NationStates Jolt Archive

In response to the continuing avalanche of threads like this one (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=538007), I think that it is proper to have a thread to define socialism so that we don't have to go through a thread a weak about "teh ebil socialists".

For the purposes of NSG debate, Socialism is NOT the following:

Soviet Union style bureaucratic collectivism
Chinese state capitalism
European welfare democracies
Anything else that involves totalitarian states, bureaucratic kleptopia etc.


Socialism IS the following: a cooperative economy that replaces private ownership of productive resources and wage labor with cooperative control of productive resources via worker's self-management, thereby extending democracy in the economic sphere.

Please take note of this, and stop bringing up the degenerated vulgar Marxist-Leninist states like the Soviet Union. Anyone who does bring up the Soviet Union in a debate about socialism will lose their Ayn Rand privileges for a week.

Oh, Jesus Christ, come on, we had the very same topic about a week ago.

Oh, Jesus Christ, come on, we had the very same topic about a week ago.

Wait a sec? You mean I missed a thread about socialism?

*commits seppuku in disgrace*

Wait a sec? You mean I missed a thread about socialism?

*commits seppuku in disgrace*
Actually, I think you made some classic Marxist (EUGH) description about socialism and such.

I personally think of it as people being able to live their lives on government support when nothing else will do.

My personal definition would see socialism as statist and communism as stateless, but that's personal and not based on any kind of research or anything.

Socialism IS the following: a cooperative economy that replaces private ownership of productive resources and wage labor with cooperative control of productive resources via worker's self-management, thereby extending democracy in the economic sphere.

I assume that the workers don't stratify into different layers of management. How does a productive resource plan and operate with everyone working at the same level? Town hall meetings to discuss every contract?

And what about private enterprise? If I want to open up a shop and sell my artistic creations in wrought iron, how is that possible?

My definition of socialism is an ideal where you are provided with what you need and wealth is distributed fairly amongst the people. Things like communism, communalism, democratic socialism etc... are means to this end.

Pure 'Socialism' itself is the equalising of wealth through various means of collectivism. But there is a difference between 'socialism' and 'socialistic' ideas, as seen in the European governments you mention, the latter being more moderated but following the same ideas.

Please take note of this, and stop bringing up the degenerated vulgar Marxist-Leninist states like the Soviet Union.
And that wouldn't be fair either. Like it or not, but the Soviet Union was an attempt at putting a form of socialism into practice. The collective ownership of factors of production was to be organised through the state, because direct worker self-management was just not feasible considering the time, technology and sheer size of the place. It then it just felt like it had to protect itself against the opposing elements within society and without.

Plus, it nicely illustrates the problems of trying to run an economy without market prices. And unless an alternative socialist community sticks to being relatively small, the sort of shortages caused by planning mistakes and the impossibility of calculation are going to occur there as well.

So, no, it would not be fair to take Soviet policies and say "that is socialism, all socialism is like that". But it would be dishonest to deny that the reasons for Soviet policies were for a large part to be found within a branch of socialist theory, which is why the same issues and the same policies popped up in every attempt at a socialist country.

And that wouldn't be fair either. Like it or not, but the Soviet Union was an attempt at putting a form of socialism into practice. The collective ownership of factors of production was to be organised through the state, because direct worker self-management was just not feasible considering the time, technology and sheer size of the place. It then it just felt like it had to protect itself against the opposing elements within society and without.

Plus, it nicely illustrates the problems of trying to run an economy without market prices. And unless an alternative socialist community sticks to being relatively small, the sort of shortages caused by planning mistakes and the impossibility of calculation are going to occur there as well.

So, no, it would not be fair to take Soviet policies and say "that is socialism, all socialism is like that". But it would be dishonest to deny that the reasons for Soviet policies were for a large part to be found within a branch of socialist theory, which is why the same issues and the same policies popped up in every attempt at a socialist country.

This is quite true.

We can't forget all of those failed attempts at a socialist state also. You know the ones, those that went bankrupt because they forgot the key element to socialism: a controlling faction to dictate what everyone gets.

The original post's definition sounds like Communism in it's "idealist" form... Socialism in my view is egalitarianism pure and simple, the redistribution of wealth... All other topics of government will fall under other ideologies...

Don't all attempts at defining socialism end in every socialist denouncing every other socialist, stating that they'll be first against the wall when the revolution comes - even before the capitalists?

At least that's my general experience - perhaps not quite so extreme, but there about.

Don't all attempts at defining socialism end in every socialist denouncing every other socialist, stating that they'll be first against the wall when the revolution comes - even before the capitalists?

At least that's my general experience - perhaps not quite so extreme, but there about.

Ah yes, the purges...We must find the unbelievers and dispose of them.

We can't forget all of those failed attempts at a socialist state also. You know the ones, those that went bankrupt because they forgot the key element to socialism: a controlling faction to dictate what everyone gets.

Never heard of democratic socialism, I see.

I assume that the workers don't stratify into different layers of management. How does a productive resource plan and operate with everyone working at the same level? Town hall meetings to discuss every contract?

And what about private enterprise? If I want to open up a shop and sell my artistic creations in wrought iron, how is that possible?

Of course not. But, at the same time, managerial positions still exists. They are elected to limited terms directly by the workers, and are instantly recallable. Others can be filled by sortition (i.e., its your turn to do x this week). The balance to this is federalism. Decision making is kept as local as possible, and only those affected by a decision have a right to vote on the decision.

Under a socialist system, you can open up a shop and sell your artistic creations all you want. You, however, cannot hire wage labor, as this is antithetical to the whole reason why socialism exists in the first place.

