways
Who forces you to work for the rich? Name a (non socialist/communist) country where that is the case? Also, in what capitalist country do people starve to death? Defined as dying from mal-/lack of nutrition?
"Oh, and please do reply when you remember that one country in which socialism worked"
well the USSR is one example, so good in fact 80% of the people voted to keep it communist. The only reason it turned capitalist is an opportunist somehow made it into the top of the party.
http://writetorebel.com/2016/11/25/the-successes-of-socialism-in-the-ussr/
Based on the article, socialism 'working' is defined as
(1) women get to fight in wars
(2) universal healthcare
(3) growing faster than Mongolia
(4) still in 2017 using railways built in 1931
Like I said, when you get to define what 'working' means, it's hard to disagree with your conclusions
manipulating definitions is intellectually dishonest.
I agree. I was just stating my read of how the article you posted defined 'socialism working'. How would you define it?
others I liked was Revolutionary Spain, Cuba and Nicaragua.
" Who do I call when I need to speak to 'society'? "
it really depends. As long as the workers are in control of the means of production it is socialism. The exact structure that comes from that changes from group to group.
Can I speak to your market about prices please?
www.amazon.com
It even has a website
The council of people who manage the goods that are produced. Since it can literally be everyone, a democracy, it literally is all of society.
Also newegg has different prices, so that is wrong and not the entire market.
I did not claim that my market needs a 'decider' - it doesn't need anyone to speak to. That's the beauty of it. You claimed that in socialism 'society' decides, so that seemed like you meant some kind of organized decision process
"I did not claim that my market needs a 'decider' - it doesn't need anyone to speak to."
I did not claim that either, but the thing is the decider of each company is the owner. The one with all the power, but does not have to do labor himself.
"So that seemed like you meant some kind of organized decision process"
It can be a government or it can be a collective of people, sometimes both. Anarchy and state socialism can actually coexist. (unless Trotsky)
The beauty of it is that since the workers control the means of production they can organize however they want whenever they want, without a leech who controls them through the use of the government. (private property)
So back to the "who do I speak to" part - what are the workers to do then, in socialism? The first Monday morning after institution of socialism, what do I do as a worker?
"The first Monday morning after institution of socialism, what do I do as a worker?"
"The first day after the institution of capitalism, what do I do as a worker?"
It really depends, you can't predict the outcome of entire system shifts.
After a while you would simply join a union that controls a factory and get what you produce and do whatever you want with it.
If you don't want to join one, start one. If you have a conflict peacefully and logically solve it. Its that simple.
You open the newspaper and look for job ads.
In your case, who decides what the factory makes? And where does the factory get its raw materials from?
"How do you 'measure' what is needed? "
You mean the economic calculation problem? It has a name you know
"Firms manage to have central planning and they don't struggle with the "calculation problem" in fact the centrally planned capitalist firm is about the strongest argument you could have in favour of central planning."
not going to bother going beyond that quote