5 ms·

I think of the transition from capitalism to socialism as similar to the transition from feudalism to capitalism. If you offered someone with a basic education

I think of the transition from capitalism to socialism as similar to the transition from feudalism to capitalism. If you offered someone with a basic education and a decent job the opportunity to take a land tenancy as a serf under you, they would refuse. Ownership of private property extends to a larger and larger population with each upheaval of the world's economic systems. The end result is socialism, where private property is owned by everyone, and is thus public. Why would I give you private ownership of what is, under socialism, partly my land? I think the more credible critique of anarchy is that it is too hopelessly idealistic to occur any time soon.

missedthecue 4y ago
You would give private ownership because of the same reason anything happens under capitalism. Because you are compensated what you think is a fair price. There are lots of critiques of anarchy. This isn't my only one or my best one. I am only pointing out that anarchism and private property and trade are fully compatible. Democracies often protect free speech, but a democracy without free speech protection is completely conceivable. This is concept I am trying to explain.
- maxbond 4y ago
  That's not a very conventional view of democracy. Without freedom of speech, how would we conduct rigorous debate and come to an unforced consensus? Voting can happen without freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean it was a meaningful election or that the democratic apparatus is more than a fig leaf for a dictatorial regime. Anarchism isn't magic, it's entirely possible that an anarchist society fails and becomes capitalist. Just like democracy isn't magic and can fail and become a dictatorship. But that doesn't make these things compatible. My body will one day fail and I will die, but I don't consider my life to be compatible with organ failure. I'm gathering your definition of anarchism is, "everyone does what they want, except forming a state, and therefore everything is compatible with anarchism?" Because that's not what anarchists are talking about, the classic quip being, "no government doesn't mean no governance." The definition of anarchism I would use, given in this video essay [1], is (paraphrasing) a body of theory, method of critique, and set of practices to implement a society free of hierarchies of domination. Given that capitalism is a hierarchy whereby the wealthy are able to impose their vision on others (a concrete example being when Charlie Munger donated $1.5B in order to implement his vision of an ideal college dorm at UC Santa Barbara, one that encodes his particular ideological values) I can't see a way it is compatible with anarchism. [1] https://youtu.be/Ag9EcQsqP_8 https://youtu.be/Ag9EcQsqP_8
maxbond 4y ago
> I think the more credible critique of anarchy is that it is too hopelessly idealistic to occur any time soon. Certainly this is beyond the foreseeable future, but I don't think this is actually a good way to critique a vision for society. I believe it is important for us to pursue bold utopian visions, even though they are not achievable in our lifetime. Just because we do not reach it does not mean the exercise isn't valuable; it provides a guidestar to help us to see how society can be improved today. There is also the concept in anarchism of prefiguration [1], in which you build your ideal society in miniature from within the context of the society you exist in. So for example, we're currently discussing capitalism; we probably won't live to see the end of capitalism, but we can create a microcosm of a better world in the form of a worker's cooperative. This is much more achievable and it allows for us to put our ideas to practice in a sort of "societal laboratory". Tangentially, I personally have a hypothesis that tech companies are stifled by hierarchical decision making that stops different parts of the organization (eg sales and engineering, or different teams within those departments) from properly collaborating, and creates maladaptive behaviors. For instance, I've seen situations where different parts of the same company feel that need to lie to each other in order to get their needs met, because the systems of prioritizing work weren't functioning properly, but the politics of the company made it impossible to call out these issues. My hypothesis is that horizontally oriented tech companies, like worker's cooperatives, would outcompete hierarchically oriented companies, all else being equal (eg, if they had equal access to investment [which they don't]). I would like to test this hypothesis by creating such a company. If anyone is interested in this topic and would care to correspond with me about this hypothesis, including/especially people who are critical of this idea, I'd love to hear from you. Email is in my profile. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefigurative_politics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefigurative_politics
mytailorisrich 4y ago
Transitioning from feudalism to capitalism in its liberal form meant freeing people and providing them more rights and liberty. Transitioning from that to socialism would mean taking freedom away. Despite what some claim the dictatorial nature of the 20th century's socialist countries is not accidental, it is inherent to socialism.
- maxbond 4y ago
  I'd argue that a violent revolution to sieze state power and use an authoritarian regime to implement socialism will always result in an oppressive regime, but that socialism does not, in itself, lead to authoritarianism or oppression. There's nothing inherently oppressive about a stateless, classless society where the means of production are owned collectively. And you can get there by giving people more rights, by democratizing more and more parts of society and giving people the right to access the essentials of life like health care, food, and shelter. I think someday we'll look back on this time in history and think it was absolutely crazy that health care wasn't considered a fundamental right.
  - mytailorisrich 4y ago
    > where the means of production are owned collectively. This, right there, is inherently oppressive because it removes individual liberty and initiative and it requires enforcement. The same goes with lack of private property. That's why, in fine oppression is inevitable. In this same way as I think "implementing socialism" has to start by violent means. I think some people are so idealistic that they don't, or don't want to, realise this. Now, what liberal countries have done is to take some socialist ideas and to implement them as social policies within the liberal capitalist system. That is very different from socialism and a working approach. There's a quote, with many variants and attributed to many people, which I think holds a lot of truth: "Any man who is not a socialist at age 20 has no heart. Any man who is still a socialist at age 40 has no head.".
    - maxbond 4y ago
      You have the freedom to move your body in whatever way you please, until the point where your fist contacts someone's nose. I don't think anyone would argue this is oppressive. In the same way, everyone had a right to participate in whatever kind of economic activity they please, until that becomes holding hostage the tools society needs to provide for itself. There's no law of physics which says society has to be changed through violence. In my lifetime I've seen the rights of LGBTQ people extended dramatically, and it hasn't been through violent means. Regarding whether violence is necessary to "enforce" a lack of private property, please see my response elsewhere in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33965787 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33965787 You're free to view me as too idealistic, you're entitled to your opinion and it doesn't disturb me, but I'd point out that the other side of this coin is being so cynical that you become blind to how society is changing and underestimate what is possible to achieve. Personally I think it's better to air on the side of optimism; I'd rather try and fail than to despair, and while cynicism can often have an aloof detachment that feels very intelligent, I think it's skin deep.

missedthecue 4y ago

You would give private ownership because of the same reason anything happens under capitalism. Because you are compensated what you think is a fair price. There are lots of critiques of anarchy. This isn't my only one or my best one. I am only pointing out that anarchism and private property and trade are fully compatible. Democracies often protect free speech, but a democracy without free speech protection is completely conceivable. This is concept I am trying to explain.

maxbond 4y ago
That's not a very conventional view of democracy. Without freedom of speech, how would we conduct rigorous debate and come to an unforced consensus? Voting can happen without freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean it was a meaningful election or that the democratic apparatus is more than a fig leaf for a dictatorial regime. Anarchism isn't magic, it's entirely possible that an anarchist society fails and becomes capitalist. Just like democracy isn't magic and can fail and become a dictatorship. But that doesn't make these things compatible. My body will one day fail and I will die, but I don't consider my life to be compatible with organ failure. I'm gathering your definition of anarchism is, "everyone does what they want, except forming a state, and therefore everything is compatible with anarchism?" Because that's not what anarchists are talking about, the classic quip being, "no government doesn't mean no governance." The definition of anarchism I would use, given in this video essay [1], is (paraphrasing) a body of theory, method of critique, and set of practices to implement a society free of hierarchies of domination. Given that capitalism is a hierarchy whereby the wealthy are able to impose their vision on others (a concrete example being when Charlie Munger donated $1.5B in order to implement his vision of an ideal college dorm at UC Santa Barbara, one that encodes his particular ideological values) I can't see a way it is compatible with anarchism. [1] https://youtu.be/Ag9EcQsqP_8 https://youtu.be/Ag9EcQsqP_8

