7 ms·

Here's some important things to think about: First, socialism is defined as worker or public control of the means of production and distribution. This has bee

Here's some important things to think about: First, socialism is defined as worker or public control of the means of production and distribution. This has been interpreted in both libertarian and authoritarian ways. Second, if socialism is worker control, then it is fully compatible with free markets. Mondragon and Semco are both worker democracies, and operate successfully in the global market. If socialism is public control, this does not equal totalitarianism. Social democracy is a form of democratic public control of resources. I understand people's reasoning for preferring capitalism (ownership defined by contract) or socialism (ownership defined by use), and I respect that, but I would love to be able to have political discussions about these issues which take into account the complexity and diversity of these two very broad terms.

donniefitz2 16y ago
I couldn't agree more about the defining of terms. While I find the article well reasoned given his assumptions, I think it's the assumptions that need to be addressed. Terms like, "social-ethical end", "inner equilibrium", and idea of a goal of life. I think it's these terms and the basic assumptions behind them are what need to be addressed prior to attempting to construct a social system.
maratd 16y ago
> I would love to be able to have political discussions about these issues I'll bite. > socialism is defined From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Socialism is the way. Communism is the unreachable goal. > If socialism is public control, this does not equal totalitarianism. Social democracy is a form of democratic public control of resources. You can discuss things ad nauseum and it will mean nothing. The human mind is too primitive to account for all the facets of reality. There is an almost infinite number of factors that play into the reality of the state. In the end, the only way to know if something works is to try it. Socialism was tried. Repeatedly. It always led to a totalitarian state. Democracy is tyranny by the majority. When protections of the individual are removed for the sake of "social justice" or socialism or for any other reason, the majority is free to abuse the minority for its gain. And they do. Very quickly. This escalates over and over, until a totalitarian state is born.
- michaelchisari 16y ago
  Socialism was tried. Repeatedly. It always led to a totalitarian state. Marxist-Leninism is what you're referring to, and yes, that has led to totalitarianism. However, socialism predated Marx, and there are non-Marxist (and anti-Marxist) socialist philosophies. "From each according..." is not a tenet shared by all socialists.
  - niels_olson 16y ago
    damn, sorry, meant to upvote.
  - ikujythujik 16y ago
    Do you have a police force? fire service, public schools, roads? Then you have socialism.
  - forkandwait 16y ago
    Also, Marx was really good at critiquing capitalism, but he never actually had a plan for after the revolution. Except to think everybody would be happy and a collective, pretty much perfect, rationalism would be manifest because of the dynamics of history. Then we would all just see the answer, which is to share and be nice. (He was a hegelian, remember, even if he didn't like to admit it.) Also ... its not like there was some blueprint that the Soviet Union applied as if they were building a machine tool on a large scale. The Soviet State has, in its large scale state organized brutality and corruption, is completely in line with Russian history (no offense to my Russian friends.... Russia is also soulful and brilliant).
  - maratd 16y ago
    > "From each according..." is not a tenet shared by all socialists. Yes, of course. Something that is shared by all socialists is redistribution. If you're not redistributing something, then you're doing nothing. To redistribute something, you must infringe upon the liberties of the individual for the sake of another or a group of others. The more you do this, the faster you accelerate the march toward totalitarianism. For example, a minimal state that only provides a police force to enforce the laws and taxes individuals accordingly may take hundreds or even a thousand years to collapse into a totalitarian state. On the other hand, when you throw individual protections out the window, it may only take a few years. For example, contrary to popular belief, the period between the Russian revolution and Stalin's takeover was really interesting. It would take too long to go into it, but they tried some really exciting stuff and some of it worked. Unfortunately, when you discard individual liberty, it creates an opportunity for totalitarianism to step through the door.
tygorius 16y ago
It seems to me that pointing to Mondragon[1] and Semco is misleading, as neither are sovereign nations with all the pesky little details that entails. It's great that Mondragon is (per Wikipedia): "the seventh largest Spanish company in terms of turnover and the leading business group in the Basque Country", but there are lots of other variables at work in the Basque/greater Spain dynamic. Besides, anyone who has watched the economic news recently would realize that Spain is not exactly a shining model of economic prosperity. As I see it, the fundamental flaw in socialism always boils down the facts that a) a great many people like power and won't willingly give it up, b) these are the people who historically wind up in control of political structures (including unions), and c) as Dame Thatcher observed, sooner or later you run out of other people's money. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