And that wouldn't be fair either. Like it or not, but the Soviet Union was an attempt at putting a form of socialism into practice. The collective ownership of factors of production was to be organised through the state, because direct worker self-management was just not feasible considering the time, technology and sheer size of the place. It then it just felt like it had to protect itself against the opposing elements within society and without.

Plus, it nicely illustrates the problems of trying to run an economy without market prices. And unless an alternative socialist community sticks to being relatively small, the sort of shortages caused by planning mistakes and the impossibility of calculation are going to occur there as well.

So, no, it would not be fair to take Soviet policies and say "that is socialism, all socialism is like that". But it would be dishonest to deny that the reasons for Soviet policies were for a large part to be found within a branch of socialist theory, which is why the same issues and the same policies popped up in every attempt at a socialist country.

You and I have a different opinion about what caused the degeneration of the Soviet Union, it seems. What we have to recognize is that Lenin and the Bolsheviks began the centralization of power in the hands of the party-state long before the Civil War began. In The State and Revolution, and the period leading up to Red October, Lenin called very strongly for the smashing of the state, and worker's control of the economy. Right after the smashing of the provisional government, Lenin's past came back to haunt the revolution.

The bolsheviks were not a popular party until February of 1917. Even then, they were still a rigidly hierarchical, centralized party apparatus. This may have been necesary while living under the oppression of the Czars, but soon the rigid centralism and the inherant corrupting nature of power led to the Bolshevik party becoming the state.

Very soon, the rigidly centralized Bolshevik leadership began manipulating party members who were deputies in the soviets [worker councils]. The armed mass that Lenin had exalted mere months before soon became centralized into the Red Army, a firm organ of the Bolshevik party-state. With the pressure of the Red Army, and Bolshevik manipulation, the soviets were soon forced into delegating more and more power to the Bolshevik party dominated Central Committee. This all happened before the Civil War broke out.

The central planning apparatus that was to later dominate the Soviet economy grew out of the oppressive centralization. As the history of the Spanish Revolution shows, markets and socialism are not inherently contradictory.

Socialism, in some ways, an attempt to have the family writ large.

Of course not. But, at the same time, managerial positions still exists. They are elected to limited terms directly by the workers, and are instantly recallable. Others can be filled by sortition (i.e., its your turn to do x this week). The balance to this is federalism. Decision making is kept as local as possible, and only those affected by a decision have a right to vote on the decision.

This is kind of interesting. Has it _ever_ worked? I find it hilarious to think that the managers that set the productive resources' goals and policies are elected in a popularity contest, then replaced at a whim of the mob. Part of being a good leader is being able to stick to a policy that will benefit the company in the long run, despite short term difficulties. That seems at odds with ubiquitous popularity polls.

Taking turns has it's own special set of problems...Specialization is what really tunes up a production facility. You can't have someone that's tops at soldering surface mount components trade with another that can barely solder through hole boards. People just aren't equivalent, no matter what the theory says.

Under a socialist system, you can open up a shop and sell your artistic creations all you want. You, however, cannot hire wage labor, as this is antithetical to the whole reason why socialism exists in the first place.

So what do I do when I find I need help with the books? Or I want someone to man the counter, while I create? Sounds like a counter-productive, or at least a production-limiting philosophy.

Socialism IS the following: a cooperative economy that replaces private ownership of productive resources and wage labor with cooperative control of productive resources via worker's self-management, thereby extending democracy in the economic sphere.
So, given that, why would anyone care to pursue socialism as an economic system?

This is kind of interesting. Has it _ever_ worked? I find it hilarious to think that the managers that set the productive resources' goals and policies are elected in a popularity contest, then replaced at a whim of the mob. Part of being a good leader is being able to stick to a policy that will benefit the company in the long run, despite short term difficulties. That seems at odds with ubiquitous popularity polls.
This is why, in a parliamentary system, minority governments tend to be bigger governments. A majority can do what it thinks is best without any immediate political concerns, but a minority is forced to cater to popular opinion incessantly, and popular opinion is usually very bad at delaying gratification.

Democracy only works as long as people don't realise they can vote themselves benefits at each other's expense.

This is why, in a parliamentary system, minority governments tend to be bigger governments. A majority can do what it thinks is best without any immediate political concerns, but a minority is forced to cater to popular opinion incessantly, and popular opinion is usually very bad at delaying gratification.

Democracy only works as long as people don't realise they can vote themselves benefits at each other's expense.

I don't want my point to get lost -- Trots needs to answer.

But I just don't see the equality of the workers being an effective management force for a company like Boeing or Ford, or General Electric. Airbus would eat Boeing's lunch if there wasn't some strong leadership. The guys on the loading dock or on the assembly floor just can't compete in the world of ideas with someone that's had years of experience.

That _doesn't_ mean that it isn't good experience for upper management to have worked on the assembly floor. One of the best policies Delta Air Lines ever had was to start every worker, except flight crews, at the bottom. All executives were ticket agents, ramp agents, baggage handlers... That gives one enormous insight into a company's operations.

Ah yes, the purges...We must find the unbelievers and dispose of them.Not just the purges, it just seems socialists can get so passionate about what they believe in that even minor disagreements can escalate to something huge. And it's always easiest to get angriest at the people you know best.

I guess I was thinking of the Labour party in the 70s and 80s as well.

Socialism is the ownership and control of X by a collection of autonomous individuals, each with an equal share of power over the decision-making process, and as applied to the economic environment.

Such a political arrangement is, of course, entirely compatible with free enterprise, property, voluntary association and trade. The trick is that ownership and control must be highly decentralized and based upon voluntary association.