maxbond 4y ago

> I think the more credible critique of anarchy is that it is too hopelessly idealistic to occur any time soon. Certainly this is beyond the foreseeable future, but I don't think this is actually a good way to critique a vision for society. I believe it is important for us to pursue bold utopian visions, even though they are not achievable in our lifetime. Just because we do not reach it does not mean the exercise isn't valuable; it provides a guidestar to help us to see how society can be improved today. There is also the concept in anarchism of prefiguration [1], in which you build your ideal society in miniature from within the context of the society you exist in. So for example, we're currently discussing capitalism; we probably won't live to see the end of capitalism, but we can create a microcosm of a better world in the form of a worker's cooperative. This is much more achievable and it allows for us to put our ideas to practice in a sort of "societal laboratory". Tangentially, I personally have a hypothesis that tech companies are stifled by hierarchical decision making that stops different parts of the organization (eg sales and engineering, or different teams within those departments) from properly collaborating, and creates maladaptive behaviors. For instance, I've seen situations where different parts of the same company feel that need to lie to each other in order to get their needs met, because the systems of prioritizing work weren't functioning properly, but the politics of the company made it impossible to call out these issues. My hypothesis is that horizontally oriented tech companies, like worker's cooperatives, would outcompete hierarchically oriented companies, all else being equal (eg, if they had equal access to investment [which they don't]). I would like to test this hypothesis by creating such a company. If anyone is interested in this topic and would care to correspond with me about this hypothesis, including/especially people who are critical of this idea, I'd love to hear from you. Email is in my profile. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefigurative_politics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefigurative_politics

mytailorisrich 4y ago

Transitioning from feudalism to capitalism in its liberal form meant freeing people and providing them more rights and liberty. Transitioning from that to socialism would mean taking freedom away. Despite what some claim the dictatorial nature of the 20th century's socialist countries is not accidental, it is inherent to socialism.

maxbond 4y ago
I'd argue that a violent revolution to sieze state power and use an authoritarian regime to implement socialism will always result in an oppressive regime, but that socialism does not, in itself, lead to authoritarianism or oppression. There's nothing inherently oppressive about a stateless, classless society where the means of production are owned collectively. And you can get there by giving people more rights, by democratizing more and more parts of society and giving people the right to access the essentials of life like health care, food, and shelter. I think someday we'll look back on this time in history and think it was absolutely crazy that health care wasn't considered a fundamental right.
- mytailorisrich 4y ago
  > where the means of production are owned collectively. This, right there, is inherently oppressive because it removes individual liberty and initiative and it requires enforcement. The same goes with lack of private property. That's why, in fine oppression is inevitable. In this same way as I think "implementing socialism" has to start by violent means. I think some people are so idealistic that they don't, or don't want to, realise this. Now, what liberal countries have done is to take some socialist ideas and to implement them as social policies within the liberal capitalist system. That is very different from socialism and a working approach. There's a quote, with many variants and attributed to many people, which I think holds a lot of truth: "Any man who is not a socialist at age 20 has no heart. Any man who is still a socialist at age 40 has no head.".
  - maxbond 4y ago
    You have the freedom to move your body in whatever way you please, until the point where your fist contacts someone's nose. I don't think anyone would argue this is oppressive. In the same way, everyone had a right to participate in whatever kind of economic activity they please, until that becomes holding hostage the tools society needs to provide for itself. There's no law of physics which says society has to be changed through violence. In my lifetime I've seen the rights of LGBTQ people extended dramatically, and it hasn't been through violent means. Regarding whether violence is necessary to "enforce" a lack of private property, please see my response elsewhere in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33965787 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33965787 You're free to view me as too idealistic, you're entitled to your opinion and it doesn't disturb me, but I'd point out that the other side of this coin is being so cynical that you become blind to how society is changing and underestimate what is possible to achieve. Personally I think it's better to air on the side of optimism; I'd rather try and fail than to despair, and while cynicism can often have an aloof detachment that feels very intelligent, I think it's skin deep.