donniefitz2 16y ago

I couldn't agree more about the defining of terms. While I find the article well reasoned given his assumptions, I think it's the assumptions that need to be addressed. Terms like, "social-ethical end", "inner equilibrium", and idea of a goal of life. I think it's these terms and the basic assumptions behind them are what need to be addressed prior to attempting to construct a social system.

maratd 16y ago

> I would love to be able to have political discussions about these issues I'll bite. > socialism is defined From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Socialism is the way. Communism is the unreachable goal. > If socialism is public control, this does not equal totalitarianism. Social democracy is a form of democratic public control of resources. You can discuss things ad nauseum and it will mean nothing. The human mind is too primitive to account for all the facets of reality. There is an almost infinite number of factors that play into the reality of the state. In the end, the only way to know if something works is to try it. Socialism was tried. Repeatedly. It always led to a totalitarian state. Democracy is tyranny by the majority. When protections of the individual are removed for the sake of "social justice" or socialism or for any other reason, the majority is free to abuse the minority for its gain. And they do. Very quickly. This escalates over and over, until a totalitarian state is born.

michaelchisari 16y ago
Socialism was tried. Repeatedly. It always led to a totalitarian state. Marxist-Leninism is what you're referring to, and yes, that has led to totalitarianism. However, socialism predated Marx, and there are non-Marxist (and anti-Marxist) socialist philosophies. "From each according..." is not a tenet shared by all socialists.
- niels_olson 16y ago
  damn, sorry, meant to upvote.
- ikujythujik 16y ago
  Do you have a police force? fire service, public schools, roads? Then you have socialism.
- forkandwait 16y ago
  Also, Marx was really good at critiquing capitalism, but he never actually had a plan for after the revolution. Except to think everybody would be happy and a collective, pretty much perfect, rationalism would be manifest because of the dynamics of history. Then we would all just see the answer, which is to share and be nice. (He was a hegelian, remember, even if he didn't like to admit it.) Also ... its not like there was some blueprint that the Soviet Union applied as if they were building a machine tool on a large scale. The Soviet State has, in its large scale state organized brutality and corruption, is completely in line with Russian history (no offense to my Russian friends.... Russia is also soulful and brilliant).
- maratd 16y ago
  > "From each according..." is not a tenet shared by all socialists. Yes, of course. Something that is shared by all socialists is redistribution. If you're not redistributing something, then you're doing nothing. To redistribute something, you must infringe upon the liberties of the individual for the sake of another or a group of others. The more you do this, the faster you accelerate the march toward totalitarianism. For example, a minimal state that only provides a police force to enforce the laws and taxes individuals accordingly may take hundreds or even a thousand years to collapse into a totalitarian state. On the other hand, when you throw individual protections out the window, it may only take a few years. For example, contrary to popular belief, the period between the Russian revolution and Stalin's takeover was really interesting. It would take too long to go into it, but they tried some really exciting stuff and some of it worked. Unfortunately, when you discard individual liberty, it creates an opportunity for totalitarianism to step through the door.

tygorius 16y ago

It seems to me that pointing to Mondragon[1] and Semco is misleading, as neither are sovereign nations with all the pesky little details that entails. It's great that Mondragon is (per Wikipedia): "the seventh largest Spanish company in terms of turnover and the leading business group in the Basque Country", but there are lots of other variables at work in the Basque/greater Spain dynamic. Besides, anyone who has watched the economic news recently would realize that Spain is not exactly a shining model of economic prosperity. As I see it, the fundamental flaw in socialism always boils down the facts that a) a great many people like power and won't willingly give it up, b) these are the people who historically wind up in control of political structures (including unions), and c) as Dame Thatcher observed, sooner or later you run out of other people's money. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation