6 ms·

Like people were doing during the great depression? Or England before social democracy? Class is not about equality, it is about removing a power relationship.

by ue_ 10y ago

Like people were doing during the great depression? Or England before social democracy? Class is not about equality, it is about removing a power relationship. In the same way that the abolitionist movement removed the property relationship between master and slave, the Socialist movement seeks to remove the private property power relationship between bourgeois and proletariat in general.

beaconstudios 10y ago
Socialism has been attempted many many times and never succeeded in peace time without degrading into a hellish dystopia - it also almost always seems to be pushed by middle class people rather than the working class, who are generally somewhere between social democrat and nationalist. The idea that inequality can be solved by handing all property to the government, the single biggest source of corruption in existence, is ludicrous and the sooner the ideas of socialism and communism die out the closer we'll be to an actual approach to raising up the working poor.
- youngtaff 10y ago
  But capitalism (or rather corporatism) doesn't seem to be doing much better for many people
  - beaconstudios 10y ago
    but it's close enough that we can tweak the existing system through optimised taxes and regulations. It's like the political equivalent of saying "oh shit our web app is running a bit slow, best throw it all out and rebuild the whole thing in <insert hip framework here>". Except the hip framework almost always results in your co-workers getting genocided or dying in a famine.
    - ue_ 10y ago
      >but it's close enough that we can tweak the existing system through optimised taxes and regulations Optimised taxes and regulations do not stop exploitation[0]. >"oh shit our web app is running a bit slow, best throw it all out and rebuild the whole thing in <insert hip framework here>" This is such a false analogy; there are problems inherent with capitalism, which is what the Socialists oppose - namely, the structure of unjustified authority of the State, the exploitation of labour, the class system, the internal contradictions and crises of capitalism, and being forced by threat of starvation to sell labour-power to the class of property owners. A better analogy would be if your web app is only serving 5% or less of customers, and the rest get an extremely slow connection, which they complain about to the web app owner, and you respond "We just need to make the website a few kB/s slower for the 5% and give that speed to you!" [0] https://www.marxists.org/subject/japan/sakisaka/exploitation.htm https://www.marxists.org/subject/japan/sakisaka/exploitation...
      - beaconstudios 10y ago
        OK, I'll bite: > the structure of unjustified authority of the State Socialism in all real world implementations has been in the form of an all-encompassing state. The idea that socialism can exist as a form of anarchy seems to be busted - the Soviets (as in the unions that initially formed during the Russian revolution) quickly formed into a hierarchal structure of abstract Soviets that looked just like government departments. I don't agree with the extent that the State has power either, but fundamentally it can provide security from criminal behaviour via the police, protection from outside groups via the military, and welfare via taxation. Those are all positives, imo. > the exploitation of labour "Ownership of the means of production" has less and less meaning every year. Everyone can start a business from a laptop, this isn't the Victorian era where most working class are forced to work in factories to escape the poor-house. It would seem that business people do provide real value after all - managing people and structuring organised work between individuals with separate skills is an incredible value-add to a workforce. Plus, the idea of the 1% owning the vast majority of the wealth in society can in large part be attributed to their owning a large share of their own businesses, which are built with their own work and hiring people at mutually-agreed-upon wages. > the class system The class system is becoming less and less relevant. I don't have to toil away as a serf on some rich noble's land any more. I started out very much lower-middle to working class, and now I live a very comfortable life. Economic mobility is pretty good these days, we don't live in Marx's time any more. > the internal contradictions and crises of capitalism ... can be well-managed by a more competent state. Tragedy of the commons, neocolonialism, and such could be drastically reduced by improvements to the state. We know this because countries like Norway have good social standards and are military non-interventionist, and the USA is pretty much the only Western country that invades others any more. > being forced by threat of starvation to sell labour-power to the class of property owners You mean being forced to be a productive member of society? Work still needs to keep the world going, and if sitting at home consuming goods and providing absolutely no value were a viable option everyone would do it and society would collapse. For those who can't due to disability or unemployability we have welfare benefits to allow them to do exactly that. Consider this - if people don't have to sell labour-power to earn money to buy things, but can still consume the fruits of others' labour, are they not being exploitative themselves? > A better analogy would be if your web app is only serving 5% or less of customers, and the rest get an extremely slow connection, which they complain about to the web app owner, and you respond "We just need to make the website a few kB/s slower for the 5% and give that speed to you!" You, like every other socialist I've spoken to, seem far more preoccupied with punishing the wealthy than actually helping the poor. If we can establish a dignified baseline for all people to live off of, what's wrong with those who are willing to work hard and sacrifice to provide better services to their customers being able to earn more? Without incentives we wouldn't have any innovation because people don't make sacrifices without incentives. Most innovation is born of personal sacrifices.
- ue_ 10y ago