Theoretical examples abound, primarily as defined in the model of the Cooperative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative). Specifically:


Housing Cooperative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing cooperative)
Building Cooperative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building cooperative)
Retailers' Cooperative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retailers' cooperative)
Utility Cooperative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility cooperative)
Worker Cooperative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker cooperative)
Social Cooperative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social cooperative)
Consumers' Cooperative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumers' cooperative)
Agricultural Cooperative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural cooperative)
Cooperative Banking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative banking)


Practical examples are also abundant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cooperatives). Many you've probably never heard of. Others are major brand names that compete very well against more traditionally and hierarchically structured enterprises.

There is also the mutual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_organization), which also boasts of successful (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Life) real-life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwestern_Mutual_Life) implementations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Farm_Insurance).

I also highly recommend the film The Take (http://www.thetake.org/). It is a documentary about the Recovered Factories movement in Argentina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_self-management#South_America), specifically focusing on the efforts of a particular group of automotive factory workers to take over an abandoned factory and run it as a workers' cooperative. The film pretty much annihilates the notion of the lazy wasteful worker only looking for a handout, replacing it with the reality of men who want to work and work hard in order to provide for themselves and their families.

Anyway, that's really all there is to the whole "socialism" thing. Some of you are likely to object that what I describe above is really capitalism, or isn't really socialism because there is still property or the state isn't involved, or whatever else.

That's the kicker. In a genuine environment of voluntary association based upon the autonomy of the individual, "socialism" and "capitalism" start to look a hell of a lot alike. Some of the 19th century originators of modern socialist theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon) understood this quite well. What it really boils down to is the recognition that someone's got to do the producing, coupled with the belief that oligopoly (whether of the state or of the boss) kinda sucks.

Thus the long history of anti-state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism) and decentralist socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Socialism).

Socialism does include a school that spouts the perverted monstrosity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism-Leninism) that is the centralized and statist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union); this school cannot be ignored, if only because of the valuable lesson it teaches about the danger of abandoning the autonomous individual to the nonsense of the "vanguard" bureaucrat. My opinion of this particular school is probably obvious. :)

Socialism IS the following: a cooperative economy that replaces private ownership of productive resources and wage labor with cooperative control of productive resources via worker's self-management, thereby extending democracy in the economic sphere.Why not just use the word communism instead? There's less confusion that way.

So, given that, why would anyone care to pursue socialism as an economic system?Because it would benefit the majority of people and doesn't take from anybody anything that they have a right to.

Why not just use the word communism instead? There's less confusion that way.

Because it would benefit the majority of people and doesn't take from anybody anything that they have a right to.

Slight hijack just to comment on your name, as I'm reading about Biafra, the separatist state from Nigeria. Since it was also known as Yellow Biafra, due to the half sun on its flag I thought you were alluding to that.

I see it's the lead singer of the Dead Kennedys now, though he in turn took his name from Biafra.

Anyway...

I think that new socialist theory should be defined by particapatory economics. Basiclly Economic democracy except with a whole system designed around an economy and a political system as well. The key to economic democracy though is that it is local so people know each other and can be held acountable to any of their actions and to take pride in their work since it is their decision and their work that they get rewarded for. I mean one aspect of the rise of socialisim in the 19th century was that workers weren't getting recognition and reward for their work while communisim in the Soviet Union and other similar states just tried to make things equally divided rewarding everyone for the same work which is only one reason why it failed. The other is the crucial factor of democracy not only in the work place but democracy in politics giving the people a voice their concerns which was lacking in the USSR. I myself am an upper middle class intellect and I feel that the only way that people like me do not try to hijack socialism and use it to their own ideology purposes should be through direct democracy with the implementations of cooperatives, consumer and worker, and the strengthing of direct democracy through local councils. Thats my two cents.

Particapatory Economic link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics

Socialism IS the following: a cooperative economy that replaces private ownership of productive resources and wage labor with cooperative control of productive resources via worker's self-management, thereby extending democracy in the economic sphere.


I think you are being two specific as there have been socialists who have accepted wage labor, and socialists who have advocated a level of competition.

I think most generally that socialism is the advocacy of fair return of product to producer combined with the belief the capital ownership is the result of unjust aggression through state and private means.

Socialistic Letter
[Le Radical]
There are two Socialisms.
One is communistic, the other solidaritarian.
One is dictatorial, the other libertarian.
One is metaphysical, the other positive.
One is dogmatic, the other scientific.
One is emotional, the other reflective.
One is destructive, the other constructive.
Both are in pursuit of the greatest possible welfare for all.
One aims to establish happiness for all, the other to enable each to be happy in his own way.
The first regards the State as a society sui generis, of an especial essence, the product of a sort of divine right outside of and above all society, with special rights and able to exact special obediences; the second considers the State as an association like any other, generally managed worse than others.
The first proclaims the sovereignty of the State, the second recognizes no sort of sovereign.
One wishes all monopolies to be held by the State; the other wishes the abolition of all monopolies.
One wishes the governed class to become the governing class; the other wishes the disappearance of classes.
Both declare that the existing state of things cannot last.
The first considers revolutions as the indispensable agent of evolutions; the second teaches that repression alone turns evolutions into revolution.
The first has faith in a cataclysm.
The second knows that social progress will result from the free play of individual efforts.
Both understand that we are entering upon a new historic phase.
One wishes that there should be none but proletaires.
The other wishes that there should be no more proletaires.
The first wishes to take everything away from everybody.
The second wishes to leave each in possession of its own.
The one wishes to expropriate everybody.
The other wishes everybody to be a proprietor.
The first says: ‘Do as the government wishes.’
The second says: ‘Do as you wish yourself.’
The former threatens with despotism.
The latter promises liberty.
The former makes the citizen the subject of the State.
The latter makes the State the employee of the citizen.
One proclaims that labor pains will be necessary to the birth of a new world.
The other declares that real progress will not cause suffering to any one.
The first has confidence in social war.
The other believes only in the works of peace.
One aspires to command, to regulate, to legislate.
The other wishes to attain the minimum of command, of regulation, of legislation.
One would be followed by the most atrocious of reactions.
The other opens unlimited horizons to progress.
The first will fail; the other will succeed.
Both desire equality.
One by lowering heads that are too high.
The other by raising heads that are too low.
One sees equality under a common yoke.
The other will secure equality in complete liberty.
One is intolerant, the other tolerant.
One frightens, the other reassures.
The first wishes to instruct everybody.
The second wishes to enable everybody to instruct himself.
The first wishes to support everybody.
The second wishes to enable everybody to support himself.
One says:
The land to the State.
The mine to the State.
The tool to the State.
The product to the State.
The other says:
The land to the cultivator.
The mine to the miner.
The tool to the laborer.
The product to the producer.
There are only these two Socialisms.
One is the infancy of Socialism; the other is its manhood.
One is already the past; the other is the future.
One will give place to the other.
Today each of us must choose for the one or the other of these two Socialisms, or else confess that he is not a Socialist.

