4 ms·

It's also important to note that the definition of Socialism as being merely state ownership of most or all production and "complete management of the economy"

by kunimu 9y ago

It's also important to note that the definition of Socialism as being merely state ownership of most or all production and "complete management of the economy" is a vulgar definition, sometimes even expounded by Socialists themselves. On its own, this would simply be an economy with all the features of capitalism, including but not limited to: * wage labour being the dominant mode of sustenance * a class structure still visible (in fact, is seems as though such a "Socialist" mode of production would have even more well defined classes than our current mode) * private property, but rather than being owned by capitalists it is owned by the state So "workers owning" means of production is not adequate for Socialism. Rather, there must be some kind of shift in terms of how society functions in general. There should be no trade, as trade is a side-effect of the operation of the law of value and exchange value, a dialectical contradiction only found in capitalism. There should be no state, as the state is what exists to defend private property and prop up class interests. Production should be entirely for useful qualities. All productive power of society should be owned by workers (this is your "owning the means of production") either by representation of a government (which is not a state, the distinction is important) or via some other apparatus. For these reasons I am extremely skeptical when people describe countries such as Venezuela, which operate as capitalists, owners of property, on a global scale as "Socialist". If it is Socialism then it is certainly no Marxian Socialism.

talmand 9y ago
>> * private property, but rather than being owned by capitalists it is owned by the state Wha? How is state-owned property considered private property? Also, I would have said Venezuela was socialist because the socialists in my country said it was. And I'm fairly certain members of their ruling class described their country's government as socialist.
- kunimu 9y ago
  Private property is not determined by its owner, but rather its function. Ordinary people can own private property, such as land which is taxed or rented out, means of production upon which people are employed etc. It is a fact that the Venezuelan state owns private property, and also that they employ people in exchange for wages. This is no different at all to what Apple or GM does in the United States. It is also possible for society in general to act as a capitalist. The way Marx and other Socialists use the term "private property" is perhaps different to its modern meaning. Proudhon writes, >There are different kinds of property: 1. Property pure and simple, the dominant and seigniorial power over a thing; or, as they term it, naked property. 2. Possession. “Possession,” says Duranton, “is a matter of fact, not of right.” Toullier: “Property is a right, a legal power; possession is a fact.” The tenant, the farmer, the commandité, the usufructuary, are possessors; the owner who lets and lends for use, the heir who is to come into possession on the death of a usufructuary, are proprietors. If I may venture the comparison: a lover is a possessor, a husband is a proprietor.
  - ameister14 9y ago
    Most people would describe government owned property as public because all citizens are allowed to have a say in the management of the property, not just some of them. This doesn't mean day to day management, but its ultimate distribution. In your proprietor/possessor dichotomy, the citizenry is the proprietor - the government, the possessor. Not a good comparison. Manager and Owner would be a better example than lover and husband.
    - kunimu 9y ago
      A democratically run company is still an owner of private property, the fact that citizens have a say is irrelevant to the idea that property is privately owned. This is evident in the case in which the State is an actor on the global stage and defends its private property from other nations; whether that be land or means of production.
      - ameister14 9y ago