  >it also almost always seems to be pushed by middle class people rather than the working class, who are generally somewhere between social democrat and nationalist. Why does that make it a bad idea? I'm of the belief that stigma surrounding Socialism has meant that only interested academics will talk about it, but this certainly wasn't the case in the 19th century. It is not only the working poor who are of concern, it is the workers as a whole. Class consciousness must be raised. >The idea that inequality can be solved by handing all property to the government That's not what I'm proposing; rather, I propose that private property (i.e property used for social commodity reproduction) be taken over by workers, and the powers of the state be transferred to people so that the state withers away, leaving behind it a government. Decentralised government is also possible. >socialism and communism die out the closer we'll be to an actual approach to raising up the working poor. Have you read The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists by Robert Tressell?[0] He himself was a working class man making the case for Socialism, and why capitalism, a system which is designed to keep one class below the other, is not favourable. Capitalism has nothing to do with government, the idea that only 'corporatism' is bad is equivocation. The class structure still exists without a government, surplus labour is still extracted without a government, private property is still defended without a government. The workers are raised up by ideals looking out for their interests rather than those ideals looking out for the interests of the bourgeoisie. The class system prevents realisation of a meritocracy in which each person is rewarded exactly according to his labour rather than paid by the hour. [0] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3608/3608-h/3608-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3608/3608-h/3608-h.htm
  - beaconstudios 10y ago
    > Why does that make it a bad idea? I'm not saying it does - I'm saying that if the working class have rejected it then clearly they do not see it is in their benefit. The idea of "raising class consciousness" seems like a fancy way of saying "the working class are too stupid to know what's good for them". > I propose that private property (i.e property used for social commodity reproduction) be taken over by workers Such as what? Workers already own property. Most people have a TV, a house (that they own fully after their mortgage matures), a car and so on. Should we steal all of that stuff too? Or just the lambourghinis and yachts of the wealthy? Sounds like "lets just steal stuff we want from other people" to me. > Decentralised government is also possible. Sounds like an interesting idea, but I'm not sure what form of government you're referring to. > Have you read The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists by Robert Tressell?[0] He himself was a working class man making the case for Socialism, and why capitalism, a system which is designed to keep one class below the other, is not favourable. I haven't, I'll add it to my reading list. I doubt I'll be convinced though. The idea that capitalism exists to keep classes separate is one I disagree with - my understanding is that capitalism exists to allow people to compete to be the best at providing services people want. Naturally, people who are better at this will rise to the top. It's a form of talent sifting. I'd rather have competent people do things they're competent at or we'll end up with more Lysenkoism and bread lines. > Capitalism has nothing to do with government, the idea that only 'corporatism' is bad is equivocation. The class structure still exists without a government, surplus labour is still extracted without a government, private property is still defended without a government. Defense of private property makes sense though. If I own a car I like, I'm not going to just let you come and steal it from me. The idea that a community can own property that is shared seems bogus when you extend the argument to things that are scarce. Marx himself posited socialism and communism as being a state that requires a post-scarcity and automated society, which we do not have. Not even close. > The workers are raised up by ideals looking out for their interests rather than those ideals looking out for the interests of the bourgeoisie. The class system prevents realisation of a meritocracy in which each person is rewarded exactly according to his labour rather than paid by the hour. You can't calculate the value of a thing based on the labour required to create it. Otherwise what stops me spending years on some piece of junk and then demanding a reward? Value of a thing is determined by what it's worth to the person who wants to use it, i.e. utility pricing.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Socialism has been attempted many many times and never succeeded in peace time without degrading into a hellish dystopia - it also almost always seems to be pushed by middle class people rather than the working class Two factors are at work here; first, in a capitalist society (or modern mixed economies, which retain this feature of capitalism) visibility is driven in large part by class and wealth, so higher-status individuals will appear more significant (especially from outside the movement) simply because of their status. Second, the modern popular concept in the West of the "middle class" is almost entirely part of what socialists (and others following the classical analysis of class in capitalist societies) call the working class (the traditional capitalist-economy middle class, the petit-bourgeoisie, aligns better with the current popular concept of the"upper middle class" and lower range of the upper class.) In modern Western parlance, "middle class" is the middle income segment of the wage-labor dependent segment of society; in traditional (socialist in origin, since they first described and analyzed capitalism) the wage-labor dependent segment is the working class. And, yes, the segment of the working class that is able to afford to spend effort directed beyond immediate survival, and with the most to lose, is usually the base of most reform efforts and resvolutions (socialist or otherwise), and usually the petit-bourgeoisie is significantly involved, too (though also significantly involved in defending the status quo), since very early in the capitalist (and pre-capitalist transitional) world.
  - beaconstudios 10y ago
    it also largely seems to be university students. Basically, it always seems to be those who are doing alright by the current system and don't want to have to work. Work will always have to be enforced until society is mostly automated, and even then the automation will need to be maintained.