This was written by Earnest Lesigne and translated and published by Benjamin Tucker in 1887.

You and I have a different opinion about what caused the degeneration of the Soviet Union, it seems.
Definitely. I don't think there would have been a revolution with anything like a socialist angle without the Bolsheviks. Most of the populace had no interest in the means of production or the labour theory of value, they just wanted enough food and the war to end.

But because Lenin and his mates couldn't wait for a Marxism-predicted worker's revolution, they did it themselves, with the known consequences.

My point is that any revolutionary socialist will spend his or her lifetime waiting without it ever happening. Which must be rather unsatisfying.

This is kind of interesting. Has it _ever_ worked? I find it hilarious to think that the managers that set the productive resources' goals and policies are elected in a popularity contest, then replaced at a whim of the mob. Part of being a good leader is being able to stick to a policy that will benefit the company in the long run, despite short term difficulties. That seems at odds with ubiquitous popularity polls.

Yes, as a matter of fact, it has. Look at the spanish revolution, or any one of a number of cooperative enterprises scattered around the world. I have to stress that the managers have no real decision making power. They come up with plans, and the workers vote on which one to follow. Thats the whole idea of someone being a deputy instead of a delegate. Since everyone has a stake in the enterprise, it will be in everyone's rational self-interest to satisfy long term goals over short term goals.

Taking turns has it's own special set of problems...Specialization is what really tunes up a production facility. You can't have someone that's tops at soldering surface mount components trade with another that can barely solder through hole boards. People just aren't equivalent, no matter what the theory says.

So what do I do when I find I need help with the books? Or I want someone to man the counter, while I create? Sounds like a counter-productive, or at least a production-limiting philosophy.

The idea behind sortition is that it is used for work that anyone with even a small level of training. You don't really need a dedicated janitor staff, for instance. With a little bit of training anyone can do it. The idea behind this is something called "balanced job complexs". By allowing the workers to devise the division of labor within the cooperative, we can create the situation where everyone gets to do some more enjoyable work, and some less enjoyable work.

Definitely. I don't think there would have been a revolution with anything like a socialist angle without the Bolsheviks. Most of the populace had no interest in the means of production or the labour theory of value, they just wanted enough food and the war to end.

But because Lenin and his mates couldn't wait for a Marxism-predicted worker's revolution, they did it themselves, with the known consequences.

My point is that any revolutionary socialist will spend his or her lifetime waiting without it ever happening. Which must be rather unsatisfying.

It is true, that in order for a socialist revolution to be legitmate it has to be trully from the voices of the people from the inside from the bottom up and not the top down. In order for those people to realize their destitution they have to know really how bad off they are. For example a person in the country of Niger is used to having to work for his food for survival and is used to that so he doesn't complain to an extent. If he got to stay in the US or any western country for a month he would see that in the rest of the world there are people who don't even have to worry about their next meal. Ignorance is what keeps people from rebelling.

Ignorance is what keeps people from rebelling.
That may well be true. So a legitimate thing to do for a Marxist would be to make that information available to those who don't have it. However, to then ask people to rebel or in any way influence what decision they make with that information is once again tinkering with the predicted course of history.

Fact of the matter is that at least in a Marxist view of things, we'll know when the time comes because the capitalist economic system will have worn itself out, all prices will be ridiculously low etc etc

Innovation and technical change has so far postponed this (and made capitalism about much more than just amassing productive capacity), and in my view it will continue to do so. Historical dialectics is silly, the course of events Marx and Engels describe is too.

Or, to put it bluntly, Marx was wrong.

However, to then ask people to rebel or in any way influence what decision they make with that information is once again tinkering with the predicted course of history.

No, it isn't... since encouraging rebellion is itself part of the predicted course of history.

Ignorance is what keeps people from rebelling.

There are many things that can potentially hold off rebellion, ignorance is among the least of the factors.

That may well be true. So a legitimate thing to do for a Marxist would be to make that information available to those who don't have it. However, to then ask people to rebel or in any way influence what decision they make with that information is once again tinkering with the predicted course of history.

Fact of the matter is that at least in a Marxist view of things, we'll know when the time comes because the capitalist economic system will have worn itself out, all prices will be ridiculously low etc etc

Innovation and technical change has so far postponed this (and made capitalism about much more than just amassing productive capacity), and in my view it will continue to do so. Historical dialectics is silly, the course of events Marx and Engels describe is too.

Or, to put it bluntly, Marx was wrong.

I'm just saying if you provide the means of education and the awarness about what goes around on in the world, people in the third world will rebel, however at the same time they might be more worried about their security physically, foodwise, and disease wise and so might not immedeatly care unless they see it with their own eyes up front.

