3 ms·

>Anyhow, how can capitalism and socialism coexists? Well, it already does! No (well, "no" from the point of view of scholars of socialism, whose opinion as exp

>Anyhow, how can capitalism and socialism coexists? Well, it already does! No (well, "no" from the point of view of scholars of socialism, whose opinion as experts on the topic matters more). Taxes are not "socialist", because "socialism" does not mean a safety net within capitalism. Means of production, as they are spoken of by philosophers, cannot be said to be "jointly owned"[0]. >Sweden the state spends around 50% of GDP so it already owns 50% of everything even if the papers says otherwise, you can't come and say that something which can extract 50% of all value from something doesn't really own it! These do not count as productive capacity, but as help for workers, even if they were monetary equivalents (quantitatively), they are not qualitatively the same thing. In fact, one of the problems in the theory of exploitation is the question of whether someone who earns a very high income can be said to be "exploited". The compensation, it is held, is not (or less) relevant than the share of productive resources. >For example, most roads are socialist, you don't have to pay to drive on them even though they cost a lot of money. Socialism isn't about "fairness" or getting something back from the state[1]. Rather, it's about "class society". I don't mean to argue for or against socialism, but it's important to get the views right. Social safety nets are a social democratic measure within capitalist society. They are "social" but not socialist. Taxes existed in Marx's time (in some cases, higher than what we have now) - nevertheless, Marx called for the establishment of "socialism". Simple redistribution is not the socialist paradigm, except in rare incarnations. [0] One of the conditions outlined by Roemer, as quoted in SEP: "If S were to withdraw from the society, endowed with its per capita share of society’s alienable property (that is, produced and nonproduced goods), and with its own labor and skills, then S would be better off (in terms of income and leisure) than it is at the present allocation." [1] "What is "a fair distribution"? Do not the bourgeois assert that the present-day distribution is "fair"? And is it not, in fact, the only "fair" distribution on the basis of the present-day mode of production? Are economic relations regulated by legal conceptions, or do not, on the contrary, legal relations arise out of economic ones? Have not also the socialist sectarians the most varied notions about "fair" distribution?" (Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program, 1875)

username90 7y ago
Roads are not safety nets, roads are jointly owned means of production. Same with the electic grid, the broadband network (where I live), school, trains, sewers, water. Lots of things are jointly owned means of production. Note the question is not "Are we entirely socialist?" but "are we partly socialist?". Yes, we are partly socialist. No, there are still things that are not jointly owned so we are not fully socialist. Hence the grey thinking instead of saying "We are not fully socialist so none of that matters!".
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  >Note the question is not "Are we entirely socialist?" but "are we partly socialist?" I already explained how and why to say "partly socialist" is false reasoning, because it assumes that "socialism" is some kind of sliding scale. Scholars of socialism do not consider it as such, socialism is defined to be diametrically opposed to capitalism, in the ways I have already mentioned. It is just like saying "Capital is partly a book." - no. It either is a book, or it isn't a book.
  - username90 7y ago
    There is no reason at all why socialism couldn't be on a scale. Those scholars are just dumb then, it is like saying that there is no scale to democracy. We say that the ancient Greeks had a democracy even though the vote was limited, we said that USA was a democracy even though they had slaves and most people couldn't vote etc. Obviously USA is more democratic today than it were 200 years ago. Similarly most countries have adopted a lot of socialist policies over the past 100 years. Taxes used to be just for the king and armies, never going back to the people. Today most taxes are to build common infrastructure, clearly we moved towards socialism, hence we are more socialist today than 100 years ago.
    - claudiawerner 7y ago
      To say that socialism is a scale is to presuppose that (1) socialism is compatible with capitalism, (2) government programmes you call socialist act on behalf of the people, rather than capital. Both of these suppositions are called into question. When socialism is defined as ![capitalism & class society] (which, by the majority of experts, it is), it makes no sense to say that a capitalist country (capitalism defined as predominance of wage labour and most agents seeking to maximize the rate of accumulation of capital) is "somewhat socialist". Even if socialism were a scale, it would be a scale between a socialist society that has not yet removed all the fetters of capitalism (i.e. what Marx called the "lower phase") and "full communism". There's no reason to suppose that the scale has any capitalist elements. The most naive and uninformed idea of socialism, which is not in line with what any socialist considers it to be, is merely "the government providing things". That's not what is meant when we say "socialism", and redefining words contrary to expert opinion and tradition is no substitute.

username90 7y ago

Roads are not safety nets, roads are jointly owned means of production. Same with the electic grid, the broadband network (where I live), school, trains, sewers, water. Lots of things are jointly owned means of production. Note the question is not "Are we entirely socialist?" but "are we partly socialist?". Yes, we are partly socialist. No, there are still things that are not jointly owned so we are not fully socialist. Hence the grey thinking instead of saying "We are not fully socialist so none of that matters!".

claudiawerner 7y ago
>Note the question is not "Are we entirely socialist?" but "are we partly socialist?" I already explained how and why to say "partly socialist" is false reasoning, because it assumes that "socialism" is some kind of sliding scale. Scholars of socialism do not consider it as such, socialism is defined to be diametrically opposed to capitalism, in the ways I have already mentioned. It is just like saying "Capital is partly a book." - no. It either is a book, or it isn't a book.
- username90 7y ago
  There is no reason at all why socialism couldn't be on a scale. Those scholars are just dumb then, it is like saying that there is no scale to democracy. We say that the ancient Greeks had a democracy even though the vote was limited, we said that USA was a democracy even though they had slaves and most people couldn't vote etc. Obviously USA is more democratic today than it were 200 years ago. Similarly most countries have adopted a lot of socialist policies over the past 100 years. Taxes used to be just for the king and armies, never going back to the people. Today most taxes are to build common infrastructure, clearly we moved towards socialism, hence we are more socialist today than 100 years ago.
  - claudiawerner 7y ago
    To say that socialism is a scale is to presuppose that (1) socialism is compatible with capitalism, (2) government programmes you call socialist act on behalf of the people, rather than capital. Both of these suppositions are called into question. When socialism is defined as ![capitalism & class society] (which, by the majority of experts, it is), it makes no sense to say that a capitalist country (capitalism defined as predominance of wage labour and most agents seeking to maximize the rate of accumulation of capital) is "somewhat socialist". Even if socialism were a scale, it would be a scale between a socialist society that has not yet removed all the fetters of capitalism (i.e. what Marx called the "lower phase") and "full communism". There's no reason to suppose that the scale has any capitalist elements. The most naive and uninformed idea of socialism, which is not in line with what any socialist considers it to be, is merely "the government providing things". That's not what is meant when we say "socialism", and redefining words contrary to expert opinion and tradition is no substitute.