by ue_ 10y ago

beaconstudios 10y ago

Socialism has been attempted many many times and never succeeded in peace time without degrading into a hellish dystopia - it also almost always seems to be pushed by middle class people rather than the working class, who are generally somewhere between social democrat and nationalist. The idea that inequality can be solved by handing all property to the government, the single biggest source of corruption in existence, is ludicrous and the sooner the ideas of socialism and communism die out the closer we'll be to an actual approach to raising up the working poor.

youngtaff 10y ago
But capitalism (or rather corporatism) doesn't seem to be doing much better for many people
- beaconstudios 10y ago
  but it's close enough that we can tweak the existing system through optimised taxes and regulations. It's like the political equivalent of saying "oh shit our web app is running a bit slow, best throw it all out and rebuild the whole thing in <insert hip framework here>". Except the hip framework almost always results in your co-workers getting genocided or dying in a famine.
  - ue_ 10y ago
    >but it's close enough that we can tweak the existing system through optimised taxes and regulations Optimised taxes and regulations do not stop exploitation[0]. >"oh shit our web app is running a bit slow, best throw it all out and rebuild the whole thing in <insert hip framework here>" This is such a false analogy; there are problems inherent with capitalism, which is what the Socialists oppose - namely, the structure of unjustified authority of the State, the exploitation of labour, the class system, the internal contradictions and crises of capitalism, and being forced by threat of starvation to sell labour-power to the class of property owners. A better analogy would be if your web app is only serving 5% or less of customers, and the rest get an extremely slow connection, which they complain about to the web app owner, and you respond "We just need to make the website a few kB/s slower for the 5% and give that speed to you!" [0] https://www.marxists.org/subject/japan/sakisaka/exploitation.htm https://www.marxists.org/subject/japan/sakisaka/exploitation...
    - beaconstudios 10y ago
      OK, I'll bite: > the structure of unjustified authority of the State Socialism in all real world implementations has been in the form of an all-encompassing state. The idea that socialism can exist as a form of anarchy seems to be busted - the Soviets (as in the unions that initially formed during the Russian revolution) quickly formed into a hierarchal structure of abstract Soviets that looked just like government departments. I don't agree with the extent that the State has power either, but fundamentally it can provide security from criminal behaviour via the police, protection from outside groups via the military, and welfare via taxation. Those are all positives, imo. > the exploitation of labour "Ownership of the means of production" has less and less meaning every year. Everyone can start a business from a laptop, this isn't the Victorian era where most working class are forced to work in factories to escape the poor-house. It would seem that business people do provide real value after all - managing people and structuring organised work between individuals with separate skills is an incredible value-add to a workforce. Plus, the idea of the 1% owning the vast majority of the wealth in society can in large part be attributed to their owning a large share of their own businesses, which are built with their own work and hiring people at mutually-agreed-upon wages. > the class system The class system is becoming less and less relevant. I don't have to toil away as a serf on some rich noble's land any more. I started out very much lower-middle to working class, and now I live a very comfortable life. Economic mobility is pretty good these days, we don't live in Marx's time any more. > the internal contradictions and crises of capitalism ... can be well-managed by a more competent state. Tragedy of the commons, neocolonialism, and such could be drastically reduced by improvements to the state. We know this because countries like Norway have good social standards and are military non-interventionist, and the USA is pretty much the only Western country that invades others any more. > being forced by threat of starvation to sell labour-power to the class of property owners You mean being forced to be a productive member of society? Work still needs to keep the world going, and if sitting at home consuming goods and providing absolutely no value were a viable option everyone would do it and society would collapse. For those who can't due to disability or unemployability we have welfare benefits to allow them to do exactly that. Consider this - if people don't have to sell labour-power to earn money to buy things, but can still consume the fruits of others' labour, are they not being exploitative themselves? > A better analogy would be if your web app is only serving 5% or less of customers, and the rest get an extremely slow connection, which they complain about to the web app owner, and you respond "We just need to make the website a few kB/s slower for the 5% and give that speed to you!" You, like every other socialist I've spoken to, seem far more preoccupied with punishing the wealthy than actually helping the poor. If we can establish a dignified baseline for all people to live off of, what's wrong with those who are willing to work hard and sacrifice to provide better services to their customers being able to earn more? Without incentives we wouldn't have any innovation because people don't make sacrifices without incentives. Most innovation is born of personal sacrifices.
ue_ 10y ago