No, it isn't... since encouraging rebellion is itself part of the predicted course of history.
Not if capitalism isn't in its final stage. Remember, for the time to be really ready, we'd have to be in a situation in which the dictatorship of the proletariat could massively improve the people's lives not by increasing productive capacity but simply by redistributing what already exists.

You can argue a little bit about the Western world today on that count (though the gains would be unlikely to last, since the calculation problem means that even running the economy without increasing capacity would be beyond a centrally planned system), but I think we can both agree that Nigeria is not all that far into capitalism according to a Marxist view of history.

So whoever ends up in charge has the same tired old problem to solve. Good thing is, he'd have a lot of tried and tested methods, from NEP over Electrification to Leaps of various levels of Greatness. Bad thing is, the test results haven't been encouraging.

Remember, for the time to be really ready, we'd have to be in a situation in which the dictatorship of the proletariat could massively improve the people's lives not by increasing productive capacity but simply by redistributing what already exists.

And also by increasing productive capacity. Socialism does not only involve redistribution.

And also by increasing productive capacity. Socialism does not only involve redistribution.
Well, yes. But that's got more to do with the transition towards communism and the final elimination of scarcity.

My understanding is that the revolution us preceded by something of a collapse of capitalism because the market can no longer make the acquisition of more capital worthwhile, partly because there's no one wealthy enough around to buy the goods anymore.

Well, yes. But that's got more to do with the transition towards communism and the final elimination of scarcity.

My understanding is that the revolution us preceded by something of a collapse of capitalism because the market can no longer make the acquisition of more capital worthwhile, partly because there's no one wealthy enough around to buy the goods anymore.

Yes, I thought that Marx believed that capitalists would become too productive, so to speak.

Socialism is a system in which everything belongs to everyone and so belongs to no one. That is, everyone has equal access to everything, regardless of the amount of personal effort or overall contribution (they can be different, there is a hard way and a smart way of doing anything) while at the same time no one is held responsible for anything.

Socialism is what would happen if all of society went on welfare and work was completely optional. Nature dictates that almost everyone will seek the greatest gains for the least work and since everyone has the same share and doesn't need to work for it almost no one will contribute.

Oh, and uh, socialism is also the Soviet Union, Communist China, western European welfare states, and any and all other totalitarian, bureaucratic kleptopian states.

I'm sure the Bolsheviks never wanted the Soviet Union to turn out like it did. But socialism fails economically, over the years, socially.
Authoritarianism was always going to be the result, and with that comes corruption.
Throughout history any state that's claimed to be socialist has degraded the quality of life of their citizens for a while, then falls. Or reforms.

Socialism simply doesn't work. Besides, it's not compatible with human nature.

Yes, as a matter of fact, it has. Look at the spanish revolution, or any one of a number of cooperative enterprises scattered around the world. I have to stress that the managers have no real decision making power. They come up with plans, and the workers vote on which one to follow. Thats the whole idea of someone being a deputy instead of a delegate. Since everyone has a stake in the enterprise, it will be in everyone's rational self-interest to satisfy long term goals over short term goals.

Okay -- you'll have to be a little more specific on what you're referring to in the Spanish Revolution -- Frankly, I'm too lazy to wade through all the hits I might get on Spanish Revolution + socialism.

But for these references to coops. Did they form a national economy, or were they just isolated enterprises? I'm going to bet that no socialistic enterprises have ever approached the sizes of General Electric, Lockheed-Martin, General Motors, etc. Plus, I'll bet that none of the coops were very complex enterprises, either. It's not easy to make a farm prosper, but it's a whole lot easier than it is to make a global telecommunications company do well.

And I see size mattering hugely in this effort. How would the workers at General Electric or GM decide on competitive strategies? Based on their concern for the other workers? Or for themselves? If GM decides to shut down a production line and lay off all the workers at that plant, do you really think the other workers will be thinking of alternative strategies? Or will they be thinking "Dump them, save us..."? And in this situation, who is GM? In other words, who makes the decision that the Camaro line needs to be abandoned?


The idea behind sortition is that it is used for work that anyone with even a small level of training. You don't really need a dedicated janitor staff, for instance. With a little bit of training anyone can do it. The idea behind this is something called "balanced job complexs". By allowing the workers to devise the division of labor within the cooperative, we can create the situation where everyone gets to do some more enjoyable work, and some less enjoyable work.
I'd like to see this work for an airline.
Intercom: "Ladies and Gentlemen, this is your pilot...yesterday I was a baggage handler, but now it's my turn to ride up front. Hang on and good luck".
I can't even see swapping ticket agents and ramp agents...The jobs are too different.

Nah, I can't see this working on a national scale with the large, multi-disciplinary companies that exist today. The theory might be good for the unskilled in jobs that don't require skills, but the day has risen and set on a national economy of pure socialism. And it was a short day.

But why don't you give me a good example of how you would turn GM into a worker-run company -- I want to know who makes the decisions and how...How do I get approval to take vacation on the last week in December? How do we hire new employees? How do we fire ineffective employees? How do we create a new product line?

And don't fall into the trap that libertarians trip over, i.e. "the market will decide..." If you say only that "the workers will decide..." I will know you're just stalling because you have no practical answers. There's much work and many details to provide before you get to use the phrase, "the workers will vote...".

Okay?

Yes, I thought that Marx believed that capitalists would become too productive, so to speak.

Yes, the crisis of over accumulation I believe.

Okay?
One company for you, R.E.I.

One company for you, R.E.I.
But REI has a President, a number of V.P.s, and a Board of Directors, all the way down to retail store managers -- Hardly the Socialist ideal of worker equality and job swapping that Trots is promoting.