        >A democratically run company is still an owner of private property, the fact that citizens have a say is irrelevant to the idea that property is privately owned. Yes, I agree - however, the fact that ALL citizens have a say is not irrelevant. The case you're talking about is one where the State acts in its capacity as an agent of the citizenry, similar to how a manager can hire, fire or sign contracts within the bounds set by the owner or owners. It doesn't mean the manager owns any property, simply that he as an agent of ownership is currently in possession of it.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > A democratically run company is still an owner of private property, In the capitalist public/private sense, yes; in the socialist personal/private/social sense, this is social not private property (specifically, cooperative social property.) The sense of “private property” opposed by socialism is not at all the sense which is opposed to “public property”.
        9y ago
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > How is state-owned property considered private property? In Marxist theory, “private property” has a particular meaning: the means of production alienated from the particular workers whose labor is applied to them. In Marx’s specific theory, in the socialist stage of the Communist project, ownership by a state controlled by the proletariat makes such property no longer private not because it is owned by the state, but because the productive resources are controlled by the workers. But in the broader Marx-inspired movement and socialist using the same terminology (outside of Leninism and it's descendants, which not only accepts this but replaces democratic control with the direction of the vanguard), there is some controversy on this point, and many view state control as to removed from the immediate workers to eliminate the privation which is why socialists characterize such property as “private”.
marcosdumay 9y ago
So, yes, let's redefine the term to name something that has never existed and has no chance of ever existing. This way nobody can complain that "Socialism" is a failure. Great idea. Just don't come pushing for socialist policies that try to enforce government's ownership of everything.
- kunimu 9y ago
  I am not redefining the term. The common understanding of "Socialism" is far divorced from what Marx and Engels were talking about, or even their predecessors such as Owen or Ricardo. The confusion over the term is evident, especially in the United States, in which several people, even in this thread, claim that capitalism with a social democratic model is "Socialism". It is in my opinion very important to maintain purity in terminology for risk of losing something greater by society deciding that certain ideas are "too Utopian" without speaking it. I also encourage you to use the original definition of the term.
  - marcosdumay 9y ago
    Marx in special outlined a pretty well defined procedure to create what he called "socialism". Russia followed it to the letter, and the Soviet Union was the consequence. It is dishonest to keep claiming "socialism" is something different than what you get when you follow the procedures to get there. Yes, Marx promised something very different, but well, if you read his books you'll see he was way more of a politician than a scientist.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > Marx in special outlined a pretty well defined procedure to create what he called "socialism". Russia followed it to the letter No, it didn't. I mean, the whole point of Leninism is “How do we skip past the requirement identified for Marx to have well-estsablished capitalism with proletarian class consciousness before proceeding to the socialist stage on the route to Communism?” Leninism abandons the essential context for which the Marxist program is designed. (And even then, the program wasn't particularly specific, unless you mean Marx and Engels program for the specific capitalist states of Europe in the mid-19th Century, which Russia was even more distant from then the generalized capitalist states of Marx’s theory.) > It is dishonest to keep claiming "socialism" is something different than what you get when you follow the procedures to get there. Marx is not the first or definitive socialist; socialism existed before and is broader than Marxist theories, so even if Russia and other Leninist states were an example of direct application of Marxist process, this would still be an example of mistaking a particular subset for the whole. Judging Marxism by Leninist examples is like judging Christianity by Protestant Fundamentalism; judging socialism on the same basis is like judging Abrahamic monotheism by the Protestant Fundamentalism.