>it also almost always seems to be pushed by middle class people rather than the working class, who are generally somewhere between social democrat and nationalist. Why does that make it a bad idea? I'm of the belief that stigma surrounding Socialism has meant that only interested academics will talk about it, but this certainly wasn't the case in the 19th century. It is not only the working poor who are of concern, it is the workers as a whole. Class consciousness must be raised. >The idea that inequality can be solved by handing all property to the government That's not what I'm proposing; rather, I propose that private property (i.e property used for social commodity reproduction) be taken over by workers, and the powers of the state be transferred to people so that the state withers away, leaving behind it a government. Decentralised government is also possible. >socialism and communism die out the closer we'll be to an actual approach to raising up the working poor. Have you read The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists by Robert Tressell?[0] He himself was a working class man making the case for Socialism, and why capitalism, a system which is designed to keep one class below the other, is not favourable. Capitalism has nothing to do with government, the idea that only 'corporatism' is bad is equivocation. The class structure still exists without a government, surplus labour is still extracted without a government, private property is still defended without a government. The workers are raised up by ideals looking out for their interests rather than those ideals looking out for the interests of the bourgeoisie. The class system prevents realisation of a meritocracy in which each person is rewarded exactly according to his labour rather than paid by the hour. [0] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3608/3608-h/3608-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3608/3608-h/3608-h.htm
- beaconstudios 10y ago
  > Why does that make it a bad idea? I'm not saying it does - I'm saying that if the working class have rejected it then clearly they do not see it is in their benefit. The idea of "raising class consciousness" seems like a fancy way of saying "the working class are too stupid to know what's good for them". > I propose that private property (i.e property used for social commodity reproduction) be taken over by workers Such as what? Workers already own property. Most people have a TV, a house (that they own fully after their mortgage matures), a car and so on. Should we steal all of that stuff too? Or just the lambourghinis and yachts of the wealthy? Sounds like "lets just steal stuff we want from other people" to me. > Decentralised government is also possible. Sounds like an interesting idea, but I'm not sure what form of government you're referring to. > Have you read The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists by Robert Tressell?[0] He himself was a working class man making the case for Socialism, and why capitalism, a system which is designed to keep one class below the other, is not favourable. I haven't, I'll add it to my reading list. I doubt I'll be convinced though. The idea that capitalism exists to keep classes separate is one I disagree with - my understanding is that capitalism exists to allow people to compete to be the best at providing services people want. Naturally, people who are better at this will rise to the top. It's a form of talent sifting. I'd rather have competent people do things they're competent at or we'll end up with more Lysenkoism and bread lines. > Capitalism has nothing to do with government, the idea that only 'corporatism' is bad is equivocation. The class structure still exists without a government, surplus labour is still extracted without a government, private property is still defended without a government. Defense of private property makes sense though. If I own a car I like, I'm not going to just let you come and steal it from me. The idea that a community can own property that is shared seems bogus when you extend the argument to things that are scarce. Marx himself posited socialism and communism as being a state that requires a post-scarcity and automated society, which we do not have. Not even close. > The workers are raised up by ideals looking out for their interests rather than those ideals looking out for the interests of the bourgeoisie. The class system prevents realisation of a meritocracy in which each person is rewarded exactly according to his labour rather than paid by the hour. You can't calculate the value of a thing based on the labour required to create it. Otherwise what stops me spending years on some piece of junk and then demanding a reward? Value of a thing is determined by what it's worth to the person who wants to use it, i.e. utility pricing.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Socialism has been attempted many many times and never succeeded in peace time without degrading into a hellish dystopia - it also almost always seems to be pushed by middle class people rather than the working class Two factors are at work here; first, in a capitalist society (or modern mixed economies, which retain this feature of capitalism) visibility is driven in large part by class and wealth, so higher-status individuals will appear more significant (especially from outside the movement) simply because of their status. Second, the modern popular concept in the West of the "middle class" is almost entirely part of what socialists (and others following the classical analysis of class in capitalist societies) call the working class (the traditional capitalist-economy middle class, the petit-bourgeoisie, aligns better with the current popular concept of the"upper middle class" and lower range of the upper class.) In modern Western parlance, "middle class" is the middle income segment of the wage-labor dependent segment of society; in traditional (socialist in origin, since they first described and analyzed capitalism) the wage-labor dependent segment is the working class. And, yes, the segment of the working class that is able to afford to spend effort directed beyond immediate survival, and with the most to lose, is usually the base of most reform efforts and resvolutions (socialist or otherwise), and usually the petit-bourgeoisie is significantly involved, too (though also significantly involved in defending the status quo), since very early in the capitalist (and pre-capitalist transitional) world.
- beaconstudios 10y ago
  it also largely seems to be university students. Basically, it always seems to be those who are doing alright by the current system and don't want to have to work. Work will always have to be enforced until society is mostly automated, and even then the automation will need to be maintained.