I vote in my Credit Union affairs, but I certainly don't participate decisions about how to set interest rates, who to give loans, etc. I doubt the employees at REI decide how to handle new hires, fire old guys, or any other major decisions.

But REI has a President, a number of V.P.s, and a Board of Directors, all the way down to retail store managers -- Hardly the Socialist ideal of worker equality and job swapping that Trots is promoting.

I vote in my Credit Union affairs, but I certainly don't participate decisions about how to set interest rates, who to give loans, etc. I doubt the employees at REI decide how to handle new hires, fire old guys, or any other major decisions.
REI does vote upon who is the CEO and on the board, and so on. So, theoretically, they have a voice in the direction of the company.

Whether or not it is the ideal as proposed here is beside the point. You asked for an example and I provided one that somewhat models it.

Whether you accept or like the model is up to you of course.

My definition of socialism is an ideal where you are provided with what you need and wealth is distributed fairly amongst the people. Things like communism, communalism, democratic socialism etc... are means to this end.

But in the end, its basically an attempt to do what the Acts of the apostles tried to do; do away with money; people give in terms of service what they can and took only what they need.

The ultimate fall down of this system is the fact is, people are greedy and lazy; unless there is economic incentive to work hard and economic rational to ensure that resources are distributed in the most efficient way possible, you end up with massive problems.

REI does vote upon who is the CEO and on the board, and so on. So, theoretically, they have a voice in the direction of the company.

Whether or not it is the ideal as proposed here is beside the point. You asked for an example and I provided one that somewhat models it.

Whether you accept or like the model is up to you of course.

I understand the concept, but it's not the "managers make few decisions" type of company that the OP is trying to promote.

Like I said, I vote on those sorts of issues in my credit union, as well as for other public companies. If shareholders voting on the composition of the Board of Directors represents a model socialist company, then I'm way off in my interpretation of what's being said here.

I belonged to a food coop a number of years ago. We had regular meetings to discuss things, but even at that simple level, we still delegated authority to deal with banks, pay bills, buy the food...

If what Trots is trying to describe is a situation like that, where real management is delegated, then I can believe he's putting real thought into his claims. Otherwise, it's just unworkable dogma.

I see it's the lead singer of the Dead Kennedys now, though he in turn took his name from Biafra.Yep. ;) One of my favorite political thinkers, at the time I joined. I still like him, but I like others better.

You can argue a little bit about the Western world today on that count (though the gains would be unlikely to last, since the calculation problem means that even running the economy without increasing capacity would be beyond a centrally planned system),Do today's corporations increase capacity? Do they do this via central planning?

Okay?This page isn't the perfect example, as some of the criticisms in the "Backlash" section are valid, but it's a nice example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag%C3%B3n_Cooperative_Corporation

In response to the continuing avalanche of threads like this one (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=538007), I think that it is proper to have a thread to define socialism so that we don't have to go through a thread a weak about "teh ebil socialists".

For the purposes of NSG debate, Socialism is NOT the following:

Soviet Union style bureaucratic collectivism
Chinese state capitalism
European welfare democracies
Anything else that involves totalitarian states, bureaucratic kleptopia etc.


Socialism IS the following: a cooperative economy that replaces private ownership of productive resources and wage labor with cooperative control of productive resources via worker's self-management, thereby extending democracy in the economic sphere.

Please take note of this, and stop bringing up the degenerated vulgar Marxist-Leninist states like the Soviet Union. Anyone who does bring up the Soviet Union in a debate about socialism will lose their Ayn Rand privileges for a week.

Then socialism doesn't exist, and is therefore irrelevant.

Because it would benefit the majority of people and doesn't take from anybody anything that they have a right to.
Only if you define the rights to exclude the ownership of productive resources.

Think about that. I'm entitled to the fruits of my own labours, but if I build a productive resource I'm not entitled to the fruits of that. Why not? What's the difference?

Only if you define the rights to exclude the ownership of productive resources.

Think about that. I'm entitled to the fruits of my own labours, but if I build a productive resource I'm not entitled to the fruits of that. Why not? What's the difference?Under such a scenario you would be entitled to it should you be the one who uses the productive resource.
If other people add their labor to the productive resource you are not entitled to it, as you are not entitled to (directly) benefit from another's labor.

This page isn't the perfect example, as some of the criticisms in the "Backlash" section are valid, but it's a nice example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag%C3%B3n_Cooperative_Corporation

I intend to read a little more about it, since it may be the closest thing to a real socialist run company that exists... But this part makes me wonder how hard the government tries to keep it in existence...
"The Basque government and the tax authorities of the Basque provinces have special measures to help co-operatives."
Israel certainly shores up the kibbutz structure and I wonder if this isn't more of the same.

I intend to read a little more about it, since it may be the closest thing to a real socialist run company that exists... But this part makes me wonder how hard the government tries to keep it in existence...
"The Basque government and the tax authorities of the Basque provinces have special measures to help co-operatives."
Israel certainly shores up the kibbutz structure and I wonder if this isn't more of the same.I don't know either.
There are more on this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cooperatives

A couple in the US you might have heard of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Press
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_O%27Lakes

Under such a scenario you would be entitled to it should you be the one who uses the productive resource.
If other people add their labor to the productive resource you are not entitled to it, as you are not entitled to (directly) benefit from another's labor.
SO, by your reasoning, if I own a factory filled with workers in a modern capitalist state, my profiting from them is inconsistent with socialist ideals. Thus, when the revolution comes, I'll lose exclusive right to my factory's output. Right?

But, if I replace my workers with robots, then the revolution will have no claim on my factory, because I'll be the only person who works there.

SO, by your reasoning, if I own a factory filled with workers in a modern capitalist state, my profiting from them is inconsistent with socialist ideals. Thus, when the revolution comes, I'll lose exclusive right to my factory's output. Right?Right.