by kunimu 9y ago

talmand 9y ago

>> * private property, but rather than being owned by capitalists it is owned by the state Wha? How is state-owned property considered private property? Also, I would have said Venezuela was socialist because the socialists in my country said it was. And I'm fairly certain members of their ruling class described their country's government as socialist.

kunimu 9y ago
Private property is not determined by its owner, but rather its function. Ordinary people can own private property, such as land which is taxed or rented out, means of production upon which people are employed etc. It is a fact that the Venezuelan state owns private property, and also that they employ people in exchange for wages. This is no different at all to what Apple or GM does in the United States. It is also possible for society in general to act as a capitalist. The way Marx and other Socialists use the term "private property" is perhaps different to its modern meaning. Proudhon writes, >There are different kinds of property: 1. Property pure and simple, the dominant and seigniorial power over a thing; or, as they term it, naked property. 2. Possession. “Possession,” says Duranton, “is a matter of fact, not of right.” Toullier: “Property is a right, a legal power; possession is a fact.” The tenant, the farmer, the commandité, the usufructuary, are possessors; the owner who lets and lends for use, the heir who is to come into possession on the death of a usufructuary, are proprietors. If I may venture the comparison: a lover is a possessor, a husband is a proprietor.
- ameister14 9y ago
  Most people would describe government owned property as public because all citizens are allowed to have a say in the management of the property, not just some of them. This doesn't mean day to day management, but its ultimate distribution. In your proprietor/possessor dichotomy, the citizenry is the proprietor - the government, the possessor. Not a good comparison. Manager and Owner would be a better example than lover and husband.
  - kunimu 9y ago
    A democratically run company is still an owner of private property, the fact that citizens have a say is irrelevant to the idea that property is privately owned. This is evident in the case in which the State is an actor on the global stage and defends its private property from other nations; whether that be land or means of production.
    - ameister14 9y ago
      >A democratically run company is still an owner of private property, the fact that citizens have a say is irrelevant to the idea that property is privately owned. Yes, I agree - however, the fact that ALL citizens have a say is not irrelevant. The case you're talking about is one where the State acts in its capacity as an agent of the citizenry, similar to how a manager can hire, fire or sign contracts within the bounds set by the owner or owners. It doesn't mean the manager owns any property, simply that he as an agent of ownership is currently in possession of it.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > A democratically run company is still an owner of private property, In the capitalist public/private sense, yes; in the socialist personal/private/social sense, this is social not private property (specifically, cooperative social property.) The sense of “private property” opposed by socialism is not at all the sense which is opposed to “public property”.
      - 9y ago
dragonwriter 9y ago
> How is state-owned property considered private property? In Marxist theory, “private property” has a particular meaning: the means of production alienated from the particular workers whose labor is applied to them. In Marx’s specific theory, in the socialist stage of the Communist project, ownership by a state controlled by the proletariat makes such property no longer private not because it is owned by the state, but because the productive resources are controlled by the workers. But in the broader Marx-inspired movement and socialist using the same terminology (outside of Leninism and it's descendants, which not only accepts this but replaces democratic control with the direction of the vanguard), there is some controversy on this point, and many view state control as to removed from the immediate workers to eliminate the privation which is why socialists characterize such property as “private”.

marcosdumay 9y ago

So, yes, let's redefine the term to name something that has never existed and has no chance of ever existing. This way nobody can complain that "Socialism" is a failure. Great idea. Just don't come pushing for socialist policies that try to enforce government's ownership of everything.

kunimu 9y ago
I am not redefining the term. The common understanding of "Socialism" is far divorced from what Marx and Engels were talking about, or even their predecessors such as Owen or Ricardo. The confusion over the term is evident, especially in the United States, in which several people, even in this thread, claim that capitalism with a social democratic model is "Socialism". It is in my opinion very important to maintain purity in terminology for risk of losing something greater by society deciding that certain ideas are "too Utopian" without speaking it. I also encourage you to use the original definition of the term.
- marcosdumay 9y ago
  Marx in special outlined a pretty well defined procedure to create what he called "socialism". Russia followed it to the letter, and the Soviet Union was the consequence. It is dishonest to keep claiming "socialism" is something different than what you get when you follow the procedures to get there. Yes, Marx promised something very different, but well, if you read his books you'll see he was way more of a politician than a scientist.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Marx in special outlined a pretty well defined procedure to create what he called "socialism". Russia followed it to the letter No, it didn't. I mean, the whole point of Leninism is “How do we skip past the requirement identified for Marx to have well-estsablished capitalism with proletarian class consciousness before proceeding to the socialist stage on the route to Communism?” Leninism abandons the essential context for which the Marxist program is designed. (And even then, the program wasn't particularly specific, unless you mean Marx and Engels program for the specific capitalist states of Europe in the mid-19th Century, which Russia was even more distant from then the generalized capitalist states of Marx’s theory.) > It is dishonest to keep claiming "socialism" is something different than what you get when you follow the procedures to get there. Marx is not the first or definitive socialist; socialism existed before and is broader than Marxist theories, so even if Russia and other Leninist states were an example of direct application of Marxist process, this would still be an example of mistaking a particular subset for the whole. Judging Marxism by Leninist examples is like judging Christianity by Protestant Fundamentalism; judging socialism on the same basis is like judging Abrahamic monotheism by the Protestant Fundamentalism.