But, if I replace my workers with robots, then the revolution will have no claim on my factory, because I'll be the only person who works there.Yes, but the socialists would have claim to your robots, as it was the profits from their labor that provided them.
(This is for an argument based upon having the right to the product of one's labor, as opposed to having property rights over what one uses.)

I don't know either.
There are more on this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cooperatives

A couple in the US you might have heard of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Press
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_O%27Lakes

So what if I generalize and say that anyone with an elected board of directors is following the socialist model? All of these companies seem to have some sort of hierarchical structure to them, as well as a President/CEO making the decisions. Is that really what Trots was describing when he mentioned job swapping and minimal management?

Right.

Yes, but the socialists would have claim to your robots, as it was the profits from their labor that provided them.
So what about the robots I build or acquire through voluntary exchange after the revolution?

Can I use those to run my factory and maintain exclusive use of it?

Do today's corporations increase capacity? Do they do this via central planning?
Yes.

Do they do it well? Very often not.

Is that in any way like running an economy? Of course not.

While I haven't actually read a single post in this thread, I would like to share the thought that sprang into my mind when I read the title of it: "That looks like one gigantic no-true-scotsman!"

So what if I generalize and say that anyone with an elected board of directors is following the socialist model? All of these companies seem to have some sort of hierarchical structure to them, as well as a President/CEO making the decisions. Is that really what Trots was describing when he mentioned job swapping and minimal management?No, however the central idea is in place; namely that the cooperatives are worker-owned. That is the key.

So what about the robots I build or acquire through voluntary exchange after the revolution?

Can I use those to run my factory and maintain exclusive use of it?I don't see there being anyone who's going to build robots in their free time and trade them to you for work you did in your free time, but should such an unlikely situation occur, I don't see why not.

Yes.

Do they do it well? Very often not.

Is that in any way like running an economy? Of course not.What's the difference between running a corporation and running an economy except for the scale?

What's the difference between running a corporation and running an economy except for the scale?
Because in a corporation (or, more accurately, a production process) you just have to worry about two things: minimising costs and producing some optimum amount.

The two are in theory at least connected, of course, but in practice they are probably seperate decision processes. The former is fairly easy: you pick the cheapest suppliers and materials which will do the job and try to keep labour, capital and fixed costs to a minimum.

The latter generally involves a lot of market research, but it's still easy to get wrong. Most companies don't sell to the final consumer, so they can just produce on order, which makes it easier.

Running an economy on the other hand is not about minimising costs (and even if it were, the scale and especially the interrelation between the various agents within it make for a huge task), or simply about producing some amount of output. It's about the allocation of resources across millions and millions of people and companies about whom you know very little (and even that which you know is not necessarily accurate) in such a way that the end outcome is such that there are exactly the amount of final goods produced that people want to consume, and all the production processes within it work properly - plus accounting for the unforeseen.

In some areas managing a production process can ask the same questions. But you just have simple relationships and two criteria. Managing an economy asks many more questions, makes the relationships a lot more complex (and reciprocal) and requires you to meet a whole host of criteria, many of which you'll have trouble to measure properly.

Because in a corporation (or, more accurately, a production process) you just have to worry about two things: minimising costs and producing some optimum amount.Don't forget distribution - getting the product to the people in the ideal amount.

The latter generally involves a lot of market research, but it's still easy to get wrong. Most companies don't sell to the final consumer, so they can just produce on order, which makes it easier.But they take pains to not produce too many product.

Running an economy on the other hand is not about minimising costs ... It's about the allocation of resources across millions and millions of people and companies about whom you know very little (and even that which you know is not necessarily accurate) in such a way that the end outcome is such that there are exactly the amount of final goods produced that people want to consume, and all the production processes within it work properly - plus accounting for the unforeseen.If the economy is not about minimizing costs, then why must there only be the exact amount produced that people want? Why not produce some extra?

Don't forget distribution - getting the product to the people in the ideal amount.
Yeah, but that's fairly secondary and is often outsourced. Depends on the company though.

Still, I would count that as part of the production chain.

But they take pains to not produce too many product.
Yes, though sometimes they can't help it.

If the economy is not about minimizing costs, then why must there only be the exact amount produced that people want? Why not produce some extra?
Because that would imply that you have a few more resources, meaning there is some new optimal allocation of output.

If you're really interested, have a look here (www.ibmecsp.edu.br/pesquisa/download.php?recid=1012) (pdf) for what a working economy looks like. Here (http://www.mises.org/resources/7d32ee56-37cf-4305-a95c-b5c109658f5e) is something on the economic calculation problem, and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem) is its wiki article (which is really missing a mention of the aforementioned welfare theorems). Europa Maxima once gave me a really good article talking about the distinction between Hayek and Mises on the calculation problem (the former arguing that it is impossible because of our lack of calculating capacity, the latter because it is logically impossible no matter how much capacity one has - but the precise way he argued it escapes me...you may find it in the links).

Yeah, but that's fairly secondary and is often outsourced. Depends on the company though.

Still, I would count that as part of the production chain.Ah, okay.

Yes, though sometimes they can't help it.Indeed. When this happens, does the corporation fail?

Because that would imply that you have a few more resources, meaning there is some new optimal allocation of output.This presumes that reducing the waste of resources is what is considered optimal.
Perhaps reducing the amount of time a person would have to wait to get what they want is preferred?

If you're really interested, have a look here (www.ibmecsp.edu.br/pesquisa/download.php?recid=1012) (pdf) for what a working economy looks like. Here (http://www.mises.org/resources/7d32ee56-37cf-4305-a95c-b5c109658f5e) is something on the economic calculation problem, and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem) is its wiki article (which is really missing a mention of the aforementioned welfare theorems). Europa Maxima once gave me a really good article talking about the distinction between Hayek and Mises on the calculation problem (the former arguing that it is impossible because of our lack of calculating capacity, the latter because it is logically impossible no matter how much capacity one has - but the precise way he argued it escapes me...you may find it in the links).Seems interesting. If I get a chance I'll check them out.
I've read the wiki article on the problem, and one of the things that it mentions is that corporations use central planning and yet they don't inherently fail. Since I think that's a good argument, I used it here.

Indeed. When this happens, does the corporation fail?
Not immediately. If it does it repeatedly, it happens (normally the management just gets replaced by someone better though).

This presumes that reducing the waste of resources is what is considered optimal.
Perhaps reducing the amount of time a person would have to wait to get what they want is preferred?
Well, it's the "what they want" part that's important. For any initial allocation of resources, there exists some curve (similar to a production possibility frontier) which illustrates the possible combinations of output.

The best one of those is picked by agents making their choices trying to maximise their happiness. And if you have the capacity to overproduce something, you're doing something wrong. If there is something left over, that means you didn't make enough of something else.

I've read the wiki article on the problem, and one of the things that it mentions is that corporations use central planning and yet they don't inherently fail. Since I think that's a good argument, I used it here.
That's the problem with wiki - anyone can put anything in there.

The calculation problem is not so much about not being able to organise a production process...it's about the impossibility of actually knowing an optimal allocation of output given the resources available in the economy and organising the resources in such a way that this optimal allocation is reached. It requires such a huge amount of information that constantly changes, while free market prices automatically transfer everything that is important to anyone who cares - and it adds the difficulties of scale when trying to organise not just a corporation with maybe $500 million in sales, but an economy with $1 trillion in value added (=/= sales) and in the widest range of industries, services and functions you can imagine.

Not immediately. If it does it repeatedly, it happens (normally the management just gets replaced by someone better though).Why couldn't a central allocating authority be replaced?

Well, it's the "what they want" part that's important. For any initial allocation of resources, there exists some curve (similar to a production possibility frontier) which illustrates the possible combinations of output.

The best one of those is picked by agents making their choices trying to maximise their happiness. And if you have the capacity to overproduce something, you're doing something wrong. If there is something left over, that means you didn't make enough of something else.Is free time not a resource?

The calculation problem is not so much about not being able to organise a production process...it's about the impossibility of actually knowing an optimal allocation of output given the resources available in the economy and organising the resources in such a way that this optimal allocation is reached.With today's technology, I don't see why this couldn't be done (provided everyone has access to said technology).

It requires such a huge amount of information that constantly changes, while free market prices automatically transfer everything that is important to anyone who cares But they don't. Prices don't tell me the conditions in which the product is manufactured, or how well the people making the product are paid, or how much pollution the factory is putting out.
Prices transfer a minute amount of the important information.

- and it adds the difficulties of scale when trying to organise not just a corporation with maybe $500 million in sales, but an economy with $1 trillion in value added (=/= sales) and in the widest range of industries, services and functions you can imagine.Why must central planning be dealing with economies that large?

Why couldn't a central allocating authority be replaced?
Because the company is owned by someone. I mean, it's possible to build a less centralised, less hierarchical organisational structure, but ultimately the owner wants the company to do a certain thing, and usually feels that a pyramid-style system is the best way to do it.

Is free time not a resource?
Sure is (in fact, it's the one you have to sell when you start off at t=0). But the optimal allocation already includes the desire of individuals to have free time.

With today's technology, I don't see why this couldn't be done (provided everyone has access to said technology).
Well, it wasn't working 18 years ago in the USSR, it isn't working today in the DPRK.

The thing is: you need the information to pick a goal you want to reach. That goal changes every second of every day. For you as a planning authority to know that goal, you'd need information about every individual's preferences, every production process, every person's resources and skills and their ability to translate those into output. I don't know how many yottabytes of data that is (I suspect no one does) - and it constantly changes.

For you to be able to react to those changes, you'd need to have direct links to everyone. Which means that you must rely on either people's own responses to you, or you need to monitor everyone all the time. If you do the former, people lie. If you do the latter, you'd probably need more bureaucrats and inspectors than there are people in the country.

And then, when you have decided on a goal, you need to get everyone to do precisely what you need them to do at all times to make it happen. And even if they're ready to do that, all it takes is one truck to break down somewhere and your entire plan is no longer optimal.

But they don't. Prices don't tell me the conditions in which the product is manufactured, or how well the people making the product are paid, or how much pollution the factory is putting out.
Prices transfer a minute amount of the important information.
None of that matters to whether or not an allocation is efficient and satisfies people. You are expected to be taking care of your concerns when you pick a basket of output that you want to acquire.

Why must central planning be dealing with economies that large?
Well, sooner or later all economies will be large. But even today, there are very few corporations that have bigger GDPs than even tiny third world countries (and most of those are big oil companies, which are comparatively simple to run as far as organisational structure is concerned). Those companies require the best of everything to be able to cope and they can only get it by paying extraordinary amounts of money for it.

And they have to deal with a lot less to deal with than someone who would have to manage the demand side as well...and all the other stuff that is being supplied in the economy too. Imagine Wal-Mart having to decide how much of each good they have every customer should have without prices to tell them about quantities demanded, and having to directly run all their suppliers down to digging stuff out of the ground.

But even supposing that were possible - economies aren't singular entities anymore. There's a global economy these days, and there'll be outside influences. We know that in such a setting anything that includes trade barriers cannot be optimal and will over time keep economic growth (and thus the improvements in living standards) lower than it could have been.

Then socialism doesn't exist, and is therefore irrelevant.

I don't see why we should listen to you, you upper-class illegitimate. :p